[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DISABILITY ACCESS IN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, May 11, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-53
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-519 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Elton Gallegly, California Samoa
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Vice Chair Islands
George P. Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Grace F. Napolitano, California
Carolina Tom Udall, New Mexico
Chris Cannon, Utah Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Jim Costa, California
Greg Walden, Oregon Charlie Melancon, Louisiana
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Dan Boren, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Jeff Flake, Arizona Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Rick Renzi, Arizona Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Jay Inslee, Washington
Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina Mark Udall, Colorado
Thelma Drake, Virginia Dennis Cardoza, California
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Cathy McMorris, Washington
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Vacancy
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Ron Kind, Wisconsin
George P. Radanovich, California Tom Udall, New Mexico
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Carolina Charlie Melancon, Louisiana
Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Vice Chair ex officio
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, May 11, 2006........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 3
Pearce, Hon. Stevan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Harding, Dr. JR, Vice Chairman, U.S. Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Washington, D.C.. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Kerr, Jerry, President, Disability Rights Advocates for
Technology, St. Louis, Missouri............................ 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Masica, Sue, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities,
and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
McCarthy, James, Director of Governmental Affairs, National
Federation of the Blind, Baltimore, Maryland............... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Robb, Gary M., Executive Director, National Center on
Accessibility, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Schacter, Janice, Chair, Hearing Access Program, Hearing Loss
Association of America, Bethesda, Maryland................. 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Starnes`, Nancy, Vice President & Chief of Staff, National
Organization on Disability, Washington, D.C................ 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON DISABILITY ACCESS IN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
----------
Thursday, May 11, 2006
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks
Committee on Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building. Hon. Steve Pearce
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Pearce, Christensen and Brown.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVAN PEARCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Pearce. Good morning. Today the Subcommittee on
National Parks will receive testimony from an esteemed panel of
witnesses on the status of disability access in the National
Park System.
The Subcommittee is most interested in how the National
Park Service has worked to create a welcoming environment for
the disabled community, to participate in recreational
opportunities within the system. The Subcommittee is most
interested in learning what alterations have worked for the
Service and the disabled community, and what has not, and where
the Service expects to be 20 years from now in terms of
disability access.
I will say to my colleagues at this point that I agree with
one of the points Ms. Masica included in her statements.
Accommodating the disabled community is very important, but the
Service cannot be expected to address every shortcoming in the
system. There are limits, and I agree.
I believe that the Service should operate from a workable
position of what is practical and feasible. Since becoming
Chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee, I have held a
series of oversight hearings ranging from the NPS Organic Act,
to the NPS management policies and Directors Orders 21, to NPS
business plans, and most recently, on visitation trends in the
National Park System. I, along with Chairman Pombo, believe it
is important for members of this Subcommittee to have serious
and in-depth discussions with the National Park Service, the
stakeholders, and users of the park system on the purpose of
the National Park System, how the National Park Service intends
to manage the park system, how the Service is improving access
to the system, and what priority is given to enhancing the
visitor experience.
I strongly believe that the NPS must continue to be
creative in attracting new visitors to the parks, in
particular, the approximately 54 million disabled Americans who
might believe that the National Park System may not be for
them.
During a recent trip to California, I had the chance and
the opportunity to see firsthand what the Service has done and
continues to do to accommodate disabled visitors at Alcatraz
Island at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and the
Yosemite National Park, the Yosemite Falls. Clearly, the
Service has the tools to improve access and the visitor
experience.
We thank all of the witnesses that will appear before the
Subcommittee today, and look forward to the testimony.
I will hold for Ms. Christensen until she arrives, and we
will let her make her statement then.
Mr. Brown, do you have an opening statement?
OK, let me introduce our first panel while we are seating
Ms. Christensen, and we will allow her statement at that time,
but we have Ms. Sue Masica. She is the Associate Director of
Park Planning, Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service,
Washington, D.C. We have Mr. Gary M. Robb. He is from the
National Center on Accessibility, Indiana University,
Bloomington, Indiana; and Mr. JR Harding who is the Vice
Chairman of the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board in Washington, D.C.
I would now recognize Ms. Christensen for her opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearce follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Stevan Pearce, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks
Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee on National Parks will
receive testimony from our esteemed panel of witnesses on the status of
disability access in the National Park System. The Subcommittee is most
interested in how the National Park Service has worked to create a
welcoming environment for the disabled community to participate in
recreational opportunities within the System. The Subcommittee is most
interested in learning what alterations have worked for the Service and
the disabled community and what has not, and where the Service expects
to be twenty years from know in terms of disability access.
I will say to my colleagues at this point that I agree with one of
the points Ms. Masica included in her statement. Accommodating the
disabled community is very important, but the Service cannot be
expected to address every shortcoming in the System--there are limits.
I believe that the Service t should operate from the workable position
of what is practical and feasible.
Since becoming Chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee, I have
held a series of oversight hearings ranging from the NPS Organic Act,
the NPS Management Policies and Director's Order 21, NPS business plans
and most recently on visitation trends in the National Park System
because I, along with Chairman Pombo, believe it is important for
Members of this subcommittee to have serious and in-depth discussions
with the National Park Service, with stakeholders, and users of the
Park System on the purpose of the National Park System, how the
National Park Service intends manage the park system, how the Service
is improving access to the System, and what priority is given to
enhancing the visitor experience.
I strongly believe that the NPS must continue be creative in
attracting new visitors to the parks, in particular the approximately
54 million disabled Americans who might believe that the National Park
System may not be for them.
During a recent trip to California, I had the opportunity to see
firsthand what the Service has done and continues to do to accommodate
disabled visitors at Alcatraz Island at the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area and Yosemite National Park at Yosemite Falls. Clearly,
the Service has the tools to improve access and the visitor experience.
We thank all of the witnesses that will appear before the
subcommittee today, and look forward to your testimony. I now recognize
Mrs. Christensen for her opening statement.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
the panelists.
Disability access in the National Park System is an
important topic, and I am glad the Subcommittee is reviewing
this matter. It is estimated that nearly one in five Americans
have a disability, and these disabilities can be life-long, or
sometimes they are short term. But regardless of their
duration, as a report to Congress in 2000 noted, accessibility
is an issue that does or has the potential to affect everyone.
Although this hearing will focus on the National Park
Service's disability access, disability access goes far beyond
the National Park System, and so it is indeed a responsibility
for all Federal agencies. So while we are looking at the
programs and services of the National Park, we are by no means
singling the agency out.
The various Federal statutes on disability access have been
summarized by two words--equal treatment. In a 1991 report on
wilderness accessibility for people with disabilities prepared
at the direction of Congress found that most people with
disabilities use and enjoy wilderness areas for the same
reasons and in the same ways as persons without disabilities. I
suspect this will also hold true for those who use our national
park.
That 1991 report also pointed out that individuals with
disabilities did not want special access, rather they wanted
equal access. The 2000 report to Congress on improving access
to outdoor recreation reiterated the point that it is not
special access that is being sought, but equal access.
That report also included a number of recommendations to
the Federal agencies on how to improve access to outdoor
recreation on Federal lands, and I hope we will have the
opportunity to discuss those recommendations with the witnesses
this morning.
In St. John, in the national park back about a year and a
half ago, there was a very good meeting that was held between
the Park Service, some of the private concessionaires, and the
disability community, and out of that came some very
substantive recommendations and ways that we could make it more
accessible, so I am glad to say that one of the parks in my
district is already addressing that issue.
I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
oversight hearing, and I appreciate the appearance of our
witnesses today.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you very much. Ms. Masica.
STATEMENT OF SUE MASICA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING,
FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Masica. For people with disabilities in the National
Park System, the Park Service, as you have noted, is strongly
committed to the principle of accessibility in our park units.
We believe that the essence of this goal is to ensure, to the
highest degree that is practical and feasible, that the
nation's citizens with disabilities have the same opportunities
to visit and experience the wonders of the National Park System
that are afforded to all other citizens.
In some instances, the very nature of the environment we
manage poses some inherent restrictions to full accessibility.
The Park Service operates under the requirements of both the
enabling legislation passed in 1916 that established the
mission of the Park Service to conserve resources unimpaired
and provide for public enjoyment, along with the requirements
of the Architectural Barriers Act and Title IV of the
Rehabilitation Act.
It is our desire that all citizens, including those with
disabilities, have the opportunity to work in, visit, and enjoy
this nation's natural and cultural treasures that are managed
by the Park Service.
The primary approach that we have used is to charge each
park superintendent who is on-the-ground manager with the
responsibility for ensuring the compliance with the
requirements of the Architectural Barriers Act and the
Rehabilitation Act. This involves evaluating facilities and
programs to determine the level of access and implementing
actions to make required modifications. Improvement are using a
variety of fund sources that are appropriated to the Park
Service, fee-revenue available to the parks, and other monies
available to the parks, such as concession fees.
We have also established an extensive program to provide
technical assistance and continuing education to our managers
to assist them and the park staff in better understanding the
legal requirements and the methods and techniques for ensuring
that alterations are made appropriately.
Under this approach, every park in the system has made
progress in identifying and correcting deficiencies. The fee
program, in particular, has had a significant positive effect
on improving accessibility in our facilities. In four years
between 2001 and 2005, over 800 projects were funded with fee
revenues that included accessibility as a component of the
project. That represents 25 percent of the funded projects and
resulted in over $140 million. This project has funded
improvements in campgrounds, picnic areas, overlooks trails,
visitors centers, interpretative media, interpretative
programming, and transportation systems.
Our goal is to ensure that visitors with disabilities can
visit the parks and to the greatest extent practical have
access to the same experiences and services provided to all
visitors. We have made substantial progress toward this goal
but more still remains to be done. We have identified several
challenges that confront us as we try to reach full compliance
and we are working to address them so that we can continue to
improve the level of access in our parks.
First is the size and the age of our infrastructure. Many
of our buildings built prior to the 1960s where no
consideration was given to accessibility. So we have the
challenge of having to alter access barriers in a high
percentage of older facilities which in many cases do not lend
themselves to easy modifications.
We estimate that about 30 percent of our buildings are
historic. This doesn't exempt them from accessibility
requirements, but does add an additional layer of review and
deliberation in order to determine the appropriate way to
provide access while at the same time preserving and protecting
the historically significant features of the buildings and also
the landscapes.
Third, many of our units consist of natural and undeveloped
lands which include campgrounds and trails that pose some
additional difficulties in providing access while also
preserving and protecting the environment. Official access
standards for many of these types of facilities do not
currently exist. The Park Service has been working with our
fellow land managing agencies and the Access Board in the
development of official guidelines for these facilities.
While the guidelines are being developed, we are still
attempting to make these facilities as accessible as is
practical. You saw some excellent examples in your recent trip
to California. Also, we have an example at White Sands, in your
home State of New Mexico, where volunteers worked with the Park
Service to construct a new 900-foot wheelchair accessible
inter-dune boardwalk. The boardwalk guides visitors through a
vegetated area between sand dunes to an overlook that affords a
panoramic view of the world's largest gypsum sand dune field.
The Park Service staff and volunteers also then provide one-on-
one interpretation to visitors along the boardwalk.
Accessibility also involves not only ensuring that citizens
with disabilities can access the parks, but that once there
they can also enjoy the same benefits that are provided to
other visitors. This means that educational and interpretative
services, such as films, publications, lectures, wayside
exhibits can be used effectively by visitors who are blind or
visually limited, and by those who are deaf or have hearing
loss.
The Park Service is producing a variety of interpretative
tools to make programs and media more accessibility to visitors
with disabilities such as closed-captioning for all the AV
products shown in park visitor centers.
In the past, superintendents were encouraged to work on
making each park accessible. However, there were no
comprehensive system-wide standards. To correct this, we are
incorporating access into our asset management program to
assure that accessibility is addressed day to day and not as a
special separate initiative, and we are doing a comprehensive
assessment service-wide on that.
We are also studying and evaluating the impact of emerging
technologies. Over the past several months a number of parks
have received requests from individuals with disabilities
regarding Segways. The Park Service has been studying this
situation, have been reviewing policies and practices of other
Federal agencies. At this time we have not written a specific
service-wide position when Segways are used by individuals with
disabilities as mobility aids, but we are encouraging managers
to look at the situation and to temporarily allow and encourage
them to establish park-specific interim policies and practices
regarding the use of Segways. Then after further study and
evaluation, we will be looking at whether we should do a
service-wide policy.
Mr. Chairman, that summarizes my statement. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Masica follows:]
Statement of Sue Masica, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities,
and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide an update on the status of accessibility for
people with disabilities in the National Park System. We are pleased to
discuss the status of the National Park Service (NPS) Accessibility
Management Program, the goals and objectives of our program, our
accomplishments over the past several years, and the initiatives
underway for future and continuing improvements.
The NPS is strongly committed to the principle of accessibility in
our National Park units. We believe that the essence of this goal is to
ensure, to the highest degree that is practical and feasible, that the
nation's 54 million citizens with disabilities have the same
opportunities to visit and experience the wonders of the National Park
System that are afforded to all other citizens. The inclusion of the
terms ``practical and feasible'' is important, because in some
instances, the very nature of the environment that we manage poses some
inherent restrictions to full accessibility.
In 1916, Congress created the NPS to ``promote and regulate the use
of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and
reservations,'' and to ``conserve'' the resources and values in these
areas ``unimpaired'' for the enjoyment of future generations. At the
same time, the NPS is required by the Architectural Barriers Act of
1968 and Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to ensure that our
facilities and programs are accessible to and usable by citizens with
disabilities. To address these sometimes competing legislative
mandates, the NPS has approached the issue of accessibility in parks in
a comprehensive and organized way, rather than on a project-by-project
basis, through the creation of the Accessibility Management Program.
The primary goal of the program is to develop and coordinate a
systemwide, comprehensive approach to achieving the highest level of
accessibility that is practical, while ensuring consistency with the
other legal mandates of conservation and protection of the resources we
manage.
In 1980, the NPS began and has continued to work with accessibility
coordinators in the parks and at each regional and program office, to
assess the level of accessibility at each park; to identify the
barriers to accessibility; to develop policies and guidelines regarding
appropriate methods and techniques for improving access; to provide
technical assistance and in-service training on effective approaches
and program implementation; and to take action on an on-going basis at
the individual park level to eliminate identified barriers.
We have made these efforts, not only because it is required by law,
but also because it is our desire that all citizens, including those
with disabilities, have the opportunity to work in, visit and enjoy the
wonders of this nation's natural and cultural treasures. Providing
optimal levels of accessibility and opportunities in the programs and
facilities of the National Park System have been reinforced over the
past few years by the issuance of departmental regulations, additions
to the NPS Management Policies, and the development of Director's
Orders.
The primary approach that we have used over the past several years
is to charge each superintendent with the responsibility of ensuring
that each park is in compliance with the appropriate legal requirements
and with NPS policy regarding accessibility. This has involved
evaluating their facilities and programs to determine the level of
access and to implement actions on an annual basis by utilizing
appropriated funds, fee revenues and other funds available to the parks
to make required modifications. This strategy involves ensuring that as
new facilities and programs are developed, they are in compliance; and
as existing facilities and programs are altered or renovated, that they
are made accessible according to the appropriate standards or
guidelines. We have also established an extensive program to provide
technical assistance and continuing education in order to assist the
park staff in better understanding the legal requirements, and the
methods and techniques for ensuring that alterations are made
appropriately. Under this approach, every park in the National Park
System has made progress in identifying and correcting deficiencies.
One program that had a positive effect on improving accessibility
in our facilities is the recreation fee program, which was instituted
as the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program in 1997 and replaced by
the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act in 2004. The recreation
fee program authorizes 100 percent of the revenue generated by charging
fees to be returned to the NPS, with 80 percent remaining at the site
where it is collected and 20 percent to be used servicewide at the
Director's discretion. In FY 2001, the NPS Director allocated $5
million of the 20 percent fee revenues to address accessibility needs
in the low revenue and non-collecting parks. The $5 million in fee
revenues funded over 120 projects in all regions and in over 100
different parks in FY 2002. We are proposing that a similar program be
set up for FY 2007.
In addition to the $5 million of the 20 percent fee revenues, the
NPS has worked to ensure that accessibility improvements are included
in any project that involves the alteration to an existing facility or
building. From FY 2001 through FY 2005, over 800 projects were funded
through the recreation fee program (both 80 percent and 20 percent)
that included accessibility as a part of the project. This constitutes
approximately 25 percent of the funded projects each year and totals
over $140 million. These projects have funded improvements in
campgrounds, picnic areas, overlooks, trails, visitor centers,
interpretive media, interpretive programs, and transportation systems.
Some examples of park projects funded with recreation fees include
Cowpens National Battlefield in South Carolina, where the visitor
center was modified to meet access standards for employees and
visitors, including replacing the 21-year-old information desk,
reconfiguring parking spaces, installing an elevator and producing
Braille and audio tapes to enable visually impaired visitors to
experience the exhibits. At Joshua Tree National Park in California,
the Hidden Valley day-use area was rehabilitated by paving 900 linear
feet of access road, developing four new accessible picnic sites, and
constructing 1,420 linear feet of hard surfaced accessible walkways.
Our goal is to ensure that visitors with disabilities can visit the
parks, and to the greatest extent practical, have access to the same
experiences and services provided to all visitors. We have made
substantial progress towards this goal, but more still remains to be
done. We have identified several barriers to reaching full compliance
and we are working to address them so that we can continue to improve
the level of access in our parks.
First, a large percentage of the infrastructure of the NPS,
including the administrative buildings and visitor contact stations,
was constructed in the early 1960's. Our asset database reveals that we
have 18,700 buildings currently in active use in the National Park
System, of which many were constructed before 1968 when the
Architectural Barriers Act (which requires access in Federal
construction) was enacted. This means that a high percentage of these
buildings were constructed without consideration for accessibility.
Consequently, we have the challenge of having to alter access barriers
in a high percentage of older facilities, which in many cases do not
lend themselves to easy modifications. We are currently involved in a
major program to conduct Comprehensive Condition Assessments of the NPS
infrastructure and to determine the corrective actions needed to bring
these structures into compliance with the current requirements.
Second, 30 percent of the buildings and structures of the NPS are
on the National Register of Historic Places. This does not exempt them
from accessibility requirements, but does add an additional layer of
review and deliberation in order to determine ways to provide access,
while at the same time, preserving and protecting the historically
significant features and landscapes. The process for finding this
balance is set forth in several Federal regulations dating back to
1984. We are making some progress, such as the installation of an
interior elevator to access the great meeting hall at Boston National
Historical Park's Faneuil Hall or the elimination of steps and the
installation of accessible walkways to historic buildings at Fort
Vancouver National Historical Park in Washington State.
Third, many of the units of the National Park System consist of
natural and undeveloped lands, including campgrounds and trails that
pose some additional difficulties in providing access while also
preserving and protecting the environment. It is important to note that
official access standards for many of these types of facilities do not
currently exist. The NPS has been working closely with other land-
managing agencies and the U.S. Access Board in the development of
official guidelines for these facilities. While these guidelines are
being developed, we are still attempting to make these facilities as
accessible as is practical. For example, at White Sands National
Monument in New Mexico, Americorps volunteers worked with the NPS to
construct a new 900-foot wheelchair-accessible interdune boardwalk.
This boardwalk guides visitors through a vegetated area between sand
dunes to an overlook that affords a panoramic view of the world's
largest gypsum sand dune field. NPS staff and volunteers provide one-
on-one interpretation to visitors on the boardwalk.
Fourth, accessibility involves not only ensuring that citizens with
disabilities can access our parks, but also that once there, they can
enjoy the same benefits that are provided to other visitors. This means
that the educational and interpretive services provided, such as films,
publications, lectures and wayside exhibits, can be used effectively by
visitors who are blind or visually limited, and by those who are deaf
or have hearing loss. This involves providing Braille and large print
publications, audio-descriptions of our audio-visual programs, and
tactile exhibits for those with visual limitations and providing sign
language interpretation and assistive listening systems for those with
hearing limitations. Exact guidelines and standards on how to
effectively meet the needs of the populations who experience a wide-
range of visual and hearing loss are still in the process of being
developed. Through the Harpers Ferry Center, the NPS is producing a
variety of interpretive tools to make programs and media more
accessible to visitors with disabilities such as closed captioning for
audio-visual products shown in park visitor centers.
One recent project, the new exhibit at Kings Mountain National
Military Park in South Carolina, was designed with the intent of
providing access features for all populations in the most integrated
way possible. Special attention was given to incorporate features for
mobility, hearing impaired or visually impaired visitors in a seamless
and unobtrusive manner. Audio elements are included at each exhibit to
provide information for visitors who cannot read the text. These audio
elements also offer audio-descriptions of the visual exhibits. In
addition, all video components have unique flat screen monitors that
provide captions for those who cannot hear the information. Tactile
elements including touchable reproductions of the Revolutionary War Era
``Ferguson Rifles'' were produced to reveal the inner workings of the
firing mechanism and to allow a hands-on experience for all visitors
including those with limited vision. The integrated services do not
require visitors to use or request special services or equipment. This
project was a first of its kind endeavor, and we are planning to
conduct evaluations of its effectiveness in delivering information to a
broad and diverse population.
The NPS is working hard to identify and solve any additional
barriers we face as we work towards the highest level of accessibility
possible for all visitors to our parks. In the past, all
superintendents were encouraged to work on making each park more
accessible; however, there were no comprehensive, systemwide standards
that had to be met. To correct this, we are incorporating access
requirements into the comprehensive NPS Asset Management Program to
ensure accessibility is addressed on a day-to-day basis, and not as a
special or separate initiative.
By taking significant steps to incorporate the evaluation of
accessibility needs into this comprehensive program, the NPS has a much
more accurate picture of the current situation, including the costs of
the repair and rehabilitation needs of the NPS, and will also serve to
elevate access needs into the larger picture of asset management. In
order to establish a baseline on the level of access in our parks, the
NPS will be completing accessibility evaluations at a range of parks
across different regions over the next 12 months. The results of this
project combined with the evaluations already completed will give us
information to better assess the degree of accessibility deficiencies
that exist and better project the cost associated with correcting those
deficiencies.
In order to create knowledge and awareness of the legal
requirements for accessibility, including the regulations, guidelines
and standards that must be followed, the NPS is implementing a program
of technical assistance and continuing education. To this end, the NPS,
through a cooperative partnership with Indiana University, has
established the National Center on Accessibility (NCA). Through the
NCA, we have been able to provide continuing education opportunities
related to accessibility to over 1,850 NPS personnel from 240 different
parks. In addition, the NCA has offered extensive technical assistance
programs and services to the parks, and have sponsored research and
demonstration programs to find more effective ways of achieving access
in outdoor recreation environments. The NCA also maintains an active
website that receives over 400,000 hits per month. In addition to
serving the NPS, these services are also made available to other park
and recreation agencies at the local, State and Federal levels. We have
recently extended this cooperative agreement for an additional 5 years
through FY 2010, and through this cooperative partnership we will
continue to provide training and technical assistance to the parks.
We are also studying and evaluating the impact of emerging
technologies on the expansion of opportunities for people with
disabilities in the NPS. For instance, over the past several months, a
number of parks have received requests from individuals with
disabilities to use the Segway Human Transporter, a two-wheeled,
gyroscopically stabilized, battery powered personal transportation
system, in the parks as their primary means of mobility. The NPS has
been studying this situation and has been reviewing policies and
practices of other Federal agencies regarding this issue. At the
present time, we have not written a specific servicewide position on
allowing Segways when used by individuals with disabilities as their
mobility aide. Consistent with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, there
are places where the use of Segways would be appropriate. Because of
safety and resource management issues, it might not be appropriate in
all parks and we are evaluating this. In order to better evaluate the
long-term effect of this issue and to better assess the impacts on the
diverse settings represented throughout the National Park System, the
NPS has decided to temporarily allow and encourage each superintendent
to establish park-specific interim policies and practices regarding the
use of Segways by people with disabilities. After further study and
evaluation of this issue at a number of parks, the NPS will make a
decision with regard to the development of a servicewide policy.
Finally, the NPS has taken steps to better ensure that projects are
in compliance with the appropriate standards when they are designed and
constructed. Through the Denver Service Center (DSC), trained
professionals work with parks and regional staff to review projects
during the planning, design and construction stages to provide guidance
and oversight on accessibility requirements. During FY 2004, the DSC
worked on 153 projects that covered a total of over $410 million in
design and construction costs.
In conclusion, the NPS leadership is dedicated to providing the
highest level of access that is practical, in conformance with the
appropriate legal mandates and servicewide policies. We are continuing
to encourage all of our park superintendents to identify barriers that
limit full accessibility to our visitors, and to take actions to
eliminate those barriers. Over the past several years, with the help of
our staff, consultants, and partners, we have made a great deal of
progress toward enhancing the quality of our accessibility program.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members might have.
______
Mr. Pearce. Thank you very much.
Mr. Robb.
STATEMENT OF GARY M. ROBB, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ACCESSIBILITY,
INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA
Mr. Robb. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to discuss accessibility for people
with disabilities in the National Park Service.
The National Center on Accessibility is a center of Indiana
University's Department of Recreation and Park Administration
in the School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation in
Bloomington. The center was created in 1992 under a cooperative
agreement with the Accessibility Management Program of the
National Park Service.
National Center on Accessibility is committed to the full
participation of people with disabilities in parks, recreation,
and tourism. Through our research, technical assistance, and
education we focus in universal design and practicable
accessibility solutions that create inclusive recreation
opportunities for people of all abilities.
Since 1992, we have offered 121 training programs, often
near national parks in all parts of the country. We trained
over 1,500 National Park Service employees and concession
operators, and we have offered distance learning to National
Park Service staff via satellite, the internet, and through
development of CDs.
We provide technical assistance to the Park Service through
telephone conversations, technical reports, state-of-the-art
and up-to-date website, e-mails, newsletters, videos, and
onsite assessments and consultation. Our technical assistance
focuses on assisting the National Park Service personnel meet
the requirements of the Architectural Barriers Act and Section
504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act.
Our center conducts and facilitates research on issues that
are often generated from staff at the National Park Service
units. Our research has helped shape the development of
national policy and accessibility standards. Examples of topics
that we have studied include swimming pool accessibility, beach
devices and surfaces; accessible trails surfaces, campground
and picnic area accessibility and policies, visitor preferences
and expectations when they visit national parks, National Park
Service perceptions of accessibility in their park units, and I
will leave a copy of many of these reports for the Committee to
review.
In addition to our training and technical assistance and
research activities, we have also provided more in-depth onsite
accessibility assistance to over 45 National Park Service
units. Example of the parks that we have assisted on various
accessibility issues include the FDR Home, the Trail of Tears
Museum, Gulf Islands National Seashore; Yosemite National Park,
Bandelier National Monument, Petroglyph National Monument,
Chaco Culture National Historic Park, Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, Natchez National Historic Park, and the Harpers Ferry
Center.
We constantly look for the feedback on the value and impact
of our services and as just one example, in our latest 2005
survey over 80 percent of our trails training program
participants said that they had actually been able to use
course information in their park within six months of the
training program.
We have made significant strides or significant strides
have been made in recent years, particularly in the area of
physical accessibility. However, there is still much more to be
done to ensure park visitors with disabilities have the same
benefit of the services available to visitors without
disabilities. With appropriate resources, we believe that we
could assist the Park Service in the future to accelerate
accessibility improvements in the following ways:
The development of policies and guidelines for new or
renovated exhibits, and other media such as captioning, audio
description, descriptive listening systems, maps and models.
These should all be developed to ensure that any new or
renovated exhibit is accessible.
This should be a priority and NCA could assist the National
Park Service by providing training for exhibit designers,
consultation with Harpers Ferry staff, and training for
construction personnel to increase the assurance that
accessibility is not only designed in the projects, but it is
also not overlooked in the construction process.
It is clear to us that many of the National Park Service
managers have an understanding of the standards under the
Architectural Barriers Act, but lack the same understanding of
the requirements for program access as required by Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act.
In most instances the National Park Service depends on
exhibit design contractors to ensure exhibit accessibility, and
they also lack the knowledge and understanding of Section 504.
As the National Park Service continues to conduct
comprehensive condition assessments on its assets, it is
imperative that accessibility deficiencies be identified. NCA
could assist the National Park Service by mobilizing assessment
teams as well as to continue to provide training for National
Park Service managers so that they are equipped to complete the
assessments.
In closing, it should be noted that the status of
accessibility in the National Park Service is not unlike other
Federal, state, or local recreation and land management
agencies. Across the board at all levels park and recreation
professionals are challenged with creating access and
retrofitting facilities and unique recreation environments with
limited resources, budgets, and staff expertise.
Thousands of visitors with disabilities to national parks
have directly benefited from over the past 15 years from the
cooperative agreement between the National Park Service and
Indiana University. There is still more to do. Through
continued support and partnerships such as this, the National
Park Service has one of the largest stewards of public lands in
the world can accelerate it accessibility initiatives, and
continue to serve as an accessibility management model to other
recreational land managing agencies.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robb follows:]
Statement of Gary M. Robb, Executive Director,
Indiana University's National Center on Accessibility
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss accessibility for
people with disabilities in the National Park Service.
The National Center on Accessibility-National Park Service Partnership
The National Center on Accessibility (NCA) is a Center of Indiana
University's Department of Recreation and Park Administration in the
School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation. The Center was
created in 1992 under a Cooperative Agreement with the Accessibility
Management Program of the National Park Service (NPS). The funding
provided by NPS under the Cooperative Agreement, currently $272,000 per
year, provides just under 50% of the operating budget for NCA.
The NCA is committed to the full participation of people with
disabilities in parks, recreation, and tourism. Through its
comprehensive services of research, technical assistance, and
education, we focus on universal design and practical accessibility
solutions that create inclusive recreation opportunities for people of
all abilities.
TRAINING
Since 1992, NCA has:
Offered 121 training courses, often in or near national
parks, in all parts of the country
Been attended by over 1500 NPS employees and concession
operators.
Offered distance learning via satellite, the internet and
CD's.
The training programs for NPS personnel have focused on topics such
as retrofitting of park facilities, designing media for accessibility/
exhibits, comprehensive accessibility planning and universal design. We
also provide both classroom and hands-on-training on subjects such as
trails, campgrounds, and picnic and visitor services.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
On-going technical assistance is provided to the NPS through
telephone conversations, technical reports, a state of the art and up
to date website, emails, newsletters, videos, and onsite assessments
and consultation. Our technical assistance focuses on assisting NPS
personnel in order to meet the requirements of the Architectural
Barriers Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. NCA also
provides outreach technical assistance and training programs to state
and municipal recreation land management agencies on compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
RESEARCH
NCA conducts and facilitates research on issues critical to
accessibility in the NPS. In conjunction with NCA research partners at
other Universities (such as Minnesota, Tennessee and Georgia); our
research has helped shape the development of national policy and
accessibility standards. Included are:
A swimming pool accessibility study for the U.S. Access
Board resulting in the development of accessibility standards (ABAAS)
Performance of assistive mobility devices and temporary
surfaces for beach access;
Effectiveness of surface treatments to create accessible
trails.
Functional aspects of accessible picnic elements;
Activity of people with disabilities in the National
Survey of Recreation and the Environment;
Assessment of visitor expectations and perceptions in
outdoor developed areas; and
Campground accessibility policies and practices.
Our research is based on questions that are received directly from
the parks and where study is required to assist the parks in making
affordable and practical decisions on creating better access. As an
example, our study on Visitor Expectations and Perceptions of Program
and Physical Accessibility in the National Park Service was conducted
on site at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Blue Ridge Parkway,
Shenandoah National Park, Mammoth Cave National Park, and Hot Springs
National Park. Similarly, our current national research on accessible
trail surface alternatives is a result of the high volume of questions
that we received from National Park staff on this issue.
Impact
The National Center on Accessibility constantly seeks feedback on
the value and impact of its services. In 1995, our first impact study
revealed that 100% of the survey respondents were either satisfied or
very satisfied with our services. More importantly, 97% reported that
the services that they received from NCA had had at least a moderate
impact on their ability to serve people with disabilities. This level
of impact was consistent in responses to questions about NCA research,
training, and technical assistance. In 2002, the Indiana University
Center for Survey Research conducted a telephone survey of NCA training
program participants for the preceding five year period. Once again the
survey results were encouraging with over 85% of the respondents
indicating that the training program that they had attended had
improved their attitudes towards accessibility and towards people with
disabilities; and over 75% indicated that as a result, they had been
able to initiate more physical access to their facilities. However,
just over 50% indicated that they had made any improvements or progress
in program accessibility. The latter is significant, in that an earlier
study conducted by NCA in 1999 had indicated a general lack of
understanding of program accessibility among NPS respondents. In 2005,
Quality Values, Inc. conducted a six month online survey to determine
how many training participants in a trails accessibility course had
been able to actually implement information learned in the course. Over
80% of the survey respondents had been able to use course information
at their park within six months of the training.
ONSITE VISITATIONS AND ASSISTANCE
In addition to our training, technical assistance, and research
activities, NCA has provided more in-depth onsite accessibility
assistance to over 45 National Park Service units. Examples of this
assistance include:
Home of FDR--NCA participated as the accessibility expert
in a Value Analysis to determine the best method of making the second
floor of the Home of FDR accessible to visitors with disabilities.
Trail of Tears Museum, Cherokee Cultural Heritage Center,
Tahlequah, OK
We provided advice on Universal Design and accessibility
throughout the planning, design, fabrication and completion of the
exhibition. This project received a national media award by the
National Association of Interpretation in 2001.
Gulf Islands National Seashore was requested to advise
the Gulf Islands NS Wayside Project team on the outdoor exhibits and
waysides as a part of the hurricane recovery process.
Yosemite NP--We participated as the accessibility
consultant on the Yosemite Valley Visitors Center Exhibit Hall planning
process, and provided accessibility advice to the exhibit contractor.
Yosemite is currently in the process of contracting for the
rehabilitation of the Exhibit Hall that will include accessibility
features.
Bandelier NM--NCA provided accessibility advice on the
Park's museum rehabilitation project. Bandelier has since rehabilitated
the museum and has included accessibility in both physical and
programmatic areas.
Petroglyph National Monument--We provided accessibility
advice to the park staff on the long range planning for both physical
and programmatic aspects of the park's future plans. The park has since
made exhibit modifications that include accessibility and are currently
developing an audio described video.
Chaco Culture NHP--Site Evaluation providing
recommendations & guidance for accessibility in a historic and
culturally sensitive site.
Cape Hatteras National Seashore has, as a result of a
complaint, and consultation by NCA, developed more disability friendly
policies for visitors to the light house. NCA training of Seashore
staff has resulted in new policies that have translated into improved
visitor experiences according to management.
Natchez National Historic Park has made major
accessibility improvements to the grounds, mansion, and exhibits and as
a result has received two accessibility awards for the changes made.
Harpers Ferry Center--NCA has been instrumental in the
development of the large print format brochure for the C & O Canal NHP.
What are the major current needs on accessibility in the NPS?
Significant strides have been made in recent years, particularly in
the area of physical accessibility. However, there is still much more
to be done to ensure park visitors with disabilities have the same
benefit of the services available to visitors without disabilities.
With the appropriate resources, we believe that we could assist the
Park Service in the future to accelerate accessibility improvements in
the following ways:
As we identified in both our 1999 and 2002 studies cited
earlier, a major need is for NPS Managers to insure that accessibility
is built into all new construction plans as well as in all retrofitting
and rehabilitation projects. All designs and projects require oversight
and supervision by someone with knowledge of accessibility design and
alteration standards. We believe that training for design and
construction personnel may greatly increase the assurance that
accessibility will be included in all such projects.
The development of policies and guidelines for new or
renovated exhibits and other media such as captioning, audio
description, assistive listening systems, maps and models should be
developed to insure that any new or renovated exhibit is accessible.
This should be a priority, and NCA can assist the NPS by providing
training for exhibit designers and consultation with NPS Harpers Ferry
staff. It is clear that NPS mangers have an understanding of the
standards under the Architectural Barriers Act but lack the same
understanding of the requirements for program access of the 1973
Rehabilitation Act, Section 504. In most instances, the NPS depends on
exhibit design contractors to insure exhibit accessibility and they
also lack the knowledge and understanding of Section 504.
As the NPS continues to conduct comprehensive condition
assessments on its assets, it is imperative that accessibility
deficiencies be identified in those assessments. NCA could assist in
this regard by mobilizing assessment teams, as well as continue to
provide training for NPS managers so that they are equipped to complete
the assessments.
While physical accessibility remains a major need throughout the
National Park system, programmatic accessibility should be treated with
equal concern. It appears that many NPS units do not fully understand
programmatic accessibility. Program accessibility is not as tangible as
physical accessibility but is just as important. NPS staff has major
difficulties in understanding and incorporating programmatic
accessibility into their planning process. We are encouraged that more
and more parks are contacting us for assistance in this area, but the
lack of understanding and overall concern for making exhibits,
interpretive programs and audio visual presentations remains.
On a personal note, I had the opportunity to spend several days
during the summer of 2005 in three western states National Parks. I had
the opportunity to speak with park staff in each park and to review
accessibility features while there. In general, I found that there was
an absence of accessible exhibits and audio visual programs in each
park. Accessible wayside features were rare. In talking with NPS staff,
they did not seem to have extensive knowledge of program accessibility,
did not know if their visitor centers videos were captioned or audio
described and couldn't find or didn't know how to use them when they
did. There was a lack of knowledge and concern among NPS staff that I
spoke with in each park, regarding the priority for accessibility. I
was also aware that at one park, little progress had been made in
addressing a 1999 accessibility audit report from the NPS Accessibility
Management Program staff, which was conducted as a result of a formal
complaint.
Conclusion
In closing, it should be noted that the status of accessibility in
the National Park Service is not unlike other federal, state or local
recreation land management agencies. Across the board, at all levels,
park and recreation professionals are challenged with creating access
and retrofitting facilities and unique recreation environments with
limited resources, budgets, and staff expertise. Thousands of visitors
with disabilities to national, state and even neighborhood parks have
directly benefited over the last 14 years from the cooperative
agreement between the NPS and Indiana University. But there is still
more to do. Through continued support and partnerships such as this,
the NPS, as one the largest stewards of public lands in the world, can
persevere and accelerate its accessibility initiatives and continue to
serve as an accessibility management model to other recreation land
management entities.
______
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Harding.
STATEMENT OF JR HARDING, VICE CHAIRMAN, U.S. ARCHITECTURAL AND
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Harding. Thank you. Chairman Pearce, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you.
I am pleased to present testimony today on behalf of the
Access Board, and ask that my statement be included in the
written record.
I am Dr. JR Harding from Tallahassee, Florida, public
member, and the current Vice Chairman of the U.S. Access Board.
With me today is Jim Raggio, our Board's General Counsel and
Peggy Greenwell, the principal staff member working on our
outdoor developed area.
From our earlier efforts to enforce the Architectural
Barrier Act of 1968, to our ongoing efforts to enforce and
write accessibility guidelines under the Americans With
Disabilities Act, the Access Board's objective has always been
the same: to improve access for persons with disabilities
throughout the nation.
The Access Board and the Park Service have a long history
of working together to improve access. The Department of
Interior is a member of the Access Board and has provided
invaluable input in our efforts to make outdoor developed areas
more accessible to persons with disabilities.
Staff from the Access Board and the Park Service are
continuously collaborating on ways to make the parks more
accessible to persons with disabilities. Access Board members
have visited several of the national parks to gain firsthand
knowledge about the distinctive issues in our National Park
System. Of course, this collaborative behavior will continue.
Let me now address the Access Board's current rulemaking
for the outdoor developed areas. When we use the term ``outdoor
developed areas,'' we are referring to facilities such as
trails, camping, and picnic areas. The Access Board
acknowledges that these areas are often very unique and
ultimately the accessibility guidelines must strike a balance
between access to persons with disabilities while recognizing
that some outdoor areas possess unique challenges to
accessibility.
As the Board has worked its way through the many issues
surrounding access to the outdoor developed areas, we have
sought to promote thoughtful deliberations among all affected
parties. In July of 1993, the Board convened a recreational
access advisory committee. The following year the report became
the basis of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. The
comments we received from the advanced notice revealed that
there was a lack of consensus on several issues including how
to make a trail accessible.
Consequently, the Board formed a regulatory negotiation
committee to resolve these issues. The regulatory negotiation
committee met for two years and arrived at a consensus of
accessibility requirements for the outdoor areas, including
trails, camping, and picnic areas.
The Board's commitment was that it would publish the report
as proposed if the committee reached a consensus, and we intend
to honor that commitment.
The Access Board's original rulemaking plan called for
issuing a proposed rule under both the Americans With
Disabilities Act, and the Architectural Barrier Act. The issues
for this rulemaking are complex and no current comprehensive
accessibility requirements currently exist for these areas.
Therefore, the Board has decided to proceed methodically
and to developed proposed rule based solely on a rulemaking
authority under the Architectural Barrier Act. The proposed
rule will address outdoor developed areas that are designed,
built, altered with Federal funds or leased by Federal
agencies.
The Board made this decision to limit its rulemaking
facility to areas covered by the Architectural Barrier Act in
order to gain a better understanding of the rule's impact on
parks and recreation facilities prior to making these
provisions applicable to the developed areas covered by the
Americans With Disabilities Act.
Park Service and other Federal land management agencies are
already following technical provisions from earlier reports. To
give you two quick examples of how these guidelines impact the
outdoor developed areas:
First, when a new trail is being constructed, it would have
to comply with certain technical specifications such as width
and slope. Although technical provisions for accessibility
trails apply, there could be conditions where it is not
possible or it would not be feasible during terrain issues or
common construction practices.
Second, as found in other guidelines, there will only be a
percentage of outdoor elements, like picnic tables and cooking
surfaces, that will be required to be accessible.
We believe that the rulemaking on outdoor developed areas
will better assist in opening up recreational opportunities for
persons with disabilities. The Access Board plans to submit a
proposed rule along with the regulatory assessment to the
Office of Management and Budget this June.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to any questions, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harding follows:]
Statement of JR Harding, Vice Chairman, U.S. Access Board
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I am pleased to present
testimony today on behalf of the Access Board and ask that my written
statement be made a part of the record. I am JR Harding a public member
from Tallahassee, FL and the Vice Chair of the Access Board.
Accompanying me today is Jim Raggio, the Board's General Counsel and
Peggy Greenwell, the principal staff person working on our outdoor
developed areas rulemaking.
From our early efforts to enforce the Architectural Barriers Act of
1968 to our on-going efforts to write accessibility guidelines under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Access Board's objective has
always been the same: to improve access for persons with disabilities
throughout our nation.
The Access Board and the Park Service have a long history of
working together to improve access. The Department of Interior is a
member of the Board and has provided invaluable input to our efforts to
make outdoor developed areas more accessible to persons with
disabilities. Staff from the Board and the Park Service are continually
collaborating on ways to make parks more accessible to persons with
disabilities. Board members have visited several national parks to gain
first hand knowledge about the unique issues in national parks and this
practice will undoubtedly continue.
Now let me turn to the Board's rulemaking for outdoor developed
areas. When we use the term ``outdoor developed areas'' we are
referring to facilities such as trails and camping and picnic areas.
The Board acknowledges that these areas are often very unique and that
ultimately our accessibility guidelines must strike a balance between
the need to provide access to persons with disabilities while
recognizing that some outdoor areas pose unique challenges to
accessibility.
Over the course of time as the Board has worked its way through the
many issues surrounding access to outdoor developed areas we have
sought to promote thoughtful deliberation among all affected parties.
The Board convened a Recreation Access Advisory Committee in July 1993
and the following year their report became the basis of an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The comments we received from the
Advance Notice revealed that there was a lack of consensus on several
issues including how to make trails accessible.
This led the Board to form a regulatory negotiation committee to
resolve the issues. The regulatory negotiation committee met for two
years and arrived at a consensus on accessibility requirements for a
variety of outdoor developed areas including trails and camping and
picnic areas. The Board's commitment was that it would publish the
report as a proposed rule if the committee reached a consensus and we
intend to honor that commitment.
The Board's original rulemaking plan called for issuing a proposed
rule under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Architectural Barriers Act. The issues for this rulemaking are complex
and no comprehensive accessibility requirements for these areas exist,
so we have decided to proceed cautiously. We are developing a proposed
rule based solely on our rulemaking authority under the Architectural
Barriers Act. The proposed rule will address outdoor developed areas
that are designed, built, or altered with Federal funds or leased by
Federal agencies.
The Board made its decision to limit this rulemaking to facilities
covered by the Architectural Barriers Act in order to gain a better
understanding of the rule's impact on parks and recreation facilities
prior to making these provisions applicable to outdoor developed areas
covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Park Service and
other Federal land management agencies are already following some of
the technical provisions in the report.
Let me give you just two examples of how these new guidelines may
impact outdoor developed areas. First, when a new trail is being
constructed, it would have to comply with certain technical
specifications such as its width and slope. Although the technical
provisions for accessible trails apply, there may be conditions where
applying these provisions may not be possible such as when compliance
would not be feasible due to terrain or the prevailing construction
practices. Likewise, only a certain percentage of elements--like picnic
tables or cooking surfaces--are required to be accessible.
We believe that the rulemaking on outdoor developed areas will
assist in opening up recreational opportunities for people with
disabilities. The Board plans to submit the proposed rule along with a
regulatory assessment to the Office of Management and Budget in June.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Harding's statement have been retained in
the Committee's official files.
______
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, sir. We will go first to Ms.
Christensen for questions.
Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My first question would be to Ms. Masica. Ms. Masica,
according to your testimony, in Fiscal Year 2001, $5 million in
recreational fee demonstration funds were made available to
address accessibility needs in low revenue and non-collecting
parks, and your testimony goes on to state that the National
Park Service proposes that a similar program be set up for
2007.
Were the rec. fee demo. funds allocated for this purpose in
Fiscal Year 2002 through 2006, and if they weren't, why not?
Ms. Masica. Ms. Christensen, there were projects,
accessibility projects that were done within sort of each
park's allocation out of the fee money. There wasn't an off-
the-top set aside, and that is what we are talking about doing
in 2007, but the fact that they were done by the parks, there
was still a significant amount of work that was done in those
intervening years.
Ms. Christensen. OK, thank you.
The 2000 report of Congress on increasing outdoor
recreation opportunities, the persons with disabilities noted
that the National Park Service has a small, understaffed office
on an accessibility that primarily deals with complaints, and
provides consultation services to assist units of the park on
matters of accessibility.
While this office does know both the law and the right
thing to do, but it has a very low profile, and the staff is
generally at a very low level within the agencies, and many
agency personnel don't even know that it exists. So what has
the National Park Service done to increase the visibility and
effectiveness of this office, and do all park units and
regional office have in place accessibility coordinators?
Ms. Masica. I would have to go back and check as far as
every park. I believe every park does. Whether they are full
time or they are collateral duty might be the issue, and each
region also has a coordinator who handles these
responsibilities in a similar fashion.
I think one of the things that we have tried to do to make
our outreach as broad as we can is to not rely just on the
capacities of our own internal staff, but the cooperative
agreement that we have with the National Center on
Accessibility has been a significant tool to help us broaden
our outreach through the technical assistance and also the
training that is provided in the work that we support mutually.
Ms. Christensen. I am concerned in asking that question
that people know that it exists, and that it does more than
just provide technical assistance to the parks, but really
provides some actual help, whether through the partnership or
otherwise, but we want to make sure that the services are
available to assist persons with disabilities.
Mr. Harding, it is my understanding that the U.S. Access
Board's outdoor developed area final report was completed in
1999. When would you expect to have the guidelines finalized,
and is there a reason why it took from then to whenever to get
those guidelines in place?
Mr. Harding. Thank you for the question.
As I mentioned in my testimony, we are presenting to the
OMB the guidelines here in June of 2006. That is next month. In
terms of when will they be finalized, ma'am, I could only yield
to my general counsel, and the process that is available to our
whole system to realize a final document, and if we need
additional comment on expectation, I would need to ask counsel.
Ms. Christensen. OK, but they will go to OMB next month?
Mr. Harding. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Christensen. Next month, OK. Thanks.
Mr. Robb, your testimony notes that significant strides
have been made in recent years, particularly in the area of
physical accessibility, but that much more needs to be done,
and that with appropriate resources you could assist the
National Park Service in the future to accelerate the
accessibility improvements.
Could you give us an idea of what the National Center and
even the Park Service, if you have that information, would need
in the way of appropriate resources, what would be the
appropriate resources that you would think would be needed in
order to make those improvements?
Mr. Robb. I am not sure that I could give you a figure. We
have a very small staff. We think that through our technical
assistance and training we reach a lot of people at that level.
It is very difficult for us to get out to and provide in-depth
consultation and assistance to parks, although we do that as
often as we can.
We have actually in the past year requested through the
division which the accessibility management program is in
increase funding through the Park Service to assist us and
providing more of the type of support that we are providing.
You know, we are hopefully going to be working with the Park
Service on their condition assessments, and I think that once
that is done relative to accessibility we will have a much
better sense of what the needs are.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you. We have been called to vote. We have
about 10 minutes left. I am going to go ahead and ask my round
of five minutes of questions. We will ask you all to stay in
place if you would. It will be probably 15 or 20 minutes, two
votes, and then we will be back and go for a second round of
questions.
Mr. Robb, you are in a really good position to measure the
change. Since 1992, you have been instructing people in the
Park Service. How has the internal culture evolved during that
time? Have you seen a change and what is the status of the
internal culture regarding access?
Mr. Robb. I think in two ways, two areas that I would say
we have really seen change. In 1992, many of the people that
were involved in our training programs were there because they
had to be. They were told to be. We don't find that to be the
case anymore. We find people coming to our training programs
because they want to the right thing. They just don't always
understand how to get there. I think that has been very
significant.
We have also noted in our training programs that people in
general are much more aware of the requirements of
accessibility, and the need to provide accessibility, and are
excited to get the information to assist them in being able to
make efforts and make strides in increasing the accessibility
in their parks.
As I said in my testimony, I think we probably still have
only scratched the surface in terms of the numbers of people
that we have been able to reach. The biggest disparity that we
see now is not so much in the area of understanding what the
requirements for physical accessibility are, but the
understanding of the requirements for programmatic
accessibility.
Mr. Pearce. Ms. Masica, you had mentioned that you are
limited by the age and the size of some of your infrastructure.
If you were to take a look at new construction since the early
nineties, would you guess that the Park Service has been 100
percent in their performance making accessibility or making
access a key issue in new construction?
Ms. Masica. I think we have certainly tried to. One thing
that is interesting, Mr. Chairman, is that in a number of our
construction projects each year are actually not building new
buildings, but are rehabilitating many of those existing
buildings. But when we are doing that, we are certainly trying
to look at accessibility has been a part of it.
Mr. Pearce. But if you were to take a guess at the percent,
have you reached 100 percent in new construction?
Ms. Masica. I would like to think we are close to 100
percent, but I am quite sure that somebody could trip me up
somewhere so I wouldn't want to go to a number.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Harding, do you have an opinion about that?
Do you all look at this sort of a thing, compliance? Mr. Robb,
I would ask you the same question.
Mr. Harding. I have a personal opinion, Mr. Chairman, that
we can always do a better job in providing accessibility to
persons with disabilities. But I think, you know, she is
correct with her alterations and compliant with the Americans
With Disabilities Act, sir.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Robb?
Mr. Robb. I couldn't go back to 1992. I would say that in
our experience in talking with people in the National Park
Service and through our training and technical assistance
programs there is certainly a much greater percentage of
compliance with the minimum standards.
Mr. Pearce. In new construction?
Mr. Robb. In new construction.
Mr. Pearce. And the reason I ask the question is, frankly,
I bump into some new construction and bump into people who say,
``we forgot,'' and so one of the purposes of the hearing is to
elevate the whole concept just a little bit. I think you all
have made very good points.
Ms. Masica, how do you handle complaints? You get
complaints under the system all the time, I am sure. We get
complaints all the time about access. Exactly what is the
system that the park uses to implement changes when it is
possible?
Ms. Masica. In its simplest form, Mr. Chairman, we are
aware of the complaints at the national level, then we work
with the park in the region to address them. The response has
to come back through us at the national level to respond back
to the Access Board, but generally the response has identified
how the complaint has been dealt with.
Mr. Pearce. Do you ever hear of anything that the Park
Service down at the lower level just didn't deal with because
we are going to get into some of these in a bit?
Ms. Masica. Yes. I think that there are and I think that is
where we try to work with the regions to make sure that the
regions are also aware and working with the parks. Then there
are other instances where the nature of the problem just takes
a longer time to get to a solution.
Mr. Pearce. Sure, and also that culture thing that we were
talking about before that has evolved some since 1992.
I think we are going to recess at this moment, and we will
reconvene as soon as we can get back over after the second
vote.
I thank you for your testimony and the questions and
answer.
[Recess.]
Mr. Pearce. Well, if we can, we will resume and we might
have other such votes, so we will work our way through that
today.
Mr. Robb, do you all just work in infrastructure or do you
also work in the programmatic area or visual displays.
Mr. Robb. Both.
Mr. Pearce. Both?
Mr. Robb. Yes.
Mr. Pearce. What do you mean? One reason that we are having
this hearing is last year a group of kids, junior high and high
school, the school for the visually handicapped, from my
district in New Mexico, was here, and they have brought the
question to us, ``Well, why is there nothing in the Capitol for
us?'' So I thought that was a significant question. We began to
ask it, and then we began to get input from the Access Board.
So it kind of evolved into this hearing.
What do you see for the visually handicapped?
Mr. Robb. Well, I think that, as I indicated in my
testimony, that the physical accessibility is much more cut and
dried. It is much more easy to determine, you know, if you have
a ramp at the right slope or the grab bars in the restroom and
that sort of thing.
The programmatic access, whether it is true an audio-
described video program or through captioning or through
tactile exhibits, just a little bit--there just hasn't been as
much attention on that area. It is sort of a hierarchy of
needs, I think, as you go through. So that area is much less
developed in most park and recreation agencies, and I would
suggest probably including the National Park Service.
Our technical assistance requests from the National Park
Service and other Federal agencies has really swung fairly
substantially from how do you make a restroom accessible to
what do I do about making our exhibits or our wayside exhibits
or our video program accessible to people that have visual
impairments, or who have hearing impairments.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Harding, would you like to comment on that?
Do you all get into this area at all?
Mr. Harding. Well, sir, we have had about 18 complaints in
the last five years. Most of those----
Mr. Pearce. Is that a lot or is that not many? In the
overall scheme, is 18 a lot in five years?
Mr. Harding. Not very many really, sir. It is about 75 over
the past 30 years.
Mr. Pearce. OK.
Mr. Harding. Primarily with the build-in environmental
issues, and I would have to yield to my staff on some of the
programmatic components----
Mr. Pearce. OK.
Mr. Harding.--on that, but I would concur on a personal
level and an individual with a disability, and friends with a
disability that we are evolving and really beginning to
capture, articulate, and therefore share the outdoor and
alternative mechanisms to communicate.
Mr. Pearce. Ms. Masica, do you want to address that?
Ms. Masica. I think, Mr. Chairman, that, as Gary said, that
that is probably the area where we have more progress to be
made than the physical side. That would be my general
observation also, and I think we have seen a number of
outstanding examples at some parks using again the fee revenues
that have been available to them as they have been updating
their exhibits to make them more available to everybody, and I
think that that is probably where, as we continue to make
progress, where we will need to focus.
Mr. Pearce. Ms. Masica, concerning Segways, there was a
visitor in my office a couple of months ago, it is very
difficult for me to understand why you would need rules to
interpret in certain instances. I mean, what is the status of
that? We had a double amputee that was on one and was refused
permission over at the Jefferson Memorial. I mean, what would
cause the system to say no, Segway is not a vehicle for
handicapped use?
What in your system would cause someone to do that? Do you
have such a tight set of rules that does not allow visual
interpretation? Tell me a little bit about your system that
would allow or encourage that kind of a response.
Ms. Masica. I think what is important that we as a Park
Service are realizing the distinction between Segways in terms
of their use for recreational purposes and then their use for
persons with disabilities. And the issue, I think, from the
rule side where we have stumbled has been that they are not--
they do not meet the definition that is used for motorized
wheelchairs, and so getting people accustomed to that just
because it doesn't meet the definition doesn't mean we are
precluded from evaluating it and using it--allowing it in parks
for persons using it for----
Mr. Pearce. Your system is so inflexible that a guy can't--
a superintendent or a ranger can't just look and say, oh, that
is pretty obvious?
Ms. Masica. I think that just as has been discussed at
other points this morning as to heightening peoples' awareness
and making them----
Mr. Pearce. That is not even awareness.
Ms. Masica. That is common sense.
Mr. Pearce. It is even beyond common sense. Just a visual
connection that, yes, I know what my rule says. It says typical
Segways are not listed as handicap vehicles, but here before me
I see--Jerry, is Jerry in the room today? Yes, so I mean the
guy is right over here. And so it really astounds me that the
system is so inflexible that people are afraid to make
judgments about such things. I don't know. I don't know if
there is a solution for that.
Mr. Harding, do you have an opinion in this kind of a
discussion?
Mr. Harding. Well, independence and mobility is paramount
in the world of disability. So I would encourage us to----
Mr. Pearce. Surely, the Access Board nationwide has found
other examples of systems that are just so inflexible people
are afraid to move. Do you have a comment on that particular
aspect?
Mr. Harding. I would agree with you that there are issues
like that out there. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pearce. I am not trying to just make a big deal out of
this. I just really want a discussion nationwide to occur in
the system. I mean, we are only charged with oversight in the
park system. I think that Ms. Christensen's opening comments
very well pointed out that there are systems that are working
far worse than the park system, but we are not charged with
that oversight, and if we can have a conversation that causes
some internal contemplation among people in the system, get the
culture to kind of evolve just a little bit, we talked about
that already.
Mr. Harding, Mr. Robb said that significant strides have
been made. That is a pretty important observation. Is that one
you would agree with?
Mr. Harding. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pearce. And finally the last question I think I have,
Mr. Harding mentions unique challenges, thoughtful
deliberation. I mean, that is stating it as carefully and as
mildly as you can. There are unique challenges. I don't know,
Ms. Masica, if you have any crystal ball on how you can solve
these unique challenges. And believe me, you have a lot of
tough problems, and I would not change positions with you on
this deal. It is tough.
My brother is in a wheelchair, has been since the '70s, and
so I have wrestled with these things off and on as we watched
him from no--I mean, almost no access to seeing a world that is
changing. I watched my mom go from being able to get around to
where she can't now. She has got a walker--and that is
difficult at best--and a motorized wheelchair. We are all going
to have to deal with the situation. Every family, I think, is
probably seeing it one on one. I don't know, it is pretty
difficult stuff, talking about the trail width.
I was out at Yosemite watching those climbers. Mr. Robb
says the same benefit of services should be available, so that
is something about those climbers going up that wall. We have
the visually handicapped. I don't know, I don't know the
answer, but what do you all in the Park Service do on these
things? What kind of discussions do you have?
Ms. Masica. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, every time
somebody points out something to us, that is an opportunity for
a learning event for all of our managers.
One of the things that we did was establish an
accessibility committee that meets twice a year. They meet with
my staff to both sort of work on the policy issues, but also
the practical issues, and sort of learning and best practices
and trying to share those examples.
When you asked me the question about 100 percent, that is
why I was trying to be very careful, because I think we are not
at 100 percent, and we are trying to do much better. I think we
have done much better, but I am not going to sit here and
suggest we have solved every problem, and I think every time
somebody becomes aware of something and points it out to us the
burden is then on us to respond to it and then to try to make
sure we manage so that it doesn't happen again, get repeated.
Mr. Pearce. And I appreciate that, and if we have that
recognition, I think that is probably the significant outcome
of the day, that we should be able to say, no, we haven't done
as well as we should. Significant progress is worth a pat on
the back, and then we get into the part that my staff dearly
hates. Yes, significant progress has been made yesterday. Let
us pick it back up and move one more step today.
So I would only give you one promise, and as far as the
Segway access for people with obvious handicaps, I promise, Ms.
Masica, that I am going to take off my congressional coat and
tie and congressional pin, and I get almost invisible when I
put a hat on because that is the way people in my district
recognize me with the shine from the distance. And so we are
going to walk around with somebody with obvious handicaps on a
Segway one of these days through the mall, and my only promise
is that I will take names. I don't want to be the sheriff in
town, but if no one else is, I will. So I would just ask your
system to be very, very conscious of that if you would, please,
and pass the word that common sense can and should prevail in
some instances, and even when the rules are rock solid.
And by the way, you can also tell the other side that I
will back up common sense when the rules say one thing, and
common sense says the other. I take the side of common sense
strongly on the other side, so I give you that promise too.
I thank you all for your testimony and appreciate you
hanging around through the vote and the break. You are welcome
to stay. In fact, I would encourage you to stay. Sometimes the
observations in the second panel feed back to the first panel,
and so if you are here, we will connect with you if questions
would drive us to that.
I would invite our second panel up now, and while they are
moving to the table I will introduce them. We have Mr. Jerry
Kerr. He is the President and Founder of the Disability Rights
Advocates for Technology out of St. Louis, Missouri. Ms. Janice
Schacter is Chair of the Hearing Access Program, Hearing Loss
Association of America, Bethesda, Maryland; Mr. James McCarthy
is the Director of Governmental Affairs, the National
Federation of the Blind, Baltimore, Maryland; and Ms. Nancy
Starnes, Vice President and Chief of Staff of the National
Organization on Disability here in Washington.
We will give our panel members a moment to be seated and
recognize them.
Mr. Kerr, the world is on you.
Mr. Kerr. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pearce. Do well with your time.
STATEMENT OF JERRY KERR, PRESIDENT / FOUNDER, DISABILITY RIGHTS
ADVOCATES FOR TECHNOLOGY, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
Mr. Kerr. Mr. Chairman, as advocates for the rights of
people with disabilities, we thank you for the opportunity to
appear before your Subcommittee at this oversight hearing on
disability access in the National Park System.
Today, more than 10,000 American citizens turned age 60, a
trend that will continue each and every day through the year
2020. Many are looking forward to a time soon when they will
have more resources and opportunities to enjoy our national
parks, monuments, and memorials. Unfortunately, they are
quickly approaching the age group where more than 40 percent of
them may have difficulty walking.
Prior to the introduction of the Segway, the only practical
mobility devices available required us to be seated in order to
operate them. Now a solution is available to some, allowing
mobility while remaining standing.
As the Segway has gained popularity with people who have
difficulty walking, many National Park Service superintendents
have exercised good judgment and common sense allowing its use.
But others in the Park Service have rejected its use in even
the most urban settings.
Superintendent Peggy O'Dell denied 78-year-old Bill
Williams suffering from COPD access using his Segway to the
Independence Day celebration at the Gateway Arch in downtown
St. Louis, even though the area was trampled by hundreds of
thousands of people, trucks, golf carts, and other motorized
equipment.
Superintendent Jock Whitworth denied 59-year-old Judy
Hanson of Rockville, Utah, who suffers from a spinal cord
injury access on her Segway to Zion National Park, threatened
with fines and confiscation.
On September 23, 2005, Leonard Timm, a bilateral above-the-
knee amputee, and a founder of DRAFT, was threatened with
arrest while visiting the Jefferson Memorial.
For almost two years, our organization has attempted
unsuccessfully to persuade those within the National Park
Service to issue guidance clarifying the permitted use of the
Segway for people with disabilities. The Segway is fully
protected as an assisted device as defined by the U.S.
Congress.
Common sense and good judgment would dictate that the use
of the Segway would be preferable to that of any other mobility
device in meeting the Park Service's objectives. It is usable
in all indoor areas. Its tires generate virtually no sheer
force, and having less soil compression force than a human
footprint that is less likely to leave evidence of its presence
than a pedestrian, all while allowing its user to participate
in the enjoyment of our National Park System in the same manner
as everyone else--standing.
Last fall our organization began our Segs for Vets Program,
donating three Segways to members of the United States
military, who through service to our country have incurred
disability and difficulty walking. Staff Sergeant Hilbert
Caesar, who is here with us today, Corporal Keith Davis and
Specialist Kevin Pannell.
This month United States Marine Corps Corporal Ryan Groves
will join their ranks using his Segway to finish his education
at Georgetown University.
In October, I was contacted by U.S. Army Captain Daniel
Gade, who was back in Walter Reed Hospital being treated for an
infection as a result of embedded shrapnel from wounds suffered
while serving in Iraq, wounds which necessitated the amputation
of his leg. He inquired about his legal right to visit the
national mall memorials and other areas in Washington, D.C.
which were under the control of the National Park Service while
using his Segway.
While we believed he had every legal right to use his
Segway, we could not guarantee in light of recent behavior that
the National Park Service would not threatened him with arrest
or confiscation of his Segway.
While it seems perplexing that the Park Service isn't
encouraging the use of Segways for all who visit the areas
under their control, it would appear from our conversations
with them that there are many, not only in the Park Service,
but also the Forest Service who feel allowing the use of
Segways by people who have difficulty walking, even though more
environmentally friendly, will permit too many people to visit
our national parks and public lands.
The Segway represents the beginning of the arrival of new
technology devices created utilizing the principles of
universal design which will improve the quality of lives for
people with disabilities and senior citizens beyond which we
ever thought possible.
Attitudinal and policy barriers to accessibility must never
be tolerated. This injustice could be corrected immediately
through the stroke of a pen at no cost to our taxpayers.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerr follows:]
Statement of Jerry Kerr, President,
Disability Rights Advocates For Technology
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
subcommittee at this oversight hearing on disability access in the
National Park System.
Disability Rights Advocates For Technology is an advocate for the
rights of people with disabilities and a champion of universally
designed technology solutions which allow us the opportunity to more
fully participate in our society and enhance the quality of our lives.
Today more than 10,000 American citizens turned age 60 a trend that
will continue each and every day through the year 2020.
Many are looking forward to a time soon when they will have more
resources and opportunities to enjoy our National Parks, Monuments, and
Memorials. Unfortunately they are quickly approaching the age group
where more than 40% of them may have difficulty walking.
Accessibility for the more than 60 million people in the United
States with disabilities and our seniors who have difficulty walking is
an issue which all stewards of our federal lands must aggressively
pursue.
In 2003 a new assistive mobility device utilizing the principles of
universal design was introduced. The Segway is classified by our
Federal government as a consumer product, not a motor vehicle. Prior to
its introduction the only practical mobility devices available to
people with disabilities and those who have difficulty walking required
them to be seated in order to operate them.
Now some who have difficulty walking but can stand have a mobility
solution available to them which allows them to remain standing. The
ability to remain standing for as long as possible has both physical
and psychological benefits that are well documented in medical
literature. Many disabled individuals have received prescriptions from
their doctors for the Segway.
Of the mobility devices on the market today, the Segway is the most
versatile and the safest.
Those with disabilities using the Segway include:
Dr. Michael Mayor, a world renowned orthopedic surgeon and an above
the knee amputee, uses the Segway while making his rounds visiting
hospital rooms at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center.
Senior Federal Judge James Jarvis, in Knoxville, Tennessee, who has
COPD onset by lung cancer, uses his Segway to travel from his courtroom
to his office and back allowing him to maintain a more active, mobile
and normal schedule.
Brooke Gill a young lady from Dexter Missouri who spent two years
in coma after a car accident sustaining a severe spinal cord injury.
She completed her education graduating from Southeast Missouri
University this past December. The Segway allowed her to thrive at the
University even with its very steep hilly terrain.
The Segway is being used by farmers to again walk fence lines and
visit their barns and check on livestock when illness or disability had
previously foreclosed that possibility.
It is being used by many in their 80s who had given up traveling
because of their difficulty walking but now, with assistance of the
Segway, have resumed their travels and turned back the clocks of time.
For many people with conditions such as COPD, amputations, spina
bifida, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries
and many other neurological conditions, the Segway has returned
mobility we thought gone forever.
In the three years since its introduction to the general public
there are no reports of any substantive injuries being caused to
bystanders from those using the Segway. As a matter-of-fact the design
of the Segway precludes it from continuing forward once it comes in
contact with something and the tires are designed in such a fashion
that running over someone's foot or hand causes no injury. The same
could not be said about the power wheelchair or scooter.
The Segway weighs a fraction of other mobility devices and its
stopping distance in comparison to other mobility devices, in a test by
the Federal Highway Administration, was second only to that of a manual
wheelchair.
A study done by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, which
compared the safety of the Segway to that of other mobility devices,
was presented at the Transportation Research Board's Annual Meeting in
January of 2004 in Washington, DC. In assessing the relative safety of
the Segway and its risk to others the report suggests the Segway
represents a medium risk to others consistent with children playing
even when operated at top speeds. Comparatively the report indicates
that motor or powered wheelchairs represent a medium to high risk to
others, consistent with equestrians (people on horseback).
As the Segway has gained popularity with people who have difficulty
walking, many National Park Service Superintendents have exercised good
judgment and common sense allowing its use by those who have difficulty
walking, but others in the National Park Service have rejected its use
by them in even the most urban settings.
A 78-year-old gentleman suffering from COPD was denied access using
his Segway HT to the Independence Day celebration at the Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial (The St. Louis Gateway Arch) in downtown
St. Louis even though the area was trampled by hundreds of thousands of
people, trucks, golf carts and other motorized equipment.
Superintendent Peggy O'Dell, even after repeated attempts by our
organizations to reason with her, and pointing out the provisions in
Directors Order #42, denied access to Mr. Bill Williams because the
Segway did not meet the definition of a motorized wheelchair.
Superintendent O'Dell permitted Fair organizers the use of golf carts
in all areas.
59-year-old Judy Hanson of Rockville Utah, who suffers from a
spinal cord injury, in an attempt to use her Segway in Zion National
Park was told by Superintendent Jock Whitworth that she could not use
her Segway anywhere in Zion National Park, not on the roads, not on the
sidewalks, not on the wheelchair accessible trails, not anywhere
because it was motorized. Superintendent Whitworth advised Ms. Hanson
that her use of the Segway in Zion National Park could result in her
being fined and her Segway being confiscated.
On September 23, 2005, Mr. Leonard Timm, a bilateral above the knee
amputee, and a founder of DRAFT, was threatened with arrest by the
National Park Service while in Washington, DC, using his Segway
visiting the Jefferson Memorial.
For almost two years our organization has attempted unsuccessfully
on a monthly basis to persuade those within the National Park Services
Upper Management to issue guidance clarifying the permitted use of the
Segway for those who have difficulty walking.
Common sense and good judgment would dictate that the use of the
Segway would be preferable to that of any other mobility device in
meeting the National Park Service's objectives.
It is usable in all indoor areas. The tires on the Segway HT
generate virtually no shear force, and have less soil compression force
than a human footprint. The Segway poses less likelihood of impairing
the landscape and environment through soil compaction and rutting than
manual wheelchairs or motorized wheelchairs.
Indeed the Segway is less likely to leave evidence of its presence
than a pedestrian. It requires no more accommodation than that of a
wheelchair, and in most cases less, it is more maneuverable than
wheelchairs or scooters and allows its user to participate in the
enjoyment of our National Park System in the same manner as everyone
else: standing.
The Segway is not a wheelchair. It is an assistive device. The ADA
guidance issued by the United States Department of Transportation on
September 1, 2005 correctly identified the Segway when used by a person
with a disability as a mobility device which is part of a broad class
of mobility aids occupying a legal position analogous to canes,
walkers, etc. ...
Many within the National Park Service have been quick to point out
that they have no legal mandate under the ADA; however all Federal
Agencies must comply with the Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation
Act.
The Segway is fully protected as an assistive device as defined by
the United States Congress which defined an assistive technology device
in ``The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1973, As Amended'' as ``any
item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired
commercially, modified, or customized, that is used to increase,
maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with
disabilities.''
In the Draft 2006 NPS Management Policies it states:
``A primary principle of accessibility is that, to the highest
degree practicable, people with disabilities should be able to
participate in the same programs and activities available to
everyone else. In choosing among methods for providing
accessibility, higher priority will be given to those methods
that offer programs and activities in the most integrated
setting appropriate''.
The issue of a disabled person who has the ability to stand but has
difficulty walking and requires a mobility aid, being forced to sit in
either a wheelchair or a scooter is unreasonable and unlawful.
Last fall our organization began our Segs4Vets program donating
Segways to members of the United States Military who through service to
our country have incurred disability and difficulty walking.
Staff Sergeant Hilbert Caesar of South Ozone Park New York, who
lost his right leg as a result of wounds suffered on April 18, 2004 on
a road near Baghdad, Corporal Keith Davis of Lumberton Texas, who lost
his leg as a result of wounds suffered on August 3, 2005, in Iraq and
National Guard Army Specialist Kevin Pannell of Dierks Arkansas who
lost both of his legs as result of wounds suffered on June 13, 2004
while patrolling little Fallujah, a rundown insurgency ridden
neighborhood in central Baghdad were our first three recipients.
They will be joined this month by United States Marine Corps
Corporal Ryan Groves of Charlestown Ohio who lost his left leg in a
rocket attack in Fallujah and after 38 surgeries will be discharged
from the Amputee Patient Care Center at Walter Reed Hospital to
complete his undergraduate studies at Georgetown University, and
ultimately attend Law School here in Washington.
We have also donated two Segways to the Amputee Patient Care Center
at Walter Reed Hospital that are being used by our soldiers to travel
between their quarters in Mologne House and their therapy each day.
This month we will donate a Segway to the Physical Therapy Department
at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda.
Last fall I was contacted by U.S. Army Captain Daniel Gade who was
back in Walter Reed Hospital being treated for an infection as result
of embedded shrapnel from wounds suffered in battle while serving in
Iraq. Wounds which necessitated the amputation of his leg. Until the
infection was cleared up Captain Gade was unable to wear his prosthetic
leg, but he does use a Segway.
Captain Gade inquired about his legal right to visit the National
Mall Memorials and other areas in Washington, DC which were under the
control of the National Park Service while using his Segway.
We advised Captain Gade that while we believed he had every legal
right to use his Segway as his mobility device we could not guarantee,
in light of recent behavior, that the National Park Service would not
threaten him with arrest or confiscation of his Segway.
There's no rational explanation for anyone within the National Park
Service to deny the use of the Segway by a person with a disability
simply because it has a motor. The Segway attains the goal of
protection to the environment at the highest level currently available.
It is quiet and there is no other means of mobility available today
including the wheelchair, scooter, horse, or even the human footprint
which will cause less damage to the environment and leave less evidence
of its presence than the Segway.
While it seems perplexing that the National Park Service isn't
encouraging the use of Segways for all who visit our National Parks and
Monuments, it would appear from our conversations with those in the
National Park Service that there are many, not only within the National
Park Service but also the United States Forest Service, who feel that
by allowing the use of Segways by people who have difficulty walking,
even though more environmentally friendly, it will permit too many
people to visit our National Parks, and other areas under their
control.
Attitudinal and policy barriers to accessibility must never be
tolerated. This injustice could be corrected immediately through the
stroke of a pen, by either the Secretary of the Interior or the
Director of the National Park Service, at no cost to our taxpayers.
The Segway represents the beginning of the arrival of new
technology devices created utilizing the principles of universal design
which will improve the quality of lives for people with disabilities
and senior citizens beyond which we ever thought possible.
Through the use of the Segway our Public Lands will be accessible
in a more environmentally friendly mode for the enrichment of more
people than ever before.
NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Kerr's statement have been retained in the
Committee's official files.
______
Mr. Pearce. Thank you.
We have another one vote. I think I am going to break at
this point, and run over. I should be back in seven-eight
minutes, and at this point, Ms. Masica, if you can really hang
around. I mean, I think we want to delve into this quite a lot,
especially the comment about the fear of the system that the
Segways would permit too many people to visit, and that is
probably going to get us right down to the focus of this
hearing if there is a systemic prohibition in order to hold
down visitation at the expense of one class. That should be the
topic of the discussion, so I think Mr. Kerr has brought us to
a good conversation point.
We will stand in recess for just a few moment. We will be
back as soon as we can. Ms. Schacter, we will recognize you at
that time.
[Recess.]
Mr. Pearce. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JANICE SCHACTER, CHAIR, HEARING ACCESS PROGRAM,
HEARING LOSS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, BETHESDA, MARYLAND
Ms. Schacter. Thank you for inviting me today to discuss
access for the hard of hearing and deaf at our national parks.
My name is Janice Schacter. I am the Chair of the Hearing
Access Program and the mother of an 11-year-old daughter who is
hard of hearing, and sometimes I am the sheriff for the hard of
hearing.
I am here today representing the Hearing Loss Association
of America. Thirty-one-and-a-half million people have some form
of hearing loss. This represents approximately 10 percent of
the population and rises to 30 percent for people over the age
of 65.
The national parks are mandated via Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the more stringent DAC.
to be accessible to everyone. Unfortunately, they are not.
In the last year and a half, our family has visited several
national parks. On each of these occasions, we encountered
problems. The amount and type of access varied, and there was
no ability to anticipate the access since the national park
website did not always reflect what was available. Two
examples: Ellis Island and Gettysburg.
Our family decided not to visit Ellis Island last year
because of inappropriate access for our daughter. The boat had
no assistive listening devices, also known as ALDs, no
captioning. The films had no assistive listening devices, and
only some were captioned. And there were no assistive listening
devices for docent tours even though there were poor acoustics
in the Great Hall. It did, however, have neck loops for the
audio guides.
To date, the issues are still not resolved. What do I say
to my daughter who continually asks to visit Ellis Island and
does not understand why the park is still not accessible?
In March, our family went to Gettysburg. We found no
captioning or assistive listening devices for the introductory
film. In fact, we were told the system broke last year and it
went unfixed. Also, the accessibility section on the website is
a blank page.
Every vacation to a national park becomes disappointing
because the inconsistent and inappropriate access proves
frustrating to our daughter.
I have a stack of letters from people who reiterate similar
issues. These treasure sites belong to everyone and it is a
shame that my daughter and others with a hearing loss cannot
fully appreciate them.
After our family's disappointing visit to another national
park, I decided to rectify the situation. Through various phone
calls, meetings and training sessions, it has become clear to
me that the system is designed for failure. There are three
issues that seem to be the greatest hurtles.
One, there are no incentives to encourage compliance. The
parks appear to be stretched financially and have endured
personnel cutbacks. Requiring them to finance access out of
their regular operating budget is difficult. Essentially the
ADA is a mandate that is not paired with funding, and my
understanding is that there was previously a budgeted amount
specifically for access issues, but this was eliminated. I now
hear it is thinking about being reinstated. However, lack of
finances is not an excuse for inappropriate access.
In addition, we need to ensure that there is an appropriate
allocation from these funds. Accessibility does not mean
mobility issues. It means other things, and it is also needs
more than headsets and signed qualified interpretation.
There is also no accountability. It is my understanding
that some of the parks were allowed to retain a percentage of
revenue so that it can go back to the local community. While
this is a laudable goal, the result is that no one is
monitoring the availability of these locally produced
exhibitions. Even if management of a park wants to go through
Harpers Ferry, some of the work is now being outsourced. The
result is there is less control over ADA compliance.
It is also my understanding that each of the national park
superintendents failed--many of the national park
superintendents failed to complete a survey on access for the
web. The web reveals this. Many of the pages are blank.
In addition, ADA compliance was supposed to be part of a
local superintendent's review, but this was eliminated. The
superintendents felt that without appropriate funding it was
impossible for them to comply. The bottom line, there was no
monitoring, no accountability, and the only people who are
suffering are those with hearing loss.
The staff also has a mixed level of training. There is a
lack of understanding across the country that hearing loss is
invisible. There is a range of hearing loss, and the needs and
accommodations vary. For example, children generally below
fourth grade cannot read captioning. Appropriate training and
annual reviews of park personnel must be a job requirements.
Also, many of the parks do not have a 504 coordinator.
Therefore, they have other responsibilities, and access gets
pushed to the bottom of the list. The only way is to force the
priorities to follow 504 complaint. Our family has done this on
many occasions, but it seems a ridiculous way to ensure ADA
compliance.
The mandate of the National Park is to be accessible to
everyone. With these proposals and adequate training, and I
listed details in my written work, the National Parks can offer
consistent access for visitors who are hard of hearing and
deaf, and allow them to visit the national parks and experience
their America, a right entitled by law.
Thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schacter follows:]
Statement of Janice Schacter. Chair, Hearing Access Program,
Hearing Loss Association of America
I welcome this opportunity to share important information about the
accessibility needs of people with hearing loss with you. My name is
Janice Schacter. I am the Chair of the Hearing Access Program and the
mother of an 11-year old daughter who is hard of hearing.
BACKGROUND:
I am here today representing the Hearing Loss Association of
America (``HLAA'') formerly known as Self Help for the Hard of Hearing
People, Inc. HLAA is the nation's largest consumer organization
representing people with hearing loss. HLAA's national support network
includes an office in the Washington D.C. area, 13 state organizations,
and 250 local chapters. HLAA's mission is to open the world of
communication to people with hearing loss through information,
education, advocacy and support.
HLAA's constituents are people with hearing loss who use hearing
aids, cochlear implants and other technology to function in their daily
lives. They use spoken language and not American Sign Language
(``ASL''). Currently, 31.5 million people have some form of hearing
loss. This number is expected to increase to 40 million people within
one generation. This number represents 10% of the population. It rises
to 30% in the population of people over 65. The needs of the people
within the population that is hard of hearing and deaf vary depending
on the degree of hearing loss, what type of hearing device a person
utilizes, when the hearing loss was diagnosed, the level of auditory
training has received and the person's age. Appropriate access requires
a variety of different types of equipment matched to the needs of
different segments of this population. [Please see Chart 1.]
BASIC REQUIREMENTS:
``Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in federally
conducted programs of the Department of Interior''. the Department of
The Interior administrative policy requires that the Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines be used where it is equal to
or greater than the Uniformed Federal Accessibility Standards.'' (Taken
from Section 504 Accessibility Site-Review Dated December 20, 2005.)
ISSUES:
In the last year and a half, our family has visited several
National Parks. On each of these occasions, the type of access
available was inconsistent. Some parks might have had some of the items
of access for people who are hard of hearing but some items are not
appropriate for some levels of hearing loss. Also, some parks have
appropriate access and others do not. There is not, however, a way to
anticipate if appropriate access is in place. The NPS website does not
accurately reflect what is available at each local park.
On a visit to Castillo de San Felipe del Morro in San Juan, Puerto
Rico, my daughter could not hear or follow the introductory film since
neither Assistive Listening Devices (ALDs) nor captioning were
available. There is no access information on the website for people who
are hard of hearing or deaf.
We decided not to visit Ellis Island last year because my daughter
would not have heard the announcements on the boat, only some of the
films were captioned, there were no ALDs for the films, there were no
ALDs for docent tours and the acoustics in the Great Hall were poor.
They did, however, have neck loops for the audio guides and the website
did have some information for people who are hard of hearing or deaf.
In the end, our family chose not to visit the site since she could not
hear and it would not have been worthwhile for my daughter.
On a recent vacation to Gettysburg, we again found no captioning or
ALDs for the introductory film. In fact, we were told that the system
broke last year and it went unfixed. Also, the accessibility section on
the website is a blank page.
At Mammoth Caves in Kentucky, there was captioning but it was so
small that it was impossible to read and there were no ALDs. The
accessibility section on the website states that ``The requested URL
was not found on the server.''
Every vacation to a National Park becomes disappointing because the
inconsistent and inappropriate access always proves frustrating to our
daughter. I have a stack of letters from members of the HLAA who
reiterate similar issues. These treasured sites belong to everyone and
it is a shame that my daughter and others with hearing loss can't
appreciate them the way she could have.
After our family's disappointing visit to the San Juan National
Park, I decided to contact the National Park Service (``NPS'') to
rectify this chronic situation. Through my various phone calls, I have
had several meetings this year with NPS staff and have even done a
training session for senior NPS staff on appropriate access for the
hard of hearing and deaf at the National Parks. From these
conversations, it has become clear to me that the design of the system
preordains failure. The following issues appear to be the greatest
hurdles to achieve appropriate access at The Parks:
1. No Incentives to Encourage Compliance
The Parks appear to be stretched thin financially and have endured
personnel cutbacks. Requiring them to finance access out of their
regular operating budget is difficult. Essentially, the ADA is a
mandate that is not paired with funding. Appropriate access is not
accomplished since there is no money to fund it. My understanding is
that there was previously a budgeted amount specifically for access
issues. Somehow, this was eliminated. Funds for access need to be
reinstated. Lack of finances, however, is no excuse for inappropriate
access.
In addition, we need to ensure that accessibility for people who
are hard of hearing and deaf receive an appropriate allocation from
these funds. Too often, appropriate access for the hard of hearing is
misunderstood. Access for people who are hard of hearing or deaf is
more than sign language and headsets. Although they are key components
to access, it is not the whole picture. Access for people who are hard
of hearing or deaf require assistive listening devices, captioning and
sign language interpretation. What is appropriate depends on the venue
and its programming services. I will address the specifics below.
2. No Accountability
It is my understanding that some of the parks are allowed to retain
a percentage of their revenue. In addition, exhibition work, e.g.
films, can be produced locally rather than at Harper's Ferry. The goal
is to allow revenue to remain in the local community. While this is a
laudable goal, the result of this local disintermediation is that no
one is monitoring the accessibility of these local exhibitions. The
result is that films are produced without captioning and assistive
listening systems are not in place.
Even if local management at a park wants to go through Harper's
Ferry, the work that previously was done in-house at Harper's Ferry is
now out-sourced. The result is that there is less control over ADA
compliance.
It is also my understanding that the national office of NPS has
consistently requested each Superintendent to complete a survey on his
or her park's accessibility. It is my understanding that the responses
were inconsistent. The absence of appropriate access information on the
NPS website is indicative of this mixed response. How can anyone plan a
trip to a Park if they cannot find appropriate access information on
the park's web site?
In addition, ADA compliance was supposed to be part of each local
Superintendent's annual performance review, but was eliminated because
of complaints by the superintendents. The superintendents felt their
performance was being judged unfairly since it was impossible to comply
with the ADA without appropriate funds. The bottom line: there is no
monitoring of ADA compliance, there is no accountability and
appropriate access for the hard of hearing and deaf is not consistently
available at the parks.
3. Inconsistent Training
The staff at the parks has a mixed level of training and
understanding of the needs of people with disabilities. Unlike mobility
issues, hearing loss is invisible. Staff cannot immediately identify
who needs what type of accommodation. The staff sometimes assumes that
no accommodation is needed because they cannot see the effects of
hearing loss. There is a lack of general understanding across the
country that there is a range of hearing loss and the needs and
accommodations vary based on the degree of hearing loss, what type of
hearing device a person utilizes, when the hearing loss was diagnosed,
the level of auditory training the person has received and the person's
age. For example, generally children below 4th grade cannot read
captioning. Therefore, appropriate training of all park personnel must
be in place and there need to be annual updates. This training must be
a job requirement and part of the annual review.
In addition, there needs to be a full-time person at each park
devoted to appropriate access otherwise known as a 504 Coordinator. At
many parks, the access coordinator has many additional duties and
access gets pushed to the bottom of the list. It becomes a low priority
for the park. This was evident at each of the parks that our family
visited. The end result is that the only way to force the priority is
to file a 504 complaint. Our family has filed a 504 complaint on all of
these occasions but this seems a ridiculous way to ensure ADA
compliance. There needs to be a 504 coordinator and appropriate
training to ensure appropriate access at each park.
APPROPRIATE ACCESS AT THE PARKS
In order for NPS to have full access, NPS must always offer the
following three types of access to meet the needs of the entire range
of people who are hard of hearing and deaf and to have consistent
access at each park:
Assistive Listening Devices (Headsets and Neck Loops)
Captioning
Qualified Interpreters
All three items must be in place whenever there is audio output. In
addition, there must be appropriate staff training and signage.
These three services can be implemented at the National Parks as
follows:
A. Theater
The ADA Guidelines require ALDS (Headsets.) Currently, neck loops
are awaiting the Department of Justice's approval. Neck loops should be
available since headsets do not work for someone with more than a mild
hearing loss. The volume control is not strong enough. Neck loops allow
the person's own hearing aid to regulate the volume. These Guidelines
apply to all theaters that are places of public accommodation with 50
or more fixed seats. (The elimination of the fixed seat requirement is
awaiting the Justice Department's approval.) The ALDs receive the sound
via a sound system. There are currently three types of systems that are
available:
FM--This system works via a radio frequency.
Infrared--This system works via a beam of light.
Induction Loop--This system utilizes an electro-magnetic
coil around the room to create a magnetic field. Hearing aid wearers
with T-coils receive the sound directly via their hearing aids or
cochlear implants.
There are several factors that would determine which system would
be appropriate for each site. The Kennedy Center's Guide to Assistive
Listening Systems for Theaters is a useful tool to aid in assessing
which system is appropriate for each venue.
1. Assistive Listening Devices
ALDs (headsets or neck loops) enable visitors to receive sound
directly in their ears. There are different styles of receivers. Some
ALDs fit directly into the ear and some require headphones or neck
loops to be plugged into the output jack of the receiver that is the
size of a deck of playing cards. The type of ALS selected is based on
the person's degree of hearing loss, whether they use a hearing aid or
cochlear implant, the age the person lost their hearing, the level of
auditory training they received and their current age. A signal is sent
from the system to the receiver. If an Induction Loop System were
utilized then only someone without a T-coil would need to wear a
receiver. Anyone with a T-coil would just activate the T-coil on his or
her hearing aid to hear the sound. ALDs allow someone to increase the
volume and receive the sound directly in their ear without disturbing
anyone else. A Population Chart detailing the degrees of hearing loss
and what type of accommodation needed is attached. [See Chart 1] Also,
a FAQ Sheet on neck loops and T-coils is attached. [See Chart 2] The
League for the Hard of Hearing prepared the FAQ sheet.
When installing the system, it is important to ensure the
appropriate number of receivers is available at any given place of
assembly. The requirements are detailed in the ADA Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG). ADAAG can be found at www.access-board.gov. For
your reference, I have attached some Technical Support for Assistive
Listening Systems. [See Chart 3]
2. Captioning
Unfortunately, not all people can utilize the ALDs due to the
severity of their hearing loss. [See Chart 1] In addition to the
assistive listening system, NPS should offer captioning for all films.
There are two methods of captioning, open and closed. Open is when the
captioning is always on and either appears on the film screen or a data
strip below the screen. Closed captioning is when it is either turned
on and off or selectively seen by only those who need it.
We recommend offering open captioning. Open captioning is easiest
since there is nothing to maintain and nothing to turn on and off. It
is always visible. Many people are embarrassed by their hearing loss
and will not ask for the assistance they require. Open captioning
allows people to participate without feeling any stigma they may
perceive is attached to hearing loss. Therefore, if the event is a
film, then a captioned version of the film should be ordered. We
suggest inserting a clause in NPS' contracts that all films must be
captioned.
For closed captioning, it can be either seen on the screen only
when someone turns on the captions or when a special data panel is
affixed to the seat. Please be aware that these data panels need to be
cleaned and maintained.
If, however, the event is a lecture then Computer Assisted Real
Time Captioning (``CART'') should be offered for specifically scheduled
lectures or presentations. CART provides access for people whose
hearing loss is more profound and cannot use the assistive listening
system. It is the exact translation, which is similar to a court
reporter transcribing a statement of a witness.
3. Qualified Interpreters
Qualified interpretation (ASL, Oral, Transliteration or Cued
Speech) needs to be offered in the appropriate format that is tailored
to the individual to achieve effective communication. Also, ASL is not
English. ASL is a visual language with its own syntax and grammar that
is quite different from the English language. For example, instead of
saying, ``There goes the blue car,'' ASL would sign, ``car, blue.'' For
some people who communicate primarily using ASL, a qualified
interpreter will be necessary to ensure effective communication. For
some people who are hard of hearing or deaf and do not use ASL,
captioning may be necessary to ensure effective communication.
Most people with hearing loss, including many with profound loss,
do not use ASL. ASL should still be included as a component of access
but it is not a solution for access for the majority of people with
hearing loss. Qualified sign interpretation should be offered for
scheduled and/or announced events and/or upon request with reasonable
advance notice.
For CART and signing, it is imperative that the quality and
accuracy are checked prior to hiring them. There is a wide range in
skill level among those who caption and sign. Poor quality captioning
or sign language does not provide appropriate access.
Note:
Appropriate seating should be available for those who rely on lip
reading. This is very important, because the levels of hearing loss are
not clearly defined even though it appears that way on The Population
Chart. [See Chart 1] There is overlap between the groups. Some people
(like my daughter) who rely on an ALD still miss some of the critical
dialogue. Lip reading helps to fill in the gaps. Seat placement is
critical for lip reading. The theater attendee must be near the stage
and not view the speaker from an odd angle. For this reason, an
appropriate number of seats should be made available. This is no
different than those patrons who need special seating for wheelchair
accommodations or for visual access.
B. Audio Guide Tours
1. Assistive Listening Devices
When audio guides are available, it is imperative that neck loops
or t-coil compatible audio guides are available and that appropriate
signage is posted.
2. Captioning: Transcripts
Transcripts in regular and large print should be available.
3. Qualified Interpreters
This should be offered for scheduled and/or announced tours and/or
upon request with reasonable advance notice.
C. Docent Tours
FM systems are ideal for docent tours that are mobile to overcome
poor acoustics that even challenge people who do not have a hearing
loss.
1. Assistive Listening Devices
As mentioned earlier, the ADA requires a certain number of ALDs for
theaters. The ADA, however, is not clear on the number of ALDs required
for FM-led docent tours. Therefore, to determine the appropriate number
of neck loops, we recommend using the same 4% number from the ADA and
applying it to the number of FM receivers instead of the number of
seats.
2. Captioning: Transcripts
Transcripts of the docent tour should be available in regular and
large print for those visitors who cannot use ALDs.
3. Qualified Interpreters
Qualified interpretation should be offered for scheduled and/or
announced tours and/or upon request with reasonable advance notice.
D. Videos
It is important when installing multiple videos that the acoustics
are considered. Many new museums are offering multi-media presentations
without understanding how competing sound affects a person's ability to
hear and thus learn. Hiring an acoustical engineer is recommended. Some
items that other museums have utilized to deal with the acoustical
issues are the installation of theater curtains and utilizing headsets
and neck loops for individual monitors. But again, an acoustical
engineer should be consulted.
1. Assistive Listening Devices: Induction Loop System
If a video or film does not have sound then a sign should be posted
stating, ``No Sound.'' This would inform the visitor who is hard of
hearing or deaf not to expect sound or an ALD. If there is just ambient
music playing then musical symbols should be posted on the monitor or
if there is one type of background sound then it should be clearly
identified on a nearby sign.
Both seeing and hearing a film or video provide certain benefits.
If an individual who is hard of hearing can receive the same benefits
of sound (loud, soft, angry, happy, sad, singing etc.) with a
reasonable modification of an ALD, then an ALD is required to be
provided for an equal opportunity to effectively participate.
Captioning does not generally work for children below approximately 4th
grade who are unable to read quickly enough. As mentioned earlier, the
needs of hearing loss vary by age just as they vary based on the degree
of loss. One way to meet the needs of young children, who can't read or
read quickly enough as well as those who rely heavily on their hearing
aids, is to provide an induction loop system around any audio exhibit.
In layman's terms, sound is transmitted through a thin wire surrounding
the exhibit area via magnetic energy. For your reference, to loop an
area could cost as low as $750. In order to learn more about looping,
please visit www.hearingloop.org. An alternative to an induction loop
system is to install headsets and neck loops adjacent to the monitor.
2. Captioning
To provide appropriate access for people who are hard of hearing
and deaf, all videos need to be captioned. Captioning assists foreign
visitors as well. By captioning the videos, not only will they now be
accessible to people who are hard of hearing and deaf but also the
sound of the video can be lowered which will help with the acoustics
For your reference, to caption a 15-minute video costs
approximately $600-750. It is, however, important to select a
captioning company based on accuracy of captioning and not based on
price alone. Contracts should require that all captioning must be
spelled 100% correctly and 100% accurately reflect what is stated. It
might seem obvious but sadly, it isn't.
Many National Parks show History Channel videos. These videos
already contain captioning. The company is happy to replace for FREE
any videos that do not contain captioning.
3. Qualified Interpreters
Qualified interpretation should be offered upon request with
reasonable advance notice.
E. Classrooms, Information and Ticket Desk
1. Assistive Listening Devices
The classrooms, information, audio guide and ticket desk should
have an induction loop system installed. This allows someone with a
hearing loss to hear in a class, ask questions, pick-up an audio guide
and/or purchase tickets.
2. Captioning: Paper
CART should be available with advance notice if a student requires
it. A piece of paper and pen should be available at the information,
audio guide and ticket desk for people to write their questions down
and/or receive answers to their questions.
3. Qualified Interpreters
Qualified interpretation should be offered at all parks. All park
personnel who know sign interpretation should have the ASL symbol on
their nametag. This identifies appropriate staff that can assist a
visitor when needed.
F. Special Exhibits
Exhibits with sound alone e.g. no films are difficult for someone
with hearing loss. There are no facial cues available for them to
augment their hearing if they have residual hearing. If a person does
not have residual hearing, there is no possibility to understand what
is happening within the exhibit.
1. Assistive Listening Devices
An induction loop should be utilized.
2. Captioning
An LED screen or a printed transcript in both regular and large
print should be available.
3. Qualified Interpreters
Qualified interpretation should be offered upon reasonable request
with advance notice.
G. Sound Enhancement Devices
1. Assistive Listening Devices
All audio devices should be T-coil compatible and volume control.
We recommend requesting documentation from the company to ensure the
device is compatible. Any accessible device should post the ear symbol
with the ``T.'' This symbol can be found on www.hearingloop.org.
2. Captioning
An LED screen or a printed transcript in both regular and large
print should be available.
3. Qualified Interpreters
Qualified interpretation should be offered upon request with
reasonable advance notice.
H. Boats
The announcements and emergency drills on boat tours are difficult
to hear for everyone. Shouting into a bullhorn is not appropriate
access for people with a hearing loss.
1. Assistive Listening Devices
To disseminate clearly the information and emergency drills, the
boat should have an induction loop system.
2. Captioning
LED displays at various places on the boat or transcripts of the
announcements and emergency information should be available.
3. Qualified Interpreters
Qualified interpretation should be offered upon request with
reasonable advance notice.
I. Audio Phones
1. Assistive Listening Devices
Anytime there are phone receivers with audio transmitting through
them, the receivers need to be T-coil compatible. There also needs to
be prominent signage (Please see www.hearingloop.org) indicating that
the receivers are usable by individuals with hearing aids and cochlear
implants equipped with T-coils. If the phones are out of order, there
needs to be a sign stating they are out of order so the visitor knows
they are broken and not to expect sound.
2. Captioning
Transcripts in both regular and large type should be available
3. Qualified Interpreters
Qualified interpretation should be offered upon request with
reasonable advance notice.
J. Phone
There needs to be a TTY phone and a T-coil compatible phone
available. In addition, all phones should have volume control.
K. Service Animals
Park staff should understand that service animals are not just for
the blind but are used by people with other disabilities as well.
Service animals, however, must be clearly identified in accordance with
National Park Service regulations.
L. Emergencies
A system must be in place for emergencies. Both sound amplification
with low frequencies and visual or tactile alarms must be used. These
need to be in the buildings as well as on trails and at organized
campsites. Park personnel should also realize that someone who is hard
of hearing will not be wearing their aids at night and will not hear
emergency warnings. Park personnel should request hearing aid users to
identify themselves voluntarily so they can receive appropriate
emergency warnings and visual strobes or tactile warnings.
M. Signage, Websites, Brochures and Mailings
All of the steps I have outlined mean little if visitors are not
aware of them. Therefore, the appropriate symbols (e.g. assistive
listening devices, captioning, American Sign Language interpretation)
and information must be posted at the ticket and audio desks, outside
the theater and beside any appropriate exhibits. Also, the symbols need
to be listed in the brochures, mailings, advertisements and on the
website. Some excellent examples of web sites are:
http://www.daheshmuseum.org/visit/index.html
http://www.tenement.org/vizinfo ada.html
http://www.asiasociety.org/visit/newyork.html
http://www.frick.org/information/access.htm
http://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/planningyourvisit.htm#accessibility
http://www.lincolncenter.org/visitor/
accessibility.asp?session=CF1FB16F-
41AD-4905-9558-654CABEE7BC0&version=&ws=&bc=2
http://www.amnh.org/museum/welcome/accessibility/?src=pv vi
The methodology recommended and is utilized on all of these web
sites. The access information is located by going to ``Visit Us'' and
then to the section on ``Access'' or ``Accessibility.'' All of the
information is then sorted by disability. The symbols should appear on
the left and the appropriate information on the right. All the parks
need to have a consistent approach to access and all of the parks must
be required to provide access information to Washington so that the
website can be updated. We would be happy to review the information
prior to posting it on the web.
For your reference, the following website has all the access
symbols formatted for easy downloading.
http://www.gag.org/resources/das.php
The phrase, ``headset or neck loop are available'' or ``T-coil
compatible'' should be included under the symbol so that patrons will
know specifically what type of equipment is available. An alternative
T-coil compatible symbol is available at www.hearingloop.org.
N. School Trips
The Education Department should remind schools to bring the FM
system if available for a child who is hard of hearing. In a pinch, the
Education Department should be aware that the docent FM system is
available. Please realize that if the FM system is forgotten, the child
suffers and is left behind. Also, the Education Department should
inquire whether a qualified interpreter is needed.
O. Training Program
An ongoing training program for all museum personnel is needed so
that everyone is aware of what options are available at NPS. All the
money spent on access and all the appropriate access is worthless
unless the staff is appropriately trained and knowledgeable about what
accommodations are available.
There also needs to be a 504 Coordinator who is a point person for
access information and complaints. Access training participation should
be a mandatory part of an employee's annual review.
An Access Guide should be available at the information desk. There
should be a separate page for each type of disability and the type of
accommodations available at NPS. The 504 Coordinator's contact
information should be listed on the inside cover.
SUMMARY:
The mandate of the National Park System is to be accessible to
everyone. With these proposals and adequate training, the National
Parks can offer consistent access for visitors who are hard of hearing
and deaf and allow them to visit the National Parks and experience
their America.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7519.001
______
Chart 2
Induction Receivers/Neck Loops--Frequently Asked Questions.
What is an induction receiver/neck loop?
While you may already be familiar with the headset or stethoscope
type of infrared receiver used at this theater, there is another type
of receiver that is known as an induction or neck loop receiver. It
will receive the infrared signal that is transmitted in this theater
but, unlike the headset type of receiver, cannot be used alone but must
be used with hearing aids. In addition, the hearing aids MUST be
equipped with TELEPHONE SWITCHES.
How is this receiver used?
The receiver is hung around your neck using the attached cord and
the neck loop is placed over your head. Make sure the plastic lens
faces outward. Turn your TELEPHONE switches to the ``T'' position; turn
the induction receiver on using the rotary knob that also serves as the
volume control. You can also adjust the volume by using the volume
controls, if present, on your hearing aids.
How do I know if I need an induction receiver?
While most people with a mild to moderate hearing loss can use the
standard headset receivers, those individuals with a more extensive
hearing loss, that is, severe to profound, may find it advantageous to
use an induction receiver. The induction receiver can provide a number
of advantages over the standard headset receiver that are:
1) You do not have to remove your hearing aids but merely switch
them to the ``T'' position in order to use the induction type receiver.
2) You can most likely get higher volume, if needed than with the
headset.
3) If you are using the headset receiver and find it necessary to
turn up the volume to the maximum or near maximum level, you may be
inadvertently disturbing audience members sitting next to or close to
you because some of the sound from your headset can leak out causing an
unpleasant echo.
Again, in order to use an induction or neck loop receiver, your
hearing aids MUST HAVE TELEPHONE SWITCHES
What exactly is a telephone switch ``T'' (also known as a telephone
coil)?
A telephone switch enables a hearing aid user to pick up the signal
coming from the earpiece of a telephone handset be means of a small
coil of wire which is sensitive to the magnetic field being emitted
from the telephone earpiece. This will make it easier for many (but not
necessarily all) hearing aid users to use the telephone. It turns out
that this technology, although originally developed for telephone use,
has other applications and can be used to enable a hearing aid to
directly pick up other signals such as those emitted by an infrared
induction receiver.
How do I know if I have a telephone switch?
On some hearing aids, there may be a switch labeled O-T-M or M-T.
On other hearing aids, there may be a switch with other labeling or no
labeling at all. On some newer hearing aids, there may be no visual
indication that the telephone switch is present--it may be activated by
pressing in on the aid in a certain spot or remote control or by just
holding a telephone over the hearing aid. In general, the smallest
types of hearing aids such as the CIC (completely in the canal) do not
have telephone switches. If you are not sure whether or not your
hearing aids have a telephone switch, you can check with your
audiologist or hearing aid specialist.
League for the Hard of Hearing, 5/13/2003
______
Chart 3
Technical Support for Assistive Listening Systems
The assistive listening device (``ALD'') distributors need to be
trained to test the equipment before it is given to the patron.
According to Josh Gendel, Director of Technology at The League for the
Hard of Hearing, two inexpensive pieces of equipment from Radio Shack
are needed. They are the Radio Shack Mini-Audio Amplifier #277-1008 for
approximately $11.99 and the Telephone Bug #44-533 for approximately
$3.99. Placing the Bug next to the neck loop can quickly test the neck
loop. Any sound the neck loop receives will be heard through the Mini-
Audio Amplifier.
Not only is it important to ensure that the equipment is working
but it is also important to confirm that the equipment is working in
the attendee's seat prior to the start of the show. On many occasions,
my daughter heard only static through her neck loop. This meant the
signal wasn't strong enough and either there were not enough infrared
emitters or the emitter was moved during a performance. None of which
could easily be remedied. The only solution was to change seats.
Unfortunately, on these occasions, it was too late to change seats
since we did not realize this problem until after the event began. This
problem could have been avoided if the theater had a pre-show sound
test.
The pre-show sound test is accomplished by having a CD/tape playing
prior to the start of the show but run only through the assistive
listening system. The audience cannot hear the sound unless they are
wearing the ALD. By having the sound on while patrons are arriving,
anyone whose seat is not receiving the signal or whose neck loop/
headset is not working would be able to make appropriate arrangements
prior to the start of the event. This alleviates disturbances during
the event. In the end, the customer is satisfied rather than
disappointed.
A sound loop explaining the ALD should be developed. This can be
done on either a CD or on MP3 player that would cost approximately
$300. This system is currently implemented at Disney World, most
Broadway theaters and at Avery Fischer Hall.
______
Mr. Pearce. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCarthy.
STATEMENT OF JAMES McCARTHY, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to
share the views of the National Federation of the Blind on
access to the parks of the United States.
The National Federation of the Blind is this nation's
largest organization composed of blind people. I will summarize
my remarks, and I want it understood that when I speak in terms
of access, I am only speaking about access from the point of
view of individuals who are blind.
Blind people do not want special changes to the built or
natural environment designed for our personal benefit. We don't
tend to want these changes because generally they are done in
such a manner by individuals who do not actually know the
capacities of blind people, and they don't ultimately therefore
meet our needs.
Another kind of follow-up or corollary to this is that park
officials should not, but in very rare circumstances, deny
admission to parks or to places, areas within parks based on
their perception of safety. In addition, they should not
condition admission of blind people based on the same concerns.
The ADA was very concerned about this because most people where
safety is at issue the perception of most of the general public
again is that people with disabilities, blind people
specifically here need special concerns where safety is
concerned.
When considering access as a blind person, blind people
generally think of access, what people today have referred to
as programmatic access, but basically access to information is
of critical importance to us. Most information is presented in
a visual format, in print, et cetera, and that probably is the
greatest barrier that blind people face in our daily lives.
Therefore, if we can access information in national parks,
our experience will thus be pleasant and generally positive.
One way this can be accomplished, many blind people now
access information via the internet, and those numbers will
continue to increase over time. Many elderly citizens probably
don't lack that access now, but that is one way where people
can gather information about parks before visiting.
The 508 standards are a very good starting place to make
this information accessible, and the National Park Service
should require that private vendors which it contracts with
that make information available to the public comply with the
508 standards. I understand that 508 doesn't apply to private
entities, but it certainly could be written in the contracts if
the Park Service wished to do so, and by doing that access
would be improved for blind people.
Signage is an interesting access issue for people who are
blind. In our great parks out West and other outdoor
environments, it is probably not practical, unfortunately, to
provide Braille signage, and therefore shouldn't be a
requirement. The reason is there really aren't any conventions
as to where one would locate signage so that the people
intended to benefit probably would not because they wouldn't be
able to find the signs easily when doing work on trails.
Now, internal signage, signage in buildings is certainly a
different matter, and access, I think, would require signage in
Braille whenever that is possible. And for outdoor signage,
information technology probably in the not distant future,
there are several technologies that should make signage
accessible to blind park visitors.
Many blind people miss out, people who are blind miss out
on a lot of--have experience deficits because of not being able
to see objects, and obviously the reason you visit parks is
because of the treasures, or one critical reason is the
treasures they maintain. Therefore, when it is possible there
should be a presumption that artifacts contained in parks are
available to touch. Obviously, I understand that that isn't
always going to be the case, and in such places there should be
efforts to offer models, replicas of those objects so that we
can derive the benefit that other people do, and enhance our
knowledge of the great country that live in, which is, as I
say, one of the reasons we visit.
I think the final point that I would make about access,
access is important largely, I think, because it offers
integration to people with disability, and there is a law known
as the Randolph Sheppard Act that permits blind people to
operate and sell commodities on Federal property. Opportunities
under this law have been declining steadily over recent years,
and the Park Service has not tended to be open to these
opportunities for blind operators.
Greater openness to this program would certainly be a great
benefit. People who are blind find this program the most
positive program for employment of blind people, and it would
also create an opportunity where park employees would become
accustomed to seeing blind people doing work on a daily basis,
and that is one of the values we find in the program.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment, and thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCarthy follows:]
Statement of James D. McCarthy, Director of Government Affairs,
The National Federation of the Blind
Chairman Pearce and members of the subcommittee:
My name is Jim McCarthy and I am pleased to have the opportunity to
comment on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB). I am
the director of Governmental Affairs for the NFB. My address is 1800
Johnson Street, Baltimore Maryland 21230. My phone is (410) 659-9314
extension 2240 and my email is [email protected].
The National Federation of the blind is this nation's largest
organization of blind people. The vast majority of our members are
blind as are all of our leaders. We often point out that, of, the
smallest word in our name is the most important because it indicates
that decisions made by our organization are decisions made by blind
people. Therefore, we are ``the voice of the nation's blind.''
I want it clearly understood that my comments are only meant to be
the views of blind people, not of the broader disability community. I
live every day with blindness, but do not have a perspective that
permits me to speak to the access needs of all individuals with
disabilities. Other witnesses on this panel will be comfortable
speaking for the broader community, but they should not be understood
to speak for the blind.
Accessibility as applied to the National Park system should be a
concept that is applicable to the vast array of differing installations
within its domain. Unfortunately, this may be easier said than actually
accomplished. I will suggest broad principles to make installations
within the system accessible to blind people with some more specific
recommendations that apply to particular kinds of sites.
Blind people do not generally require significant physical
modification to either the built or natural environment. Many of the
sites within the system have been included because of their natural
importance like the great parks out west. We do not believe that
special changes to their environments should be contemplated because
these are thought to offer us access.
People who venture in to these natural parks should expect certain
challenges, which is probably why most of them visit. Trails should
remain in their natural state or in the state that park officials
determine is safe for their use. The perceived needs of blind people
should never be a part of such determinations. This is so because in
the experience of the NFB, when our needs are considered, most
individuals not familiar with what the blind can or cannot do, vastly
under estimate our abilities.
To expand a bit on this idea, park officials must avoid (but in the
rarest of circumstances) denying blind people admission to parks
because of their concerns for our safety. I understand that ``direct
threat'' is a defense to a claim of discrimination under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, but it should be construed most narrowly.
Conditions should not be placed on admission of blind people to parks
for the same reasons. The assumption must always be that if a blind
person wants to visit a particular park, the person fully understands
the risk being taken and wants to visit anyway.
When blind people think of access, we generally are referring to
information much more than to physical ability to enter or travel
within a place. Though blindness would not stop me from scaling the
wall of this room, I doubt that I am able to climb to its ceiling
unaided. On the other hand there may be text on its walls and printed
material distributed here and blindness assures that I have no access
to either.
Blind people miss information that the rest of society receives
which may be our greatest barrier. Braille is the method of reading and
writing that is most efficient for blind people and even the room
numbers of this building and its elevators now have Braille. However, I
think Braille signage on trails in the natural parks is probably not a
practical solution.
To those familiar with the views of the NFB and the esteem we have
for Braille as a medium for the blind to use for reading and writing,
stating that Braille signs are not practical would seem to contradict
all that we hold dear. However, though the information that could be
placed on Braille signs would be extremely useful, most of the signs
would go unnoticed by the precise people they were intended to help.
This is so because I cannot think of any standard for their placement
where blind people could regularly find them when desired.
Technology may soon offer a suitable solution. Today there are
devices known as talking signs that use infrared technology, a receiver
held by a blind person and transmitters that provide information spoken
through the receivers if they are pointed at the transmitters. It also
seems likely that RFID tags will offer promise as a means of conveying
information contained on signs to blind trail visitors.
For buildings in National Parks, Braille signage is critical to
enhance access for blind visitors. As has become common, room numbers,
rest rooms elevators and the like should have Braille signage because
there are well-established standards for their placement. Braille
signage should also be affixed to displays when print signage is
offered.
The inability to see objects can create experience deficits for
blind people, but this can be readily addressed. Parks should permit
blind visitors to touch their holdings whenever possible. At our
conventions, the NFB regularly has what we call a sensory safari where
taxidermy animals found in the wild are made available to touch and
this is always very well received. I realize that contact with live
animals in natural settings or with delicate artifacts cannot always be
offered, but in such cases, to scale replicas would certainly suffice.
Finally, for blind and disabled people, access is significant
because it makes integration possible. Therefore, I would propose that
the National Parks Service work with blind people to develop
opportunities under the Randolph-Sheppard Act to offer products to park
visitors. The Randolph-Sheppard program is the most successful program
for the employment of blind people, but the numbers of opportunities
are on a steady decline and the national parks have largely been
unwilling to permit blind business people to operate under this program
within the parks of this nation.
In conclusion, if success can be claimed for the Americans with
Disabilities Act, it is most evident in society's greater expectation
that Americans with disabilities will participate in the full range of
activities available. Its emphasis on access for individuals with
disabilities makes integration possible. However, though access may be
important for all individuals with disabilities, a one-size fits all
access solution will not work, and should be assiduously avoided.
______
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. McCarthy.
Ms. Starnes.
STATEMENT OF NANCY STARNES, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OF STAFF,
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION ON DISABILITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Starnes. Chairman Pearce and Members of the
Subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to come and share
with you. I echo the sentiments of my co-presenters here.
My name is Nancy Starnes. I am the Vice President and Chief
of Staff of the National Organization on Disability. As a
person who is used to wheelchair for more than 33 years, I have
both a personal and a professional interest in the topic of
today's hearing.
N.O.D. is a nonpartisan, nonprofit disability organization
founded in 1982 as a outgrowth of the UN's International Year
of Disabled Persons. We are a national organization whose
mission is to promote the participation of all people with
disabilities, men, women and children at all aspects of
community life.
Over the course of the past 18 years, NOD has commissioned
a number of Harris interactive surveys to measure the quality
of life of people with disabilities in a wide range of critical
dimensions, to document the participation gaps between people
with disabilities and those without disabilities, and to
develop trend lines to measure the progress in eliminating
those participation gaps.
The significant indicators include employment income,
education, health care, access to transportation, socializing,
going to restaurants, attendance at religious services,
political participation, and life satisfaction
The data from the survey suggests that some progress is
being made but we all know that there is a lot more that
remains to be done, and people with disabilities still remain
at a disadvantage in most of these areas.
Two of the statistics from the 2004 NOD Harris survey of
Americans with disabilities bear some relevance to today's
hearing. One is socializing. The statistical gap between those
with and without disabilities is 10 percentage points. The gap
has increased slightly since 1994, and we know that the
national parks provide opportunities for people with
disabilities to interact with a wide range of individuals in a
natural setting that offers both physical challenges and
rewards individual's perseverance. Vacation memories of a
national park experience can be the source of inspiration for a
lifetime.
And transportation, 30 percent of people with disabilities
are much more likely to experience inadequate transportation
than are their non-disabled counterparts. Even as many of the
physical barriers to national parks and other places have
become less burdensome or disappeared all together,
transportation remains the key to being able to take full
advantage of the opportunities and advances afforded to people
with disabilities.
On January 25, 1999, the National Organization on
Disability entered into a partnership agreement with the U.S.
Department of Interior, National Park Service, to conduct a
fund raising campaign for art work at the Franklin Delano
Roosevelt Memorial that would provide recognition of President
Roosevelt's leadership while in a wheelchair.
N.O.D.'s five-year ``Rendezvous With Destiny Campaign''
inspired both large- and small-scale donors from across the
country to raise $1.65 million in private funds to add to the
statute of FDR in his wheelchair that now adorns the prologue
to the FDR Memorial here in Washington, D.C.
The first donation was $378.50 personally raised by
children of Lindberg Elementary School in Palisades Park, New
Jersey, and delivered to NOD's founder and then President Allen
A. Rike. The Rendezvous With Destiny Campaign culminated in a
dedication ceremony for the statute at which President Clinton
said, ``This is a monument to freedom--the power of every man
and woman to transcend circumstance, to laugh in the face of
fate, to make the most of what God has given.''
The FDR Memorial is just one of the many stars in our
National Park Service System that calls visitors, including
those with disabilities, to remember and celebrate the life,
dignity, and freedom that our American way of life represents.
We at NOD hear from time to time that people with
disabilities are not able to access that park system. From the
first designation of the park system at Yellowstone to the most
recent designation of Great Sand Dunes, the incorporation of
accessibility features into parks, monuments, trails, and
historic sites has encouraged visits by more and more people.
With each generation since Yellowstone was designated as a
national park, people with disabilities have grown in their
expectation that these wonderful national treasures would be
accessible to them.
Today, these sites offer recreation and education
opportunities for people of all ages and all abilities. Through
a free and universal design concepts applied to facilities,
trails and historic parks in our National Park System ensure
the broadest use by people with disabilities, whether they are
visiting unaccompanied or whether they draw additional people
to the park settings through visitors who are family members,
friends, or professional caregivers.
``People with wheelchairs are somewhat an indicator of the
species. If you provide for them, you will accommodate a lot of
other park users'' said landscape architect Mike Brown at a
1992 Statewide Trails Conference. He continued, ``All of us
have been or will be at some time dependent on others, needing
help to get around. So barrier-free design helps all of us.''
The National Park System has been recognized 10 times for
its accessible features but we know that a lot more can be done
to address the barriers as you have heard here today. As an
example, one individual reported to NOD that he could not
access some national parks because of a rule barring motorized
vehicles from passing beyond the parking area. He happened to
be a wheelchair user, and he needed his car to be able to drive
into the interior sites.
The increasing use of Segways, as you have heard, by
individuals with mobility impairments raises additional issues
regarding restrictions of wheel vehicles in national park
sites.
Other areas for improvement include providing printed
information in alternate formats, whether that be large print,
Braille or audio cassette. Braille was actually used at the FDR
Memorial as a visual component of the site, but we believe it
wasn't accurately produced there, and may send an unintended
message to those who are blind.
In addition, we have heard of issues reported in research--
that are consistent with research conducted in 2001 by the
University of Tennessee for the National Center of
Accessibility regarding national parks. Some of the issues that
continue to be raised are: insufficient accessible parking;
lack of accessible restroom facilities; lack of access to
utilities and drinking water; lack of access to storage, trash
and recycling areas; lack of accessible trails, overlooks and
viewing areas; lack of accessible camping facilities; lack of
access to the visitors center; and lack of access of curb cuts.
N.O.D.'s Accessible American Competition encourages local
government of any size to enter their best practices ideas that
promote the participation of people with disabilities in their
city, town, or county. Many of the 150 entrants who have vied
for the designation as American's most ``disability-friendly
community'' had proudly lifted up the important role that their
parks and recreation programs play in integrating people with
disabilities into community life. We at the National
Organization on Disability believe that our National Park
System should do no less.
Thank you, on behalf of the National Organization on
Disability, for the invitation to appear before you today. We
applaud the dedicated individuals who are elected, appointed,
or employed to bring the national park experience to everyone
and we are ready to work with them to address instances where
people with disabilities continue to face barriers to the park
system.
I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Starnes follows:]
Statement of Nancy Starnes, Vice President & Chief of Staff,
National Organization on Disability
Chairman Pearce, Ranking Member Christensen and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, thank you for conducting
an oversight hearing on disability access in the National Park System
and providing the National Organization on Disability (N.O.D.) with an
opportunity to comment on this important topic. My name is Nancy
Starnes and I am Vice President and Chief of Staff for the National
Organization on Disability. As a person who has used a wheelchair for
33 years, I have both a personal and professional interest in the
subject of today's hearings.
N.O.D. is a non-partisan, non-profit disability organization
founded in 1982 as an outgrowth of the United Nations International
Year of Disabled Persons. N.O.D. is a national organization whose
mission is to promote the participation of America's 54 million men,
women and children with disabilities in all aspects of community life.
Over the course of the past 18 years, N.O.D. has commissioned a
number of Harris Interactive Surveys to measure the quality of life of
people with disabilities on a wide range of critical dimensions, to
document the participation gaps between people with and without
disabilities and to develop trend lines over time to measure progress
in eliminating those gaps. The significant indicators include:
employment, income, education, health care, access to transportation,
socializing, going to restaurants, attendance at religious services,
political participation and life satisfaction. The data from the
surveys suggest that some progress is being made, but that people with
disabilities still remain at a disadvantage in most of these areas.
Two of the statistics from the 2004 N.O.D./Harris Survey of
Americans with Disabilities bear particular relevance to today's
hearing:
Socializing: The statistical gap between those with and
those without disabilities is 10 percentage points. This gap has
increased slightly since 1994. National Parks provide opportunities for
people with disabilities to interact with a wide range of individuals
in a natural setting that offers physical challenges and rewards
perseverance. Vacation memories from a National Park Service experience
can be the source inspiration for a lifetime.
Transportation: Thirty percent of people with
disabilities are much more likely to experience inadequate
transportation than are their non-disabled counterparts. Even as many
of the physical barriers to National Parks and other public places have
become less burdensome or disappeared altogether, transportation
remains the key to being able to take full advantage of the
opportunities the advances afford people with disabilities.
On January 25,1999, the National Organization on Disability entered
into a partnership agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service to conduct a fund raising campaign for artwork at
the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial that would provide recognition
of President Roosevelt's leadership while in a wheelchair. N.O.D.'s
five year ``Rendezvous with Destiny Campaign'' inspired large- and
small-scale donors from across the country to raise $1.65 million in
private funds to add the statue of FDR in his wheelchair that now
adorns the prologue to the FDR Memorial in Washington, DC. The first
donation of $378.50 was personally raised by children of Lindbergh
Elementary School in Palisades Park, New Jersey and delivered to
N.O.D.'s Founder and then president, Alan A. Reich. The ``Rendezvous
with Destiny Campaign'' culminated in a dedication ceremony for the
statue at which President Clinton said, ``This is a monument to
freedom--the power of every man and woman to transcend circumstance, to
laugh in the face of fate, to make the most of what God has given.''
The FDR Memorial is just one of the many stars in our National Park
System that calls visitors, including those with disabilities, to
remember and celebrate the life, dignity and freedom that of our
American way of life represents.
We at N.O.D. hear from time to time that people with disabilities
are facing barriers to access in the National Park System. From the
first designation by the National Park System of Yellowstone in 1782 to
the most recent designation, Great Sand Dunes in 2000, the
incorporation of accessibility features into parks, monuments, trails
and historic sites has encouraged visits by more and more people. With
each generation since Yellowstone was designated as a National Park,
people with disabilities have grown in their expectation that these
wonderful national treasures would be accessible to them. Today, these
sites offer recreation and education opportunities for people of all
ages and all abilities.
``Barrier-free'' and ``universal design'' concepts applied to
facilities, trails and historic sites in our National Park System
ensure the broadest use by people with disabilities whether they are
visiting unaccompanied or with additional visitors who provide support
as family, friends or professional caregivers.
``People with wheelchairs are somewhat an indicator of the
species--if you provide for them, you accommodate a lot of other park
users,'' said landscape architect Mike Brown at a 1992 Statewide Trails
Conference. He continued, ``All of us have been or will be at some time
dependent on others, needing help to get around. So barrier-free design
helps all of us.''
The National Park System has been recognized 10 times for its
accessible features but more can be done to address the barriers some
people with disabilities face. As an example, one individual reported
to N.O.D. that he could not access some National Parks because of a
rule barring motorized vehicles from passing beyond the parking area.
He was not able to use his wheelchair to reach the interior site some
distance from the parking area and had to rely on his van to get to his
destination. The increasing use of Segways by individuals with mobility
impairments raises additional issues regarding restrictions of wheeled
vehicles in National Park sites. Other areas for improvement include
providing printed information in alternate formats, i.e. large print,
Braille and audio cassette. Braille was used at the FDR Memorial as a
visual component of the site but was not accurately produced, and may
send an unintended message to those who are blind.
In addition, research conducted in 2001 by the University of
Tennessee for the National Center on Accessibility regarding National
Parks revealed the following areas of concern for visitors with
disabilities:
Lack of sufficient accessible parking
Lack of accessible restroom facilities
Lack of access to utilities and drinking water
Lack of access to storage, trash and recycling areas
Lack of accessible to trails, overlooks and viewing areas
Lack of accessible camping facilities
Lack of access to the Visitors Center
Lack of curb cuts
N.O.D.'s Accessible America Competition encourages local government
of any size to enter their best practices ideas that promote the
participation of people with disabilities in their city, town or
county. Many of the 150 entrants who have vied for the designation as
America's most ``disability-friendly community'' have proudly pointed
to the important role that their parks and recreation programs play in
integrating people with disabilities into community life. We at the
National Organization on Disability believe that our National Park
System should do the same thing.
Thank you, on behalf of the National Organization on Disability,
for the invitation to appear before you today. We applaud the dedicated
individuals who are elected, appointed or employed to bring the
National Park experience to everyone and are ready to work with them to
address instances where people with disabilities face barriers to the
Park System. I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you
might have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7519.002
______
Mr. Pearce. Well, thank you. I hear at west Texas speed,
which is about 20 miles per hour slower than you speak, so part
of your testimony will still be playing its way through my
cassette tape player. In about 20 minutes, I will finally hear
the end of your statement.
Ms. Starnes. I am a Dallas girl.
Mr. Pearce. I appreciate that. We are in good shape.
Ms. Masica, why don't you go ahead and bring your chair up
to the table, and let us start kind of a discussion. If you
have other people there who will help answer, deflect or
whatever, you are welcome to bring them up.
Let me tell you something before we start, Ms. Masica, and
all of you, and including Mr. Robb and Mr. Harding. Is Mr.
Harding still here? Yes, OK.
I am going to submit a letter to the Director and Ms.
Masica, and I am going to ask each of you to, as we are going
along, contribute the two things that you think are most
essential, so we are going to let you throw out your two bullet
points for the letter here at the end of the hearing. We will
ask Ms. Mainella to personally answer in written form what the
Park Service hopes to do in the next year and then the next 10
years with regard to the 12 points that we will bring up. So I
think that would be a suitable outcome for the day.
I have already raised one question to you, Ms. Masica, if
you remember what that discussion might be, then why don't you
start there, and then we will proceed from that point.
We are going to have to pass microphones back and forth out
here, so if everybody will kind of spread them out, and be a
little more accessible.
Ms. Masica. Mr. Chairman, we were talking about the Segways
before you had to leave to go vote, and I think that----
Mr. Pearce. And the Segway in the broader sense if they are
being used by agencies to hold down the visitation. We can
agree or disagree with the idea that visitation should be up or
down. That is a separate deal.
But if that were the policy, you see how it would affect
one community more than all the other combined, and so it is
cutting us down to a very, very key point right here.
Ms. Masica. Yes.
Mr. Pearce. Why don't you address that.
Ms. Masica. Sure, to the best of my ability, I will try to
do that.
I don't believe there is anybody in the Park Service who
intentionally would view having a discussing about the
appropriate use of Segways as being driven by a desire to
dampen visitation or to reduce visitation. I think that it is a
new technology that the Park Service has not fully grappled
with yet, and certainly the issue of Segways being available
for mobility assistance is one that we are definitely trying to
encourage superintendents to look at, to make a decision on a
case-by-case basis where it is practical, and wherever it is
feasible to do so, to allow them to be used for mobility
assistance for persons with disabilities to get into a national
park.
I think there are a lot of places around the Park Service
where that ought to be feasible and doable, and if we find
people who are not doing that, I think that become a challenge
for myself as part of the management team that we need to get
on to deal with those.
But I think we are trying to make sure that each park
superintendent is more aware of this issue. You mentioned
earlier about this hearing providing a forum for which we
heighten awareness, and I think it very much will contribute to
that.
Mr. Pearce. How about the broader aspect of it that was
brought up by Ms. Starnes there that someone was not able to
get their van in closer than the parking lot, again the rule
being interpreted so strictly?
Ms. Masica. Yes. I don't know the specifics of that so I
would need to look into that.
Mr. Pearce. I understand it is just conceptual----
Ms. Masica. Yes, I mean----
Mr. Pearce.--same problem.
Ms. Masica. I think conceptually that the issue of
providing as much access as we can, and where it is needed for
disability access, if it doesn't have a negative impact on park
resources, we ought to be allowing that and encouraging that.
Mr. Pearce. In a group with all 390-something
superintendents, would you have superintendents in the room who
would bristle at the suggestion that maybe they should consider
letting Segways in, or vans get in closer?
Ms. Masica. Probably. I would like to think that it would
be far fewer in the room than it might have been 10 years ago,
but I am not going to sit here and suggest that everybody is as
far as long as we need them to be.
Mr. Pearce. As long as the system is recognized. I mean,
that is a very key thing. Sometimes it is very difficult to go
all the way to be honest, but we should all be straightforward.
I agree with the comment earlier that there are people in the
system, even in the park system, but I think more in the Forest
Service who really do think access should be limited, and they
don't really care exactly how they limit it. They can do it
through just the stroke of a pen and limit access to Segways
and keep out a whole group, and numbers, and I am thinking
numbers. I don't think they should drive to limit people with
disabilities. So it is the number overall, and this would be a
good, nice big class to take members out.
I think there are people that I have visited with in the
system--again more in the Forest Service system I think. So
those are conversations that the Park Service, I think, should
be engaged in.
Well, I really appreciate Mr. McCarthy's testimony, and Ms.
Schacter there. They are kind of pushing the technology
envelope. So if we are having trouble with the system
recognizing Segways, what kind of trouble is the system going
to have to convert over to infrared RFID systems, radio
frequency ID, just a little tag that emits a signal? What kind
of problems are we going to have getting the system to reach
out and embrace those different concepts?
Ms. Masica. You know, I think that one of the services that
we can help superintendents with, and from things like the
Harpers Ferry Center where they do a lot of our interpretative
programming is understanding the technology so that
superintendents don't have to do that on their own, and that
there is sort of a well-founded basis for having evaluated the
technology, and looked at for its applicability and where
things can be deployed.
But I think that somebody else also pointed out that money
is not an excuse, and I absolutely agree with that. I think it
is providing accessibility is a part of how we do business, and
we have, I think, ingrained that a fair amount, and need to
continue to work.
We were talking during the break internally about some
upcoming training of superintendents for example, and how to
make sure that this topic is part of that conversation, and I
think it is that continual learning is what we are going to
have to do to help educate people, and open and expand their
horizons.
Mr. Pearce. At a previous hearing, we pulled the Park
Service together with specialists in the tourism industry, and
I mean, it was just a stunning thing. What are the chances that
the park system would actually use these five, six people as
kind of a go-to board for the next year to help it think? Mr.
McCarthy points out adequately. Ms. Schacter pointed out
adequately that you have people making decisions about stuff
they really don't know much about. Frankly, I wouldn't know
much about it.
But I felt like the presentations here today have been
pretty factual, pretty straightforward. They haven't been
overly antagonistic, and it just seems like there could be good
connections here.
I am going to let you ponder that with them, and answer it
on the next time through, or you don't even have to really, but
I would like you to consider it.
I will turn to Ms. Christensen for questions now.
Ms. Christensen. Thank you. I apologize for not getting
back sooner, but we are also dealing with Medicare Part D and
the deadline that is coming up, and I had to do something on
that.
If the question has been answered about the new facilities
that are coming on line not being built to accommodate persons
with disabilities, was that question already answered, because
I understand that as facilities are being built today, they are
not ADA compliant? Is that already answered?
Ms. Masica. Well, we talked about it, Ms. Christensen. I
think that there are--our construction dollars are used for a
combination of both new construction and rehabilitation of
existing facilities so we are looking at maximizing our
accessibility and meeting the requirements for both types of
construction, not just the new but also the rehabilitation.
Ms. Christensen. OK, but going forward from here as we
construct new facilities, they will be accessible?
Ms. Masica. That is certainly the expectation that we put
out, and certainly put into our contracts. Some concerns have
been raised about the oversight of those contracts, and how we
are managing those, and I think that those are the kind of
things that we need to continue to be attentive to.
Ms. Christensen. Ms. Schacter.
Ms. Schacter. My concern is that, again, it is more the
mobility issues, and we need to look at hearing access. I can
only speak as to my family. We visited in Dayton, Ohio, the
Orville Wright and Wilbur Wright Museum, and it is a completely
new facility. The people were lovely, but there were films that
were not captioned. There were videos without assistive
listening devices, and it has to be in the contracts, that
there is basically a three-prong approach for any time there is
audio there needs to be assistive listening devices, have sets
on neck loops, captioning, and qualified interpretation every
single time there is an audio output.
Unfortunately, it was not there, and that was a new
facility. And so what concerns me, you know, we only have so
many weeks vacation, I don't know what is going on in the rest
of the country, and I can tell you out of six parks that we
recently were there was nothing--there was nothing there for my
daughter, and that is ridiculous, and I am not looking to point
fingers. I am trying to figure out how can we find this.
Ms. Christensen. Right, and I think we have to deal with
more than just mobility issues, and I am glad to keep our
vision, that you are helping to keep our vision broader and
where it needs to be.
Where there are opportunities for outdoor recreation within
our park system, can anyone tell me how would you rate the
communication of those opportunities by the Park Service?
Anyone can answer. Yes.
Ms. Schacter. Well, as I mentioned, it started when we came
back from a trip to Puerto Rico, and the film was in Spanish
and English, but there was no caption version in either
language, and from that I have to say I started contacting the
Park Service, and I was able to get all the way through, and
they have had some very senior meetings, but it has to--there
is this disconnect. What seems to be happening that--you know,
I can't go around, you know, when Chairman Pearce talked about
being the sheriff, I feel like I am the sheriff. I go to a park
and literally as we leave the park I e-mail a 504 complaint on
my Blackberry saying problem, complaint, and they watch me as I
travel through the--you know, through Ohio, down to Kentucky,
down to Tennessee, each of the complaints. I mean, it is
ridiculous.
And this is the only way I am able to force the issue of
accessibility, and that seems ridiculous, but I was told from
various people that they can't raise the priority of it. So
while the people are lovely, occasionally we have gotten some
issues. I will say at Gettysburg we had a very disturbing
instance where the superintendent of the park knew the system
was broken, and could care less, and frankly, just was not
interested.
At Ellis Island when I e-mailed them to find out what type
of access they had, I got a very flip e-mail back saying we
have some--I don't know what she said, but she is like it is
five o'clock, got to go, and I could never find information
out, and it took me calling and calling.
So there is not a communication, and if you look at the
website, I mean, literally some of the pages are blank when you
look in the access section, and in some pages only have
mobility access. They don't use the ADA symbols, which is
required, and I can't figure out why not just put all the ADA
symbols on the left, corresponding paragraph on the right, and
force the superintendents to answer those surveys of what they
have. Sometimes they actually have the stuff, but they just
don't want to tell anyone.
So I mean, the lack of communication and the disconnects is
really problematic.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. McCarthy, you wanted to answer?
Mr. McCarthy. Yes, to follow up a little bit.
I think one of the towns I think--I have to confess I don't
get many complaints. I am actually sort of changing the
subject, but I think it comes back to where you are going. I
don't get many complaints for workers, blind workers at the
parks, but the biggest reason I think that I don't is because
there aren't very much workers with disabilities at the parks,
so most of the park people don't really have any sense of
disability focus, and it truly is anecdotal.
But the complaints I get are some of the most serious
accommodations complaints that I get from anybody in the
Federal government of real kind of aggressive anti-
accommodation. So I think that culturally there is an
unfortunate culture in the National Park and National Forest
System that kind of says, you know, people with disabilities,
whatever they are, may not be the expected customers or
employees, et cetera, of these facilities, and that is part of
the problem.
I think there is a corollary which Ms. Schacter sort of
suggested, but a corollary to Chairman Pearce's concern about a
class of people being left out, and that corollary is that I
think that people with disabilities and the needs of people
with disabilities are not the most significant or even among
the significant priorities of the Park Service in its day-to-
day activities; that they are probably fairly low.
So I do think progress is being made and appreciate the
opportunities to discuss this, but I think that is still one
of--you know, if a piece of equipment is broken, there is not a
real strong desire to fix it kind of thing.
Mr. Pearce. Yes, Ms. Schacter.
Ms. Schacter. I think one of the other things I just want
to point out, and why I have a sense of urgency and while I do
things are progressing, one of the areas that I represent is
children, and what is critical is when a child goes on a school
trip and they go with a class, and there is not appropriate
access, and then the child can't hear what is being said or
can't visit the site appropriately, they now come back to the
class. They are tested on that information. The child falls
behind, and if we are very committed to no child left behind,
then we have to really ensure that the child has a successful
school trip.
Also, in a child's life, every year is critical. You know,
if you want to go visit the parks, but if you don't go this
year, you go next year, OK, maybe it is not as terrible. But in
a child's life, you can't opt out of a school trip, and I am
not minimizing it for an adult, but I think it makes it much
more critical when you are dealing with education.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you. Ms. Masica, are you holding up OK? I
mean, this is rigorous stuff, and you should not be by yourself
here. We have many years' worth of problems that people are
talking about, and we appreciate you being the messenger, and
we recognize that you are the messenger. These are difficult
subjects to message back, which is the reason I am going to put
that into the written letter.
I have been critical of the National Park System polls. I
don't want to take away from the good things the parks do, but
I have made comments constantly that their polls don't talk to
the people who are not being invited in or who are not able to
get in. You hear that point coming up, and so that might be one
of my two points that I put in the letter. Please be aware
there is a great amount of sentiment that is kind of bubbling
to the surface, and I appreciate the restraint of everybody
here. We could start piling on very hard, and we have a person
here who is trying to work through the problems with us, so I
appreciate your restraint, every single one of you, but these
are difficult circumstances. Ms. Schacter, the reason we are
having the hearing is that I recognize that too often we have
left our citizens unspoken for, and they are individual
sheriffs.
It is our job. We have failed in our job of oversight, I
will tell you that 100 percent. If we had asked more insistent
questions earlier in the process, we wouldn't be dangling along
at this stage of the game. And I agree with you on the timing,
that just these kids are learning so fast so much.
Mr. McCarthy, tell me, have you ever visited a park and
related to me the things that you felt you picked up from the
park. I am going to ask you to just describe to me what the
benefits are to you being a silent parent, benefits of visiting
a park, outdoors or whatever. Give a stab at it and see.
Mr. McCarthy. Sure, and I think I will use it to actually
tell a positive story that I think you will appreciate, Mr.
Chairman, kind of about, you know, park officials having really
strong rules but interpreting them in a good, positive, right
way.
I visited several parks, and I am totally blind. I can't
see anything. I don't even think I can see lights. But I think
there is a sense of being where America's treasures are, being
where the world's treasures are that you can still feel.
I have been to Istanbul, Turkey, and for those who haven't,
you know, it is the crater of history, and you know that
whether you can see it or not, and our parks have the same--you
know, Congress has chosen and designated them because of their
significance to us as Americans, and you do feel that way
whether you can see them or not.
I guess several years ago I visited Crater Lake in Oregon,
and I had a dog as a mobility tool, and was doing camping
with--I was the only blind person in the group, there were five
or six of us, and all the signs at Crater Lake are very clear.
No animals, no animals, no animals. Nothing can drink from this
water. Nothing can touch this water. This is pure and 5,000
years old and on and on and on and on.
So I walked in with my dog, and nobody said anything, and
the whole time I am like, oh, my basic attitude was, you know,
I have a right to have him, and I am going to bring him in
until there has to be a confrontation. Then I am just going to
keep going. And never was, never was, never was. Got down--
hiked down the trail down to the water. It was about 90
degrees. The dog was thirsty as he could be, and I was like I
have to give him water, but you are not supposed to put
anything foreign into this lake, but my God, my dog is going to
die if I don't give him water.
So I dipped in his bowl and I gave him water. Well, first I
saw a ranger, and I said, you know, I have to do this, and the
ranger sort of misunderstood me, and he say, well, you know,
dogs drink out of the toilet all the time. This water is really
pure. Don't worry about it.
I said, no, I am not worried about the dog. I was worried
about you guys having trouble with it. And he said, well, come
on, gosh, you know, he has come down this trail and he is
thirsty. And so that is a--you know, that was a really positive
experience. I was totally afraid to get the opposite.
So you know, it goes both ways, and I guess--and most of my
experiences in the parks are neither positive nor negative. I
think a lot of disabled people go with people who can make the
information accessible to them, whether it is or isn't in the
park.
I guess I would close by saying, you know, when I was a
kid, because I was born blind, parents didn't think like Ms.
Schacter thinks. They thought, well, this is how it is, and we
do the best we can with our kids and we try to make them have a
positive experience.
It is probably parents like Ms. Masica now, which were not
mine and most of my contemporaries, that have an awful lot to
do with changing culture, including the culture of people with
disabilities to say we really do have a right to the enjoyment
of these activities that are there for all Americans.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you so much.
Mr. Howarth, if you would be sure this piece of the
transcript gets into the hands--in with this letter we send to
Ms. Mainella.
I would really encourage her to send that one segment where
the positive impact is--I think people should feel and see the
emotion. Most people, both who are on the positive side of
recognition of access and those who would be kind of dragging
their feet, it is significant.
By the way, I am going to give each one of you a chance to
kind of wrap up here at some point in a couple of minutes, so
you can be organizing your thoughts, but a couple of minutes
each, not that we are going to wrap up in a couple of minutes.
We will probably drag this thing out for another half-day with
you.
Ms. Christensen.
Ms. Christensen. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. McCarthy,
for bringing up the issue about the employees with
disabilities, because I think that is also a very important
part of this issue. I just have one other question.
Ms. Masica, I understand that the NPS website is being
updated, being done, and you all are taking steps to make sure
that this website is more user friendly and informative to
persons with disabilities?
Ms. Masica. Ms. Christensen, I am not aware of the
specifics of what the updates are going to be to the website,
but I certainly will be going back and take back the message.
Ms. Christensen. Take back the message of this hearing?
Ms. Masica. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Christensen. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pearce. Ms. Schacter has mentioned the lack of the
system monitoring itself. I mean, it is our function to an
extent, but Ms. Masica, we are seeing the system break down. I
am not going to ask it because it gets a little charged up, but
if I ask her the same questions I asked you, ``How does the
system work?''and ``What is the process for accepting
complaints?'', I would suspect that it would be somewhat
different. You gave me a manager's explanation of the process,
and what I was getting at was I suspect that the system is not
overly responsive.
I mean, at some point managers have to move past the rules,
past the structure that is written in a book, and get down and
start grinding out the difficult answers that are out there.
Again, I think that would be a very positive outcome for you to
go back and say, look, yes, we have a nice sterile process that
says we do this, we do this, we do this for the complaints, but
we don't really get down and cure the complaints one by one as
she goes to the park or as Mr. McCarthy or whatever. There are
positive things.
The reason I want to go back is that I am trying to set up
my schedule to go back to the west coast. I tell you I want my
brother--he was on the Access Board--to go out and go to that
big tree in the middle of Sequoia. I forget the--General
Johnson or Sherman or somebody, General something or other--
General Chaos when we get there with my brother.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pearce. It touches you spiritually to see that stuff,
and to go out to those falls. You all have done a really good
job of making those two pieces accessible, and I will tell you,
I think I am no different than the rest of the people in the
world.
When my brother got in a wheelchair, it was a learning
curve for all of us. When he was in college, it was just the
first day back in a chair, and he was OK, and I am running him
across a busy intersection in our hometown. I did not see the
little things that stick out for your feet to be on, or at a 90
degree angle to the pavement that I was about to hit and so we
hit that, and I dumped him out right in the middle of the
street, and people were driving by cursing, throwing the finger
and stuff, but you could just see me.
Another time I put him up on the wing of the airplane. I
have a low-wing airplane. I knew that he probably was never
going to get the experience of being upside down in an
airplane, and everybody should have that experience. So, we
figured out how to put him up on this low-wing airplane and get
some tug-of-war going, pull him through the cockpit and into
one of the seats, and that was the most ridiculous thing that
ever happened, but we did get him upside down in an aircraft.
The fact that he could go out to the parks and see General
Sherman and see these falls, it is stunning to me, and I think
each one of the people here would recognize that. So it looks
like we have Mr. Harding easing back to the table. Would you
like to make a comment, sir?
Mr. Harding. Yes, sir. Thank you. I am sorry. I have to
catch a flight back to Tallahassee.
Mr. Pearce. All right. Give us your two points.
Mr. Harding. Fort Lauderdale.
I would first like to encourage you to assist us with our
rulemaking process, and consequently also with the Department
of Justice as they move on to their component, and then,
finally, research funding for trail accessibility because as I
am sure you are well aware that access in the outdoor
environment comes in many shapes, sizes, colors, and forms, and
to find the best prologues for the diversity in our outdoors
would greatly assist the access needs for all persons.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Pearce. Fair enough. I appreciate that, I appreciate
you coming in today. This has been a very worthwhile hearing
for us.
I think what I would like to do is go straight on down the
line and let us have everyone give their comments, and Mr.
Robb, if you haven't escaped, you can get on the end down by
Ms. Starnes. Again, if each one of you takes two minutes, we
are looking at another 15 or 20 minutes, and then I will
probably have a lot more hot air to express, so we will just
tighten it up just a bit. Just give bullet point-type thoughts,
the thing that you would like to put in the letter, and we have
already got a couple there.
Mr. Kerr, lead away.
Mr. Kerr. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that I do not
believe the problems with accessibility rest in the members of
the National Park Service present with us here today.
Accessibility, the notion of accessibility must permeate the
entire Park Service. They need to adopt the attitude of what
can we do to promote accessibility. What harm would it do? They
don't do that.
What they do is, and I am not talking about those here
today, I am talking about those that are out in the field, they
say ``Why should I?''. They say, ``You can't do that.'' They
don't say, ``How can we do this, or what shouldn't we do
this?'' They say, ``You can't do that.''
It is a very rigid mindset that exists out there today.
Last month we were in a law school where they promoted
assistive technology in a courtroom. Every single possible
piece of technology that exists today was used in that
courtroom, including the Segway, which was used by a Federal
judge to deliver closing arguments, a Federal judge with
multiple sclerosis. There were many Federal agencies in
attendance down there to witness the assistive technology for
sight, for hearing impairment, for mobility. For virtually
every kind of disability there was a solution there.
But there was no one there from the National Park Service.
You must want to be accessible. It must permeate the
organization. With all due respect, she said that they were
looking at reasons--places where the Segway might be able to be
used. There is no place where it shouldn't be able to be used.
There is no possible explanation, no reasonable expectation for
someone to say, ``It is not appropriate here. It is not
appropriate here.''
If they can't get over that hurdle, if they can't get over
that hurtle, what help is there for other hurtles that face
that are much more difficult, require much more coordination
and a comprehensive solution, and so I am concerned that we
will be back here a year from now or two years from now telling
stories that another park superintendent said no. Another park
superintendent said, ``I don't care.''
My concern is that it is not those that are here with us
today, but there is a permeation there that needs to be
addressed. Thank you.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you very much.
Ms. Schacter.
Ms. Schacter. The two questions that I would like included
in the letter is: How do we ensure that all three components
for access for the hard of hearing and deaf, assistive
listening devices, that means head sets and neck loops,
captioning, and qualified interpretation are in place in each
park? All three things, not one or the other, must be at every
park every time there is an audio output.
The second question: How do we have accountability in
monitoring with appropriate training at each park? It cannot be
that a superintendent doesn't want to do something and that
there is just no recourse. That is just not acceptable.
Then just as my conclusion, I would like to know when Ellis
Island is finally going to be up to speed. It is the gateway to
America, and it is ridiculous, it is already over a year, and
there is still no captioning. I can turn captioning around for
a film in 24 hours. I can get an assistive listening device
system into a theater in 24 hours. Why is it taking over a
year?
Mr. Pearce. Thank you.
I would just note, Mr. Kerr, if we follow through on the
accessibility, then that is the first step in making sure that
we are not here a year from now doing a kind of ``warm up the
old hash'' deal. OK. Fair enough.
I appreciate your purpose, Ms. Schacter. It answers a
question as well as gives one. Thanks.
Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. I think that the Park Service would go a long
way if it gave prominence internally to individuals with
disabilities and had them perhaps involved in disability-
related complaints, and in education of park officials.
Is it great that Mr. Robb with the Research Center at
Indiana University, I am a proud Indiana resident originally,
so I appreciate that. But it is great to have an outside
entity, and Ms. Susan mentioned, you know, that they
appreciated that relationship, but there needs to be internal
relationships.
It is often said in the disability world nothing about us
without us, so ask us. You know, as the researchers, but ask
the people that are going into the parks. Get people involved.
I think you are right, Mr. Chairman, you know, use people here.
We can recommend other people. We certainly can dial. I think
that is really, really critical.
I guess my second thing would be you don't--people in the
parks and all over the government don't know really what
peoples' disabilities--well, I guess that is the first, you
know, but I think that is the real key. Include the disabled
community in discussion of what access really means. I think
that to the extent the parks do that, access for all of us will
improve over the period.
I would close by congratulating you, Mr. Chairman, on
getting your brother upside down in that plane. As somebody,
you know, and I think experience whatever it is, blind people
all want to drive cars but we can't do it.
Mr. Pearce. Yes.
Mr. McCarthy. So there is no experience potentially too
dangerous. I comment you for strapping him in and getting him
over there.
Mr. Pearce. You have fun with me, since I might be too
dangerous to fly with but----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, sir.
Now, Ms. Starnes.
Ms. Starnes. Thank you, Mr. Pearce.
I think it is wonderful that Ms. Masica said that they
already have an advisory system in place, an advisory committee
that meets twice a year. It may mean that once you provide your
letter that there will be more opportunities for them to
dialogue and work on the issues that we have raised.
Certainly having notice of when those meetings are being
held, I am sure that there are a lot of us here and our
constituents who would be willing to sit back as observers and
offer as we are invited to do so information that is going to
help the process that that advisory committee undergoes when
they do meet.
Possibly, Ms. Masica, you want to issue advisory letters in
the way that DOT does to the airlines, making sure that they
are up to speed, saying this is not a rule yet but it certainly
is a precursor maybe to a rule, and help them build their
relationship with people with disabilities so that it is more a
relationship between a customer and somebody who wants to
provide a service or an opportunity rather than one of
confrontation, and possibly the formation of local advisory
committee with the supervisor in charge of that would help
begin to develop more sensitivity to who their local customers
are, and I suspect that those are going to be the ones who are
more likely to visit the parks are the ones who are going to be
right there in your area.
So having local advisory committees either in conjunction
with the Center for Independent Living or other individuals
with disabilities that the community may be able to advise on
would help develop that kind of sensitivity, again in a way
that says you are my neighbor, you are in my town, you are in
my city, you are in my area, and I want to help you make this
experience better not only for me, but for people who come from
out of town to visit as well.
Mr. Pearce. Fascinating. I would ask that the idea of the
advisory letter be one step short of the director's order or
something like that. We are not going to come out and back
anybody up, but if we keep getting those complaints in the
system, if we can't let folks know about the ALDs, assistive
listening devices, when they come through the door, we are
going to come down, we are going to do something. Just an
advisory letter to the system that we are listening and if we
don't start curing, something is going to happen.
That is the reason I love having these people come in from
around the country, because we get great ideas.
On your advisory panel or committee that you have, how many
blind people are on that committee? I mean, we could work our
way down through each disability, but I am getting back to Mr.
McCarthy's point--why don't you include the people when you are
talking about the rules?
I know Mr. Kerr is a little scratchy and hard to deal with,
but why don't you put him in the room when we are talking about
stuff? That is my point.
Ms. Masica. Understand, Mr. Chairman, and we will certainly
do that.
The group that is formed is an internal, it is Park Service
employees, and it is accessibility coordinators from the
various regions and the centers that work, that handle the
interpretative and the physical access side of the equation for
the projects in the Park Service, and I don't believe there is
anybody who is visually impaired that----
Mr. Pearce. You see Mr. McCarthy has a point for every
class of disability.
Ms. Masica. Absolutely. I am being corrected--there is
somebody on there who is visually impaired.
Mr. Pearce. OK.
Ms. Masica. People who really know.
Mr. Pearce. But the point is well made that----
Ms. Masica. Absolutely.
Mr. Pearce.--if you are not listening to these people that
are scratchy and hard to get along with because they are trying
to be the sheriff all the time, that is probably the reason we
are having difficulties.
Mr. Robb.
Mr. Robb. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pearce. I didn't mean to forget you. I got a little bit
distracted there.
Mr. Robb. That is all right.
I think that to effect change the priority for
accessibility has to be raised at the park level. I really
believe it has to come from the unit level, and I believe that
there has to be accountability. There has to be some type of
accountability that will push the button of the superintendents
like life safety issues do, or what life sustainability does,
or resource preservation does, and I don't have the answer to
that, but I believe that that is the first thing.
The second thing, I really believe that what we have found
in turning over 1,500 National Park Service people is that we
do create zealots. These people go out of there and they are
affected greatly by the opportunity to interact with our
presenters, people with disabilities, including your brother.
Larry Blummer on our staff has a visual impairment. He is the
individual on the advisory committee for the Park Service, so
we do involve very profusely people with disabilities in our
training, and those training programs, I think, probably--
opportunities make a big impact.
Unfortunately, training dollars are very difficult, very
hard to come by in the Park Service, and I am sure in all
Federal government.
Mr. Pearce. That sounds fair enough.
There are a couple of pictures up here of access. Andrew
has done a pretty good job. Where is the first one going,
Andrew?
That is out to the Yosemite, to the falls. Actually, on
both of these, occasionally the grade goes a little bit above
what the ADA requirements are, but they are aware of that. My
feeling is if we don't get it perfect the first time, we have
plenty of things that we can do rather than tear something out
and change the grade by a degree. I think most people with
difficulty getting around in wheelchairs or on Segways or
whatever would say, you know, just get it close and then we
will get it perfect some day.
If you all will sign up and give us an e-mail address, I
would like to have the letter e-mailed so that we get your
points pretty close to the way that you have suggested them.
Then I am going to also request, Ms. Masica, that after we
get the written response to these things, let me try to get the
same two panels back together on a telephone conference. And
when we begin to discuss things that you all are doing to
address these issues, let us not let this drag out and slip
back into the status that Ms. Schacter has got to be the one
sheriff for all the hearing impaired people in the country, and
Mr. Kerr, for all the Segway people, and Mr. McCarthy.
I mean, let us make some headway, and let us maybe consider
a communication that we would have available that goes to the
park system itself. I really do want some of this testimony to
go to the people around the country who would be just a little
bit strong in interpreting, that we don't need more people,
especially people in wheeled vehicles, especially people that
we have to worry about stepping off the trail. I would like to
see if we can get that into the hands of all 300
superintendents, and we will just begin that little cultural
shift if we can.
Is that fair enough?
Ms. Masica. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I think that is
imminently reasonable, and something that we can do. I can tell
you that I chair an internal group that reviews Park Service
construction investments on a regular basis, and the kinds of
questions I ask will definitely be broadened by what I have
heard today.
Mr. Pearce. And I think you need to pass along the pent-up
emotion, and the reason I asked Mr. McCarthy is because I
suspect that if we talked about something good, that there is
going to be that tap into this wellspring of positive emotion
when we just try. And if the system can begin to try, then I
think you are going to find that you have more partners to
accomplish what we all would like accomplished rather than
detractors in the system.
But I will continue, as the Chairman, an opportunity to
work with you on these issues--whether positively or
negatively, whichever we need to. I hope you trust that.
I think that we have had a stunning day and I appreciate
the participation. Be sure that I get your phone numbers
because I really will follow through, and we will do this
conference call a month, two months down the road, and we will
talk about the ways that we are trying to make sure this is not
just some more goulash that we warm up a year from now. Fair
enough.
Thanks to every single one of you. I appreciate it.
If there are no additional comments, this hearing will be
adjourned.
Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]