Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment; Appendix F; Public & Agency Participation 1984BETH 013 Pa en ae App. F Alaska Power Authority LIBRARY COPY Bethe! APPENDIX F Public and Agency Participation Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX F PUBLIC AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION DRAFT Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Harza Engineering Company and AEIDC, University of Alaska Draft April 1984 7 1 ' ITt. Iv. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION I-1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION , II-1 Informational Activities II-1 Public Meetings and Presentations II-1 Radio/Television Programs II-2 Progress Report and Newsletter II-2 Study Team Input II-3 AGENCY COORDINATION III-1 Responsible Agencies III-1 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge III-2 Kisaralik Wild and Scenic River Study III-5 Other Agency Contacts III-7 KEY ISSUES AND CONCERNS ~ Iv-1 Subsistence Iv-1 Land Rights Iv-1 Environmental Quality Iv-1 Community Independence Iv-2 Chapter I INTRODUCTION The appendix describes the public and agency participation activities undertaken for the Bethel Area Power Plan study. Chapter II contains a description of the public participation. Chapter III contains a description of agency coordination. Chapter IV summarizes the key issues and concerns identified during the agency and public participation programs. An active public and agency participation program has been an integral part of the study. The primary objective of the. program is to ensure that the study conclusions are consistent with the preferences and policies of the local residents and responsible public agencies. The program has been led by Harza Engineering Company for public participation and the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC), University of Alaska, for agency coor- dination. Nunam Kitlutsisti of Bethel and the Calista Corpora- tion also participated in the progream. I-1 Table No. II-1 II=-2 Exhibit No. 1 LIST OF TABLES Title Page Public Meetings, April 1982 II-2 Radio/TV Presentations II-3 LIST OF EXHIBITS Title Listing of Significant Agency Correspendence iri CHAPTER II PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The public participation program for the Bethel Area Power Plan study has three specific goals: l. Disseminate information to the public; 2. Receive feedback and comments from the public; and 3. Incorporate the feedback and comments in the plan selection process. The program was initiated during this feasibility assessment and is expected to continue after submittal of the draft and final reports to the APA. The program to date has placed primary emphasis on the first goal, with efforts well underway on the second and third goals. Informational Activities A variety of inedia was used to disseminate information to as many people as possible. These media include public meetings and presentations, radio/television programs and proyress re- ports and newsletters. These iethods were met with varying degrees of success, with radio/television programs the most effective. Printed matter was more effective in Bethel than in the villages. Public meetings were poorly attended, but some good, immediate feedback was received. Public Meetings and Presentations In April of 1982, a series of public meetings were held in Bethel and four villages. Table II-1 lists the dates, locations and approximate attendance of the meetings. The purpose of the meetings was to inform the residents of the region that the study was being conducted. A 15-page book- let was prepared for distrubution at the meetings. The booklet explained the scope; organization, and purpose of the study. It also encouraged questions about, and active participation in the study process. All questions and comments aired at the meetings were re- corded for consideration during the study. Primary concerns were related to the impacts on subsistence hunting and fishing and the interconnection of villages to each other and _ to Bethel. II-1 Table II-1 PUBLIC MEETINGS April, 1982 Approximate Date Location Attendance April 13, 1982 Tuntutuliak 30 April 14, 1982 (afternoon) Bethel less than 10 April 14, 1982 (evening) Bethel less than 10 April 15, 1982 Nunapitchuk 40 April 16, 1982 Akiak 25 April 17, 1982 Napakiak 15 Radio/Television Programs The radio and television broadcasting in Bethel is through station KYUK. In addition to the local programning, residents of the region have cablevision, through which they receive the statewide news nightly from Anchorage. Both radio and TV are quite popular throughout the region. The local radio/TV station was used to spread information and solicit feedback on the study. Study team members appeared on the hour-long radio talk show, "Yuk-to-Yuk" (Yupik for "Person-to-Person"), on various occasions during the study. Also, a study team inember gave a five-minute television inter- view which aired on the local evening news Table II-2 summa- rizes these activities. Nunam Kitlutsisti has used radio announcements on a con- tinuiny basis to provide updated information about the study to area residents. Specifically all field activities conducted by the study team were preceded by a radio announcement of the timing, extent, and purpose of the activities. This was done in response to a concern that field surveys in areas of signifi- cance to local subsistence activity might unduly alarin the res- idents. Progress Report and Newsletter When the study beyan monthly progress reports to the pub- lic and agencies were planned. After distribution of the April, 1982 progress report (about 75 copies to public and agency groups), the original schedule and format was abandoned. In- stead, a progress newsletter was developed and over 1500 copies were distributed throuyhout the region. Because of the inten- II-2 Table II-2 RADIO/TV PRESENTATIONSL/ Study Team Member Date . Topic Bruno Trouille, March 1982 Energy use and demand Harza Bill Hanley April 1982 Energy use and demand Darbyshire Paul Ford, May 1982 Study update Harza Marvin Feldman. August 1982 Coal resources Dames & Moore Nick Pansic, August 1982 Study update Harza l/ In addition, Nunam Kitlutsisti made a number of radio announcements during the study regarding field activities and soliciting feedback from the public. sive subsistence fishing activity in the summer months, the newsletter was published in early October 1982. The 12-page, tabloid-style document contains a variety of articles on the study ranging from a discussion of the existing situation to a presentation of the energy supply options being considered. An intensive followup effort, including meetinys with vil- lage councils, was made by Nunam Kitlutsisti to solicit timely feedback on the newsletter. Study Team Input Public input was sought primarily from regional leaders (official and unofficial) and persons knowledgeable about the region through personal experiences. Members of the study team had considerable involvement in this effort. Nunam Kitlutsisti and the Calista Corporation maintain close contacts with the Bethel region's leaders. Extensive use of these resources was made to help ensure that the most attrac— tive alternative plans were being considered. Other study team members. particularly from Darbyshire and Associates and AEIDC, contributed their considerable personal experiences in the Bethel region. Their knowledge of local thinking and preference was also an important input to the study. II-3 It is important to note that, while leaders and other know- ledyeable persons can provide a good indication of the people's preference direct input from the residents is essential to inake the correct decisions for the region. II-4 CHAPTER III AGENCY COORDINATION In Alaska, many state and Federal agencies have been charged with preserving the balance between economic and re- source development and environinental conservation. In an at- tempt to meet the future energy needs of the Bethel region, decisions must be made which will impact this balance. To en- sure that the responsible agencies are involved in this process, an ongoing program of coordination between the study team and these agencies has been maintained. Exhibit 1 provides a listing of significant correspondence between agencies and the study team. Responsible Agencies At the inception of this study in February 1982, an apprai- sal was made of agency coordination needs, The appraisal deter- mined that: ° Much of the project area-lies within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). o The Kisaralik River, a potential source of hydroelec- tric power, has been designated for study by the National Park Service for possible classification as a National Wild and Scenic River. ° Portions of the project area lie within the Bristol Bay Cooperative Region and also within an area includ- ed in an oil and gas leasing program. ° The Alaska Departinent of Fish & Game (ADF&G) has per- mitting authority for activities affecting anadromous fish streams and issues permits for collecting fish specimens for scientific purposes. The above findings led to designation of a Project Agency Coordinator whose principal responsibilities were to be a liai- son between responsible governinent agencies and the study team and to provide assistance in obtaining necessary permits. Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was empha- sized because of a concern that field activity restrictions along the refuge portions of the Kisaralik River might be im- posed. Peregrine falcons, an endanyered species, reportedly occurred in the river's corridor. ILI-1 | | i) Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Lying in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, 500 miles west of Anchorage, the original 2.8 million acre Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1960 to preserve vital water- fowl habitat. As the largest of the primary waterbird units in the National Refuge System, it provided nesting ground for ducks, geese, swans, cranes, and shorebirds that migrate along the nation's flyways. Passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in December 1980 expanded the refuge to combine the existing delta refuge with the Hazen Bay and Nunivak Island Refuges, plus 13.4 million acres of public land. Congress renamed this unit as the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, and it comprises a total of 19,624,458 acres, The Bethel study area that is within the Refuge includes three potential hydropower sites on the Kisaralik River and the area along the lower part of the Kuskokwim proposed as a trans-— mission line right-of-way and the transmission intertie between villages. Although these potential hydroelectric sites were eventually eliminated from further consideration, site visits hy study team members were required. Documents relating to pro- posed field activities were provided to the Refuge Manager in Bethel. Concurrently, a formal request was made for a Special Use Permit to authorize the field activities. On March 10, 1982 study team members met with the Refuge Manager in Bethel to discuss permitting procedures. Of mutual concern was the potential adverse effects on environmental re- sources due to geotechnical surveys, temporary camp facilities, and use of helicopters. The vulnerablility of nesting raptors was of paramount importance. The refuge authorities also re- quested thats: 1. Access to privately-owned land be authroized by ap- propriate organizations. 2. Proposed field activities be consistent with the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program, 3. Field study operations be conducted in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Due to the sensitivity of the endangered species issue, as well as the permitting urgency, an informational meeting was held March 15 with the USFWS at their regional office in Anchorage. Representatives of the Sierra Club and National Wildlife Federation (NWF) were invited. These two organizations and the Audubon Society are on record before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as opposed to issuance of a prelim- inary permit to the Alaska Power Authority for the original IITI-2 Kisaralik Project (FERC #3175) because of the area's national refuge status and potential for wilderness classification. The meeting was attended by four USFWS personnel a Sierra Club representative, a NWF representative. a study team representa- tive, and the Project Agency Coordinator. A major point of discussion concerned USFWS recommendations for restricting study activities to reduce disturbances to pere- grine falcons. The USFWS Endangered Species Coordinator out- lined two options: either formal Section 7 consultation be initiated with the USFWS Director, or rigid permit stipulation should ‘be incorporated to ensure falcon protection. The latter option was deemed preferable in that formal consultation wouid unduly delay field activities. The Endangered Species Coordina- tor suggested that the stipulations would: l. Require a ground level survey conducted by experts, to delineate potential nest site locations and pre- sence of peregrine falcons. 2. Require aircraft -to be operated 1,500 ft above nest ’ level terrain when within one mile horizontal distance of suspected nest sites. 3. Prohibit all human activity within one mile of nest sites except that rivercraft may pass through protect- ed zones. 4. Require that exceptions to the above could only be granted with written approval by the Regional Di- rector's representative. A third meeting was held on April 7 in the USFWS Regional Office to finalize stipulations for the peregrine falcon survey and correct minor omissions in the original permit application. As a result of this meeting. the following two steps were out- lined: 1. Delineate all potential peregrine habitat along the Kisaralik River. This would be accomplished by an aerial survey of the Kisaralik drainaye, using a heli- copter operating at or above 1,500 ft altitude, to locate and map cliffs, rocky crags, riverine bluffs, outcrops, and escarpments that could be used for fal- con eyries. 2. Conduct an intensive ground level survey to identify peregrine and other raptor use areas likely to be affected by proposed geotechnical and environmental studies. III-3 Another issue discussed in the April 7 meeting was the re- quirement that an individual experienced in surveying peregrine falcons and witn credentials acceptable to the Regional Direc- tor. take part in the ground level survey. In response the Program Manager indicated that this capability existed within the study team. In a memorandum dated April 26, the Refuge Manager documen- ted an April 21 telephone conversation in which he indicated that the approach to the pereyrine falcon issue was acceptable. The Refuge Manager emphasized that all raptor nests identified in the survey would be protected by “use restrictions", and he asked that a Refuge staff member accompany the ground survey team. A letter, dated May 7, from the counsel for the Wational Wildlife Federation to the Refuge Manayer recomnended that fixed wing aircraft be used rather than a helicopter, the regular field studies be delayed until the termination of raptor nest- ing, and an “expert" raptor ornothologist with "recognized ex- perience and credentials" be part of the ground level survey crew. On May 12 the Refuge Manager issued Special Use Permit 1/D-08~-82 to Harza Engineering Company for the stated purpose of conducting environmental and geophysical activities on specifi- cally defined refuge lands within the Kisaralik River drainage. In compliance with the terms of the Special Use Permit a helicopter survey of potential peregrine and other raptor habi- tats was accomplished during the period of May 12-14. Approxi- Mately 37 habitat units of varying size were identified and recorded as follows: 27 along the Kisaralik River 8 along Quicksilver Creek and.one each along Gold Creek and the North Fork tributary. ADF&G Biologists and a Refuge staff member intermittently participated in the survey. Upon completion, AEIDC staff members met with the Refuge Manager on May 14 at the Bethel office to report survey results. After the habitat surveys Harza engaged the services of a- raptor expert to ensure data reliability during the ground level survey. The credentials of the expert were approved by the Refuge Manager. The ground level survey crew systematically examined each potential habitat unit during June 16-21, 1982. This resulted in the discovery of five gyrfalcon and two golden eagle active nest sites, as well as a site occupied by a lone gyrfalcon. The absence of peregrine falcons was attributed to a limited prey base (e.g., shorebirds), and, therefore, habitat potential. was III-4 judged to be quite low for this species. The survey results were documented in trip reports and field observation maps, which were transmitted to the Refuge Manager. With the completed ground survey and the establishment of protective zones around raptor nest sites, the study team at- tempted to undertake a coitbined geotechnical and biological sur- vey of three potential hydroelectric sites on the Refuge portion of the Kisaralik River. These sites were identified at Golden Gate Falls, Lower Falis and Upper Falls. The field crew; com- posed of a geologist, a planning engineer, and a biologist, intended to use a helicopter to gain access to the three areas during the period of June 29-July 2. Based on the presence of raptor nests proximal to the Goiden Gate and Lower Falls areas. the Refuge Manayer prohibited helicopter access until the nesting season terminates in August. The field crew offered to walk into the two restricted areas from a-distant helicopter dropoff location. However, this was rejected based on permit condition Number 11. "Upon establish- ment of the protective zones, no activity will be permitted within one mile of nest sites except river craft may float through the protective zone provided noise is kept to a minimum and no attempt is made to stop or land the craft." Due to lack of access, only the Upper Falls site was surveyed and work at the other two sites was delayed until mid-August. The last cominunique with the USFWS was a telephone call made July 6 to inform the Refuge Manager of field survey results and to reconfirm the schedule for performing aquatic surveys using a raft during the late July. Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 to preserve and protect selected rivers of the Nation that possess outstanding and remarkabie natural historic cultural, and other values. The Act established initial components of the system and set forth procedures to determine the suitability of including additional rivers in the National preservation system. Numerous amendinents to the Act and designations by the Secretary of the Interior since 1968 have resulted in 61 components being added to the system and an additional 88 rivers being proposed to be studied for possible designation as a wild and scenic river. One such river, the Kisaralik, has been proposed for study with enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The Kisaralik Wild and Scenic River study was initiated in June 1981 with the formation of a study group with agency and ILI-5 Native organization representatives. The National Park Service was designated by Congress to direct the study. A field recon- naissance of the Kisaralik River corridor was made in August 1981. Public meetings were held early in 1982, and a draft environmental impact statement was released for review during the summer of 1982. The Bethel Area Power Plan study team has maintained close cooperation with the U S. National Park Ser- vice. This cooperative effort facilitated keeping each other informed of study processes pertaining to both Wild and Scenic River classification and the hydropower potential of the Kisaralik River. The Bethel study team's role was largely that of serving in a review and advisory capacity. Specifically, this involved a review of documents and the transmittal of environmental re- source and geotechnical information for use by the National Park Service in preparing a draft enviromental impact statement (EIS). The Project Agency Coordinator participated in two meet- ings. A public information meeting was held on February 22, 1982 in the National Park Service office in Anchorage. It was attended by 14 people who indicated no preferences for specific alternatives. Questions generated by the attendees focused on state participation in the study and its attitude toward formal designation, the continued use of the area's resources by various user groups and the status of the hydropower feasibi- lity assessment study. The Project Agency Coordinator provided input on the proposed environmental and geotechnical aspects of the Kisaralik hydropower alternative of the Bethel Area Power Plan study. A Kisaralik Wild and Scenic River Study Team meeting was held April 7, 1982, at the USFWS Regional Office for the purpose of selecting a preferred aiternative. Representatives from the Bethel study team, representatives of the Alaska Power Authority (APA), and the Project Agency Coordinator attended the meeting. The results of a public opinion survey were presented at the meeting. Of the 31 responses to the 350 questionnaires distributed, 45 percent of the respondees favored Alternative 2 designation of eligible. segments of the river which would pre- clude hydroelectric development. The Alaska Power Authority favored the "no action" alternative. The National Park Service Director for the Alaska Region conferred with State of Alaska representatives regarding the inclusion of the upper part of the river as a state-administered component of the National System under Section 2(a)(ii) of the III-6 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. However, the state declined to take any such action. The Bethel study team's advisory role consisted of provid ing the National Park Service information on environmental re- sources to be added, if appropriate, to its environmental stu- dies of the Kisaralik region. An AEIDC interim report charac- terizing the regional climate geomorphology, and aquatic and terrestrial resources was transmitted to the National Park Ser- vice on May 11, 1982. This report summarized existing informa- tion either reported in the literature or unpublished materiais and file reports maintained by resource ianagement agencies. Additional data primarily from AEIDC field studies, were trans- mitted to the National Park Service on July 12. The Kisaralik Wild and Scenic Power Study Report will be published in February 1984. Other Agency Contacts ~ A meeting with public agency representatives was held in the APA office on April 20, 1982. The purpose of the meeting was to inform interested agencies of the study program. Other agency contacts included written communications with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The primary purpose of these contacts was to comply with permit requirements. A letter dated Fepruary 23 from AEIDC to the Commissioner of ADF&G accompanied an application for a permit to collect fish and aquatic invertebrates for investigative purposes The geo- graphic area of interest for sampling was the Kisaralik River and drainage basin. This allowed the collection of current information on seasonal habitat use by species and the quality of respective habitats. The permit, Number 82-84, was issued on March 15, 1982. By letter dated July 29, 1982, a request was made to amend the collecting permit for authorization to take scientific specimens from the Chikuminuk Lake environs. A new permit, Number 82-100, issued August 2, authorized the conduct of activity in the Kisaralik drainage Chikuminuk Lake, and the Allen River outflow from Chikuminuk Lake A report of specimens collected in the Kisaralik drainage was submitted to the Commis-— sioner December 10, 1982. A report on Chikuminuk Lake and Allen River specimens collected was submitted to the Commission on December 22, 1982. The study team requested and received an Incompatible Use Permit (Number 6700-82-2) from the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks, for site visits to Chikuminuk and III-7 Upnuk Lakes on July 8. ‘These sites are located within the boun- daries of Wood-Tikchik State Park. A summary of findinys was transmitted August 4, 1982 to the Parks Director. The DNR State Historic Preservation. Office (SHPO), in a letter dated April 6, 1982, expressed concern that the Division of Parks had not been consulted regarding cultural resource stipulations (36 CFR 800). ° The letter referenced the procedures set forth in the Scope of Services document appended to contract BAPP-2. By letter dated April 28, the Alaska Power Authority advised the SHPO that AEIDC would be in contact for consultation purposes and that the study plan had indeed addressed this as- pect of 36 CFR 800. AEIDC by letter dated June 23, provided the SHPO with a status report on this aspect of the study, in- cluding the arrangements previously made to access information on file with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. The study team wrote a memorandum outlining the Bethel study for use by the APA in support of a preliminary permit application before FERC for the Kisaralik (Lower Falls) pro- ject. The study team prepared a draft memorandum to the Executive Director of the Lower Yukon/Kuskokwim Aquacultural Association addressing comments and concerns for the mitigation of fishery resources and sociocultural impacts of hydroelectric development on the Kisaralik River. Contact was made with the Bristol Bay Cooperative Manage- ment Office through the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with procedures set forth by the USFWS prior to issu- ance of the Special Use Permit. ILI-8 CHAPTER IV KEY ISSUES AND CONCERNS As a result of this public and agency participation pro- gram several key issues and concerns have been identified. These are: 1. Subsistence hunting and fishing; 2. Roads and right-of-ways on privately-owned lands: 3. Environmental quality; and 4. Community identity and independence. This listing is not meant to be a complete listing but simply represents the major issues identified to date. Subsistence Subsistence can be defined as obtaining food, fiber and shelter from the surrounding environinent (i.e. "living off the land"). Residents of the Bethel region depend on subsistence activities for a number of reasons. It is a traditional method of provision passed down through generations. Under current economic conditions, it otfers savings over the purchase of costly foodstuffs. Perhaps equally important, subsistence pro- vides a fruitful form of recreation. It is clear that any energy supply plan which would seri- ously impact subsistence activities would be wholly unacceptable to the residents of the Bethel region. Land Rights Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 allocated vast areas of land to native ownership. Regional and village corpo- rations were established to administer and utilize these lands. Since the majority of Alaska land is owned by the state and federal government, private land is a precious commodity. Siting of project facilities, particularly electrical transmission lines, must consider land ownership. Environmental Quality The Bethel region's concern for enviromnental quality stems. in a large part from the residents' subsistence life- style. In addition, the region is located within the Yukon Delta Wational Wildlife Refuge. This designated Refuge is the Iv-1 summer breeding ground for major waterfowl populations of national signficance. The Kisaralik River corridor is under study for designation as a Wild and Scenic River. If the river is determined to have outstanding scenic resource values, it will be designated to remain "forever wild". This would preclude any form of develop- ment (particularly hydroelectric) within two miles on either side of the river. Community Independence Within the study area (Bethel and the 12 villages within a 50-mile radius), the city of Bethél is the acknowledged regional center. With its deep water port facilities, nearly all goods and services are transported to the surrounding villages through Bethel. While the village residents are keenly aware of this inherent dependence on Bethel they are protective of whatever degree of independence their village can inaintain from other communities. This philosophy has great impact on such project features as transmission interties and roads. Many communities are opposed to roads, because it might increase access and traf- fic to the community. Increased access would break down the independence that is now afforded by inaccessibility. The Bethel study team has given full consideration to these identified concerns throughout the study process. As a result the best alternative for the reyion can be put forward with confidence that the true needs of the region are being served. IV=2 Date 23 26 11 12 15 Feb Feb Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Ty L. LISTING OF From _ David M, Hickok, AEIDC Paul S. Ford, Harza Dilliplane, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources Nelda Warkentin, Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs John Massey, Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Aquaculture Assoc. (LYKAA) Jack Mosby, Kisaralik Wild and Scenic River Study Team Eric Yould, APA SIGNIFICANT AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE To Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 3 Subject Ronald 0. Skoog, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game Charles W. Strickland, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (YDNWR) Eric Yould, APA Eric Yould, APA Eric Yould, APA APA. Don Baxter, Robert E,. Cackowski, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Permit Application Request for Special Use Permit Work Plan Work Plan Work Plan Meeting and Public Comments Work Plan 13 25 30 Date Apr Apr Apr May May May dun Jun 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 LISTING OF SIGNIFICANT AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE From Robert A. Mohn, APA Paul S. Ford, Harza Paul S. Ford, Harza Paul S. Ford, Harza Clifton Eames, National Wildlife David M. Hickok, AEIDC Federation Maureen Brown, Lower Kuskokwim School District Sandy Rabinowitch, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources To John Massey, LYKAA Charles W. Strickland, YDNWR Dennis L. Morey, USFWS Barry Reiswig, YDNWR Barry Reiswig, YDNWR Clifton Eames, National Wildlife Federation Bruno J. Trouille, Harza Paul S. Ford, Harza Exhibit 1 Page 2 of 3 —___Subject Response to ll Mar 82 letter Scope of Field Studies Falcon Survey Acceptance of - Special Use Permit Conditions Special Use Permit Falcon Survey Data Transmitted State Park Permit Date 29 29 Jul 82 Aug 82 Aug 82 Aug 82 Sep 82 LISTING OF SIGNIFICANT AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE From William J. Wilson, AFIDC Paul S. Ford, Harza Paul S. Ford, Harza Paul S. Ford, Harza Judith A. Dept. Marquez, Alaska of Natural Resources To Louis Banderola, of Fish and Game Sharon Barton, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources Judith A, Dept. Marquez, Alaska of Natural Resources Jack Mosby, National Park Service Paul S. Ford, Harza Alaska Dept. Exhibit 1 Page 3 of 3 Subject Amendment to Fish Collecting Permit Summary of Field Findings Request for State Park Permit Review Comments of Kisaralik Wild and Scenic River Draft EIS Granting of State Park Permit (ex post facto)