File Code: 2300
Date: October 5, 2007
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Office of Technical and Information Services
1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1111
The U.S. Forest Service strongly supports the need for accessibility guidelines that specifically address developed outdoor areas. Guidelines are needed to ensure accessibility is maximized where possible, to do so without changing the outdoor recreation experience and the natural environment. That is critical because people recreating on the National Forest System (NFS) lands are looking for a range of opportunities, from highly developed areas with paving and hot showers, to remote areas where there is little to no infrastructure.
The Forest Service has worked to make such guidelines a reality; beginning with our development of the Universal Access to Outdoor Recreation, A Design Guide in 1993. That year we also adopted universal design as the standard for the Forest Service. Our agency’s commitment to accessibility continued through our work on the Access Board’s Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Outdoor Developed Areas from 1997 to 1999 and our use of the resulting draft guidelines as soon as they became available.
When it became necessary for the Forest Service to develop its own accessibility guidelines for outdoor recreation and trails, we based our agency’s guidelines on the 1999 Access Board committee’s draft guidelines which are included within the Access Board’s current Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Through the development of our agency’s guidelines, we gathered comments from all who wished to submit them, including our employees, partners, outdoor recreation and trail organizations, concessionaires, and the public. Those comments helped us to craft detailed guidelines for outdoor recreation that take into consideration the realities of the recreation experience for all people, including those who have disabilities, while maintaining the full range of experience and natural setting choice for each visitor.
The result was the Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (FSORAG) and the Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG) that were finalized in May 2006 and are the legal standard for the NFS outdoor areas.
The 193 million acres of the NFS receive over 190 million visits each year. Through National Visitor Use Monitoring, we know that 6.2 percent of the groups, parties of more than one person that visit the National Forests and Grasslands, include at least one person who has a disability. Of those groups that include a person who has a disability, 89.9 percent say they have found the Forest Service facilities to be accessible. Because we have been following our universal design policy since 1993, that 89.9 percent statistic tells the Forest Service that the result of this policy has improved accessibility for all.
From that perspective we share the enclosed comments concerning the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, U.S. Access Board Docket No. 2007–02.
Sincerely,
/s/ James S. Bedwell
JAMES S. BEDWELL
Director of Recreation and Heritage Resources
cc: Janet Zeller
Question 1: Are there other approaches the Board should consider?
Forest Service Comment: No, the Regulatory Negotiation Committee thoroughly vetted all other approaches. The compliance by exceptions approach adopted by the Regulatory Negotiation Committee (Reg Neg) and utilized in the proposed guidelines is acceptable.
Question 2: The term “not feasible” is used in Condition 4 to specify what is “reasonably do-able.” It does not refer to the technical infeasibility or possibility of full compliance with the technical provisions. Should the word “practicable” also be used in this condition? That is, are there situations where it would be “reasonably do-able” to comply with the guidelines, but it is not “practicable” to do so? Should there be more guidance for determining what is or is not feasible or practicable in applying Condition 4? If so, what type of guidance should be provided? Should the guidance give specific examples of situations where certain provisions such as maximum running slope may not be feasible or practicable for a portion of a trail?
Forest Service Comment: As to whether to use the term “not feasible” or “not practicable,” the words are interchangeable, the definitions are pretty much the same. As far as additional guidance, the question should be not "Can it be done?" but "Should it be done?" For example, is it worth the cost, effort, time, resources, site modification, or are those efforts better spent somewhere else where the result would be a better, more accessible experience.
Question 3: What signage should be used on newly constructed trails that have applied the technical provisions of the trail accessibility guidelines?
Forest Service Comment: Every hiker, including those who have disabilities, needs to know what to expect on a trail before deciding if they want to embark on that trail. The most appropriate signage on a new or altered trail or trail segment, as well as at the trailhead of trails that have been evaluated for accessibility, is one that provides information about the trail. At a minimum, in addition to the standard information including the name and length of the trail, these signs must include the typical and maximum trail grade, typical and maximum cross slope, typical and minimum tread width, surface type and firmness, and obstacles.
That information can be posted concisely and will provide all trail users the information they need. While the percent of trail grade may not be understood by all initially, after the person has hiked on that trail he or she will understand if that percent of trail grade is appropriate for his or her abilities, and will use that understanding when selecting other trails to hike in the future.
Even if the guidelines technical provisions were met when a trail was constructed, events may occur, such as tree blow-downs and flooding, that may make the trail temporarily inaccessible until maintenance crews can clear the obstruction. To address these situations, signs posted at trailheads should state that the information they contain reflects the condition of the trail when it was constructed or assessed and should include the date of that construction or assessment.
Where more extensive trail information is provided (e.g., an aerial map of the trail and related facilities), the location of specific trail features and obstacles that do not comply with the guidelines technical provisions should be identified and a profile of the trail grade should be included.
The detailed information is required for new or altered trails and trail segments that fall into Trail Class 4 and 5 under the federal Interagency Trail Data Standards (ITDS). Local trail managers have the discretion to decide whether to post signs on new or altered trails and trail segments that fall into ITDS Trail Classes of 1, 2, or 3; the information is posted at the trailhead and at all other locations where that trail’s information is posted, such as on websites, in brochures, and so forth.
None of the trail information signs should include the wheelchair symbol which is the International Symbol of Accessibility (ISA). For decades people have associated the use of the ISA with accessible facilities in the more urban or built environment. That association will not change simply because facilities of the outdoor recreation environment will be addressed by the ADA/ABA Accessibility Guidelines. For most people the ISA posted on a route denotes a paved pathway that is level or close to it, wide and with ample turning space akin to sidewalks and the access routes in highly developed areas. Posting the ISA on a trail, even in conjunction with other outdoor symbols, would therefore likely lead to false expectations and increased confusion.
The technical provisions for trails appropriately allow grades up to 12.5 percent. That grade is far steeper than what the public is used to experiencing when they see the ISA, even the ISA in conjunction with other graphics. There are also numerous exceptions to the technical provisions permitted in order to maintain the character and experience of the trail. As a result, the completed trail may have a number of sections that do not comply with the primary provisions of the trail guidelines, resulting in a trail that is a mix of trail conditions. Nonetheless, that trail would still comply with the technical provisions and the exceptions of the guidelines for trails.
Posting the ISA on the trail will not assist the hiker who has a disability in determining if that trail is appropriate for the recreation experience they are seeking. The public would be better served by posting the information and allowing each individual to make their own decision to proceed or not.
Question 4: The committee proposed that a beach access route be required where pedestrian routes are provided to or along the edge of a beach. Several exceptions to this general requirement are included in the proposed rule. Section T205.2.3 Exception 6 provides an exception for pedestrian routes that are developed along the edge of an existing beach, such as a boardwalk. Under this exception, beach access routes would not be required if the pedestrian route or boardwalk is elevated 6 inches or higher above the beach surface. The Board is concerned that this exception will not provide sufficient access for persons with disabilities, especially where lengthy elevated boardwalk systems are provided. In view of this, the Board requests comments on whether a higher threshold than 6 inches should be used.
Forest Service Comment: A higher threshold than 6 inches should be used.
Question 5: The proposed rule requires beach access routes to be a minimum of 36 inches in width. Should this width be increased? When beach access routes are less than 60 inches in width, a passing space of 60 inches by 60 inches would be required every 200 feet. Should the passing space be larger? Should passing spaces be provided more frequently than every 200 feet? The Board is interested in information from designers or operators who have provided beach access routes.
Forest Service Comment: For beach access routes a minimum width of 36 inches with apassing space of 60 inches by 60 inches required every 200 feet is sufficient.
Question 6: The proposed rule requires beach access routes to extend to the water. The Board requests comments on whether beach access routes should connect managed elements and spaces often located on a beach such as beach volleyball courts, first aid stations, beach rental equipment facilities, and concession stands.
Forest Service Comment: Beach access routes should extend to the managed elements and spaces often located on a beach such as beach volleyball courts, first aid stations, beach rental equipment facilities, and concession stands. Access to these elements must be provided for all people.
Question 7: Height of a grill’s cooking surface is required to be 15 inches minimum to 34 inches maximum above the floor or ground surface. Is the 15 inch minimum too low? If so, what dimension should be used?
Forest Service Comment: The proposed guidelines use the broad term “cooking surface” when addressing this height differential. Therefore the height requirement is not limited to standard pedestal grills. In order to address the full range of possible cooking surfaces, 15 inches is not too low for the minimum height.
The fire building level within a fire ring is required to be at no less than 9 inches above the ground level. If a camper is seeking to cook, heat their pot of water, or similar cooking process over the coals in their fire ring, the “grill”/grate cooking surface cannot be higher than 15 inches above the ground level or the food or pot will not receive sufficient heat from the coals.
This requirement (T 308.3) allows a height from 15 inches up to 34 inches. That range of heights can easily accommodate the cooking surface needs for a fire ring or for a pedestal grill. No change is necessary.
Question 8: The number of picnic tables, grills, benches, and other elements required to be accessible in this proposed rule is based on what is provided in an area. While no definition of area is provided, several examples are included in the advisory note to T206.2.2 to give guidance on what is intended. Areas may be “designated locations,” separated and identified by a name or connected to a separate entrance road. Areas may also be separated and include different settings on the same site. For example, a picnic area located next to a lake in a park is considered a separate picnic area from a pavilion with numerous picnic tables within the same park. Does the term “area” need to be defined? If so, please provide a recommended definition.
Forest Service Comment: The Forest Service defines each separate area as a “recreation site” or a “recreation building” within the agency’s recreation infrastructure database “Infra.” In recreation sites that have multiple units, for example in a campground, each individual camping unit is recognized as a separate unit within that recreation site and changes made to that unit, as well as the status of the accessibility of the individual “units,” are recorded. Because of this hierarchical database, the agency has internally defined the separate “areas” that are to be addressed. Because accountability is required for all aspects of recreation “areas” that receive funding, each agency or entity can internally define the individual “areas” and apply the guidelines to them. Therefore no additional definition of an “area” is necessary nor would such a definition be useful, as it would be out if sync with each agency’s internal terminology.
Question 9: Should the advisory information on the degrees of firmness and stability be included in the guidelines?
Forest Service Comment: No, the advisory note is far too complicated. Instead, clear and simple definitions of firm and stable need to be included in the Definitions section of the guidelines.
In addition, an advisory note should be included that states: Surface firmness and stability should be determined and documented during the planning process for the primary seasons in which the surface will be used, under normally occurring weather conditions.
Question 10 Should the number of required accessible outdoor elements such as picnic tables, fire rings, and benches be increased from the scoping provisions in Chapter T2? In most cases, 50% of the elements provided are required to be accessible. Of those elements required to be accessible, 40% are also required to be connected by an outdoor recreation access route.
Forest Service Comment: The proposed guidelines will apply only to the Federal agencies. All of these agencies are under the Architectural Barriers Act that requires access to facilities designed, built, altered, or leased with Federal funds. Therefore all new or reconstructed outdoor elements purchased or constructed by Federal agencies should be required to be accessible to the point that does not negatively impact the character and experience of the natural outdoor setting. An accessible picnic table or fire ring has no more impact on the natural setting than a non-accessible picnic table or fire ring. The Federal agencies should be held to the higher universal design standard of 100 percent scoping.
In individual campsites in a developed campground, each of the elements, such as picnic table, grill, and fire ring, must be connected by an outdoor recreation access route (ORAR). However, when multiple elements such as picnic tables and grills are placed in the same area, for example in a picnic area, visitors will be seeking a range of recreation settings for their picnic. While all of the picnic tables and grills should be required to be accessible and be required to be placed within the grade, cross slope, and clear space requirements, not all would be required to be on an ORAR. The result is that in highly developed areas it is likely all picnic units will be on ORARs; however, at less developed picnic areas the site would not be crisscrossed with ORARs. Each visitor can select a table on the ORAR or a more remote table surrounded by grass.
The proposed guidelines proportions are that 50 percent of the tables provided in an area must comply with the guidelines and of that 50 percent, 40 percent of those tables must be on an ORAR. This equates to 20 percent of all of the tables in the area being required to be accessible as well as to be on an ORAR. The Forest Service recommendation is that 100 percent of tables provided in an area to be required to comply with the accessibility guidelines and a minimum of 20 percent of those tables be required to be on an ORAR. The result will be the same number of accessible picnic tables on ORARs as the Access Board proposed proportion but the 100 percent and 20 percent will be far less confusing to implement. In addition, requiring 100 percent of the tables to comply with the guidelines would provide maximum visitor choice and customer service. People with disabilities would be able to select any table for their use and not be limited to only the certain percent that the agency placed in the area to comply with the minimum guidelines.
The Outdoor Developed Area guidelines should require federal agencies to meet the highest standard, the100 percent scoping, rather than leaving that decision to the choice of changing federal agency administrations.
Question 11: The 2004 Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines changed to the technical provisions for reach ranges. The low reach was changed from 9 inches to 15 inches minimum. Should the low reach for the fire building surface on fire rings be changed?
Forest Service Comment: No, one of the functions of the fire ring is to disperse heat while the fire remains visible. The combination of sight and function as one sits by the campfire is a key camping experience. At the 9 inch fire building surface height, the sidewalls of the fire ring have to rise at least another 9 inches above that, to a minimum height of 18” above the ground, in order to contain the burning firewood. At that height the fire is barely visible from a seated position. Adding any more height to the walls would obstruct the fire resulting in a substantial alteration to the camping experience for everyone.
Question 12: How should alteration and maintenance activities be defined for picnic areas, campgrounds, and beaches, including outdoor recreation access and beach access routes?
Forest Service Comment: The ADA/ABA Accessibility Guidelines definition of alteration that appears in T104.4 (page 50 of the NPRM) is adequate for campgrounds, picnic areas, toilet buildings, etc. although vague. The statement concerning removal of debris and maintenance of a trail head structure is superfluous.
However this definition of alteration does not appropriately address the trail tread. It states: “A change to a facility or site that affects or could affect the usability of the facility or site or portion thereof. Normal maintenance and repair, including but not limited to removal of debris and maintenance of a trail head structure are not alterations unless they affect the usability of the facility or site.
Therefore this definition should be edited to clarify that it addresses only recreation site, buildings, and elements. The following edit to the definition is recommended as more complete and easily understood:
Alteration of a recreation site, building, or facility: A change to a recreation site, building, or element or portion thereof that affects or could affect the usability of the recreation site, building, or element or portion thereof and that is addressed by the accessibility guidelines.
A definition of a trail alteration and of trail maintenance is also needed in the final guidelines. Both were appropriately addressed in the 1999 Regulatory Negotiation Committee’s final report and are in the NPRM as follows:
A trail alteration is well defined through a double negative inference in the NPRM under Alterations and Maintenance (page 6 in the second paragraph): “This type of work is not an alteration; it does not change the original purpose, intent, or design of the trail.” Therefore, by removing the self canceling double negatives, the definition of a trail alteration is stated as:
Trail Alteration: An action that changes the original purpose, intent, or design of the trail.”
Trail maintenance is also well defined in the NPRM in the same paragraph on page 6 of the NPRM:
Trail maintenance: Maintenance is routine or periodic repair of trails or trail segments to restore them to the standards to which they were originally designed and built.
All three definitions should be included in the Definitions section of the final guidelines as follows:
Alteration of a recreation site, building, or facility: A change to a recreation site, building, or element or portion thereof that affects or could affect the usability of the recreation site, building, or element or portion thereof and that is addressed by the accessibility guidelines.
Trail Alteration: An action that changes the original purpose, intent, or design of the trail.”
Trail maintenance: Maintenance is routine or periodic repair of trails or trail segments to restore them to the standards to which they were originally designed and built.
Question 13: Should there be different construction tolerances for the outdoor environment? For example, should the construction tolerances be greater with respect to trails, picnic areas, camping facilities, and beach access routes than interior accessible routes? If so, how should those tolerances be defined?
Forest Service Comment: No, the guidelines are designed to accommodate tolerances. Many of the technical specifications for trails are “up to a maximum of” which means each item should be built to that limit or less. The guidelines are design guidelines and can be used with tolerances in mind if designers need to think that way. For example, tread cross slope can be up to 5 percent maximum, so a designer may specify that the trail be built with a cross slope in a particular area of 4 to 5 percent in order to adequately drain water. The builder then has flexibility to construct the trail within that range. If the builder wants to push the cross slope to 5 percent that is fine. Everyone needs to recognize that in the following years the cross slope may increase to something greater than 5 percent due to use, frost action, etc.
Another example would be benches. The seat height is a range — 17 to 19 inches. This range gives the designer flexibility as well as the builder/installer.
In terms of outdoor structures such as privies (toilet buildings) in more remote locations, it can be argued that the construction tolerances should be less. For example, wall plumbness may not be important particularly when considering the many types of natural or native construction materials which could be used to construct walls. For example, the use of logs or stone for building a wall will challenge the best builder in terms of its plumbness.
Question 14: Should elements located on trails that do not comply with the accessibility guidelines be required to be accessible?
Forest Service Comment: The proposed guidelines will apply only to the federal agencies. All of these agencies are under the Architectural Barriers Act that requires access to facilities designed, built, altered, or leased with federal funds. Further those agency partners or permit holders who construct elements on federal lands are required, under each federal agency’s regulations that implement Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for their assisted programs, to comply with the same federal accessibility guidelines as the agency. Therefore all new or reconstructed outdoor elements on federal lands are currently required to comply with the ABA. The Outdoor Developed Area guidelines should not undercut the ABA.
As one hiker who uses a wheelchair stated: hiking is challenge by choice. The hiker chooses the degree of challenge they are seeking when the hiker selects the trail to hike. However using a toilet is not a choice, so it should not be a challenge.
Question 15, 16, 17 and 18: The Forest Service is not commenting on these four questions pertaining to Beach Access Routes because we do not have any specific experience to add to the discussion of the issues addressed by these questions.
Question 19: Section T303.8 permits departure from the technical provisions for cross slope with open drainage structures. A cross slope up to 10 percent is permitted at the bottom of the open drain where the clear tread width is 42 inches minimum. Are open drainage structures the only drainage structures where cross slopes up to 10 percent should be permitted? If not, what other areas should be identified?
Forest Service Comment: Yes, it is important to define open drainage structures. The classic open drainage structure is a drainage dip (also known as a grade dip or by any number of other names depending on what part of the country you are in). The name used by the various federal agencies for these structures should be used – this will ensure uniformity. Another open drainage structure which is commonly used on pedestrian hiking trails is a cross drain which typically is armored with flat stones to allow water to flow across the trail without eroding the trail treadway.
The bottom point of a tread grade reversal will also collect water and drain it off and is considered a drainage feature although it is the trail alignment which causes the water to flow off the trail, not a constructed drainage feature. The water in these locations has no place to go except off the trail unless there is debris blocking the exit point.
It could be argued that an entire trail is an open drainage structure given that with proper construction (cross slope) it drains water. However the trail treadway is not meant to be considered an open drainage structure.
Question 20: Should exceptions from the technical provisions be permitted for outdoor recreation access routes (ORAR) based on the conditions in T302.
Forest Service Comment: Yes, exceptions from the technical provisions must be permitted for outdoor recreation access routes (ORAR) based on the conditions in T302. The outdoor environment is not always compliant with the grades prescribed in the guidelines. Agencies seek to place newly constructed developed campgrounds, picnic sites, and so forth in locations where reasonable grades can be met.
However when an existing campground, picnic area, etc. is reconstructed, the agency must work with the terrain at that site. While every effort is made to ensure the ORARs connecting the elements at that site, for example, the campsite to the toilet and water, comply with the accessibility guidelines, it may not always be possible or feasible due to existing terrain. In those cases, in order to comply with the accessibility guidelines it would be necessary to substantially alter the nature of the setting or create substantial cuts and fills that would not be sustainable over time. It is absolutely essential that an exception to the technical provisions for ORARs be permitted in alterations only if one of the conditions of T302 is applied.
The exception would be stated as follows:
Running Slope. The running slope of ORARs shall comply with all applicable provisions of this section. No more than 15 percent of the total length of an ORAR may exceed a slope of 1:12 (8.33 percent).
Exception. For alteration only (not new construction), a running slope of up to 1:12 (8.33 percent) is permitted for up to 100 feet of an ORAR where one or more conditions for departure in section 1.1 exist. Resting intervals complying with section 2.3 shall be provided at distances of no more than 100 feet apart.
Exception 1. For alteration only (not new construction), a running slope of up to 1:10 (10 percent) is permitted for up to 50 feet (15250 mm) of an ORAR where one or more conditions for departure in section 1.1 exist. Resting intervals complying with section 2.3 shall be provided at distances of no more than 50 feet (15250 mm) apart.
Exception 2. For alteration only (not new construction), where the running slope of an ORAR cannot comply with section 2.2.1.3 or exception 1 of that section because one or more conditions for departure in section 1.1 exist, section 2.2.1 does not apply.
Question 21: The committee also discussed potential exceptions from the provisions for slope on an outdoor recreation access route, unrelated to whether the elements themselves complied with the technical provisions. The committee considered two options. One option provided a maximum for the total length of the outdoor recreation access route that could exceed a 1:12 slope. The committee considered that either 10 percent or 15 percent of the total length of the outdoor recreation access route could exceed a 1:12 slope. The second option was to apply the use of the conditions in T302 to the technical provisions for the slope of an outdoor recreation access route. Comment is requested on this issue.
Forest Service Comment: The second option is the better option in a developed outdoor recreation setting, particularly since most ORARs are very short in length. If an ORAR is less than 20’ long, then imposing a 10 – 15 percent cap on the running slope would not provide the flexibility needed to fit the ORAR into the existing terrain. The conditions in T302 should be applicable to the technical provisions for the slope of an outdoor recreation access route.
The ORAR technical specifications work well in most newly constructed campgrounds and picnic areas where the agency has the opportunity to select the location for that developed recreation site. However, when older developed recreation areas to be altered or reconstructed it may not be possible to meet the slope requirements along the entire length of the ORAR without a significant change to the natural environment due to the terrain of the original site. That would be a condition for departure from the guidelines. An exception to the slope technical provisions would be needed in that section of the ORAR in order to maintain the natural setting.
In addition, ORARs should not be required between facilities that are adjacent to trails. While the proposed guidelines are clear that the route from a trail to an adjacent facility is not required to comply with the ORAR technical specifications, the proposed guidelines do not address the route between facilities adjacent to trails. For example, there is often a privy (pit toilet) and a campsite adjacent to a trail. Given that less developed location, the final guidelines should direct that connecting routes between the facilities adjacent to trails should comply with the technical specifications for a trail not the specifications for an ORAR.
Question 22: Comment is sought on the appropriateness of these markers and the ability to determine those levels at most beaches.
Forest Service Comment: The high tide level for coastal beach, the mean river bed level for river beaches, and the normal recreation water level for lakes and reservoirs are comparable and reasonable locations at which to terminate permanent structures.
Question 23: The committee did not require a beach access route to extend beyond the high tide level, mean river bed level, or normal recreation water level. Comment is sought on what technical specifications should be required, if any, if an entity decides to provide the route into the water? Should the technical provisions for sloped entry into pools be applied in these cases?
Forest Service Comment: While the technical provisions for sloped entry into pools would be appropriate at the highly developed beaches where there are concrete beach access routes and an environment akin to that of a pool, those beaches are rare in outdoor recreation environment. Defining that narrow window of applicability within the outdoor developed area guidelines would be extremely difficult and would risk making a significant change as well as one that would likely be very difficult to maintain in less developed areas.
Question 24: Are there controls and operating mechanisms available for fireplaces that will meet the requirements of T407? If not, what modifications will allow for most operating mechanisms of woodstoves and fireplaces to meet this provision?
Forest Service Comment: The only operating mechanisms on a fireplace would be the lever to open and close the damper, on a woodstove the mechanisms for the door and the lids, and on a fire ring it would be the adjustable height grates/ grills. At this time there are no mechanisms that meet the accessibility requirements for operating controls of those mechanisms, due to the weight of the materials used and the need to withstand vandalism.
In addition, because of the need to provide animal control in the design of hinged lids and other operating controls for trash, recycling, food storage, and other essential containers that attract large animals, a force greater than five pounds is often required to access these containers.
Therefore an exception should be provided for T 407 as follows:
Exception. The requirements of 309.4 of the ABAAS do not apply to the operating controls for fireplace dampers, woodstove doors and lids, or for the grates/grills on fire rings until controls that comply with 309.4 of the ABAAS requirements are readily available. In addition, requirements of 309.4 of the ABAAS do no apply to hinged lids and controls on trash, recycling, food storage containers, and other essential containers until hinged lids, operating controls, and other mechanisms that comply with that provision, while meeting animal control requirements, are readily available.
Question 25: Some examples of proposed signs designating accessible trails are included in an advisory note. Comment is sought on these signs and other options.
Forest Service Comment: None of the signs in the advisory note are appropriate. Indeed, in order to develop graphics that would be easily understood by the public and convey the vast amount of necessary information to adequately capture the conditions that would be encountered along a specific trail would take a very long time, require many focus groups, public involvement and public comment followed by a public education campaign conducted by the Access Board.
For most people the International Symbol of Accessibility (ISA) posted on a route denotes a pathway that is level or close to it, wide and with ample turning space akin to sidewalks and the access routes in highly developed areas. Posting the ISA on a trail, even in conjunction with other outdoor symbols and/or in various colors, would therefore likely lead to false expectations. The ADA/ABA Accessibility Guidelines 703.7.1 and 703.7.2 only require contrast colors, light on dark or the reverse, where the ISA is required to be posted. The blue and white sign color is only an MUTCD, Section 2B.35 requirement for designated accessible parking spaces where the enforcement of motor vehicle parking regulations will be conducted.
For many years land management agencies have utilized the ISA in the outdoor recreation environment on restrooms and directionally in high contrast colors other than blue and white. For example, the Forest Service commonly uses brown background with a white or yellow contrasting ISA. Despite the color change the ISA is still recognized by the public as an indication of easy grades, wide turning areas, and so forth. That expectation does not change because the color, shape, or design around that ISA symbol is changed if other graphics are added to it.
The proposed guidelines appropriately allow trails to have grades up to 12.5 percent, that is not what the public is used to experiencing when they see the ISA. Also appropriately there are numerous exceptions provided in the technical provisions in order to maintain the character and experience of the trail. As a result, the completed trail may have a number of sections that do not comply with the primary provisions of the trail guidelines resulting in a trail that is a mix of trail conditions and yet the trail still complies with the technical provisions and the allowed exceptions of the accessibility guidelines for trails. Posting the ISA on a trail will not assist the hiker, who has a disability, to determine if that trail will be appropriate for the recreation experience they are seeking.
Instead the ISA on a trail sign will provide a false sense of expectation of a trail experience with very gentle grades and ease of passage throughout. When they encounter 12.5 percent grades the result will be an extremely negative experience. The next trail they see, also with the ISA posted, may offer a very different experience; however, they will not have any information as to how that trail experience might be different.
Every hiker, including those who have disabilities, needs to know what to expect on a trail before deciding if they want to embark on that trail. The most appropriate signage on a new or altered trail or trail segment, as well as at the trailhead of trails that have been evaluated for accessibility, is one that provided information about the trail. At a minimum, in addition to the standard information including the name and length of the trail, these signs must include the typical and maximum trail grade, typical and maximum cross slope, typical and minimum tread width, surface type and firmness, and obstacles. That information can be posted concisely wherever trail information is provided and will provide all trail users the information they need. While the percent of trail grade may not be understood by all initially, after the person has hiked on that trail they will understand whether or not that percent of trail grade is appropriate for their abilities or not and will influence their future trail selection process.
Even if the guidelines technical provisions were met when a trail was constructed, events may occur, such as tree blow-downs and flooding, that may make the trail temporarily inaccessible until maintenance crews can clear the obstruction. To address these situations, signs posted at trailheads should state that the information they contain reflects the condition of the trail when it was constructed or assessed and should include the date of the construction or assessment.
Where more extensive trail information is provided (e.g., an aerial map of the trail and related facilities), the location of specific trail features and obstacles that do not comply with the guidelines technical provisions should be identified and a profile of the trail grade should be included.
The specific trail information should be required on new, altered, or evaluated trails in Trail Classes 4 and 5. The information will be available due to the recent construction or evaluation of the trail. This information should be posted even if one of the general exceptions had to be utilized. As it would be imperative for hikers to understand those extreme difficulties they will encounter on that trail. Local trail managers have the discretion to decide whether to post signs on new or altered trails and trail segments that fall into Trail Class 1, 2, or 3 under the Interagency Trail Data Standards (ITDS).
Question 26: The committee could not reach consensus on allowing a complete departure from this provision if the minimum overhead clearance could not be provided along a trail. Providing such a warning along a trail in the outdoor environment may have the effect of creating a barrier for all trail users. What other options are available on trails, specifically where there is a lack of sufficient space to move around an obstruction without significantly impacting the natural environment or setting?
Forest Service Comment: Where the placement of a warning would block the trail in an outdoor setting, an exception to these requirements must be allowed where a condition for departure prevents providing 80 inches of clearance and installation of a warning barrier. This exception would allow a trail to pass under ledges or through caves without changing the character of the area.
While an underfoot tactile change has been suggested as an alternative to a barrier on the trail, such a change in the trail tread is not always possible or sustainable in remote areas, or where the trail goes through rock into caves and so forth.
Protruding object information along a trail is an example of the type of information that must be posted on signs at the beginning of the trail, on websites where that trail’s information is posted, and so forth as discussed under Question 2. Protruding objects are another example of why the posting of the ISA on a trail would not provide basic, important information about the conditions of the trail and situations that would be encountered on that trail.
Additional Comments by the Forest Service:
Additional Comment 1. Section 303.2 General Exception of the NPRM addresses five conditions which would exempt a trail from complying with the technical provisions. This section attempts to combine General Exceptions 1 and 2 from the original Regulatory Negotiation Committee’s 1999 Final Report. However, it no longer states what the Regulatory Negotiation Committee Report intended. As it is currently written it is confusing and states that only 15 percent of the length of a trail ever needs to be accessible, which is not correct. The final Access Board guidelines must go back to the original Regulatory Negotiation Committee’s language for the 2nd General Exception. These two general exceptions address separate conditions and must be retained in the final guidelines as two distinct general exceptions and as written in the Regulatory Negotiation Committee’s 1999 Final Report.
Additional Comment 2. The Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have all identified and are implementing the Interagency Trail Data Standards (ITDS). The ITDS are also currently being developed by the Federal Geographic Data Committee as Federal Trail Data Standards. The ITDS include standardized trail terminology and definitions, and standardized management concepts including Trail Classes, Designed Use, and Managed Use. Additional details can be found at the ITDS website: http://www.nps.gov/gis/trails.
Because the proposed accessibility guidelines will apply to these federal agencies, the above-mentioned management concepts and applicable ITDS terminology and definitions must be integrated into the trails related portions of the Access Board’s final Outdoor Developed Areas Accessibility Guidelines.
Definitions:
Designed Use: The intended use that controls the geometric design of the trail, and determines the subsequent maintenance parameters for the trail.
There is only one Designed Use ("design driver") per trail or trail segment that determines the technical design, construction, and maintenance specifications for the trail.
Interagency Trail Data Standards (ITDS): Four federal land management agencies (Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have collaborated to develop universal standards for core trail terminology and data attributes: Interagency Trail Data Standards (ITDS). These standards will enable national, regional, state, and trail level managers and the public to use mutually understood terminology for recording, retrieving, and applying spatial and tabular information.
Managed Use: The mode(s) of travel that are actively managed and appropriate, considering the design and management of the trail (i.e. the trail is designed and managed to accommodate this use). There may be more than one Managed Use per trail or trail segment. Managed Use indicates a management decision or intent to accommodate and/or encourage a specified type of trail use.
Designed Use/Managed Use Types:
Trail Class: The prescribed scale of trail development representing the intended design and management standards of the trail. There is only one Trail Class identified per trail or trail segment.
The National Trail Classes provide a chronological classification of trail development on a scale ranging from Trail Class 1 to Trail Class 5 (see Attachment A: Trail Class Matrix):
Additional Comment 3.
Transition Segments
Advisory T303.8.2 addresses transitions between uphill and downhill trail segments. This is another important area where transition segments are needed. Transition segments should be allowed between the higher grade segment classes and the rest intervals required before and after. For example, if a trail running slope is 9 percent for 200 feet, the current language requires the grade to return to 1:20 (5 percent or less after the 200 feet). This will create a sharp transition from the 9 percent to the 5 percent or less. It can be argued that the transition could be less because the 9 percent is within the 1:12 (8.3 percent) to 1:10 (10 percent) range and the tread grade could be reduced from 9 to 8.3 percent. This is not always possible where the terrain dictates the need to rise as much as possible within that segment. It is suggested that language be added to T303.8.2 which allows for transition segments.
The transitions segments would work in the following way: at the end of a maximum running slope segment, say 11 percent, a distance of 10 feet should be allowable for transitioning from the 11 percent to 5 percent. Within that 10 feet the running grade would transition from 11 percent to 10 to 9 to 8 and so on down to 5 percent or less. As currently written, it is not possible to move from the 1:8 running slope range to the 1:10 running slope range without first going to a rest interval of 5 percent or less. A 10 foot transition segment is suggested as it is the shortest measurement recommended in Advisory T303.8.2 Running Slope, and it is the slope length maximum in T303.8.2.4.
From a trail designer’s standpoint, allowing transition segments would smooth out the flow of the trail and reduce the potential for a “stair step” feel and appearance to a trail. From a trail builder’s perspective it would be easier to construct and eliminate the sharp transition. Wear and tear will naturally create this transition segment anyway so it would make sense to design it in from the start.
The transition segment would also alleviate the potential for someone noting the lack of a resting interval between higher running slope segments. As described above, a sharp transition between 11 percent and 5 percent will likely wear down to create grades in the 1:10 and 1:12 running slope segments without rest intervals - hence the concern for possible complaints.
Additional Comment 4. The question has been raised as to what is the effect of these accessibility guidelines on trails, picnic and camping facilities, and beaches required to comply with these guidelines, given that despite weather and outdoor effects maintenance cycles are less frequent in the outdoor recreation areas.
The realties of decreasing staff across the federal agencies require that a clear statement be made regarding maintenance to address both trails and other developed recreation areas. The following statement for that purpose is clear and comprehensive:
Maintenance is completed in accordance with the standards established for each recreation area or trail in accordance with the management objectives. Routine maintenance of a trail or recreation site does not have to occur more frequently solely because it was constructed in compliance with the accessibility guidelines.
While trails that comply with the accessibility guidelines are likely to fall within a trail class that provides for more frequent maintenance, there may be times when a trail segment is not accessible due to normally occurring conditions in the outdoor environment, such as fallen branches.