Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Robert E. Wright, Jr. -2- <br />publication to reflect a later starting date and the n <br />resulting from moving the proposed permit area to the <br />drainageway. Since Rule 3.22(2)(b) only requires that <br />of the proposed permit area given in the publication b <br />Section, Township and Range, the original publication <br />valid. However, I strongly suggest that republication <br />clarification. Once again, proof of this publication <br />our Division. <br /> <br />May 25, 1984 <br />ew legal description <br />south of the <br />the legal description <br />e to the nearest <br />would seem to be still <br />occur for purposes of <br />should be submitted to <br />As I mentioned, if there are no immediately adjacent (i.e., touching) <br />landowners, no new notification will be necessary. In any case, due to your <br />previous round of notifications to nearby landowners, they would appear to <br />have had constructive notice of the proposed operation by now. Also, please <br />be advised that since May 28, 1984, is a State holiday, the public comment <br />period for this application will be open until 5:00 P.M. on May 29, 1984. <br />I will also expect a response to my final adequacy letter to you of <br />May 21, 1984, before the scheduled June 21-28, 1984 Board meeting. <br />Furthermore, as adequacy concerns relevant to our Rules and Regulations are <br />raised by potential protestors, they should also be responded to by you (if <br />they have not already been adequately covered by either the application or <br />your adequacy replies to me). I will continue to send you copies of any such <br />protest letters I receive and identify those issues I feel to be relevant (as <br />I did for Mr. Whitley's letter). <br />Please call me if you have any questions in this matter. <br />Sincerely, <br />~~ ,~ . ~ <br />Mark S. Loye <br />Senior Reclamation Specialist <br />MSL/pjh <br />cc: Mr. John Whitley <br />Doc. No. 1651 <br />