My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (253)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (253)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2020 10:53:38 AM
Creation date
6/20/2012 10:05:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Name
Bid Documents (IMP) 1994 Correspondence
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
166
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
f <br /> such notification. It has not been the policy of the Division to <br /> request the input of the land owner regarding the reclamation plan <br /> put out to bid by the State at mines where the permit has been <br /> revoked. I am unaware of any change in policy which would dictate <br /> the State requesting the permission of the land owner to perform <br /> reclamation at a permit revocation site. Mr. Lewicki's question <br /> regarding land owner approval of reclamation plans raises a larger <br /> issue; that is defining the role of Mid-Continent in the <br /> reclamation process. Mid-Continent, as an entity which has had its <br /> permit revoked may be entitled to a review of the reclamation plans <br /> or bid documents. The Division, however, is statutorily required <br /> to complete the reclamation of the revoked site. Ultimately, it is <br /> the responsibility of the Division to implement reclamation whether <br /> the ex-permittee objects or not. Therefore, Mid-Continent may wish <br /> to comment on the plans, their comments may or may not be adopted, <br /> but will be given due consideration. <br /> Mr. Lewicki requests that we respond as to why the approved plans <br /> were not followed in the bid document. Frankly, I was unaware of <br /> Technical Revision 25 and its impact to the Sutey Pile reclamation <br /> requirements. Our amended bid document reflected my interpretation <br /> of the reclamation requirements of the approved permit prior to the <br /> modification embodied in Technical Revision 25. Many of the <br /> technical specifications were based upon cross sections contained <br /> in the permit document. I had consulted with a Reclamation <br /> Specialist familiar with Coal Basin regarding rip rap placement in <br /> the channels prior to finalizing the amended bid document. When <br /> discussing this point with Mr. Lewicki I specifically asked why it <br /> was important for him to know who did the evaluation. Mr. Lewicki <br /> did not respond to this question, and the conversation moved on. <br /> The reasons that I did not want to get into specifics of project <br /> design at the time of our conversation were that I did not have all <br /> of the relevant material with me, and that I did not wish to <br /> subject other staff members to questioning by Mid-Continent or its <br /> consultant without first discussing this with the Attorney General. <br /> In any case, the point seems somewhat moot as the project was <br /> canceled due to projected cost over runs. However, the point which <br /> Mr. Lewicki brings up begs the question of what design criteria the <br /> State will adhere to during our contracting of the reclamation <br /> work. As we discussed on October 7, 1994, the Division will <br /> utilize the approved reclamation plan as the design criteria at the <br /> mine. We will prioritize the reclamation work given the potential <br /> for environmental degradation, and complete what work we can given <br /> available funds. This decision should provide Mr. Lewicki some <br /> degree of comfort when reviewing our Invitations to Bid in the <br /> future. <br /> It is unfortunate that Mr. Lewicki feels that he has a problem <br /> conducting business with me. We had a heated discussion after what <br /> I would consider a tense meeting. During that conversation I felt <br /> as though Mr. Lewicki was personally attacking me, and I am sure I <br /> responded in a defensive manner. I take exception to the <br /> accusation that I will not provide answers to specific questions. <br /> There has not been any follow up conversation between Mr. Lewicki <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.