IRR Program, Inventory and Funding Formula Update TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION AT A CROSSROAD: TRIBAL LEADERS FORUM ON THE CURRENT STATE OF TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION National Congress of American Indians Palm Springs, CA 10/11/09 1
Presenters Mr. LeRoy Gishi Chief BIA Division of Transportation Washington, DC 202-513-7711 leroy.gishi@bia.gov Mr. Robert Sparrow FHWA - IRR Program Manager Washington, DC 202-366-9483 robert.sparrow@dot.gov
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? Authority Highway Authorizations Multiple Year Extensions Limitation DOT Appropriations Bills Single Year Continuing Resolutions 31 day Extension $35 million 31 day CR $35 million
In FY09 IRR Program Funding $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%
FY09 IRR Bridge Program 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 Public Authority Responsible for Maintaining/Improving Roads Fiscal Year BIA Tribal State Urban County Township Other BIA Other Fed Other Non- Fed No Owner TOTAL IRR Miles 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 22
IRR Mileage 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 BIA & Tribal County & State Other 20000 10000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008
% IRR Fund Distribution (CTC and VMT only) 70 60 50 40 30 BIA & Tribal County & State Other 20 10 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
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
Seeking a solution. Summary 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
REGION BASELINE RUN 1 RUN 3 RUN 4 RUN 5 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 Comparison of DATA RUNS 33
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
In brief: Preliminary Federal Recommendation (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
Results Preliminary Federal Recommendation 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
REGION BASELINE RUN 1 RUN 3 RUN 4 RUN 5 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 Comparison of DATA RUNS 46
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? 47
Contacts Mr. LeRoy Gishi Chief BIA Division of Transportation Washington, DC 202-513-7711 leroy.gishi@bia.gov Mr. Robert Sparrow FHWA - IRR Program Manager Washington, DC 202-366-9483 robert.sparrow@dot.gov
Comments 49