[MA-RPC] RE: accessibility requirements for 2005 relocation
projects on Appalachian Trail Park Office lands
Walt Daniels
wdhiker at optonline.net
Wed Apr 6 15:59:13 EDT 2005
Thanks Don, a good expression of what most of us feel. Unfortunately perhaps
a little too late in the process because I suspect that USFS is mostly just
reflecting Access Board rules. We did not get the best possible deal there.
The problem is trying to right universal rules that apply to all possible
situations instead of pushing the decision making down to the park or maybe
even lower level. The goals should be to make some of the world accessible,
not everything. So each decision maker should be responsible for making some
of his area accessible. Pick some percentage, like the percentage of
disabled out of total population, as a goal. The decision makers should have
their performance rating depend on meeting that goal or showing why they
can't meet it. A single percentage for all trail classes (in USFS
terminology) will not work. The percentage needs to be very low at the
primitive end and quite high at the developed end. This avoids dumb
decisions like paving the first 100 yards from a parking lot when the rest
cannot meet accessible standards. Instead you find your x% somewhere else
where it can provide a useful experience for the ADA person.
In the case of the AT I would propose that it all be considered one unit
that is responsible for x% somewhere on its length, not little dribs and
drabs here, there, everywhere. I suspect that we already meet those goals
with the C&O and Housatonic pieces plus a few others. We ought to have a
list.It doesn't all have to be on the AT, some of it could be on the AT
corridor and provide an equivalent experience, e.g. the road into Nuclear
Lake. All it needs is a few signs and a change in the gate.
One thing that hasn't come up (or I haven't seen it) is the nature of the
NPS/USFS agreement. Whose rules apply in the AT corridor on USFS land?
> -----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
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005
More information about the MA-RPC
mailing list