biadot transportation presentation oct11 09
DESCRIPTION
IRR and ARRA update presented to NCAI Oct. 9, 2009TRANSCRIPT
IRR Program, Inventory
and Funding Formula
UpdateTRIBAL TRANSPORTATION AT A
CROSSROAD: TRIBAL LEADERS FORUM ON THE CURRENT STATE OF TRIBAL
TRANSPORTATION
National Congress of American IndiansPalm Springs, CA
10/11/09
1
Presenters• Mr. LeRoy Gishi
Chief – BIA Division of Transportation
Washington, DC
202-513-7711
• Mr. Robert Sparrow
FHWA - IRR Program Manager
Washington, DC
202-366-9483
IRR Program Update
Reauthorization• Both SAFETEA-LU and the DOT Appropriations
expired September 30– Currently operating under 31 day Extension and
Continuing Resolution (CR)
• What does this mean?– Continues FY09 funding levels
– 8.5% of funds being made available
– Additional extensions and continuing resolutions could result in negative impacts to the FY10 program delivery.
• Administration is developing a Reauthorization proposal.
How are Federal Highway
Programs funded?
AuthorityHighway Authorizations
Multiple Year
Extensions
31 day Extension
$35 million
LimitationDOT Appropriations Bills
Single Year
Continuing Resolutions
31 day CR
$35 million
IRR Program Funding
• In FY09
– $45 million in August Redistribution
• Will be returned to those Tribes that submitted it
back to BIA and FHWA
• SAFETEA-LU
– $1.88 billion made available
– Obligation of over 97%
IRR Bridge Program
• FY09
– 13 BIA Bridges $9.6 million
– 11 non-BIA Bridges $3.5 million
• Total since FY98
– 134 BIA Bridges $74.6 million
– 142 non-BIA Bridges $77.7 million
• 100% of the funds were obligated
ARRA• $310 million made available
– 186 tribal ARRA IRRTIPS approved for more than
$200 million (67%)
– Full obligation by September 30, 2010 or they expire.
• These funds are not subject to the extension or
CR.
• Funding being provided to Tribes via BIA, OSG,
and FHWA.
• Reporting requirements and process is still very
fluid.
• Risk Plan developed
Program Risks• Fund Availability
– Per formula, redistribution in 2010
– Strict control, required documentation
• Fund Transparency
– Collecting and reporting correct data
• Project/Activity Oversight
– Training (all), Project Reviews & Site Visits
• Assuring Uniform Interpretation
– By BIA and FHWA
• Fund Obligation
– Contracting and monitoring
ARRA Redistribution
• DOT Secretary given authority in ARRA to redistribute any unobligated funds within the program after 1 year.
• Policy developed with input from IRRPCC.
– Currently being reviewed by FHWA officials.
– Will be published in Federal Register
• All tribes will be provided numerous written notices of the status of their ARRA funds.
ARRA Redistribution
• Expect a call for projects in December.
• Projects evaluated and ranked prior to Feb. 17, 2010.
• Initial awards in late February. Additional review and awards until mid-May 2010.
IRR National Inventory II• Scope of work
– To develop policy and standards for the inventory,
and to address trust responsibilities, stewardship
needs, and the processes used for the inventory.
• QA/QC of critical data fields
• Update of coding guide
• Benchmark to other inventories
• Cost tables
• Identification of input parameters for other modes. (no
generation of funding).
• Full undertaking FY10-FY11
– Recommendations implemented in FY10, 11, 12
inventory calculations.
FHWA Leadership
• Administrator
– Victor Mendez - AZ
• Deputy Administrator
– Greg Nadeau - ME
• Executive Director
– Jeff Paniatti
The IRR Inventory and the Funding
Formula
• The most notable issue in the Indian
Reservation Roads (IRR) Program over
the past year has been the funding
formula, how it is being implemented, and
the resulting funding trend.
• This is an issue that impacts all tribes.
15
IRR Program (Pre-2005)
• The IRR Program was a BIA Regional priority program– the only routes that generated funding were the BIA
routes included in their respective Inventories.
– ExceptionS for Oklahoma and Alaska
• Other routes (tribal, state, county, township, etc.) were included in the inventory but did not generate any funding.
• BIA Regions with numerous reservations and Indian lands had a majority of BIA Routes and therefore received a majority of the funding.
16
IRR Program Today
• In FY2005, new regulations (25 CFR 170) were
implemented as a result of Negotiated
Rulemaking.
– The IRR Program became a Tribal Share Program
– The basic formula concept remained the same.
• 50% Cost to construct (CTC).
• 30% Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
• 20% Population.
– All eligible public routes, regardless of ownership,
generated funding.
– All Tribes now able to participate in the program.
17
Implementation of Formula
• Since FY2005, when the IRR Program
regulations were finalized, portions of the
regulations (formula) have not been fully
implemented because the inventory data could
not make a distinction as to which roads should
generate at 100 %, and which should be
factored at a lower percentage as intended in
the regulations. This portion of the regulation is
25 CFR 170, Appendix C to Subpart C, Q10.
18
Implementation of Formula (cont.)
• 10. Do All IRR Transportation Facilities in the IRR Inventory Count at 100 Percent of Their CTC and VMT?
• No. The CTC and VMT must be computed at the non-Federal share requirement for matching funds for any transportation facility that is added to the IRR inventory and is eligible for funding for construction or reconstruction with Federal funds, other than Federal Lands Highway Program funds. However, if a facility falls into one or more of the following categories, then the CTC and VMT factors must be computed at 100 percent:
– (1) The transportation facility was approved, included, and funded at 100 percent of CTC and VMT in the IRR Inventory for funding purposes prior to the issuance of these regulations.
– (2) The facility is not eligible for funding for construction or reconstruction with Federal funds, other than Federal Lands Highway Program funds; or
– (3) The facility is eligible for funding for construction or reconstruction with Federal funds, however, the public authority responsible for maintenance of the facility provides certification of maintenance responsibility and its inability to provide funding for the project.
19
Implementation of Formula (cont.)
• Summary
– Not all roads may generate 100% of CTC and VMT, the exceptions are described in three parts in Question 10:1. Roads which are „grandfathered‟
– These are roads that generated funding prior to the regulations being finalized – Pre 2005.
2. Roads which are “not eligible” for Federal funds, other than Federal Lands Highways Program funds.
3. Roads in which the owner certifies of its inability to provide funding for the project and that it has a maintenance responsibility for the facility.
20
Observing A Trend
• Results:
– Inventory growth since FY2005 has been
primarily in routes other than BIA or Tribal.
– Because the existing database did not
distinguish which roads met the specific
exception under (2) of Q.10, all road
ownerships and classes, with the exception of
State roads, were computed at 100%.
– Impacts are trending to favor roads owned by
others and away from the BIA and tribal
routes. 21
Observing A Trend
22
Fiscal
Year BIA Tribal State Urban
County
Township Other BIA Other Fed
Other Non-
Fed No Owner
FY2008 30,367.0 14,984.0 17,680.0 1,882.0 48,978.0 144.0 4,300.0 1,756.0 0.0 120,092.0
FY2007 29,750.7 9,734.2 13,666.4 1,465.3 43,180.2 144.5 2,294.0 1,631.8 330.4 102,197.5
FY2006 28,706.2 4,276.7 13,198.7 897.8 34,295.8 138.8 2,302.8 1,445.5 127.5 85,481.5
FY2005 27,384.9 2,851.2 9,048.7 544.7 22,323.7 134.1 370.8 121.6 90.2 62,869.9
TOTAL IRR
Miles
Public Authority Responsible for Maintaining/Improving Roads
IRR Mileage
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
2005 2006 2007 2008
BIA & Tribal
County & State
Other
% IRR Fund Distribution(CTC and VMT only)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
BIA & Tribal
County & State
Other
Recognizing a Problem and
Seeking a Solution
• 25 CFR 170 established the IRR Program
Coordinating Committee (IRRPCC).
– Provides input and recommendations to the
Secretaries of DOI and DOT regarding
regulatory policy and implementation issues
that are brought to its attention.
25
Role of IRRPCC
• The IRRPCC has reviewed and discussed this
issue over the past years and has not able to
come up with a recommendation
– The Committee reviewed all of the eligible roads and
their corresponding classification
– Numerous data runs were requested and analyzed.
– A matrix was developed to show where some
agreement might be possible (see next slide)
– But because of diverse interests, no consensus could
be reached.
26
27
Summary• Recognizing a Problem
– Because of the significant increase in mileage being added to the inventory and the fact that Q10 cannot be implemented as written: • The majority of the IRR funding is now generated by
non-BIA/tribal roads. Most of these roads did not generate funding prior to 2005.
• BIA and tribal roads are not generating enough funding in the formula to adequately keep pace with the deteriorating infrastructure.
• The responsible public authority of non-BIA/tribal roads has other sources of funding made available to it for road infrastructure. BIA and tribal roads do not.
28
Summary
• Seeking a solution.
– A preliminary Federal recommendation has
been developed that closely coincides to the
IRRPCC views.
– This has been presented at several regional
and national tribal meetings in the near future.
– BIA and FHWA will continue to work with
Tribes and the IRRPCC to develop a final
resolution to this issue.
29
Data Runs(Using FY 07‟ Inventory Data)
• Run 1 – Baseline – Current implementation
• (similar to FY 05‟, 06‟, 07‟)
– All ownership except Ownership 3 (State) calculated at 100% CTC and VMT
– Ownership 3 calculated at Non-Federal Share
30
Data Runs(Using FY 07‟ Inventory Data)
• Run 2 – Ownership 1 & 2 100% CTC and VMT
– Ownership 5, Class 4&5 100% CTC and VMT
– All Other Non-Federal Share
• Run 3– Ownership 1 & 2 100% CTC and VMT
– Ownership 3-9, Class 4&5100% CTC and VMT
– All Others Non-Federal Share
31
Requested Data Cont‟d
• Run 4
– Ownership 1 & 2 100% CTC and VMT
– Ownership 4 & 5 Non-Federal Share
– All Others 0% CTC and VMT
• Run 5 (Preliminary Federal
Recommendation)
32
33
REGION
Share (%) Amount ($) Share (%) Amount ($) Share (%) Amount ($) Share (%) Amount ($) Share (%) Amount ($)
A - GR. PLAINS 6.50% 19,194,818 7.62% 22,521,838 7.22% 21,335,200 6.87% 20,293,677 7.51% 22,175,231
B - SO. PLAINS 2.78% 8,216,738 3.34% 9,856,266 3.25% 9,593,942 2.32% 6,851,329 3.26% 9,617,834
C - ROCKY MTN 7.44% 21,988,927 8.44% 24,930,599 8.43% 24,890,233 7.98% 23,577,517 8.50% 25,101,548
E - ALASKA 12.21% 36,070,741 10.48% 30,963,959 11.18% 33,033,325 14.01% 41,379,198 11.01% 32,512,012
F - MIDWEST 13.38% 39,517,651 12.79% 37,777,619 13.28% 39,245,932 11.13% 32,891,678 12.20% 36,045,541
G - EASTERN OK 12.97% 38,317,409 15.08% 44,563,392 15.28% 45,143,901 7.93% 23,419,236 13.65% 40,314,074
H - WESTERN 6.27% 18,520,881 7.26% 21,442,171 6.95% 20,517,687 9.30% 27,477,141 7.57% 22,355,598
J - PACIFIC 2.34% 6,908,118 1.86% 5,499,835 1.94% 5,730,855 1.73% 5,121,581 1.89% 5,585,951
M - SOUTHWEST 4.41% 13,020,857 5.09% 15,047,024 4.80% 14,192,373 6.59% 19,457,253 5.32% 15,724,623
N - NAVAJO 23.50% 69,410,946 20.51% 60,599,412 19.26% 56,901,894 23.54% 69,547,773 21.38% 63,159,334
P - NORTHWEST 6.38% 18,840,531 5.34% 15,768,681 6.29% 18,594,459 5.97% 17,630,938 5.49% 16,212,378
S - EASTERN 1.83% 5,416,744 2.18% 6,453,565 2.11% 6,244,559 2.63% 7,777,040 2.24% 6,620,238
Max for Region
Min for Region
RUN 5
Comparison of DATA RUNS
BASELINE RUN 1 RUN 3 RUN 4
Preliminary Federal
Recommendation• The percentage of CTC and VMT used in
the RNDF calculation is as follows:
– (a) For facilities identified in the IRR Inventory as Ownership 1 and 2, – 100 percent;
– (b) For facilities identified in the IRR Inventory as Ownership 5, Class 4 & 5 – The percentage used will be that shown under the 80% Federal, 20% State column in the “Sliding Scale Rates of Federal-aid Participation in Public Lands States for Projects not on the Interstate System”, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 120(b)(2); and
34
Preliminary Federal
Recommendation• Con‟t
– (c) For facilities not included in (a) or (b) above - The percentage used will be the difference between 100 and that shown under the 80% Federal, 20% State column in the “Sliding Scale Rates of Federal-aid Participation in Public Lands States for Projects not on the Interstate System”, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 120(b)(2), except for Class 1 roads which shall have a percentage of zero.
35
36
Preliminary Federal
Recommendation
• In brief:
– (a) Roads owned by BIA and Tribal
Governments for all Classifications should be
factored into the formula at 100%.
37
Preliminary Federal
Recommendation
– (b) For facilities identified in the IRR Inventory
as Ownership 5 (County/Local), Class 4 & 5 –
The percentage used will be the Federal
Share (+ 80% - 95%);
– (c) For facilities not included in (a) or (b)
above - The percentage used will be the Non-
Federal Share (+ 5 - 20%);
38
Preliminary Federal
Recommendation
– (d) Class 1 roads for all road ownership other
than BIA or Tribal which are the responsibility
of other public authorities will not generate
funding in the formula (0%).
• They are still eligible IRR as required by law, but
will not generate formula output
39
Preliminary Federal
Recommendation
• Results
– Roads owned by BIA and Tribes – 100%;
– Roads owned by others and which make up the
majority of roads in and around Indian Reservations,
communities, and villages (Ownership 5, Class 4 & 5
Roads) are factored into the formula at a high share;
– All remaining roads, except Class 1 are factored into
the formula at a lower share; and
– Non-BIA, Non-Tribal Class 1 roads are not factored
into the formula.
40
41
Federal Share
• The Federal Share referred to here is the maximum percentage of a project‟s cost for which Federal funds can be used.
– It is a uniformly published % and has been consistent since 1992. It is generally about 80% to 95% and is shown on the following table:
42
43
Non-Federal Share
• The Non-Federal Share referred to here is the minimum percentage of a project‟s cost for which state and local funds must contribute in order for Federal funds to be utilized on a project.
44
45
46
REGION
Share (%) Amount ($) Share (%) Amount ($) Share (%) Amount ($) Share (%) Amount ($) Share (%) Amount ($)
A - GR. PLAINS 6.50% 19,194,818 7.62% 22,521,838 7.22% 21,335,200 6.87% 20,293,677 7.51% 22,175,231
B - SO. PLAINS 2.78% 8,216,738 3.34% 9,856,266 3.25% 9,593,942 2.32% 6,851,329 3.26% 9,617,834
C - ROCKY MTN 7.44% 21,988,927 8.44% 24,930,599 8.43% 24,890,233 7.98% 23,577,517 8.50% 25,101,548
E - ALASKA 12.21% 36,070,741 10.48% 30,963,959 11.18% 33,033,325 14.01% 41,379,198 11.01% 32,512,012
F - MIDWEST 13.38% 39,517,651 12.79% 37,777,619 13.28% 39,245,932 11.13% 32,891,678 12.20% 36,045,541
G - EASTERN OK 12.97% 38,317,409 15.08% 44,563,392 15.28% 45,143,901 7.93% 23,419,236 13.65% 40,314,074
H - WESTERN 6.27% 18,520,881 7.26% 21,442,171 6.95% 20,517,687 9.30% 27,477,141 7.57% 22,355,598
J - PACIFIC 2.34% 6,908,118 1.86% 5,499,835 1.94% 5,730,855 1.73% 5,121,581 1.89% 5,585,951
M - SOUTHWEST 4.41% 13,020,857 5.09% 15,047,024 4.80% 14,192,373 6.59% 19,457,253 5.32% 15,724,623
N - NAVAJO 23.50% 69,410,946 20.51% 60,599,412 19.26% 56,901,894 23.54% 69,547,773 21.38% 63,159,334
P - NORTHWEST 6.38% 18,840,531 5.34% 15,768,681 6.29% 18,594,459 5.97% 17,630,938 5.49% 16,212,378
S - EASTERN 1.83% 5,416,744 2.18% 6,453,565 2.11% 6,244,559 2.63% 7,777,040 2.24% 6,620,238
Max for Region
Min for Region
RUN 5
Comparison of DATA RUNS
BASELINE RUN 1 RUN 3 RUN 4
47
Future Issues
• The IRRPCC is also working to address
the following:
– How to determine lengths of eligible routes
when a Tribe does not have a recognized
Boundary?
– Definition and measurement of an access
route?
– How Proposed Routes should be considered?
Contacts
• Mr. LeRoy Gishi
Chief – BIA Division of Transportation
Washington, DC
202-513-7711
• Mr. Robert Sparrow
FHWA - IRR Program Manager
Washington, DC
202-366-9483
Comments
49