New Search
w <br /> These specs must identify and describe all work to be done in the feasibility phase - <br /> whether paid for by federal or local dollars, or whether performed by the Corps or by the <br /> local sponsors (as in-kind services). <br /> Those are the general goals of any PMP. But we all have only so much cash to do the <br /> Metro GI, and this study is a fairly large undertaking. So in jointly crafting this scope of <br /> work, we (the cities of Eugene and Springfield, Lane County, and the Corps) have talked <br /> about some leveraging goals which apply to the PMP: (here probably listed in reverse <br /> order of importance!) <br /> 1. We don't want to re-invent the wheel. There is local waterway-related technical <br /> work already done, which we believe will be useful as baseline information when <br /> we start feasibility work. We need to identify the particulars of those <br /> opportunities. (We have a good general sense from our reconnaissance, but it's <br /> not to the level of detail that may exist in local knowledge.) There's no sense <br /> buying data that's already in hand. At the very least we want to sharply focus <br /> start-up reviews and gap analysis work (an initial part of any study scope) -and <br /> help focus the costing of that review work in the PMP. <br /> 2. We want to examine every opportunity to utilize local capability/capacity to <br /> perform some portion of the feasibility study work - as in-kind service that will be <br /> "creditable" toward the local share of total study costs. This could be technical <br /> baseline development, public involvement, plan formulation activities - we <br /> imagine lots of possibilities at this point. <br /> 3. We want to optimallyposition our local and Corps decision-makers to consider, <br /> negotiate, and sign acost-sharing agreement this summer. To do that, the local <br /> decision-makers will need to be able to realistically evaluate (and thoughtfully <br /> commit to) a do-able portfolio of in-kind services -within the limits of staffing, <br /> technical ability, existing commitments, etc. <br /> We think local assistance in crafting the PMP can help all this happen. Given that local <br /> sponsors ultimately pay for half the feasibility work, it has been Corps policy to <br /> collaboratively develop PMPs. Collaborative development ensures that the work <br /> required for the feasibility phase reflects the requirements, desires, and interests of all <br /> parties. <br /> "PLANNING TO PLAN" <br /> Over the years, the Corps has recognized that there is a need to specify the activities of a <br /> water resource study (to plan for planning, as it were). These study plans are developed <br /> to avoid potential or re-occurring problems -which result in confusion, inefficiency, and <br /> losses -and which are all real possibilities during what are typically complicated, long <br /> and costly studies/investigations. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, the PMP formulates what study and planning work is required, how it will <br /> <br /> be done, by whom the work will be accomplished, and when the work will be completed. <br /> <br /> By elaborating on these items, it follows that the potential for such confusion and <br /> inefficiency is diminished. This specification process improves the odds of meeting <br /> <br />