42-percent share of initial costs is based on Public Law 727, 79th Con- 

 gress. Since 87 percent of the benefits result from beach erosion con- 

 trol, one-third of 87 percent or 29 percent of the costs would be 

 allocated to the United States. The remaining 13 percent of the benefits 

 result from savings in maintenance of an existing Federal navigation pro- 

 ject, therefore this portion of the costs would also be allocated to 

 the United States, making a total Federal share of 42 percent. Based on 

 the benefits to the Federal navigation project, 13 percent of the costs 

 of the repeated bypassing operations would also be borne by the United 

 States. The District Engineer recommended adoption of a project by the 

 United States authorizing Federal participation in the comprehensive 

 plan of restoration and protection, subject to certain conditions, by 

 contribution of shares of the costs as outlined above, provided that 

 those allocations be reviewed in the light of future justification and 

 modified as may be appropriate by the Chief of Engineers after completion 

 of the initial phases. 



The Division Engineer concluded that the alternative short-range 

 plan would be adequately effective in preserving the shore westerly to 

 Jones Inlet and would provide immediate erosion relief at a minimum 

 cost. He recommended adoption of a project by the United States 

 authorizing Federal participation, subject to certain conditions, to the 

 extent of 42 percent of the first costs of the alternative short-range 

 plan of restoration and protection, with such modification thereof as in 

 the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable. 



The Beach Erosion Board concurred generally in the views and 

 recommendations of the Division Engineer. The Board noted that the part 

 of the comprehensive plan for restoration and protection of Oak Beach, as 

 presented by the District Engineer, included placement on Oak Beach of 

 1,550,000 cubic yards of sand from the dredging operation in the littoral 

 reservoir at Democrat Point under phase 1 of the plan. Although the 

 District Engineer anticipated some loss of the initial fill in the absence 

 of measures to shift the strong tidal currents away from Oak Beach, he 

 found no low-cost method of holding the fill. He believed placement of 

 additional fill to offset losses to be the most practicable interim 

 solution. The Board concurred in this opinion. However, with a prospect 

 of losing a considerable portion of the material, the Board was of the 

 opinion that no fill should be placed on Oak Beach until the pressure of 

 tidal currents on Oak Beach can be relieved. With respect to the littoral 

 reservoir east of the Democrat Point jetty, the Board felt that there is 

 reasonable doubt that it would function as intended. The possibility 

 exists that the exit cut through the barrier beach would close and pre- 

 vent the reservoir from acting as an impounding area. In such event, the 

 lagoon would be undesirable in an area which is planned for recreational 

 development by the Long Island State Park Commission. 



The Board noted the District Engineer* s opinion that the most suit- 

 able method of correcting problem conditions would involve restoration 

 of the shore between Fire Island Inlet and Jones Beach approximately to 



68 



