Forced to submit a plan to remove illegal seawall, Quidnessett still backs water reclassification

A man fishes along the shoreline immediately north of the illegal wall built by the Quidnessett Country Club in North Kingstown. The wall makes the spot no longer accessible to the public from the south. (Save the Bay)

Faced with the threat of additional fines if it failed to meet the state’s July 26 deadline, Quidnessett Country Club submitted plans to remove an illegal seawall from its property.

But the plans obtained by Rhode Island Current do not reflect the kind of expert, in-depth restoration required for a sensitive coastal feature.

Indeed, most of the two-page email Quidnessett’s attorney, Jennifer Cervenka, submitted to the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council focuses on defending the stone seawall the country club built without permission along its northeastern property line in January 2023. Three sentences of the email are dedicated to the seawall removal, which would be taken down in phases starting with the portion closest to the water, according to the letter.

North Kingstown country club on rocky terrain in quest to keep illegal wall

Laura Dwyer, a CRMC spokesperson, said Monday that the agency is still reviewing the submission and could not immediately comment on its contents.

But Mike Jarbeau, Narragansett Baykeeper for Save the Bay, was not impressed.

“This seems very incomplete to me,” he said of Quidnessett’s plans. “It does not appear to have met the directive of the enforcement staff, and honestly, it doesn’t appear that the country club is taking enforcement seriously.”

Jarbeau did not think state regulators would dub the submission complete, either.

But, he added, “This is such an unprecedented violation that I just don’t know.”

Patti Doyle, a spokesperson for Quidnessett did not answer specific questions about potentially missing or incomplete parts of the plan.

“We’ll continue to work with CRMC as we have in the past and communicate directly with them on components of our submission,” Doyle said in an email Monday.

Since being caught by state regulators and environmental watchdogs last summer, the country club has tried to avoid taking down the illegal, 600-foot long stone wall — known as a riprap revetment — separating its golf course from the nearby marsh. Instead, it has asked the council to downgrade the state designation of the waters, which, if approved, could potentially authorize the stone structure.

The CRMC through its Planning and Procedures Subcommittee is reviewing Quidnessett’s petition to reclassify the water, with a recommendation expected by early fall.

But the agency has not eased up on enforcement, denying Quidnessett’s request for an extension on the restoration plan, holding the club to its July 26 deadline to submit a professionally-reviewed plan to remove the seawall and shore up the sand and vegetation around it.

Hours before the deadline, Cervenka submitted the two-page letter in which she continued to defend the seawall’s necessity to protect the club’s 18-hole golf course, including the 14th hole directly adjacent to the marsh.

“If another major storm hits the restored unarmored bluff, it may destabilize the foundation upon which the 14th hole sits, endangering players, or gut the bluff even further, causing irreversible damage to property and the Club’s business,” Cervenka wrote.

The restoration proposal calls for removing the stones closest to the shoreline first, followed by a middle section, and finally, the removal of rock at the top of the bluff along the golf cart paths.

There is no mention of the coastal stabilization and vegetation replacement required by state regulators, nor is there proof the plan was completed by someone with professional qualifications, although the club also submitted a topographic map which shows it was updated by a professional land surveyor earlier this month.

The CRMC in its initial May letter requiring the restoration plan indicated that the club had 90 days to complete the steps of its plan once approved. Even if that happens, the illegal barrier could end up being resurrected if the country club receives its requested water reclassification and subsequent permitting approval.

Which could harm the crumbling coastline even more, Jarbeau acknowledged.

However, he also pointed out that the existing stone wall does not have the backing of prior, structural analysis, meaning it also poses safety risks to the environment and the people around it.

While not desirable in his eyes, a new wall built in its place, with proper permits would at least offer safety assurances.

It’s also possible that state regulators won’t approve a new permanent structure; even if they grant the water classification, they don’t have to authorize a stone seawall according to state regulations.

Dwyer stressed the importance of separating agency enforcement from the ongoing review of the water classification.

“It’s a major violation,” she said of the seawall. “Ideally, we want it to be removed.”

Separate from state enforcement, Quidnessett is also facing potential penalties by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the seawall, part of which falls within federally-designated waters.

Since the May violation notice was issued, the club has met with federal regulators and submitted proof of additional survey work on the area, which remains under review as of mid-July, according to a separate, July 19 email Cervenka sent to the CRMC.

Updated to include a response from Patti Doyle, a spokesperson for Quidnessett Country Club.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX