of the study to include Federal and nonFederal efforts.

(c) For each major work item, x, estimate the cost to solve all other remaining I through multiple-purpose planning. Enter this value, (N−1), in line 2.

(d) The separable study cost of each major work item is estimated and entered in line 3. The separable cost for each major work item, x, is determined by subtracting from the USC, the cost estimated in line 2, above.

(e) The individual remaining study cost is the difference between the single purpose study costs, line 1, and the separable study costs, line 3. This value is entered in line 4.

(f) The ratio of the remaining study cost for each major work item, x, line 4, to the sum of all remaining study costs, w, is calculated and entered in line 5.

(g) The total joint study cost, y, is the difference between the USC and the sum of all separable costs, v.

(h) The total joint study costs, y, is distributed to each x, by multiplying y times the ratio of remaining study cost for each xi, line 5, and is entered in line 6.

(i) The allocated study cost for each major work item is the sum of the separable cost, line 3, and the individual joint study cost, line 6, for each major work item. The allocated study cost for each is entered in line 7. The allocated study cost for each major work item should be entered in the bottom line to Table D-1, the right hand column of Table D-2, and the lower right entry in Tables D-3a, b, . . ., i.

(j) The total allocated study cost, z, must be equal to the total urban study cost, USC. This is a useful check on the cost allocation process.

(k) Table D-6 should not be reproduced in the POS. Its primary value is as a worksheet for the cost allocation process. Table D-6, along with the supporting tables used to generate the estimates, will be kept in the files of the study office. This information should be available for review at the second OCE and Division review meeting held after beginning the POS. Table D-4 may be used to assist Corps planners in the development of single purpose costs for wastewater management. Other major work items are traditional Corps roles and should present much less of a problem than the initial single purpose wastewater management cost derivation. Based on total allocated costs for wastewater management, line 7 Table D-6, the single purpose entries can be modified to multiple purpose entries for inclusion in the POS.

(3) Eligible Costs. Certain types of funds may not be used to make up the required non-Federal contributions to the wastewater component of urban studies. The non-Federal share may be in terms of services, ef

forts, and/or cash contributions. Other Federal funds may not be used to make up any part of the non-Federal participation. Revenue-shared funds are not considered Federal Funds for this purpose. The non-Federal share must represent additional new effort specifically required in the conduct of the study. For example, the non-Federal share shall not include costs of data already collected or normally to be collected for an ongoing program, nor shall it include funds used for matching other Federal grants.

(4) Non-Federal Share Costs for Wastewater Management. Those non-Federal efforts which are included as separable costs under the wastewater management column on Table D-6 are countable for costsharing purposes. Those non-Federal efforts included as separable costs under any other major work item except wastewater management on Table D-6 are not countable for cost-sharing purposes. Those efforts which are included in the joint study costs are countable for cost-sharing purposes only up to the amount of the joint study costs allocated to wastewate management. The sum of the countable non-Federal efforts described above must be greater than or equal to 25 percent of the allocated study cost for wastewater management, line 7 on Table D

6.

7. Plan of Study Coordination. This section of the POS must reflect in detail, the coordination and public involvement that has taken place during POS preparation. The following subsections will be included.

a. Stage 1 Public Involvement. This subsection should document the development and execution of the Stage 1 Public Involvement Program. It should set forth what the public involvement hoped to accomplish, how the involvement was executed, and the modifications in the involvement program that may have been necessary to accomplish the desired end.

b. Agency Approval. When completed, the POS will essentially represent a formal agreement with the other participants in the study. Therefore, work tasks, schedules, and cost allocations, particularly for wastewater management, will be coordinated with all study participants. Letters of assurance shall be obtained from each and every study participant which confirm that efforts and costs allocated in the tables to specific study participants will be provided. These letters will be reproduced in Appendix B of the POS. If written responses are not available, the situation should be discussed in detail.

(1) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to cooperate with any State in the preparation of comprehensive plans for the development, utilization and conservation of the water and related resources of drainage basins located within the boundaries of such State and to submit to Congress reports and recommendations with respect to appropriate Federal Participation in carrying out such plans.

(2) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $4,000,000 annually to carry out the provisions of this section except that not more than $200,000 shall be expended in any one year in any one State.

(b) Both Congressional Committees on Public Works reported to their respective bodies of Congress prior to enactment of the measure, that

"[i]n view of the success of the previous (section 214) program, the Committee feels that it is now desirable and proper to extend the same assistance to all of the States. This legislation is particularly desirable in view of the provisions of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 which provides for increased participation by the States in water resources planning and in the formulation of comprehensive river basin plans in connection with the River Basin Commissions established under that Act. The cooperative program authorized by this section will constitute a valuable compliment to the program being carried out under the Water Resources Planning Act." (House Report No. 93-541, p. 94 and Senate Report No. 93-615, p. 119).

(c) Stripped of connecting language Section 22 provides authority for the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers "* ** to cooperate with any State in the preparation of comprehensive plans for * drainage basins located within the boundaries of such State and to submit to Congress reports and recommendations with respect to appropriate Federal participation in carrying out such plans."

[40 FR 42652, Sept. 15, 1975, as amended at 42 FR 3841, Jan. 21, 1977]

§ 265.14 Basic policies.

(a) The first phrase "to cooperate with any State in the preparation of comprehensive plans" is taken to mean the following: (1) The State must have a planning program for the development, utilization or conserva

comparability, this paragraph specifies those tables.

a. Major Work Item. The total study effort should be broken down into major work items. Examples of major work items are flood control and flood plain management, regional harbors and waterways, wastewater management, water supply management. and conservation of fish and wildlife resources. These major work items will be categorized as

(1) Specific Work Tasks. Work tasks specify discrete duties to which costs or efforts may be allocated by individual study participants. Specific work tasks are prescribed in Table D-4 (located at the end of this appendix) for the Wastewater Management major work item. These work tasks have been agreed upon by the Corps. EPA. and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Consequently, deviation from these shall not occur without the written approval of HQDA (DAEN-CWP) WASH DC 20314. Specific work tasks for other major work items will vary from study to study.

(2) Effort Components. Work tasks are grouped into effort components which facilitate study management and comparability. The effort components are displayed in Table D-1 (located at the end of this appendix). Table 1 shows the percentage of effort ranges considered reasonable for a balanced urban study.

b. Scheduling of Work Tasks. Scheduling for the study must be based on the assumption that funding will be available to meet the required time frame and the most efficient course of action spelled out. Selection of the specific method of scheduling work tasks will be left to the reporting officer; however, the method selected should establish priorities of activities and key check points in consonance with the procedures contained in this FR. Where two or more study participants are responsible for a single work task, the completion date of each participant's share of the work task shall be entered in the tables.

c. Study Costs. The total cost of each work task must be estimated and assigned to the responsible Federal or non-Federal study participant. Where two or more participants are responsible for a work task, the total cost for the task will be split to illustrate each participant's share. In the context of the tables, "Total costs" is equivalent to

"total combined efforts", defined in para 14a(3).

(1) Table Format. (a) Tables D-1, D-2, and D-3 (located at the end of this appendix) will be developed for each study. These tables summarize study effort allocation for an urban study. Table D-1 contains total study costs by major work items and effort component. Table D-2 summarizes Federal and non-Federal efforts by major work item. Table D-3 summarizes Federal and non-Federal efforts by effort component. The right hand column of Table D-2 should be identical to the bottom row of Table D-1. The right hand column of Table D-3 should be identical to the right hand column of Table D-1.

(b) A table identical to Table D-3 should be developed for each major work item. An example of a table for the major work item of Wastewater Management is labeled Table D-3a. Summarizing all of the entires in these tables for each major work item in the study will generate the input for Tables D1. D-2, and D-3. Consequently, these tables should be some of the first tables developed after the allocated study cost, Table D-6, is determined.

(c) A specific series of Tables, Table D-4 will be developed only for the wastewater management major work item. The row and columnar headings and "Work Element/Descriptions" in the POS must be identical to those contained in Table D-4.

(d) A series of seven tables, Table D-5, for each major work item shall be developed if formally requested on a case-by-case basis by HQDA (DAEN-CWP) WASH DC 20314. In no case shall the format of Table D-5 be used as a substitute for the format specified for wastewater management in Table D-4. However, Table D-5 for wastewater management may be required in addition to Table D-4.

(2) Cost Allocation. Particular attention must be given to allocating wastewater management costs, because of the potential which wastewater management has for concurrently solving other urban water resource problems. The cost to be allocated to wastewater management shall be based on an equitable distribution of total urban study costs among all major work items. The procedures to be followed in allocating the urban study costs to each major work item is a modified form of the Separable Costs-Remaining Benefits (SCRB) method now being used for project construction cost