Wilderness Accessibility for People
with Disabilities A Report to the
President and the Congress of the United States on Section 507(a)
of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, December 1, 1992
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004-1107
(202) 272-2004 Voice
(202) 272-2074 TT
(202) 272-2022 Fax
The views contained in this report do not necessarily
represent those of the Administration as this document has not been
subjected to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
DESCRIPTION OF THE
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY
The National Council on Disability is an independent
federal agency composed of 15 members appointed by the President
of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The National
Council initially was established in 1978 as an advisory board within
the Department of Education (Public Law 95-602). The Rehabilitation
Act Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-221) transformed the National
Council into an independent agency. The current statutory mandate
of the National Council assigns it the following duties:
- Establishing general policies for reviewing the
operation of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDRR);
- Providing advice to the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration (RSA) on policies and conduct;
- Providing ongoing advice to the President, the
Congress, the RSA Commissioner, the Assistant Secretary of the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS),
and the Director of NIDRR on programs authorized in the Rehabilitation
Act;
- Reviewing and evaluating on a continuous basis
the effectiveness of all policies, programs, and activities concerning
individuals with disabilities conducted or assisted by federal
departments or agencies, and all statutes pertaining to federal
programs, and assessing the extent to which they provide incentives
to community-based services, promote full integration, and contribute
to the independence and dignity of individuals with disabilities;
- Making recommendations of ways to improve research,
service, administration, and the collection, dissemination, and
implementation of research findings affecting persons with disabilities;
- Reviewing and approving standards for Independent
Living programs;
- Submitting an annual report with appropriate recommendations
to the Congress and the President regarding the status of research
affecting persons with disabilities and the activities of RSA
and NIDRR;
- Reviewing and approving standards for Projects
with Industry programs;
- Providing to the Congress, on a continuous basis,
advice, recommendations and any additional information that the
Council or the Congress considers appropriate;
- Providing guidance for the President's Committee
on the Employment of People with Disabilities; and
- Issuing an annual report to the President and
the Congress on the progress that has been made in implementing
the recommendations contained in the National Council's January
30, 1986, report, Toward Independence.
While many government agencies deal with issues and
programs affecting people with disabilities, the National Council
is the only federal agency charged with addressing, analyzing, and
making recommendations on issues of public policy that affect people
with disabilities regardless of age, disability type, perceived
employment potential, economic need, specific functional ability,
status as a veteran, or other individual circumstance. The National
Council recognizes its unique opportunity to facilitate independent
living, community integration, and employment opportunities for
people with disabilities by assuring an informed and coordinated
approach to addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities
and eliminating barriers to their active participation in community
and family life.
NATIONAL COUNCIL
ON DISABILITY
Members
Sandra Swift Parrino, Chairperson, New York
Kent Waldrep, Jr., Vice Chairperson, Texas
Linda W. Allison, Texas
Ellis B. Bodron, Mississippi
Larry Brown, Jr., Maryland
Mary Ann Mobley Collins, California
Anthony H. Flack, Connecticut
John A. Gannon, Ohio and Washington, D.C.
John Leopold, Maryland
Robert S. Muller, Michigan
George H. Oberle, PED, Oklahoma
Mary Matthews Raether, Virginia
Anne Crellin Seggerman, Connecticut
Michael B. Unhjem, North Dakota
Helen Wilshire Walsh, Connecticut
Staff
Ethel D. Briggs, Executive Director
Harold W. Snider, PhD, Deputy Director
Billie Jean Hill, Program Specialist
Mark S. Quigley, Public Affairs Specialist
Katherine D. Seelman, PhD, Research Specialist
Brenda Bratton, Staff Assistant
Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant Janice Mack, Administrative Officer
Consultant
Gregory J. Lais (www.wildernessinquiry.org)
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
December 1, 1992
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
On behalf of the members and staff of the National
Council on Disability, I am pleased to provide you with a copy of
Wilderness Accessibility for People with Disabilities, prepared
in accordance with Section 507 (a) of the Americans With Disabilities
Act (P.L. 101-336).
Although no monies were appropriated to conduct this
study, the National Council was able to produce this preliminary
report on the subject. This report is intended to summarize existing
federal policies and regulations and identify important issues relevant
to wilderness accessibility for people with disabilities.
The National Council will continue to address public
policy issues and to ensure that discrimination in all aspects of
American society that inhibit the attainment of independence and
dignity for people with disabilities is eliminated.
Sincerely,
Sandra Swift Parrino
Chairperson
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The National Council expresses its gratitude to Gregory
J. Lais, executive director of Wilderness Inquiry, Inc., Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for conducting this study, Wilderness Accessibility
for People with Disabilities: A Report to the President and the
Congress of the United States on Section 507 (a) of the Americans
With Disabilities Act. In addition, we wish to recognize Leo
McAvoy, PhD, and Laura Fredrickson of Wilderness Inquiry for their
assistance.
Section 507 of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990:
FEDERAL WILDERNESS AREAS
(a) Study.--The National Council on Disability shall
conduct a study and report on the effect that wilderness designations
and wilderness land management practices have on the ability of
individuals with disabilities to use and enjoy the National Wilderness
Reservation System as established under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1131 et seq.).
(b) Submission of Report.--Not later than 1 year after
the enactment of this Act, the National Council on Disability shall
submit the report required under subsection (a) to Congress.
(c) Specific Wilderness Access--
(1) In General--Congress reaffirms that nothing
in the Wilderness Act is to be construed as prohibiting the use
of a wheelchair in a wilderness area by an individual whose disability
requires use of a wheelchair, and consistent with the Wilderness
Act no agency is required to provide any form of special treatment
or accommodation, or to construct any facilities or modify any
conditions of lands within a wilderness area to facilitate such
use.
(2) Definition--For the purposes of paragraph (1),
the term wheelchair means a device designed solely for use by
a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, that is suitable for
use in an indoor pedestrian area.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Introduction
Background
Assumptions and Definitions
Scope of Study
Limitations of Study
Methodology
Findings
1. Current policies of NWPS managing
agencies
National Park Service
U.S. Forest Service
Bureau of Land Management
Fish and Wildlife Service
Survey results of field managers of NWPS units
2. Current NWPS use levels by
persons with disabilities
3. Enjoyment of the NWPS by
persons with disabilities
How do persons with disabilities
visit the NWPS?
Effect of restrictions on mechanized use
4. Suggestions for increasing
enjoyment of the NWPS
Conclusions
Recommendations
Acknowledgments
References
Appendices
Appendix 1. Surveys, Cover Letters, and Attachments
Distributed to
A) Outfitters and Organizations
B) Persons with Disabilities
C) NWPS Managers
Appendix 2. Tabulations of the Responses from Surveys
Distributed to
A) Outfitters and Organizations
B) Persons with Disabilities
C) NWPS Managers
Appendix 3. Outfitters, Organizations,
and Wildnerness Advocates Contacted for Participation in the Study
Appendix 4. National Council Member
and Staff Biographies
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
On the surface, the concurrent goals of equal
accessibility and preservation of wilderness areas seem to be
antithetical. However, at a closer look, we do not believe that
is actually the case. It is not, in our estimation, a question
of one goal or legal mandate taking precedence over another or
superseding another. It is a question of finding effective ways
to balance the intent of both and finding ways to provide the
highest level access with the lowest level impact on the environment.
Statement of Mr. David C. Park, Chief, Special Programs
and Populations Branch, National Park Service, to the National
Council on Disability on August 7, 1991.
Introduction
The primary goal of this document is to satisfy the
requirement of Section 507(a) of the Americans With Disabilities
Act (ADA) of 1990.
The National Council on Disability shall conduct
a study and report on the effect that wilderness designations
and wilderness land management practices have on the ability of
individuals with disabilities to use and enjoy the National Wilderness
Preservation System (NWPS) as established under the Wilderness
Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.)
The National Council on Disability (NCD) contracted
with Wilderness Inquiry, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, to help
conduct this study.
Background
In 1964 Congress passed the Wilderness Act and established
the National Wilderness Preservation System. The NWPS is made up
of lands managed by federal agencies, including the U.S. Forest
Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and, more recently, the Bureau of Land Management. The NWPS is not
an independent lands system.
Over the years since its passage, some people have
claimed that the Wilderness Act discriminates against the rights
of persons with disabilities because it prohibits the use of motorized
vehicles, mechanized transport, and other activities within federally
designated wilderness areas--the NWPS.
In 1990 Congress passed the Americans With Disabilities
Act (ADA). The ADA specifically addresses the issue of wilderness
access in Section 507(c):
(1) In General--Congress reaffirms that nothing
in the Wilderness Act is to be construed as prohibiting the use
of a wheelchair in a wilderness area by an individual whose disability
requires use of a wheelchair, and consistent with the Wilderness
Act no agency is required to provide any form of special treatment
or accommodation, or to construct any facilities or modify any
conditions of lands within a wilderness area to facilitate such
use.
(2) Definition--For the purposes of paragraph (1),
the term wheelchair means a device designed solely for use by
a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, that is suitable for
use in an indoor pedestrian area.
Scope of study
This study is intended to accomplish the following
objectives:
1. Review and summarize existing federal policies
and regulations relevant to the issue of wilderness access by persons
with disabilities.
2. Survey federal unit managers of the NWPS to determine
current levels of use by persons with disabilities, identify important
issues, and solicit suggestions for ways that persons with disabilities
can better utilize the NWPS.
3. Survey programs and outfitters that have provided
services to persons with disabilities in units of the NWPS to obtain
recommendations and suggestions for improved access.
4. Identify and survey users of the NWPS who have
disabilities to document use, obtain measures of the enjoyment of
the NWPS by persons with disabilities, and solicit suggestions on
ways to improve the level of enjoyment of the NWPS by persons with
disabilities.
Limitations and methodology
This study should be considered exploratory in nature.
We believe that it fairly and factually represents the issues considered;
however, as with any study, it is important to note its limitations
in order to establish its validity. Readers are urged to review
the sections on limitations and methodology before drawing conclusions
on the contents of this report.
Federal management policies and practices
The four federal agencies responsible for wilderness
management have different policies and management practices regarding
persons with disabilities.
Three of these agencies--the National Park Service,
the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management allow the
use of wheelchairs within the NWPS. The Fish and Wildlife Service
currently does not have any policies regarding this issue; however,
the agency has stated its intention to adopt policies similar to
those of the other land managing agencies within Department of Interior.
Forest Service policy does not allow the use of electric
(motorized) wheelchairs in the NWPS. This policy appears to be in
conflict with the definition of a wheelchair in Section 507 (c)(2)
of the ADA, which states:
...the term wheelchair means a device designed
solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, that
is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area.
This definition is assumed to include all wheelchairs,
whether motorized or not, provided that they are suitable for use
in an indoor pedestrian area.
Most NWPS managers (74 percent) do not make special
provisions for wilderness area use by persons with disabilities.
This appears to be consistent with Section 507(c)(1) of the Americans
With Disabilities Act, which reads:
...consistent with the Wilderness Act no agency
is required to provide any form of special treatment or accommodation,
or to construct any facilities or modify any conditions of lands
within a wilderness area to facilitate such use.
However, beyond the question of wheelchair use, there
is a lack of specific guidelines on use of the NWPS by persons with
disabilities, including issues such as trail width and toilets at
established sites.
Finally, there appears to be some confusion among
NWPS field managers about policies regarding use by persons with
disabilities and considerable differences in opinion about how best
to serve persons with disabilities in the NWPS.
Use levels of the NWPS by persons with disabilities
In response to the NCD survey, managers of NWPS units
estimated that a total of 16,767 people with disabilities use the
NWPS each year. Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify the accuracy
of these estimates or to extrapolate from the data collected to
other NWPS units that did not respond to the survey or to the question.
Therefore, no meaningful estimates about use of the NWPS by persons
with disabilities can be given. A number of NWPS units that are
used relatively frequently by persons with disabilities have been
identified by wilderness managers, outfitters, and users with disabilities.
Ability of persons with disabilities to enjoy the NWPS
A significant majority of persons with disabilities
surveyed very much enjoy the NWPS and 76 percent do not believe
that the restrictions on mechanized use stated by the Wilderness
Act diminish their ability to enjoy the wilderness. People with
disabilities appear to visit the NWPS in the same ways and for the
same reasons that people without disabilities do.
Recommendations
1. All federal agencies that manage the NWPS should
adopt policies consistent with those stated in Section 507(c) of
the Americans With Disabilities Act as soon as possible.
2. Federal agencies should bring existing facilities
outside of the NWPS up to code for use by persons with disabilities
as soon as possible. This upgrade includes trailheads, parking facilities,
restrooms, and telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDDs) in
ranger stations.
3. NWPS managing agencies should develop guidelines
for special permits and modifications regarding use by persons with
disabilities that are consistent with the Wilderness Act. Agencies
should be encouraged to facilitate NWPS use by persons with disabilities
when such use is consistent with the Wilderness Act. Agencies are
encouraged to work with persons with disabilities, outfitters, and
other programs that use the NWPS to develop these guidelines.
4. NWPS unit managers should receive training to increase
general awareness of disability issues and specific awareness of
the policies and practices regarding use of the NWPS by persons
with disabilities.
5. Each agency should develop better information about
what is available to persons with disabilities who want to use the
NWPS. This information should be made readily available to the public.
INTRODUCTION
The primary goal of this document is to satisfy
the following requirement of Section 507(a) of the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990:
The National Council on Disability shall conduct
a study and report on the effect that wilderness designations
and wilderness land management practices have on the ability of
individuals with disabilities to use and enjoy the NWPS as established
under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
The National Council on Disability (NCD) contracted
with Wilderness Inquiry, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, to help
conduct the study requested. A 501(c)(3) organization, Wilderness
Inquiry provides activities that integrate people with and without
disabilities into outdoor experiences, including many that take
place within the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS).
Founded in 1978, part of Wilderness Inquiry's mission
is to "advance the study of the recreational and educational needs
of people with disabilities, with particular emphasis on accessibility
to wilderness areas."
BACKGROUND
In 1964 Congress passed the Wilderness Act
and established the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS).
The NWPS is not an independent lands system; rather, it is made
up of lands managed by four federal agencies: the U.S. Forest Service,
the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Bureau of Land Management.
Congress has sole authority to designate wilderness
areas, but the four federal agencies must manage these lands within
the parameters specified by the Wilderness Act. As stated in Section
2(a), the purpose of the Wilderness Act is
...to assure that an increasing population, accompanied
by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy
and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions,
leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in
their natural condition, it is hereby declared to ...secure for
the American people of present and future generations the benefits
of an enduring resource of wilderness....
Over the years since its passage, some people have
claimed that the Wilderness Act discriminates against the rights
of persons with disabilities because it prohibits the use of motorized
vehicles, mechanized transport, and other activities within federally
designated wilderness areas. Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act
states
Except as specifically provided for in this Act...there
shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized
equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form
of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within
any such area.
The Wilderness Act was written before the rights of
people with disabilities were part of the national debate. Not surprisingly,
there is no mention of people with disabilities in the Act. Over
time, as people with disabilities began to use the wilderness, the
question was raised whether a wheelchair is a mechanical device
and therefore prohibited from the NWPS. The four federal agencies
responsible for managing the NWPS have responded differently to
this question.
In 1990 Congress passed the Americans With Disabilities
Act (ADA). The ADA gives civil rights protection to individuals
with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the
basis of race, sex, national origin, and religion. Among other issues,
the ADA addresses specific wilderness access in Section 507(c):
(1) In General--Congress reaffirms that nothing
in the Wilderness Act is to be construed as prohibiting the use
of a wheelchair in a wilderness area by an individual whose disability
requires use of a wheelchair, and consistent with the Wilderness
Act no agency is required to provide any form of special treatment
or accommodation, or to construct any facilities or modify any
conditions of lands within a wilderness area to facilitate such
use.
(2) Definition--For the purposes of paragraph (1),
the term wheelchair means a device designed solely for use by
a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, that is suitable for
use in an indoor pedestrian area.
The primary purpose of this study is to review the
management practices of the four federal agencies that manage the
NWPS and to determine whether people with disabilities are able
to use and enjoy the NWPS.
ASSUMPTIONS
AND DEFINITIONS The following key concepts
must be considered and defined:
Wilderness designations. This term refers to
the 546 units (94,972,412 federal acres as of June 5, 1991) that
have been included by Congress as part of the National Wilderness
Preservation System. This term does not include many wild lands
commonly thought of as "wilderness," such as Yellowstone National
Park. Yellowstone, although it has many natural characteristics
similar to units of the NWPS, is not part of the NWPS. This term
also does not include state-designated wilderness areas, such as
Maine's Allagash Wilderness Waterway. The Allagash Wilderness Waterway
is managed by Maine's Department of Conservation.
Wilderness land management practices. This
term refers to the management practices and policies of the four
federal agencies that manage the units of the NWPS: the United States
Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM), and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). Each of these agencies is responsible for managing
the NWPS units under its jurisdiction according to the practices
set forth in the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Individuals with disabilities. The ADA defines
individuals with disabilities as those who
(a) have a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;
(b) have a record of such impairment; or
(c) can be regarded as having such an impairment.
For the purpose of this study, this definition has
been qualified to focus on individuals whose disability is likely
to have a more significant impact on their ability to use and enjoy
the NWPS. Wilderness designations are generally considered to have
a greater effect on persons with mobility and sensory impairments
than on persons with cognitive disabilities. Although 10 percent
of study respondents do have cognitive disabilities, persons with
mobility and sensory impairments received priority in participant
selection for this study (see methodology section on sampling methods).
Use and enjoyment. This term is interpreted
to refer to the physical ability of persons with disabilities to
visit units of the NWPS and their ability to get pleasure from these
visits as persons without disabilities do.
SCOPE
OF STUDY The study is intended to accomplish
the following objectives:
1. Review and summarize existing federal policies
and regulations relevant to the issue of wilderness access by persons
with disabilities.
2. Survey the federal unit managers of the NWPS to
determine current levels of use by persons with disabilities, identify
important issues, and solicit suggestions for ways that persons
with disabilities can better utilize the NWPS.
3. Survey programs and outfitters that have provided
services to persons with disabilities in units of the NWPS to obtain
recommendations and suggestions for improved access.
4. Identify and survey a minimum of 75 users of the
NWPS who have disabilities to obtain measures of their enjoyment
of the NWPS and solicit suggestions on ways to improve the level
of enjoyment of the NWPS by persons with disabilities.
LIMITATIONS
OF STUDY We believe that this report fairly
and factually represents the issues considered. However, as with
any study, it is important to note its limitations in order to establish
its validity. Several limitations must be considered when interpreting
this report.
1. The study is exploratory in nature. Many of the
questions were designed to obtain qualitative information so that
important issues could be identified.
2. People with disabilities surveyed represent a nonprobability
judgment sample. Persons with disabilities who have visited the
NWPS are considered the most appropriate individuals to evaluate
their ability to use and enjoy the NWPS. Finding people who fit
this criterion was a challenge and required the use of a nonprobability
sampling method (see section on methodology). The limited scope
and resources dedicated to this study precluded using a large, random
sampling method. While we believe that the persons with disabilities
surveyed are the most appropriate for the purposes of this study,
no claim can be made that they are a representative sample of all
persons with disabilities in this country. Our priorities in selecting
the sample included the following criteria:
- That the person have a disability as recognized
by the ADA. We further qualified this criterion to select people
who have disabilities that are most likely to affect their ability
to use and enjoy the NWPS. In this context we gave priority to
people who use wheelchairs, those who have other significant mobility
impairments, and those with significant sensory impairments.
- That the person had visited a unit of the NWPS.
People who are active in the outdoors but who had not visited
an actual unit of the NWPS were not included.
- That the persons were as representative of a national
sample as possible. We made a significant effort to survey individuals
who live throughout the United States.
- That the persons were referred by a variety of
sources. Most of those who participated in the survey were referred
by outfitters and programs that serve people with disabilities
on outdoor adventures.
In interpreting study findings it is important to
remember that the persons with disabilities surveyed had already
visited the NWPS. Although this may suggest that these people are
more likely to take risks and accept physical challenges, we cannot
make a precise determination about how these people may differ from
the general public or, more specifically, from persons with disabilities
who have not visited the NWPS.
3. Some respondents in all categories misunderstood
some of the questions, including the following:
- Several people with disabilities and some of the
outfitters misunderstood what the NWPS is. The most frequent misunderstanding
was to consider other wild lands as part of the NWPS when they
are not. Defacto wilderness outside the NWPS was not included
in any of the tabulations; however, it is possible that comments
from some study subjects may refer to areas outside of the NWPS.
We consider this possible influence small and of minimal importance.
- Some of the wilderness unit managers in the study
did not distinguish between questions about agency policies and
what they personally thought was physically possible. For example,
when asked whether their NWPS unit permitted the use of wheelchairs,
some responded no, but went on to comment that while wheelchairs
are legally allowed, the terrain does not accommodate them. The
intent of this question was to determine agency policy, not a
manager's perception of what is physically possible. Therefore,
this question is not a precise indicator of how well the managers
understand agency policy and should not be interpreted as such.
However, in comparing the comments with responses, it is clear
that some confusion about agency policy does exist among wilderness
managers.
4. Another limitation concerns the experience of the
NWPS unit managers who responded. The titles of the 304 respondents
ranged from recreation planner to wildlife biologist, and their
experience on the job ranged from more than 20 years to only 1 month.
Although we may assume that a recreation planner with more than
20 years' experience is more knowledgeable about agency policies
and practices than one with 1 month, we have no way to verify this.
Consequently, we have ignored the question of credentials and experience
in reviewing the data.
5. Finally, as with any human endeavor, there is the
possibility of entry errors. Some editing was done by the researchers
while they recorded and summarized qualitative comments. In every
case an effort was made to portray accurately the true meaning of
the statement. In some instances words have been added for clarification.
In such cases, brackets [] have been placed around the added words.
After extensive checking we believe any other entry errors do not
materially affect the results of this study.
METHODOLOGY
Information for this survey was gathered through
two primary means. First, personnel from the four federal agencies
responsible for managing the NWPS were asked to send pertinent information
regarding their wilderness management practices and policies toward
people with disabilities. Second, surveys were developed and distributed
to
- Outfitters and programs serving people with disabilities
in the NWPS.
- Field managers from the four federal agencies
that manage NWPS units.
- Persons with disabilities who have used the NWPS.
Copies of the surveys and cover letters used are found
in Appendix 1. Tabulations of the responses from each survey are
found in Appendix 2. Each of the information gathering methods is
described in more detail below.
Review of existing policies and regulations
The national wilderness managers of the four federal
agencies were asked to provide the policies and procedures in place
regarding use of the NWPS by persons with disabilities. The managers
included Wesley Henry from the National Park Service, Ann Fege from
the U.S. Forest Service, Keith Corrigall from the Bureau of Land
Management, and David Heffernan from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
In addition to these wilderness managers, we contacted
David C. Park, Chief of the Special Programs and Populations Branch
of the National Park Service, and Joe Meade, National Access Program
Manager for Recreation, Cultural Resources, and Wilderness Management
for the U.S. Forest Service. All of these people were very helpful
in promptly providing the information we needed to summarize and
review the policies, regulations, and management practices regarding
use of the NWPS by persons with disabilities.
Survey of unit managers of the NWPS
The managers mentioned above all helped to develop
a survey to distribute to NWPS unit managers. Significant assistance
was also provided by Alan Watson and Liz Close of the U.S. Forest
Service, and by Kay Ellis of the National Park Service. The sample
included the managers of all 546 units of the NWPS; however, the
total number of possible responses is different than 546 for the
following reasons:
1. Some units of the NWPS are managed jointly by
different agencies. For example, the Frank Church/River of No Return
Wilderness in Idaho is managed jointly by the USFS and the BLM.
2. Some units are managed by multiple managers within
the same agency. For example, the Frank Church/River of No Return
Wilderness spans six different national forests managed by the USFS,
each of which has a person who is responsible for managing its portion
of the Frank Church Wilderness. Consequently, up to seven responses
from two different agencies are possible for that wilderness.
3. Some managers are responsible for more than one
unit. For example, Prescott National Forest (USFS) in Arizona is
responsible for seven different units of the NWPS-- Apache Creek,
Castle Creek, Cedar Bench, Granite Mountain, Juniper Mesa, Pine
Mountain, and Woodchute. Consequently, one response may encompass
seven or more units of the NWPS.
We originally intended to isolate responses by individual
units of the NWPS. This was possible for some units, but in many
cases was not possible because it could not be determined whether
a respondent was answering in the context of one segment, or in
the name of the entire NWPS unit. Also, if a manager was responsible
for more than one unit, it usually could not be determined whether
he or she was answering in response to all of the units or only
part of them.
This section of the report is a compilation of the
views and opinions of the people who manage units of the NWPS.
Surveys were distributed to NWPS unit managers in
several ways. Wilderness Inquiry sent surveys directly to BLM and
FWS unit managers. The NPS and the USFS distributed their surveys
internally. NPS managers responded directly to Wilderness Inquiry.
USFS responses were collected by Liz Close, USFS, and forwarded
to Wilderness Inquiry. Response rates for the surveys are indicated
below.
Federal Agency Responses to Surveys
Number Number Percent of
Agency sent returned response
USFS 365 210 58
NPS 42 39 93
BLM 17 13 76
FWS 55 42 76
TOTAL 479 304 63
Survey of programs
and outfitters serving persons with disabilities
Programs and outfitters that provide services to persons
with disabilities in units of the NWPS also were contacted. Although
our list of service providers is not exhaustive, we are confident
that it represents an appropriate level of the programs and outfitters
that provide these services. A total of 22 outfitters, organizations,
and wilderness advocates were contacted, and 15 responded to the
survey. Of the 15 that responded, 11 conduct activities in the NWPS
involving persons with disabilities. The names and addresses of
the organizations contacted are included in Appendix 3.
In addition to answering survey questions, outfitters
and organizations were asked to provide the names and addresses
of persons with disabilities who have used the NWPS. A total of
208 people were identified through this effort.
Survey of users of the NWPS who have disabilities
Surveys, including a cover letter from the National
Council on Disability and a map showing most of the units of the
NWPS, were sent to the 208 persons identified by the outfitters
and organizations. A total of 89 people responded--a 43 percent
response rate. Of these responses, 3 were not included because the
respondent did not have a disability, 5 because the respondent had
not used or attempted to use the NWPS, and 1 because the response
did not contain enough information to make it meaningful. A total
of 80 completed surveys from persons with disabilities who have
visited the NWPS remained.
The following demographic characteristics of these
80 respondents:
Type of disability Percent of respondents
Cognitive impairment 10
Sensory impairment 9
Mobility impairment, non-wheelchair user 31
Mobility impairment, wheelchair user 50
State of Residence
Alaska 6
California 2
Colorado 5
Florida 4
Georgia 1
Idaho 5
Illinois 4
Indiana 7
Maine 1
Michigan 2
Minnesota 22
Montana 1
New Jersey 2
New Mexico 1
New York 2
North Dakota 1
Ohio 2
Rhode Island 1
Tennessee 1
Texas 2
Vermont 1
Washington 1
Wisconsin 5
Unknown 1
Gender Percent of respondents
Male 55
Female 43
Not indicated 2
Age Percent of respondents
18-29 24
30-39 35
40-49 28
50-59 6
60-69 3
70-79 3
Not Indicated 1
Analysis
methods
The study used both quantitative and qualitative methods
of analysis. Quantitative analysis is limited to tabulation of categorical
responses and is presented as frequencies of response. A significant
amount of qualitative data was collected. When appropriate, these
data have been grouped and categorized according to the type of
response.
FINDINGS
1. Current policies of NWPS managing agencies
The following is an agency-by-agency summary of policies
and management practices regarding wilderness access by disabled
persons. Three of the agencies responsible for NWPS management are
part of the U.S. Department of Interior; one agency, the Forest
Service, is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
National Park Service (USDI)
Total NWPS units: 42
Total NWPS acres: 39,075,415 The National
Park Service (NPS) established a Special Programs and Populations
Branch on January 2, 1980, to oversee use of NPS lands and facilities
by persons with disabilities. Although the primary emphasis of this
branch has been to ensure accessibility compliance in historic structures,
battlefields, and so on, it is also charged with overseeing accessibility
compliance within the NPS units of the NWPS.
NPS policies on use of wheelchairs in the NWPS.
In Management Policies Regarding Accessibility for Disabled Persons
(January 1990), under the section on Wilderness Preservation and
Management (chapter 6, page 8), the NPS states,
As a general rule, public use of motorized equipment
or any form of mechanical transport will be prohibited in wilderness....
Mobility impaired persons may use wheelchairs (as defined in 36
CFR 1.4) in wilderness.
The NPS goes on to define a manual wheelchair as "a
device that is propelled by human power, designed for and used by
a mobility impaired person." A motorized wheelchair is defined as
"a self-propelled wheelchair device, designed solely for and used
by a mobility impaired person for locomotion that is capable of
and suitable for use in indoor pedestrian areas." [emphasis
added]
The NPS does allow the use of manual and motorized
wheelchairs in the NWPS. An important criterion in determining whether
a manual or motorized wheelchair is allowed in the NWPS is that
it must be suitable for indoor use. If a device is not suitable
for indoor use it is considered a motor vehicle and excluded from
use in the NWPS.
A key concept here is that the NPS treats people who
use wheelchairs as pedestrians, not as operators of motor vehicles.
As stated in 36 CFR 1.2 (3)(e), "The regulations in this chapter
are intended to treat a mobility-impaired person using a manual
or motorized wheelchair as a pedestrian, and are not intended to
restrict the activities of such a person beyond the degree that
the activities of a pedestrian are restricted by the same regulations."
All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and other devices that would not be
allowed in elevators, public buildings, and private homes are not
allowed in the NWPS. Various entities have recognized that persons
using motorized wheelchairs should be afforded the same rights and
duties as pedestrians in general, including the right to use a sidewalk,
elevator, and indoor facilities.
This concept of indoor pedestrian use is used in Section
507 (c)(2) of the ADA in reference to the use of wheelchairs in
the NWPS:
For the purposes of paragraph (1), the term "wheelchair"
means a device designed solely for use by a mobility impaired
persons for locomotion, that is suitable for use in an indoor
pedestrian area.
NPS policies on alteration of terrain and facilities.
In Policies on Accessibility to Specific National Park Functions,
the NPS comments on accessibility for disabled persons in park facilities:
In accordance with the mandates of the Architectural
Barriers Acts of 1968 and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 as amended in 1978, it is the policy of the National Park
Service to provide the highest level of accessibility in all visitor
and management buildings and facilities as is possible and feasible,
consistent with the nature of the area and facility. The degree
of accessibility provided will be proportionately related to the
degree of man-made modifications made to the area or facility
and to the significance of the facility.
This policy divides park areas into three types: developed
areas, undeveloped areas, and threshold areas. The comments relevant
to the NWPS pertain to the section on undeveloped areas:
The undeveloped areas,
such as the part of the park that is outside the immediate influence
of buildings, roads, and cars, will not normally
be modified nor will special facilities be provided for the sole
purpose of providing access to disabled people.
Although this statement does not specifically address
the NWPS, it is interpreted to mean that the NPS does not seek to
make alterations in trails, footbridges, established campsites,
and other accommodations within the wilderness units it manages.
In a statement to the National Council on Disability on August 7,
1991, David C. Park, chief of the Special Programs and Populations
Branch of the NPS, said,
We believe this policy is consistent with the effective
management of the resources we control and is consistent with
our attempt to balance access with conservation. We also believe
it is consistent with the intent of, and regulations for, Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act. One major section of all Federal
regulations for Section 504 states that agencies are not required
to take any actions that would result in a "fundamental alteration
in the nature of a program or activity." It is our belief that
altering wilderness areas for the sake of providing access would
definitely change the fundamental nature of that activity. In
our discussions with people who are disabled and the agencies
and organizations that represent them, we have found overwhelming
agreement with this position.
This position is consistent with Section 507(c)(1)
of the ADA, which reads,
Congress reaffirms that nothing in the Wilderness
Act is to be construed as prohibiting the use of a wheelchair
in a wilderness area by an individual whose disability requires
use of a wheelchair, and consistent with the Wilderness Act no
agency is required to provide any form of special treatment or
accommodation, or to construct any facilities or modify any conditions
of lands within a wilderness area in order to facilitate such
use.
Park also commented in his statement of August 7,
1991,
On the surface, the concurrent goals of equal accessibility
and preservation of wilderness areas seem to be antithetical.
However, at a closer look, we do not believe that is actually
the case. It is not, in our estimation, a question of one goal
or legal mandate taking precedence over another or superseding
another. It is a question of finding effective ways to balance
the intent of both and finding ways to provide the highest level
access with the lowest level impact on the environment.
More information about NPS policies regarding persons
with disabilities in the NWPS can be obtained by contacting
David Park
Chief, Special Programs and Populations Branch
National Park Service
P.O. Box 37127
Washington, DC 20013-7127
(202) 343-3674
(202) 343-3679 (TDD)
(202) 523-0162 (FAX)
U.S. Forest Service (USDA)
Total NWPS units: 365
Total NWPS acres: 33,609,661 Although the NPS
manages more total acreage of the NWPS (much of it in Alaska), the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages the great majority of units of
the NWPS (365 out of 546 total NWPS units). As an agency, the USFS
is more decentralized than the NPS, an important point when considering
its management practices and how they are implemented.
Even before the ADA was signed, the chief of the Forest
Service had established an agency goal of "becoming the leading
provider of accessible outdoor recreation opportunities in America."
Toward that end, the Forest Service established a new program in
1990, "Access: America's Great Outdoors," to formulate and implement
agency policy and direction regarding access for all components
of outdoor recreation, including wilderness. One of the functions
of the program is to help establish clear direction for the USFS
on the issue of access.
USFS policy seeks to maximize wilderness values while
providing opportunities for persons with disabilities to enjoy wilderness
on its own terms. As stated in the "Accessibility of Wilderness
to Persons With Disabilities" draft policy statement prepared October
12, 1990, by Ann S. Fege, National Leader for Wilderness Management,
Wilderness values must dominate over all other
considerations in wilderness resource management. There are many
opportunities for persons with sight, mobility, hearing, and developmental
disabilities to obtain wilderness experiences on the same terms
as the rest of the recreating public....
...There is no correlation between the physical,
sensory, or cognitive abilities of an individual and the need
for solitude, beauty, challenge, risk, discovery or adventure.
...Our attention should be focused on providing
opportunities to enhance the understanding, enjoyment, and use
of wilderness by all the public, including persons with disabilities.
...We can enhance [use of the NWPS] for hearing,
mobility, sight, and developmentally impaired persons through
interpretive services and greater attention to providing recreation
access information in usable forms. ([] added for clarification)
...Access can frequently be expanded with very
little effort. Involving persons with disabilities and/or persons
with appropriate technical expertise to help identify opportunities
could greatly increase access to wilderness experiences to meet
varied skills and interests of persons with disabilities.
Current USFS policy regarding the use of wheelchairs
in the NWPS reads as follows:
Mechanical apparatus that is medically necessary
for the basic mobility of any individual is considered to be part
of that person and not subject to restrictions on mechanical use.
(Forest Service Manual, 2326.03 no. 4)
This policy on wheelchair use does not allow the use
of motorized wheelchairs within NWPS units managed by the USFS.
As noted in the policy statement by Ann Fege:
Some have advocated the use of electric wheelchairs
in order to allow wheelchair-mobile persons lacking upper body
strength to enter wilderness and make our policies consistent
with the National Park Service. This change is not being proposed
at this time.
Fege goes on to comment on trails management regarding
access:
Trails management handbook direction limits trail
width in wilderness areas to 24". Standard wheelchairs require
a minimum width of 32" tread width to navigate. Consequently,
although wheelchair use is allowed in Forest Service wilderness
areas, tread width restrictions prevent access except in the most
unusual of circumstances. We [the USFS] are exploring the idea
of allowing tread widths in excess of 24 inches where the impact
to the natural environment is minimal and there is an opportunity
for wheelchair users to achieve a quality wilderness experience.
According to Joe Meade, USFS National Access Program
Manager, the Forest Service wants to leave some latitude for local
managers to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, depending on
environmental conditions. The Forest Service can issue special permits
to authorize otherwise prohibited activities. A memo from Meade,
dated August 9, 1991, illustrates the point:
Our policy is not to hinder a person with a disability
from using a non-motorized mechanical device different than just
a wheelchair in order to access the wilderness. Units have the
authority and indeed are encouraged to prudently issue permits
to individuals who need such an exception. The person may need
to offer proof of the disability, such as a note from a medical
authority or some other method of verification...i.e. a person
with a chronic back disability which does not permit them to carry
weight on their back may be issued a permit to use a wheeled primitive
cart... remember, wheelchairs are not the only devices serving
the disabled. We draw the line with motorized devices....
Meade further noted:
The Forest Service recognizes its strict adherence
to the 1964 Wilderness Act prohibits use of electric wheelchairs.
However, millions of acres of near wilderness experiences are
available for this use. If Congress feels this should be evaluated
in order to comply with the ADA, the Forest Service is very willing
to do so.
The USFS and the NPS have been working cooperatively
on the issue of access for a number of years. They have produced
a publication, Universal Design Guide for Accessible Outdoor
Recreation, to be released in 1993. The guide provides comprehensive
standards and guidelines for accessible outdoor recreation facilities,
programs, and services--including those in wilderness areas--and
is intended for planners and designers. For more information about
the design guide or about Forest Service policies regarding use
of the NWPS by persons with disabilities, contact
Joe Meade
USFS-USDA Recreation Staff
14th and Independence Ave., SW
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
(202) 205-1129
(202) 205-1739 (Text Telephone)
(202) 205-1145 (FAX)
Bureau of Land Management (USDI)
Total NWPS units: 66
Total NWPS acres: 1,610,995 In a letter to
Representative John Rhodes of the House Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, dated October 13, 1989, BLM Director Cy Jamison
wrote,
As a policy exception, the BLM does not prohibit
the use of wheelchairs by persons with mobility impairments in
the wilderness.
The BLM is in the process of clarifying its policies
toward use of the NWPS by persons with disabilities. In an information
bulletin to all BLM state directors dated August 10, 1990, Keith
Corrigall, chief, Branch of Wilderness Resources, stated that the
BLM's clarifications regarding wheelchair use in wilderness areas
will be available in the revision of the 43 CFR 8560 regulations
and Manual 8560.
In a memo dated October 25, 1991, Michael J. Penfold,
assistant director, Land and Renewable Resources, outlined the BLM's
accessibility initiative; "Access Means Freedom." This initiative
makes a number of recommendations, such as establishing training
groups, developing a field guide, and producing an awareness video.
It also recommends establishing a fully coordinated BLM policy to
incorporate accessibility and reduce conflicts in and among resource
programs, and to define a policy similar to that of the National
Park Service, stating that the BLM will maximize the effort
to make all areas and operations accessible.
For more information about BLM policies regarding
use of the NWPS by persons with disabilities, contact
Keith Corrigall
Chief, Branch of Wilderness Resources
Bureau of Land Management
Room 3360, Main Interior Building
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
(202) 208-6064
(202) 208-4819 (FAX)
Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI)
Total NWPS units: 75
Total NWPS acres: 20,676,341 According to
wilderness manager Dave Heffernan, the FWS does not currently have
any policies regarding persons with disabilities in the NWPS. However,
the FWS intends to adopt policies similar to those of the other
land managing agencies within the Department of Interior.
For more information about Fish and Wildlife Service
policies regarding use of the NWPS by persons with disabilities,
contact
Dave Heffernan
Division of Refuges
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Department of the Interior
Mail Stop 670-ARLSQ
18th and C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
(703) 358-2043
(703) 358-2248 (FAX)
Survey results of field managers
of NWPS units. Federal managers of individual NWPS units were
surveyed to determine their familiarity with the policies of their
agencies and with the general issues involved in providing opportunities
for persons with disabilities. The table below provides a breakdown
of the response frequencies from each agency.
Federal Agency Responses to Surveys
Number Number Percent of
Agency sent returned response
USFS 365 210 58
NPS 42 39 93
BLM 17 13 76
FWS 55 42 76
TOTAL 479 304 63
In the following tables, all responses were converted
to a percentage of responses for the agency in question. For example,
a response of 62 percent for the USFS means that 62 percent of the
USFS managers responded in the manner indicated. Some columns may
not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Responses to question: Does your unit allow for the
use of wheelchairs by persons with disabilities?
Yes No Do not know No response
USFS 62% 30% 6% 2%
NPS 69% 26% 5% 0%
FWS 40% 55% 5% 0%
BLM 62% 38% 0% 0%
TOTALS 60% 33% 6% >1%
(n=304)
Comments: The intent of the question
was to determine the respondent's familiarity with agency policy;
however, some respondents answered "NO," then went on to comment
that, although wheelchairs were legally allowed, the terrain was
too rough for wheelchair use. Others, however, clearly indicated
they thought that wheelchairs were illegal. Despite this limitation,
the responses to this question suggest that NWPS wilderness field
managers from all managing agencies could benefit from additional
training on agency policies regarding wheelchair use by persons
with disabilities--especially in consideration of Section 507(c)
of the ADA.
Responses to question: Does your unit make special
provisions for use by persons with disabilities?
Yes No Do not know No response
USFS 16% 79% 3% 2%
NPS 49% 51% 0% 0%
FWS 12% 69% 0% 19%
BLM 15% 77% 8% 0%
TOTAL 19% 74% 3% 4%
(n=304)
If special provisions were offered, respondents
were asked to indicate the kinds of special provisions as presented
below:
Special permits 15/304 5%
Use of motors 11/304 4%
Special areas 11/304 4%
Accessibility information 14/304 5%
Only 10 out of 304 respondents provided
comments on special provisions. Examples of comments follow:
Special permits: We
allow seeing eye dogs in wilderness. --Joshua Tree National
Monument
Use of motors: We
allow the use of motors as well as accessibility information.
--Pinnacles Wilderness
Special areas: We
provide accessible facilities--restrooms, campsites, telephones--in
areas surrounding wilderness. --Lassen Volcanic Wilderness
Accessibility information:
We offer personal assistance if requested. --Katmai Wilderness
Response to question: In your opinion, do the management
policies of your agency for NWPS units inhibit the enjoyment of
persons with disabilities?
Yes No Do not know No response
USFS 25% 74% 0% 1%
NPS 10% 87% 0% 0%
FWS 12% 86% 2% 0%
BLM 38% 62% 0% 0%
TOTAL 22% 77% >1% >1%
(n=304)
Respondents were then asked to
comment on why they believe their agency policies do or do not inhibit
enjoyment by persons with disabilities. A total of 99 comments were
offered. Analysis of these comments was difficult because of the
broad range of responses. A representative sample of responses is
provided here.
Management policies do not inhibit use,
however the nature of the terrain does.
It is not the policy of my own agency,
but the wording of the Wilderness Act itself.
Policies do not prohibit; however, our
actions have not encouraged the disabled to seek out these areas.
The wilderness designation simply forces the individual, handicapped
or not, to venture into the wilderness on its own terms.
Our policies provide for the protection
of wilderness values and are enforced equally among all visitors;
the policies do not inhibit the enjoyment of any persons with
a good wilderness ethic.
Wheelchairs are prohibited.
We don't have information on other options,
the Wilderness Act prohibits the use of wheelchairs.
The people we talk to don't want special
treatment, they want the challenge wilderness has to offer. They
do however, want more accessible facilities outside of wilderness
boundaries.
Nearby wilderness-like area provides access
and assistance for persons with disabilities.
I don't think it has anything to do with
policy, but rather a lack of time and funding.
With adequate funding our agency appears
to be ready to develop opportunities for persons with disabilities.
Wilderness should be managed to the purest
level of preservation. Visitor convenience should not influence
development or increase maintenance levels.
Once a wilderness is modified for people
to use mechanical means of transport, it ceases to be a wilderness
and the recreational experience for all is diminished.
The main premise of wilderness is protection
of the resource and not recreation.
Tendency is to do highly developed projects
outside the wilderness. We need to do this within the boundaries
of wilderness.
Too strict an interpretation of not using
mechanized equipment. Permit use of pullcarts on wheels for transport
of baggage.
Perhaps the best interpretation of these comments
is that wilderness managers have varied opinions on whether their
policies inhibit enjoyment of the NWPS by persons with disabilities.
Response to question: Does your wilderness unit have
any information available that specifically addresses wilderness
use by persons with disabilities?
Yes No Do not know No response
USFS 1% 96% 0% 3%
NPS 10% 90% 0% 0%
FWS 0% 100% 0% 0%
BLM 0% 100% 0% 0%
TOTAL 2% 96% 0% 2%
(n=304)
2.
Current NWPS use levels by persons with disabilities Managers
of NWPS units were asked to estimate how many people with disabilities
used their unit of the NWPS each year. Out of 304 surveys, 262 provided
estimates ranging from 0 to 2,500 per unit. The total annual estimated
use by persons with disabilities was 16,767. Unfortunately, it is
impossible to verify the accuracy of these estimates, as managers
typically do not differentiate between persons with or without disabilities
in permit reservations or any other use-tracking measures.
It is also difficult to extrapolate from the data
collected to other NWPS units that did not respond to the survey
or to the question. Therefore, no meaningful estimates about use
of the NWPS by persons with disabilities can be made. Despite these
limitations, it is reasonable to assume that per capita use of the
NWPS by persons with disabilities is less than per capita use by
persons without disabilities.
The highest estimates of use by persons with disabilities
came from the following units:
Unit name Estimated Managing agency
annual use
Phillip Burton 2,500 National Park Service
Boundary Waters 2,000 Forest Service
Glacier Bay 1,000 National Park Service
Cabinet Mountains 1,000 Forest Service
Sycamore Canyon,
Munds Mountain,
Red Rock-Secret
Mountain 850 Forest Service
St. Marks 500 Fish and Wildlife Service
Great Swamp 500 Fish and Wildlife Service
Olympic 500 National Park Service
Joshua Tree 500 National Park Service
Carson-Iceberg,
Emigrant,
Mokelumne 500 Forest Service
Black Elk 460 Forest Service
Ellicott Rock 300 Forest Service
Shining Rock,
Middle Prong 300 Forest Service
Organizations and outfitters that provide
services for persons with disabilities were also asked to indicate
which NWPS units they use.
NWPS units used by outfitters surveyed include the
following:
Black Canyon of the Gunnison
Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Chama River Canyon
Chugach
Collegiate Peaks
Craters of the Moon
Denali
Desolation Canyon
Eagles Nest
Everglades National Park
Frank Church/River of No Return
Glacier Bay
Hells Canyon
Jedediah Smith
Kenai
Lost Creek
Mesa Verde
Mt. Rainier
Sawtooth
Teton
Three Sisters
Trinity Alps
Yosemite
No information was provided on frequency of use of
these areas.
Information about use from the 80 persons with disabilities
is included in section 3.
Use of these areas raises the question of what characteristics,
if any, these NWPS units might have in common. These units may receive
more use by persons with disabilities because of
- More accessible terrain, including more opportunities
for water-based travel (canoe, kayak, raft).
- Proximity to urban centers. Boundary Waters, for
example, is one of the most visited units of the entire NWPS,
partly because it is within a day's drive of millions of people.
- Higher level of utilization by organizations and
outfitters serving people with disabilities.
- Currently available information on access and
travel within the unit.
These and other possible characteristics are issues
for further study.
3. Enjoyment of the NWPS by persons
with disabilities Completed surveys were received
from 80 persons with disabilities who had experienced the NWPS.
Respondents were asked to name as many as five units of the NWPS
they had visited since having a disability. A total of 207 responses
were given, representing 77 units of the NWPS. Respondents were
asked to rate their enjoyment level of these areas as stated below:
Please circle the number that best rates your level
of overall enjoyment of the NWPS areas you listed in question 1.
The letter in front of each response corresponds to the Wilderness
you listed in question 1.
Did not Enjoyed Enjoyed Enjoyed Enjoyed a
enjoy very little somewhat very much tremendous
amount
a) 1 2 3 4 5
b) 1 2 3 4 5
c) 1 2 3 4 5
d) 1 2 3 4 5
e) 1 2 3 4 5
The range of responses was 2 to 5. The
average rating of all 207 responses was 4.42, indicating a very
high level of enjoyment.
The distribution of responses was as follows:
NWPS Enjoyment Ratings by Persons with Disabilities
Rating Number of Percent
responses response
1 Did not enjoy 0 0
2 Enjoyed very little 3 2
3 Enjoyed somewhat 19 9
4 Enjoyed very much 72 35
5 Enjoyed a tremendous
amount 113 55
Average Enjoyment Rating: 4.42
Below is a list of the NWPS units
visited by the respondents with disabilities and the enjoyment rating
these people gave to each unit.
NWPS unit name Number Average Range
of enjoyment high/low
respondents rating
with
disabilities
Boundary Waters 44 4.61 5/3
Teton 13 4.77 5/4
Denali 10 4.60 5/3
Everglades 10 4.3 5/3
Badlands 9 4 4/4
Frank Church/
River of No Return 6 4.66 5/4
Kenai 5 4.4 5/4
Lake Chelan-Sawtooth 5 4.8 5/4
Craters of the Moon 4 4 5/2
Hawaii Volcanoes 4 4.75 5/4
Hells Canyon 4 4.75 5/4
Yosemite 4 4.25 5/3
Bob Marshall 3 3.33 4/3
Isle Royale 3 4 5/3
Joshua Tree 3 4 5/3
Mt. Rainier 3 4.33 5/4
Arctic Wildlife Refuge 2 5 5/5
Bandelier 2 4.5 5/4
Cedar Keys 2 4 5/3
Crab Orchard 2 3.5 4/3
Florida Keys 2 5 5/5
Haleakala 2 4 5/3
J.N."Ding" Darling 2 4.5 5/4
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock 2 5 5/5
Olympic 2 5 5/5
Petrified Forest 2 4 4/4
Presidential Range 2 4.5 5/4
Selway-Bitterroot 2 4.5 5/4
Twin Peaks 2 4 4/4
Wrangell-St. Elias 2 5 5/5
Alexander Springs 1 5
Alpine Lakes 1 4
Ansel Adams 1 5
Black Canyon/Gunnison 1 4
Bosque del Apache 1 3
Cache La Poudre 1 5
Castle Crag 1 3
Chama River Canyon 1 5
Charles C. Deam 1 2
Citico Creek 1 5
Columbia 1 3
Gates of the Arctic 1 5
Gates of the Mountains 1 5
Glacier Bay 1 5
Glacier Peak 1 5
Golden Trout 1 5
Great Swamp 1 3
Gros Ventre 1 4
Guadalupe Mtns. 1 2
Jarbidge 1 5
John Muir 1 5
Lacassine 1 5
Lake Clark 1 5
Lizard Head 1 4
Mesa Verde 1 4
Moosehorn 1 5
Mt. Evans 1 4
Never Summer 1 4
Noatak 1 4
Okefenokee 1 5
Pecos 1 5
Pinnacles 1 3
Rainbow Lake 1 5
Rattlesnake 1 5
Russel Fjord 1 5
San Juan Islands 1 4
San Pedro Parks 1 5
Saguaro 1 4
Seney 1 4
South San Juan 1 4
St. Marks 1 4
Theodore Roosevelt 1 4
Three Sisters 1 4
Upper Buffalo 1 4
Upper Kiamichi River 1 3
Washakie 1 5
Weminuche 1 4
To determine their motivation for visiting
wilderness, persons with disabilities were asked why they chose
to visit the NWPS. Their priorities for visiting the wilderness
include the following:
Reason for visiting Percent of responses
To experience scenery/natural beauty 93
To experience nature on its own terms 81
To experience a personal challenge 78
To share the experience with family/friends 70
To experience solitude 53
To enjoy fishing or hunting 20
Study participants were also asked about
the high points and low points of their wilderness experience(s).
High points include: Percent responses
Scenery or location 94
Personal achievement/
feelings of accomplishment 83
People or relationships 76
Personal growth 64
Solitude/peace 61
No high points 1
Other 1
Low points include: Percent responses
No low points 58
Trails/terrain too rugged 24
Physical discomfort 13
Undeveloped/primitive campsites 13
Uncooperative group members 13
Poor access at entry point
(parking, etc) 13
Lack of information about area 5
Many studies have been conducted to determine
the reasons people without disabilities visit the NWPS (Driver et
al. 1987). In comparing previous studies with the responses of the
80 persons with disabilities, it appears that the latter visit the
NWPS for the same reasons as people without disabilities (Roggenbuck
and Lucas 1987).
How do persons with disabilities
visit the NWPS? Most of the people with
disabilities surveyed have visited the NWPS multiple times. A total
of 47 percent have taken five trips or more, 39 percent have taken
between two and four trips, and 14 percent have only taken one trip.
The majority of respondents, 85 percent, have spent
four or more consecutive days on their longest wilderness experience.
Only 8 percent never experienced more than one day in the wilderness,
while another 8 percent have experienced between two and three days
as their longest wilderness experience.
The majority of respondents, 75 percent, had not visited
the NWPS prior to becoming disabled. Of these people, 35 percent
were born with their disability, and 40 percent had never visited
wilderness before becoming disabled. A total of 25 percent respondents
with disabilities had visited the NWPS prior to becoming disabled.
Respondents with disabilities used the following means
of transport within the wilderness:
Type Percent of responses
Canoe 71
Hike 39
Kayak 29
Raft 29
Horse 21
Dogsled 19
Motorized 5
Other 5
Respondents used the following assistive
devices on their wilderness trips:
Type Percent of responses
Manual wheelchair 50
Crutches/cane 33
No devices used 16
Electric wheelchair 5
Prostheses 5
White cane 4
Amigo 1
Walker 0
Guide dog 0
Finally, 73 percent of the respondents
utilized the services of a professional guide or outfitter to gain
access to the wilderness, 51 percent visited the NWPS with family
or friends, and only 9 percent visited the NWPS alone. (Readers
are reminded that the high proportion of respondents who have utilized
the services of a guide or outfitter may be due to the fact that
most of these people were identified with the assistance of outfitters
and organizations serving people with disabilities in the NWPS.)
A variety of studies has been conducted on the use
patterns of nondisabled users of the NWPS. With the exception of
assistive devices, people with disabilities appear to visit the
NWPS in the same ways that people without disabilities do (Lucas
and Krumpe, 1986).
Effect of restrictions on mechanized
use When asked whether the restrictions
on mechanized use within the NWPS diminishes their ability to enjoy
the wilderness, 76 percent of the respondents with disabilities
said no, 21 percent said yes, and 3 percent did not answer the question.
Responses indicated that many of the respondents think
wheelchairs are allowed in the NWPS; thus, we believe they considered
other mechanical devices, such as ATVs, in answering this question.
Typical comments from persons who do not believe that
restrictions on mechanized use inhibit their opportunities to enjoy
wilderness include the following:
[There are] many alternatives such as dogs,
horses and people power. The sense of personal achievement is greatly
enhanced by overcoming the emotional, physical and psychological
barriers and achieving a significant undertaking in the wilderness
without relying on mechanized use.
There are enough areas on the planet that
allow machines.... By adaptation persons with disabilities can
access the total wilderness areas.
Mechanized use would undermine the concept
of wilderness...keep them out.
Enjoy the wilderness in its natural state...it
just requires some assistance from other people to help me adapt.
Mechanized use is incompatible with the
wilderness experience....There are many places to go that are
like wilderness that allow motors.
Loopholes shouldn't be created for persons
with disabilities; other groups will seek to alter wilderness
to accommodate them also.
Individuals with disabilities should rely
on family and friends to help them out in wilderness. Do not allow
motors or mechanical devices.
Allowing mechanized use in the wilderness
would make it noisy and polluting, precisely what persons with
or without disabilities are trying to escape.
Wilderness is wilderness...it won't be
the same if mechanized use is allowed. People with disabilities
can access the wilderness if they only put their minds to it.
Typical comments from persons who do believe that
restrictions on mechanized use inhibit their opportunities to
enjoy wilderness include the following:
Disability or age should not stop people
from going to wilderness. Managers of the units should rent motorized
equipment...government should not limit people from using motors.
[I] can't use an ATV in all areas. I need
to use this due to paralysis.
How do I get out in case an emergency
arises? [I] need mechanized usage.
Trails [in wilderness] are difficult for
manual chairs. It could be helpful to use an ATV.
Would like to be able to use a three-wheeler--it
would allow me to get into areas I wouldn't otherwise be able
to.
I would like to be able to use an ATV
for increased access.
If I were allowed to ride an off-road
vehicle it would allow me to see a lot of areas I otherwise wouldn't
be able to.
I want to be able to travel by boat and
have a close toilet facility.
It limits my independence in the wilderness
but I don't want them to change the restrictions.
ATV is a way to see wilderness I could
never reach on foot.
Persons with disabilities were also asked whether
their disability itself enhanced or inhibited their enjoyment of
the NWPS. A total of 64 percent responded that their disability
either enhanced or had no effect on their ability to enjoy wilderness,
while 36 percent responded that their disability did inhibit the
opportunity for them to enjoy the wilderness.
4. Suggestions for increasing enjoyment
of the NWPS All three surveys asked respondents
to make additional comments and recommendations regarding access
and wilderness. A number of recurrent issues emerged from NWPS users
who have disabilities, NWPS unit managers, and outfitters that serve
persons with disabilities in the NWPS.
The purpose of this section is to identify issues
for further discussion--it is not meant to imply a recommendation.
Recurrent issues are categorized below. In every case,
the percentage of responses from each of the three groups surveyed
(users, managers, outfitters) is provided with the statement. In
considering these percentages the reader is reminded that the total
number of respondents for each category was
Managers 304
Users 80
Outfitters 15
Therefore, one user equals 1.25 percent
of all users (1/80), one manager equals .32 percent of all NWPS
managers (1/304), and one outfitter equals 6.6 percent of all outfitters
(1/15). In considering these issues it is also important to remember
the following:
1. Data for these suggestions are qualitative, derived
in response to open-ended questions asking for suggestions and comments.
In some cases, the decision to categorize a response in a certain
manner was obvious; in other cases, categorization required more
judgment and interpretation. Every effort was made to categorize
the responses consistently and fairly; however, by its very nature
this process is likely to have more errors than a simple yes or
no response.
2. It is important to consider the source of each
suggestion. For example, the suggestion to increase access inside
the wilderness is the response of 3 outfitters, 8 users, and 30
NWPS managers. In interpreting these suggestions, we advise the
reader to note the number of responses from each category.
3. Typical comments representing each suggestion
category have been included for each of the three types of respondents.
Suggestion 1: Develop materials that provide information
on access; provide a clearinghouse for information.
Users 15%
Managers 15.5%
Outfitters 33%
Comments from users with disabilities:
What is needed is a central clearinghouse
for information on what areas in the U.S. have to offer a person
with a disability.
Lack of information is the biggest obstacle.
Write a guidebook of all the programs available and the levels
of accessibility to certain units of the NWPS so people can choose
where to go according to their comfort level.
More publicity letting people know what
areas are available and what programs can take them there.
Comments from NWPS managers:
Publicize what is currently available
to persons with disabilities via publications and literature.
Create a brochure listing trails easily
accessed; rate trails.
Inventory and classify trails according
to accessibility levels.
In [our] wilderness education package
we need to include special populations.
Concerted effort is needed by the four
federal agencies to convey that the wilderness is not just for
young supermen.
Comments from outfitters:
Provide the information, let participants
make the call.
Develop a board made up of individuals
with disabilities to rate the levels of ease according to each
unit.
Make information readily available to
sites and locations already fully accessible. Create an advisory
board made up of nondisabled and disabled to rate areas according
to their level of accessibility. Consult this board to make minimal,
but distinct, improvements.
Mass publication about programs or organizations
who offer trips into wilderness [for persons with disabilities].
Suggestion 2: Maintain existing regulations--seek access
without compromising the Wilderness Act.
Users 18.75%
Managers 3.6%
Outfitters 20%
Comments from users with disabilities:
My disability does not prevent me from enjoying
wilderness areas, it just adds a logistical element as to how
to get into these areas. Accessibility up to areas must be made
standard, but in the [wilderness] areas they should be left in
their natural state.
People with disabilities need to adapt to the
conditions they are in. [They] can't expect all areas to be accessible.
How far can access be taken without hurting the
concept of wilderness and the environment? I don't want to lose
the wilderness; rather than having the wilderness adapt, I'd rather
see the persons with disabilities adapt.
Areas would lose some of their attractiveness
if we were to make them completely accessible. Just good to know
there are still wild areas--keep them as undeveloped as possible.
Corporate America, in its quest for lucrative
markets, continues to use disability as a political football.
In their headlong drive for money they would gladly sacrifice
the few remaining enclaves of national heritage. Don't use disability
as a means to open wilderness.
Comments from NWPS managers:
Do not compromise Wilderness Act by allowing
ATVs, etc. ...we need to come up with policy for use of wilderness
by people with disabilities.
To provide handicapped access would involve constructing
roads or paved trails, which are contrary to wilderness values.
If made accessible, it doesn't remain wilderness.
Do not attempt to alter trails or allow mechanized
use. Do not lose sight of wilderness preservation.
Comments from outfitters:
Don't create accessibility; it goes against
the concept of wilderness.
If wilderness is made totally accessible,
will it remain wilderness? People with disabilities must accept
their circumstance and some areas may not be accessible.
Suggestion 3: Increase accessibility to areas outside
wilderness (trailheads, parking, restrooms, TDDs in ranger stations)
Users 20%
Managers 11.2%
Outfitters 13%
Comments from users with disabilities:
Entry points need to be made accessible...ramps
to existing buildings, widened restrooms.
Accessible toilet facilities at entry
points.
TDD phone at ranger stations.
Ranger stations need to have truly accessible
toileting facilities and ramping.
Braille or raised line maps would help
the blind.
Comments from NWPS managers:
Complete totally accessible trails just
outside wilderness designations.
Don't feel improvements in travel routes
are appropriate. Need to provide ramps and other structures at
trail heads for accessibility.
Handicapped accessible toilets at the
trailheads need to be implemented.
Develop the surrounding areas to be totally
accessible.
Comments from outfitters:
Have accessible entrance and specific
information on levels of accessibility [and] for visually and
hearing impaired.
Construct some mounting ramps for horse
mounting. Construct some special ramping at put-in points at river's
edge.
Suggestion 4: Increase access inside wilderness (boardwalks,
widen trails, special permits)
Users 10%
Managers 9.9%
Outfitters 20%
Comments from users with disabilities:
Improve campsites and portage trails.
Signage should be in braille and placed
at lowered heights.
Make campsite areas more accessible, ramping
from river, provide riverside bathrooms totally accessible.
Widen paths.
Comments from NWPS managers:
Construct a trail suitable for wheelchair
access.
Managers need to be provided with uniform,
regionwide policies for granting valid exemptions to the guidelines
of the Wilderness Act
Create specific trails with easy grade
and hardened surface, close to trailhead.
Widen and reroute the grade of trails.
People with disabilities have a right to visit their forests.
Redesign trails for persons with disabilities.
Special rafting permits for commercial
outfitters. Lower fee to offset cost.
Reconsider strict stance of non-use of
mechanical equipment. Special permits should be considered.
Comments from outfitters:
Specialized permits for nonprofit groups--they
can't afford fees.
Special permitting process done on a local
level--unit specific. Improve all existing camping facilities,
improve toileting facilities, widen trails.
Suggestion 5: Issue special permits allowing motors
and mechanized use for access (ATVs, motorboats, etc.)
Users 10%*
Managers 1.3%
Outfitters 7%
* Only two users specifically recommended
the use of motors; however several commented on their desire to
use motors in response to the question on whether the restrictions
on mechanized use diminishes their ability to enjoy wilderness.
If these are factored in as recommendations, the total number of
persons with disabilities who recommend the use of motorized vehicles
is eight, or 10 percent.
Comments from users with disabilities:
Allow restricted use of ATVS.
Allow individualized motorized access
to certain areas.
Disabilities or age should not stop people
from going to wilderness. Managers of the units should rent motorized
equipment...government shouldn't limit people from using motors.
ATV is a way to see wilderness I could
never reach on foot.
How [can I] get out in case an emergency
arises? Need mechanized usage.
Comments from NWPS managers:
Develop special area within wilderness
to allow motorized use. Specialized permit.
Issue special use permits for motorized
use if disabled individual needs this.
Allow use of motors on a limited basis.
Maintain existing regulations that allow for
limited motorized use.
Comments from outfitters:
[Provide] access with motorized vehicles.
Suggestion 6: Encourage/promote use of outfitters and
guides
Users 10%
Managers 13.4%
Outfitters 0
Comments from users with disabilities:
Highly promote existing organizations
that enable persons with disabilities to go to wilderness areas.
Implement trail partners, which advocates
people power for access.
Comments from NWPS managers:
Develop partnerships with area guides
and specialty outfitters.
Commercial use operators could be encouraged
to specifically tailor trips for persons with disabilities.
Increase usage and dependence on groups
that deal with specialized population and the creative solutions
they use.
Market the various outfitters who service
persons with disabilities.
Cosponsored disability awareness training
for commercial guides.
Comments from outfitters:
None
Suggestion 7: Increase funding for better access, including
facilities, promotion, and scholarships.
Users 6.25%
Managers 2.63%
Outfitters 0
Comments from users with disabilities:
Continue to fund organizations that bring
persons with disabilities to wilderness.
Develop more organized programs that take
persons with disabilities [that are] federally funded.
Comments from NWPS managers:
We need an increase in funding and staffing
to approach this issue in a positive manner.
The use of this area by persons with disabilities
will require an imaginative approach that will require copious
funding.
Specific funding aimed at developing accessible
trails.
Lobby to provide funding for retrofit
of existing facilities.
Comments from outfitters:
None
Suggestion 8: Rely on people power/human companions
to gain access to wilderness.
Users 6.25%
Managers .33%
Outfitters 0
Comments from users with disabilities:
Rely more on people power...reciprocate.
Go with someone who completely understands
your disability.
Rely on friends who are willing to assist
your needs while in the wilderness.
Comments from NWPS managers:
A chair-bound person willing to travel
with an able bodied friend will probably have an extraordinary
experience.
Comments from outfitters:
None
CONCLUSIONS
Federal management policies and practices
The four federal agencies responsible for wilderness
management have different policies and management practices regarding
use of the NWPS in general and regarding persons with disabilities
in particular. These differences are partly attributable to the
fact that the NWPS is not an independent federal lands system. Each
agency has a different mission and these missions are reflected
in their overall policies toward the NWPS.
Three of the agencies--the National Park Service,
the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management--allow the
use of wheelchairs within the NWPS. The Fish and Wildlife Service
currently does not have a policy on this issue; however, it is their
intention to adopt policies similar to those of the other land managing
agencies in the Department of Interior. The BLM is in the process
of further defining its policies; however, as a Department of Interior
land management agency it, too, is likely to adopt the policies
developed by other USDI agencies, specifically those of the National
Park Service.
Forest Service policy differs from National Park Service
policy in that it does not allow the use of electric (motorized)
wheelchairs in the NWPS. This policy appears to be in conflict with
the definition of a wheelchair in Section 507(c)(2) of the ADA:
...the term wheelchair means a device designed
solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, that
is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area.
This definition is assumed to include all wheelchairs,
whether motorized or not, provided that they are suitable for use
in an indoor pedestrian area.
Most of the NWPS managers (74 percent) do not make
special provisions for use by persons with disabilities. This appears
to be consistent with Section 507(c)(1) of the ADA:
...consistent with the Wilderness Act no agency
is required to provide any form of special treatment or accommodation,
or to construct any facilities or modify any conditions of lands
within a wilderness area to facilitate such use.
However, beyond the question of wheelchair use, specific
guidelines on what is consistent with the Wilderness Act regarding
use of the NWPS by persons with disabilities appear to be lacking.
Guidelines are needed on issues such as trail width, toilets at
hardened sites, and other practices currently employed within the
NWPS to preserve the resource. In general, it appears that the federal
agencies do not factor in use of the NWPS by persons with disabilities
as much as they could.
Finally, there is some confusion among NWPS field
managers about what the actual policies are regarding use by persons
with disabilities. There are also considerable differences in opinion
about how best to serve persons with disabilities in the NWPS.
It appears that the field managers of the NWPS need
better training and direction when it comes to use of these areas
by persons with disabilities.
Use levels of the NWPS by persons with disabilities
People with disabilities do use the NWPS. Unfortunately
realistic estimates of this use cannot be made based on the data
collected for this study. Unit managers who responded estimated
that 16,767 persons with disabilities visit the NWPS annually; however,
these estimates cannot be verified, nor can accurate estimates be
made for NWPS units that did not respond to the survey. For NWPS
areas with the highest estimated use, see page 28.
Ability of persons with disabilities to enjoy the NWPS
A significant majority of persons with disabilities
surveyed enjoy using the NWPS. People with disabilities appear to
visit the NWPS in the same ways and for the same reasons as people
without disabilities (Roggenbuck and Lucas, 1987).
The majority (76 percent) of the respondents with
disabilities do not believe that the restrictions on mechanized
use stated by the Wilderness Act diminish their ability to enjoy
the wilderness.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. All federal agencies that manage the NWPS should
adopt policies consistent with those stated in Section 507(c) of
the Americans With Disabilities Act as soon as possible.
2. Federal agencies should bring existing facilities
outside of the NWPS up to code for use by persons with disabilities
as soon as possible. This upgrade includes trailheads, parking facilities,
restrooms, and TDDs in ranger stations.
3. NWPS managing agencies should develop guidelines
regarding accommodations, special permits, and modifications for
use by persons with disabilities that are consistent with the Wilderness
Act. Agencies should be encouraged to facilitate NWPS use, consistent
with the Wilderness Act, by persons with disabilities. Agencies
are encouraged to work with persons with disabilities, outfitters,
and other programs that use the NWPS to develop these guidelines.
4. NWPS unit managers should receive training to increase
general awareness of disability issues and specific awareness of
policies and practices regarding use of the NWPS by persons with
disabilities.
5. Each agency should develop better information about
what is available to persons with disabilities who want to use the
NWPS. This information should be made readily available to the public.
6. Data collected for this study could be used in
other studies; this information should be made available to any
agency or person who requests it.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sandy Parrino, Margaret Hager, Ethel Briggs,
and Mark Quigley--the National Council on Disability
David Park, Kay Ellis, Wes Henry--National Park Service
Joe Meade, Liz Close, Chuck Frayer, Ann Fege, and
Alan Watson-- U.S. Forest Service
Keith Corrigall--Bureau of Land Management
Dave Heffernan--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Margo Imdieke, Minnesota State Council on Disability
John Nousaine, Northeast Minnesota Center for Independent
Living
Jay Rochlin, Tigurd, OR
Darrell Knuffke and the Wilderness Society, for free
materials and information, including more than 300 maps of the National
Wilderness Preservation System
Whole Access Tours of Redwood City, CA, for enlarged
print copies of the Wilderness Society report on access
John Galland, Minneapolis, MN
Deb Jo Sathrum and Molly Schlaefer, Minneapolis, MN
John Kopchik, Disabled Outdoors, Chicago, IL
Mark Havens, Accessible Adventures, Portland, OR
Nancy Ertter, Alternate Mobility Adventure Seekers,
Boise, ID
Tom McPike, Bay Area Outreach/Rec, Berkeley, CA
Gary Robb, Bradford Woods, Martinsville, IN
Scott Engram, Breckenridge Outdoor Educational Center,
Breckenridge, CO
Patrick Reinhart, Challenge Alaska, Anchorage, AK
Jim Wise, Cooperative Wilderness Handicapped Outdoor
Group (CW Hog), Pocatello, ID
Bill Dvorak, Dvorak's Kayak Expeditions, Nathrop,
CO
Diane Poslosky, Environmental Traveling Companions,
San Francisco, CA
David Cappetta, Voyageur Outward Bound, Minnetonka,
MN
Tom Smith, Racoon Institute, Cazenovia, WI
Claire Coonan, Special Populations Learning Outdoor
Recreation and Education (S'plore), Salt Lake City, UT
David Espeseth, SOAR, Portland, OR
Charlie Ross, Sobek Expeditions, Angels Camp, CA
Dale Abell, The Ability Center, Sylvania, OH
REFERENCES
Driver, B.L.; Nash, R.; and Haas, G. "Wilderness
Benefits: A State of Knowledge Review." In Lucas, R.C., Proceedings,
National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State of Knowledge,
Future Directions. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station,
1987, pp. 294-319.
Lucas, R.C., and Krumpe, E.E. "Wilderness Management:
A Literature Review." In The President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986.
Merigliano, L. "Indicators to Monitor the Wilderness
Recreation Experience." In Lime, D.W., Managing America's Enduring
Wilderness Resource. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Extension Service,
University of Minnesota, 1990, pp. 156-162.
Roggenbuck, J.W., and Lucas, R.C. "Wilderness Use
and User Characteristics: A State-of-Knowledge Review." In Lucas,
R.C., Proceedings, National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues,
State of Knowledge, Future Directions. Ogden, UT: Intermountain
Research Station, 1987, pp. 204-245.
APPENDIX
1A. OUTFITTERS AND ORGANIZATIONS SURVEY, COVER LETTER, AND ATTACHMENTS
Note: This cover letter was sent on Wilderness
Inquiry letterhead.
May 8, 1991
[FIRST NAME] [LAST NAME]
[ORGANIZATION]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY], [ST] [ZIP]
Dear [SALUTATION]:
Wilderness Inquiry is working with the National Council
on Disability on a nationwide study examining wilderness and persons
with disabilities.
The study, mandated by the Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1990, will look at the effect that wilderness designations
and wilderness land management practices have on the ability of
individuals with disabilities to use and enjoy the National Wilderness
Preservation System established by the Wilderness Act of 1964.
If this study is to be effective, we need your help.
Due to your knowledge of wilderness opportunities for persons with
disabilities, we ask that you help us by reviewing the following
questionnaire and map.
Laura Fredrickson from our office will be calling
within a week or so to verbally collect your response to the enclosed
questionnaire. If you are unable to take the call, please complete
and return the questionnaire by June 1st.
If you have questions concerning the study, please
call. Thank you for you cooperation, it is valued and appreciated.
Sincerely,
Greg Lais
Executive Director
Enc:
cc: Mark Quigley, National Council on Disability
Organizations Questionnaire
Section 507, Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990
May 8, 1991
Name of organization_______________________________________
Nature of organization_____________________________________
Address____________________________________________________
Phone______________________________________________________
Contact person____________________Title____________________
1) How many people do you serve annually?__________
2) What is your annual budget?____________
3) How long has your organization been in business?________
For the purpose of this study, persons with disabilities
includes people with physical, cognitive, and sensory
disabilities.
4) What percentage of your trips are integrated with people
with disabilities?
0-25%_______ 50-75%_______
25-50%______ 75-100%______
5) How many people with disabilities do you serve
annually?_____
6) Who do you serve? (check all that apply)
People who use wheelchairs ______
People with cognitive impairments ______
People with sensory impairments ______
People who use canes and/or crutches______
Other (please explain)____________________________________
__________________________________________________________
The Wilderness Act of 1964 created the National Wilderness
Preservation System (NWPS). Congress designated that certain
areas be protected in their natural condition as an enduring
resource of wilderness.
Many remote, wild places have similar qualities and
characteristics as the designated units of the NWPS, however,
these are not part of the NWPS. Examples of wild areas
that are not part of the National Wilderness Preservation
System include Yellowstone National Park, Rocky Mountain
National Park, many state parks, etc.
For the purpose of this study, we are only concerned with
designated units within the National Wilderness Preservation
System.
Please see enclosed map for specific listings and locations
of NWPS units.
7) Do you conduct activities that involve persons with
disabilities in the National Wilderness Preservation System?
Yes_______ No_______
If no, please skip to question number 20
If yes, state which units_________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
8) Please describe the people with disabilities that your
organization has served on activities within the NWPS (check
all that apply):
People who use wheelchairs _____
People with cognitive impairments _____
People with sensory impairments _____
People who use canes and/or crutches _____
Other (please explain)____________________________________
__________________________________________________________
9) If your organization has conducted trips within the NWPS,
how many has it conducted in the last 10 years?_______
10) If you have conducted trips within the NWPS, has the
frequency of your NWPS trips involving persons with
disabilities (please check one)
Increased_______
Decreased_______
Remained stable_______
We no longer conduct activities within the NWPS_______
11) If you have conducted trips within the NWPS, what modes
of transport were used within the NWPS by persons with
disabilities? (check all that apply)
Kayak______ Dogsled_______ Other_______
Raft_______ Horse_______
Canoe______ Hike_______
12) Have you served persons with disabilities in the past
but have discontinued to do so? Yes_______No_______
If yes, why?
Lack of qualified staff_______
Legal/liability problems_______
Other (please explain)_______
13) Have you had any problems conducting NWPS trips that are
the direct result of
NWPS restrictions (please explain)
Having persons with disabilities in your group (please
explain)
Have had no problems_______
14) In your opinion, do any of the following prohibit persons
with disabilities from enjoying the NWPS?
(check all that apply):
Permits_______
Quota systems_______
Use of designated campsites_______
Use of latrines________
Lack of information on accessible routes_______
Restrictions on motorized use_______
Lack of cooperation by agency (USFS, NPS)_______
Lack of improved trails_______
Lack of improved facilities (ramp, etc.)_______
Lack of communication devices for deaf (TDD)_______
Lack of tactile information, braille, signage, for visually
impaired_______
All of the above_______
None of the above_______
15) Do you believe motorized use in the NWPS is necessary
to provide access to persons with disabilities?
Yes_____No_____Please explain
16) Do you believe it is necessary to improve facilities
(i.e., paved trails, shelters, handrails, and ramps, etc.) to
provide access to the NWPS by persons with disabilities?
Yes_____No_____Please explain
17) Do you have an evaluation form or a means for receiving
evaluation from your users? Yes_____No_____
If yes, please describe the evaluation, and briefly describe
a "typical" response ____________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
If no evaluation used, why not?___________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
18) From your experience, do you think persons with
disabilities are able to enjoy the NWPS? Yes_____No_____
If yes, why?
If not, why not?
19) Do you have specific recommendations and suggestions for
providing access in the NWPS for persons with disabilities?
Please explain. Attach separate sheet if necessary.
20) If your organization does not conduct activities within
the National Wilderness Preservation System please explain
why not: __________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
21) If your organization does conduct outdoor activities, but
not within the National Wilderness reservation System, where
do you conduct them? ______________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Can you provide us with names of people with disabilities who
have used the National Wilderness Preservation System who might
be interested in participating in this study?
Name_______________________ Name__________________________
Address____________________ Address_______________________
City, State________________ City, State___________________
Zip Code___________________ Zip Code______________________
Phone (___)_____-__________ Phone (__)_____-______________
Name_______________________ Name__________________________
Address____________________ Address_______________________
City, State________________ City, State___________________
Zip Code___________________ Zip Code______________________
Phone (___)_____-__________ Phone (__)_____-______________
Name_______________________ Name__________________________
Address____________________ Address_______________________
City, State________________ City, State___________________
Zip Code___________________ Zip Code______________________
Phone (___)_____-__________ Phone (__)_____-______________
If necessary, attach more names on separate sheet.
Please return this form to:
Laura Fredrickson
Wilderness Inquiry
1313 Fifth St. SE, Box 84
Minneapolis, MN 55414
APPENDIX
1B. PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES SURVEY, COVER LETTER, AND ATTACHMENTS
Note: This cover letter was sent on National
Council on Disability letterhead.
August 30, 1991
[FIRST NAME] [LAST NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY], [ST] [ZIP]
Dear [SALUTATION]:
We want to find out about your experiences in wilderness
areas. Your name was given to us by SOURCE as a person with a disability
who has visited Federally designated Wilderness areas.
You may know that Congress passed the Americans With
Disabilities Act in July 1990. In that Act, the National Council
on Disability was asked to conduct a nationwide study examining
the effect that Wilderness designations and management practices
have on the ability of persons with disabilities to use and enjoy
the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS).
Wilderness Inquiry is a nonprofit organization that
is working with the National Council on Disability to gather information
from people like you. If this study is to be effective, we need
your help.
We realize there are many questions here for you to
think about, but to help us make recommendations to Congress we
ask you to consider each one as carefully and thoroughly as you
can. Please complete the following questionnaire and return it in
the stamped envelope provided by September 30, 1991.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. Your
name will not be connected with your answers unless we receive specific
permission from you to talk with you further about an issue. If
you have questions concerning the study, please call Greg Lais at
(612) 379-3858. Thank you for your cooperation. Your input is valued
and important.
Sincerely,
Ethel Briggs
Executive Director
National Council on Disability
Greg Lais
Executive Director
Wilderness Inquiry
The Wilderness Act of
1964 created the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWP).
Congress designated that certain areas be protected and preserved
in their natural condition as an enduring resource of wilderness.
Many remote, wild places have similar qualities and
characteristics as the designated units of the NWPS, however, these
are not part of the NWPS. Examples of areas that possess
such "wilderness-like" qualities would be Yellowstone National Park,
Rocky Mountain National Park, and many state parks. However, these
are not units of the NWPS.
For the purpose of this study, we are concerned
only with designated units within the National Wilderness Preservation
System. Please see the enclosed map for specific listings and locations
of NWPS units.
For the purpose of this study, persons with disabilities
include those with physical, cognitive and sensory disabilities
and the use of possible assistive devices.
1) Please name up to 5 wilderness areas of the NWPS you have
visited since having a disability. (Please refer to enclosed
map for specific names and locations of NWPS units.)
a) _______________________________________________________
b) _______________________________________________________
c) _______________________________________________________
d) _______________________________________________________
e) _______________________________________________________
2) Please circle the number that best rates your level of
overall enjoyment of the NWPS areas you listed in question 1.
The letter in front of each response corresponds to the
wilderness you listed in question 1.
Did not Enjoyed Enjoyed Enjoyed Enjoyed a
enjoy very little somewhat very much tremendous
amount
a) 1 2 3 4 5
b) 1 2 3 4 5
c) 1 2 3 4 5
d) 1 2 3 4 5
e) 1 2 3 4 5
3) How many trips have you taken to wilderness areas in the
NWPS since having a disability?
1 trip_____ 2-4 trips_____ 5 or more trips_____
4) What is the longest time you've spent in a wilderness
area in the NWP at one time since having a disability?
1 day______ 2-3 days______ 4 days or more______
5) What means of transportation have you used while traveling
within the NWPS since having a disability? (check all that
apply)
Kayak_______ Canoe_______ Dogsled________
Raft________ Horse_______ Hike___________
Other (please explain)________________________
6) Did you use any of the following assistive devices on
any of your trips to the NWPS Check all that apply)
Manual wheelchair_______ Walker_______
Electric wheelchair_______ Crutches/cane_____
Amigo_______ Guide dog______
Other (please explain)_________________________________
7) Do you typically visit the NWPS
Alone_______
With friends/family_______
With an organized group or outfitter_______
8) Why did you choose to visit the NWPS? (check all that
apply)
To experience solitude_______
To experience scenery/natural beauty_______
To share the experience with family or friends_______
To experience a personal challenge_______
To experience nature on its own terms_______
To enjoy fishing or hunting_______
Other (please explain)____________________________________
__________________________________________________________
9) Did you check or attempt to check the accessibility of
the NWPS before your trip?
Yes_______No_______
10) If yes, did you find information from (check all that
apply)
Organization/outfitter leading trip_______
NWPS manager (Forest Service, Park Service, etc.)____
Friends who had visited the area before_______
Other (please explain)____________________________________
__________________________________________________________
11) If you did not check the accessibility before your NWPS
trip, why not?
I did not think it was necessary_______
I did not know where to look for information_____
I could not find any information on accessibility_____
12) Did you visit the NWPS prior to having a disability?
I did visit the NWPS prior to my disability_____
I did not visit the NWPS prior to my disability_____
I was born with my disability_____
13) Before visiting the NWPS, did you have concerns about
going into a wilderness area that specifically relate to your
disability?
Yes_____No_____If yes, please explain:
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
14) What were the highlights of your visit(s) to the NWPS?
(check all that apply)
Personal achievement/feelings of accomplishment_____
Solitude/peace______
People or relationships_____
Scenery or location_____
Personal growth______
No high points______
Other (please explain)____________________________________
__________________________________________________________
15) What were the low points of your visit(s) to the NWPS?
(check all that apply)
Lack of information about area I wished to visit_____
Physical discomfort_____
Trails/terrain too rugged______
Undeveloped/primitive campsites_____
Uncooperative group members______
Poor access at entry point (parking, etc.)_____
No low points_____
Other (please explain)____________________________________
__________________________________________________________
16) In your opinion, did your disability enhance or inhibit
the opportunity for you to enjoy the NWPS?
Enhanced the opportunity for me_____
Inhibited the opportunity for me_____
Had no effect on the opportunity for me_____
Please explain:___________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
17) Do you believe the restrictions on mechanized use within
the NWPS diminishes your ability to enjoy it?
Yes_____No_____Please explain:____________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
18) Do you have suggestions for improving the ability of
persons with disabilities to enjoy the NWPS?
Yes_____No_____Please explain:____________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Many people visit areas that are not within the National
Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). These areas are
rugged, wild, and remote, but they are not resignated
units of the NWPS. Often they are public or private areas
that have not been developed. For questions 19 and 20, we
want you to think about lands you have visited that are not
within the NWPS, such as state parks, Yellowstone National
Park, Allagash Wilderness Waterway, etc.
19) Do you visit wildlands outside of the NWPS?
Yes_____No_____If yes, please describe them by name and
the state where they are located:
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
20) Do the experiences you have in wild areas outside the
NWPS differ from your experiences inside the NWPS?
Yes_____No_____Please explain:
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Questions 21 - 24 are optional. This is demographic data
that will be helpful to us, but we do not require you to
answer it.
21) We want to know more about you. Please tell us your:
Age__________ Sex_________
City and state of residence______________________________
22) Do you have a disability?
Yes_____No_____
If yes, please describe it by name:_______________________
23) Do you (check all that apply)
Use a wheelchair_____ Walk with cane/crutches______
Use a guide dog______ Use other assistive devices______
If other, please explain:_________________________________
24) If you have other comments please share them here, or
attach a separate sheet of paper:
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
25) Would you be willing to have us contact you by telephone
for more detailed information on your opinions?
Yes____No____ If yes, please give us your name, address,
and phone number:
Name_______________________________________________________
Address____________________________________________________
City____________________________State_______Zip____________
Telephone ( )___________________________________________
Thank you for participating in this study!
Please return this response in the enclosed envelope, or to:
Wilderness Inquiry
1313 Fifth St. SE, Box 84
Minneapolis, MN 55414
(612) 379-3858 Voice or TDD
APPENDIX
1C. NWPS MANAGERS SURVEY AND COVER LETTER Note:
The cover letters for this survey varied slightly from what is presented
here. The Forest Service and the National Park Service re-worded
this letter and put it on their agency letterhead. Wilderness Inquiry
distributed surveys directly to the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Bureau of Land Management. Surveys distributed by Wilderness
Inquiry included a cover letter on Wilderness Inquiry letterhead.
[FIRST NAME] [LAST NAME]
[ORGANIZATION]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY], [ST] [ZIP]
Dear [SALUTATION]:
We want to find out what level of use, if any, the
wilderness area you manage receives from persons with disabilities.
You may know that Congress passed the Americans With
Disabilities Act in 1990. In that Act, the National Council on Disability
was mandated to conduct a nationwide study examining the effect
that wilderness designations and wilderness land management practices
have on the ability of persons with disabilities to use and enjoy
the National Wilderness Preservation System.
The National Council on Disability has contracted
with Wilderness Inquiry to conduct this study. Wilderness Inquiry
is a nonprofit, Minneapolis-based organization that conducts wilderness
adventures with persons who have disabilities.
Enclosed is a questionnaire designed for wilderness
managers. This survey has been developed in cooperation with the
four Federal wilderness management agencies (USFS, USF&W, NPS,
BLM).
We understand that you may not have hard data on many
of the questions asked in this questionnaire. If you do not have
hard data, please respond according to your best judgement.
We ask that you take a moment to complete the questionnaire
and return it to XXXX by October 15th, 1991.
If you have questions concerning the study, please
contact Greg Lais at Wilderness Inquiry (612-379-3858). Thank you
for your cooperation.
Sincerely, Official from Federal Agency
WPS Unit Managers Questionnaire
Wilderness Access
The National Wilderness Preservation System was established
by Congress in passing the Wilderness Act of 1964. The
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (Section 507) requires
a study to determine the ability of persons with disabilities
to enjoy and utilize the National Wilderness Preservation
System. You have been identified as a person in charge of
managing a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System
(NWPS). Your assistance in completing this questionnaire is
greatly appreciated.
1) How would you describe the primary terrain type
in your wilderness unit used by visitors interested in
recreation? (check only one)
Mountainous_____ Lake and/or river_____
Swamp, marsh wetland_____ Desert_____
Forest/heavily vegetated_____ Coastal_____
We realize that most units of the NWPS prohibit the use of
motorized vehicles. However, in some units the use of motors
has been grandfathered in. For this reason we are including
responses regarding motorized use in questions 2, 7, and 11.
2) People who visit your wilderness unit use which of the the
following means of travel: (check all that apply)
Raft_____ Kayak_____ Motorboat_____
Canoe_____ Hike_____ Bicycle_____
Horse_____ Dogsled_____ Airplane_____
Ski_____ Snowmobile_____
All-terrain vehicle_____
Other (please describe)_______________________________
Persons with disabilities include those who use wheelchairs,
crutches, canes, and those who have visual and or hearing
impairments, mental retardation, epilepsy, etc.
3) Have you ever received inquiries from persons with
disabilities about the use of your wilderness unit?
Yes____ No____ Don't know____
4) If yes, approximately how many inquiries do you receive
annually?______
Is this figure an estimate_____
based on exact documentation_____
5) How many people with disabilities do you believe use
your unit of the NWPS each year?_________
Is this figure an estimate_____
based on exact documentation_____
6) Does your wilderness unit have any information available
that specifically addresses wilderness use by persons
with disabilities?
Yes____ No____
IF YES, PLEASE RETURN A COPY WITH THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.
7) How do people with disabilities travel while in your
wilderness unit? (check all that apply)
Raft_____ Kayak_____ Motorboat_____
Canoe_____ Hike_____ Bicycle_____
Horse_____ Dogsled_____ Airplane_____
Ski______ Snowmobile_____
All-terrain vehicle_____
Other (please describe)_______________________________
8) Do you believe most people with disabilities visit
your wilderness unit (check only one)
Alone______
With family/friends______
In organized groups_____
Don't know_____
Is this response an estimate_____
based on exact documentation_____
9) How do most people without disabilities visit your
wilderness unit? (check only one)
Alone_____
With family/friends______
In organized groups______
Don't know______
Is this response an estimate_____
based on exact documentation_____
10) Does your unit allow for the use of wheelchairs by
persons with disabilities?
Yes_____ No_____ Don't know_____
Comments__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
11) Does your unit make special provisions for use by
persons with disabilities?
Yes_____ No_____ Don't know_____
If yes, what are they? (check all that apply)
Special permits_____
Use of motors______
Special areas_____
Accessibility information_____
Other (please explain)__________________________________
________________________________________________________
12) In your opinion, do the management policies of your
agency for NWPS units inhibit the enjoyment of persons with
disabilities?
Yes_____No_____
If yes, why?______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
If no, why not?___________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
13) Do you provide any of the following to the general
population prior to their visiting wilderness areas?
(check all that apply)
Advice_____
Informational wilderness travel materials_____
Special training_____
Other_____
14) What is the official name of the unit(s) of the NWPS
that you manage? (please list them all if more than one)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
15) For which federal agency do you work?__________________
16) What is your official job title?_______________________
17) How many years have you personally been involved in the
management of this wilderness area?________
18) Please elaborate on what, if anything, you think could
be done to facilitate enjoyment of your NWPS unit by persons
with disabilities:
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Please return your response in the enclosed envelope, or to
Wilderness Inquiry
1313 Fifth St. SE, Box 84
Minneapolis, MN 55414
(612) 379-3858 Voice or TDD
THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS SURVEY. THE RESULTS WILL BE
MADE AVAILABLE TO THE WILDERNESS COORDINATOR FOR YOUR AGENCY, OR
YOU CAN CALL WILDRNESS INQUIRY FOR A FINAL COPY.
APPENDIX
2A. TABULATIONS OF THE RESPONSES FROM ORGANIZATIONS AND OUTFITTERS
1) How many people total do you serve annually? ________
1 = 0-100
2 = 101-500 7
3 = 501-1000 2
4 = 1001-2000 1
5 = 2001+ 5
DATA TITLE: People Served Annually
2) What is your annual budget?____________
1 = $0-100,000 2
2 = $100,001-120,000 2
3 = $120,001-175,000 3
4 = $175,001-200,000 1
5 = $200,001+ 7
DATA TITLE: Annual Budget
3) How long has your organization been in business?_________
1 = 0-3 yrs 1
2 = 4-10 yrs 6
3 = 11-15 yrs 3
4 = 16+ yrs 5
DATA TITLE: Years In Business
4) What percentage of your trips are integrated with people
with disabilities?
1 = 0-25% 3
2 = 25-50% 2
3 = 50-75% 1
4 = 75-100% 9
DATA TITLE: % of Integrated Trips
5) How many people with disabilities do you serve annually?_____
1 = 0-50 3
2 = 51-100 0
3 = 101-200 2
4 = 201+ 10
DATA TITLE: Dis Served Annually
6) Whom do you serve? (check all that apply)
1 = People who use wheelchairs 14
2 = People with cognitive impairments 15
3 = People with sensory impairments 15
4 = People who use canes and/or crutches 15
5 = Terminally ill 2
6 = Other 1
DATA TITLE: Persons Served
7) Do you conduct activities that involve persons with
disabilities in the National Wilderness Preservation System?
1 = yes 11
2 = no 4
DATA TITLE: Trips In NWPS
If yes, state which units:
Black Canyon of the Gunnison
Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Chama River Canyon
Chugach
Collegiate Peaks
Craters of the Moon
Eagles Nest
Denali
Desolation Canyon
Frank Church/River of No Return
Glacier Bay
Hells Canyon
Jedediah Smith
Kenai
Lost Creek
Mesa Verde
Mt. Rainier
Sawtooth
Teton
Three Sisters
Trinity Alps
Yosemite
8) Please describe the people with disabilities that your
organization has served on activities within the NWPS.
(check all that apply)
1 = People who use wheelchairs 9
2 = People with cognitive impairments 10
3 = People with sensory impairments 10
4 = People who use canes and/or crutches 10
5 = Terminally ill 1
6 = Other 1
DATA TITLE: In NWPS, People Served
9) If your organization has conducted trips within the NWPS,
how many has it conducted in the last 10 years?______
1 = 1-20 0
2 = 21-100 5
3 = 101-200 10
4 = 201+ 0
DATA TITLE: Trips Over 10 Yrs
10) If you have conducted trips within the NWPS, has the
frequency of your NWPS trips involving persons with
disabilities (please check one):
1 = Increased 3
2 = Decreased 2
3 = Stable 6
4 = We no longer 0
conduct activities
within the NWPS
DATA TITLE: Trips w/DIS
11) If you have conducted trips within the NWPS, what modes
of transport were used within the NWPS by persons with
disabilities? (check all that apply)
1 = kayak 5 5 = horse 2
2 = raft 8 6 = hike 8
3 = canoe 4 7 = ATV 0
4 = dogsled 3 8 = airplane 0
DATA TITLE: Modes of Transport
12) Have you served persons with disabilities in the past but
have discontinued to do so?
1 = yes 0
2 = no 11
DATA TITLE: Discontinued Service
13) Have you had any problems in conducting NWPS trips that
are the direct result of:
1 = Have had no problems 9
2 = NWPS restrictions 0
3 = Having persons with 2
disabilities in your group
DATA TITLE: Problems in NWPS
Comments:
Planning trips is more complicated because you need a
lot more logistical information than what is available as
far as the lay of the land and the information is just not
available. You are more limited in where you can go.
Some trips require extended hikes to put-in points; would
like transport to spots.
DATA TITLE: Comments 2
14) In your opinion, do any of the following prohibit persons
with disabilities from enjoying the NWPS? (check all that apply)
1 = permits 3
2 = quota systems 1
3 = use of designated campsites 1
4 = use of latrines 2
5 = lack of information on accessible 7
routes
6 = restrictions on motorized use 3
7 = lack of cooperation by agency 1
8 = lack of improved trails 6
9 = lack of improved facilities 7
10 = lack of communication devices for 1
deaf (TDD)
11 = lack of tactile information for 5
visually impaired
12 = all of the above 1
13 = none of the above 0
DATA TITLE; Prohibit Persons w/Dis
15) Do you believe motorized use in the NWPS is necessary
to provide access to persons with disabilities?
1 = yes 5
2 = no 6
DATA TITLE: Motors Necessary
(please explain)_______________________________________
Comments:
Yes, to get to site locations.
For adequate accessibility, but only in outlying areas
just outside wilderness.
Motorized use would help in getting persons with
disabilities to put-in points on rivers.
It would be advantageous to use a four-wheeler because of
the rugged terrain. Can't get a permit to do so.
Rely on horses, water craft, and dogsleds to get people
into backcountry.
DATA TITLE: Comments 3
16) Do you believe it is necessary to improve
facilities (i.e., paved trails, shelters, handrails, ramps,
etc.) to provide access to the NWPS by persons with
disabilities?
1 = yes 6
2 = no 5
DATA TITLE: Improve Facilities
(please explain)_______________________________________
Existing facilities need to be brought up to standard.
Toilet facilities should be developed in the outback;
put-in and take-out areas at the river's edge should be
ramped. Parking at entrance.
If any improvements in NWPS for any other reason, then
make it totally accessible.
Let's improve access on nonwilderness lands instead.
Wilderness should be available to all people. Ways to make
things accessible without disturbing the quality of the land.
. .raised walkways over rugged terrain.
Improve trails by widening but not by paving. Build public
cabins accessible for all persons--more amenities.
Areas up to wilderness.
DATA TITLE: Comments 4
17) Do you have an evaluation form or a means for receiving
evaluation from your users?
1 = yes 11
2 = no 0
DATA TITLE: Eval Form
18) From your experience, do you think persons with
disabilities are able to enjoy the NWPS?
1 = yes 10
2 = no 2
DATA TITLE: Able to Enjoy
(please explain)_______________________________________
Most folks are just like able-bodied and desire
wilderness--awareness of possibilities and false
limitations.
I have seen people with disabilities take on a lot of
determination and patience and the rewards I can see in
their eyes and in their attitudes to try something
challenging.
Provides the opportunity for persons with disabilities to
have an able-bodied challenge and opportunity.
It's important that the NWPS is preserved in its rustic
sense so all persons have the chance to experience the
primitive, wild setting.
They can't enjoy them because there isn't an easy enough
route to get to the areas.
These people want to challenge themselves and have some
adventure--the wilderness provides the background
Persons with disabilities need to be made aware of what is
available to them.
For the same reason anyone else enjoys the wilderness.
Philosophically, yes, but due to the accessibility issue,
no! I believe persons of all ability levels should have
the opportunity to go into extremely remote areas--use
organizations like ours as the intermediary.
I think persons with disabilities enjoy it for the same
reasons non-disabled enjoy it. Not enough information is
available to persons with disabilities as far as places
easily accessible.
DATA TITLE: Comments 5
19) Do you have specific recommendations and suggestions for
providing access in the NWPS for persons with disabilities?
Please explain. Attach separate sheet if necessary.
Comment codes: # of % of
responses total (15)
0 = Not relevant to question asked. 0 0
1 = Encourage/promote use of outfitters 0 0
and guides.
2 = Increase accessibility to areas outside 2 13
wilderness (trailheads, parking,
restrooms, TDDs).
3 = Increase access inside wilderness 3 20
(boardwalks, widen trails, special
permits).
4 = Allow use of wheelchairs. 0 0
5 = Maintain existing regulations--seek 3 20
access without compromising
Wilderness Act.
6 = Motors and mechanized use needed for 1 7
access (ATVs, motorboats).
7 = Training and education for wilderness 0 0
staff on disability awareness.
8 = Develop materials that provide 5 33
information on access, provide
clearinghouse for information.
9 = Repeal provisions of Wilderness Act 0 0
that restrict motors, development,
and mechanized use.
10= Increase funding for better access, 0 0
including facilities, promotion, and
scholarships.
11= Rely on people power/human companions 0 0
to gain access to wilderness.
DATA TITLE: Recommendations
APPENDIX
2B. TABULATIONS OF THE RESPONSES FROM PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
1) Please name up to 5 wilderness areas of the NWPS you have
visited since having a disability. (Please refer to enclosed
map for specific names and locations of NWPS units.)
NWPS unit name # of respondents
Boundary Waters 44
Teton 13
Denali 10
Everglades 10
Badlands 9
Frank Church/
River of No Return 6
Kenai 5
Lake Chelan-Sawtooth 5
Craters of the Moon 4
Hawaii Volcanoes 4
Hells Canyon 4
Yosemite 4
Bob Marshall 3
Isle Royale 3
Joshua Tree 3
Mt. Rainier 3
Arctic Wildlife Refuge 2
Bandelier 2
Cedar Keys 2
Crab Orchard 2
Florida Keys 2
Haleakala 2
J.N."Ding" Darling 2
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock 2
Olympic 2
Petrified Forest 2
Presidential Range 2
Selway-Bitterroot 2
Twin Peaks 2
Wrangell-St. Elias 2
Alexander Springs 1
Alpine Lakes 1
Ansel Adams 1
Black Canyon/Gunnison 1
Bosque del Apache 1
Cache La Poudre 1
Castle Crag 1
Chama River Canyon 1
Charles C. Deam 1
Citico Creek 1
Columbia 1
Gates of the Arctic 1
Gates of the Mountains 1
Glacier Bay 1
Glacier Peak 1
Golden Trout 1
Great Swamp 1
Gros Ventre 1
Guadalupe Mountains 1
Jarbidge 1
John Muir 1
Lacassine 1
Lake Clark 1
Lizard Head 1
Mesa Verde 1
Moosehorn 1
Mt. Evans 1
Never Summer 1
Noatak 1
Okefenokee 1
Pecos 1
Pinnacles 1
Rainbow Lake 1
Rattlesnake 1
Russel Fjord 1
Saguaro 1
San Juan Islands 1
San Pedro Parks 1
Seney 1
South San Juan 1
St. Marks 1
Theodore Roosevelt 1
Three Sisters 1
Upper Buffalo 1
Upper Kiamichi River 1
Washakie 1
Weminuche 1
DATA TITLE: Wilderness Unit
2) Please circle the number that best rates your level of
overall enjoyment of the NWPS areas you listed in question 1.
The letter in front of each response corresponds to the
wilderness you listed in question 1.
1 = Did not enjoy 0
2 = Enjoyed very little 3
3 = Enjoyed somewhat 19
4 = Enjoyed very much 72
5 = Enjoyed a tremendous amount 113
DATA TITLE: Enj. Rating
3) How many trips have you taken to wilderness areas in
the NWPS since having a disability?
1 = 1 trip 11
2 = 2-4 trips 31
3 = 5+ trips 38
DATA TITLE: # of Trips
4) What is the longest time you've spent in a Wilderness
area in the NWPS at one time since having a disability?
1 = 1 day 6
2 = 2-3 days 6
3 = 4+ days 68
DATA TITLE: Trip Length
5) What means of transportation have you used while
traveling within the NWPS since having a disability?
(check all that apply)
1 = kayak 23 5 = dogsled 15
2 = raft 23 6 = hike 31
3 = canoe 57 7 = motorized 4
4 = horse 17 8 = other 4
DATA TITLE: Mode of Transport
6) Did you use any of the following assistive devices on any
of your trips to the NWPS? (check all that apply)
1 = manual wheelchair 40 6 = guide dog 0
2 = electric wheelchair 4 7 = prostheses 4
3 = amigo 1 8 = none used 13
4 = walker 0 9 = white cane 3
5 = crutches/cane 26
DATA TITLE: Asst. Dev. on Trail
7) Do you typically visit the NWPS
1 = Alone 7
2 = With friends/family 41
3 = With an organized group 58
or outfitter
DATA TITLE: Group or Alone
8) Why did you choose to visit the NWPS? (check all that
apply)
1 = To experience solitude 42
2 = To experience scenery/natural beauty 74
3 = To share the experience with family/friends 56
4 = To experience a personal challenge 62
5 = To experience nature on its own terms 65
6 = To enjoy fishing or hunting 16
7 = Other (please explain)_____________________ 0
DATA TITLE: Why Visit
9) Did you check or attempt to check the accessibility of
the NWPS before your trip?
1 = yes 37
2 = no 42
DATA TITLE: Check Access Before
10) If yes, did you find information from (check all that
apply)
1 = Organization/outfitter leading trip 27
2 = NWPS manager (Forest Service, Park Service, 10
etc.)
3 = Friends who had visited the area before 17
4 = Other (please explain)___________________ 1
DATA TITLE: Source of Access Info
11) If you did not check the accessibility before your NWPS
trip, why not?
1 = I did not think it was necessary 39
2 = I did not know where to look for information 4
3 = I could not find any information on
accessibility 4
DATA TITLE: If Not, Why Not?
12) Did you visit the NWPS prior to having a disability?
1 = I did visit the NWPS prior to my 20
disability
2 = I did not visit the NWPS prior to my 32
disability
3 = I was born with my disability 28
DATA TITLE: Visit Prior
13) Before visiting the NWPS, did you have concerns about
going into a wilderness area that specifically relate to
your disability?
1 = yes 34
2 = no 46
DATA TITLE: Have Concerns
(please explain)_____________________________
The concerns people mentioned are categorized below:
1 = Concerned about personal endurance/capability 5
2 = Toileting 5
3 = Trail and facility access 8
4 = Want to be independent 1
5 = Availability/quality of adapted equipment 2
6 = Unable to use my white cane 1
7 = Emergency evacuation 1
DATA TITLE: Concern Comments
14) What were the highlights of your visit(s) to the NWPS?
(check all that apply)
1 = Personal achievement/feelings of 66
accomplishment
2 = Solitude/peace 49
3 = People or relationships 61
4 = Scenery or location 75
5 = Personal growth 51
6 = No high points 1
7 = Other (please explain) 1
DATA TITLE: Highlights
15) What were the low points of your visit(s) to the NWPS?
(check all that apply)
1 = Lack of information about area I 4
wished to visit
2 = Physical discomfort 10
3 = Trails/terrain too rugged 19
4 = Undeveloped/primitive campsites 10
5 = Uncooperative group members 10
6 = Poor access at entry point 10
(parking, etc.)
7 = No low points 46
8 = Other 0
DATA TITLE: Lowlights
16) In your opinion, did your disability enhance or inhibit
the opportunity for you to enjoy the NWPS?
1 = Enhanced the opportunity for me 19
2 = Inhibited the opportunity for me 29
3 = Had no effect on the opportunity for me 32
DATA TITLE: Enhance or Inhibit
17) Do you believe the restrictions on mechanized use within
the NWPS diminishes your ability to enjoy it?
1 = yes 17
2 = no 61
Please explain_______________________________________
DATA TITLE: Opinion of Mech.
A total of 29 people offered explanations. These explanations
have been divided according to the yes and no responses stated above.
Responses from people who indicated that the restrictions
on mechanized use diminish their ability to enjoy it:
Can't use ATV in all areas. I need to
use this due to paralysis.
How do I get out in case of an emergency
arises--need mechanized usage.
Don't want to see paved trails just so
cars can drive through.
Trails difficult for manual chairs, could
be helpful to use ATV.
Would like to be able to use a three-wheeler--would
allow me to get into areas I wouldn't otherwise be able to.
I would like to be able to use an ATV
for increased access.
Canoeing is much easier for disabled when
there is no wake from outboard motors.
Disability or age should not stop people
from going to wilderness. Managers of the units should rent motorized
equipment...government shouldn't limit people from using motors.
If I were allowed to ride an off-road
vehicle it would allow me to see a lot of area I otherwise wouldn't
be able to.
I want to be able to travel by boat and
have a close toilet facility.
Limited access of all-terrain vehicles.
It limits my independence in the wilderness
but I don't want them to change the restrictions.
ATV is a way to see wilderness I could
never reach on foot.
Responses from people who indicated that the restrictions
on mechanized use do not diminish their ability to enjoy
it:
It only enhances it.
Many alternatives such as dogs, horses
and people power. The sense of personal achievement is greatly
enhanced by overcoming the emotional, physical and psychological
barriers and achieving a significant undertaking in the wilderness
without relying on mechanized use.
Gas-powered is too noisy and smelly, electric
distorts natural experience.
There are enough areas on the planet that
allow machines... by adaptation persons with disabilities can
access the total wilderness areas.
Mechanized vehicles wouldn't solve anything.
Mechanized use would undermine the concept
of wilderness... keep them out.
Enjoy the wilderness in its natural state...just
requires some assistance from other people to help me adapt.
Mechanized use would take away from the
natural beauty of the wilderness.
Mechanized use is incompatible with the
wilderness experience...there are many places to go that are like
wilderness that allow motors.
Loopholes shouldn't be created for persons
with disabilities; then other groups will seek to alter wilderness
to accommodate them also.
Individuals with disabilities should rely
on family and friends to help them out in wilderness. Do not allow
motors or mechanized devices.
Visit the wilderness on its own terms;
otherwise visit the many other areas that are scenic where access
is not restricted.
I believe mechanized wheelchairs should
be allowed.
Limiting mechanized use increases my ability
to enjoy the wilderness.
Allowing mechanized use in the wilderness
would make it noisy and polluting--precisely what persons with
or without disabilities are trying to escape.
Wilderness is wilderness...it won't be
the same if mechanized use is allowed. People with disabilities
can access the wilderness if they only put their minds to it.
DATA TITLE: Comments on Mech.
18) Do you have suggestions for improving the ability of
persons with disabilities to enjoy the NWPS?
Responses to this question were categorized as follows:
Comment codes: # of % of
responses total (80)
0 = Not relevant to question asked. 5 6.25
1 = Encourage/promote use of outfitters 6 7.5
and guides.
2 = Increase accessibility to areas 9 11.25
outside wilderness (trailheads,
parking,restrooms, TDDs).
3 = Increase access inside wilderness 8 10
(boardwalks, widen trails, special
permits).
4 = Allow use of wheelchairs. 0 0
5 = Maintain existing regulations--seek 4 5
access without compromising
Wilderness Act.
6 = Motors and mechanized use needed for 2 2.5
access (ATVs, motorboats).
7 = Training and education for wilderness 0 0
staff on disability awareness.
8 = Develop materials that provide 10 12.5
information on access, provide
clearinghouse for information.
9 = Repeal provisions of Wilderness Act 0 0
that restrict motors, development,
andmechanized use.
10= Increase funding for better access, 3 3.75
including facilities, promotion,
and scholarships.
11= Rely on people power/human companions 4 5
to gain access to wilderness.
DATA TITLE: Suggestions to Improve Access
19) Do you visit wildlands outside of the NWPS?
1 = yes 54
2 = no 15
DATA TITLE: Visit Non NWPS
Areas visited outside of the NWPS include:
Yellowstone
Devils Tower, WY
Yellowstone
Glacier National Park
Grand Canyon
Dinosaur Monument
Rocky Mountain National Park
Green River, CO
Big Bend National Park
St. Croix River
Minnesota River
Snow Mass,CO
Smokey Mountains
Acadia National Park
Quebec, Ontario
Prince William Sound
Big Lake
Porcupine Mountains
Deschutes River OR
Chequamegon Trail
Penobscot River
Northwest Territories
Allagash River
Olympic Penninsula
Canadian Rockies
NW Ontario
North Fork of Potomac
Youghiohiogheny, PA
New River, WV
New River Gorge,WV
Lake Powell
Jackson Hole,WY
Iditarod Trail,
Stampede Trail
Yampa River,CO
Eldorado Canyon,CO
Snake River, ID
Adirondacks
Fern Canyon, CA
Grass Valley, CA
Arches National Monument
Chugach
Camp Courage
Blue Mound, MN
Black River.MS
Shawnee Natl. Forest,IL
Flat Head River, MT
Belize
Great Slave Lake
Apostle Islands
Outer Banks,NC
Canyonlands National Park
S. Manitou Islands
Ammicon, WI
Afton State Park
Dog Island, FL
DATA TITLE: Area Names
20) Do the experiences you have in wild areas outside the
NWPS differ from your experiences inside the NWPS?
1 = yes 17
2 = no 35
Please explain_______________________________________
DATA TITLE: Experiences Differ
A total of 14 people responded as stated below:
Wilderness is more rugged.
State parks more accessible.
Parks not in the NWPS are less rugged; trails are well
traveled.
Out of NWPS, less challenging.
NWPS offers more solitude, less populated.
Non-NWPS have more of a commercial bent to them.
Non-NWPS have advanced structures.
Non-NWPS have paved trails.
Non-NWPS more wheelchair accessible.
More people visible and impact of people visible.
Many areas are making major improvements in facilities;
policy adaptation for persons who are disabled.
Impact of man on pristine country is highly visible.
Experiences in the NWPS are more rugged.
Areas out of NWPS allow motorized use and large crowds.
DATA TITLE: Comments on Why Differ
21) We want to know more about you. Please tell us your
Age__________
Age range 18 to 72 years
Number of respondents by age by category
Age 18 - 29 19
Age 30 - 39 19
Age 40 - 49 22
Age 50 - 59 5
Age 60 - 69 2
Age 70 - 79 2
DATA TITLE: Age
Sex__________
1 = Male 44
2 = Female 34
No response 2
DATA TITLE: Sex
State of residence__________________________
Alaska 6
California 2
Colorado 5
Florida 4
Georgia 1
Idaho 5
Illinois 4
Indiana 7
Maine 1
Michigan 2
Minnesota 22
Montana 1
New Jersey 2
New Mexico 1
New York 2
North Dakota 1
Ohio 2
Rhode Island 1
Tennessee 1
Texas 2
Vermont 1
Washington 1
Wisconsin 5
Unknown 1
DATA TITLE: State
22) Do you have a disability?
1 = Cognitively impaired 8
2 = Sensory impaired 7
3 = Mobility impaired--non-wheelchair user 25
4 = Mobility impaired--wheelchair user 40
DATA TITLE: Disability
23) Do you (check all that apply)
1 = use a wheelchair 41
2 = use a guide dog 0
3 = walk with cane/crutches 15
4 = walk with a white cane 6
5 = prostheses 4
6 = none used 10
7 = brace 2
8 = other, please explain 1
DATA TITLE: Asst. Dev. General Life
24) If you have other comments please share them here,
or attach a separate sheet of paper:
Comment codes: # of % of
responses total (80)
0 = Not relevant to question asked. 6 7.5
1 = Encourage/promote use of outfitters 3 3.75
and guides.
2 = Increase accessibility to areas 7 8.75
outside wilderness (trailheads,
parking, restrooms, TDDs).
3 = Increase access inside wilderness 1 1.25
(boardwalks, widen trails, special
permits).
4 = Allow use of wheelchairs. 0 0
5 = Maintain existing regulations--seek 12 15
access without compromising
Wilderness Act.
6 = Motors and mechanized use needed for 0 0
access (ATVs, motorboats).
7 = Training and education for wilderness 0 0
staff on disability awareness.
8 = Develop materials that provide 3 3.75
information on access, provide
clearinghouse for information.
9 = Repeal provisions of Wilderness Act 0 0
that restrict motors, development,
and mechanized use.
10= Increase funding for better access, 3 3.75
including facilities, promotion, and
scholarships.
11= Rely on people power/human companions 1 1.25
to gain access to wilderness.
DATA TITLE: Final Comments
Combined results from suggestions to improve access and
final comments. Redundancy has been removed (e.g., if person
made same type of comment in response to each question they
were not counted twice). These figures have been used in
suggestions in section 4 of the report.
COMBINED Comment codes: # of % of
responses total (80)
0 = Not relevant to question asked. 11 13.75
1 = Encourage/promote use of outfitters 8 10
and guides.
2 = Increase accessibility to areas 16 20
outside wilderness (trailheads,
parking, restrooms, TDDs).
3 = Increase access inside wilderness 8 10
(boardwalks, widen trails, special
permits).
4 = Allow use of wheelchairs. 0 0
5 = Maintain existing regulations--seek 15 18.75
access without compromising
Wilderness Act.
6 = Motors and mechanized use needed for 2 2.5
access (ATVs, motorboats).
7 = Training and education for wilderness 0 0
staff on disability awareness.
8 = Develop materials that provide 12 15
information on access, provide
clearinghouse for information.
9 = Repeal provisions of Wilderness Act 0 0
that restrict motors, development,
and mechanized use.
10= Increase funding for better access, 5 6.25
including facilities, promotion, and
scholarships.
11= Rely on people power/human companions 5 6.25
to gain access to wilderness.
APPENDIX
2C. TABULATIONS OF RESPONSES FROM NWPS MANAGERS
1) How would you describe the primary terrain type
in your wilderness unit used by visitors interested in
recreation (check only one)
1 = mountainous 193
2 = swamp, marsh wetland 25
3 = forest/heavily vegetated 52
4 = lake and/or river 22
5 = desert 25
6 = coastal 21
DATA TITLE: Terrain Type
2) People who visit your wilderness unit use which of the
following means of travel? (check all that apply)
1 = raft 86 8 = snowmobile 18
2 = canoe 76 9 = all-terrain 21
3 = horse 215 vehicle
4 = ski 92 10 = motorboat 41
5 = kayak 61 11 = bicycle 23
6 = hike 272 12 = airplane 20
7 = dogsled 16 13 = other 4
DATA TITLE: Modes of Transport
3) Have you ever received inquiries from persons with
disabilities about the use of your wilderness unit?
1 = yes 97
2 = no 164
3 = don't know 40
DATA TITLE: Inquiries by Disabled
4) If yes, approximately how many inquiries do you receive
annually?______ (actual number they provide)
DATA TITLE: Yes, How Many
Is this figure an 1 = estimate 93
2 = based on exact 13
documentation
DATA TITLE: Based on 1
5) How many people with disabilities do you believe use your
unit of the NWPS each year?_________ (actual number)
DATA TITLE: Persons with disabilities use unit
Is this figure an 1 = estimate 256
2 = based on exact 6
documentation
DATA TITLE: Based on 2
6) Does your wilderness unit have any information available
that specifically addresses wilderness use by persons with
disabilities?
1 = yes 7
2 = no 292
DATA TITLE: Info on access
7) How do people with disabilities travel while in your
wilderness unit? (check all that apply)
1 = raft 46 8 = snowmobile 5
2 = canoe 32 9 = all-terrain 13
3 = horse 146 vehicle
4 = ski 22 10 = motorboat 21
5 = kayak 26 11 = bicycle 11
6 = hike 182 12 = airplane 10
7 = dogsled 5 13 = other 0
DATA TITLE: Disabled Mode Transport
8) Do you believe most people with disabilities visit
your wilderness unit (check only one)
1 = Alone 1
2 = With family/friends 161
3 = In organized groups 27
4 = Don't know 85
DATA TITLE: With Whom Visit
Is this response an 1 = estimate 209
2 = based on exact 11
documentation
DATA TITLE: Based on 3
9) How do most people without disabilities visit your
wilderness unit? (check only one)
1 = Alone 19
2 = With family/friends 270
3 = In organized groups 9
4 = Don't know 5
DATA TITLE: With Whom Visit 2
Is this response an 1 = estimate 227
2 = based on exact 75
documentation
DATA TITLE: Based on 4
10) Does your unit allow for the use of wheelchairs by persons
with disabilities?
1 = yes 183
2 = no 100
3 = don't know 17
DATA TITLE; Allow Wheelchairs
Comments_______________________________________________
Comment codes: # of responses
0 = Not relevant to question asked 3
1 = Reference to difficulty of terrain 21
2 = Indicates confusion on wording of question 2
3 = Reference to accessibility outside of NWPS 2
4 = Reference to ease of terrain 1
5 = No developments or adaptations for wheelchair 3
6 = Treat wheelchair as pedestrian 1
7 = Indicates a lack of understanding of policy 1
8 = First time ever asked about wheelchairs 3
9 = Nonmotorized only 1
DATA TITLE: Comments Wheelchair
11) Does your unit make special provisions for use by persons
with disabilities?
1 = yes 59
2 = no 224
3 = don't know 8
DATA TITLE: Special Provisions
If yes, what are they? (check all that apply)
1 = special permits 15
2 = use of motors 11
3 = special areas 11
4 = accessibility 14
information
5 = other 1
DATA TITLE: If Yes, What
(please explain)______________________________________
DATA TITLE: Comments Provisions
12) In your opinion, do the management policies of your
agency for NWPS units inhibit the enjoyment of persons
with disabilities?
1 = yes 67
2 = no 233
No response 3
DATA TITLE: Policies Inhibit
If yes, why?___________If no, why not?________________
Comment codes: # of responses
0 = Not relevant to question asked. 10
1 = Reference to difficulty of terrain 22
2 = Agency policy does not inhibit, but
provisions of Wilderness Act
do inhibit. 12
3 = Need to work/network more with
disabled persons. 7
4 = Policies do not inhibit any more
than they do for nondisabled. 14
5 = Wheelchairs are prohibited in wilderness. 4
6 = We should emphasize experiences and
facilities outside of wilderness. 8
7 = Need more funding for access. 10
8 = Wilderness preservation takes
precedence over access. 5
9 = Revise current policies to 7
increase accessibility.
DATA TITLE: Comments on Policies
13) Do you provide any of the following to the general
population prior to their visiting wilderness areas?
(check all that apply)
1 = advice 248
2 = informational wilderness 219
travel materials
3 = special training 15
4 = other 6
DATA TITLE: Info to General
14) What is the official name of the unit(s) of the NWPS
that you manage? (please list them all if more than one)
DATA TITLE: Unit Name
15) For which federal agency do you work?___________________
1 = BLM 13
2 = NPS 39
3 = USFS 210
4 = FWS 42
DATA TITLE: What Agency
16) What is your official job title?_________________________
17) How many years have you personally been involved in the
management of this wilderness area?________
18) Please elaborate on what, if anything, you think could
be done to facilitate enjoyment of your NWPS unit by persons
with disabilities:
Comment codes: # of % of
responses total (304)
0 = Not relevant to question asked. 20 6.6
1 = Encourage/promote use of outfitters
and guides. 41 13.4
2 = Increase accessibility to areas
outside wilderness (trailheads,
parking, restrooms, TDDs). 34 11.2
3 = Increase access inside wilderness
(boardwalks, widen trails, special
permits). 30 9.9
4 = Allow use of wheelchairs. 5 1.6
5 = Maintain existing regulations--seek
access without compromising
Wilderness Act. 11 3.6
6 = Motors and mechanized use needed for
access (ATVs, motorboats). 4 1.3
7 = Training and education for wilderness
staff on disability awareness. 5 1.64
8 = Develop materials that provide
information on access, provide
clearinghouse for information. 47 15.5
9 = Repeal provisions of Wilderness Act
that restrict motors, development,
and mechanized use. 3 1
10= Increase funding for better access,
including facilities, promotion, and
scholarships. 8 2.63
11= Rely on people power/human companions
to gain access to wilderness. 1 .33
DATA TITLE: Overall Comments
19) Is this NWPS unit jointly managed with other agencies?
1 = yes 112
2 = no 192
DATA TITLE: Jointly Managed
20) What state is your unit in?
DATA TITLE: State
APPENDIX
3. OUTFITTERS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND WILDERNESS ADVOCATES CONTACTED FOR
PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY Mark Havens
Accessible Adventures
250 NE Tomahawk Island Drive
Portland, OR 97217
503/789-1019
Bob Jordan *
Activities Unlimited, Inc.
P.O. Box 324
Helena, MT 59624
406/442-7809
Nancy Ertter
Alternate Mobility Adventure Seekers
BSU P.E. Dept
1910 University Dr.
Boise, ID 83725
208/385-3030
Tom McPike
Bay Area Outreach/Rec
605 Eshleman Hall/U of CA Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720
415/849-4662
Gary Robb
Bradford Woods
5040 State Road 67 North
Martinsville, IN 46151
812/885-0227
Scott Engram
Breckenridge Outdoor Ed. Ctr.
P.O. Box 697
Breckenridge, CO 80424
303/453-6422
Patrick Reinhart
Challenge Alaska
P.O. Box 110065
Anchorage, AK 99511
907/563-2658
Jim Wise
Cooperative Wilderness Handicapped Outdoor Group (CW HOG)
Box 8118
Pocatello, ID 83209
208/236-3912
Bill Dvorak
Dvorak's Kayak Expeditions
17921 Hwy 285
Nathrop, CO 81236
(719) 539-6851
Diane Poslosky
Environmental Traveling Companions
Fort Mason Center, Bldg. C
San Francisco, CA 94123
415/474-7662
Everglades Program *
North Carolina Outward Bound School
121 No. Sterling
Morganton, NC 28655
Al Coar *
Outward Bound
690 Market St. #500
San Francisco, CA 94101
415/398-9626
David Cappetta
Voyageur Outward Bound
10900 Cedar Lake Road
Minnetonka, MN 55343
612/542-6255
Shorty Powers *
P.O.I.N.T (Paraplegics On Independent Nature Trips)
3200 Mustang Dr.
Grapevine, TX 76051
Tom Smith
Racoon Institute
PO Box 35A
Cazenovia, WI 53924
(608) 983-2327
Claire Coonan
Special Populations Learning Outdoor Recreation & Education
(S'plore)
699 E. South Temple, #120
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
801/363-7130
David Espeseth
SOAR
P.O. Box 14583
Portland, OR 97214-4583
503/238-1613
Charlie Ross
Sobek Expeditions
P.O. Box 1089
Angels Camp, CA 95222
209/736-4524
Dale Abell
The Ability Center
5605 Monroe St.
Sylvania, OH 43560
419/885-5733
Phyllis Cangemi *
Total Access Camping
23777 Mulhooland Hwy, #118
Calabasas, CA 91302
Darrell Knuffke
The Wilderness Society
777 Grant St., Suite 606
Denver, CO 80203
303/839-1175
Michael Kellett
Wilderness Society
20 Park Plaza, Suite 536
Boston, MA 02116
617/350-8866
* Did not respond
APPENDIX
4. NATIONAL COUNCIL MEMBER AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES National
Council Members
Sandra Swift Parrino
As National Council chairperson, Sandra Swift
Parrino has played an active role on key issues affecting the lives
of people with disabilities. Nominated by President Reagan in 1982,
appointed chair by the President in 1983 and reappointed by President
Bush, Sandra Parrino has supported the rights of people with disabilities
before Congress, in the media, and before groups nationwide. Under
her leadership, the National Council is a driving force with respect
to creating public policies that affect the nation's people with
disabilities.
During her tenure as chair, the National Council
has worked toward creating and enacting legislation for people with
disabilities; issued a policy statement, National Policy for
Persons with Disabilities; convened hearings nationwide to solicit
comments and recommendations from people with disabilities about
discrimination; issued a major report, Toward Independence,
which outlined key components of a comprehensive civil rights law
protecting people with disabilities; initiated the first national
survey of attitudes and experiences of Americans with disabilities
in conjunction with Louis Harris and Associates, Inc.; issued On
the Threshold of Independence, a report outlining specifics
of the Americans With Disabilities Act; created and developed the
Americans with Disabilities Act; participated with President Bush
at the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act; conducted
the first National Conference on the Prevention of Primary and Secondary
Disabilities; and issued reports with regard to minorities with
disabilities, personal assistance services, health insurance, the
financing of assistive technology, and the education of students
with disabilities.
Before becoming National Council chair, Sandra Parrino
founded and directed the Office for the Disabled, in the Towns of
Ossining and Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., where she created a regional
program for public and private organizations that focused on programs
for people with disabilities and compliance with 504. She has more
than 25 years' experience on boards, councils, commissions, committees
and task forces at the federal, regional, state and local levels,
and as an expert witness, community leader, organizer and activist.
Sandra Parrino has represented the U.S. government
on disability issues in many countries. She has been invited by
the Department of State to represent the United States at the Meetings
of Experts in Finland, and China and represented the United States
at the United Nations Center for Social Development in Vienna several
times. In 1990, 1991, 1992 she was invited by the Department of
State to be a delegate at the Third Committee on Social Development
of the United Nations. In 1991, she was invited by the People's
Republic of China to assist them in their efforts to help people
with disabilities. At the request of the government of Czechoslovakia,
she and the National Council were invited to conduct the Eastern
European Conference on Disabilities for participants from Czechoslovakia,
Poland and Hungary.
Sandra Parrino graduated from Briarcliff College
with a B.A. in history, and completed courses at Bennett College,
GuildHall School of Drama in London, and the Yale School of Languages.
In 1992, Mrs. Parrino received an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters
from St. John's University in New York. Her husband, Richard is
a rheumatologist. They have three children, two of whom have disabilities.
Sandra Parrino was born in New Haven, Conn. and now resides in Briarcliff
Manor, New York.
Kent Waldrep, Jr.
Kent Waldrep has been involved with disability issues
on a local, state, and national level since suffering a spinal cord
injury in 1974 while playing football for Texas Christian University.
Since 1981, Waldrep has served on the National Council by presidential
appointment. He is National Council vice chair and chairman of the
Research and Prevention Committee. He has been instrumental in formulating
the National Council initiative on preventing primary and secondary
disabilities.
Waldrep, one of 15 original ADA drafters, gave the
legislation its name. He has lectured nationwide on subjects ranging
from national disability policy to medical research targeted at
curing paralysis. He founded the American Paralysis Association
and the Kent Waldrep National Paralysis Foundation. He has appeared
on Good Morning America, the Today Show, the NBC
Nightly News, and CNN, and has been featured in People
and Look magazines, USA Today, and others.
He was selected by the U.S. Jaycees as one of 1985's
10 Outstanding Young Men in America and received a special award
from the Texas Sports Hall of Fame and a Sports/Fitness Award from
the President's Council on Physical Fitness. Kent Waldrep Days are
celebrated in four Texas cities and Birmingham, Alabama. He serves
on many boards, including the Texas Rehabilitation Commission. He
is past chairman of the Texas Governor's Committee for Disabled
Persons and now chairs the Dallas Rehabilitation Institute. He also
is chairman of Turbo-Resins, Inc., a family-owned and -operated
aviation-repair business. He lives in Plano, Texas, with his wife
Lynn and two sons, Trey and Charles Cavenaugh.
Linda Wickett Allison
Linda Allison of Dallas, Texas, is a long-time advocate
of people with disabilities. She is a board member of the National
Paralysis Foundation and a trustee for the International Spinal
Research Trust. Allison, who grew up in Fort Worth, has three children.
Her daughter Marcy was paralyzed from the waist down in a 1979 automobile
accident. Marcy graduated from the University of Texas School of
Law in 1986 and practices law in Austin. Allison's late husband,
James N. Allison, Jr., owned the Midland Reporter Telegram and
other newspapers in Texas and Colorado and was former deputy chair
of the Republican National Committee.
Ellis B. Bodron
Ellis Bodron of Vicksburg, Mississippi, has been
a practicing attorney since 1947. He served 36 years as a member
of the Mississippi Legislature--one term in the House of Representatives
and eight terms in the Mississippi Senate. Bodron also chaired the
Senate Finance Committee from 1961 until 1983.
Bodron, who is blind, is associated with several
civic organizations, including the Vicksburg Lions Club, Vicksburg
Chamber of Commerce, and the University of Mississippi Alumni Association.
In addition, Bodron is a member of the Advisory Board of Directors,
Deposit Guaranty National Bank.
Bodron has also been a member of the Agriculture
and Industrial Board, which preceded the Board of Economic Development,
and the Committee of Budget and Accounting and Board of Trustees
of the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System.
Ellis Bodron graduated with a Bachelor of Arts and
a Bachelor of Laws Degree from the University of Mississippi. He
is married with two children.
Larry Brown, Jr.
Since 1981, Larry Brown of Potomac, Maryland, has
been the Xerox business and community relations manager for the
Mid-Atlantic Region, Coastal Operations, Custom Systems Division.
In 1991 he became Government and Community Relations Manager with
Integrated Systems Operations.
Brown was a running back for the Washington Redskins
for eight years. During that time he received many awards, including
Most Valuable Player in the National Football League for 1972, and
was recently inducted into the Washington, D.C., Touchdown Hall
of Fame.
After retiring from football in 1977, he worked at
E.F. Hutton as a personal financial management adviser. He has been
special assistant to the director, Office of Minority Business Enterprise,
Department of Commerce. He is involved with youth, people with disabilities,
and senior citizens. Brown has spoken at schools, colleges, and
universities on topics such as motivation, discipline, and camaraderie.
He works with many organizations, including the Friends of the National
Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, the Deafness
Research Foundation, and the Vincent Lombardi Foundation.
Mary Ann Mobley Collins
A former Miss America who lives in Beverly Hills,
California, Mary Ann Collins has a career in film, television, and
on Broadway. She has co-hosted the National March of Dimes telethons
with her husband, Emmy-award winning actor Gary Collins, and serves
as National Chair of the Mother's March Against Birth Defects. She
is a member of SHARE, a Los Angeles-based women's organization that
has raised more than $6 million for the Exceptional Children's Foundation
for the Mentally Retarded. She serves on the National Board of the
Crohns and Colitis Foundation.
Collins helped raise funds for the Willwood Foundation
in her native Mississippi, which provides homes for young adults
with mental and physical learning disabilities. She has received
many awards and honors, including the 1990 International Humanitarian
Award from the Institute for Human Understanding, Woman of Distinction
1990 from the National Foundation for Ileitis and Colitis, and the
HELP Humanitarian Award of 1985 from HELP for Handicapped Children.
She has filmed documentaries in Cambodia, Ethiopia, Mozambique,
Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, and Bolivia on the plight of starving children
and people with disabilities.
Anthony H. Flack
Anthony Flack of Norwalk, Connecticut, is president
of Anthony H. Flack & Associates. He has been a member of the
board of Families and Children's Aid of Greater Norwalk and has
worked with the Child Guidance Center of Greater Bridgeport, the
Youth Shelter in Greenwich, Hall Neighborhood House in Bridgeport,
and the Urban League of Greater Bridgeport. Flack is a member of
the Allocations and Admissions Committee, United Way of Norwalk,
and received the Bell Award for outstanding service in the field
of mental health at the Bridgeport Chapter, Connecticut Association
of Mental Health.
John A. Gannon
John Gannon of Cleveland, Ohio, and Washington, D.C.,
founded John A. Gannon and Associates. His firm has offices in Columbus
and Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; and Washington, D.C. A fire
fighter for more than 30 years, Gannon was an active leader of the
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 93. Starting
as a member of the local IAFF committee, he eventually became president,
a position he held for 10 years before being elected to national
office.
In September 1988, Gannon was elected IAFF President
Emeritus. He had served as president of the 170,000-member organization
since 1980. Under his leadership, the IAFF expanded its role in
occupational safety and health.
Concerned about the hazards of his profession, he
guided and directed a series of programs to promote greater safety
and health protection. One program sponsored research on safer garments
and equipment for fire fighters. Gannon also fostered development
of the IAFF Burn Foundation, which raises funds for research on
the care of burn victims. In 1985, the Metropolitan General Hospital,
in Cleveland dedicated a John Gannon Burn and Trauma Center in recognition
of his support for the hospital.
Gannon was elected vice president of the AFL-CIO,
with which the IAFF is affiliated. Within the AFL-CIO he is vice
president of the Public Employee Department. On the Executive Council,
he is a member of several committees. He serves on the board of
the National Joint Council of Fire Service Organizations and in
1982 served as its chairman. He is a member of the board of the
Muscular Dystrophy Association. Gannon attended Miami University
in Ohio and Glasgow University in Scotland, and studied at Baldwin-Wallace
College and Cleveland State University.
John Leopold
John Leopold of Pasadena, Maryland, has 18 years'
experience in elected state office. He was elected to the Hawaii
State House of Representatives in 1968 and re-elected in 1972. In
1974, Leopold was elected to the Hawaii State Senate. In 1982, he
became the first Republican in Maryland history elected from District
31 in Anne Arundel County to the Maryland House of Delegates, where
he served until 1991.
An advocate of people with disabilities, Leopold
is a member of the Learning Disabilities Association of Anne Arundel
County, the Anne Arundel County Committee on Employment of People
with Disabilities, and the University of Maryland Hospital Infant
Study Center Planning Advisory Board. He has served in other appointed
and elected positions, including the Hawaii State Board of Education
in 1968, the National Advisory Council for the Education of Disadvantaged
Children in 1977, and the Maryland State Accountability Task Force
for Public Education in 1974.
Leopold has written and produced cable television
commercials in Maryland, written a weekly interview column for a
local publication, and hosted and produced a weekly radio public
affairs program. He graduated from Hamilton College in Clinton,
New York, with a B.A. in English.
Robert S. Muller
Robert Muller of Grandville, Michigan, began his
career with Steelcase, Inc., in 1966 and is now an administrator.
He is an adjunct associate professor in the Department of Psychology
at Aquinas College and in the Department of Education at Calvin
College in Grand Rapids. He serves on the board of trustees for
Hope Network and Foundation in Grand Rapids, which serves 1,700
adults with disabilities. In April 1981, he received an honorary
degree in educational psychology from the Free University in Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.
Muller holds a B.S. in business administration from
Aquinas College and in 1978 was voted Outstanding Alumnus of the
Year. He has lectured at colleges and universities nationally and
internationally. He is a board member for several national, state,
and local organizations.
In May 1987, Muller and his wife hosted a first-time
event at the White House with the Vice President. The Celebration
of Disabled Americans at Work was cosponsored by several major corporations.
He now serves as president of the National Roundtable on Corporate
Development for Americans with Disabilities. In 1985, Muller received
the Liberty Bell Award from the Grand Rapids Bar Association. In
1988, he was national co-chair of the Disabled Americans for President
Bush campaign.
George H. Oberle, PED
George Oberle of Stillwater, Oklahoma, has more than
35 years' experience in the field of health, physical education,
and recreation. He began his career as a high school teacher and
coach and has been a professor and director of the School of Health,
Physical Education and Leisure at Oklahoma State University since
1974. Oberle is a consultant to many organizations in the area of
administration and adaptive physical education. In 1988, he worked
with the Kennedy Foundation to organize and direct a new program
of unified sports for the Special Olympics.
Oberle chaired the College and University Administrators'
Council (1980-82); he was president of the Association for Research,
Administration, Professional Councils and Societies (1984-87); and
served as a board member of the American Association of Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (1985-89). Awards include
the 1985 Centennial Award from the American Association of Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance; and Meritorious Service
Awards from Indiana and Oklahoma.
He was selected for Men of Achievement in
1975 and recognized in Who's Who of the Southwest in 1977.
Oberle received his doctorate from Indiana University in administration
and adapted physical education, and has written many books and articles.
He lectures extensively about wellness promotion, adapted physical
activity, sports, and recreation for people with disabilities.
Mary Matthews Raether
Mary Raether of McLean, Virginia, is associated with
St. John's Child Development Center, a nonprofit organization providing
instruction, employment training, and independent and group home
living skills for people with severe mental disabilities, especially
those with autism. Raether has been an officer and trustee of St.
John's since 1985 and has chaired the public relations committee
and participated on the executive, nominating, investment, and development
committees.
Raether has been active in civic, educational, and
religious organizations in the Washington metropolitan area. While
community vice president of the Junior League of Washington, she
developed emergency grant procedures and fund-raising information
services for small and emerging nonprofit organizations. Raether
has 10 years' experience as legislative assistant to Reps. George
Bush and Barber Conable. She specialized in tax, social security,
Medicare/Medicaid, and trade issues. She considers her efforts in
clarifying the tax status of lobbying by nonprofit organizations
an outstanding career accomplishment. She received a B.A. from the
University of Texas at Austin in 1962. She is married and has two
children.
Anne Crellin Seggerman
Anne Crellin Seggerman, of Fairfield, Connecticut,
is the founder of Fourth World Foundation, Inc., a company engaged
in the development of interfaith media.
A member of the Bridgeport Urban Gardens and Youth
at Risk/Breakthrough Foundation, Seggerman founded and serves as
the chairman of the board of the Fairfield County Chapter of Huxley
Institute for Biosocial Research. She previously was a member of
the President's Committee on Mental Retardation.
Seggerman is listed in Who's Who
of American Women and has received numerous honors including
an Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters Award from Sacred Heart University,
the Association of Knights and Ladies of the Holy Sepulchre, and
the American Association of the Order of Malta. She was previously
appointed to serve on the Housing of Handicapped Families of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Seggerman is experienced in providing care, treatment,
and rehabilitation to chronic and acute schizophrenia, and has extensive
experience with alcoholics and children with learning disabilities.
She is married, with six adult children.
Michael B. Unhjem
Michael Unhjem of Fargo, North Dakota, is president
of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Dakota. The youngest member in
state history elected to the North Dakota House of Representatives,
Unhjem is a member of the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws. In 1988, he served as president of the National
Mental Health Association.
He has been involved in local and national organizations,
including the Advisory Mental Health Council of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services; the Governor's Commission on Mental
Health Services; the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia
and Depression; and the National Mental Health Leadership Forum.
Awards include the 1989 Special Presidential Commendation from the
American Psychiatric Association, the 1988 Distinguished Leadership
Award from the North Dakota Psychological Association, and the National
Excellence in Leadership Award from North Dakota.
He was recognized by Who's Who in American Politics
and Who's Who in North Dakota. Unhjem graduated magna
cum laude with a B.A. in history and political science from
Jamestown College in North Dakota in 1975. In 1978, he earned a
J.D. with distinction from the University of North Dakota School
of Law in Grand Forks. He is married and has two children.
Helen Wilshire Walsh
Helen Walsh of Greenwich, Connecticut, is a board
member of the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, the largest U.S.
rehabilitation center. She has been involved in disability advocacy
for many years and has been associated with the Institute of Rehabilitation
Medicine at the New York Medical Center, where she served as associate
trustee. She has served as vice president, president, and chairman
of the board of Rehabilitation International USA.
Walsh has been a member of the President's Committee
on the Employment of People with Disabilities, and was appointed
by the President to serve as a member of the National Advisory Council
of Vocational Rehabilitation. In 1976, Walsh received the Henry
J. Kessler Award for outstanding service in the rehabilitation field.
She has received the Rehabilitation International Award for Women
and the Anwar Sadat Award for outstanding work in the field of rehabilitation.
National Council Staff
Ethel D. Briggs
Ethel Briggs is executive director of the National
Council on Disability. In seven years at the National Council, Briggs
served as the acting executive director, deputy executive director,
and director of Adult Services. Briggs is former chief of the Office
of Staff Development and Training for the Washington, D.C., Rehabilitation
Services Administration. Prior experience includes employment as
a rehabilitation counselor supervisor, vocational rehabilitation
counselor and part-time college instructor at George Washington
University. Briggs, a long-time advocate for people with disabilities,
graduated from North Carolina Central University and holds a master's
degree in counseling from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. She was recognized by Dollar & Sense Magazine as
one of the Top 100 African American Business and Professional Women
of 1989. Briggs also was recognized in Outstanding Women in America
in 1976 and by Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities
in 1971.
Harold W. Snider, PhD
Harold Snider, selected as deputy executive director
in June 1990, was previously the first director of outreach for
people with disabilities at the Republican National Committee. He
served as executive director of the American Impact Foundation and
was president of Access for Handicapped, Inc. Snider holds a B.S.
in international studies from Georgetown University, a master's
degree in history from the University of London, and a doctorate
in history from Oxford University in England. He is the author of
two books on disability, The United States Welcomes Handicapped
Visitors and Museums and Handicapped Students: Guidelines
for Education.
Billie Jean Hill
Billie Jean Hill joined the staff of the National
Council on Disability as program specialist in March 1992. Previously,
Hill was director of communications and editor for the Blinded Veterans
Association and, earlier, she served as founding director of a statewide
broadcast service for persons with reading disabilities with Mississippi
Educational Television in her home state. She was appointed to work
on a governor's commission in Mississippi to report on the needs
of children and youth in rural Mississippi who are disabled. Hill
studied journalism and education at Mississippi University for Women
and at the University of London in England. She serves as chairperson
of the Board of Publications for the American Council of the Blind.
Janice Mack
Janice Mack, who serves as the administrative officer
for the National Council, was formerly employed with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mack graduated from Calvin
Coolidge High School.
Mark S. Quigley
Mark Quigley joined the staff as a public affairs
specialist in May 1990. He previously served as a consultant to
the U.S. National Commission on Drug-free Schools. He is a former
program coordinator at the U.S. Interagency Council on the Homeless,
and former director of communications at the White House Conference
on Small Business. Quigley graduated magna cum laude in 1979
from Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale with an A.A.
in general studies. He received a B.A. in government and politics
in 1983, and an MPA in public administration in 1990 from George
Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.
Katherine D. Seelman, PhD
Katherine Seelman joined the National Council staff
in 1989 as a research specialist. She is former director of Public
Education, Research and Technological Services at the Massachusetts
Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. She was a research
scholar at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., and a consultant
to the American Association of Retired Persons.
Seelman received a doctorate in public policy and
a master's degree in political science from New York University,
and a B.A. in political science from Hunter College in New York.
She is the author of many published articles, including "Communication
Accessibility: A Technology Agenda for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing
People," International Journal of Technology and Aging; "Communication
Accessibility for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing People; An Expanded Concept
of Access," Journal of Disability Policy Studies; and "A
Comparison of Federal Laws Toward Disabled and Racial Ethnic Groups
in the USA," Disability, Handicap and Society.
Brenda Bratton
Brenda Bratton, executive secretary for the National
Council, was formerly employed as a secretary at the National Transportation
Safety Board. Bratton graduated from Farmville Central High School
and the Washington School for Secretaries.
Stacey S. Brown
Stacey Brown is staff assistant to the chairperson
and has been employed by the National Council since 1986. Prior
experience includes employment as a receptionist and clerk with
the Board for International Broadcasting and with the Compliance
and Enforcement Unit of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board, where he was a student assistant. Brown is a graduate
of Howard University in Washington, D.C., where he earned a B.A.
in political science in 1987.
Consultant
Gregory J. Lais
Greg Lais is the executive director of Wilderness
Inquiry, Inc. (www.wildernessinquiry.org), a Minneapolis-based nonprofit
organization specializing in adventure travel and wilderness issues
involving people with disabilities.
|
