Monday, March 25, 2013
Jan 14th meeting
PTSC MTG……..Jan 14, 2013
Neigel gave report to PTSC to clarify and explain how he sees the relationship with PNF with PTSC
after his meeting with Betty, which left him with a “bad feeling.”
PNF can not give preference to any group, as any government agency., .city, county, state, etc.
PTSC can only be recognized for it’s IMPUT.
There has to be an open, public meeting to gather information.
Independent groups can collect their information and give it to PNF.
PNF can not be seen as favoring one group over another.
(This was miss-understood to mean that PTSC could not longer meet at a FS facility.
We can still l meet there as long as it is not seen as a part of PNF’s policy/leading/called by PNF.)
The question is being asked: “Why isn’t the FS dong anything?”
“What are all the different committees for?”
STEWARDSHIP FORUM: Formed in 2008-09 was a collaborative group of cross agencies, that cross boundaries….BLM, city, NF, etc…..to see how the whole forest is being used. Then get more focused by forming zones….Verde zone, Prescott zone, etc. Stewardship Forum was to plan
the involvement and propose how they saw the general plan for the forest.
FOREST PLANNING REVISONS…….TRAIL PLANNING
This group to establish a general plan for all users….recreation sports, aqua faira (?), boundary issues. trail planning, etc.
Now using SF to bring user groups together to contact and utilizes this forum to spread information out to all groups.
Two meeting on Jan. 24, 2012:
a.m. Stewardship Forum….representative for different organizations
p.m. Forest Planning….PNF personnel…viewing zones, how to use land management (city, county) groups
Issues of miss-understanding and lack of communication:
History of all meetings.
History of PTSC and web site.
PARALLEL PROCESS of all user groups (PTSC, city, county, NF, Community Trust etc.. becomes
the “think tank” for the FS.
Paul K…..PTASC acts as advisory group?
Spike……PTSC wants to solve immediate SHORT TERM problem, as safety issues, with out need for NEPA, maybe some quick-fix Cat. Exclusion vs. Friends of the AZ Trails wanting LONG TERM planning which would require possible NEPAs, legal changes, etc.
Omero (PNF) explained changed in the PNF organization in order to meet future challenges to the forest, developing a better web page, better volunteer coordination.
SEE Organizational Chart hand-out.
PROPOSED WORK PROJECTS FOR PTSC:
#347...re-route need Cat. Exclusion.
#531...signage needed for switchbacks and blind corners.
#332…needs RR X-.crossing signs.
#347…needs three filtering locations
#396… needs some more signage…trail names, numbers.
Groom Creek needs more signage.
#366 m #332 and #264 trailheads and trailhead by Girl Scout Camp.
Annual trail head meetings.
Develop a Reporting Form to put on all web sites that the individual organizations can manage.
Design way to count amount of users on high use trails and to determine which trails are high usage.
Develop educational pamphlet to put out inn stores, at trail signs, for city, county, groups, etc.
Trail User Event/Race which will require a PNF Permit with a BBQ social included. (Need a
committee.)
Develop a Brushing Video and put up on web sites. Also can use by the Volunteer Academy.
Trail Head issues to be sent to Jason to take to the Stewardship Forum and the Trail Planning Comm.
Meeting to be every other Monday.
Develop a Time Line to be put on web site…..Brad and Denny.
IMBA to hold trail building workshop and practicum. Re-routing #62 and/or RR grad at #332.
Next mtg: CV PNF, March 4th, 5:30pm
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Here is our response to the Forest Service bringing in the Udall Group.
NEW BUSINESS.
There is concern about HOW the Institute will deal with the various trail user groups. PSTC felt we had already “closed the door” on separating the groups where as the Institute wants to break the groups up into one-on-one sessions.
Betty Matthews noted it was better to cooperate with the Institute so they can get the “big picture” of how we get along and how we are working together to solve problems.
Betty noted her FS background of 23 years and that she has worked with the Institute before and felt them to be pro-active facillators when dealing with collaborative issues between user groups.
There was a lengthily discussion that the PTSC has already been a model for conflict resolution and has a history already of coming up with many solutions, actions plans, and activities to address the issues of the non-motorized, multi-user groups in the PNF. It was noted that groups and specific persons have been invited to join the PTSC so their specific issues, concerns and suggestions to correct the conflict between groups would be heard and recognized.
PTSC also acknowledged that, now, the motorized trail users are also having safety issues and will, form now on, be included in the PTSC group
Betty continued to urge the PTSC to bring in the Institute to build a design for all the get together and build upon what the PTSC has already be doing.
Betty described a possible scenario of how the Institute might work.
3. From the Collaborative group, actions plans would be designed.
4. The actions plans would be what the people/public support when thinking about the “bigger picture” of the PNF usage. Then those actions plans would be assigned to which ever group would be responsible for their implementation.
The Listening Sessions will be conducted by the facilitator to give people a “safe place” to talk, without fear off intimidation, or of not being heard and would feel free to state what their issues are, what their solutions are, and list what they want to talk about in the larger collaborative group.
The Collaborative session will be facilitated by the Institute leaders so emotions won’t take over and all voices will be heard.
It was again noted that the PTSC has already been implementing many action plans and have even developed a time-line to accomplish specific tasks. (Noted was the web site.)
A discussion about the intake of information not being equitable, i.e. the small group vs the larger group, will give the small group more say than the larger group already working on issues. Information will be weighted in favor of the small group. No conclusion was drawn from this discussion except to be cautious.
Jason W. noted that the inclusion of new people’s experiences and ideas the better it will reduce fears and make progress more solid. Then it will be harder to “drop the ball” and not finish the work. Also, with group collaboration it will be easier to support each other out when signing on for grants.
OLD BUSINESS
PTSC can not use the universal stop sign symbol or colors. A circle using yellow and black will be okay. Diana N will develop a new design still listing all the user groups around the edge.
PNF now has Limited Sight signs and Slow signs ready to be put on the trails. Jason will be asking for volunteers to help him put them in.
Jason noted when he is out on the trails he makes personal contact with anyone he meet and takes the time to talk to them about trail safety issues. He encouraged all to do the same.
Plans were made to contact and talk to relevant shop owners and ask them to talk to their customers. Especially regarding head phones and ear buds. If one must use them , then use only one ear piece.
The motorized group will be invited to the next PTSC meeting.
MEETING ADJORNED with PTSC letting Betty know that we will completely cooperate with
her efforts in utilizing the UECRI to work with the PNF and all groups involved in the trail use conflict.
PTSC MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2012
The meeting was called by Brooke W. because of the flood of e-mails seeking answers as to WHAT and WHY and HOW the Udall Environmental Conflict Resolution Institute was going to be used by the PNF to deal with the trail issues.FEBRUARY 15, 2012
NEW BUSINESS.
There is concern about HOW the Institute will deal with the various trail user groups. PSTC felt we had already “closed the door” on separating the groups where as the Institute wants to break the groups up into one-on-one sessions.
Betty Matthews noted it was better to cooperate with the Institute so they can get the “big picture” of how we get along and how we are working together to solve problems.
Betty noted her FS background of 23 years and that she has worked with the Institute before and felt them to be pro-active facillators when dealing with collaborative issues between user groups.
There was a lengthily discussion that the PTSC has already been a model for conflict resolution and has a history already of coming up with many solutions, actions plans, and activities to address the issues of the non-motorized, multi-user groups in the PNF. It was noted that groups and specific persons have been invited to join the PTSC so their specific issues, concerns and suggestions to correct the conflict between groups would be heard and recognized.
PTSC also acknowledged that, now, the motorized trail users are also having safety issues and will, form now on, be included in the PTSC group
Betty continued to urge the PTSC to bring in the Institute to build a design for all the get together and build upon what the PTSC has already be doing.
Betty described a possible scenario of how the Institute might work.
- The five groups would be put into each of their own discussion group. (Listening sessions.)
- Equestrian
- Hikers
- Bikers
- Motorized
- The small group opposing bikers on the trails.
3. From the Collaborative group, actions plans would be designed.
4. The actions plans would be what the people/public support when thinking about the “bigger picture” of the PNF usage. Then those actions plans would be assigned to which ever group would be responsible for their implementation.
The Listening Sessions will be conducted by the facilitator to give people a “safe place” to talk, without fear off intimidation, or of not being heard and would feel free to state what their issues are, what their solutions are, and list what they want to talk about in the larger collaborative group.
The Collaborative session will be facilitated by the Institute leaders so emotions won’t take over and all voices will be heard.
It was again noted that the PTSC has already been implementing many action plans and have even developed a time-line to accomplish specific tasks. (Noted was the web site.)
A discussion about the intake of information not being equitable, i.e. the small group vs the larger group, will give the small group more say than the larger group already working on issues. Information will be weighted in favor of the small group. No conclusion was drawn from this discussion except to be cautious.
Jason W. noted that the inclusion of new people’s experiences and ideas the better it will reduce fears and make progress more solid. Then it will be harder to “drop the ball” and not finish the work. Also, with group collaboration it will be easier to support each other out when signing on for grants.
OLD BUSINESS
PTSC can not use the universal stop sign symbol or colors. A circle using yellow and black will be okay. Diana N will develop a new design still listing all the user groups around the edge.
PNF now has Limited Sight signs and Slow signs ready to be put on the trails. Jason will be asking for volunteers to help him put them in.
Jason noted when he is out on the trails he makes personal contact with anyone he meet and takes the time to talk to them about trail safety issues. He encouraged all to do the same.
Plans were made to contact and talk to relevant shop owners and ask them to talk to their customers. Especially regarding head phones and ear buds. If one must use them , then use only one ear piece.
The motorized group will be invited to the next PTSC meeting.
MEETING ADJORNED with PTSC letting Betty know that we will completely cooperate with
her efforts in utilizing the UECRI to work with the PNF and all groups involved in the trail use conflict.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Email From Forest Service 2/3/12
Trail User Conflict Collaborative Planning 2/3/12 - Email from Forest Service
Hello everyone- I wanted to send each of you an email regarding some future listening sessions the Forest will be hosting via Udall Foundation's U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (U.S. Institute).
The Prescott National Forest (PNF)is currently working to assess and refine collaborative efforts with community members in order to develop strategies to reduce and minimize trail-use conflict in the PNF. As most of you are aware, we had a few accidents on the forest between mountain bikers and horseback riders over the last year. Many of you have been very involved in helping us with new signs, educational clinics, and assessing trail conditions. Much work has been done, and I really want to thank each of you for hard work! Now, I need to assess what more can the PNF do to reduce and minimize trail-use conflicts on the Prescott.
With this in mind, the PNF has engaged the U.S. Institute to provide neutral services on this initiative. The U.S. Institute is an impartial, independent federal agency, and their mission is to help parties, including public, private, and non-profit individuals and organizations, improve collaboration and resolve conflicts involving environmental, natural resource, and public lands issues. The U.S. Institute will staff professional mediators to work with the PNF and community members to help design a process to address and minimize trail-use conflicts in a collaborative forum.
As a first step, the U.S. Institute will hold several listening sessions with trail users. The purpose of the listening sessions is to identify the range of interests, issues, and concerns related to the various trail user groups. Listening sessions will be held in confidential, small-group settings with selected trail users and U.S. Institute staff. Information gathered at these sessions will be summarized in a manner that is non-attributable to participants. This information will help inform the PNF how community members would like to engage in a collaborative process to discuss and address trail-use challenges.
The listening sessions are tentatively scheduled for February, and the final schedule for the sessions will be developed with input from the participants.
As a key community partner, the U.S. Institute would like to contact you directly to get your input on identifying potential participants for the listening sessions, and to answer any questions that you may have about these sessions. Please anticipate being contacted by one of the U.S. Institute staff working on this initiative (Brian Manwaring, Program Manager, manwaring@ecr.gov <mailto:manwaring@ecr.gov> and Lindsey Sexton, Program Associate, sexton@ecr.gov <mailto:sexton@ecr.gov> ) in the coming weeks. If you have any questions for the U.S. Institute staff prior to their call, feel free to contact them directly.
Thank you for all the hard work on the PNF and I look forward to solving our challenges together. Betty
Hello everyone- I wanted to send each of you an email regarding some future listening sessions the Forest will be hosting via Udall Foundation's U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (U.S. Institute).
The Prescott National Forest (PNF)is currently working to assess and refine collaborative efforts with community members in order to develop strategies to reduce and minimize trail-use conflict in the PNF. As most of you are aware, we had a few accidents on the forest between mountain bikers and horseback riders over the last year. Many of you have been very involved in helping us with new signs, educational clinics, and assessing trail conditions. Much work has been done, and I really want to thank each of you for hard work! Now, I need to assess what more can the PNF do to reduce and minimize trail-use conflicts on the Prescott.
With this in mind, the PNF has engaged the U.S. Institute to provide neutral services on this initiative. The U.S. Institute is an impartial, independent federal agency, and their mission is to help parties, including public, private, and non-profit individuals and organizations, improve collaboration and resolve conflicts involving environmental, natural resource, and public lands issues. The U.S. Institute will staff professional mediators to work with the PNF and community members to help design a process to address and minimize trail-use conflicts in a collaborative forum.
As a first step, the U.S. Institute will hold several listening sessions with trail users. The purpose of the listening sessions is to identify the range of interests, issues, and concerns related to the various trail user groups. Listening sessions will be held in confidential, small-group settings with selected trail users and U.S. Institute staff. Information gathered at these sessions will be summarized in a manner that is non-attributable to participants. This information will help inform the PNF how community members would like to engage in a collaborative process to discuss and address trail-use challenges.
The listening sessions are tentatively scheduled for February, and the final schedule for the sessions will be developed with input from the participants.
As a key community partner, the U.S. Institute would like to contact you directly to get your input on identifying potential participants for the listening sessions, and to answer any questions that you may have about these sessions. Please anticipate being contacted by one of the U.S. Institute staff working on this initiative (Brian Manwaring, Program Manager, manwaring@ecr.gov <mailto:manwaring@ecr.gov> and Lindsey Sexton, Program Associate, sexton@ecr.gov <mailto:sexton@ecr.gov> ) in the coming weeks. If you have any questions for the U.S. Institute staff prior to their call, feel free to contact them directly.
Thank you for all the hard work on the PNF and I look forward to solving our challenges together. Betty
We're on target...
Trail 347 which is one of our first deadlines looks like we will be able to complete it
on time.
One other deadline coming up is the joint statement. I really liked the last post to the
editor by Brad and Diana. I say we use it as the guide line as to what to say to reporters we have at events. Any other suggestions?? |
Comments sent by Jason on 9/6/11
I did a quick review. One thing I would start thinking about would be turning this into a larger document that
speaks to the trail community as a whole not just bikes and equestrians. some other ideas I have are: 1. list all the trails that have had conflicts or could - 347, 396, 326, 307 etc most of you know them. 2. We need to start tracking negative trail encounters/accidents between users to help us understand where design is a factor and where user behavior is a factor 3. Vision statement for the "Prescott Trail Safety Coalition" name????? 4. Goals 5. Action Plan - which is mostly developed |
Sign Template we are working with
This was submitted by Denise and Diana made some changes.. is there any other changes
that need to be added or deleted or something else that needs to be posted on it.. like the no ipods sign?  |
Project Definition
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)