[at-l] Kennebec etc.

[greyowl at rcn.com (greyowl@xxxxxxx)]

Yes it is a unit of the park system, but not a national 
park.  The National park service does more than administer 
national parks.  This is were the confusion arrises.  If you 
go back throught the Federal Register, THe secretary of 
Interior did not wan t to set up a seperate organization to 
administrate the trails and made it part of an existing 
function.    But it is not a park.

Please also note that it is not part of the federal alnds )
(were it is federal lands) that is adminstered by DOI or else 
logging, mining and other commercial activites can take place 
on the land.  This is administered under a seperate 
administrative group.

The final say so about the trail in PA resides with the PA 
Dept of natural Resource.  Fortunately they have been pretty 
easy to work with, but at one time there was some talk about 
modifying so of the MOU they hadwith the Federal Government.  
The Federal Government was essentially powerless to do 
anything about it, but fortunately the problem was resolved 
[Something about who could use a section of trail for a 
certain purpose.  The details are hazy, but there is a 
section of the AT in PA were Horses are allowed to use the 
trail.  Technically the land is in private hands, though 
easement was offered to the state (not the federal 
Government)].

Arguing about whether it is a national park or a national 
trail is fruitless.  If it is a national park then the 
federal government and local maintaining organizations will 
have to make the trail ADA complient.  Secondly the federal 
goverment can and (knowing the park service) will charge for 
access.  Think Shenandoah.

Grey Owl

>Please note the parenthetical "(it is now a unit in the park 
system)" in the next to last sentence.  By the way a full 
text of P.L. 90-543 as amended for a CA trail is available at 
http://www.elcaminoreal.org/pdf/drafteisJAPPEN2.pdf