DOCSLIB.ORG

Streetcar Land Use Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Streetcar Land Use Study Streetcardistrict of columbia Land Use Study phase one Goody Clancy Kittelson & Associates W-ZHA Zimmerman/Volk Associates EHT Traceries January 2012 Streetcardistrict of columbia Land Use Study phase one January 2012 submitted to the District of Columbia Office of Planning by Goody Clancy Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | i acknowledgements Executive Office of the Mayor Jen Hughes Department of Housing and Community Vincent C. Gray, Mayor Former Capital City Fellow, Citywide Planning Development Art Rodgers Director, John E. Hall Office of Planning Senior Housing Planner DC Housing Authority Harriet Tregoning Sakina Khan Executive Director, Adrianne Todman Director, Office of Planning Senior Economic Planner Department of Small and Local Business Rosalynn Hughey Development Deputy Director, Citywide and Neighborhood Consultant Team Director, Harold B. Pettigrew Jr. Planning Goody Clancy W-ZHA Citywide Resources Kimberly Driggins ZVA Associate Director, Citywide Planning National Capital Planning Commission Kittleson WMATA Geraldine Gardner EHT Traceries Downtown BID Associate Director, Neighborhood Planning Historic Preservation David Maloney NOMA BID State Historic Preservation Officer Agency Resources Capitol Riverfront BID Joel Lawson Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Washington DC Economic Partnership Associate Director, Development Review Economic Development River East Emerging Leaders (REEL) Melissa Bird Deputy Mayor, Victor Hoskins Anacostia Economic Development Council Project Manager, Neighborhood Planning District Department of Transportation H Street Main Street Colleen Mitchell Director, Terry Bellamy Barracks Row Main Street Project Manager, Citywide Planning Ward 8 Business Council DC Surface Transit ii | Land Use P Lan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system January 2012 households, job growth, and real estate impacts. The study also considers potential challenges to the introduction of streetcar service such as the impact on historic and cultural Dear Resident: resources, housing costs and small business retention. The report examines the benefits and challenges along each The District of Columbia is committed to bringing a proposed corridor and proposes adjustments to phasing streetcar system to the city to improve transit services and small segments to maximize mobility and economic available to residents and create walkable, vibrant development benefits of the investment. communities. In the spring of 2010, the DC Office of Planning (OP) initiated a land planning study to ensure that In the months ahead, the Streetcar Land Use Study will the city and its residents gain the greatest possible benefits provide an initial foundation of analysis that OP, DDOT and from the new system, and that the overarching vision and other involved agencies will use to make recommendations goals for the District are furthered by the new system. regarding the District’s streetcar system. Future elements of the Streetcar Land Use Study will examine specific land Goals of the DC Streetcar system: use recommendations at the corridor and neighborhood • Link neighborhoods with a modern, convenient and level including zoning, retail and residential uses, attractive transportation alternative. streetscape and urban design. The District Department • Provide quality service to retain and grow transit of Transportation (DDOT) will lead the system design, ridership. financing, construction and operation of the streetcar, • Offer a broader range of transit options for District and DDOT is moving forward with the initial phase of the residents. streetcar system with construction of the H Street/Benning • Reduce short inner-city auto trips, parking demand, Road line. As DDOT completes system planning for each traffic congestion and air pollution. corridor, extensive public outreach to local residents and • Connect people to jobs and services with frequent, businesses will take place. The findings supported in this affordable, reliable transit service. study will further the dialogue between communities and • Encourage economic development and affordable District agencies as we continue planning for future lines. housing options along streetcar corridors. The Streetcar Land Use Study provides an assessment of the citywide benefits of the system in terms of access to Harriet Tregoning jobs and schools, quality of life, transportation costs for Director, Office of Planning Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | iii iv | Land Use P Lan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system contents 1. Introduction f. provides real estate market benefits 24 > Residential market 25 a. planning for a streetcar system 1 > Office market 27 > Study purpose and methodology 1 > Retail market 29 > The District’s suitability for streetcar service 4 > Lessons from other cities 4 g. increases tax revenues 30 > How the streetcar compares to other transit h. expands the creative economy 31 options 7 b. summary of findings 8 3. Systemwide Challenges and > Streetcar benefits (Chapter 2) 8 Mitigation Strategies > Challenges and mitigation strategies > Housing affordability 33 (Chapter 3) 11 > Market shifts 35 > Neighborhood analysis (Chapter 4) 11 > Small business preservation 36 > Strategies and tools for optimizing land use > Constrained right of way on city streets 36 benefits (Chapter 5) 12 > Parking 37 > Congestion 37 2. Systemwide Benefits > Bicycles 37 a. improves access to premium transit 13 4. Corridor/Neighborhood Analysis b. reduces transportation costs 13 a. assessing benefits and challenges in each c. offers quality-of-life benefits 15 corridor 39 > Improves walkability 15 > Corridor 1: MLK, Firth Sterling Avenue, and > Promotes public health 16 South Capital Street 40 > “Extends the walk” 17 > Corridor 2: Good Hope Road and Minnesota > Encourages development of Main Streets 17 Avenue 42 > Broadens access to schools 18 > Corridor 3: Capitol Riverfront, Buzzard Point, > Preserves historic resources 19 Capitol Hill, and 7th Street 44 > Expands housing choices 21 > Corridor 4: K and H streets to Union Station; d. improves job access 21 F, 14th, and 7th streets downtown 46 e. attracts new jobs and residents 22 > Corridor 5: H Street/Benning Road 48 Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | v > Corridor 6: 14th, 18th (Adams Morgan), U streets, Florida Avenue, and 8th Street 50 > Corridor 7: Rhode Island Avenue NE 52 > Corridor 8: Woodley Park, Columbia Heights, Washington Hospital Center, and Brookland 54 > Corridor 9: Georgia Avenue and Takoma 56 b. capturing opportunity through alternative routing or phasing 58 5. Strategies and Tools for Optimizing Land Use Impacts a. Maximizing land use benefits, minimizing implementation costs 65 > Potential development tools 65 > Potential land use and design-guidance tools 67 > Coordination with other infrastructure investments 67 b. Funding 68 > Development-driven funding mechanisms 68 > Improved eligibility for federal funding 70 6. Next Steps vi | Land Use P Lan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system 1. introduction he District of Columbia’s decision to build a As the District agency responsible for the system planning, streetcar network emerged from a long-term design, financing and construction of the project, DDOT has assessment of the city’s transportation needs. collaborated with other agencies, including the Office of Integrated with Metrorail and other transit Planning, to ensure that efforts are coordinated and benefits services, the 37-mile system would extend transit to large, of the investment are maximized. The Office of Planning led Tunderserved portions of the District, and it would expand the this Streetcar Land Use Study to investigate impacts of the The streetcar represents benefits of transit for many areas already served by Metrorail. proposed system on land uses, as well as job access, quality of life and housing affordability. an effective strategy for advancing many of the 1a Planning for a streetcar system To reduce disruption to residents and businesses, DDOT District’s core economic The District of Columbia Department of Transportation has begun building sections of two streetcar lines as (DDOT) has initiated a program to reestablish streetcar part of previously planned roadway reconstruction and social goals. service in the District. The purpose of the DC Streetcar is along H Street/Benning Road NE and Firth Sterling Road to provide high-capacity and high-quality transit service SE. Environmental work has begun on other lines, but to residents and invest in infrastructure that will catalyze decisions still need to be made about many routes and economic development. The planned system is the result of other critical aspects of streetcar planning. 14 years of planning (see Figure 1) and touches every ward in the District. The recommended plan includes a network STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY of streetcar lines operating in eight corridors. The selection Commissioned by the District Office of Planning, this criteria for these corridors included ı) ridership potential, 2) Streetcar Land Use Study constitutes an integral part of demand for additional capacity on existing Metrorail and bus the planning for the new system. Among possible land lines, 3) gaps in existing service that connect neighborhoods, use impacts of a streetcar system, the study examines employment, and retail centers, and 4) economic jobs, quality of life, and the affordability of housing in development opportunities. Map 3, Full
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ucr Rides Free with the Token Transit
    UCR RIDES FREE WITH THE PLAN YOUR TRIP TODAY VISIT US TOKEN TRANSIT APP RiversideTransit.com The Riverside Transit Agency has switched to a contactless fare system available through the Token Transit app. UCR students and staff will no longer swipe their R’Card to board the RTA bus. To get your free transit pass CONTACT US you will be required to log in to UCR’s Transportation Services website and Customer Information Center enroll in the U-PASS Program. Once registered, you will receive your free pass via the Token Transit app for unlimited rides anywhere RTA buses go, at (951) 565-5002 anytime they operate. And yes, you can take your bike or skateboard with you on the bus. WE’RE OPEN Getting your pass is easy. After you enroll online, UCR will send your registration to RTA. Staff passes will be processed immediately and within Until 10 p.m. every day three to five days you will receive a text message from Token Transit with a link to download the pass. After that, simply use your phone’s mobile pass whenever you board and enjoy the ride. Student passes will be issued STAY SAFE beginning September 24 and valid through the end of the term. RTA is asking customers to With trained drivers, clean vehicles and a commitment to customer safety, practice social distancing, say hello to a better way to travel. Plus, there’s comfortable seating, free wear face masks and travel for Wi-Fi service and USB charging ports to make your trip even better.
    [Show full text]
  • 4606 – Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) Passes
    No. 4606 Rev.: 5 Policies and Procedures Date: December 14, 2017 Subject: Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) Passes 1. Purpose .................................................................................................................... 1 2. Policy ........................................................................................................................ 1 3. Responsibilities ......................................................................................................... 2 4. Procedures ............................................................................................................... 2 4.1 Obtaining the HRT GoSemester Pass .............................................................. 2 4.2 Obtaining Para-Transit Passes ......................................................................... 2 4.3 Staff and Non-Credit Student Purchase of HRT Passes .................................. 2 4.4 Use of HRT Services ........................................................................................ 2 4.5 Lost, Stolen, and/or Damaged HRT Passes ..................................................... 3 5. Definitions ................................................................................................................. 3 6. References ............................................................................................................... 3 7. Review Periodicity and Responsibility ...................................................................... 3 8. Effective Date and Approval ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • American Maglev Technology (AMT) Proposal
    American Maglev Technology (AMT) Proposal: Staff Review and Recommendation Approved by the MetroPlan Orlando Board at the meeting on December 12, 2012 American Maglev Technology (AMT) Proposal: Staff Review and Recommendation Background American Maglev Technology (AMT) has proposed to build, operate and maintain a privately- financed transit project in the Orlando metropolitan area with no public funding. The 40-mile project has an estimated capital cost of $800 million. The project is a fully automatic train system that is powered by magnetic levitation, or maglev technology. This technology lifts the vehicle from the guideway and provides directional motion. The first phase of the proposed system would operate between the Orange County Convention Center/International Drive area (utilizing the planned intermodal center) and Orlando International Airport with stops at The Florida Mall and the Sand Lake Road SunRail Station. Subsequent phases would include stations in the Lake Nona/Medical City area and along the Osceola Parkway corridor leading to Walt Disney World. AMT has spearheaded efforts thus far to advance the implementation of this project. However, the intention is to form a new publicly traded company called Florida EMMI, Inc. (Florida Environmental Mitigation and Mobility Initiative) that will design, build, finance, operate and maintain the project. At that point, AMT will become the company’s maglev technology provider. Florida EMMI, Inc. will bring together an array of strategic partners and more than 120 private companies, some of which are well-known in the transportation industry. The new company will be based here in Central Florida with an advisory board that includes some prominent individuals from our region.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Service Design Guidelines
    Transit Service Design Guidelines Department of Rail and Public Transportation November 2008 Transit Service Design Guidelines Why were these guidelines for new transit service developed? In FY2008 alone, six communities in Virginia contacted the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation about starting new transit service in their community. They and many other communities throughout Virginia are interested in learning how new transit services can enhance travel choices and mobility and help to achieve other goals, such as quality of life, economic opportunity, and environmental quality. They have heard about or seen successful transit systems in other parts of the state, the nation, or the world, and wonder how similar systems might serve their communities. They need objective and understandable information about transit and whether it might be appropriate for them. These guidelines will help local governments, transit providers and citizens better understand the types of transit systems and services that are available to meet community and regional transportation needs. The guidelines also help the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) in making recommendations to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for transit investments, by 1) providing information on the types of systems or services that are best matched to community needs and local land use decisions, and 2) ensuring that resources are used effectively to achieve local, regional, and Commonwealth goals. Who were these guidelines developed for? These guidelines are intended for three different audiences: local governments, transit providers and citizens. Therefore, some will choose to read the entire document while others may only be interested in certain sections.
    [Show full text]
  • H/Benning Historic Architectural Survey
    H Street/Benning Road Streetcar Project Historic Architectural Survey Prepared for: District Department of Transportation Prepared by: Jeanne Barnes HDR Engineering, Inc. 2600 Park Tower Drive Suite 100 Vienna, VA 22180 FINAL SUBMITTAL April 2013 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Project Background ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1. Overhead Catenary System ................................................................................................... 2 1.1.2. Car Barn Training Center ....................................................................................................... 4 1.1.3. Traction Power Sub‐Stations ................................................................................................. 5 1.1.4. Interim Western Destination ................................................................................................ 6 1.2. Regulatory Context ....................................................................................................................... 7 1.2.1. DC Inventory of Historic Sites ............................................................................................... 7 1.2.2. National Register cof Histori Places ...................................................................................... 8 1.3. District of Columbia Preservation Process ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Reduced and Free Transit Fare Programs in California
    A Review of Reduced and Free Transit Fare Programs in California A Research Report from the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies Jean-Daniel Saphores, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Department of Urban Planning and Public Policy, University of California, Irvine Deep Shah, Master’s Student, University of California, Irvine Farzana Khatun, Ph.D. Candidate, University of California, Irvine January 2020 Report No: UC-ITS-2019-55 | DOI: 10.7922/G2XP735Q Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. UC-ITS-2019-55 N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date A Review of Reduced and Free Transit Fare Programs in California January 2020 6. Performing Organization Code ITS-Irvine 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jean-Daniel Saphores, Ph.D., https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9514-0994; Deep Shah; N/A and Farzana Khatun 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Institute of Transportation Studies, Irvine N/A 4000 Anteater Instruction and Research Building 11. Contract or Grant No. Irvine, CA 92697 UC-ITS-2019-55 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered The University of California Institute of Transportation Studies Final Report (January 2019 - January www.ucits.org 2020) 14. Sponsoring Agency Code UC ITS 15. Supplementary Notes DOI:10.7922/G2XP735Q 16. Abstract To gain a better understanding of the current use and performance of free and reduced-fare transit pass programs, researchers at UC Irvine surveyed California transit agencies with a focus on members of the California Transit Association (CTA) during November and December 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Element
    Town of Cary Comprehensive Transportation Pllan Chapter 6 – Introduction At the time of the 2001 Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the Town of Cary had no bus service other than Route 301 operated by the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA). Since then, Cary has expanded its transit Transit services considerably, with a new local fixed-route service for the public and demand-responsive paratransit for seniors and persons with disabilities. TTA has added routes as well. As the Town’s Element population continues rising and travel demand increases, the Town plans to expand its local service, capturing riders coming from and going to planned residential and commercial developments. Situated amidst the Research Triangle of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, Cary is served today by multiple transit providers. Fixed route bus services within Cary are provided by C-Tran and TTA. C-Tran, Wake Coordinated Transportation Services (WCTS), and the Center for Volunteer Caregiving provide demand-responsive paratransit services. WCTS also provides rural general public transit via its TRACS service program; however, services are not provided for urban trips within Cary. Amtrak operates daily train service. This chapter describes current fixed-route transit and paratransit conditions, projected growth in the Town, and proposed future service changes. C-Tran Overview C-Tran is the Town of Cary’s sponsored transit service which originated as a door-to-door service for seniors and disabled residents in 2001. In July 2002, door-to-door services were expanded
    [Show full text]
  • Americaspeaks
    AMERICASPEAKS ENGAGING CITIZEN VOICES IN GOVERNANCE Skyland Town Hall Meeting Report to the National Capital Revitalization Corporation November 13, 2004 Made Possible in part by a Grant from the Annie E. Casey Foundation Summary Report of Proceedings District residents from Wards 7 and 8 came together on Saturday, November 13 to set priorities for the redevelopment of Skyland Shopping Center. Over the course of the five hour meeting, participants listened to presentations about the redevelopment process, discussed the retail mix of the future site, considered its look and feel, and discussed how the community could best take advantage of economic opportunities created by the redevelopment. When asked to evaluate the Town Meeting, 100 percent of participants said they had learned something from their participation in the Town Meeting. Eighty-four percent of participants rated the meeting as “excellent” or “good” (49 percent rating it as “excellent”.) Ninety-one percent of participants rated the use of technology at the Town Meeting as “excellent” or “good” (82 percent rating it as “excellent). Seventy percent of participants said they were “very unsatisfied” with the mix of stores currently at Skyland. Similarly, 66 percent of participants said they were “very unsatisfied” with the physical condition of Skyland and 63 percent said they were “very unsatisfied” with the level of safety there. The heart of the meeting was a discussion of the future retail mix for the new Skyland Shopping Center. Participants first considered the kinds of stores that they would like to see in the site. After prioritizing the kinds of stores to go on the site, they identified specific brands for each of the top categories.
    [Show full text]
  • District Columbia
    PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN for the Appendices B - I DISTRICT of COLUMBIA AYERS SAINT GROSS ARCHITECTS + PLANNERS | FIELDNG NAIR INTERNATIONAL TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A: School Listing (See Master Plan) APPENDIX B: DCPS and Charter Schools Listing By Neighborhood Cluster ..................................... 1 APPENDIX C: Complete Enrollment, Capacity and Utilization Study ............................................... 7 APPENDIX D: Complete Population and Enrollment Forecast Study ............................................... 29 APPENDIX E: Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................ 51 APPENDIX F: Cluster Demographic Summary .................................................................................. 63 APPENDIX G: Complete Facility Condition, Quality and Efficacy Study ............................................ 157 APPENDIX H: DCPS Educational Facilities Effectiveness Instrument (EFEI) ...................................... 195 APPENDIX I: Neighborhood Attendance Participation .................................................................... 311 Cover Photograph: Capital City Public Charter School by Drew Angerer APPENDIX B: DCPS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS LISTING BY NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER Cluster Cluster Name DCPS Schools PCS Schools Number • Oyster-Adams Bilingual School (Adams) Kalorama Heights, Adams (Lower) 1 • Education Strengthens Families (Esf) PCS Morgan, Lanier Heights • H.D. Cooke Elementary School • Marie Reed Elementary School
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of Two Systems: Education Reform in Washington D.C
    A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. BY DAVID OSBORNE A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. 2 PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. BY DAVID OSBORNE PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE 3 A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS David Osborne would like to thank the Walton Family Foundation and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation for their support of this work. He would also like to thank the dozens of people within D.C. Public Schools, D.C.’s charter schools, and the broader education reform community who shared their experience and wisdom with him. Thanks go also to those who generously took the time to read drafts and provide feedback. Finally, David is grateful to those at the Progressive Policy Institute who contributed to this report, including President Will Marshall, who provided editorial guidance, intern George Beatty, who assisted with research, and Steven K. Chlapecka, who shepherded the manuscript through to publication. 4 PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................. ii A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. HISTORY AND CONTEXT.............................................................. 1 MICHELLE RHEE BRINGS IN HER BROOM .................................................. 4 THE POLITICAL
    [Show full text]
  • Replace Or Modernize?
    Payne ES 1896 Draper ES 1953 Miner ES 1900 Shadd ES 1955 Ketcham ES Replace1909 Moten or ES Modernize1955 ? Bell SHS 1910 Hart MS 1956 Garfield ETheS Future191 0of theSharpe District Health of SE Columbia' 1958 s Thomson ES 191Endangered0 Drew ES Old and 195Historic9 Smothers ES 1923 Plummer ES 1959 Hardy MS (Rosario)1928 Hendley ESPublic 195School9 s Bowen ES 1931 Aiton ES 1960 Kenilworth ES 1933 J.0. Wilson ES May196 12001 Anacostia SHS 1935 Watkins ES 1962 Bunker Hill ES 1940 Houston ES 1962 Beers ES 1942 Backus MS 1963 Kimball ES 1942 C.W. Harris ES 1964 Kramer MS 1943 Green ES 1965 Davis ES 1943 Gibbs ES 1966 Stanton ES 1944 McGogney ES 1966 Patterson ES 1945 Lincoln MS 1967 Thomas ES 1946 Brown MS 1967 Turner ES 1946 Savoy ES 1968 Tyler ES 1949 Leckie ES 1970 Kelly Miller MS 1949 Shaed ES 1971 Birney ES 1950 H.D. Woodson SHS 1973 Walker-Jones ES 1950 Brookland ES 1974 Nalle ES 1950 Ferebee-Hope ES 1974 Sousa MS 1950 Wilkinson ES 1976 Simon ES 1950 Shaw JHS 1977 R. H. Terrell JHS 1952 Mamie D. Lee SE 1977 River Terrace ES 1952 Fletche-Johnson EC 1977 This report is dedicated to the memory of Richard L. Hurlbut, 1931 - 2001. Richard Hurlbut was a native Washingtonian who worked to preserve Washington, DC's historic public schools for over twenty-five years. He was the driving force behind the restoration of the Charles Sumner School, which was built after the Civil War in 1872 as the first school in Washington, DC for African- American children.
    [Show full text]
  • Ward 7 Heritage Guide
    WARD 7 HERITAGE GUIDE A Discussion of Ward 7 Cultural and Heritage Resources Ward 7 Heritage Guide Text by Patsy M. Fletcher, DC Historic Preservation Office Design by Kim Elliott, DC Historic Preservation Office Published 2013 Unless stated otherwise, photographs and images are from the DC Office of Planning collection. This project has been funded in part by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund grant funds, administered by the District of Columbia’s Historic Preservation Office. The contents and opinions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Department of the Interior. This program has received Federal financial assistance for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the District of Columbia. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability in its Federally assisted programs. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction......................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]