04/03/08 EmailThread w/YNPS Planning with Copy To Congress:
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Brian Ouzounian
Subject: Re: Opportunities to stay involved
To: Elexis_Mayer@nps.gov
CC: "Ameen Khan" , "Shelly H. Abajian" , "Sarah Ditrich" , "Jen Nersesian"
Dear Elexis:
Thank you for your reply. I have sent an email to your planning website to get on the email list and plan to post the information to our website for coalition members to contact you for same. Please be sure that my email is added to all data bases because I have not received notices in the recent past except for a few sent directly from you and Jen Nersesian and some forwarded from coalition members.
Our membership list is private and kept confidential other than what you can observe on the petition; we made this commitment to confidentiality at the outset for all who have commented or signed the petition. The preliminary comments we received is that of great hesitation to have the YNPS or others hold access to them due to their comments. The YNPS has, you see, gone from that friendly "Smokey The Bear" image of the good ranger to the opposite in the eyes of the camping public; this I have spoken to you and all the management staff on several occasions. To some, revealing their privacy resembles a direct "fear." As you are aware, this is unfortunate for both the YNPS and the public pursuant to fair and balanced planning preparations at any stage.
Suggestions for the future are to include a box to check on the campsite reservation system that the visitor can check if they want to be on the email list and also, the kiosks can have postcards to hand out to visitors on check-in; they hand out a package anyway and there are always ranger-auditors walking around checking vehicle parking permits on a daily basis in each campground.
Regarding the minutes or summary thereof to the court, I think we have exhausted that gripe and we both know the truth. As I stated in the last ORV workshop, I recommend that participants should be told at the outset of each meeting (as attendees vary) that their pictures and their comments will go to the federal court.
Regarding the two closed door (to the public) public agency meetings from August and December of 2007, yes I still await receipt of them without going through FOIA. These meetings should be part of the public record.
Regarding the Flood Recovery Quarterly Report Ending March 31, 2006, I appreciate the information. However I am confused and I have the following comments:
a. At the ORV meeting, I specifically asked for an accounting the the $170MM funding; that means the dated activities of debits and credits to the YNPS account that is the cost center for the flood recovery project. The report sent is not what I requested.
b. What about the more current report as the one sent is two years old!
c. I fail to understand the Superintendent's cover letter whereby he states "The succeeding draft quarterly reports have been forward to Congress for approval and have not been returned to the park in final form." What is the approval process and why is there one at all in so far as it is generated from the costs spent directly by the YNPS? What more can Washington DC offer unless it screens and deletes factual information that it does not want the public to know? This would not be a good transparent methodology. The statement compels more concern or suspicion. So, why is there an approval process and if the Superintendent has a good answer, what is holding up the succeeding reports from public information?
d. The report came from Mike Tollefson with copies of the cover letter to yourself and Bill Delaney. Can I ask you to copy them on this email, please.
I appreciate the opportunity to have a dialog on these matters and hopefully we will both reach a better understanding in the process.
Best Regards,
Brian
Elexis_Mayer@nps.gov wrote:
Brian-
Our public scoping meetings, new MRP Public Planning Workshops, and the User Capacity Symposium were all announced through multiple communication channels; not just our web site. We have two mailing lists; one is a hard copy list serve, the other is an e-Newsletter list serve. Our hard copy mailing list has 6,820 recipients, which does not include the over 50 agencies, local governments and tribes that also receive these notifications. All of these contacts receive the
quarterly Planning Update, and other notifications; all of which contain the information about how to receive our periodic e-Newsletter.
Our e-Newsletter mailing list has 5,425 recipients. As many as three e-Newsletters are sent each month, keeping people informed about current planning and park information. Unless someone specifically requests to be added to the e-Newsletter list; we do not automatically sign people up due to the frequency in which the e-Newsletters are sent. To sign-up to receive the e-Newsletter please notify your database contacts that they need to send an email to: yose_planning@nps.gov. Or, if you could send me the 1500 email addresses of your signatories we can add them to our mailing, at your
request.
We only send out notifications to people who have signed up for either of these list serves; we do not generate additional special notifications for specific stakeholders.
The meeting notes from the October 6, 2007, Public Planning Workshop were not submitted to the court; rather recognition that the meeting took place was what was submitted to the court.
I know you are still waiting for the two Agency/Tribal Consultation Work session meeting notes.
Have you received the Flood Recovery Quarterly Report?
Lex
Elexis Mayer, Project Manager - Merced River Plan
Division of Planning
Yosemite National Park
5083 Foresta Rd. El Portal, CA 95318
(o) (209) 379-1377
(f) (209) 379-1294
|---------+---------------------------->
"Brian Ouzounian
03/31/2008 12:05PM MST
To: Elexis Mayer |
cc: Jen Nersesian , "Shelly H. Abajian" , Ameen Khan, Sarah Ditrich
Subject: ORV meeting comments
Dear Elexis:
The people I represent have brought up an issue with regard to comments you solicit on your New MRP meetings. They would like to know why they are not contacted directly and in advance about your open comment periods for the October 6Th, User Capacity Symposium, and the ORV meeting; this applies to
future meetings as well.
As I understand what you have said in our communications, you will post it on the planning website; however, unless the "interested parties" happen to peruse the site or the YNPS site on a regular basis, they may miss the opportunities for this planning process.
I am sure that you hold quite a data base (email and USmail) of interested parties since all the plans in the past 28 years have contacted you to be on your "mailing list." This issue dates back and drums up sensitive and abrasive opinions regarding the YNPS's failure to properly contact campers during the survey and preparation of the 1980 GMP and other subsequent
plans.
As you and your staff, including Linda Dahl, have assured the public of a more transparent YNPS planning process, we are upset that you have not contacted the interested parties directly for comments on the "New MRP" and that you leave it to the interested parties to weave their way through your site(s) for the comment periods. This issue is illustrated in your 4month
old minutes from the October 2007 planning meeting, which you used for your summary update to send to the Federal Court in Fresno whereby you stated that the 1500 petition signatures that I submitted to you in October (requesting the replacement of the flood damaged campsites) were submitted after the end of the comment period, which gave the perception of exclusion
from the New MRP. In response to that, I have requested in writing that your continuing New MRP planning process include you referring to the website (www.yosemitevalleycampers.org) for timely updates for the latest petition signers and their comments because it is very active day to day. I
have yet to receive a confirmation on that request.
As busy as we all are in our lives outside of watching out for the
preservation of our Yosemite, we need you to directly contact the
interested parties, which also includes myself. I see no reason why you cannot accommodate this request.
Additionally, I am in wait for my request for minutes of your two closed door planning meetings, regardless of your comments of FOIA procedures.
