significant erosion occurs; (2) identifying those 

 areas where erosion presents a serious problem 

 because the rate of erosion, considered in conjunc- 

 tion with economic, industrial, recreational, agri- 

 cultural, navigational, demographic and other 

 relevant factors, indicates that action to halt such 

 erosion may be justified; (3) describing generally 

 the most suitable type of remedial action for those 

 areas that have a serious erosion problem; (4j 

 providing preliminary cost estimates for such 

 problem areas for action to stop erosion; (5) 

 recommending priorities among the serious prob- 

 lem areas for action to stop erosion; and (6) 

 providing State and local authorities with informa- 

 tion and recommendations to assist the creation 

 and implementation of state and local coast and 

 shoreline erosion programs. 



The study should contribute significantly to the 

 Federal and State solution of the erosion problem. 

 The Corps of Engineers estimates that about $1 

 million is required for this study. Funding should 

 be made available as soon as possible. 



The Federal Government appears to be assum- 

 ing the greater share of costs in projects involving 

 shoreline protection when benefits may be dispro- 

 portionately local.^ ' We recommend that the 

 proposed study include re-examination of the 

 formulas for Federal-local sharing as well as for the 

 "benefit-cost" ratio system for justifying projects. 



C. National Port Requirements Survey 



Future trends in shipping and integrated con- 

 cepts for general transportation (i.e., larger ships, 

 deeper drafts, containerization, higher speeds, 

 rapid turn-around etc.) may pose requirements 

 competing even further for estuary use. New 

 concepts in port development may, in many 

 instances, indicate that improved port design and 

 location would relieve an estuary of this vital but 



The earliest Federal legislation in beach erosion in 

 1930 provided for 50 per cent Federal funding for plan- 

 ning and no F.ederal funding in works. In 1946 this was 

 amended for Federal participation to one-third the cost of 

 construction. Since 1946 it has been steadily liberalized 

 to Federal funding up to 70 per cent (An act authorizing 

 Federal participation in the cost of protecting shores of 

 pubUcly owned property, Aug. 13, 1946, 60 Stat. 1056 

 (33 U.S.C. 426-426h) as amended by P.L. 84-826, 

 87-874, and 89-298.) 



conflicting influence. The size and hazards of oil 

 and exotic cargoes may well dictate new concepts 

 of loading facilities.^ ^ 



Because of funding procedures, it has been 

 relatively easy to obtain harbor development 

 projects which often exceed the real need of the 

 community. In the resulting dredging, leveeing and 

 diking, many important estuarine resources are 

 destroyed and valuable recreational areas dis- 

 placed. 



A need exists for a National Port Survey to be 

 conducted with the cooperation of the Depart- 

 ments of Transportation, Army, Commerce, and 

 Housing and Urban Development to define the 

 Nation's requirements in terms of major ports, 

 offshore terminals, and other facilities for mari- 

 time commerce. On the basis of this survey, a 

 rational scheme for port and harbor development 

 can be established against which the real need for 

 other harbors can be measured. 



Such a study should examine closely the 

 Federal-local cost sharing relationships with an 

 intent to require a proposed port area to be a 

 stronger participant in developing of its facilities. 



The Corps of Engineers has proposed that as a 

 lead agency it conduct a regional harbors study 

 with goals similar to those outlined herein. The 

 Corps is conducting, in cooperation with the 

 Committee on Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone of 

 the National Council on Marine Resources and 

 Engineering Development, an initial fact finding 

 study on port modernization. Other Federal agen- 

 cies as well as port authorities and appropriate 

 State-local interests are cooperating in the pilot 

 study. 



The lead agency to conduct a major study 

 should be selected with care. An agency whose 

 mission relies on or is enhanced by port facilities 

 may not be a logical choice. The expertise involved 

 should view transportation as a total system and 

 not just ships and docks. The Corps of Engineers, 

 Maritime Administration, Economic Development 

 Administration, and Coast Guard all have apparent 

 advantages and disadvantages. 



Considering all factors, we recommend that the 

 most appropriate would be a multi-agency study 

 headed by the Secretary of Transportation. 



See Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of the prob- 

 lems faced by ports and marine transportation. 



III-142 



