[MA-RPC] FW: FSORAG and FSTAG

[Walt Daniels]

   _____  

From: Karen Lutz [mailto:klutz at atconf.org] 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 10:46 AM
To: 'Dave Startzell'; 'Mari Omland'; 'J.T. Horn'
Cc: 'Pete Irvine - USFS'; 'Pam Underhill - NPS'; 'Bob Proudman'; 'Brian
Fitzgerald'; 'Hawk Metheny'; 'Morgan Sommerville'; 'Teresa Martinez'; 'J.T.
Horn'; 'Kerry Snow'; WaltD
Subject: RE: FSORAG and FSTAG



Dave et al

As leaders in the Mid-Atlantic’s RPC, both Kerry Snow HYPERLINK
"mailto:kerrysnow at comcast.net"kerrysnow at comcast.net and Walt Daniels are
working on preparing a summary of concerns from our region.  While it may be
fair to say that the USFS-void mid-Atlantic Region may not be subject to the
same degree of impact as our neighbors, we do want to provide some input.
Please include Kerry and Walt in the loop.

Karen 

 

   _____  

From: Dave Startzell [mailto:dstartzell at appalachiantrail.org] 
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:15 AM
To: Mari Omland; J.T. Horn
Cc: Pete Irvine - USFS; Pam Underhill - NPS; Bob Proudman; Brian Fitzgerald;
Hawk Metheny; Morgan Sommerville; Teresa Martinez; J.T. Horn; Karen Lutz
Subject: RE: FSORAG and FSTAG

 

J.T.- 

I agree. It's a very confusing issue (even for me--and I've been dealing
with it since 1997!). And, I do think ATC needs to take the lead by
assembling it's comments early and sharing them with the clubs. That is our
intent--I plan to work on the comments next week. However, most of my
comments are likely to be somewhat "procedural" in nature. Where I could use
some help from folks in the field is by getting a sense of how those of you
who are likely to actually try to apply this stuff on the ground are
responding to FSORAG and especially FSTAG. Is the exceptions-based approach
understandable? In reviewing the flow chart provided, does the assessment
and decision-making process make sense to you? Are there ways the process
can be clarified? Are the prescribed standards (in some cases, multiple
standards) for each technical provision (e.g. slope, cross slope, surface
obstacles, surface condition, etc.) reasonable? While I've been seeing these
sorts of standards for some time, I've never actually tried to apply them on
the ground (I sometimes wonder if anyone in the USFS has!). Those of you who
have been engaged in trail design and construction probably will have a much
better feel for that issue than me.

There isn't much time. I'd really like to pull our comments together by no
later than next Thursday, March 31. 

Dave 

---------- 
From:   J.T. Horn 
Sent:   Thursday, March 24, 2005 5:36 PM 
To:     Dave Startzell; Mari Omland 
Cc:     Pete Irvine - USFS; Pam Underhill - NPS; Bob Proudman; Brian
Fitzgerald; Hawk Metheny; Morgan Sommerville; Teresa Martinez; J.T. Horn;
Karen Lutz

Subject:        RE: FSORAG and FSTAG 

Dave- 

  

This is a very confusing issue and an unfortunate development with the
duplicate guidelines. 

  

When I brought this up at the New England RPC, people were already sort of
weary of this issue.  I think the best thing we can do is to get a sample
letter, or some other crib notes out ASAP.  I do think several club people
would comment, but they don’t know what to say and are waiting for guidance
from us.

  

-J.T. 

  

  _____  

From: Dave Startzell [HYPERLINK
"mailto:dstartzell at appalachiantrail.org"mailto:dstartzell at appalachiantrail.o
rg] 
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:56 PM 
To: Mari Omland 
Cc: Pete Irvine - USFS; Pam Underhill - NPS; Bob Proudman; Brian Fitzgerald;
Hawk Metheny; Morgan Sommerville; Teresa Martinez; J.T. Horn; Karen Lutz

Subject: FSORAG and FSTAG 

  

Mari (et al): 

I just had a rather interesting telephone conversation that pertains to the
USDA Forest Service accessibility guidelines (or "interim directives") as
reflected in the recently published FSORAG and FSTAG documents. As you know,
I am in the process of developing our comments on those guidelines and will
be seeking additional input from our field staff. As you also know, one of
my immediate concerns arising from the publication of FSORAG/FSTAG in the
Federal Register was the spectre that, two or three months from now, we will
be called upon again to comment on a different set of accessibility
guidelines that will be published for public comment by the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (aka-Access Board). It should
be noted that there are differences between FSORAG/FSTAG and the Access
Board guidelines, which arose out of the earlier (1997 to 1999)
regulatory-negotiation process. In some cases, the Forest Service guidelines
are more restrictive, due to its "universal-design" policy. In other cases,
the USFS guidelines are more flexible, in terms of "scoping" as well as such
issues as outdoor-recreation access routes (ORARs), in part because the
Forest Service draws distinctions between certain trail classes and also
between highly developed sites and general forest areas (GFAs). 

Anyway, this afternoon, I received a telephone call from Peggy Greenwell,
who is sort of the public-information/technical assistance or outreach
person for the Access Board. Peggy was calling to get a sense of how ATC was
reacting to the recent publication of FSORAG and FSTAG. She confirmed that
the Access Board is indeed in discussions with OMB about publication of its
guidelines in the Federal Register. Her best current guess is that their
guidelines might be published sometime between June and August of this year.
She also confirmed that their guidelines will differ from the Forest
Service's. As I suspected, the Access Board does not have the flexibility to
modify its guidelines, at least at the initial public comment stage, to
include distinctions based on such concepts as trail class or GFAs because
those concepts were not introduced during the reg-neg process. And, she
confirmed that the Access Board guidelines, once final, will apply to all
federal agencies, including the Forest Service, and that, while agencies are
free to establish more restrictive guidelines, they can not free to
establish less restrictive guidelines.

What was more surprising, however, was that, in so many words, Greenwell
made it clear that the Access Board (and perhaps even OMB) also is very
concerned about the prospect of the public being forced to respond to two
differing sets of guidelines. In fact, she seemed almost puzzled as to why
the Forest Service elected to move forward with its own guidelines knowing
that the Access Board would be coming out with its own in the near-term
future (although surely she must have known on some level that something was
going on at DOA). 

My suspicion is that the accessibility advocates within USFS, in order to
gain acceptance of the guidelines within the agency, were forced to make
some "accommodations," such as trail class and GFA distinctions (and with
respect to ORARs, which is a real "hot-button" issue). Having done so,
however, they have created another problem: Compelling the public to try to
deal with two sets of extremely complicated guidelines, potentially within
the span of less than six months. It could get even worse: It's quite
possible that, by the time USFS reviews the public comments relative to
FSORAG and FSTAG and produces a second or final round of interim directives,
they are likely to be publishing those at precisely the same time (give or
take a month or two) as the Access Board publishes its initial guidelines.
Then, after the Access Board reviews public comments received from its
process, it will be coming out with final guideines that will apply to all
federal agencies. So, from the perspective of our constituency, they could
be dealing first with draft USFS interim guidelines, then final USFS interim
guidelines, then draft Access Board guidelines, then final Access Board
guidelines, each of which could be different in some respects. This is
likely to drive our constituents absolutely nuts!

In closing, I asked Greenwell if she thought I woud be out of line in
developing ATC's comments to propose that the Forest Service postpone
publication of final interim guidelines until such time as the Access Board
has received sufficient public comment in response to its guidelines to at
least have some sense about whether or not it might be feasible to reconcile
the differences between the two sets of guidelines. Ideally, the two
agencies should issue only one final set of guidelines. Again, in so many
words, Greenwell indicated that we would be well within our rights to take
such a position. 

I should perhaps clarify that I actually like some of the distinctions USFS
has made based on trail class and GFAs. I'm still not thrilled with the
"universal-design" approach (simply because I think it could lead in some
cases to a waste of limited resources). But, I definitely support the
approach of not requiring ORARs to connect accessible campsite elements such
as prviies and shelters (of course, if the elements were not required to be
accessible--as they are by the USFS--then consideration of an ORAR would be
largely moot: There would be no reason to construct an ORAR to connect
elements that are not accessible). Have I made this "as clear as mud"? If
it's murky to us, consider how Joe Blow volunteer is likely to react.

FYI. 

Dave 

David N. Startzell 
Executive Director 
Appalachian Trail Conference 
P.O. Box 807 
799 Washington Street 
Harpers Ferry, W.Va. 25425 
Phone: (304) 535-6331 ext. 116 
Fax: (304) 535-2667 
Email: dstartzell at atconf.org 

 


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 3/27/2005



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 3/27/2005
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nynjtc.org/mailman/private/ma-rpc/attachments/20050328/5541e25e/attachment-0001.htm