[MA-RPC] FW: accessibility requirements for 2005 relocation projects on Appalachian Trail Park Office lands

Wed Apr 6 15:13:35 EDT 2005

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald_Owen at nps.gov [mailto:Donald_Owen at nps.gov] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 2:56 PM
To: Morgan Sommerville
Cc: Amanda Grau; atcfran99 at mycidco.com; Bob Proudman; Bob Sickley; David
Reus - NPS; Dave Startzell; Hawk Metheny; J.T. Horn; Karen Lutz; Michele
Miller; Mari Omland; Matt Stevens; Pam Underhill - NPS; paulives2 at aol.com;
Pete Irvine - USFS; Rita Hennessy - NPS; scully at rjfisher.org; Teresa
Martinez; Val Stori; Walt Daniels
Subject: RE: accessibility requirements for 2005 relocation projects on
Appalachian Trail Park Office lands

Hi, Morgan -

I know we're coming at this issue from different perspectives.  Perhaps my
biggest concern is based in personal experience.  I've been involved in
enough of these compliance processes during my 27 years in the federal
government to see that things don't always turn out the way that you expect.
Initially, the Park Service didn't think NEPA would ever apply to anything
it did.  And Section 106 compliance for cultural resources was never
envisioned as applying to minor projects like trail construction, and now we
do cultural resource clearances for post holes.  I could cite a half dozen
other examples where "letter-of-the-law" application of federal guidelines
and regulations has had unintended consequences, and my concern is that
compliance with accessibility regulations could have similar results.

I don't want to leave you or anyone else with the impression that I am
opposed to accessibility.  I am not.  In fact, I consider myself an advocate
and believer in providing for accessibility whenever and wherever it makes
sense to do so.  My point is, that despite our best efforts, we often
develop guidelines/standards/regulations that ultimately are interpreted
much more literally or conservatively than we expect.
Sometimes this happens as a result of a more strict interpretation in the
field; sometimes it happens because a decision-maker wants to avoid the
appearance of being insensitive to a specific group; sometimes it is a
result of an appeal or a legal challenge.   The bottom line is that the
consequences are often not what any of us initially wanted or expected.  As
a result, I think we need to answer some fundamental questions about the
guidelines now, before they become the law of the land.

You and I do agree on one thing, though, and that is that we should review
the draft regulations very carefully, and try to identify any concerns that
we have now, so that the Forest Service can take our concerns into
consideration as they draft the final regulations.  Comments that are
received by the Forest Service before April 18 will be considered; concerns
that we have a month from now or a year from now will be too late.

Don

Don Owen
Environmental Protection Specialist
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
(deliveries: Third Floor, Civil War Story Building) Harpers Ferry Center
Harpers Ferry, W.Va. 25425
phone: (304) 535-4003
fax: (304) 535-6270
email: donald_owen at nps.gov

                      "Morgan Sommerville"

                      <msommerville at appalachia        To:
<Donald_Owen at nps.gov>, "J.T. Horn" <jthorn at appalachiantrail.org>, "Val
Stori"    
                      ntrail.org>
<vstori at appalachiantrail.org>, "Matt Stevens"
<mstevens at appalachiantrail.org>, "Karen     
                                                       Lutz"
<klutz at appalachiantrail.org>, "Michele Miller"
<mmiller at appalachiantrail.org>, "Bob 
                      04/06/2005 11:10 AM AST          Sickley"
<bsickley at appalachiantrail.org>, "Amanda Grau" <agrau at appalachiantrail.org>,

                                                       "Teresa Martinez"
<tmartinez at appalachiantrail.org>, "Walt Daniels"                        

<wdhiker at optonline.net>, <paulives2 at aol.com>, <scully at rjfisher.org>,

<atcfran99 at mycidco.com>

                                                      cc:       "Pete Irvine
- USFS" <pirvine at fs.fed.us>, "Bob Proudman"                         

<bproudman at appalachiantrail.org>, "Mari Omland" <momland at atconf.org>, "Dave
Startzell"    

<dstartzell at appalachiantrail.org>, "Pam Underhill - NPS"
<Pamela_Underhill at nps.gov>,      
                                                       "David Reus - NPS"
<David_Reus at nps.gov>, "Hawk Metheny" <hmetheny at amcinfo.org>, "Rita     
                                                       Hennessy - NPS"
<Rita_Hennessy at nps.gov>                                                   
                                                      Subject:  RE:
accessibility requirements for 2005 relocation projects on Appalachian Trail

                                                       Park Office lands

Don, I am not familiar with the relocations you describe, but I want to
point out that the FSTAG regulations are designed so that very few, if any,
A.T. relocations will be effected.

As an example, the Osborne tract relocation which we expect to rebuild as an
accessible trail for the first 1/2 mile, was used as an example at a USFS
accessibility training course in Cincinnati that Teresa and I attended (last
year?).  This training was led by Janet Zeller, USFS national Accessibility
Coordinator, and co-led by Ruth Doyle, a USFS landscape architect and
regional accessibility coordinator that helped Janet write FSTAG.

The Osborne tract relocation starts at a trailhead we expect to be
accessible, and winds gently through a pasture at a 4% to 5% grade.  Our
purpose in using it as an example was to determine if we needed to make the
second 1/2 mile of the mile-long relocation accessible, too, which even
though on similar gentle terrain, was, we felt, unnecessary and
uninteresting.

Much to our surprise, the conclusion of Janet and Ruth was that FSTAG did
not require EITHER (any) section of the relocation to be accessible, as the
conditions for departure for trail physical or recreation setting,
construction methods and materials, and terrain or existing construction
practices would all allow exemption of the relocation from accessibility
requirements.

Would accessibility need to be considered and documented?  Yes.

In the Osborne Tract case, since we have so few opportunities to make the
A.T. accessible and since this site provided such a painless and interesting
opportunity, we decided to make it accessible anyway.  Janet advised that we
describe our rationale in the documentation so as not to give the impression
of establishing a precedent.

On the other hand, all new facilities, e.g. privies, shelters and tent pads,
will need to fully accessible, re: FSORAG.  However, given our primitive
structures this is generally quite easy and we in the deep south are in the
process of complying with all new construction, now.  If you would like, I
will show you the new Roaring Fork shelter under construction by Carolina
Mountain Club volunteers which we expect will meet all accessibility
requirements.  They are quite proud of it, and it has taken little extra
work or expense to make it accessible.  The key is planning.

What is important, Don, is your reading of FSTAG.  The fact that you
interpret it so restrictively is an indication of how some other agency
personnel may interpret it.  It will be critical that agency personnel we
work with are adequately trained so that FSTAG and FSORAG are appropriately
implemented.

Don, my comments, and lack of alarm, come from working on the ground to
interpret and use FSTAG and FSORAG.  While I fully agree that all should
read and comment on these regulations, the sky is NOT falling.  And if I
thought it was, I would be there in the vanguard with you screaming the
alarm.

The issue of real concern to me is the Access Board regs. which will be
coming out later this year.  If they incorporate the USFS FSTAG and FSORAG
we will be ok.  If they do not, and represent any retreat from FSTAG's and
FSORAG's pragmatic and positive treatment of primitive, long-distance hiking
trails, then we will need an extremely forceful response.

Further, I encourage everyone to consider FSTAG and FSORAG, NOW, as they
begin planning for construction.  Teresa Martinez or I (and probably Janet
Zeller) would be happy to work with you to figure out what would be required
for a given project.  It is up to your local agency partner to tell you if
you need to comply, but frankly, ATC is generally way ahead of the game and
we should be able to figure it out ourselves.

Try it.  I think you will find it is ok.

Morgan Sommerville
From: Donald_Owen at nps.gov [mailto:Donald_Owen at nps.gov]
Sent: Wed 4/6/2005 10:32 AM
To: J.T. Horn; Val Stori; Matt Stevens; Karen Lutz; Michele Miller; Bob
Sickley; Amanda Grau; Teresa Martinez; Walt Daniels; paulives2 at aol.com;
scully at rjfisher.org; atcfran99 at mycidco.com
Cc: Pete Irvine - USFS; Bob Proudman; Mari Omland; Dave Startzell; Pam
Underhill - NPS; Morgan Sommerville; David Reus - NPS; Hawk Metheny; Rita
Hennessy - NPS
Subject: accessibility requirements for 2005 relocation projects on
Appalachian Trail Park Office lands

Hi, J.T., Val, Matt, Karen, Michele, Bob, Amanda, Teresa, Walt, Paul, Tom,
and Fran -

Just a footnote to my email from yesterday, since I've been reviewing the
Forest Service's proposed accessibility guidelines.  Four of the five Trail
relocation projects scheduled for construction on ATPO lands this year (see
the list below) would be subject to the FSTAG guidelines if they were
located on Forest Service lands (or would be subject to the companion
guidelines being developed by the Access Board for other agencies, if they
were scheduled for construction in 2006 or in future years instead of 2005).
These four projects - Dripping Rocks, Stony Mountain, Hunters Run, and
Nuclear Lake - all connect to a trailhead, and all would need to be
re-designed in accordance with FSTAG if they were located on Forest Service
lands or were constructed once the Access Board guidelines are adopted.

So, I'd advise that you take into account two things:

(1)  plan on getting these projects built this year, or plan on redesigning
them to comply with the accessibility guidelines that will be in place by
this time next year for all federal lands along the Trail,  and

(2)  plan on designing all projects in the future that meet the criteria in
the accessibility guidelines so that they comply with the technical
provisions that will be in place by this time next year for all federal
lands along the Trail.

I'd also suggest that you take the time to review the Forest Service's
proposed FSTAG and FSORAG accessibility guidelines carefully, and that you
get the word out to Board members, regional partnership committee members,
stewardship committee members, Trail club leaders, and even ATC and ALDHA
members, that the time to comment is now.  The deadline for comments is
April 18th, and I think it's critical that Trail clubs fully understand the
long-term implications of these new guidelines/regulations for their
sections of the Trail (and all other trails that they maintain on federal
lands).   I think every single Trail club - and many ATC Board members and
committee members - ought to weigh in on this.   Dave Startzell's review
comments, along with a really well-thought-out synopsis of the guidelines,
are posted on ATC's website.

Don

2005 Trail relocation projects on Appalachian Trail lands

1.    Dripping Rocks A.T. Relocation, near Waynesboro, in Nelson County,
Virginia (tentatively scheduled for May 12 or 13, 2005)

   This project involves construction of approximately 1/2 mile of 18-inch
   to 24-inch primitive trail treadway, by volunteers using hand tools.
   See the attached map.

2.    Stony Mountain Relocation, Rush Township, Dauphin County, Pa.
(tentatively scheduled for May 26 or 27, 2005)

   This project involves construction of approximately 5,000 linear feet of
   18-inch to 24-inch primitive trail treadway, by volunteers using hand
   tools.  See the attached map.

3.    Hunters Run Relocation, Adams County, Pennsylvania (tentatively
scheduled for May 26 or 27, 2005)

   This project involves construction of approximately 1,000 linear feet of
   18-inch to 24-inch primitive trail treadway, by volunteers using hand
   tools.  Most of the surface area has been disturbed.  A former rural
   railroad station is located within 50 feet of the proposed route.  See
   the attached map.

4.    Harlem Valley Relocation, Dutchess County, New York (tentatively
scheduled for May 24 or 25, 2005)

   This project involves construction of approximately 2,800 linear feet of
   18-inch to 24-inch primitive trail treadway, by volunteers using hand
   tools.  See the attached map.

5.    Nuclear Lake Relocation, Dutchess County, New York (tentatively
scheduled for May 24 or 25, 2005)

   This project involves construction of approximately 1,500 feet of
   18-inch to 24-inch primitive trail treadway, by volunteers using hand
   tools.  See the attached map.

   Don Owen
   Environmental Protection Specialist
   Appalachian National Scenic Trail
   (deliveries: Third Floor, Civil War Story Building)
   Harpers Ferry Center
   Harpers Ferry, W.Va. 25425
   phone: (304) 535-4003
   fax: (304) 535-6270
   email: donald_owen at nps.gov
----- Forwarded by Donald Owen/APPA/NPS on 04/05/2005 05:04 PM -----

                      Donald Owen

                                               To:
mia_parsons at nps.gov, Andrew Lee/HFC/NPS at NPS

                      04/05/2005 05:03         cc:

                      PM EDT                   Subject:  archaeological
surveys for Appalachian Trail projects

April 5, 2005

To:         Mia Parsons, Andrew Lee, Mike Owens,
            Archaeology Division, Harpers Ferry NHP

From:       Don Owen, Environmental Protection Specialist/Section 106
            Coordinator, Appalachian National Scenic Trail

Re:         Cultural Resource Clearances for Appalachian Trail Projects

Mia, Andrew, and Mike, attached is a list of archaeological surveys that
need to be conducted for Appalachian Trail projects slated for construction
in the summer of 2005.

I am currently planning my field reviews for these projects in late May and
early June, and would like to make sure that an archaeologist can accompany
me and conduct the archaeological surveys for these projects.  My schedule
is flexible at this point, and I can make adjustments to accommodate
whatever dates work for you, as long as I know at least one of you will be
able to come with me.

All of these projects are comparatively small scale, involving surface
disturbance of ¼ of an acre or less (in fact, most involve surface
disturbance of 2,500 square feet or less).  In total, the projects listed
below would affect less than one (1) acre.  Sites are less than one mile
from a road unless otherwise noted.  Project descriptions, maps, and a
personal guide will be provided by the National Park Service to each site to
ensure that each site can be readily located in the field.

Field work for each project (including travel) should take no more than one
day.  The two projects in New York combined will probably take a total of
two days, including travel.  Field work should be completed by June 15,
2005.  Reports must be received by June 30, 2005.

Please let me know as soon as possible (by phone at 535-4003 or email at
<donald_owen at nps.gov) which projects you believe you will be able to assist
us with this spring and summer.   Thanks!

         2005 Trail relocation projects on Appalachian Trail lands
                   that need review by an archaeologist