Ice Age and North Country National Scenic Trails, Tom Gilbert
October 18, 2007   [email]

OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
(No hard copy to follow)

United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Ice Age & North Country
National Scenic Trails
700 Rayovac Drive
Madison, Wisconsin 53711-2468

October 17, 2007
L7619(IATR)

Mr. Bill Botten
Office of Technical and Information Services
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000
Washington, DC  20004-111

Subject:  Docket No. 2007-02; Comments on Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas

Dear Mr. Botten:

We have reviewed the proposed Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas as they may affect the Ice Age and North Country National Scenic Trails (NSTs).  We have the following comments.

General Comments

The Ice Age and North Country NSTs are congressionally-authorized long-distance trails (1,200 miles and 4,600 miles, respectively) patterned after the renowned Appalachian NST (2,174 miles).  They traverse a variety of Federal, state, local, and private lands.  The majority of the length of both trails lies in rural or semi-primitive settings.  Some portions pass through small communities.  Occasionally, they pass through or near a large city.

The design standards used by the National Park Service (NPS) and its partners result in trails that are typically 18-24 inches wide, with approximately 12 inches of cleared vegetation on either side.  The trail tread is usually native soil or mowed native grasses.  Typical grades range up to 10 percent, with sections of 20 percent grade permitted for stretches up to 100 feet.  Occasionally, the terrain necessitates exceeding these limits.  Bridges, boardwalks, puncheon, and turnpikes are used to traverse streams and wetlands when it is necessary to cross such features.  Annual maintenance includes trimming vegetation above and along the sides of the trails, mowing through grassy areas, and repairs to the tread, bridges, boardwalks, puncheon, and signs.

These trails are sought out by hikers for the solitude, natural experience, and challenge of the trail.  Hikers and backpackers value the primitive nature of the design and construction of these trails.  Amenities are often limited or non-existent, but primitive (pit toilets) or modern facilities are sometimes available when the trails connect to developed recreation sites or communities.

Consideration of accessibility guidelines for trails has been ongoing since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  We have monitored these proposals and have commented when opportunities were provided because these guidelines have the potential for far-reaching effects on the Ice Age and North Country NSTs, both in terms of how the trails are designed, constructed, and maintained, and the type of experiences they provide to hikers and backpackers.  Such guidelines could change the essential function and intended purpose of these trails.  While we embrace the objectives of improved accessibility for all Americans, it must be realized that these changes come at a cost — not only the cost of more extensive development and larger trail structures, but also the cost of a larger footprint on the environment, a larger commitment from the volunteers who build and maintain the trails, and larger government involvement to ensure compliance with the guidelines.

We have previously reviewed and commented on two draft versions of the outdoor recreation guidelines being developed by the Access Board’s Regulatory Negotiation Committee (Committee) as they address trails, especially simple footpaths in rural and semi-primitive areas.  This is the setting and character of the vast majority of both the Ice Age and North Country NSTs.

We have also reviewed and commented on the U.S. Forest Service Trails Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG) which were finalized in May 2006.  Our experience in learning about, reviewing, and analyzing both sets of guidelines over the past several years leads us to the clear conclusion that the FSTAG is a better set of guidelines for maximizing the accessibility of trails without bringing about drastic changes to the setting and character of our NSTs — to the essential function and intended purpose of these trails.

The Forest Service based its guidelines on the 1999 draft of the Committee’s outdoor recreation guidelines, which also served as the basis for the current Access Board Proposed Rule.  However, the Access Board guidelines, if adopted without further changes, would leave certain issues unclear and, depending on how they are interpreted, could lead to changes to these trails detrimental to their character, essential function, and intended purpose.  In part, this is due to a lack of definition of terms in the proposed guidelines.  The Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas define only three trail-related terms; the FSTAG defines 32 trail-related terms.  Additionally, the FSTAG specifically defines certain terms, such as “alteration,” within the specific context of trails.  The definition in the proposed Access Board Accessibility Guidelines may work well for buildings and interior spaces; it will not work well for trails.  The ambiguity of this term alone, as it may be interpreted and applied to trails, could have serious adverse impacts on the character and setting of simple footpaths, and change the experiences that they provide to trail users.

Consequently, we supported adoption of the FSTAG by the Forest Service and their integration into Forest Service Manual 2350 regarding trails.  We believe these guidelines are more reasonable in their treatment of trail accessibility than the Access Board guidelines now under public review and comment.

Some of the points which form the basis of our differing position on the two sets of guidelines, and why we favor the FSTAG, are the following:

• The FSTAG is a separate document from other outdoor recreation accessibility guidelines (the Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines), recognizing that accessibility issues relating to trails are different and complex enough that including them within the general outdoor recreation guidelines is not sufficient to ensure that accessibility of trails actually improves.
  
  
• The FSTAG uses and specifically defines terminology currently used by trail administering agencies and organizations, thereby increasing the clarity of their interpretation by such interests.  A total of 32 trail-related terms are clearly defined in the FSTAG compared to only 3 trail-related terms being defined in the Access Board Accessibility Guidelines.  Frankly, this lack of clearly defined terms will lead to and result in ambiguity and differing interpretations of the Access Board guidelines.  Because our trails are built and maintained primarily by volunteers, ambiguity in the guidelines will breed frustration among the volunteer corps as they try to apply them, resulting in resistance to use of the guidelines, and thereby setting up struggles between us as a Federal Agency (that must insist on their use) and our volunteers who so generously want only to create an outstanding recreation facility for all to enjoy.
  
  
• The FSTAG recognizes the varying settings and character of trails, and designed and managed use of trails, from narrow primitive un-maintained trails to wide highly-developed paved trails.  In this way, the FSTAG reflects the “real world”—that trails neither are nor should be homogenous in their design, construction, and appearance.  The incorporation of the Forest Service’s “Trail Class” system into the FSTAG Technical Provisions is very helpful in terms of applying the provisions to long-distance, back-country footpaths, and is one of the key elements that makes the FSTAG superior to the Access Board guidelines.

  Question 1 in the Proposed Rule asks whether any of the approaches applying different provisions to, for example, “front” country and “back” country trails, should be reconsidered.  (Question 14 also touches this issue.)  At one point in the Committee’s work, use of the Forest Service’s Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) as a basis for different provisions was considered.  The trail design and accessibility guidelines we and our partners have been using on the Ice Age and North Country NSTs were generally based on the ROS and we regretted the decision of the Committee to abandon use of the ROS as a basis for different guidelines and technical provisions.  However, the FSTAG’s approach of having one set of guidelines, but incorporating consideration for Trail Class, designed and managed use, etc. is in fact, in our opinion, an even better approach than having different provisions.  So our answer to Question 1 is that if the FSTAG could be adopted in lieu of the Access Board Guidelines, we would not favor reconsideration of any of those approaches.  However, viewing the Accessibility Guidelines proposed in this rule, we believe reconsideration of different provisions for various settings of trails is needed if they are to be realistically used and applied.

For these overarching reasons, we believe the FSTAG is superior to and more realistic than the Access Board Accessibility Guidelines as they pertain to trails.  Because the FSTAG more nearly reflects the “real world,” we believe compliance with the guidelines, both inside and outside national forest areas, would be more likely than with the Access Board Accessibility Guidelines.  The Access Board would do well to propose and subsequently adopt separate accessibility guidelines for trails that are identical to the FSTAG.

Additional Comments

1. Question 3 asks about the appropriateness of using the International Symbol of Accessibility to indicate accessible trails.  It is our opinion that it would give an incorrect message to people with disabilities, suggesting to them that the trail meets the same technical provisions as accessible indoor spaces.  The recommendation to install trailhead signing that presents physical facts about the trail is a more informative and honest approach that lets persons with or without disabilities decide whether to use the trail.  Such new trailhead signing will present a challenge, not only in clearly conveying that information but also in terms of the costs of designing, producing, installing, and maintaining such individualized signs.  However, we believe this approach of giving “just the facts” is better than trying to convey all of that information with a symbol.
   
   
2. Accessibility is but one goal in the design, construction, and maintenance of trails.  Another very important goal is managing the trails for the appropriate/permitted uses, and preventing prohibited uses.  In many ways, these two goals—accessibility and preventing uses not allowed on the trail—are diametrically opposed to each other in terms of trail design and construction.  Narrow trail treads and tread obstacles are elements of trails that are useful in helping to help prevent mountain bike, motorcycle, motorized scooter, and all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use of footpaths intended only for pedestrian use.  Compliance with accessibility guidelines and regulations (Access Board or FSTAG) will, to one degree or another, transform simple footpaths into trails that are more inviting and passable to prohibited uses.  Illegal ATV/OHV use is already severely damaging significant portions of the NSTs administered by this office.  With only 4 FTE for each of these long-distance trails, we know we will never have an on-the-ground staff presence to enforce rules regarding trail use.  Consequently, trail designs that tend to discourage such use have been important management tools.  Accessibility guidelines will largely eliminate the use of narrow treads and leaving natural fallen barriers in place to discourage prohibited uses.  Question 13 discusses this issue and dismisses it, concluding that the matter “is beyond the scope of these guidelines.”  We believe this is an inadequate answer to a very serious management issue.
   
   
3. The FSTAG’s inclusion of an Implementation Process flowchart (decision table) to assist trail designers and builders in determining when the Technical Provisions apply and when a Condition of Departure or General Exception may apply is a very excellent helpful feature.  It is yet another reason why the FSTAG is superior to the Access Board Accessibility Guidelines.
   
   
4. The Access Board Proposed Guidelines do have one advantage over the FSTAG, although it is a dubious one—they do not require documentation of the evaluation of trail conditions that permit exception to complying with one or more of the technical provisions.  The FSTAG requires that some documentation be created and filed for the use of a condition of departure or general exception from the technical provisions.  Nearly all of the work of building and maintaining the Ice Age and North Country NSTs is accomplished through volunteers, as Congress directed.  Adding another regulatory documentation requirement onto the workload of volunteers will meet with resistance.  We know this from prior experience with other regulatory requirements with which we, as the Federal administrator of the trails, must comply—requirements which we have already had to pass on to our volunteer partners.  With a very small staff for these long trails, we are unable to directly handle or manage compliance with the many Federal laws and regulations that are applicable to the trails, particularly at the ground level.  Asking our volunteers to provide written justification for why they have chosen to build the trail the way they did at multiple points along the way will irritate a certain portion of the volunteers.  Some volunteers will find such requirements distasteful enough that they will no longer volunteer.  The work of evaluating trail conditions, deciding how it will be built, and documenting the justification for departing from the technical provisions rightly belongs in the hands of paid agency staff.  The fact that the Access Board Guidelines do not contain such a requirement is “a plus,” even though it would seem prudent to have documentation of those decisions.

We summarize our comments by stating what is undoubtedly already clear from the foregoing — we believe the FSTAG is a superior set of accessibility guidelines for trails and we recommend that the Access Board adopt the FSTAG in lieu of the portions of its proposed guidelines and technical provisions relating to trails.  While the two sets of guidelines are based on the same 1999 Committee draft, the FSTAG exhibits a greater degree of insight into the “real world” of trails and their needs, uses and defines trail terminology already in common usage among Federal Agencies, uses words that more accurately convey the accessibility guidelines and how they are to be applied to trails, and has features that will assist in minimizing changes in the character of trails while facilitating the application of accessibility guidelines to trails.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.  Questions about these comments can be directed to Superintendent Tom Gilbert, Ice Age NST Manager Pam Schuler, or North Country NST Manager Fred Szarka at 608-441-5610.

Sincerely,

/s/ Thomas L. Gilbert

Superintendent