Wilderness Accessibility 

for People with Disabilities

A Report to the President 

and the Congress of the United States 

on Section 507 (a) of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

National Council on Disability

June 1, 1992
ii

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
iii

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

1331 F Street, N.W., Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

(202) 272-2004 Voice

(202) 272-2074 TT

(202) 272-2022 Fax

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent

those of the Administration as this document has not been subjected

to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
iv

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
v

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
vi

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.
vii

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.
viii

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
1

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
2

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
3

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:
4

...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.
5

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.
6

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."
7

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.
8

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.
9

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 the ADA. We further qualified this

criterion to select people who have disabilities that are most likely to affect

their ability to use and enjoy the NWPS. In this context we gave priority to people who use wheelchairs,

those who have other significant mobility impairments, and those with

significant sensory impairments.

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 a national sample as possible. We made a significant

effort to survey individuals who live throughout the United 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.
10

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.
11

Copies of the surveys and cover letters used are found in Appendix 1. Tabulations of the responses from each survey are

found in Appendix 2. Each of the information gathering methods is described in more detail below.

Review of existing policies and regulations

The national wilderness managers of the four federal agencies were asked to provide the policies and procedures in place

regarding use of the NWPS by persons with disabilities. The managers included Wesley Henry from the National Park

Service, Ann Fege from the U.S. Forest Service, Keith Corrigall from the Bureau of Land Management, and David Heffernan

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

In addition to these wilderness managers, we contacted David C. Park, Chief of the Special Programs and Populations Branch

of the National Park Service, and Joe Meade, National Access Program Manager for Recreation, Cultural Resources, and

Wilderness Management for the U.S. Forest Service. All of these people were very helpful in promptly providing the

information we needed to summarize and review the policies, regulations, and management practices regarding use of the

NWPS by persons with disabilities.

Survey of unit managers of the NWPS

The managers mentioned above all helped to develop a survey to distribute to NWPS unit managers. Significant assistance

was also provided by Alan Watson and Liz Close of the U.S. Forest Service, and by Kay Ellis of the National Park Service.

The sample included the managers of all 546 units of the NWPS; however, the total number of possible responses is different

than 546 for the following reasons:

1. Some units of the NWPS are managed jointly by different agencies. For example,

the Frank Church/River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho is managed jointly by

the USFS and the BLM.

2. Some units are managed by multiple managers within the same agency. For example, the Frank

Church/River of No Return Wilderness spans six different national forests managed by the USFS, each

of which has a person who is responsible for managing its portion of the Frank Church Wilderness.

Consequently, up to seven responses from two different agencies are possible for that wilderness.

3. Some managers are responsible for more than one unit. For example, Prescott National Forest (USFS) in

Arizona is responsible for seven different units of the NWPS-- Apache Creek, Castle Creek, Cedar Bench,

Granite Mountain, Juniper Mesa, Pine Mountain, and Woodchute. Consequently, one response may

encompass seven or more units of the NWPS.

We originally intended to isolate responses by individual units of the NWPS. This was possible for some units, but in many

cases was not possible because it could not be determined whether a respondent was answering in the context of one segment,

or in the name of the entire NWPS unit. Also, if a manager was responsible for more than one unit, it usually could not be

determined whether he or she was answering in response to all of the units or only part of them.
12

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:
13

Type of disability Percent of respondents

Cognitive impairment 10

Sensory impairment 9

Mobility impairment, non-wheelchair user 31

Mobility impairment, wheelchair user 50

State of Residence

Alaska 6

California 2

Colorado 5

Florida 4

Georgia 1

Idaho 5

Illinois 4

Indiana 7

Maine 1

Michigan 2

Minnesota 22

Montana 1

New Jersey 2

New Mexico 1

New York 2

North Dakota 1

Ohio 2

Rhode Island 1

Tennessee 1

Texas 2

Vermont 1

Washington 1

Wisconsin 5

Unknown 1

Gender Percent of respondents

Male 55

Female 43

Not indicated 2

Age Percent of respondents
14

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.
15

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:
16

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
17

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.
18

...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.
19

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
20

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
21

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.
22

Responses to question: Does your unit allow for the use of wheelchairs

by persons with disabilities?

Yes No Do not know No response

USFS 62% 30% 6% 2%

NPS 69% 26% 5% 0%

FWS 40% 55% 5% 0%

BLM 62% 38% 0% 0%

TOTALS 60% 33% 6% >1%

(n=304)

Comments: The intent of the question was to determine the respondent's familiarity with agency policy; however, some

respondents answered "NO," then went on to comment that, although wheelchairs were legally allowed, the terrain was too

rough for wheelchair use. Others, however, clearly indicated they thought that wheelchairs were illegal. Despite this

limitation, the responses to this question suggest that NWPS wilderness field managers from all managing agencies could

benefit from additional training on agency policies regarding wheelchair use by persons with disabilities--especially in

consideration of Section 507(c) of the ADA.

Responses to question: Does your unit make special provisions for use by persons with

disabilities?

Yes No Do not know No response

USFS 16% 79% 3% 2%

NPS 49% 51% 0% 0%

FWS 12% 69% 0% 19%

BLM 15% 77% 8% 0%

TOTAL 19% 74% 3% 4%

(n=304)

If special provisions were offered, respondents were asked to indicate the kinds of special provisions as presented below:

Special permits 15/304 5%

Use of motors 11/304 4%

Special areas 11/304 4%

Accessibility information 14/304 5%
23

Only 10 out of 304 respondents provided comments on special provisions. Examples of comments follow:

Special permits: We allow seeing eye dogs in wilderness. 

--Joshua Tree National Monument

Use of motors: We allow the use of motors as well as accessibility information. -- Pinnacles

Wilderness

Special areas: We provide accessible facilities--restrooms, campsites, telephones--in areas

surrounding wilderness.

--Lassen Volcanic Wilderness

Accessibility information: We offer personal assistance if requested. -- Katmai Wilderness

Response to question: In your opinion, do the management policies of your agency for NWPS

units inhibit the enjoyment of persons with disabilities?

Yes No Do not know No response

USFS 25% 74% 0% 1%

NPS 10% 87% 0% 0%

FWS 12% 86% 2% 0%

BLM 38% 62% 0% 0%

TOTAL 22% 77% >1% >1%

(n=304)

Respondents were then asked to comment on why they believe their agency policies do or do not inhibit enjoyment by

persons with disabilities. A total of 99 comments were offered. Analysis of these comments was difficult because of the

broad range of responses. A representative sample of responses is provided here. 

Management policies do not inhibit use, however the nature of the terrain does.

It is not the policy of my own agency, but the wording of the Wilderness Act itself.

Policies do not prohibit; however, our actions have not encouraged the disabled to seek out

these areas. The wilderness designation simply forces the individual, handicapped or not, to

venture into the wilderness on its own terms.
24

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.
25

Response to question: Does your wilderness unit have any information available that

specifically addresses wilderness use by persons with disabilities?

Yes No Do not know No response

USFS 1% 96% 0% 3%

NPS 10% 90% 0% 0%

FWS 0% 100% 0% 0%

BLM 0% 100% 0% 0%

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 2,500 National Park Service

Boundary Waters 2,000 Forest Service

Glacier Bay 1,000 National Park Service

Cabinet Mountains 1,000 Forest Service

Sycamore Canyon,

Munds Mountain,

Red Rock-Secret 

Mountain 850 Forest Service

St. Marks 500 Fish and Wildlife Service

Great Swamp 500 Fish and Wildlife Service

Olympic 500 National Park Service

Joshua Tree 500 National Park Service
26

Carson-Iceberg,

Emigrant,

Mokelumne 500 Forest Service

Black Elk 460 Forest Service

Ellicott Rock 300 Forest Service

Shining Rock,

Middle Prong 300 Forest Service

Organizations and outfitters that provide services for persons with disabilities were also asked to indicate which NWPS units

they use.

NWPS units used by outfitters surveyed include the following:

Black Canyon of the Gunnison

Boundary Waters Canoe Area

Chama River Canyon

Chugach

Collegiate Peaks

Craters of the Moon

Denali

Desolation Canyon

Eagles Nest

Everglades National Park

Frank Church/River of No Return

Glacier Bay

Hells Canyon

Jedediah Smith

Kenai

Lost Creek

Mesa Verde

Mt. Rainier

Sawtooth

Teton

Three Sisters

Trinity Alps

Yosemite

No information was provided on frequency of use of these areas.

Information about use from the 80 persons with disabilities is included in section 3.

Use of these areas raises the question of what characteristics, if any, these NWPS units might have in common. These units

may receive more use by persons with disabilities because of
27

 More accessible terrain, including more opportunities for water- based travel (canoe, kayak, raft).

 Proximity to urban centers. Boundary Waters, for example,

is one of the most visited units of the entire NWPS, partly 

because it is within a day's drive of millions of people.

 Higher level of utilization by organizations and outfitters

serving people with disabilities.

 Currently available information on access and travel within the

unit.

These and other possible characteristics are issues for further study.

3. Enjoyment of the NWPS by persons with disabilities

Completed surveys were received from 80 persons with disabilities who had experienced the NWPS. Respondents were

asked to name as many as five units of the NWPS they had visited since having a disability. A total of 207 responses were

given, representing 77 units of the NWPS. Respondents were asked to rate their enjoyment level of these areas as stated

below:

Please circle the number that best rates your level of overall enjoyment of the NWPS areas you listed in question

1. The letter in front of each response corresponds to the Wilderness you listed in question 1.

Did not Enjoyed Enjoyed Enjoyed Enjoyed a

enjoy very little somewhat very much tremendous 

amount

a) 1 2 3 4 5

b) 1 2 3 4 5

c) 1 2 3 4 5

d) 1 2 3 4 5

e) 1 2 3 4 5

The range of responses was 2 to 5. The average rating of all 207 responses was 4.42, indicating a very high level of

enjoyment. 

The distribution of responses was as follows:

NWPS Enjoyment Ratings by Persons with Disabilities

Rating Number of Percent
28

responses response

1 Did not enjoy 0 0

2 Enjoyed very little 3 2

3 Enjoyed somewhat 19 9

4 Enjoyed very much 72 35

5 Enjoyed a tremendous

amount 113 55

 Average Enjoyment Rating: 4.42

Below is a list of the NWPS units visited by the respondents with disabilities and the enjoyment rating these people gave to

each unit.

NWPS unit name Number Average Range

of enjoyment high/low

respondents rating

with 

disabilities

Boundary Waters 44 4.61 5/3

Teton 13 4.77 5/4

Denali 10 4.60 5/3

Everglades 10 4.3 5/3

Badlands 9 4 4/4

Frank Church/

 River of No Return 6 4.66 5/4

Kenai 5 4.4 5/4

Lake Chelan-Sawtooth 5 4.8 5/4

Craters of the Moon 4 4 5/2

Hawaii Volcanoes 4 4.75 5/4

Hells Canyon 4 4.75 5/4

Yosemite 4 4.25 5/3

Bob Marshall 3 3.33 4/3

Isle Royale 3 4 5/3

Joshua Tree 3 4 5/3

Mt. Rainier 3 4.33 5/4

Arctic Wildlife Refuge 2 5 5/5

Bandelier 2 4.5 5/4

Cedar Keys 2 4 5/3

Crab Orchard 2 3.5 4/3

Florida Keys 2 5 5/5

Haleakala 2 4 5/3
29

J.N."Ding" Darling 2 4.5 5/4

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock 2 5 5/5

Olympic 2 5 5/5

Petrified Forest 2 4 4/4

Presidential Range 2 4.5 5/4

Selway-Bitterroot 2 4.5 5/4

Twin Peaks 2 4 4/4

Wrangell-St. Elias 2 5 5/5

Alexander Springs 1 5

Alpine Lakes 1 4

Ansel Adams 1 5

Black Canyon/Gunnison 1 4

Bosque del Apache 1 3

Cache La Poudre 1 5

Castle Crag 1 3

Chama River Canyon 1 5

Charles C. Deam 1 2

Citico Creek 1 5

Columbia 1 3

Gates of the Arctic 1 5

Gates of the Mountains 1 5

Glacier Bay 1 5

Glacier Peak 1 5

Golden Trout 1 5

Great Swamp 1 3

Gros Ventre 1 4

Guadalupe Mtns. 1 2

Jarbidge 1 5

John Muir 1 5

Lacassine 1 5

Lake Clark 1 5

Lizard Head 1 4

Mesa Verde 1 4

Moosehorn 1 5

Mt. Evans 1 4

Never Summer 1 4

Noatak 1 4

Okefenokee 1 5

Pecos 1 5

Pinnacles 1 3

Rainbow Lake 1 5

Rattlesnake 1 5

Russel Fjord 1 5

San Juan Islands 1 4
30

San Pedro Parks 1 5

Saguaro 1 4

Seney 1 4

South San Juan 1 4

St. Marks 1 4

Theodore Roosevelt 1 4

Three Sisters 1 4

Upper Buffalo 1 4

Upper Kiamichi River 1 3

Washakie 1 5

Weminuche 1 4
31

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 P e r c e n t o f

responses

To experience scenery/natural beauty 93

To experience nature on its own terms 81

To experience a personal challenge

78

To share the experience with family/friends 70

To experience solitude 53

To enjoy fishing or hunting 20

Study participants were also asked about the high points and low points of their wilderness experience(s).

High points include: Percent

responses

Scenery or location 94

Personal achievement/

feelings of accomplishment 83

People or relationships 76

Personal growth 64

Solitude/peace 61

No high points 1

Other 1

Low points include: Percent

responses

No low points 58

Trails/terrain too rugged 24

Physical discomfort 13

Undeveloped/primitive campsites 13

Uncooperative group members 13

Poor access at entry point 

 (parking,etc) 13

Lack of information about area 5
32

Many studies have been conducted to determine the reasons people without disabilities visit the NWPS (Driver et al. 1987).

In comparing previous studies with the responses of the 80 persons with disabilities, it appears that the latter visit the NWPS

for the same reasons as people without disabilities (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987).

How do persons with disabilities visit the NWPS?

Most of the people with disabilities surveyed have visited the NWPS multiple times. A total of 47 percent have taken five

trips or more, 39 percent have taken between two and four trips, and 14 percent have only taken one trip.

The majority of respondents, 85 percent, have spent four or more consecutive days on their longest wilderness experience.

Only 8 percent never experienced more than one day in the wilderness, while another 8 percent have experienced between

two and three days as their longest wilderness experience.

The majority of respondents, 75 percent, had not visited the NWPS prior to becoming disabled. Of these people, 35 percent

were born with their disability, and 40 percent had never visited wilderness before becoming disabled. A total of 25 percent

respondents with disabilities had visited the NWPS prior to becoming disabled.

Respondents with disabilities used the following means of transport within the wilderness:

Type Percent of responses

Canoe 71

Hike 39

Kayak 29

Raft 29

Horse 21

Dogsled 19

Motorized 5

Other 5

Respondents used the following assistive devices on their wilderness trips:

Type Percent of 

responses

Manual wheelchair 50

Crutches/cane 33

No devices used 16

Electric wheelchair 5

Prostheses 5

White cane 4

Amigo 1

Walker 0

Guide dog 0
33

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.
34

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.
35

The purpose of this section is to identify issues for further discussion--it is not meant to imply a

recommendation.

Recurrent issues are categorized below. In every case, the percentage of responses from each of the three groups surveyed

(users, managers, outfitters) is provided with the statement. In considering these percentages the reader is reminded that the

total number of respondents for each category was

Managers 304

Users 80

Outfitters 15

Therefore, one user equals 1.25 percent of all users (1/80), one manager equals .32 percent of all NWPS managers (1/304),

and one outfitter equals 6.6 percent of all outfitters (1/15). In considering these issues it is also important to remember the

following:

1. Data for these suggestions are qualitative, derived in response to open-ended questions asking for

suggestions and comments. In some cases, the decision to categorize a response in a certain manner was

obvious; in other cases, categorization required more judgment and interpretation. Every effort was made

to categorize the responses consistently and fairly; however, by its very nature this process is likely to have

more errors than a simple yes or no response.

2. It is important to consider the source of each suggestion. For example, the suggestion to increase access

inside the wilderness is the response of 3 outfitters, 8 users, and 30 NWPS managers. In interpreting these

suggestions, we advise the reader to note the number of responses from each category.

3. Typical comments representing each suggestion category have been included for each of the three types

of respondents.
36

Suggestion 1: Develop materials that provide information on 

access; provide a clearinghouse for information.

Users 15%

Managers 15.5%

Outfitters 33%

Comments from users with disabilities:

What is needed is a central clearinghouse for information on what areas in the U.S. have to

offer a person with a disability.

Lack of information is the biggest obstacle. Write a guidebook of all the programs available

and the levels of accessibility to certain units of the NWPS so people can choose where to go

according to their comfort level.

More publicity letting people know what areas are available and what programs can take them

there.

Comments from NWPS managers:

Publicize what is currently available to persons with disabilities via publications and literature.

Create a brochure listing trails easily accessed; rate trails.

Inventory and classify trails according to accessibility levels.

In [our] wilderness education package we need to include special populations.

Concerted effort is needed by the four federal agencies to convey that the wilderness is not just

for young supermen.

Comments from outfitters:

Provide the information, let participants make the call.

Develop a board made up of individuals with disabilities to rate the levels of ease according

to each unit.

Make information readily available to sites and locations already fully accessible. Create an

advisory board made up of nondisabled and disabled to rate areas according to their level of

accessibility. Consult this board to make minimal, but distinct, improvements.

Mass publication about programs or organizations who offer trips into wilderness [for persons

with disabilities].
37

Suggestion 2: Maintain existing regulations--seek access

 without compromising the Wilderness Act.

Users 18.75%

Managers 3.6%

Outfitters 20%

Comments from users with disabilities:

My disability does not prevent me from enjoying wilderness areas, it just adds a logistical

element as to how to get into these areas. Accessibility up to areas must be made standard, but

in the [wilderness] areas they should be left in their natural state.

People with disabilities need to adapt to the conditions they are in. [They] can't expect all

areas to be accessible.

How far can access be taken without hurting the concept of wilderness and the environment?

I don't want to lose the wilderness; rather than having the wilderness adapt, I'd rather see the

persons with disabilities adapt.

Areas would lose some of their attractiveness if we were to make them completely accessible.

Just good to know there are still wild areas--keep them as undeveloped as possible.

Corporate America, in its quest for lucrative markets, continues to use disability as a political

football. In their headlong drive for money they would gladly sacrifice the few remaining

enclaves of national heritage. Don't use disability as a means to open wilderness.

Comments from NWPS managers:

Do not compromise Wilderness Act by allowing ATVs, etc. ...we need to come up with policy

for use of wilderness by people with disabilities.

To provide handicapped access would involve constructing roads or paved trails, which are

contrary to wilderness values. If made accessible, it doesn't remain wilderness.

Do not attempt to alter trails or allow mechanized use. Do not lose sight of wilderness

preservation.

Comments from outfitters:

Don't create accessibility; it goes against the concept of wilderness.

If wilderness is made totally accessible, will it remain wilderness? People with disabilities

must accept their circumstance and some areas may not be accessible.
38

Suggestion 3: Increase accessibility to areas outside 

wilderness (trailheads, parking, restrooms, TDDs in 

ranger stations)

Users 20%

Managers 11.2%

Outfitters 13%

Comments from users with disabilities:

Entry points need to be made accessible...ramps to existing buildings, widened restrooms.

Accessible toilet facilities at entry points.

TDD phone at ranger stations.

Ranger stations need to have truly accessible toileting facilities and ramping.

Braille or raised line maps would help the blind.

Comments from NWPS managers:

Complete totally accessible trails just outside wilderness designations.

Don't feel improvements in travel routes are appropriate. Need to provide ramps and other

structures at trail heads for accessibility.

Handicapped accessible toilets at the trailheads need to be implemented.

Develop the surrounding areas to be totally accessible.

Comments from outfitters:

Have accessible entrance and specific information on levels of accessibility [and] for visually

and hearing impaired.

Construct some mounting ramps for horse mounting. Construct some special ramping at put-in

points at river's edge.
39

Suggestion 4: Increase access inside wilderness (boardwalks, 

widen trails, special permits)

Users 10%

Managers 9.9%

Outfitters 20%

Comments from users with disabilities:

Improve campsites and portage trails.

Signage should be in braille and placed at lowered heights.

Make campsite areas more accessible, ramping from river, provide riverside bathrooms totally

accessible.

Widen paths.

Comments from NWPS managers:

Construct a trail suitable for wheelchair access.

Managers need to be provided with uniform, regionwide policies for granting valid exemptions

to the guidelines of the Wilderness Act

Create specific trails with easy grade and hardened surface, close to trailhead.

Widen and reroute the grade of trails. People with disabilities have a right to visit their forests.

Redesign trails for persons with disabilities.

Special rafting permits for commercial outfitters. Lower fee to offset cost.

Reconsider strict stance of non-use of mechanical equipment. Special permits should be

considered.

Comments from outfitters:

Specialized permits for nonprofit groups--they can't afford fees.

Special permitting process done on a local level--unit specific. Improve all existing camping

facilities, improve toileting facilities, widen trails.
40

Suggestion 5: Issue special permits allowing motors and 

mechanized use for access (ATVs, motorboats, etc.)

Users 10%*

Managers 1.3%

Outfitters 7%

*

 Only two users specifically recommended the use of motors; however several commented on their desire to use

motors in response to the question on whether the restrictions on mechanized use diminishes their ability to enjoy

wilderness. If these are factored in as recommendations, the total number of persons with disabilities who

recommend the use of motorized vehicles is eight, or 10 percent.

Comments from users with disabilities:

Allow restricted use of ATVS.

Allow individualized motorized access to certain areas.

Disabilities or age should not stop people from going to wilderness. Managers of the units

should rent motorized equipment...government shouldn't limit people from using motors.

ATV is a way to see wilderness I could never reach on foot.

How [can I] get out in case an emergency arises? Need mechanized usage.

Comments from NWPS managers:

Develop special area within wilderness to allow motorized use. Specialized permit.

Issue special use permits for motorized use if disabled individual needs this.

Allow use of motors on a limited basis.

Maintain existing regulations that allow for limited motorized use.

Comments from outfitters:

[Provide] access with motorized vehicles.
41

Suggestion 6: Encourage/promote use of outfitters and guides

Users 10%

Managers 13.4%

Outfitters 0

Comments from users with disabilities:

Highly promote existing organizations that enable persons with disabilities to go to wilderness

areas.

Implement trail partners, which advocates people power for access.

Comments from NWPS managers:

Develop partnerships with area guides and specialty outfitters.

Commercial use operators could be encouraged to specifically tailor trips for persons with

disabilities.

Increase usage and dependence on groups that deal with specialized population and the

creative solutions they use.

Market the various outfitters who service persons with disabilities.

Cosponsored disability awareness training for commercial guides.

Comments from outfitters:

None
42

Suggestion 7: Increase funding for better access, including 

facilities, promotion, and scholarships.

Users 6.25%

Managers 2.63%

Outfitters 0

Comments from users with disabilities:

Continue to fund organizations that bring persons with disabilities to wilderness.

Develop more organized programs that take persons with disabilities [that are] federally

funded.

Comments from NWPS managers:

We need an increase in funding and staffing to approach this issue in a positive manner.

The use of this area by persons with disabilities will require an imaginative approach that will

require copious funding.

Specific funding aimed at developing accessible trails.

Lobby to provide funding for retrofit of existing facilities.

Comments from outfitters:

None
43

Suggestion 8: Rely on people power/human companions to gain 

access to wilderness.

Users 6.25%

Managers .33%

Outfitters 0

Comments from users with disabilities:

Rely more on people power...reciprocate.

Go with someone who completely understands your disability.

Rely on friends who are willing to assist your needs while in the wilderness.

Comments from NWPS managers:

A chair-bound person willing to travel with an able bodied friend will probably have an

extraordinary experience.

Comments from outfitters:

None
44

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.
45

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.
46

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 
47

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.
48

Appendices
49

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
50

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.
51

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?
52

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_____
53

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______________________
54

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
55

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
56

The Wilderness Act of 1964 created the National Wilderness

Preservation System (NWP). Congress designated that certain

areas be protected and preserved in their natural condition as

an enduring resource of wilderness.

Many remote, wild places have similar qualities and

characteristics as the designated units of the NWPS, however,

these are not part of the NWPS. Examples of areas that possess

such "wilderness-like" qualities would be Yellowstone National

Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, and many state parks.

However, these are not units of the NWPS.

For the purpose of this study, we are concerned only with

designated units within the National Wilderness Preservation

System. Please see the enclosed map for specific listings and

locations of NWPS units.

For the purpose of this study, persons with disabilities

include those with physical, cognitive and sensory

disabilities and the use of possible assistive devices.

1) Please name up to 5 wilderness areas of the NWPS you have

visited since having a disability. (Please refer to enclosed

map for specific names and locations of NWPS units.)

a) ________________________________________________

b) ________________________________________________

c) ________________________________________________

d) ________________________________________________

e) ________________________________________________

2) Please circle the number that best rates your level of

overall enjoyment of the NWPS areas you listed in

question 1. The letter in front of each response

corresponds to the wilderness you listed in question 1.

Did not Enjoyed Enjoyed Enjoyed Enjoyed a

enjoy very little somewhat very much tremendous 

amount

a) 1 2 3 4 5

b) 1 2 3 4 5

c) 1 2 3 4 5

d) 1 2 3 4 5

e) 1 2 3 4 5

3) How many trips have you taken to wilderness areas in the
57

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_______
58

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.)_____
59

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:

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________
60

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

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:

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________
61

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

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
62

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
63

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____
64

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_____
65

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_____
66

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.
67

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
68

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
69

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
70

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
71

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.
72

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
73

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.
74

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
75

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
76

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
77

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 1 5

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
78

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?
79

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
80

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.
81

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.
82

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.
83

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
84

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
85

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 
86

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
87

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.
88

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.
89

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.
90

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
91

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
92

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
93

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 
94

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
95

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
96

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
97

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
98

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
99

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
100

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.
101

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
102

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.
103

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,
104

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
105

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.
106

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.
107

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.