Report to Congress on Section 507 (a) of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 June 1, 1992 National Council on Disability 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Suite 814 Washington, D.C. 20591 (202) 267-3846 (Voice) (202) 267-3232 (TDD) 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. 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 National Council on Disability 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Suite 814 Washington, DC 20591 (202) 267-3846 Voice (202) 267-3232 TDD (202) 453-4240 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. National Council on Disability Members Staff Sandra Swift Parrino Ethel D. Briggs Chairperson Executive Director New York Harold W. Snider, PhD Kent Waldrep, Jr. Deputy Director Vice Chairperson Texas Billie Jean Hill Program Specialist Linda W. Allison Texas Mark S. Quigley Public Affairs Specialist Ellis B. Bodron Mississippi Katherine D. Seelman, PhD Research Specialist Larry Brown, Jr. Maryland Brenda Bratton Staff Assistant Mary Ann Mobley Collins California Stacey S. Brown Staff Assistant Anthony H. Flack Connecticut Janice Mack Administrative Officer John A. Gannon Ohio and Washington, D.C. Consultant Gregory J. Lais 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 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.............................................. 1 Introduction................................................... 5 Background..................................................... 6 Assumptions and Definitions.................................... 7 Scope of Study................................................. 8 Limitations of Study........................................... 9 Methodology....................................................11 Findings.......................................................15 1. Current policies of NWPS managing agencies...............15 National Park Service.................................... 15 U.S. Forest Service...................................... 18 Bureau of Land Management................................ 20 Fish and Wildlife Service................................ 21 Survey results of field managers of NWPS units........... 23 2. Current NWPS use levels by persons with disabilities.... 26 3. Enjoyment of the NWPS by persons with disabilities...... 28 How do persons with disabilities visit the NWPS?......... 32 Effect of restrictions on mechanized use................. 33 4. Suggestions for increasing enjoyment of the NWPS........ 35 Conclusions................................................... 44 Recommendations............................................... 46 Acknowledgments................................................47 References.................................................... 48 Appendices.................................................... 49 Appendix 1.Surveys, Cover Letters, and Attachments Distributed to A) Outfitters and Organizations..................... 50 B) Persons with Disabilities........................ 56 C) NWPS Managers.................................... 63 Appendix 2.Tabulations of the Responses from Surveys Distributed to A) Outfitters and Organizations..................... 68 B) Persons with Disabilities........................ 76 C) NWPS Managers.................................... 91 Appendix 3.Outfitters, Organizations, and Wildnerness Advocates Contacted for Participation in the Study.......................98 Appendix 4.National Council Member and Staff Biographies......101 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: a. That the person have a disability as recognized by theADA. We further qualified this criterion to selectpeople 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. b. 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. c. That the persons were as representative of anational sample as possible. We made a significanteffort to survey individuals who live throughout theUnited States. d. 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: a. 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. b. 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 differentagencies. 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 user31 Mobility impairment, wheelchair user50 State of Residence Alaska 6 California2 Colorado 5 Florida 4 Georgia 1 Idaho 5 Illinois 4 Indiana 7 Maine 1 Michigan 2 Minnesota 22 Montana 1 New Jersey2 New Mexico1 New York 2 North Dakota1 Ohio 2 Rhode Island1 Tennessee 1 Texas 2 Vermont 1 Washington1 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 FWS 55 42 76 BLM 17 13 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 knowNo 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 knowNo 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 information14/3045% 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 knowNo 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 knowNo response USFS 1% 96% 0% 3% NPS 10% 90% 0% 0% FWS 0% 100% 0% 0% BLM 0% 100% 0% 0% TOTALS 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 2,500National Park Service Boundary Waters 2,000Forest Service Glacier Bay 1,000National Park Service Cabinet Mountains 1,000Forest Service Sycamore Canyon, Munds Mountain, Red Rock-Secret Mountain 850Forest Service St. Marks 500Fish and Wildlife Service Great Swamp 500Fish and Wildlife Service Olympic 500National Park Service Joshua Tree 500National Park Service Carson-Iceberg, Emigrant, Mokelumne 500Forest Service Black Elk 460Forest Service Ellicott Rock 300Forest Service Shining Rock, Middle Prong 300Forest 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 littlesomewhat very muchtremendous 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 little3 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 respondentsrating 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 Return6 4.66 5/4 Kenai 5 4.4 5/4 Lake Chelan-Sawtooth5 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 Refuge2 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-Slickrock2 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/Gunnison1 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 Mountains1 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 River1 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 accomplishment83 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 campsites13 Uncooperative group members 13 Poor access at entry point (parking,etc) 13 Lack of information about area5 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 wheelchair50 Crutches/cane 33 No devices used16 Electric wheelchair5 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 Outfitters15 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% Outfitters33% 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% Outfitters20% 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% Outfitters13% 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% Outfitters20% 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% Outfitters7% * 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% Outfitters0 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% Outfitters0 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% Outfitters0 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. Appendices 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 Greg Lais Executive Director Executive Director National Council on Wilderness Inquiry Disability 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 littlesomewhat very muchtremendous 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 designated 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 disability 20 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 DATA TITLE:Opinion of Mech. Please explain_______________________________________ 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 outside 9 11.25 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, and mechanized 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 DATA TITLE:Experiences Differ Please explain_______________________________________ 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 outside 7 8.75 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 outside 16 20 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 40 know 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., a Minneapolis-based nonprofit organization specializing in adventure travel and wilderness issues involving people with disabilities.