INCREASING ACCESSIBILITY AT THE CERRO ANCÓN INTERACTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER: DESIGN GUIDELINES & ECO-FRIENDLY ALTERNATIVES

Prepared for: The National Association for Conservation of Nature (ANCON) Republic of Panama

Prepared by: Florida State University Department of Urban and Regional Planning Florida Planning and Development Lab

October 2007

This document was made with the needs of visually-impaired people in mind.

ANCON

Juan Carlos Navarro Q. Founding Director

Oscar Vallarino B. Advisory Director

Florida State University Department of Urban and Regional Planning

Charles E. Connerly, Ph.D Professor and Chair

Harrison T. Higgins, AICP Planner in Residence

Kelly Duggar Gabe Matthews Kelly McClendan Brandie Miklus Anthony Robalik Jennifer Toth

Florida State University Panama

Carlos Longoni, Ph.D Rector

Acknowledgements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was made possible through the support of numerous individuals. The project staff would like to extend a special recognition to Harrison Higgins, AICP, Planner-In-Residence at Florida State University’s Department of Urban and Regional Planning, for his generous and tireless assistance in the production of this report. We would also like to thank Dr. Charles Connerly, the Chair of FSU’s Department of Urban and Regional Planning for his encouragement of the professional international collaborations that made this project in Panama possible.

The faculty and staff of FSU’s International Program, both in Tallahassee and Panama were a constant help, and we are appreciative for their assistance. The faculty on our review committees, including Dr. Ivonne Audirac, Dr. Petra Doan, Dr. Daniel Klooster, Dr. Olmedo Varela, provided valuable insights and assistance throughout the project. Additionally, Dean Perkins AIA, the accessibility coordinator for Florida Department of Transportation has generously given his time and knowledge to provide a professional perspective on the project.

We would like to acknowledge and thank the staff of the National Association for the Conservation of Nature (ANCON), especially Maria Fuensanta Donoso and Angel Cardenas. Their desire to create accessible natural areas is an inspiration for us, and we hope that our work will help them to become an example not only in Panama, but throughout Central America and beyond.

Lastly, we would like to extend our deepest gratitude to Toño Nuñez, our Panamanian translator, without whom this project would not have been possible.

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This project has been developed for the National Association for the Conservation of Nature (ANCON). ANCON’s mission is to protect the biodiversity and natural resources of Panama. The Organization has a concession from the Republic of Panama to operate a trail and educational facilities on the Cerro Ancón in Panama City. These facilities are known as the Cerro Ancón Interactive Environmental Center (CIACA). ANCON wishes to renovate the CIACA to provide a universally accessible trail, as well as facilities and an educational infrastructure that will benefit all persons regardless of ability. The CIACA is currently being utilized by groups of school children on an average of twice a month. ANCON is seeking to increase visitation at CIACA by increasing accessibility, in doing so, they also seek a broader audience for environmental education in Panama.

Five systems were identified as the basis for organizing analysis and intervention. They include the trail, interpretive infrastructure, assembly infrastructure, parking, and water and wastewater utilities. Each system was documented in terms of its existing conditions and then evaluated for accessibility and any infrastructure completeness. Alternatives were then developed to address identified deficiencies among these five systems and were then compared to a standard set of design criteria based on best practices used internationally . The environmental conditions and impacts of implementing greater access were identified along with proposed mitigation possibilities in order to ensure the least damage to the environment.

The following provides an overview of two reports’ recommendations:

• In order to make the trail more accessible and to provide an environmentally friendly surface, it is recommended that a recycled permeable rubber surface be installed over the length of the trail.

Executive Summary

• In order to make the interpretive opportunities universally accessible, way finding signage should be erected to identify restrooms, parking and other accessible areas. A series of push button assistive listening devices should be provided along the trail and at the auditorium. • In order to increase access and educational opportunities, various components for the assembly infrastructure should be provided, ranging from universally accessible tables, adding textured flooring for the blind and providing more accessible signage. • In order to comply with Panamanian law and to make the parking lot universally accessible, it is recommended that at least two van accessible handicap spaces be provided according to Panamanian dimensions through repainting a portion of the existing parking lot. • In order to provide restroom facilities at CIACA it is recommended that toilets be constructed at CIACA. Additionally, water infrastructure should be provided recommended to be supplied through a combination of rainwater collection and greywater reuse systems.

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1

1.1 ANCON: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE ...... 1-1 1.1.1 Cerro Ancón Interactive Environmental Center: The CIACA ...... 1-7 1.1.2 Purpose ...... 1-10 1.1.3 Planning Problem ...... 1-11 1.1.4 Process ...... 1-11 1.2 GEOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND LAND USE REGULATIONS ...... 1-12 1.2.1 Land Use Zones ...... 1-14 1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SITE ...... 1-16 1.3.1 Historical Significance ...... 1-16 1.3.2 Environmental Significance ...... 1-19 1.3.3 Cultural Significance ...... 1-19 1.4 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT ...... 1-21 1.4.1 Cerro Ancón Tourist Development: The Teleférico Proposal ...... 1-21 1.4.2 The Cerro Ancón Neighborhood Association ...... 1-24 1.4.3 Revitalization and Urbanization of Surrounding Areas ...... 1-25 1.5 POLITICAL CONTEXT: ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES ...... 1-27 1.5.1 The Torrijos Administration ...... 1-28 1.5.2 Opposition to Changes in Panamanian Accessibility Law ...... 1-28 1.5.3 The Interamerican Conference on the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities ...... 1-29 1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION: A SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ...... 1-29 2 DEFINING DISABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY ...... 2-1

2.1 PANAMANIAN ACCESSIBILITY LAWS ...... 2-1 2.1.1 Law 42 ...... 2-1 2.1.2 Decree 88...... 2-3 2.1.3 Law 25 ...... 2-4 2.2 UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ...... 2-5 2.3 ADVOCATES FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ...... 2-6 2.4 DISABILITY, DEFINED ...... 2-7 2.5 TRADITIONAL AND CONTEMPORARY DEFINITIONS OF ACCESSIBILITY ...... 2-8 2.5.1 Reasonable Adjustments / Accommodations ...... 2-9 2.5.2 Barrier-Free Design ...... 2-11 2.5.3 Universal Design ...... 2-12 2.6 WORKING DEFINITION OF ACCESSIBILITY ...... 2-15 2.6.1 ANCON’s Vision of Accessibility ...... 2-15 2.6.2 Our Working Definition of Accessibility ...... 2-16 2.7 INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES ...... 2-16 2.7.1 US Forest Service Guidelines ...... 2-16 2.7.2 ADA Guidelines ...... 2-17 2.7.3 Universal Design Standards ...... 2-18 2.7.4 UN Guidelines ...... 2-18 3 ACCESSIBILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES ...... 3-1

3.1 TRAIL DEFINITIONS ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Maintenance ...... 3-2 3.1.2 Protruding Object ...... 3-2 3.1.3 Slope ...... 3-2

Table of Contents

3.1.4 Surface ...... 3-2 3.1.5 Trail ...... 3-3 3.1.6 Trail Grade ...... 3-3 3.1.7 Trailhead ...... 3-3 3.1.8 Trail Segment ...... 3-3 3.1.9 Trail Terminus ...... 3-3 3.1.10 Trail Width ...... 3-3 3.1.11 Wheelchair ...... 3-4 3.2 TRAIL GUIDELINES ...... 3-4 3.2.1 Trail Grade ...... 3-6 3.2.2 Cross-Slope ...... 3-7 3.2.3 Resting Intervals ...... 3-7 3.2.4 Benches ...... 3-7 3.2.5 Surface ...... 3-8 3.2.6 Clear Trail Width ...... 3-8 3.2.7 Passing Spaces ...... 3-9 3.2.8 Trail Obstacles ...... 3-10 3.2.9 Protruding Objects ...... 3-10 3.2.10 Openings ...... 3-10 3.2.11 Vertical Trail Clearance ...... 3-10 3.2.12 Handrails ...... 3-11 3.2.13 Edge Protection ...... 3-11 3.3 INTERPRETIVE INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 3-12 3.3.1 Signs ...... 3-12 3.4 ASSEMBLY INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 3-23 3.4.1 Tables ...... 3-23 3.4.2 Ramps ...... 3-24 3.5 PARKING ...... 3-27 3.5.1 General ...... 3-27 3.5.2 Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces ...... 3-27 3.5.3 Parking Space and Access Aisle Size ...... 3-28 3.5.4 Slope ...... 3-29 3.5.5 Signage ...... 3-29 3.5.6 Vertical Clearance ...... 3-30 3.5.7 Location ...... 3-30 3.6 WATER & WASTEWATER ...... 3-30 3.6.1 Restroom Facilities ...... 3-30 3.6.2 Ramps...... 3-34 4 ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT ...... 4-1

4.1 METHODOLOGY ...... 4-1 4.1.1 General ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Site Analysis: Documentation of Existing Conditions...... 4-1 4.1.3 Photo-Documentation ...... 4-3 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 4-4 4.2.1 Trail ...... 4-5 4.2.2 Interpretive Infrastructure ...... 4-18 4.2.3 Assembly Infrastructure ...... 4-20 4.2.4 Parking ...... 4-23 4.2.5 Water & Wastewater ...... 4-25 4.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 4-25

Table of Contents

5 INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 5-1

5.1 TRAIL ...... 5-4 5.1.1 Boardwalk ...... 5-4 5.1.2 Permeable Concrete ...... 5-7 5.1.3 Recycled, Permeable Rubber ...... 5-9 5.1.4 Preferred Alternative-Trail ...... 5-11 5.2 INTERPRETIVE INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 5-12 5.2.1 Minimal Signage ...... 5-12 5.2.2 Push Button Assistive Listening Devices ...... 5-16 5.2.3 Remote Infrared Audible Signage / Talking Signs® ...... 5-19 5.2.4 Preferred Alternative-Interpretive Infrastructure ...... 5-21 5.3 ASSEMBLY INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 5-22 5.3.1 Reception Area...... 5-22 5.3.2 Minimal accommodations...... 5-22 5.3.3 Advanced accommodations ...... 5-23 5.3.4 Auditorium ...... 5-24 5.3.5 Preferred Alternative-Assembly Infrastructure ...... 5-31 5.4 PARKING ...... 5-32 5.4.1 Minimal Panamanian Standards ...... 5-32 5.4.2 Universal Parking Design ...... 5-33 5.4.3 Preferred Alternative-Parking ...... 5-35 5.5 WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 5-36 5.5.1 Restrooms ...... 5-37 5.5.2 Composting Latrines ...... 5-37 5.5.3 Prefabricated Bathrooms ...... 5-40 5.5.4 Preferred Alternative-Restrooms ...... 5-42 5.5.5 Water Systems ...... 5-42 5.5.6 Greywater Reuse System ...... 5-44 5.5.7 Extension of Municipal Water ...... 5-46 5.5.8 Preferred Alternative-Water Systems ...... 5-46 5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 5-47 6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 6-1

6.1 METHODOLOGY ...... 6-2 6.1.1 Methodology of Determining Baseline Conditions ...... 6-2 6.1.2 Methodology of Determining Probable Impacts ...... 6-5 6.1.3 Methodology of Determining Appropriate Mitigation Techniques ...... 6-6 6.2 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ...... 6-8 6.2.1 Biological Environment ...... 6-8 6.2.2 Physical Environment ...... 6-20 6.2.3 Human Environment ...... 6-28 6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 6-39 7 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 7-1

7.1 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 7-1 7.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ...... 7-4 7.3 CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING PRIORITY ...... 7-5 7.4 SOURCES FOR FUNDING ...... 7-8 7.4.1 Sources for Grants ...... 7-8 7.4.2 Sources for Technical Assistance ...... 7-12

Table of Contents

8 REFERENCES ...... 8-1

List of Tables Table 3.1: Outline for the rest of Chapter 3 ...... 3-5 Table 3.2: Braille Dimensions ...... 3-15 Table 3.3: Visual Character Height ...... 3-19 Table 3.4: Slopes of Exterior Ramps ...... 3-26 Table 3.5: Executive Decree 88 Minimum Requirements ...... 3-27 Table 3.6: ADA Minimum Requirements ...... 3-28 Table 3.7: ADA Minimum Requirements for Van-Accessible Spaces ...... 3-28 Table 3.8: Comparison of Panamanian and Universal Design Parking Design Standards ...... 3-29 Table 4.1: Organization of Section 4.2 ...... 4-4 Table 5.1: Investigation of Alternatives ...... 5-2 Table 5.2: Estimated costs, maintenance and lifecycle for trail alternatives...... 5-12 Table 5.3: Estimated costs for recommended signage ...... 5-22 Table 5.4: Estimated costs for auditorium access alternatives...... 5-31 Table 5.5: Estimated costs for parking recommendations...... 5-35 Table 5.6: Estimated cost of water/wastewater systems ...... 5-47 Table 6.1: Common Tree Species in the Cerro Ancón ...... 6-8 Table 6.2: Listing of fauna species in the Cerro Ancón ...... 6-12 Table 7.1 Capital Improvements Plan ...... 7-7

List of Figures Figure 1.1: Aerial of Cerro Ancón...... 1-1 Figure 1.2: Sign at the entrance to the CIACE ...... 1-7 Figure 1.3: View of Cerro Ancón with Surrounding Neighborhoods ...... 1-12 Figure 1.4: View of Punta Paitilla and the Bay of Panama ...... 1-17 Figure 1.5: Old U.S. military structure at the Cerro Ancón ...... 1-18 Figure 1.6: Monument to Poet Amelia Denis de Icaza ...... 1-21 Figure 1.7: Example of a Teleférico, ...... 1-22 Figure 1.8: The trail to the top of the Cerro Ancón, a possible stop for the teleférico ...... 1-23 Figure 1.9: Rendering for the mirador and cafeteria ...... 1-24 Figure 1.10: Image from the Cerro Ancón neighborhood association website ...... 1-24 Figure 1.11: Streetcar Tracks in Casco Antiguo ...... 1-26 Figure 1.12: Plaza in Casco Antiguo ...... 1-26 Figure 2.1: Reasonable Accommodations...... 2-11 Figure 2.2: Barrier-Free Design...... 2-12 Figure 2.3: Universal Design...... 2-15 Figure 3.1: Accessible Bench ...... 3-8 Figure 3.2: Clear path width ...... 3-9 Figure 3.3: Braille Measurement ...... 3-15 Figure 3.4: Acceptable color contrast ...... 3-18 Figure 3.5: Accessible Sign ...... 3-20 Figure 3.6: International Symbol of Accessibility ...... 3-21 Figure 3.7: International Symbol of TTY ...... 3-22 Figure 3.8: Volume Control Telephone ...... 3-22 Figure 3.9: International Symbol of Access for Hearing Loss ...... 3-22

Table of Contents

Figure 3.10: Recommended table dimensions ...... 3-24 Figure 3.11: Accessible Restroom Schematic 3-34 Figure 4.1: Rise-Over-Run ...... 4-2 Figure 4.2: Running Slope and Cross-Slope ...... 4-3 Figure 4.3: Typical Slope ...... 4-5 Figure 4.4: Benches ...... 4-6 Figure 4.5: Trail Surface ...... 4-8 Figure 4.6: Trail Surface ...... 4-8 Figure 4.7: Trail Surface ...... 4-9 Figure 4.8: Trail Sign ...... 4-9 Figure 4.9: Trail Surface ...... 4-10 Figure 4.10: Trail Surface ...... 4-10 Figure 4.11: Trail Width ...... 4-11 Figure 4.12: Trail Width ...... 4-12 Figure 4.13: Trail Obstacle ...... 4-13 Figure 4.14: Trail Obstacle ...... 4-14 Figure 4.15: Trail Obstacle ...... 4-14 Figure 4.16: Trail Opening ...... 4-15 Figure 4.17: Trail Vertical Clearance ...... 4-16 Figure 4.18: Need for Handrails ...... 4-17 Figure 4.19: Trail Sign ...... 4-18 Figure 4.20: Trail Sign ...... 4-19 Figure 4.21: Trail Sign ...... 4-19 Figure 4.22: Reception Entrance ...... 4-20 Figure 4.23: Auditorium ...... 4-21 Figure 4.24: Bunker Entrance ...... 4-22 Figure 4.25: Parking ...... 4-25 Figure 4.26: Parking ...... 4-26 Figure 5.1: Example of boardwalks made out of recycled materials ...... 5-75 Figure 5.2 Water infiltrating permeable concrete ...... 5-8 Figure 5.3. Examples of paths paved with permeable concrete ...... 5-9 Figure 5.4 Examples of recycled rubber used for trails ...... 5-11 Figure 5.5: Accessible Restroom Sign ...... 5-15 Figure 5.6: Customizable Accessible Sign...... 5-16 Figure 5.7: Talking Sign ...... 5-17 Figure 5.8: Talking Sign ...... 5-20 Figure 5.9: Open-air auditorium ...... 5-25 Figure 5.10: Auditorium ...... 5-26 Figure 5.11: Parking Schematic ...... 5-33 Figure 5.12: Universal Design Parking Spaces ...... 5-34 Figure 5.13: Diagram of one model of composting latrines ...... 5-38 Figure 5.14: Educational Posters ...... 5-39 Figure 5.15: Example of Prefabricated Bathroom showing ADA standards ...... 5-41 Figure 5.16: Rainwater collection ...... 5-43 Figure 6.1: Pigeon rousset ...... 6-13 Figure 6.2: Toucan ...... 6-13 Figure 6.3: Clay-colored robin ...... 6-13 Figure 6.4: Squirrel cuckoo...... 6-13 Figure 6.5: Crimson-backed tanger ...... 6-13 Figure 6.6: Blue-gray tanger ...... 6-14 Figure 6.7: Tropical kingbird ...... 6-14 Figure 6.8: Chestnut-headed oropendola ...... 6-14 Figure 6.10: Streaked flycatcher ...... 6-14

Table of Contents

Figure 6.9: Flycatcher ...... 6-14 Figure 6.11: White-tailed deer ...... 6-15 Figure 6.12: Three-toed sloth ...... 6-15 Figure 6.13: Titi monkey ...... 6-15 Figure 6.14: Neque ...... 6-15 Figure 6.15: Iguana ...... 6-16 Figure 6.16: Green and black poison dart frog ...... 6-16

List of Maps Map 1.1: Vicinity Map ...... 1-3 Map 1.2: Area Buildings ...... 1-4 Map 1.3: Ancón Hill ...... 1-6 Map 1.4: CIACA Trail Mao ...... 1-6 Map 1.5: Access to Cerro ANCON ...... 1-9 Map 1.6: Base Map of Cerro Ancón ...... 1-13

Introduction

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 ANCON: National Association for the Conservation of Nature

The Asociación Nacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (ANCON; translated into English as the National Association for the Conservation of Nature) was established in 1985 and is Panama’s foremost environmental non-profit organizations. The ANCON acronym both underscores the organization’s conservation mission and reflects the area where its headquarters are located, the Cerro Ancón, in reverted areas the former Panama Canal Zone1. As part of its mission is to “conserve the biodiversity and the natural resources of Panama for the benefit of present and future generations” (ANCON, 2007), ANCON manages several national parks and other protected areas, including biological corridors, marine parks and natural reserves. In order to carry out its programs, ANCON has worked with international environmental organizations (such as the Nature Conservancy and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute), Panamanian institutions (especially Fundacion Natura, or the Nature Foundation), universities, the private sector, and with communities around Panama. These strategic alliances provide support for ANCON’s mission by assisting in the creation of conservation areas, training park rangers, initiating reforestation projects, and working with indigenous peoples living in Panama’s several comarcas to manage resources on lands with protected area status (ANCON, 2007).

Cerro Ancón is located in Panama City, near the southern entrance to the Panama Canal close to the Bay of Panama. Albrook, Balboa, La Boca, El Chorrillo and Quarry Heights are neighborhoods that are closest to the Cerro(sSee Map 1.1).

1 Cerro Ancón translates to English as “Cove Hill” but because it is the name of a place, we will refer to it by its name in Spanish, or simply, the Cerro. When referring to our client, ANCON, the acronym will be capitalized.

1-1 Introduction

Other major points of interest in the area include the Miraflores Locks, the Albrook Airport, the Albrook shopping mall, and the national bus terminal.

Albrook Airport, a former U.S. Air force facility serves national air travelers. Albrook Mall is the major shopping mall in this area of the city. The bus terminal is in the same complex as the mall. The terminal is used by the public buses as well as private and chartered buses. Besides the mall, there are many restaurants and strip malls in this area. Like many of the reverted areas, Albrook has many open areas and green spaces and is a neighborhood with suburban characteristics. The Balboa area was the administrative capital of the Canal Zone during the period of U.S. occupation. The Canal Administration Building and other facilities were located here by the U.S., in an area first used by the French, and continue to be used by the Republic of Panama. The small neighborhood known as La Boca is the westernmost section of Balboa and borders the canal. Florida State University Panama City is in this neighborhood. Similar to Albrook, the Balboa neighborhood contrasts with the predominately-urban characteristic of the areas of the city that were outside of the zone.

1-2 Introduction

Map 1.1: Vicinity Map Source: Panama-Zone.com

Quarry Heights, the closest neighborhood to the hill, was a military headquarters during U.S. occupation. The area was also used for military family housing and is currently one of the more exclusive neighborhoods in the city.

El Chorrillo is located on the side of the hill opposite of Quarry Heights. It is one of the poorest areas of Panama City. Large areas of the neighborhood were destroyed during the 1989 U.S. invasion of the country.

1-3 Introduction

Map 1.2: Area Buildings Source: Dames & Moore (1999)

Maps 1.1 and 1.2 depict these areas. Map 1.1 shows a large-scale view of the many neighborhoods around Cerro Ancón. Map 1.2 is a closer view of the hill and also shows the the surrounding buildings. The data available does not currently include data for the neighborhood of El Chorrillo and therefore the neighborhood is incompletely depicted on this map.

1-4 Introduction

Figure 1.1 is an aerial photograph of the hill. Outlined in this photograph is the CIACA area as well as the ANCON office (the office is the building located at the bottom center of the box). The trail itself is not visible underneath the tree cover.

Figure 1.1: Aerial of Cerro Ancón Source: Dames & Moore (1999)

1-5 Introduction

Maps 1.3 and 1.4 provide more detailed views of Cerro Ancon the CIACA. Map 1.3 shows the Cerro Ancón and the location of the CIACA relative to the entire hill. Map 1.4 is a close-up map of the CIACA including ANCON’s office, the trail, the bunker, and the pavilion.

Map 1.3: Ancón Hill Source: Dames & Moore (1999)

Map 1.4: CIACA Trail Map Source: Dames & Moore (1999)

1-6 Introduction

1.1.1 Cerro Ancón Interactive Environmental Center: The CIACA

ANCON operates an environmental education center located on the Cerro Ancón, adjacent to their main offices. The Centro Interactivo Ambiental del Cerro Ancón (CIACA), or, in English, the Cerro Ancón Interactive Environmental Center, is a conservation site dedicated to environmental education. Currently there are a nature trail, “el Sendero Caucho” (or in English, the rubber tree trail), and an open air auditorium at the site that provide opportunities for elementary through university level educational visits. The Center is currently not open to the general public; appointments must be made in advance to visit the site and tours are guided by ANCON staff. Currently, the rate of visitation at the CIACA is approximately two to three groups per month. ANCON would like to see that number rise in the future to at least one to two groups per week. The staff at ANCON has determined that any potential redevelopment proposals should fall within those usage parameters, given that more visitation could surpass what they see as the surrounding ecosystem’s capacity for human intrusion.

Figure 1.2: Sign at the entrance to the CIACA. Source: Miklus, B. (2007).

ANCON’s headquarters can be reached on foot by those without mobility impairments or by private automobile or taxi. Public forms of transportation, such as the “Diablo Rojo” or Red Devil public buses, do not serve the

1-7 Introduction residential area where the headquarters is located. The nearest main road is Vía Boyd Roosevelt. It is shown in Map 1.2 as Roosevelt Avenue. The site is also accessible from the Santa Ana and El Chorillo neighborhoods, two lower income neighborhoods in close proximity to the CIACA. This accessibility to lower income neighborhoods is an important attribute of the CIACA site, as the natural areas of the Cerro Ancón are an important urban green space for nearby residents.

1-8 Introduction

Map 1.5: Access to Cerro ANCON from Vía Boyd Roosevelt). Source: http://www.chagres.com/maps.html (2007).

1-9 Introduction

1.1.2 Purpose

At this moment there are no facilities at ANCON’s environmental center (CIACA) that are accessible to persons with physical, sensory, or mental disabilities. ANCON is seeking to improve upon that lack of access. The purpose of this study is to plan for the redevelopment of CIACA as necessary to welcome and accommodate visitors with a range of disabilities. ANCON recognizes there are currently few natural areas in Panama that are truly accessible to persons with disabilities and that the redevelopment of CIACA, with a focus on accommodating persons with disabilities, provides the opportunity to reach a segment of the population that is often under-served in the design of natural preserves, interpretive centers, and environmental education facilities. ANCON seeks to integrate children into environmental education, providing them with the same or similar experience as other visitors, without feeling alienated or discomfited. ANCON would also like to seek outside funding in order to expand their educational programs. As one of Panama’s leading environmental advocates, ANCON’s vision for the redevelopment of the site seeks to accomplish these accessibility goals without compromising the environmental quality of the area.

In order to attain these goals, ANCON executed a memo of understanding with the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at Florida State University to study possibilities for making the facilities and educational opportunities at CIACA accessible to people with a range of abilities throughout the life course, while considering the environmental educational opportunities and impacts related to implementing those guidelines, and providing recommendations for the mitigation of any adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the redevelopment of the ecological trail and open- air auditorium. Though no longer occupied by a primary forest, the area is home to several locally important and representative species of plant and animal life and ANCON wants to mitigate any impacts and disturbances. Additionally, the redevelopment of the site could provide the opportunity for calling attention to the site’s environmental history (including the

1-10 Introduction deforestation during the building of the Panama Canal and the subsequent reforestation) through the preservation of remnants of historic U.S. military infrastructure. Finally the use of green building technologies in the design, construction, and operation of the CIACA provides ANCON with further educational opportunities in regard to environmental awareness and human health. The plans to enhance the CIACA as an educational resource center fulfills with ANCON’s conservation mission by creating a venue to teach greater awareness about the environmental ethics that guide the organization’s mission.

1.1.3 Planning Problem

ANCON does not have a working definition of accessibility or disability to guide their redevelopment goals. Furthermore, the trail and man-made educational facilities present numerous barriers to access, especially for those with mobility and vision impairments. ANCON also lacks accurate, systematic data on existing barriers at the site and the expertise necessary to devise appropriate design solutions to remove or otherwise overcome those barriers. Additionally, because ANCON is a leader in environmental protection in Panama, they want any redevelopment to have the least possible impacts to the environment.

1.1.4 Process

The term first proposes a working definition of accessibility. Next, we survey the academic literature, national laws, and international standards to devise a set of accessibility design guidelines by which we can evaluate the various facilities on Cerro Ancón. Finally, we take the findings from this evaluation and, using the design standards we have developed, recommend appropriate redevelopment to the facilities and provide a capital improvements plan for the implementation of those recommendations. These recommendations will result in facilities that are as accessible as possible, given the constraints presented by the natural environment. Furthermore, and just as importantly, our implementation plan for the capital improvements specifies ways to not

1-11 Introduction only minimize or mitigate any adverse environmental impacts but also suggests how these improvements may enhance the educational experience by serving as illustrative cases of how to design and build with innovative environmental technologies.

Figure 1.3: View of Cerro Ancón with Surrounding Neighborhoods. The Bay of Panama and the neighborhood of El Chorillo are in the foreground of the photo. The Panama Canal is just behind the Cerro, to the left. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancon_Hill

1.2 Geographic Characteristics and Land Use Regulations

The Cerro Ancón is the name used for the area where the project site is located. This general area is located in the Province of Panama, specifically in the Pacific sector of Panama City, near the Bridge of the Americas. The hill is bordered by Heights and Culebra Streets on the north; to the south by Aryan

1-12 Introduction and Martyrs Avenues; by Gorgas Hospital and a wooded area on the east, and to the west by Sturgis Street (see Map 1.5).

Map 1.6: Base Map of Cerro Ancón. Depicts the hill and the surrounding neighborhoods Source: Dames & Moore (1999).

1-13 Introduction

Less than one hectare, of the almost 50 hectares that make up the Cerro Ancón, is currently in administrative concession with different companies and governmental institutions, and 7.5 hectares are tentatively planned for the development of a tourism project, the Mirador. The highest elevation of the hill is at 195 meters above sea level (see Map 1.5 above).

1.2.1 Land Use Zones

Cerro Ancón is divided into four land use zones: a protection zone, a moderate tourism zone, a tourist development zone and a historical-cultural zone (Dames & Moore, 1998). The zoning classifications are based on the physical and biological characteristics of the area, along with the area’s Tourist Use Plan.

(1) Protection Zone. This zone includes approximately 61.24 percent (29.55 hectares) of the total surface of the Cerro Ancón and is mostly secondary growth forest. It includes natural areas that have been minimally altered since the era of canal construction(Dames & Moore, 1998). It contains the greatest representation of the flora and fauna species of the area as well as the area’s existing intact, non-urbanized ecosystems (see Chapter 6 for more details). No tourists are permitted to visit this zone; the only permitted activities are scientific research, protection and conservation studies.

(2) Moderate Tourism Zone. The Moderate Tourism Zone is a transition zone and is found between sites with greater degrees of development and the Protection Zone (Dames & Moore, 1998). It occupies an area of 11.5 hectares and is located from the extreme northwest side of the Cerro Ancón (the Quarry Heights neighborhood) to the limit of the southwest side. This zone includes natural areas which have experienced a certain degree of conversion to urban land uses and urban intensities of development. It also contains natural landscapes and samples of significant characteristics of the area. A large variety of fauna can be found in this zone, including birds, boas, deer, armadillos and frogs (see Chapter 6 for more details).

1-14 Introduction

Limited tourism, education and recreation activities are permitted in low concentration in the Moderate Tourism Zone. These activities could include rustic interpretive paths or bird watching points. It has also been suggested that an aviary and a botanical garden would be appropriate for the zone.

(3) Tourist Development Zone. The Tourist Development Zone is located along the top of Cerro Ancón and contains approximately 3.8 hectares of land that is practically devoid of vegetation (Dames & Moore, 1998). This zone provides excellent views of the surrounding landscape.

The Tourist Development Zone is intended for relatively dense recreation and tourist activities. This zone has a high carrying capacity for development because it does not contain significant resources nor any important limitations; the slope, for example, varies between zero and nine percent. This zone already has communication installations (towers) and vacant buildings, making it a favorable area for development. It could support activities related to education, recreation and tourism, such as a visitor center, cafeteria, souvenir store, look-out area and other similar facilities.

(4) Historical-Cultural Zone. The Historical-Cultural Zone is located in the extreme southern portion of Cerro Ancón, and is made up of open areas with scattered trees and tracts without vegetation (Dames & Moore, 1998). The zone contains approximately 3.4 hectares.

This zone is characterized by its possession of historical and cultural elements of great interest. Cerro Ancón itself is a historic site; furthermore, the cultural center of “Mi Pueblito” (“My Little Town” in English) is found in this zone. Mi Pueblito is an attraction that includes representative building types of Panama, as well as a craft market and tourist shops. Due to its lack of vegetation, gentle slopes, and small wealth of species, this zone is viewed

1-15 Introduction as having “zero” environmental sensitivity and thus can support a great deal of development.

1.3 Significance of the site

Cerro Ancón is an important symbol of Panamanian sovereignty as well as an important natural resource with a unique environmental and political history. However, due to increasing development in the vicinity related to tourism, industry, and commerce, there are escalating threats to the Cerro’s cultural, historical and environmental resources. We will briefly provide an overview of current projects in the area and assess how they are likely to affect the protected natural area that is home to the environmental center (CIACA). We begin with a view of the historical, environmental and cultural significance of the site to provide an understanding of its unique importance to Panama.

1.3.1 Historical Significance

The Cerro Ancón has been strategically significant since the relocation of the City of Panama town site to Casco Antiguo in 1673 (Casco Antiguo, 2007). Cerro Ancón has a 360 degree view of surrounding areas that is unparalleled throughout the city. Between 1672 and 1686, the hill was not only a post for soldiers to guard over the Casco Antiguo, but was also a source of potable water for the relocated city (Grimaldo, 2002).

1-16 Introduction

Figure 1.4: View of Punta Paitilla and the Bay of Panama from the Cerro Ancón. Source: Salzer, K. (2007).

During the period of French canal construction in the late 1800’s, the French located important infrastructure, including a hospital (Grimaldo, 2002). At the time, the hospital was arguably the finest in Central America (McCullough, 1977). In 1909, the site was chosen as the primary rock quarry for the Miraflores and Pedro Miquel locks of the Panama Canal. According to Susan Johnson, in a report prepared for the United States Army South (USARSO) “quarry operations literally reshaped the face of Ancon Hill” (p.34, n.d.). Over 3,200,000 cubic yards of rock were removed from the Cerro for the construction of the canal locks.

The neighborhood surrounding the rock quarry came to be known as “Quarry Heights.” Anticipating the completion of the Panama Canal in 1913, the Ancon rock quarry was chosen first as the site for the U.S. Marine Base and later as the headquarters of the U.S. Army. Through several changes in

1-17 Introduction

Department of Defense structure and operations in Latin America, the Quarry Heights location remained the headquarters for the U.S. military in the region.

Quarry Heights continued to be occupied by the United States military until 1997, when land throughout the Canal Zone transitioned from U.S. to Panamanian control following the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977. There are still remnants of the former military structures on Cerro Ancón, and in the CIACA specifically, including bunkers, bunker entrances, and buildings. According to Johnson, “there is a great need to document these installations, the majority of which are of historical and architectural significance and which represent a very unique era in the social history of both the United States and Panama” (p.34, n.d.).

Figure 1.5: Old U.S. military structure at the Cerro Ancón. Source: Miklus, B. (2007).

Today Cerro Ancón is considered a suburb of Panama City. Currently, the area has a mixture of land uses, including residential, governmental, and

1-18 Introduction commercial development, along with preserved natural areas. The Panama Canal Administration building is located at the hill, with a view of the Miraflores Locks, the Canal and the Bridge of the Americas.

1.3.2 Environmental Significance

Cerro Ancón was declared a protected area through Municipal Agreement Number 157 of 31 July 2001. Due to the unique opportunity it provides to conserve plants and animals in the heart of the city; indeed the area is home to 39 different species of birds, and many different mammals, reptiles and amphibians. While one might not expect to see much wildlife in an area surrounded by urban uses, the CIACA regularly offers visitors the chance to see toucans, black and green poison dart frogs, and various other species (see Chapter 6 for more details).

Further, as noted earlier, the site is in a prime location to offer “green space” to residents of the nearby highly urbanized neighborhoods. There are certainly other green spaces in Panama City, including the Metropolitan Park and Summit Botanical Gardens. However, Cerro Ancón’s unique combination of not only flora and fauna, but also the human environmental history makes this area distinctive and environmentally important.

1.3.3 Cultural Significance

Cerro Ancón is a central landmark, visible from areas of the historic Barrio San Felipe and its original faubourg Santa Ana. As noted earlier, the springs on the Cerro provided a water supply to the Casco Antiguo during from its foundation. The hill also was a place to get some fresh air and see the countryside during the days before U.S. control (Grimaldo, 2002).

When the United States took control of the Panama Canal Zone, a fence was constructed to separate areas within the Zone from the rest of Panama City. The Cerro Ancón was located entirely inside the Canal Zone; effectively

1-19 Introduction

Panamanians could see what was theirs, but could not touch it. During the U.S. control of the Canal Zone, both the U.S. and Panamanian flags flew atop the hill, visible from around the city. The sight of both flags was a constant reminder to the Panamanians of the U.S. presence in the area.(Lemoine, 1999).

Poet Amelia Denis de Icaza captured this common sentiment of the area in her poem, written in 1906, entitled “Al Cerro Ancón” meaning in English, “To the Cerro Ancón”. The poem describes the hill in a nostalgic manner, mourning the loss of the site to U.S. control and its subsequent deforestation. Denis de Icaza’s poem has been attributed to making the Cerro “part of the entire population’s imagination” and contends that it “serves as a beacon… that exemplifies the struggle for national sovereignty” (Leis, 2006, p.1). She later served as one of the primary advocates for protecting the natural areas of the Cerro Ancón (Leis, 2006).

Today, a large Panamanian flag flies above the Cerro Ancón as an emblem of Panama’s restored sovereignty over the territory. One of the first acts to affirm the sovereignty of the entire nation, after the Canal Zone was reverted to Panamanian control, was to replace the original Panamanian flag with a much larger one, symbolic of the shift from dual Panamanian-American control to sole Panamanian authority of the area. The flag is said to be the size of a basketball court, and the diameter of the flag pole alone is 3 meters.

1-20 Introduction

Figure 1.6: Monument to Poet Amelia Denis de Icaza. On top of the Cerro Ancón. Source: Salzer, K. (2007).

1.4 Tourist Development

In the period following the reversal of Canal Zone Authority to Panama tourist development and increasing urbanization have occurred in and around the Cerro Ancón. Pace of urbanization has increased with the regeneration of Casco Antiguo and new development along the Amador Causeway areas. Some of this development has been opposed by the residents of the area.

1.4.1 Cerro Ancón Tourist Development: The Teleférico Proposal

Cerro Ancón is known for its awe-inspiring views of the Panama Canal, the Bridge of the Americas, the Bay of Panama, Panama City’s stunning skyline, and the historic district of Casco Antiguo (Amador, 2007). Another of the

1-21 Introduction best places to view these scenes is from the Amador Causeway which would be a connecting point to the Cerro Ancón according to project proposals.

Among proposed tourist development projects is a proposal for a teleférico, or aerial tramway, to unite a proposed mirador atop Cerro Ancón with several of Panama City’s most scenic areas (see Figures 1.7 and 1.8). The company financing the teleférico, the Sociedad Inversiones Guararé, , has faced notable opposition namely from area residents (Cerro Ancón, 2007).

Figure 1.7: Example of a Teleférico. Source: Olivares, M. (2006).

1-22 Introduction

Figure 1.8: The trail to the top of the Cerro Ancón, a possible stop for the teleférico. Source: Lara (2005).

In addition to the teleférico, there is also proposal for the top of the Cerro Ancón which includes a four-level building with a cafeteria and a viewpoint station, commonly referred to as the “Mirador” (see Figure 1.9). The construction cost for the Mirador is estimated to be between 10 and 20 million dollars (2005). The proposal is accompanied by bird-watching stations, a butterfly garden, a botanical garden, ecological footpaths and craft stores. There project appears to be based on similar developments incorporating teleféricos in Merida, Venezuela and Bogota, Columbia.

Final plans for the projects have not yet been approved.

1-23 Introduction

Figure 1.9: Rendering for the mirador and cafeteria. Source: www.cerroancon.com (2007).

1.4.2 The Cerro Ancón Neighborhood Association

Located close to the ANCON offices is an upper-income neighborhood that has organized opposition to the tramway and mirador proposal. Residents have formed a neighborhood association that has developed a website (www.cerroancon.com) in order to voice their opposition. Residents are concerned that the teleférico will disrupt the peace of the secluded neighborhood by bringing more people and more traffic to the area (see Figure 1.10).

Figure 1.10: Image from the Cerro Ancón neighborhood association website. Source: www.cerroancon.com (2007).

1-24 Introduction

The neighborhood association has implemented a Defense Committee to oppose the teleférico proposal through the Panamanian Courts. According to La Prensa, a Panamanian newspaper, the first successful efforts from the committee’s attempts to restrain the installation came on February 2, 2007. The Supreme Court of Justice provisionally suspended Resolution DINEORA IA-085-2005, ANAM’s approval of the environmental impact study (EIS) for the execution and construction of the teleférico project (Molina, 2007). The suspension of EIS was based on the Panamanian contention of its incorrect evaluation of environmental criteria (Arcia, 2007).

This project has heightened awareness in issues concerning the environment in Panama City. Oscar Ceville, the Legal Administrator of the Administration of the Republic of Panama and an opponent of development in Panama’s protected areas, has fought in favor of suspending the contract between the former Interoceanic Authority of the Region (ARI), the agency created to manage lands in the former Canal Zone, and Guararé Investments on the basis that ARI was not authorized to conduct projects in protected areas, such as the Cerro Ancón (Arcia, 2007).

1.4.3 Revitalization and Urbanization of Surrounding Areas

Whether or not the teleférico and mirador projects are realized tourism development in Cerro Ancón’s environs is likely to continue. These include the restoration of the streetcars to historic areas of Panama City, with stops close to the Cerro Ancón. El Visitante, Panama’s tourist newspaper, reported in their late June 2007 issue that there are plans to re-open the streetcar system along Central Avenue and into Casco Antiguo as part of the revival of the Santa Ana and San Felipe areas of Panama City (Comrie, 2007). The director of the Casco Antiguo organization, the chief sponsor of urban regeneration in these areas, Ariel Espino, said that the streetcar will have several routes that will go through Central Avenue, the Casco Antiguo and Calzada Amador (2007).

1-25 Introduction

Figure 1.11 Streetcar Tracks in Casco Antiguo. Source: Matthews, G. (2007).

Casco Antiguo is itself experiencing a vast revitalization effort in order to revive the neighborhood, which has been designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site (El Casco Antiguo, 2007). The revitalization includes a five year plan to address the provision of urban infrastructure and services in the area, the restoration of its buildings, the development of new tourist destinations, economic development, social integration, and marketing and promoting existing and planned projects (2007). The goal of the organization is to generate and sustain the development of Casco Antiguo in an approach that is consistent with national regulations as well UNESCO policy (2007).

1-26 Introduction

Figure 1.12: Plaza in Casco Antiguo. Source: Matthews, G. 2007.

The Amador Causeway, in addition to being touted a major tourist attraction, has a substantial residential area that is showing the signs of increased development. The Causeway is immediately to the south of Cerro Ancón. The causeway consists links three islands with a landbridge constructed with materials excavated during Panama Canal budilding. This area contains numerous restaurants, nightclubs, a convention center, and a well-appointed marina. Facilities associated with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute are also located there.

1.5 Political Context: Accessibility Issues

Based on Panama’s 2000 census, the total number of persons with disabilities in the country is 52,197 persons (IDRM, 2007). This is approximately 1.8 percent of the total reported population of Panama. The

1-27 Introduction disabled population has been historically underserved in Panama; however, recent events have brought attention to the challenges that have resulted from this under service.

1.5.1 The Torrijos Administration

President Martin Torrijos and First Lady Vivian Fernández de Torrijos have been active in promoting the rights and welfare of persons with disabilities. On 1 September 2004, President Torrijos issued Executive Decree 103, which created the National Secretariat for the Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities (SENADIS). The organization was established to serve as a consultant to the Executive Office to direct public policy for the inclusion of persons with disabilities. As part of this effort, SENADIS has been promoting a national inclusion campaign for social awareness about people with disabilities and their families (SENADIS, 2007).

The First Lady has leveraged her political and social position to bring attention to the conditions of the disabled in Panama and to help to enhance the quantity and quality of opportunities available to them. To date her projects have included a national plan for inclusive education, economic assistance to students with disabilities, the Famiempresas program, the program for whole integration-rehabilitation, and delivery of subsidies to families with disabled children.

1.5.2 Opposition to Changes in Panamanian Accessibility Law

Recently there has been contention that a proposed law to elevate the Panamanian agency SENADIS to an autonomous institution will encroach upon or obviate the traditional role played by IPHE (Miranda, 2007). IPHE runs schools for special education. Educators have protested against IPHE in fear that their positions will be eliminated as a result of integrating disabled students into the education system. The Executive Office has publicly assured them that intent of the law is not to eliminate IPHE. The Executive office

1-28 Introduction system has also stated that the passage of the law should only serve to optimize IPHE. IPHE, nevertheless, remains.

1.5.3 The Interamerican Conference on the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities

In May 2007, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Government of the Republic of Panama hosted the Conferencia Interamericana por los Derechos y la Dignidad de las Personas con Discapacidad y sus Familias (Interamerican Conference for the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities and Their Families). During the conference, the Assistant Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), Albert R. Ramdin, called for “a concerted effort to support the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities, calling this a ‘fundamental moral obligation’” (OAS, 2007). The OAS Assistant Secretary also praised the Panamanian government for its “effort to combat discrimination against persons with disabilities” (OAS, 2007).

1.6 Report Organization: A Systems Analysis

In order to facilitate easier understanding, Chapters 3 though 6 will all be organized in the same manner based on the five systems below. After visiting the CIACA and ascertaining ANCON’s desires for the site, it was determined that the requisite areas of intervention could be organized under the following five systems; trail, interpretive infrastructure, assembly infrastructure, parking, and water and wastewater. A brief description of each is provided below.

(1) Trails. Trails discuss mainly the accessibility component of the trail including surface, dimensions, and recommendations for creating an accessible trail that is also environmentally friendly.

1-29 Introduction

(2) Interpretive Infrastructure. Signage is a very important part of any public space, but especially for persons with disabilities who rely on such things to get around and to know what facilities are accessible or not. This section addresses not only traditional signage, but also assistive listening devices that can be used as educational tools and as tools to aid persons with vision disabilities.

(3) Assembly Infrastructure. These sections discuss the CIACA auditorium and ANCON office and deal mostly with measuring the existing accessibility and recommending ways to overcome existing deficiencies.

(4) Parking. This section speaks on Panamanian legal requirements for accessible parking spaces as well as universal design principles and melds the two together to create a truly universal recommendation.

(5) Water and Wastewater. As will be discussed later, there are currently no restroom facilities at CIACA. The discussions of water and wastewater center on the provision of restrooms in an environmentally friendly fashion that can be utilized as an educational opportunity.

1-30 Defining Disability and Accessibility

2 DEFINING DISABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY

Since increasing accessibility at the CIACA is the preeminent concern of this project, it is important to define both “disability” and “accessibility”. Such definitions help to clarify the project’s vision and help to determine the most appropriate set of design standards upon which to base final recommendations. To that end, we surveyed the literature, sought advice from various disability–related advocacy organizations both within Panama and internationally, consulted the relevant national laws and international standards, and had multiple conversations with ANCON about their goals and capacity.

Section 2.1 discusses the relevant Panamanian accessibility laws, including Law 42, Decree 88, and Law 25 (the most recent legislation related to disabled persons). Section 2.2 describes the United Nations Convention on which Law 25 is based. Section 2.3 describes advice from Panamanian disability advocacy organizations. Sections 2.4 through 2.6 define, having synthesized the relevant law and literature, disability and accessibility. Finally, Section 2.7 builds those definitions to articulate the rationale for using some international best practices in addition to what is required by Panamanian law and serves as a transition to the specific design guidelines presented in Chapter 3.

2.1 Panamanian Accessibility Laws

The immediately following sections (2.1.1 to 2.1.3) describing the baseline legal condition of disability in the nation of Panama provide a context for the rest of the chapter.

2.1.1 Law 42

On 27 August 1999, Panama enacted Law 42 (Ley 42). The purpose of Law 42 was to make opportunities for persons with disabilities equal to those of able-bodied persons.

2-1 Defining Disability and Accessibility

The law constructs a legal framework to protect the rights of the disabled in Panama through setting the following policy objectives: (1) To create conditions that permit persons with disabilities access to and complete integration with society. (2) To guarantee that persons with disabilities enjoy all the rights that the Constitution and Laws of Panama confer to them to the same degree as all other citizens. (3) To serve as an instrument for persons with disabilities to reach their maximum potential and complete participation in society. (4) To establish the material and legal basis that permits the State to adopt the measures necessary for the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities, guaranteeing them health, education, work, housing, recreation, sports and culture, as well as informal and community life (Article 2, p.4).

Law 42 makes reference to access to physical surroundings and norms of design in Chapter IV, Access to the Physical Environment and Modes of Transportation. According to Article 30 of Chapter IV, new construction, building expansion or remodeling, parks, sidewalks, gardens, roads, restrooms and other spaces for public use (or spaces that imply a use by a public audience) will have to be designed according to norms that respond to the minimum physical requirements necessary for those areas to be used by persons with disabilities (p.12). Article 31 states that the aforementioned places be designed in a manner that allows them to be accessed and utilized by persons with disabilities, taking into consideration the following: (1) Access to enter and to leave or to go up and to go down in public use sites (public sites are defined in the paragraph below); (2) The to entrances and exits; (3) Adaptation of facilities; (4) Easily comprehensible directions or signs, adapted to different disabilities;

2-2 Defining Disability and Accessibility

(5) Safety measures to eliminate risk to users; and (6) The functionality of adjustments (p.12-13).

According to Article 33 of Law 42, the following buildings and installations are considered public use sites: (1) National and municipal public offices; (2) Hospitals, clinics, pharmacies and educational institutions; (3) Hotels, motels and apartment hotels; (4) Markets, supermarkets and restaurants; (5)Cinemas, theaters, stadiums, banks, gymnasiums, museums, libraries, or any other site that provides services, entertainment or cultural opportunities; (6) Street crossings, sidewalks, bus stops, public telephones, parking, and collective and selective modes of transportation; and (7) General infrastructure and locations of special significance (p.13- 14).

Law 42 does not go as far as to establish specific design guidelines; these guidelines are set forth in the regulations of Executive Decree 88 (Decreto Ejecutivo 88).

2.1.2 Decree 88.

On 12 November 2002, President Martin Torrijos issued Executive Decree 88 which establishes the regulations and benchmarks necessary to ensure access for persons with disabilities to those domains listed in Objective 4 of Law 42. The decree lists the regulations for design guidelines for physical surroundings (especially public areas) in Chapter VI, Access to the Physical Environment and Modes of Transportation.

There are several design guidelines from decree 88 that have potential application to the site at The Cerro Ancón. Article 25 lists design criteria for

2-3 Defining Disability and Accessibility interventions which facilitate reach, maneuvering, and control for persons with limited mobility or are vision or hearing impaired. Article 27 describes requirements for parking spaces. (Parking should be located adjacent to the building and as close as possible to the accessible entrance; parking should not be obstructed by steps nor should it be on an incline). Article 31 indicates that signs should be easy to read and comprehend.

Article 33 dictates the placement of doorways. Public buildings and spaces should have at least one door at each accessible entrance for use by disabled or mobility-reduced persons. The door should correspond with the access route and should use corresponding signage.

Article 34 addresses the design and construction of ramps. This Article also includes requirements for handrails on ramps. Article 35 states that every building, public or private, that proportions physical accessibility to the general public and places of work, will include a restroom for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility.

Design guidelines from Decree 88 that were applied to this project are integrated into the Design Guidelines (Chapter 3). It should be noted that the design guidelines presented in Decree 88 are not exhaustive. These present a basic platform; however, specific trail guidelines, among other guidelines, are not presented.

2.1.3 Law 25

Law 25, passed on 10 July 2007, is the most recent legislation regarding persons with disabilities to be enacted by the Panamanian Assembly. Law 25 approved the adoption of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (described in detail in Section 2.2). By adopting the convention, the Republic of Panama guarantees rights to persons with

2-4 Defining Disability and Accessibility disabilities. The law is particularly applicable to the project because it defines universal design and addresses the issue of accessibility. Law 25 incorporates the exact language of the convention; nothing has been altered.

2.2 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol were adopted on 13 December 2006 at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York. Panama signed both the convention Optional Protocol on 30 March 2007.

There are eight general principles that guide the convention: (1) Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons; (2) Non-discrimination; (3) Full and effective participation and inclusion in society; (4) Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity; (5) Equality of opportunity; (6) Accessibility; (7) Equality between men and women; and (8) Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities (Article 3, p.5).

The sixth principle, Accessibility, is described in Article 9 of the Convention. According to Article 9, barriers to access should be identified and eliminated. This directive applies to: (a) buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces; and (b) information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency services (Article 9, p.9).Article 9

2-5 Defining Disability and Accessibility does not mention methods for site analysis nor does it mention specific design guidelines.

In addition to the above principles, the UN has a program known as UN Enable that has promulgated an array of specific design guidelines; these design guidelines are incorporated into Chapter 3, where a more thorough discussion of their utility is included.

2.3 Advocates for Persons with Disabilities

Email questionnaires to SENADIS and IPHE regarding Panamanian disability policy. The following represents information gathered from SENADIS; IPHE did not respond to requests for information.

In addition to contacting persons who were experts on Panamanian law, we also sought to interview persons who work closely with the disabled population in Panama in order to better represent the needs and desires of the disabled community. Nine organizations that either work with the disabled or advocate on behalf of the disabled in Panama were contacted. They included:

• Asociación de Industrias de Buena Voluntad • Asociación Pro Niños Excepcionales de Panamá • Fundación Caminemos Juntos • Fundación Déjame Ser Tu Amigo • Fundación Mary Arias • Fundación pro Integración • Olimpiadas Especiales de Panamá • Patronato Luz de Ciego • Unión Nacional de Ciegos de Panamá

2-6 Defining Disability and Accessibility

Responses were received from Virginia N. de Alvarado, Executive Director of Fundación Pro Integración, and Dr. Guillermo Moreno of the Unión Nacional de Ciegos de Panamá. It is possible that the lack of response from the organizations and from LPHE were caused by the requests being made during a period when controversial disability legislation was being considered by the Panamanian legislature. Respondents validated the projects general scope, approach, and several early findings. They also stressed the need to not only provide access to those with disabilities but to educate the wider citizenry about persons with disabilities and the sorts of accommodations that need to be made for them.

2.4 Disability, Defined

Panamanian Law 25 of 10 July 2007, discussed in greater detail in Section 2.1.3 above, defines disability in the following way:

Las personas con discapacidad incluyen a aquellas que tengan deficiencias físicas, mentales, intelectuales o sensoriales a largo plazo que, al interactuar con diversas barreras, puedan impedir su participación plena y efectiva en la sociedad, en igualdad de condiciones con las demás. (p.4)

In English:

People with disabilities include those with long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory deficiencies who, when interacting with diverse barriers, are prevented from effective total participation in the society, in a manner equal to others. (p.4)

While Panamanian law focuses on the traditional physical and cognitive limits that contribute to disability, Aslaksen, Bergh, Bringa, and Heggem (1997) of the Norwegian State Council on Disability define disability as “a disparity between an individual’s ability to function and the demands of the

2-7 Defining Disability and Accessibility surroundings” (p.6), thus altering the focus of the “problem” of disability from the disabled person to the constraint of his environment.

Although the following does not claim to be a comprehensive list, commonly recognized disabilities include mobility impairments (of which the archetype is the wheel user but may also include someone with arthritis or a temporary injury); visual impairments (such as blindness, color-blindness, low vision); hearing impairments (such as partial or total deafness); and mental disabilities (including learning disabilities); and others.

2.5 Traditional and Contemporary Definitions of Accessibility

The degree to which an environment, product or service is usable by those with diverse abilities defines its level of accessibility. It is often easiest to define accessibility by stating what it is not: an environment is not accessible if physical barriers exist, such as steps which are insurmountable to a wheelchair user. An environment is not accessible if all wayfinding devices are visual in nature and are thus unavailable to a blind person or someone with other vision impairments. And if, in an effort to address the needs of the visually-impaired, only talking signs are emphasized, the environment becomes less accessible to the hearing-impaired.

As noted above, what differentiates “traditional” and “contemporary” definitions of accessibility is whether the problem is seen as lying with the person or with the environment. In Panama as in much of the rest of the world, much of the built environment has been designed and constructed without consideration for its accessibility to all but a segment of the entire society – if someone is unable to make use of an environment, traditional thinking concludes it is their fault; the flaw is in the person not in the environment. As thinking has changed, buildings and other facilities have begun to be retrofitted and, thus, made accessible, but to most observers, including those whose needs they seek to address, such alterations are

2-8 Defining Disability and Accessibility obvious additions – mere afterthoughts – and separate, often physically, the fully able-bodied from others. This is typical of so-called “reasonable” solutions, discussed in greater detail below (Section 2.5.1).

More recently, the philosophy of design has evolved from “barrier-free design” to “universal design.” A designer adhering to the latter philosophy sees that the problem lies with the environment; she or he looks at Aslaksen’s definition of disability (Section 2.4) and decides to alter the disparity between an individual’s abilities and the demands of the environment by reducing the demands of the environment. To “universally design” (or redesign) a building or other facility, then, is to reduce the demands it places on individuals to the level that there is no need to provide separate solutions for separate classes of people. The universal designer sees no separate classes. He or she creates an environment usable by as many people as possible, without segregation of “abled” from “disabled.” This is also referred to as “design for all”.

The following three sections discuss three separate, yet interconnected, philosophies of design: “reasonable adjustments” (or “reasonable accommodations”), “barrier-free design” and “universal design.” They are interconnected in the sense that they may be seen as following a progression of greater inclusiveness for a greater swath of humanity with each new philosophy. Panamanian Law 25 provides definitions of both “reasonable adjustments” and “universal design,” yet the overlap with the academic and practice literature is not complete. The following sections discuss the law in the context of this literature.

2.5.1 Reasonable Adjustments / Accommodations

The concept of “reasonable adjustments” (“ajustes razonables”) is embedded in Panamanian Law 25 of 10 July 2007. A parallel concept to that of “reasonable accommodations”, introduced in the United States Americans

2-9 Defining Disability and Accessibility with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, reasonable adjustment corresponds with an early phase of the transition between “traditional” and “contemporary” definitions of accessibility given above. It calls for alterations to be made that would be deemed adequate by a “reasonable person,” a theoretical individual invoked in the law whose logic and rationale is defined as that of the average citizen. Panamanian law calls for “reasonable adjustment” of existing facilities to be made to ensure equal access for those with disabilities in all aspects of society (Law 25, 2007, p.8). They are defined as “necessary and suitable modifications and adaptations [that will] not impose a disproportionate or undue burden [and will] guarantee to people with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise, in a condition equal to that of others, of fundamental human rights and liberties” (Law 25, 2007, p.9).

By definition, a “reasonable adjustment” is some adjustment made after the fact. For our purposes, this means some adjustment to the physical environment that transforms an inaccessible site into an accessible site. A typical example is installing a wheelchair ramp next to a set of steps, granting those with mobility disabilities access to a site to which they were formerly forbidden. Such solutions, perhaps unintentionally, often stigmatize disabled persons. For example, it is not atypical for a “handicap” ramp to lead to a side or even back door of a public building (see Figure 2.1), separating the “disabled” population from the “abled” population.

2-10 Defining Disability and Accessibility

Figure 2.1: Reasonable Accommodations. A typical “reasonable accommodations” solution, this photo depicts a handicap-accessible ramp leading to the side entrance of a building. Source: http://www.stagingdimensionsinc.com/NEW/images/ada3.jpg

2.5.2 Barrier-Free Design

Barrier-free design may either refer to the modification of a pre-existing structure which removes all barriers to access or, more commonly, to the design of an environment that presents, at the outset, no barriers to those with disabilities. As the latter it represents a design philosophy that clearly differs from “reasonable adjustments” in its desire to be as inclusive as possible early in the design and construction process.

The difference between “barrier-free design” and “universal design” is subtle. A typical “barrier-free” solution, for example, places a wheelchair ramp next to a set of steps that each lead to the main entrance of a building. In this manner, people with all manner of physical ability have equal access to a building, but those with physical disabilities are still receiving special treatment and are, therefore, being singled-out (see Figure 2.2 below).

2-11 Defining Disability and Accessibility

Figure 2.2: Barrier-Free Design. A typical “barrier-free” solution, both ramp and steps lead to the main entrance. Source: http://www.livinghopebooksandmore.com/Virtual-Tour.html

2.5.3 Universal Design

Panamanian Law 25 defines “universal design” as follows:

Por “diseño universal” se entenderá el diseño de productos, entornos, programas y servicios que puedan utilizar todas las personas, en la mayor medida posible, sin necesidad de adaptación ni diseño especializado. El “diseño universal” no excluirá las ayudas técnicas para grupos particulares de personas con discapacidad, cuando se necesiten. (p.4)

In English: “Universal design” will be understood to mean the design of products, surroundings, programs and services that can be used by all people, in the greatest degree possible, with no need of specialized adaptation or design. “Universal design” will not exclude the use of technical assistance for particular groups of people with disabilities when it is needed. (p.4)

2-12 Defining Disability and Accessibility

Compare this with the definition as posed by Aslaksen et al.:

Universal design is the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. The intent of the universal design concept is to simplify life for everyone by making products, communications, and the built environment more usable by more people at little or no extra cost. The universal design concept targets all people of all ages, sizes, and abilities. (p.30)

While there is a great deal of overlap, we see in the Panamanian law an acknowledgement that, in some cases, it may be appropriate to provide technical assistance to “particular groups of people” (Law 25, 2007, p.4). This has support elsewhere in the literature: Audirac (2006), for example, notes that universal design philosophy emerged from and subsumed the following design perspectives: barrier-free design; accessible design; assistive technology; inclusive and trans-generational design. By including “assistive technology” universal design advocates have acknowledged, as the Panamanian law does, that technical assistance is appropriate in certain circumstances to “enable people with disabilities to perform previously not performable tasks by enhancing physical, sensory, and cognitive abilities” (p.1).

“Universal design” is distinguishable from “accessible design,” which refers to adaptive products or environments that are meant to be particularly usable for people with disabilities but may actually be less easy to use for people who do not have these disabilities (Danford, 2003, p.91). While “accessible design” is meant for the sole use of persons with disabilities, “universal design” aims to include all persons equally with or without a disability, thus excluding no one.

2-13 Defining Disability and Accessibility

“Universal design”, as noted, has its antecedent in “barrier-free design” which it has largely supplanted (Audirac, 2006). It calls for the design of environments that are not only accessible to people of all abilities, but also specifically calls for environments to be accessible to people of all ages. Proponents of universal design note that all humans, from infancy to seniority, will experience a range of abilities, not to mention temporary injuries, and as such a “universally-designed” built environment benefits everyone (see, e.g., Easter Seals, 2007).

A key feature distinguishing universal design from barrier-free design is that the latter provides a separate architectural solution for the disabled, while the former seeks a single design solution that provides accessibility to everyone regardless of ability. While a “barrier–free” entrance might have two separate design solutions – a ramp in addition to a set of steps, for example - a typical “universal design” solution would have only a ramp, or would even put the building at ground level, so that all people would have exactly the same access to the building (see Figure 2.3 below).

2-14 Defining Disability and Accessibility

Figure 2.3: Universal Design. A “universal design” solution: an entrance with neither steps nor ramps Source: http://admin.shu.edu/facilities/images/photogallery/FahyEntrance.jpg

2.6 Working Definition of Accessibility

2.6.1 ANCON’s Vision of Accessibility

During a meeting on 31 May 2007, the sub-executive-director of ANCON, Maria Fuensanta Donoso, expressed a desire to make the CIACA as universally accessible as possible. She and other ANCON staff members articulated a vision not only of a site accessible to those with mobility impairments but also those with sensory and other physical disabilities. They are particularly concerned that the educational experiences at the site be accessible, as they see their mission on Cerro Ancón as one of increasing

2-15 Defining Disability and Accessibility ecological literacy among urban Panamanians and they prefer to maintain and expand their current “instructor-student relationship.”2

Despite many conversations with local experts and leaders we were unable to locate any examples of accessible parks or trails in Panama. Thus, accessibility on the Cerro has the potential to be quite innovative, since it may be able to offer an experience not readily available in the country or the region. One exception worth noting, however, is a trail at the Metropolitan Natural Park, which is currently being renovated to enhance its accessibility.

Donoso further noted an organizational desire hoping thus to reach out to historically underserved communities thus expanding the audience for environmental education. This, taken with the discussion and other conversations noted above, supports the finding that ANCON’s vision for the trail and educational facilities at Cerro Ancón is consistent with the definition of “universal design” given in the previous section.

2.6.2 Our Working Definition of Accessibility

Following the expressed desire of our client, ANCON, and building on the definitions and intent of Panamanian law, our working definition of accessibility will follow that of the “universal design”. In embracing this philosophy, our design standards (Chapter 3) are intended to help create an environment that is accessible to everyone, within the constraints imposed by working in the natural environment.

2.7 International Best Practices

2.7.1 US Forest Service Guidelines

In order to validate our research to identify the best practices in Panama and the region, and to base our recommendations in the experience of local park

2 All visits to the CIACA are done in coordination with teachers at local schools.

2-16 Defining Disability and Accessibility managers in Panama, we conducted a number of interviews of officials of various agencies. During our investigation, we met with the Director of the Metropolitan Park (Parque Metropolitano), Dionora Viquez. Metropolitan Park is similar to the project site on Cerro Ancón in that it is also an urban forest area and has an interpretive education program. Director Viquez indicated that they were currently constructing an accessible trail, but lacked funding necessary to complete the project. Additionally, as a “national park” by ANAM (National Authority of the Environment) are constrained by law as to the types of modifications they can make to protected areas, thus limiting their ability to implement accessibility standards.

Metropolitan Park’s alterations are guided by Planificación, Construcción y Mantenimiento de Senderos en Areas Protegidas (Planning, Construction and Maintenance of Trails in Protected Areas); the manual based largely on United States Forest Service trail accessibility guidelines.

Its author, Larry Lechner of Colorado State University, has worked extensively on projects in Central America. In interviews with Dr. Lechner, he stated that he knew of no accessible trails in Central America and suggested that the U.S. Forest Service trail accessibility guidelines were the best available for the region. Ultimately, we based most of our design standards contained in Chapter 3 on those trail accessibility guidelines. The Forest Service guidelines are based on universal design principles, which will serve the audience that ANCON is interested in serving.

2.7.2 ADA Guidelines

Information we received from SENADIS indicated that all specific accessibility standards are in Panama’s Decree 88 is based in part on American and Spanish legislation models We use ADA guidelines for certain design standards.

2-17 Defining Disability and Accessibility

2.7.3 Universal Design Standards

We also employ guidance from the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University and Universal Parking Design Guidelines developed by the US Access Board. These guidelines are frequently referred to, simply, as “universal design standards” or similar and are further discussed in Chapter 3.

2.7.4 UN Guidelines

As mentioned above in Section 2.2, the UN Enable program has crafted a set of design guidelines for increasing accessibility. This manual is officially titled “Accessibility for the Disabled: A Design Manual for a Barrier Free Environment.” Information from this manual has been incorporated into Chapter 3: Design Guidelines.

2-18 Design Guidelines

3 ACCESSIBILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES

The definition of accessibility adopted for this project attempts reconcile the notion of universal design the intent and requirements of Panamanian law, international standards and treaties, and ANCON vision for its facilities. The following guidelines adhere to the minimum standards defined in Panamanian law where they exist. Second, where the law is silent, we have identified international accessibility standards. Finally, when minimum standards seeminadequate to achieve ANCON’s vision, we have sought out advice from international experts in universal design to determine standards that enhance accessibility to the natural environment.

Table 3.1 reflects the various standards consulted in the development of the design guidelines that follow. While the trail guidelines were largely developed from the US Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG) (USDA Forest Service, 2006a) and United Nations Design Guidelines (United Nations, 2004); other guidelines on restrooms, parking, and other facilities were drawn from Panamanian law and other international standards including the US Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (FSORAG) (USDA Forest Service, 2006b). Since Panamanian law is based on Spanish and American standards, there were instances when Panamanian measurements were only slightly different from their international counterparts. These differences seemed to vary only in that they were converted to metric from English units of measurements, or vice versa. When this seemed to be the case, we employed the Panamanian dimensions in order to facilitate theirimplementation. Measurements are included in both English and metric units for the benefit of all potential audiences.

3.1 Trail Definitions

In order to facilitate a clear understanding of technical terms in regards to trails, a glossary of terms has been provided below. This section includes

3-1 Design Guidelines relevant definitions that were modified from Section 7.2 of the US Forest Service Guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 2006a).

3.1.1 Maintenance

Routine or periodic repair of trails, trail segments, or facilities to restore them to the standards to which they were originally designed and built. Maintenance does not change the original purpose, intent, or design of a trail or facility.

3.1.2 Protruding Object

An object, such as a tree, branch, or rock ledge, that extends into a trail from beside or above it.

3.1.3 Slope

(1) Cross-Slope. The ratio of height to length (or “rise to run”) when measuring the trail surface from edge to edge perpendicular to the direction of travel.

(2) Running Slope. The ratio of height to length (or “rise to run”) when measuring the trail surface parallel to the direction of travel. Also called “grade”.

(3) Typical Cross-Slope. The normally encountered cross-slope found along the length of a trail.

3.1.4 Surface

(1) Firm Surface. Not noticeably distorted or compressed by the passage of a device that simulates a trail user in a wheelchair. Surface firmness should be

3-2 Design Guidelines determined and documented during the planning process for the seasons for which a trail is managed, under normally occurring weather conditions.

(2) Stable Surface. Not permanently affected by normally occurring weather conditions and able to sustain normal wear and tear caused by the uses for which a trail is managed, between planned maintenance cycles.

3.1.5 Trail

A route managed for non-motorized, pedestrian use.

3.1.6 Trail Grade

The consistent vertical distance of ascent or descent of a trail expressed as a percentage of its length, commonly measured as a ratio of rise to length. Trail grade may also be referred to as “slope”.

3.1.7 Trailhead

A site designed and developed to provide staging for trail use; the starting point of a trail.

3.1.8 Trail Segment

The portion of a trail being planned, evaluated, or constructed.

3.1.9 Trail Terminus

The beginning or ending point of a trail or trail segment, where a trail assessment or trail work begins or ends.

3.1.10 Trail Width

The visible trail surface measured perpendicular to the direction of travel.

3-3 Design Guidelines

(1) Clear Trail Width. The width of a usable trail.

(2) Minimum Trail Width. The width of the trail at the narrowest point on a trail.

3.1.11 Wheelchair

A vehicle, including one that is a battery-powered, that is designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion and that is suitable for use in an indoor or outdoor pedestrian area. A person whose disability requires use of a wheelchair or mobility device may use a wheelchair or mobility device that meets this definition anywhere foot travel is permitted.

3.2 Trail Guidelines

Table 3.1 below illustrates the organizational structure of the remainder of the chapter; it also lists the standards (national law, international standards) that are used in the various sections.

3-4 Design Guidelines

Standards Used Panamanian International Systems Section Law Standards TRAIL 3.2 --grade 3.2.1 FSTAG --cross-slope 3.2.2 FSTAG --resting intervals 3.2.3 FSTAG --benches 3.2.4 FSORAG & UN --surface 3.2.5 FSTAG --width 3.2.6 FSTAG & UN --passing spaces 3.2.7 FSTAG --obstacles 3.2.8 FSTAG --protruding objects 3.2.9 FSTAG & ADA --openings 3.2.10 FSTAG & UN --vertical clearance 3.2.11 D88 --handrails 3.2.12 D88 --edge protection 3.2.13 FSTAG INTERPRETIVE 3.3 INFRASTRUCTURE FSTAG, ADA & --trail signs 3.3.1 UN ASSEMBLY 3.4 INFRASTRUCTURE --tables 3.4.1 FSORAG & UN --ramps 3.4.2 D88 PARKING 3.5 --number of accessible 3.5.2 UD spaces --size of spaces 3.5.3 D88 --slope 3.5.4 UD --signage 3.5.5 D88 UD --vertical clearance 3.5.6 D88 UD --location 3.5.7 D88 UD WATER & WASTEWATER 3.6 --restrooms 3.6.1 D88 UD & FSTAG ----doorways 3.6.1(1) D88 FSTAG ----maneuvering room 3.6.1(2) UD ----vertical clearance 3.6.1(3) D88 ----mirrors 3.6.1(4) UD ----identification 3.6.1(5) UD ----toilets 3.6.1(6) UD ----sinks 3.6.1(7) UD --ramps 3.6.2 D88

Table 3.1: Outline for the rest of Chapter 3. Sources of design standards. FSTAG – US Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 2006a). FSORAG – US Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 2006b). D88 – Executive Decree 88 (2003).

3-5 Design Guidelines

UD – Universal Design guidelines: (US Access Board, 2003), and Center for Universal Design (2005). ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (US Access Board, 2004). UN – United Nations Accessibility for the Disabled: A Design Manual for a Barrier Free Environment (United Nations, 2004).

3.2.1 Trail Grade

For greatest accessibility, the grade of trail segments should comply with this section and be consistent over the distances cited. No more than 30% of the total trail length should exceed a trail grade of 1:12 (8.33%).

(1) Trail grade of up to 1:20 (5%) for any distance is considered “accessible”.

(2) While FSTAG states that a trail segment with a grade of up to 1:12 (8.33%) should not exceed a length of 60 m (200 ft.), accessibility experts suggest a maximum distance of 15.24 m (50 ft.) (D. Perkins, personal communication, August 2, 2007). Resting intervals complying with Section 3.2.3 should be provided at distances no greater than 15.25 m (50 ft.) apart.

(3) A trail segment with a grade of up to 1:10 (10%) should not exceed a length of 9.14 m. (30 ft.). Resting intervals complying with Section 3.2.3 should be provided at distances no greater than 9.14 m (30 ft.) apart.

(4) A trail segment with a grade of up to 1:8 (12.5%) should not exceed a length of 3 m (10 ft.). Resting intervals complying with Section 3.2.3 should be provided at distances no greater than 3 m (10 ft.) apart.

(5) At drain dips, a trail grade of 1:7 (14%) is acceptable for up to 1.5 m (5 ft.) where the cross-slope does not exceed 1:20 (5%).

3-6 Design Guidelines

3.2.2 Cross-Slope

While FSTAG states that cross-slope should not exceed 1:20 (5%), accessibility experts recommend the cross-slope not exceed 1:50 (2%) for greater accessibility (D. Perkins, personal communication, August 2, 2007).

(1) At drain dips, a cross-slope of up to 1:10 (10%) is acceptable at the bottom of the dip where the clear trail width is at least 1 m. (42 in.).

3.2.3 Resting Intervals

Where the trail grade exceeds 5%, resting intervals should be provided as specified in Sections 3.2.1(2), 3.2.1(3), and 3.2.1(4). Resting intervals should be at least 1.52 m. (60 in.) long, be at least as wide as the widest portion of the trail segment leading to the resting intervals, and have a slope not exceeding 1:20 (5%) in any direction.

3.2.4 Benches

Section 6.1 of FSORAG (USDA Forest Service, 2006b, p.16) and appropriate United Nations Design Guidelines for benches differ only slightly and are both discussed below:

(1) Height. According to FSORAG, the front edge of the seat of a bench should be at least 43 cm (17 in) and no more than 48 cm (19 in) above the ground or floor. United Nations Design Guidelines recommend the seat be approximately 0.5 m (18 in) above floor level (United Nations, 2004).

(2) Backrest and Armrest. FSORAG state that when more than one bench is provided, at least 50% of the benches should have a backrest running the full length of the bench. In addition, one armrest should be provided at an end or in the middle of at least 50% of the benches with backrests. United Nations Design Guidelines recommend that backrests be approximately 0.70 m. (27 ½ in) above floor level (United Nations, 2004).

3-7 Design Guidelines

(3) Clear Floor or Ground Space. At least one clear floor or ground space for benches should be provided with minimum dimensions of 76 cm (30 in) by 122 cm (48 in) for a forward or parallel approach (USDA Forest Service, 2006b).

(4) Slope. The slope of the clear floor or ground space for benches should not exceed 1:33 (3%) in any direction (USDA Forest Service, 2006b).

(5) Surface. The surface of the clear floor or ground space for benches should be firm and stable (USDA Forest Service, 2006b).

Figure 3.1: Accessible Bench. This image demonstrates the dimensions recommended by the United Nations Design Guidelines. Source: United Nations (2004).

3.2.5 Surface

The trail surface should be both firm and stable.

3.2.6 Clear Trail Width

While US Forest Service guidelines recommend the clear trail width of the trail should be at least 91.5 cm (36 in.), Universal design principles would advocate a consistent trail width of 1.52 m (60 in) so that passing spaces would not be required. Since these US standards are based on very similar

3-8 Design Guidelines

United Nations standards of 90 cm and 1.50 m (35.43 in. and 59.06 in.) respectively, we will defer to the international standards. Therefore a uniform trail width of 1.50 m (59.06 in.) is recommended. See Figure 3.2 below.

Figure 3.2: Clear path width. This image demonstrates the minimum dimensions recommended by the United Nations Design Guidelines for unobstructed pathways. Source: United Nations (2004).

3.2.7 Passing Spaces

US Forest Service Guidelines state that where the clear trail width is consistently less than 1.5 m (60 in), passing spaces should be provided at intervals of no more than 305 m (1000 ft.). Accessibility experts recommend passing spaces be closer than 305 m (1000 ft) if the trail is intended for two- way travel (D. Perkins, personal communication, August 2, 2007). Passing spaces should provide a clear ground space of at least 1.5 m by 1.5 m (60 in), or an intersection of two walking surfaces that provide a T-shaped space, provided that the arms and stem of the T-shaped space extend at least 1.25

3-9 Design Guidelines m (48 in) beyond the intersection. The cross-slope of passing spaces should not exceed 2% in any direction.

3.2.8 Trail Obstacles

Where trail obstacles exist, they should not exceed a height of 5 cm (2 in). Any unavoidable manmade obstacles (i.e. light posts, signs, etc.) should be placed outside the path of travel wherever possible, or should be made easy to detect (United Nations, 2004). Exception 1. Trail obstacles with a maximum height of 8 cm. (3 in.) are acceptable where trail grade and cross-slope are 1:20 (5%) or less (USDA Forest Service, 2006a).

3.2.9 Protruding Objects

Objects with leading edges between 78 cm (27 in.) and 210 cm (83 in) above the ground should protrude no more than 10 cm (4 in) into the path and should be made easy to detect (US Access Board, 2004, p.148).

3.2.10 Openings

Openings in trail surfaces should be small enough to prevent passage of a 13 mm (1/2 in.) diameter sphere. Elongated openings should be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular or diagonal to the dominant direction of travel. Exception 1. Elongated openings parallel to the dominant direction of travel are acceptable where the opening does not allow passage of a 6 mm (1/4 in.) diameter sphere.

3.2.11 Vertical Trail Clearance

Vertical clearance standards as described in the US Forest Service Accessibility Guidelines call for 80 in. of headroom. Decree 88 has a more

3-10 Design Guidelines liberal standard of at least 2 m (82 1/2 in) of headroom. In the interest of universal accessibility, the 2 m (821/2 in) standard is recommended.

3.2.12 Handrails

Decree 88 states generally that handrails should be 90 cm (351/2 in) above the ground (p.25). This standard applies to all single banister handrails; handrails for inclines are addressed below.

(1) Trail Handrails. Following FSTAG, it is not recommended that handrails be installed on trails, as they are often impractical in the outdoor environment (USDA Forest Service, 2006a, p.18).

(2) Handrails for Inclines (Ramps and Stairs). Decree 88 states that handrails must be placed on both sides of an incline; they should include double handrails and they should be continuous. Handrails must be firmly anchored and should be designed so as not to interrupt the free slide of hands (pp.26- 27).

(a) Height. The height of the upper handrails should be between 85 cm (33.5 in) and 95 cm (37.5 in) The height of the lower handrails should be between 70 cm (27 1/2 in) and 80 cm. (31 1/2 in) The vertical distance between each handrail should be 15 cm (5.91 in) (Decree 88, pp.26-27).

(b) Protrusion. Section 307.2 of FSTAG states that handrails should be allowed to protrude no more than 11.5 cm. (4.5 in).

3.2.13 Edge Protection

Where edge protection is provided along a trail, the edge protection should have a height of at least 7.5 cm (3 in) (USDA Forest Service, 2006a, p.21). Ideally, edge protection should be provided continuously along the length of

3-11 Design Guidelines the trail. Minimally, it should be provided at obstacles, inclines, drop-offs, or other such potential hazards.

3.3 Interpretive Infrastructure

3.3.1 Signs

Signs should be posted at the trailhead of new or altered trails that have been evaluated for accessibility. At a minimum, in addition to the standard information including the name and length of the trail, these signs should include the typical and maximum trail grade, typical and maximum cross- slope, typical and minimum trail width, surface type and firmness, and obstacles. These signs also should state that the posted information reflects the condition of the trail when it was constructed or assessed and should include the date of the construction or assessment (USDA Forest Service, 2006a).

Where more extensive trail information is provided (e.g., an aerial map of the trail and related facilities), the location of specific trail features and obstacles that do not comply with these technical provisions should be identified and a profile of the trail grade should be included (USDA Forest Service, 2006a).

(1) General. Where both visual and tactile characters are required, either one sign with both visual and tactile characters, or two separate signs, one with visual, and one with tactile characters, should be provided.

The best fonts to use, in order of preference, are Verdana, Arial, and Helvetica. Unless otherwise noted, all signage design standards were drawn from the ADA guidelines (US Access Board, 2004). In general, signs should not be placed behind glass because of possible reflection (United Nations, 2004).

3-12 Design Guidelines

(2) Raised Characters. Raised characters should be duplicated in Braille (US Access Board, 2004, p.223).

(a) Depth. Raised characters should be raised at least 1 mm (0.039 in) minimum above their background (United Nations, 2004).

(b) Case. Characters should be uppercase.

(c) Style. Characters should be sans-serif. Characters should not be italic, oblique, script, highly decorative, or other unusual forms.

(d) Character Proportions. Characters should be selected from fonts where the width of the uppercase letter “O” is 55 % minimum and 110 percent maximum of the height of the uppercase letter “I”.

(e) Character Height. Character height measured vertically from the baseline of the character should be 1.6 cm (5/8 in.) minimum and 5 cm. (2 in) maximum based on the height of the uppercase letter “I”.

(f) Stroke Thickness. Stroke thickness of the uppercase letter “I” should be 15 percent maximum of the height of the character.

(g) Character Spacing. Character spacing should be measured between the two closest points of adjacent raised characters within a message, excluding word spaces. Where characters have rectangular cross sections, spacing between individual raised characters should be 3 mm (1/8 in) minimum and 4 times the raised character stroke width maximum. Where characters have other cross sections, spacing between individual raised characters should be 16 mm (1/16 in.) minimum and 4 times the raised character stroke width maximum at the base of the cross sections, and 3.2 mm (1/8 in.) minimum and 4 times the raised character stroke width maximum at the top of the

3-13 Design Guidelines

cross sections. Characters should be separated from raised borders and decorative elements 9.5 mm (3/8 in) minimum.

(h) Line Spacing. Spacing between the baselines of separate lines of raised characters within a message should be 135 % minimum and 170 percent maximum of the raised character height.

(3) Use of Spanish Braille.

(a) Dimensions and Capitalization. Braille dots should have a domed or rounded shape and should comply with Table 3.2 below. The indication of an uppercase letter or letters should only be used before the first word of sentences, proper nouns and names, individual letters of the alphabet, initials, and acronyms.

(b) Position. Braille should be positioned below the corresponding text. If text is multi-lined, Braille shall be placed below the entire text. Braille should be separated 9.5 mm (3/8 in) minimum from any other tactile characters and 9.53 mm (3/8 in) minimum from raised borders and decorative elements.

3-14 Design Guidelines

Measurement Range Minimum in Inches Maximum in Inches Dot base diameter 0.059 (1.5 mm) to 0.063 (1.6 mm) Distance between two dots in the 0.090 (2.3 mm) same cell1 to 0.100 (2.5 mm) Distance between corresponding 0.241 (6.1 mm) dots in adjacent cells1 to 0.300 (7.6 mm) Dot height 0.025 (0.6 mm) to 0.037 (0.9 mm) Distance between corresponding dots 0.395 (10 mm) from one cell directly below1 to 0.400 (10.2 mm) Table 3.2: Braille Dimensions. Source: US Access Board, 2004, p.225.

Figure 3.3: Braille Measurement. Source: US Access Board (2004, p.225).

(4) Installation Height and Location.

(a) Height above Floor or Ground. Tactile characters on signs should be located 1.22 m. (48 in.) minimum above the floor or ground

1 Measured center to center.

3-15 Design Guidelines

surface, measured from the baseline of the lowest tactile character and 1.5 m (60 in.) maximum above the finish floor or ground surface, measured from the baseline of the highest tactile character.

(b) Location. Where a tactile sign is provided at a door, the sign should be located alongside the door at the latch side. Where a tactile sign is provided at double doors with one active leaf, the sign should be located on the inactive leaf. Where a tactile sign is provided at double doors with two active leafs, the sign should be located to the right of the right hand door. Where there is no wall space at the latch side of a single door or at the right side of double doors, signs should be located on the nearest adjacent wall. Signs containing tactile characters should be located so that a clear floor space of 45.72 cm (18 in.) minimum by 45.72 cm (18 in.) minimum, centered on the tactile characters, is provided beyond the arc of any door swing between the closed position and 45 degree open position.

(5) Visual Characters.

(a) Finish and Contrast. Characters and their background should have a non-glare finish. Characters should contrast with their background with either light characters on a dark background or dark characters on a light background. Signs are more legible for persons with low vision when characters contrast as much as possible with their background. The color combinations red/green and yellow/blue should not be used in order to avoid confusing color-blind persons (United Nations, 2004). Additional factors affecting the ease with which the text can be distinguished from its background include shadows cast by lighting sources, surface glare, and the uniformity of the text and its background colors and textures. Figure 3.4 below depicts acceptable color contrasts.

3-16 Design Guidelines

(b) Case. Characters should be uppercase or lowercase or a combination of both.

(c) Style. Characters should be conventional in form. Characters should not be italic, oblique, script, highly decorative, or of other unusual forms.

(d) Character Proportions. Characters should be selected from fonts where the width of the uppercase letter “O” is 55 % minimum and 110 percent maximum of the height of the uppercase letter “I”.

(e) Character Height. Minimum character height should comply with Table 3.3. Viewing distance should be measured as the horizontal distance between the character and an obstruction preventing further approach towards the sign. Character height should be based on the uppercase letter “I”.

(f) Height from Floor to Ground. Visual characters should be 1.02 m (40 in.) minimum above the floor or ground.

(g) Stroke Thickness. Stroke thickness of the uppercase letter “I” should be 10 % minimum and 30 % maximum of the height of the character.

(h) Character Spacing. Character spacing should be measured between the two closest points of adjacent characters, excluding word spaces. Spacing between individual characters should be 10 % minimum and 35 % maximum of character height.

(i) Line Spacing. Spacing between the baselines of separate lines of characters within a message should be 135 % minimum and 170 % maximum of the character height.

3-17 Design Guidelines

Dark Beige White Black Brown Pink Purple Green Orange Blue Yellow Red Grey

Red

Yellow

Blue

Orange

Green

Purple

Pink

Brown

Black Dark Acceptable (70% contrast or greater) Grey

White Do not use

Beige

Figure 3.4: Acceptable Color Contrasts. This figure shows colors that contrast well for the visually-impaired (but not blind). Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 12, Guidelines for Transit Facility Signing and Graphics (1996).

3-18 Design Guidelines

Height to Finish Floor Horizontal Viewing Minimum Character or Ground From Distance Height Baseline of Character

1015 mm (40 in) to less less than 1830 mm (72 16 mm (5/8 inch) than or equal to 1780 in) mm (70 in) 1830 mm (72 in) and 16 mm (5/8 in), plus greater 3.2 mm (1/8 in) per 305 mm (1 ft) of viewing distance 1830 mm (72 in) Greater than 1780 mm less than 4570 mm (180 51 mm (2 in) (70 in) to less than or in) equal to 3050 mm (120 4570 mm (180 in) and 51 mm (2 in), plus 3.2 in) greater mm (1/8 in) per 305 mm (1 ft) of viewing distance above 4570 mm (180 in) Greater than 3050 mm less than 6400 mm (21 75 mm (3 in) (120 in) ft 6400 mm (21 ft) and 75 mm (3 in), plus 3.2 greater mm (1/8 in) per 305 mm (1 ft) of viewing distance above 6400 mm (21 ft) Table 3.3: Visual Character Height. Source: US Access Board (2004, p.228).

(6) Pictograms.

(a) Pictogram Field. Pictograms should have a field height of 15.24 cm (6 in.) minimum. Characters and Braille should not be located in the pictogram field.

(b) Finish and Contrast. Pictograms and their field should have a non- glare finish. Pictograms should contrast with their field with either a light pictogram on a dark field or a dark pictogram on a light field. Signs are more legible for persons with low vision when characters contrast as much as possible with their background. Additional factors

3-19 Design Guidelines

affecting the ease with which the text can be distinguished from its background include shadows cast by lighting sources, surface glare, and the uniformity of the text and background colors and textures. Figure 3.4 depicts acceptable color contrasts.

(c) Text Descriptors. Pictograms should have text descriptors located directly below the pictogram field. Text descriptors should comply with Sections 3.3.1(2), 3.3.1(3), and 3.3.1(4) herein. Examples of a pictogram, a text descriptor, and Braille follow (see Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5: Accessible Sign. This sign includes a pictogram, text descriptor, and Braille. Source: US Access Board (2004).

(7) Symbols of Accessibility.

(a) Finish and Contrast. Symbols of accessibility and their background should have a non-glare finish. Symbols of accessibility should contrast with their background with either a light symbol on a dark background or a dark symbol on a light background. Signs are more legible for

3-20 Design Guidelines

persons with low vision when characters contrast as much as possible with their background. Additional factors affecting the ease with which the text can be distinguished from its background include shadows cast by lighting sources, surface glare, and the uniformity of the text and background colors and textures. Figure 3.4 above depicts acceptable color contrasts.

(b) Symbols.

(i) International Symbol of Accessibility. The International Symbol of Accessibility should comply with Figure 3.6.

(ii) International Symbol of TTY. The International Symbol of TTY should comply with Figure 3.7.

(iii) Volume Control Telephones. Telephones with a volume control should be identified by a pictogram of a telephone handset with radiating sound waves on a square field such as shown in Figure 3.8.

(iv) Assistive Listening Systems. Assistive listening systems should be identified by the International Symbol of Access for Hearing Loss complying with Figure 3.9.

3-21 Design Guidelines

Figure 3.6: International Symbol of Accessibility. Source: US Access Board (2004).

Figure 3.7: International Symbol of TTY. Source: US Access Board (2004).

Figure 3.8: Volume Control Telephone. Source: US Access Board (2004).

3-22 Design Guidelines

Figure 3.9: International Symbol of Access for Hearing Loss. Source: US Access Board (2004).

3.4 Assembly Infrastructure

3.4.1 Tables

(1) General. The following design guidelines for universally accessible tables were adapted from Section 4.2 Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 2006b) and United Nations Design Guidelines (United Nations, 2004). Universally accessible tables should follow the following guidelines and offer movable seating to accommodate all persons.

(2) Height. FSORAG recommends that the tops of accessible tables and counters should be from 71 cm to 86 cm (28 in. to 34 in.) above the finish floor or ground; however United Nations Design Guidelines recommend the slightly more liberal standard of between 75 cm and 90 cm (29 1/2 in. to 35 1/2 in.).

(3) Knee Clearance. FSORAG recommends knee space should be at least 68.5 cm to 76 cm (27 in. to 30 in.) in height, and 49 cm. (19 in.) deep. United Nations Design Guidelines state that the minimum depth under the table should be 60 cm. (23.62 in.). See Figure 3.10 for an illustration of United Nations standards.

(4) Toe Clearance. Toe clearance of at least 23 cm. (9 in.) in height should extend at least an additional 13 cm (5 in.) from the knee clearance (USDA Forest Service, 2006b).

(5) Clear Space. Clear floor or ground space that is at least 76 cm. by 122 cm (30 in. by 48 in.) should be provided for each accessible seating space (USDA Forest Service, 2006b).

3-23 Design Guidelines

Figure 3.10: Recommended table dimensions. This diagram demonstrates dimensions recommended by the United Nations Design Guidelines. Source: United Nations (2004).

3.4.2 Ramps

Below are provided the design guidelines for exterior ramps as laid out in Article 34 of Decree 88. FSTAG argues that since the terrain in outdoor environments is often steep, applying current slope and ramp requirements as described in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines is not reasonable; therefore the FSTAG does not include design guidelines for ramps (USDA Forest Service, 2006a, p.18).

(1) Width. Decree 88 states that the minimum ramp width shall be 1.5 m. (60 in.).

(2) Length. Decree 88 states that the length of the ramp will not be greater than 6 m (19 ft.) when the decline is 1:12. Ramps with greater length will have to separate with rest areas of a length of 1.5 m (60 in.). When a ramp

3-24 Design Guidelines changes direction with a turning angle between ninety degrees (90˚) and one hundred eighty degrees (180˚), the turn will be made on a flat horizontal surface, whose dimensions allow the turning of a wheelchair:

(a) When the turn is ninety degrees (90˚), the resting area will allow the inscription of a 1.5 m. (59.06 in.) diameter circle.

(b) When the turn is one hundred eighty degrees (180˚), the resting area will have a minimum width of 1.5 m. (59.06 in.) times the width of the incline, plus the separation between both sides.

(c) They will be bordered by 10 cm. (3.94 in.) high edge protection on both sides of the inclined plane.

(d) The cross-slope of exterior ramps in the inclines and the resting areas will be of less than two percent (2˚) and over one percent (1˚), to prevent water accumulation.

(e) At the beginning and at the end of each incline section, a special relief textured and colored floor will be placed that contrasts with the flooring of the inclines and the main flooring of the building, of a width of 60 cm. (23.62 in.) times the width of the incline itself.

(f) At the beginning and end of each incline section, including the horizontal prolongations of the handrails, there will exist a clear surface for maneuvering that permits the inscription of a circle of 1.5 m. (59.06 in.) in diameter as a minimum that shall not be affected by the invasion of fixed, movable, or displaceable elements or by the movement of doors.

(3) Slope. Decree 88 states that the cross-slopes of exterior ramps in the inclines and the resting areas will be of less than two percent (2%) and over

3-25 Design Guidelines

(1%), to prevent water accumulation. Appropriate slopes are described below:

UN Design Panamanian Decree 88 Guidelines Relation Height: Height to clear/ Max Max Length Percentage cover (m) Observations Length Rise 1:08 12.50% <0.075 Without rest area 0.5 m 0.06 m 1:10 10.00% ≥0.075 <0.200 Without rest area 1.25 m 0.12 m 1:12 8.33% ≥0.200 <0.300 Without rest area 2.0 m 0.15 m 1:12.5 8.00% ≥0.300 <0.500 Without rest area 1:14 7.14% 5.0 m 0.35 m 1:16 6.25% ≥0.500 <0.750 With rest area 8.0 m 0.50 m 1:16.6 6.00% ≥0.750 <1.000 With rest area 1:20 5.00% ≥1.000 <1.400 With rest area - - 1:25 4.00% ≥1.400 With rest area Table 3.4: Slopes of Exterior Ramps. Sources: Executive Decree 88, p.25, and United Nations, 2004.

(4) Design. Decree 88 states that all ramps will have a landing at the level of the street (or lower level) and another one at the upper level. United Nations Design Guidelines state that landings should be provided every 10 m. (32.81 ft.), at every change of direction and at the top and bottom of every ramp. Landings should be provided for resting, maneuvering, and avoiding excessive speed (United Nations, 2004). Decree 88 states that landings should meet the following requirements:

(a) The landing will be at least as wide as the ramp.

(b) If the ramp changes direction, the minimum maneuvering space size has to be at least 1.5 m (60 in.) by 1.5 m (60 in.).

(c) If a door is located in the slope, then the area in front of this door will have to fulfill the established guidelines for ramps.

3-26 Design Guidelines

(d) The area in front of doors will fulfill the established guidelines for ramps.

3.5 Parking

3.5.1 General

This section will discuss two different standards for accessible parking: minimum Panamanian requirements as addressed in Decree 88 and “Universal” parking space design as described in The US Access Board’s Parking Technical Bulletin which uses design guidelines described in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (US Access Board, 2003). The dimensions described by the ADA universal design standards (US Access Board, 2004) do not meet the minimum Panamanian requirements for some dimensions; therefore parking space dimensions should be based upon Panamanian standards as defined in Decree 88.

3.5.2 Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces

Total Parking Spaces in lot: Minimum Required Accessible Spaces: 1 – 25 1 26 – 50 2 51 – 75 3 76 – 100 4 101 – 200 5 201 – 300 6 301 – 400 7 401 – 500 8 501 – 1000 9 1001 or more 1% of the total Table 3.5: Executive Decree 88 Minimum Requirements. Source: Executive Decree 88, p.21.

3-27 Design Guidelines

Total Parking Spaces in lot: Minimum Required Accessible Spaces: 1 – 25 1 26 – 50 2 51 – 75 3 76 – 100 4 101 – 150 5 151 – 200 6 201 – 300 7 301 – 400 8 401 – 500 9 501 – 1000 2% of total 1001 or more 20 + 1 for each 100 over 1000 Table 3.6: ADA Minimum Requirements. Source: US Access Board, 2003.

Accessible Spaces Van-Accessible Spaces 1 – 8 1 9 – 16 2 17 – 24 3 25 – 32 4 33 or more 1 additional van-accessible space for every 8 accessible spaces Table 3.7: ADA Minimum Requirements for Van-Accessible Spaces. Source: US Access Board, 2003.

3.5.3 Parking Space and Access Aisle Size

Accessible parking requires that adequate space be provided next to the vehicle so that persons using mobility aids, including but not limited to wheelchairs, can transfer and maneuver to and from the vehicle. The premise behind universal parking space design is that all spaces are large enough to accommodate vans which are used by some mobility impaired persons who have lifts or other special equipment. Since there is no competition between cars and vans, no special signs are needed to indicate which spaces accommodate vans (US Access Board, 2003).

3-28 Design Guidelines

Panamanian Universal United Nations Minimum Parking (US Guidelines (Decreto Access Board, (United Nations, Ejecutivo 88, 2003) 2004) Article 27) Space Width 3.5 m 3.5 m Minimum 3.6 m. (137 3/4 in.) (132 in.) (141 3/4 in.) Recommended 3.9 m (153 1/2 in.) Access Aisle 1.5 m 1.52 m 1.2 m Width* (59 in.) (60 in.) (47 1/2 in.) Space and Aisle 5.0 m 4.88 m 4.8 m Width (196 7/8 in.) (192 in.) (189 in.) – 5.1 m (201 in.) Clearance 3.0 m 2.90 m 2.4 m (118 in.) (114 in.) (94 1/2 in.)** Table 3.8: Comparison of Panamanian and Universal Design Parking Design Standards. *Both standards allow for an access aisle to be shared between two accessible spaces. **This is the standard for indoor parking; there is designated standard for outdoor parking.

3.5.4 Slope

ADA requires the maximum surface slope of 1:50 (2%) for accessible parking spaces and access aisles. The access aisle cannot include a ramp or area sloped greater than 2% in any direction. Therefore, if a curb ramp is needed, it should be located next to – not within – the access aisle (US Access Board, 2003).

3.5.5 Signage

Decree 88 states that accessible parking spaces must be identified with a sign including the international symbol of accessibility (see Figure 3.6). Additionally, it requires that van accessible spaces be identified as such and that viewing of these signs should not be obstructed by a vehicle parked in the space.

3-29 Design Guidelines

ADA also requires that accessible spaces be marked with the international symbol of accessibility and that the signage be located where a vehicle in the space will not obstruct viewing of it, but the ADA does not address the color or size of parking signs. The principle of universal parking spaces eliminates the need to identify van accessible spaces since all spaces are large enough to accommodate vans (US Access Board, 2003).

3.5.6 Vertical Clearance

Decree 88 states that minimum vertical clearance for accessible spaces is 3 m (9 ft 10 in). ADA requires for universal accessible spaces, a vertical clearance of 2.9 m (9 ft 6 in); therefore 3 m is the recommended standard.

3.5.7 Location

Decree 88 and ADA (US Access Board, 2003) both require that the access aisle be connected to an accessible route to the appropriate accessible entrance of a building or facility, and should be located as close to said entrance as possible (Decree 88, Article 27; and US Access Board, 2003). United Nations guidelines state that for outdoor parking, accessible spaces should be located not more than 50 m. (164.04 ft.) from accessible building entrances (United Nations, 2004).

3.6 Water & Wastewater

3.6.1 Restroom Facilities

The restroom guidelines contained herein are an amalgam of rules extracted from Decree 88, universal design guidelines obtained from the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University, US Forest Service rules,

3-30 Design Guidelines and ADA-ABA2 Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. See Figure 3.11 for an example of an accessible restroom.

(1) Doorways. Door width and hardware requirements shall apply to restrooms and other facilities.

(a) Clear Width. Door openings should be 1 m. (3.28 ft.) in width, in compliance with Decree 88. Clear openings with swinging doors should be measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees. Doors opening inwards should not project into the required clear space within the room; if this is impossible, doors should open outwards, or sliding doors should be used.

(b) Door and Gate Hardware. Handles, pulls, latches, locks, and other operable parts on doors and gates should be operable with one hand and should not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist. The force required to activate operable parts should be no more than 5 pounds. Operable parts of such hardware should be 87 cm. (34 in.) minimum and 1.2 m. (48 in.) maximum above the floor. Where sliding doors are in the fully open position, operating hardware should be exposed and usable from both sides.

(2) Maneuvering Room. The Center for Universal Design recommends that in every room and in front of every doorway there should be maneuvering room measuring 152.4 cm. by 152.4 cm. (60 in.).

(3) Vertical Clearance. Vertical clearance of 2.1 m. (82.68 in.) should be maintained in the restroom in compliance with Decree 88.

2 “ADA” stands for the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. “ABA” stands for the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. We learned from Laura Sanjur of SENADIS that Executive Decree 88 of 12 November 2002 used US and Spanish legislation as a template; thus, where Decree 88 lacks guidance, it seemed reasonable to retreat to US standards.

3-31 Design Guidelines

(4) Mirrors. All mirrors should be full-length.

(5) Identification. All accessible restrooms must be marked with the international symbol of accessibility. See Figure 3.6.

(6) Toilets. There are a number of considerations for accessibility; they are:

(a) Location. For greatest accessibility, toilets should be located in the corner of a 152.5 cm by 152.5 cm (60 in.) clear space, with the centerline of the toilet 46 cm. (18 in) from the side wall. This facilitates numerous transfers utilized by those in wheelchairs.

(b) Grab bars. Horizontal grasping bars 89 cm (35 in.) in length should be located 71 cm (28 in.) above the floor behind the toilet and on the side wall next to the toilet.

(c) Reinforcement. Walls supporting grab bars should be reinforced to handle the weight of an adult.

(d) Toilet seat height. The toilet seat height should be 50 cm (19 5/8 in.) above the ground, or no more than 53 cm (20 7/8 in.) in compliance with Decree 88.

(7) Sinks.

(a) Surface height. The surface of the sink should be 82 cm (32 1/4 in.) to 85 cm (33 1/2 in.) above the ground.

(b) Surface Width. Sink surface should be 91 cm (35 7/8 in.) wide.

3-32 Design Guidelines

(c) Distance to back wall. The faucet should be no less than 20 cm (7 /8 in.) from the wall immediately behind it.

(d) Distance to side wall. The faucet should be no less than 38 cm (15 in.) from the side wall.

(e) Clear space. There should be a clear space of 76 cm (30 in.) by 122 cm. (48 in.) in front of the sink. Furthermore, the bottom of the sink should not extend below 70 cm (27 1/2 in.) above the floor; this maintains a clear space for the knees of a person in a wheelchair.

(f) Faucet handles. A single faucet handle should be used for both hot and cold water. The handle type should comply with Section 3.6.1(1)(b) herein with reference to doors and gate hardware.

(g) Reinforcement. The wall supporting the sink should be reinforced to handle the weight of an adult.

3-33 Design Guidelines

Figure 3.11: Accessible Restroom Schematic. Source: Adapted from Center for Universal Design, 2005, p.2.

3.6.2 Ramps.

Ramps for restrooms and all other facilities should follow the design guidelines set forth in Section 3.4.2 herein.

3-34 Accessibility Audit

4 ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT

4.1 Methodology

4.1.1 General

In order to ascertain barriers to access at the site, a baseline inventory of the existing conditions was created.

An initial site appraisal was conducted to observe existing conditions and to take note of areas where intervention might be needed. US Forest Service Guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 2006a), United Nations Design Guidelines (United Nations, 2004) and Panamanian law were then employed to create a typology of barriers to access. This typology included trail surface and obstacles, gaps in the trail surface, grade and cross-slope, trail width, vertical clearance, length, signage, parking, and facilities. Within each of these areas of possible barriers to access, we determined the appropriate minimum standards before conducting our site analysis and comparing those values to actual site conditions.

4.1.2 Site Analysis: Documentation of Existing Conditions.

The site analysis involved documenting as-built and as-maintained conditions of ANCON’s office building, reception areas and parking, and all the systems present in the CIACA (see Section 4.1.1 above).

After identifying that an acceptable trail width was 1.50 m we were able to determine which areas of the trail were deficient. In order to create a systematic record of the width of the last section (El Caucho), width measurements were taken every 10 m, the results of which are discussed in Section 4.2.1(4) below.

4-1 Accessibility Audit

In order to measure slopes on the trail given our limited resources, we utilized the method described in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Rise-Over-Run. Determining the slope using the “rise–over-run” method. Source: Zeller (2006, p.84).

4-2 Accessibility Audit

Figure 4.2 below illustrates the difference between “running slope” (or “grade”) and “cross-slope” as defined in the glossary above.

Figure 4.2: Running Slope and Cross-Slope. A depiction of “running slope” and “cross-slope” on a trail. Source: Zeller (2006, p.84).

4.1.3 Photo-Documentation

In addition to taking physical measurements, we sought to create Photo- documentation (shown below, in Section 4.2) of the entire trail, with particular emphasis on areas that likely would need some design

4-3 Accessibility Audit intervention. For many of the types of barriers, such as obstacles in the trail surface, where high numbers of barriers were noted. We chose indicative examples of commonly occurring obstacles and documented them (see Section 4.2).

4.2 Description of Existing Conditions

Table 4.1 below depicts the organizational structure of Section 4.2.

Systems Section Complies with Design Guidelines5

TRAIL 4.2.1 No --grade 4.2.1(1) No --cross-slope 4.2.1(1) Yes --resting intervals 4.2.1(2) Yes --benches 4.2.1(3) No --surface 4.2.1(4) No --width 4.2.1(5) No --passing spaces 4.2.1(5)(a) Yes --obstacles 4.2.1(6) No --protruding objects 4.2.1(7) Yes --openings 4.2.1(8) No --vertical clearance 4.2.1(9) No --handrails 4.2.1(10) No --edge protection 4.2.1(11) Yes INTERPRETIVE INFRASTRUCTURE 4.2.2 No --trail signs 4.2.2(1) No --interpretive signs 4.2.2(2) N/A ASSEMBLY INFRASTRUCTURE 4.2.3 No --reception area 4.2.3(1) No --auditorium 4.2.3(2) No ----interpretive signs 4.2.3(2)(a) No --bunker 4.2.3(3) No PARKING 4.2.4 No --number of accessible spaces 4.2.4(1) No --size of spaces 4.2.4(2) No --slope 4.2.4(3) Yes --signage 4.2.4(4) No --vertical clearance 4.2.4(5) Yes --location 4.2.4(6) N/A WATER & WASTEWATER 4.2.5 No --restrooms 4.2.5(1) No Table 4.1: Organization of Section 4.2. This table lists all the systems and their components present in this chapter: it shows their location within the chapter and

5 N/A indicates that a component is not present and thus cannot be evaluated for accessibility.

4-4 Accessibility Audit whether they have been found to comply with the design guidelines presented in the preceding chapter.

4.2.1 Trail

(1) Trail Grade and Cross-Slope. If a trail’s grade is greater than 5% for any length, then that trail is less accessible to those with mobility impairments. Section 3.2.1 in the Design Guidelines describes the requirements for trail grade in greater detail. A typical grade on the trail was 0.88%, which was the slope measured at the first gate, the entrance to the second section of the trail (see Figure 4.3). The trail was constructed essentially along a contour line of the hill, and as such the slope is negligible for the majority of the trail. The exceptions are the grade of 7.4% leading up to the auditorium (over a length of 6.6 m.); and the two sets of steps, which have grades of 23.8% and 20.5%, respectively (over a length of 1.2 m and 1.1 m). Nowhere did the cross-slope exceed 2%.

Figure 4.3: Typical Slope. Measuring slope on the first section of the trail. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4-5 Accessibility Audit

(2) Resting intervals. According to the sign at the beginning of the El Caucho trail, the length of this section is about 370 meters. US Forest Service Guidelines require the use of resting areas at certain intervals only when the trail grade exceeds 5% for any length of time (see Sections 3.2.1(2), 3.2.1(3), and 3.2.1(4). and 3.2.3 of Design Guidelines). Since the trail on Cerro Ancón has such a mild grade, no consideration of universal design strictly requires resting areas. However, it should be noted that two locations are already set up as resting areas: the auditorium, which presently has both chairs and picnic tables; and a space with stone benches directly before the entrance to El Caucho trail (see Figure 4.4). Both areas are large and open, presenting ideal places for larger gatherings (as opposed to the majority of the trail, where only two or three people at most may stand side-by-side).

Figure 4.4: Benches. Benches at entrance to El Caucho trail. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

(3) Benches. As illustrated in Figure 4.4, there are three stone benches in the resting area at the entrance to El Caucho trail. The seating platforms

4-6 Accessibility Audit were than the recommended height for benches (see Section 3.2.4.) and none had armrests or backrests. The littered surface area around the benches was unacceptable because it was not “firm and stable”.

(4) Surface. The trail is divided into three sections. All sections, to varying degrees, are littered with plant debris that presents an accessibility concern, especially for those whose mobility depends on the use of wheelchairs. The first section leading from the parking lot to the first gate, is characterized by remnants of asphalt paving dating from the presence of the US military prior to the reversion of the property to Panama (see Figure 4.5). The second section, leading from the first gate to the second at the beginning of El Caucho Trail, transitions from asphalt paving remnants to a soil and rock surface (see Figures 4.6 & 4.7). The third section, the “El Caucho” Trail, has been surfaced with a rough aggregate of soil, pebbles and stones of varying sizes and is lined with larger stones that define the edges of the path (see Figures 4.8 & 4.9). Compared with the first two sections, this part of the path has much denser tree cover. Consequently the leaf and palm frond litter is much thicker on the ground in this section of the trail (see Figure 4.10).

As discussed in Section 3.2.5 of the Design Guidelines, the surface of the trail must be firm and stable, and should be resistant to erosion. As Figure 4.5 shows, there were a few areas on the trail that fit this description. Overall, however, the surface did not meet the definition of firm and stable, defined in Section 3.1.4 of the Design Guidelines.

4-7 Accessibility Audit

Figure 4.5: Trail Surface. Trail surface on the first section. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

Figure 4.6: Trail Surface. Trail surface on second section. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4-8 Accessibility Audit

Figure 4.7: Trail Surface. Trail surface on second section. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

Figure 4.8: Trail Sign. Sign at beginning of third section of trail. At the time this Figure was taken, the trail map had been removed for maintenance. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4-9 Accessibility Audit

Figure 4.9: Trail Surface. Trail surface and edging on third section. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

Figure 4.10: Trail Surface. Typical condition on third section of trail. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4-10 Accessibility Audit

(5) Width. As noted in the Design Guidelines Section 3.2.6, a trail width of at least 1.50 m is considered ideal, as it allows the passage of two wheelchairs simultaneously. Parts of the trail the width matched or exceeded this ideal value. Exceptions include parts of the trail where plant growth extended into the travel path and the entirety of the third section of the trail (El Caucho), where width, though averaging about 127 cm (50 in.), at two locations dipped as low as 102 cm (40 in.) in certain areas. For the greater part of the length of this section, the width could be increased by as simple a method as moving the edging rocks to attain the required minimum width; however, in a few locations, tree trunks constrained trail width (see Figures 4.11 & 4.12).

Figure 4.11: Trail Width. Typical width of trail. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4-11 Accessibility Audit

Figure 4.12: Trail Width. Example of trees constraining trail width. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

If trail width can be maintained at 1.50 m (60 in.) or greater for the majority of the path, as is now the case, then the few occasions where trees constrain the width present no barrier to accessibility and no passing lanes will be required.

(a) Passing spaces. Passing spaces are typically required at intervals of no more than 305 m (1000 ft.) whenever the width of a trail is less than 1.50 m (60 in.); however, as indicated in Section 3.2.7, should be closer if the trail is intended for two-way travel. As the width of the trail at the CIACA never drops below this ideal width for such a length, passing spaces are not necessary. If recommendations in the following chapter are followed (Section 5.1.4), then the whole of the trail at the CIACA will be at the ideal width or greater, and passing spaces will be doubly unnecessary.

4-12 Accessibility Audit

(6) Obstacles. US Forest Service Guidelines (Design Guidelines, Section 3.2.8) state that obstacles in the path of travel may be, at most, 5 cm (2 in.) in height. Obstacles may be 7.6 cm (3 in.) in height if the slope of the trail is less than 5%. It is important to minimize the number of obstacles in the path to ensure ease of movement for those with disabilities (the blind and the mobility-impaired in particular); unavoidable manmade obstacles should be placed outside of the path of travel (United Nations, 2004). Some examples of obstacles found at the CIACA trail include remnants of asphalt, steps, tree roots, and large rocks (see Figures 4.13, 4.14 & 4.15).

Figure 4.13: Trail Obstacle. Old asphalt. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4-13 Accessibility Audit

Figure 4.14: Trail Obstacle. A step and a large rock, both obstacles to the mobility-impaired. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

Figure 4.15: Trail Obstacle. More steps. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4-14 Accessibility Audit

(7) Protruding objects. Protruding objects are objects that extend from beyond the sides of trails into the path of travel. If they cause the clear width of the trail to be less than the ideal of 1.50 m (60 in.), then they become barriers. The trail on the CIACA has no protruding objects.

(8) Openings. Openings or gaps in the trail surface represent unacceptable hazards if the gap is large enough to allow passage of a 13 mm (½ in.) diameter sphere (see Design Guidelines, Section 3.2.10). Such a gap could obviously pose problems for a wheelchair, especially if the gap was elongated and stretched in the direction of travel. The only such gap observed was from over an old water drain located in front of the auditorium (see Figure 4.16).

Figure 4.16: Trail Opening. Water drain with elongated openings in direction of travel. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4-15 Accessibility Audit

(9) Vertical clearance. A vertical clearance of 2.1 m (82 5/8 in.) is considered adequate headspace in both indoor and outdoor settings. With the exception of some plant growth that would likely need to be regularly pruned, the trail presents no barriers to accessibility with respect to headroom (see Figure 4.17).

Figure 4.17: Trail Vertical Clearance. Example of plant growth extending into required vertical clear zone. Source: Duggar, K. (2007). (10) Handrails. According to US Forest Service Design Guidelines, handrails are currently not required for outdoor trails in natural settings (see in this document Design Guidelines Section 3.2.12). They are, however, considered

4-16 Accessibility Audit necessary on steps and other inclines. These would include the stairs leading to the auditorium (see Figure 4.18). A hand rail should be installed on these steps following design guidelines set forth in Section 3.2.12.

Figure 4.18: Need for Handrails. Steps leading to the auditorium. The hand rail broke off at some point in the past, and would need to be reinstalled for the sake of increasing accessibility and safety. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

(11) Edge protection. Edge protection is not required by US Forest Service Guidelines (Design Guidelines, Section 3.2.13). However, when it is present, it should be at least 8 cm (3 in.). On the El Caucho section of the trail, edge

4-17 Accessibility Audit protection is present, and everywhere the stones that line the path are over 8 cm high.

4.2.2 Interpretive Infrastructure

(1) Trail signs. Of the signs marking the trail one sign is illustrated above (see Figure 4.8 above); others are shown below (see Figures 4.19, 4.20 & 4.21). Several issues need to be taken into account when assessing the accessibility of signage, as described in 3.3.1. Among these is height from the ground, font, and color contrast to make viewing more accessible by the visually-impaired. None of the existing signs is accessible to the blind.

Figure 4.19: Trail Sign. This sign rests at the trailhead. An English translation might be: “Cerro Ancón Interactive Environmental Center.” Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4-18 Accessibility Audit

Figure 4.20: Trail Sign. This sign points towards the auditorium. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

Figure 4.21: Trail Sign. These numbered signs line the trail at irregular intervals; they denote points of particular interest. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4-19 Accessibility Audit

(2) Interpretive signs. The issue of interpretive signs is dealt with in Section 4.2.3(2)(a) below.

4.2.3 Assembly Infrastructure

(1) Reception Area. The reception area of the office is inaccessible to wheelchair-bound persons due to the presence of two steps leading to the main entrance (see Figure 4.22). Due to the lack of restroom facilities elsewhere on the trail (addressed in (4) below), this lack of accessibility presents a serious concern. Additionally, users of the site normally check in with a receptionist who sits behind a desk in the main entryway; when a glass case displays books and other items for sale. The higher of the bottom step is 14.6 cm (5 3/4 in.) in height, while the upper step riser is 11.4 cm (4 1/2 in.) in height.

Figure 4.22: Reception Entrance. The main entrance to ANCON’s office on Cerro Ancón. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4-20 Accessibility Audit

(2) Auditorium. The auditorium lies on the second section of the trail in the CIACA. It is constructed on two levels, the second of which is accessible only by stairs and is, thus, inaccessible to those in wheelchairs. See Figure 4.23. ANCON staff indicated the auditorium is used by visiting groups for lunch; therefore, the lack of tables without benches presents an accessibility issue because of the limited number of places for wheel chair users this arrangement allows.

Figure 4.23: Auditorium. The ground level of the auditorium, and the steps leading to the second level. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

(a) Interpretive signs. There are no interpretive signs currently installed at the auditorium. The client has indicated an interest in increasing the educational value of the center by installing such signs in this location; from an accessibility standpoint this would be beneficial since signs designed to be available to multiple senses would allow a larger audience

4-21 Accessibility Audit

access to this component of the CIACA. These implications are addressed in greater detail in Investigation of Alternatives, Section 5.3.2.

(3) Bunker. The bunker, in the second section of the trail, is a historic remnant of US military presence on the hill. One alternative that has been discussed is the conversion of the bunker to restroom facilities, or alternatively of restoring it as a historic / cultural showpiece. At present, it is not accessible to those in wheelchairs. The entrance threshold is 9.5 cm (3 3/4 in.) high, which exceeds the limits for path obstructions noted in Section 3.2.8 of the Design Guidelines (see Figure 4.24). Both its architecture and its resource value, as a result, may limit its potential for re-use.

Figure 4.24: Bunker Entrance. The bunker entrance, where the threshold presents a barrier to accessibility.

4-22 Accessibility Audit

Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4.2.4 Parking

As Figures 4.25 & 4.26 depict, the parking situation is mixed in terms of accesssibility. Despite the lack of clearly marked “accessible spaces,” as required by Panamanian Executive Decree 88, there are a few spaces that are wider and deeper than standard and that have maneuvering spaces (marked in yellow) to the side.

(1) Number of accessible spaces. There are currently no marked accessible spaces.

(2) Size of spaces. As noted in (3) and (6), since there are no marked handicap spaces, the dimensions of unmarked spaces is not important. Nevertheless, spaces of adequate exist and, if they were marked, they would be a sufficient number.

(3) Slope. As elsewhere on the site, the slope is gentle and within the range considered accessible by those with mobility disabilities.

(4) Signage. No spaces are marked with the international symbol of accessibility, as required by Executive Decree 88.

(5) Vertical clearance. There is ample vertical clearance, as the spaces outside ANCON’s office are to the out-door and unencumbered by tree canopies.

(6) Location. As there are no marked accessible spaces (noted in (2) and (3)), it is impossible to judge whether those spaces are located close enough to ANCON’s entrance. Nevertheless, spaces of adequate dimensions exist which, if marked, are appropriately close to the entrance of the building but not to the trail entrance.

4-23 Accessibility Audit

Figure 4.25: Parking. The parking in front of the ANCON office. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4-24 Accessibility Audit

Figure 4.26: Parking. The parking directly across the street from the ANCON office. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

4.2.5 Water & Wastewater

(1) Restrooms. As noted in 4.2.3(1) above, the lack of sanitation facilities on or near the trail presents an accessibility issue for visitors who cannot enter the ANCON offices due to the inaccessibility of the offices. Renovating the office entryway to make it accessible would be one way of achieving this goal; however, the accessibility of the trail would be greatly enhanced if restrooms were constructed on or near the trail.

4.3 Findings and Recommendations

We found that no entire system was compliant with the design guidelines. Each system presented an impasse to accessibility in part.

4-25 Accessibility Audit

• The trail surface was not consistently stable and was littered with vegetation. The trail should be repaired or replaced and should be maintained regularly. • The signage at the site and along the trail was not accessible to those with limited vision or those who are blind. The interpretive infrastructure should be improved to include as many audiences as possible. • The assembly infrastructure presents accessibility challenges. Ramps should be provided. Universally accessible tables should be used to increase accessibility and educational opportunity. Finally, interpretive infrastructure should be implemented in the auditorium. • Since no handicapped parking is provided, ANCON should take measure to do so. Appropriate signage should be incorporated. • There are no accessible bathrooms for the CIACA site. The only bathroom is inside the ANCON office, which is inaccessible. Provision should be to place restrooms at the CIACA site.

4-26 Investigation of Alternatives

5 INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The following presents alternatives for each of the systems that we have analyzed throughout our report: the trail, interpretive infrastructure, assembly infrastructure, parking, and water and wastewater infrastructure. Each alternative is valued according to several criteria. The accessibility impacts criterion evaluates the value of each alternative in meeting the goal of universal accessibility at the CIACA. The environmental impacts criterion is measures how well each alternative aligns with ANCON’s desire to minimize impacts on the natural environment to the bare minimum and, further what environmental benefits it may provide. The criterion of offering educational opportunities determines how effectively an alternative can provide practical objective lessons on minimizing human environmental impacts. The feasibility criterion examines components such as capital costs, installation, and maintenance of each alternative. Finally, the appropriateness criterion encompasses things such as aesthetics and how the alternative aligns with the mission and stated desires of ANCON.

5-1 Investigation of Alternatives

Systems Section

TRAIL 5.1 --boardwalk 5.1.1 --permeable concrete 5.1.2 --recycled, permeable rubber 5.1.3 --preferred trail alternative 5.1.4

INTERPRETIVE INFRASTRUCTURE 5.2 --minimal signage 5.2.1 --push button assistive listening devices 5.2.2 --remote infrared audible signage 5.2.3 --preferred interpretive alternative 5.2.4

ASSEMBLY INFRASTRUCTURE 5.3 --reception area 5.3.1 ----minimum accommodations 5.3.2 ----advanced accommodations 5.3.3 --auditorium 5.3.4 --preferred assembly alternative 5.3.5

PARKING 5.4 --minimum Panamanian standards 5.4.1 --universal parking design 5.4.2 --preferred parking alternative 5.4.3

WATER & WASTEWATER 5.5 --restrooms 5.5.1 ----composting latrines 5.5.2 ----prefabricated bathroom 5.5.3 --preferred restroom alternative 5.5.4 --water systems 5.5.5 ----rainwater collection 5.5.6 ----greywater reuse system 5.5.7 ---extension of municipal water 5.5.8

--preferred water system alternative 5.5.9

Table 5.1: Investigation of Alternatives

5-2 Investigation of Alternatives

In order to guide our redevelopment plans, it was also necessary to develop certain assumptions and forecasts for future programming. Based upon current visitation rates of two or three school groups per month, we have projected that future demand for services at the CIACA will be satisfied by increasing visitation to one group per week. As outlined earlier in Chapter One, it would certainly be possible to increase staff and volunteer guides to provide further increases in visitation; however ANCON’s concerns about the impacts of human environmental impacts, we do not suggest a change to their projected future usage figures. Therefore, the alternatives in the following sections were based on a projected usage of one group per week.

Specifically, for bathroom facilities options, it was determined that two toilets, one for men and one for women, should meet the needs of visitors. Because groups are usually limited to 30 or less people, and only for a few times per month or week at a maximum, two toilets could handle the visitors’ needs, without imposing higher costs for constructing more bathrooms than necessary. For the parking facility recommendations, we found that while one space would meet the minimum requirement, two spaces would better serve ANCON’s desire to accommodate visitors with disabilities.

The following alternatives and recommendations were developed based on guided access to the CIACA. While allowing for the CIACA to be available without the necessity of a guide would truly make it more accessible, both because of when and how people access the site, we do not at this time recommend unguided access. As a result, the interventions that follow are not sufficient to allow for completely unassisted access. Preliminary research on allowing completely unguided access suggests that the costs (both monetary and environmental) of providing such access are significantly higher. However, we do recommend that ANCON revisit the idea of allowing for unguided access at some point, but further research would be necessary to determine both appropriate educational materials for persons with

5-3 Investigation of Alternatives disabilities and how to accommodate unguided access in the most environmentally friendly manner.

5.1 Trail

There are several options that would make the “El Caucho” trail and the path that leads to it more accessible. The entire trail could be paved with traditional concrete or asphalt, which is perhaps the easiest and least expensive solution. However, this would increase the impervious surface area and storm water erosion (see Chapter 6). There are a number of options available for renovating the trail surface, including possibilities such as a roll- up rubber walkway like the ones used in state parks in California to create wheel-chair accessible paths over sandy beaches. However, while typical concrete paving, rubber roll-ups, and even small pebble pathways are all possibilities, we do not feel that any of these are appropriate in this context. They are either not fully accessible (pebble pathway), not logistically feasible (rubber roll-up), or the impacts to the environment are too high (traditional concrete paving).

Based on criteria outlined above, we have identified three alternatives that satisfy that specified requirements. The alternatives are:

1) an elevated boardwalk made from recycled materials

2) a trail paved with Permeable Concrete

3) a trail made from Recycled, Permeable Rubber

5.1.1 Boardwalk

The first alternative replaces the existing trail surface with a raised boardwalk. Several materials could be used to construct the boardwalk, including recycled materials such as illustrated in Figure 5.1.

5-4 Investigation of Alternatives

Figure 5.1: Example of boardwalks made out of recycled materials. Source: Filcris Limited, 2007.

There are several recent examples in the U.S. of trails in natural areas that have been renovated for disability access using boardwalks. One such example of a successful 1992 renovation took place in the Badlands National Park in South Dakota. While the scope of the Badlands project is larger than what is being suggested at the CIACA (e.g., Badlands contains 1,665 meters in five separate trails where the CIACA has a single trail 205 meters in length) there are, nonetheless, important lessons to learn from this example. First, the renovation achieves the goals of utilizing ecologically friendly building materials in trails and making them more accessible. Second, the renovation was realized using grants and funding from private corporations. Finally, most of the labor work used in the project was enlisted through on- going volunteer partnerships.

The following assesses boardwalk trail infrastructuring using the five criteria outlined above:

(1) Accessibility Benefits. Boardwalks can easily be designed to conform to universal design standards. They can be designed to pass over any protruding objects (Section 3.1.2), including tree roots or rocks that are on the trail. A boardwalk would provide a stable and firm surface as required by Section 3.2.5. The Accessibility Audit (Chapter 4) notes that the trail grade is below 5% throughout the entire trail, which is considered acceptable for those with mobility impairments (Section 3.2.1). Although the trail slope is

5-5 Investigation of Alternatives currently not an accessibility obstacle, the boardwalk alternative would nonetheless provide a more continuously even slope than other options because it can be elevated above ground. Resting Intervals (3.2.3) and Passing Spaces (3.2.7) can be accommodated through potential “lookout areas” or spaces on the boardwalk that become wider to allow for the group to stop and observe the wildlife. Some models of boardwalks employ handrails; however, following the guidelines in Section 3.2.12(2) handrails are not necessarily recommended. Edge protection requirements (Section 3.2.13) can be met with 3 in. buffers along the edge of the proposed boardwalk. Openings in the slats between the boards would need to be no greater than 1.3 cm. (0.5 in.) (Section 3.2.10) which would allow wheelchairs, canes and other mobility devices to pass over the surface without problems.

It is nevertheless important to note that some types of plastics perform at less-than-optimal levels when wet. A representative of Filcris Limited, a company that makes this type of product, notes that their product might become somewhat slippery if “permanently wet” (Went, 11 August 2007, personal communication). He went on to note, though, that there are new products that have become available that incorporate a type of “resinous grit” in the surface of the boardwalk that alleviates this problem.

(2) Environmental Impacts. Boardwalk technology minimizes local impacts to the environment. A slatted boardwalk allows water to pass through, dispersing storm water run-off and potential erosion. Non-local impacts are mitigated through the use of recycled materials, which divert items like plastic bottles from landfills.

(3) Educational Opportunities. This alternative provides exciting educational opportunities. While using recycled materials is becoming increasingly more common, there is still little known about this relatively new technology. Interpretive signs, following guidelines in Chapter 3, can be incorporated into the educational program to inform visitors about this innovative technology.

5-6 Investigation of Alternatives

(4) Feasibility. The cost of a recycled boardwalk is estimated at about $170 per square meter, or $132,000 total.6 The cost is partially offset by the relatively long life expectancy of the boardwalk (Filcris Limited, 2007).

(5) Appropriateness. Generally, boardwalks are used only in fragile environments such as sand dunes and wetlands (Robert Deyle, PhD., personal communication, 2007).

5.1.2 Permeable Concrete

Another option is resurfacing the trail utilizing permeable or “pervious” concrete. Permeable concrete has several benefits, in terms of accessibility and with respect to environmental sustainability. Additionally, permeable concrete has the “strength and performance of conventional concrete paving” (WACA, 2007).

(1) Accessibility Benefits. Permeable concrete is both “firm” and “stable”, as required in Section 3.2.5 of the design guidelines. All of the other criteria (slope, resting areas, passing intervals, and edge heights) can also be met using permeable concrete technology. Handrails, if provided would need to be constructed separately.

(2) Environmental Impacts. Permeable concrete reduces runoff by allowing water to flow through it rather than over it. This allows water to infiltrate naturally, recharging local watershed systems, and replenishing ground water supplies. As a result, soil erosion is also mitigated.

However, it is important to note that the installation of any concrete surface requires the use of heavy equipment which might lead to an increase in noise pollution, affecting residents in the nearby neighborhood as well as animals in the forest of Cerro Ancón.

6 These estimates are based on figures provided on the Filcris Limited website (http://www.filcris.co.uk/), and assume a trail width of 152 cm. and a total length of approximately 500 m.

5-7 Investigation of Alternatives

Figure 5.2 Water infiltrating permeable concrete. Source: WACA (2007).

(3) Educational Opportunities. The use of permeable concrete presents the educational opportunity of illustrating (1) the value of natural infiltration of rainwater into the ground; and (2) a material that can be used to achieve this good.

(4) Feasibility. Concrete maintenance is simple as it only requires the regular use of a broom (WACA, 2007). If there are concerns about the material staining, it can be washed using water under pressure. The cost of such a surface has been estimated at about $65 - $100 per square meter, for a total cost of about $50,000 - $76,000.7 Additionally, the life of permeable concrete is comparable to that of regular concrete, and is estimate to be about 20-40 years (Balogh, 2007, citing the Southern California Ready-Mixed Concrete Association). Furthermore, pervious concrete is less susceptible to heat than standard concrete, as the larger and more frequent void spaces make it less able to store heat; thus, pervious concrete comes closer to ambient temperatures than does standard concrete (NRMCA, 2006).

7 These estimates are based on figures provided on the Pugent Sound Action Team website (http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/LID_studies/permeable_pavement.htm), and assume a trail width of 152 cm. and a total length of approximately 500 m.

5-8 Investigation of Alternatives

Figure 5.3. Examples of paths paved with permeable concrete. Source: WACA (2007).

(5) Appropriateness. Concrete lacks a “natural” look and therefore may be not be visually appropriate or in keeping with natural place aesthetics (Eisenstein, 21 July 2007, personal communication). See Figure 5.3 above for an example of what such a path might look like.

5.1.3 Recycled, Permeable Rubber

Permeable rubber made from recycled tires offers an alternative to permeable concrete. All of the following benefits refer to the material known as “Playsafe Rubber Walk Pour” (Athletic Specialties, 2007).

(1) Accessibility Benefits. As required in Section 3.2.5 of the design guidelines, permeable rubber is both “firm” and “stable”. Additionally, since it is made from recycled rubber, the surface is more giving than other surfaces, thus making it safer for children. As in the case of permeable concrete, permeable rubber meets the other accessibility criteria. Again, handrails, if desired, would have to be constructed separately.

(2) Environmental Impacts. Permeable rubber reduces runoff by allowing water to flow through it rather than just over it. This allows water to infiltrate naturally, recharging local watershed systems, and replenishing ground water supplies. Additionally, this material cuts down on waste and the use of new resources, since this material is made from recycled tires. Furthermore, the material is colored using non-toxic organic dyes, thus making it safer for children and the environment.

5-9 Investigation of Alternatives

(3) Educational Opportunities. Similar to the permeable concrete mentioned above, this material is permeable and thus presents the same educational opportunity already mentioned. Additionally, it is made of recycled tires, thus creating a further opportunity to educate in the responsible use of materials. Another potential benefit of the recycled rubber comes from a coincidence of names. The “El Caucho” trail translates into English as “The Rubber Tree Trail.” If the rubber tree trail was surfaced with recycled tires, this presents the opportunity to engage student groups (the predominant users of the trail at the CIACA) on the cycles of renewable resources.

(4) Feasibility. This material can be installed over pre-existing asphalt or concrete, reducing the number of steps necessary for resurfacing. Preliminary conversations with Athletic Specialties, the company that makes this material, it appears likely they would need to send their own team to do the installation (Peterson, 20 July 2007, personal communication). This could increase overall costs. Cost for the material is estimated at $70 per square meter, or a total cost of about $53,000. Daily maintenance is simple, requiring nothing more than a broom and regular rainshowers (Athletic Specialties, 2007). However, at intervals of 2-3 years, Athletic Specialties recommends applying a coat of polyurethane, which, they said, “anyone with a paint roller can do” (Athletic Specialties, 8 August 2007, personal communication).8 The product is estimated to have a lifetime of about 10 years (Peterson, 7 August 2007, personal communication).

(5) Appropriateness. This material can be custom-dyed to user specifications, giving it the potential to “blend in” more than with permeable concrete. Figure 5.4 below shows what such a trail might look like. Figure 5.5 depicts a sample of the rubber sent by the manufacturer.

8 The reason for this is to protect the surface from damage associated with ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Given that the CIACA is protected year-round by a forest, the need for recoating might be less than predicted.

5-10 Investigation of Alternatives

Figure 5.4 Examples of recycled rubber used for trails. Source: Athletic Specialties (2007).

5.1.4 Preferred Alternative-Trail

While all three alternatives in this section would provide environmentally friendly alternatives and acceptable levels of accessibility, we recommend the use of permeable concrete for the trail surface (Section 5.1.2). It represents about 40-60% the cost of a recycled boardwalk trail, and is only slightly more expensive than the recycled rubber option. Furthermore, unlike the recycled rubber, it requires no extensive maintenance and has two to three times the life expectancy. It nevertheless lacks some of the educational possibilities presented by regular rubber.

An option that might be worth considering for its educational benefits alone (although, of course, it is also fully accessible and environmentally-friendly), would be to surface the final third of the trail, the “El Caucho” portion, with recycled rubber. This would cost an estimated $22,000 (since it would be in place of a concrete path, however, it would offset a cost of $21,000-$32,000, saving potentially up to $10,000 in the short-run).

Below is a table (Table 5.2), comparing costs and maintenance for the three alternatives.

5-11 Investigation of Alternatives

Surface Estimated Maintenance Estimated Estimated Total Type Surface Required Lifecycle Unit Price Price Area Recycled 760 sq. m. Normal9 “Lifetime” $170 per $132,000 Boardwalk (152 cm. square by 500 m.) meter Permeable 760 sq. m. Normal 20-30 $65-$100 $50,000- Concrete (152 cm. years per square $76,000 by 500 m.) meter Recycled, 760 sq. m. Normal, 10 years $70 per $53,000 Permeable (152 cm. polyurethane square Rubber by 500 m.) coating at 2-3 meter year intervals10

Table 5.2: Estimated costs, maintenance and lifecycle for trail alternatives.

5.2 Interpretive Infrastructure

5.2.1 Minimal Signage

It is recommended that all existing signage be replaced to comply with appropriate design standards as detailed in Section 3.3.1.

(1) Accessibility Benefits. One aspect of increasing physical accessibility to a trail is to provide information on the nature of the trail so that persons with a range of disabilities will be able to know what lies ahead. This can allow people to evaluate for themselves whether or not they wish to traverse the trail, and if so, what they can expect. For a person with vision or mobility limitations, it is especially important to know what lies ahead so that they can be prepared for and not surprised by any obstacles on the trail.

9 “Normal” maintenance refers to the type of maintenance any trail might require, such as picking up fallen leaves or other forest detritus. 10 Possibly longer intervals, since surface won’t be directly exposed to sunlight (see footnote 3 above).

5-12 Investigation of Alternatives

According to the U.S. Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG), signs should be posted at the trailheads. At a minimum, these signs should include the name and length of the trail, the typical and maximum grade, typical and maximum cross slope, typical and minimum tread width, surface type and firmness, and obstacles. These signs should state that the provided information reflects the condition of the trail when it was constructed or assessed and should include the date of the construction or assessment.

In the event that more extensive trail information is provided, perhaps with an aerial map of the trail and related facilities, the location of specific trail features and obstacles that do not comply with the FSTAG’s technical provisions should be identified and a profile of the trail grade should be included (U.S. Forest Service, 2006a, p.31).

In order to ensure that written signage is accessible to the widest range of people, it is recommended that new signage be designed following the design guidelines set forth in Section 3.3.1. By following guidelines with regards to font style, contrast, size, and Braille, one can ensure that persons with vision disabilities will be able to access the provided information. By placing signage at an appropriate height from the ground one will be able to ensure that children and persons in wheelchairs will be able to easily read the provided information. It is recommended that appropriate, accessible signage be provided on the trail itself, at the open air auditorium, at the proposed restroom facilities, and at ANCON’s office.

(2) Environmental Impacts. Environmental impacts from trail signage are likely to be negligible, and easily mitigated. In order to erect new signage, it is likely that there will need to be holes dug in the ground in which to place the posts for signs. There may be minor impacts if these signs are located in areas with heavy foliage or extensive tree root network. These impacts can be mitigated by placing signs in locations that are presently clear or by co- locating signs with other new construction, such as restroom facilities.

5-13 Investigation of Alternatives

Additionally, it is envisioned that refurbishments could be made to the existing signage or new signage could be located in their place, reducing the need to disturb undeveloped land.

(3) Educational Opportunities. Instructional opportunities with signage abound as the general purpose for the existence of signage is to inform. Being that this is an educational facility, it is recommended that additional signage be added to educate patrons on points of interest and to identify and provide information on certain species of trees. Figure 4.21 is a picture of an existing sign at the site that is designed to indicate a point of interest. The number on this sign corresponds with a printed paper handout that is provided to patrons that explains the significance of the object. If this sign were replaced with a sign designed under the specified guidelines and more information were included as to the description of the point of interest, this would provide a more accessible learning experience for persons with and without disabilities.

(4) Feasibility. Inclusion of accessibility signage such as signage that indicates accessible restrooms and parking spaces is not typically very costly. While Panamanian manufacturers of such signage were unable to be contacted, such signs typically cost about $15.00 from U.S. manufacturers. The model shown in Figure 5.6 cost $14.80 each, is made of durable 3.2 mm. (0.125 inch) thick plastic and measures 15.24 cm. (6 in.) wide by 22.86 cm. (9 in.) high.

5-14 Investigation of Alternatives

Figure 5.5: Accessible Restroom Sign. Source: Alphabet Signs, (2007).

More elaborate signage such as that pictured in Figure 5.6 is more costly but can be customized. This particular model costs $54.79 and is also available from a U.S. manufacturer. This is one example of possible signage that includes Braille could be included along the trail to identify points of interest.

5-15 Investigation of Alternatives

Figure 5.6: Customizable Accessible Sign. Source: Emedco, (2007).

Installation of stand-alone, non-electric signage typically involves very minor amounts of unskilled labor. For single, stand-alone, a hole needs to be dug and the hole filled with concrete to secure the signpost. For signs that are attached to buildings or to other existing objects, it may only involve a hammer and nails or other fasteners.

Maintenance of signage depends largely upon how well the sign is made and of what materials it is made. Being that the site is in a tropical environment, it is recommended that durable materials are used that will be less likely to rot or rust. Such materials may include acrylic, aluminum or recycled materials.

(5) Appropriateness. Not only is some signage necessary to orient patrons to their surroundings, but certain signage, such as those indicating accessible parking, is required by Panamanian law.

5.2.2 Push Button Assistive Listening Devices

The following discussion is based on the assumption that all of the recommendations from Section 5.2.4 will be implemented. The recommendations provided here apply specifically to what are known as “push button assistive listening devices.” It is envisioned that such devices

5-16 Investigation of Alternatives would be provided along the trail at specific points of interest and perhaps within the auditorium. An example of one such device was found at Bear Creek Educational Forest in the Lake Talquin State Forest near Quincy, Florida (see Figure 5.7). With the press of a button, a voice recorder plays audio recordings about plants located nearby. When the button is pressed a second time, third, or even a fourth time, different information is relayed to the visitor.

Figure 5.7: Talking Sign. Example of push button listening device at Bear Creek Educational Forest. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

(1) Accessibility Benefits. In addition to the minimal signage recommended, it is recommended that some form of assistive listening device also be added to the trail and educational facilities in order to create a more comprehensive learning environment for persons with and without vision disabilities. This particular tool is useful for persons with vision disabilities and also provides a

5-17 Investigation of Alternatives fun, interactive way to facilitate learning in persons without vision disabilities and children.

With respect to the above example, this particular device should be made more accessible for the vision impaired by including signage on the device in Braille. Such signage would make wayfinding and operation of the device easier for persons with vision disabilities.

(2) Environmental Impacts. The environmental impacts associated with this technology can be mitigated by using local materials to create the pedestal or by using recycled materials. The example shown above is made of treated wood, but could likely be recreated from native wood or recycled materials. Additionally, this sort of device usually needs to be wired for electricity so provisions will need to electrify the trail. Environmental impacts of providing electricity can be mitigated of installation of power lines takes place simultaneously with the refurbishment of the trail surface. If these events were coordinated, it would be possible to bury the power lines under the new trail surface and combine these two construction efforts into one, thus lessening the period of construction and installation, which will reduce the amount of disturbance to neighbors.

(3) Educational Opportunities. Listening devices such as the one recommended here are particularly beneficial in the universally designed environment. While they are not useful for persons with hearing disabilities, they are particularly useful for children and for persons with vision disabilities. The example illustrated above includes voices of actors who were playing the roles of trees, as if in a play. With a little imagination, it is possible to create a fun and interactive environment for learning.

(4) Feasibility. One example of this technology, the SR4, is available from Akman Incorporated. The device plays MP3 audio files, has the ability to be activated by motion sensor, can play multiple different audio files, and is

5-18 Investigation of Alternatives designed for interactive exhibits. The device must be housed in a weatherproof housing which is not included in the product cost of $225 (personal communication, Akman Inc., 25 July 2007). In conversations with Don Branch, an exhibit designer of the Harpers Ferry Center of the National Park Service, he stated that such technology usually ranges from $100 to $150 dollars, and housings usually cost around $75 to $100 depending on materials. For purposes of establishing a range, we therefore assume that each unit will cost between $175 and $325.

As mentioned previously, the unit has to be provided with electricity which will affect operational costs. Installation and set-up of the units can be done with instructions provided by the manufacturer. Electrical connections will need to be handled by a trained technician.

(5) Appropriateness. As is shown from the example above, these devices can be made from local woods and created in a manner that minimizes the obtrusion of technology into the natural environment. In order to maintain accessibility, these devices should be located adjacent to the trail, but not in the path of travel, nor should they be camouflaged in any way.

5.2.3 Remote Infrared Audible Signage / Talking Signs®

Remote infrared audible signage is a technology that was developed at Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute in San Francisco, California and is trademarked under the name Talking Signs®. Talking Signs® is an infrared wireless communications system that provides directional human voice messages that make independent travel and learning easier for persons with vision disabilities. The Talking Signs® system consists of short audio signals sent by infrared light beams from permanently installed transmitters to a hand-held receiver that decodes the signal and delivers the voice message through to a speaker or headset (Talking Signs, 2007). The transmitters have a range of about 45 to 60 m. (100 to 150 ft.) in the outdoors (Harvey,

5-19 Investigation of Alternatives

2005). See Figure 5.8 to view an image of the transmitter and receiver in use.

Figure 5.8: Talking Sign. Photo of Talking Signs® transmitter and handheld receiver. Source: Talking Signs, (2007).

(1) Accessibility Benefits. Remote infrared audible signs (RIAS) technologies are designed specifically to accommodate persons with vision disabilities. These hand-held assistive listening devices could be used not only to help persons with vision disabilities find their way but also to deliver important messages about the surrounding environment that would facilitate an educational experience at CIACA. The transmitters could be located along the trail to provide information about the typical flora and fauna as well as information to assist in wayfinding.

(2) Environmental Impacts. The impact of this system has the potential to be greater than with other alternatives. Transmitters would need to be permanently installed along the length of the trail and within any educational facilities. Depending upon the method of installation, the impact would vary. If transmitters were attached to existing objects, such as trees, the trees would likely suffer from having their bark punctured. If transmitters needed to be erected anew atop some sort of post, these posts would need to be partially buried and anchored with concrete to insure their stability.

(3) Educational Opportunities. There is an inherent opportunity with this system to teach a lesson about how persons with disabilities can do things

5-20 Investigation of Alternatives that anyone else can do, but they just might do it in a different way. The lesson could be demonstrated that persons with vision disabilities are really no different from the rest of society and that given the proper tools, they too can travel independently.

(4) Feasibility. When the Talking Signs® system was installed in Seattle, Washington’s public transit system, the estimated cost was $2,900 per transmitter and $295 per battery-powered receiver. The $2,900 cost of the transmitter also includes design, programming, voice recordings, hardware, wiring and installation (Harvey, 2005).

(5) Appropriateness. It may not be appropriate in a wilderness environment to have many posts with transmitters sitting atop of them. There is a likelihood that this would take away from the natural experience of persons on the trail if their views of nature were obstructed by posts and transmitters.

5.2.4 Preferred Alternative-Interpretive Infrastructure

As discussed herein, it is recommended that at a minimum signage on the site be refurbished to conform to universal design signage standards. However, even universally designed signage has the effect of limiting access to information for persons with vision disabilities and other persons who are unable to read, including small children. For this reason, two options to accommodate for this were discussed.

Remote infrared audible signs are expensive and is, therefore, determined to be among the most difficult to implement.

As a result, we recommend push assistive listening devices, instead of remote infrared audible signs, since they are less costly and pose fewer environmental issues.

5-21 Investigation of Alternatives

Costs involved in implementing minimal signage recommendations and also the Push Button Assistive Listening Devices should range between $1,200 and $6,150. Estimates based on probable costs and quantities are illustrated in Table 5.3 below.

Device Recommended Possible Minimum Maximum Price Range Minimum Qty Max Qty Unit Price Unit Price Accessibility signage 4 10 $15.00 $45.00 $60.00 - $450.00

Braille signs 5 15 $54.79 $273.95 –$821.85

Push button signage 5 15 $175.00 $325.00 $875.00 -$4,875.00

Totals $1,208.95 - $6,146.85

Table 5.3: Estimated costs for recommended signage

5.3 Assembly Infrastructure

5.3.1 Reception Area

Currently the ANCON office is not accessible, particularly to persons with mobility disabilities. It may be necessary for these persons to gain access to the office to purchase tickets, purchase memorabilia, or to speak with staff. Currently the only restrooms on site are located in this office building and are particularly inaccessible due to narrow doorways and hallways and limited space available inside the office. Should ANCON desire to make their educational facilities more accessible, it is recommended that some alterations be made to their office.

5.3.2 Minimal accommodations.

At a minimum we recommend that the front entrance of the ANCON office be renovated to remove the exterior steps and replace them with a ramp. By providing one accessible entrance instead of having a set of stairs and a

5-22 Investigation of Alternatives separate ramp, universal design principles will be upheld. See Design Guidelines Section 3.4.2 for appropriate guidelines for ramps. Providing a ramp would allow access to the front reception area for persons with mobility disabilities.

(1) Accessibility Benefits. Decree 88 seeks to promote accessibility in public buildings by through such measures as including ramps at building entrances. In order to comply with Decree 88 and to follow with ANCON’s universal accessibility vision, installing a ramp is recommended.

(2) Environmental Impacts. Environmental impacts involved in such a project are minor and limited to noise pollution during construction.

(3) Educational Opportunities. There are educational opportunities available by setting an example of accessibility. Given that school age children are a target audience for ANCON, setting this sort of example may affect their perceptions.

(4) Feasibility. Minimal costs would be involved in the construction of the ramp.

(5) Appropriateness. Replacing steps with a ramp at the front entrance to ANCON is likely to have little effect on aesthetics.

5.3.3 Advanced accommodations

A complete accessibility audit of ANCON’s offices is outside the scope of this study. In the event that accessible restrooms are built at CIACA and a ramp is built at the front entrance of ANCON’s office, it likely will not be necessary to provide further accessibility into the office at this time. Nevertheless, should ANCON wish to make their office accessible beyond the front reception area, more extensive renovations would be required. Inner doors

5-23 Investigation of Alternatives may need to be widened; the front desk may need to be rearranged and the restrooms will need to be completely relocated.

(1) Accessibility Benefits. While providing a ramp will increase access to the entrance of the building, once a person is inside the building, other obstacles would need to be addressed for a person with mobility disabilities to be able to maneuver freely throughout the space or to access laboratories.

(2) Environmental Impacts. Environmental impacts involved in such a project are minor; again they involve noise pollution during construction.

(3) Educational Opportunities. There are some educational opportunities available by setting an example of accessibility. Again, given that school age children are a large target audience for ANCON, setting an example may affect their perceptions.

(4) Feasibility. The costs of redesigning the interior of ANCON’s offices to achieve accessibility could be significant.

(5) Appropriateness. The effect in the architecture of the existing historic building in which the offices are located is likely to be minimal.

5.3.4 Auditorium

The open-air auditorium present at the CIACA is located on the second portion of the trail, just beyond the bunker. It has two levels, the second accessible only by stairs. The first level is a concrete pad with picnic tables. It is used for group lunches and environmental education purposes (ANCON, May-June 2007, personal communications). Hence its accessibility should be discussed in two parts: (1) accessibility to the sheltered space; and (2)

5-24 Investigation of Alternatives accessibility to the educational programs offered there. Figure 5.10 below depicts the entire auditorium.

Figure 5.9: Open-air auditorium. A bare-bones structure, this facility has the potential to be more accessible. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

(1) Accessibility to the Space. The auditorium, as it currently stands, is not completely accessible (as discussed in Section 4.2.3(2)). The second floor presents an obvious difficulty, as its only access is by stairs. The ground floor is more accessible. It is reachable without the use of steps; and furthermore, it has a concrete pad that serves as a floor surface. While impermeable and thus not the ideal solution from an environmental standpoint, it has the advantage of being very convenient for wheelchair-bound individuals.

(a) Replace Picnic Tables. The auditorium is often used by guided groups of visitors for lunch (ANCON, May-June 2007, personal communications).

5-25 Investigation of Alternatives

Picnic tables with attached benches have been placed there for that purpose (see Figure 5.11 below). Since the benches are attached to the tables, they are incompletely accessible to persons in wheelchairs (there are limited places available for them to roll up and join the rest of their group). A more accessible solution would be to provide tables without seating (and extra chairs) that would allow visitors using wheelchairs a greater variety of seating options.

Figure 5.10: Auditorium. Ground floor of the open-air auditorium, showing less-accessible picnic tables. Source: Duggar, K. (2007).

(i) Accessibility Benefits. Replacing the current picnic tables with tables that have separate chairs or benches would improve accessibility to this site. It would allow mixed groups of able-bodied and mobility-impaired people to sit together comfortably and without recourse to special accommodation, thus adhering to universal design principles.

5-26 Investigation of Alternatives

(ii) Environmental Impacts. Environmental impacts at the site will be minimal. Impacts at larger, even global scales, can be minimized by using tables made of recycled or sustainably harvested materials.

(iii) Educational Opportunities. The use of universally accessible tables places those with and those without disabilities on an equal footing concomitant with Law 25’s goal (see Section 2.1.3) – and thus helps to equalize the educational opportunities present at the CIACA. Additionally, if the tables are constructed from recycled or sustainable materials, they can serve as an example of good environmental stewardship.

(iv) Feasibility. Picnic tables of recycled materials can be relatively expensive, in the range of $300 – $1,000 for one table.11 A certified sustainable wood12 table would cost about $350 - $500, if purchased pre-assembled13. In this case, a second option is to buy lumber and make the table on-site, perhaps as a volunteer project. If the latter option is chosen, a picnic table could be made on-site from sustainably harvested wood (such as cedar or other long-lasting, untreated, outdoor wood) for about $70 - $110.14 (v) Appropriateness. From an accessibility standpoint, the replacement of the current tables is considered necessary. The question then becomes which material or style to use so that the tables seem appropriate in the surrounding environment.

(b) Second Floor. Furthermore, as the second floor is completely inaccessible to the wheelchair-bound, we would recommend that, when

11 Dollar amounts taken from internet searches. 12 For example, as certified by Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). 13 For example, if bought from here: http://gardeners-world.net/cata_show.asp?id=112. 14 The cost of sustainably harvested lumber is comparable to pressure-treated wood; phone calls to various suppliers (Niece Lumber in Lambertville, NJ; Home Depot in Langhorne, Pa) in the U.S. indicated that sustainable lumber would cost about $69.30 per table, while pressure-treated non-sustainable lumber would cost $66.98 – for all intents and purposes, the same price. Cost range of $70 - $110 is based on prices listed on do-it-yourself webpage: http://www.sticksite.com/picnic.htm.

5-27 Investigation of Alternatives

groups contain such individuals, all activities take place on the ground floor. This would require a duplication of any essential physical and educational infrastructure. Some options to increase access to the second floor, however, might include: an elevator; or a very long ramp designed in several stages.

(i) Accessibility Benefits. It is inarguable that that increasing accessibility to the second floor increases overall accessibility to the site. An elevator or a long ramp both would allow all people access to the second floor of this facility.

(ii) Environmental Impacts. Given the footprint of the ramp15 necessary to accommodate a rise to the second floor, the environmental impacts could be considerable. An elevator might have considerable impact, as well, not least of which is from the use of large amounts of electricity and the need to contain motor oils and lubrications for the machinery.

(iii) Educational Opportunities. Educational opportunities appear limited for these alternatives.

(iv) Feasibility. Costs and possible environmental impacts lead to the conclusion that these alternatives are not feasible. A one-story elevator could cost between $8,400 and $20,000.16 A ramp, on the other hand, would be constructed and installed for about the same costs; or more depending on the materials and methods of construction.

(v) Appropriateness. The noise of operation of an elevator alone makes one think such a think wouldn’t be appropriate in a natural

15 We lack these measurements, but a reasonable assumption for the height of the second floor is 4.3 m. (14 ft.) From Design Guidelines Section 3.4.2, we know that an acceptable slope for long distances is 1:12. Thus, the total length of ramp would be about 51 m. (168 ft.). 16 Costs researched through the internet.

5-28 Investigation of Alternatives

setting. And the visual impact of a 51 m (168 ft.) ramp would also be too striking for such a setting.

(c) Access for the Blind. For those with low or no vision, open spaces such as is present at the auditorium present particular difficulties. Installing guides on the floor may interfere with the free motion of persons in wheelchairs. One solution that has been used in other contexts is textured flooring. One North American contractor recommended brick pavers that would be 8 cm. (3 in.) high. The pavers would provide a uniquely textured surface, discernable by someone using a cane. The pavers could be installed over the concrete pad already present at the auditorium. A site-poured concrete ramp could be installed as a transition from the level of the concrete floor to the level of the pavers. By texturing the paths to various points of interest – educational signs, wayfinding signs, picnic tables, the space could be made accessible to people with low or no vision.

(i) Accessibility Benefits. The use of textured flooring – be it roll-out weather-proof carpeting, tile, or textured concrete – would increase accessibility to the site for the visually impaired.

(ii) Environmental Impacts. Local environmental impacts may result during construction if mortar or adhesives are allowed to run-off from the installation area. It is important to consider which materials would be suited for the site. Some materials contain toxic dyes that may leach into the surrounding soil in the first rainstorm. If a material is used which was generated unsustainably, then there are global impacts to be considered as well.

(iii) Educational Opportunities. The improvements discussed above illustrate the difficulties encountered by the visually impaired in negotiating through large, open spaces. Realizing the recommended

5-29 Investigation of Alternatives

improvements promotes awareness in the general populace of these issues and contributes to a wider culture of accessibility.

(iv) Feasibility. We estimate that the cost associated with the reconfiguration of the surface in the auditorium is approximately $250 per square meter.17 The cost thus might be less in Panama, where labor costs are generally less than in the United States. The slope to the top of the pavers from the surrounding pad should not exceed a ratio of 1.7. The costs associated with providing ramps can be avoided by using shallow pavers to transition between the different elevations of the finished floors.

(v) Appropriateness. Given that this site is already built-upon, increasing its accessibility in the manner currently under discussion would not lead to adverse impacts in terms of the aesthetics or the natural beauty present at the CIACA.

(2) Educational Program Accessibility. Presently, the modes of environmental education at the CIACA are either guided hikes with the guide providing interpretative information to groups no larger than 30 or, in far fewer cases, self-guided hikes using a trail map. Those with hearing disabilities are disadvantaged in the guided hike modality and the blind are disadvantaged in the unguided hike because the trail map and markers are not provided using Braille. Given ANCON’s desire to make the experience at the CIACA universally accessible, interpretive signs should be installed within the auditorium as alternative educational modes. Per the Design Guidelines, all signs should be available to a range of human senses: sight, touch, and even sometimes hearing. Any educational programming that makes use of signs or other visual materials needs to comply with Section 3.3.1. The interpretive technologies discussed in Section 5.2 should be employed here as well.

17 Bruce Silvestri, in a personal communication, 14 August 2007.

5-30 Investigation of Alternatives

5.3.5 Preferred Alternative-Assembly Infrastructure

The auditorium recommendations come in two parts:

(1) Accessibility to the Space. ANCON should replace the picnic tables with more accessible tables, per 5.3.2(1)(a) above; the preferred alternative is site-assembled certified sustainable wood tables. ANCON should not install either an elevator or a long ramp to access the second floor, given the various concerns cited in 5.3.2(1)(b); it should, instead, have either duplicate educational materials for each floor or do its primary educational outreach on the first floor. Furthermore, it is recommended that ANCON install textured flooring for the blind, as discussed in Section 5.3.2(1)(c). See Table 5.4 below for summary of estimated costs for all alternatives. Green indicates that the alternative is recommended.

Access Alternative Unit Cost New Picnic Tables Recycled Plastic $300 - $1,000 Certified Sustainable Wood (pre-made) $350 - $500 Certified Sustainable Wood (home-made) $70 - $110 Access to Second Floor Elevator $8,400 - $20,000 Ramp $49,000 - $84,000 Textured Flooring $236 / square meter

Table 5.4: Estimated costs for auditorium access alternatives.

(2) Educational Program Accessibility. ANCON should install signs in accordance with Section 3.3.1 of the Design Guidelines, using the recommendations in Section 5.2 of this chapter as a guide.

5-31 Investigation of Alternatives

5.4 Parking

As previously discussed in the Accessibility Audit, Section 4.2.4, the parking currently available at the ANCON office is not sufficiently accessible by either Panamanian or international standards. Given ANCON’s goal of accommodating groups at the CIACA site, we recommend that the parking space lines be repainted to include at least two van accessible parking spaces as close to the office entrance or trialhead as possible using a combination of Panamanian minimum design dimensions and Universally Accessible Parking design principles. In order to minimize costs, it should be sufficient to repaint the lines in front of the office.

5.4.1 Minimal Panamanian Standards

(1) Accessibility Benefits. As is described in Section 3.5.1, Panamanian accessible parking space design standards set forth in Decree 88 require a standard space that is slightly larger in dimensions than what is required by the Universal Design Guidelines that are based on the ADA. For this reason, it is recommended that the accessible parking space dimensions comply with physical dimensions enumerated in Decree 88, which is illustrated in Table 3.8. Decree 88 states that ANCON only needs to provide one accessible space; however, more will be recommended later in these recommendations.

(2) Environmental Impacts. The environmental impacts will be negligible, given that this alternative will only involve repainting a small part of the parking lot, as long as the excess paint is disposed of properly and painting tools are cleaned in a environmentally responsible manner.

(3) Educational Opportunities. There may be some opportunity to provide an example of accessibility to others and perhaps to advocate compliance with Panamanian law.

(4) Feasibility. The striping of parking lines will degrade overtime. Installation costs should be minimal. Some signage will be required to mark

5-32 Investigation of Alternatives accessible spaces, but these signs are generally inexpensive and cost about the same as restroom signs discussed above.

(5) Appropriateness. In addition to being compliant with Panamanian law, ANCON could offer additional accessibility by following universal design guidelines. Figure 5.12 below demonstrates traditionally designed accessible parking spaces.

Figure 5.11: Parking Schematic. Traditional Design Parking Spaces (with ADA dimension requirements) Source: US Access Board (2003).

5.4.2 Universal Parking Design

Panamanian law and universal parking design principles differ with regards to minimum dimensions of accessible spaces, with Panamanian law requiring spaces that are generally slightly larger. Therefore, in order for parking to comply with Panamanian law and universal design standards, a hybrid of the two was advocated in Section 3.5, and the same will be advocated here.

(1) Accessibility Benefits. The key difference between universal parking design and standard accessible parking is that in universal parking design, all accessible spaces are large enough to accommodate vans. By reducing the distinction between van accessible spaces and standard accessible spaces, competition between vans and cars is eliminated. Additionally since all spaces are large enough to accommodate vans, there is no need to add signage that describes which spaces are van accessible. Figure 5.13 below illustrates the

5-33 Investigation of Alternatives concept of universally designed parking, though actual dimensions should comply with Decree 88 design guidelines.

Figure 5.12: Universal Design Parking Spaces. Universal Design Parking Spaces (with ADA dimension requirements) Source: US Access Board (2003).

(2) Environmental Impacts. The environmental impacts will be negligible, given that this alternative will only involve repainting a small part of the parking lot provided that materials are cleaned, stored or disposed of in a environmentally sensitive manner. (3) Educational Opportunities. Again there is the opportunity to lead by example and encourage other entities to make their parking and other facilities more accessible.

(4) Feasibility. Parking striping will need to be maintained. The costs of painting will be negligible. Some signage will be required to mark accessible spaces, but these signs are generally inexpensive and cost about the same as restroom signs discussed above in Section 5.4.1(4).

(5) Appropriateness. The appropriateness of this recommendation is based upon being compliant with Panamanian law. In addition, ANCON could offer additional accessibility by following universal design guidelines.

5-34 Investigation of Alternatives

5.4.3 Preferred Alternative-Parking

In order to increase accessibility, it is recommended that the parking lot in front of ANCON’s office be repainted to comply with the hybrid design standards described in Section 3.5 herein, which were derived using physical dimensions from Panamanian law and universal design principles described in US Access Board (2003). Additionally, it is recommended that ANCON provide at least two van accessible spaces as close as possible to the entrance of their office or to the trial entrancee. This would follow with their vision of accommodating groups of disabled persons at any given time. Estimated costs for parking striping paint and signage are listed below (Table 5.5). Please note that in most cases, parking striping paint is sold by the case.

Recommended Min unit Max unit Paint and Signage Price Range Minimum Qty Price Price Accessibility Signage 2 $15.00 $45.00 $30.00-$90.00 $42.00 Black Striping Paint- $11.0018 1 (case of $11.00-$42.00 20 oz spray can (can) 12)19 $42.00 Yellow Striping Paint- $11.00 1 (case of $11.00-$42.00 20 oz spray can (can) 12) Pavement Striper 1 $79.00 $83.00 $79.00-$83.00 Totals $131.00-$257.00

Table 5.5: Estimated costs for parking recommendations.

18 Source for min unit price for paint supplies: See Allstate (2007). 19 Source for max unit price for paint supplies: See Utility Safeguard (2007).

5-35 Investigation of Alternatives

5.5 Water and Wastewater Infrastructure

In keeping with ANCON’s mission to conserve the natural resources of Panama, the alternatives researched for water and wastewater infrastructure utilize technologies that preserve water to the greatest extent possible. Although the community where the Cerro Ancon is located is already serviced by water and sewer facilities, there are no bathrooms located in the CIACA. The neighborhoods surrounding and on Cerro Ancon are middle to upper- class neighborhoods and there would be little difficulty in installing standard bathroom facilities. However, while this area is relatively wealthy, as of the year 1997, 37 percent of Panama’s population, over one million people, lived below the poverty line. Of these, over half a million people lived in extreme poverty (World Bank, 2000, p.ix). ANAM reports that as of the year 2000, approximately 10 percent of the general population in Panama did not have access to proper sanitation services (World Bank, 2000). However, in rural areas, especially among indigenous populations such as the Ngobe-Bugle, that figure jumps to 70 percent (Kaiser, 2006).

Therefore, because this site is utilized as an environmental education center, ANCON is in a unique position to provide an educational demonstration project of alternative sanitation facilities, such as composting toilets, use of rainwater, or greywater technologies. Hurtado (2005, p.ix), for one, recognizes that “access to proper sanitation is a basic step towards sustainable development.” Within a sustainable development discourse, ANCON has the opportunity to pursue its conservation mission by demonstrating the potential of infrastructure options, that while not necessary in the urban setting of CIACA, have vast application in Panama’s interior. While certainly it would be possible to merely construct a standard bathroom facility at the site, the following alternatives are examples of more innovative, ecologically-friendly techniques.

5-36 Investigation of Alternatives

5.5.1 Restrooms

Although the restroom facilities could be located at different points along the trail, we have only one recommendation for its location—adjacent to the auditorium. First, the area is already cleared of much vegetation, and little additional vegetation would have to be cleared. Also, because the students and visitors who attend an educational program and eat lunch at the CIACA will be spending the most time here, this is the most logical to locate the restroom facilities. The area also provides space for queuing, while not obstructing trail access.

5.5.2 Composting Latrines

(1) Accessibility Benefits. While creating a composting toilet that complies with Universal Design principles adds another level of complexity to our recommendations, it is a feasible and worthwhile goal. To properly create the composting latrine so that it will not only function correctly—namely by destroying harmful pathogens found in fecal matter—but also to follow the design guidelines offered in this report, we suggest contracting an environmental engineer for design and construction. The most difficult obstacle to overcome in the construction of the latrine will be accommodating the necessity for the latrine to be raised, stairs are often used. However, a ramp with a slope that accommodates wheelchairs can be utilized instead of the stairs. There are several U.S. and U.K. based models of wheelchair- friendly composting toilets that can serve as examples for models designed for the specifically for use in Panama (http://www.envirolet.com, 2007).

5-37 Investigation of Alternatives

Figure 5.13: Diagram of one model of composting latrines Source: Hurtado, 2005

(2) Environmental Impacts. Composting latrines use much less water than standard flush toilets, and, while water is arguably not in short supply in Panama, globally adequate fresh water resources are diminishing and represent a major obstacle to not only environmental conservation but to economic development in many places.

(3) Educational Opportunities. Several Peace Corps projects operated in conjunction with Michigan Technological University have worked with indigenous communities in Panama to install composting latrines with successful results. However, they also found that proper educational outreach efforts are critical to ensure proper operation of the latrines. We suggest a composting toilet educational station, based on previous Peace Corps projects, be developed that includes interpretive signage with diagrams of how the composting toilets work, what the benefits are compared to standard flush toilets, and how the compost produced can be recycled as fertilizer. This educational signs can both ensure that the latrines

5-38 Investigation of Alternatives are operated correctly but more importantly will provide broader educational awareness on the importance of natural resource conservation.

Figure 5.14: Educational Posters. Examples of educational posters used to describe proper use of composting latrines. Source: Kaiser, 2006

(4) Feasibility. Composting latrines are characterized by low material costs and long life (Kaiser, 2006 p.2). However, Kaiser also cautions that latrines must be carefully maintained, especially in methods used to destroy harmful pathogens. Hurtado analyzed reports of compost latrines in less developed countries around the world, along with first-hand research of 97 latrines in Panama (2005). He found that when operated correctly, compost latrines are more readily accepted than other alternatives such as pit latrines, mainly because the fertilizer potential of human waste is captured, a desirable resource in rural areas. The maintenance of the toilets will require staff to

5-39 Investigation of Alternatives monitor, clean and repair on a regular basis. The compost produced can either be used onsite at the CIACA, or used in partnership with another environmental center. Both the process of maintenance and use of compost present further educational opportunities for ANCON to discuss the use and protection of natural resources.

(5) Appropriateness. In some respects, it is unusual to suggest a composting toilet be used in an urban setting. However, because of the nature of ANCON’s environmental mission, we believe that a composting toilet system can be designed in way that fits in well with the surrounding uses. Nevertheless, if ANCON senses that this technology will be rejected by its visitors, another option for monitoring sanitary services should be chosen.

5.5.3 Prefabricated Bathrooms

There are several companies in the U.S. that construct prefabricated bathrooms, such as the Public Restroom Company (Public Restroom Company, 2007). The major obstacle in reviewing this alternative was that there are no readily available Panamanian examples of prefabricated bathrooms. Part of the environmental benefits discussed below would be lost if the bathroom had to be transported over a long distance, due to the fuel costs associated with international transport.

(1) Accessibility Benefits. All U.S. examples of prefabricated bathrooms are ADA compliant.

(2) Environmental Impacts. There are several environmental benefits to using prefabricated bathrooms rather than building facilities on site. First, constructing in the controlled environment of a factory ensures that fewer construction materials will escape into natural areas. Also, when prefabricated buildings are built in a factory, leftover materials can be stored, and reused, rather than thrown away. As a result, there may be fewer

5-40 Investigation of Alternatives impacts to the vegetation of the site from construction from prefabricated bathrooms.

(3) Educational Opportunities. Prefabricated bathrooms wouldn’t have the same pedagogical opportunities as composting latrines. However, because there are some increased environmental benefits from building in a factory rather than onsite, there could be some interpretive signage on the benefits of prefabricated bathrooms as well.

(4) Feasibility. Several U.S. based prefabricated models include space for other uses, as shown below. The CIACA could also incorporate a small concession area, as shown below, to sell drinks or snacks, if they so desired.

Figure 5.15: Example of Prefabricated Bathroom showing ADA standards Source: http://publicrestroomcompany.com (5) Appropriateness. The major obstacle to this alternative is that it would have to be sized to fit the area. It should not be too large and overpower the native vegetation. Furthermore, the exterior should be designed so that it harmonizes reasonably well with the natural environment.

5-41 Investigation of Alternatives

5.5.4 Preferred Alternative-Restrooms

While this is not an exhaustive list of potential alternatives for installing restroom facilities in the CIACA, including other options ANCON can look into, such as incinerating toilets or standard flush toilets. However, based on the criteria for the above two alternatives, we recommend the composting latrine. This is mainly based on the educational opportunities this alternative provides.

5.5.5 Water Systems

There are several potential methods for constructing water facilities at the CIACA, including standard methods such as installing new pumps in the area to construct typical restrooms with water-flush toilets and sinks with treated water piped in and used water piped out to a sewer system. However, as discussed earlier, there are many ethical, ecological, and educational reasons why the use of standard water infrastructure may not necessarily be the most appropriate in this situation. Dixon, Butler and Fewkes (1999) note that “for a sustainable urban future, society must move towards the goal of efficient and appropriate water use” (p.25). They assert that the use of domestic greywater and rainwater “impart a degree of responsibility to the individual regarding their personal utilization of water” (Dixon, Butler, & Fewkes, 1999, p.25).

5.5.6 Rainwater Systems According to researchers at Colorado State University, “rainwater harvesting is the process of intercepting storm-water runoff and putting it to beneficial use” (Colorado State University, 2007). Heggen (2000) describes rainwater catchment systems (RWCS) as primordial, inexpensive, compatible with nature, and “a robust technology for sustainable development” (p.141). However, he acknowledges that in today’s world, more credibility is given to more sophisticated, or high-tech water infrastructure. This is detrimental to

5-42 Investigation of Alternatives efforts to sustainable development, as it overlooks a vital technology still “employed worldwide for potable and agricultural water supply” (p.141).

Figure 5.16: Rainwater Collection. Rainwater collection example in Kuanidup, Kuna Yala, Panama Source: Jones, R. (2007)

(1) Accessibility Benefits. There should be no accessibility impacts from rainwater collection systems.

(2) Environmental Impacts. The major benefit of utilizing rainwater collection is that fresh potable water that could be used for drinking purposes is not used to flush a toilet or to wash one’s hands. Rather, treated rainwater can be used as a more sustainable alternative.

(3) Educational Opportunities. Again, because 10 percent of Panama’s general population lacks access to proper sanitation services, educating the students who come to ANCON about alternative water technologies such as rainwater collection is one way to implement ANCON’s goal of conserving natural resources for future generations. Interpretive signage could be installed to highlight the environmental benefits of rainwater collection systems.

5-43 Investigation of Alternatives

(4) Feasibility. Due to the generally high amount of rainfall in the area, collecting rainwater in the Cerro Ancon should not be a collection problem. Unfortunately, rain in urban and industrialized areas may contain various impurities absorbed from the atmosphere, including arsenic and lead. However, use of technologies such as the “first-flush” which dispenses the initial water collected, can offset some of these concerns. Collection methods can be very simple. Perhaps the simpler the demonstration sample at Cerro Ancon, the more educational opportunities available to students who visit the CIACA.

(5) Appropriateness. Rainwater collection systems can fit in nicely with the surrounding environment and uses. Collection tubs or barrels can be designed with natural colors, to keep with the aesthetics of the surrounding vegetation.

5.5.6 Greywater Reuse System

The Sourcebook for Green and Sustainable Building defines grey water as the wastewater produced from baths and showers, clothes washers, and lavatories and compares it to blackwater which is generated by toilets, kitchen sinks, and dishwashers (2007). Based upon research conducted in Jordan, Odeh Al-Jayyousi (2004) concluded “greywater reuse needs to be seen in terms of its contribution to sustainable water development and resource conservation without compromising public health or environmental quality” (p.36).

(1) Accessibility Benefits. A greywater reuse system would not affect accessibility.

(2) Environmental Impacts. There are many environmental benefits to using a greywater reuse system. Redirecting lightly used water, rather than

5-44 Investigation of Alternatives diverting into a sewer system, allows for this water to return to the ecosystem in a more efficient manner.

(3) Educational Opportunities. The educational opportunities of greywater systems are similar to what has been previously described for the composting toilets and rainwater collection. Because water is a valuable natural resource, water conservation technologies are extremely important pedagogical tool.

(4) Feasibility. There are many methods for collecting rainwater and putting it to use, but one potential method is shown in the photographs below of a rainwater collection system in the island of Kuanidup in the Kuna Yala comarca of Panama. As shown in the photographs, large storage tanks are covered with cloths to prevent debris from falling into them. The tanks are situated on the roof to provide hydraulic pressure. There are different techniques that can be experimented with, and we recommend that ANCON build partnerships with the universities in Panama (especially with environmental engineering students) to develop, construct and monitor rainwater collection techniques. Disinfection is not necessary if greywater is used responsibly (Renewable Energy, 2007). Therefore, if water used in a sink in the bathroom facilities at the CIACA is directly diverted to a demonstration garden or collection system for use in a garden, the issue of disinfection is not a problem.

(5) Appropriateness. If designed well, greywater reuse systems can be aesthetically pleasing. See, for example, the images below, in which greywater is diverted directly into small flower gardens.

5-45 Investigation of Alternatives

5.5.7 Extension of Municipal Water

Panama is blessed with an excellent public water system. This source of potable water is readily available and is maintained by the local water authority, IDAAN (Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados Nacionales).

(1) Accessibility Benefits. There should be no accessibility impacts from the provision of municipal water.

(2) Environmental Impacts. The main impact of the extension of municipal water would be the disruption of the local environment during the installation process.

(3) Educational Opportunities. Since waterborne disease is one of the major causes of childhood mortality in developing areas, school groups could be instructed about the importance of health and drinking water safety. Interpretive signage could be installed to highlight the health benefits of rainwater collection systems.

(4) Feasibility. Maintenance of the water system is not a concern because that function is performed regularly by the water provider. The water is also disinfected and treated for contaminants.

(5) Appropriateness. The pipes for municipal water should be completely imperceptible since they would be buried.

5.5.8 Preferred Alternative-Water Systems

We recommend piping in municipal water to the CIACA site. Although greywater reuse and rainwater collection provide ample educational opportunities and are good sustainable options for water systems, ANCON should utilized the municipal water system primarily for health considerations. Additionally, the municipal water system does not require much, if any, maintenance by the end user. As with our other

5-46 Investigation of Alternatives recommendations, we suggest interpretative signage to provide students with further informative resources. Estimated costs for the water/wastewater systems are listed below in Table 5.6.

Water Component Unit Cost Handicapped Model Solar $1,000.0020 Composting Toilet Prefabricated bathrooms $60,000.0021 Grey and Rainwater Collection Systems $150.00-$200.0022 Components Extension of municipal water $8.00 linear foot23

Table 5.6 Estimated Costs for Water/Wastewater Systems

5.6 Recommendations

We have presented several viable alternatives for the development and improvement of ANCON’s CIACA facility. Our final selections were chosen because they provided the best and most appropriate alternative for the site. The following list shows the final preferred alternative for each system: the trail, interpretive infrastructure, assembly infrastructure, parking, and water and wastewater infrastructure.

• We recommend the use of permeable concrete for the trail surface (Section 5.1.4). • We recommend the combined use of minimum signage that conforms to universal design signage standards and Push Button Assistive Listening Device (Section 5.2.4).

20 Warnberg (1999). 21 Public Restroom Company (2007). 22 Environmentally Friendly Lawn and Gardening Supplies (2007). 23 R. Parsons of Ajax Construction (personal communication, 31 August 2007). Please note that this cost does not include local tapping fees.

5-47 Investigation of Alternatives

• We recommend that ANCON replace the picnic tables with more accessible tables (Section 5.3.5). It is recommended that ANCON install textured flooring for the blind. With regard to educational program accessibility, ANCON should have either duplicate educational materials for each floor or do its primary educational outreach on the first floor. Finally, ANCON should install signs in accordance with Section 3.3.1 • We recommended that ANCON provide at least two van accessible parking spaces that comply with the hybrid design standards described in Section 3.5. • For restroom facilities, we recommend the composting latrine with two toilets (Section 5.5.4). To address water systems, ANCON should use the existing municipal water supply and extend it to the CIACA site (Section 5.5.9).

5-48 Environmental Impact Assessment

6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

In keeping with ANCON’s overall mission to conserve the biodiversity and natural resources of Panama, the organization seeks to ensure that any new development and capital improvements for the CIACA be environmentally friendly and ecologically sound. Any redevelopment project located in an urban area may result in negative ecological impacts if environmental resources are present. As the premier environmental non-governmental organization in Panama, ANCON wants to ensure the least possible effect on environmental resources both locally and globally and to mitigate any and all impacts of this development that may, nevertheless, occur. Meeting this goal provides an opportunity to create a project at the CIACA that is a model for environmentally-friendly development in Panama. ANCON also has other goals and future plans related to the site, including leveraging the resources at CIACA to forge stronger alliances with national parks and museums to create an educational field trip network. While these goals are outside the scope of the recommendations in this report, we will refer to them when they relate to the potential impacts to the site.

The following environmental impact assessment (EIA) follows Panamanian standards that were established in recent laws and decrees. The earliest law that pertains to the following assessment is Law 41 of July 1, 1998. Law 41 is one of the most important Panamanian environmental laws. The law established new requirements in terms of environmental impact assessments. As of July 1998, the Panamanian government began requiring EIA’s for all new developments and construction activities that involved potential risk to the environment. The law also created the National Authority of the Environment (ANAM) to oversee this work. Besides regulating these assessments, ANAM is in charge of a variety of environmental concerns (Pardini, 2007). In March 2000, Executive Decree 59

6-1 Environmental Impact Assessment set up the requirements and elaborates on the specific processes for these assessments. The assessment presented here is organized according to the general outline proscribed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was used as a guide. The EPA offers helpful guidelines and other informative resources electronically through their website.

This study opens with a section on the methods used to complete the assessment. The methodology section describes the processes involved in the phases of the assessment: establishing the baseline inventory, predicting probable impacts, and developing techniques for mitigating those impacts. Following that is the summary of the assessment. The summary looks at the three environments of the CIACA: the biological environment, the physical environment, and the human environment. Impact topics are discussed under these headings as appropriate.

6.1 Methodology

6.1.1 Methodology of Determining Baseline Conditions

Environmental decision-making requires a thorough analysis of the existing conditions of a site when the site is planned to be exposed to one or more stressors (EPA, 1998). Establishing the baseline inventory is a necessary step in the overall assessment process. Documentation of the baseline inventory allows for the comparison of the pre-activity conditions of a site with the predicted post-activity conditions in order to develop measures that should lessen or negate the predicted impacts. Scientific data and information must be systematically selected and organized in order to appropriately formulate an area’s baseline inventory (EPA, 1998). The inputs used for this study came from field research of the CIACA and from documents obtained from ANCON.

6-2 Environmental Impact Assessment

Field Research The project team visited the CIACA on several occasions while in Panama. The on-site research and observation proved to be extremely valuable towards better understanding the problem faced by the client. Field research techniques were also important elements used to establish the baseline inventory found at the site. The next few sections detail the different field research techniques utilized by the project team: “Interviews with Senior ANCON Personnel,” “Site Evaluation,” and “Photographic Survey Techniques.”

(1) Interviews with Senior ANCON Personnel Interviews with ANCON personnel were helpful in obtaining information that is either undocumented or difficult to access. The staff at ANCON possesses expert knowledge and local familiarity of the CIACA. They provided the project team with up-to-date information concerning the conditions found at the CIACA. This increased accuracy and eliminated flaws that may have resulted from using information from older documents; even if the most current document is only a few years old, it may not reflect more-recent changes.

(2) Site Evaluation The site walk-through method for evaluating the site was useful in further obtaining detailed and specific site conditions. Through the guided site walk- through we were able to observe site-specific factors that are important in the determination of the baseline conditions. These site-specific factors are critical in an initial inventory because baseline conditions must be documented in as precise a way as possible. The walk-through provided an optimal opportunity to gather first-hand inventories of the site trails and infrastructure. This information is found in other documents, but the first- hand inventory of these site elements broadened the project team’s overall understanding of the site.

6-3 Environmental Impact Assessment

(3) Photographic Survey Techniques Site photographs provided a visual inventory of site biodiversity, infrastructure, and trail conditions. Photographs of key species that were not obtained during site evaluations were later gathered through online research and were added to the inventory. Some of these photographs are provided in this document to showcase the site’s extraordinary biodiversity.

Client Documents ANCON offered access to materials applicable to the project. Materials that were used to determine the baseline conditions of the site included two previous reports (an environmental impact statement of the CIACA and an ecological evaluation of the Cerro Ancón), architectural drawings, maps, and brochures.

(1) Previous Environmental Impact Studies An environmental impact study has already been completed for the original CIACA project. This study includes an inventory of flora and fauna that are known to inhabit the site as well as plans and designs related to the environmental interactive center. It also documented site infrastructure and trail conditions. ANCON also provided a similar study for a project proposed for the top of the Cerro Ancón. This ecological evaluation assessed the impacts for the planned “Mirador,” or lookout. It also contains a conservation plan for the Mirador Cerro Ancón, including the flora and fauna that was observed in a survey of the entire forest (an area that includes the CIACA site).

(2) Architectural Drawings, Maps, and Brochures Maps, brochures, and architectural drawings were used in constructing the baseline inventory, especially the inventory of trail infrastructure. Architectural drawings and maps depicted information important to the

6-4 Environmental Impact Assessment baseline in that it showed the current level of disturbance caused by infrastructure. Brochures discussed emblematic species that inhabit the site, which is an important aspect of the inventory.

6.1.2 Methodology of Determining Probable Impacts

The second phase of an environmental assessment outlines the impacts that can be expected as a result of the introduction and distribution of a stressor into an ecosystem (EPA, 1998). There are obvious difficulties in trying to predict the impacts of an event that has yet to take place. The EPA suggests an examination of the sources of future environmental stressors along with the likely exposure distribution. Further research of typical stressor-response relationships is also very useful. The results of previous studies give practical evidence to help in the determination of probable impacts.

Selecting appropriate previous studies to use as references is an important part of the overall process. In Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (1998), the EPA gives a framework for determining the utility of other studies relative to a planned study. A previous impacts study should only be used if it shares particular similarities with the planned study. Useful information may be found in studies addressing similarities in terms of problem, baseline conditions, stressor sources, distribution of stressors in the ecosystem, geographic area, and other relevant similarities (EPA, 1998). Several environmental studies meeting one or more of these conditions were obtained and used to predict probable impacts to the CIACA.

Studies referenced for the environmental aspect of the assessment included studies addressing a variety of issues. These issues include trail installation, trail rehabilitation, trail realignment, and trail extension. Other studies examined interpretive trails, trails that incorporate historic military sites, and trail modifications that improve accessibility.

6-5 Environmental Impact Assessment

Studies referenced for the historical and cultural aspect of the assessment included studies addressing the reuse of buildings, the interpretive opportunities of historic military sites, and historic preservation planning.

After gathering information from appropriate articles or reports, it is possible to make predictions of the probable impacts that a specific stressor would have on a specific ecosystem (EPA, 1998). Probable impacts may be general or specific. General impacts are impacts that are experienced by a large number of receptors, including receptors outside the area of concern (i.e. global warming). Impacts that are more site-specific include impacts that temporarily or permanently alter certain the character of the environment (i.e. the removal of a tree). Both types of impacts are included in this study.

Chapter Five discusses many possible alternatives of accomplishing improvements of CIACA accessibility and educational opportunities. This environmental assessment does not directly assess each possible alternative but approaches the problem in terms of an action versus no-action comparison. This comparison assumes that any trail improvements necessarily disturb the environment in some way.

6.1.3 Methodology of Determining Appropriate Mitigation Techniques

The final phase of an environmental assessment is an identification of measures that will mitigate or lessen the degree of resulting impacts (Pecos N.H.P, 2007). Mitigation measures are “specific actions that when implemented reduce impacts, protect park resources, and protect visitors” (Denali National Park (NP), 2006, p. 16). The majority of the mitigation strategies recommended result from a review of mitigation techniques documented in previous similar environmental studies. The resources already mentioned in the two previous methodology sections were also used for this phase of the assessment. The use of previous studies is especially useful in this case; CIACA is a case where “the environmental stressors have not yet

6-6 Environmental Impact Assessment been released” (EPA, 1998, p. 56). Mitigation measures may be established before any negative impacts actually occur.

The level of ecological adversity to a stressor can be determined through ranking techniques that use available information to rank impacts into ordinal measurements. The impacts in this study are divided into categories of “High,” “Moderate,” “Low,” and “None.” The criteria recommended by the EPA for assigning these variables to specific impacts are as follows:

(1) Nature and intensity of effects (2) Spatial and temporal scale (3) Potential for recovery (EPA, 1998, p. 116)

The definitions for these variables as used in this study are derived from the U.S. Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Potential Impact Categories (1) High - impacts that are substantial in severity and therefore should receive the greatest attention in decision-making

(2) Moderate - impacts which cause a degree of change that is easy to detect but do not meet the criteria for high impacts

(3) Low - impacts which cannot be easily detected and cause little change in the existing environment

(4) None - no increased impact would occur to this element under the identified alternative

Source: The Environmental Operations Group (EOG) Resources and The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

6-7 Environmental Impact Assessment

6.2 Assessment Summary

6.2.1 Biological Environment

Flora (1) Flora: Baseline Inventory. Previous studies classifying the flora on the Cerro Ancón have classified it as follows (RCE Consulting, 2001). (a) Arboreal Species. The areas that were previously deforested are now dominated by arboreal species that are characteristic of a young forest. These species include Enterolobium cyclocarpum, Ficus insipida, Cedrela odorata, Pseudobombax septenatum, and Bursera simaruba. The area where the CIACA is located is in this previously-deforested area; and, as such, the CIACA has vegetation characteristic of a young forest. There is also a large number of native species in the area, including Castilla elastica, along with more ornamental trees such as Roystonea regia and Ptychosperma macarthurii. See Table 6.1 for an in-depth list of tree species common to Cerro Ancón.

Latin Name Spanish Common Name English Common Name Enterolobium cyclocarpum Corotu Monkeysoap Ficus Insipida Higueron Fig Tree Cedrela Odorata Cedro Tropical Cedar Pseudobombax Barrigon Barrigon septenatum (means pot-bellied) Bursera Simaruba Indio Desnudo Gumbo Limbo Castilla Elastica Caucho Rubber Tree Roystonea Regia Palma real cubana Royal Cuban Palm Ptychosperma macarthurii Palma Macarthur Macarthur Palm Anacardium Excelsum Espave Espave Tabebuia Guayacan Guayacan Guayacan Bambusa Vulgaris Canaza N/A Spondias Mombin Jobo N/A Table 6.1: Common Tree Species in the Cerro Ancón Source: Adapted from RCE Consulting 2001

6-8 Environmental Impact Assessment

(b) Other Vegetative Species. Bushes and shrubs on the Cerro Ancón include Isertia hankeana (Huesito), Pitehecellobium refuescens (Corallio) and Picramnia coralodendren. Common vines include Callichlamys latifolia, Aristolochia chapmaniana, Coccoloba parimensis, Vanilla planifolia and Vanilla pompona. The most common epiphytes are in the orchid family. The most common ferns are in the climbing fern family Dicranopteris, and are found mostly in the open areas and areas with poor soils.

(2) Flora: Probable Impacts. The protection of natural ecosystems must consider ecosystem qualities such as natural abundance, diversity, and ecological integrity (Pecos National Historic Park (NHP), 2007). Activities necessary to improve the CIACA would produce impacts on these qualities. These impacts need to be addressed in order to maximize ecosystem protection. This section discusses the probable impacts that capital improvements would have on vegetation.

The removal of vegetation is a common practice that is documented in studies with problems similar to CIACA. The protection of historical resources, for example, would call for the removal of vegetative cover attached to or otherwise found within the structure (Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS), 1999). All vegetative cover growing on the pavilion would also be addressed. Most importantly, all vegetation growth found along the actual tread of the trail would require removal. Construction can also lead to indirect impacts such as water-related or wind-related soil erosion, which can degrade seed banks of native plant species (Pecos NHP, 2007). The impact on the vegetation of the site is an increased probability of the invasion of non-native plant species (Pecos NHP, 2007). The removal of the vegetation discussed here results in short-term, low or negligible impacts that can be mitigated for. One long-term impact, however, is caused by the permanent resurfacing and long-term use of the trail (Pecos NHP, 2007). Besides the short-term impacts from construction activities, increased use would prohibit

6-9 Environmental Impact Assessment the recovery of previous species that used the trail as part of its habitat (Pecos NHP, 2007).

Similar environmental impact studies assessing interpretive trail design, installation, rehabilitation, modification explain that the usual impacts to vegetation are short-term because most adverse impacts occur during the construction phase (Pecos NHP, 2007; Bryce Canyon National Park (NP), 2006; Colorado Natural Monument (NM), 2005). As can be expected, trail improvement activities would require high levels of human, vehicular, and mechanical traffic at the site. Work areas would be needed throughout the site, along with areas for equipment and material storage and areas for project staging (Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (NRA), 2006, Salinas Pueblo Missions NM, 2006). This would result in the short-term disturbance of vegetation in portions of the CIACA, such as disturbance along the trail shoulders (Delaware Water Gap NRA, 2006). The proposed improvements would have negligible long-term impacts on the displacement or habitat fragmentation of area vegetation (Colorado NM, 2005). This is because construction would take place in areas that have already been, and are still currently, exposed to human activity (Colorado NM, 2005; RCE Consulting, 2001). Besides the short-term, minor impacts caused during and after construction, the only adverse long-term impacts would be to the plants that currently use the actual trail path. Also, it should be noted that the likelihood of post-construction recovery is high and there exist established methods for mitigation.

After these considerations, the impacts caused to the vegetation of the site should be classified as “low”; or in other words, a low-intensity impact results from “an action that could result in a change to a population or individuals of a species or a resource…the change would be small and localized and of little consequence” (Pecos NHP, 2007, p.28).

6-10 Environmental Impact Assessment

(3) Flora: Mitigation Measures. Through on-site field observations and site baseline inventory analysis, it was concluded that no trees should need to be affected in order to complete the CIACA project. In the event that the removal of one or more trees is later determined to be necessary, four trees of an appropriate species should be planted in strategic locations for every one tree removed (Kamlarz, 2004).

Several mitigation options are available. If native vegetation must be moved, the plant should be saved for later use in re-vegetation. During re- vegetation, efforts should be made to plant the species in areas that were disturbed by construction activities, if appropriate (Bryce Canyon NP, 2006). Another option is to follow the example used in the Berkeley study and plant four times the amount of removed native vegetation. Finally, ANCON should develop a strategy to monitor the areas that were disturbed during construction and guard against exotic vegetation (Pecos NHP, 2007).

Fauna (1) Fauna: Baseline Inventory. According to Dames & Moore (1999), the Cerro Ancón is home to 68 species of terrestrial vertebrates, which include 39 species of birds (57.3% of all species), 15 species of mammals (22.2%), nine species of reptiles (13.2%), and five species of amphibians (7.35%). For a listing of these animals, please refer to Table 6.2. This wealth of species is concentrated in the hillsides of the Cerro Ancón (45 species) and in the highest region of Ancón where there are 43 species, of which 10 are mammals, 24 are birds, three are reptiles and five are amphibians.

The species most easily observed within the area are certain birds, such as pigeon roussets, toucans, squirrel cuckoos and hanger birds, such as clay- colored robins, crimson-backed tanagers, blue-grey tanagers, tropical kingbirds, flycatchers, streaked flycatchers and chestnut-headed oropendolas; mammals, like the white-tailed deer, the three-toed sloth, the Titi monkey, the ñeque; reptiles, like the iguana; and amphibians like the

6-11 Environmental Impact Assessment green and black poison dart frog. Of these species, the pigeon rousset, the white-tailed deer, the Titi monkey and the ñeque are the only species in danger of extinction. For images of the above-mentioned birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, see Figures 6.1 to 6.16.

Species Scientific Name Spanish Name English Name Columba Bird Torcaza paloma Pigeon rousset cayenensis Rhamphastos Bird Tucán Toucan sulfuratus Bird Piaya cayana Cuco ardilla Squirrel cuckoo Bird Turdus grayii Pájaro de percha Clay-colored robin Ramphocelus Crimson-backed Bird Pájaro de percha dimidiatus tanager Bird Thraupis episcopus Pájaro de percha Blue-grey tanager Tyrannus Bird Pájaro de percha Tropical kingbird melancholicus Bird Myiozetetes similis Pájaro de percha Flycatcher Myiodynastes Bird Pájaro de percha Streaked flycatcher maculatus Chestnut-headed Bird Psarocolius waglerii Pájaro de percha oropendola Odocoileus Mammal Venado cola Blanca White-tailed deer virginianus Bradypus Perezoso de tres Mammal Three-toed sloth variegates dedos Mammal Saguynus geoffroyi Mono tití Titi monkey Dasyprocta Mammal Ñeque Not found punctata Reptile Ameiva ameiva Borriguero común Iguana Dendrobates Ranita verde y Green and black Amphibian auratus negra poison dart frog Table 6.2: Listing of fauna species in the Cerro Ancón Source: Adapted from RCE Consulting 2001

6-12 Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 6.1: Pigeon rousset Figure 6.2: Toucan Source: Fenerole, 2007. Source: Dinosoria, n.d.

Figure 6.3: Clay-colored robin Source: Vichitex, 2006.

Figure 6.4: Squirrel cuckoo Source: Danzenbaker, 2005.

Figure 6.5: Crimson-backed tanger Source: Wechsler, 2006.

6-13 Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 6.6: Blue-gray tanger Source: Gerra and Sommazzi, n.d.

Figure 6.7: Tropical kingbird Source: Danzenbaker, 2005.

Figure 6.8: Chestnut-headed oropendola Source: Wechsler, 2006.

Figure 6.10: Streaked flycatcher Source: Fenerole, J.M., 2007.

Figure 6.9: Flycatcher Source: Garrigues, 2005.

6-14 Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 6.11: White-tailed deer Figure 6.12: Three-toed sloth Source Gabriel Arango Restrepo, n.d. Source: Laube, 2003.

Figure 6.14: Neque Source: ANAM, 2006.

Figure 6.13: Titi monkey Source: ANAM, 2006.

6-15 Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 6.15: Iguana Source Voicenet, n.d. Figure 6.16: Green and black poison dart frog Source: Wikipedia, 2006.

(a) Significance of the Fauna. More than half of the wild fauna present at the Cerro Ancón are birds. Birds represent the largest kingdom of animals found at Ancón. There is an abundance of Panamanian birdlife in this region and the country as a whole has approximately 929 species of birds. The rich biodiversity of the region is an attraction for recreational bird watchers and other environmental enthusiasts.

The CIACA is also home to important emblematic species that are often associated with tropical forests in this particular region of the world. For example, key species such as the toucan, the poison dart frog, the three- toed sloth, etc., often serve as icons in Panamanian art, jewelry, and souvenirs. The presence of these emblematic species at the CIACA gives the site a great potential for attracting environmental enthusiasts, not only from around Panama, but throughout the world as well.

6-16 Environmental Impact Assessment

(2) Fauna: Probable Impacts. The Management Policies of the National Park Service stress the need to maintain the integrity of ecosystems (Pecos NHP, 2007). Impacts of new CIACA renovations are experienced by animals in the same ways that they are experienced by plants. The two groups are interrelated through direct and indirect impacts. For example, if the vegetation of an area is cleared, the area fauna are indirectly impacted through loss of habitat (Pecos NHP, 2007). Furthermore, impacts to site fauna are closely associated with the flora impacts discussed above because both groups inhabit the same area, and both currently live in similar baseline conditions. The following section provides further explanation.

As indicated earlier in this report, two original environmental impact studies (one for the CIACA and one for the Mirador development planned for the top of the hill) were obtained from ANCON. These studies were helpful in the inventory of the area flora and fauna in effort to establish a baseline inventory of the entire site. Having separate studies was helpful in predicting probable impacts to site fauna because it allowed our team to make assumptions about the fauna baseline inventory. Since the flora and fauna baseline conditions were similar for both studies, we were able to assume that the natural conditions on Cerro Ancón constituted a single ecosystem. This was an important assumption because this meant that although the CIACA contained a rich level of biodiversity, its ecosystem was not unique relative to the ecosystem of the entire hill. So alterations made to the CIACA, an area covering a relatively small percentage of the entire hill, would not be of a highly significant level in terms of habitat destruction. Obviously the objective is to limit the impacts on the ecosystem, but our baseline conditions revealed that the long-term impacts to fauna would be minor because of the existence of similar habitats nearby. Also, the wildlife habitat found at CIACA would only be slightly changed: no habitat would be greatly impacted because the trail route and the pavilion already exist (Bryce Canyon NP, 2006). Other studies conclude that similar infrastructure improvements have “negligible” impacts on wildlife displacement and habitat

6-17 Environmental Impact Assessment fragmentation because construction would take place in areas that are currently exposed to continuous human activity (Colorado, NM, 2005). Finally, the environmental impact studies that were discussed above also made this conclusion.

The most notable impacts to fauna are the impacts on the animals that inhabit or use the specific area where improvements will be made. To use examples gathered from on-site visits, immediate impacts would be sustained by any of the leaf-clutter ant colonies that use the trail as a crossing or by birds that nest in the pavilion. Also, Increases in visitation rates and human activity may scare animals away from the site. All things considered, these types of impacts are minimal (Colorado, NM, 2005).

Besides that, construction activities will also lead to short-term, adverse impacts on area fauna. Animals may be affected by increases in construction waste, noise, excessive activity, and dust. These impacts, along with the long-term impacts discussed above, are easily mitigated for, as suggested in previous studies (TDD HKI&Is, 1999; Kamlarz, 2004).

(3) Fauna: Mitigation Measures. CIACA animal species will be adversely impacted during the construction phase of this project. Because of this, the construction should take part in two parts. Under this scenario, the half of the trail furthest from the trailhead is constructed first, and then the first half of the trail is constructed. This scheme allows impacted portions of the site adequate time to recover after construction. It also mitigates for any disturbances on site fauna by providing at least one construction-free habitat at all times (TDD HKI&Is, 1999).

Another measure that should be taken during construction activities is the use of “sturdy hoarding” or “work zones” (TDD HKI&Is, 1999, P.11-5; Pecos N.H.P., 2007, P.21). This method stresses the importance of locating and identifying areas that have already been disturbed. Then these areas should

6-18 Environmental Impact Assessment be demarcated with tape or rope so that the labor force can tell where appropriate work areas and/or storage areas are located (TDD HKI&Is, 1999). This measure helps ensure that the wildlife beyond these areas remain unaffected by construction activities (TDD HKI&Is, 1999). When construction is completed, any sturdy hoarding areas should be rigorously cleaned and returned to look like other parts of the trail left undisturbed (Pecos, NHP, 2007). This measure is applicable to the other impacts addressed in this report as well.

The fencing surrounding the site is in need of renovations and repairs. One problem that was identified during a site visit is that the locked gate is located much further behind the trailhead. This gate should be re-located so that the entire trail is protected by the fence. Fence repair and/or replacement should also be considered an option for impact mitigation. The holes currently found in several parts of the fencing enable hunters, drug abusers, homeless persons, and non-native animal species (i.e. domesticated dogs or cats that would disrupt the ecosystem) to obtain entry into the CIACA. These holes need to be repaired to better protect the site wildlife.

Guardrails, safety barriers, and lookout points are all viable options for keeping visitors on the designated trail, and out of the natural habitat. These provide for safe and educational enjoyment of the environmental, historical, and visual resources of the site (Bryce Canyon NP, 2006).

6-19 Environmental Impact Assessment

6.2.2 Physical Environment

Soil and Topography (1) Soil: Baseline Inventory. The major soil type found in the Cerro Ancón area is the Oxisol, Class 8. The Oxisol soil type is generally present in the rainforest ecosystems and the humid/warm climate typical of the Cerro Ancón. It has low fertility and is prone to erosion.

Generally, the topography of the Cerro Ancón is comprised of steep slopes that limit potential for development. Most of the hill is characterized by moderate or severe slopes (moderate slopes are slopes ranging from 10° to 29° and severe slopes are slopes ranging from 30° to 50°). Slopes greater than 50° are present on 47.52% of the hill’s total area. Isolated areas located at the top and along the eastern side have more gradual slopes (gradual slopes are slopes that are less than nine degrees). In contrast to the steep slopes found in most parts of the Cerro Ancón, the terrain at the CIACA is relatively level.

(2) Soil: Probable Impacts. Soil at CIACA is already altered through the history of human use of the area. The trail itself is exposed and partially- surfaced with soil. Exposed soil is currently affected by natural forces such as wind and rain. Soil resources will probably experience short-term impacts associated with construction activities and long-term impacts associated with the surfacing of the trail (Pecos NHP, 2007) In addition, ground shaking may occur during construction, besides that, no significant geological formations are currently present at the site so geological formations will not be impacted (RCE Consulting, 2001).

Construction activities required for trail improvements will result in short- term adverse impacts on the soil resources of the site. The necessary construction equipment (vehicles, machinery, labor force, etc.) and construction activities will disturb the soil in the immediate construction area. The result will be an increase in the probability of soil erosion caused by wind

6-20 Environmental Impact Assessment or rain (Delaware Water Gap NRA, 2006). These impacts may not necessarily be contained within the site and soil particles may contaminate other resources (Pecos NHP., 2007). Other impacts would be a loss of soil and topsoil, loss of soil moisture, and increased runoff; according to previous research these impacts should not be extensive (Delaware Water Gap NRA, 2006; AgCEL, 2006).

Most NPS environmental studies determine these impacts to be negligible due to the duration of the impacts as well as the availability of mitigation methods. However, probable impacts must be remedied because they are likely to be readily apparent and measurable in terms of the physical disturbance/removal, compaction, or unnatural erosion of the soil (Pecos NHP, 2007). The soils most likely to impacted are also less sensitive than other soils (such as soils that have not already been altered by human activity or soils present on steep slopes) (Pecos NHP, 2007). Also, soils beyond the trail itself will not be significantly impacted (Bryce Canyon NP, 2006).

There are probable positive and probable negative long-term impacts to the soil. Although resurfacing the trail will result in increased short-term erosion, long-term benefits are also present. Without resurfacing, the prospective increase in visitor use would likely cause continual erosion. Soils would be loosened by high visitor use and then would be susceptible to become carried away by wind or the rain. This would constitute a negative pollutant to overall air and water quality (Bryce Canyon NP, 2006). Therefore, installation of a firm and stable surface reduces long-term erosion (Bryce Canyon NP, 2006). There are surfacing methods that use soil as a stabilizer in surface materials. Using soil as a component of a new trail surface would constitute a long-term adverse impact because of the permanent loss of area soil. (Delaware Water Gap NRA, 2006). Overall, studies of similar topics have determined long-term, beneficial impacts to be of low or negligible intensity

6-21 Environmental Impact Assessment

(3) Soil: Mitigation Measures. It is especially important to protect CIACA’s soil resources from removal or erosion because adverse impacts to soil resources are considered moderate in intensity when near developed areas (Pecos NHP, 2007). Mitigation measures must address any losses of soil resulting from construction as well as soil that suffered alteration or compaction (Pecos NHP, 2007; Denali NP, 2006; Delaware Water Gap NRA, 2006). Allowing for a recovery period after construction will help alleviate any dust that resulted from wind erosion due to excessive activity. Areas of extensive soil loss are of critical concern because there is a high probability that there is also a loss to the seed banks of native plant species (Bryce Canyon NP, 2006; Pecos NHP, 2007). Without native vegetative cover, the soil of an affected area becomes vulnerable to runoff and erosion. These areas should be rehabilitated by planting important native plant species at particularly disturbed areas (Bryce Canyon NP, 2006; Pecos NHP, 2007). Impacts to any soils that need to be removed for trail resurfacing may be mitigated for by using the soil as a component in the new trail surface (Delaware Water Gap NRA, 2006). New technologies that use soil and other natural materials as components of accessible trail surfaces are being used in many areas.

Erosion and sediment controls should be implemented for the duration of construction (Delaware Water Gap NRA, 2006). The use of sediment/silt traps is common during construction activities that are likely to disturb extensive amounts of dirt and soil (TDD HKI&Is, 1999)

If a change in the topography of the site or parts of the site is required for construction, the altered areas must be re-contoured to pre-construction conditions after completion; the disturbed areas should look natural (Pecos NHP 2007; Denali NP, 2006). Doing this preserves the habitat of various plant and animal species that use or live in the soil (Colorado NM, 2005). This measure also addresses the negative visual impact of soil disturbance (Denali NP, 2006).

6-22 Environmental Impact Assessment

The long-term impact of resurfacing the trail would be beneficial. Without proposed renovations, soil is vulnerable to disturbance every time a visitor walks the trail. To keep all negative soil impacts to a minimum, guard rails or other types of barriers should be installed so that visitors are kept from disturbing soils beyond the trail (Bryce Canyon NP, 2006).

Rainwater Runoff (1) Rainwater Runoff: Baseline Inventory. The Cerro Ancón has an average yearly precipitation of 1,848 mm. Seasonal weather patterns in the area are similar to those experienced in this Part of the Pacific littoral zone and are divided into the dry period from December to April and the wet season from May to November. February is the driest month, with only 14 mm of precipitation, and the month with the most rain is October, with an average of 285 mm. Annual temperatures in the area range from 25.6°C to 27.8°C (78°F to 82°F).

(2) Rainwater Runoff: Probable Impacts. Resurfacing the trail with any impervious surface will increase site runoff (TDD HKI&Is, 1999). This issue is important for ANCON to address due to the frequent precipitation at the site. The increase in runoff would not substantially change the pattern of drainage in the area because the area does not contain surface water and there will be no alteration of streams or rivers (AgCEL, 2006; Pecos N.H.P., 2007). However, excessive construction activities and movements of construction equipment may disturb soils and accelerate erosion, introducing sediment into rainwater runoff. Still, there is not a likelihood that the proposed CIACA trail improvements would result in long-term degradation of local or non-local waters is low (RCE Consulting, 2001). Off-setting mitigation measures are also available.

(3) Rainwater Runoff: Mitigation Measures. The increase in impervious surface area at the site will result in increased rainwater runoff. As

6-23 Environmental Impact Assessment mentioned previously, any changes in topography must be re-contoured after completion so that water runoff follows natural patterns (Pecos NHP, 2007). Furthermore, construction should take place during the dry season. This mitigation measure decreases the probable soil erosion that could result from attempting construction during the wet season (the higher frequency of precipitation would lead to increases in soil sediment being carried away by the runoff) (Bryce Canyon NP, 2006; Delaware Water Gap NRA, 2006). This impact can also be offset through local use rainwater reuse technologies. Rainwater is able to be collected and recycled as sink water in bathroom facilities, for example. Increases in runoff can also be offset through the collection of rainwater runoff coming from higher elevations of the hill. The collected of water is a perfect source for the artificial ponds/watering troughs proposed by ANCON to help attract wildlife to the site (RCE Consulting, 2001). Even though the trail improvements will increase runoff, some runoff from areas above the site will be collected in the artificial ponds/troughs dispersed through the CIACA instead of continuing downhill; the goal is for the total runoff leaving the site to be equal to pre-construction conditions. While the idea is rational, further measurements and studies will need to be completed before precise figures are gathered and conclusions are able to be drawn about this proposed system.

Air Quality (1) Air Quality: Baseline Inventory. As mentioned previously, the CIACA is located within close proximity to areas with high levels of human activity. The site is very close to residential areas, an airport, roads, and highways. The air quality is not directly addressed in the CIACA EIS, but it can be assumed that the air at the CIACA has already been impacted in some way through a history of human activity near the site.

(2) Air Quality: Probable Impacts. The potential impacts to air quality include the generation of dust from motor vehicles during the different phases of construction (Dames and Moore, 1999). Construction activities usually lead

6-24 Environmental Impact Assessment to adverse impacts such as dust or objectionable odors (AgCEL, 2006). Listed below are some typical causes of dust: 1. Removal of vegetation and topsoil 2. Site leveling/filling 3. Haulage of materials (construction and natural) 4. Wind erosion on exposed soil 5. Heavy machinery and vehicular movements (TDD HKI&Is, 1999). Besides dust, machinery and vehicles also produce exhaust and emissions (Pecos NHP, 2007). These impacts are suffered by CIACA wildlife, ANCON personnel and community residents. These impacts are localized and not considered to be permanent, but mitigation measures should be taken if available (Pecos NHP, 2007)

(3) Air Quality: Mitigation Measures. Similar to the soil impacts, the proposed project would result in moderate, short-term negative air quality impacts and low, long-term positive air quality impacts. The short-term impacts (dust, wind erosion, objectionable odors) can be slightly mitigated for during actual construction activities; ANCON can also offset the short-term impacts by allowing the CIACA a post-construction recovery period. Pollutants such as exhaust and emissions should be kept to a minimum through encouraging the use of non-motorized tools such as wheelbarrows, yard carts, hand tools, etc. (Denali NP, 2006). ANCON should stress that the labor force use vehicles and machines only when necessary (Bryce Canyon NP, 2006).

Negative short-term impacts are not significant for the following reasons. First, the site’s location is in a residential neighborhood, which means that the area is already subject to the types of impacts that are probable to occur from CIACA improvements. The impacts on air quality are not as significant as they would be if the CIACA was in an area more isolated from other sources of air pollution (Pecos NHP, 2007). Secondly, visitors will not be subjected to degradations in air quality because ANCON would likely schedule groups either before or after construction (this assumption is based on the

6-25 Environmental Impact Assessment current low levels of attendance). Also, although the trail improvements will increase adverse impacts in the short-term, the new surface of the trail will control wind erosion and produce less dust (Pecos NHP, 2007).

Natural Waste (1) Natural Waste: Baseline Inventory. The field observations showed that the site is often covered with fallen plant material and debris such as logs, branches, and leaves. Personal interviews with ANCON personnel also revealed that this type of natural waste generates rapidly throughout the year, especially during the wet season.

(2) Natural Waste: Probable Impacts. The occurrence of fallen vegetation and debris on the trail presents a safety hazard and accessibility constraint for visitors. See Chapter Three for a detailed explanation of the problems of trail debris in relation to accessibility.

(3) Natural Waste: Mitigation Measures. Keeping the trail clean and accessible is going to require the frequent removal of fallen limbs and trail debris. ANCON plans to convert this waste into mulch which can then be used in gardens on the site (RCE Consulting, 2001). This mitigation measure is also able to be applied toward educating visitors about recycling concepts.

Visual Resources (1) Visual Resources: Baseline Inventory. A physical description of the park is given in Chapter One.

(2) Visual Resources: Probable Impacts. Making the trail accessible requires new infrastructure that may have adverse impacts on the scenic resources of the CIACA if not properly mitigated. Attempts should be made so that the feeling of “solitude and freedom from man-made facilities” is not reduced for the visitor (Denali NP, 2006).

6-26 Environmental Impact Assessment

(3) Visual Resources: Mitigation Measures. Environmental assessments consider the mitigation of negative visual impacts to be of great importance. The original scenic vistas or scenic resources offered by the site should be maintained if possible. If construction activities require altering the site’s visual resources, the following mitigation strategies may be employed.

Installing the infrastructure that is needed for accessibility and safety does not need to detract from the natural feel of the site. The signs that are needed for either educational information or for guidance for persons with disabilities should be painted with natural colors so that they do no stand out as man-made objects. The same should be done for any other pieces of equipment belonging to the trail (guardrails, tables, benches, etc. should all be as natural looking as possible). The material used to resurface the trail should be mixed so that it blends seamlessly into the areas outside the trail. For example, crusher fines help blend asphalt with natural products (such as soil, clay, or peach pit) to optimally create an accessible trail with a environmental appearance (Americantrails.org, 2007).

ANCON can also mitigate for previous aesthetical impacts. For instance, the fencing along the trail is rusted, broken, and in a state of disrepair. This fence needs to be repaired for many reasons but aesthetics should be taken into account during improvements. One style of fence that is often seen in parks or campgrounds is the green chain-link fence. This fence helps to blend in with the natural environment better than the gray fence.

To mitigate for probable future visual resource impacts, the trail should be inspected periodically for negative visual problems such as litter or graffiti.

6-27 Environmental Impact Assessment

6.2.3 Human Environment

Historical Significance (1) Historical Significance: Baseline Inventory. It is important to note that the area that now hosts CIACA and its environs have contained infrastructure to support human occupation since the French occupied the area during their attempt to construct an isthmian canal. The site, as noted previously was deforested during the United States’ occupation of the area to provide space for military training and operations. As a result, while it is a protected natural area, the site is not home to pristine primary forest. Much of that infrastructure is extant and consists mainly of portions of trail, bunker and auditorium described in the barriers to access section. Additionally, there are remnants of old infrastructure from the U.S. military that was abandoned or left to decay, such as stairs, fencing, stormwater drainage systems.

(2) Historical Significance: Probable Impacts. ANCON realizes the historic importance, interpretive value, and educational possibilities of the historic infrastructure. Any proposed action concerning the bunker or other infrastructure will obviously be proposed because of the probable beneficial impacts that will result. So here we present the impacts of no action as opposed to impacts resulting from proposed alternatives.

No action would result in the continued inaccessibility of the historic structure. Safety hazards would also remain on the site. This constitutes an adverse impact that would continue until necessary changes are made. Without substantial renovations and maintenance the bunker will continue to deteriorate and possibly become completely demolished. By not preventing the unauthorized use of the bunker, ANCON will continue to be open to the criticisms of the surrounding neighborhood group (the community could blame ANCON for alluring vagrant, homeless, or criminal persons to the area). There is also a considerable safety hazard associated with having no security presence. Natural conditions affecting historic properties include storms and precipitation, mechanical and chemical actions of vegetation

6-28 Environmental Impact Assessment

(growth of roots/vegetative cover), solar radiation, and wind erosion (FWS, 1999). The above conditions are all currently contributing to long-term impacts to the bunker at CIACA. These forces have been proven to cause the increased deterioration of historic buildings (FWS, 1999).

(3) Historical Significance: Mitigation Measures. (a) Mitigating Previous Impacts. The historical infrastructure of the site (the bunker and the staircases) has fallen into disrepair and would need to be habilitated so that it would be able to be reused. After the initial site observation, it became clear that the immediate concerns facing the bunker and the staircase include overgrown vegetation, absent or broken structural components, and general non-cleanliness. Overgrown vegetation must be removed from both the outside and inside surfaces of the bunker as well as from the staircase. The bunker is lacking adequate locks to secure it form the inside and the staircase handrails are rusted, broken, or missing altogether – these issues must also be addressed. The concrete surfaces of the structure have been vandalized with graffiti over time and are in need of thorough cleaning. The interior also needs to be cleaned out before any renovations are made.

(b) Mitigating Impacts from Construction. The bunker did not appear to be particularly delicate from our initial site visit; however a qualified expert would need to determine if any special precautions should be taken when dealing with the structure.

The bunker’s proximity to the trail presents ANCON with the unique opportunity to use this feature as a place to enhance visitor knowledge of the area’s historical significance. In order to maximize the interpretive value and educational opportunities of the structure, renovations that capture the original character of the bunker should be made if possible (FWS, 1999). Therefore, the paint used in renovations should be similar to the original paint used, if applicable. Also, any equipment that would

6-29 Environmental Impact Assessment

have originally been used in the bunker should be replicated with models or original artifacts when available. Further research would be required to document these conditions.

(c) Mitigating Future Impacts. The bunker should be given a distinctive name, making it clear that although it is a component of the CIACA, it is a unique and important historic building (Colorado NM, 2005). New infrastructure should also be installed during trail improvement activities. Safety barriers or guardrails should be placed inside the bunker so that the structure is protected from accidental damage or vandalism, but visitors are still able to enter the building and view potential exhibits.

The proposed CIACA improvements are expected to increase visitation rates; the probable impacts resulting from increased visitation also need to be addressed. Similar to environmental resources, historical resources are best preserved when the number of visitors is controlled. ANCON understands the importance in limits on attendance, so this impact should be negligible. Information signs showcasing the historical significance of the structure and of the site should also be displayed. Signs should not be attached to the building and no views of the building façade should be blocked (FWS, 1999).

ANCON should also consider undertaking a historic survey of the infrastructure of the CIACA. Should the survey reveal that the site infrastructure is indeed of historic significance, ANCON could benefit by leveraging the historic status of the site to apply for funding from new sources that would become available.

CIACA Operations and Maintenance (1) CIACA Operations and Maintenance: Baseline Inventory. ANCON currently manages the CIACA through a combination of front-office personnel and part-time volunteers. In this subsection, we discuss the educational

6-30 Environmental Impact Assessment programs that are currently in place at the CIACA along with the personnel that are required to provide these programs.

A typical visit by an elementary school group involves environmental topics such as conservation, ecology, biodiversity, and others. A trained guide is always present while the group walks the trail. There are specific, designated points along the trail where the guide can use elements of the trail in explaining the aforementioned topics. Often, the guide will point out animals as they become observable. ANCON sometimes partners with art museums. This partnership allows school groups to participate in areas where art and the environment intersect. For example, CIACA guides instruct students to gather leaves during the trail visit and the students attempt to paint on the leaves during their visit to the art museum.

From 2004-2005 ANCON trained approximately 25 students from the University of Panama and as volunteer nature guides and activities planners.

(2) CIACA Operations and Maintenance: Probable Impacts. ANCON desires to revise the educational programs offered at CIACA. The organization envisions an increasing demand from elementary groups. ANCON considers one 30 person group per week to be an ideal number of users (this is an increase from the current usage of about one group per month). Besides frequency, ANCON would like to see an increase in visitation other group types. Ideally the CIACA would become a destination for older students from high schools and universities as well as a destination for biologists and other scientists.

Implementation of proposed plans to improve the CIACA will necessitate changes in the operations and maintenance of the entire facility. Obviously staff workload will expand as a result of the proposed improvements. This is especially true during the construction phase but workload will also expand after construction (Pecos NHP, 2007). These impacts may be low to

6-31 Environmental Impact Assessment moderate, depending on mitigation measures implemented by ANCON (such as limits on attendance, etc.) (Pecos NHP, 2007).

Visitors normally experience the trail on a professionally-guided tour within a group. Guided tours of CIACA have thus far occurred infrequently due to low rates of visitation and limited staff. This infrequency of offered tours is one element of the accessibility problem currently facing ANCON. A probable impact from the proposed trail improvements is an increased public demand for visitation. ANCON will need to decide between the alternatives of increasing staff and offering self-guided access (Pecos NHP, 2007).

Trail and facility maintenance will also need to be increased in order to maintain the standards of accessibility as set forth earlier in this document. The natural climate and conditions of the area result in the scattering of vegetation debris as well as falling sticks and tree limbs. High precipitation levels also result in rapid vegetation growth at times, which may lead to trail obstructions. The removal of overgrown and fallen vegetation and trail debris will likely be needed on a more consistent level. Other possible new staffing needs that may arise include custodial staff to deal with increases in waste or the upkeep of site cleanliness, security staff to conduct periodic safety and security rounds, hospitality staff to welcome accommodate visitors, and interpretive and environmental education staff.

(3) CIACA Operations and Maintenance: Mitigation Measures. Obviously ANCON will need to develop a new curriculum if it is to succeed in meeting this goal. For example, this study discusses not only the importance of the biological environment, but also the importance of the physical and human components of the environment. The new programs provided by ANCON should use the historical infrastructure of the site in discussion topics such as the site’s environmental history or the affect nearby human populations have on the site’s ecosystems. ANCON may also find that developing a joint

6-32 Environmental Impact Assessment curriculum with other parks (such as the Metropolitan Park) will benefit all parties.

The proposed trail improvements would likely result in increased visitation. As mentioned earlier, ANCON may have to control attendance so as to protect the site’s biodiversity and historically-important structures (Delaware Water Gap NRA, 2006). The organization may also need to develop a more structured system to better schedule and coordinate group visitation dates with available volunteer labor. Controlling the usage by means of regulating attendance is one way to mitigate long-term impacts caused by visitors.

ANCON would need a large labor force for the construction phase of this project. Increases in visitation would also require an increased labor force. Possible new temporary labor force sources include sources such as volunteer assistance, school groups or university programs, hiking organizations, or church groups. These volunteers can be trained to be qualified guides in order to increase the frequency of guided tours. They can also help with trail maintenance, as necessary.

If volunteer assistance is not available for a specific task, funding sources may be derived by initiating an “Adopt-A-Trail” program through schools of the area or through increased tourism-related visitors (ANCON should consider inviting well-known informative travel book franchises to feature the trail in their “Panama” edition).

Visitor Use and Experience (1) Visitor Use and Experience: Baseline Inventory. The CIACA is visited by about one 30-person group a month.

(2) Visitor Use and Experience: Probable Impacts. The intensity of impacts on visitor use and experience depend on how the proposed CIACA improvements affect the visitor, including consideration of future generations

6-33 Environmental Impact Assessment

(Pecos NHP, 2007). Visitors will be impacted both positively and negatively as a result of CIACA improvements; the following two sections cover short- term as well as long-term impacts to visitor use and experience.

Visitors would experience adverse affects during construction activities. Were ANCON to decide to try to continue facility operations throughout the construction, CIACA visitors would experience the noise, dust, and degradation of visual resources associated with construction (Pecos NHP, 2007). If ANCON instead decided to close the facility for the construction period, the adverse impact to the visitor would be the lack of access to the site. Either option is considered adverse. However, given the trend of decreasing amounts to the already low levels of visitation, this impact may not be that significant.

ANCON has expressed the desire to undertake trail improvements at CIACA that will increase the safety, aesthetics, and accessibility of the site so that all members of society are able to enjoy the unique educational opportunities found at the site (Pecos NHP, 2007). In addition to those benefits, CIACA renovations would increase the site’s visual resources and recreational opportunities. These beneficial impacts may result in secondary impacts such as increased attraction and higher volumes of visitors, which could lead to the long-term adverse impact of overuse or overcrowding – this can be mitigated for (Delaware Water Gap NRA). Beside that, any improvements made to the site would likely result in long-term positive impacts to visitor use and experience. These beneficial improvements will be discussed later in the mitigation section.

(3) Visitor Use and Experience: Mitigation Measures. The impacts that construction activities have on visitors presents ANCON with a difficult problem; they must decide whether to continue operations or to close for the duration of the construction. Either option results in adverse impacts on the visitor use and experience, but temporary closure is the preferable

6-34 Environmental Impact Assessment alternative. This choice is based on an analysis of the site characteristics as well as the possible opportunities that temporary closure provides in terms of mitigating other impacts. The site is relatively small and it would be difficult to share many areas between visitors and construction activities. More than likely, attempting to do so would lead to highly adverse impacts in terms of the visitor experience and would also prolong the construction. Recent visitation patterns suggest that it would be possible to briefly close the site without inconveniencing potential groups – this requires efforts to communicate to interested groups so as to schedule visitations either before or after construction (Bryce Canyon NP, 2006). In addition it should be pointed out that the improvements that would be made to the CIACA (increases in accessibility, safety, aesthetics, educational opportunities, etc.) can themselves be considered mitigating measures that, at the very least, make up for the temporary closure; the long-term impact of trail improvements is positive.

Cultural Landscape (1) Cultural Landscape: Baseline Inventory. The NPS Resource Management Guidelines considers a place to be a cultural landscape if it reflects human adaptation and showcases the use of natural resources (Pecos NHP, 2007). The cultural landscape that is present at the CIACA is the area around the former rock quarry that is found near the end of the Caucho Trail.

(2) Cultural Landscape: Probable Impacts. The area is not directly impacted by trail renovations, but there is a potential for a positive impact if this area is used to provide visitors with further education of the site history.

(3) Cultural Landscape: Mitigation Measures. This landscape should not be disturbed during construction; rocks should not be harvested for materials. This landscape gives ANCON a potential positive impact provided the organization plan to use the area as one of the trail’s educational resources (Pecos NHP, 2007).

6-35 Environmental Impact Assessment

Solid Waste and Effluent (1) Solid Waste and Effluent: Baseline Inventory. There is some trash and discarded objects currently within the bunker. Other areas are clean and free of litter, but there were no visitor groups at the time of the site visits. There is also a lack of trash receptacles and restroom facilities.

(2) Solid Waste and Effluent: Probable Impacts. Construction activities and increases in visitation will result in an increase in waste. Possible short-term waste impacts resulting from construction include discarded or unused construction materials and trash produced by the workforce will be required to be removed (TDD HKI&Is, 1999). Waste resulting from long-term maintenance and visitation include any trash produced by visitors. The increase in solid Waste and effluent produced should be seen as a function of the increase in the number of CIACA users. The increase in solid waste and effluent can be predicted by calculating the amount of waste that is currently produced and multiplying that figure by the expected increase in attendance. An important impact that also must be mitigated for is the increase in solid waste and effluent that would occur as a result of installing restroom facilities.

(3) Solid Waste and Effluent: Mitigation Measures. Impacts from waste are probable to occur in high levels during construction and in long-term, low levels after the improvements are completed.

In terms of waste from construction activities, special precautions should be taken with any wastes that are hazards or composed of hazardous materials (AgCEL, 2006). Waste should be stored at the trailhead or other previously- disturbed area so as not to infringe upon sensitive ecological areas, and the waste should not remain overnight (Pecos NHP, 2007). Whether the construction contracted out or completed by volunteers, ANCON should designate a foreman that would serve as a liaison between the organization

6-36 Environmental Impact Assessment and the work crew, and would ensure that waste is being disposed of properly (Bryce Canyon NP, 2006).

A common tool used to mitigate waste impacts in similar areas as the CIACA is the animal-inaccessible trash receptacle (Kamlarz, 2004). These receptacles should be placed in various areas of the CIACA, including the parking lot, trail entrance, bunker area, pavilion area, and rest bench area.

Refer to Chapter Five for information on composting toilets, which is an alternative method for mitigating solid waste and effluent.

Noise (1) Noise: Baseline Inventory. Besides first-hand observations during visits to the site, no measurements were taken in regards to noise. However, it is important to again point out the long-term history of human activity in the area. Noise is likely emitted from the neighborhood around the CIACA. There are also roads that are very close by, making traffic noise a present existing condition. Other sources of noise include school groups during field trips and aircraft using the Albrook airport, which is also near the site.

(2) Noise: Probable Impacts. The EIS produced for the CIACA (RCE Consulting, 2001) identifies potential noise impacts. During any construction that would occur during renovations, noise generated from machinery would cause disturbances to the surrounding neighbors. Most environmental impact studies that assess the impacts of construction include “Noise” as a short- term impact (Pecos NHP, 2007; Salinas Pueblo Missions NM, 2006; Bryce Canyon NP, 2006). Noise is likely to be produced by heavy machinery, the work activities of the labor force, and the vehicles involved in the construction. Like other impacts from construction activities, noise would be Moderate to High in intensity level during construction, but post-construction noise impacts would be Low (permanent impacts from noise result from routine trail maintenance and CIACA visitors) (Pecos NHP, 2007; Bryce

6-37 Environmental Impact Assessment

Canyon NP, 2006). Furthermore, a small increase in noise level due to increased visitation does not qualify as a significant impact because the baseline inventory of the site showed that man-made noise (automobile noise, airplane noise) is already present in the area (Denali NP, 2006).

(3) Noise: Mitigation Measures. Mitigating the impacts of noise on the surrounding community was discussed earlier. Here is a summary of possible mitigation measures for noise impacts on a non-local level:

(a) Construction during daytime/working hours; (b) A limit on the maximum duration of construction activities; and (c) A recovery period following construction.

Noise impacts are likely to be felt at the local level (within the CIACA). These impacts are more important for ANCON to consider because they directly impact the site wildlife. Whereas noise impacts felt by the community can be lessened by specified construction times, the same cannot be said for noise impacts on the wildlife. The most adverse impacts would be temporary and occur only during construction activities (AgCEL, 2006). Some of the measures to control air quality (limits on equipment and vehicle use) are also measures that will lessen noise impacts. The post-construction recovery period would also be applicable to measures mitigating the local (site) noise impacts from construction.

The probable noise that would result from increased visitation is also mitigatable. Proper signage should inform visitors of the importance of remaining quiet while on the trail. Any necessary trail maintenance should also use the least-intrusive technology in terms of noise.

6-38 Environmental Impact Assessment

6.3 Recommendations

This section presents a summary of the recommendations found in Chapter 6. Obviously, the overall message of our report is that ANCON should renovate the CIACA so that it may be accessible to all users. However, these improvements should only be made with the condition that they do not jeopardize the environment or historic resources in a way that cannot be significantly mitigated, especially considering that ANCON is above all dedicated to protecting the environment. The purpose of the EIA is to assess the scope of any impacts from the capital improvements that are contained in this document and to suggest mitigation measures where impacts are forecasted. With that said, we made it our goal to attempt to find technologies and innovations that would not only mitigate the impacts of these capital improvements, but that would also produce beneficial impacts once implemented.

6-39 Capital Improvements Plan

7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN

This chapter summarizes the recommendations given at the end of the following chapters: Accessibility Audit, Preferred Alternatives and Environmental Impact Analysis. It provides the final recommendations that were chosen in relation to capital improvements.

7.1 Summary of Chapter Recommendations

In Chapter 4, we found that no system adhered completely to the design guidelines. Each system presented an impasse to accessibility.

• The trail surface was not consistently stable and was littered with vegetation. The trail should be repaired or replaced and should be maintained regularly. • The signage at the site and along the trail was not accessible to those with limited vision or those who are blind. The interpretive infrastructure should be improved to include as many audiences as possible. • The assembly infrastructure presents accessibility challenges. Ramps should be provided. Universally accessible tables should be used to increase accessibility and educational opportunity. Finally, interpretive infrastructure should be implemented in the auditorium. • Since no handicapped parking is provided, ANCON should take measure to do so. Appropriate signage should be incorporated. • There are no accessible bathrooms for the CIACA site. The only bathroom is inside the ANCON office, which is inaccessible. Provision should be to place restrooms at the CIACA site.

In Chapter 5, we presented the preferred alternatives for the development and improvement of ANCON’s CIACA facility. The following lists the final

7-1 Capital Improvements Plan preferred alternative for each system: the trail, interpretive infrastructure, assembly infrastructure, parking, and water and wastewater infrastructure.

• We recommend the use of permeable concrete for the trail surface (Section 5.1.4). • We recommend the combined use of minimum signage that conforms to universal design signage standards and Push Button Assistive Listening Device (Section 5.2.4). • We recommend that ANCON replace the picnic tables with more accessible tables (Section 5.3.5). It is recommended that ANCON install textured flooring for the blind. With regard to educational program accessibility, ANCON should have either duplicate educational materials for each floor or do its primary educational outreach on the first floor. Finally, ANCON should install signs in accordance with Section 3.3.1 • We recommended that ANCON provide at least two van accessible parking spaces that comply with the hybrid design standards described in Section 3.5. • For restroom facilities, we recommend the composting latrine with two toilets (Section 5.5.4). To address water systems, ANCON should use the existing municipal water supply and extend it to the CIACA site (Section 5.5.9).

Chapter 6 indicated that the improvements recommended in Chapter 5 should only be made with the condition that they do not jeopardize the environment or historic resources in a way that cannot be significantly mitigated, especially considering that ANCON is above all dedicated to protecting the environment. The following mitigation measures were recommended:

7-2 Capital Improvements Plan

• Flora (1) If native vegetation must be moved, save for later use in re-vegetation. (2) Plant four times the amount of removed native vegetation. (3) Develop a monitoring strategy for flora. (4) Guard against invasion of exotic species. (5) Execute sturdy hoarding and demarcate work zones.

• Fauna (1) Execute a two-phase construction plan for trail. (2) Demarcate sensitive areas.

• Soil (1) Allow for post-construction recovery period. (2) Plant native species in disturbed areas. (3) Put in place erosion and sediment controls during construction.

• Rainwater Runoff: (1) Construct improvements during the dry season. (2) Collect rainwater runoff.

• Visual Resources (1) Maintain original scenic vistas or scenic resources. (2) Repair fence. (3) Cover graffiti and regularly inspect for new vandalism.

• Historical Significance (1) Complete historic survey of site. (2) Remove overgrown vegetation. (3) Clean interior of bunker. (4) Repair and restore bunker. (5) Use safety barriers.

7-3 Capital Improvements Plan

• CIACA Operations and Maintenance (1) Control attendance. (2) Ensure that all tours are accompanied by a guide. (3) Perform regular maintenance.

• Visitor Use and Experience (1) Close trail temporarily during construction.

• Cultural Landscape (1) Do not disturb historic infrastructure during construction.

• Solid Waste and Effluent (1) Special precautions should be taken with any hazardous wastes (2) Waste should be stored at the trailhead or other previously- disturbed areas. (3) Use animal-inaccessible trash receptacles.

• Noise (1) Construct improvements during daytime/working hours. (2) Limit the maximum duration of construction activities. (3) Set a recovery period following construction. (4) Install proper signage.

7.2 Capital Improvements Plan

A Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is a long-range plan which identifies capital projects, such as public facilities and infrastructure, and provides estimated project costs, funding sources, and a prioritized planning schedule over a certain period of time. The period of time proposed for ANCON’s capital projects is for five years or less. The plan also offers options for financing the plan.

7-4 Capital Improvements Plan

A capital project is any major construction, acquisition, or renovation activity which improves the physical assets or significantly increases their use and longevity. The projects included in the CIP are for capital expenses only, yet operating costs (i.e. maintenance) are expected to increase as a result of these projects. For a list of the proposed capital improvement projects for ANCON, please see Table 7.1.

Priority has been given to those projects that assist ANCON in furthering and achieving the goals and objectives set forth in their new mission of providing more accessibility. Funding priorities should be given to those projects that address deficient levels of services (inaccessible, for instance) as identified in their mission as well as those intended at maintaining existing levels of service.

The evaluation criteria used when determining the funding priority for the proposed capital projects was based on increasing the trail’s accessibility. Other criterion used included environmental, aesthetic and social effects, project feasibility, health and safety, and linkages to other proposed projects.

7.3 Criteria for Establishing Priority

The recommendations of the four systems with capital projects within them (trail, interpretive infrastructure, assembly infrastructure, and water and wastewater) were evaluated against one another in order to choose which should have priority in funding. The ultimate criterion used for establishing funding priority was the project’s ability to maximize accessibility in the timeliest manner. The project team’s consensus was to give priority to the trail and the water and wastewater systems. The trail is the vital component for increasing accessibility, so it must be treated as the number one project. At the same time, restroom facilities and water are also essential for visitors to the trail. These two systems should be funded in order for construction to

7-5 Capital Improvements Plan begin on them first because it is agreed that only together will they help increase accessibility the fastest and the greatest.

The remaining systems (interpretative infrastructure and assembly infrastructure) contain important capital projects in regards to accessibility, but they act as helpful components to increasing the site’s accessibility. The two were chosen to have equal priority status for funding. They should be added quickly after the systems with first priority, but are not viewed as essential capital projects for the CIACA.

7-6 Capital Improvements Plan

Timetable for Systems Priority Source of Construction/ Capital Project to be Estimated Cost Ranking Funding Completion of Purchased Project 1 TRAIL Per square 1B, 1D, 1F Year One Permeable concrete meter: trail surface $65-$100

Total price: $50,000-$76,000

3 INTERPRETIVE $1,208.95 - 1E, 1G, 1H Year Two INFRASTRUCTURE $6,146.85 A combination of minimal signage and push button assistive listening devices

4 ASSEMBLY Minimal 1E, 1F, 1G, Year Two INFRASTRUCTURE accommodation: 1H Entrance ramp for $3,500-$4,500 the ANCON office Advanced accommodation: $11,000-$19,000 N/A VEHICLE STORAGE There are no capital improvement ------projects required in this system

2 WATER & $1,000.00 per 1B, 1D, 1F, Year One WASTEWATER composting toilet 1H Composting toilet and extension of Total for toilets: municipal water $2,000.00 service $8.00 per linear foot for water line extension

Total for 300 meter extension: $7874.00

Table 7.1 Capital Improvements Plan

7-7 Capital Improvements Plan

7.4 Sources for Funding

Listed below are possible sources for funding and technical assistance. The sources are separated into two groups: grants or technical assistance. A brief description and contact information is provided for each organization.

Sources for Grants

(1) Panamanian Government 1A. Office of the First Lady of Panama, Vivian Fernandez de Torrijos One of the projects of the Office of the First Lady of Panama is to promote the equalization of persons with disabilities. Her office has issued subsidies for persons with disabilities. Contact Information: Director of Administration: Lcda. Nishma de Goldoni Tel: (507) 527 - 9626 / 527 - 9623 Social and Community Projects: Sra. Sarina Sitton de Garcia Tel: (507) 527 -9614 /527-9603/527 - 9609 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.presidencia.gob.pa/primeradama/inicio.php

(2) National (Panama) 1B. Fundación NATURA-FIDECO Fundación NATURA is dedicated to the promotion of plans and programs for the protections and conservation of nature in Panama. Fundación NATURA issues grants through its FIDECO fund. The objective of this fund is to finance environmental initiatives. Contact Information: Executive Director Apartado Postal 0816-06822 Panama, Republic of Panama Tel: (507) 232-7615 / 232-7616 Fax: (507) 232-7613

7-8 Capital Improvements Plan

1B. Fundación NATURA-FIDECO (cont.) Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.naturapanama.org/

(3) International 1C. National Geographic Society-Conservation Trust The Conservation Trust supports conservation activities that correspond with the mission of the National Geographic Society. The trust focuses on projects that “contribute significantly to the preservation and sustainable use of the Earth's biological, cultural, and historical resources” (National Geographic 2007). Information regarding the application process is listed on the trust website. Grant amounts range from $15,000 to $20,000. Contact Information: Conservation Trust National Geographic Society 1145 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20090-8249 U.S.A. Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/conservation/grant_application.ht ml

1D. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)-Global Environment Facility Small Grants Program The UNDP administer the Small Grants Programs. The program provides financial and technical support directly to non-governmental organizations in order to support activities that conserve and restore the environment (Small Grants Program 2007).

7-9 Capital Improvements Plan

Contact Information: Small Grants Program-Panama Clayton UNDP House, Building 155, City of Knowledge, Panama, Panama 0816-01914 Tel: (507) 302-4748 Fax: (507) 301-4548 Email: [email protected] Website: http://sgp.undp.org/index.cfm?module=SGP&page=ContactCountry&C ountryID=PAN

1E. United Nations Voluntary Fund on Disability The United Nations provides small grants to organizations that promote awareness of disability issues. Requests should be submitted to the United Nations Secretariat or though the local UNDP office. Contact Information: Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Two United Nations Plaza, DC2-1372 New York, NY 10017 United States of America Fax: +1-212-963-0111 Email: [email protected] UNDP-Panama Apartado 6314, Zona 5 Panamá, República de Panamá Tel: (507) 302-4545 Fax: (507) 302-4546 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disunvf.htm

7-10 Capital Improvements Plan

1F. USAID/Central America Regional Programs & Peace Corps-Small Project Assistance “The Small Project Assistance Program (SPA) is a joint collaboration between USAID and Peace Corps aimed at building the capacity of local communities and organizations to reach shared goals. The program uses the human and technical resources of Peace Corps, along with the financial resources of USAID, to encourage sustainable, effective development projects in sectors ranging from health to agriculture to small enterprise development” (USAID 2007). Contact Information: USAID/Panama City Unit #0949 APO AA 34002 Tel: (507) 208-1000 Fax: (507) 208-1035 Contact Person: Adele Liskov, Acting Director of PVC-ASHA, Office of Private Voluntary Cooperation - American Schools & Hospitals Abroad (PVC- ASHA), Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, USAID Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross- cutting_programs/private_voluntary_cooperation/peacecorps.html

1G. Inter-American Development Bank-Multilateral Investment Fund The Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) was established in 1959 as a multilateral finance institution for the development of the Latin America. It provides loans and grants to help finance sustainable economic and social development projects (IADB 2007). Contact Information: Apartado Postal 7297 Panama 5, Panamá

7-11 Capital Improvements Plan

1G. Inter-American Development Bank-Multilateral Investment Fund (cont.) Tel: (507) 263-6944 Fax: (507) 263-6183 E-mail: COF/[email protected] Website: http://www.iadb.org/

1H. Rotary International-Humanitarian Grants Program “Rotary is a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders that provides humanitarian service, encourages high ethical standards in all vocations, and helps build goodwill and peace in the world” (Rotary International 2007). Rotary International administers the Humanitarian Grants Program. The organization is very active in Panama. Contact Information: Humanitarian Grants Program One Rotary Center 1560 Sherman Avenue Evanston, IL 60201-3698 USA Contact Person: Jenna Leving, Grant Coordinator for Panama Tel: (847) 866-3132 Fax: (847) 866-9759 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.rotary.org/foundation/grants/

Sources for Technical Assistance

(1) Panamanian Government SENADIS (National Secretary for the Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities The goal of SENADIS is to promote total inclusion of persons with disabilities into Panamanian society. The organization offers technical assistance for implementation of projects related to its goals.

7-12 Capital Improvements Plan

Contact Information: Avenida Williamson Place N° 0766 La Boca Corregimiento de Ancón Contact Person: Eneida Ferrer Email: [email protected] Tel: (507) 228-3031 / 314-1079 Fax: (507) 228-7071 Website: http://www.presidencia.gob.pa/senadis/Senadis/ATec.htm

(2) International 8-FAVACA-The Florida Association for Volunteer Action in the Caribbean and the Americas FAVACA is able to provide technical assistance in the areas of health and social issues, agriculture, education, environment, disaster mitigation, women’s leadership, capacity building. “The organization’s mission is the improvement of social and economic conditions in the Caribbean and Central America through volunteer service” (FAVACA 2007). Contact Information: Miami office: 7220 NW 36th Street, Suite 535 Miami, FL 33166 Tel: (305) 470-5070

8-FAVACA-The Florida Association for Volunteer Action in the Caribbean and the Americas (cont.) Tallahassee FAVACA office: 1310 N. Paul Russell Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tel: (850) 410-3100 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.favaca.org/

7-13 Capital Improvements Plan

United States Department of the Interior (DOI) The U.S. Department of the Interior offers an International Technical Assistance Program. This assistance includes: on-site technical assistance, study tours, mentoring, train-the-trainers workshops, procurement, and training in operations and maintenance of equipment (DOI 2007). DOI expertise includes subject areas specific to this project. Contact Information: U.S. Department of the Interior International Technical Assistance Program 1849 C Street, NW, MS-3530 Washington, DC 20240 Tel: +202-208-3048 Fax: +202-501-6381 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.doi.gov/intl/itap/

Mobility International USA “Mobility International USA is a cross-disability organization serving those with cognitive, hearing, learning, psychiatric, physical, systemic, vision and other disabilities” (Mobility International 2007). Mobility International provides free technical assistance services on issues of disability and international development projects.

Mobility International USA (cont.) Contact Information: 132 E. Broadway, Suite 343 Eugene, Oregon USA 97401 Tel: (541) 343-1284 (Tel/TTY) Fax: (541) 343-6812

7-14 Capital Improvements Plan

Colorado State University, Warner College of Natural Resources, Center for Protected Area Management and Training “Center affiliates have provided on-site and in-country assistance in 8 US states, 10 countries in Latin America and France, Italy, Kenya Sweden, South Africa, Thailand, and Vietnam. The work has included workshops, staff seminars, focus groups, project evaluations, preparation of interpretive materials, conflict resolution, preparation of teaching and training materials, infrastructure design, preparation of environmental education programs, and site-specific problem solving” (Colorado State University 2007). Contact Information: Center for Protect Area Management and Training Department of Natural Resources, Recreation and Tourism Colorado State University 233 Forestry Building Fort Collins, CO 80523-1480 USA Contact Person: Ryan Finchum Email: [email protected] Tel: (970) 491-6593 Fax: (970) 491-4982 Website: http://conservation.warnercnr.colostate.edu/collaboration.html

7-15 References

8 REFERENCES

AgCEL. (2006). Draft initial study/proposed negative declaration: The Omega electrical project. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=246.

Akman Incorporated. (2007). SR4. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from http://www.akman.com/index.php?p=sr4.

Al-Jayyousi, O. (2004). Greywater reuse: Knowledge management for sustainability. Desalination 167. Retrieved July 17, 2007 from http://www.desline.com/articoli/5662.pdf.

Alphabet Signs. (2007). ADA Signs, Men Women Accessible Restroom. Retrieved July 24, 2007 from http://www.alphabetsigns.com/ada- signs.html?NameId=8&CategoryId=4&SizeId=6&BackgrdId=5.

Amador. (2007). Retrieved July 17, 2007 from http://www.panamarealtor.com/locations/76/amador.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (1991). Pub. L. No. 101-336, §2, 104 Stat. 328.

ANAM. (2006). Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.anam.gob.pa/PATRIMONIO/especies%20en%20extincion %202.htm.

ANCON: National Association for the Conservation of Nature. (2007). Facts about ANCON. Panama City, Panama.

Arcia, J. (2007). Óscar Ceville a favor de suspender contrato. Published 5/1/2007. La Prensa. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2007/05/01/hoy/panor ama/967768.html.

Aslaksen, F., Bergh, S., Bringa, O.R., & Heggem, E.K. (1997). Universal design planning and design for all. Oslo, Norway: The Norwegian State Council on Disability. Retrieved July 12, 2007 from http://www.independentliving.org/docs1/nscd1997.html.

Athletic Specialties. (2007). Playsafe rubber for playgrounds, trails and landscaping. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://www.asandc.com/playsafe/.

8-1 References

Audirac, I. (2006). Accessing transit as universal design. Paper Presented to the American Public Transit Association (APTA) Annual Conference, San Jose, CA, October 8 – 11, 2006.

Bryce Canyon National Park. (2006). Mossy Cave trail rehabilitation and resource protection environmental assessment. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=34&projectId=151 22&documentID=15886.

The California Environmental Quality Act. (n.d.). CEQA Technical Advice Series: CEQA and historical resources. Retrieved July 15, 2007, from http://www.ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/more/tas/page3.html.

Casco Antiguo. (2007). El Casco Antiguo. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from http://www.elcascoantiguo.com/.

Center for Universal Design. (2005). NC QAP tech sheet. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State University College of Design. Retrieved on July 14, 2007 from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/pubs_p/docs/qap_tech_screen.pdf.

Center for Universal Design. (2006). Residential rehabilitation, remodeling and universal design. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State University College of Design. Retrieved on July 14, 2007 from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/pubs_p/docs/residential_remodelinl. pdf.

Cerro Ancon. (n.d.). Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.cerroancon.com.

Colorado National Monument. (2005). Connect Wildwood trailhead to the Corkscrew Trail environmental assessment. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkId=46&projectId=122 86&documentID=12691.

Colorado State University. (2007). Colorado State University, Warner College of Natural Resources, Center for Protected Area Management and Training. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://conservation.warnercnr.colostate.edu/collaboration.html.

Comrie, K.J. (2007). Retrieved July 17, 2007 from http://www.focuspublicationsint.com/New_Site/Visitor13- 13/places_visitor.html.

Dames & Moore. (1999). Ecological Evaluation for the Cerro Ancón Mirador. Panama City, Panama.

8-2 References

Danford, G.S. (2003). Universal design: People with vision, hearing, and mobility impairments evaluate a model building. Generations, 27(1), pp.91-94.

Danzenbaker, M., (2005). Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.avesphoto.com.

Decreto Ejecutivo No. 88, Gaceta Oficial 24682. (2002). Published 11/18/2002. Retrieved July 13, 2007 from http://www.presidencia.gob.pa/senadis/Senadis/marcolegal/marconaci onal.htm.

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. (2006). Joseph M. McDade recreational trail environmental assessment for trail realignment. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkId=220&projectId=12 454&documentID=17832.

Denali National Park and Preserve. (2006). Environmental assessment for construction of two new trails starting in the front country area of Denali National Park. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkId=9&projectId=1639 0&documentID=15966.

Dinosoria. (n.d.). [Online image]. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.dinosoria.com/toucan.htm.

Dixon, A., Butler, D. & Fewkes, A. (1999). Water saving potential of domestic water reuse systems using greywater and rainwater in combination. Water Science Technology, 39 (5). Retrieved July 13, 2007 from http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/03905/0025/039050025.pdf.

DOI. (2007). U.S. Department of the Interior International Technical Assistance Program. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.doi.gov/intl/itap/.

Dorsey, R. (2004). Interpretive trails made accessible. National Park Service Partnerships. Retrieved July 10, 2007 from http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/badlands.htm.

Duggar, K. (2007). Photos taken during site analysis.

Easter Seals. (2007). Easter Seals: Helping people with disabilities gain greater independence. Retrieved July 23, 2007 from http://www.easterseals.com/site/PageServer.

8-3 References

Emedco. (2007). Interior Signs, Braille Signs, Custom-Worded Braille Tactile Signs. Retrieved July 24, 2007 from http://www.emedco.com/dept3.asp?dept_id=5499.

EOG Resources. (2004). Environmental assessment: EOG Resources Wildcat Well APDs for North Mail Trail #5, North Mail Trail #6, and Cannonball Unit 1-18. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://www.co.blm.gov/canm/canmpress/documents/EOG-CO-800- 2004-062-EA.pdf.

Executive Decree 88. (2002). Por medio del cual se reglamenta la Ley Nª 42 de 27 de Agosto de 1999, por la cual se establece la equiparacion de oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad. Retrieved on July 12, 2007 from http://www.presidencia.gob.pa/senadis/Senadis/marcolegal/Decreto% 2088%20de%2012%20de%20noviembre%20de%202002.pdf. FAVACA. (2007). The Florida Association for Volunteer Action in the Caribbean and the Americas. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.favaca.org/.

Federal Register. (2005). ADA-ABA accessibility guidelines. Retrieved on July 14, 2007 from http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/final.htm.

Fenerole, J.M. (2007). Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.oiseaux.net.

Fish and Wildlife Service. (1999). Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge historic preservation plan. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://www.fws.gov/midway/past/MidwayHPP.pdf.

Fundacion Natura. (2007). La Fundacion NATURA. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.naturapanama.org/.

Gabriel Arango Restrepo. (n.d.). Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.fundegar.com.

Garrigues, R. (2005). Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.camacdonald.com/birding.

Gerra, G. and Sommazzi, S. (n.d.). Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.justbirds.org.

Greenspun, P. (2004). Aerial photo of Cerro Ancón. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from http://www.photo.net/philg/digiphotos/200401-panama-city- aerials/32.half.jpg.

8-4 References

Grimaldo, R. (2002). El Cerro Ancón y sus secretos. La Prensa. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2002/05/11/hoy/ciuda d.shtml.

Harvey, I. (2005). Talking Signs audio pathway helps blind find way. Published 11/4/2005. Globe and Mail. Retrieved on July 25, 2007 from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051103.gttw signs03/BNStory/Technology/.

IADB. (2007). Inter-American Development Bank. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.iadb.org/.

IDRM. (2007). International Disability Rights Monitor Publications. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from http://www.ideanet.org/content.cfm?id=5B5C70.

Jackson, E. (2006). Privatization of Cerro Ancon National Park challenged in court. The Panama Newspaper. Vol. 12, (No. 2). Retrieved July 10, 2007 from http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_12/issue_02/news_01.html.

Johnson, S. (n.d.). A history of Quarry Heights Military Reservation. Retrieved July 5, 2007 from https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/NCR/note9.html.

Kamlarz, Phil. (2004). Mitigated negative declaration: Bay Trail extension to the Berkeley Marina. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/citycouncil/2004citycouncil/packet/0120 04/2004-01-20%20Item%2006.pdf.

Laube, S. (2003). [Online image]. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/.

Lara, D. (2005). Teleférico: Friend or enemy of the Cerro Ancón? Published 12/11/2005. Retrieved July 17, 2007 from http://www.diaadia.com.pa/archivo/12112005/impacto.html

Lechner, L. (2003). Trail planning, construction and maintenance in parks and protected areas. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.manejodeap.com/trail_manual/trail_manual_en.pdf.

Lechner, L. (2004). Planificación, construcción y mantenimiento de senderos en áreas protegidas. Fort Collins, CO: Red Rose Press.

8-5 References

Leis, R. R. (2006). Defending the hill of two flags. The Panama Newspaper. Vol. 12, (No. 2). Retrieved July 10, 2007 from: http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_12/issue_02/news_01.html.

Lemoine, M. (1999). Farewell to colonial masters: Panama gets its canal back. Le Monde Diplomatique. Retrieved July 12, 2007 from http://mondediplo.com/1999/08/06panama.

Ley No. 25, Gaceta Oficial Digital No. 25832. (2007). Published 7/11/2007. Retrieved July 13, 2007 from http://www.gacetaoficial.gob.pa/pdfTemp/25832/5409.pdf.

Ley No. 42, Gaceta Oficial No. 23876. (1999). Published 8/31/1999. Retrieved July 13, 2007 from http://www.presidencia.gob.pa/senadis/Senadis/marcolegal/marconaci onal.htm.

McCullough, D. (1977). The path between the seas: The creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

McPherson, A. (2002). From "punks" to geopoliticians: U. S. and Panamanian teenagers and the 1964 Canal Zone riots. The Americas, 58 (3). pp.395-418. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003- 1615%28200201%2958%3A3%3C395%3AF%22TGUS%3E2.0.CO%3 B2-O.

Miklus, B. (2007). Photos taken during site analysis.

Miranda, E. (2007). Discutirán SENADIS. El Siglo. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.elsiglo.com/siglov2/Nacion.php?idnews=43699&fechaz=05 -06-2007.

Mobility International. (2007). Mobility International Services and Technical Assistance. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.miusa.org/development/archive/services.

Molina, U.C. (2007). Retrieved July 16, 2007 from http://biblioteca.prensa.com/contenido/2007/02/02/2-4a-not3.html.

National Geographic. (2007). Conservation Trust of the National Geographic Society. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.nationalgeographic.com/conservation/grant_application.ht ml.

8-6 References

OAS. (2007). Press Release: On eve of General Assembly in Panama, OAS Assistant Secretary General underscores defense of persons with disabilities. Published on 5/31/2007 Washington, DC: Organization of American States. Retrieved on July 25, 2007, from http://www.oas.org/oaspage/press_releases/press_release.asp?sCodig o=GA-02-07.

Olivares, M. (2006). Photograph of the teleférico. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from http://www.travel-to-south-america.net/venezuela/index.html.

Panamanian Law 25. (2007). Retrieved July 12 2007 from http://www.gacetaoficial.gob.pa/pdfTemp/25832/5409.pdf.

Pecos National Historical Park. (2007). Draft environmental assessment: construct interpretive foot trail from the Old Denver Highway to Arrowhead Ridge and Windmill Hill. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://www.nps.gov/peco/parkmgmt/upload/Draft%20EA%204-26- 2007%20for%20Public%20Release%5B1%5D.pdf.

Primera Dama. (2007). Primera Dama de la Republica, Vivian Fernandez de Torrijos. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.presidencia.gob.pa/primeradama/.

RCE Consulting, S.A. (2001). Environmental Impact Study Category I for the Cerro Ancón Environmental Interactive Center.

Rotary International. (2007). Rotary International-Humanitarian Grants Program. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.rotary.org/foundation/grants/.

Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument (2006). Trail modifications and partial backfilling of Mound 7 environmental assessment. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkId=98&projectId=145 05&documentID=16348.

Scadden, R.A., Mitchell, S.J., & Weston, R.F. (2001). Facility decommissioning and adaptive reuse. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://www.westonsolutions.com/about/news_pubs/Tech_Papers/Scad denNDIA01.pdf.

Searns, R. (2005). Operations, Maintenance, and Stewardship 101. Trail Tracks, the Magazine of American Trails. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/searnsmaint 101.html.

8-7 References

SENADIS. (2007). Secretaria Nacional para la Integracion Social de las Personas con Discapacidad. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.presidencia.gob.pa/senadis/Senadis/PagPrincipal.htm.

Small Grants Program. (2007). United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)-Global Environment Facility Small Grants Program. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://sgp.undp.org/index.cfm.

Steed, J.A. (n.d.). Canal Zone Biological Area Records, 1918-1964. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://siarchives.si.edu/findingaids/FARU0134.HTM.

Talking Signs. (2007). Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.talkingsigns.com/.

TDD HKI&Is Development Office. (1999). Chapter 11: Environmental Monitoring and audit. Infrastructural Works for Housing Development at Telegraph Bay. Engineering Feasibility Study/Environmental Impact Assessment – Final EIA Report. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_01199/v1a- 11.pdf.

United Nations. (2007). United Nations Voluntary Fund on Disability. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disunvf.htm.

USAID. (2007). Small Project Assistance/Peace Corps. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross- cutting_programs/private_voluntary_cooperation/peacecorps.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Guidelines for ecological risk assessment (Federal Register 63(93):26846-26924). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Forest Service. (2006). Forest service trail accessibility guidelines. Retrieved May 31, 2007 from www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility/FSTAG.doc.

U.S. Southern Command (2007). History of U.S. Southern Command. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from http://www.southcom.mil/AppsSC/pages/history.php.

Vichitex. (2006). [Online image]. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.vichitex.com.

8-8 References

Voicenet. (n.d.). [Online image]. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.voicenet.co.jp/~jeanphi/moskitia/platano/iguanascience.ht m.

Washington Aggregates and Concrete Association (WACA). (2007). Pervious pavement. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://www.washingtonconcrete.org/industry/pervious/pervious_pave ment.shtml.

Wechsler, D. (2006). [Online image]. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.panamabirding.com.

Wikipedia. (2006). [Online image]. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:DirkvdM/complete.

Wood, K.T., Lawson, S.R. & Marion, J.L. (2006). Assessing recreation impacts to cliffs in Shenandoah National Park: integrating visitor observation with Trail and recreation site measurements. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Volume 24, Number 10, pp.86-110.

The World Bank. (2000). Panama Poverty Assessment: Priorities and Strategies for Poverty Reduction. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Zeller, J., Doyle, R., & Snodgrass, K. (2006). Accessibility guidebook for outdoor recreation and trails. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center. Retrieved July 16, 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility/pdfpubs/pdf06 232801dpi300.pdf.

8-9