intraregional tribal transportation strategy draft … · intraregional tribal transportation...

INTRAREGIONAL TRIBALTRANSPORTATION STRATEGY

Draft ITTS Workshop Summary

NOVEMBER 2016 | VERSION 1

Prepared by:

Prepared for:

And

i Intraregional Tribal Transportation Strategy │ Draft ITTS Survey SummaryNovember 2016 │ Version 1

ContentsIntroduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Workshop Agenda and Participants ................................................................................. 1Overview of Survey Process and Findings .................................................................................. 3

Summmary of Breakout Discussions by Corridor ............................................................. 5Northern Region Workshop Discussions ......................................................................... 8Southern Region Workshop Discussions ......................................................................... 9

Outcomes of Workshop Discussions ......................................................................................... 10Next Steps ................................................................................................................................ 13Appendix A – Workshop Attendee List and PowerPoint

Appendix B – Meeting Notes

FiguresFigure 1. Relative Importance of Goal Areas as Ranked by Survey Respondents ......................4Figure 2. Projects - North Region ................................................................................................6Figure 3. Projects - South Region ...............................................................................................7

TablesTable 1. September 7, 2016 ITTS Workshop Agenda .................................................................2

1 Intraregional Tribal Transportation Strategy │ Draft Workshop SummaryNovember 2016 │ Version 1

INTRODUCTIONSANDAG, in partnership with the Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association (SCTCA) isimplementing a Caltrans Strategic Partnership planning grant to develop an Intraregional TribalTransportation Strategy. The goal of the project is to develop a strategy that identifies keymultimodal projects that will improve tribal mobility while meeting regional, state, and federalgoals. The strategy will include project priorities, cost estimates, identifying responsible parties,and developing a funding approach.

As part of the project, a survey was conducted with the participating tribes in the region togather each tribe’s transportation project ideas and concerns. To further assist in developing thestrategy, a workshop was conducted on September 7th, 2016 at the Barona Valley RanchResort and Casino between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. to review the results of the survey and discussways to cluster the projects in a meaningful way for matching with potential fundingopportunities.

Goals of the workshop were:

o Identify criteria to group projectso Assist in moving projects to implementationo See if there are ways to package projects for more advantageous funding

This report documents the input received at the workshop as well as identifying other importantproject implementation issues that were raised by workshop participants.

WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PARTICIPANTSThe workshop focused on identifying criteria and discussion on ways to package transportationimprovement projects that were identified through a survey effort conducted earlier in the studyprocess. The focus of the survey was to identify transportation improvement projects that areimportant to each tribal nation and connects each nation to the region. The workshop agenda issummarized in Table 1. The format of the workshop was an introduction to the study andworkshop goals, an overview of the survey process and findings, followed by breakoutdiscussions where workshop participants were divided into breakout groups by either the northor south corridor regions. The discussions involved reviewing the projects identified, anddiscussing potential criteria for grouping projects, opportunities for connections, level of projectreadiness and project timeframes. The results of the discussions were summarized at lunch andthe workshop concluded by summarizing key takeaways from the workshop and next steps forthe study.

Representatives of eleven tribal nations as well as representatives from Caltrans, SANDAG,and Kimley-Horn attended the workshop.

Intraregional Tribal Transportation Strategy │Draft Workshop SummaryNovember, 2016 │ Version 1

2

Table 1. September 7, 2016 ITTS Workshop Agenda

Item Number Activity Notes

1 Introduction andoverview of studyand workshopgoals

SANDAG and the Southern California Tribal Chairmen's Association (SCTCA)are implementing a Caltrans Strategic Partnership planning grant to developan Intraregional Tribal Transportation Strategy.

The goal of the project is to develop a strategy that identifies key multimodalprojects that will improve tribal mobility while meeting regional, state, andfederal goals. The strategy will include:

· project priorities· cost estimates· identifying responsible parties; and· developing a funding approach

The project team has been conducting a survey over the last couple of monthsamong the participating tribes in the region to gather each tribe’s transportationproject ideas and concerns. The purpose of this workshop is to review theresults of the survey and discuss ways to cluster the projects in a meaningfulway for matching with potential funding opportunities.

2 Overview ofsurvey processand findings

The Project Team has been conducting a survey among the tribes in theregion between April and July. The general findings will be discussed as wellas explaining how the responses have been summarized by corridor, tribe, andproject type. This will provide a basis for further discussion on the strategy.

3 Breakoutdiscussions bycorridor

The workshop participants divided into breakout groups by corridor. Thepurpose of the groups is to look at the survey results in detail on large mapsand discuss:· Potential criteria for grouping projects.· Opportunities for connections.· Levels of project readiness:

o Concept Phase (no previous documentation of the project)o Planning Phase (project has been identified in an adopted planning or

budgeting document)o Engineering Phase (project has some level of engineering design

completed)· Time frames for projects

4 Working lunch –Report out fromgroups

The breakout groups reconvened over a working lunch. Each group appointeda representative to summarize their input regarding the grouping of projects,project readiness, and ideas relevant to the whole group for consideration.

5 Next steps andWorkshop closingremarks

The Project Team will take this opportunity to summarize key takeaways fromthe workshop and discuss next steps for the project.

The following sections provide a summary of the discussions for agenda items 2 through 5. Theworkshop attendance list and PowerPoint slides that were used in the workshop are provided inAppendix A.


OVERVIEW OF SURVEY PROCESS AND FINDINGSStaff briefly discussed the findings of a survey conducted among the tribes in the regionbetween April and July, 2016. The survey responses were summarized by corridor, tribe, andproject type. This overview provided a basis for further discussion on the strategy in theworkshop.

The focus of the survey was toidentify transportation improvementprojects that are important to eachtribal nation and connects eachnation to the region.

At the time of the workshop:

· 13 tribes submitted surveys· 2 surveys were in the

process of completingsurveys or in Triballeadership approval process

· 2 tribes were not participating

Members of the ITTS ProjectDevelopment Team were proactivein providing outreach to helpcomplete the surveys. The surveyresponses were summarized, andprojects were mapped on a GISdatabase. The projects weregrouped by region, by tribe, and byproject type. Approximately 106transportation improvement projectswere identified.

For the workshop the projects weregrouped into two regions (north andsouth San Diego County) to facilitatethe workshop process.

ITTS Survey Excerpt


4

In addition to identifying projects of concern, the relative importance of goal areas for groupingprojects were identified. These are shown in the bar chart in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Relative Importance of Goal Areas as Ranked by Survey Respondents

The survey asked about cultural resource considerations to include in the strategy. Theseincluded:

· Early government to government consultation

· All tribal, federal and state regulations shall befollowed

· Cultural resource representative, on-site culturalresource monitors assigned as appropriate

· GIS mapping of stakeholders.

· Database of how tribes handle cultural issues.A separate draft report entitled Draft ITTS SurveySummary (August 2016) summarizing the results of thesurvey was distributed to workshop participants. Furtherdetails about the survey report can be found in thatdocument.

Draft report distributed to workshop participants

10.2%11.8%

16.5%18.2%

21.1%22.3%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN …TRANSIT MOBILITY

REGIONAL CONNECTIVITYECONOMIC VITALITY

ROADWAY CONDITIONSAFETY

Relative Importance of Goal Areas forTransportation Improvements


SUMMMARY OF BREAKOUT DISCUSSIONS BY CORRIDORBreakout discussions were conducted after the presentation on ITTS survey findings. Theworkshop participants were divided into two groups, corresponding to the location of their tribalnation in either the northern or southern area of the SANDAG region.

Tribal nations in the northern region are:

· Pala Band of Mission Indians· Pauma Band of Mission Indians· Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians· San Pasqual Band Mission Indians· La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians· Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel· Inaja-Cosmit Band of Indians· Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians· Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians

Tribal nations in the southern region are:

· Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians· La Posta Band of Mission Indians· Barona Band of Mission Indians· Capitan Grande (Joint powers authority between Barona and Viejas Tribes)· Viejas Band of Kumeyaah Indians· Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians· Jamul Indian Village, a Kumeyaay Nation· Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation· Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Nation

To facilitate the workshop discussions, rollout maps for each region were prepared showing thelocation and type of transportation improvement project that were noted on the surveys. Thesemaps are shown in Figures 2 and 3.


6Figure 2. Projects - North Region


Figure 3. Projects - South Region


8

A summary of the discussions in each group are summarized in the following sections.

NORTHERN REGION WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONSThe group facilitator reviewed the projects that were recommended in the surveys. Therepresentatives of the following tribes confirmed that the projects shown reflected their input:

· Pala Band of Mission Indians· Pauma Band of Mission Indians· Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians· San Pasqual Band Mission Indians· La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians

Comments on specific projects and concerns were:

· SR 76 needs and coordination - SR 76 corridor improvements could meet multiplegoals (multi-jurisdictional, safety, economic development, speed control, curvestraitening, safety). The hairpin turn at SR-76 is a very important safety project. Asuggestion was that tribal nations that access the SR 76 corridor could work together onSR 76 road improvement priorities.

· Pala Road - A big concern is buses coming negotiating the grades traveling down PalaRoad grade.

· Lake Wohlford Road improvement needs - The project that would have the highestimpact for tribes would be Lake Wolford Road paving and shoulder improvement project.The paving is poor and cracked on this roadway and is lacking shoulders. Lake WohlfordRoad is a regional facility.

· Cole Grade Road - Others in the group noted that another road with improvementneeds is Cole Grade Road.

· A roundabout on SR 76 is currently being constructed and most of the group felt thatthe improvement is unsafe and unnecessary.

· Caltrans plans - The Caltrans representative reviewed the work that Caltrans has beendoing to address these concerns in the SR 76 corridor and other state routes. Issues areproject costs for the improvements and potential environmental concerns with theimprovement options. He noted that partnering with the County and others is importantand will help to improve opportunities for funding.

· Measures to reduce speeding - There was a discussion about methods to reducespeeding. The Caltrans representative responded that there are many differentsolutions, including enforcement to get speeders and drunk drivers off the road.

· Importance of multimodal and bicycle improvements - Large projects need to bemulti-modal-need to accommodate all users, the way that state and federal fundingrequire. The group raised the issue of cyclists using the same roads without shoulders.This is an important safety issue.


· Gateway signage, scenic byways, and branding - There is need for gateway signage.A gateway signage program can remind drivers that Reservations are where people liveand is a way to brand and identify communities. A number of road improvement needsare located on scenic roads and signing could emphasize the tribal heritage in the region(similar to Hawaii). Funding for scenic byways could be sought. There was a suggestionthat this study be branded.

· Transit Needs – There is a need for safe transit. Several tribal members are walking onthe roads to reach transit stops. Need to acknowledge high speed rail - not that we likeit, but let's connect if it is coming-access is critical. Vanpool and carpool incentives areneeded.

· Technology- An example was pairing roads with fiber optic and utilities. There was asuggestion to add a connectivity category, that might include fiber optics, utilities, orother technology.

· Transportation improvements to support and provide job opportunities -There wasa suggestion to standardize Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance or Office (TERO) forall tribes. This may not be part of this project but would help on coordinated projects.TERO stands for Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance or Office. TERO requires that allemployers who are engaged in operating a business on reservations give preference toqualified Indians in all aspects of employment, contracting and other business activities.

· Project grouping - Group by road network, group by SR 76 and then by tribe. Anotherpriority for organizing projects is the ability to transport and ship goods, particularlyagricultural goods.

SOUTHERN REGION WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONSThe group facilitator reviewed the projects that were recommended in the surveys. Therepresentatives of the following tribes confirmed that the projects shown reflected their input:

· Pala Band of Mission Indians· Pauma Band of Mission Indians· Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians· San Pasqual Band Mission Indians· La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians

Comments on specific projects and concerns were:

I-8 off-ramp improvements – This is a priority of the Campo Tribe. They are planning a truckstop in the future.

Old Highway 80 improvements – This is an improvement priority of the Campo Tribe.

Street lighting – Additional street lighting is needed to improve safety.


10

Transit - Transit was a concern of the Jamul Tribe, particularly the expansion of Route 894 (ElCajon). A new transit stop and express service is needed. Increased transit access was also apriority of the La Posta Tribe. It was noted that Route # 864 is the most popular tribal route, anda layover location. Rural transit service is an issue. Transit system improvements can besubsidized by the federal government. Lifeline services are a consideration, and a need. TheSan Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) provides capital funds for improving bus stopamenities. Federal regulations are flexible with respect to deviated paratransit service. Therewas a question regarding how tribes know when bus stops will be pulled from a route.

Road maintenance concerns – Brush clearing is not typically done on rural highways, and is aneed.

Safety improvements and regional connectivity – Comments indicated that safety is themain concern.

Potential partnerships – Partnerships can increase leverage, and funding. A number ofpotential partnerships were mentioned that are detailed in the following section.

Tribal employment – Increasing tribal employment on road projects is a concern.

OUTCOMES OF WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS

Common themes of the workshop discussions are summarized as follows:

SR 76SR 76 roadway improvement needs was a common concern and a priority.

PARTNERSHIPSThere was a recognition that funding grantees like multiple partners. Developing partnerships isa key concern. the group suggested several opportunities for potential partnerships ontransportation projects. These included:

· Mountain Empire Health· Southern Indian Health Council· Reach Air Medical Services· Community Planning Group· Tribal employment centers· Tribal Government· County· State· Cities – an example was Chula Vista· U.S. Forest Service / Parks – connectivity· Education – School Districts· Colleges – Kumeyaah College, Grossmont College· Airports - connectivity


· Rail· I-8· Imperial County· Mexico

The tribes and tribal working group are a great mechanism to “drive the bus.” The ITTS WorkingGroup is the basis of the work. Multi-jurisdictional coordination is important.

BRANDING

Branding gives a sense of arrival. The branding should be standardized. Examples were signsin Hillcrest. It was also suggested that this study be branded, with Tribal input. Culturalawareness considerations are a major concern.

EMPLOYMENT

The majority of employees are not tribal members – need to look at through a connectivity lens.Considerations are:

o How many non-native are benefiting from these projects? Help reinforceconnections.

o How do businesses and other stakeholders benefit?

REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY

Regional interconnectivity between tribes and the greater region/community is important.Recognize sub regions – it may be more appropriate to curb alignments in some areas, and inmore rural areas it might not be as important. A consideration is how to appeal to the largerregion and partner with others that also have vested interests.

BICYCLE

There is a huge cycling community, and issues include safety, eco-tourism, and economicdevelopment. Improving conditions on roadways, helps with all modes and safety.

TECHNOLOGY

Expectations are that roadways will be connected; what key utilities should be placed under ourroadways/bike paths as we make improvements? Safety elements are important. Examples areconduits to enhance the infrastructure for information technology. Is this built into the process?


12

Costs and pilot programs for smart road systems were discussed. A concern is that personsliving in back country areas would be hit harder than others.

FREIGHT

Road improvements are needed to enhance goods movement and freight, particularly foragricultural goods.

SAFETYImproving safety for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians is the most important consideration.

MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS

Multi-modal connections to regional airports (ex. Gillespie Field Airport), and high speed rail areimportant. Coordinate air, rail, and bus modes so they tie together.

DISASTERS / EMERGENCY SERVICES

Improving transportation routes for emergency evacuations is important. Considerations are:

· Bridge improvements.· Emergency evacuation routes.· Coordinating with County Office of Emergency Services regarding earthquake

preparedness.· Being prepared for future projects.

PROJECT CRITERIASuggestions by workshop participants on project criteria to group projects were:

· Multi-Jurisdictional / Partnerships – the group suggested several opportunities forpotential partnerships on transportation projects.

· Primary Corridors / Regional Connectivity· Funding Sources· Safety· Promotion of Native Identity· Multi-Modal· Local Jobs / TERO


NEXT STEPS

The next steps for the Intraregional Tribal Transportation Strategy is to develop planning levelcosts for all of the projects identified in Tribal surveys, and begin the development of a strategyto group projects and identify funding opportunities.


14

APPENDIX A

Workshop Attendee List andPowerPoint


16


18


20


22


24


APPENDIX B

Meeting Notes


26

Intraregional Tribal Transportation Strategy

September 7, 2016 Plenary Discussion Notes

Common Themes

· Fix the 76· Cultural awareness· Recognition that grantees like multiple partners· Regional interconnectivity between tribes and the greater region/community· Safety· Branding – sense of arrival, but standardizing - arches (ex. Signs in Hillcrest, other

communities)· Branding - names for our regional strategy with tribal input· Recognize subregions – curb alignments in some areas, bike paths for greater region;

branding the plan itself and branding certain elements in the plan· How to appeal to the larger region – partner with others that also have vested interests· Develop partnerships· Huge cycling community – safety issues, eco-tourism, economic development· The Working Group is the basis of the work· The tribes and tribal working group are a great mechanism to “drive the bus”· Improving conditions on roadways, helps with all modes and safety· Majority of employees are not tribal members – need to look at through connectivity lens

o How many non-native are benefiting from these projects? Help reinforceconnections

o How do businesses and other stakeholders benefit?· Technology – expectations to be connected; what key utilities should be placed under

our roadways/bike paths as we make improvements? Safety element· Drop in conduits – enhance infrastructure for IT. Is this built into the process? Lease

backo Road charge pilot? Smart road systemso People in back-country would be hit harder than others

· Goods movement and freight; agricultural goods· Multi-jurisdictional elements – must talk to everyone/all jurisdictions· Multi-modal connections

o Connectivity to regional airports (ex. Gillespie) and high speed rail (tie air, rail,bus)

· Disasters / emergency serviceso Bridge improvementso Emergency evacuation routeso County OES – earthquake preparedness

· Being prepared for future projects


Next Steps

· Work on strategy· Hold another work session· Cost estimating: handful of projects (detailed) vs. general types of improvements and

applying variables to identified projects· Currently 106 projects· Ex. Costs/mile for roadway improvements in rural areas, etc.· Preference: generalized costs (“large and round”); starting point for conversation· Fine tuning later· For 106 projects, the dollar will be very large; to help frame the conversation,

acknowledge that working on refining the list to specific projects. Look at typical costs.Could consider smaller individual segments, key intersections. Range of costs; workingon prioritizing.

· If focused on safety, “hide” the other project costs· Generalized categories vs. individual projects? Preliminary numbers; variations in project

costs based on construction timeframes· Order of magnitude project costs – add column to matrix?


28


September 7, 2016 Breakout Group Discussion-Notes Northern TribalCorridor Subgroup

Matt started with an overview of Pala improvements requested which were confirmed byShasta. Then went through Pauma project list which were confirmed by Pauma staff. Rinconstaff raised the issue of the roundabout that is being constructed and reviewed the list ofproposed projects. Adam (La Jolla) raised the issue of the entire 76 corridor that could meetmultiple goals (multi-jurisdictional, safety, economic development, safety).

Shasta (Pala) The hairpin turn at SR-76 is a safety issue. She a red dot on the map for this tobe fixed-a very important safety project.

Rincon mentioned a big concern is buses coming down the Pala grade.

Chi Vargas reviewed work Caltrans has been doing to address these concerns in the corridor.He stated It is expensive and there are environmental concerns with the improvement options.He stated that partnering with the County and others is important-that helps raise opportunity forfunding.

La Jolla representative (George) asked what the solution is to speeding? Signals? Lighting?

Chi responded that there are many different solutions, enforcement is one-getting drunk driversand speeders off the road.

Rincon confirmed that list of projects.

Andrew reviewed the San Pasqual project list. He noted that many are tribal projects, trails arefor bike and safety. The project that would have the highest impact for tribes would be LakeWolford Road-paving is poor and cracked, lacking shoulders.

Adam raised the issue that the big projects need to be multi-modal-need to accommodate allusers, the way that state and federal funding require.

The group raised the issue of cyclists using the same roads without shoulders. This is animportant safety issue.

Others in the group noted that another road that should be added is Coal Grade Road.

Adam confirmed the La Jolla list of projects. He further suggested the need for gatewaysignage- a gateway signage program that reminds drivers that reservations are where peoplelive-way to brand and identify communities. Another priority for organizing projects is the Abilityto transport and ship goods-lobster, agricultural. Need safe transit-several tribal members arewalking on the roads. Need to acknowledge HSR-not that we like it, but let's connect if it is


coming-access is critical. Vanpool and carpool incentives. La Jolla noted they did not have a lotof their own roadways on the list because we have done a lot of them.

Adam suggested that need another category added-connectivity, include the fiber optics, thinkabout what others utilities should be included, purpose pipe, adding technology. He furthersuggested that he would like to standardize TARO for all tribes-may not be part of this projectbut would help on coordinated projects.

Claudine suggested that the 76 tribes can work together to work together on priorities.

George (La Jolla) Want to leverage tribal heritage to set that tribal lands apart (similar theHawaii) see what could be done to seek funds, such as with scenically byways.

Adam suggested that the study be branded.

Possible categories:

-Safety-Multimodal-Multi-jurisdictional-Group by whole network, group by 76 and then southern tribes

Sheet 1

· SR 76 – needs are straightening, traffic calming and speed control, safety.Improvements will be expensive

· Lake Wohlford Road is a regional facility· Bike lanes – benefits for safety as well as vehicle breakdown lanes· Drainage improvements

Sheet 2

Key considerations:

· Historic and cultural preservation· Funding sources· Technology- such as pairing roads with fiber· Transportation improvements to support jobs· TERO

Sheet 3

· Safety· Multi-jurisdictional, multimodal· SR 76 (corridor)· Community focus/Identification· Regional – Northern-Southern· National Scenic Byways


30


September 7, 2016 Breakout Group Discussion-Notes Southern TribalCorridor Subgroup

Partners

· Mt. Empire Health· Southern Indian Health· Reach Air- medical Ambulance East County Service· Community Planning Group· Tribal Employment centers· Tribal Government· County· State· US Forest Service / Parks – connectivity· Education – School Districts· Colleges – Kumeyaah College, Grossmont College· Cities - Chula Vista· Airports- connectivity· Rail· I-8· Imperial· Mexico· SR 94· There is a growing transportation funds shift

intraregional tribal transportation strategy draft … · intraregional tribal transportation...

Documents