California Pilot Test of the Ecological Approaches to Environmental Protection Developed in Capacity Research Projects C06A and C06B (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Contents 1 Executive Summary 1 Summary Findings from C06 Product Test 4 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 5 Who: Partners 5 Who: Key Stakeholders 6 CHAPTER 2 Step 1. Planning Region and Stakeholders 6 Step 1A. The Planning Region 7 Step 1B. Stakeholder Involvement 10 Step 1C. Statement of the Problem 12 CHAPTER 3 Step 2. Characterize Regional Plans and Data 12 Historical Setting 12 Conservation and Restoration 15 CHAPTER 4 Step 3. Development of Integrated Ecological Framework 15 Regional Objectives 16 Description of Corridor Context 26 CHAPTER 5 Step 4. Assess Land Use and Transportation Effects on Resource Conservation Objectives Identified in the REF 26 Road Effect Zone 28 Modeling Noise Effects 34 CHAPTER 6 Step 5. Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions 34 Five Possible Futures for the Corridor 35 Transportation-Associated stewardship and Mitigation 37 CHAPTER 7 Step 6. Description of Credit and Valuation Approach 37 Approach 1: Stakeholder Valuation of Corridor Context and Plan Alternatives 47 Approach 2: Measuring Impacts (“Assess Transportation Effects”) 48 Valuation 49 CHAPTER 8 Step 7. Develop Programmatic Consultation, Biological Opinion, or Permit 49 Reaction/Involvement/Integration of Regulatory Agencies to Application of Ecological Methods

52 Regulatory and Permitting Issues 57 CHAPTER 9 C06 and C01 Tools Assessment 57 Partner Feedback on C06 and TCAPP Tools 64 References 68 APPENDIX A Description of Highway 37 Future Scenarios 71 APPENDIX B Valuation Approach

1 Executive Summary Like much of the US, California relies upon three scales of planning for transportation – project, corridor, and region. Each scale informs the others, leading to the development of state programming of projects, described in corridor and regional plans. Highway 37 in the San Francisco Bay Area is currently the subject of corridor planning by the California Department of Transportation, District 4 (Caltrans). The current C21 project “Highway 37 Stewardship Study” is the test-case for the California evaluation of C06 A&B (and other TRB) products. It will also inform the development of the corridor plan and model behaviors that Caltrans would like to include in future corridor plans. For example, the stakeholder process developed as the basis for the project could become de rigeur for Caltrans’ future corridor planning. The project relies upon three inter-dependent processes: a stakeholder process to support scenarios descriptions and negotiated planning outcomes, a regional context description and assessment, and valuation/crediting approach to support scenarios comparison. Each of these project components links to a C06 A&B product (e.g., the regional ecological framework). They are also foundational pieces for the development of a stewardship-oriented corridor plan, the first of its kind in California. The lessons learned from this process included issues specific to C06 and C01 tools, as well as larger-frame issues with combining transportation planning and environmental stewardship. For example, typically-long timeframes for planning and project delivery did not suit stakeholder expectations for getting started on obvious problems. Although the complete architecture of the Transportation for Communities (TCAPP) web site and the C06 reports were not useful to project participants, they may be useful libraries of important pieces of information. Team members felt that the contents of C01 and C06 should be available, but were not confident about their actual day-to-day use by transportation planners or other stakeholders, primarily because of the sheer amount of material. One important lesson from the potential application of C01 or C06 tools was that planning is best done in bite-sized pieces (e.g., focusing on a project study report), rather than the complete decade-long process from problem identification to programmed project. There are implications from this finding for how ecological capacity- building and training should occur: Through web sites, or through continuing “Academies”? Overall, the ecological framework provided a useful and understandable rubric for organizing information and thinking about decision-making. Summary Findings from C06 Product Test The integrated ecological framework in C06 suggests nine planning steps to improve the process of delivering transportation projects with early inclusion in planning of stakeholder interests and environmental information. Table ES.1 below summarizes how the team followed each of the first seven steps and the team’s general findings from each.

2 Table ES.1. Steps of the Ecological Framework SHRP 2 C06 Step Findings Step 1: Build and Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships, Vision The planning region boundary included the study highway and portions of five counties and several other state highways and interstates that share traffic with the highway. Stakeholders within this planning region were included within the stakeholder team and process. The team had difficulty representing all highway stakeholders and recommends that Step 1 encourages including the majority of affected party types. Step 2: Characterize Resource Status. Integrate Conservation, Natural Resource, Watershed, and Species Recovery and State Wildlife Action Plans The team used the stakeholder process to educate stakeholders about the content and availability of regional plans and data, but did not need to generate new information. The most significant data gaps are related to uncertainty around the predicted rate of sea level rise and the lack of accurate and detailed levee and berm topographic and location data. The conservation strategy for regional ecosystem processes and attributes was folded into the scenario development for the corridor, the corridor context description, and the regulatory-process foundation. Step 3: Create Integrated Ecosystem Framework (Conservation Strategy +Transportation Plan) The project team adopted the term “Corridor Context” instead of “Integrated Ecological Framework” to broaden the types of information and values the team included. The corridor context includes parallel recognition of community, transportation, environmental, and economic systems and values in decision-making about highways. Using these parallel categories for collecting and organizing information, in partnership with stakeholders and the community, and describing how well transportation plans support their values in these categories, reinforces the broad context in eventual project prioritization. To improve planning outcomes, the team recommends that more values are included in the Framework, such as local economy, community identity, environmental justice, climate adaptation, carbon budget, and possibly greenhouse gas emissions, and/or life cycle analysis. Step 4: Assess Land Use and Transportation Effects on resource conservation objectives identified in the IEF The team used the Road Effect Zone concept to capture potential effects of new projects on the environment. The team modeled traffic noise impacts as a specific case. Environmental regulatory agencies were also asked to consider different possible management scenarios for the corridor and speculate on the kinds of impacts that could occur, the permissibility of the scenarios and the mitigation that might be required under each scenario. Most regulatory staff stated that they had little ability to provide specific and formal input unless it is related to a regulatory action, such as a permit of environmental review. The team recommends that guidance be provided for how to assess transportation

3 effects. The team further recommends that the liaison program be expanded to provide supported regulatory agency staff time to participate in the assessment phase of early planning, to improve connection between assessment and permits. Step 5: Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions Based on their knowledge of environmental conditions, conservation objectives, and the connection between these and transportation infrastructure and plans, stakeholders and partners identified future scenarios for the corridor that supported these objectives. There did appear to be some agreement that raising the highway onto elevated causeway was environmentally-preferable, but many questions remained and key stakeholders were not present. In the absence of a clearly defined preferred alternative and specific recommendations from regulators, it is difficult to identify and establish mitigation priorities. Stewardship-conservation priorities may be more easily met in combined transportation and conservation planning. Step 6: Develop Crediting Strategy An overall valuation approach was used to frame credits, which captures a stewardship and community involvement ethos as well as mitigation activity. Two approaches were used to develop a “credits” system for positive action: 1) Choosing a valued path: Community preferences were quantified for specific possible future actions on the corridor, based on the actions’ support for community values. 2) Developing credits within a path: Impacts on adjacent habitats and urban areas were quantified for each corridor scenario to support a unit impacted area approach to credits. Step 7: Develop Programmatic Consultation, Biological Opinion, or Permit The foundation for this step was laid with multiple meetings between transportation agency and regulatory agency staff. Because the process of early inclusion is atypical, it took a fair amount of persuasion to draw regulatory entities in. This could be improved by providing incentives to regulatory agencies and requirements for early regulatory involvement to transportation agencies receiving federal funds.

4 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Corridor planning is an important geographic and time-scale intermediate step between regional and long-range planning and project delivery. The team chose this scale because it provides opportunities for including regional and local ecological, economic, transportation, and community information and needs early in transportation planning and project development. In California, corridor plans form the basis for further study and development into pre- project initiation documents, the project initiation documents (PIDs) sponsored by either Caltrans or local agencies. The corridor plans and PIDs are used to develop the purpose and need for projects. A more thorough assessment of the facility development options, environmental mitigation needs, and stakeholder plans and needs in the corridor plan process can ensure that more comprehensive multimodal alternatives are developed in the early stages and that the necessary valuation is given to alternate modes and environmental enhancement. The purpose and need statement can benefit from a better understanding of the environmental and community needs that develop from the ecological approach and from bringing NEPA considerations and knowledge into the planning process. The PID purpose and need proceeds to the project development, design, and delivery stages in Caltrans. For the specific test case (Highway 37), this is key to designing and implementing a facility that considers the tidal marshes, preservation and recreation needs, as well as the safety needs of the public. California and federal government agencies and private organizations have invested millions of dollars in restoring marshlands in the North San Francisco Bay (North Bay). These coastal marshlands are among the most endangered habitat types in the US and home to a diverse assemblage of plants and animals, including species listed under state and federal Endangered Species Acts (ESA). Highway 37 was built as a conduit between inland and East Bay areas (Richmond, Oakland, Berkeley, Solano County) and the North Bay communities and counties (Napa, Sonoma, Marin). It currently serves multiple transportation purposes: goods movement, inter-county commuting, and recreational travel (see Figure 2.1). It also passes through the marshes of the North Bay, separating the marshes from tidal influence and affecting natural flows and processes (Figure 4.1). Highway 37 is one of the lowest-elevation highways in the Bay Area and at its lowest elevation, the roadbed is currently just below sea level. As climate change results in sea level rise, this highway is likely to face erosion, more frequent flooding during storms, and gradual inundation by the sea. Highway 37 bisects the city of Vallejo, which is struggling economically and has a large minority and low-income population. The highway provides access to other areas and effectively divides the community geographically. Besides suffering economically, a recent study (Shilling et al., 2010) has shown that Vallejo residents also have little access to parks compared to nearby wealthier communities. Highway 37 could provide a solution to this as it enters one of the largest potential recreation areas in the vicinity, North Bay marshlands.

5 These issues and the circulation requirements for the highway make it an ideal test case for an integrated ecological assessment framework and collaborative plan development among a wide range of stakeholder types. Who: Partners The project was led by UC Davis’ Road Ecology Center, in partnership with Caltrans. UC Davis sub-contracted to partner organizations who are leaders in their respective urban and rural communities in planning, conservation, and stakeholder process. • Caltrans, District 4 • UC Davis Road Ecology Center (http://roadecology.ucdavis.edu) • Sonoma Ecology Center (www.sonomaecologycenter.org) • Sonoma Land Trust (http://sonomalandtrust.org) • Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District (http://sscrcd.org) • Napa County Resource Conservation District (http://naparcd.org) Who: Key Stakeholders The partnership includes over 100 individuals and organizations that have joined us at one of 7 stakeholder meetings. Their effort and input helped shape this study and our understand of how using the C06 tools in situ results in transportation and ecological system stewardship. The stakeholder process has resulted in a cadre of committed individuals and organizations who attend stakeholder meetings and provide guidance and feedback for ways that regional concerns can be considered and addressed. Their input was critical to the development of the Regional Ecological Framework and description of plausible scenarios for the highway, which will become the foundation for crediting and agreements with regulators and others. In other words, the successful stakeholder process was a hallmark of the success the team had carrying out Step 1 of the C06 process and set the stage for an expanded version of COR-1, where the role of decision-maker is more broadly defined than in TCAPP.

6 CHAPTER 2 Step 1. Planning Region and Stakeholders Build and Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships, Vision. Build a vision of what is most needed for natural resources in the region and commit to integrate and utilize transportation and environmental regulatory processes to address these greatest conservation and restoration needs and goals. The team implemented this step by identifying and inviting a broad range of stakeholders to participate in a joint learning and visioning process. This included land-use, conservation, transportation, and other agencies and interests. The stakeholder process involved seven face-to- face meetings, a few conference calls, and a field trip. The process was used to define the planning region, conservation and transportation issues, and potential combined transportation and conservation solutions. Step 1A. The Planning Region The North San Francisco Bay region includes Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano counties. Highway 37 traverses Sonoma County between Solano and Marin Counties, skirting Napa County on its southern boundary. It crosses the lower Napa River, Sonoma Creek, Petaluma River, and other small watersheds that feed into the North Bay. It traverses urban, agricultural, woodland, grassland, and wetland habitats, connecting Interstate 80 and State Highway 101. The highway itself approximates a curve through the North Bay (red box, Figure 2.1). The study area is larger, roughly a rectangle (pink square, Figure 2.1) bounded on the west by the east edge of the city of Petaluma, on the north by the south edge of the city of Napa, on the east by the intersection of SR-12 and I-80, and on the south by the city of Albany. This area includes other highways potentially affected by sea level rise and decision-making about Highway 37. For example, planned or catastrophic reduction or elimination of traffic from the current right-of-way would displace traffic to State Highways 29, 12, and 121 to the north and Interstate 580 to the south.

7 Figure 2.1. Highway 37 (within red box insert) in the North San Francisco Bay planning region (pink box insert). The background image is from GoogleMaps. One finding from the planning region definition was that it was possible to walk transportation and conservation-oriented people through the development of a scale that was useful for both types of activities. This planning region scale may be useful in future implementation of C06 and other Eco-Logical approaches because it should be possible to combine several corridors within the region into one over-arching planning process, even if each corridor is still covered by an individual planning report. Step 1B. Stakeholder Involvement Critical to the development of the corridor context, valuation approach, and foundation for agreements with regulatory agencies was the inclusion of stakeholders early in the process. Over 100 individuals and organizations participated in the stakeholder process. The team held seven stakeholder meetings, including the World Café workshop (see below). At successive meetings the team encouraged people to share their needs and desires for corridor planning, understanding of the issues facing the transportation corridors, ecological and community well-being issues that should be considered, and values for the corridor. This information sharing has been very important in getting and keeping transportation and environmental regulatory interests at the table.

8 Partners The intent of this study was to provide opportunities for internal collaboration among DOT Offices and Divisions, as well as external collaboration between the DOT and local agencies and organizations. Explicit support was provided at the proposal stage through the initial stages of the project from several DOT Offices, including System Planning, Environmental, and Maintenance. Similarly, partner organizations included two Resource Conservation Districts (Napa County and Southern Sonoma County), a land trust (Sonoma Land Trust) and an environmental non-profit (Sonoma Ecology Center). This formal, structured partnering was intended to facilitate the working collaboration among the partner offices and agencies. This partnership created a core group (hereafter called the “team”) who collaborated to broadly consider the best ways to move forward on the effort. Kickoff Methods The core team decided that instead of hosting an official “kickoff” for a corridor that spans several counties and landscapes, it was more effective to host sequential “briefing” meetings that gathered data on participants’ interests, and offered opportunities for stakeholders to learn about the effort and ask questions. The first three stakeholder meetings began with a substantive “briefing” theme to introduce new stakeholders to the study purpose and expected activities. At the conclusion of this C21 study, Caltrans has proposed to continue the stakeholder process to integrate findings from the C21 study process, foster increased communication among the stakeholders, and further develop potential corridor scenarios. Collaboration Methods Core Team Membership This project used collaborative methods both through the project administration via a core team of agencies local organizations, and through the overall involvement of stakeholders that range from private landowners to federal regulators to tribal representatives. Core team membership includes the California Department of Transportation, the University of California, the Sonoma Ecology Center, the Sonoma Land Trust, the Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District, and the Napa County Resource Conservation District. The diverse constitution of the core team encouraged both broad outreach to stakeholders and also a range of views and experience in overseeing the project. That being said, the diversity did not extend to ethnic or community representation as the team were distinctly lacking in members of the communities of color that anchored the eastern end of the corridor. This seems to be a pervasive problem for many stakeholder planning processes and deserves special attention. Meeting Location To be responsive to differing travel distances, the core team decided to have the stakeholder meetings at varying locations along the Highway 37 corridor, thus encouraging greater

9 participation. The meetings were held in Novato (far west end of highway), Infineon Raceway (middle segment of highway), and Vallejo/Mare Island (far east end of highway). Web Site The core team determined that having a publicly-accessible web site was important in supporting stakeholder involvement and access to project-related resources. The University of California at Davis created a Highway 37 Corridor web site using open-source software: http://hwy37.ucdavis.edu. The web site is the sharing point for meeting materials, study reports, associated literature and reports, and the spatial and non-spatial datasets used in the study. UC Davis has committed to maintaining the web site until Caltrans or a consortium of agencies interested in Highway 37 can take it over. Organizational Structure The core team held monthly conference calls to consider project goals and structure. After the May 24, 2011 stakeholder briefing, the core team divided itself into three subgroups to more effectively address project goals outside of the monthly conference calls. The three subgroups were: Process, Development of a Regional Ecological Framework, and Development of a Crediting and Valuation Approach. The team‘s composition allowed it to seek feedback from transportation, conservation/environmental, and land-use institutions. Having this internal network connected to external networks was incredibly valuable in rapidly identifying potential future problems and fielding potential solutions. Outreach/ evolution of involvement Initially, the core team targeted key stakeholders in particular organizations to brief them on the project and invite their participation. The core team recognized that these people may not be the actual attendees, but that they would need to designate staff who could attend, thereby supporting the overall meeting series. Initial letters were sent to state and federal environmental regulators, local and regional transportation agencies, local and regional government representatives, and non-governmental organizations. The core team hosted an initial briefing on March 10, 2011 at the Schell-Vista Fire Station in Sonoma County, and 17 participants (including core team members) attended. Following this initial meeting, the core team broadened their contact list and on April 28, 2011, sent out a formal invitation letter to key stakeholders. This letter, sent from and signed by Caltrans Deputy District Director Lee Taubeneck, included the notes from the March meeting, a participant list, and an overall project briefing. Recipients were largely the same who received the previous, less formal invitation. Following the dispatch of this letter, core team members began personally contacting stakeholders to invite their attendance at subsequent meetings. Thirty-five people (including core team members) participated in the May 2011 meeting at Mare Island, demonstrating that the personal follow-up calls to stakeholders were effective in building strong attendance. At this meeting, core team participants presented the overall

10 framework of the project and opened a discussion to further identify stakeholder interests and concerns. At this meeting, in addition to regulatory, transportation, and environmental interests, participants included tribal representatives and private landowners. World Café (“Collaborative Partnerships” & “Prioritize Actions”) In order to find out more about what various organizations and stakeholders value about the highway corridor and associated community and natural values, the team engaged them in a café-style discussion. This approach was developed for just such an occasion and elicited value statements about possible future scenarios for the highway corridor. The expressed values were useful for developing the valuation and crediting approach. Association of values with different scenarios assists in developing possible ecological actions and overall stewardship of the corridor and related natural and human systems. Step 1C. Statement of the Problem Caltrans is exploring options for the future of Highway 37. This scenic roadway links travel to the East and West San Francisco Bay regions and the Napa/Sonoma Wine Country. Commuters, truckers, tourists, and many others travel on Highway 37, passing through cities, endangered species habitat, rare marshlands, and rich farmland. Flooding risks on the highway are increasing due to rising sea levels, and increased traffic continues to impact all who use this roadway, as well as the surrounding environment. Caltrans wants to work with others interested in the well- being of this corridor to create a plan and a vision that everyone can support. This vision must consider endangered species and their habitats; agriculture; increasing traffic; and sea level rise. It must also provide increased transportation choices and enhanced public access. Highway 37 improvement options as part of corridor planning discussions have generally emphasized capacity expansion at key bottleneck locations. While not excluding other non- highway considerations, such considerations have not been the focus of mobility improvement discussions. The corridor is an important East-West highway connector in the Bay Area and its existing congestion is projected to increase over the next 25 years. Even though it is a secondary highway compared to the interstates and state highways it is parallel and networked with, it relieves pressure on these other routes. At the same time, it passes through very sensitive lands and is itself at risk of flooding in the future. Corridor planning for this highway informs the regional transportation planning process; the primary planning document for this process is the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Any major improvement project needs to be in the RTP to be considered for funding. Thus, the current corridor planning step is one of the earliest at which transportation demand, environmental constraints, and community preferences can be used to define strategies for improving transportation and stewardship of valued natural and human systems. Making stewardship decisions for complex systems requires organizing similarly complex information about the systems. The Regional Ecological Framework from C06A provides a useful mechanism to organize information about natural systems to help inform

11 transportation planning. The framework is oriented toward spatial information about locations of species and habitats of concern, waterways, and other ecological attributes and processes that may be affected by transportation projects. The team has adapted and expanded the Framework concept to include more information about other aspects of the integrated human and natural systems in the study area. The C06 planning steps also provide a useful process for describing issues and using a stakeholder process to frame these issues in terms of combined transportation and environmental stewardship. Special Issue: Sea Level Rise Climate change brings with it sea level rise, which can impact natural and human communities in coastal areas. Because the study highway ranges from one or two meters above current sea level to slightly below sea level, the project rise of greater than 1 meter in the next 90 years poses a threat to the highway itself. The highway also acts as a levee between the rising Bay and thousands of acres of marshes that must be allowed to adapt to changing sea levels to survive. These marshes are both nationally important and habitat for endangered species, so the role of the highway in their adaptation must be considered in corridor planning. Regionally, there is broad political and institutional acceptance of the possibility of rising sea levels requiring adaptive action in the near future. This was true in the stakeholder process where partner agencies and community members expressed concern that marsh adaptation be considered in new capacity planning. This resulted in broad support for a causeway option for the corridor, despite this being one of the more expensive possible constructed scenarios. This abandonment of the low-lying alignment was favored over armoring the existing footprint, which makes this an interesting case study for coastal areas in the US which are considering the same questions. It remains to be seen whether or not funding can be found to raise the alignment and thus reduce risk of the highway flooding and allowing the marshes to adapt to sea level rise. “Move highways and railroads that are barriers to marsh migration where there is otherwise space for marsh expansion/migration” (One Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Recommendation in EPA report, 2011 on SF Estuary. Page T-11)

12 CHAPTER 3 Step 2. Characterize regional plans and data Develop an overall conservation/restoration strategy that integrates conservation/restoration priorities, data, and plans, with input from and adoption by all conservation and natural resource stakeholders identified in Step 1, addressing all species, all habitats, and all relevant environmental issues. Highway 37 runs along the edge of San Pablo Bay (North San Francisco Bay Area) and the corridor is adjacent to wetlands, upland grasslands, oak woodlands, and riparian areas. It is recognized regionally and nationally as a unique and ecologically important landscape of natural beauty and ecological diversity. It is characterized by its lack of intensive development and, along with the South Bay, is recognized as the part of San Francisco Bay that offers the most opportunity for wetland restoration. Historical Setting The San Francisco Bay region, including San Pablo Bay, includes the most important estuary on the continental Pacific Coast for birds and a critical link in the Pacific Flyway. Historically, tidal marshes fringed San Pablo Bay and provided habitat for many species of fish, bird, and plants, many of which are now rare or extinct. Over 85 percent of the Bay’s and over 82 percent of the North Bay’s historic tidal wetlands were lost to land reclamation, with a dramatic reduction in the wildlife populations that depended on them. Many animal and plant species have become threatened or endangered as a result of this habitat loss. Approximately 55,000 acres of tidal marsh existed in the North Bay before they were diked, drained and converted to agricultural lands. Today fewer than 10,000 acres remain. Restoration of historic wetlands and the preservation of existing open space are considered by local, state, and federal agencies as a critical step toward successfully implementing restoration and endangered species recovery efforts in the Bay-Delta and have been endorsed as a major goal by every government agency and organization interested in conservation and restoration of San Francisco Bay. For example, the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Report (1999) prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project, the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Implementation Strategy (2001), and the Bay Area Open Space Council’s Conservation Lands Network Report (2011) have developed specific goals to protect and restore Baylands and their watersheds in the North Bay. Conservation and Restoration San Francisco Bay’s tidal marshes are valued, protected and restored in recognition of their ecosystem services, which include: high productivity and habitat provision supporting the food web leading to fish and wildlife; buffer against storm wave damage; shoreline stabilization; flood

13 water storage; water quality maintenance; biodiversity preservation; carbon storage and socio- economic benefits such as recreation. These services contribute to the Bay area economy and quality of life. Many state, federal and regional public agencies and nongovernmental organizations include among their objectives acquisition and restoration of wetlands along San Pablo Bay and many properties in the Region have significant restoration potential and therefore have been identified as high acquisition priorities. These agencies and organizations may acquire fee and/or easement interests in property either directly or through a grant to another conservation organization. The decision to convert agricultural land to seasonal or tidal wetlands is made on a case by case basis and based on economics, landowner goals, availability of acquisition and restoration funding, and the sustainability of agricultural operations in the corridor and in the region. For years, scientists have recognized that restoration of the ecological vitality of the San Francisco Bay depends upon the restoration of many thousands of acres of tidal marshes around the Bay. The ecological benefits of conservation work in this region are widely acknowledged. Today, conservationists and scientists are also advocating for the restoration of tidal wetlands to provide an important natural buffer to anticipated sea level rise, which has important economic and conservation benefits. In the last three decades, 30 wetland restoration projects have been constructed and 25 more are planned within Sonoma, Napa, and Marin counties. These alone total over 21,000 acres of restoration already completed or planned. There are potentially thousands of acres available in this area for restoration. Because many of the agricultural lands that were reclaimed from marshes remain largely undeveloped, the technical requirements for their restoration to tidal marsh are relatively straightforward: build a new flood protection levee and breach and grade down the existing levees that hold back the Bay. This process has been utilized during restoration of the Sonoma Baylands, Napa-Sonoma marshes, and other locations along San Pablo Bay where there were willing landowners and public agencies. Selected key plans and policies for the Highway 37 corridor. • San Francisco Bay Joint Venture: “Roadway planning should strongly consider the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture’s partnership (27 member agencies and organizations) and federal executive order to meet its restoration objectives met through incentives and non-regulatory techniques.” • Focus: A Development and Conservation Strategy for San Francisco Bay, a partnership of ABAG, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and BCDC. • Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Project. Published in 1999, the Baylands Goals are being updated to incorporate climate change and sea level rise.

14 • Change Hits Home: Adaptation Strategies for the San Francisco Bay Area, 2011. San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. • Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on the shoreline. 2011. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

15 CHAPTER 4 Step 3. Development of Integrated Ecological Framework Integrate the conservation and restoration strategy (data and plans) prepared in Step 2 with transportation and land use data and plans (LRTP, STIP, and TIP) to create the Integrated Ecosystem Framework (IEF). The idea of the integrated ecological framework (C06A) is that it captures the environmental context of transportation infrastructure, in order to improve stewardship of ecosystems associated with transportation systems. By developing and populating the framework, parties involved in discussions of planning for specific facilities can start from the same knowledge base. For this study a sub-group of the core team met and discussed development of the IEF. Ultimately the team devised a different name for the Framework. The project focused on corridor planning and had no obvious, direct intersection with existing land-use planning. Ideally the Framework as implemented in corridor planning should extend beyond ecological and transportation issues. After discussing concerns on connotations of “corridor” (not just used for transportation, but wildlife) and “regional” (Bay Area wide), the consensus was to name this framework the “Highway 37 Corridor Context”. Other possible names discussed were “SR-37 Corridor Assessment Framework” and “Route 37 Context.” The Highway 37 Corridor Context thus continues much of the intent of the IEF, while expanding its database and mission to include environmental, transportation, agricultural land-use, community, and economic considerations and information. The purpose of the Corridor Context is to create a shared understanding of the context of Highway 37, with a common way of viewing information, to inform options and improve the ability to address stakeholder interests. The Corridor Context includes current conditions and likely or desired future conditions. In Caltrans terms, the Corridor Context serves as a “corridor assessment.” The types of content that are part of the Corridor Context include: • Quantified/mapped traffic patterns and noise model products. • Lists/maps of attributes that stakeholders value. • Narratives for topics that can’t be readily mapped; e.g. restoration history of wetlands or issue of appraised land value for agricultural formerly tidal lands. Trends in conditions that may be hard to map. • Information that is better conveyed as graphs and diagrams. Regional Objectives The corridor cuts across the “Baylands” area of the San Francisco Bay, the predominant objective for which is large-scale restoration of tidal and other marshes in order to benefit native

16 species and ecological processes and, to a lesser extent, to buffer the effects of storms and sea level rise on coastal infrastructure. Caltrans objectives are to provide access to communities and other amenities via the corridor and to provide mobility and safety along the corridor, while minimizing impacts to environmental and community conditions adjacent to the corridor. These objectives overlap in the restoration and protection of natural landscapes in the region of the corridor. It is not the job of the environmental agencies to protect the transportation function of the corridor. Nor is it the job of the transportation agencies to restore ecosystems, unless their degradation is linked to transportation infrastructure and traffic. However, there is general agreement in the North Bay that transportation agencies can play a stewardship role in the region by both avoiding new impacts and contributing to restoring existing and legacy impacts of the highway. In the context of the corridor management plan, different scenarios for the corridor may quantifiably or relatively contribute more or less to each of the environmental and transportation objectives. A stewardship approach encourages selection of a scenario, or portfolio of approaches, that demonstrably minimizes, avoids, and potentially restores impacts, while providing a basic level of safe accessibility and mobility. Description of Corridor Context Several main types of information were included in the corridor context – 1) spatial data about the distribution and composition of natural and human communities and 2) narrative descriptions of the surroundings and issues facing the corridor. The spatial data and tabular traffic data were made available for download on the project web site: http://hwy37.ucdavis.edu. Wetlands Highway 37 is surrounded by salt-water, brackish, and fresh-water wetlands along approximately half of it its length. The highway cuts across the Bay-side of many wetlands that otherwise would be subject to tidal flows. Because these wetlands vary in elevation relative to the sea, certain wetland areas are maintained artificially in fresh-water or brackish conditions when they would otherwise be salt-water tidal marshes, or mudflats. The marshes are often adjacent to agricultural, urban, and other natural lands. Many are connected to nearby creeks, rivers, and the Bay through a network of artificial and natural sloughs and drains. The Napa-Sonoma Marsh (Marsh) is a complex of tidal marshes, sloughs, rivers, and reclaimed marsh used as agricultural lands. It is located at the northern edge of San Pablo Bay and covers roughly 73 square miles (Madrone Associates 1977). This marsh has an area of 48,000 acres, of which 13,000 acres are abandoned salt evaporation ponds. The US government has designated 13,000 acres in the Marsh as the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The Marsh is fed by Sonoma Creek, Tolay Creek, and the Napa River. Most of the Marsh is only accessible by boat. Agricultural lands occupy almost half of the Marsh and are largely reclaimed

17 lands that support oats, hay and grains, and cattle and sheep. Salt production is the largest industrial use of the marsh, covering approximately 20% of the area. The status of marshlands in the San Francisco Bay Delta Area has changed considerably. Around 1860, the Marsh was one of the most productive wetlands of the Pacific Coast, providing habitat for millions of birds. By the mid-1980s, the San Francisco Bay perimeter had lost over 91% of its wetlands. Approximately 85% of the original tidal marshes in the area have been lost due to creation of salt ponds, conversion to agricultural and industrial/urban use, and water diversion and management (Marshall & Dedrick 1994). Currently, the Marsh represents one of the few coastal marshland areas where restoration is feasible and is actively promoted by the California Coastal Conservancy, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Point Reyes Bird Observatory. The close interaction among hydrological regimes, soil characteristics, and vegetation is what governs the maintenance, functions, and services provided by tidal marshes. Currently and in the future, there could be two opposing threats: insufficient tidal flooding (due to restriction), or excessive tidal flooding (due to subsidence and sea level rise). Artificial infrastructure, including roads or berms, has an impact on marsh hydrological regime by causing inadequate provision of tidal flows (Boumans et al 2002). Constrained flows hinder ecosystem functions by disrupting the natural interactions among vegetation, soil, and hydrology. The lack of saltwater tidal exchange in restricted salt marshes has 1) promoted spread of invasive species that are less tolerant to salt water; 2) restricted nekton distribution, 3) promoted the oxidation of sediment organic matter leading to subsidence or loss of elevation, and 4) decoupled the natural sedimentation process in marshes for adaptation to sea level rise. Ecosystem Functions and Services Provided by Napa-Sonoma Marsh “The Economic Value of the World’s Wetlands” provides a list of general functions and services provided by wetlands in Box 1 (Schuyt and Brander 2004). The different wetland types vary in function, contour, biota, tidal action, water quality, and in their respective contribution to the marine food chain. Wetland functions are the result of physical and biological processes and interactions. The main wetland functions that have global significance for the service they provide in tidal marshes are: a. Biodiversity Support The Marsh is a productive estuarine ecosystem providing habitat for a wide diversity of flora and fauna, including numerous rare endangered species and migratory species, many of which are attracted by the presence of water, high plant productivity, and other habitat qualities. Special status mammals and water birds include the salt marsh harvest mouse, the California clapper rail, and the black rail. Main endangered fish found are the Delta smelt, Sacramento splittail, steelhead trout, and Chinook salmon. Other aquatic animals include the endangered California freshwater shrimp, the Dungeness crab, and other benthic and planktonic invertebrates. Because of its bird diversity, the Marsh is one

18 of only seven marshes selected for intensive study by the Point Reyes Bird Observatory (based on a total of 50 discrete marshes similar to the San Francisco Bay). b. Water Quality Improvement Tidal wetlands improve degraded waters by recycling nutrients, processing chemical and organic wastes and capturing sediment loads; the cleansed water helps maintain aquatic organisms. These ecosystems undoubtedly provide water storage services and improved water quality in the Napa River and San Francisco Bay. c. Disturbance Regulation and Protection Marshes act like giant sponges, as they form a protective barrier for coastal urbanized areas, buffering buildings and transportation networks from wave impacts during storm surges. Marshes and floodplains are critical in mitigating flood damage, as they store large quantities of water, effectively reducing the height of flood peaks and the risk of flooding. Disturbance regulation saves high economic costs associated with flood damages in areas where wetlands are preserved and restored. d. Carbon Regulation and Management Thick layers of carbon-rich peat play a role in the global carbon cycle by binding poorly decomposed plant material into the substrate. The sequestration rate in wetlands is significant considering that carbon is buried in the sediment at rates up to 50 times higher than those observed on land, and these rates can be maintained for centuries or more. e. Food-Web and Nursery Habitat Maintenance The decomposed detritus from marsh vegetation contributes to the base of the food chain of estuarine and marine environments. The rich out-flowing of dissolved nutrients, organic debris, and invertebrate larvae, carried off by tidal currents, provide a food resource upon which many marine species rely, including commercially important fish. Anadromous fish such as shad, sturgeon, salmon, steel head trout, and striped bass use these areas year-round for feeding or during spring migration, and also use the area as a nursery ground during their juvenile stages (Madrone Associates 1977). f. Recreation and Cultural Services Public protected areas provide several recreation opportunities including fishing, bird watching, hunting, and environmental education. Waterfowl species recreation and hunting is well-known in marshlands around San Francisco Bay. Each of these tidal marsh services will have an impact when loss of marsh acreage occurs. Because hydrologic conditions define wetlands, any alteration of water volume (increases, decreases, or timing of high and low waters) threatens the area and integrity of

19 wetlands (Zedler and Kercher 2005). And because the quality of the water further defines the type of wetland, increases in nutrient loadings (eutrophication) often threaten wetland integrity. Due to the existence of several non-linearities in the quantification of ecosystem functions and services, the effect of development on specific services itself could show unexpected changes. For example, marsh drowning will result in an increase in un-vegetated intertidal habitat (i.e., mudflats), as will the inevitable erosion of low marsh habitat, especially along bay margins. This may or may not counteract expected mudflat losses within the open San Francisco Bay but should at least provide new foraging habitats for shorebirds, waterfowl, and other water-birds. Thus, although the loss of vegetated marsh would have negative consequences for marsh dependent species, there are likely to be benefits for other species and services associated with these species including recreation, fishing, and hunting. As a result, restoration and conservation planning in the face of sea-level rise (SLR) will necessarily involve an evaluation of ecological trade-offs, as is already the case for current restoration planning efforts. Endangered Species The wetlands, waterways, and grasslands surrounding the corridor are habitat for a wide variety of native fauna and flora, including several state- and federally-protected species (Figure 4.1). Protected species include: the Delta smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail, steelhead trout, Chinook salmon, California black rail, California clapper rail, and salt marsh harvest mouse. These species all raise permitting issues in conventional transportation planning and project delivery. One thing that is noteworthy is that environmental regulatory agencies described one future scenario for the corridor as “self-mitigating” when it came to endangered species – the causeway option.

20 Figure 4.1. Protected species and habitats near highway 37. Species and habitat spatial data from the California Natural Diversity Database. These areas represent past occurrences, but not all, or current occurrences. Land-Use There are three main land-uses along the corridor, in descending order of extent: conservation/restoration, agriculture, and urban (commercial and residential). There are two main types of agriculture – growing hay and raising dairy-cows. In the larger North Bay region, there are other kinds of field crops, vineyards/wine-making, and orchards. Highway 37 probably contributes to the movement of agricultural goods within and out of the region. Either end of the corridor is anchored by small cities that are part of the larger urban area of the San Francisco Bay. Changing land-use at the fringes of the Bay Area, primarily residential development, impacts the developed lands and surrounding areas, as well as areas such as along the Highway 37 corridor, which provide commuting pathways for exurban residents to urban jobs. Highway 37 is anchored at the west end by Marin County, which is one of the most expensive places to live in the US. Jobs-housing imbalances contribute to service and industrial workers driving from inland areas along Bay Area highways, including Highway 37, to jobs in Marin and Sonoma Counties (Hickey, 2011). Because new developments are slow to be approved (for legitimate environmental reasons) and house/apartment prices unlikely to become affordable, the imbalance

21 is likely to continue and worsen with regional population growth. Expanded capacity along Highway 37 is unlikely to make things better and may even exacerbate the situation if it becomes easier to commute from inland areas to Marin and Sonoma Counties. Sea Level Rise As a coastal highway, this corridor is under threat from sea level rise. It also poses a threat to the ability of nearby marshes to adapt to sea level rise. A state agency that is responsible for land-use and conservation planning in the Bay Area (the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, BCDC) recently developed a model of the inundation that could occur under likely climate change scenarios. This model shows much of the lowland North Bay wetlands and agriculture landscape under water, including most of the highway 37 corridor (Figure 4.2A). This “bathtub model” did not take into account the locations and elevations of berms and levees and therefore provides only an approximation of where sea level rise impacts might occur. However, when released it garnered a lot of negative and positive attention because of the risk that was apparent to various kinds of infrastructure and land-ownership. More recent, high-resolution elevation modeling by the US Geological Survey (Figure 4.2B) makes it obvious which segments of highway and areas of wetlands are most at risk from future sea level rise. The USGS is using these data to develop high-resolution, coastal sea level rise models.

22 A B Figure 4.2. Areas in the North San Francisco Bay potentially at risk from sea level rise. A. Model commissioned by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, showing 150 cm rise by year 2100. B. Areas adjacent to part of the highway below current sea level (<0 m elevation) and below future sea level at 2100 (<1-2 m elevation).

23 Transportation Highway 37 constitutes a major regional east-west vehicular transportation corridor in the northern Bay Area, connecting the North Bay from US 101 in Marin County to Interstate-80 (I- 80) in Solano County (Figure 4.3). Stretching west to east for approximately 22 miles, Highway 37 is anchored by Novato in Marin County and Vallejo in Solano County. Highway 37 runs along the northern shore of San Pablo Bay. It primarily serves commute and recreational traffic between Marin, Sonoma, and Solano Counties. Figure 4.3. Position of the corridor in the Bay Area regional network of highways. Traffic volumes are currently below capacity for the entire length of the corridor (Table 4.1). Without capacity enhancement, segments of the corridor are anticipated in 2035 to operate significantly above capacity. Increasing capacity is expected to alleviate congestion along segment B, which is the segment that runs without intersection through the marshes, between I- 80 and State Highway 121. Caltrans regularly collects traffic data along state highways. In addition, the agency and local agencies model projected future traffic volumes, based on current conditions, highway capacities, and changing land-use. Future traffic demand was modeled for the highways in the

24 study region. The Marin County Travel Demand Model was used for this exercise. Year 2035 forecasted volumes for Highway 37 were estimated for the existing facility configuration as well as a possible future four-lane freeway facility for the entire corridor length. In addition, a year 2035 model run was performed with existing Highway 37 removed from the model network west of Highway 29 (to simulate a realignment of Highway 37 along existing highway route alternatives because of rising sea level). For this scenario, year 2035 volumes were provided for key highway segments that provide an alternative to east-west travel on Highway 37. Travel Demand Model Capabilities and Limitations Results from a Travel Demand Model are for use in high-level planning analyses of long-term improvements, and do not represent comprehensive analysis of existing and future traffic conditions within a travel corridor. Travel demand models have specific analytical capabilities, such as the prediction of travel demand and general representation of traffic flow in a regional highway network. They use mathematical models to forecast future travel demand based on current conditions and future projections of household and employment characteristics. They are not designed to evaluate system management strategies, such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS) or specific operational improvements. Average Annual Daily Traffic, Peak Hour Traffic and Volume-to-Capacity Ratios Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) is a typical TDM performance measure showing the total number of vehicles that traverse a segment of highway for a year divided by 365 days. As a result it averages out seasonal variations in traffic volume, providing a general indicator of the volume of traffic accommodated by the highway segment. Another typical TDM performance measure is peak hour traffic, which shows the highest number of vehicles that traverse a highway segment during the single hour of highest peak traffic (usually noting if it is the AM or PM peak hour). A vehicle-to-capacity (V/C) ratio compares the actual or projected number of peak hour vehicles shown to be travelling through the mainline highway lanes against the assumed full capacity of the same mainline highway segment. For example, a typical freeway lane is often assumed to accommodate 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane, so a 2-lane freeway would have a full capacity of 4,000 vehicles per hour. If that freeway had 3,150 vehicles per hour, it would be operating with a V/C ratio of 0.79. Any highway segment with a V/C ratio under 1.0 is assumed to operate under full capacity on a typical day. This does not necessarily mean there is no congestion or operational problems, just that the amount of travel demand is less than its theoretical capacity. While any V/C ratio over 1.0 is not physically possible, in a TDM output this simply represents a theoretical traffic demand beyond the full capacity of the highway segment.

25 Table 4.1. Traffic Volumes as Average Annual Daily Travel (AADT) for the Three Segments of the Highway Corridor 2010 2035 (existing) 2035 (inc. capacity)Segment Description Segment AADT AADT AADTUS-101 to SR121 Segment A 37,933 67,823 72,181SR121 to Mare Island in Vallejo Segment B 36,970 66,145 72,896Mare Island to I-80 Segment C 92,382 114,932 119,366 (Exceeds peak volume/capacity ratio of 1) “2035 (existing)” refers to the highway with its existing capacity. “2035 (inc. capacity)” refers to the highway with increased capacity in segment B (2 lanes to 4 lanes). The orange highlight indicates traffic volumes that exceed capacity at peak times.

26 CHAPTER 5 Step 4. Assess Land Use and Transportation Effects on Resource Conservation Objectives Identified in the REF The corridor provides commuting access between residential areas inland of the San Francisco Bay and service and commercial jobs in coastal Marin and Sonoma Counties. It also serves goods movement among agricultural, processing, and industrial facilities. Over the next 25 years, traffic on the highway (and other regional routes) is projected to increase by 30,000 AADT (between 30% and 80% increase), related to increased land development in the San Francisco Bay Area and adjacent areas. Expanding the capacity of the highway is projected to result in an additional 12% increase in traffic (Table 5.1), which may be related to the availability of an improved facility. In the present study, the existing and projected traffic volumes were used to assess current and potential future effects on surrounding natural areas, as well as urban areas. The assessment was based on the “road effect zone”, which is the area around a given roadway affected by the presence of the infrastructure and the traffic. Road Effect Zone Road/highway effects from the existence and use of infrastructure are pervasive throughout developed landscapes, but seldom measured, modeled, visualized, or used in planning and transportation decision-making. This means that the evaluation of potential transportation alternatives, potential impacts, and potential mitigation activities are not based on the actual distribution of effects from the transportation infrastructure. The environmental impacts of roads and road networks vary in type and degree based on the physical properties of the roadway, the activities associated with the road, and the sensitivity of the local environment. The local environment affected by the road surface and traffic has been termed the “road effect zone” (Forman and Deblinger, 2000; Forman et al., 2002a). Although there is a rapidly growing literature on specific environmental impacts within this zone (stormwater runoff effects, biological invasions, noise, wildlife barriers), there have been few tests of the extent of the road effect zone, how various impacts are interrelated, and how these impacts could be minimized through pavement and roadside management activities, and how the zone could be used in transportation planning. Road effects on aquatic ecosystems can consist of chemical inputs to waterways (Gjessing et al., 1984; Hoffman 1981; Bell and Ashenden 1997; Ziegler and Giambelluca 1997), alteration of aquatic community processes (Wilcox 1986; Maltby et al., 1995), impacts upon the physical characteristics (e.g., channelization) and processes of stream systems, and their ability to recover from land-use impacts (Meyers and Swanson 1995). Riparian roads can cause reduced riparian bird species richness and density (Rottenborn 1999) and overall species richness in wetlands (Findlay and Houlahan 1997). Roads can also affect terrestrial biodiversity directly

27 through loss of habitat and increased mortality, as well as indirectly by causing ecological changes in the “road-effect zone,” hindering habitat connectivity, and fragmenting habitat patches (Jonsen and Fahrig 1997, Chapin et al., 1998, Rosenberg et al., 1999, Baker and Knight 2000). Road and land development can cause fragmentation with varying impacts (Yahner 1988, Theobald et al., 1997, Lidicker 1999). Fragmentation and disturbance impacts from roads may exacerbate threats of extinction from other factors through impacts on migration and habitat quality (Fahrig 2001). Not only do roads create artificial habitat edges, but they also pose a barrier to species dispersal and migration through aversion effects (“habitat alienation”, e.g., Mac et al., 1996), direct mortality from traffic (Madsen 1996, Putman 1997, Rubin et al., 1998), and traffic noise-induced effects (Reijnen et al., 1997, Gill et al., 1996). The combination of edge and barrier can reduce the effective area for species that depend on intact habitat in the interior of patches. Roads can affect people too. Traffic noise has been shown to be connected with increased incidence of hypertension and specific heart ailments (Lercher et al., 2011). This problem increases with age and is inversely related to education and income. Table 5.1. Examples of Effects Distances from the Scientific Literature Road Effect Effect Distance (m) Citation Amphibian occupancy 1,000 Eigenbrod et al., 2009 Sensitive birds occupancy 1,200 Forman et al., 2002 Large mammals movement 600 Gagnon et a., 2007 Soil contamination 30 Backstrom et al., 2003 Wetlands processes 500 Findlayand Houlahan, 1996 Human health 400 Raaschou-Nielsen, 2011; Spira-Cohen et al., 2011 Note: These distances represent the furthest measurable distance of each effect in the cited study. The "road effect zone" (Forman et al. 2002a) provides an efficient way to delineate, describe, and communicate about the interactions between roadways and natural systems and processes. This zone extends from the immediate road-side environment out to the extent of effects from individual roadways and road systems. Partial delineation and use of this zone concept has been used for tortoises (Boarman and Sazaki, 2006) and frogs (Lesbarreres et al., 2003). However, there is very little development of the zone concept in the literature, despite the fact that it is robust and measurable and that it would be very useful to guide road ecology research and transportation planning and management strategies. As a proof of concept for modeling specific effects of transportation, the team focused on one of the more challenging components, accurately calculating the traffic noise envelopes around roads. Traffic noise effects occur at intermediate distances compared to near-road effects (e.g., weed-seed dispersal) and long-distance effects (e.g., NOx emissions impacts on regional

28 plant communities). The team used the noise model, System for the Prediction of Acoustic Detectability (SPreAD) version 2.0, developed at the Center for Landscape Analysis (UC Berkeley) by Sarah Reed, now at Colorado State University. The output of the model was a map of a part of the road effect zone and was used in discussions about road effects and ways to develop impact assessments and crediting strategies. Modeling Noise Effects The sound model, System for the Prediction of Acoustic Detectability (SPreAD), is an ArcGIS toolbox plug-in for modeling sound propagation from a single point source across the landscape. SPreAD was originally a spreadsheet routine developed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency to study recreational noise in US National Parks and Forests. The Center for Landscape Analysis in San Francisco updated the model, converting the lookup tables to formulas. The model calculates noise propagation at a given frequency from a point- source, based on land-cover, topography, and climatic conditions. The road network totals 202 km and was broken into thirteen road segments, which were in turn further represented by points 250 m apart. Noise propagation from the points within each segment was analyzed, resulting in a raster representing noise intensities (in dBA). The team used current (2010) and projected (2035) average annual daily travel (AADT) traffic volumes and traffic composition (e.g., % heavy trucks) to calculate sound intensities (in dBA) at the highway. Traffic noise was estimated using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model, v2.5 (FHWA, 2004). Noise at the point of origin (highway), a digital elevation model (DEM), land cover (i.e., vegetation and developed areas), and climatic conditions were used to model sound propagation across the landscape. The output of the sound model was a raster with a gradation of values from a peak at the roadway (greater than 80 dBA) to background noise (~35 dBA). Two cutoffs were used to understand potential impacts of traffic noise: greater than 40-50 dBA, for sensitive birds (Parris and Schneider, 2009; Dooling and Popper, 2007), and 50 dBA, for multiple effects on human health (reviewed in Lercher et al., 2011). The raster extent at 40 dBA was intersected with the California Vegetation map (CalVeg) to assess potential effects on sensitive wildlife living in different habitat types. The raster map extent at 50 dBA was intersected with the National Land Cover Dataset, urban areas, to approximate effects on human health. This type of intersection provides transportation planners and environmental regulatory agencies with a way of estimating the impacts of current and proposed transportation projects on species and habitats of management concern. Traffic noise can affect both natural and human system well-being. Estimating traffic noise impacts on highways in a region with varying traffic intensities provides a mechanism for both calculating total transportation impacts, as well as understanding trade-offs inherent in developing different transportation corridors. In the North San Francisco Bay region, traffic noise impacts vary considerably among highways with different traffic volumes and in different natural settings and communities (Figure 5.1B). These varying impacts are critical to understand

29 if regional highway-specific and cumulative impacts are to be understood and used in transportation planning. Noise Effects Findings There are various ways that noise effects can be accounted for to inform credits, valuation, and decision-making. The easiest and crudest is in terms of habitat area affected. This doesn’t necessarily measure harmful outcomes, so much as provide an estimate of impact in land-units, which are a familiar currency in transportation and land-use decision-making. The impacts to wildlife and people can be derived from the area-affected, if there is knowledge about how many individuals, or what species, live in the affected area. Traffic noise can affect sensitive birds down to a sound intensity of 40 dBA. This is about the noise level of a suburban neighborhood, which is still higher than the noise level in a quiet grassland or forest (~20 - 25 dBA). Noise affects most wildlife, birds, and humans at levels above 50 dBA, with more severe effects as the noise level goes up toward 100 dBA, levels which can cause physiological harm. The team estimated the habitat-area affected by traffic noise from Highway 37 and from the regional highways (Figure 5.1), under different improvement/expansion scenarios (Table 5.2). These scenarios are described in “Step 5” below and in Appendix A. Scenarios B & C involve expanding the highway to four lanes upon a raised footprint (B), or a causeway (C), for which traffic is expected to increase. Scenario D involves removing the majority of the current alignment and co-aligning the highway with Interstate 80 to the south. Under current conditions, greater than 14,000 people may be affected by traffic noise (greater than 50 dBA) from highway 37 (Figure 5.2, Table 5.2). This number goes up to greater than 23,000 by 2035, due to traffic increases. Removing the stretch of Highway 37 that goes across the marshes reduces the traffic through the neighboring urban area and thus the number of people affected by noise (7,800).

30 Figure 5.1. Noise impacts from traffic on planning region highways. Traffic noise dissipation was estimated using the model SPreAD. Land-cover is represented using the National Land Cover Dataset.

31 Figure 5.2. Traffic noise impact area for sound intensities >50 dBA.

32 Table 5.2. Traffic Noise Affected Areas Under Different Timeframes and Improvement Scenarios Habitat Type 2010 Affected Area Ha (>40 dBA) 2010 Affected Area Ha (>50 dBA) 2035, Scenarios B & C Affected Area Ha (>40 dBA) 2035, Scenarios B & C Affected Area Ha (>50 dBA) 2035, Scenario D Affected Area Ha (>40 dBA) 2035, Scenario D Affected Area Ha (>50 dBA) Open Water 2,038 415 2,590 701 140 13 Annual Grass 1,502 165 2,509 307 205 15 Coastal Oak Woodland 189 23 313 37 0 0 Urban (# of people affected) 1,994 575 (14,375) 2,852 947 (23,675) 1,306 312 (7,800) Saline Marshes 1,491 573 1,923 799 125 13 Freshwater Marshes 752 278 869 407 10 4 Blue Oak Woodland 49 9 71 14 11 7 Cropland/ Pasture 2,223 610 2,668 988 0 0 Total 8,244 2,073 10,943 3,253 491 52 Note: Area is in hectares (Ha). The number of people affected in urban areas was calculated by taking the average population density in the area (25/Ha) and multiplying by the affected area in Ha. As noted above, traffic noise contributes to hypertension and specific heart conditions (Lercher et al., 2011). One way to think about noise impacts is in terms of economic cost of induced health effects. Without knowing the actual number of affected people in the traffic noise zone, an estimate can be made of number of people and annual costs of traffic noise-induced hypertension. Hypertension costs on average $1,598/year medical costs (Trogdon, 2007) + $300/year employee-productivity loss (Goetzel, 2004) = $1,898/year. Approximately one out of three adult Americans have diagnosable and treatable hypertension (CDC,

33 www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/facts.htm). Using the estimate of noise affected population near Highway 37, one type of health cost associated with noise can be calculated: 2010 (Current condition) 14,375 people X $1,898/year-person X 1/3 = $9,085,489/year 2035 (Scenarios B & C) 23,675 X $1,898/year-person X 1/3 = $14,963,405/year 2035 (Scenario D) 7,800 X $1,898/year-person X 1/3 = $4,929,865/year Traffic noise is not the only cause of hypertension. Similarly, these are not the only costs that could occur from noise effects on health, or noise-annoyance. They are also not the only impacts that could have costs associated with them. For example, noise effects on habitat quality and occupancy would change the “value” of habitat adjacent to highways, to wildlife and to people.

34 CHAPTER 6 Step 5. Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions Caltrans is currently developing a Corridor Management Plan for State Highway 37. This plan will be informed by this study and stakeholder process. The approach the team took for this step was to combine the idea of transportation system modification with ecological protection and improvements to create an overall portfolio of stewardship actions. To make this more concrete in terms of the highway, future scenarios were created that reflected the discussion within the project team and with stakeholders. These scenarios provided a more grounded discussion of impacts and benefits to different constituencies, environmental impacts and permits, cost and feasibility, and potential corresponding ecological and mitigation actions. The scenarios were presented several times after development and feedback, including in the survey sent out to stakeholders and communities near the highway. It was important to note that the Plan does not yet have formally-described alternatives. Five Possible Futures for the Corridor During discussion within Caltrans and among stakeholders in this study, five high-level scenarios have arisen as possible futures for Highway 37. These five are intended to provide alternative scenarios suitable for future transportation needs and also recognize the sensitivity of the environment in the area surrounding this transportation corridor. In developing the scenarios, consideration was given to multi-modal travel, impacts to tidal and brackish marsh habitat in San Pablo Bay, adjacent land-uses, traffic flows, climate change-induced sea level rise, and what constitutes “sustainable transportation”. Appendix A contains additional detail about activities, impacts, and benefits associated with each scenario. a. “No Highway Expansion”: Caltrans would continue to manage the corridor with maintenance and repair activities and minor operational improvements (but no significant change in the footprint or capacity). This scenario has the least new permitting and regulatory requirements. Although regulatory agencies saw this scenario as having few new impacts, they recognized that existing impacts would continue and impacts from repairs were likely to increase over time. b. “Expanded Footprint”: The height and width of the corridor through the marshes would double and the corridor would be expanded to four lanes to address current and projected future traffic. This was originally the default choice of Caltrans for expanding the highway – by both reducing impacts from sea level rise and flooding and increasing capacity. Through the study, Caltrans staff have recognized that other scenarios should be explored. Regulatory agencies expressed the opinion during meetings that this was the scenario least-likely to receive the necessary environmental permits because of its high-

35 level of continued and new impacts. c. “Napa-Sonoma Causeway”: The corridor (two or four lanes) would be elevated onto a causeway across the tidal marshes (option 1) or across the San Pablo Bay (option 2) between Vallejo and Novato. Despite the expense that is likely to construct this option, it has remained the main focus of discussion among all stakeholders, including transportation and conservation organizations. Existing and new impacts would be reduced compared to scenario (b) and possibly (a). Some regulators described the project as self-mitigating, while others recognized that the elevated roadway would still project traffic noise into sensitive habitats. d. “Strategic Co-alignment”: The corridor would be re-aligned away from marshes and wetlands between Vallejo and Novato, with I-80 and 580 to the south, or with Highways 29 and 12/121/116 to the north. This novel approach would require de-construction of the existing road-bed and combination of the numbered highway (37) with another regional highway. Improvements to this alternate combined route may need to be made. Regulators regarded this scenario as having the least impact, with agencies expressing concern over displaced impacts to other highways. e. “San Pablo Bay Tunnel”: The corridor would be routed through a tunnel at the shortest feasible distance between the Vallejo and Novato areas. This scenario was suggested by a Caltrans environmental scientist because of its technological feasibility and relatively low environmental impact. However, this may be the highest cost scenario and is generally regarded by stakeholders as infeasible from that point of view. Regulators had trouble discussing this scenario because of perceived infeasibility but described it as having very- low post-construction impact. These scenarios describe fairly exclusive and different possible futures. However, it is possible that various components of these scenarios could be combined to better address key issues identified by stakeholders during this study (such as multi-modal travel, sea level rise, agriculture, re-establishment of tidal flow, ecosystem, and habitat restoration and protection). Transportation-Associated Stewardship and Mitigation The project team saw many options for corridor projects that provide ground-breaking environmental benefits. Maximizing environmental benefits will require planning discussions with local organizations, since partner organizations are already working on these issues and locations. From an environmental review perspective, the project should be evaluated based on the net improvement it provides in environmental values. The project may have substantial short-

36 term negative impacts, but for all scenarios, the long-term environmental benefits, if any, should be considered, and in some cases those long-term benefits may far outweigh any short term impacts. Some possible specific actions to pursue are listed here: • Floodplain and Bayland enhancement, and wildlife habitat connectivity, as part of watershed-wide multi-benefit projects. Numerous parties in all affected counties are in the process of designing multi-benefit water projects for funding by the Department of Water Resources through the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. • Spend mitigation money on actions consistent with the objectives put forth by the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals, Conservation Lands Network, FOCUS, and other consensus plans for the region. These are primarily related to marshlands acquisition and restoration. • Repair fish passage barriers, including those created by Caltrans’ own infrastructure. Plant along streams or for other bird or animal habitat. • Fund fish and wildlife monitoring projects. The streams crossing under Highway 37, in general, support several protected species of fish, yet it has been impossible to find grant funding to determine their diversity or numbers. • Conduct habitat enhancement on agricultural properties. For example, install bird boxes for a variety of species or implement riparian restoration projects. • The north Baylands are unique in the Bay region, and provide Bay-wide benefits. It may be possible to enhance mitigation resources for the North Bay by using mitigation money from projects around the Bay. To be considered stewardship actions, as defined here, these actions may receive resources from Caltrans, but not for mitigation of proposed projects. Even without any infrastructure projects, the existing highway footprint has un-mitigated impacts on wildlife and natural processes, which will be exacerbated with sea level rise. Improving travel may involve supporting multi-modal travel, rather than highway expansion. Improving environmental conditions in the corridor may involve moving/re-aligning the highway away from the marshes, or otherwise allowing the Bay and marshes to re-connect. Mitigation for proposed expansion or repair of the highway could involve the proposed ecological actions above, or “self-mitigating” construction actions, like re-aligning the highway, raising it onto a causeway, or replacing the footprint with a tunnel under the Bay. Minimizing and avoiding impacts should be the first mitigation actions considered, and for certain future scenarios for this corridor may be all that is needed. Compensatory mitigation is considered the last-resort by environmental regulatory agencies, but is often the primary consideration of transportation and other infrastructure agencies. For this corridor, compensatory actions could be based on the impact assessment in the next step.

37 CHAPTER 7 Step 6. Description of Credit and Valuation Approach The crediting system described by C06 Step 6 is intended to provide a consistent approach to measuring impacts and using a formal equivalent to impacts (e.g., acres) as an exchange unit in a crediting system. The crediting system then forms one basis for negotiations over mitigation requirements and tradeoffs between ecological and transportation functions. The team’s implementation of this concept was based on two approaches: 1. The first involved statement of values and corridor scenario preferences, elicited using formal surveying of stakeholder-advisors and community members, as well as documentation of value statements made at stakeholder meetings (particularly the October World Café meeting in Vallejo). This approach does not allow calculation of “credits” per se, but it does provide a broad view of socially-preferable directions and rankings of possible alternatives for the corridor. 2. The second approach involved a method developed by the Road Ecology Center and Sustainable Transportation Center at UC Davis, under contract with Caltrans. It was refined during this study in collaboration with a visiting scholar from the French Ministry of Transportation (Appendix B). The approach is based on twin pillars of accurately measuring impacts of transportation on ecological and human systems and using stakeholder and community preferences as one way to value attributes of the overall system and prioritize among possible choices or scenarios. Impacts of transportation were estimated using the “road effect zone” approach, which is a geographically-explicit expression of road effects for a given roadway and landscape. The output of the impacts assessment is measured in area units, providing an exchange currency for transportation planning. Approach 1: Stakeholder Valuation of Corridor Context and Plan Alternatives The stakeholder process for the project was extensive and included many interested parties. This process used stakeholder meetings and a “World Café” style workshop to both discover important values on the corridor and to identify those values which are irreplaceable in any planned scenario. However, it did not include the broader community, so the process was augmented using a standardized survey made available to interested community members. Stakeholder Advisory Process Values for existing uses and objectives for the corridor and associated ecosystems and communities were compared among the future scenarios. In the first step, World Café stakeholder participants applied their values to different transportation, wetlands, open space,

38 and management attributes (A). In addition, changes in indicators for these attributes are quantified for each scenario, to facilitate scenario comparison (B). Café participants were asked to compare their values for each of 4 types of concern (and specific concerns): Transportation systems (congestion, regional system impacts, safety), Wetlands (wetland habitat, wildlife, sea level rise adaptation), Open Space (open space, agriculture, recreation), and Management (decision reversibility, cost). The votes for each type of concern were summed to give an estimate of how much stakeholders valued the different ways of viewing the corridor. Despite the fact that only 1 environmentalist was present among the 58 participant stakeholders, the dominant concern was for wetlands as habitat for wildlife and for the capacity of the tidal marshes to adapt to sea level rise. The value of this finding is primarily in developing weights for the valuation approach. One way to calculate weights would be to compare the relative values for each type of concern in the “high” category (Figure 7.1). This calculation results in the following: Wetlands, 45; Transportation, 28; Management, 15; and Open Space/Ag, 12. Another approach is to multiply the number of votes in each category by the value (from 1 to 5), then sum the weighted votes within each type of concern. This calculation results in the following: Wetlands, 30; Transportation, 26; Management, 23; and Open Space/Ag, 22. With either approach, the relative ranking among types of concern stays the same, but the differences are smoothed out by taking into account lower value categories.

39 Figure 7.1. Relative value among types of concern along the corridor. Community Activity, Values, and Preference Survey The purpose of conducting a community survey was to reach the greatest possible diversity of people who will be affected by changes to Highway 37 (within the budget of the project). Despite advertising the stakeholder meetings through partner channels, only a small group of people who would be impacted by changes to Highway 37 was aware that a planning process was under way. Additionally, the meetings were held during normal business hours and in different locations due to the large land area that Highway 37 spans. Therefore, even those that were aware of the meetings may not have been able to attend them. The community survey was able to reach an additional set of stakeholders whose views are significant to this corridor plan and who may have otherwise been overlooked. Community members living near the corridor were randomly selected and sent a postcard during February, 2012, asking them to complete a web-based survey describing their activities and preferences for the corridor (n = 529 completed surveys). The preferences questions began with getting them to describe their feelings about traffic conditions, environment, rural character, and highway management. Then participants were asked their opinions about specific future scenarios for the highway and how well they felt these scenarios supported different possible

40 values for the corridor context. Stakeholder process participants were also invited to take the survey (n = 49 completed surveys). Survey Details The community survey contained 47 questions divided into the following question groups: “Your Travel and Experience with Highway 37”, “Your Vision for Highway 37’s Future”, and “Proposed Changes to Highway 37 and General Comments”. The community survey was anonymous. Only the respondent’s ZIP code was collected so that data analysis by city would be possible. The first section, “Your Travel and Experience with Highway 37”, included general questions about travel behavior and the respondent’s awareness of sea level rise and local wetland health. Questions were also asked about the respondent’s willingness to take public transit as an alternative to driving on Highway 37. The second question group was designed to capture how each respondent values individual components of a potential corridor plan. Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of each item below on a five-point scale. • Rural Character o Preservation of open space and views o Support for regional agriculture o Public access to the water and wetlands for recreation and education • Transportation o Traffic congestion relief o Minimal impact (during construction) to the existing transportation system o Safety, emergency access, and maintenance vehicle access o Providing public transportation options o Providing a bicycle/pedestrian path (or bike lanes) o Minimal or no impact to the natural environment • Environment o Protection of wildlife and their habitat o Restoring the Bay marshes and the natural processes related to them o Wetland health and adjustment to sea-level rise o Restoring tidal action now blocked by the highway structure o Providing safer animal migration • Highway Planning and Management o A travel option that can easily be changed if needed o Minimal financial cost o Provides access to work, recreational, and other destinations Respondents were also asked to rank the criteria listed above for overall importance, by selecting the top five planning components that were most valuable to them.

41 The third set of questions used the same criteria as listed above, but asked each respondent to consider each planning criteria again as it relates to one of the five possible scenarios for the future of Highway 37. Respondents rated each scenario’s ability to support each planning criteria on a five-point scale. The scenarios are as follows: a. No Highway Expansion - Manage the corridor with maintenance and repair activities and minor operational improvements (no significant change in the footprint or capacity). b. Expanded Footprint - Height and width of the corridor through the marshes would double and the corridor would be expanded to four lanes to address current and projected future traffic volumes. c. Napa-Sonoma Causeway - Option 1: over existing footprint at areas of low elevation; Option 2: across San Pablo Bay between Novato & Vallejo. d. Strategic Re-alignment - Corridor would be re-aligned away from marshes and wetlands between Vallejo and Novato, with I-80 and 580 to the south, or with Highways 29 and 12/121/116 to the north. e. San Pablo Bay Tunnel - Corridor would be routed through a tunnel at the shortest feasible distance between the Vallejo area and the Novato area In the last section, respondents were asked to rank the five corridor scenarios overall, as well as their willingness to pay a toll to assist with the expense of any changes to Highway 37. General comments were also welcomed. Survey Results The results of the survey provided a way to both gauge broad community and stakeholder- advisor support for different values that could come into play along the corridor, as well as how different constructed highway alternatives might serve different needs. STAKEHOLDER PROCESS REPRESENTATION Institutions and Interests: A stakeholder process is often considered to be a proxy system for including broad social values and inputs in planning. The stakeholder process included a slice of these values, as represented by institutional interests that participated in the process. Figure 7.2 shows the organizational and sectoral representation of stakeholder process participants who completed the survey. Approximately half of respondents represent a government agency of some kind (Figure 7.2A), but many different types of interests are represented (Figure 7.2B).

42 A B Figure 7.2. Institutional and sector representation of stakeholder respondents.

43 Travel Behavior: One way to compare the stakeholder process participants with the community at large is based on their responses to the survey. Survey respondents were queried about their travel use of Highway 37. Their use of the highway was slightly different – 50% of community members used the highway once per week or more often, compared to 30% of stakeholders (Figure 7.3). A B Figure 7.3. Frequency that A) community members and B) stakeholder process participants drive on Highway 37.

44 Sea Level Rise and Wetlands: Another way to compare community members and participants in the stakeholder process is based upon their knowledge and familiarity with sea level rise and wetlands. Both of these concepts played a large role in discussions about future scenarios for the highway. In general, stakeholders had greater familiarity/knowledge of sea level rise and wetlands than respondents to the community survey (Table 7.1). Table 7.1. Familiarity of Stakeholder Process Participants and Community Members with Sea Level Rise from Climate Change and Wetlands Sea Level Rise (SLR) Stakeholder Community Don’t believe SLR is occurring 0% 10% Unfamiliar 6% 20% Somewhat familiar 24% 43% Very familiar 54% 22% I’m an expert 0% 1% Wetlands and Their Role Unfamiliar 0% 9% Somewhat familiar 21% 53% Very familiar 46% 33% I’m an expert 16% 2% STAKEHOLDER AND COMMUNITY VALUES AND CHOICES Respondents to the survey were asked about the components of the corridor context that they valued (Table 7.2). These values were then used to refine their selection of transportation scenarios, insofar as the scenarios supported their values. Table 7.2. Percentage of Respondents Who Find the Listed Values or Planning Criteria “Somewhat Important” or “Very Important” “Stakeholder” “Community” Rural Character Preservation of open space and views 90% 82% Support for regional agriculture 85% 79% Public access to the water and wetlands for recreation and education 81% 73% Transportation Traffic congestion relief 76% 92% Minimal impact [during construction] to the existing transportation system 59% 79% Safety, emergency access and maintenance vehicle access 86% 90%

45 Providing public transportation options 72% 62% Providing a bicycle/pedestrian path (or bike lanes) 68% 47% Minimal or no impact to the natural environment 91% 73% Environment Protection of wildlife and their habitat 90% 82% Restoring the Bay marshes and the natural processes related to them 90% 69% Wetland health and adjustment to sea-level rise 88% 69% Restoring tidal action now blocked by the highway structure 79% 50% Providing safer animal migration 86% 63% Highway Planning and Management A travel option that can easily be changed if needed 53% 75% Minimal financial cost 50% 70% Provides access to work, recreational, and other destinations 92% 93% The results in the table show that traffic congestion, safety concerns, and access are the most valued criteria for community members. Open space and wildlife protection are also highly valued, but less so than the transportation concerns. The results are slightly different for institutional participants in the stakeholder process, as they appear to value the environmental criteria more, which is consistent with the findings from the World Café. Asking community respondents to rank the planning criteria relative to each other offers slightly different results. Traffic congestion was the overwhelming concern, ranked first by 40%. Wetlands health (14%) and wildlife protection (11%) came in a distant second and third place. VALUES AND FUTURE SCENARIOS The role of values for the corridor context in selecting future scenarios can be presented in two ways, both representing the same idea of how much each future scenario supports each main value area. The first way (Figure 7.4A) is to look at how each scenario contributes to each value area (Rural Character, Transportation, Environment, and Planning and Management). The second way (Figure 7.4B) is to look at the overall contribution of each scenario to all value areas simultaneously. Respondents ranked each scenario for its support of different values and these ranks were coded as follows: does not support = 0, somewhat supportive = 1, supports = 2. The weighted-average support “score” was calculated for each scenario-value combination (e.g., environment and scenario B).

46 Figure 7.4. Support from each future scenario for different values. (A) Contribution of each value to each scenario. (B) Contribution of each scenario to each value. A B

47 The causeway (C) and no highway expansion (A) were most supportive of rural character, scenarios A,B, and C were all moderately supportive of planning and management, B and C were seen as most supportive of transportation needs/desires, and C, D, and E were seen as most supportive of the environment (Figure 7.4A). Seen in a slightly different way, the causeway, scenario C, was most supportive of environmental needs, relative to other values; the expanded footprint, scenario B, was most supportive of transportation needs, relative to other values. When these two scenarios are looked at side by side, both are seen to support transportation needs, but there is a clear perceived difference between their support for environmental needs. According to the community and stakeholder survey respondents, the scenario that supports the most planning criteria is the Napa-Sonoma Causeway. Although estimated relative cost was not shared during the surveying process, it’s probably safe to assume that most people will realize that the tunnel (E) and causeway (C) are likely to be the most expensive and no expansion (A), or removing the highway footprint (D) are likely to be the least expensive (Table 7.3). The scenarios that may be the least feasible (D and E) were ranked lowest. The most feasible expansion option with the least environmental impact (the causeway, C) was the highest ranking, despite its likely high price tag. When asked if they would be willing to pay a toll to assist with the expense of any change to Highway 37, nearly equal numbers of community respondents said yes and no. 46% of stakeholders are willing to pay a toll to see improvements made to the Highway 37 corridor. Table 7.3. The Project Team Estimated Relative Cost for Each Scenario, Shown Here as Relative Ranks, for the Sake of Comparison. Scenario “Stakeholder” “Community” Relative Cost* A) No Highway Expansion – third most favored 8% 17% 4 B) Expanded Footprint – second most favored 20% 29% 3 C) Napa-Sonoma Causeway – most favored 66% 45% 2 D) Strategic Co-alignment – least favored 4% 4% 5 (lowest) E) San Pablo Bay Tunnel – fourth most favored 0% 5% 1 (highest) * “Cost” is a relative estimate for each scenario and does not reflect actual cost. Approach 2: Measuring Impacts (“Assess Transportation Effects”) The team used the “Road Effect Zone” model to measure the effects of the highway corridor and associated highways in the region. One type of effect is excess noise from traffic. The team modeled traffic noise for all highways in the region that provide similar access and mobility as

48 Highway 37. The team used traffic projections for 2035 to anticipate traffic noise impacts in order to improve valuation of the noise impact for future highway capacity scenarios. Traffic noise impacts wildlife and people, though at different sound intensities and frequencies. In addition, a high-level assessment of expected traffic impacts was conducted using a County-level Travel Demand Model. A more detailed traffic simulation model is needed to advance this element of traffic impacts in the study area. Valuation The proposed valuation approach is a combination of weighted values among concerns and quantification of the concerns among alternative scenarios (Appendix B). By combining what stakeholders value with quantification of impacted benefits (e.g., wetland function) among alternative futures for the corridor should improve the social/political acceptability of the decision outcome, as well as the potential environmental-stewardship benefits.

49 CHAPTER 8 Step 7. Develop Programmatic Consultation, Biological Opinion or Permit Develop Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), agreements, programmatic 404 permits, or ESA Section 7 consultations for transportation projects in a way that documents the goals and priorities identified in Steps 5 & 6 and the parameters for achieving these goals. The team’s approach to this step was to bring environmental regulators into an informal consultation process much earlier than is typical. This was in order to anticipate any conflicts that could arise early in planning, rather than at the later project-environmental review stage. The primary finding from this exercise was that environmental regulators and transportation agency staff were able to find common grounds for discussions, though sometimes it was a struggle because of the lack of a specific project to discuss. In addition, US Fish and Wildlife Service staff that were funded by the liaison program (FHWA) were told by their liaison coordinator at Caltrans that they could not bill time spent on this project to the liaison contract. This created difficulties as they were the staff that would eventually review and permit any projects in the corridor. Ultimately, every regional, state, and federal agency that would have a permitting role in the corridor participated in at least one meeting to discuss regulatory and permitting issues on the corridor. Highway 37 traverses one of the largest wetlands complexes on the West Coast and is likely to face high regulatory hurdles for almost any transportation projects. Transportation agency staff have said that this has contributed to a lack of desire to pursue expansion of the highway, despite its growing congestion and linkage role in the larger highway network. Pursuant to state and federal regulatory laws, Caltrans would need to prepare various technical studies and environmental reports for any future transportation improvement on Highway 37. The following sections describe the inclusion of regulatory agencies in the early phases of Step 7 and permitting issues for the corridor that would be the basis for further progress on this Step. Reaction/Involvement/Integration of Regulatory Agencies to Application of Ecological Methods The team approached the involvement of regulatory agencies in the study by first interviewing them, then holding a joint meeting where they could discuss potential regulatory and permitting issues associated with potential actions along the corridor. The team used a basic template of questions for each interview. In several cases, the team spoke to more than one staff person from each agency. The team worked first with environmental permitting staff at Caltrans to develop and review a list of contacts for the agencies. As a result, the final list of contacted and interviewed agencies was: a) Federal -- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), U.S. Environmental

50 Protection Agency (EPA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and b) State -- San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Early Participation Most permitting agencies are not used to a process of early engagement with infrastructure agencies to improve planning and decision-making. Generally, the responses to the query regarding early participation in corridor planning fell along a continuum ranging from great interest in early involvement to little interest until a strategy was defined. NOAA and USFWS were enthusiastic about being involved in the development process. EPA was interested, and still learning about the project. CDFG was also interested in early involvement, and their regular attendance at the meetings confirmed this. USFWS and NOAA both expressed their support for any efforts to discuss projects earlier, noting this had not been the norm, and they welcomed the opportunity to work on potential ideas at the formative stages. The RWQCB has a strong preference toward certain strategies (causeway, strategic realignment of highway), but noted their real interest is how any idea affects water quality - roadway runoff in particular. BCDC expressed a desire to be “circumspect” in their participation, and did not want to help frame a project they would be permitting. While they have been more involved in other projects, BCDC staff felt the magnitude of this effort warranted that strategies come from county boards of supervisors, local communities, and others more directly affected by the results. ACOE noted a strong preference to wait until there was a specific plan in place, along with identified impacted acres, before it would be worthwhile to offer their opinion. One-on-One Meetings Most of the agencies noted that it was not necessary to meet separately prior to the World Café, since this meeting was “the first bite of the apple.” Once there were some ideas on the table, most staff said that would be the better time to consider direct meetings. USFWS said they would welcome early, direct conversations any time about how to work together better. Their staff has a strong interest in seeing some up-front studies that will help Caltrans have more information now for implementing measures later for the project, particularly as they relate to wildlife connectivity. Despite the federally-funded liaison program, USFWS noted that for some time, there has been increasing tension between Caltrans and USFWS, and it would be extremely helpful to identify policy measures now that could provide some context for various transportation-related conservation efforts rather than addressing each issue through a separate biological opinion later. USFWS staff who are Caltrans liaisons assigned only to Caltrans projects, though willing to participate in stakeholder meetings, had no Expenditure Authorization (EA) to which they are allowed to bill their time for this project. One of the Caltrans Chiefs noted that not having an EA makes it more difficult to assign his own staff to participate. Having

51 some mechanism to support staff, both at regulatory agencies and within Caltrans, is essential in supporting earlier communication and participation for transportation projects. Attendance at an Early December Stakeholder Meeting Focused on Regulators Without exception, all contacted agencies participated in a stakeholder meeting in early December to discuss the strategic ideas that emerge from the World Café in October. ACOE noted that the more detailed the proposal, the more ACOE could commit to time for comments. ACOE noted that even if adding details would mean meeting a month later, it might be worthwhile to wait and discuss a more refined proposal. Other agencies seemed comfortable commenting on draft strategies in general, and did not emphasize specificity understanding their comments would be general as well. USFWS noted that one benefit of a stakeholder meeting with regulatory issues as the focus is that stakeholders can better understand how much Caltrans actually does to mitigate impacts to wetlands and other areas adjacent to Highway 37 (Figure 8.1). This person noted that there is a perception that all projects are bad for the environment, when in fact Caltrans is under strict requirements to take measures to mitigate impacts. Such a public meeting may help with the overall understanding that Caltrans does in fact do many good things in association with a project. CDFG noted that having all the regulatory staff in the room at the same time with the permit applicants is ideal because it avoids inter- and intra-agency confusion about impacts and allows for potential collective mitigation strategies among agencies.

52 Figure 8.1. State Highway 37 traversing wetlands and fresh/brackish impoundments. Regulatory and Permitting Issues Environmental Review If future projects on Highway 37 include federal dollars, environmental studies and permits must be prepared in compliance with both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) responsibility for environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in accordance with NEPA and other applicable federal laws for this project will be carried out by Caltrans under its assignment of FHWA responsibilities pursuant to 23 USC 327. Section 4(f) The Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) of 1966 included a special provision - Section 4(f) - which stipulates that the FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from publicly-owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land; or the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from use. Section 4(f) consideration would most likely be part of the environmental documentation for one or more of the alternative scenarios discussed for the corridor due to the presence of

53 parks and protected lands in the vicinity of Highway 37. The San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is also located in Sonoma and Solano counties. Recently, approximately 3,300 acres of the former Skaggs Island Naval facility were transferred from the U.S. Navy to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be included in the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge. In Marin County, Highway 37 sits adjacent to the Petaluma Marsh Wildlife Area. This land is managed by the California Department of Fish and Game. In Sonoma County, Highway 37 is located adjacent to the Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area which is also managed by the California Department of Fish and Game. The areas noted above are also designated in the San Francisco Bay Plan as wildlife refuge priority use areas. Caltrans would be responsible for determining whether 4(f) is triggered and preparing the appropriate level of documentation. Regulatory Approvals Obtaining regulatory approvals can take anywhere from 3 to 12 months, or longer depending on the complexity of the project and the type and number of resources affected. As a federal and state lead agency, permit applications for capital improvement projects are typically prepared and submitted by the Caltrans District 4 Office of Biological Sciences and Permits. Permits are prepared based on information from consultation with state and federal resource agencies, species experts, literature searches, plant and wildlife surveys, wetland delineations, and impact analyses. The District biologist serves as the key liaison with resource and regulatory agency staff regarding the impacts to environmental resources. Agencies providing permits for this corridor could request information on the following items as they relate to proposed improvements: • Wetland delineations, • Species surveys, • Habitat assessments, • Cultural resource assessments, • Hydrological studies, • Plans that include existing culverts and engineering drawings of new water crossings which must be assessed for fish passage barriers (pursuant to Senate Bill 857), • Staging and access areas, • Construction equipment and methodology, • Bay fill, • Public access, • Dredging, • Excavation, • Maintenance, • Avoidance and minimization efforts,

54 • Best management practices (BMPs),and • Compensatory mitigation. During the Caltrans Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase and prior to the Ready to List (RTL) phase, permits would be negotiated and secured from state and federal resource and regulatory agencies (Table 8.1). These permits are required for the Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) bid package to ensure that potential contractors are aware of any permit conditions that may restrict the manner, methods, or timing of construction activities that could affect their bid offer. Caltrans ensures that permit conditions are “buildable and biddable” and are reasonable and appropriate given the type and extent of potential effects to natural resources.

55 Table 8.1. Agencies and Corresponding Permits Required for Actions Along the Highway 37 Corridor There were several interesting outcomes of the stakeholder process that included regulatory agencies: 1. The causeway scenario (C) was described as “self-mitigating” by one regulatory agency because, although it would have traffic noise and construction-related impacts, the benefits realized from elevating the roadway above the marshes were significant enough to out-weigh these impacts.

56 2. Non-regulatory stakeholders felt that regulatory agency participation in early discussions and planning for the corridor was critical to eventual successes on the corridor. This was because of the obvious benefits of getting regulatory input early in choosing among potential competing ideas for future scenarios for the corridor. There was little patience or understanding among stakeholders for why this approach wasn’t already the case.

57 CHAPTER 9 C06 and C01 Tools Assessment Most project team members reported difficulty with taking advantage of the SHRP 2 materials available either as reports from C06, or on the TCAPP web site. However, at the same time, all project team members thought the overall C06 process, as implemented, was both an excellent way to get stakeholders and partner agencies involved in transportation planning and a suitable way of framing ecological, transportation, and community data and interests. The overall finding was that the web (TCAPP) and report (C06) materials themselves may have limited utility, but that they describe an important way of conducting transportation business. This finding has important implementation implications. Rather than assuming that just passively making materials available on the web will be effective in transforming transportation planning, it may be more effective to actively engage DOT personnel in learning processes. This could occur as “Academies” sponsored by FHWA where invited DOT staff participate in workshops on applying C06 and other SHRP 2 products. Alternatively, trainers could travel among state DOTs, or regional get-togethers of DOT staff, and provide training using C06 materials. Partner Feedback on C06 and TCAPP Tools Below are specific comments on the first five C06 steps. Project partners did not use the TCAPP or C06 tools as an everyday guide to the planning process. In part, this is because transportation planning jargon is still unfamiliar to many with a role in transportation planning. For example, the differences between corridor planning, visioning, programming, long range transportation planning—all the types of processes that might occur before detailed construction planning—are not clear to all concerned parties. Transportation partners also did not make frequent use of these tools as intended or requested. Partners reported that C06 provided some useful approaches and tools that were easy to understand and that provided important advances in planning. After repeated requests and inquiries from the project lead, no partner reported success or interest in using TCAPP, including after the winter, 2012 revision. This was reported as being because of the relative opacity of the site for most planner-users. Although the information could be found, the lack of apparent connection between the information and the day-to-day planning and project delivery needs of state and local transportation agency staff reduced the motivation to do anything with TCAPP beyond politely experimenting with the site because of TRB’s interest that the project partners do so. The good news is that most people involved in this C21 project found ways to include the important concepts in C01 and C06 in their planning and assessment process. This cultural change may be more effective than expecting people to adopt new processes wholesale.

58 C06 Steps Step 1: Build and Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships, Vision. Build a vision of what is most needed for natural resources in the region and commit to integrate and utilize transportation and environmental regulatory processes to address these greatest conservation and restoration needs and goals. Prior to the C21 project, there was no engagement of partner organizations in developing transportation or environmental alternatives for the corridor. Over the last year, the project has contributed to stakeholders voicing their visions of what the future could hold for the corridor. The majority of partners and stakeholders believe that the current condition and habitat value of the marshes is a critical filter through which to view the highway and potential capacity projects associated with the corridor. At the same time, there is a distinct time-frame disconnect between people’s expectations for change along the highway and the rate at which projects are likely to proceed through conventional corridor-regional-project pathways. For example, most stakeholders are concerned that the ability of the surrounding marshes and the highway itself to survive sea level rise would be jeopardized by planning that took longer than the next 10 years. In contrast, transportation agency partners consider a 25-year horizon to be adequate and have stated that this corridor is well back in line for funded enhancement compared to other network highways. Step 2: Characterize Resource Status. Integrate Conservation, Natural Resource, Watershed, and Species Recovery and State Wildlife Action Plans. Develop an overall conservation/restoration strategy that integrates conservation/restoration priorities, data, and plans, with input from and adoption by all conservation and natural resource stakeholders identified in Step 1, addressing all species, all habitats, and all relevant environmental issues. The corridor location, at the edge of San Francisco Bay, an estuary of national significance, benefits from a wealth of credible, detailed plans for conservation and recovery of species, habitats, and ecosystem functions in the corridor vicinity. These plans include clear goals and prioritized action steps to achieve those goals. The plans and associated data are readily available. There are also detailed regional and county-level plans for increasing recreational access to the Baylands, although the scope of these plans appears to vary greatly depending on the funding environment that existed when they were most recently approved. The team used this C21 process to educate stakeholders about the content and availability of plans and data, but did not need to generate new information. The most significant data gaps are related to uncertainty around the predicted rate of sea level rise and the lack of accurate and detailed levee and berm topographic and location data. Recently-available LIDAR data may be helpful in identifying areas of vulnerability to sea level rise. The team found an additional data gap in the area of plans for sustaining local agriculture, for sustaining local economies, or for meeting the needs of the

59 corridor’s low-income users. (If these plans exist the team is not aware of them.) While the stakeholder process included good representation from the local agricultural community, it did not capture other users, such as low-income and commuter populations. It was beyond the budget of the project and the expertise of the project team to locate or produce such plans or reach out to the under-represented communities, though this was an important missing component of the stakeholder process. The conservation strategy for regional ecosystem processes and attributes was folded into the scenario development for the corridor, the corridor context description, and the regulatory-process foundation. In the case of the last, Caltrans staff developed a report describing the various environmental issues that would require permitting under the different future corridor scenarios. Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework (Conservation Strategy + Transportation Plan) Integrate the conservation and restoration strategy (data and plans) prepared in Step 2 with transportation and land use data and plans (LRTP, STIP, and TIP) to create the Regional Ecosystem Framework (REF). The project team adopted the term “Corridor Context” instead of “Regional Ecological Framework” to broaden the types of information and values the team included. The corridor context includes parallel recognition of community, transportation, environmental, and economic systems and values in decision-making about highways. Using these parallel categories for collecting and organizing information, then seeking feedback from stakeholders and the community about how well transportation plans support their values in these categories, reinforces the broad context in eventual project prioritization. The team echoes stakeholder/regulatory engagement in saying that the C06 steps focus too narrowly on traditional approaches to recognizing and protecting environmental values in transportation planning. The team recommends that planning outcomes will be better if more values are included such as ecosystem stewardship (not just mitigation), local economy, community identity, environmental justice, climate adaptation, carbon budget, and possibly greenhouse gas emissions, and life cycle analysis. Some of these important values are difficult to map. For Highway 37, for example, the issue of sustaining agriculture in the North Bay has emerged as a critical issue for stakeholders, but this issue falls outside the C06 framework. The TCAPP Decision Guide is more complete in this respect. Step 4: Assess Land Use and Transportation Effects on resource conservation objectives identified in the REF. Identify preferred alternatives that meet both transportation and conservation goals by analyzing transportation and/or other land use scenarios in relation to resource conservation objectives and priorities utilizing the REF developed in Step 3 and models of priority resources.

60 The team has spent a great deal of time on this step, working over many options with an array of stakeholders. Based on their knowledge of environmental conditions, conservation objectives, and the connection between these and transportation infrastructure and plans, stakeholders and partners identified future scenarios for the corridor that supported these objectives. In addition, environmental regulatory agencies were asked explicitly to consider different possible management scenarios for the corridor and speculate on the permissibility of the scenarios and the mitigation that might be required under each scenario. This conversation was very important for transportation partners to witness at this stage because responding to this feedback is more likely to result in development of planned projects that provide the stewardship benefits sought under one interpretation of the Eco-Logical rubric. It may be wise to include the development of draft scenarios earlier in the decision-making process than is currently prescribed by either C06 or TCAPP. For this project, some stakeholders had a hard time focusing solely on values and goals, in the absence of tangible scenarios for the highway. Discussions on values and goals were too abstract, and came to a halt in a short time, whereas discussions that included possible scenarios were vigorous and creative. It was relatively easy to draw out values and goals from the discussions about scenarios. It was difficult for the regulatory stakeholders to provide more than speculative comments on various scenarios because of the lack of detailed information about the impacts on resources and the long planning time frame. Most regulatory staff stated that they had little ability to provide specific and formal input unless it is related to a regulatory action, such as a permit of environmental review. While the discussions were useful and generated comments (reflected in the meeting summaries) the team did not solicit or receive detailed comments on various alternatives or mitigation strategies. Step 5: Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions Establish mitigation and conservation priorities and rank action opportunities using assessment results from Steps 3 and 4. After 6 to 9 months of explicit discussion of particular strategies and future scenarios for the corridor, there did appear to be some consensus that raising the highway onto an elevated causeway was environmentally-preferable, but many questions remained and some key stakeholders were not present. In the absence of a clearly defined preferred alternative and specific recommendations from regulators, it is difficult to identify and establish mitigation priorities. What the team does know is that the conservation and restoration strategy for the corridor is well articulated in regional plans and these plans are being implemented by local, state, and federal organizations. It seems likely that these plans can serve as the blueprint for understanding transportation project impacts on wetlands and potentially how those impacts could be mitigated (avoided or reduced). There will be additional project impacts on agricultural lands and these were not addressed in much detail during the process.

61 Step 6: Develop Crediting Strategy. Develop a consistent strategy and metrics to measure ecological impacts, restoration benefits, and long-term performance, with goal of having analyses throughout the life of the project be in the same units. Two approaches were used to address this step: 1) measuring stakeholder and community values and preferences, and 2) measuring transportation system impacts. Caltrans had previously contracted with UC Davis, Road Ecology Center, to develop a valuation protocol to use in project, corridor, and regional planning. This approach was adapted in collaboration with a visiting scholar from the French Ministry of Transportation (Appendix B). This approach was used as the basis for using measures of ecological impacts. This step was partially completed, primarily because of challenges associated with bringing partners and stakeholders into what can be a conceptually and technically challenging topic. Most partners and stakeholders understood the value of stating values and preferences, as well as the importance of measuring impacts. How that information should be used to inform decision-making about transportation and ecological actions remained opaque because of the lack of a planning or statutory vehicle for doing so. Step 7: Develop Programmatic Consultation, Biological Opinion, or Permit. Develop Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), agreements, programmatic 404 permits, or ESA Section 7 consultations for transportation projects in a way that documents the goals and priorities identified in Steps 5 and 6 and the parameters for achieving these goals. The primary progress that was made in this step was formalizing the inclusion of regulatory agencies with an eventual permitting role early in corridor planning. Typically, this does not occur (at least in California), with regulatory involvement only taking place once projects have been described and programmed. A foundation was developed for what is likely to be at least a decade of discussion about how capacity or modal improvements could be made on this corridor, while improving, or at least not harming, the nearby environment. TCAPP Steps This section contains feedback and comments from the project on the decision-making guidance provided by the Corridor Planning portion of the Decision Guide for TCAPP (Transportation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnership). The guidance describes nine key decisions, numbered COR-1 through COR-9. In general, TCAPP lists only public agencies as “partners.” In the team’s process, however, non-agency entities such as non-governmental organizations and local agencies such as Resource Conservation Districts have represented natural system issues more consistently than most agencies have. These entities have attended all stakeholder meetings, and have been the main communicator of environmental issues, values, and datasets to Caltrans. However, these entities were only able to take this role because the SHRP 2 grant paid for their time to participate. It appears that if these entities were not consistently at the table, important land use

62 issues might not have seen the light of day, such as the issue of supporting and sustaining local agricultural livelihoods, or the flood-protection role of privately-maintained levees. It also appears that, because normally Caltrans consults only with the regulatory side of natural resource agencies, not the conservation side, without the non-agency participants, Caltrans might not have seen the magnitude of the opportunities for ecological restoration that improvement of the corridor provides. COR-1. Approve Scope of Corridor Planning Process We did not pursue a formal approval of scope. From the beginning, the entire length of the Highway 37 corridor was the focus. In addition, networked routes were also included in the scope of the study, because they are connected through traffic flows and could experience increased traffic if Highway 37 was abandoned or flooded. We spent time identifying relevant datasets and information sources associated with any actions on the corridor. COR-2. Approve Problem Statements and Opportunities Much feedback on planning and infrastructural deficiencies and opportunities arose from the team’s stakeholder meetings. Caltrans provided traffic data that highlighted transportation deficiencies, and Sonoma Land Trust and Southern Sonoma County RCD took the lead on describing the deficiencies in terms of marsh restoration and agricultural operations, respectively. Opportunities were represented primarily by existing large-scale restoration plans described in previous sections of this memo. COR-3. Approve Goals for the Corridor This project focused on eliciting values, not goals, and they seem similar enough for the project’s purposes. We obtained a great deal of input on goals and values, from the public, business community, NGOs, RCDs, and to a lesser degree from local transportation agencies. The World Café format worked well for eliciting goals and values. For example, it became clear that Napa and Sonoma Counties are firmly committed to preventing increasing capacity or traffic on the alternative routes 12/121/116. Similarly, most agency/stakeholders identified marsh restoration and adaptation to sea level rise as critical conservation goals, which was reflected in the community survey. Part of the TCAPP guidance is that natural resource agencies’ role is to “Provide input on the most important environmental needs in the planning area and where partners may be able to work together to make a difference across multiple resources of concern.” However, it often appeared opportunities needed to comply with a valid regulatory interpretation to be seen as feasible. This orientation was apparent both within the resource agencies and within Caltrans. COR-4. Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review and Analysis We did not carry out this step.

63 COR-5. Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods, and Measures There was no formal adoption of criteria, methods, or measures, primarily because most transportation partners saw this as an early stage in a corridor planning process, in contrast to conservation concerns, which were looking for shorter-term action. COR-6. Approve Range of Solution Sets We found that describing a range of possible future scenarios for the highway was necessary, to get stakeholders to engage mentally in such a long-term planning process. Therefore, early in the project, simultaneously with COR-3, we began publicly discussing five scenarios, at least one of which is quite unlikely (i.e., tunnel). It was easier for people to identify their goals and values when considering specific scenarios than when considering the corridor as it already exists. See below for more detail on the scenarios, which also appear elsewhere in this report. COR-7. Adopt Preferred Solution Set This step has not been taken formally by Caltrans, but the project team did see consensus emerge on a preferred construction scenario – a causeway across the marshes. This consensus construction scenario is not yet enshrined in Caltrans planning, and there is no assurance that the agreement among stakeholders will survive the next planning or fundraising phases. The results of this C21 study’s stakeholder discussion on scenarios will be included in an updated TCR for Highway 37. The TCR serves as early documentation of Caltrans’ long-term corridor vision, an early step in informing the regional transportation planning process.

64 References Backstrom, M., U. Nilsson, K. Hakansson, B. Allard, and S. Karlsson. 2003. Speciation of heavy metals in road runoff and roadside total deposition. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 147: 343-366. Baker, W. L., and R. L. Knight. 2000. Roads and forest fragmentation in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Pages 97–122 in R. L. Knight, F. W. Smith, S. W. Bruskirk, W. H. Romme, and W.I. Baker. Eds, forest fragmentation in the Southern Rocky Mountains. University of Colorado Press, Boulder, Colorado. Bell, S., and T. W. Ashenden. 1997. Spatial and temporal variation in nitrogen dioxide pollution adjacent to rural roads. Water Air and Soil Pollution 95(1–4):87–98. Boarman, William I., and Marc Sazaki. 2006. A highway’s road-effect zone for desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii). Journal of Arid Environments 65:94-101.. Boumans, R. M., D. M. Burdick, and M. Dionne. 2002. Modeling habitat change inn salt marshes after tidal restoration. Restoration Ecology 10 (3): 543-555. Chapin, T. G., D. J. Harrison, and D. D. Katnik. 1998. Influence of landscape pattern on habitat use by American marten in an industrial forest. Conservation Biology 12(6):1327–1337. Dooling, R.J. and A.N. Popper. 2007. The effects of highway noise on birds. Report prepared for Caltrans, contract #43A0139. Eigenbrod, F., S.J. Hecnar, and L. Fahrig. 2009. Quantifying the road-effect zone: Threshold effects of a motorway on Anuran populations in Ontario, Canada. Ecology and Society, 14(1): 24. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art24/ Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough?. Biological Conservation 100:65–74. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2004. FHWA Traffic Noise Model version 2.5 look- up tables user’s guide. Prepared for FHWA by John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. FHWA-HEP-05-008. Findlay, C.S. and J. Houlahan. 1996. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in Southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology, 11(4): 1000-1009.

65 Forman, R. T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bissonette, A. P., Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R., France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F., J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2002a. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press. Washington, D.C. 424 pp. Forman, R. T. T., Reineking, B., and Hersperger, A. M. (2002b). Road traffic and nearby grassland bird patterns in a suburbanizing landscape. Environmental Management, 29, 782-800. Gagnon, J.W., T.C. Theimer, N.L. Dodd, S. Boe, and R.E. Schweinburg. 2007. Traffic volume alters elk distribution and highway crossings in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(7):2318–2323. AND Storlie 2006 Gill, J. A., W. J. Sutherland, and A. R. Watkinson. 1996. A method to quantify the effects of human disturbance on animal populations. Journal of Applied Ecology 33(4):786–792. Gjessing, E., E. Lygren, L. Berglind, T. Gulbrandsen, and R. Skanne. 1984. Effect of highway runoff on lake Hickey, R. 2011. Driving home economic recovery. Report for the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. Hoffman, R. W., C. R. Goldman, S. Paulson, and G. R. Winters. 1981. Aquatic impacts of deicing salts in the central Sierra Nevada Mountains, California. Water Resources Bulletin 17:280–285. Jonsen, I. D., and L. Fahrig. 1997. Response of generalist and specialist insect herbivores to landscape spatial structure. Landscape Ecology 12:185–197. Lercher, P., D. Botteldooren, U. Widmann, U. Uhrner, and E. Kammeringer. 2011. Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise; Research in Austria. Noise and Health, 13 (52): 234-250. Lesbarreres, D., A. Pagano, and T. Lode. 2003. Inbreeding and road effect zone in a Ranidae: the case of Agile frog, Rana dalmatina Bonaparte, 1840. C.R. Biologies, 326: S68-S72. Lidicker Jr, W. Z. 1999. Responses of mammals to habitat edges: an overview. Landscape Ecology 14:333–343. Mac, R. D., J. S. Waller, T. L. Manley, L. J. Lyon, and H. Zuuring. 1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads and habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal of Applied Ecology 33(6):1395–1404.

66 Madrone Associates Environmental Consultants. 1977. Natural Resources of Napa Marsh. Assisted by: James Michaels, Wildlife Biologist Region 3, Department of Fish and Game Under Contract to: California Department of Fish and Game. Madsen, A. B. 1996. Otter Lutra lutra mortality in relation to traffic, and experience with newly established fauna passages at existing road bridges. Lutra 39(2):76–88. Maltby, L., A. B. A. Boxall, D. M. Farrow, P. Calow, and C. I. Betton. 1995. The effects of motorway runoff on freshwater ecosystems. 2. Identifying major toxicants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14:1093–1101. Marshall, J.T. and K.G. Dedrick. 1994. Endemic Song Sparrow and Yellowthroats of San Francisco Bay. Pp316-327 in N.K. Johnson & J. Jehl (eds.), A Century of Avifaunal Change in Western North America. Studies in Avian Biology 15. Meyers, T. J., and S. Swanson. 1995. Impact of deferred rotation grazing on stream characteristics in central Nevada: a case study. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15(2):428–439. Parris, K.M. and A. Schneider. 2009. Impacts of traffic noise and traffic volumes on birds of roadside habitats. Ecology and Society, 14(1): 29 [online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art29/ Putman, R. J. 1997. Deer and road traffic accidents: options for management. Journal of Environmental Management 51(1):43–57. Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Z.J. Andersen, M. Hvidberg, S.S. Jensen, M. Ketzel, M. Sorensen, J. Hansen, S. Loft, K. Overvad, A. Tjonneland. 2011. Air pollution from traffic and cancer incidence: a Danish cohort study. Environmental Health, 10:67 doi:10.1186/1476-069X-10-67. Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and G. Veenbaas. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: evaluation of the effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation 6(4):567–581. Rosenberg, K. V., J. D. Lowe, and A. A. Dhondt. 1999. Effects of forest fragmentation on breeding tanagers: a continental perspective. Conservation Biology 13(3):568–583. Rottenborn, S. C. 1999. Predicting the impacts of urbanization on riparian bird communities. Biological Conservation 88(3):289–299.

67 Rubin, E. S., W. M. Boyce, M. C. Jorgensen, S. G. Torres, C. L. Hayes, C. S. O’Brien, and D. A. Jessup. 1998. Distribution and abundance of bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(3):539–551. Schuyt K, Brander L. 2004. The Economic Value of the World’s Wetlands. World Wildlife Fund, Gland/Amsterdam, Neth. 32 pp Shilling, F.M. C. Cornwall, F. Knapczyk, R. Zlomke, D. DiPietro, J. Sharp, R. Adams, J. Hemmert, L. Komoroske, D. Waetjen, A. Hollander, E. Aalto, and K. Keightley. 2010. Application and findings of the North Bay-Delta transect watershed assessment framework. Final Report to California Department of Water Resources. 322 pages. Spira-Cohen, A., L.C. Chen, M. Kendall, R. Lall, and G.D. Thurston. 2011. Person exposures to traffic-related air pollution and acute respiratory health among Bronx schoolchildren with asthma. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119 (4): 559-565. Theobald, D. M., J. R. Miller, and N. T. Hobbs. 1997. Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning 39(1):25–36. Wilcox, D. A. 1986. The effects of deicing salts on vegetation in Pinhook Bog, Indiana. Canadian Journal of Botany 64:865–874. Yahner, R. H. 1988. Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation Biology 2(4):333–339 Zedler JB, Kercher S. 2005. Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 30: 39. Ziegler, A. D., and T. W. Giambelluca. 1997. Importance of rural roads as source areas of runoff in mountainous areas of northern Thailand. Journal of Hydrology 196(1-4):204–229.

68 APPENDIX A Description of Highway 37 Future Scenarios SR 37 SCENARIO Relative Cost * Construction-Related Activity Traffic Operations Impacts Regional Transportatio n Impacts Community Impacts Environmental Impacts A) No Highway Expansion Manage the corridor with maintenance and repair activities and minor operational improvements (no significant change in the footprint or capacity) $$ • Maintenance issues / landscape control • More emergency response / repairs from flood events and eventual sea level rise • Existing congestion queues worsen at bottlenecks (121 and Mare Island) from increased demand • More frequent road closures from floods/emergency repair • Some congestion relief at 121 if operational improvements made at this intersection independent of any broader 37 corridor improvements Maintenance of existing rates of change in congestion, periodic flooding-based displacement of traffic to 80/580 (majority) and 12/116 Feeling that infrastructure is falling apart and being swallowed by bay. Continued impact to Vallejo and Novato from traffic noise and emissions. Very large missed opportunity for restoration. Continued impacts to marsh and other habitats. Inhibition of hydraulic connectivity of marshes to Bay; failure to adapt to sea-level rise. B) Expanded Footprint height and width of the corridor through the marshes would double and the corridor would be expanded to 4 lanes to address current and projected future traffic volumes $$$ • Construction staging areas; may bring construction materials by barge or by existing roadway. Need at least 50’ on each side for construction access. • Dredging for fill material • Dig out mud, build up embankment with rock and fill material • Discharge prevention activities from construction area • No temporary alignment needed; put traffic on one side of road • Congestion relief at 121 and Mare Island with upgrade to 4 lanes between those points; assumes operational improvements at connections. • Local road access retained, assumes upgrades to local road connections. Temporary drop in congestion (10 years) on highway, then continued increase, potential attraction of 80/580 and 12/116 traffic and thus increase in traffic on 37 Increased impact to Vallejo and Novato from traffic noise and emissions (minor). Makes marsh restoration more difficult and expensive in future. Increased impacts to marsh and other habitats. Inhibition of hydraulic connectivity of marshes to Bay.

69 while building the other side. C) Napa- Sonoma Causeway Option 1 - over existing footprint at areas of low elevation Option 2 - across San Pablo Bay btw Novato & Vallejo $$$$ • Construction staging areas; may bring construction materials by barge or by existing roadway. Need at least 50’ on each side for construction access. • Build tressle; causeway built along existing alignment • Piledriving of main supports and falsework piles • Removal of old alignment segments • Discharge prevention activities from construction area • Option 1 – Congestion relief at 121 and Mare Island with upgrade to 4 lanes between those points; assumes operational improvements at connections. • Local road access retained, assumes upgrades to local road connections. • Option 2 – Access to 121 and Lakeville broken; local access to SR 37 disrupted • Congestion relief at 121 and Mare Island with upgrade to 4 lanes between those points; assumes operational improvements at connections. Temporary drop in congestion (10 years) on highway, then continued increase, potential attraction of 80/580 and 12/116 traffic and thus increase in traffic on 37 Unknown positive impact of improved habitat quality, such as ecotourism. Increased impact to Vallejo and Novato from traffic noise and emissions. Allows bay water back into former baylands and restoration of large natural areas; which creates buffer against sea level rise and storm surge. Improves opportunities for and effectiveness of marsh restoration. D) Strategic Re-alignment corridor would be re-aligned away from marshes & wetlands between Vallejo $/$$ • Cooperative agreement and legislation possibly needed to coordinate relinquishment of old alignment • Removal of old alignment segments • Increased traffic on alternative routes could result in demand for traffic relief projects along those routes • Local decision to keep portions of existing roadway intact for local uses Increase in traffic displaced to 80/580 (major) and 12/116 (minor), then continued increase Potentially degrades rural character of communities on 12/121/116 due to increased traffic (noise, emissions). Potential economic Allows bay water back into former baylands and restoration of large natural areas; which creates buffer against sea level

70 and Novato, with I-80 and 580 to the south, or with Highways 29 and 12/121/116 to the north harm to commuters from increased travel time and to certain local businesses without through traffic on former SR 37. Unknown positive impact of improved habitat quality, such as ecotourism. Reduced noise and emission impacts to Vallejo and Novato. rise and storm surge. Improves opportunities for and effectiveness of marsh restoration. E) San Pablo Bay Tunnel corridor would be routed through a tunnel at the shortest feasible distance between the Vallejo area and the Novato area $$$$$ • Construction staging areas; may bring construction materials by barge or by existing roadway. Need at least 50’ on each side for construction access. • Bay fill/soil removal • Dam needed to keep water out of above-ground construction activities. Dig tunnel alignment from above, then cover it up and restore after construction. • Removal of old alignment segments • Congestion relief at Mare Island with upgrade to 4 lanes at that point • Access to 121 and Lakeville broken; local access to SR 37 disrupted Temporary drop in congestion (10 years) on highway, then continued increase, potential attraction of 80/580 and 12/116 traffic and thus increase in traffic on 37 Unknown positive impact of improved habitat quality, such as ecotourism. Reduced noise and emission impacts to Vallejo and Novato. After construction, allows bay water back into former baylands and restoration of large natural areas, which creates buffer against sea level rise and storm surge. During construction, inhibition of hydraulic connectivity of marshes to Bay. * Relative Cost is on scale of $ to $$$$$; cost is relative to other scenarios and is meant to include ongoing operation & maintenance cost. Scenario D (Strategic Realignment) is undefined in terms of necessary improvements.