With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". But Defendant’s activities, such as the cutting of trees, plainly caused significant surface disturbance, so he is disqualified from claiming that his operations were exempt from the approval process. See, e.g., id. § 228.4(a)(l)(vi) (stating that exempt operations include those “which will not involve .., the cutting of trees”). Regardless, even if Defendant had been entitled to formal written notice, he had actual notice that his operations were unlawful: Forest Service officials repeatedly told him to stop his activities and gave him specific directives to submit a notice of intent or a plan of operations. Defendant failed to heed those directives despite acknowledging them and stating that he would comply. Cf. United States v. Bichsel, 395 F.3d 1053, 1056 (9th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). 3. Because Defendant had actual notice of the

A: holding 57 days notice before deadline to file a complaint under  523 was sufficient notice when creditor had actual notice of filing
B: holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice
C: holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city
D: holding that actual notice by mail in conjunction with published notice was best possible notice satisfying rule 23c
B.