each particular section of the shore, as proposed by the district 

 engineer. The Board also emphasized the desirability of coordinated 

 action by ovmers within a section to protect a stretch of frontage 

 under the plan of protection best suited for the privately owned shores 

 in that section, and the necessity of adequately protecting the ends of 

 the work to prevent flanking. The Board recommended that private 

 owners adopt one of the plans of protection proposed by the district 

 engineer, or a plan for slope revetment or dumped riprap seawall, 

 selecting that most suitable to the physical characteristics and desired 

 use of their shore frontage, consistent -with the effect on adjacent 

 shore sections <. fls existing Federal law includes no policy for Federal 

 assistance in the cost of protecting privately ornied shores, no Federal 

 participation in the cost of any of the foregoing work was recommended. 



The Board reviewed the prospective benefits for the projects for 

 Perry Tovmship Park and Geneva Township Park» It noted' that the value 

 of the park land subject to erosion is low,. Because of the inconsequential 

 protective benefits, the Board considered that the need for protection is 

 insufficient to vrarrant Federal aid under the provisions of Public Law 

 727, 79th Congress, The Board concluded that adoption of Federal projects 

 for these parks is inadvisable but that local benefits, other than those 

 from prevention of damages, may warrant construction of the projects at 

 local expense substantially in accordance with the plans proposed by the 

 district engineer. The Board considered it advisable, however, for local 

 interests to make indepandent evaluations of prospective benefits from 

 these proposed projects in determining justification for construction 

 at local expense = 



In accordance with existing statutory requirements, the Board stated 

 its opinion that: 



a. It is inadvisable for the United States to adopt projects 

 authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting and improv- 

 ing the Lake Erie shores of Ohio within the area studied; 



b. Except for recreational benefits in connection with 

 improvment of Perry ToTmship Park and Geneva Township Park, the public 

 interest involved in the proposed measures is smallj 



c. No share of the expense should be borne by the United 

 States. 



The Board recommended that no projects be adopted by the United 

 States at this time for the protection of the shores of Lake Erie within 

 the area covered by the reports 



48 



