U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–859 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–406 

TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION: PATHWAYS TO 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC 

DEVELOPMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 13, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

JON TESTER, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MARY J. PAVEL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RHONDA HARJO, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 13, 2014 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 13 

Statement of Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................. 14 

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 42 

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES

Black, Michael, Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs .............................................. 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Buckles, Hon. Dana, Tribal Executive Board Member, Assiniboine and Sioux 

Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation ................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Martel, Hon. Wes, Member, Joint Business Council of the Eastern Shoshone 

and Northern Arapaho Tribes of the Wind River Indian Reservation ............ 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Sparrow, Robert W., Director, Tribal Transportation Program, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ................................ 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Thomas, Edward K., President, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian 

Tribes of Alaska ................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

APPENDIX

Andersen, Ralph, President/CEO, Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 88 

Bahnke, Melanie, President, Kawerak, Inc., prepared statement ....................... 57 

Jourdain, Jr., Hon. Floyd, Chairman, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 64 

Hall, Hon. Tex, Chairman, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation (MHA), 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 80 

Healy Sr., C. John, President, Intertribal Transportation Association (ITA), 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 51 

Ho-Chunk Nation, prepared statement ................................................................. 100 

Lone Tree-Whiterabbit, Kathyleen, District 5 Legislator/Tribal Secretary; 

David Greendeer, District 2 Legislator; Andrea Estebo, District 2 Legislator, Ho-Chunk Nation, joint prepared statement ........................................... 49 

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), prepared statement ................ 59 

McDonald, Ph.D., Leander R., Chairman, Spirit Lake Tribe, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 96 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Lisa Murkowski to: 

Michael Black ................................................................................................... 116 

Robert W. Sparrow ........................................................................................... 117 

Small, Hon. Nathan, Chairman, Fort Hall Business Council, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 68 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, prepared statement .................................................. 73 

Vallo, Sr., Hon. Fred, Governor, Pueblo of Acoma, prepared statement ............. 77 

Vizenor, Hon. Erma J., Tribal Chairwoman, White Earth Band of Ojibwe 

Indians .................................................................................................................. 97 

(1) 

TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION: PATHWAYS TO 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC 

DEVELOPMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Tester, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

The CHAIRMAN. We will call this hearing to order. Good morning. 

Welcome and thank you all for being here today. We are meeting 

at a different time than we normally meet, the Committee appreciates everybody’s flexibility. 

Today the Committee is holding an oversight hearing on tribal 

transportation programs at the Department of Interior and the Department of Transportation. Later this year, the current authorization of the transportation programs will expire and will have to be 

renewed. The Committee would like to take this opportunity to examine how tribal transportation programs are working and how we 

can build on the progress of the last authorization. 

I recently visited with several Indian tribes in Montana, my 

home State, and traveled some of the very roads that we are going 

to be discussing. Today, the infrastructure needs in Indian Country 

are great, and for Indian communities to increase economic development and opportunities on reservations, we must invest in improving and expanding transportation infrastructure. 

These investments are aligned with the Federal Governments’ 

treaty and trust responsibility to American Indians, and these investments are crucial to improving the quality of life on tribal 

lands. It is not just economic development, it is safe and adequate 

roads and highways that are critical to the other issues such as 

public safety and education. 

On some Indian reservations, children spend two hours a day 

traveling to and from school on roads that, quite frankly, are not 

adequate. And this is when there is transportation available. We 

hear far too often about the unspeakable tragedies of pedestrians 

being struck while walking alongside some of the most remote and 

dangerous highways, roadways in the Country. Just last month, a 

2 

young girl from Northern Cheyenne Reservation was struck and 

killed along highway 212, a road that has seen an incredible increase in use in recent years. This is unacceptable. 

The dire conditions of these roads lead to delayed response times 

for law enforcement, and for medical assistance. Investments in improved roads can speed up response time and ultimately will save 

lives. 

Motor vehicle accidents are the number one cause of death of 

American Indians age 1 through 34 and the third overall cause of 

death for all American Indians. Many of these deaths are preventable. As we prepare for the reauthorization, we must look for ways 

to reduce the amount of motor vehicle accidents and improve safety 

on our reservations. 

Lastly, we need to invest in transit programs. Whether it is a 

trip to the doctor or ride to work, folks need public transportation 

options that they can count on. The last reauthorization doubled 

the amount of funding for tribal transit programs, but there is still 

plenty of work left to do. 

I want to thank the witnesses for traveling a long way to Washington, D.C. to present your perspective on this important issue. I 

would like to personally welcome Mr. Dana Buckles from the Fort 

Peck Reservation in my home State of Montana. I am looking forward to visiting Fort Peck this next Sunday and bringing Secretary 

Jewell to Montana to show her the reservation. Thank you all for 

being here. 

Senator Barrasso is on his way and when he gets here we will 

certainly give him the opportunity for an opening statement. But 

first I think we will just go right straight to the panel. I would like 

to welcome our first panel of Federal witnesses. We have Mr. Mike 

Black, the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior. Prior to this position, Mike was the Regional Director for the BIA’s Great Plains regional office in Aberdeen, South 

Dakota, which includes North and South Dakota, Nebraska and 

Iowa. Prior to that, Mike was the Deputy Regional Director for Indian Services in the Bureau’s Rocky Mountain regional office in 

Billings, Montana. Obviously, given his experience, Mike understands the needs of Indian Country. 

In addition to Mr. Black, we have Mr. Bob Sparrow, who is the 

Director of Tribal Transportation Programs for the Federal Highway Administration. Bob has worked for Federal Highways for 18 

years and he has overseen the Federal Highways Tribal Transportation Program for the last 10 years. Bob was directly involved in 

the development of the Federal Highway Tribal Transportation 

Program agreements. 

Welcome, Mr. Black and Mr. Sparrow. Mr. Black, we will start 

with your testimony. I would just say that your entire testimony, 

your entire written testimony has been in both cases, and in all 

cases with these hearings, will be a part of the record. We look forward to your verbal presentation. Mr. Black? 

3 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BLACK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Mr. BLACK. Thank you. Good morning Chairman Tester. Thank 

you for the opportunity to provide testimony in this oversight hearing on the topic of Tribal Transportation: Pathways to Infrastructure and Economic Development in Indian Country. I am Mike 

Black, and I am the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The Department and BIA remain committed to improving and 

adequately maintaining transportation systems to provide increased public safety and economic development opportunities to 

Indian communities. Transportation is a necessity for economic development, health, safety and education in our Native communities. 

The BIA and the Federal Highway Administration have been involved in the repair, construction and reconstruction of roads on Indian reservations since the 1920s. From 1950 until 1983, Congress 

appropriated annual construction and maintenance funds to the 

BIA to maintain, repair and construct roads on Indian reservations. 

The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 established 

the Indian Reservation Roads, or IRR Program, funded within Federal Highways’ Federal-aid account. Since the establishment of the 

IRR Program and its successor, the Tribal Transportation Program, 

as part of MAP–21, the Transportation Program has been jointly 

administered by the BIA and the Federal Highways. 

The Tribes currently have five options to administer and deliver 

the Tribal Transportation program: self-determination contracts, 

self-governance annual funding agreements, Federal Highway programmatic agreements, direct service provided by the BIA, or the 

most recent option developed by BIA, the BIA program agreement. 

The BIA program agreement was developed in order to provide 

tribes an additional option to deliver the Tribal Transportation Program. Since its implementation in 2011, 168 tribes have selected 

to use the BIA program agreements for administration of the Tribal Transportation Program. 

Currently there are approximately 125 self-determination agreements, 151 BIA program agreements covering 168 tribes, 46 selfgovernance agreements and approximately 119 Federal Highway 

programmatic agreements. Approximately 83 percent of the tribes 

are contracting under self-determination, self-governance or Title 

23 program agreements. Each contracting agreement is designed to 

meet specific needs and administrative capacity of each tribe. 

The Administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget reflects the President’s continued commitment to addressing transportation needs in 

American Indian and Native communities. This budget recognizes 

that supporting safe and reliable transportation with public road 

access to and within Indian Country contributes to stronger tribal 

economies, communities and families. 

As we discuss the need for jobs, infrastructure and safety of 

roads in Indian communities, it is important to note our support 

for the reauthorization of MAP–21. The most significant impact on 

the Tribal Transportation Program under MAP–21 is the implementation of the new formula established by Congress and the fact 

that more funding is available for distribution to tribal sharers 

4 

under the new formula. This has allowed for more funding to be 

directed to tribal priorities. 

The new formula also allows for a consistent estimate of allocations in advance for future projects and timely allocation to tribes, 

because a major portion of the data is known prior to the beginning 

of the fiscal year. 

Although more funding is allocated to tribes for their priorities, 

certain programs have decreased shares under MAP–21. As an example, the bridge program has decreased significantly from a separate program of $14 million per year to less than $9 million per 

year. However, the bridge set-aside proposed in the 2015 budget 

would address this concern by providing approximately $20 million 

to address critical bridge needs in Indian Country. 

Although the MAP–21 formula has addressed the longstanding 

issue of the competitive formula, there are implementation issues 

regarding the application of certain data to calculation of tribal 

shares. As an example, approximately 28 or more tribes do not 

have a recorded population within the statutorily mandated American Indian and Alaska Native population within each Indian 

tribe’s reservation or statistical area. 

We believe the rationale for considering this data was to reflect 

the relative need due to tribal population of the impacted tribes. 

But we do not believe it was designed to impact certain tribes without any population based funding. The use of a default minimum 

or alternative set such as the BIA labor force report, in addition 

to the NAHASDA based values to make allocations, would help 

provide some equality to tribes that are currently disadvantaged. 

While tribes with zero population as reported in NAHASDA do 

not receive funding based on population, they do receive some consideration for funding under other elements of the formula, including total eligible road mileage as of 2004 and the ratio of the average of the share of percentage from fiscal years 2005 through 2011, 

as compared to the amount for all tribes within the respective regions. 

Recently recognized tribes and any tribes recognized in the future may receive little or no funding because they do not have a 

population recorded in the required data base, they do not have 

any eligible miles and they do not have a history of funding as required by the third element of the formula. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department are committed 

to continue working with this Committee and others in Congress 

to address the transportation needs of Indian Country. Thank you 

for the opportunity to present testimony on an issue that is an important part of the employment, economic infrastructure and road 

safety for tribes. I will be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared testimony of Mr. Black follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BLACK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

Good morning Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and members of the 

Committee. Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior (Department) to 

provide testimony at this oversight hearing on the topic of ‘‘Tribal Transportation: 

Pathways to Infrastructure and Economic Development in Indian Country.’’ My 

5 

name is Mike Black, and I am the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

at the Department. 

As this Committee is aware, the Department provided testimony before this Committee in the 112th Congress on the topic of ‘‘Strengthening Self-Sufficiency: Overcoming Barriers to Economic Development in Native Communities.’’ We identified 

that one of the many barriers to economic development in Native Communities was 

the lack of physical infrastructure. In February 2014, the Administration announced 

its vision for transportation. The emphasis continues to be promoting job growth in 

the transportation sector and putting more Americans back to work repairing and 

modernizing our roads, bridges, railways, and transit systems. This includes the 

roads and bridges that are constructed, maintained and traversed in Indian Country. We appreciate the recognition in the President’s proposal for the importance of 

transportation programs to Indian County. As you will hear in my remarks, transportation is a necessity for economic development, health and safety and education 

in Indian Country. 

The Department and the BIA remain committed to improving and adequately 

maintaining transportation systems to provide increased public safety and economic 

development opportunities in Indian communities. Safe roads are important when 

transporting people in rural areas to and from schools, to local hospitals, and for 

delivering emergency services. In addition, transportation networks in American Indian and Alaska Native communities are critical for economic development in such 

communities because these transportation networks provide access to other economic markets. I appreciate this opportunity to share with the Committee some of 

our accomplishments and also our concerns for tribal transportation as we implement MAP–21 and look to reauthorization of this important law. 

Overview 

The BIA and the Federal Highway Administration within the Department of 

Transportation (FHWA) have been involved in the repair, construction and reconstruction of roads on Indian Reservations since the 1920s. From 1950 until 1983, 

Congress appropriated annual construction and maintenance funds to the BIA to 

maintain, repair and construct roads on Indian Reservations through the Department of the Interior. During this time, approximately $1.2 billion was provided for 

both construction and maintenance of reservation roads. 

Tribal Transportation Program 

The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 established the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program funded within FHWA’s Federal-aid account. Since 

the establishment of the IRR Program and its successor as part of MAP–21, which 

is now called the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP), the total Federal construction authorization for Tribal Transportation has exceeded $8 billion. The TTP is 

jointly administered by the BIA and the FHWA. These investments have contributed greatly to the improvement of roads and the replacement or rehabilitation of 

deficient bridges on or near reservations throughout Indian Country. 

Today, the National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory (NTTFI) consists of 

over 158,000 miles of public roads with multiple owners, including Indian tribes, the 

BIA, states, and counties, as well as other Federal agencies. Of this amount, approximately 11,500 miles are planned or proposed roads of varying surface types 

and uses. There remains a great and continuing need to improve the transportation 

systems throughout Indian Country. We believe Congress has viewed this as a joint 

responsibility including not only Federal agencies, but state and local governments 

with transportation investments in or near American Indian and Alaska Native 

communities, as well. Coordination among all of these stakeholders is required in 

order to maximize available resources to address transportation needs. Tribes are 

continuing to invest in transportation projects that are the responsibility of other 

public authorities. This creates jobs and contributes to the economy of local businesses that provide services and materials. Strengthening existing partnerships will 

continue to support the local economy and bring improved infrastructure to communities on or near Indian reservations and lands. In all, tribes have planned transportation projects estimated to lead to approximately $270 million worth of investment in non-BIA and non-Tribal projects over the next 3 years. An investment in 

tribal transportation is truly an investment in the local economy. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs responded to the 1991 highway legislation, the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and recognized the 

importance of our Nation’s transportation infrastructure to recreational travel, tourism and trade, and our ability to compete in the global marketplace. This was an 

opportunity for BIA and the tribes to participate in the dialog and have a say in 

the execution of transportation programs. This is important because the opportunity 

6 

to develop robust economic growth is closely tied to access to transportation and related infrastructure. The BIA has invested resources toward the development of 

technical assistance and training for tribal tourism development through the establishment of the American Indian Tourism Conference in 1999 and the American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association (AIANTA). AIANTA has become a voice for 

Indian Country to the tourism industry and is successfully helping tribal communities to realize their potential in the global tourism industry. Tribes deserve the 

ability to provide visitors with reasonable transportation access and safety to their 

rural homelands and to share their history and culture with the travelling public 

through transportation enhancements such as context sensitive design, interpretive 

signage, informational kiosks, and scenic byways. We believe Indian Country tourism is a tremendous asset to America’s international tourism competitiveness and 

a worthy investment. 

BIA Road Maintenance 

In partnership with the Department of Transportation, the BIA currently implements both the TTP program, funded by within the Federal-aid account, and the 

BIA Road Maintenance Program, funded by the Department of the Interior. The 

BIA Road Maintenance Program has traditionally been responsible for maintaining 

only roads owned by the BIA. Today, of the 146,000 miles of existing roads in the 

NTTFI, the BIA has responsibility for approximately 29,500 miles of roads designated as BIA system roads. The BIA receives approximately $25 million in Tribal 

Priority Allocation (TPA) funding annually for the administration of the road maintenance program for those roads. 

BIA supports self-determination and the empowerment of tribes by contracting 

out a significant portion of the program with tribes. Approximately 85 percent of 

tribes with BIA system roads within their reservation boundaries currently carry 

out the BIA Road Maintenance Program through self-determination contracts or 

agreements. Approximately 22,200 miles (75 percent) of the BIA system roads are 

not paved and are considered ‘‘inadequate’’ based on the level of service index used 

to assess roads and bridges in the BIA road system. The FY 2013 deferred maintenance for BIA roads was estimated at $280 million. 

FY 2015 Budget Request for Tribal Transportation 

The Administration’s FY15 budget reflects the President’s continued commitment 

to addressing the transportation needs of Indians and Native Americans. This budget recognizes that supporting safe and reliable transportation and public road access 

to and within Indian Country contributes to stronger tribal economies, communities 

and families. Highlights of the FY 2015 budget for the Tribal Transportation Program include: 

• Program funding is increased from $450M to $507M. The increased amount is 

targeted toward new and/or increased set-asides. 

• The Tribal High Priority Projects Program is integrated back into the core program as a 7 percent set-aside. MAP–21 had authorized this as a separate program funded from the General Fund. 

• Increased the tribal planning set-aside from 2 percent to 3 percent to address 

additional data collection requirements. 

• Increased the tribal bridge set-aside from 2 percent to 4 percent to address the 

growing backlog of tribal bridge needs. 

The program structure and funding formula under MAP–21 are retained. The FY 

2015 budget also includes a new $150M program for large, nationally significant 

projects accessing federal and tribal lands that cannot typically be funded through 

core funding allocations to tribes or Federal agencies. 

Reauthorization of MAP–21 

As we discuss the need for jobs, infrastructure and safety of roads in Indian communities, it is important to note our support for the reauthorization of MAP–21. The 

most significant impact to the TTP program under MAP–21 is the implementation 

of the new formula established by Congress. One significant difference is that more 

funding is available for distribution to tribal shares under the new MAP–21 formula, although the MAP–21 allocation is equal to the amount for the last year of 

SAFETEA–LU. The formula share of IRR program funds in FY 2011 and 2012 were 

respectively $336.7 million and $322.3 million. The formula share of TTP funds in 

FY 2013 and FY 2014 were respectively $387.6 million and $384.3 million. This has 

allowed more funding to be directed to tribal priorities. The new formula also allows 

for a consistent estimate of allocations in advance for future projects and timely alVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 089859 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89859.TXT JACK
7 

location to tribes because a major portion of the data is known prior to beginning 

of the fiscal year. 

Although more funding is allocated to tribes for their priorities, certain programs 

have decreased shares under MAP–21. The bridge program is decreased significantly from a separate program of $14 million per year to a set-aside program from 

within the total amount of less than $9 million per year. However, the bridge setaside proposed in the FY 2015 budget would address this concern by providing approximately $20 million to address critical bridge needs in Indian Country. 

In addition, the requirement of the Secretaries of Transportation and Interior to 

perform safety inspections on all 930 tribally-owned bridges has not been adequately 

funded. The number of bridges which are deficient or functionally obsolete and are 

eligible for replacement or rehabilitation for BIA bridges alone in the 2012 National 

Bridge Inventory is approximately 170 of 930 (or 18.7 percent of the total). The estimated cost of correcting these deficiencies is $53.2 million. The estimated cost of inspecting the tribally-owned bridges along with the BIA is $3.0 million every other 

year. 

Although the MAP–21 formula has addressed the long standing issue of competitive formula, there are implementation issues regarding the application of certain 

data to the calculation of tribal shares. As an example, approximately 28 or more 

tribes do not have a recorded population within the statutorily mandated American 

Indian and Alaska Native population within each Indian tribe’s American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Reservation or Statistical Area, as computed under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et 

seq.). We believe the rationale for considering this data was to reflect a relative 

need due to tribal population of the impacted tribes, but we do not believe it was 

designed to in effect leave certain tribes without any population-based funding. The 

use of default minimum or alternate data such as the BIA Labor Force Report in 

addition to the NAHASDA based values to make allocations would help to provide 

some equality to tribes that are currently disadvantaged. 

While tribes with zero population, as reported in NAHASDA, do not receive funding based on population, they do receive some consideration for funding under the 

other elements of the formula including total eligible road mileage as of 2004, and 

the ratio of the average of the share percentage from fiscal years 2005 through 2011 

as compared to the amount for all tribes within the BIA Region. Recently-recognized 

tribes and any tribes recognized in the future may receive little or no funding because they do not have a population recorded in the required database, they will 

not have any eligible miles, and they do not have a history of funding as required 

by the third element of the formula. 

Conclusion 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department are committed to working with 

this Committee and others in Congress to address the transportation needs in Indian Country through our support for the Tribal Transportation Program, the Road 

Maintenance Program, and other Title 23 USC funding provided for transportation 

in Indian Country. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on an issue that is an important part of the employment, economic infrastructure and roads safety for tribes. I 

will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Black. There 

will be questions. 

Mr. Sparrow, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. SPARROW, DIRECTOR, TRIBAL 

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM, FEDERAL HIGHWAY 

ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. SPARROW. Thank you, Chairman Tester. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today to discuss Federal Highways’ Tribal 

Transportation Program and the future of transportation needs of 

tribes. 

At last year’s White House Tribal Leaders Conference, Secretary 

Fox emphasized the Department’s commitment to tribal transportation by announcing $8.6 million in awards to 183 tribes for improving transportation safety on their lands. During that conVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 089859 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\89859.TXT JACK
8 

ference, the Secretary also held the DOT Tribal Transportation Listening Session where tribal leaders could discuss their transportation-related issues directly with the leadership of the various 

DOT administrations. The Department also continues to implement 

our tribal consultation plan which outlines actions we take when 

developing, changing and implementing policies, programs, services 

with tribal implications. 

Federal Highway has a long history of supporting tribal governments’ rights to self-determination and working directly with tribes 

in a government-to-government relationship. We meet directly with 

tribal government elected officials and transportation staff, and I 

am committed to delivering a transportation program that works 

for all tribes, no matter their size. 

We also continue to seek ways to improve the state of tribal 

transportation by working directly with tribal governments to improve their technical capacity as well as foster relationship and 

partnerships between themselves and the local governments, Federal agencies and State DOTs. 

Federal Highway continues to implement the Tribal Transportation Program in accordance with MAP–21 and in partnership 

with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Tribal Transportation program serves the 566 federally-recognized tribes and Alaska Native 

villages in 32 States. It includes similar provisions and eligibility 

requirements as the former Indian Reservation Roads program and 

provides $450 million annually for projects that improve access to 

or are located within tribal lands. 

The TTP funding is distributed according to MAP–21 statutory 

formula, and that is taking effect over a four-year transitional period. The program seeks to balance transportation mobility and 

safety goals with the environmental and cultural values of tribal 

lands. 

Since SAFETEA–LU, tribes have been authorized to enter into 

program funding agreements and work directly with the Federal 

Highway Administration for the operation of the program. The first 

four tribes began working directly with Federal Highway in 2006. 

Today, 119 tribes work directly with Federal Highway. 

As the number of tribes working with Federal Highway has increased, we have strengthened our stewardship and oversight role 

by adding staff and working closely with tribes and the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs to develop uniform program guidance. To this end, 

we coordinate annual face to face meetings with each tribe and conduct outreach and training through webinars, regional conferences 

and organized classes. 

We also continue to utilize and update our Tribal Transportation 

Program manual, which communicates program expectations, roles 

and responsibilities and best practices for all the tribes, States, 

counties and Federal agencies to use. The Federal Highways’ Every 

Day Counts Initiative encourages the use of technology and innovation to significantly reduce the time and cost of delivering projects. 

For tribes, we promote this initiative through our seven tribal 

transportation assistance program centers by providing information 

to tribes and assisting them in carrying out their projects. Federal 

Highway also supports tribal workforce development through these 

9 

TTAP centers, which helps improve skills, and increase knowledge 

of tribal transportation managers. 

Moving beyond MAP–21, President Obama recently proposed a 

budget for the next fiscal year and laid out his vision for the fouryear surface transportation authorization to spur further economic 

growth in sound multi-year investments. This request includes increased funding for the Tribal Transportation Program and two additional programs for particular tribal projects. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I will be pleased 

to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sparrow follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. SPARROW, DIRECTOR, TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today to discuss the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) and the future transportation needs of Tribes. 

The transportation needs of Tribes are often different than what we see needed 

elsewhere in the U.S. transportation network. In much of this country, we take for 

granted that roads and highways will be there for children to reach their schools, 

for emergency vehicles to reach those in need of medical care, and for members of 

the community to get to work. But, in Indian Country, we cannot always make that 

assumption. Moreover, tribal communities need good roads to support economic development. 

At last year’s White House Tribal Leaders Conference, Secretary Foxx emphasized 

the Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) commitment to tribal transportation by 

announcing $8.6 million in awards to 183 Tribes for improving transportation safety 

on their lands. In addition, the Secretary held a DOT Tribal Transportation Listening Session with tribal leaders. This session provided tribal leaders with an opportunity to meet with representatives from each DOT modal administration and provide input on important transportation issues affecting tribal communities. The Department also continues to implement our Tribal Consultation Plan, which outlines 

actions the Department takes when developing, changing, or implementing policies, 

programs, or services with tribal implications. 

The FHWA has a long history of supporting tribal governments’ rights to self-determination and working directly with Tribes in a government-to-government relationship. We meet directly with tribal government elected officials and transportation staff, and are committed to delivering a transportation program that works 

for all Tribes, no matter their size. 

We also continue to seek ways to improve the state of tribal transportation by 

working directly with tribal governments to improve their technical capacity and to 

foster partnerships between tribal governments, local governments, Federal agencies, and State DOTs. 

The FHWA Tribal Transportation Program 

The current surface transportation law, MAP–21, authorized the TTP. This program, administered by FHWA in partnership with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA), is the largest Federal Lands Highway (FLH) program and is unique due to 

the relationship with Federally-recognized Indian Tribal Governments under the 

program. The program serves 566 Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska 

Native villages in 32 States. TTP funding can be used to pay the costs of transportation activities and projects such as planning, research, maintenance, engineering, 

rehabilitation, restoration, construction, and reconstruction of facilities identified on 

the National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory (NTTFI). 

The TTP includes similar provisions and eligibility requirements as the former Indian Reservation Roads program. The TTP provides $450 million annually for 

projects that improve access to and within Tribal lands. The roads, bridges, and 

trails that are included as part of the TTP system provide access to and within Indian reservations, Indian trust land, restricted Indian land, eligible Indian communities, and Alaska Native villages. 

The TTP is critical to supporting the transportation needs on this system. In 

many cases, it is the only source of funding for transportation improvements. TTP 

10 

funding is distributed according to a statutory formula based on tribal population, 

road mileage, and average funding under the 2005–2009 SAFETEA–LU Act, plus 

an equity provision, and takes effect over a four-year transitional period. The TTP 

seeks to balance transportation mobility and safety goals with the environmental 

and cultural values of tribal lands. 

FHWA also works with the Federal Transit Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in coordinating transportation programs that 

focus on planning, safety, and construction of roads and transit services within Indian Country. We also continue to highlight other funding opportunities available 

to Tribes under MAP–21, such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program, and 

we stand ready to assist Tribes with permanent and emergency repairs through our 

Emergency Relief program. 

Additionally, we are implementing the dedicated set-aside under TTP for Tribes 

to address safety issues in Indian Country. As a 2 percent set-aside from the TTP 

($8.6 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013), these funds are competitively awarded to 

Tribes based on an identification and analysis of highway safety issues and opportunities on tribal land. With input from the Tribal Transportation Program Coordinating Committee, we established goals for this funding and issued a Notice of 

Funding Availability (NOFA) on August 5, 2013. In response, we received more than 

240 tribal applications for a total of more than $27 million in requests. From these 

applications, DOT awarded $8.6 million to 183 Tribes. We plan to issue a NOFA 

for the FY 2014 safety set-aside soon. 

FHWA/Tribal TTP Funding Agreements 

Since SAFETEA–LU, Tribes have been authorized to enter into Program Funding 

Agreements and work directly with FHWA (rather than BIA) for the operation of 

their program. The first four Tribes began working directly with FHWA in 2006. 

Today, 119 Tribes work directly with FHWA. 

As the number of Tribes working with FHWA has increased, we have strengthened our stewardship and oversight role by adding staff and working closely with 

the Tribes and BIA to develop uniform program guidance. To this end, we coordinate annual face-to-face meetings with each Tribe and conduct outreach and training through webinars, regional conferences, and organized classes. We also continue 

to utilize and update our TTP program manual, which communicates program expectations, roles and responsibilities, and best practices for all Tribes, States, counties, and Federal agencies to use. 

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery 

From 2009 through 2013, the DOT solicited applications for the Transportation 

Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grants. During this period, 

Tribes acting alone or in cooperation with State or local agencies were successful 

in receiving 13 projects totaling more than $80 million from this program. 

For example, the Eastern Shoshone/Northern Arapaho Tribes of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming received $8.23 million in TIGER funds for a project called 

the 17–Mile Road. The 17–Mile Road was a treacherous and dangerous series of 

curves. TIGER funds were used to complete reconstruction of this facility and address serious safety concerns. The grant provided incentives to enable contractors 

to employ over 130 Native workers from the reservation. This project was completed 

ahead of schedule and under budget through collaborative agreements between the 

Wind River Indian Reservation, the Wyoming Department of Transportation, and 

FHWA’s Central Federal Lands Highway Division. 

Another example of TIGER funds impacting tribal infrastructure can be seen in the Alaska Native Village of St. Michael, which received a $1 million grant to carry 

out roadway improvements within the village. The $10.5 million total project provided reconstruction of 4.39 miles of the streets/boardwalks within the tribal village, 

improved drainage, and construction of new street access to future housing sites. 

The project also addressed health and safety issues by providing a dust free surface 

on the village streets. The project was completed in September 2013. 

The call for 2014 TIGER Discretionary Grants is currently underway. As in previous years, DOT will be conducting Tribe-specific webinars during the application 

process to provide technical assistance to those Tribes that plan to submit applications. 

The Every Day Counts Initiative 

FHWA’s Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative encourages the use of technology and 

innovation to significantly reduce the time and costs of delivering projects. For 

Tribes, we promote this initiative through our Tribal Transportation Assistance Program (TTAP) Centers by providing information to Tribes and assisting them in carrying out their projects. 

11 

For example, the Gila River Indian Community, located just south of Phoenix, Arizona, is in the process of replacing a bridge over the Gila River that serves as a 

major thoroughfare for tribal members and commercial traffic. This project will utilize two EDC initiatives: Construction Manager/General Contractor and prefabricated bridge elements. By combining these initiatives with FHWA’s accelerated 

bridge construction toolkit, it is expected that the new bridge will be constructed 

in less than half the time of traditional construction methods, thereby saving significant costs and providing the Tribe with a faster resolution to safety issues and increased opportunities for economic development. 

Education and Training 

FHWA also supports tribal workforce development through funding provided to 

the TTAP Centers. The purpose of our TTAP centers is to foster a safe, efficient, 

and environmentally-sound surface transportation system by improving the skills 

and increasing the knowledge of tribal transportation managers. They provide access to information, training, and program management enhancements that may not 

have otherwise been accessible to Tribes. For example, they provide a variety of 

training and professional development programs, as well as technical publications 

and training materials related to transportation planning, safety, the environment, 

infrastructure design, construction and management, and other issues. The centers 

are a key resource for basic services and help many Tribes become self-sufficient as 

sovereign nations in transportation delivery. 

FY 2015 Budget Request 

Building on the reforms begun through MAP–21, President Obama recently proposed a budget for the next fiscal year and laid out his vision for a four-year surface 

transportation authorization to spur further economic growth and sound multi-year 

investments. The budget requests $507 million for the TTP in FY 2015 (up from the 

current $450 million). 

The budget requests an increase for two set-asides within the TTP. The first is 

an increase of the tribal planning set-aside from 2 percent to 3 percent to address 

additional data collection requirements of performance-based management. The second is an increase of the tribal bridge set-aside from 2 percent to 4 percent from 

current levels to address the growing backlog of tribal bridge needs. 

The budget also requests funding to establish a Tribal High Priority Projects Program through a 7 percent set-aside from the TTP. This program will provide a dedicated funding source to help smaller Tribes by allowing them to apply for funds to 

help address high-priority transportation concerns within their community, which 

they cannot address through their regular TTP funding. 

The budget also includes a request to establish a Nationally Significant Federal 

Lands and Tribal Projects Program. This program is proposed at $150 million annually, and is intended for rehabilitation, construction, or reconstruction of large, nationally-significant transportation infrastructure within or providing access to Federal or Tribal lands. Such large projects generally cannot be advanced within the 

scope of the existing tribal share distribution of the TTP. 

CONCLUSION 

Transportation infrastructure is a critical tool for Tribes to improve the quality 

of life in their communities by providing safe access to jobs, hospitals, and schools. 

The challenges are to maintain and improve transportation systems serving Indian 

lands and Alaska Native villages in order to provide safe and efficient transportation, while at the same time protecting environmentally sensitive lands and cultural resources. The Department is committed to improving transportation access to 

and through tribal lands through stewardship of the Federal Lands and Federal-aid 

programs. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I will be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both of you for your testimony. 

I guess we will start out with a question to both of you. Mr. Black, 

you can kick it over to Mr. Sparrow if he is the right person to answer and back and forth. 

In your testimony, Mr. Sparrow, you talked about Secretary 

Fox’s announcement of $8.6 million going to 183 tribes. Is that over 

and above the 6 percent set-aside now, which is about $27 million? 

So is that $8.6 million in addition to the $27 million? 

12 

Mr. SPARROW. No, Senator. The $8.6 million is actually part of 

the 2 percent set-aside for safety that comes out of the Tribal 

Transportation Program. 

The CHAIRMAN. So let me understand this. There is 6 percent 

set-aside from the overall money, the $450 million which amounts 

to about $27 million. And if I am wrong on this or if I am close, 

let me know. And then there is 2 percent of that $27 million that 

is set aside for safety. 

Mr. SPARROW. No, sir. There is actually four set-asides off the 

program of the $450 million. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Mr. SPARROW. Two percent is for safety, which translates then to 

about $9 million authorized. And that is money that the tribes can 

apply for directly through the program and directly through Federal Highway as opposed to Highway Safety Improvement Programs through the States. And we had a call for projects this last 

summer and went through the evaluation process and made those 

announcements and got them together for Secretary Fox. 

The emphasis this first go-around was to assist the tribes in developing tribal safety plans, identifying what the needs are. You 

also have a 2 percent set-aside now that Director Black spoke 

about for bridges. It used to be a stand-alone program. It is now 

2 percent, again, 2 percent of the $450 million. 

You have 2 percent set aside for transportation planning purposes. Again, for carrying out planning activities, collecting data. 

And then the other set-aside is the 6 percent, which is the set-aside 

called program management and oversight which are the funds 

that BIA and Federal Highway use for stewardship and oversight 

and staffing of the program. 

The CHAIRMAN. So of the $450 million, there is about 12 percent 

that is set aside for tribes, 2, 2, 2, 6? 

Mr. SPARROW. Well, 6 is for BIA and Federal Highway to carry 

out stewardship and oversight of the program. Off the 450 is 2 for 

planning, 2 for bridges, 2 for safety. 

The CHAIRMAN. And those are all dedicated to Indian tribes? 

Mr. SPARROW. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. And the 6 percent which is the program 

management part, just to help me understand it, that goes actually 

for building roads, then, right? 

Mr. BLACK. No, the 6 percent, sir, is for the general oversight 

and administration of federally inherent responsibilities, Federal 

Highway and BIA to administer the program and provide services. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. That is cool. So where does the money 

come from for building the roads? Where does it come from for 

building roads? Or is any of this money meant for building roads 

or rehabbing roads? 

Mr. BLACK. Approximately, and Mr. Sparrow can probably answer more accurately than I can, but approximately $350 million 

of the total $450 million, I believe it is. Approximately $350 million 

to $380 million of the total $450 million goes directly to the tribes 

for construction, reconstruction and rehabilitation of the roads. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is good. And so how many miles of road 

were built last year with that $380 million? 

13 

Mr. BLACK. I don’t have that figure with me, I am sorry. I can 

get that back to you. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you could get the figure on how many miles 

of road were built, how many miles of road were rehabbed. Actually, go right down the line, the $9 million that was spent for safety, how was it utilized? Who got the money? Did the tribes get it? 

How much went to administrative costs? 

Here is the point. Quite frankly, we have had these conversations 

with FEMA, dollars going through the State or with highway dollars, potentially going through BIA, quite frankly. And that is that 

if we are going to get money on the ground, if we are going to have 

self-determination and empowerment of tribes, there have to be 

rules around it, whether it is done through whatever metrics are 

done, but ultimately what I am going to be looking for is how much 

of this is being used for administration and how much is actually 

used for laying pavement down and improving safety and improving roads and improving bridges and going right down the line. So 

that is what we are looking at. 

I don’t say that that anybody is doing anything wrong, or has 

done anything wrong. I just want to find out what is going on, that 

is all. Because quite frankly, as I said in my opening remarks, I 

travel on a lot of Native American roads in the State of Montana, 

because I travel the State a lot. And they are pretty sub-par. In 

fact, they are pretty bad. 

I can give you an example. Heading over about a month and a 

half ago, over the divide going through Blackfeet, the only road 

that was not plowed of snow was the road that went through the 

reservation. The rest of it was all plowed. And it was pretty obvious that there is a difference in management here. I don’t know if 

it is the tribe’s fault, I don’t know if it is the BIA’s fault, I don’ 

know if it is the State of Montana’s fault, I don’t know if it is the 

Federal Department of Highway’s fault. But something is not being 

done that should be done. That is all. And it creates some real safety problems. 

Vice Chair Barrasso is here. Vice Chair Barrasso, if you have 

opening remarks, you can certainly make them, or questions, then 

we will go over to Senator Heitkamp. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this important hearing today. Before we get 

started, I do want to take a second to welcome Wes Martel and 

John Smith from the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming. Thank 

you very much for being here and sharing your thoughts and your 

ideas. I am looking forward to your testimony. 

Both of you gentlemen work very hard to make the Wind River 

Reservation a safer place to live through the Tribal Transportation 

Program. So thank you. 

I do have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman, one for Mr. Black, 

if I could. According to information from the Federal Lands Highway Administration, there are about 25 percent of the Tribal 

Transportation Program bridges which are considered deficient. On 

the Wind River Reservation, I think about 19 of the 122 bridges 

14 

are deficient. They are required by law to be inspected by the Bureau of Indian Affairs every two years. 

Could you give us an update on the status of the most recent inspections? 

Mr. BLACK. I apologize, Senator, I don’t have those exact numbers with me. But I can sure provide them to you. 

Senator BARRASSO. We would appreciate that, if you could get 

that back to us at the first available, convenient time. Thank you. 

Mr. Sparrow, or both witnesses, actually, on October 30, 2013, 

the Office of the Inspector General released a report on the Federal 

Highway Administration’s oversight of the Tribal Transportation 

Program. The report noted inefficiencies and duplication between 

the Department of Interior and the Department of Transportation. 

For example, the Inspector General found an inconsistent environmental review process under NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, implemented by the departments. Can you tell 

me what the agencies, both your agencies, are doing to address the 

findings of this report, including reconciling this environmental review process? 

Mr. SPARROW. Thank you, Senator, I will be glad to answer. The 

Office of the Inspector General report found seven recommendations for improvement of coordination between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Federal Highway in carrying out the Tribal Transportation Program. One that speaks directly to your immediate 

issue was updating the memorandum of agreement and our stewardship plan to help deliver a more unified and consistent program 

across the Country. 

Federal Highway and BIA are working closely together and developing what we are calling a national business plan which will 

replace those two documents. That business plan will identify the 

roles and responsibilities of both agencies on carrying out the program so that we can more consistently do that regardless of the 

tribal size or tribal location. 

That is well underway. And we plan, or are hoping to have that 

fully in place by the end of this year. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Black, any additional comments? 

Mr. BLACK. No, Senator, I don’t have anything to add to that, 

other than the fact that we have developed over the time we have 

been working with Federal Highway a very good relationship. This 

is a great opportunity for us to be able to continue that and develop 

a more uniform program. 

Senator BARRASSO. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

Senator Heitkamp? 

STATEMENT OF HON. HEIDI HEITKAMP, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thanks to the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member. A lot of times, this kind of infrastructure doesn’t get a lot 

of attention until you are at the end of the line and our road isn’t 

plowed and your kids can’t get to school. And you see the traffic 

fatalities, the increased traffic fatalities. I think it is a result of 

some pretty challenging conditions on all of my reservations, but 

particularly up at the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikira Nation, where 

15 

they are experiencing a huge growth in employment and activity, 

and the roads are pitiful. They are horrible. 

And so I just have a couple questions, but Mr. Chairman, I would 

like to submit additional questions for the record, if that is agreeable. 

The Tribal High Priorities Project Program, I think it was pro- vided about $30 million each year from the general fund, is used 

to target the most pressing transportation issues in Indian Country. Obviously we think that there are some extreme needs in Fort 

Berthold, which is Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikira. If you don’t believe me, you might want to talk to Ken Hall, who is here from the 

tribal council, watching these proceedings. 

Can you tell me, and Fort Berthold has some unique challenges, 

because not only do we have this incredible growth as a result of 

the Bakken, we had major flooding in 2011, which literally made 

the reservation a transportation island. Can you tell me about the 

criteria for this high priority program and whether any of the situations, especially in Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikira Nation, have an 

opportunity to qualify for that program? Mr. Black? 

Mr. BLACK. I will go first, then Mr. Sparrow can add to this. I 

have had the experience of traveling those roads in Fort Berthold 

a number of times personally. I can share the pain, I know exactly 

what the conditions are. 

There are so many different challenges in meeting that. But to 

address the high priority program that you are talking about, 

under the previous transportation act, we did have a high priority 

program project identified in there, and it was a 2 percent setaside, I believe. 

Mr. SPARROW. It turned out to be a little bit more than that. 

Mr. BLACK. A little bit more than that. Now, under MAP–21 it 

was authorized but it was never funded. So there is no program 

under MAP–21 currently for the high priority projects. So under 

the proposal there is going to be hopefully a funding mechanism 

under the new transportation act that we can address those concerns. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And it would be very much appreciated to 

have clear and concise standards, so that we know when we are applying for those priority dollars that we have an opportunity to be 

successful. 

Mr. Sparrow, I have a quick question for you. Under MAP–21, the Tribal Transportation Program is provided about $450 million 

in fiscal years 2014 and 2013. Under the allocations provided by 

the Highway Trust Fund, this amount accounts for slightly greater 

than 1 percent, 1 percent of overall highway funding. 

Given the great need in Indian Country to improve the quality 

of roads and the continuing pressure to maintain and improve 

transportation infrastructure, do you think that is an adequate or 

appropriate amount of money from the highway funds, and what 

steps should we take to improve access to those dollars? 

Mr. SPARROW. Senator, thank you for the question. The Administration has recognized the importance of the program. And in the 

fiscal year 2015 budget that President Obama submitted, it did 

propose an increase in the program from $450 million to $507 million. 

16 

Senator HEITKAMP. That is one mile of road in North Dakota 

these days. 

Mr. SPARROW. But beyond that, the Administration will be submitting reauthorization language and proposal beyond fiscal year 

2015 budget in the coming months. At that time, working with 

Congress to answer the question. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I just want to make the point, and I don’t 

mean to point fingers, but I was talking to the chairman up at 

Spirit Lake. These issues came up. To the chairman’s observation, 

you would drive down a township road and all of a sudden the road 

wasn’t plowed, and the road wasn’t plowed because the township 

supervisors decided those were, the people on the other end of that 

road were Native American people and that must be the responsibility of the tribes. 

So we know we need to do a better job coordinating with State 

and local, county, and township authorities, especially when we 

have reservations with a lot of in-holdings and a lot of not understanding. But we also need the Federal Government to step up and 

to make a commitment, particularly in Indian Country, which is, 

I think, a primary responsibility. Many of these tribes cannot afford to provide that quality transportation. And as a result what 

happens is kids don’t get to school and mail doesn’t get delivered 

and people can’t get groceries and people get more and more isolated and law enforcement can’t attend to their business. 

So not having these conduits has real consequences in Indian 

Country. I would just impress upon you and the Administration 

that this is the primary responsibility and we need to figure out 

how we are going to expand capacity. 

The CHAIRMAN. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Heitkamp. 

I was going to save this until the end, but I think I will say it 

now. I think folks in the agencies, whether it is BIA or Department 

of Transportation, need to look upon this Committee as the Committee that can help empower you to do your job. And if we know 

the issues that are out there and you can tell us where the gaps 

are or where money is being spent that may be better spent somewhere else, I think we can certainly help with your effectiveness 

and government efficiency in general. I think that is whether it is 

on the Republican side of the aisle or the Democratic side of the 

aisle, whether it is the ranking member, me or anybody else on this 

Committee, I think we all want to see things work. 

In your testimony, Mr. Black, you state that there is deferred maintenance needed, about $280 million, which is probably about 

the way it is just about everywhere. Yet your budget request annually is between $20 million and $25 million in the maintenance 

issue. That barely keeps up with inflation, much less takes care of 

the problem. Could you address that? 

Mr. BLACK. I would be happy to, sir. Without trying to get up on 

my soap box here, just for information purposes, I did serve as a 

regional road engineer for the Rocky Mountain region for a couple 

of years as well. So I am pretty well experienced in the issues in 

Montana as well as South Dakota and other areas of the Country. 

The road maintenance budget has been something that has basi- cally remained steady for almost 20 years, up around $20 million 

and $25 million a year. We have deferred maintenance of approxiVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 089859 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\89859.TXT JACK
17 

mately $280 million. Yet as you and the folks from the Plains areas 

and the Dakotas know well, this is also used to remove snow and 

ice. So by the time we get to March and April, oftentimes the 

tribes’ road maintenance budgets are expended and we cannot even 

begin to address the $280 million. 

Now, there are provisions in the Transportation Act that allow 

tribes to use up to 25 percent of their highway construction dollars 

and apply those toward maintenance. But there again, that is kind 

of a catch-22, because you can run into the situation where we are 

taking way from that need for construction and applying that to 

the serious need for maintenance. 

So it is a challenge we have been facing for many years. 

The CHAIRMAN. So here is the question that leads on to that 

question, and you did good. The question is, you know the issues 

and you know the challenges and you know how the money is 

spent. Who is advocating to get that number up so it is a more reasonable figure? This is the President’s budget numbers. 

Mr. BLACK. Well, the Department is advocating for it, but there 

again, we are always competing against other interests. With the 

road maintenance program, we do work with the tribes in setting 

priorities for the budget. There again, tribes have priorities and we 

are working with them to try and understand the issues that are 

out there, make sure everybody is on board as to what is most important in Indian Country at this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. So tell me how this works. You have a line 

item in your budget that has been static for 20 years, you understand that it is used for removal of snow, and by the time they get 

done removing snow there is not a heck of a lot left for maintenance. You know that there is $280 million maintenance problem 

out there, deferred maintenance problem out there. Is it you that 

advocates for the budget increase or is it somebody else? 

Mr. BLACK. I definitely advocate for it. But then again it is a 

matter of working within the budgets that we have and also looking at other opportunities. North Dakota is a good example, where 

in some instances we are working with the companies that are out 

there doing development in order to provide additional funds. 

Working with the State and county. Because a lot of times, when 

you are talking road maintenance issues, a lot of the roads and 

stuff that serve our reservations are State and county roads. So it 

is a matter of working with them as well to ensure that we have 

proper maintenance for the roads that we have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Well, I would just say that I think this is, 

I don’t think there is anybody out there that thinks from 1994 we 

can do the same amount with the same amount of dollars we have 

now to get the job done. I would hope that there is a lot of fistpounding on the table by you to make sure that these budget numbers are up. Because quite frankly, we are going to have to look 

at some way to bump these numbers up, that is pretty obvious to 

me, if we are going to address the needs that are out there. Or the 

infrastructure will go to pot, because if it isn’t maintained, it deteriorates pretty fast. You know that. 

I want to talk just a little bit with you, Mr. Black, about the ad- ministrative costs. There is about $27 million of that $450 million 

that is used for admin costs. That is 6 percent, which is what the 

18 

law allows. How do you determine, do you just take the 6 percent 

as a matter of fact, since it is allowed by the law? Or is there a 

reason, is there justification for that $27 million? Now I am going 

on the other side of the equation, and that is that, do we really 

need the money that is there? 

Mr. BLACK. Sir, I would say yes, we do. And I can provide you 

better justification. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this, let’s say we bump that. Let’s say we bump that program up to $600 million. Would you still 

need the 6 percent? 

Mr. BLACK. I think that would take some evaluation. But there 

again, if we bump it up to $600 million, depending upon what the 

scope of that is, what programs could get added here, what the implementation of this new safety program, the 2 percent set-aside 

under MAP–21, that does create certain additional workloads for 

our staff out there. The inventory management, bridge inspections 

under MAP–21 did require that we also, in addition to inspecting 

all of the BIA-owned bridges, we inspect all of the tribally-owned 

bridges, which added about 220 bridges to the inventory that we 

have to inspect biannually. 

So a lot of those costs need to get covered out of that 6 percent. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just for our information, do you have an inventory of the bridges in Indian Country and what condition they are 

in? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And those are redone how often? 

Mr. BLACK. Biannually, ever two years we are required to inspect 

them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give me any idea on what percentage 

of the bridges are ready to fall down? 

Mr. BLACK. I have something here somewhere. I can provide it 

back to you, without sitting here wasting time looking through my 

paperwork. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have run out my clock. We can get back on 

that. Senator Heitkamp? 

Senator HEITKAMP. Not to belabor the Chairman’s point, but who 

do we need to talk to? I know you understand the problems, you 

actually have been out there on the roads. But we constantly have 

members from the Administration come in and talk about the 

needs and talk about under-serving, and acknowledge the problems. But yet, when they see the budget request, anyone would 

say, this is an Administration that is satisfied with the numbers 

that are going into Indian health, satisfied with the numbers that 

are going into transportation, satisfied with the numbers that are 

going into Indian housing, because there isn’t any increased request. And that is enormously frustrating, because I think that it 

hides the magnitude of the problems. 

So I guess my question is, I have no doubt that within your 

sphere, you are fighting for every dollar that you get and you have 

to be the good soldier and come down here and support what the 

Administration requests. But we need to have an understanding 

that we need to know what the actual needs are. When we hear 

the problems and then we see the budget, there is a complete disVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 089859 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\89859.TXT JACK
19 

connect between that understanding of the magnitude of the problems and the willingness to step up and take responsibility to help 

solve them and look creatively at very many kinds of strategies 

that could make a difference, whether it is mandating, well, I 

shouldn’t say mandating, but having a dialogue with governors and 

highway commissioners about how we are going to treat this properties. You have a great relationship with governors and your highway commissioners, DOT does. So how do we get this done? 

I guess the one message I would like you to take back is, look, 

we aren’t going to be satisfied with a discussion about the great 

needs and then look at the commitment in dollars in budgets. Let 

us say no, but be honest about what you need in order to provide 

just basic human conditions. And that includes transportation. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will help you. It is all good. 

Mr. BLACK. I understand. I would be happy to work with you. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think he gets it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we have had the conversation with IHS in 

particular, and that is that if we don’t have folks that are pounding 

on the table saying, we have to have these dollars, how can things 

change. Because it hasn’t been a very effective program. And I 

think, by the way, if that is done more then the BIA comes up in 

stature as far as your effectiveness, which I think is something I 

look forward to. It is good, because there are good people in the Department. You are one of them. So thank you. 

Mr. Sparrow, I do not want to let you get off scot-free here. The 

Department of Transportation Inspector General report issued in 

October cites inconsistencies and often ineffective communication 

by the BIA and the Federal Land Highways hampered partly by an 

outdated MOA and stewardship plan. In the Federal Land Highway official response to the IG audit, Administrator and Acting 

Secretary Mendez stated that a jointly-developed national business 

plan replacing the stewardship plan will be completed by April 

2014. If my math is right, that is next month. How is that coming 

along? 

Mr. SPARROW. Senator, it is coming along very well. Actually, 

right after the OIG made their presentation, and actually before 

that, BIA and Federal Highway officials got together and, recognizing this fact, have put teams together to develop what we are 

calling this national business plan, which will identify the roles 

and responsibilities and basically can help us more consistently deliver the program across the Country. 

Those teams have been working hard since late summer of last 

year, and the draft is actually due very soon to my office. We look 

forward to getting that completed and actually finalized through 

the process before the end of the year. 

The CHAIRMAN. So is it coming out next month? 

Mr. SPARROW. The draft is coming to me next month. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. So it will be for public consumption by the 

end of the year? 

Mr. SPARROW. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that okay? 

Mr. SPARROW. It is quite complicated, with everything that we 

are trying to do. The main focus here is that we are working closely 

20 

with the BIA to make sure that we get that consistency into the 

delivery of the program, and do the process right. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that, although I would tell you that 

if folks put up goals, missing it by eight months, that is not particularly good in my book. 

Mr. SPARROW. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. The bottom line, Mr. Sparrow, I go to bat for government workers every day, because I think you do a hell of a job. 

I do. But by the same token, there has got to be accountability too. 

So motor crashes are the leading cause of death among Native 

Americans. The figures are sometimes two to three times above the 

national average. Seat belt use among Native Americans who are 

involved in highway fatalities, as you can guess, is far below national average. Behavioral issues, unsafe roads contribute to unacceptable highway facilities among Native Americans. These are just 

facts. 

Is there anything else the Federal Government can do, Mr. Sparrow, to help tribes make reservations and Native American communities safer? 

Mr. SPARROW. Senator, we have been conducting some tribal 

safety seminars across the Country to try to get the education out 

to the tribes. The 2 percent safety set-aside off the Tribal Transportation Program itself that Secretary Fox made the announcements 

last November is helping a significant number of tribes develop 

these tribal safety plans which will identify the needs in Indian 

Country. 

Most importantly, that safety plan also will help them to gather 

data which makes them eligible then for other programs and working with the State, with the Highway Safety Improvement Program, which is State-controlled, but that is data-driven. So helping 

the tribes gather the data and develop these plans ultimately will 

help them become eligible for applying for other safety programs to 

address this need. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Heitkamp, did you have any further questions? 

Senator HEITKAMP. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will submit some further questions for the 

record. I appreciate your testimony today. I appreciate your 

straight answers, straight up. I appreciate that a lot. And I want 

to thank you for being here and thank you for the jobs you do. 

They are very important to Indian Country, make no mistake 

about that. And very important to the Country as a whole. 

So thank you very much. We will bring the next panel up. I want 

to welcome our second panel as we convert from panel one to panel 

two. We have three witnesses on our second panel. As I mentioned 

earlier, we are joined by the Honorable Dana Buckles, who is a 

Tribal Executive Board Member for the Assiniboine and Sioux 

Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation. He also serves as vice chairman of the tribe’s health and human services committee, and their 

law and justice committee. 

Then we will hear from Wes Martel, a member of the Joint Business Council of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe 

Tribes of the Wind River Indian Reservation in Fort Washakie, 

21 

Wyoming. He is accompanied by Mr. John Smith, who is the Director of Transportation, Department of the Wind River Reservation. 

And finally, we are joined by the Honorable Edward Thomas, the 

President of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian 

Tribes of Alaska, from Juneau, Alaska. President Thomas is responsible for overall administration of all operations of the tribes, 

representing more than 28,000 worldwide. I want to acknowledge 

that President Thomas is retiring next month, after almost 30 

years of service to your people. I thank you for your service to your 

people and to all of Indian Country. 

Councilman Buckles, we will begin with you testimony. As with 

the previous panel, and with all panels, your entire written testimony will be a part of the record. If you can keep your comments 

to five minutes, it would be much appreciated. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANA BUCKLES, TRIBAL EXECUTIVE 

BOARD MEMBER, ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE 

FORT PECK RESERVATION 

Mr. BUCKLES. Good morning, Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman 

Barrasso and members of the Committee. My name is Dana Buckles. I am a member of the Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board. 

I am pleased to present testimony today on behalf of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes concerning tribal transportation. Chairman 

Stafne and the Executive Board send you their warm greetings. 

As I noted in my written testimony, my background is in health, 

so I want to discuss tribal transportation from that perspective. As 

a critical Federal investment, not only in our reservation infrastructure, but also in an investment in Native people, a well-maintained road in Indian Country is a tangible expression of our Federal trust responsibility which helps empower tribal governments 

to protect Native people. 

I want to offer a few reasons why increasing appropriations for 

Federal transportation programs for Indian tribes is so important. 

First, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among 

Native Americans ages 1 to 34 and third leading cause of death 

overall. Over the last 15 years, nine of our members lost their lives 

and 43 were injured in 33 separate motor vehicle crashes on BIA 

Route 1 and the road below Highway 2 that goes from the Big 

Muddy in the eastern portion of the reservation to Wyota on the 

western edge of our reservation. 

The Montana Department of Transportation found that the Native American fatalities in motor vehicle crashes are two to three 

times what they should be, based on our population. 

Poorly maintained roads, roads that were not built to modern design standards, are not safe roads. Most Indian roads are rural 

roads. All these factors combine together with behavioral issues 

such as no seat belt use and drinking and driving to make tribal 

roads unsafe. Only sustained Federal and tribal involvement can 

alter this condition. 

I am pleased to inform you that the Fort Peck has secured 

$13,000 in highway safety grants, which we will spend this year to 

make improvements in our route from Box Elder to Blair, to the 

intersection at U.S. 2 and the Poplar Road and to restrict 26 miles 

of BIA routes on the reservation, making a public service anVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 089859 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\89859.TXT JACK
22 

nouncement about highway safety and updating our highway safety plan. 

If the Federal Government can set transportation infrastructure 

and highway safety goals in our next highway bill and reduce Native American fatalities and serious injuries from motor vehicle 

crashes, tribes will have more IHS and tribal dollars to engage in 

preventive health care, which in turn will keep our communities 

healthier. That would be a big dividend for Indian Country. 

Second, at its core, the Tribal Transportation Program, MAP–21, 

is a jobs bill. It puts our members to work at the local level. There 

is great pride in having a job and bringing home a paycheck. A 

family of a wage earner promotes healthier Native families because 

they put healthy food on the table and maintain a stable home. 

With our tribal share of our Federal transportation dollars, we hire 

close to three dozen individuals to build our roads in the seven 

month construction season. 

Wage earner also put money into our reservation economy: shopping for groceries, buying gas and clothes, frequenting our businesses, which grows jobs on our reservation. They pass on good 

work habits to the next generation. This is how to promote stable 

communities. 

Third, a predictable, long-term increasing tribal transportation 

and tribal transit program communicates to outsiders that the Fort 

Peck Reservation is open for business. It gives us the resources we 

need to reconstruct and maintain existing routes and plan and 

build new routes. The Fort Peck tribes are very concerned about 

the inadequate state of our road infrastructure, especially in light 

of the explosive growth we see at the Bakken and Three Forks oil 

formations. Our 2.1 million acre reservation lies within the western 

part of the Williston Basin. We are too familiar with the impacts 

being experienced by the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota: paved roads turn into gravel, unsafe truckers driving too fast, 

illegal dumping leads to increased motor vehicle crashes and increased fatalities among tribal members. 

Chairman Tester, the Fort Peck Tribes support the efforts of the 

Tribal Transportation Unity Caucus in seeking comprehensive consensus changes to our Tribal Transportation Program. But we want 

to be clear, we support existing funding for the program and we 

support the consensus changes as a package. So Fort Peck tribes 

urge the Committee to champion investment in Native communities through increases of our Tribal Transportation to $800 million as well as increases for the tribal transit and safety programs. 

Since fiscal year 2009, the funding has not increased for the 

Tribal Transportation Program. In fact, it went down. 

I urge the Committee to share a draft Tribal Transportation bill 

with the Senate committees of jurisdiction and urge them wisely to 

invest in Indian Country and help strengthen tribal governments 

and our members. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Buckles follows:] 

23 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANA BUCKLES, TRIBAL EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER, ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK RESERVATION

I. Introduction 

My name is Dana ‘‘Sam’’ Buckles, and I serve as a member of the Fort Peck Tribal 

Executive Board, the governing body of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort 

Peck Reservation. Tribal Chairman A.T. Stafne and my fellow Tribal Executive 

Board members send their best wishes and thanks to Chairman Tester and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for holding this important oversight hearing on Tribal 

Transportation as a pathway to infrastructure and economic development in Indian 

Country. Thank you for inviting the Fort Peck Tribes to testify. I am pleased to be 

here today to share my testimony. 

The vast majority of my career has been committed to public service to my Tribal 

community. Prior to my tenure on the Tribal Executive Board, I spent over 20 years 

working in the health and human services field for the Fort Peck Tribal Health Program. Through that experience I am keenly aware of the health disparity that exists 

on the Fort Peck Reservation—a disparity that extends throughout all of Indian 

Country. Nationally, Indians continue to rank at the bottom of every social and economic indicator regarding rates of diabetes, heart disease and cancer; infant mortality; life expectancy; chemical dependency; suicide; unemployment; and income, to 

name a few. Unfortunately, the leading cause of death among all Americans, especially Native Americans, is motor vehicle crashes. As the Montana Department of 

Transportation (MDOT) noted in its Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan a few 

years ago, motor vehicle crashes disproportionately strike Native Americans, including our youth, our most precious resource. 

In its 2010 safety plan, MDOT noted that while Native Americans comprise 6.5 

percent of the State’s population, we accounted for 14–20 percent of the State’s traffic fatalities which are more than two to three times the rate it should be. From 

2005–2009, MDOT estimated that 68 percent of Native American fatalities had behavioral-based causes and 87 percent of Native American fatalities were not wearing seat belts. On our reservation, over the last 15 years on BIA Route 1 there have 

been nine fatalities and 43 injuries in 33 motor vehicle crashes involving our members. These are the ‘‘reported’’ motor vehicle crashes in Indian country. Far too 

many crashes go unreported. Without the data, we are all blind. 

Sadly, these conditions are a direct result of federal policies over the last two centuries, and in particular, the federal government’s failure to invest in infrastructure 

and economic development in Indian Country. Funding for the Tribal Transportation Program—$450 million for 566 Federally recognized Indian tribes—has not 

increased since FY 2009, and in fact went down under MAP–21 as the Tribal bridge 

program was folded into the allocation formula, Congress terminated the Public 

Lands Highway Discretionary Grant Program and elected not to appropriate a single dollar for the Tribal High Priority Project Program. 

Tribal governments are capable transportation providers when given the adequate 

resources. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) demonstrated our 

capacity to quickly utilize transportation construction and road maintenance funding to address the backlog of transportation projects. Indian tribes are in the best 

position, as the local government, to tackle long-term economic development, public 

safety, education, health care and housing needs provided we have basic infrastructure to support our communities, including safe and modern designed transportation 

systems. 

Empowering and strengthening Tribal governments and protecting the well being 

of our members fulfill the Federal Government’s unique trust responsibility to the 

Indian nations. To rectify the economic and physical barriers that hinder so many 

aspects of Reservation life, we urge the Indian Affairs Committee to enact a longterm bill highway bill that provides financial predictability and certainty which ensures the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) until a politically viable substitute is in place 

and with sufficient funding for Indian tribes based on our well-documented transportation infrastructure needs. We request that any such legislation include the following key elements which we request you support and convey to the Senate committees charged with drafting the next highway bill: 

1. Tribal Transportation Program (TTP)—Increase annual funding to $800 million in FY 2015 and include stepped increases of $50 million per year thereafter; 

2. Tribal Transit Program—Increase the existing Tribal transit formula amount 

to $35 million for FY 2014 with annual increases of $5 million, and increase 

discretionary funding to $10 million in FY 2015 with annual growth of $5 

million; 

24 

3. Tribal Highway Safety Set-Aside—Establish a 2 percent direct Tribal funding 

set-aside from the Highway Safety Improvement Program and increase the 

NHTSA Tribal Safety Program set-aside to 3.5 percent to reduce the unacceptably high incidence of motor vehicle fatalities among Native Americans; 

4. Obligation Limitation Deduction—Restore the exemption that once existed for 

the Obligation Limitation deduction that removes tens of millions of dollars 

from the TTP; 

5. Federal-Aid Program—Ease the transfer of Federal-Aid funds from State Departments of Transportation (State DOTs) to Tribes by allowing BIA or the 

FHWA to award State-administered federal-aid funds to tribes under existing 

federal agreements; 

6. Tribal Eligibility for All Federal Grants—Ensure Tribal eligibility as a direct 

recipient for all U.S. Department of Transportation discretionary and competitive grants. 7. ERFO—Improve the speed and efficiency of getting ERFO 

funds to tribal governments for emergency use; 

8. Tribal Asset Management Program—Establish a tribal Asset Management 

Program at $50 million in FY 2015 with annual increases of $5 million for 

BIA and Tribally-owned transportation facilities; 

9. Unused Obligation Authority—Redistribute 10 percent of unused obligation 

authority for the TTP to fund competitive grants to remotely located tribes 

and restore HTF allocations for the Tribal High Priority Project Program; 

and 

10. BIA Right-of-Way Management—Direct the BIA to update and computerize 

rights-of- way documentation, support tribal ‘‘corridor management’’ practices and authorize $10 million to cover implementation and any trespass 

damages for unrecorded or improperly recorded BIA rights-of-way over Indian lands. 

II. The Opportunities and Challenges of Economic Development on the Fort 

Peck Resevation 

A. Safety Concerns 

The Fort Peck Reservation encompasses 2.1 million acres—over two thousand 

square miles—in remote northeastern Montana. The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes 

and individual Indian allottees own about 1 million acres of land on the Reservation. Nearly 10,000 residents live on the Reservation with roughly two-thirds of 

them Tribal members and non-member Indians. 

The Tribes are responsible for the repair and reconstruction of nearly 400 miles 

of BIA system and Tribally-owned transportation facilities on the Reservation. Governments that have a taxable base have the resources to properly maintain and reconstruct transportation facilities. We do not have these resources. Our transportation infrastructure badly shows its age and what we do reconstruct we must replace far sooner than if we had the resources, equipment and labor to properly and 

routinely maintain it. 

Our existing formula allocation does not permit us to plan, design and build new 

routes that must be built and maintain our existing inventory of transportation facilities. While the prospect of economic development from the Bakken and Three 

Forks oil formations is exciting, our infrastructure is woefully unprepared and we 

are concerned about safety. 

The Fort Peck Reservation lies within the western part of the Williston Basin, 

which includes many oil producing formations, including the Bakken and Three 

Forks. As you know the horizontal drilling techniques and hydraulic fracture stimulation or more commonly ‘‘fracking,’’ have brought about unprecedented oil development in the Bakken and Three Forks immediately adjacent to our Reservation in 

western North Dakota and eastern Montana. As the closest neighbors to this development, our substandard infrastructure—particularly our roads—has come under 

significant stress, without any accompanying income from development. 

Rail, truck and motor vehicle traffic has increased across the Reservation at 

alarming rates moving oil, people, development related products such as frac sand 

and pipe, in and out of the Bakken. However, the Reservation road system was not 

designed to handle the heavy traffic that is now the norm. Other than U.S. Highway 

No. 2, a federal-aid highway that runs along the southern boundary of the Reservation, the roads on our Reservation were built to accommodate passenger and agriculture transportation. These roads were meant for two-ton grain trucks and school 

buses. They were not designed to handle tractor-trailer combinations. 

25 

B. Inadequate Road Maintenance Funding Undermines Tribal Growth 

U.S. Highway No. 2 has served as the primary artery for travel between all of 

the major Reservation communities. However, as most direct route to the Bakken 

from the west, Highway 2 is now congested and dangerous even as it passes through 

our Reservation, one of the most sparsely populated regions of the country. This 

phenomenon has introduced yet another serious health and safety concern to our 

Reservation community. Moreover, the on-going need for maintenance on Highway 

2 has forced traffic onto Tribal roadway and transit systems. If all of our $533,138 

allocated by the BIA for Road Maintenance were put to our inventory of roads, it 

would total less than $1,350 per road mile. With staff, equipment, sand, salt and 

gasoline, it is well below that level. Even with our ‘‘repurposing’’ Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) construction dollars for road maintenance needs, as is permitted under MAP–21, we do not have the resources to properly maintain our 

routes. If routes are not routinely maintained in Montana, they deteriorate far faster than would otherwise be the case. 

Our biggest maintenance expense is snow removal which occupies us from November through March. Road maintenance is an essential public safety service, especially in rural, remote Indian reservations where first responders and trauma centers are few and far between. If our roads are not well maintained, they contribute 

to the high incidence of motor vehicle crashes, fatalities and serious injuries among 

our members and other Reservation residents. This taxes our IHS funds to treat victims of motor vehicle crashes, both short-term and long-term health care needs. 

Over the years many groups have advocated for the enhancement of Highway 2 

across the northern plains as popularized by the 4 for 2 campaign. While we continue to support those efforts, we recognize that even if conditions existed to fund 

such a significant project it would not alleviate the current problems for many 

years. 

The BIA Road Maintenance Program, funded at about $25 million for roughly 30 

years, is the leaky bucket which undermines every national and tribal goal for Indian country. Without routine road maintenance, our routes deteriorate far sooner 

than would otherwise be the case. Poorly maintained routes undermine our efforts 

to improve economic development, public safety, health care, and education. We encourage the Committee to urge the Interior Department and the Office of Management and Budget to support an annual budget of $150 million for the BIA Road 

Maintenance Program to protect the public as well as the public’s investment in 

transportation infrastructure. 

III. Addressing Crumbling Infrastructure and Struggling Economy Through 

Tribal Transporation 

First, the statutory formula for allocating money to the Tribes through Map-21 

as introduced by Senator Baucus and his co-sponsors should be included in any reauthorization of a new Highway Bill. While it is difficult to arrive at a funding formula that provides fairness across the diversity of Indian Country, we believe this 

proposed formula adequately protects large, rural tribes like Fort Peck, while considering the needs of smaller tribes as well. 

Second, we join our partners in Tribal Transportation Unity Caucus and the 

Rocky Mountain Transportation Planners Association in urging Congress to enact 

a new surface transportation bill—the Tribal Transportation Unity Act—to address 

tribal transportation system needs. The proposed legislation, a summary of which 

we included above, recognizes the capacity of Tribal Nations to deliver transportation services to Tribal membership and the public. While we support the Tribal 

Transportation Unity Act as developed and agreed upon last month in Denver, Colorado, our support for a guaranteed minimum funding amount of $75,000 for small 

Indian tribes is expressly conditioned on the TTP Program growing sufficiently to 

ensure that such minimum funding level is not at the expense of large land-based 

tribes such as the Fort Peck Tribes. In our view, the TTP formula funding levels 

must be determined by considering roads, land and population. We endorse the entire package and therefore increased funding levels. 

With the Tribal shares of TTP funding we receive, we hire approximately 27–30 

individuals each construction season for roughly seven months. This employs members locally, who can support their families and contribute to the local economy. 

With our construction dollars, we have successfully completed North Park Road, 

a 3.2 mile reconstruction project, replacing three large culverts, gravel, paving and 

chip sealing. We completed 8.4 miles of overlay-chip seal on various routes on the 

Reservation. We completed South Wolf Point Street, a 4 mile project of milling, leveling and overlay and we began construction of the Veterans Memorial with Montana Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP) funds. We also 

26 

started construction on the Detention Center Parking lot and George Washington 

Roads project. These projects will be paved this calendar year. 

In 2014, we are also undertaking the phased construction of the 30 mile Wolf 

Point—Wiota project over three years. The first phase of the project will replace two 

metal culverts with two box culverts and mill overlay. In addition, we are undertaking a bike path/pedestrian walkway from the Airport housing addition and crossing Highway 2 to the convenience store using CTEP funds. We are also planning 

to construct a frontage road for a new Wellness Center being built. 

This year, we received approximately $413,000 in safety grant funding. With 

these funds we will restripe 26 miles of BIA routes, make road improvements to Box 

Elder to Blair, prepare Public Service Announcements (PSAs), and update our Tribal highway safety plan. 

More than a generation ago, when this Committee was considering important 

changes to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the Committee noted the challenges faced primarily by rural Indian tribes, especially the 

challenges of basic governmental infrastructure, such as roads. I cannot think of a 

more tangible expression of governmental services than building and maintaining 

roads, bridges and transit systems that connect communities, generate jobs and protect Tribal and non-member residents every day. Transportation infrastructure is 

our foundation for a better tomorrow. On behalf of the Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes, 

I thank you Mr. Chairman and this entire Committee for all you have done for us 

and for all Indian tribes. I urge you to share our transportation legislative requests 

with the rest of the Senate. If enacted, the next highway bill will give us the tools 

we need in the 21st Century to not only survive, but to thrive and build our own 

successes. 

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. I certainly appreciate your testimony. And I appreciate your making the long haul to Washington, D.C. and tell 

the chairman hello. 

Wes Martel, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WES MARTEL, MEMBER, JOINT 

BUSINESS COUNCIL OF THE EASTERN SHOSHONE AND 

NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBES OF THE WIND RIVER INDIAN 

RESERVATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN SMITH, DIRECTOR, 

TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 

Mr. MARTEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this time. 

While I do have a prepared statement, I would rather just come 

and have an open dialogue. I will summarize some of the points in 

my statement. 

But I would like to yield a little bit of my precious time to Mr. 

Smith on a couple of important issues, as he is our transportation 

director. 

First of all, on behalf of the Eastern Shoshone Business Council 

Chairman Darwin St. Clair and Northern Arapaho Business Council Chairman Darrell O’Neal, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony at this hearing. I was really gratified to hear the questions and the opening remarks. Because it 

really demonstrates the awareness that you and your staff have of 

the problems that we face in Indian Country. And your comment, 

Mr. Chairman, to help improve the effectiveness of the BIA was 

music to my ears. That is really an area that needs a lot of attention from what we are dealing with. 

We are very proud of our successes on the Wind River Reservation. We have just completed an $18 million reconstruction and 

safety renovation project of what is known as the Seventeen Mile 

Road. I have a CD here for you, Mr. Chairman, we presented one 

27 

to Senator Barrasso a few weeks back, on how that project worked. 

It was probably the most road in Wyoming. And we were able to 

work together with WYDOT, Federal Highway, BIA and the Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes and put together a road that is so nice 

to drive on, nice, safe, very modern, very wide road that took a lot 

of our lives and claimed a lot of our people and hurt a lot of our 

people. So we are very proud of that project. I was just telling the 

Federal officials here this morning, despite all the trials and tribulations we go through, there are still some positive things happening, even thought we are severely underfunded and the bureaucracy at times is a hindrance to moving fast on some of these 

projects. 

The Federal Lands highway program and the Indian Reservation 

Roads program represent for us a major avenue through which the 

United States Government fulfills its treaty obligations and honors 

its trust responsibilities. The biggest problem that we have, and I 

am sure glad to hear the comments about that this morning, is a 

lack of funding. It was unfortunate that MAP–21 did not increase 

the authorization for the Tribal Transportation Program from what 

it had been under SAFETEA–LU, which was only $450 million a 

year. I was glad to hear your questions related to the take-downs 

and how that detracts and de-funds important roads construction 

projects. 

In my testimony, I have discussed how underfunded the TTP 

really is. Yesterday I talked to officials at the department of Transportation to get the latest numbers. They indicate we have a backlog of $80 billion in needed road and bridge construction, transit 

and safety programs in Indian Country. Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Barrasso, the statistics on the numbers of accidents in Indian 

Country that are directly attributable to bad roads should shock 

the conscience of every member of Congress. I was so glad to hear 

all three of your opening remarks, because that is a known fact. 

Our people and children are dying and being injured at many times 

the rate, and that has already been mentioned. 

I would like to yield a little bit of my time, Mr. Chairman, to our 

Director Smith. He wants to talk a little bit about data and some 

of the maintenance issues. 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Senators Tester, Barrasso and Senator Heitkamp. In fact, I have one of your tee-shirts, I donated $50 at 

the United Tribes to get you elected when you were there talking 

about our safety projects. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SMITH. It is quite an honor to be here for me, and we also 

campaigned for Senator Barrasso in the same manner. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SMITH. It is always an honor to be here and to accompany 

Mr. Martel. He has been a lifelong friend of mine and we have 

worked on several issues together, not only in transportation but 

in education and safety on our tribes. We are fortunate to do a 

model safety project that was worked through the Wyoming 

WellTAP center. It provided a great benefit. 

What we are talking about here when we talk about road maintenance and the other things is really what is becoming a new 

28 

phrase, is the livability. Livability is a whole new buzz word that 

talks about the safety of road traffic, getting people to dialysis 

treatments. Our reservation is very enormous and we are opening 

up a brand new transit facility that will have four buses with 

wheelchair lifts. We try to maintain a schedule, early in the morning for; we have over 72 dialysis patients on the Wind River Reservation and the Shoshone Tribe also offers a dialysis center. Getting them to dialysis is a major obstacle that we have in getting 

roads open and also transporting them on their schedule. It is a 

life-threatening situation daily for those people. 

So our safety program has really been an effort that is even tacking onto emergency services, even. When we have floods on our 

roadways and so forth, we have to pay for those generally out of 

our construction funds before we can talk about getting reimbursed 

by FEMA and also what you were talking about earlier, the heavy 

amount of paperwork. We do about a mile worth of paperwork for 

every mile of road. Those things are very critical when you are 

doing a deficient bridge. We have a community in Wyoming that 

necessitates the residents there who live on one side of the river 

and have hayfields on the other side to go 190 miles to change 

their irrigation water. Those things are very important to our residents and their safety and welfare is also another factor. 

So I am glad to be here, and if you have any questions, I would 

be glad to answer those at the end of the discussion and get a little 

more specific about things. One of the other things was the data. 

As we sit here and as your questions were directed to Mr. Black 

about data, the tribes also have that same concern. We are trying 

to develop our position papers here. We had to use data that was 

done two years ago, it is the best practical data that we had to provide our statements to you today. We really need to improve the 

availability of the data and the reporting and the benefits that can 

assist the tribe in developing an adequate construction program 

and road maintenance program. Road maintenance is a very severe 

problem. We were here two weeks ago and met with the Eastern 

Tribes on their request to attend. Many of the tribes in the eastern 

region mentioned that when they get their monies, it is not a lot, 

some of the tribes don’t have very many roads. But most of their 

money goes straight to road maintenance. Their 20 percent of their 

funding for the year is developed basically for keeping their roads 

under passable condition. 

Thank you very much, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martel follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WES MARTEL, MEMBER, JOINT BUSINESS COUNCIL OF

THE EASTERN SHOSHONE AND NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBES OF THE WIND RIVER

INDIAN RESERVATION

Introduction 

Good morning, Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso and members of this 

Committee. My name is Wes Martel, I am a member of Eastern Shoshone Business 

Council and am authorized to speak on behalf of the Joint Business Council that 

represents both tribes on our reservation. 

On behalf of Eastern Shoshone Business Council Chairman Darwin St. Clair and 

Northern Arapaho Business Council Chairman Darrell O’Neal and the Tribal members of the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming, I thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony concerning Transportation Issues in Indian Country. I 

29 

am pleased that John Smith is accompanying me today. He is the Transportation 

Division Director for our Reservation and also serves as Executive Director of the 

Intertribal Transportation Association. Since 2004 he has served as the representative from the Rocky Mountain Region to the Tribal Transportation Program Coordinating Committee. He is perhaps the most senior member of that Committee and 

has great expertise. 

The Federal Lands Highway Program and the Indian Reservation Roads Program 

represents for us a major avenue through which the United States Government fulfills its trust responsibilities and honors its obligations to the Eastern Shoshone 

tribe and to other Indian tribes. This program is vital to the well being of all Native 

people living on Indian lands throughout the United States. Because of its great importance, reform of the Indian Reservation Roads Program has become a top legislative priority for many Indian Tribes. 

Background on the Wind River Indian Reservation 

The Wind River Indian Reservation is located in a rural area within the boundaries of the State of Wyoming. Our 2.2 million acre Reservation has tribal land held 

in trust for our Tribes by the United States. Consequently, our Tribal Government 

has a large land area over which we exercise full and exclusive governmental authority and control in conjunction with the United States. At the same time, due 

in part to our location far from centers of population and commerce, we have few 

jobs available on our Reservation. The unemployment rate at Wind River remains 

at an outrageously high level, many times the state or national average. While we 

are proud of progress we have made, the lack of adequate transportation facilities, 

communications, and other necessary infrastructure continues to significantly impair economic development and job opportunities. 

The Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes are grateful for the leadership role this committee has taken to support the Tribal initiatives and we hope you will do so again 

in the upcoming reauthorization of MAP–21. We are thankful for the opportunity 

to comment on the reauthorization of this important legislation. 

Reauthorization of Tribal Transportation Programs 

Although great strides have been made in improving the IRR program under 

TEA–21, SAFETEA–LU and MAP–21, several issues have arisen that that are negatively affecting the full implementation of the provisions of these Acts as intended 

by Congress. 

Indian Reservation Road funding (now known at Tribal Transportation Program 

or TTP funding) serves a crucial need in Indian country. While Congress increased 

IRR/TTP allocations since you first enacted TEA–21, the funding continues to lag 

far behind an even faster-growing need. Unfortunately in MAP–21, not only did the 

authorization levels for tribes not increase but the authorizing committees with jurisdiction transferred the bridge program, which had been funded separately, to the 

road construction account and we were told to just take bridge construction costs 

out from these funds. So the total authorization ended up resulting in a net loss 

because bridges ended up being a take down from the roads funds. That must be 

reversed in the next highway bill and authorizations for the TTP must increase. 

We firmly believe that the Indian Reservation Roads Program was established for 

benefit of Indians living on Indian Reservations. This is a Trust Responsibility of 

the Federal Government guaranteed by Treaties between Indian Tribes and the 

Federal Government. We strongly support and urge the retention of the statutory 

formula that the Congress included in MAP–21. While MAP–21 was a two year bill, 

the TTP formula was proposed to be phased in over five years. It is essential that 

the formula be retained and reiterated in the next highway bill as it stopped what 

had been a problematic policy of reservation road money being diverted to off-reservation state and county roads. This testimony will not dwell on that topic as we 

did in 2011 because we think you fixed the allocation problems and we want to 

present a unified front with other tribes as was agreed to at the recent Transportation Unity Conference in Denver. While we agree with much of the Unity Summit’s recommendations there are some areas that need clarification. The Summit 

recommended that each tribe be provided with a minimum base budget of $75,000 

for transportation. That may work if the authorization is increased and that there 

is no net loss to any tribe. Yesterday we discussed this with the proponent of the 

$75,000 minimum per tribe concept and he indicated that his intent was that it 

would only apply if there was an increase in the overall funding for the TTP. He 

indicates it would take three million dollars to reach that minimum for tribes who 

are now getting less. Hopefully the authorized increase will be much higher than 

that figure. 

30 

It also may be necessary to define the parameters of the word ‘‘access’’ in the next 

highway bill since the BIA has never defined it. Since the BIA still has not issued 

regulations to implement MAP–21 in Indian country we cannot be certain that this 

issue has been resolved. It may be best to do it through statute. The Indian Reservation Road Tribal Coordinating Committee met in Sacramento a couple of years 

ago and agreed that while roads accessing Indian reservations need to be included 

in tribal inventories there must be limits and the agreed amount was 15 miles from 

the perimeter of the reservation. We recommend this committee include this limit 

in any of your recommendations. 

Finally, the Unity Summit recommended that the High Priority Program (HPP) 

be funded with Highway Trust Fund dollars but the document out of the Denver 

Summit omitted a point that we believe was agreed to by the group which is that 

all tribes can apply for HPP funds. In the past if your tribe received more than $1 

million in IRR dollars, you were prohibited from applying for HPP funds. This led 

to some absurd scenarios where tribes with very few lands, roads or people were, 

through the HPP, getting more money than tribes with hundreds of miles of deteriorating roads. Ensuring all can apply for HPP will correct that problem. 

Indian Reservation Roads Program and Its Impact on Safety 

A study conducted by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) and 

sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that 5,962 

fatal motor vehicle crashes occurred on roads under the jurisdiction of Indian reservations between 1975 and 2002, an average of 213 fatal crashes per year. In 2002, 

the number of crashes on reservations reached a new high of 276, representing a 

4.5 percent increase over the previous recorded high of 264 crashes in 1996 and a 

52.5 percent increase over the 181 crashes in 1975. Over the years, these on-reservation crashes have resulted in the loss of 7,093 lives of which 3,322 were drivers, 

2,717 were passengers and 1,001 were pedestrians. 

The objective of the study was to examine the characteristics of fatal motor vehicle crashes that occurred on federal lands, specifically, those lands that have been 

designated as Indian reservations. Using data from the 1975–2002 NCSA’s Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System (FARS), characteristics of these crashes were examined 

to better understand the circumstances that are involved in these particular types 

of crashes. 

According to the Department of Transportation there is an unmet transportation 

need in Indian country of nearly $80 billion if you count roads as well as maintenance and bridges and safety planning. These are lands the US holds in trust. Our 

roads and bridges must be improved so that they are at a ‘‘safe and adequate standard.’’ We realize it will take decades to get through this backlog but we have to start 

somewhere. Increasing the authorizations in the next highway bill for transportation needs in Indian country is the place to start. 

Road Maintenance 

Protection of the investment in any type of infrastructure requires proper maintenance. Historically, the IRR maintenance system has been chronically under-funded 

which has caused safety hazards and premature failure of many roads on the IRR 

system. Roads usually have a 20 year design life but, because of inadequate maintenance, many of the IRR system roads last only about half of their design life and 

have to be reconstructed much sooner. The BIA is responsible for maintaining BIA 

system roads; however the funding BIA provides is less than 25 percent of what is 

required to properly maintain the system. The IRR maintenance situation has become even more critical with the increase of IRR roads. BIA road maintenance funding is declining. 

The BIA Road Maintenance Program has been chronically underfunded under the 

U.S. Department of the Interior. This program is included in the Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) and must compete with other Tribal social programs for funding. The 

funding invested in Road and Bridge Construction on Indian Reservations is being 

compromised due to inadequate maintenance funding. While funding for Road Construction has increased, the amount of funding available for Road Maintenance has 

declined. Consequently, roads and bridges constructed on Indian Reservations last 

about half of their design life. The maintenance of these facilities is a Federal responsibility and the health and welfare of Tribal members who have to use these 

roads is at risk on most reservations. 

The BIA receives approximately $25 million per year as part of its lump sum appropriation for road maintenance activities. What is fairly astonishing is that OMB 

has not allowed BIA to request more than that for the past 22 years and prior to 

22 years ago the BIA requested $41 million. BIA now estimates that $120 million 

per year is actually what is needed to properly maintain roads on the BIA system. 

31 

At present levels, the BIA spends probably around $700 in maintenance funding per 

mile; most state transportation departments spend many times that figure. We had 

previously thought states were spending $4,000 to $5,000 per mile on maintenance 

of state roads but if you read the study you will see that state and county expenditures for maintenance are in fact much higher and they are spending between 

$8,000 to $12,000 per mile. This inequity must be remedied in the next highway 

bill. 

If the Congress cannot or will not increase the BIA road maintenance account to 

a realistic level, the only practical solution we see for this problem is allocate a separate amount of money in the next highway bill from the HTF for road maintenance 

in Indian country as are other Federal Lands Highway Programs roads. Telling 

tribes to take it out of our road construction funds is robbing Peter to pay Paul and 

not working very well. 

It seems inevitable that a gas tax increase will be required to fund the nearly 

bankrupt Highway Trust Fund. If a gas tax is implemented we advocate for a portion of the increase (probably a half or one cent) be set aside for the Federal Lands 

Programs and to include funding for the BIA road maintenance system out of this 

amount. 

Take Downs 

Too much money is being taken out of the $450 million that Indian country is 

getting from the Highway Trust Fund each year. These are known as take downs. 

In FY 13 we experienced the following drawdowns: 

Rescission $900,000 

4.1 percent Obligation Limitation $18.5 million 

2 percent for Safety Programs $9 million 

2 percent for Bridges $9 million 

2 percent for Planning $9 million 

6 percent for BIA & DOT Admin $27 million 

$73.4 is taken away from money authorized 

for construction 

These are important expenditures and deserve to be funded on their own in the 

highway bill and not taken away from our roads funds. 

Consistent with the Unity Caucus Recommendations we recommend: 

1.) Increasing funding for the TTP to $800 million for FY 2015 with annual step increases of $50 million resulting in annual funding of $1.05 billion in FY 

2020. Because funding for the TTP has not been increased since 2009, and 

has actually been reduced through take downs, this funding recommendation 

is quite modest. But it will allow tribes to make some headway on the unmet 

construction need. 

2.) Establish a Tribal Maintenance Program at $50 million with annual step in- creases of $5 million, for BIA and tribally owned transportation facilities, 

and encourage funding of at least $150 million for the BIA road maintenance 

program. 

3.) Increase funding for the Tribal Transit Program, implement annual step increases, and ensure stable funding for established tribal transit programs. 

4.) Restore Highway Trust Fund allocation for the Tribal High Priority Projects 

Program, which has not been funded under MAP–21, and increase the maximum grant amount and increase funding to $35 million with annual step 

increases provided all tribes can apply for these funds 

5.) Redistribute 10 percent of unused obligation authority to the TTP for competitive grants to remote tribes. 6.) Separately fund the TTP Bridge Program at $75 million with annual step 

increases and authorize use of funds for construction and design of new 

bridges. 

7.) Establish $75,000 as the minimum annual TTP program funding allocation 

provided this $3 million increase needed to fund this minimum amount per 

tribe comes from an increased authorization. 

8.) Restore the TTP exemption from the obligation limitation deduction. 

9.) Reduce BIA and FHWA administrative take downs from 6 percent to 5 percent, and impose a 28 million annual cap. 

10.) Begin to address the highway safety crisis in Indian country by establishing 

a 2 percent tribal set-aside from the Highway Safety Improvement Program, a 3 percent tribal-set aside from NHTSA, and a 3 percent set-aside 

from the Transportation Alternatives program to build or enhance safe 

32 

routes to schools, scenic byways, and pedestrian paths. Without a tribal setaside, the experience under MAP–21 is that the states provide little funding to tribes. 

11.) Create a tribal self-governance program under the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) to streamline funding agreements and clarify the extension of the benefits of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to DOT. This recommendation was vetted with DOT officials 

in 2011 and it was adopted as an amendment to HR 7. 

12.) At the request of a state and tribe, require the BIA or FHWA to award 

state administered Federal-Aid funds to a tribe through a TTP or ISDEAA 

agreement to facilitate intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration. 

13.) Ensure tribal eligibility for all DOT programs and discretionary and competitive grants, which was adopted as an amendment to HR 7. 

14.) Require BIA to improve Right-of-Way challenges management and provide 

funding to implement corrections, improvement and to pay trespass damages. 

15.) Authorize tribes to assume responsibility for approving NEPA documents 

if a tribe provides a limited sovereign immunity waiver for administrative 

actions. This is modeled on Title V of ISDEAA. 

16.) Improve efficiency in delivering Emergency Relief Funds to tribes. 

17.) Establish a tribal infrastructure bank capitalized at $10 million to provide 

low interest loans for tribal transportation projects. 

18.) Increase funding for the Tribal Technical Assistance Program. 

Conclusion 

On behalf of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Business Councils, I 

thank the Committee for its attention to and support for transportation needs in 

Indian country. Thank you for inviting the Joint Business Council to present this 

testimony. If we can answer any questions, now or at some future date, please do 

not hesitate to ask. 

The Chairman. Thank you both, Mr. Martel and Mr. Smith, for 

your testimony. 

Mr. Thomas, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD K. THOMAS, PRESIDENT, 

CENTRAL COUNCIL OF THE TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIAN 

TRIBES OF ALASKA 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is 

Ed Thomas, I am President of the Tlingit Haida Central Council 

out of Juneau, Alaska. I am honored to be here to provide testimony to this very distinguished Committee. 

I too do have some written comments that are submitted for the 

record. But I will talk briefly about some of the challenges we face 

in Alaska. Most of you are aware that Alaska is a very large State. 

Many of our communities are very isolated, mostly by distance. But 

in my part of the State, we are not only separated by distance but 

also by water. We are primarily made up of islands within my region. 

The cost of doing business in Alaska is tremendously high, a lot 

higher than the rest of the United Sates. And so it is very important for us to address the issue of what it will cost to do business 

when it comes to roads. I do not want to repeat what my colleagues 

here have stated. I totally agree with the statements that were 

made. 

But I want to talk a little bit also about MAP–21. When it was 

rolled out a couple of years ago, I happened to be here in Washington, D.C. Along with a number of other tribal leaders, we expressed our concern about the change in the approach that MAP– 

21 took to the utilization of formulas. It was not totally clear at 

33 

that time what was going to happen. We asked questions about negotiated rulemaking and at that time, they said, well, it doesn’t 

look like there is going to be any, because we are building into the 

law the formula. 

Normally when people of good intentions do that type of stuff, it 

comes out to the benefit of us who are the recipients of those programs. However, MAP–21 didn’t work out that way. The formulas 

that came down totally negated several areas of the negotiated 

rulemaking. They created a situation where, when our sovereign 

tribes worked together and compromised on what our needs were, 

those formulas went away. 

Let me give you just a brief example of the impact in one community in southeast Alaska. We have Saxman that we have joined 

forces with. Under the SAFETEA–OLU, they had $63,000 for the 

entire year, and then under MAP–21, they were left with $49,000. 

Now, those of you who are in the road business or understand 

roads, tell me how many miles of roads can you build with $49,000? 

Not very many roads. And to get that kind of reduction, even in 

a community like Saxman where it does have better access to a 

municipality, it is really very difficult to do anything with those 

kinds of dollars. 

Let me make another point. Many of our communities, they are 

lucky to have roads from their municipality to an airport or to a 

boat harbor. Even though their livelihood depends a lot upon having that access, those roads are much limited in many of our rural 

communities. 

So I think it is very important to talk a little bit more about 

some of the things that we did under negotiated rulemaking, and 

bring some of those issues back to the table for the benefit of those 

tribes that really do struggle with small amounts of money. 

One point I wanted to make also, when MAP–21 was rolled out, 

the comment was made that we really need to get more bang for 

the bucks. And that resonates in this climate where dollars are 

tight. But when we are taking that idea out to rural Alaska, where 

you have small populations, very isolated, high cost of doing business and struggling to get money even to build schools and hospitals, it is really pretty tough to have small amounts of money. So 

I believe very strongly that when MAP–21 was rolled out, Senator 

Bennett, I believe, said that we are looking at trying to increase 

the money to about $800 million. That was a couple of years ago. 

I commend him for that. 

I believe very strongly that that should be a benchmark right 

now. It should not be the $460 million that we are debating over 

now. Because when it compares to the rest of America, the climate 

of roads in Indian Country and rural Alaska, there is just really 

no comparison. We need to get back up to that. 

I bring up the issue of negotiated rulemaking because I believe 

that tribes themselves need to work together on what works best 

for us collectively. And when MAP–21 came out, there was really 

no consultation or participation in the development of the rules 

that I speak about. 

Let me give you one more example of the struggle that we have 

with MAP–21 funding. Thirty-four percent of the dollars under 

MAP–21, they are equal to each of the 12 regions in this Country. 

34 

The difficulty with that is, there are 229 federally-recognized tribes 

that need to divide up their one-twelfth of the money. Now they are 

to use one tribe for one region and we have some agents that have 

seven tribes and some that have 16. So you can see the disparity 

in the distribution of dollars once it gets to the region. We really 

would like to redress that. 

With that, I think I will close my comments. I very much appreciate the opportunity to provide my testimony and to provide testimony in this very important room that I think should be named 

for Senator Daniel Inouye. He fought long and hard to have a room 

whereby Native American issues can be discussed. The design of it 

is very appealing to the issues that Indian Country has to address 

on a regular basis. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate your comments and I am glad to see Lisa Murkowski, our Senator from 

Alaska here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD K. THOMAS, PRESIDENT, CENTRAL COUNCIL OF

THE TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIAN TRIBES OF ALASKA

Introduction 

Good Morning! My name is Edward K. Thomas, and I am the duly-elected President of the Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska (‘‘CCTHITA’’ 

or ‘‘Central Council’’), a federally recognized Indian Tribe representing over 29,000 

tribal citizens primarily in 18 communities in Southeast Alaska. 

Personal Background 

Since the early 1980s, I have had the privilege of being in tribal leadership. I plan 

to retire next month after having served as Central Council’s President for 27 years. 

Over the past four decades, I have had the opportunity to provide Capitol Hill testimony on many dozens of occasions and have met with six U.S. presidents and dozens of federal officials. Thank you for honoring me with your request to testify today 

to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in this hearing entitled ‘‘Tribal Transportation: Pathways to Infrastructure and Economic Development in Indian Country.’’ 

Equitable Access to Transportation is a Matter of Life and Death 

I believe the reauthorization of the transportation legislation holds great potential 

to provide critically-needed assistance to address the vast unmet needs of Indian 

tribal governments in our roads systems. 

That great potential for good lies in your hands. However, that potential is also 

a heavy responsibility on your shoulders. 

Indian Country lags far behind the rest of America in terms of access to vital 

services and markets. This is particularly true in rural parts of Indian Country, especially in rural Alaska. 

In rural Indian Country, we dial 9–1–1 and then wait for hours, sometimes days, 

for law enforcement or emergency medical help to arrive. Unlike in the rest of 

America, ‘‘access’’ in Indian Country is often a matter of life or death. 

America focuses on healthy food lifestyles, but in rural Indian Country we are 

hours away from healthy food markets. 

The lack of transportation facilities in rural Indian Country blocks our access to 

economic recovery, and to jobs, and to markets. It should come as no surprise, then, 

that high unemployment and systemic economic depression defines much of Indian 

Country today. We simply don’t have the infrastructure access that is expected and 

enjoyed by all other Americans. 

This is a great inequity. Surely in the transportation reauthorization, and the accompanying allocation of national Highway Trust Fund revenues, this Committee 

and its colleagues in the Senate and House should make a special effort to rectify 

this situation. 

MAP–21 Worsened Our Problems 

MAP–21 made our situation worse because it tossed aside an allocation formula 

based on ‘‘relative needs’’ that had been carefully crafted by tribal stakeholders ourVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 089859 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89859.TXT JACK
35 

selves in a negotiated rulemaking proceeding. The MAP–21 approach resulted in 

dramatic cuts in funding to some tribes (many of them smaller and isolated) and 

dramatic increases in funding for other tribes. The changes had little if any logical 

connection to ‘‘relative need’’ or degree of access to critical services. 

Instead of relative needs, the MAP–21 formula reflected the ‘‘relative power’’ of 

political muscles here on Capitol Hill. This is what happens when Washington D.C. 

power brokers make the decisions affecting Indian Country rather than tribal governments ourselves in a negotiated rulemaking procedure consistent with Indian 

self-determination and tribal self-governance. 

Now let me be clear—Central Council did relatively ok under the MAP–21 formula, largely because the MAP–21 formula favored tribes with relatively large census numbers. But Central Council continues to object to both the MAP–21 formula 

process and outcome, because the MAP–21 formula short-changed many smaller and 

more remote tribes, especially those in Alaska. This is neither fair nor just. Allocation formula decisions like these should be made by all the tribal stakeholders together, not by the politicians holding power in Washington, D.C. 

Freeze the FY 2012 Formula and Mandate Tribal Negotiated Rulemaking 

Further harm will result if what I call the MAP–21 ‘‘relative power formula’’ is 

left on autopilot for Fiscal Year 2015 and beyond. Instead, as set out below, Central 

Council asks this Committee to seek to statutorily: 

(a) freeze in place the FY 2012 relative funding allocation formula for FY 2015 

and FY 2016, and 

(b) require a new tribal negotiated rulemaking committee to come up with a 

more refined relative needs formula for FY 2017 and future years. 

Include the Tribal Transportation Unity Coalition Suggestions 

Central Council supports the position papers developed by the Tribal Transportation Unity Coalition (TTUC) which I have attached and submitted at the end of 

my written testimony. The new transportation reauthorization bill should include 

these TTUC recommendations, which many tribes believe would bring modest but 

much needed improvements to our tribal community road systems. We have to begin 

with small steps like these recommendations if Indian Country is ever, in our lifetimes, going to reach the standards for a livable community enjoyed by non-tribal 

communities across America. 

We Must Make Indian Country Accessible and Liveable 

Tribal communities have always received far less federal transportation funding 

than have federal, state and local governments. Where roads and other intermodal 

systems exist in Indian Country, they are much less safe than those in non-tribal 

communities. And the biggest problem is that, for many rural Indian communities, 

transportation infrastructure simply does not exist. As a result, travel is an extremely risky and dangerous activity for many of our tribal citizens. 

Our inadequate roads block our economic development and commerce, restrict essential services, and pose a serious obstacle to our citizens who simply want to get 

to and from work and home. 

On health care, for much of Indian Country the question is whether it is ‘‘accessible’’, not whether it is ‘‘affordable’’. 

The end result is that many rural tribal communities fail every livability test because of our non-existent or unsafe roads. For decades now, inequitable funding for 

Indian roads has meant the few road miles we have are unsafe or impassable and 

the many miles of additional roads we need are left un-built. 

Equity and Fairness Must Shape the New Transportation Legislation 

These challenges could be met by this Committee and your colleagues if a simple 

yardstick of equity and fairness was used to shape the new transportation reauthorization bill. Here are the standards I would encourage to use in drafting the new 

bill: 

1. Equitable funding compared to the rest of America. Indian Country deserves 

a sufficient share and an equitable allocation among tribes of the dwindling 

Highway Trust Fund so that Indian Country can catch up to the rest of 

America, and so that citizens of Indian tribal governments in their homelands can have the same basic safe access to essential services and markets 

enjoyed by the rest of Americans. Congress must recognize that Indian Country merits a bigger share of the Highway Trust Fund because tribal roads 

DO NOT now provide safe access to critical health services, supplies, job 

markets, and trade opportunities for remote communities throughout Indian 

36 

Country, compared to the degree of safe access accorded much of the rest of 

America. 

2. Equitable funding distribution formula. The MAP–21 funding distribution allocation among tribes is inequitable. It must be replaced. The prior 

SAFETEA–LU relative-needs formula (RNF) adopted some years ago by all 

tribal stakeholders in negotiated rulemaking, as applied in FY 2012, should 

be reinstated for FY 2015 and FY 2016 while a new tribal negotiated rulemaking committee negotiates a new relative needs formula for FY 2017 and 

beyond. In other words, the new roads reauthorization language should freeze 

the FY 2012 funding distribution formula in place for FY 2015 and FY 2016 

and require that tribes employ negotiated rulemaking to negotiate among 

tribal sovereigns a new relative-needs formula for FY 2017 and future years. 

3. Tribal negotiated rulemaking. Tribal negotiated rulemaking is the ONLY way 

that tribal-federal policy should be made on major decisions involving roads 

formulas and programs. Sovereign tribes are the ONLY stakeholders in these 

decisions. Nobody else should decide. Not Congress. Not federal bureaucrats. 

A tribal negotiated rulemaking process be used to make all key decisions. 

Anything less than tribal negotiated rulemaking offends tribal sovereignty, 

belittles Indian self-determination and side-steps tribal self-governance. 

4. Relative needs must be carefully balanced. A relative-needs formula developed 

under negotiated rulemaking should balance key factors in an effort to be equitable relative to all tribes, such as: tribal service area of land and distance 

to travel, number of people, and safe access to essential services and markets. 

The SAFETEA–LU relative-needs formula should serve as the starting point 

for a new tribal negotiated rulemaking committee’s formulation of a new relative-needs formula for future years. 

5. Steer unused obligation authority to unmet indian country needs. Given the 

huge unmet needs of Indian Country compared to the rest of America, any 

transportation reauthorization legislation should reallocate to a Safe Access 

for Tribal Communities Fund at least 10 percent of the obligation authority 

within the overall Highway Trust Fund which remains unused by states at 

the end of each fiscal year. Upon transfer of this obligation authority to the 

Safe Access for Tribal Communities Fund, these funds should be available for 

competitively awarded applications by tribes to address unmet needs similar 

to the requirements of the High Priority Projects under SAFETEA–LU. 

6. Full tribal self-governance. Pub.L. 93–638 authority should be fully extended 

to all aspects of tribal funding and services related to the Highway Trust 

Fund and administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT) and 

the U.S. Department of the Interior (DoI). The new law should clarify that 

this tribal authority is a mandatory obligation of both DoT and DoI, and is 

not subject to discretion. It should also clarify that all Highway Trust Funds, 

including those used by the DoT or DoI to administer the program, are 

contractible and subject to Pub.L. 93–638 authorities. 

Conclusions 

The overall amount of funds distributed from the federal Highway Trust Fund to 

Indian country transportation needs should be equitable. What is fair must be understood in terms of the huge accumulation of unmet need and the growing gap, in 

terms of access to essential services, between Indian Country and the rest of America. That equity in overall funding should be matched equity in the distribution of 

the Indian Country roads program funds among tribes. 

Central Council supports the TTUC’s Tribal Transportation Unity Act requests 

but notes that they do not address the over-arching question of what funding allocation formula will be used to distribute the funds among tribes. Central Council opposes including a funding allocation formula in any new transportation bill. 

Instead, Central Council asks that the new statute require the FY 2012 funding 

allocation formula to be followed for FY 2015 and FY 2016 and require that a new 

relative-needs formula be developed by tribes in a negotiated rulemaking procedure 

for FY 2017 and future years. Negotiated rule making is the only approach that is 

consistent with tribal sovereignty and with having tribes themselves decide how 

funds are allocated among tribes. Tribes are the only stakeholders who should matter in this negotiation. In the spirit of tribal sovereignty, only tribal governments 

should shape how federal roads funds are allocated among tribes to meet the unmet 

priority transportation needs of Indian Country. 

Thank you. 

Attachments 

37 


313a1.eps
38 


313a2.eps
39 


313a3.eps
40 


313a4.eps
41 


313a5.eps
42 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Thomas, and I will echo your 

comments about Senator Inouye, somebody who we miss greatly 

today. Thank you all for your testimony. 

Senator Murkowski is here, and I would let her give her opening 

statement and ask questions at this point in time. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my opening 

statement I was going to speak to much of what Mr. Thomas has 

already provided in his very well articulated statement. So I will 

defer on that. Thank you, first, for this hearing. I think it is exceptionally important. 

Just to pick up on the comment here about our friend and former 

colleague, Senator Inouye, I think he would be proud of this room 

and how it has been kind of transformed to reflect some of American Indian heritage. There has been some discussion, though, that 

this room lacks a totem pole. I think we are still kind of working 

on the totem pole. They are big and they take up some space. But 

I think it would be important, recognizing the very close relationVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 089859 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\89859.TXT JACK

313a6.eps
43 

ship that Senator Inouye from Hawaii had with Senator Stevens 

from Alaska. So we will work on that. 

I also want to recognize the contributions of Ed Thomas. He has 

been doing a fabulous job for many, many years on so many issues 

that are significant and important, not only to the Tlingits in his 

region of southeast, but Alaska Natives throughout our State. I understand, Ed, that you are retiring next month. What I see though 

is more often than not, these good fellows say that they are going 

to retire and they just become more active. So I look forward to seeing you a lot more, Ed, on your time. Thank you for your contributions. 

I do think that it is so important that you have spoken to the 

issues of cost and how that relates to our geography, our distance 

between places. But it is a fact that I think is important that is 

worth repeating, that in Alaska 80 percent, approximately 80 percent of our communities are not connected by a road. So that 

means we fly, that means we take a boat, that means supplies 

come in by barge. If you are in the interior part of the State you 

might get two barges a year. So planning for your supplies, incredibly difficult just getting gravel to make a road. 

So when you look at the costs of building a road in Alaska, it 

looks so far out of whack with the cost per road mile anywhere else 

in the Country. They think that you must be doing something 

wrong there. But keep in mind that we are dealing with an area 

that is one-fifth the size of the United States of America. Eighty 

percent of these communities are not accessible by road or rail, so 

you can’t get supplies in there cheaply. Gravel sources may be hundreds of miles away. 

So to speak to the relative cost is something that is hugely important to us. Then when you think about how the system now 

works where you are dividing things 12 ways but within onetwelfth in Alaska, we divide those funds amongst the 229 tribes, 

just how that all trickles down. It makes it very, very difficult. It 

has been an issue that we have long struggled with. 

I would ask you to go into a little more detail here, Ed, on some 

of the administrative rules that the BIA has placed on Alaska 

tribes participating in the Tribal Transportation Program. Speak to 

the impact that they have had and then also whether or not they 

have placed similar administrative rules on tribes in the lower 48. 

Mr. THOMAS. I can’t speak on the lower 48, but let me give you 

an example of my tribe. We began negotiating and trying to get 

certification of our inventory in 1996. We did not get certification 

until 2005. And we finally got some money in 2005. So that is just 

how long it has taken the government to certify just the inventory. 

That is something you can do probably in a couple of hours if you 

have a good database. And I totally concur that some of these 

issues of database management on that kind of stuff really needs 

to be better handled, so that this certification doesn’t take so long. 

But that is just one example. 

When we have been getting involved in SAFETEA–LU and even 

before that, maybe not before, but I think it was SAFETEA–LU, we 

had such a bad feeling about the administration that we were asking to reduce that 6 percent down and utilize some of those dollars 

so that we could get some consultation, get some of the jobs that 

44 

needed to be done. Not just the inventory, but some of the other 

paperwork that needed to happen relative to roads. 

So that is just an example from my tribe, dealing with the delay 

of getting that inventory was just one example. 

The other part in Alaska, by the way, is that we have had turnover. We have had turnover within the BIA roads department that 

has also caused us problems in our communication with the national as well as the tribes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It appears that within the Alaska tribes 

there is general consensus that formula changes to the Tribal 

Transportation Program should go through a negotiated rulemaking process. Do you trust the BIA to implement a fair negotiated rulemaking process regarding the formula? I know this is 

what we are asking for. How comfortable are we with this? 

Mr. THOMAS. I think that if you approach it in the manner that 

it was done early on, where you included the tribes from all across 

the Country, it would work. I think the one problem that happens 

with us in Alaska especially is when budgets get tight, then they 

reduce the numbers, and we don’t have adequate representation 

and rulemaking. But I have to say that I trust that system better 

than I trust somebody without talking to us making the formula. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That is fair. 

Mr. Chairman, I was not able to be here when the Federal witnesses were testifying, I was in another committee. I do have some 

questions for the record that I would like to submit to them that 

many in Alaska have asked that I advance. So I will be doing so. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. 

Senator Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. Smith, 

thank you for your comments and testimony. I am going to start 

quoting you on the line if I may with your permission that regulations require a mile worth of paperwork for every mile worth of 

road. And that is about right, 6,000 pages of paperwork for every 

mile of road. So it really puts it into perspective, very, very well. 

Mr. MARTEL. thanks so much for coming back. You testified in 

the past, I think September 2011, and we talked about the need 

for additional maintenance on Wind River roads. You also mentioned deaths and accidental injuries. The Chairman mentioned 

that in his questions to the Federal panel. As an orthopedic surgeon, I have taken care of folks from the Wind River Reservation 

related to a number of those injuries. I liked the comment that one 

of you made about the livability of the roads and their importance. 

So I am just wondering how, for Wind River tribes, you have 

been able to improve the safety of the roads and how your safer 

roads contributed to a reduction in mortality rates and accidental 

injury rates on our reservation in Wyoming. 

Mr. MARTEL. I would like to defer that to Mr. Smith, some of it. 

But we have really been trying to take advantage of the programs 

that have been offered by the Federal Highway and the BIA. Fortunately, we have a transportation director that has been in this 

game for quite a number of years and has been able to take advantage of those programs. From Wind River and from the Unity Summit that we had in Denver a couple of weeks ago, we fully support 

45 

the formula as it pertains to those programs. As everybody states 

here, we all fully agree that we need increased funding and we 

need to do something about the take-downs. 

I would like to ask Mr. Smith to be a little more specific on the 

safety issues and some of the cost benefits and the preparation that 

goes into preparing to assemble all of the parties that we got to improve the Seventeen Mile Road. 

Senator BARRASSO. Let me ask one other question and then you 

can decide which of you want to answer or also defer a part to Mr. 

Smith. When you testified in September of 2011, you really talked 

about the need for additional maintenance, I think you said today, 

an $80 billion backlog in Indian Country. 

You testified that the roads then, a couple of years ago, were 

lasting only about half the design life, a lot of it due to deferred 

maintenance. So I was also asking, and maybe Mr. Smith wants to 

comment as well, has there been any change or improvement in the 

deferred maintenance or longevity, specifically, of the roads. 

Mr. MARTEL. Not very much. We are still dealing with that static 

level of funding for maintenance and that with some of the issues 

of flooding that we had here a couple of years ago and the heavy 

snows that we have had, really detracts from the maintenance. A 

lot of our roads are in a sad state of disrepair. But that maintenance really needs to be addressed, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Martel. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Senator. The tribes of the rehabilitation projects 

that came out a few years ago, a lot of the cracked sealing and a 

lot of maintenance work that helps to keep the asphalt from deteriorating quite as rapidly as it does if you don’t have the ability to 

do cracked seals and those types of things, that pavement reduces 

to much of what Senator Tester and others were talking about as 

far as getting the gravel, pavement reduced to gravel to dirt. So 

those are really proactive measures that we try to do yearly in the 

whole State of Wyoming. 

What you do is, if you are a farmer, you plow when your neighbor is plowing, you water when he waters to make sure he is not 

taking your water. Well, we do that, the Wyoming Department of 

Transportation, this is the season where we generally do cracked 

sealing, when the cracks are wider, when the weather allows us to 

get into those cracks and blow the cracks out with air hoses and 

put longevity in our pavement. 

But the other part is when we address the safety issues that 

Senator Tester talked about in Montana, the roads are narrow. We 

have one to four roll-off roads where you are going to go off the 

road you are generally going to roll. That was designed maybe 20, 

15 years ago. And now we have wider roads, so we try to slope our 

shoulders. Much of that benefit came from Federal Highway doing 

what was called Every Day Counts. That was a real good situation 

that we took advantage of using technology that was given out to 

a lot of tribes to utilize in performing and expanding their road 

projects. 

We tried to emulate that as best we can and render it with the 

best bucks we have. That is the answer to that question. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. Thanks to all the witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

46 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

A question for Dana Buckles. In your testimony, you talked 

about if oil and natural gas development came to Fort Peck Reservation, which we are on the edge of it now, the tribes wouldn’t 

be prepared to handle it. In your assessment, what do Fort Peck 

tribes need to do to be prepared for such an economic boom? 

Mr. BUCKLES. Well, I think it is total infrastructure, knowing the 

fact that if it does come, we don’t have the resources. We lack in 

certain areas, we would have to beef up our law enforcement, hire 

more people. And looking at an overall statement to that, it deals 

with a lot more too, we would have to deal with health and maintain our roads. We just don’t have the resources there or the funding to do that. 

So we are really counting on hopefully that we see more funding 

for that. Because watching the Bakken happen in Williston and 

looking to see what happened at Fort Berthold, the destroying of 

the roads. And we also have farmers and ranchers who use the 

roads, and having to see oil trucks, water trucks going across our 

roads, as far as Highway 2 and our BIA roads, it is just going to 

create havoc for us. And to have to maintain that with the money 

we have now, we don’t have the funding to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this. Do you talk to folks within 

the BIA and talk to them about their budget and what the real impacts are? You are talking about police protection, we have talked 

about Indian Health Service earlier. We are talking about roads 

today. Is anybody in contact with the folk at the Federal level saying, hey, look, these are the kinds of challenges we have, these are 

the kinds of challenges that are coming down the pike and your 

budget needs to reflect that? 

Mr. BUCKLES. I don’t have the answer to that, but I can get you 

the answer. We are in contact with some of the Federal departments here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. I think it is important that you do that. 

I think not only for your tribe, but for every tribe that is at the 

table and every tribe that is out there in the Country. I just think 

it is important. 

I want to talk about administrative costs for a second. Do you 

think that, in your opinion, any of the three of you can answer this, 

and you don’t have to agree, do you think the BIA needs the full 

6 percent that it takes in administrative costs? 

Mr. MARTEL. Mr. Chairman, we believe it would have a hard 

time justifying that. That is really hard to nail down the costs on 

that. When we talk to the BIA and others, we fully support the formula as it was in MAP–21. Because the negotiated rulemaking 

that was instituted resulted in total inequities. And MAP–21 corrected that by allowing money to be spent on BIA and tribal roads, 

on-reservation BIA and tribal roads. 

So we very much support the formula in MAP–21. I think Mr. 

Smith might have some additional comment on the administrative 

side. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Fort Peck Tribes are one of the first to enter 

into an agreement with Federal Highways to operate the transportation systems. Dana, could you talk about that agreement? Do you 

47 

believe it has allowed the tribes to better address transportation 

needs? 

Mr. BUCKLES. Yes, I agree with that. We do to an extent too, but 

as far as us as being that, it is an honor for the tribes too. But I 

guess to me, I just have to go back to that funding. I would probably have to get back to you on that question, to update you more 

on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is fine. I think if we can get the administration closer to the ground, which you guys self-determine, where 

your needs are, it would seem to me that that would make better 

sense and hopefully that agreement does that. 

Mr. MARTEL. just talk a little bit, and you can kick it over to Mr. 

Smith, however you want to do it, about how we can continue the 

progress that was made with MAP–21 to improve tribal transportation programs that will better fulfill our trust responsibilities and 

really empower you and the Indian people of the area on transportation infrastructure. 

Mr. MARTEL. I will let Mr. Smith answer that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, that is a very good question. Our recent meeting with the Tribal Unity Conference in Denver two 

weeks ago really addressed that I think most appropriately. It 

talked about increasing funding. It talked about set-aside programs 

being deleted, being funded as a set-aside program, if you will, as 

in bridges, Mr. Sparrow indicated that the 2 percent equated to $9 

million in the MAP–21 formula. We would suggest that the takedowns be set-asides in their own practical arena, such as bridges 

and safety would be taken out of what would be seen as a general 

fund, if you will, concept to mean standalone funding. 

Formerly, the bridge program out of SAFETEA–LU was $18 million. And when it got included into MAP–21 it became $9 million 

because it was included in the overall program. So if we let safety 

and the bridge programs as standalone projects and not fund them 

out of the appropriation of the construction funding program it 

would be much more advantageous. As was mentioned, tribal 

bridges now have to be inspected. That was not the same, it was 

introduced at the same time MAP–21 was introduced, but that was 

one of the flaws that was unbeknownst at that time to Indian 

tribes that they were also going to have to inspect tribal bridges. 

Although the need was always there, it just wasn’t available for 

funding and to do that. 

So we still have a big void in bridges. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Mr. Thomas, what part of Alaska do you 

live in? 

Mr. THOMAS. I live in Juneau, which is southeast Alaska. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you made a pretty good trip to get here, you 

flew down to Seattle and across. 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your coming today, and appreciate 

your making the trek, because it is a pretty long haul. I have been 

up several times to help Senator Begich up there, and it is not easy 

to get here. So we appreciate your making that sacrifice. 

48 

What do you see as the biggest impediments today which prevent 

tribes from really building their transportation safety and transit 

programs? 

Mr. THOMAS. I think the biggest thing is funding. When you have 

the backlog, that was mentioned in earlier testimony, as we do, and 

then you divide up the limited budget, it really creates more conflict between the tribes and the regions. And it wastes time, it 

wastes everybody’s time and it wastes money. So by having equitable funding compared to other non-Indian territories, I believe 

that that would help us tremendously and would help with much 

better plans locally. Because we have to wait several years in one 

community just to have enough money for a small project. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate those comments. I appreciate all of your comments and your testimony and 

I appreciate all of you making the sacrifice to get in here and talk 

about what is going on in Indian Country as you see it. I very 

much thank you for the testimony, it is very helpful. 

And I want to thank the previous panel too, for coming in and 

their testimony. We will work on making sure they get their testimony here a little quicker next time, I believe. But this hearing 

record will remain open for two weeks. I encourage all tribes and 

tribal organizations to submit testimony as we prepare for this reauthorization. It is a critical reauthorization for Indian Country. 

We all know that. It is part of the way we not only get to school 

but create economic development and provide for safety for Indian 

Country. 

With that, this Committee hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHYLEEN LONE TREE-WHITERABBIT, DISTRICT 5 

LEGISLATOR/TRIBAL SECRETARY; DAVID GREENDEER, DISTRICT 2 LEGISLATOR; ANDREA ESTEBO, DISTRICT 2 LEGISLATOR, HO-CHUNK NATION

Chairman Tester and Committee members, 

We are three elected Representatives of the Ho-Chunk Nation who have been selected by our colleagues on the Ho-Chunk Nation Legislature to serve as the BIA 

Roads Legislative liaisons. The Ho-Chunk Nation is pleased to provide the Senate 

Indian Affairs Committee with information regarding the importance of federal 

transportation funding in meeting the needs of our tribal members. 

About Ho-Chunk Nation 

The Ho-Chunk Nation is one of the few tribes in the contiguous 48 states that 

do not have a single situs reservation. Instead, it has scattered trust and fee parcels 

located in sixteen different counties in the southern half of the State of Wisconsin. 

The trust and fee parcels range in size from a couple acres to a few hundred acres 

totaling approximately 7000 acres. The vast majority of this land was purchased on 

the open market over the last seventy years by the Nation as it rebuilds after numerous forced relocations. These properties include housing sites, health care clinics, government office buildings, various businesses, wildlife preserves and many 

cultural sites. 

Due to the immense distances around and between the Nation’s land holdings and 

the rural nature of their location, adequate roadways and transportation can be a 

challenge for tribal members, non-tribal employees, customers and members of the 

general public who visit our lands. It is not uncommon for our tribal members to 

commute long distances each day to work at one of the Nation’s businesses. In fact, 

the President of our Nation and a number of current Legislators must travel between 75 and 200 miles one way from home to office nearly every day. Our tribal 

members have no choice but to drive to the Nation’s facilities in order to receive 

essential governmental services, participate in cultural ceremonies, or to get to their 

jobs. 

As the Nation continues to grow and our government evolves to address new demands, more emphasis is being put on economic development and diversification in 

order to meet those needs. As part of a long term strategy, the Nation is currently 

evaluating establishing a Chapter 17 Corporation in order to facilitate new business 

opportunities and provide employment for our tribal members. It is envisioned that 

the duties of a new tribal corporation include developing those tracts of land owned 

by the Nation that are suitable for conducting business operations. This will require 

investment in infrastructure such as sewer, water and of course, roadways. Federal 

transportation funding would play a key role in the success of these new ventures 

and assist the Nation in its efforts to reduce the high unemployment of our tribal 

members. 

Tribal Transportation Program 

For decades, those roads providing access to and serving the Nation’s lands were 

neglected by the state, counties and other local units of government with primary 

ownership. During this time the Nation was unable to fully participate in the Indian 

Reservation Roads Program (IRR), now known as the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP), due to it not having a land-based reservation. In 2004, after the passage and implementation of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), the Nation was able to fully participate in the IRR Program the first time. This allowed the Nation to undertake 

some desperately needed road construction projects that mainly focused on safety 

improvements. Funding from the Program also allowed the Nation to enter into cooperative agreements with nearby units of local governments in order to share costs 

for additional road construction projects that benefitted tribal members as well as 

50 

the general public. These cooperative projects also helped foster good will and build 

relationships between the Nation and surrounding non-tribal governments. 

The passage and implementation of MAP–21 two years ago has resulted in a significant decline in the funding that the Nation receives from the TTP. The decrease 

in funding will require the Nation to modify its Long Range Transportation Plan 

and curtail the size and number of road construction projects it can accomplish. The 

new MAP–21 funding formula has redistributed funding to some tribes at the expense of other tribes. The Nation understands that many tribes rely on this funding 

and therefore we are not asking for the formula to be changed again. We do however 

ask that Congress increase the overall level of funding so that the effects of the 

MAP–21 formula change are mitigated to some extent. 

Transportation Reauthorization 

Representative Lone Tree-WhiteRabbit had the pleasure of representing the Nation at the Tribal Transportation Reauthorization Unity Summit in Denver, Colorado in February this year. The Nation supports the recommendations developed at 

the Unity Summit and encourages the Committee members to support this initiative 

as well. 

During the Summit, over 50 tribes came together and developed a unified position 

on a number of provisions for inclusion in the next Highway bill. The support for 

these provisions from members of this Committee is key to the success for Indian 

Country. The focus of the recommendations from the Unity Summit is an increase 

in funding. An increase in funding for tribal transportation programs will help address the chronic unmet needs faced by All tribes across the country. 

Although the Nation supports all twelve recommendations to come out of the 

Unity Summit, the provision that would be most beneficial to the Nation is the increase in funding for the TTP. As stated earlier, an increase would help mitigate 

the decrease in funding experienced by many tribes due to the formula change 

under MAP–21. In the case of the Nation, an increase in funding would also likely 

translate directly into an increase in employment, not only for tribal members, but 

for non-tribal members as well. As the Nation moves forward with its economic development plans, funding from the TTP would play a pivotal role in the success of 

future tribal businesses. 

Thank you for your time and attention. We hope you find this information useful 

as you move forward with your deliberations on tribal transportation issues. Please 

support the recommendations of the Tribal Transportation Reauthorization Unity 

Summit and include them in the reauthorization of the next Highway bill. 

51 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF C. JOHN HEALY SR., PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL

TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION (ITA) 


313b1.eps
52 


313b2.eps
53 


313b3.eps
54 


313b4.eps
55 


313b5.eps
56 


313b6.eps
57 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MELANIE BAHNKE, PRESIDENT, KAWERAK, INC. 


313b7.eps
58 


313b8.eps
59 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS (NCAI) 

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), thank you for 

the opportunity to provide testimony for the record on transportation in Indian 

Country. NCAI is the oldest and largest national organization in the United States 

and is steadfastly dedicated to protecting the rights of tribal governments to achieve 

selfdetermination and self-sufficiency. NCAI commends the Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs for examining the tribal transportation infrastructure and the upcoming transportation reauthorization and we look forward to working with the members of this Committee to enhance investments in transportation infrastructure development. 

Tribal transportation programs are critical to ensuring that tribal governments 

can provide for the economic and social well-being of their tribal members and members of the surrounding communities. Adequate and safe roads, transit, bridges, and 

infrastructure are the means that tribal economic opportunities, and that elders rely 

on for healthcare and mobility. When legislation is enacted that impacts how tribes 

carry out their tribal transportation program, it is key that implementation occurs 

in a timely manner and takes tribal self-determination into account. 


313b9.eps
60 

1 23 USC 202 (b)(1). 

Background on Tribal Transportation 

Surface transportation in Indian Country involves thousands of miles of roads, 

bridges, and highways. According to the latest National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory (NTTFI), 1 there are approximately 159,000 miles of roads and trails 

in Indian Country owned and maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 

tribes, and states and counties. Of those, Indian tribes own and maintain 13,650 

miles of roads and trails, of which only 1,000 (or 7.3 percent) are paved—12,650 

miles are gravel, earth, or primitive. These 12,650 miles of roadways are still among 

the most underdeveloped and unsafe road networks in the nation, even though they 

are the primary means of access to American Indian and Alaska Native communities by tribal and non-Indian residents and visitors alike. Of the 27,500 miles 

owned and maintained by the BIA, only 7,100 miles are paved and 20,400 miles are 

graveled, earth, or primitive. These roads are the primary means of travel for Indian people across the nation, but they remain the most underdeveloped road system in the United States. 

Preparing for Upcoming Transportation Authorization 

NCAI has partnered with the Intertribal Transportation Association (ITA) 

through a formal Memorandum of Understanding creating the NCAI–ITA Joint 

Tribal Transportation Task Force, to bring together all tribes on transportation. Indian tribes and tribal transportation technical staff came together to identify and 

develop tribal transportation positions to prepare for the upcoming transportation 

authorization. In addition, NCAI has been participating and collaborating with 

tribes and the Tribal Transportation Unity Caucus, and last month at the Tribal 

Transportation Reauthorization Unity Summit was held in Denver, CO. As these positions were identified and developed, the tribes at the national meeting took into 

account the political and fiscal challenges facing Congress as they consider a transportation authorization this year. These are low or no cost positions to assist tribes 

in making transportation programs within Department of Transportation (DOT) and 

BIA to be more streamlining or efficient for tribes to execute their transportation 

projects. Further, NCAI has attached to this testimony NCAI Resolution #ECWS– 

14–006 which incorporates some of the positions of the Tribal Transportation Unity 

Act. 

MAP–21—Tribal Transportation Programs 

The current transportation authorization, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century (MAP–21) restructured the transportation programs for Indian tribal governments by establishing and consolidating the Tribal Transportation Program 

(TTP) (formerly the Indian Reservation Programs), eliminating the separately funded IRR Bridge Program and High Priority Project Program (IRRHPP) and creating 

discretionary grants within the TTP for tribal bridges and highway safety programs 

and projects. MAP–21 changed the regulatory funding formula for allocating TTP 

‘‘tribal shares’’ for transportation construction that the BIA and FHWA must phase 

in over a number of years. MAP–21 also revamped the Section 5311(c) Public Transportation on Indian Reservations Program (Tribal Transit Program) administered by 

the Federal Transit Administration, by establishing a statutory formula for allocating transit funds among eligible Indian tribes, and increased funding. 

Issues From MAP–21 on Tribal Transportation Programs to be Aware and 

to Consider for the Upcoming Transportation Legislation 

As mentioned, MAP–21 made several programmatic changes to tribal transportation programs, one of them included the removal of funding of the Tribal High 

Priority Projects Program from the Highway Trust Fund to the U.S. Treasury General Funds and authorized funding for $30 million; since the enactment of MAP– 

21 this program has not been appropriated funds for FY 2013 and FY 2014. This 

program is crucial because it provides funding to tribes whose TTP annual funding 

allocation is inadequate to complete their highest priority projects, or for tribes that 

are impacted by emergency or disaster incidents that leave tribal transportation facilities unusable or inaccessible. NCAI supports the restoration of this essential program assist tribes to construct and rehabilitate their most pressing infrastructure 

needs. 

Both the Tribal Transportation Program and Tribal Transit Program required 

rulemakings for implementation. As of today, Federal Lands Highway (FLH) and 

BIA have not finalized its rulemaking on implementation of MAP–21. The agency 

has held three tribal consultations; however no final rule has been published since 

MAP–21 was enacted. The Federal Transit Administration held two meetings with 

61 

tribes and published a final rule in the May 9, 2013 Federal Register (‘‘Notice Of 

Funding Availability: Solicitation Of Grant Applications For FY 2013 Tribal Transit 

Program Funds; And Responses To The November 9, 2012 Solicitation Of Comments’’). 

Implementation of the Funding Formula. The funding formula in MAP–21 formula 

consists of: 27 percent of funding based on the Tribe’s approved road mileage (national percentage); 39 percent of funding based on the Tribe’s most recent Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) population 

(national percentage); 34 percent of funding based on the Tribe’s RNDF and Population Adjustment Factor (PAF) amounts from FY05 to FY11 (regional percentage). 

The new formula now takes into account NAHASDA population component and determines how much each tribe receives for TTP. There are two concerns NCAI 

would like to bring to the Committee’s attention: 

1. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. This Negotiate Rulemaking Committee is currently reviewing and revising HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) formula allocation codified in subpart D of part 1000 of HUD’s regulations in title 24 

of the Code of Federal Regulations. The outcome for the IHBG’s formula will 

have a significant impact on the TTP and Tribal Transit Grant Program statutory allocation formula because it uses the tribal population according to 

Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 

(NAHASDA, 25 USC 4101 et seq.). After MAP–21, NCAI has recommended 

tribes to have their transportation departments inform their tribal housing 

authorities about new MAP–21 statutory formula, which now uses 

NAHASDA tribal population component to calculate funding allocation. NCAI 

is uncertain if DOT is aware of this Negotiated Rulemaking Committee is 

currently reviewing the IHBG formula allocation or if HUD is aware that 

MAP–21 authorized statutory formula using tribal population from 

NAHASDA formula allocation. 

2. Tribes are not obligated to report their population numbers to HUD. Federal 

Lands Highway and BIA are having difficulty calculating allocation funding 

for tribes where some tribes population is zero because they do not report 

their population numbers to HUD. BIA has stated in testimony on MAP–21 

implementation there are over 25 tribes whose population is at zero. This 

component of the NAHASDA population does not give Federal Lands Highway and BIA the ability to accurately distribute TTP allocation funds. 

Addressing safety issue for tribes. Safety issues for Indian tribes are important because many tribal communities are vulnerable by unsafe and often inaccessible 

roads, bridges, and ferries. Indian Country suffers injury and death driving and 

walking along reservation roadways at rates far above the national average. According to the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘American Indians have the highest 

rates of pedestrian injury and death per capita of any racial or ethnic group in the 

United States.’’ Over the past 25 years, 5.962 fatal motor vehicle crashes occurred 

on Indian reservation roads, with 7,093 lives lost. While the number of fatal crashes 

in the nation declined 2.2 percent during this time period, the number of fatal motor 

vehicle crashes per year on Indian reservations increased 52.5 percent. Adult motor 

vehicle-related death rates for American Indians/Alaska Natives are more than 

twice that of the general population. These statistics are shocking and cry out for 

major changes in Federal transportation safety programs serving Indian Country. 

Currently, Indian tribes receive a two percent set-aside from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Highway Traffic Safety Grant Section 

402 which is administered by BIA; the funding amount for FY 2014 was $4.7 million. The purpose of Section 402 is support highway safety plans to help reduce fatalities and injuries on highways. According to BIA Indian Highway Safety Program 

(25 CRF PART 181), this program is a competitive grant program, and is meant to 

assist tribes with their proposed Highway Safety Projects. The plans aim to reduce 

traffic crashes, reduce impaired driving crashes, increase occupant protection education, provide Emergency Medical Service training, and increase police traffic services. Indian tribes have expressed their concern that the BIA Indian Highway Safety 

Program with the accountability and efficiency this program is providing to Indian 

tribes for highway safety projects. In reviewing grant awards, tribes have noted that 

the grants being awarded within the BIA Indian Highway Safety Plan are awarded 

for law enforcement initiatives and are not going to other safety prevention programs, leaving tribes in effect with no access to safety funding. NCAI recommends: 

(1) the establishment of a two percent direct tribal funding set-aside from the Highway Safety Improvement Program for the purpose of reducing traffic fatalities and 

injuries on tribal transportation systems; and (2) to increase the current set-aside 

62 

of two percent for tribes for the NHTSA Highway Safety Grant to three and half 

percent. 

Create and Expand Tribal Self-Governance Programs under the DOT. Creating 

and expanding Self-Governance Programs within DOT will streamline grant-funding 

agreements for federal transportation programs and more efficiently target limited 

transportation dollars to the improvement of tribal transportation systems. This important step will provide an additional option to tribes and will not supplant the 

existing TTP agreements. 

Improve the speed and efficiency in getting Emergency Relief for Federally Owned 

Roads (ERFO) funding to tribes. Currently, ERFO funding is available to tribes to 

restore BIA and tribally owned roads and bridges to their pre-disaster condition. 

Currently there is a great delay between the time tribes to expend funds to fix these 

facilities, and the time they are reimbursed for these costs. 

Ensure tribal eligibility for all DOT discretionary and competitive grants. Tribal 

governments are increasingly gaining direct access to federal transportation grants, 

but this provision would ensure that tribes have access to all discretionary and competitive grants to increase tribal funding opportunities without increasing the overall cost of the next highway bill. 

Adequately fund MAP–21 requirement that tribal bridges must now be inspected 

and included on the National Bridge Inventory. This proposal would amend MAP– 

21’s unfunded mandate to require that the inspection costs for including BIA and 

tribal bridges in the National Bridge Inventory come from Federal-Aid bridge program funds rather than from TTP funds. 

Improve BIA Right-of-Way Management. Right-of-way management would be 

greatly improved by requiring the BIA to update and computerize rights-of-way documentation, support tribal corridor management practices, and pay trespass damages for BIA improperly obtained or recorded rightsof- way. This Committee should 

authorize $10 million per year to cover the cost of these statutory requirements. 

Ease the transfer of Federal Aid funds for tribal transportation projects. Current 

barriers to transfers of federal-aid funds to Indian tribes must be eliminated by requiring the BIA or FHWA to award state-administered federal-aid funds to tribes 

under their TTP agreements. If a tribe and state prefer, the state may make the 

funding award directly to the tribe under an appropriate award instrument that respects tribal sovereignty and the government-to-government nature of the agreement. 

Give tribes the option of assuming NEPA approval authority. This proposal would 

enable tribes the option, but does not require them, to assume responsibility for approving NEPA documents, if the tribe is willing to provide a limited sovereign immunity waiver. At the option of the tribe, the BIA or FHWA can perform this function, but if a tribe prefers to assume the NEPA responsibility itself, it will be required to provide a limited waiver of sovereign immunity allowing for administrative challenges to the tribe’s NEPA decision. This NEPA provision would be modeled 

on the successful Title V Self-Governance Program administered by the Indian 

Health Service. 

Increased funding for Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP). The Tribal 

Technical Assistance Program (TTAP) is the only technical assistance program that 

provides much needed transportation related education and training to tribal governments for transportation road projects. Education and certification is important 

to assist in building a viable tribal transportation work force. In addition, well 

qualified skilled workers enable Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages to further 

develop tribal transportation infrastructures. 

There are currently seven TTAP centers located around the country. TTAP is 

funded by both the FHWA and BIA. Currently, each TTAP receives $300,000 a year 

in total funding, which is comprised of $150,000 from the Local Technical Assistance 

Program and $150,000 from the IRR program. This totals about $1.9 million for the 

overall TTAP funding each fiscal year to serve all 566 federally recognized tribes. 

To ensure that TTAPs are able to meet the increased demand for their services and 

as additional tribes assume responsibility for administering their own transportation programs, NCAI recommends Congress to increase to the overall funding of 

TTAPs from $2.1 million to $3.6 million each fiscal year. This needed funding will 

assist each TTAP center to adequately address the increasing need for transportation technical assistances. 

BIA Road Maintenance 

Although the subject of this hearing is on the upcoming transportation authorization, one of important transportation program for tribes is the BIA Road Maintenance. The BIA implements, funds, (the funding is appropriated through the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies) and is responsible for maintaining 29,500 

63 

miles of roads in Indian Country. The BIA Road Maintenance is funded approximately $25 million and funding levels have remained stagnant for several fiscal 

year cycles, compromising highway safety in Indian Country, dramatically shortening the useful life of the BIA System and tribal roads and bridges, and undermining tribal economic development initiatives in Indian Country. For FY 2013, deferred maintenance for BIA roads is over $280 million. These staggering amounts 

of deferred maintenance on BIA roads are transportation and maintenance costs all 

directly on to tribes—Indian Country cannot afford to divert their scarce resources 

to transportation infrastructure that is BIA’s responsibility. We are quite concerned 

that U.S. Department of the Interior has again requested only $25 million for FY 

2015 the BIA Road Maintenance which has remained unchanged again for decades. 

In conclusion, NCAI is committed to improving and building upon the successes 

of the last authorization of MAP–21 because transportation infrastructure is vital 

to the enhancement of tribal governments and safety of their communities and visitors who utilize transportation facilities in Indian Country. Strengthening tribal 

governments and their communities by providing safe and reliable transportation 

infrastructure is essential for our communities to prosper. 

Attachment 

THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS RESOLUTION # ECWS–14–006 

TITLE: Unified Positions to Address the Transportation Needs of Tribal Nations 

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians of 

the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public 

toward a better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do 

hereby establish and submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was established 

in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and 

Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, on February 25 and 26, 2014 the Tribal Transportation Reauthorization Unity Summit was held in Denver, Colorado, and the Summit resulted in the 

development of Tribal Transportation Unity Act positions; and 

WHEREAS, the Tribal leaders and tribal transportation officials of the Tribal 

Transportation Reauthorization Unity Summit developed the DENVER UNITY 

STATEMENT 2014, that calls upon all tribal Nations, the National Congress of 

American Indians and Intertribal Transportation Association, National Tribal Transit Association, and all other intertribal organizations to embrace the positions developed in Denver and to work jointly with the Tribal Transportation Unity Caucus 

and tribal advocates to develop policy briefing materials, draft proposed legislative 

language and engage with the congressional committee leadership and staff to advance the mutually agreed upon objectives identified in the attached TRIBAL 

TRANSPORTATION UNITY ACT SUMMARY FOR THE 113th CONGRESS February 27, 2014. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Congress of American Indians supports the effort of the Tribal Transportation Reauthorization Unity 

Summit and does hereby honor the participant’s request for the National Congress 

of American Indians to embrace the TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION UNITY ACT 

SUMMARY FOR THE 113th CONGRESS OF February 27, 2014; and 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that the National Congress of 

American Indians will assist the Tribal Transportation Unity Caucus in: the development of policy briefing materials; drafting of proposed legislation language; engaging the congressional committee leadership and staff to advance the objectives of the 

Tribal Transportation Unity Act positions; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI 

until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Executive Committee at the 2014 Executive Council Winter Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held 

at the Westin Washington City Center March 11–13, 2014, in Washington, DC with 

a quorum present. 

64 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FLOYD JOURDAIN, JR., CHAIRMAN, RED LAKE BAND

OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS


313b10.eps 313c1.eps
65 


313c2.eps
66 


313c3.eps
67 


313c4.eps
68 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. NATHAN SMALL, CHAIRMAN, FORT HALL BUSINESS

COUNCIL


313c5.eps 313d1.eps
69 


313d2.eps
70 


313d3.eps
71 


313d4.eps
72 


313d5.eps
73 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE


313e1.eps
74 


313e2.eps
75 


313e3.eps
76 


313e4.eps 313e5.eps
77 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED VALLO, SR., GOVERNOR, PUEBLO OF ACOMA

Introduction 

The Pueblo of Acoma is a federally recognized Indian tribe and the traditional village is a National Historic Site located about 55 miles west of Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. According to the 2005 BIA Labor Force Report, there are 4,983 Acoma tribal 

members residing on the reservation. There are over 6,344 enrolled tribal members. 

The Pueblo of Acoma is governed by a traditional twelve-member Tribal Council. Reporting to the Tribal Council is the traditional Tribal Administration staff: Governor, 1st Lt. Governor, 2nd Lt. Governor, Tribal Secretary and Interpreter. The ancestral village of the Acoma people is ‘‘Sky City,’’ located 16 miles south of Interstate 

40 off of Exit 102. ‘‘Sky City’’ is the oldest, continuously inhabited village in the 

United States. About 50 members of the tribe live in ‘‘Sky City’’ year round, while 

other tribal members reside at communities along the Interstate 40 corridor and Rio 

San Jose valley area. ‘‘Sky City’’ and the Haaku’ Museum is destination points for 

more than 40,000 national and international visitors annually. Interstate 40 and the 

BNSF Railway cross Acoma tribal lands on the northern most section of the reservation. 

Acoma Pueblo has over 330 miles of BIA and tribal roads. In 2013, Acoma Pueblo’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) was updated; over 30 transportation 

projects were prioritized with a projected cost at about $100 million. This includes 

the safety need to construct a new 1,000-foot span bridge over the BNSF Railway; 

total bridge and road extension project is $28 million and is 0.5 mile. A feasibility 

study was completed in 2004 and this project is construction ready. Planning and 

preliminary engineering costs were funded with New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) funds and Indian Reservation Road (IRR) funds. 

Starting in 2009, Acoma Pueblo entered into a Referenced Funding Agreement 

(RFA) with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 


313e6.eps
78 

(FHWA) to receive Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program funds now the Tribal 

Transportation Program (TTP) funds. 

FHWA—2009 IRR (Indian Reservation Road, SAFETEA–LU) $1,305,404.91 

FHWA—2009 ARRA IRR—SP 34 Phase I $820,996.00 

FHWA—2009 ARRA HPP (High Priority Project)—M11 Bridge $1,000,000.00 

FHWA—2010 IRR $961,690.84 

FHWA—2010 IRR BP (Bridge Program)—M111 Bridge $500,000.00 

FHWA—2010 IRR BP—M117 Bridge $600,000.00 

FHWA—2010 IRR BP—M122 Bridge $150,000.00 

FHWA—2011 IRR $910,618.00 

FHWA—2011 IRR BP—M122 Bridge $300,000.00 

FHWA—2011 Federal Highway Discretionary Program $1,300,000.00 

FHWA—2012 IRR $790,811.00 

FHWA—2013 TTP (Tribal Transportation Program, MAP–21) $1,241,375.39 

FHWA—2014 TTP and TTP Safety Program $1,364,251.18 

During the last 4 years of the IRR Program, Acoma Pueblo’s annual formula funding decreased from $1,305,404.91 to $790,811.00. During the first two years of 

MAP–21 TTP funding, Acoma Pueblo averaged about $1.3 million. This historical 

funding will not fund the proposed $28 million Mesa Hill Bridge and SP 36 Road 

Extension Project over the BNSF Railway tracks. The Congressional FY 2014 appropriation of $450 million is severely underfunded to meet the transportation needs 

of Indian tribes and Alaskan native villages including Acoma Pueblo. 

Because the annual allocation of IRR funds, now TTP funds, is inadequate, Acoma 

Pueblo must secure other non-TTP funds including state funds. The success to find 

other FHWA funds is noted above. Between 2005 and 2013, Acoma Pueblo was successful and secured about $5,443,402 in New Mexico state funds for transportation 

projects. 

Finally, was the intent of the tribal transportation program to target BIA and 

tribal roads? Only 340 of 566 Indian tribes and Alaskan native villages have BIA 

roads. The other 226 Indian tribes and Alaskan native villages use TTP funds for 

state, county and other roads. In summary, the current (excluding 18,761 miles of 

proposed roads) national tribal transportation facility inventory (miles) ownership is 

as follows: 

BIA Tribal State 

County/ 

Township/ 

Burrough 

Other Total 

29,052 15,603 22,415 64,831 7,596 139,497 

21% 11% 16% 47% 5% 100% 

This creates a lingering, ongoing need to adequately fund BIA and tribal roads 

(32 percent combined) located within Indian reservation boundaries including roads 

within Acoma Pueblo. 

Common Recommendations In Indian Country 

Acoma Pueblo supports the following recommendations with other Indian tribes 

and Alaskan native villages: 

• Increase TTP funding to $800 million for FY 2015 with annual step increases 

of $50 million resulting in annual funding of $1.05 billion in FY 2020. Because 

funding for the TTP has not been increased since 2009, and has actually been 

reduced through take downs, this funding recommendation is modest. 

• Establish a Tribal Maintenance Program at $50 million with annual step increases of $5 million, for BIA and tribally owned transportation facilities, and 

encourage funding of at least $150 million for the BIA road maintenance program. 

• Increase funding for the Tribal Transit Program, implement annual step increases, and ensure stable funding for established tribal transit programs. 

• Restore Highway Trust Fund allocation for the Tribal High Priority Projects 

Program, which has not been funded under MAP–21 and increase the maximum 

grant amount and increase funding to $35 million with annual step increases. 

• Redistribute 10 percent of unused obligation authority to the TTP for competitive grants to remote tribes. 

• Separately fund the TTP Bridge Program at $75 million with annual step increases and authorize use of funds for construction and design of new bridges. 

79 

• Establish $75,000 as the minimum annual TTP program funding allocation provided this $3 million increase needed to fund this minimum amount per tribe 

comes from an increased authorization. 

• Restore the TTP exemption from the obligation limitation deduction. 

• Reduce BIA and FHWA administrative take downs from 6 percent to 5 percent, 

and impose a $28 million annual cap. 

• Begin to address the highway safety crisis in Indian country by establishing a 

2 percent tribal set-aside from the Highway Safety Improvement Program, a 3 

percent tribal-set aside from NHTSA, and a 3 percent set-aside from the Transportation Alternatives Program to build or enhance safe routes to schools, scenic 

byways, and pedestrian paths. Without a tribal set-aside, the experience under 

MAP–21 is that the states provide little funding to tribes. 

• Create a tribal self-governance program under the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to streamline funding agreements and clarify the extension of 

the benefits of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to 

DOT. This recommendation was vetted with DOT officials in 2011 and it was 

adopted as an amendment to HR 7. 

• At the request of a state and tribe, require the BIA or FHWA to award state 

administered Federal-Aid funds to a tribe through a TTP or ISDEAA agreement 

to facilitate intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration. 

• Ensure tribal eligibility for all DOT programs and discretionary and competitive 

grants, which was adopted as an amendment to HR 7. 

• Require BIA to improve right-of-way challenges management and provide funding to implement corrections, improvement and to pay trespass damages. 

• Authorize tribes to assume responsibility for approving NEPA documents if a 

tribe provides a limited sovereign immunity waiver for administrative actions. 

This is modeled on Title V of ISDEAA. 

• Improve efficiency in delivering Emergency Relief Funds to tribes. 

• Establish a tribal infrastructure bank capitalized at $10 million to provide low 

interest loans for tribal transportation projects. 

• Increase funding for the Tribal Technical Assistance Program. 

Acoma Pueblo Recommendations 

Acoma Pueblo submits the following TTP re-authorization recommendations: 

• The re-authorization of the Tribal Transportation Program be separated from 

MAP–21 and be re-authorized on its own similar to how the Native American 

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) separated Indian 

Housing from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) 

Public and Indian Housing Program. The re-authorization of the Tribal Transportation Program shall be established under a new law called the Native 

American Transportation Assistance and Self Determination Act (NATASDA) or 

similar. 

• Similar to the Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) within the U.S. Department of HUD, the Office of Tribal Transportation Program (OTTP) be created within the U.S. Department of Transportation separated from the Federal 

Lands Highway Office. This Office shall report directly to the Secretary or designee. The principals of Indian self-determination and tribal self-governance 

identified under the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act 

(ISDEAA) will be established. 

• Mandate that new/amended federal regulations and funding formula be created 

through negotiated rulemaking. Adequate funding shall be appropriated to conduct meetings for an 18-month period and at regional tribal areas. 

• Additional funding above current funding levels shall be appropriated specifically for BIA and tribal roads within reservation lands. The funding formula 

must include an adjustment factor to address this disadvantage need. 

• A single National Tribal Transportation Training Center shall be established to 

provide a consistent structured, certification transportation training program. 

This national training center shall be governed by a governing board comprised 

of tribal transportation representatives. 

Conclusion 

The Pueblo of Acoma appreciates the opportunity to provide a statement on the 

impact and reauthorization of the MAP–21 Tribal Transportation Program. We look 

forward to working with the United States Congress and the U.S. Department of 

80 

Transportation to strengthen a national tribal transportation program that targets 

BIA and tribal roads within the guiding principles of tribal self-governance and Indian self-determination. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TEX HALL, CHAIRMAN, MANDAN, HIDATSA AND

ARIKARA NATION (MHA) 

Introduction 

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Barrasso and members of this Committee, my 

name is Tex Hall and I am the Chairman of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation (MHA). I am also Chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association, 

and Chairman of COLT, the Coalition of Larger Land Based Tribes. I thank you 

for the opportunity to present testimony on Tribal Transportation issues. My comments today focus primarily on my own tribe, but my leadership roles, make me 

uniquely aware of the hardships tribes in my region of the country face, as well as 

tribes in other regions that have large inventories of reservation roads. It is more 

than fair to say, that Tribes with large land bases, are inadequately funded and 

cannot keep up with the needs they have for road maintenance and construction to 

ensure the safety and well being of their communities. 

My Tribe the MHA Nation in North Dakota, experiences some of the coldest annual winter temperatures in the country. Our inability to clear ice and make repairs, makes travel extremely hazardous and increases fatalities. We are also located in the heart of the Bakken formation, where oil and gas development drives 

both our tribal and regional economy. Our boom in oil development has resulted in 

heavy truck traffic. Without adequate roads and roads maintenance our current 

level of oil and gas development cannot be sustained and our roads are unsafe. Unfortunately, we have not had assistance from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 

other Federal agencies to help force oil companies, and other outsiders, that use our 

BIA and Tribal roads, to assist with the maintenance and repair of these roads. We 

have had to use our own resources to repair and maintain roads, but our resources 

cannot keep up with our needs. Without adequate funding from the Tribal Transportation Program, we cannot keep up with the destruction to our roads, and the safety 

problems created by oil and gas development and heavy truck traffic. We cannot ensure the safety of our community members that travel daily on these same roads. 

Our reservation houses in excess of 1,000 on-reservation oil and gas wells. The 

operation of these wells requires what today are in excess of 20,000 large trucks to 

transport the well materials to and from the drilling sites. These heavy trucks are 

traveling on the same federal and tribal roads as our school busses, our ambulances 

and our tribal members. BIA funded reservation roads were not designed, to handle 

heavy weight or this level of truck traffic. 

Our problems are not unique reservations in Wyoming, Utah, Montana, New Mexico and Arizona where there is oil, gas and coal development have also experienced 

excessive damage to their federal and tribal roads. And like my tribe, they received 

little help from their states. Under existing law, a huge percentage of energy development dollars continue to go to state governments which feel little or no obligation 

to help the tribe build and maintain roads, bridges and other infrastructure. States 

insist that road construction and maintenance is solely a federal responsibility. 

Members of the House and Senate Committees that are working on Transportation and Infrastructure funding, and reauthorization, have expressed the need for 

more money to help the economy and create jobs. They say the country is approaching a crisis this summer if a solution is not found to adequately support the Highway Trust Fund at a level that allows our economy to grow. I know this is true at 

our Tribe. We can not succeed in creating more jobs and more opportunity if our 

infrastructure cannot keep up. To address challenges Tribes face during this time 

of fast development the Tribal Transportation Program, needs more funding for construction and maintenance of roads, rail lines and bridges. My hope is the short fall 

predicted to occur this summer under the Highway Trust Fund will create the opportunity for members of Congress to find a solution that increases the fund and 

allows for reauthorization of the Transportation bill that more adequately addresses 

Tribal needs. 

Reauthorization of Tribal Transportation Programs 

The large land based tribes have complained in recent years that they have 

watched their funding dwindle as money under the Indian Roads Reservation Program was diverted to communities with less population and inventory. These problems have been addressed in large part by MAP–21 through a statutory formula, 

81 

and we like many of the other larger land based reservations strongly support the 

formula as a more equitable way of distributing Transportation funding to all 

Tribes. We agree with the Testimony presented to the committee by Tribal leaders 

Wes Martel (The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes) and Sam Buckles 

(Fort Peck Tribes) that the Indian Reservation Roads program, (now referred to as 

the Tribal Transportation Program) has served a critical need in Indian Country but 

has been inadequately funded. The funding for 566 Federal Tribes has not increase 

its current level of funding at $450 million since FY 2009. And when you count the 

need for road maintenance, bridges and safety planning the Department of Transportation admits to nearly $80 billion in unmet Tribal Transportation needs. 

For MHA, bridge construction is a priority, and we were disappointed that under 

MAP 21, the authorization levels for Tribes decreased, because the committee with 

jurisdiction transferred the bridge program to the road construction account. The result was less money designated for bridges, and instead bridge funding appeared as 

a take down form the roads construction funds. The MHA Nation’s Charging Eagle 

Bridge has been authorized for almost 40 years. Yet we have not had the funding 

to move forward with the project. This bridge is essential to the development of natural resources in the more remote areas of reservation and would provide easier access to health care and other essential services for our community members. Restoring separate funding for bridges and increasing over all funding for the Tribal 

Transportation is a priority for MHA in the next reauthorization bill. Our recommendation is to separately fund the Tribal Transportation Bridge Program and 

increase the funding to 200 million. 

Road Maintenance 

Each year the federal government spends millions of dollars on new roads only 

to let those investments deteriorate from inadequate maintenance. Roads which 

were designed to last 20 years are virtually unusable after ten due to lack of adequate road maintenance funding. The BIA is responsible for providing Tribes with 

Road maintenance funding. However, the funding BIA provides is less than 25 percent of what BIA admits is needed to maintain the system. The BIA is appropriated 

approximately $25 million per year for road maintenance. OMB has not allow BIA 

to increase this amount for over 22 years. As a result the condition of Tribal and 

BIA roads have dramatically deteriorated. 

MAP–21 allows Tribes to use 25 percent of their Roads Construction money towards roads maintenance needs. That level of additional funding only takes away 

from our construction dollars, and fails to address the inadequate appropriation the 

BIA receives for roads maintenance. MHA would like the BIA to receive adequate 

appropriations for road maintenance as described below or to create a separate 

funding program out of the Highway Trust fund for Tribal Road maintenance similar to other Federal Lands Highway Programs. The current level of funding in the 

BIA program has been inadequate from too long. 

Support for Unity Summit Recommendations 

Last month Tribal Transportation planners gathered in Denver Colorado, to discuss the reauthorization of the Transportation bill, and came out with Unity Summit recommendations. MHA supports the following recommendations of the Unity 

Caucus: 

• Increasing funding for the TTP to $800 million for FY 2015 with annual step 

increases of $50 million. This will result in an annual funding level of $1.05 billion in FY 2020. 

• Establish a Tribal Maintenance Program at $50 million with annual step increases of $5 million, and encourage funding of at least $150 million for the BIA 

road maintenance program. 

• Increase funding for the Tribal Transit Program, and implement annual step 

increases for that tribal program. 

• Redistribute 10 percent of all unused obligation authority to the TTP and use 

these funds to make competitive grants to remote tribes. 

• Separately fund the TTP Bridge Program at $200 million with annual step increases and authorize the use of these funds for construction and design of new 

bridges. (This is an increase over the Unity Summit recommendations) 

• Restore the TTP exemption from the obligation limitation deduction. 

• Reduce BIA and FHWA administrative costs from 6 percent to 5 percent, and 

impose a 28 million annual cap on that administrative funding. 

• Begin to address the highway safety crisis in Indian country by establishing a 

2 percent tribal set-aside from the Highway Safety Improvement Program, a 3 

82 

percent tribal-set aside from NHTSA, and a 3 percent set-aside from the Transportation Alternatives program to build or enhance safe routes to schools, scenic 

byways, and pedestrian paths and authorize direct tribal funding under the rail 

construction program. 

• Create a tribal self-governance program under the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to streamline tribal funding agreements and clarify the that 

this funding can be accessed from DOT using the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act. This recommendation was vetted with DOT officials 

in 2011 and it was adopted as an amendment to HR 7. 

• At the request of a state and tribe, require the BIA or FHWA to award state 

administered Federal-Aid funds to a tribe through a TTP or a P.L. 93–638 

agreement. 

• Ensure tribal eligibility for all DOT programs and discretionary and competitive 

grants in the manner previously included in HR 7. 

• Require BIA to improve its management of Right-of-Way challenges and require 

the BIA to provide funding to tribes to implement corrections and improvement 

and to pay trespass damages. 

• Authorize tribes to assume responsibility for approving NEPA documents if a 

tribe provides a limited sovereign immunity waiver for administrative actions. 

• Order the federal agencies to improve their efficiency in delivering Emergency 

Relief Funds to tribes. 

• Establish a tribal infrastructure bank capitalized at $10 million to provide low 

interest loans for tribal transportation projects. 

• Increase funding for the Tribal Technical Assistance Program. 

• Provide an adequate set aside in the Highway Trust Fund to pay the added 

costs of roads construction and roads maintenance on tribal and federal roads 

negatively impacted by energy production. (Not in Unity Summit recommendations buy badly needed for Tribes impacted by heavy truck traffic.) 

• Adequately Fund MAP 21 requirements that tribal bridges must now be inspected and include on the National Bridge Inventory. This would amend MAP 

21’s unfunded mandate to require that the inspection costs for including BIA 

and tribal bridges in the National Bridge inventory comes from Federal-Aid 

bridge program funds rather than from TTP funds. 

• Improve the speed and efficiency in getting Emergency Relief for Federally 

owned Roads (ERFO) funding to Tribes. This proposal would streamline the 

ERFO application process to speed the time Tribes are reimbursed for their 

ERFO expenditures. 

COLT the coalition of larger land based tribes adopted a resolution at its Impact 

Meeting in Washington DC on March 6, 2014. (Attached) That resolution supported 

the Unity Summit recommendations in large part, but qualified its support for funding each tribe at a base funding level of $75,000.00, and for funding the High Priority Roads program as currently applied under MAP 21 and the proposed regulations. Since the COLT resolution was adopted, the language in the Unity Summit 

recommendations has been defined, to allow $75,000.00 as the minimum annual 

Tribal Transportation Program funding provided that the $3 million increase needed 

to fund this minimum amount per tribe comes from increased authorization funding. 

Therefore, this minimum would not further erode funding in the Tribal Transportation Program. MHA could support this base funding amount for each tribe if this 

increase in funding is authorized. 

With the High Priority Projects Program, the large land based tribes, have not 

been allow to compete for this funding in the past. The program has given the scoring advantage to very small Tribes in isolated geographic locations and to tribes 

that have not completed a construction project with their current levels of funding. 

In short the High Priority Projects Program was designed to help only small communities in regions with limited or no roads access. Therefore, large land based 

Tribes with Reservation Roads, could not compete even though their funding was 

grossly inadequate to complete their priority projects. The group that met in Denver 

as part of the Unity Summit agreed that the program should be funded and that 

all tribes should be on equal footing. Therefore, MHA can agree to support fully 

funding the High Priority Projects Program as describe in the Unity Recommendations if all tribes are allowed to compete, and the program does not give an advantage to Tribes or Native Villages that are geographically isolated or who have completed a construction project. (see attached COLT resolution and Unity Summit Recommendations) 

83 

Closing 

Thank you for allowing the MHA Nation this opportunity to present its testimony 

and recommendations to address Transportation needs in Indian Country. If we can 

answer any questions, or provide any additional information, please do not hesitate 

to contact me. 

Attachments 


313f1.eps
84 


313f2.eps
85 


313f3.eps
86 


313f4.eps
87 


313f5.eps
88 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RALPH ANDERSEN, PRESIDENT/CEO, BRISTOL BAY NATIVE

ASSOCIATION (BBNA) 

Introduction 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the tribal provisions being 

developed for the transportation act reauthorization. I am Ralph Andersen, President and CEO of the Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), which is 

headquartered in Dillingham, Alaska. BBNA is a consortium made up of the 31 federally recognized tribes in the Bristol Bay Region, which has land area in southwest 

Alaska about the size of Ohio. We operate most Bureau of Indian Affairs service 

programs in our region via a Self-Governance Compact, and we have operated the 

BIA’s Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) under compact for six tribes since 2006, 

which increased to seven tribes this year. 

Summary of BBNA Position 

I have attached to this written testimony BBNA Resolution 2014–07, adopted by 

our board of directors on March 21, 2014, which establishes BBNA’s policy position 

regarding the MAP–21 Reauthorization. We support the recommendations of the 

Tribal Unity Caucus, which met in Denver in February, and which include increased funding for tribal transportation programs, the clear extension of PL 93– 

638 compacting to the Department of Transportation, the establishment of a 

$75,000 base budget for tribes, and full funding for the High Priority Projects Program, among other recommendations. 

The Unity Caucus did not take a position on, or even discuss, the TTP funding 

formula as such, but BBNA strongly supports a new negotiated rule-making or some 

other tribally-driven process to determine the funding distribution for all tribal proVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 089859 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89859.TXT JACK

313f6.eps
89 

grams funded by the transportation act. We believe the success of the Tribal Unity 

Caucus itself demonstrates that tribal processes can deal with complex issues. The 

current statutory formula in MAP–21 has serious flaws—not the least of which is 

that it freezes in place all the mistakes made by the BIA in developing the IRR inventory under SAFETEA–LU. 

Background on BBNA 

As noted BBNA has operated the IRR and current TIP programs under compact 

since 2006, and before that we performed some IRR activities by contract. In the 

past several years we completed an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act IRR 

construction project, and acquired Denali Access Program funds to supplement two 

of our projects. We currently have one project in construction, though full funding 

has not been secured, and several others in the development phase for the plans, 

specifications, and estimates packages, as well as ongoing planning, safety, and 

maintenance projects. We also have a Tribal Transit Planning grant through the 

Federal Transit Administration. 

Current BBNA staff have been involved with each of the highway bill reauthorizations since the TEA–21 act in 1998 and participated extensively in the negotiated 

rule-making which led to the 2004 IRR regulations. We have regularly attended the 

TTP Coordinating Committee meetings, and in February of this year our staff assisted in the development of the ‘‘Tribal Transportation Unity Act’’ recommendations. In particular we know how to read the inventory data and we are familiar 

with the numerous BIA implementation problems and their impact on the funding 

distribution. 

Like other tribes and consortia, we have far greater transportation needs than we 

have funding to meet. Bristol Bay tribes were by no means particular funding beneficiaries of the 2004 IRR regulation or of well-known BIA implementation errors 

that benefited some tribes. We benefited from the regulation’s program changes, but 

in terms of funding shares our increases were modest and about what you would 

expect with the appropriations. The highest annual IRR funding share BBNA ever 

received for all six of our participating tribes combined was about $400,000 in 2009. 

Generally we have ranged in the $350,000 to $380,000 range for six tribes. One 

tribe in our roads program had a share of$109,000 in FY 2013, and the rest are 

all less than $70,000 with the smallest tribal share being about $30,000. You can’t 

really build roads at $30,000 per year. 

BBNA is not of the belief that the BIA’s transportation program is responsible to 

fully fund all our transportation needs, or for that matter to build entire road networks into rural Alaska comparable to the federal, state and county road systems 

in the lower 48 states. However, we do believe the BIA program should meet some 

needs in our villages and provide a stable program sufficient to serve as a base for 

collaboration and cooperative efforts with other agencies. Our approach has to been 

to leverage BIA funding with funding from other sources. 

Problems With MAP–21 

Unfortunately, some of the changes in MAP–21 were very harmful to us. In addition to eliminating the ‘‘Population Adjustment Factor’’ in the prior formula that 

was specifically to help smaller tribes, MAP–21 eliminated two of our greatest resources: 

1. The High Priority Projects program established by the negotiated rule, which 

MAP- 21 kept on paper but did not fund. 

2. The Denali Access Program. 

Additionally, MAP–21 directs the states’ efforts to focus on the National Highway 

System. This has hindered the State of Alaska’s ability to fund or even partner on 

critically needed projects in rural Alaska. The Tiger Grant program, though appearing to offer assistance, doesn’t offer much help to remote tribes. The requirement 

to provide data for a cost benefit analysis predictably precludes funding of projects 

in remote, low population areas. 

With all of these factors considered, MAP–21 has gutted the ability of small communities in Alaska to build critically needed projects or for most of our tribes to operate viable ongoing tribal transportation programs. 

I don’t want to completely stress the negative: MAP–21 has some good aspects. 

In the TTP, expanding the use of funds for maintenance has been a benefit to our 

region. We believe there are some advantages to changing to a simple ‘‘road miles’’ 

factor in the formula. But, the defunding of the High Priority Projects has been a 

serious harm. We certainly don’t have enough funds to undertake significant construction with TTP formula funds, and without the HPP, Denali funds, or even fair 

90 

access to state funds we no longer have anyone to partner with or any outside funding to leverage. 

We do appreciate the 2 percent TTP Safety Program, but prefer it not be a takedown to the funds available for distribution through the funding formula. The 

Bridge program is now a 2 percent TTP takedown, also effectively reducing the 

amount available for distribution. We preferred it when it was independent of the 

TTP, and we also urge that it be made available for construction of new structures 

as well as the replacement and rehabilitation of existing bridges. 

The MAP–21 TTP distribution formula is not only harmful, it appears to actually 

be irrational in some respects. A glaring example is that 34 percent is divided equally by the 12 BIA Regions, and then distributed within each region based upon the 

tribes’ in-region average IRR funding share from FY 2005 to FY 2011. Mathematically, the major impact of this is simply to shift money from regions with a large 

number of tribes to regions with fewer tribes, without regard to population, land 

area, road systems or any other factor that might actually measure need. I will note 

in passing that Navajo, a region with just one tribe, has such a high population that 

it doesn’t really benefit additionally from this, but otherwise this 34 percent allocation just takes money away from the tribes in the Pacific and Alaska regions which 

have a high number of tribes and gives it to tribes in the regions with the fewest 

numbers of tribes. Two hypothetical tribes absolutely identical in every respect 

would get widely differing amounts under the MAP–21 formula depending on which 

BIA region they happen to be in. This seems to violate basic equal protection principles. 

Below is an estimate of the number of tribes within each BIA Region: 

1. Eastern—28 Tribes 

2. Midwest—35 Tribes 

3. Great Plains—16 Tribes 

4. Rocky Mountain—7 Tribes 

5. Northwest- 45 Tribes 

6. Alaska—228 Tribes 

7. Pacific—105 Tribes 

8. Western—42 Tribes 

9. Navajo—1 Tribe 

10. Southwest—25 Tribes 

11. Southern Plains—23 Tribes 

12. Eastern Oklahoma—20 Tribes 

The BIA Regions are not equal to each other in any measurable way; they arose 

by historical accident and administrative convenience. An ‘‘equal per BIA region’’ 

distribution should not be used for any funding formula. 

Another serious problem is that although the changes to the funding formula in 

MAP–21 appear to have been motivated by BIA implementation errors and perceived over-reaching by some tribes, MAP–21 actually freezes and locks in place all 

of those problems and effectively prohibits the BIA from correcting them. The 34 

percent allocation noted above, the 27 percent road miles allocation and the supplemental funding allocation all lock in BIA implementation errors by preserving the 

Transportation Facility Inventory the way it was in 2012. To the extent there were 

perceived abuses under the prior formula distribution, the MAP–21 formula ‘‘fixes’’ 

the wrong things and actually continues to provide disproportionate funding to those 

tribes that were arguably overfunded due to BIA mistakes. 

We know that some tribes in the Lower 48 don’t want changes to the MAP–21 

funding formula; they have seen an increase in their bottom line funding as MAP– 

21 is implemented. However, the ‘‘fix’’ in MAP–21 was largely just an arbitrary 

transfer of funds between regions and doesn’t get at the real problem, which was 

bad data in the inventory. We believe that removing the locked-in historical funding 

and requiring corrections to the inventory data would in fact provide those harmed 

by BIA implementation errors with even more funding. Preserving these errors by 

statute is the worst possible result—it not only continues the inequities it prevents 

anyone from fixing the data errors that caused them. 

One thing I would like to stress is that in considering formula outcomes, it is essential to look at individual tribes and not at BIA Regions. There has been a lot 

of finger pointing at ‘‘Alaska’’ for example, and while it is true that some Alaska 

tribes benefitted from what we have called BIA implementation errors, a large majority of Alaska tribes did not benefit. Other tribes in other regions benefited from 

other implementation problems. On the ground, our tribes actually have a lot in 

common with the large land based tribes in the Lower 48, which are mostly very 

rural and have underdeveloped infrastructure. Another fallacy is to conclude that 

a ‘‘BIA Region’’ or a particular state benefits because a few tribes do. If one tribe 

91 

in Alaska or Montana for example receives a $10 million windfall because of a data 

error, that tribe may benefit but the funding comes out of the shares of all the other 

tribes in the country, including the other tribes in Alaska or Montana. It can be 

very misleading to look at the cumulative amounts for any BIA Region and conclude 

that all the tribes within that region are having the same outcomes. A large increase for one tribe or a few tribes may mask a significant decrease for all the other 

tribes in the same region. 

Implementation Errors 

I believe it important to discuss the implementation errors under the prior formula, not because we think it is desirable or even possible to revert to that formula, 

but to provide a background for our proposed ‘‘solutions.’’ The problems were not 

with the formula as negotiated by the tribes. Rather, the BIA failed to be a gate 

keeper. 

1. The first and perhaps biggest error was that the BIA failed to correctly implement one of the main compromises in the negotiated formula: that tribes 

would be allowed to add non-BIA roads to the road inventory, but only BIA 

and tribally owned roads were to count at 100 percent in the funding formula. With a few limited exceptions other roads—state, county and local 

roads—were to count only at the local match level for federally funded 

projects, i.e. 20 percent or less depending on the state. Early on in implementation, the BIA concluded it didn’t have the data to determine the match rate 

so it arbitrarily counted everything at 1 00 percent. This resulted in a massive shift of funding towards state and county roads that was never intended 

to occur. The BIA only partially corrected this in later years. 

2. Some state and urban municipal roads—some of which should probably not 

be in the inventory at all for definitional reasons—were still counted at 100 

percent right up until MAP–21 changed the formula, and are still counted 

indirectly within MAP–21. 

3. Federally owned roads owned by non-BIA agencies were included at 100 percent. This was based on a misreading of a poorly written part of the regulations, and as a policy matter makes no sense. Those agencies have their own 

federal appropriations for road construction and maintenance and their roads 

should not be the responsibility of the BIA. (Some of these roads may be ‘‘primary access roads’’ for the tribe and thus belong in the inventory under the 

SAFETEA–LU inventory language, but most do not—at least not at 100 percent funding.) 

4. The BIA never adopted a policy regarding limits to the length routes could 

extend beyond reservations or Alaska Native villages and count for funding 

purposes in the inventory, or the closely related issue of how the boundary 

of tribal areas would be determined. While this was not in the negotiated 

regulations, it is an obvious gap in the regulations that should have been one 

of the first issues addressed by the Program Coordinating Committee. These 

issues were known by the negotiated rule-making committee but it just didn’t 

have time to address them, apparently believing the BIA would simply follow 

its prior policy on these issues. That did not occur. 

5. In regard to proposed roads, the BIA failed to follow statutory standards and 

widely understood industry standards for transportation planning. 

a. They allowed routes based upon 200 or even 300-year long-range transportation plans instead of limiting such plans to the 20-year window used by 

the states and thus also required of all Federal Lands Highways programs 

by Title 23. Additionally, the tribal transportation planning guides published by the government and widely used by tribes called for a 20-year 

planning window and also provided that a reasonable projection of revenues be used for planning purposes. As a result, most tribes did reasonable 

transportation plans, but the BIA allowed some tribes to disregard these 

standards and put in billion-dollar wish lists of projects that could not possibly be built in any foreseeable timeframe or from any known funding 

source. 

b. Proposed tribal roads were put into the inventory at 100 percent funding 

without proof that the road was feasible to build, or even that the tribe 

had land ownership, jurisdiction, or the ability to acquire a public easement. This sort of proof should have been required as a matter of course 

to demonstrate the route met the basic definitions governing the IRR program in the Title 23 statute. Quite a few ‘‘proposed’’ roads were allowed 

in the inventory for funding purposes that would actually be illegal to 

92 

build, by anyone, without an act of Congress, because they cross wildlife 

refuges or other federal preserves. 

6. The BIA allowed proposed roads to generate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 

in the formula based upon a default value used to determine ‘‘Cost to Construct’’ versus the actual VMT of a non-existent road, which is zero. In this 

instance the BIA disregarded the definitions in its own regulations. 

7. The BIA allowed the functional classification of a road to be inconsistent with 

the BIA’s own functional classification system. This resulted in the route 

being entered at higher design standards for cost to construct and application 

of the VMT than actually allowed under the regulations. 

8. It appears that the BIA allowed some roads to be entered as ‘‘proposed’’ when 

there were actually pre-existing unimproved roads on the ground. Again, this 

allowed the routes to generate more funding than if they had been accurately 

described. 

It should be understood that prior to the 2004 regulations, most tribes had very 

limited experience performing IRR work themselves because the program was operated by the BIA on a ‘‘project’’ basis and the program was not generally performed 

under PL 93–638. In Alaska, only a relative handful of the tribes had ever received 

any direct benefit from the program at all—the BIA had just built a few projects 

around the state based on its own priority system. Consequently when there was 

a big push to do IRR inventories before and after the 2004 regulations, many tribes 

and particularly small tribes and even consortia in Alaska had no experience with 

the program and either depended on staff brand new to the IRR program or relied 

on consultants and engineering firms. The submittals were widely varied> and some 

did push the envelope. It was up to the BIA to be the gate keeper. 

The BIA staff in charge of inventory implementation tended to err in favor of 

tribes pushing a particular interpretation for their specific inventory submittals, 

without considering the impact on all the tribes nationally that may have been adversely affected. They made significant legal and policy decisions, perhaps without 

realizing it, and apparently without conferring with the Solicitor’s Office or higher 

level policy officials. The program staff only looked at the regulations, without considering the authorizing statutes that also govern the program. We believe this pattern was a significant breach of the BIA’s trust obligations to tribes. 

One important point, there had been heavy pressure placed upon the tribal negotiated rulemaking committee members to keep the old Relative Need Distribution 

Formula which the BIA and FHW A had developed prior to and transitioned in during the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The federal participants were highly motivated to keep a system in place they had expended significant money, time, and effort to implement. The negotiated formula 

thus actually contained only minor changes from its predecessor. ‘‘Cost to Improve’’ 

became ‘‘Cost to Construct,’’ and the expansion of eligible routes to drive funding 

distribution was expanded to include tribally owned routes. There were concessions 

to allow some additional routes owned by others into the inventory, but the negotiators never anticipated BIA’s inability to implement the ‘‘local match’’ limit or 

other reasonable and responsible controls. 

In any event, the BIA made major mistakes in implementing the formula/inventory system that was developed by negotiated rule-making. Each of these mistakes 

created winners and losers among the tribes, and in each instance the BIA did not 

take the underlying policy question to the Program Coordinating Committee until 

after the mistake had already been made and the BIA realized it had a problem. 

At that point, it was difficult for the PCC to reach consensus because some tribes 

had a vested interest in blocking any change. 

Although we do not believe this was intentional on the part of the BIA, it does 

appear that many of the implementation errors had a particularly negative impact 

on the large reservation tribes. It is understandable and predictable that those 

tribes would ask for changes to the law. But those mistakes also negatively impacted other tribes including perhaps 80 percent of Alaska Native villages, and we 

were harmed again by MAP–21. 

Solutions 

So, how to fix the issues we raise? First, we recommend that additional funds be 

secured for the tribal transportation programs. The current funding, even if strictly 

limited to BIA and tribally owned roads, is insufficient. 

Second, we agree with all of the recommendations provided within the ‘‘Tribal 

Transportation Unity Act’’ developed in Denver. 

Third, we recommend that Congress either require negotiated rulemaking for the 

TTP funding formulas, including the Tribal Transit Program, or that Congress deVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:50 Sep 25, 2014 Jkt 089859 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\89859.TXT JACK
93 

sign some other, shorter process to reach a national tribal consensus on funding distribution. If the tribes were able to come up with reasonable consensus recommendations at a two-day meeting in Denver without the presence of federal representatives, it is hard to believe they couldn’t generate a better method for distributing funds in a mediated meeting also without federal presence/interference. Congress certainly requires more information from tribes from across the country than 

it can get at the last minute in conference committee. It certainly makes no sense 

to keep frozen in place an inventory system/funding distribution system that virtually everyone involved in the program agrees includes a lot of junk data. 

Fourth, to prevent implementation errors in the future, we believe the Federal 

Highway Administration must have a far greater role in the implementation of the 

TTP. Perhaps it should be in charge of the inventory, or perhaps the whole program 

could be moved to FHW A provided that PL 93–638 is directly extended to the Department of Transportation. Road construction is not the BIA’s core competence. As 

it stands now, we believe that midlevel BIA managers acting without oversight not 

only did a great deal of damage to the program they effectively drove a wedge between tribes. 

We obviously have a lot of thoughts on what an ideal TTP funding formula should 

look like, but believe that this should be addressed by the tribes. Senators will want 

to see how the tribes in their states will do, but it can be very misleading just to 

look at the totals for states or BIA Regions. The totals may mask serious problems 

within the state or region. In developing a needs-based formula, population may be 

a key component but it should be kept in mind that the available tribal population 

data sets are not very reliable, and that a tribe in a more densely populated area 

with state, county or municipal roads may have less need for BIA funding than a 

remote rural tribe of the same population that is completely dependent on the BIA. 

Having some proposed roads in the inventory is critical in areas like ours with little 

existing road infrastructure, but there must also be clear and consistent constraints 

because otherwise there is a virtually infinite number of possible proposed roads. 

We don’t have all the answers, but we firmly believe that given the opportunity 

the tribes can come to agreement on a far better formula then the one negotiated 

but excessively influenced by federal employees or the one currently in place in 

MAP–21. We offer our assistance to Congress to find an equitable solution. The tribal transportation programs are critically important to almost every aspect of life in 

our communities, from health and safety to economic development to the cost of living. Lives are on the line. Let’s find a way to make sure that all tribes have a reasonable ability to benefit from these programs. 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on these issues. 

Attachment 

94 


313f7.eps
95 


313f8.eps
96 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEANDER R. MCDONALD, PH.D., CHAIRMAN, SPIRIT LAKE

TRIBE


313f9.eps
97 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ERMA J. VIZENOR, TRIBAL CHAIRWOMAN, WHITE

EARTH BAND OF OJIBWE INDIANS


313g1.eps
98 


313g2.eps
99 


313g3.eps
100 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HO-CHUNK NATION


313g4.eps
101 


313g5.eps
102 


313g6.eps
103 


313g7.eps
104 


313h1.eps
105 


313h2.eps
106 


313h3.eps
107 


313h4.eps
108 


313h5.eps
109 


313h6.eps
110 


313i1.eps
111 


313i2.eps
112 


313i3.eps
113 


313i4.eps
114 


313i5.eps
115 


313i6.eps
116 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. LISA MURKOWSKI TO

MICHAEL BLACK

Question 1. Supporting self-determination in all Indian programs is critical. Do 

you believe that MAP–21’s removal of a tribally negotiated formula with a statutory 

funding formula supports or minimizes Tribal self-determination? Do you plan to 

use a negotiated rulemaking process during MAP–21 reauthorization whereby tribes 

are engaged and consulted? 

Answer. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) supports and promotes self-determination and self-governance for tribes. The negotiated rulemaking formula was a 

regulatory formula, but Congress replaced it with the MAP–21 funding formula. It 

is difficult to predict the outcome of the MAP–21 formula until it is fully implemented: there is a four year transition process to this formula, two of which have 

transpired, and the remaining years of the implementation are dependent upon future legislation. Negotiated rulemaking is a helpful process when warranted. However, at this time it is not known what provisions will accompany the reauthorization of the highway act that this would be a consideration. The BIA and the Federal 

Highway Administration have been actively consulting with tribes on transportation 

matters, such as the funding formula, the use of the data from the inventory, and 

a proposed update of the regulations. 


313i7.eps
117 

Question 2. The majority of tribes in the United States are considered small. Does 

the MAP–21 formula disproportionately impact small tribes with small populations; 

especially, in economically depressed census areas? 

Answer. Established by MAP–21, the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) funding formula found at 23 U.S.C. 202 (b)(3) encompasses three factors: road mileage, 

tribal population, and historic funding levels, and also incorporates a transitional 

element through a set aside referred to as Tribal Supplemental Funding. This supplemental funding is implemented to provide a TTP allocation very similar to the 

negotiated rule formula of 2004. The TTP funding formula relies on data established 

in the national tribal transportation facility inventory, the historical allocations of 

tribal share amounts under SAFETEA–LU, and the population data from the American Indian and Alaska Native population within each Indian tribe’s American Indian/Alaska Native Reservation or Statistical Area, as computed under the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. Under the MAP– 

21 formula, tribal population is a large contributor to the tribal allocation amount 

as well as the mileage in the national inventory prior to October 1, 2004 for nonBIA roads and non-tribal roads and fiscal year 2012 for BIA and tribal roads. In 

addition, if the historic funding levels of a tribe is small, it would be reflected in 

the allocations under the TTP funding formula. 

Question 3. Director Black, can you describe for the record, the Administrative 

rules you have placed on Alaska Native villages in including road and the need for 

the construction of roads in our rural communities in the distribution formula? 

Answer. The Administration has followed the statutory requirements for inclusion 

of inventory data such as road miles, construction need and population into the 

funding formula, which is the distribution formula or tribal shares. The statute 

clearly defines the data that is to be included in the distribution formula. 23 USC 

202 (b)(1) describes all TTP-eligible facilities in the National Tribal Transportation 

Facility Inventory (NTTFI), while 23 USC 202(b)(3) identifies the basis for the finding formula and how the distribution amounts are to be computed. The MAP–21 

funding formula considers past participation in the negotiated rule formula of 2004, 

which incorporated construction need miles, usage, and population; the MAP–21 

funding formula also considers road miles, the population of each federally recognized Tribe or Alaska Native village and the funding distribution allocations received under the negotiated rule. 

Question 4. Currently, traffic safety statistics among tribal communities outpace 

national averages. It is concerning to me that we are not giving proper weight to 

need in terms of safety that we should. Currently, the Tribal Bridge Program and 

the Tribal Transportation Safety Program are funded with a 2 percent set aside 

from the TTP fund. Additionally, the Tribal High Priority Project Program does not 

provide funding for Alaska and this hurts 229 tribes. Given these concerns, I must 

ask: Do you support putting Tribal High Priority Project funding back in the Highway Trust Fund so that Alaska tribes might also access funding for high need 

projects? Do you plan to examine and adjust the TTP formula to increase funding 

for safety, bridges with an eye toward reevaluating the importance of need in annual funding levels? 

Answer. In April 2014, the Administration announced its reauthorization proposal, the GROW AMERICA Act. The Administration’s proposal would re-establish 

the Tribal High Priority Project (THPP) program back into the TTP as a Highway 

Trust-funded set aside from the TTP. The proposed THPP program would provide 

an opportunity for all tribes to receive funding for their highest priority projects 

along very similar procedures as the former Indian Reservation Roads High Priority 

Projects program, which was in 25 CFR Part 170 and was eliminated with the passage of MAP–21. In addition, the GROW AMERICA Act proposes increases in available funding for Tribal Transportation Facility Bridges and Tribal Transportation 

Planning, as well as increased funding for program activities. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. LISA MURKOWSKI TO

ROBERT W. SPARROW

Question 1. Supporting self-determination in all Indian programs is critical. Do 

you believe that MAP–21’s removal of a tribally negotiated formula with a statutory 

funding formula supports or minimizes Tribal self-determination? Do you plan to 

use a negotiated rulemaking process during MAP–21 reauthorization whereby tribes 

are engaged and consulted? 

Answer. Under the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP), tribal shares of some 

tribes increased while other tribal shares decreased. The overall impacts will not be 

realized for four years due to the transition period provided in MAP–21. 

118 

FHWA and BIA are working to update the existing Indian Reservation Roads 

(IRR) program regulation (25 CFR 170) to reflect the statutory changes that have 

occurred to the program. Consultation with the tribes is underway and will continue 

through the final publication of the updated regulation. If additional changes are 

required to the TTP regulation as a result of the passage of a MAP–21 reauthorization, we would again carry out tribal consultation and solicit feedback from the 

tribes. 

Question 2. The majority of tribes in the United States are considered small. Does 

the MAP 21 formula disproportionately impact small tribes with small populations; 

especially, in economically depressed census areas? 

Answer. The statutory TTP funding formula includes three factors: road mileage, 

tribal population, and historic funding levels. Under this formula, tribes with higher 

populations generally would receive more funding than those that have smaller populations. Additionally, if a tribe has limited mileage in the approved inventory or 

has a history of receiving smaller funding levels from the program, these factors 

also could impact smaller tribes. 

Question 3. Currently, traffic safety statistics among tribal communities outpace 

national averages. It is concerning to me that we are not giving proper weight to 

need in terms of safety that we should. Currently, the Tribal Bridge Program and 

the Tribal Transportation Safety Program are funded with a 2 percent set aside 

from the TTP fund. Additionally, the Tribal High Priority Project Program does not 

provide funding for Alaska and this hurts 229 tribes. Given these concerns, I must 

ask: Do you support putting Tribal High Priority Project funding back in the Highway Trust Fund so that Alaska tribes might also access funding for high need 

projects? Do you plan to examine and adjust the TTP formula to increase funding 

for safety, bridges with an eye toward reevaluating the importance of need in annual funding levels? 

Answer. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal, The GROW AMERICA 

Act, would reinstate the Tribal High Priority Project program back into the TTP to 

be funded through a set aside from the TTP. The program would provide an opportunity for all tribes to receive needed funding for their highest priority projects. In 

recognition of the need for increased availability of safety and bridge funding in Indian Country, The GROW AMERICA ACT also would increase funding made available to tribes for safety and bridge projects and activities. 

Æ