(b) Displays regarding reasonable alternatives, in- 

 cluding those required by NEPA, should include the 

 following items: 



(1) Measures in each plan. 



(2) Effects in the NED account. 



(3) Other effects, when shown in either the EQ, 

 RED, and OSE accounts, or in some other appro- 

 priate format. 



(c) For the recommended plan, an aggregate dis- 

 play of effects on natural and cultural resources, in 

 the format of Table 1.8.2, should be included. 



(d) A matrix should be included which shows ex- 

 isting or planned Federal and non-Federal projects 

 or facilities having significant economic, environ- 

 mental, or physical interactions with the recom- 

 mended plan together with a brief narrative descrip- 

 tion of these interactions. 



(e) Alternative actions that were considered but 

 were not developed into plans should be described 

 briefly. The descriptions should include the meas- 

 ures and effects and the reasons for not proceed- 

 ing further. 



Section IX— Cost Allocation 



1.9.1 General. 



(a) The need for cost allocation stems from pric- 

 ing and cost-sharing policies that vary among pur- 

 poses. Cost allocation is the process of apportion- 

 ing total project financial costs among purposes 

 served by a plan. 



(b) Financial costs are implementation outlays, 

 transfer payments such as replacement housing as- 

 sistance payments as specified in 42 U.S.C. 4623 

 and 4624, and the market value of contributions in 

 kind, e.g., lands. 



(c) Financial costs are to be allocated to those 

 purposes for which the plan is formulated. These 

 purposes do not include other direct benefits (see 

 Section 1.7.2(d)) and use of othenwise unemployed 

 or underemployed labor resources. All purposes are 

 to be treated comparably. 



1.9.2 Definitions. 



(a) Separable cost for each purpose in a plan is 

 the reduction in financial cost that would result if 

 that purpose were excluded from the plan. This re- 

 duction in cost includes — 



(1) The financial cost of measures serving only 

 the excluded purpose; and 



(2) Reductions in the financial cost of measures 

 serving multiple purposes. In some cases removal 

 of a purpose would result in selection of different 

 measures to address the remaining purposes. 



(b) Joint cost is the total financial cost for a plan 

 minus the sum of separable financial costs for all 

 purposes. 



(c) Alternative cost for each purpose is the finan- 

 cial cost of achieving the same or equivalent bene- 

 fits with a single-purpose plan. 



(d) Remaining benefit for each purpose is the 

 amount, if any, by which the NED benefit or, when 

 appropriate, the alternative financial cost exceeds 

 the separable financial cost for that purpose. The 

 use of alternative cost is appropriate when alterna- 

 tive financial cost for the purpose is less than the 

 NED benefit, or when there are project purposes 

 that do not address the NED objective. 



1.9.3 Cost Allocation Standard. 



Costs allocated to each purpose are the sum of 

 the separable cost for the purpose and a share of 

 joint cost as specified below: 



(a) Joint cost may be allocated among purposes 

 in proportion to remaining benefits. 



(b) Joint cost may be allocated in proportion to 

 the use of facilities, provided that the sum of allo- 

 cated joint cost and separable cost for any purpose 

 does not exceed the lesser of the benefit or the al- 

 ternative cost for that purpose. 



1.9.4 Allocation of Constituent Cost. 



Cost-sharing policies for some purposes pertain 

 to cost constituents such as construction costs, 

 and operation and maintenance costs. Costs for 

 each cost constituent specified in the relevant cost- 

 sharing policy should be allocated among purposes. 



Section X— Plan Selection 



1.10.1 General. 



The planning process leads to the identification 

 of alternative plans that could be recommended or 

 selected. The culmination of the planning process 

 is the selection of the recommended plan or the 

 decision to take no action. The selection should be 

 based on a comparison of the effects of alternative 

 plans. (See Section 1.6.2— Alternative Plans, For- 

 mulation.) 



14 



