PERMFILE59160 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• .• Exhibit H 1. The Division of Wildlife's comments, which you already have in you file, should be sufficient to demonstrate that there are no unique wildlife resources in the permit area, and that operation will have negligible effort on wildlife in the area. I believe this adequately answers all of the concerns expressed in the July 31st letter. I also don't believe that it is necessary to re-file at the Clerk and Recorder's Office, since all of the preceding responses are simply clarifications and are more restrictive conditions than in the original submittal. Most were covered in my May resubmittal, where I did re-file in the Clerk's Office and have already submitted proof of that filing to your office. With my letter of July 31st I submitted proof of legal publication and outlined the additional conditions the County imposed, most of which are either not under MLRB jurisdiction, or like the clarifications in this letter, are more restrictive than either the original submittal or the revised application that I submitted in May. Once again, as I mentioned in my July 31 letter, once the MLRB has approved the application the County has asked for me to provide a revised booklet incorporating all changes that took place in the process. If you'd like, I can also provide such a combined booklet to the MLRB. In this way all the involved parties would have one document that shows all of the conditions necessary for operation, which is what the County wants. I'm addition to mailing this letter, I'm faxing a copy of it with attachments for you to review, since the July 31st letter imposed an August 5th deadline on response. I'll call you this afternoon to see if you need anything else before the 5th. Sin erely, o~t~~. &~e~i'ng cc: Sand Creek Farms, Inc. c/o Allen Kincaid and Wayne Pipkin (without attachments)