Access Board Cost Analysis
of Outdoor Developed Areas
A Research Report Studying
the Cost Implications of Proposed Americans with Disability Act Accessibility
Guidelines on Trails, Picnic Areas, Camping Areas, and Beaches
Introduction
The primary goal of this document is to identify the scope of trails, picnic areas, camping areas, and beaches that are anticipated to be built or significantly altered per year in the U.S., and to determine the economic impact of the proposed accessibility standards on agencies that construct these outdoor developed areas.
The U.S. Bureau of Public Debt contracted with Wilderness Inquiry, Inc., to conduct the study requested. A 501(c)(3) organization, Wilderness Inquiry provides activities that integrate people with and without disabilities into the outdoor environment, including many that take place in the outdoor developed areas being discussed for inclusion in the American’s with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
The cost analysis report is based on proposed scoping and technical provisions developed by the Regulatory Negotiation Committee. The most recent material developed by the Committee is available for review through the Access Board.
Table
of Contents: Page:
I. Introduction ............................................................. 2
II. Executive Summary ............................................................. 4
III. Study Overview
A. Scope of Study ............................................................. 6
B. Limitations of Study ............................................................. 6
C. Study Methodology ............................................................. 7
1. Cost Analysis Surveys ................................................. 7
2. Interviews ............................................................. 9
IV. Findings ............................................................. 10
A. Trails ............................................................. 10
1. Case Study #1 ............................................................. 10
2. Case Study #2 ............................................................. 12
3. Case Study #3 ............................................................. 13
4. Case Study #4 ............................................................. 14
5. Case Study #5 ............................................................. 15
6. Case Study #6 ............................................................. 17
7. Case Study #7 ............................................................. 18
B. Picnic Areas ............................................................. 19
1. Case Study #1 ............................................................. 20
2. Case Study #2 ............................................................. 21
3. Case Study #3 ............................................................. 23
C. Camping Areas ............................................................. 24
1. Case Study #1 ............................................................. 25
2. Case Study #2 ............................................................. 26
3. Case Study #3 ............................................................. 28
4. Case Study #4 ............................................................. 29
D. Beaches ............................................................. 31
1. Case Study #1 ............................................................. 31
2. Case Study #2 ............................................................. 32
3. Case Study #3 ............................................................. 34
4. Case Study #4 ............................................................. 35
V. Conclusions ............................................................. 37
VI. Appendix A: Acknowledgements ................................................. 39
VII. Appendix B: Resources ............................................................. 40
VIII. Appendix
C: Cost Analysis Survey ..................................... 41
Executive
Summary
To achieve the goal of the research, we surveyed outdoor developed area managers, followed-up with those managers to obtain complete information, and developed representative case studies of examples that provide a good understanding and diversity of environments. A complete discussion of the survey methodology can be found in the Study Overview section of the report.
The research resulted in the following statistics which are intended to give the reader a general overview of the study. A full and detailed breakdown of these results can be found in the Findings section of this report.
Trails:
Number of miles of trails nationally:
No.
currently No.
developed/year No.
altered/year
TOTAL 15,864,000 142,776 47,592
Average Percent increase in costs to implement the proposed standards:
Outdoor Developed Average Percent
Area Increase
Trails 9.2%
Picnic Areas:
Number of picnic areas nationally:
No.
currently No.
developed/year No.
altered/year
TOTAL 23,410 351 1,194
Average Percent increase in costs to implement the proposed standards:
Outdoor Developed Average Percent
Area Increase
Picnic Areas 12.6%
Camping Areas:
Number of camping areas nationally:
No.
currently No.
developed/year No.
altered/year
TOTAL 19,280 231 944
Average Percent increase in costs to implement the proposed standards:
Outdoor Developed Average Percent
Area Increase
Camping Areas 0.6%
Beaches:
Number of beaches nationally:
No.
currently No.
developed/year No.
altered/year
TOTAL 8,191 58 278
Average Percent increase in costs to implement the proposed standards:
Outdoor Developed Average Percent
Area Increase
Beaches 14.5%
It was also noted through the survey responses that cost variation was not noticeably related to regional variation. All regions can contain areas of extreme topography. Cost was most noticeably associated with two elements:
1) The topography of the area (grades present on the site)
2) The type of trail being constructed (Paved bike/pedestrian trails are much more costly than backcountry foot paths).
Study
Overview
The study is intended to accomplish the following objectives:
1. Review and summarize the total number of trails, picnic areas, camping areas, and beaches that currently exist in the U.S.
2. Review and summarize the estimated number of trails, picnic areas, camping areas, and beaches that will be constructed or significantly altered on a yearly basis in the future.
3. Survey federal, state, county, municipal, and private outdoor recreation agencies throughout the U.S. to determine what current construction practices are, and to estimate what the cost increase associated with implementation of the proposed accessibility guidelines might be.
4. Identify major trends associated with implementation of the proposed accessibility standards.
This report fairly and accurately represents the issues considered. However, as with any study, it is important to note its limitations in order to establish its validity. Several limitations must be considered when interpreting this report.
1. The study is exploratory in nature. Many of the questions were designed to obtain qualitative information to help identify important issues. Every effort was made to accurately portray the answers given, and to maintain their meaning as they were grouped into categories for analysis and clarity of presentation.
2. For the case studies, we attempted to balance the number of areas designed for accessibility from their inception, with those that were not. None the less, readers should keep in mind that many examples provided in the survey responses originate from projects that were designed according to current accessibility design practices.
3. In some cases, the guidelines used for recent construction were more restrictive than the suggested guidelines. For example, some picnic areas indicated that they required 100% site accessibility, and some trails were designed as 5-10 foot wide paved trails.
4. Low survey return rates made generating reliable cost figures difficult (especially for beaches). Therefore, information generated from survey responses was primarily used to identify representative case studies that could be further researched and clarified.
5. In several cases, case study respondents were unable or unwilling to distinguish elements of construction that are not included in the proposed standards for outdoor developed areas. Those elements are included in the overall cost of construction of the project, and are itemized to clarify where the costs originate.
Surveys were developed (see Appendix C) and distributed to 220 managers and designers of trails, picnic areas, camping areas, and beaches throughout the nation. Respondents were chosen to provide an accurate proportional portrayal of outdoor recreation service providers in the U.S. by agency type and by region.
The responses to the Cost Analysis Survey provided the framework upon which a series of case studies were chosen. This allowed for a wide range of environments and situations. The case studies presented are the results of returned surveys as well as detailed phone interviews. They attempt to determine all relevant details of the projects and the costs associated with the many variables. They are intended as examples of general trends, not as all-encompassing studies of any situation that may be encountered.
How were the
respondents chosen?
220 surveys were sent to outdoor recreation area providers that span the spectrum of opportunities available in the U.S. We identified representatives of federal, state, county, municipal, and private agencies throughout the country. We also included equal numbers of respondents from each of the regions listed below.
The following operational definitions were used in the surveys to obtain consistent responses:
Trails:
A primarily pedestrian path for recreation and/or transportation within a park, natural environment, or designated corridor that is not classified as a highway, road, or street. A recreational trail is a corridor which provides an active or passive recreational experience in the outdoor environment.
Picnic Areas:
A congruous geographic region designated for day use activities, adjacent to an individual recreation area or usage (lake, ball fields, beach, playground, etc.). For purposes of this survey, count only areas consisting of 5 or more picnic tables (with any associated picnic elements). Restroom facilities, visitor centers, changing rooms, etc. are not covered in this survey.
Camping Areas:
A congruous geographic region designated for overnight use activities. For purposes of this survey, count only areas consisting of 5 or more directly associated camping sites. Restroom facilities, visitor centers, changing rooms, etc. are not covered in this survey.
Beaches:
A designated area at the shore of a body of water providing pedestrian entry for the purposes of water play, swimming or other water shoreline related activities. Restroom facilities, visitor centers, changing rooms, etc. are not covered in this survey.
Regional Breakdown:
Northeast Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, District of Columbia.
Southeast Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida.
Midwest Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska.
South Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas.
Rocky Mountains Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado.
Southwest Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico.
West Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii.
Information
solicited in the surveys:
The surveys elicit responses that outline two types of trends. First, was to identify how many outdoor developed areas currently exist, and how many will be constructed in the future. Second, was to identify cost data associated with construction according to proposed technical and scoping provisions developed by the Committee.
In order to determine the total number of trails, picnic areas, camping areas, and beaches in the country, we used the survey responses as a representative sample. We extrapolated the total number that exist, and how many on average are constructed or significantly altered per year. This information was then compared to external sources of information like past studies of numbers of developed areas, and agency reports and inventories (see Appendix B: References).
In order to identify the costs of construction, the responses were closely examined for thorough and consistent data. To develop representative case studies, land managers were chosen from many different regions and agencies who provided thorough and consistent information. These case studies represent many variables involved in construction of outdoor developed areas according to proposed accessibility standards. The case studies convey a comprehensive picture of the financial effects of compliance with the proposed standards.
Who was chosen for
interviews?
Interviews were conducted with land managers specified previously. They were 30-45 minutes long. Content of the interviews included sharing the most recent information available regarding the direction of the Committee on the proposed standards, and clarifying all aspects of the projects outlined in the survey responses.
Information
solicited in the interviews:
Once understanding of the proposed technical and scoping provisions was agreed upon, the numbers provided on the survey were reviewed to ensure accuracy. Any discrepancies were clarified to maintain consistency between the manager’s responses and the intent of the proposed standards. Managers were also asked if any conditions for departure applied to the given project, and to what degree they applied.
Finally, respondents were asked to associate a cost with all elements provided for the sole purpose of accessibility. Many of these responses were vague, and should be taken as a general feeling, rather than confirmed data. They provide an overview of the issues that land managers will come to face as the proposed standards are implemented.
Findings
General estimates of the number of miles of trails nationally &
General breakdown on the operators of trails
Number of miles of new trails
developed annually & Number of miles of trails considered small businesses
or operated by small entities
No. currently No. developed/year* No. altered/year**
(miles) (miles) (miles)
Large Public Agency 262,000 2358 786
(Federal and State)
Small Public Agency 102,000 918 306
(County & Municipal)
Small business / 15,500,000 139,500 46,500
Private Agencies***
TOTAL 15,864,000 142,776 47,592
* Based on a 0.9% average rate of new construction identified in survey results.
** Based on a 0.3% average rate of alteration identified in the survey results.
*** Includes private roads. (Unable to break out private roads constructed from private trails constructed.)
Summary of current design practices and trends for accessible trails
Trails Case
Study #1:
Region: Rocky Mountain
Trail Type: Backcountry
Agency/Ownership: State Government
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction Practices: No
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Trail as Constructed)
Surface: Native soil, rock
Maximum grades: Consistently 8 - 20% grades throughout trail
Maximum Cross-slopes: Consistently 5 - 15% x-slopes throughout trail
Width of trail: 24 - 30 inches wide throughout trail
Obstacles in trail bed: Frequent rocks/rock outcrops, multiple steps
Bridges: 3 Small trestle-type bridges, 10-15 ft in length
Drainage Structures: None
Other: None
Cost data related to the construction of trails currently.
Project Cost: $25,000
Length of Trail Project: 7 miles
Cost per mile: $3,571
Cost data related to the construction of new trails consistent with the
proposed technical and scoping provisions developed by the Committee.
Project Cost: $25,000
Length of Trail Project: 7 miles
Cost
per mile: $3,571
% of Trail that Meets Conditions 100%
for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: 1) Meets general exception 16.1 by not being connected to a trailhead or an accessible trail.
2) Also meets 16.1.1 condition for departure #4 - infeasible due to characteristics of the terrain, for surface and width requirements throughout trail.
% Increase in cost Associated 0%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Estimated Additional Costs if $120,000
Exceptions Are Not Permitted:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Provision of an accessible surface material other
Accessibility Related Costs: than native soils would need to be air lifted in at great expense ($80,000).
2) Width increase to 36 inches would create much cut and fill in mountainous environment (estimate would increase labor costs by 400%).
Trails Case
Study #2:
Region: Southeast
Trail Type: Backcountry
Agency/Ownership: Non-profit Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction Practices: No
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Trail as Constructed)
Surface: Native clay soil & exposed bedrock
Maximum grades: Consistently 8 - 16% grades throughout trail
Maximum Cross-slopes: Less than 5% x-slopes throughout trail
Width of trail: 24 - 30 inches wide throughout trail
Obstacles in trail bed: Frequent rocks/rock outcrops and minimum widths
Bridges: None
Drainage Structures: Grade dips used instead of water bars
Other: Full bench construction
Cost data related to the construction of trails currently
Project Cost: $15,000 (plus 3,000 volunteer man-hours)
Length of Trail Project: 1.2 miles
Cost per mile: $12,500
Cost data related to the construction of new trails consistent with the
proposed technical and scoping provisions developed by the Committee.
Project Cost: $23,250 (plus 4,500 volunteer man-hours)
Length of Trail Project: 1.86 miles
Cost
per mile: $12,500
% of Trail that Meets Conditions 0%
for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: 1) Potential to meet 16.1.1 condition #2 (alters the fundamental experience) for surfacing and width requirements throughout the trail.
% Increase in cost Associated 65% overall increase in project costs
with Development According to 0% increase in cost per mile.
the Proposed Standards:
Estimated Additional Costs of $8,250 (plus1,500 volunteer man-hours) Accessibility Related Elements:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Improving grades to 8% maximum lengthens
Accessibility Related Costs: trail by .66 miles .
2) Width increase to 36 inches creates 50% greater volunteer labor requirements.
3) Assumes natural soil surface (clay and exposed bedrock) meets firm & stable surface requirements.
Trails Case
Study #3:
Region: Midwest
Trail Type: Backcountry
Agency/Ownership: State Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction Practices: No
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Trail as Constructed)
Surface: Native soil (silt loam & vegetative debris)
Maximum grades: Consistently 8 - 16% grades throughout trail
Maximum Cross-slopes: Less than 5% x-slopes throughout trail
Width of trail: 36 inches wide throughout trail
Obstacles in trail bed: Frequent rocks and roots up to 4 inches in height
Bridges: None
Drainage Structures: Occasional culverts
Other: None
Cost data related to the construction of trails currently
Project Cost: $8,000 (labor costs only for "scraping" trail bed into the soil)
Length of Trail Project: 2 miles
Cost per mile: $4,000
Cost data related to the construction of new trails consistent with the
proposed technical and scoping provisions developed by the Committee.
Project Cost: $8,000
Length of Trail Project: 2 miles
Cost
per mile: $4,000
% of Trail that Meets Conditions 100%
for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: 1) Potential to meet 16.1.1 condition #2 (alters the fundamental experience) for surfacing and grade requirements throughout the trail.
% Increase in cost Associated 0%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Estimated Additional Costs of $20,000 in materials and $2,000 in design costs
Accessibility Related Elements if (this creates a 375% increase)
Exceptions Are Not Permitted:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Providing a compacted 3/8 inch gravel surface
Accessibility Related Costs: in order to meet firm & stable requirements, and to cover rocks and roots. (Gravel is less expensive than bituminous, Road-Oyl, etc. and matches the environment better)
2) Grade improvements to less than 8% maximum grade would add an estimated .5 mile in trail length.
Trails Case
Study #4:
Region: West
Trail Type: Frontcountry
Agency/Ownership: Private Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction Practices: No
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Trail as Constructed)
Surface: Paved 60%; Native soil 40% leading down bluffs
Maximum grades: Greater than 16% grades on trails down the bluffs.
Maximum Cross-slopes: Less than 5% x-slopes throughout trail
Width of trail: 60+ inches wide on paved portions, 24 - 36 inches wide on trails down the bluffs.
Obstacles in trail bed: Steps, rocks & min. widths on trails down the bluffs
Bridges: 2 accessible bridges on top of bluffs.
Drainage Structures: Drainage dips on trails down the bluffs.
Other: None
Cost data related to the construction of trails currently
Project Cost: $200,000
Length of Trail Project: 2.5 miles
Cost per mile: $80,000
Cost data related to the construction of new trails consistent with the
proposed technical and scoping provisions developed by the Committee.
Project Cost: $200,000
Length of Trail Project: 2.5 miles
Cost
per mile: $80,000
% of Trail that Meets Conditions 40%
for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: 1) Foot trails down the bluffs meet 16.1.1 condition #1 (harm to endangered plant life).
2) Foot trails down the bluffs also meet 16.1.1 condition #4 (due to characteristics of the terrain).
% Increase in cost Associated 0%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Estimated Additional Costs of $50,000 + to improve grades alone, but Coastal
Accessibility Related Elements if Commission would not allow this type of
Exceptions Are Not Permitted: construction on coastal bluffs.
Major Factors Affecting 1) Grade requirements would lengthen foot trails
Accessibility Related Costs: down the bluffs an estimated 40%.
2) Paving or hard surfacing the foot trails would be nearly impossible due to the steep grades.
Trails Case
Study #5:
Region: Southwest
Trail Type: Frontcountry
Agency/Ownership: Federal Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction Practices: Yes
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Trail as Constructed)
Surface: Hardened Natural (Road-Oyl), Exposed Aggregate and Native Soil
Maximum grades: Less than 8% generally, with 200 ft section of native soil trail having up to 25% maximum grades.
Maximum Cross-slopes: Less than 5% x-slopes throughout trail
Width of trail: 60 inches.
Obstacles in trail bed: None
Bridges: None
Drainage Structures: 6 blind drains (hand built, stone).
Other: 3 overlook platforms to provide safe, accessible viewing.
Cost data related to the construction of trails currently
Project Cost: $65,570
Length of Trail Project: .59 miles
Cost per mile: $111,136
Cost data related to the construction of new trails consistent with the
proposed technical and scoping provisions developed by the Committee.
Project Cost: $65,570
Length of Trail Project: .59 miles
Cost per mile: $111,136
% of Trail that Meets Conditions 7%
for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: 1) Native soil section of trail meets 16.1.1 condition #4 (due to characteristics of the terrain). Also, an alternate route exists for this difficult section of trail.
% Increase in cost Associated 0%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Estimated Costs of $34,420 ($10 / ft to build this entirely as a native
Accessibility Related Elements: surface "nature" trail).
Major Factors Affecting 1) Provision of a firm & stable surface.
Accessibility Related Costs:
2) Running slope provisions add length to and create resource damage on the native soil section. (Would lengthen by 40%)
3) Accessible viewing platforms (3) = $14,700.
4) Accessible water hydrant at trailhead = $1,900.
Trails Case
Study #6:
Region: Southeast
Trail Type: Frontcountry
Agency/Ownership: Federal Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction Practices: Yes
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Trail as Constructed)
Surface: Crushed Greenstone & 130 ft wooden boardwalk.
Maximum grades: Less than 8% grades throughout trail.
Maximum Cross-slopes: 5 - 8% maximum x-slopes throughout trail.
Width of trail: 60 inches.
Obstacles in trail bed: Exposed bedrock outcrops requiring wooden boardwalk construction to traverse.
Bridges: 65 ft wooden bridge
Drainage Structures: Log cribbing to prevent washout erosion.
Other: Bench rest stops every 400 ft.
Cost data related to the construction of trails currently
Project Cost: $78,000
Length of Trail Project: 1.3 miles
Cost per mile: $60,000
Cost data related to the construction of new trails consistent with the
proposed technical and scoping provisions developed by the Committee.
Project Cost: $78,000
Length of Trail Project: 1.3 miles
Cost per mile: $60,000
% of Trail that Meets Conditions 0%
for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: 1) Potential to have met 16.1.1 condition #4 on 20% of trail to avoid construction of wooden boardwalks over the bedrock outcrops.
% Increase in cost Associated 0%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Estimated Costs of $70,000
Accessibility Related Elements:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Site allowing 8% maximum grades or better was
Accessibility Related Costs: nearly impossible to find.
2) Avoiding geologic obstacles (i.e. the boardwalks and bridge over the exposed bedrock)
3) Providing the firm & stable Greenstone surface.
4) Built to current accessibility standards which tend to be more restrictive than the proposed standards.
Trails Case
Study #7:
Region: Southeast
Trail Type: Shared-use
Agency/Ownership: Municipal Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction Practices: Yes
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Trail as Constructed)
Surface: Concrete
Maximum grades: Less than 8% grades throughout trail.
Maximum Cross-slopes: Less than 5% x-slopes throughout trail.
Width of trail: 10 ft.
Obstacles in trail bed: None.
Bridges: None.
Drainage Structures: None.
Other: Bollards, gates, fences, gaurdrails, shelter with restrooms, and water, sanitary, and electricity lines at the trailhead.
Cost data related to the construction of trails currently
Project Cost: $65,000
Length of Trail Project: .25 miles
Cost per mile: $260,000
Cost data related to the construction of new trails consistent with the
proposed technical and scoping provisions developed by the Committee.
Project Cost: $65,000
Length of Trail Project: .25 miles
Cost per mile: $260,000
% of Trail that Meets Conditions 0%
for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: Not Applicable
% Increase in cost Associated 0%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Estimated Costs of $0 for the trail, as it would have been built the
Accessibility Related Elements: same for bicycle use as for accessibility.
Major Factors Affecting 1) Firm & stable concrete surface.
Accessibility Related Costs:
2) Accessible facilities at the trailhead cost approximately $20,000 - $25,000, but are not directly associated with trail construction.
Number of picnic areas nationally
& Number of new picnic areas developed annually
Number of picnic areas considered
small businesses or operated by small entities
No. currently No. developed/year* No. altered/year**
(areas) (areas) (areas)
Large Public Agency 9,090 136 463
(Federal and State)
Small Public Agency 5,320 80 271
(County & Municipal)
Small business / 9,000 135 459
Private Agencies
TOTAL 23,410 351 1,194
* Based on a 1.5% average rate of new construction identified in the survey results.
** Based on a 5.1% average rate of alteration identified in the survey results.
Summary of current design
practices and trends for accessible picnic areas
Cost data related to the purchase of accessible and non-accessible
picnic tables. (Based on data gathered from outdoor recreation area providers
and equipment manufacturers)
Average
Cost for Standard Picnic Table: $430
Average
Cost for Accessible Picnic Table: $525
Picnic Area Case Study #1
Region: Midwest
Environmental
Type: Suburban
Agency/Ownership: Municipal Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction
Practices: No
Cost data related to constructed
picnic areas currently (specific data on typical costs related to any surface
preparation, constructed elements, etc.)
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Picnic Area as Constructed)
Elements Included: Picnic tables (fixed), grills, surface preparation (including grading and seeding), ORAR's (gravel walkways)
Number of Sites: 15
No. of Accessible Sites: 5
Site Grades Present: Less than 8% grades.
Site
Surface(s): Natural
grass with gravel pathways
Project Cost: $25,000
Cost per site: $1,667
Cost data related to newly
constructed picnic areas consistent with the proposed technical and scoping
provisions developed by the Committee.
Construction Practices Necessary According to the Proposed Standards:
Elements Included: Same as above. Increased need for grading of site surface.
Number of Sites: 15
No. of Accessible Sites: 8 (3 additional)
Site Grades Present: Extra grading needed to keep surface grades and access routes to 40% of the accessible sites below 5%.
Site
Surface(s): Natural
grass with gravel pathways
Project Cost: $32,000
Cost per site: $2,133
% of Picnic Area that Meets 0%
Conditions for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: Not Applicable
% Increase in cost Associated 28%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Keeping site grades below 5% require s
Accessibility Related Costs: additional site surface grading ($4,000) and longer access routes ($3,000).
Estimated Costs Associated with $7,000
Accessibility Related Elements:
Picnic Area Case Study #2
Region: South
Environmental
Type: Suburban
Agency/Ownership: State Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction
Practices: No
Cost data related to constructed
picnic areas currently (specific data on typical costs related to any surface
preparation, constructed elements, etc.)
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Picnic Area as Constructed)
Elements Included: 2 Shelters, 2 Vault Toilets, 20 picnic tables, grills, surface preparation, and ORAR's.
Number of Sites: 20
No. of Accessible Sites: 5
Site Grades Present: Consistent grades of 20 - 25%.
Site
Surface(s): Natural
grass and dirt.
Project Cost: $180,000
Cost per site: $9,000
Cost data related to newly
constructed picnic areas consistent with the proposed technical and scoping
provisions developed by the Committee.
Construction Practices Necessary According to the Proposed Standards:
Elements Included: Same as above.
Number of Sites: 20
No. of Accessible Sites: 5
Site Grades Present: Extra grading would be need but is prohibited by the terrain. (Impossible to get 50% of sites grades below 5%)
Site
Surface(s): Natural
grass and dirt.
Project Cost: $180,000
Cost per site: $9,000
% of Picnic Area that Meets 75%
Conditions for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: 1) Meets 16.1.1 condition #1 (causes harm to natural characteristics)
2) Also meets 16.1.1 condition #4 (due to characteristics of the terrain)
% Increase in cost Associated 0%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Topography will not allow 50% of the sites to
Accessibility Related Costs: have accessible clear space with less than 5% slope without severe resource damage.
2) 40% of the access routes to accessible sites would not be possible to keep below 5% maximum grade.
Estimated Costs Associated with $270,000 (accessibility costs for surface
Accessibility Related Elements if preparation and access routes that comply with
Exceptions are not Permitted: proposed standards)
Picnic Area Case Study #3
Region: Southwest
Environmental
Type: Suburban
Agency/Ownership: State Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction
Practices: No
Cost data related to constructed
picnic areas currently (specific data on typical costs related to any surface
preparation, constructed elements, etc.)
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Picnic Area as Constructed)
Elements Included: Picnic tables, grill, surface preparation, and ORAR's.
Number of Sites: 12
No. of Accessible Sites: 2
Site Grades Present: Less than 8% throughout area.
Site
Surface(s): Natural
grass and concrete picnic pads and paths.
Project Cost: $106,150
Cost per site: $8,845
Cost data related to newly
constructed picnic areas consistent with the proposed technical and scoping
provisions developed by the Committee.
Construction Practices Necessary According to the Proposed Standards:
Elements Included: Same as above, plus an accessible drinking fountain & an accessible parking space and curb cuts.
Number of Sites: 12
No. of Accessible Sites: 6
Site Grades Present: No change
Site
Surface(s): No
change, except for more concrete pads and paths.
Project Cost: $117,736
Cost per site: $9,811
% of Picnic Area that Meets 0%
Conditions for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: Not Applicable
% Increase in cost Associated 10%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Addition of accessible elements and slope
Accessibility Related Costs: grading at 4 additional sites (to meet the 50% requirement for accessible sites).
2) Providing accessible ORAR's to 40% of the accessible sites would require 1 additional firm & stable ORAR.
3) Providing an accessible drinking fountain.
Estimated Costs Associated with $11,586
Accessibility Related Elements
Number of camping areas nationally & Number of new camping areas
developed annually
Number of camping areas considered small businesses or operated by
small entities
No. currently No. developed/year* No. altered/year**
(areas) (areas) (areas)
Large Public Agency 9,569 115 469
(Federal and State)
Small Public Agency 2,744 33 134
(County & Municipal)
Small business / 6,967 83 341
Private Agencies
TOTAL 19,280 231 944
* Based on a 1.2% average rate of new construction identified in the survey results.
** Based on a 4.9% average rate of alteration identified in the survey results.
Summary of current design practices and trends for accessible camping
areas
Cost data related to the
purchase of accessible and non-accessible camping elements (average cost data gathered from outdoor
recreation area providers and equipment manufacturers):
Standard
Picnic Table: $430
Accessible
Picnic Table: $525
Standard
Fire Ring: $178
Accessible
Fire Ring: $239
Standard
Grill: $214
Accessible
Grill: $356
Standard
Tent Pad: $1,016
Accessible
Tent Pad: $1,200
Camping Area Case Study #1
Region: Southeast
Environmental
Type: Primitive
Agency/Ownership: Private Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction
Practices: No
Cost data related to constructed camping areas (specific data is needed
on typical costs related to any surface preparation, constructed elements,
etc.)
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Camping Area as Constructed)
Elements Included: 3-sided lean-to shelter with small signage. (Helicopter cost $3000 to fly in materials)
Number of Sites: 1
No. of Accessible Sites: 1
Site Grades Present: Level site surrounded by rugged mountains.
Site
Surface(s): Natural
surface on-site, soil and rock.
Project Cost: $13,000 (plus 500 volunteer hours)
Cost per site: $13,000
Cost data related to newly constructed camping areas consistent with
the proposed technical and scoping provisions developed by the Committee.
Construction Practices Necessary According to the Proposed Standards:
Elements Included: Same as above.
Number of Sites: 1
No. of Accessible Sites: 1
Site Grades Present: No change
Site
Surface(s): No
change
Project Cost: $13,000
Cost per site: $13,000
% of Camping Area that Meets 100%
Conditions for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: 1) Meets 16.1.1 condition #4 (due to characteristics of the terrain) for exemption from site surface and slope requirements.
% Increase in cost Associated 0%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Remote location. (Importing surface materials
Accessibility Related Costs and equipment for regrading area to 3% maximum)
If Exceptions are not Permitted:
Estimated Costs Associated with Cost would increase an estimated 150%, making it
Accessibility Related Elements if entirely prohibitive. This camp site would not be
Exceptions Are Not Permitted: built.
Camping Area Case Study #2
Region: Midwest
Environmental
Type: Suburban
Agency/Ownership: State Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction
Practices: Yes
Cost data related to constructed camping areas (specific data is needed
on typical costs related to any surface preparation, constructed elements,
etc.)
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Camping Area as Constructed)
Elements Included: Unfixed picnic tables, fire rings, ORAR's, raised tent pads, vault toilets, registration station, and well concrete pad.
Number of Sites: 24
No. of Accessible Sites: 18
Site Grades Present: Access route grades less than 8% and site surface grades up to 3%.
Site
Surface(s): Compacted
aggregate paths (5" depth), and site surface (2" - 5" depth).
Project Cost: $36,610
Cost per site: $1,525
Cost data related to newly constructed camping areas consistent with
the proposed technical and scoping provisions developed by the Committee.
Construction Practices Necessary According to the Proposed Standards:
Elements Included: Same as above.
Number of Sites: 24
No. of Accessible Sites: 18 (Far exceeds the required 2 accessible sites)
Site Grades Present: No change
Site
Surface(s): No
change
Project Cost: $36,610
Cost per site: $1,525
% of Camping Area that Meets 0%
Conditions for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: Not Applicable.
% Increase in cost Associated 0%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Access Routes for this area cost $5,400
Accessibility Related Costs:
2) Machine grading of sites cost $8,630
3) Site was designed as accessible and greatly exceeds proposed standards.
Estimated Costs Associated with $14,030 (This is 40% of total costs for area)
Accessibility Related Elements
Camping Area Case Study #3
Region: Rocky Mountain
Environmental
Type: Suburban
Agency/Ownership: Federal Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction
Practices: Yes
Cost data related to constructed camping areas (specific data is needed
on typical costs related to any surface preparation, constructed elements,
etc.)
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Camping Area as Constructed)
Elements Included: Fixed picnic tables, fire rings, grills, ORAR's, restrooms/showers, registration station, pumphouse and hydrants (4), signage, sanitary station, office, and parking .
Number of Sites: 20
No. of Accessible Sites: 16
Site Grades Present: Access route grades less than 8% and site surface grades up to 3%.
Site Surface(s): Concrete
paths, and compacted aggregate site surfaces (2" - 5" depth).
Project Cost: $295,000
Cost per site: $14,750
Cost data related to newly constructed camping areas consistent with
the proposed technical and scoping provisions developed by the Committee.
Construction Practices Necessary According to the Proposed Standards:
Elements Included: Same as above.
Number of Sites: 20
No. of Accessible Sites: 16 (Far exceeds the required 2 accessible sites)
Site Grades Present: Level sites (see above)
Site
Surface(s): No
change
Project Cost: $295,000
Cost per site: $14,750
% of Camping Area that Meets 0%
Conditions for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: Not Applicable.
% Increase in cost Associated 0%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Building 4 accessible water hydrants ($64,700).
Accessibility Related Costs:
2) Concrete paths throughout camping area.
3) Aggregate site surface preparation
Estimated Costs Associated with $142,000 (48% of total costs of camping area)
Accessibility Related Elements
Camping Area Case Study #4
Region: Midwest
Environmental
Type: Suburban
Agency/Ownership: State Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction
Practices: No
Cost data related to constructed camping areas (specific data is needed
on typical costs related to any surface preparation, constructed elements,
etc.)
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Camping Area as Constructed)
Elements Included: Unfixed picnic tables, fire rings, ORAR's, raised tent pads, signage, and parking spaces.
Number of Sites: 25
No. of Accessible Sites: 2
Site Grades Present: Access route grades less than 8% and site surface grades up to 5%.
Site
Surface(s): Concrete
paths, and natural and compacted aggregate site surfaces.
Project Cost: $50,000
Cost per site: $2,000
Cost data related to newly constructed camping areas consistent with
the proposed technical and scoping provisions developed by the Committee.
Construction Practices Necessary According to the Proposed Standards:
Elements Included: Same as above.
Number of Sites: 25
No. of Accessible Sites: 2
Site Grades Present: Level sites (need some grading to maintain 3% slopes, however).
Site
Surface(s): No
change
Project Cost: $51,250
Cost per site: $2,050
% of Camping Area that Meets 0 - 10%
Conditions for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: 1) Potential to meet 16.1.1 condition #4 (due to characteristics of the terrain) to avoid grading of site surfaces.
% Increase in cost Associated 2.5 %
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Grading of sites to less than 3% maximum
Cost Increase: grade.
Estimated Costs Associated with $1,250
Accessibility Related Elements
General estimates of the number of beaches nationally & General
breakdown on the operators of beaches
Number of beaches considered small businesses or operated by small
entities
No. currently No. developed/year* No. altered/year**
(areas) (areas) (areas)
Large Public Agency 3,691 26 125
(Federal and State)
Small Public Agency 700 5 24
(County & Municipal)
Small business / 3,800 27 129
Private Agencies
TOTAL 8,191 58 278
* Based on a 0.7% average rate of new construction identified in the survey results.
** Based on a 3.4% average rate of alteration identified in the survey results.
Summary of current design practices and trends for accessible beaches
Beach Case Study #1
Region: Northeast
Environmental
Type: Primitive Lake
Agency/Ownership: State Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction
Practices: No
Cost related to developing newly constructed beaches
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Beach as Constructed)
Elements Included: A log bench, and weed and brush removal of existing remote access beach.
Number of Access Routes: 0
Site Grades Present: Access route grades up to 14%.
Surface(s)
Used: Native
grass, soil and sand.
Project Cost: $960
Cost related to constructing accessible paths consistent with the
proposed provisions developed by the Committee.
Construction Practices Necessary According to the Proposed Standards:
Elements Included: Same as above, plus a roll of temporary matting for access to water's edge.
Number of Sites: 1
Site Grades Present: Would need to grade access routes by hand to get below 8% maximum grades.
Site
Surface(s): Same
as above, plus a roll of temporary matting over the sand beach surface.
Project Cost: $1,350
% of Beach that Meets 0%
Conditions for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: 1) Potential to meet 16.1.1 condition #2 (alters fundamental experience of wilderness setting) to avoid access route grading and surfacing.
% Increase in cost Associated 41%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Providing temporary accessible surface other
Cost Increase: than native grass and sand.
2) Labor costs for grading routes with hand tools. (Mechanized tools are not allowed in wilderness area)
Estimated Costs Associated with $390
Accessibility Related Elements
Beach Case Study #2
Region: Midwest
Environmental
Type: Lake
Agency/Ownership: Municipal Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction
Practices: No
Cost related to developing newly constructed beaches
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Beach as Constructed)
Elements Included: Picnic Tables, permanent beach access route (parking to edge of sand), outdoor rinsing shower.
Number of Access Routes: 1 permanent
Site Grades Present: Access route grades less than 8%.
Surface(s)
Used: Recycled
boardwalks and concrete patio for ORAR, natural grass and sand.
Project Cost: $93,072
Cost related to constructing accessible paths consistent with the
proposed provisions developed by the Committee.
Construction Practices Necessary According to the Proposed Standards:
Elements Included: Same as above, plus 1 temporary beach access route to water's edge and accessible outdoor rinsing showers.
Number of Sites: 2 (1 permanent, 1 temporary)
Site Grades Present: Same as above.
Site
Surface(s): Same
as above, plus temporary matting to traverse the sand beach surface.
Project Cost: $109,000
% of Beach that Meets 0%
Conditions for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: Not Applicable
% Increase in cost Associated 17 %
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Adding grab bars, accessible controls, and
Cost Increase: cement pad to outdoor rinsing showers.
2) Providing a temporary path over sand beach surface.
Estimated Costs Associated with $15,928
Accessibility Related Elements
Beach Case Study #3
Region: South
Environmental
Type: Human-made
Agency/Ownership: State Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction
Practices: Yes
Cost related to developing newly constructed beaches
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Beach as Constructed)
Elements Included: Picnic Tables, permanent beach access route, outdoor rinsing showers, and an outdoor swimming pond with filtration and pump system.
Number of Access Routes: 1 permanent
Site Grades Present: Access route grades less than 8%.
Surface(s)
Used: Concrete
access route to water's edge.
Project Cost: $150,000
Cost related to constructing accessible paths consistent with the
proposed provisions developed by the Committee.
Construction Practices Necessary According to the Proposed Standards:
Elements Included: Same as above. Outdoor rinsing shower is expensive if accessible.
Number of Sites: 1 permanent
Site Grades Present: Same as above.
Site
Surface(s): Same
as above.
Project Cost: $150,000
% of Beach that Meets 0%
Conditions for Departure:
Conditions for Departure Met: Not Applicable
% Increase in cost Associated 0%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Providing grab bars, accessible controls, and
Cost Increase: cement pad for outdoor rinsing showers is expensive ($2,500 per shower).
2) Providing a accessible surface for path over sand beach surface (approximately 530 ft).
Estimated Costs Associated with $22,500
Accessibility Related Elements
Beach Case Study #4
Region: West
Environmental
Type: Tidal
Agency/Ownership: State Agency
Designed as Accessible According
to Current Construction
Practices: Yes
Cost related to developing newly constructed beaches
Current Construction Practices: (Condition of Beach as Constructed)
Elements Included: Shower/comfort station renovation, parking lot, walkway (parallel to beach on grass), temporary rubber access route across beach to high water mark, irrigation system, play area.
Number of Access Routes: 1 permanent, 1 temporary
Site Grades Present: Access route grades up to 14%.
Surface(s) Used: Interlocking
rubber matting and bituminous pathways.
Project Cost: $517,000
Cost related to constructing accessible paths consistent with the
proposed provisions developed by the Committee.
Construction Practices Necessary According to the Proposed Standards:
Elements Included: Same as above.
Number of Sites: 1 permanent, 1 temporary
Site Grades Present: Same as above.
Site
Surface(s): Same
as above.
Project Cost: $517,000
% of Beach that Meets 0% (unless sand shifts to create excessive grades
Conditions for Departure: on beach access route.
Conditions for Departure Met: Potential for 16.1.1 condition #4 (due to characteristics of the terrain) for grade requirements. Shifting sand may cause extreme grades one day, and gentle grades the next. It is impossible to permanently fix or alter to improve grades.
% Increase in cost Associated 0%
with Development According to
the Proposed Standards:
Major Factors Affecting 1) Providing accessible surface access routes, and
Cost Increase: temporary route over shifting sand beach.
2) Providing personnel necessary to install and remove temporary rubber matting over sand.
Estimated Costs Associated with Unable to estimate costs associated strictly with
Accessibility Related Elements: accessibility.
Conclusions
Analysis of surveys, interviews, and case studies demonstrated several trends:
1. Cost increases for compliance with the accessibility guidelines tend to be nominal when case study respondents are allowed to use the conditions for departure liberally. The average cost increase identified in the case studies when the conditions for departure are used as seen fit is:
Outdoor Developed Average
Percent
Area Increase
Trails 9.2%
Picnic Areas 12.6%
Camping Areas 0.6%
Beaches 14.5%
2. Cost increases for compliance with the accessibility guidelines are substantial if the conditions for departure are not allowed. The case study respondents were asked in the interview to estimate what costs are incurred strictly to meet accessibility standards. The following average increases in cost were suggested when conditions for departure are not allowed:
Outdoor Developed Average
Percent
Area Increase
Trails 333%
Picnic Areas 63%
Camping Areas 119%
Beaches 59%
3.
39% of the case study respondents suggested all or a portion of their
outdoor developed area would meet one or more of the specific conditions for
departure listed in 16.1.1 and 16.1.2 of the proposed standards.
4. It was noted through the survey responses that cost variation was not noticeably different regionally. All regions can contain areas of extreme topography. Cost was most noticeably associated with two elements:
1) The topography of the area (grades present on the site)
2) The type of trail being constructed (Paved bike/pedestrian trails are much more costly than backcountry foot paths).
5. When asked to identify the major factors that lead to additional costs for accessibility according to the proposed standards, case study respondents identified following factors:
Trails: Frequency
of Response:
Provision of a Firm and Stable Surface 100 %
Meeting Grade Requirements 71%
Meeting Width requirements of 36”minimum 29%
Accessible facility provision (water source, overlooks, etc) 43%
Avoiding geologic obstacles 14%
Picnic Areas: Frequency
of Response:
50% of site grading to below 5% maximum 100%
40% of accessible sites connected by ORAR 67%
w/ 3% max grade
Water source accessibility 33%
Camping Areas: Frequency
of Response:
Remote Location (material import) 25%
Provision of a Firm and Stable Surface 75%
50% of site grading below 3% maximum 75%
Water source accessibility 25%
Beaches: Frequency
of Response:
Provision of a Firm and Stable Surface Over Sand 100%
Additional Labor Costs for Installing Accessible Elements 25%
Provision of accessible elements to outdoor showers 50%
Personnel
necessary for installation of temporary path 25%
Appendix
A: Acknowledgements
Barry Atwood, Whole Access
Peter Axelson, American Trails
Kim Beasley, Paralyzed Veterans of America
Jim Bedwell, USDA Forest Service
Roger Bell, Whole Access
Ray Bloomer, National Center on Accessibility
Cindy Burkhour, The Association for Severe Handicaps
Rory Calhoun, Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
Phyllis Cangemi, Whole Access
Pat Crawford, National Association of State Park Directors
Terry Cummings, American Hiking Society
Ray Davis, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Christopher Douwes, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Ruth Doyle, USDA Forest Service
Kay Ellis, US Department of the Interior
Rick Fenton, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Marilyn Golden, Access Board
Susan Goltsman, American Society of Landscape Architects
Peggy Greenwell, Access Board DFO
Edward Hamilton, National Recreation and Park Association
Patrick Hittmier, KOA, Inc.
Kathe Hetterick, Rails to Trails
Carol Hunter, Partners for Access to the Woods
Sydney Jacobs, National Spinal Cord Injury Association
Peter Jensen, Appalachian Trail Conference
Tracy Justesen, National Council on Independent Living
Patricia Longmuir, American Trails
Stuart MacDonald, National Association of State Trail Administrators
Maureen McCloskey, Paralyzed Veterans of America
John McGovern, National Recreation and Park Association
Barbara McMillen, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
David Park, Department of the Interior
Tip Ray, Wilderness Inquiry
Judith Rice, Army Corps of Engineers
Gary Robb, National Center on Accessibility
David Startzell, Appalachian Trail Conference
Francine Wai, Hawaii Commission on Persons with Disabilities
Everett Werness, American Camping Association
Appendix
B: Resources
1. Alig and Healy, (1987). National Resources Inventory.
2. Cordell, K. (1999). Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends.
3. Hardt, M.M. (1995). "Trends in Trails." Proceedings of the Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation Resource Planning Conference.
4. The National Association of State Park Directors, (1999). The 1999 Annual Information Exchange: A Statistical Report of State Park Operations for the Period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998.
5. USDA Forest Service, (1996). Outdoor Recreation in the U.S.: Results from a National Survey on Recreation and the Environment.
6. Private Lands and Outdoor Recreation in the U.S. Website: http://www.agecon.uga.edu/~erag/nplostxt.htm
7. Woodall, (1999). Woodall's Campground Directory.
Appendix
C: Cost Analysis Survey
Addendum
#1
Response to questions posed by Access Board Representatives on 10/19/99:
Question #1:
With respect to the chart on page 6 (actually referring to page 10), which source did you rely upon for this particular information?
Answer:
No single source exists to determine the total numbers of trails in the nation. Therefore, we used the following sources to extrapolate an estimate of these numbers.
1. Hardt, M.M. (1995). "Trends in Trails." Proceedings of the Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation Resource Planning Conference.
2. The National Association of State Park Directors, (1999). The 1999 Annual Information Exchange: A Statistical Report of State Park Operations for the Period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998.
3. USDA Forest Service, (1996). Outdoor Recreation in the U.S.: Results from a National Survey on Recreation and the Environment.
4. Private Lands and Outdoor Recreation in the U.S. Website: http://www.agecon.uga.edu/~erag/nplostxt.htm
Question #2:
Is this data broken down into the number of "backcountry" or "urban" trails?
Answer:
There are very few sources for this type of information. By looking at the funding allotments distributed through the ISTEA Enhancements Program in 1991, we learned that 51% of the money was used in constructing Rail - Trails (15.9%) and bicycle/pedestrian multi-use trails (35.4%). Using this percentage as a basis for our assumptions, we decided that between 60% and 80% of new construction must be constructed in the urban/suburban environment.
In order to validate this assumption, we conducted an unscientific survey of outdoor developed area managers throughout the country. This inquiry determined that 79% of the respondent examples fell under the urban/suburban category (31 out of 39 examples) and 21% fell under the backcountry category.
However, we must also consider that the responses were solicited as examples of cost increases associated with compliance with accessibility guidelines. This caused a bias towards providing examples of trails that were already "accessible" to some degree. Since urban/suburban trails tend to naturally be more accessible than backcountry trails, we likely received a greater proportion of the urban/suburban type trails than actually exist overall.
Taking this bias into account, we feel that the response validates the general assumption that between 60% and no more than 80% of newly constructed trails fall into the urban/suburban category of trail construction.
Question #3:
What makes up the 15,500,000 (number of current miles) for small business/private agencies? Are long distance trails included here? Should Federal and State numbers be larger?
Answer:
This number includes any privately owned and operated trail. It includes any long distance or multi-jurisdictional trail that is administered by a private agency, non-profit organization, or for-profit business (i.e. - the Appalachian Trail) . This number also includes all privately constructed roads (for example, logging roads and other privately constructed vehicular access routes).
According to all information available, the Federal and State numbers are correct. The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment put Federal miles of trails at 160,000 miles (over 100,000 of which are on USDA Forest Service lands) and estimate state mileage to be 102,000 miles (corroborated by the State Park Directors Annual Information Exchange).
Question #4:
What did we use to distinguish the "small businesses"?
Answer:
The "small business" category is used to include any non-governmental agency or business that is privately owned and operated. It includes both non-profit and for-profit agencies of any size.
Question #5:
What was your main source of data on the beaches section? Where would a private resort with a beach be represented? Do we have a source for these types of private resorts?
Answer:
The beaches section numbers was an extremely difficult number to gain an accurate value for. The numbers given are extrapolated from a multitude of sources including:
1. Alig and Healy, (1987). National Resources Inventory.
2. The National Association of State Park Directors, (1999). The 1999 Annual Information Exchange: A Statistical Report of State Park Operations for the Period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998.
3. Private Lands and Outdoor Recreation in the U.S. Website: http://www.agecon.uga.edu/~erag/nplostxt.htm
4. Woodall, (1999). Woodall's Campground Directory.
Private resorts with a beach are included in the "Small business/Private agency" category. The number estimated to exist in the nation was extrapolated from resources #3 and #4 above. The Campground Directory provided a baseline number of camping resorts with beaches. We then extrapolated from that to estimate the total number of private resorts with beaches in the nation.
If you have any further questions on the Cost Analysis, please contact Mike Passo at (612)379-3858 or email: mikepasso@wildernessinquiry.org