Rhode Island's barrier beaches

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal'Zone
Information
Center

Rhode lsland!3 Barrier Beaches: Volume I

A Report on a Management Problem
and an Evaluation of Options

W_IWI S

The Coastal Resources Center

4
X, 0;
t:
A Coastal Management Publication
Al,
University of Rhode Island
GB N
459.4 -,"'Marine Technical Report No. 4
.044
j

1973

V.,

Property of CSC Library

RHODE ISLAND'S BARRIER BEACHES: VOLUME I

A Report on a Management Problem
and an Evaluation of Options

by
Stephen B. OZsen and MaZcoZm J. Grant

U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES' CENTER.
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

Published by THE COASTAL RESOURCES CENTER
Cn
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island
CIS-

77 "fir

'7Y

0-4

t7
gl

I'll. A@
-arv@"" T
AS
fit

The fly leaf; an aerial view
of Green Hiill Beach, South Kingstown,
Rhode Island, shows dune leveling on a
low-profile barrier beach during con-
struction. The photograph was made
by Robert Izzo, University of Rhode
Island staff photographer.

TABLE OF COkTENTS

Page

VOLUME 1: A Report on a Management Problem and
an Evaluation of Options

Chapter I -,Introduction I

Chapter 11 - Geological Processes 5
Chapter.111 Ecological Processes 14

Chapter IV Development Consequences and
Management Policies 25

Chapter V Tools at Hand: Controlling Use
of the Land Resource 45

Chapter VI Conclusions and Recommendations 92

Appendices:

I... Report of Citizens Committee
on Barrier Beaches
2. Glossary of Terms
3. Acknowledgments

VOLUME II: Reports and Recommendations at the
Community Level

Maps and Figures

Location maps identifying the 30 barrier beaches surveyed
by the staff of the Coastal Resources Center appear in both Volume I
and Volume II.' Individual area maps can be found at the end of
pertinent sections in Volume 11. Figures have been used in several
places in Volume I to.illustrate natural processes.

RHODE ISLAND BARRIER BEACH STUDY
RPSOURCFS CENTER
Co.
UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND
JANUARY 1973

PROVIDEN E

S
LOCATION MAP

Key:
1. 1:@ Napatree,Point Barrier
2. Mashaug Ponds.Barrier
3. -Vinn.apaug Pond Barrier (.Atlantic Beach)
4. :Quonochontauq Pond Barrier r
5-@ Micheli Garden and East Ponds Barrier f,
6. Nipigret Pond Barrier (East Beach portion)
7. Ninl@@ret,Pond Barrie'r (Charlestown Beach portion)
G're6n Hill Pond .Barrier
10
9. Trustom Pond Barrier 10
10. .,Card Ponds Barrier'
I). East Matunuck and Jerusalem.Barrier
12. Po.int..-Judith Pond 'Barrier
13.' 'Narragansett Beach Barrier
14. Bonnet Shores Barrier
15., Mackerel Cove Barrier
0 27
16. ,Ll.ly 'Pond Barrier (Hazard's Beach) k 19 0 26
17. Almy Pond.Barrier (Bailey's Beach) 18 25
18.:.: Easton Pond Barrier@(,Flrst Beach) 141
19. N61'son and Gardiner Ponds Barrier (Second Reach) 15 24
i 21 22 23
20. Th'i 11 17
rd Beach Barrier r- v 13
21. Wp@ch House Pond Barrier
22. Round Pond Barrier
23. @Long Pond Barrier (Tapper's Beach)
24. Briggs Marsh Bar@ Ve r
25.' Ship Pond Barrier RHODE ISLAND SOUND
2-6. -'Round Meadow Pond.8arrier
27. Junipus and Quicksand Ponds Barrier 6 7
2& Coast Guard Beach-Barrier
5
29. Sandy Point and West Beach Barrier 4
30. Cre@qen t Beach Barrier 2 29

13LOCK ISLAND SOUND
28 30

@0 10 MILES

VOLUME I

ERRATA

Location Map: Plashaug Ponds should read Maschaug Ponds.

Page 2, line 5: beneth should read beneath.

Page 3, line 16: 60% of 30 miles should read 65% of 27.4 miles. Pre-
liminary estimates were subsequently revised.

Page 3, line 17: Green Bill Beach should read Green Hilt Beach.

Page 8, last line: lifetimes. should read lifetimes,

Page 12, final two lines: reference to and the heights of the present
dune crests of the various barriers are shown in Figure 4 should be
deleted. This information is included in the individual beach data
presented in Volume II.

Page 31, line 12: UnstabiZized-, it should read Unstabilized sand.

Page 54, line 25: (see p. should read (see pp. 55-6).

Page 72, line 2: conservating should read conservation.
Page 73, line 2: distinguised should read distinguished.
Page 82, last line: In-Liew should read In-Lieu.

Page 90, line 3: delete reference to Coastal Resources Center and'add
Department of-Conmunity Planning and Area DeveZopment-,

Page 90, line 19: delete reference to Coastal Resources Center.

Page 90, line 22: delete reference to Coastal Resources Center.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No. 12

Page 1 of 2

Week ending

May 30,1973

Subject: Administrator's Weekly Report

From Office of Sea Grant
Robert B. Abel

1. On May 22 and 23, Dr. McLellan and Dr. Attaway participated in a
site visit to the University of Delaware.

2. Mr. Greenwald visited the Oceanographic and Limnological Research
Company of Haifa, Israel on May 13 and 14. He me with the Director
General, Admiral Yohay Ben-Nun, and discussed the oceanographic efforts

currently underway in Israel. A memorandum on this subject is currently
being prepared for Dr. Abel.

3. Rhode Island's Barrier Beaches; Vol. I- A Report on a Management
Program and an Evaluation of Options, available from the University of
Rhode Island, is an attempt to assemble and assess the natural features
of barrier beaches, their importance in ecological terms, techniques
for managemen,and recommendations for development of a statewide
management plan. In Rhode Island' s Barrier Beaches: Vol II Reports
and Recommendations at the Community Level, individual beaches are
examined on a community-by-community basis. Both documents are element.
in a study prepared for the State Coastal Resources Management Council
by the University of Rhode Island's Coastal Resources Center.

4. Juvenile hormone mimics have a disruptive effect on the life cycle
of barnacles, members of the same phylum as insects (Arthropoda).
Edgardo D. Gomez, a marine biology student at Scripps Institution of
oceanography, University of California, San Diego, and Dr. D. John
Faulkner, assistant professor of marine chemistry, have discovered in
laboratory tests that by applying juvenile hormone mimic ZR-512 to
Balanus galeatus, the barnacle can be induced to metamorphose from
free-swimming cyprid larva into sessile adult before it settles on a
suitable substrate. The adult, which must attach itself to a substrate
in order to feed, therefore dies.

Page 2

5. Columbia University was awarded an $84,000 grant for a 12-month
period beginning 5/l/73. The title of the grant is "Use of Deep-Sea
Ocean Water for Aquaculture, etc." and it will be supplemented by
$216,000 in FY '74.

6. The-NO AA Marine Advisory Service is planning to hold a one-day
workshop to assist local program personnel with a number of problems
that they are facing because of Great Lakes' flooding and high water
levels. The meeting is planned for June 19, 1973, and will be held
at the Hilton Inn near the Detroit Airport. Resource persons from NOAA,
Lake Survey Center, National Weather Service, Corps of Engineers, and
possibly other groups will be asked to advise marine advisory personnel
on the potential for help to local citizens. This will include general
information about high water problems, in addition to the possibilities
for engineering applications and financial or economical assistance
relative to disaster loans.

The pui@poseof the meeting is to pass information along to advisory
agents so that they can be more effective with their own clientele.
It is not intended that this particular meeting will be attended by
local@[email protected], citizen groups, etc.

7. A.Marine Cl?mmunications-Workshop, co-hosted by Texas A&M University
and the University of Wis.consin, will be held on the University of-
Wisconsin's Madison campus on..,Jun6 257@9, 1973. The' Workshop will
.cover many aspects of scientific journalism, with a marine focus.
Participants will meet with professionals from the print media,radio
and televis.ion; and they will work on individual and group projects
in aquaculture, coastal zone management and ports and shipping.
9
For furtherinformation please contact Marine Communications Workshop,
Sea Grant College Program, University of Wisconsin, 1225 W. Dayton
.Street, Madison, Wisc. 53706.

VOLUME II

ERRATA

Location Map: Mashaug Ponds should read Masbhaug Ponds.

Page 3, line 2: delete period between barriers and it. Read as
single sentence.

Page 41, Title: South Kingston should read South Kingstown.

Page 60, line 16: Naural should read NaturaZ.

Page 62, line 16: LEESEES should read LESSEES.

Maps following page 88: SACRUET should read SACHURST.

Page 108, lines 16, 17: Sachem Pond Barrier (Sand@j Point., West and
Coast Guard Beach) should read Sandy Point, lWest and Coast Guard
Beach Barriers. Reference to Sachem Pond should be dropped.

Maps following page 112. The southern most barrier beach indicated on
the maps (lower right hand corner) is not labeled. It should read
COAST GUARD BEACH.

Map following page 52. Industrial and Governmental area around Card
Pond should appear as Light ResidentiaL

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This report is an attempt to assemble and assess the available

information on the barrier beaches along Rhode Island's ocean coast.

The report has been prepared at the request of the Coastal Resources

Management Council to assist it in developing a plan for the future
use and ma nagement of a fragile' and valuable natural resource.

A barrier beach is a narrow strip of Land made of unconsolidated

material that extends roughly parallel to the general coastal trend

and is separated from the mainland by a relatively narrow body of water.

In the great majority of cases Rhode Island barriers are the seaward

boundaries of coastal ponds, many of which are salt or brackish. The

barriers have been formed by longshore currents and waves that have

deposited sediments, chiefly sand and pebbles, across shallow embay-

ments. The barriers are low in profile and are highly vulnerable to

hurricane damage. This study' attempts to evaluate the many demands

that are now being put upon these areas while considering what they can

withstand and what policies will be of the greatest benefit to the

people of Rhode Island.

Reasons for the Coastal Resources Management Council's Involvement: In

1971 the Rhode Island General Assembly created the Coastal Resources

Management Council to "... preserve, protect., develop, and where possible,

restore the coastal resources of the state for, this and succeeding gen-

erations through comprehensive and coordinated long-range planning and

management designed to produce the maximum benefit for society..." The

Council has jurisdiction over "any development or operation within., above

or beneth the tidal water below the mean high water mark." In order to

Itcarry out effective management plans" the Council was also given regula-

tory jurisdiction over a number of activities and areas above mean high

water. These include "shoreline protection facilities and physiographic

features," and "intertidal salt marshes." Barrier beaches are clearly

both coastal physiographic features and shoreline protection features.

The Coastal Council had been in existence for little more than a

year when it had to decide whether or not residential development should

be permitted on the Green Hill Barrier Beach in South Kingstown. This

barrier had been extensively developed by the turn of the century. The

1938 hurricane completely.destroyed all the houses on the barrier and 48

lives were lost. Several houses were rebuilt and these were swept away

by the 1954 hurricane. No lives were lost in the second storm but

property damages were over a quarter of a million dollars. After the

1954 hurricane the Town of South Kingstown zoned Green Hill Beach as a

flood danger zone and prohibited construction on it. In 1966, however,

when South Kingstown revised-its zoning ordinances the flood danger

classification was dropped and Green Hill Beach was zoned residential

with a minimum lot size of one half acre. Many platted lots were bought

up and resold. Construction began in the summer of 1972. Since South

Kingstown had by then entered the National Flood Insurance Program the

houses were designed to meet its building requirements. Construction

on the barrier caused great public controversy, and two lengthy and very

well attended public meetings were held to discuss a building moratorium.

After some delay and confusion over Jurisdictions between the South

Kingstown Town Council and the Coastal Management Council, the latter

ruled that anyone building on Green Hill Beach must obtain a permit from

the Coastal Resources Management Council. The Coastal Council would

grant or deny permits in reference to a plan for all the state's barrier

beaches which the Council in accordance with the Administrative Procedures

Act, had seven months to produce.

Why a Plan for the Barrier Beaches is Needed: Rhode Island is a portion

of what has been described as an Atlantic seaboard megalopolis stretch-

ing from Boston to Washington, D. C. At present half acre residential

lots with access to the shore may sell for from ten to fifty thousand

dollars. Beaches and barriers are becoming more crowded each year. All

indications ar e that these trends will continue and that pressures to

develop the remaining stretches of undeveloped coast will increase. Ap-

proximately 60 percent of Rhode Island's 30 miles of barrier beaches are

undeveloped. The present development of Green Bill Beach suggests that

policies controlling their future use and management are necessary. The

barriers, while fragile, are valuable as storm buffers protecting ponds,

marshes and stretches of low lying mainland from wave erosion and damage

during hurricanes. Because so many barriers are undeveloped they are also

of the greatest value as open space of great natural beauty in an in-

creasingly developed region.

Barriers are most effective as storm buffers when their dunes are

well formed and protected from wind erosion by beachgrass. Beachgrass

not only prevents the wind from eroding the dunes but, by trapping blowing

sand, builds up the dunes. Beachgrass cannot tolerdte trampling by

walkers or vehicles and the natural growth of many of the state's

barrier dunes is presently being prevented by excessive foot and

vehicular traffic.

The value of the undeveloped barriers as open space or as conserva-

tion areas calls for careful management plans. Problems of public access

and adequate policing must be solved. The majority of the barriers are

in private ownership and few are completely safe from future development

including those presently owned by organizations and individuals that

favor conservation. Should additional protection be given to these areas?

If their development is prohibited how should the owners be compensated?

Should people be permitted to build on barriers which are clearly vulner-

able to hurricane damage? These are some of the questions which this

report attempts to clarify. It is hoped that this study will help the

Coastal Resources Management Council, the municipalities and concerned

citizens understand the choices they now have in deciding the future of

the state's barrier beaches. The results of the decisions made now will

be of great consequence in the future.

CHAPTER TWO

THE GEOLOGY OF BARRIER BEACHES AND PONDS

The EvoZution of Rhode IsZand's Barriers: New England is a part of

one of the oldest continuously surviving land masses on the earth.

Some five hundred million years ago, the ancestors of the Berkshires

and the Green Mountains formed as a chain of islands. Since then the

land has been thrust up and eroded many ti mes. Over geologic time sea

level is constantly changing though the rate of char @ge varies. One of

the more dramatic drops in sea level occurred almost two million years

ago when changes in the earth's climate caused the polar icecaps to

grow and sea level to fall. The ice migrated as far as about 40 miles

south of Rhode Island's present shore. Some 15,000 years ago the ice

sheet began its retreat and passed north of Charlestown Pond some 3,000
years later.3 As the glacier retreated it deposited quantities of sedi-

ment, known as glacial till. When it paused long enough the till piled

up into steep irregUar hills called moraines. One series of moraines

can be seen along the northern side of Route 1 in South County.

As the icecaps melted large volumes of water were released into

the ocean basins and this caused sea level to rise. Studies of the

bedrock beneath Block Island and Rhode Island Soundsi reveal that what

is now sea floorwas at several times crossed by a number of rivers. As

sea level rose.a series of coastlines not unlike the one we see today

were formed and then drowned. Barrier beaches similar to those seen

today along the south shore are preserved in inuch of their original de-

tail on the sea floor of Block Island Sound. The present coastline is
relatively recent. Dillon3 estimates that a mere 3,500 years ago sea

level along the Rhode Island shore was some 15 feet below its present

level and the barriers and salt ponds were considerably further seaward

than they are today.

The glaciers transformed the landscape. Valleys were filled with

till and high points eroded. In places glacial till was blanketed with

a layer of outwash sediments deposited by the streams that carried the

water released by the melting ice. The new shoreline was irregular and

changed rapidly. A developing shoreline will tend to straighten its

irregularities because the erosive force of waves is concentrated on

headlands and because sediments accumulate in protected waters in bays

and between headlands. Given sufficient time and sand, long wide barriers

like those seen along southern Long Island and the Carolinas will form

across shallow embayments. A series of small barriers have developed

along Rhode Island's relatively young shoreline. These barriers are

slowly migrating inland. As sea level rises waves erode the barriers

on their ocean side and, during storms, wash sand into the ponds. Slowly

the barriers move shorewards and the ponds, as their relative level in-

creases, flood the low lying mainland. In Rhode Island, this migratory

process is sustained by two factors; rising sea level and a small supply

of sand.

Measurements made in Newport since 1930 show that relative sea

level is gradually rising in this region at an average rate of .0096

feet per year or about one foot every century. The reasons for this in-

crease are not fully understood. A verticle rise of one foot a century

. . I

may not at first glance appear to be any cause for concern. However,

since the slope of Rhode Island's south shore beaches to 12 ft. above

mean sea level is roughly 1 :30, the horizontal encroachment per century
is between 30 and 50 ft.6 An advance of this magnitude must be Con-

sidered when planning the management of these areas.

Rhode Island's barrier beaches are formed and governed by marine

processes. Changes in sea level, wave action, nearshore currents and

sediment supply all combine to control the evolution of barriers and

their present natural processes. Furthermore the barriers are the dikes

upon which the existance of the salt ponds depends. They are also the

mainland's pri nciple protection from the forces of the open ocean.

Seasonal Processes: A cross section of a beach and a barrier shows a

number of definable features. These are illustrated in Figure 1. If

there are no big storms the dunes may be relatively stable for several

years. The beaches, however, are in a state of continual change. During

the summer small waves transport sand up onto the beach and build a wide

flat terrace. In the winter larger waves cut back the beach, carry the

sand offshore, and deposit it in one or more bars parallel to the beach.

In the winter the beach is therefore narrower and steeper and rocks that

are covered with sand during the summer may be exposed (Fig. 2).

The movement of beach sand is not limited to a seasonal onshore-

offshore migration. Longshore currents are set up by waves striking

the beach at an angle. Each breaking wave produces a slight-longshore

impulse and these combine to form a current (Fig. 3). Sand that is put

into suspension by breaking waves is transported either way along the

shore by the current. This movement is called longshore drift. Over a

long period of time waves dominate from a given direction and a net

current up or down the beach is produced. McMaster found that the long-

shore drift patterns along Rhode Island's shore from Point Judith to

Watch Hill appear to converge towards the center of this section of shore-

line. Where groins or jetties have been built the direction of longshore

drift can be seen by the accumulation of sand on the upstream side of the

obstacle.

Along a coastline where sand is predominant, it is useful to think

of sand movements in terms of a budget. Sources and losses can be identi-

-fied and even quantified over time. Little detailed information is

prese ntly available for the Rhode Island shoreline but some general obser-

vations can be made.

The supply of sand along the Rhode Island shore is small. Off-

shore, however, large deposits exist. Surveys made by the Corps of
Engineers 'Sand Inventory Program 5 have shown that an estimated 141

million cubic yards of sand lie in a belt one to four miles off Rhode

Island's south shore.. Only rarely, however, does the turbulence of

storm waves move significant amounts of this sand onshore.

Sand is lost from the budget through a number of processes. Dry

sand, unprotected by vegetation, is blown off the beaches and dunes out

to sea or inland. More dramatic losses occur when waves wash over the

barriers and transport large volumes of sand into the ponds. Over

geologic time, and so long as the barriers are migrating shoreward, this

sand is only temporarily lost to the system. In terms of our lifetimes.

DUNE
BEACH BACK DUNE MARSH

BARRIER BEACH WITH A POORLY DEVELOPED DUNE

.DUNE

BACK DUNE FLAT
MARSH

BEACH

BARRIER BEACH WITH A DISTINCT DUNE

Figure 1. Cross sections of typical Rhode Tsland barriers showing
the beach, undeveloped and developed dunes, the back dune
and the marsh. Developed dunes are usually densely vegetated
by shrubs and small trees on the pond side.@ Only barriers
with a developed dune have a distinct back dune zone. The
primary dune vegetation is American beachgrass.

DUNE

BEACH

JRANGE
0
)F
TI
DE.
00P
BAR

SUM F-
... BAR w
Ropz w
--20
OU . ..... .
-30

Figure 2. Winter and summer beach profiles.

BACKSHORE

CREST OF BERM

WATER LEVEL

PATH OF SAND GRAINS

DIRECTION OF WAVE INDUCED
CURRENT IN THE SURF ZONE
M`ATERIAL PLACED IN SUSPENSION BY
BREAKERS IS MOVED LATERALLY BY THE
PAT H LONGSHORE CURRENT
OF
SAND GRAINS
OUTSIDE SURF ZONE

BED LOAD MOVES IN A ZIGZAG PATTERN

Figure 3. The longshore drift of sand. Reprinted from Bascom, Willard.
"Beaches", August 1967, Oceanography: Readings from Scientific
American. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1971.

however, sand washed into the ponds is lost to the beaches and the active

sand budget.

Barrier Dune Formation-, Stabilization and Erosion: On a barrier or on a

low-lying sandy coast dunes may develop when sand is blown off the beach

and accumulates behind it. Wind-borne sand accumulates rapidly around

semipermeable objects, and this makes beachgrass very effective in build-

ing and stabilizing dunes. The blades and stems of the grass reduce the

wind velocity so that blowing sand drops down and is trapped. Other

semipermeable barriers such as snow fences or dead Christmas trees

accumulate sand in a similar manner, Where sufficient sand is available

and conditions are relatively stable a parallel dune may form seaward of

the first dune and the older dune may become permanently stabilized with

secondary vegetation, principally shrubs but including some low trees.

Most of Rhode Island's barriers support only one low dune line that, in

its natural state, is well vegetated with beachgrass and a few shrubs.

Areas such as the eastern end of Atlantic beach in Westerly and

Quonochontaug in Charlestown support high dunes that are densely vege-

tated by shrubs and small trees on the landward side.

Sand dunes, because they are made of an unconsolidated and light

material, are very vulnerable to wind and wave erosion. If the stabiliz-

ing cover of beac@grass is destroyed the sand particles are no longer

protected from the wind. When the grass is destroyed on the foredune and

dune crest the wind will erode a cut into the dune. This is known as a

blowout and looks like a footpath stretching from the dune crest to the

beach. If beac@grass does not recolonize the exposed sand erosion will

continue and the cut will deepen and widen out at the sides. Under natural

conditions blowouts areusually recolonized but on heavily used beaches

blowouts are often us ed as footpaths. Beachgrass is an extraordinarily

hardy and well adapted plant but it will not tolerate trampling. Unless

a blowout is protected from vehicular and human traffic, recolonization

may be delayed or prevented and erosion may be severe.

Wave erosion of dunes is generally more dramatic than wind erosion.

During storms waves may wash over the barrier and erode what is known as

a washover. These are similar to blowouts and differ in that they are

formed by waves rather than the wind, and are generally wider and deeper

than blowouts. In a washover waves frequently erode the dune to the

height of the beach and transport sand into the pond where it forms a

delta-shaped deposit. The dune is repaired by the recolonization of

beachgrass and the natural process of dune growth may be assisted if

snow fences are placed across the breach to accelerate the accumulation

of sand. A washover may develop into a permanent or seasonal breachway.

Hurricanes: During hurricanes barriers may be breached along their en-

tire length and dunes may be completely destroyed. This happened on

many south shore barriers during the hurricanes of 1938 and 1954. Before

the 1938 hurricane the dunes on the south shore barriers wore consider-

ably higher than they are today. Remnants of these old dunes may be seen

at the eastern end of the Quonochontaug and Weekapaug barriers. In their

natural state barriers respond to severe wave erosion in a unique and

efficient manner. In a big storm waves quickly erode the foredune and

carry the sand seaward thus extending shallow water further out from the

dunes. Waves therefore break, and lose much of their energy, progres-

sively further away from the barrier. If, however, the barrier has been

developed and artificially stabilized by seawalls the self-sacrificing

process cannot take place and the force of the waves will remain con cen-

trated upon the barrier. As a result erosion during a severe storm may

be worse. In North Carolina the extensive dune fields around Cape

Hatteras were artificially stabilized and extended by sand bagging and

massive plantings of beachgrass. There is presently some controversy

over whether or not this has caused overstabilization that is aggravat-
ing wave erosion rather than preventing it. 4

Rhode Island has been threatened by 71 hurricanes since 1635 of

which 13 caused severe tidal flooding, 25 caused moderate flooding and
33 caused scares with little or no flooding.2 Barrier beaches are

particularly vulnerable to hurricane damage. They are the first line of

defense against the sea and they are presently low in profile. By 1938

extensive development had taken place on the south shore beaches. With

a few isolated exceptions, the hurricane swept all structures off all

the barrier beaches in the state. Many of these areas were again built

up when in 1954 another hurricane swept them clean for the second time.

In 1938 two hundred and sixty two lives were lost and the statewide

property damage was about 100 million dollars. In 1954 nineteen lives

were lost and property damage was in excess of 200 million dollars. The

destruction of buildings on the barriers greatly increased the damage

to properties on the mainland side of the ponds. Large quantities of

debris, including whole houses, were swept across the ponds. This debris

battered and in some cases destroyed houses on the mainland shore and

after the storm its removal was a major problem and a great expense.

During such severe hurricanes as these it is t he storm surge which

causes such extensive damage. Low atmospheric pressure and the piling

up of waves along the coast causes sea level to rise dramatically. During

the 1938 hurricane, sea 1evel rose between 10 and 14 ft. along the state's

ocean shoreline. Theamount of increase depends upon the shape of the

coast and therefore varies significantly within a relatively small area.

A long narrow indentation such as Narragansett Bay tends to funnel the

waves and concentrate them upon a small area. The storm surge height in

Pr ovidence is, therefore, greater than it is along the south shore. The

majority of Rhode Island's barriers are presently so low that the dune

crest is below the still water height of the 1938 and 1954 hurricanes.

The Corps of Engineers designs coastal protection features in reference

to a Standard Project Hur ricane. This is defined as "a storm that may

be expected from the most severe combination of meteorological conditions

that are considered reasonably characteristic of the region involved,

excluding rare combinations." Neither the 1938 nor the 1954 hurricanes

reached the SPH level. The levels of still water during the storm surge

for the SPH, the 1938 and the 1954 hurricanes and the heights of the

present dune crests of the various barriers are shown in Figure 4.

HURRICANE STILLWATER FLOOD LEVELS

> 17 - -SMNDARD PROJECT
w
16

L'j 14
U)
z 13 1938
1938 jJUIRRICANE 1938
w
@----1954-7 HURRICANE - - - - -+9 54 -
Uj 10 -.-1954
>
0

8- --1954--
7
w LAJ Fr
w 6 In w a_ z
LL z
5 m z z 3 F)
z D z 0 z a. 0.
a.
4 w (L 0 z
F3 9 Y) (L
x z
x z 0- w z
m .3 z z <
0 0 z co
8 -.1 z < R x
2 z Ir cr z Fo- z 0
0 < cr w U)
X < cr
z m
0- 1 1 i i
WESTERLY CHARLESTOWN S.KINGSTOWN NARRAGANSETT NEWPORT MIDDLETOWN L. COMPTON BLOCK 1.

Figure 4.

REFERENCES

1. Anon. 1972. Coastal Waters Cover Pre-glacial River Valleys.
Maritimes, 16 (4).

2. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. 1960. Hurricane
Survey Interim Report, Narragansett Pier, Rhode Island.
U.S. Government Printing office, Washington, D. C.

3. Dillon, W. P. 1970. Submergence Effects on a Rhode Island
Barrier and Lagoon and Inferences on Migration of Barriers.
Journal of Geology, 78.

@4. Doion, R. 1972. Barrier Beach Stabilization Along the Outer
Banks of North Carolina: a Reappraisal. Science 176 (4032).

5. Duane, B. 1969. Sand Inventory Program. Shore and Beach, 37 (2).

6. Griscom, C. 1973. Personal communication.

7. Hicks, S. D. 1970. Changes in Sea Levelon Rhode Island's
Coast. Maritimes, 16 (4).

8. McMaster,,R. L. 1960. Minerology as an Indicator of Beach
Sand Movement Along the Rhode Island Shore. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, 30 (3).

CHAPTER THREE

THE ECOLOGY OF BARRIER BEACHES AND PONDS

Introduction: Rhode Island's barriers and salt ponds are fragile,

valuable and limited. The barriers are a rigorous environment for living

things. There is little shelter from the elements, the substrate is a

loose unconsolidated sand.and fresh water is scarce. One therefore finds

the barriers inhabited by a few well adapted species of plants and animals.

The barriers are valuable because they provide us with some of our finest

beaches. They are also a first line of defense against the sea and pro-

tect a low lying mainland and a series of extremely valuable ponds and

marshes. Unlike the barriers, the ponds and their marshes are rich in

plant and animal life. In the salt ponds the balance between nutrients,

salinity, and circulation patterns is delicate and they are therefore

highly vulnerable to disruption by man.

The Barriers: American beachgrass, Ammophila breviligulata, protects

dry sand from wind erosion and is essential in building and protecting

dunes. Beachgrass is an excellent example of highly specialized adapta-

tion to a rigorous environment. It grows luxuriantly in a soil holding

very little water and almost no nutrients. It withstands frequent wetting

by sea spray and, perhaps most remarkable of all, it flourishes best when

it is being buried by wind-blown sand.

Sand grains blown by the wind accumulate in stands of beachgrass.

The leaves of the plants reduce,the wind speed and cause the sand grains

to settle and build up around the grass. As the sand rises the grass

develops new root systems and sends up new shoots. If you dig into a

dune and expose a vertical cut several feet high you will probably see a

series of root systems showing former heights of the dune.. On the back

side of a well-developed dune sand does not accumulate.as rapidly. Here

the beachgrass may die off and if sufficient water i s available it may

be replaced by secondary vegetation. Beachgrass is essential to the

stability of.sand barriers. It builds up the dunes and stabilizes sand

that would otherwise be blown away by the wind.

From mants viewpoint however, beachgrass has one serious limitation;

it will not tolerate trampling. In Holland, where large sand barriers

stabilized by beachgrass are essential to the country's defenses against

the sea only authorized scientists may walk on the barriers. In Rhode

Island, where the value of beaches is seen primarily as recreational,

beachgrass is seldom protected and as a result many of our dunes are

badly eroded

Dispersed with the beachgrass, but never as abundant, a number of

other perennial plants are found, most notably seaside goldenrod and

beach pea. In relatively well-stabilized areas thickets of wild rose

are common and in protected places, such as the pond side of an old high

dune, the growth of shrubs and small trees may be very dense.

The VaLue of Satt Ponds and marshes: Salt marshes, which are extensive

in several of the salt ponds, are beds of intertidal rooted vegetation

which are alternately inundated by the rise and fall of the tide. They

show a distinct pattern of zonation. Along the creeks and channels in

the intertidal zone grow pure stands of tall cord grass Spartina

alterniflora. Behind grow meadows of salt grass, Spartina patens.

These two species of Spartina are the most valuable constituents of the

marsh because they are responsible for the bulk of its primary pro-

ductivity. Above the Spartina and the reach of normal tides grows a

band of black rush, Juncus gerardi. Beyond this grow salt-tolerant

shrubs and then whatever terrestrial species are adapted to the soil of

the surrounding land.

The productivity of salt marshes was first studied by Odum and his
co-workers in Georgia about a decade ago. They found7 that the net.

primary productivity of a salt marsh is extremely high, and that this

is due in greates t part to the two species of Spartina. Net primary

productivity is a measurement of the amount of food produced by plants

in a given area over time after the amount used for their own respira-

tion has been subtracted. Since all consumer organisms (all living

things with mouths) ultimately depend upon plants for their food, net

primary productivity is a good measure of an area's fertility and the

number of consumers it can support. Net primary productivity may be

measured in a number of ways. The terms that can be visualized most
easily are tons per square meter per year (tons/m2/yr). The weight is

calculated from the above ground portion of the plant when dried. In a
Georgia salt marsh production is about 10 tons/m2/yr .7 This is 25%

greater than the production of a field of hybrid wheat and nearly 10

times the production of the-average world wheat field. Levels of produc-

tion as high as those found naturally in a Georgia salt marsh are only

rivaled by some forms of intensive agriculture, for example high yield

sugar cane plantations and rice paddies. It was largely because of the

work done by Odum and his associates in Georgia that the value of salt

marshes became generally recognized and many states passed legislation

protecting them. Later work in North Carolina and New England has shown

that salt marshes in temperate regions are less pr oductive than the ones
in Georgia. Sco tt Nixon and Candace Oviatt,6 in an extensive study of

Bissells Cove in North Kingstown, calculate that net primary production

there is about two thirds of what Odum found in Georgia. This difference

is due to a long dormant period during the winter months and the lower

heights of the Spartina. alterniflora and Spartina. patens.

Why are salt marshes so productive? First of all salt marshes grow

in areas where salt water and fresh water are mixed and valuable nutrients

circulate rapidly between organisms, water and the bottom sediments. The

tides maintain a constant supply of oxygen and nutrients and remove

waste products. To quote Odum, frother things be ing equal-, a flowing
system will be more productive than a standing system."7 A second major

reason for the fertility of salt marshes is that the primary productivity

is dependent in. great part on rooted vegetation, most importantly Spartina.

The abundance of the plant material supports the animals that make the

marshes so valuable to man. This is well stated in Nixon and Oviatt's

,his. 6
paper "The Ecology of a New England Salt Mars .

... the results from Bissel Cove indicate that even in the less
extensive marshes of New EngZand., the development of large
populations of shrimp and fish in the marsh area can be doc,@-
mented, and that the maintenance of the system necessary for the
culture of these large populations depends on inputs of organic
matter fr om the productive meadows of Spartina

Though the meadows of Spartina are the most productive, algae grow-

ing on the mud and free-floating plants (phytoplankton) are also important

in producing organic material from nutrients and the sun's energy.
Teal,8 one of the scientists who worked with Odum in Georgia, estimated

that about 60% of the primary production in a salt marsh comes from

Spartina, 30% from the mud algae and about 10% from the phytoplankton.

After Spartina., one of the most common plants in salt ponds is

eel grass, Zostera marina. Originally a terrestrial grass that has

evolved into an aquatic species, eel grass forms dense meadows in shallow

protected waters. Eel grass beds are directly linked to the productivity

of coastal fisheries. Though fish do not graze these submerged meadows

the detritus they produce is a food source for fish food organisms.

The dense growth of these submerged meadows also provide protection to

the juveniles of several commercially important fish species. Many

species of wildfowl feed on eel grass.
Dr. Saul Saila has studied9 the populations of juvenile blackback

flounder in Charlestown and Green Hill ponds in Charlestown and South

Kingstown. He found that 25% of the juvenile blackbacks necessary to

maintain the (1961) commerc ial and sport fisheries in Block Island

Sound are reared in the state's shallow coastal embayments and salt

ponds. If this proportion of the blackback flounder catch is still

provided by these areas, their value to the Rhode Island commercial

fisherman in 1972 was about $162,000 and the income they provided to the

industry as a whole (processing, retail, etc.) was about $400,000.
Nixon and Oviatt's study of Bissel Cove6 showed that a small marsh

supports very large se asonal populations of grass shrimp and fish. Grass

shrimp are an important food for many larger fish, including bluefish

and striped bass.

Salt ponds also support large populations of shellfish, most notably,

-19-

scallops, oysterss, soft shell clams and quahogs. Green Hill pond is

well known for its oysters but the population has been much reduced by

a migration of marine oyster predators into the pond made possible by

the increase in the salinty of the pond. This increase in salinity

was brought about by the construction of an enlarged breachway into the

pond. Charlestown Pond, however, still produces some oysters for the

local market. The soft-shelled clam population of Green Hill pond was

surveyed in 1964. Maximal densities of 360 clams/m2 were found and

the average for the pond as a whole was calculated to be 20/m2. No

estimates are avaiable for densities or harvest of scallops and quahogs.

Salt marshes have frequently been described as "food factories" for

the animals that live in coastal waters. Nixon and Oviatt estimate

that 10% to 30% of the grass grown each year in Bissel Cove is transported

out of the marsh. This dead grass may be a significant food source in

nearby coastal waters. Salt ponds also export quanities of fish and

crustacea which are important foods for larger species.

Salt ponds also support a plentiful and varied population of wild-

fowl. Thirty-five species of waterfowl, which include ducks, swans, and

geese, can be found in Rhode Island in a normal year. Since 1900 the

waterfowl population has decreased drastically along the northeastern

coast. In Rhode Island a group of three or four hunters at the turn of

the century easily bagged a hundred birds in a day. In Boston markets

bluebills sold for about twenty cents each. Today the number of water-

fowl that are killed in a season is controlled and overhunting is no

longer a critical problem. The most critical factor limiting waterfowl

populations today is the lack of suitable habitats. The majority of

Rhode Island's wetlands are the scrub brush and swamp type that are

of little value to waterfowl.3 In several locations throughout the

state dams have been built to form ponds suitable for waterfowl, but

little thought has been given to ensuring a supply of food. Dabbling

ducks, which include the black duck and baldplate, depend on shallow

rooted aquatic vegetation and diving ducks feed on small fish. A study
made in 1968 of the stomach contents of Rhode Island waterfow13 showed

that a high proportion of their food came from terrestrial plants. This

was due to the shortage of the more nutritive marsh plants. Salt ponds

are highly valuable to waterfowl. They are rich in marsh lands and

since they do not freeze over as often as inland ponds they can be used

by waterfowl when other areas are iced over.

There are no mammals that are specific to the barrier beaches. All

mammal species that can be found along the shoreline may inhabit or

visit the barriers. Some species of birds however, are found almost

exclusively in the bafriers. These include horned larks, pipits and

snow buntings.

Factors InfLuencing the Management of Salt Ponds and Barriers: The

most important point tha t must be remembered by those trying to manage

such a small delicately balanced area as a barrier beach, marsh and pond

is that it must be considered as one unit. An apparently small change,

such as an increase in the volume of freshwater (increased drainage from

a developed shoreline) or seawater (building a permanent breachway)

entering the pond, can radically change the environmental conditions and

greatly affect the animal and plant populations.

Without the barriers there would be no salt ponds. The ability

of the barriers to withstand the forces of the ocean is determined by the

height and stability of the dunes. On a poorly vegetated low barrier

storm waves frequently wash quantities of sand into the ponds and the

-losses of sand from wind erosion are great. The pond behind a poorly

vegetated low barrier will therefore be filled in more rapidly than one

protected by well developed and stabilized barrier dunes. Marshes be-

hind rapidly eroding barriers may be buried and the productivity of the

pond reduced. To build dunes and to protect them we must protect the

beachgrass, and this means controlling construction and vehicular and

human traffic. Preliminary studies made on the National Seashore dunes

on Cape Cod show that as few as 10 to 15 people walking along the
same route through beachgrass in a week will kill off the grass.4 The

wheels of vehicles destroy the grass even more quickly. Public education

and the policing of barriers are necessary if the use of the dunes is to

be controlled. To assist the rebuilding.of eroded and poorly vegetated

areas snow fences can be erected and beachgrass planted.

A salt pond is particularly vulnerable to man because he can so

easily alter its controlling parameters. The parameters that govern the

characteristics of a salt pond may be summarized as follows:

I Characteristics of Flow: volume and variation of fresh
and salt water flows into the pond; circulation patterns;
turbulence; flushing time (the rate at which pond water
is replaced by new fresh and salt water).

II Water Properties: salinity, temperature, transparency,
nutrients, pollutants and dissolved oxygen.

III The Form,of the Pond: shape, size and topography and
character of the bottom.

One of the most critical problems facing us today is the modifi-

cation of the quality or volume of fresh and salt water flowing into the

ponds. A permanent breachway and an increased flow of seawater will have

a number of effects. The most obvious change will be that the salinity

in the pond will increase. The salinity of a pond determines what

species of plants andanimals will be present. In some brackish ponds

an increase in salinity may be desirable because the phosphate found in

seawater will improve a pond's productivity. In other cases more sea-

water will destroy a delicately balanced system.

A breachway will also cause the deposition of sand in the pond to

increase. In the case of Charlestown Pond, the water flowing into the

pond on each flood tide carries suspended sand which is deposited inside

the breachway. Ebb currents are not strong enough to carry it out again

and as a result, the volume of the pond decreases steadily.

The numbers of houses on the barriers and around many of Rhode

Island's salt ponds is increasing and the great majority of these houses

have their own septic systems. No data are presently available on

the effects upon salt ponds of leachings from septic systems, but studies

made in similar environments elsewhere, including Nixon and Oviatt's
study of Bissel Cove,6 suggest that increasing the number of leach fields

around a pond or marsh will adversely effect the environment. The nutrients

contained in sewage wastes, if in sufficient quantity, will cause popula-

tions of some species of plants and animals, to increase enormously.

Oxygen levels may become too low for many of the more desirable species

of fish and shellfish which therefore die or are forced to migrate. A

dramatic example of extreme eutrophication (overfertilization) is Lake

Erie.

One of the greates't threats to Rhode Island's salt ponds is the

continuing destruction of salt marshes by dredging and filling. There

are no records of the total lost since the first settlers but the

destruction has been enormous. Forty-five thousand acres of marsh were

destroyed from Delaware to Maine between 1954 and 1964. It was estimated

that 40% of Connecticut's salt marshes were gone by 1959. Ten percent

of Rhode Island's larger salt marshes (40.acres or more) were destroyed

between 1954.and. 1964 and the loss of smaller but equally valuable marshes

was probably greater. Laws passed in the last decade have done much to

protect the marshes but their destruction and degredation continues.

REFERENCES

1. Anon. 1965. Supplementary Report on the Coastal Wetlands In-
ventory of Rhode Island. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, Boston, Mass.

2. Cronan, J. M. 1958. Rhode Island's Waterfowl Program. R.I.
Department of Agriculture and Conservation, Division Fish and
Game, Pamphlet No. 5.

3. Cronan, J. M. and B. F. Halla. 1968. Fall and Winter Foods of
Rhode Island Waterfowl. Rhode Island Department Natural
Resources Division of Conservation and Wildlife, Pamphlet
No. 7.

4. Godfrey, G. 1972. Remarks delivered at the Shoreline Management
Seminar, Provincetown,, Mass., October 1972.

5. Nayak, R. K. 1964. Some Aspects of the Environmental Biology
of Mya arenaria (Linnaeus), in Green Hill Pond, Rhode Island.
URI Masters Thesis.

6. Nixon, S. W. and C. Oviatt (submitted). 1972.

7. Odum, E. P. 1960. The Role of Tidal Marshes and Streams in
Estuarine Production. Presented at the 19th Annual Meeting,
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

8. Teal, J. M. and M. Teal. 1969. Life and Death of the Salt Marsh.
Little, Brown, Boston.

9. Saila, S. B. et. al. 1965. Estimate of the Theoretical Biomass
of Juvenile Winter Flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus
(Walboum)) Required for a FisEery in Rhode Island. Journal
of the Fisheries Research Board of Canaga, 22 (4).

CHAPTER FOUR

DEVELOPMENT CONSEQUENCES AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES

The Task: Man's activities modify the environment. The form and magni-

tude (impact) of the modification will vary with the nature of the activity

and the sensitivity of the environment. These environmental modifications

result in further natural changes which in turn affect the human initiators

of the process.. Man, unfortunately, frequently ignores this simple fact.

He is continually trying to escape the consequences of his own acts or to

modify the natural environment to make them less onerous. In the process

he frequently compounds the original problem.

The task at hand, then i s to:

1. Identify the environmental consequences of man's actions.

2. Determine what effects, direct and indirect, these have on
man.

3. Determine how man's actions may be modified to avoid un-
desirable consequences.

4. Effect the necessary modifications.

Man Modifies the Barrier Environment: Human modification of the barrier

environment can be both direct and indirect, intentional and unintentional.

Direct and intentional modifications would include such things as road

and parking lot construction, commercial, recreational and residential

development, excavation, filling, well drilling and sewage disposal.

Each of these, in turn, may cause further indirect, unintentional and

frequently unanticipated modifications such as erosion, ground water

depletion, pollution, destruction of wildlife habitat or increase in

storm vulnerability. Indirect modifications need not, moreover, result

only from conscious modification of the barrier. Unanticipated changes

can result from the most apparently simple and innocent of activities.

Even walking through stabi lizing beachgrass cover, for example, can

have dramatic effects on the underlying dune.

Variables Detemining Impact: Each activity will impose stresses on

the environment. The magnitude of these will vary with:

1. The type of activity, or use

2. The number of activities (similar or dissimilar) or uses

3. The density of activities (similar or dissimilar) or uses

4. The frequency of use

5. The duration of use

6. The intensity of use

The response of the stressed environment will vary in proportion to

its capacity for absorbing this stress. The barrier consists of at least

five distinct but integrated environments:

1. The beach

2. The dune field

3. The back dune flat

4. The marsh

5. The barrier pond

Each of these varies in the amount of natural stress to which it is

exposed and in the amount of additional human stress which it can sustain.

The following discussion will concentrate on the most frequently

observed or probable consequences of common human uses of the barrier.

There is, however, no "typical" Rhode Island barrier and observations

should be interpreted with an awa reness of the many variables involved.

They will not be equally applicable to all barriers.

THE BEACH

1. BUILDING

Problem: The beach is a hostile environment for the location of

buildings. Normal tidal fluctuations and periodic storm and hurricane

flooding and wave damage threaten even the most substantial structures.

The few buildings presently located on the beach proper appear to have

found themselves stranded there as the dunes in which they had been

built eroded back around them. Whether elevated on piles or stabilized

by riprapping, they remain vulnerable to serious storm damage and in-

creasingly isolated from and unprotected by the dune.

Solutions:

1. Prohibit further construction on the beach itself.

2. Remove existing violators to behind the dune.

3. Require public beach facilities built behind or on beaches
without a dune to be elevated above 100 year flood levels and
protected by a seawall.

2. VEHICULAR USE

Problem: Off road vehicular (ORV...bea ch buggies, dune buggies,

motorcycles) use of the beach for fishing, camping and pleasure riding

is becoming increasingly popular. ORV use results in substantial dis-

turbance of the beach surface by tire tracks and may endanger bathers

and walkers.. For this reason it is prohibited by most Rhode Island coastal

communities from May through September. ORV's do not harm the beach.

Most tracks are erased by the rising tide.

ORV traffic creates problems:

1. When it becomes so heavy as to interfere with others'
uses of the beach.

2. When vehicles traverse the dune base, undercut and
destroy stabilizing beachgrass.

3. When vehicles indiscriminately cross the dune to
get to the beach, thereby destroying stabilizing
vegetation.

Solutions:

1. Establish a uniform season during which ORV traffic is
prohibited by the state and coastal communities.

2. Monitor and limit the numbers of vehicles allowed on
the beach.

3. Restrict cross dune access to designated routes.

4. Prohibit transit along dune base.

5. Establish fines for violation of 3 and 4@

Educate the vehicle owner as to his responsibilities
towards the environment and other recreators.

7. Enforce all of above or if not possible prohibit ORV use al-
together.

8. Require registration of or permits for ORV use of the
beach. This could involve fees for application to dune
restoration projects and enforcement costs.

3. FOOT TRAFFIC., PICNICKING AND BATHING

Problem: many of Rhode Island's barrier beaches are attractive

for bathing, picnicking and walking. These activities need not inter-

fere with other uses nor harm the barrier environment. Problems arise,

however, when the public abuses open use of the beach. Common abuses

are:

Illegal parking in beach areas.

2. Trespassing on private property and interfering with
riparian rights.

3. Littering-

4. Indiscriminate crossing of the dune with consequent
destruction of stabilizing beachgrass.

SoLutions:

1. Prosecute illegal parking, trespassing and littering.

2. Identify, open and mark existing public rights-of-way
to the shore. Prosecute private owners who close these
rights-of-way.

3. Provide adequate parking, disposal and sanitary facilities
at heavily used rights-of-way.

4. Acquire additional rights-of-way where found desirable.

5. Restrict foot access to the beach to designated routes.
Fine violators.

6. Provide sufficient routes to handle public demand.

7. Educate the public to the natural vulnerability of the
barrier to human abuse and to the rights of shore
front property owners.

THE DUNE

4. TBE DUNE AS A STORV BUFFER

ProbZem: The barrier beach and its sand dune are delicate natural

features, the latter in particular is vulnerable to human damage.

Damage is undesirable for more than aesthetic reasons. The beach-dune
acts as a buffer to the fury of storm seas.*1,2,8 As the dune is attacked

by storm waves eroded material is carried out and deposited offshore
where it alters the beach's underwater configuration.9,10 Accumulating

sand decreases the offshore beach slope (makes it more nearly horizontal)

thereby presenting a broader bottom surface to storm wave action.9,10

This surface absorbs or dissipates through fri ction an increasingly

large amount of destructive wave energy which would otherwise be focused

on the shoreline behind the barrier.3,6

The dune's capacity for absorbing and moderating wave energy is

not dependent on any ability to completely prevent breaching or flood-

ing. Even in the process of being inundated and destroyed, as many are
by hurricanes, the dune moderates back barrier storm damage.2,3 This

effect is less pronounced for low dunes, but nevertheless persists.

Since storm resistance in creases with dune height, however, all human

uses of the barrier which devegetate, erode or lower the dune expose
the shoreline behind the barrier to increased storm damage.1,3

Solutions:

1. Discourage or prohibit all activities which weaken
even the lowest of dunes.

2. Encourage all activities (private and public) which
contribute to dune stabilization and natural regenera-
tion.

5. BUILDING ON THE DUNE., IN THE DUNE FIELD

Introduction: Most of Rhode Island's barrier beaches have a

single line of low dunes running parallel to the shoreline. In many

areas these dunes are so low as to be nearly undetectable; most others

are of very modest height. Management of the barrier dune will be

complicated by the frequent difficulty of defining its extent. The back

(pond side) slope of many of the lower dunes is so gentle and continuous

as to prevent precise.definition of a base. It may, therefore.-prove

necessary to arbitrarily establish this base from engineering survey

data.

Rhode Island's barrier beaches are coming under heavy developmental

pressure. Increasing numbers of commercial, recreational and, above all,

residential structures are being built, many on the dune. A develop-

mental pattern common before the state's low lying beaches were swept

clean by the 1038 and 1954 hurricanes is once again establishing itself.

6. SITE PREPARATION
ProbLem: 'Construction typically requires that a level building

platform be prepared on the dune. The dune crest is frequently lowered
to provide such a platform and to improve the view.2 Vegetative cover

is often destroyed by site preparation- Unstabilizedi it is then ex'posed

to wind erosion which in conjunction with lowering of the dune crest may

encourage the formation of blowouts. These, in turn, increase the dune's

vulnerability to storm damage and decrease its value as a storm buffer.

Solutions:

1. Prohibit lowering of the dune crest to provide building
sites.

2. Restrict construction to areas behind the dune line as de-
fined by engineering surveys.

3. Prohibit all construction on the dune.

4. Whereconstruction is permitted or already exists, require
replanting of devegetated areas.

5. Provide technical assistance and a convenient source of
beachgrass plantings to property owners.

6. Encourage additional stabilization through such methods
as installation of snow fencing.

7. CONSTRUCTION

Problem: Barrier buildings fall into two broad categories; those

built on conventional solid foundations and those elevated on stilts or

pilings. Wind blown sand is accumulated by porous barriers such as snow

fencing and beachgrass. Solid objects, however, cause minor accumula-
tion on the upwind side and erosive scour on the downwind side.10 Down-

wind erosion may, therefore, be expected when solid foundation structures

are built on a dune.

Solutions:

1. Prohibit all construction on the dunei

2. If construction is permitted, discourage or prohibit
solid foundations.

3. Require vegetative stabilization to trap moving sand.

4. Prohibit solidbarriers or enclosures under elevated
structures.

8. WATER SUPPLY

Problem: Most structures will require a dependable freshwater

supply. This may be provided by an on site well or by a pipeline from

an external source. A pipeline, however, will be vulnerable to shifting

sands and storm damage and may prove prohibitively expensive to maintain.

Barrier ground water supplies are limited and respond to fluctua-
tions in the level of the salt water on which they float.8 Well deple-

tion may encourage salt water intrusion and consequent salt contamination

of freshwater supplies. If ground water levels are reduced below a
critical point stabilizing beachgrass will sicken and die,8 exposing the

dune to increased wind erosion and storm damage.

Solutions:

1. Provide piped water where possible. Towns should, however,
be aware of the potential cost involved and may wish to
charge barrier users for installation and maintenance.

2. The minimum water table level necessary to sustain.covering
vegetation should be determined and withdrawal of water "
limited accordingly. This may require limiting of building
densities.

9. SEWAGE DISPOSAL

ProbZem: There is no conclusive evidence that the disposal of

domestic wastes through conventional septic systems now required by

state and local health codes has any adverse effect on the dune itself.

It might, indeed, be expected to provide additional nutrients to dune

vegetation. Where sufficient volumes of septic system effluent are intro-

duced into the barrier marsh and pond, however, eutrophication may become

a problem. Dom estic wastes, if introduced in sufficient volumes, may

additionally contaminate the limited ground water supply and thus pollute
wells.8

SoZutions:

1. The construction of municipal sewer lines and treatment
facilities is desirable. Lines may be vulnerable to storm
damage, however.

2. Existing Health Department regulations should be rigidly
enforced.

3. Additional treatment techniques such as aeration should
beconsidered.

4. Residential density should be controlled where sewers are
not provided.

ZO. ACCESS AND EGRESS

Problem: Safe, reliable and convenient access routes must be

provided to businesses, recreational facilities and, most especially,

homes located on Rhode Island's barrier beaches. Access is usually

provided by a gravelled or paved road open to conventional vehicles

running the length of the barrier. Where the access road is located

behind the dune it creates few natural problems. Even where unstabil-

ized material is exposed it is n ormally protected from wind and water

erosion by the dune. Where the dune is low, unstabilized or blown out,

however, the access road is vulnerable to drifting sand and storm wash-

overs. Washovers may temporarily flood or completely wash out con-

siderable lengths of road and thereby prevent escape during storm

emergencies. Many of the deaths caused by the 1938 hurricane resulted

from people being isolated in low lying areas. Improved storm warning

systems may prevent many such deaths, although residential use of areas

subject to isolation and flooding remains undesirable.

Solutions: The access road must be protected from storm

damage if a safe emergency escape route is to be provided barrier re-

sidents. Safe exit should be mandatory. It can be provided by:

1. Elevating the road grade above hurricane flood levels.

2. Protecting exposed sections with riprapping or seawalls.

3. Preserving a vigorous natural dune.

4. Restricting or prohibiting outright development of areas
subject to isolation during extreme flood conditions.

5. Requiring mandatory evacuation of endangered areas during
storm alerts.

VEHICULAR AND FOOT TRAFFIC

ProbZem: Foot traffic across the dune is associated with the

presence and use of homes, recreational facilities or readily access-

able open space. Vehicular traffic is common at public rights-of-way

and along many stretches of undeveloped barrier, including conservation

areas administered by the state and private groups.

Any access route across the dune line will become unstabilized

and consequently vulnerable to erosion if it receives even occasional
traffic.5,6,8 The natural vegetative cover of Rhode Island dunes is

American beachgrass. It is the primary stab ilizing agent and is highly

intolerant of foot and vehicular traffic. One or two passages by a

vehicle or a dozen or so by foot over the same route in a week's time
will destroy most if not all of the grass along that route.5 Unless

artificially stabilized, therefore, routes across the dune will be ex-
posed to erosion. 6,8

SoZutions:

1. Access across the dune should be restricted to stabilized
paths or roadways. All other routes should.be blocked off.

2. Foot traffic should be serviced by wood walkways, pre-
ferably elevated.

3. Vehicular traffic should be serviced by corduroy (wood) or
paved roads.

4. Fines should be levied for cross dune travel on other than
designated routes.

5. All restrictions should be strictly enforc ed.

6. The public should be educated as to the value of the dunes and
the need for any restrictions that are imposed.

THE BACK DUNE FLAT

Problem: The relatively flat area sloping gradually down from

the back dune base to the pond fringing marsh represents the most stable
area on the barrier. 8 Where the dune is low and its back slope gentle,

however, it is frequently difficult to establish where, if at all, dune

ends and flat begins. Arbitrary determination through engineering

survey may prove necessary, although in many cases distinctions will

be academic, the entire barrier width being so low, exposed and/or

vulnerable as to make development of any part of it undesirable.

Where the dune provides even limited protection from storm flood-

ing and wave damage the flat will usually be moderately too well

vegetated, often in secondary growth (bushes and scrub). The protec-

tion afforded by the dune will increase the flat's ability to tolera te

human use and development. Most uses and forms of development will,

nevertheless, require.some modifications along lines already suggested

(see references to use of the dune).

Solutions:

1. See recommendations for dune use and development. A less
restrictive application of many of these may be desirable.

2. Promote safe development by applying flood hazard zoning and
building code criteria to-permitted development.

3. Prohibit all development of barrier beaches so low and
exposed as to be endangered by normal storm flooding and
wave damage. Total restriction of this sort will, in many
cases, require public acquisition and should not, therefore,
be lightly recommended.

4. Controls short of complete prohibition should be considered
wherever possible.

THE MARSH AND POND

The harrier marsh is not heavily exploited as a recreational

resource. It is ill-suited for the more conventional forms of outdoor

recreation and remains largely unmodified by casual human use. The

major threat to the marsh's (and indirectly the pond's) continued vitality

is rather residential or commercial development, both requiring sub-

stantial alteration of the marsh environment.

13. FILLING

ProbZem: Construction in the marsh requires that an access route

and a construction site be filled to provi de a suitably stable and
elevated building platform.7,8 Filling buries and consequently destroys

the productive capability of the underlying mud flats and vegetation.

It reduces the flood water st6rage capacity of the marsh by reducing its

surface area. It destroys the natural habitats and nursery areas of

birds, mammals and commercially and recreationally valuable fish and

shellfish species. It may contribute to erosion, siltation and altered

circulation patterns in the pond. Filling further re duces the already

dwindling supply of a unique and valuable natural res@ ource.

The marsh and ponds make a substantial contribution to Rhode

Island's commercial and sports fishery. The marsh's ability to store

flood waters moderates the impact of storm surges on low lying develop-

ments behind the barrier pond.

SoZutions:

1. Filling of the marsh should be prohibited.

2. Prohibition should extend to both fresh and intertidal salt
marshes and mixtures of the two, irregardless of size.

3. Existing restrictions should be strictly enforced.

Z4. SEWAGE DISPOSAL

8
Problem: The marsh is particularly ill-suited for sewage disposal.

Conventional treatment techniques function poorly or not at all because

of the naturally high water table and the cons equent difficulty of
providing adequate drainage.7,8 Concentrations of pollutants may result
where domestic wastes are introduced into the marsh.7 These may find

their way into the pond.

Solutions:

1. Prohibit the installation of sewage disposal and treatment
systems in the marsh. This would include filled areas.

2. Where construction is permitted or already exists provide
sewage lines to an external treatment facility.

RESOLVING USE CONFLICTS

Uncontrolled development has in the past demonstrated a high

probability of creating unnecessary conflicts between users of the

barrier environment. The beach is well suited for swimming, fishing

and light recreationaluse; for scenic vistas, aesthetic enjoyment and

open space; for commercial, private residential and public recreational

development.Many of these are or can be made compatible with each other.

The competitive ability of the various legitimate barrier uses is not

equal, however, and they therefore cannot be expected to manage them-

selves.

15. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Problem: Residential development in particular demonstrates a

high probability of precluding other legitimate uses. Demand increases

daily. The individual buyer requires only a small area for which he is

willing to pay a premium price. He seems willing to live in close

proximity to his neighbors. He jealously protects his private property

rights.

Solutions:

1. Residential development should not prevent public access
to the beach. Public rights-of-way should be provided
,at frequent intervals.

2. Residential density should be regulated with an awareness
of the environmental capacity and the natural scenic beauty
of an area.

3. Development of especially unique or valuable natural areas,
wildlife habitats or fragile natural environments should be
prohibited.

16. RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Problem: The impact of recreational facilities on the barrier

environment and on other human activities is becoming of increasing

concern. While neither the state nor the towns are able to compete on

a widespread basis with the residential developer, they have the power

and sometimes the money to supplant existing or other desirable uses of

areas they determine suitable for recreational development. Recreation

is a necessary and valuable use of the shoreline. The state in particular,

however, has.not always exercised its stewardship over public shore lands

in a responsible manner. Management and maintenance Are frequently in-

adequate, damage to natural features unacceptably and unnecessarily severe

and interference with other legitimate activities high. The communities

in which state beaches are located have often faced heavy and sometimes

unnecessary.drains on their services for which they have not been adequately

compensated.

Solutions:

1. Continued public acquisition of barrier shorefront should
be conditional upon more efficient use and adequate manage-
ment of existing areas and facilities.

2. Recreators should not he allowed free use of delicate natural
features such as dunes. Access to these should be'limited
and only via stabilized trails.

3. Enforce existing regulations at all public recreational areas
(developed and undeveloped). Fine violators. Provide adequate
policing.

4. Cooperate with towns in determining most efficient traffic
flow patterns, parking arrangements, policing requirements in
areas adjacent to state beaches.

5. Compensate communities for the drain on town services created
by the presence of state facilities. The amount should be
negotiated.

6. Consider techniques for achieving more efficient use of
existing facilities:

a. Public service radio reports of swimming conditions,
traffic and crowds at various state facilities.

b. Statewi de coordination of beach use. When a given
beach is full to capacity, recreators should be inter-
cepted at the nearest major access point and rerouted to
less crowded facilities.

C. Consider removal of parking lots to inland sites and an
expansion of usable beach back over the existing parking
lots. Provide bus service from inland lot to the beach.

7. Assess user fees at all state recreational facilities. This
will be a key requirement for other desirable reforms and for
funding of acquisition programs.

V. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPAJENT

ProbZem: Commercial development of the barrier follows the pattern

of recreational development. Restaurants, concession and souvenir stands,

taverns and motels establish themselves around state beaches in particular.

Commercial development need not be objectionable. Where it becomes so

concentrated as to preclude other activities, which require a beach front

location and where it does not require such a location itself, it may,

however, create problems.

SoZutions:

1. Commercial uses of the barrier which do not require or are
not substantially enhanced by a beach front locatio n should
be.discouraged.

2. Zoning restrictions should be imposed to.control and direct
commercial development.

18. LIGHT RECREATION

Problem: Light recreation has a substantial impact on the barrier

environment. This impact will continue to increase as the demand for

recreational access and use grows. Impact and possible controlling

techniques have already been treated at length in earlier discussions

of vehicular and foot traffic, camping and picnicking in the dunes and

on the beach. The reader is asked to refer back to these.

19. CONSERVATION

ProbZem: Conservation of unique or fragile natural features,

valuable wildlife habitats and scenic open space is one of the most

desirable uses of limited barrier lands As urbanization of the state

and the region progresses the need for unmodified open space will become

increasingly apparent. Too often we do not recognize our need for

natural beauty until we have destroyed it. Too often also when we have

the foresight to acquire natural areas we do not have the foresight to

manage them properly. We either destroy them physically by irresponsible

and unrestricted use or destroy their human value by closing them to all

use.

SoZutions:

1. State conservation areas should provide a model for sound
management of human use:

a. Activities compatible with preservation of an unmodified
natural environment should be encouraged.

b. Activities which harm natural features, vegetation or
wildlife should be prohibited.

6. Restrictions on human use should be clearly posted and
enforced through adequate policing and fines.

d. Numbers of recreators and duration of use should be
limited to the environment's ability to sustain the
stresses imposed.

2. The state should encourage and support private reservation of
barrier land for conservation purposes subject to the following
conditions:

a. Adequate management as in 1, above, is provided.

b. Total prohibition of use is restricted to those features
such as dunes and areas such as nesting grounds which can-
not tolerate any human use.

c. Limited public access is allowed to other areas.

d. Conservation restriction is not imposed for the sole purpose
of preventing public access or reducing taxable land values.

3. It is essential that the public be educated as to:

a. The value of open space.

b. The sensitivity of natural areas to human use.

c. The public's responsibility for preservation of natural
areas through responsible use.

REFERENCES

1. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering
Research Center. 1967. Dune Stabilization With Vegetation
on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Technical Memorandum
No. 22, Washington, D.C.

2. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering
Research Center. 1964. Land Against the Sea. Miscillaneous
Paper No. 4-64. Washington, D. C.

3. Department of theArmy, Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering
Research Center. 1966. Shore Protection, Planning and
Design. Technical Report No. 4, 3rd Edition. Washington, D. C.

4. Dolan, R. 1972. Barrier Dune System Along the Outer Banks of
North Carolina: A Reappraisal. Science, 176 (4032).

5. Godfrey, G. 1972. Remarks.delivered at the Shoreline Management
Seminar, Provincetown, Mass.., October 1972.

6. Jagschitz, J. A. and R. C. Wakefield. 1971. How to Build and
Save Beaches and Dunes. College of Resource Development,
Kingston, Bulletin 408.

7. Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Conservation Services. 1971. The Value of Massachusetts
Coastal Wetlands. Boston.

8. McHarg, 1. 1969. Design With Nature. The Falcon Press,
Philadelphia.

9. Savage, R. and W. W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1973. Creation and Stabiliza-
tion of Coastal Barrier Dunes. Proceedings of the Eighth
Conference on Coastal Engineering Council on Wave Research.

10. Zenkovich, V. P. 1967. Processes of Coastal Development.
Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, London.

CHAPTER FIVE

TOOLS AT HAND: CONTROLLING USE OF ThE LAND RESOURCE

introduction: There are two basic mechanisms for public supervision of

land use. These are regulation and acquisition. Regulation is based on

the government's exercise of the police power, i.e., the obligation to

protect the public health, safety and welfare. Acquisition involves the

voluntary or compulsory purchase of complet e or partial title to private

land for a public purpose. These mechanisms shall be examined in turn

for their relevance t o controlling land use on the barriers.

Regulation--The Police Power

The right of privat e property is not absolute. When its use has

a potential to injure the public interest it may be regulated without
compensation as an.exercise of the state's police power. 12,15 Legal

exercise of the police power requires that several conditions be met.

These are:

1. A duly authorized governme nt agency or legislative body must
find a need for the exercise and must specify required re-
strictions in detail.4,6

2. The need must be found to bear a substantial relationship to
the public health, safety and welfare.4,12 4,12
3. Restrictions must not be arbitrary or unreasonable.

A restrictionlis arbitrary if it is not required for the public
health, safety or welfare or is discriminatory in its application. 6

It is unreasonable if the public good to be served by regulation is not

sufficient to justify the loss imposed on the property owner; or if the

regulation, irregardless of the public good served, is so restrictive

as to deprive the owner of all profitable or beneficial use of his

property (a "taking"). Three observations need to be made at this point.

One, the "public" includes the regulated property owner himself. He can,

therefore, be legally restricted from compromising his own as well as

others' health, safety or welfare. Two, the mere fact that regulation
results in a decrease in property value does not constitute a taking. 4,12

The amount of restriction which the courts will tolerate as reasonable

will vary considerably with each situation. A substantial reduction in

property value is defensible where a clear and sufficient public benefit

is established. The owner must, however, retain some "profitable and

beneficial use" of his property. Three, in the absence of evidence to

the contrary, the courts are likely to accept the state's definition of

the public purpose to be served by regulation. Regulations will, however,

be struck down as unconstitutional where the public purpose is not suf-
ficiently compelling or the deprivation of use is too severe.4.. I

The major advantage of the police power is that it allows the

regulation of private property in the public interest without requiring

expenditure of public funds for compensation. Where applied with an eye

to the constitutional limits on its use it is an altogether justifiable

and reasonable expression of the community's interest in the management

of its land resources. The major disadvantage is that it is frequently

difficult to establish sufficient public purpose or avoid a taking where

substantial restrictions are deemed necessary. Such restrictions may,

furthermore, prove politically untenable. Regulated interests are

commonly organized and vocal. The public's commitment to its "interest"

is frequently ill-defined and poorly articulated. In the absence of

public support, defense of the public interest can become a lonesome

and uncomfortable task. This suggests that the police power must be

exercised with some caution and may by itself provide insufficient

authority to control development of environmentally fragile areas. The

fiscal "facts-of-life," however, dictate a heavy reliance on uncompensated

regulation and necessitate a careful examination of its application alone

and in conjunction with other control devices.

The Police Power--Conventional Zoning: Zoning as it is typically applied

in the state of Rhode Island is an exercise of the police power designed

to guide land development by spatially separating incompatible uses

(heavy industry and housing, for instance). Its primary objective is the

preservation of property values t hrough the pro tection of best ($) use

in each zoning district. Its practical consequence, however, is often

the pursuit of rigid uniformity within districts. While preservation of

property values can be one legitimate objective of barrier land manage-

ment, it would not appear to be a primary one. Rigid application of

"best" single use zoning principles runs counter to the Council's charge

"to produce the maximum benefit for society from (the statels) coastal

resources.ft It reduces the flexibility necessary to promote multiple

use of coastal resources consistent with environmental integrity.

A major problem of single-use zoning, in coastal areas perhaps

3
even more so than others, is the termination of nonconforming uses.

These must be eliminated if the desired separation of incompatible uses,

is to be achieved. Termination can be an extremely delicate operation.

Any semblance of a "taking" must be avoided if the zoning ordinance is

not to be struck down by the courts and compensation required. 12 Three

techniques have evolved for removing nonconforming uses. The conventional

approach is to impose restrictions on the use, alteration and repair of

nonconforming structures, A less tested technique, amortization, estab-

lishes a time period estimated to be the time required for an owner to

recoup his investiment after which the nonconforming use must be dis-

3
continued. Both techniques attempt to phase out nonconforming uses with

time and are frequently unsuccessful in doing so. The most direct

approach requires public acquisition of the offending use. It costs more,

but provides immediate termination. Its application will be discussed

in a lat er section of this chapter.

Another key zoning problem is the heavy reliance of muni cipal

governments on the property tax to finance public services. This source

alone accounted for 65.06% of total 1970 municipal revenues in the state
of Rhode Island. 13 Increasingly heavy demands on public services and

heavy competition for public revenues has created an understandable

pressure to administer zoning ordinances with an eye on the till. "Fiscal

zoning" provides powerful incentives to encourage tax generating develop-

ment, often at the expense of fragile natural areas, local and state

open space and recreation needs. These incentives are augmented by

assessment.practices which tax property on the basis of its "highest and
best" or potentially most profitable use rather than its existing use, 14

thereby making it increasingly expensive for the private land owner to
leave developable land in an undeveloped condition.6 Tax pressures are

felt particularly keenly in shore areas where heavy demands for resi-

dential, industrial and private recreational development have resulted

in skyrocketing land values and increased tax burdens.

conventional zoning is not well suited to'barrier land management.

It may be of limited value for guiding development of currently unde-

veloped or lightly developed shore areas. Even here,, however, its use ful-

ness will be compromised by an inability to relate growth rate to the

availability of'necessary public services. In all shore areas, moreover,

conventional zoning will exhibit common shortcomings. One, it relies on

spatia 1 separation to remove use conflicts. This is not always possible

or even desirable in shore areas subject to heavy and differing user

demands. Two, it characteristically defines the "best use" of a zoning

district in dollar terms. The "best" use(.s) of the shoreline is (are)

quite frequently not the most profitable. Conservation, recreation,

aesthetics have values which are only partially expressed in dollars.

Three, its practical consequence frequently is the pursuit of uniform

use within zoning districts. Again, the multiplicit y of demands for

shore use suggests that uniform use is neither a desirable nor realistic

objective. Four, it is seldom possible to terminate nonconforming uses

quickly. The barrier is a delicately balanced natural system. Un-

desirable activities can cause irreversible damage in the time required

to force their termination. Five, conforming and nonconforming uses are

defined inflexibly. They are consistent within districts. The desir-

ability.of and compatibility between uses on the barriers is variable.

Inflexible definitions don't work. A use will betolerable if it does

not have an adverse effect on the barrier environment and does not prevent

other desirable uses. The barrier environment varies with the physical

condition of the barrier and its natural features. Desirable uses,vary

with location and compatibility with other desirable uses. A flexible

approach to conformity and nonconformity is required for effective

management. Six, zoning is subject to revenue generating pressures. A

natural bias towards tax producing development is built into the system.

Delicate natural features such as barriers are not always tolerant of

the type and density of.development which produces high tax revenues.

Even where they are,it may prove des1rable to provide for other uses

whose.tax value is less.

The usefulness of zoning as a guide to barrier development will

be enhanced by consideration of multiple-use possibilities. A more

flexible and hence workable.application of zoning techniques may be

possible if increasing the number of uses a given shore area can support

becomes a recognized objective. Mixed (multiple-use) development where

modified by consideration for compatibility between uses and by sensi-

tivity to environmental limitations represents the most desirable alloca-

tion of limited shore areas. Zoning can be one means of encouraging

multiple-use. Substantial modification of existing municipal ordinances

may be required, however, before zoning can effectively realize this

objective. The Council has no authority to cause such modifications.

Local cooperation will be necessary.

The Council's Authority Over Land Areas: There are a number of land

areas whose use it would appear the Council can control under the

provisions of Section 46-23-6 of the General Laws:

The authority of the council over land areas (those
areas above the mean high water mark) shall be limited
to that necessary to carry out effective resources manage-
ment programs. This shall be limited to the authority to
approve, modify, set conditions for, or reject the design,
location, construction, alteration, and operation of specified
activities or land uses when these are related to a water
area under the agency's jurisdiction., regardless of their
actual location. The Council's authority over these land

uses and activities shall be limited to situations in which
there is a reasonable probability of conflict with a plan or
program for resources management or damage to the coastal
environment. These uses and activities are [among a total of
six specified]:

.1. Shoreline protection facilities and physiogr@aphic features.

2. Intertidal salt marshes.

Assuming that a legally defensible case has been made for the

barrier beach-dune complex's status as (1) a coastal physiographic

feature and (2) a shoreline protection feature, and that the existence

of pond fringing salt marshes (as defined in existingintertidal salt

marsh and coastal wetlands statutes) can be established, there seems to

be adequate authority and justification for the Council to exercise use

controls in these areas. These might be exercized at two levels and

the consequences of each are worthy of some consideration

PossibZe Expressions of CounciZ Authority: At the first level the

Council mig ht assume direct administrative control over land use in the

designated barrier areas through either a permit or zoning system. Such

an approach would superimpose state over local controls. While access

to this approach.may prove desirable for the protection of extremely

sensitive areas of overriding value to the state, its general application

to the barriers poses several problems:

1. It is politically unfeasible. Complete abrogation of local
control will create municipal opposition and hostility which
willreflect itself in the Legislature.

2. It is practically unfeasible. The Council has neither the
time nor the staff to administer a direct permit or zoning
system on the necessary scale.

3. It is socially unfeasible. The reservoirs of public good will
and community cooperation necessary to effective management are
unlikely to survive such a drastic challenge.

4. It is legally suspect. Municipalities are protected, as are
individuals, from abuses of the state's exercise of the police
power. A complete assumption of state control, except under
very limited circumstances, might well be struck down by the
courts. The matter would be there very quickly.

At the second level the Council might exercise its authority through

the municipal zoning and permit system. This would be accomplished by

the Council's establishing zoning (use) standards for barrier development.

Minimum levels of local compliance would be established and enforceable

under the Council's legislatively delegated authority. The Council

would retain the option to regulate directly where local ordinances did

not exist or did not meet minimum standards. This approach to zoning

as a control technique presents several advantages and, additionally,

reflects Council policy of ruling on coastal development only after the

community has considered and approved it. State-local cooperative

zoning of critical coastal areas (with the emphasis on local initiative

and administration), does not necessarily address itself to the in-

adequacies of zoning as a land use control technique. It does, however,

provide a tool sufficiently useful to justify further consideration.

State-Local Cooperative Zoning: Although the power to zone cons titution-

ally belongs to the state, it has long been delegated to municipalities.

They with good reason, see it to be one of their most basic and necessary

administrative controls. They are unlikely to suffer infringement of

their zoning powers without substantial opposition. A notable advantage

offered by "cooperative" zoning is that it provides for the minimum

disruption of local land use controls consistent with protection of over-

riding state interests. Municipal controls having a local impact only

are not affected. Such state supervision as exists is in the form of

broad guidelines and minimum standards within which continued local

initiative is protected. Cooperation is encouraged.by mutual consulta-

tion and negotiation. Inherent in the state's reassertion of even

limited zoning controls as an exercise of its police power,, however, is

the presumption that the.greater (state-wide) public interest must pre-

vail when irreconcilable differences arise between it and the narrower

interests of the municipality. In other words, where compromise

acceptable to the state is not possible, its position must prevail.

Enforcement of minimum standards requires that the state impose

controls where towns fail to implement adequate regulations within a

reasonable period of time. Protection of local interests is provided

through public hearings, administrative review and judicial proceedings.

Although the w1cooperative zoning" approach provides for minimum disrup-

tion of local.control, it nevertheless represents an infringement of

traditional powers. It w ill be regarded with suspicion. It may, however,

provide an attractive alternative to complete assumption of state control

in land areas subject to Council regulation.

The successful application of "cooperative" zoning principles to

use control of the barriers will be conditional upon resolving several

difficulties:

1. Removing nonconforming uses without violating the due
process clause ("taking").

2. Minimi zing community opposition while providing necessary
controls.

3. Encouraging desirable multiple uses through an instrument
essentially directed to single-use zoning.

4. Providing the best balance between overall flexibility and
firm control of undesirable activities.

5. Establishing a legally defensible, politically acceptable and

administratively feasible review and appeal system without
undermining effective control.

Flood Hazard Zoni?kq: Flood hazard zoning is an exercise of the police

power justified by the state's obligation to protect the safety of its

citizens in areas subject to seasonal or periodic flooding and storm
damage. 12 This obligation extends both to the residents of the hazard

area itself and to those of adjacent areas which might be affected by
activities in the hazard area. Regulation normally includes:12

1. Restrictions on the filling of marsh land (salt, fresh or
mixed) because it decreases the natural storage capacity and,
hence, flood resistance of the watershed.

2. Building code regulation of minimum floor elevation, construc-
tion specifications and sewage disposal systems--to protect
the lives and investments of residents.

3. Standards to guarantee safe access to and egress from home
sites in emergency situations.

4. Prohibitions of development which is liable to impose in-
ordinantly heavy burdens on the community in the areas of
public services and flood protection.

Under Rhode Island law (Chapter 54-24, General Laws) communities

may restrict the use of land subject to flooding. They don't have to,

however, and under existing law there is nothing the state can do to
make them. 14 Previous state efforts to encourage adoption of flood

zoning ordinances have met with very limited success. The National

Flood Insurance Program (see p. may, however, provide the necessary

incentive.

Since the Council does not have authority to force local adoption

of flood hazard zoning the implementation of this particular device would

require that the Council take direct action. Under existing legislation

the Council does not have authority to do so for the whole flood plain

although it would appear that it does for those areas specified in

Section 46-23-6 of its enabling legislation. Intertidal salt marshes

are among these areas as are barrier beach-dune complexes (as shoreline

physiographic features).

While flood hazard zoning would provide the Council with a rationale

for restricting development of barriers and marshes to alleviate flood-

ing and promote public safety, its application would st ill be subject

to the general limitations of zoning, direct and indirect (cooperative),

as a control technique. Effective flood zoning would additionally require

voluntary cooperation from coastal communities to extend protective re-

strictions throughout the flood basin. The Council itself does not have

sufficient jurisdictional authority to implement a flood zoning program.

It is unlikely that local cooperation would be forthcoming in sufficient

time to forestall continued unsafe.development. If, however, flood

hazard zoning.is found to be a useful control technique for all or some

of the state's barriers, every effort should be made to encourage local

participation and cooperation. Numerous models exist for establishing

necessary controls. Particularly relevant material may be found in

The Rhode Isl and Shore, Appendix B by the Rhode Island Development

Council (1956), in Flood Hazard Area Management for New England, by the

New England River Basins Commission (1970), and in Regulatio of Flood

Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, by the U.S. Water Resources Council

(1971).

Federal Flood Insurance Progr=: Recent federal and state efforts to

enroll flood prone communities in the National Flood Insurance Program

(1968) (25 Rhode Island communities are now in the program) have raised

a great deal of enthusiasm among proponents of flood zoning. The stated

goal of the program is to encourage state and local governments to

restrict development of flood prone areas through implementation of land

use controls. The incentive offered is federally subsidized flood insur-

ance. The'administrative requirements of the program and especially its

emergency provisions, however, do not live up to its ambitious goals. It

is possible under the emergency provision to qualify for substantially

reduced insurance rates (for existing structures) by doing nothing more

than determining the general extent of-the flood plain. Modification

of existing controls or implementation of new ones is not required.

Final operational provisions require only that new construction be pro-

tected from flood damage by building code modifications to qualify for

subsidized insurance. The problem of nonconforming use is handled through

imposition of conventional restrictions such as prohibition s of expansion

and major modification. Speedy termination of undesirable uses is not

provided for and no effort is made to encourage comprehensive zoning

per se. For these reasons the Council should not anticipate any great

assistance from the National Flood Insurance Act in achieving its own

objectives. It should'certainly not regard the existence of the Act

as a convincing argument in favor of flood hazard zoning.

Conservation Zoning: The exercise of zoning type restrictions on land

use for the express purpose of conserving valuable and fragile natural

resources is a relatively new and expanded expression of the police

power. It is justified, however, under a 1970 amendment of the state

constitution which expanded Article 1, Section 17 to emphasize the

public's right to enjoy and the state's duty to preserve natural re-

sources. While many expressions of the public benef it inherent in the

conservation of natural resources have been recognized by the courts,

the Council should expect to be held strictly accountable for its inter-

pretation. of its charge to preserve5 protect and restore the coastal

resources of the state (46-23-1). There are many legitimate ways to

realize this objective and each should be pursued vigorously, but an

overly expansive or inadequately defended interpretation is unlikely to

survive judicial review.

Subject to the due process clause of the federal and state consti-

tutions (deprivation of use without just compensation, or "taking"),

the following conservation concerns have generally been recognized as
legitimate by the courts:12

1. Preservation and maintenance of the groundwater table.

2. Protection of the community from costs which may be incurred
due to unsuitable development of areas subject to flooding.

3. Protection of salt marshes.

4. Conservation of natural conditions, wildlife and open spaces
for purposes of public education, recreation and general
wel fare.

5. Preservation of unique natural areas or features.

The following objectives have generally been struck down as un-

12
constitutional expressions of the police power:

1. Reg ulation of property for aesthetic reasons alone. Aesthetic
objectives will be upheld, however, in conjunction with other
legitimate expressions of the police power concern for "con-
servation."

2. Restrictions which provide free open space or conservation
areasfor unspecified or vague reasons.

The numerous legitimate applications of the police power conservation

objectives suggests that it should be of great use.to the Council in

promoting responsible land use in fragile and vulnerable areas such as

barrier beaches, dune fields and salt marshes. Here again, however, the

private land owner's constitutional protection from "takings" will

necessitate a very careful application of controls. An excellent example

of the use of conservation restrictions can be found in the coastal wet-

lands statutes of several states. Rhode Island's Coastal Wetlands Act

(1965) exhibits both the strengths andweaknesses of this approach. It

will be of value as a m odel for conservation protection of other delicate

natural areas and as a tool (with some modification) for marsh conserva-

tion.

Coastal Wetlands Controls: Restrictions on use of the marsh are justified

on the basis of its great value as a fish and wildlife habitat and food

source and on its ability to store flood waters and hence reduce flood
hazards to adjacent settled areas.18 Protection of the public safety

and welfare is guaranteed by restrictions on developments of the marsh

which would cause erosion or necessitate excavation or filling. Controls

take precedence over local zoning regulations, although more restrictive

ordinances are not preempted.

The land owner's constitutional rights and the law's validity are

protected by a number of provisions which the Council might wish to con-

sider when applying conservation controls to.areas under its jurisdic-
tion: 12

1. Criteria for delineating the area subject to regulation are
clearly established and uniformly applied.

2.. Permissable uses, uses subject to qualification and uses
permissable by.special permit only are specified.

3. Public hearings on both 1 and 2 are held.

4. Restrictions apply to the entire designated area equally.
Application is not selective.

5. All private property rights not subject to restriction are
retained. Control does not imply any right of public use
or trespass.

6. The individual's right to administrative and judicial review
is clearly spelled out.

The law does not work because it provides the state with n o alterna-

tive to paying compensatory damages if an order is found by the courts

to constitute a "taking." Since only limited funds are available for

wetlands acquisition, the Department of Natural Resources has not issued

any orders under the Coastal Wetlands. Act and is unlikely to do so. It

has ins tead relied on less comprehensive legislation (The Intertidal

Salt Marsh Act [19691) which provides financial penalties for ecological

disrUDtion caused by dumping, excavation or filling without a Department

of Natural Resources permit.

As the Coastal Wetlands Act is not now enforced, the Counc il cannot

availitself of what coul d be a useful and effective management tool.

If the present law were amended to allow a more flexible response to court

rulings on individu al orders, it is likely that the Act would be applied

and enforced. A s is the case with the Massachusetts Coastal Wetlands

Act, the Department of Natural Resources should be provided the option

to buy (through eminent domain proceedings if necessary) the property

affected by an order, to modify that order or to drop it entirely. Amend-

ment of existing legislation to provide these options has been proposed

by the Statewide Planning Program (Protection and Control of the Salt

Water Shore Area, Technical Paper #21, 1972, page 35). Enforcement of

the Coastal Wetlands Act would be to the Council's definite advantage and

it might wish, therefore, to support amendment. It.should in any event

try to retain for itself as many options as possible when and if it

chooses to apply conservation restrictions to vulnerable natural areas

under its jurisdiction.

Strengthening of the Coastal Wetlands Act along the lines suggested

would provide the Council (through the Department of Natural Resources)

with a means of controlling development of tidal salt marsh and contiguous

uplands within fifty yards. Direct exercise of similar powers over other

sensitive coastal areas may well be justifiable under expanded judicial

interpretations of the police power protection of conservation objectives.

Wholesale application of conservation zoning to the state's barrier beaches

does not appear feasible, however, as:

1. It is unlikely that desirable restrictions can be placed on
the many existing uses without violating due process.(taking)
clauses in the state constitution.

2. Conservation restrictions may not be desirable or workable
for all barrier areas. The Council should retain for itself
flexibility in multiple use development of suitable (tolerant)
areas.

3. It may prove difficult to justify uniform restrictions for all
barriers when individual barriers and subsystems (dunes,
marshes, etc.) require different levels and types of controls.

Uniform restrictions can, however, be applied to clearly defined

barrier units and subunits and should be legally defensible so long as

the six criteria previously mentioned are met. This technique may prove

particularly useful for controlling development of sensitive areas which

are either presently unimproved or which are narrowly enough defined to

allow for reasonable use of abutting areas. The latter application may

prove appropriate to dune fields.

Additional Expressions of the Zoning Power: Minimum Lot Size: Zoning

ordinances establish maximum tolerable building densities for defined

zoning districts by manipulating the minimum lot size required for con-

struction. This is a legitimate application of the police power when

it is based on such considerations as groundwater depletion, sewage
disposal problems, or inordinantly heavy demands on community services. 10

It is not a legitimate application when lot require ments are aimed only

at the preservation of open space and has been struck down as discrimin-

10
atory when applied for this purpose. The general application of this

technique by the Council or municipal governments may not be feasible.

Most of the state's barrier beaches have been platted under or even prior

to existing municipal zoning codes and many lots will be substandard if

minimum lot size is increased. Many nonconforming lo ts will, therefore,

be created and the whole problem of discontinuing their use will be intro-

duced.

Setbacks: The right to control the location of stru ctures by establish-

ing minimum widths for front, side and back yards has long been upheld

as a legitimate expression of the police power obligation to protect the

public from fire and traffic dangers and to promote the public health
and welfare by providing adequate light and air cir culation. 10 Similar

controls have recently been applied to shoreline construction in several

states and justified by the state's obligation to protect the developer

from exposure to storm dangers and.the public from exposure to similar
dangers caused by modification of such natural storm barriers as dunes. 1,7

Shoreline setbacks are defined by survey lines based on minimum distances

from either the shoreline or features to be protected. Development seaward

of the survey line is subject to stringent control.

There is some question whether Rhode Island courts would uphold the

establishment of setback lines as a legitimate expression of the Council's

land control authority. It is further debatable whether they provide any

useful protection which. is not better served by more flexible controls

under the conservation zoning power as previously discussed.

Cluster Zoning: Cluster zoning is a relatively new zoning technique which

allows for concentrated devel opment on smaller lots than would be other-

wise permitted provided that substantial amounts of surrounding land are
permanently preserved as open space with use restricted to recreation. 12

Overall population density is not increased and presumably reflects the
capacity of the location to support a given number of users. 12 The

advantages of this approach are that it encourages flexible siting to

take advantage of the terrain and to preserve attractive natural features

and that it offers savings on site preparation and on the installation

and maintenance of public services such as roads, sewers, treatment

facilities and water mains. Cluster zoning provides numerous benefits

for guiding residential development of coastal areas. It would certainly

help prevent the sprawling development which is currently swallowing up

enormous amounts of valuable shoreline. Cluster zoning is already per-

mitted in one coastal community (North Kingstown). The Council may wish

to encourage other municipalities to examine this technique for applica-

tion to their coastal areas. It may not, however, be appropriate to

barrier beaches as they cannot (with the possible exception of Narragansett

Pier) support the concentrations of development required to make cluster-

ing financially attractive to the developer.

ShoreZine Zoning: The application of zoning techniques to the barrier

beach appears to be a legitimate exercise of Council powers--subject to

conditions already discussed. Zoning as to permit only those uses of

the shore area which derive "maximum benefit" from such a location, how-

ever, may be ruled unconstitutionally vague. Encouraging only those uses

which are substantially enhanced by location in coastal areas is, of

course, a desirable Council objective, but it cannot be achieved by

exercise of the police power alone.

Subdivision Regulation: Subdivision regulation is an exercise of the

police power which justifies restrictions on how large parcels maybe

divided for residential development and how they may be subsequently

developed. Sewage, water and road standards may be established, minimum

lot size enforced and reservation of open space for parks and recreation
required.6 ReIstrictions must he equally applicable to all subdivisions

under the zoning jurisdiction although they need not be (and typically

aren't) the same as those applied to individual residences. Subdivision

regulation of barrier development should not be an immediate concern of

the Council as beaches currently under strongest development pressures

consist of numerous small parcels in individual ownership. Owners could

develop these parcels without exposing themselves to subdivision controls.

If larger holdings which are more common on the Little Compton beaches

were ever opened to development, (which appears unlikely) subdivision

regulation might prove a useful management tool. There would not seem

to be any legal impediment to its applications to land areas subject to

Council authority.

BuiZding Codes: The enforcement of building code requirements is an

exercise of the police power justified by the community's obligation

to protect the health and safety of the occupants and their neighbors

and to protect itself from excess costs caused by poor construction. A

number of building code restrictions appear relevant to construction

6
on the barriers:

1. Soils must provide adequate foundations and waste disposal.

2. Buildings must be constructed to resist wave, wind and
water damageand must be securely anchored against move-
ment by any of the above.

3. Construction must not increase erosion.

4. Basement, floors, pilings and access roads must be
established at minimum elevations above flood level.

There does not appear to be serious legal question as to the Council's

right to enforce building restrictions in areas subject to its land use

controls (as defined under Section 46-23-6 of its enabling legislation).

Minimum construction standards may, therefore, provide a useful method

for establishing tolerable types of development. Building code regulation

cannot, however, control the location of structures, their relationship

to each other or the sequence of development. It will consequently be of

little assistance in guiding the overall pattern of development on the

barrier. It will likewise be of little help in preventing development of

delicate natural areas as standards sufficiently strict to do so are likely

to result in a "taking." Where construction is not found to be totally

unacceptable, code enforcement should prove useful.

Other Expressions of the PoLice Power: Special Ordinances: An ordinance

is a statute enacted by a town to regulate a specific activity. Several

Rhode Island coastal communities enforce ordinances which protect valuable

and fragile barrier features by preventing or controlling dune access

and vehicular use of the dune and beach. Since ordinances of this nature

compliment the Council's own objectives their enactment by all coastal

communities should be encouraged.

Acquisition

The several types and levels of public control over the use of

private land through exercise of the police power can be duplicated by

public purchase of partial or complete title to lands. In this way

acquisition can provide a useful alternative or supplement to restriction.

This may be a particularly attractive feature where necessary restrictions.

are likely to result in an illegal ','taking."

Public acquisition may be either negotiated (voluntary) or condemned

(compulsory). Negotiated purchase involves a voluntary surrender of

partial or complete title for a mutually agreeable sum. It does not,

therefore, differ substantially from a normal real estate transaction.

Condemnation through the power of eminent domain, however, i nvolves the

public purchase of property or rights without the owner's consent. It

is compulsory.

Conditions: The state's right of acquisition is subject to legal condi-

tions which guard against its abuse. Conditions which apply equally to
voluntary and compulsory purchase are: 14

1. Agencies of government must be specifically delegated the
right to purchase property by the legislature.

2. Acquisition must be for a public purpose.

3. Just compensation must be made to the property owner.

Public purpose is generally taken to mean that the taking must re-

sult in a benefit to the public. Three observations should be made at
this point:4,10

1. A legislative declaration of public use has a strong pre-
sumption of validity (is presumed legitimate by the courts).
Questions of necessity (the need for taking the land and
adopting a particular plan for it) are considered matters of
discretion of the legislature or its appointed administrative
body.

2. Acquisition of land for park and recreational purposes and for
aesthetic and conservation reasons has been held to meet the
public test.

3. Free public access need not he provided as a condition of
public purpose. Scenic *control, elimination of undesirable
conditions and preservation of valuable resources all justify
acquisition without requiri Ing access.

Just compensation is not an important consideration in the negotiated

purchase of title as the negotiation process presumably safeguards the

seller's financial interests. In the seizure of title thro ugh compulsory

proceedings (condemnation by eminent domain), however, the private

ownerls interests are not so clearly protected. The courts, therefore,

have established standards for what constitutes "just compensation."

These are usually expressed in terms of "fair market value"--or the

price which the property would bring if offered by a willing seller who
is not obliged to sell to a willing buyer who is not obliged to buy. 4
Judicial interpretations of fair market value suggest that:5

1. The property owner is entitled to compensation for the value
of his property at its highest and best use as this would
normally be considered by a purchaser.

2. He is not entitled to compensation for any increases in his
property value caused by the state wanting to purchase it.

3. He is not entitled to compensation for relocation costs or
profits and business opportunities lost by displacement even
though these would normally be considered in a negotiated
transaction.

Analysis: The obvious general shortcoming of land use control through

acquisition is the cost involved. While the constitutional requirements

for its legal application are more easily met than those for police power

regulation, its high price tag prevents its widespread use. Assuming

that adequate fu nding can be arranged, acquisition provides a useful

technique for controlling land areas valuable for public recreation or

conservation or which require immediate and highly restrictive controls.

The shortcoming of acquisition which is mostimmediately relevant

to the Council is, of course, that it has no legislatively delegated

authority to acquire land other than through gifts. It cannot negotiate

or condemn purchase of land or rights. This will seriously uhdermine

any effort to manage land areas under the Council's jurisdiction and may

additionally disqualify the state for financial aid under the new federal

coastal zone management act (which requires access to the power of

eminent domain). It is hoped that the Legislature will see the wisdom

of granting the Council acquisition powers in areas subject to its

jurisdiction. In the interim, however, the Council may have limited

access to acquisition powers through the Department of Natural Resources.

Access would be.indirect and tenuous at best. It would undoubtab ly come

under immediate legal fire from regulated interests and might additionally be

subjected to legislative scrutiny. This in itself should not discourage

the examination.of indirect techniques by legal counsel.

The possibility of indirect access exists under Chapter 37-6 and 17

of the General Laws.and Section 46-23-10 of the Council's enabling legis-

lation. Chapter 37-6 authorizes the head of a state agency to acquire

property for public use subject to the availability of funds and review

by the State Properties Committee. 37-17 authorizes the transfer of state

owned properties from one agency to another subject to approval of the

governor. 46-23-10 directs "all other departments and agencies and

bodies of state government" to cooperate with the Council.

The Department of Natural Resources has the power to acquire

property, by condemnation if necessary, for public purposes under its
jurisdiction. 17 The Green Acres Acquisition Act of 1964 (Chapter . 32-4)

defines applicable public purposes as including recreation and c onserva-

tion and allows acquisition of land and water, rights of way, easements

and other interests by the state or its municipalities. The original

$5.5 million bond issue (matched by an equal amount of federal funds)

has all been spent or pledged. A new bond issue for $1.1 million was

approved in November 1972 and it too is pledged with matching funds to

existing or proposed recreational projects.

Council access to acquisition controls through the Department of

Natural Resources depends, therefore, on a rather lengthy list of inter-

dependent conditions-

1. The Department must agree to cooperate. No effort should be
made to force it to.

2. Green Acres acquisition funds would have to be madeiavailable.
This would require either a reordering of present programs to
free funds or a new bond issue.

3. The State Prop.erties Commission would have to approve any
proposed acquisition.

4. The governor would have to approve any transfer of properties
between the Department and the Council. It is doubtful, how-
ever, whether outright transfer would be necessary or even de-
sirable in which case this step might not be required.:

The Council's present access to acquisition powers, if it exists

at all, is obviously unde sirably indirect and subject to legal challenge

and funding shortages. Every effort should be made, however, to gain even

limited use of purchase powers as they provide many additional and

valuable management tools.,

Funding Sources cxd Techniques-Federal Government

Several federal agencies administer cost sharing (matching funds)

and grant programs whose purpose is to encourage state and municipal

pursuit of objectives seen to be in the national interest. Objectives

include erosion control, conservation, preservation of open space and

recreational development. Programs of particular relevance to barrier

land use control include:

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation-Land and Water Conservation Fund: This

program provides grants covering 50% of the total cost for planning,

acquisition and development of state and municipal recreational areas

and facilities. Matching funds are required. The Rhode Island program
is administered through the Department of Natural Resources.9,12

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)--Open Space Land

Grants: Grants cover up to 50% of the cost of acquisition and develop-

ment of land in urbanareas for permanent open space use (recreation,

conservation, scenic value). Purchase may be of full or partial title
in easements. Matching funds are required.9 Application to barrier

beaches will depend on how liberally HUD defines "urban areas."

HUD-Advance Acquisition of Land Grants: Grants cover interest on

debts incurred for the municipal purchase of land for recreational

development within five years. 19

HUD--Urban Beautification and Improvement Grants: Grants cover 50% of

the cost of improving parks and other public lands. Matching funds are

required and a comprehensive local beautification program must be
adopted.9 NOTE: Many HUD grant programs have been indefinately sus-

pended through rece nt administration (federal) budget cuts.

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife--Fish Restoration Aid: Grants

cover up to 75% of the cost of acquisition, development, restoration and

rehabilitation of fish hatching, feeding or breeding areas. 25% matching
funds are required.9 . This program is administered through the Department

of Natural Resources and is applicable to salt ponds and marshes.

NationaZ WiZdtife Refuge S@zjstem: The Bureau of Sports Fisheries and

Wildlife can acquire and manage in perpetuity areas valuable as wild-

life sanctuaries. These may be administered as federal conservation
areas with only wildlife.oriented recreation allowed.9

SoiZ Conservation Service--SmaZZ Watershed Projects: Matching grants

for 50% of state or local costs of acquiring land, access rights or

facilities for recreation, conservation or flood protection in small

watersheds (less than 2 50,000 acres and unnavigable). This program

would probably not be applicable to the barriers themselves, but might
apply to the watershed draining into the barrier ponds.11,12

Soil Conservation Service--Resoutrce Conservation and Development Projects:

The Soil Conservation.Service provides technical assistance for land use

planning, soil analysis md resource inventorying in rural areas. Match-

ing funds for up to 50% of certain conservation projects are also avail-
abie.9,12

NationaZ Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .00AA), Office of CoastaZ

Zone__Management--FederaZ Coastal Zone Management Act: The new federal

Coastal Zone Management Act provides for 2/3 federal 1/3 state matching

grants for both management program development and administration. Guide-

lines for eligibility-have not been finalized as yet and no money has

actually been appropriated by Congress. Rhode Island may not-qualify

for either type of grant unless the Office of Coastal Zone Management

liberally construes a legal requirement that approved agencies have

eminent domain powers. If the Council met minimum requirements, how-

ever, it would be eligible for a minimum of $90,000 for program develop-

ment, provided state matching funds could be raised.

Analysis: While a number of federal programs exist which may be of some

interest, the federal government is by no means likely to inundate the

state with largesse. The availability of federal funds will be restricted

by federal spending ceilings and administration withholding of appropriated

funds. Competition for remaining funds is intense and likely to get worse.

A further restriction will be the state's ability to raise the necessary

matching funds. This may severely limit participation in matching grant

programs.

Private Funding Sources

A limited number of private conservating foundations exist which

purchase or assist others in the purchase of land for open space use or

eventual public acquisition. Three such foundations are active in Rhode

Island.

The Audubon Society of Rhode IsZand: The Audubon Society acquires limited
land areas by purchase or gift.8 It generally restricts their use to

only those few activities consistent with strict conservation. Lands

acquired by the Audubon Society enjoy a permanent property tax exemption.

The Society is not in a position to acquire significant amounts of barrier

beach except through gifts. Municipalities are unlikely to encourage

Society purchase of beach areas under their control because of the effect

on their tax base. Society acquisition of limited amounts of ecologically

fragile or unique areas would appear to be in the public's interest, but

reservation of large areas of shoreline for strict conservation purposes

may, in fact, run counter to that interest. The Council may expect

firm support from the Society in promoting conservation of barriers,

ponds and salt marshes. Equally firm opposition will greet active or

defacto promotion of most types and levels of development.

Rhode Island Heritage Foundation: This group is primarily oriented
towards the preservation of historical areas and structures.8 Its

charter allows for the tax free acquisition of unique natural areas, how-

ever. With a much more limited scope than the Audubon Society and no

history of natural area conservation it is unlikely to become active in

barrier preservation.

The Nature Conservency: The Nature Conservency has.a long and dis-

tinguised nationwide reputation in conservation and recreational land

8
acquisition. The Conservency prefers to acquire property by gift or

at token cost, although it raises funds from private (usually local) and

foundation sources to acquire especially desirable parcels at market

value. Where possible, the Conservency prefers to delegate management of

its holdings to government agencies or private trusts upon satisfaction

that they will preserve natural conditions. It is possible for the
state or town to buy back title to land purchased f@om private owners

by the Conservency, although no substantial savings inacquisition costs

should be anticipated. As with the Audubon Society, the Nature Conservency

can be expected to provide support for coastal conservation efforts. It

may also be of help through the actual purchase of threatened areas.

Fundi?@q Techniques: User Charges: The federal gover nment, most state

and most Rhode Island municipal governments charge entrance fees for the

use of developed public recreation facilities. These facilities are

supported by all citizens through income and property taxes. However, the

high cost of developing, maintaining and expanding recreational facilities

is seen to justify supplemental levies on those who benefit most directly

from their existence, namely, their users. Thus, the general public pays

a nIominal sum to provide itself with the opportunity to recreate; the

recreator pays an additional sum to actually do so. The primary objective

of this dual funding approach is to allow facilities to pay their own way

while-more equitably distributing the financial burden of doing so. It

is central to the objectives of charging user fees that revenues generated

be earmarked for recreational development. Where no such guarantee exists,

the imposition of fees becomes a legally suspect method of augmenting

the general treasury at the expense of the recreator. Present Rhode

Island administrative procedure does not encourage the earmarking of

state funds from any source, although one half of the revenues generated

by parking fees at Misquamicut State Beach and by concession and bath-

house rentals at other state parks is placed in the Recreational Develop-

ment Fund administered by the Department of Natural Resources. Since

no state park or beach actually charges an entrance fee, the contribu-

tions to the Recreational Development Fund are minor, only $200,000 in

1972. This amount would be increased substantially if even a small

entrance fee was levied at all state recreational facilities.

Numerous objections can be, and often are, made to the continued

complete absence of entrance fees:

1. Essentially free state beaches present unfair competition to
town and private beaches which charge fees.

2. The heavy use of state beathes imposes costs (police protection,
traffic control) on local communities for which they are not
compensated.

3. Unlimited free access provides the recreator with what is
essentially a publically subsidized experience. This can be
objectionable, especially when he is from out of state and
hence contributing nothing in taxes himself.

4. Free access removes a useful rationing technique. Heavy use by
some elements is, again, in effect subsidized by the general
public.

5. Free beaches cannot pay for themselves, let alone contribute
towards the acquisition and development of needed additional
facilities. Recreation is, furthermore, a weak competitor for
unappropriated funds and its development is consequently
handicapped.

The Council, of course, has no authority to impose entry fees for

any of the state's beaches. It should,however, receive a sympathetic

hearing from the Department of Natural Resources if it recommends that

they be levied. Legislative support may also be forthcoming if the

advantages of meeting the above five object ions to the present situation

can be demonstrated.

A fee system need not impose disproportionately heavy burdens on

repeat users. Discounted season passes as are common on the municipal

level encourage.regular use at a modest cost, while higher day charges

are tolerable to the infrequent or one -time user.

The application of fee generated revenue to recreational develop-

ment and acquisition (through the Green Acres Acquisition Program per-

haps) would definately contribute to the realization of Council objec-

tives. The state's ocean beaches, many of them barrierq are one of its

most valuable, certainly its most plentiful, marine recreational resource.

The application of user fees to recreational development of this area

seems particularly appropriate.

Discount Bonding

The "floating" of bond issues has become a common method for fund-

ing recreational and open space land acquisition programs. Rhode Island

has financed its matching funds under the Green Acres Acquisition Act

through bond issues, the latest, for $1.1 million, in November 1972.

Discount bonding is a useful technique for encouraging public financial

support of future oriented acquisition programs because it transfers

costs to the future in proportion to how much benefits will be realized
in the future.6 Open space and recreational lands for the future must

be provided for in the present. As available land resources shrink, ex-

perience suggests that waiting until needs materialize often removes any

possibility of ever meeting them. Discount bonding allows today's public

to provide for tomorrow's needs. It defers payment of interest and

principal on borrowed funds until such time as the benefits of public

acquisition can be realized.

Discount bonding is appropriate to the Council's obligation to

provide for the state's long term marine recreation and open space needs.

The Council cannot itself issue bonds or even present them for voter

approval. There does not, however, appear to be any legal impediment to

its administration of legislatively initiated and voter approved bonds

as 11gifts, grants or donations made for any of the purposes of its program!'

(46-23-8). Funds thus generated could be applied as matching funds either

under the new federal Coastal Zone Management Act or through the Depart-

ment of Natural Resources under the Green Acres Acquisition Act.. They

might also be applied directly through the Recreational Development Fund.

It is doubtful whether the Council could acquire title on its own authority

without specific legislative authorization. In the absence of such,

acquisition under Department of Natural Resources programs presents a

workable alternative so long as mutual cooperation is maintained.

The value of bonding as a revenue source will be limited by public

willingness to assume future burdens. Public generosity knows very

definite bounds. These should not be pressed.

Appropriations

Annual appropriation of funds for operating expenses is the normal

legislative mechanism.for funding agency activities. Appropriations very

seldom include funds for land acquisition. Increasing interagency competi-

tion for available funds in the face of administration budget tightening

suggests that acquisition funds are likely to become even scarcer. it

is possible that the Legislature may appropriate matching funds under

the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, although, again, it is doubtful

whether very much or any of this will become available for direct acquisi-

tion. The Legislature's past record in passing.appropriations for shore-

line related.programs is not encouraging.

Acquisition Techniques: Acquisition in Fee SimpZe

Acquisition in fee simple is the most direct and expensive form of

public acquisition. It involves the purchase or condemnation of clear
and absolute.title to a piece of property. 6 This form of purchase gives

the state unqualified control over the use of the property. Acquisition

in fee simple is required where desired public and even minimum private

use are mutually exclusive, as where a public beach is to be developed.

Acquisition in fee simple requires that the "fair market value" of

the property, its improvements (buildings) and its potential best use be

paid by the state. This can represent a prohibitively high cost. The

application of this technique will, therefore, be limited by the availa-

bility of funds and the necessity of absolute control. Unless sub-

stantial sums (many millions of dollars) become available for acquisition,

fee simple will be of limited value as a control. In the meantime it

should only be contemplated where all other expessions of the police and

purchase powers fall short of necessary controls and where adequate funds

for the maintenance of the acquired property are available.

Conservation Easements

A conservation eas.ement is a form of acquisition (voluntary or

compulsory) which results in public title to less than absolute rights in

12
a piece of private property. The state obtains the right to restrict

the private owner to specified uses or activities in return for compensa-
tion for the resulting decrease in his property value.4 The easement

is a useful device because there are many public land use purposes which

are compatible with restricted private ownership. Among those which have

been upheld by the courts as legitimate expressions of the public acquisi-
tion power are preservation of: 12

1. Natural beauty and scenic vistas.

2. Open spaces.

3. Unique, fragile or threatened resources, features or areas.

The acquisition of conservation easements is subject to the same legal

restrictions as apply to other exercises of the public acquisition
power:4,10 -

1. A public purpose must be shown. Physical possession is not
a precondition for public purpose.

2. The agency acquiring the easement must have been delegated the
authority to purchase or condemn land.

3. Just compensation must be made. This is usually defined as
the difference between the value of the property as restricted
and its value in its highest and best use.

4. The private property rights taken and those retained must be
specified.

The conservation easement is of particular interest as an alterna-

tive or supplement to exercise of the police power. Where it appears

likely that police po wer restrictions may constitute a taking a compar-

able level of control can be maintained through purchase or condemnation

of an easement. In both cases, however, effectiveness requires that some
minimal level of private'use be consistent with a declared public purpose.

This is most likely to occur where the restricted area comprises only

part of the owner's holding, the rest being subject to no extraordinary

controls.

The easement offers definite advantages where minimum restrictions

do not require outright acquisition. Where only defined rights are ac-

quired, just compensation as a reflection of fair market value may be
substantially less than for acquisition in fee simple. 6,12 The easement

will represent an especially good bargain where restrictions are placed

on an undeveloped parcel. If5 however, the parcel is heavily developed,

the cost of an easement may not be a great deal less than that of total

acquisition (fee simple).

The effectiveness of the easement will depend on:

1. The appropriateness of restrictions to (a) the sought after
public purpose, and (b) the land feature or area being
restricted.

2. The duration of restrictions. Not all easements can be or need
be in perpetuity.

The flexibility that is retained in applying restrictions. Ter-
mination should be possible where total acquisition (fee simple)
becomes desirable.

The easement could become a useful tool for controlling selected

areas under the Council's authority. Its general use would be restricted

by funding shortages and legal requirements. Under present legislation

the Council cannot purchase or condemn easements in land. It should have

access to this power as both a required acquisition technique under new

federal legislation and a necessary management tool. The Council can,

however, receive and administer gifts (46-23-8). It would, therefore,

appear useful to examine the incentives which may be offered to encourage

the donation of public conservation easements.

Donation of Easements: Incentives: Individual owners will not voluntarily

surrender rights to their property unless:

i. They are convinced that their interests as well as the general
public's are served by accepting certain restrictions.

2. The practical exercise of their private property rights is not
significantly compromised.

3. They are offered some tangible reward for whatever sacrifices
they do agree to make.

Conditions one and two suggest that it will be nearly impossible to

convince an owner that heshould tolerate controls which severely restrict

his use of any desirable portion of his holdings or which allow for public

access to and use of any part of his land. This will, of course, severely

limit the types of easements which will be voluntarily assumed. The addi-

tion of tax inducements should increase the owner's willingness to com-

promise in the public interest and may additionally provide methods for

protecting the public from his reneging on his obligation.

Taxation as an Incentive

It is important to*recognize that the primary tax affecting land

use is the real property tax administered on the municipal level. It is

not subject to state control. Since the Council has no authority to inter-

fere in local tax matters even where tax policy runs counter to sound land

use principles, it should approach this subject with extreme caution. The

forceful exercise of Council police powers over land activities and areas

subject to its control will discourage sympathetic municipal receipt of

suggestions in other areas (such as taxation). Some balance will have to

be struck between necessary firmness and desired local cooperation.

Manipulation of taxes for land use control purposes is limited by

two legal requirements:4

1. A public purpose must be demonstrated.

2. Equal protection must be guaranteed; i.e., taxes cannot be
discriminatory.

Rhode Island courts have recognized that a public purpose exists in
allowing nonuniform tax assessment.4 Taxes can, therefore, be.levied so
as to encourage preservation of open space.4

Four legally valid applications of tax inducements are presently

in use. These are (1) reduction in fair market value, (2) unlimited

deferral, (3) limited deferral and (4) in-lieu payment.

Reduction in Fair Market VaZue: This approach requir es that the Legisla-

ture authori ze (not order) municipalities to reduce the tax valuation of

lands subject to conservation or open space easements. In return for

agreeing to restrict.activity on his property to existing use, the owner

is taxed on that use and not on the basis of the normal "highest and best"
criteria.1,12 Reduced valuation requires that the community receive

some assurance that existing use will be continued. This is normally

accomplished through deeding of easements in perpetuity or by providing

penalties for development. The Rhode Island Legislature passed legisla-

tion in 1968 authorizing communities to tax open space at existing use

in return for conservation easements. Penalties are provided (Chapter

44-27, General Laws, 1968).

Unlimited Deferral: Taxes can be reduced by deferral of a portion of

the normal property tax on classified open space lands as long as they

remain undeveloped. Land can be withdrawn for development upon payment

of deferred or "roll back" taxes. There is unfortunately no strong in-

centive for any but the sincere conservationist to participate in such

a program. The speculator would be unlikely to participate because of

the large lump sum he would have to raise prior to withdrawal and open-

ing of his land for development. Unlimited deferral is not provided for

under existing Rhode Island legislation.

Limited Deferral: Limited deferral is provided for under the 1968

legislation previously mentioned. Classified open space is taxed at a

preferential rate (existing rather than best use). Roll back taxes equal

to the difference between the preferential and the best use taxes must
be paid when land is taken out of open space. 17 The roll back, however,

only applies to the present and any two previous tax years. It does not,

therefore, provide sufficient safeguards against long term speculation,

as land values are liable to increase more than a three year penalty will

reflect. Communities have been reluctant to risk potential losses at

the hands of speculators and much local controversy has arisen over appli-

cation of the law. Its value could be enhanced by adding additional

provisions:

1. A conservation easement should be deeded for a specified period.
Twenty years might be reasonable. After this, all restrictions
would lapse.

2. The tax rate should be more highly preferential (below existing
use) to encourage participation.

3. Stronger penalties should be levied for withdrawing before
the agreed upon date. Payment of a proportion ofassessed
evaluation high enough to exceed the amount deferred should
be required.. This will deter land speculation.

In-Liew Payment: In-lieu payment is an inducement offered by the state to

encourage communities to preserve open space and other areas of state

interest. It provides state subsidies to replace pro perty tax revenues

lost by favorable taxation of or outright acquisition of open space.

In-lieu payments are not currently made by the Rhode Island State govern-

ment nor is it likely that legislation authorizing them will be enacted

in the near future.

Taxation: Analysis: Rhode Island communities are hard pressed for

operating revenues. The property tax is their primary source. They need

to derive the maximum tax revenue from all their land and consequently

look favorably upon most types of development. While they are not un-

responsive to the need for open space., itis questionable whether they

are in any position to resist developmental pressures on high value land.

They are certainly not likely to favor further erosion of their tax base

by offering preferential open space taxes. The Council may, however,

wish to encourage coastal communities to investigate alternative revenue

sources more consistent with conservation objectives. It should not

anticipate a very positive response.

Other Acquisition Techniques

Partial Purchase and Severance: Partial purchase provides a technique

midway between acquisition in fee simple and acquisition of public ease-

ments. It is appropriate where acquisition of an entire parcel is un-

necessary and where easements provide insufficient restriction or are
totally incompatible with private property rights. 6 In such situations

sufficient control can often be obtained by acquiring only part of a land

holding and paying the owner severance charges. Acquisition costs may be

less than for acquisitionof the entire parcel, although if the acquired

portion is developed the savings might be minor. Partial purchase will

be subject to the general, legal, practical and financial limitations

of other exercises of the acquisition power.. It does not appear to

present any unique problems of its own.

Fee SinrpZe with Lease Back: Where a need for property in the future can

be foreseen, it is sometimes possible to acquire title in fee simple and

4
then lease the use of the developed land back to the original owner.

The private lease can be terminated with the owner's death, passed on to

a child or sold, depending on what terms are drawn into the agreement.

Change in use is usually prohibited. The lease back approach has

been applied by the National Park Service in the Cape Cod National

Seashore and seems to be a useful method of reserving land for conserva-

tion or eventual development. It allows for the interim continuance of

unobjectionable use while providing a source of revenue (the lease) which

can be applied to the acquisition cost or held in escrow for eventual site

development. Lease back provides an alternative to straight purchase

where no immediate use is likely. It may, therefore, encourage early

acquisition of desirable future recreation and open space sites by

providing a partial financial justification. Restrictions will be

practical (is existing use compatible with the natural environment and

eventual need?), legal (can a future public benefit be esta blished?),

and financial (can acquisition be funded?). Since it is extremely unlikely

that private owners will donate properties to the state on a lease back

basis the Council will be unable to avail itself of this technique unless

it is delegated the condemnation power.. Lease back itself should present

no problems. The Council is authorized to lease state-owned property

assigned to it (46-23-6).

Purchase of Options.: Another technique for the reservation of desirable

property for future public use is the negotiation of a purchase option.

The owner agrees to transfer title in fee simple for a specified price
at a future date.6 The agreement implies no state control over the land

until title is actually transferred. Existing use could continue until

that time. Presumably, if a new use which threatened the state's interest

in the property were initiated the state would exercise its purchase op-

tion at that time.

The purchase of options seems particularly appropriate where im-

mediate public use is not required and where existing use is unobjec-

tionable. It offers both immediate and long-term financial attractions.

The cost of the option itself will be substantially less than outright

purchase at fair market value, while the eventual purchase price will

presumably be established at less than future market value. The final

acquisition is placed in the future and can, therefore, be paid for by

those who will benefit from the proposed public use--all at a savings.

The opt ion approach is not well suited to preservation of areas

presently subject to undesirable or unsound development. It provides no

public cont rol until such time as the option is exercised. Uncontrolled

development could in the meantime destroy the values which made the area

desirable for future acquisition.

The purchase of an option will require that a future public purpose
be established.17 This purpose should be reflected as a specific proposed

use for the property being acquired. Vague and general declarations of

future public needs may not justify condemnation or purchase of private

property.

The purchase of options may provide a useful tool for meeting future

needs. The Council does not now have the authority to either ne gotiate

or condemn options. It would, however, acquire such authority if it

were delegated general acquisiton power by the Legislature.

Combinations: A Word of Caution

The combination of police power restriction with acquisition by

condemnation is felt by some planners to offer significant advantages for

land use control. Application of police power restrictions reduces the

fair market value of affected properties. They are worth less than they

would be under no restriction. Should the state then see a public purpose

in acquiring the restricted property it can condemn it at the fair market

value under restriction. Substantial savings in acquisition costs are

possible through application of this technique.

Combinations of the police and acquisition powers meet numerous

legal objections, however. Police power restrictions cannot be applied

for the sole purpose of reducing fair market value and hence facilitat-
ing acquisition. 10 The abuse of state powers inherent in such combina-

tions is obvious and will be struck down by even the most sympathetic

court. Restrictive ordinances will not be struck down simply because

they have the effect of reducing property values and, hence, potential
acquisition costs. 10 A restriction which is defensible as a legitimate

exercise of the police power is likely to be upheld. If, however, even

legitimate exercises of t he police power are combined with any but the most

coincidental and occasional exercises of the acquisition power, the courts

are liable to cry foul. Under the best of circumstances combinations

will be viewed with great suspicion.

Inverse Condemnation: The sole variation of combination which the

courts may be expected to routinely uphold applies to inverse condemna-

tion as reflected in modern wetlands controls (see Coastat WetZands

ControZs). I f the state's restriction*of wetlands use is found to

constitute a taking of private property (without just compensation),

the court can do either of two things:

1. Strike down the state's order and thereby restore the
affected property to unrestricted private use.

2. Require the state to pay the property owner just compensation
for continued restriction. This'would normally be implemented
through outright purchase under eminent domain powers.

Inverse condemnation provides the state with the option to either

drop its order or purchase the property at fair market value. The

important point to note, however, is that market value in this case

means unrestricted value. The purchase price is not determined by the

imposed restrictions and is consequently less subject to legal challenge.

Combinations: Conment: Combinations appear to create as many problems

as they solve. They are legally suspect and hint of a deviousness which

will be poorly received by the general public and the Legislature alike.

Situations may arise where combinations present themselves naturally.

These should be avoided where possible. Premediated use of thistechnique

does not appear advisable under any circumstances.

The Question of Jurisdiction

An examination of the Rhode Island Constitution and of pertinent

case law in this as well as other states suggests that the public may be

entitled to limited use of the shoreline above mean high water irregard-

less of private title.

Article I, Section 17 of the Rhode Island Constitution guarantees
the public use of the shore for fishing and other "privileges."18 The

right of access to and movement along the shore is not specifically

mentioned, but is strongly implied.

Swimming has been ruled by the courts as one of the "privileges"

referred to in the State Constitution (Jackvony vs. Powel, 67*, R.I. 218

[19411). Public shore rights as defined constitutionally are not condi-

tional upon the stage of the tide. Since public passage along the shore

in pursuit of fish or "privileges" can only be reasonably expected to take

place above mean high water at that state of the tide, it can be inferred

that the public has some right to pass over what are otherwise private
lands. 18

Whatever private rights exist in shore areas above mean high water

are, thus, at best unclear. They are defined more sharply, however, under

the common law doctrine of custom. Unchallenged public use of beach

areas above mean high water for an extended period of time has the effect

of superimposing certain minimum public rights over existing private
claims.16 The Oregon courts, for instance, have ruled that the public

has acquired a customary easement to use of the state's dry sand beaches

between high tide and the vegetation line. They have prohibited private
owners from doing anything to interfere with free public access. 16

Rhode Island courts have yet to rule on customary public rights to

beach areas. Until they do it would be unwise to base any management

position on the belief that such rights in fact.exist. Since the existence

of public beach rights should be of interest to the Council, it may wish

to seek judicial clarification of pertinent constitutional guara ntees

and common law doctrines. Where rights exist, they should be protected

from private infringement.

REFERENCES

1. Algmin, J. and G. Keller. 1972. Green Hill Barrier Beach Study:
Regulatory Mechanisms-Summary. Unpublished working paper.
Coastal Resources Center, Kingston, R.I.

2. American Law Institute. 1970. Model Land Development Code:
Tentative Draft No. 2. American Law Institute, Philadelphia.

3. American Law Institute. 1972. Model Land Development Code:
Tentative Draft No. 4. American Law Institute, Philadelphia.

4. Cameron, F. X. 1972. Land and Water Use Controls: Proceedings
of the Coastal Resources Management Council Workshop. CoAstal
Resources Center, Kingston, R.I.

5. Cameron, F. X. 1973. Personal communication.

6. Center for the Environment and Man. 1971. Shore Management
Guidelines. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers.
Washington@, D. C.

7. Coastal,Coordinating Council, State of Florida. 1972. Newsletter,
111 (1). Tallahassee, Florida.

8. Department of Community Planning and Area Development. 1972.
Green Hill Beach Study: Private Acquisition--Recommendations.
Unpublished draft. Coastal Resources Center, Kingston, R.I.

9. Department of Community Planning and Area Development. 1972.
Gr"'een Hill Beach Study: Potential Methods for Government
Acquisition. Unpublished draft. Coastal Resources Center,
Kingston, R.I.

10. Harvard Law Review. 1972. Techniques for Preserving Open Space,
75, Reprint (mimeo).

11. Jackson, W. L. 1972. The Evolving Role of the Federal Government
in the Management of Lake Michigan. University of Michigan
Sea Grant Technical Report No. 24.

12. Metropolitan Area Planning Council. 1969. Open Space-and
Recreation Program for Metropolitan Boston: Volume 4:
Massachusetts Open Space Law, BoE--on.

13. Morrison, S. 1973. Personal communication.

14. New England River Basins Commission. 1970. Flood Hazard Area
Management for New England, Boston.

15. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 1969.
San Francisco Bay Plan Supplement.. San-Francisco.

16. Schoenbaum, T. J. 1972. Public Rights in Coastal Zone Management
in North Carolina Law Review, 51 (1).

17. Statewide Planning Program. 1972. Rhode Island State Land Use
Plan: Part 5--Implementation of State Development Policies.
Draft. Providence, R.I.

18. Statewide Planning Program. 1972. Technical Paper No. 21:
Protection and Control of the Salt Water Shore Area.
Providence, R.I.

19. State of,Rhode Island. Constitution, as amended.

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

General Conclusions-

Rhode Island's barrier beaches are a valuable natural resource
in need of protection and careful management.

The barriers are made of unconsolidated sediments and are fre-
quentZy altered by the forces of the ocean. Barrier dunes are
stabilized by vegetation, primarily beachgrass, and are easily
damaged by human activities. The barriers are,low, in profile and
highly vulnerable to wind and wave erosion particularly during
hurricanes.

The barri ers protect a low lying and frequently developed main-
land and a series of ponds and marsh lands. Many of the ponds
provide food and nursery grounds for commercial and sport fin
and sheZZ fish species. They also support large seasonal pop-
ulations, of waterfowl.

The barrier ponds are especially sensitive to man's activities
because their controlling parameters (characteristics of flow,
water properties and physical form) all can be easily altered.

In their natural state the undeveloped barriers are uniquely
beautiful and will be of increasing value as the region develops.

The barriers are a limited resource. There are 30 miles of barrier
beaches in Rhode island of which 40% are developed. Pressures to
develop and increase the human use of the remainder are rapidly
mounting.

The above observations suggest the following management principles:

1. Even though the barrier beach municipalities should share

responsibilities with the state, a uniform management program

requires a large measure of state control. For this reason

the Coastal Council should maintain its present requirement

that all developments whether state, local or private must

receive a permit from the Coastal Council as a final step

after local and other state authorizations have been obtained.

The Coastal Council should provide minimum standards to the

municipalities for the future use and management of the barrier

beaches.

2. No residential or commercial development should be permitted

on remaining undeveloped barrier beaches, but in some areas

properly designed public recreational facilities may be

appropriate.

3 On developed or partially developed barrier beaches no con-

struction, with the exception of boardwalks over dunes should

be permitted on dunes or in marshes. Construction may be

permissable behind well-developed dunes that will provide a

mea sure of-protection from hurricane damage.

4. Pedestrian access across dunes to the beach should be over

boardwalks or similar devices designed to prevent trampling

of beachgrass. Foot traffic should be prohibited in the dunes

except along marked stabilized trails.

5. Vehicles should be permitted on the beaches only at specific

times and seasons. No vehicles should be permitted on the

dunes.

6. Adequate public right-of-ways to the shore should be established

and clearly marked.

7. The Coastal Council should encourage state, local and private

owners in the barrier beach zone to develop programs of erosion

control and dune stabilization.

B. Funds should be secured for acquisition of barrier beach areas

important as recreation or conservation areas or for public

right-of-ways to the beaches.

Responsibilities for Inplementation:

Cooperation between local and state authorities and private citizens

is essential if the management plan is to be successful.

It should be possible to achieve several elements of the plan by

either state or local regulation, or a combination of the two. These

include such-things as effective control of motor vehicles and pedestrian

traffic, dune erosion control and stabilization programs and public educa-

tion.

From,the'beginning of the study it was recognized that the most

difficult problem is that of private property rights. Aside from the

Ninigret Conservation Area in Charlestown and a few other parcels in state

or local ownership, or held in conservation trust by the Audubon Society,

the barrier beaches most vulnerable to development are privately owned.

Regulation which seriously affects private property values may face court

challenge and some form of compensation to the owners for a loss in value

should be anticipated. This means that funds should be found at the

state or local levels to pay compensation when necessary.

For this reason we strongly urge consideration of a Key Parcel

Acquisition Fund financed through user fees at all state recreational

facilities and in turn matched by federal funds such as those administered

by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. One possibility might be to amend

the present state Recreational Area Development Fund Act by adding the

power to use the fund for acquisition. The only other avenues f or develop-

ment of a substantial Key Parcel Acquisition Fund appear to be a direct

appropriation by the General Assembly or a special statewide bond issue.

If user fees are not acceptable then the other methods should be explored.

We.want to emphasize that some financial reso urces will he needed at some

point to support regulation.

At the same time, it may not be necessary to move toward full

acquisition in all cases. The various options discussed in the preceding

chapter such as conservation easements, sale or donation of development

rights, purchase and lease-back, etc., all represent possible ways to

control future development at a saving of limited acquisition funds. These

should be explored.

In summary, the following steps toward implementation appear to be

best among the alternatives discussed in the earlier chapters.

State Responsibilities.*

1. Since all permanent building in dune fields or in salt marshes

should be prohibited, the Coastal Resources Management Council

in cooperation with the Department of Natural Resources should

arrange for an engineering survey of all developed or partially

developed barrier beache s to precisely identify remaining

back-dune land on which construction might be permitted.

2. The Council should have building codes drawn up by appropriate

state agencies to be followed in the back-dune areas where

construction may be permitted. These should be established

as state minimum standards to be met by the municipalities.

3. Similar state standards should be developed for construction

of walkways crossing the dunes to the beach front.

4. A special study of all privately-owned barrier beaches should

be carried out to determine the value in terms of conservation

or public recreation of privately owned parcels in order to

establish a priority list for acquisition or development

control. At the same time this survey should identify exist-

ing and potential public access ways neede d to permit cross-over

points to the beach.

5. If a.Key Parcel Acquisition Fund is created through user fees

collected at state recreational facilities a portion of the

funds should be paid to cities and towns where state acquisi-

tion programs take place to compensate the communities for

localservices such as police, fire and public works required

to support the state programs.

6. In areas where building will be permitted under minimum

standards established by the state, sellers of barrier beach

property, as a condition of sale, should be required to inform

potential buyers that the property is in a hurricane flood

hazard area. To further strengthen this provision, the necessary

legislation should require a statement of the buyer's aware-

ness of the hazard to be attached to the deed before it is

accepted for filing by town and city clerks. Generally

all of the barrier beaches, with the exception of a few high

dunes at certain locations, are below flood le vels ofStandard

Project Hurricanes established by Army Engineers.

7. The Department of Natural Resources should be urged to take

the lead in creating an information center for dune stabiliza-

tion and make available, possibly in conjunction with the

University of Rhode Island, a source of beachgrass for state,

local and private use in dune-building projects.

8. The state should take the lead in dune stabilization on its

own property, utilizing its beachgrass and snow fencing

projects as demonstration plots of educational value to the

communities and private citizens. It also should lead in

protecting fragile areas from misuse.

The Coastal Council should make certain that regulations

affecting foot and vehicular traffic on all barrier beaches

are vigorously enforced both by the state or municipalities.

Cross-dune foot traffic should be channeled to special

cross-over points. Vehicles should be permitted on approved

back-dune roadways. Vehicles should be prohibited on the

beaches from June 1 to October 1 but allowed to drive on the

beaches from October through May only by way of established

.entrances at the ends of the barriers in areas where local

regulations permit. No vehicular cross-overs from back-dune

roads or from the beach through the dunes should be permitted.

In all other cases vehicles should be confined to approved

state and municipal roads. Parking should be limited to

approved parking lots that do not damage dunes. No parking

should be permitted on dunes.

Local Responsibilities:

1. It is recommended that all barrier beach communities adopt

flood plane zoning ordinances prohibiting all construction in

dune fields and at least matching state minimum standards for

back-dune construction.

2. Barrier beach communities through their building inspectors or

other permit-granting agencies should make known to buyers or

potential developers of barrier beach properties that in

addition to local permits they must obtain a perm it from the

Coastal Resources Management Council.,

3. While most communities now have ordinances barring vehicles

from barrier beach areas from June to October it is recommended

that additional ordinances be adopted prohibiting foot traffic

throug h the dunes except over approved walkways and that such

measures be vigorously.enforced.

4. In their own community plans, barrier beach areas important to

the communities for recreation or conservation purposes should

be identified and local acquisition programs should be co-

ordinated with similar state programs to prevent development.

APPENDIX I

THE REPORT OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON BARRIER BEACHES

When the study by the Coastal Resources Center reached final

stages of development a 12-member citizens committee was appointed

by the planning and.policy committee of the Coastal Resources Management

Council to contribute management recommendations.

Nine members of the Citizens Committee were appointed by the

town and city councils of the communities involved. The Coastal

Resources Center made available the contents of this volume and much of

the information found in Volume II to the Citizens Committee which con-

ducted four working sessions on February 7, 14, 21, and 28, 1973. The

report which follows was then adopted and submitted to the planning and

policy committee of the Coastal Council. This report and the recommenda-

tions of the Coastal Resources Center found primarily in Chapter VI of

this volume were under study by the planning and policy committee as

this volume was printed.

100

Intr oducti on

The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council is a

state agency which was established in mid-1971 with responsibilities

for planning and managing the coastal resources of the state. In

response to citizen concern over a recent wave of development on

barrier beaches the Council in September, 1972, in effect, called for

a temporary moratorium on such development to allow it to come up with

a detailed plan which is required for it to regulate and manage such

areas. Sin@ce that time the Coastal Resources Center at the University

of Rhode Island, working as a technical advisor to the Council, has

been preparing background information and recommendations to assist

in development of such a plan.

The final plan will provide the basis for regulation of

development on the barrier beaches by the Coastal Resources Management

Council. It also will provide information and recommendations to

coordinate the efforts of private individuals, local communities and

state and federal agencies in proper management of these resources.

In December, 1972 the nine ocean communities were asked by

the Council's committee on planning and policy to designate members

of a citizens committee to study the problem and the report by the

Coastal Resources Center. In addition four "at large" members were

appointed by the Council's committee on planning and policy. One of

the latter was unable to participate for personal reasons and resigned.

The letter from Stuart 0. Hale, Acting Director of the Coastal Resources

Center, to the town councils involved,follows:

101

"As you know, the Coastal Resources Center at the University of
Rhode Island has been working closely with the state Coastal Resources
Management Council on development of management plans and guidelines for
our marine areas. As part of this continuing project a special study has
been in progress this past fall and winter on the barrier beaches of the
state.

"My group here at the University works directly with the Coastal
Council's Committee on Planning and Policy headed by Mr. Alvaro Freda,
vice chairman of the Council. Other members of this Council committee
are Dr. William Miner of Jamestown and Mr. Joseph Turco of Westerly. Mr.
Freda and his associates have asked me to put together a citizens committee
to work with us on barrier beach policy recommendations. They strongly
feel that the towns and the cities involved should have good representation
on the citizens committee. I heartily concur. We aren't looking for a
rubber stamp but rather serious, hardheaded and realistic examination of
the alternatives. The Coastal Resources Center will serve as staff for
the citizens committee.

"We are planning for a committee of about a dozen individuals, nine
of whom would represent the coastal communities. Could I ask you to
designate a member from your community who is thoroughly familiar with your
local problems and the attitudes and aspirations of your citizens? I would
appreciate it if I could receive the name, address and phone number of your
designee as soon as possible.

"Our timetable for submission of recommendations to the Coastal
Council is about March 1. This means that the report from the Coastal
Resources Center and the report and recommendations of the citizens com-
mittee should be in final form by about mid-February. I would like to set
up an initial meeting of the committee by mid-January and can visualize a
minimum of four meetings on a weekly basis from about January.15 to February 15.
It is quite possible we w ill need more.

"I do hope you will give this matter your immediate attention because
the exercise in which we.are engaged can have a most important impact on your
community."

Members of the committee consisted of:

Mr. Richard E. Updegrove Middletown
Mr. Clement A. Griscom, IV Westerly
Mr. Kenneth R. Duhamel Charlestown
Mrs. Nelson Cabot Little Compton
Mr. Herbert Maack Narragansett
Mr. Charles J. Dowling, Jr. Jamestown
Mr. Daniel McCarthy Newport
Mr. Joseph Frisella Wakefield
Mr. John Gray Block Island
Mr. Carl W. Haffenreffer Little Compton
member-at-large (resigned for personal reasons)
Mrs. Margaret Neubert North Kingstown
member-at-large
Sen. William O'Neill Narragansett
member-at-large
Dr. Scott Nixon University of Rhode Island
member-at-large

113

Conclusion

The steps we are.recommending are not simple or subject to

implementation by a simple directive to a single st ate or local agency.

A combination of state, community and private cooperation is required.

The goal preservation and proper utilization of a unique and limited

resource is so important, however, that the efforts of ail Rhode

Islanders, whether inland or shore residents, should,be exerted for

effective management.

112

true of dunes along state beaches as it is of dunes around private

homes. It is true that severe hurricanes will level even well-stabilized.

dunes but healthy, beach grass-protected dunes can survive ordinary

storms and slow. the movement of sand into the salt ponds as well as

buffering storm effects on development beyond the ponds.

We feel that along many of the barrier beaches local property

owners were aware of the problem, but have neither the information nor

the tools to deal with it adequately. If these are provided by either

the state or the municipality it is felt that voluntary cooperation

would be generally secured.

Two requirements are necessary for a successful program:

-a readily available and well-advertised source of beach grass,

-education about the need for stabilization, the best means to

achieve it, and technical assistance in applying such techniques.

Either the state or the federal government (Soil Conservation

Service) might be called in to develop such a program. The University

of Rhode Island is also a rich source of expertise in this problem.

The barrier beach plan should designate priority areas in immediate

need of stabilization.

Responsibility for initial implementation and coordination of the

program should be assumed by local government.

This could include mobilizing local groups such as the Boy Scouts,

Girl Scouts, schools and other organizations to assist in planting

grass and erecting other barriers.

Commercial advertising signs on barrier beaches should be

prohibited.

Foot Traffic: The major problem resulting from foot traffic on

barrier beaches has been the destruction of beach grass which leads

to blowouts and washovers. Beach grass is extremely vulnerable to

destruction by foo t or wheel.

We recommend that human activity directly on dunes be strictly

regulated.

Access to beach areas should be appropriately marked. The use

of boardwalks or other devices designed to prevent trampling of beach

grass on dunes should be required.

Where practical,-access to beaches over dunes should be restricted

by snow fencing.

The state should provide technical advice to local governments

and private individuals on the building and siting of such walks.

Local communities should be encouraged to:

-prohibit activities directly.on the dunes,

-require rebuilding and stabilizing of dunes damaged through

past activities such as construction of buildings,

-require that boardwalks be built to provide the property owner

proper access to his beach.

Where local communities fail to take such action, the, state should

assume.responsibility for these regulations.

Dune Stabilization: Without some stabilizing force such as beach grass,

snow fencing, etc., dunes would be rapidly eroded by wind and wave

action. Thus in areas where human activity has increased erosion of

dunes an active program of stabilization is needed. This is as much

110

enforcement of on-street parking regulations.

Human activity should be restricted in such a way as to minimize

ecological damage to dunes, marshes, and ponds. Stringent anti-

littering regulations should be established and enforced by both state

and local government.

User fees at state bathing facilities should be instituted and

should be high enough to be an important source of funds for acquisition

and management of state beaches. While there is already limited pre-

cedent for such application of fees, legislation is needed to broaden

and strengthen the program.

Users of state beaches often place a heavy load on police and

other municipal services while spending little in.the community to

generate tax revenues to pay for required services. We recommend that

a portion of the user fees be allocated to the local community to

assist in financing municipal services required by beach users.

VehicuZar Traffic: We believe that vehicular use of the barri er beaches

as a recreational outlet is incompatible not only with other recrea-

tional uses of these beaches, but also and perhaps more importantly,

with sound natural resource management practices.

Even with local area restrictions and generally adequate sur-

veillance and enforcement, the ecological damage that can be and has

been done by even a small number of vehicles supports the need for a

general management policy of exclusion of all motorized vehicles from

the sand barrier beaches of Rhode Island except for service or emer-

gency purposes.

109

to the public health, safety, or welfare is involved.

We also recommend that necessary legislation be passed to require

that government begiven options to buy land in areas designated for

acquisition in a management plan or program whenever it is available

forsale.

The municipalities should have the first option. Upon their

refusal, the state should have a.second option.

This should apply to all property in designated areas and should

apply at all subsequent offerings even though options are not exercised

initially.

Acquisition should be at an appraised fair market value.

In cases where land is already developed, the relocation of

buildings inland (such as took place in acquisition of the Ninigret

Conservation Area) should be encouraged.

The purchase or lease of conservation easements to prevent

development, or the use of incentive taxation.such as a variation of

the current open space tax program-also should be considered in cases

where acquisition is not desirable or possible.

The social and economic effects of state facilities on local

areas also should be considered, and a program acceptable to both

worked out to deal With potential problems. -These effects in the past

have included serious traffic problems, police and other service costs

to local government, and aesthetic deterioration.

The human capacity.of public facilities should be determined and

the use of such facilities limited accordingly. Techniques for limiting

use include controlled pedestrian access, limited parking, and strict

108

In these areas the state should set minimum standards for

evaluating the environmental impact of such development. Where com-

munities adopt these or more stringent standards, precedence should be

given to their findings. In cases where such regulations are inadequate,

the state should assume greater responsibility.

Acquisition and Management: In areas where necessary regulations

must be so stringent as to prohibit building, or make it so expensive

or difficult that most property owners cannot afford it, the state

or town should acquire the land.

Other areas which should be acquired include those where some

public use is desired or where conservation of natural resources is

important for ecological reasons.

Acquisition should not be on an unplanned basis, however, but

should be carried out as the implementation of an overall program.

Such a program should include designated use of the area after

acquisition, an d should establish a mechanism for proper management,

including the provision of adequate funding.

Too often, in our estimation, land owned by the state has deteri-

orated because of inadequate resource management practices i.e. poor

dune conditions at Ninigret Conservation Area.

The management program should include enforcement of necessary

regulations, coordination of activities between the state and munici-

pality, signs clearly designating restricted and/or fragile areas, and

educational.displays. Hazardous areas should be well marked.

We recommend acquisition through the use of eminent domain, only

in cases,where significant destruction of a natural resource or danger

107

-to maintain absorption-buffering capacity of marshes for

storm water levels.

At the same time we recognize that a property owner has the

right to make a reasonable use of his land. Even if the state or

local government intends to buy this property in the future the

government should not, prohibit reasonable use or restrict-it so

extensively that it becomes a burden to the owner.

Areas of Particular Concern

BuiLding on the Barriers: Building on barrier beaches is not a

wise practice. However, we recognize that there are certain types

and regions of barrier beaches which present fewer problems than

others. For example, the Coastal Resources Center report indicates

that back-dune areas may be more amenable to building than fore-dune

and dune crest. Also certain areas have been built up for years and

have survived major hurricanes with minor damage.

We recommend that a system of priorities for regulation and

acquisition be established which recognizes the differing character

of these areas. This should be carried out-by the state inconsulta-

tion with the local communities.

The definition of the capacity of particular areas to withstand

development we prefer to leave to those with technical expertise.

In areas.where building is to be allowed, initial responsibility

for regulation should be left to the communities through local zoning,

building, and other ordinances.

lo6

risk to their own lives and property, the damage which they

are doing to a natural resource, or the importance of the beaches,

dunes, marshes and ponds.

-that others using such development also are not aware of the

risk.

-about destruction to property along the shores of the ponds

caused by wreckage from barrier development carried inland by

storms.

-about the financial condition of municipalities which depend

on periodically destroyed beach development for portions of

their tax base.

-about the financial burden on towns resulting from replacing

storm and erosion destroyed utilities necessary to service

barrier development, from efforts to evacuate barrier residents

stranded by storms, and from the need to provide storm protection

and beach stabilization facilities to protect such development.

Barrier beaches need to be preserved and enhanced.

-to provide recreational facilities for the public at large,

such as swimming, walking, fishing, hunting and wildlife

appreciation.

-as protectors of the marshes and ponds which provide spawning

grounds and nurseries for offshore fisheries, important shell-

fish habitats, and nesting and migratory resting grounds for

wildfowl,

-to maintain and improve their buffer capacity to moderate

storm waves,

105

The plan should establish minimum standards for evaluating the

impact of barrier beach uses on the environment. Local communities

should be encouraged to adopt these or more stringent standards as

part of local zoning, building, or other ordinances.

Besides setting minimum standards, the state should also provide

technical assistance.and guidance and arrange for financial aid to the

communities where necessary to help in implementation of the plan.

As in the development of the plan, public education and information

should play an important role in implem entation.

Perm it applications and hearings at both the state and local level

should play an important role in implementation.

Problems affecting implementation should be well publicized.

Technical advice should be made available to the private citizen

as well as to local government.

Besides being able to assist directly in implementation, an

informed publ ic will provide a strong political base to bolster local

governmental efforts.

B. Objectives and Policies

The Basis for Action

The Committee recognizes that barrier beaches are one of the

greatest natural resources of the state, and that they perform various

functions and provide various amenities, but they are fragile and in

need of protection.

We are concerned:

-that people building on barrier beaches are not aware of the

104

and in such a manner create an audience receptive to programs and

plans, and better equipped to evaluate them.

The need for the plan should be made clear. Public meetings, the

news media, mailings, etc., should be active parts of the planning

process.

Implementation of the Plan

We recommend that where the municipalities are willing and able

to implement the barrier beach plan they should be encouraged to do so.

Local government is more aware of the problems and needs of its

area, and is likely to be move responsive to the desires of local.

citizens who will be most affected by the plan.

It is only after a demonstrated inability or unwillingness on

the part of a community to take the necessary steps toward implementing

the plan that the s tate should assume the major regulatory role. A

reasonable time.limit should be agreed upon before this transfer takes

place.

Particularly, allocation of land uses on barrier beaches through

zoning should continue to be a local function.

To assist local communities in determining appropriate zoning for

barrier beaches, the state should provide technical guidance and advice
to communities'. For example, such assistance might include information

on the impact of various t.Vpes of zoning on the environment, on the

tax base of the community, on community facilities or on other areas

of local concern. In addition, the state might design a set of model

ordinances for the beaches.

103

Management Council. It covers those issues which the Citizens Committee

feels are of particular importance to them as citizens of local com-

munities. Except where otherwise noted, recommendations represent a

consensus of the Committee members.

The Appendices of this report contain reports from those members

who wished to express a particular concern. These individual reports

were not edited or voted on by the Committee.

A. General Approach

Development of a State Plan

Without a continuing two-way open communication between govern-

ment and citizens any government-initiated plan, no matter how well

conceived, runs the risk of being viewed with suspicion as an attempt

to diminish the position of local government to respond to local

problems.

We believe, therefore, that any state plan for the barrier beaches

must be the result of an open pZanning process which incorporate local

government and citizens in each step of the process. Preparation of

the plan must be accompanied by a continuous and active effort to inform

and educate the public.

The importance of public education at every stage of the process

cannot be overstressed. An informed public is one that we believe will

respond to the problems of the barrier beaches.

The state should initiate an active program of public education

to provide information on the nature and problems of barrier beaches,

102.

They were assisted in their deliberations by the staff of the

Coastal Resources Center and the Statewide Planning Program. In

addition, members of the Council's committee on planning and policy

attended all meetings. The committee met four times during February,

1973 prior to drafting the report which follows.

The citizens committee was not asked,nor has attempted, to

prepare a plan for barrier beach management. Nor has it attempted a

detailed or technical critique of the report to be made by the Coastal

Resources Center to the Council. Although the Coastal Resources

Center made available to the committee in the form of "working papers"

sections of its report, the views which follow were arrived at in the

course of discussion and debate after weighing the available technical

evidence. It should also be pointed out that the recommendations

presented here do not necessarily reflect those of the town governments

involved since it was not possible in all c ases in the time available

to fully communicate with town and city councils and bring back their

views.

Public hearings over proposed regulations on the building at

Green Hill in South Kingstown brought out large numbers of local

citizens, and consequent controversy and actions indicated that issues

of deep and widespread concern were at stake, both at Green Hill and

on the other barrier beaches of the state. Debates over building, beach

buggies, public access and use, state beach management, etc., are not

new. Such issues, however, are central to the development of a plan

for management of the state's barrier beaches.

Thi s report is a set of recommendations to the Coastal Resources

114

APPENDIX 2

Glossary

Barrier beach: a narrow strip of land made of unconsolidated

material that extends roughly parallel to the general coastal

trend 'and is separated from the mainland by a relative iy narrow

body of water.

2. Beach: the zone of unconsolidated material (sand, pebbles or

cobble) extending landward from the mean low water line to where

there is a change in material or physiographic form such as a

zone of permanent vegetation, or dunes.

3. Beach face: the section of beach normally exposed to acti-on

of wave uprush.

4. Berm: the nearly horizontal portion of a beach formed by the

deposition of material by wave action.

5. Beachgrass, American: 'Ammophila breviligulata is the natural

primary dune vegetation in New England. It is a grass which

grows in clumps and traps sand in its roots and between its

stems.

6. Blowout: a wi nd eroded segment of a dune stretching from the

dune crest to the dune base. Wind erosion takes place where

vegetation is removed or killed and unprotected sand is exposed.

7. Culm: an individual beach grass plant including root stock and

stem.

8. Dune: a ridge or mound of loose, wind-blown material, usually sand.

115

9. Dune field: an area where dunes are the dominant physiographic

feature.

10. Mean-sea level: the average height of the ocean surface

for all stages ofthe tide.

11. Scarp, beach: an almost vertical slope along the beach or dune

foot caused by wave erosion. It may vary in height from a few

inches to several feet.

12. Standard Project Hurricane: a hypothetical hurricane intented

to represent the most severe combination of hurricane para-

meters that is reasonably characteristic of a specified region,

excluding extremely rare combinations, calculated by the U.S.

Weather Bureauand the Corps of Engineers.

13. Still water level: the elevation that the surface of the water

would assume if all wave action were absent.

14. Storm surge: a rise in sea level along the coast due to the

stress of high winds on the water surface and reduced atmospheric

pressure.

15. Swash: the rush of water up the beach face following the

breaking of a wave.

16. Tombolo: a barrier bar or barrier spit connecting an island to

the mainland or to another island.

17. Washover: the segment of a dune line that has been lowered by

waves washing across the barrier.

18. Washover fan: a delta shaped feature on the landward side of a

barrier formed from material eroded by waves during the formation

and working of a washover.

116

Acknow tedgraents

The Report on Rhode Island's Barrier Beaches, while principally

the work of Stephen B. Olsen and Malcolm J. Grant, resource analysts

on the staff of the Coastal Resources Center, could not have been

completed without considerable assistance from a number of individuals

and agencies. George Keller, center staff member, supervised the work

of George Odell, Sanford Lyne, and Mrs. Betsy Found in gathering owner-

ship statistics about the bairrier beaches. He also contributed to the

basic land use planning research.

A group of University of Rhode Island faculty members served as

a scientific committee and reviewed the accuracy of Chapters II and III
in Volume I. The committee consisted of Dr. Robert L. McMaster, Dr.*Saul B.

Saila, Dr. Scott Nixon, Dr. H. Perry Jeffries, Dr. Elmer Palmatier, and

Prof. John Jagschitz.

Prof. Francis Cameron of the University Marine Affairs Program

contributed useful information for Chapter IV - Tools of Management. The

staff of the Statewide Planning Program, in particular, Daniel Varin, Chief,

Bradford Southworth and Mrs. Susan Morrison, reviewed sections of the

material and consulted with the Coastal Resources Center staff on numerous

occasions. Assistance also was rendered by the State Department of Natural

Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Special thanks should go to the town and city clerks and tax

assessors of Westerly, Charlestown, South Kingstown, Narragansett, Jamestown,

Newport, Middletown, Little Compton and New Shoreham for their courtesies

in making municipal records available.

117

Basic map work was done by Ecological Associates of North

Kingstown as part of a contract with the Coastal Resources Center and

maps appearing in Volume II were drawn by Pedro Leitao, a student in

the URI Department of Community Planning and area development.

Mrs. Alice Allen and Mrs. Anne Barrington spent many hours in

typing, proofreading and.collating the material.

The Coastal Resources Center at the University of Rhode Island

began work in the fall and winter of 1971 on an inventory of the marine

resources and coastal features of the state as a first step in the planning

and managem ent process required of the State's Coastal Resources Manage-

ment Council under a law passed by the General Assembly in the summer

of 1971. The natural resources phase of the inventory was partially

completed by the fall of 1972 when the Coastal Council rearranged its

priorities as a result of activities at Green Hill Beach, South Kingstown.

With approximately five months available in working time, the Coastal

Resources Center was asked to treat the barrier beaches as the first

complete segment in its overall inventory and planning task. In the

limited time available, we have attempted to follow this directive.

Undoubtedly, there will be errors in publication. We hope there are no

major errors in fact. An inexpensive form of printing has been employed

to both conserve funds and save time.

The Coastal Resources Center is not an official arm of the Coastal

@,Resources Management Council. Working in a voluntary public.service

capacity, it draws on a small technical staff and, as needed, the expertise

of the marine science and marine affairs faculty of the University of

Rhode Island. Current financial support consists primarily of University

Funds, a portion of the institutional grant to the Univers ity from the Office

of Sea Grant Programs, U. S. Department of Commerce, and a matching fund

grant made available by former Governor Frank Licht through the Department

of Natural Resources.

Stuart 0. Hale
Acting Director
COASTAL RESOURCES CENTER

1.13-ATE DUE

GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED IN U,S.A.

3 6668 14105 824U