The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-0716 Documents Submitted at Meeting May 25, 2007 Martha Bennett City Administrator City of Ashland 20 E. Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Mt. Ashland QA/QC Dear Martha: As you know, the City Council passed a motion on September 19, 2006 that set in place a process for a QA/QC Advisory Group and a QA/QC team. Since that time, over eight months ago, neither group has been formed. As you will recall, our names were submitted to the City as volunteer citizens from the environmental community to be on the QA/QC Advisory Group. This is an important issue because the Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) has submitted project documents to the Forest Service through the City. As you will recall, Resolution 2005-35 states the following: SECTION 3. The City Council shall cooperate with Mt. Ashland Association to appoint a Quality Assurance/Quality Control team to oversee ski area construction and protection of the municipal watershed, substantially as described in the comments submitted by the City of Ashland to the Forest Service on October 7, 2003 (DEIS comments). Ideally, the QA/QC team should be an independent team of 2 to 4 persons specialized in soils and hydrology that coordinates with the City, MAA, and the Forest Service. The QA/QC team should be formed prior to construction to define strategies for erosion and sediment control, mitigation, and restoration/remediation. The City Council will make reasonable efforts to reach a mutual agreement with Mt. Ashland Association to provide construction funding for the QA/QC team and to ensure that all future construction activities comply with the coordinated recommendations of the QA/QC team and the Forest Service. (Emphasis added) The City Council at the September 19,2006 Council meeting, agreed that the QA/QC Team should. review project documents prior to being passed on to the Forest Service. According to the Quality Assurance/Quality Control document submitted to the Council on September 19,2006, QA/QC Team Duties and Responsibilities #2: Review construction plans and MAA work plans prior to any implementation to assure adequacy of environmental preservation, erosion, and sedimentation measures (includes the Stormwater NPDES permit requirements). The idea is to ensure this review happens during the plan development and prior to formal agency review so that any recommendations are included in the final submission for agency review. (Emphasis added) Therefore we are concerned that documents are now being passed along to the Forest Service, without being reviewed by a QA/QC Team. We would appreciate it if you would ensure that documents are not forwarded to the Forest Service before they are . reviewed by the QA/QC team. As you know, the approval of the Council included a QA/QC Advisory Group that would be involved in the development of a RFP for QAlQC Team members. Certainly a QA.lQC Advisory Group must be formed prior to the issuance of the RFP for QA/QC Team members. Once the QA/QC Team is up and running, then documents can be reviewed by the City prior to passing them along to the Forest Service. The MAA has, apparently, decided not to participate in the QA/QC process. Nevertheless, the City must forge ahead with creating the QA/QC Advisory Group and the QAlQC Team. Thank you very much. Sincerely, /L/ }~/riA=/, ? Paul Copeland, 482-5937 Lesley Adams, 488-5789 cc. Mayor Morrison and City Council members Requested changes to letter to June 19 USFS: Cate Hartzell, June 19,2007 Paragraph 4: The City remains gravely concerned that the Forest Service has not developed a thorough list of restoration activities for the entire existing and expanded ski area, nor an estimate of the restoration cost of the existing area. Absent this information, we believe that the surety bond of $200,000 is not adequate guarantee of restoration. Add to paragraph 2: After sentence 1: We request that the USFS provides us with the reference to the contract language that would take effect in the event that the improvement activity is deemed by the courts to be inadequate. Paragraph 1: line 4 should read "subleasee" Requested changes to letter to QAlQC RFP: Page 6, Paragraph 2: The primary purpose outlined in this paragraph (and throughout the RFP) needs to specifically include the protection of the waterways that deliver the water. The language hints but doesn't clearly state that our interest is ensuring against the kind of collapse of waterways that occurred in the 1997 flood, and presmnably past floods. Page 7: Change #2: Eliminate here and elsewhere the task of insuring that construction activities proceed in a timely manner. That should not be the job of the QAlQC team. New #: "Endeavor to perform responsibilities in a manner that allows the overall project to remain on schedule. Monitor implementation activities for minimal to no negative impact with respect to erosion... processes are completed without environmental impacts (spills, soil compaction beyond that approved)." P8: Item 2. "Site meetings at least weekly and as often as twice a week on site, especially during the construction period." I would like a second opinion on this requirement, the cost implications and why it would be required during non-construction time. P8, #10: photo docmnentation is limited to outside the project area "at the edges' and in # 11 "other erosion treatment areas." I see no reason to limit the scope of the workplan this way if the goal is to address problems with waterway integrity. P8, #13: We require all specialists on QAC team to attend weekly meetings during construction. Cost implications should be considered now, before we get the price tag. We should invite the RFP to address the issue of monitoring the project. P8, #14 and P9, Section B 1.-4. , PI0, II. B.: are examples of where forest ecosystem and hydrology is left out. PIO, C. Sentence 2: typo "fit" PIO, C. REMOVE: "It is desired, not specifically required that the individuals be experienced with ski area expansion and/or restoration processes." This experience is ~ ----nr-,-- provided by MAA contractors and the USFS, it enters bias into the selection process, and is not needed to obtain objective oversight of the project. PII, III.E.: Is this a legal requirement? PIl: IV. City Responsibilities A. Clarify in this and V.A. that this is one person "project manager/liaison," not two people. P13.I. REMOVE: "Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by personnel from the city of Ashland and MAA." This goes against everything that has ever been discussed on selection. Pl3.II. Criteria chart: I would like to get opinions from specialists on this weighting. Tasks related to QAC Staff memo Proposed by Hartzell Team Review of proposals Review & evaluation by QAC Advisory Team city staff and MAA (P13) review and provide assessment Selection ofQAC Team Jointly by City and MAA CC & MAA members (P7); proposed team from staff Approval of work plan ? Reviewed and recommended by Advisory Committee Ongoing oversight of QAC Advisory Committee with Team checkins with CCIMAA Decision on how QAC team QACTeam CC & MAA establish will report to City Council minimum requirements; and MAA QAC Team propjoses within plan with approval y CCIMAA QAC= QAlQC Team; CC = City Council Criteria Maximum Score A. Project Description: Degree to which proposal 30 responds to RFP Duties and Responsibilities Time commitments Interdisciplinary interface with other team members B. Respondent's: 50 Qualifications, capabilities Experience in this terrain or similar