[at-l] Re: Access

["cosmo catalano, jr." <Cosmo.A.Catalano@williams.edu>]

I HAVEN'T gotten my copy of ATN yet either, so I'm probably shooting 
my mouth off un-informed. Never stopped me before, so here goes:

I a recent meeting of the Berkshire AT Committee, we were given to 
understand in a report by a member of the ATC Access Committee, that 
the recommendation of the Access Committee was existing trails were 
not to be subject to general access regulations, and that the AT 
would not "paved over". However, new trails and facilities would be 
subject to some regulation.  The speaker stressed that this was a 
draft document, and would be subject to some review, but he added 
that a very wide coalition of people participated in its development. 
Interestingly he reported that the "handicapped community" was quite 
divided on the level of accessibility needed or wanted.

Personally, I am in favor of *facilities* being accessible to all, 
though I believe that trails to these facilities should reflect the 
nature of the landscape and the intention of the trail (i.e., a 
"wilderness" trail--what ever that means--would not have the same 
construction requirements as a "general" trail).

As to Sloetoe's comments regarding the level of bureaucratic 
influence of maintainence, it does vary widely.  We in the Berkshires 
are fairly independent of oversight in choosing how we maintain and 
"improve" the trail.
Our (unpublished) criteria are--in order:
 
1. Erosion Control
2. Water
	a) when a trail is flooded by beaver activity for example, we 
either modestly re-route if there is land available, and/or we bog 
bridge (puncheon) over soft, easily damaged areas.  Sometimes it 
seems that the whole trail in the Housitonic Valley in S Mass is on 
bog bridging.  Due to busy beavers this summer, several section of 
bog bridging are now underwater.

	b) Protect the margins of water features.  Along pond banks, 
the trail is re-routed or bog bridged, and at stream crossings where 
bank erosion is a problem, bridges are built.

3. Safety.  If a dangerous boulder scramble can be avoided by a 
simple re-route, or a blue blaze bypass can be installed (for example 
North RT in North Adams, there is a nasty boulderfield/cliff climb to 
get you out of the valley with a blue blaze bypass) we will consider 
it.

We "standardize" our work techniques and materials somewhat for 
efficiency and economy.  We "buy in bulk" our lumber, paint, etc., 
and use designs developed over several years for shelters, privys and 
bog bridging.  Not in a conscious effort to standardize the look of 
the trail, but to get the most out of our--and your--limited time and 
money.

As I stressed in a previous post, these decisions are local, made by 
unpaid volunteers (is that redundant?), with minimal oversight by the 
ATC or State EN-CON officials.  Granted we don't have to deal much 
with NPS or NF lands, so we do have some leeway that others might 
not.

However, big brother can be handy sometimes: Just this year, a 
maintainer reported (with photos and a witness) a pickup truck parked 
right on the trail at Gore Pond south of Cheshire.  The owner had 
trucked his boat up to the pond (fortunately a row boat) and was 
fishing.  When asked if he knew he was in violation of Federal laws, 
he was abusive and scornful.  A call to NPS and a subsequent visit to 
his home by the state Environmental Police and NPS officials seemed 
to have a mitigating effect on his attitude--we'll see if it lasts.

I guess the point I'm making Sloetoe, it that unlike much of the 
government these days the AT--or parts (the majority?) of it 
anyway--are pretty tightly grasped by the hands of the People.  A 
rare event IMHO.

Enough for now,

Cosmo

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

==============================================================================