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

73–248 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–424

TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION: PAVING THE WAY

FOR JOBS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SAFETY IN

NATIVE COMMUNITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

LORETTA A. TUELL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID A. MULLON JR., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 15, 2011 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Akaka ................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 15

Statement of Senator Franken ............................................................................... 18

Statement of Senator Hoeven ................................................................................. 37

Statement of Senator Johanns ............................................................................... 2

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 20

WITNESSES

Baxter, John R., Associate Administrator, Office of Federal Lands Highway, 

Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; accompanied by: Robert Sparrow, Indian Reservation Roads Program Manager ........................................................................................................................ 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Chaco, Paulson, Division Director, Navajo Nation Division of Transportation .. 61

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63

Healy, C. ‘‘John’’ Sr., President, InterTribal Transportation Association ........... 29

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30

Hostler, Jacque, Chief Executive Officer, Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community 

of the Trinidad Rancheria ................................................................................... 65

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66

Keel, Hon. Jefferson, President, National Congress of American Indians .......... 21

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

Martel, Hon. Wes, Vice Chairman, Eastern Shoshone Business Council; accompanied by Jim Shakespeare, Chairman, Northern Arapaho Business 

Council, John P. Smith, Transportation Director, Shoshone and Arapaho 

Tribes, and Jim Garrigan, Transportation Planner, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians ........................................................................................................ 50

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 53

Murphy, Hon. Charles W., Chairman, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; accompanied by Pete Red Tomahawk, Transportation Director ................................ 39

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Tsosie, Paul, Chief of Staff, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs, Department of the Interior; accompanied by Leroy Gishi, Chief, 

Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11

APPENDIX

Chaliak, Sr., Zechariah C., President and Wassilie Pleasant, Secretary, Native 

Village of Nunapitchuk (IRA Council) Tribe, prepared statement .................. 81

Dorris, Julia F., President and Steeves, Loreen J., Vice President, Village 

of Kalskag Traditional Council, joint prepared statement ............................... 78

Greendeer, Jon, President, Ho-Chunk Nation, prepared statement ................... 84

Hall, Tex ‘‘Red Tipped Arrow’’, Chairman, Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, Three 

Affiliated Tribes, Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association, prepared 

statement with attachments ............................................................................... 87

Hoffman, Michael, Vice President, Association of Village Council Presidents 

(AVCP), prepared statement ............................................................................... 75

(1)

TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION: PAVING THE WAY 

FOR JOBS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SAFETY 

IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. 

Aloha and welcome to the Committee’s oversight hearing on Tribal Transportation: Paving the Way for Jobs, Infrastructure, and 

Safety in Native Communities. And I must tell you that we are 

very timely on this hearing in Washington, and would really like 

to move on it. 

Investment in transportation and infrastructure projects is critical to bringing economic development opportunities to States and 

local jurisdictions across the Country. Nowhere is this more evident 

than in Indian Country. 

As you can see by the chart we have here, the Indian Reservation Roads program has grown significantly since the last Surface 

Transportation bill was enacted, going from approximately 63,000 

road miles in 2005 to nearly 144,000 road miles today. The current 

transportation needs of Tribes have grown along with the program. 

Current backlog to bring the road inventory to adequate conditions 

is approximately $69 billion. One in every four BIA bridges is 

structurally deficient. And the annual fatality rate on Indian reservation roads continues to be three times the national average. 

These are the roads that Native children rely on to get to school, 

that emergency responders must navigate, and that Tribal and 

local employees drive to get to and from work. The President’s proposed American Jobs Act has a strong emphasis on investments for 

highway projects, transit, highway safety and other transportationrelated activities. It is critical that Tribal transportation programs 

be part of any surface transportation reauthorization considered by 

the Congress. 

Tribes must be empowered to build the programs in a way that 

makes Tribal members safer, brings jobs and economic developVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
2

ment to Native communities and allows Tribal governments to 

work in partnership with State and local governments. This last 

part, working with State and local governments, is crucial. The 

roads in Native communities serve the whole community, not just 

the Tribal members. Improvements to Tribal roads benefit everyone. And investments in infrastructure bring jobs and economic development opportunities to Tribal and non-Tribal members alike. 

In May, this Committee held a Tribal transportation roundtable, 

which was attended by over 65 Tribal leaders, transportation planners and congressional staff. We will use the information obtained 

at that roundtable, along with this hearing record, to write a Tribal 

transportation bill. 

So I encourage any of you that are here today and any other interested parties to submit written testimony for the record with 

recommendations. The hearing record will remain open for two 

weeks from today. 

Now I would like to call on Senator Johanns for any opening remarks he may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

Senator JOHANNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

My remarks will be relatively brief today. I can only be here a 

rather short period of time, so I am kind of anxious to get the testimony of the witnesses started. 

The Chairman has outlined the challenge that we face, I think, 

very, very well. We want to do all we can as we look forward to 

the next Highway Bill and the bill specifically dealing with the 

needs in Indian Country. We want to make absolutely sure that we 

are efficiently using the resources that we have. 

As I look out there, and I think about funding for various programs including the one that this hearing is devoted to, I just have 

to reach the conclusion that money will be hard to come by. It will 

be a constrained process, if you will, maybe more constrained than 

we have seen in a long time. 

So what I would ask our witnesses to think about, whether it is 

in the testimony today or whether it is in a written submission 

after the testimony, is what is not working well that you feel is 

chewing up resources. For example, as I was reading the information for today’s hearing, it just occurs to me that when you deal 

with projects in Indian Country, you are often dealing with a number of bureaucracies. And that costs money and that chews up resources. 

Is there something that we can focus on to help you and to help 

those who are trying to provide the best transportation they can? 

Is there something we can focus on that would be helpful to 

streamline that process, to make that process easier to manage? 

The second area that I have a real interest in, being a former 

governor, not every Tribe has significant resources in terms of staff 

and engineering. Typically the Tribes are trying to do so much, oftentimes with volunteers in many cases. So I am curious to know 

about the interrelationship with the Tribes in their States when it 

comes to transportation planning, grant funding, whatever it is and 

3

how we might facilitate that relationship, if that is not working 

well. 

With that, I just want to say to all the witnesses who are here, 

thank you very much. This is an opportunity for you to educate us, 

and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Johanns. 

We look forward to hearing from the witnesses who are with us 

today. I appreciate your commitment to this issue and for sharing 

your views with us today. 

Our first panel of witnesses today is Mr. John Baxter, the Associate Administrator for the Office of Federal Lands, Federal Highway Administration at the Department of Transportation. Mr. Baxter is accompanied by Mr. Robert Sparrow, the Indian Reservation 

Roads Program Manager at the Department of Transportation. 

Mr. Paul Tsosie, Chief of Staff in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior. Mr. Tsosie 

is accompanied by Mr. Leroy Gishi, Chief of the Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior. 

I welcome all of you. Mr. Baxter, will you please proceed with 

your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. BAXTER, ASSOCIATE

ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY, 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION; ACCOMPANIED BY: ROBERT

SPARROW, INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM

MANAGER 

Mr. BAXTER. Chairman Akaka and Senator, thank you very 

much for inviting me to testify today on transportation issues facing Native American communities and the programs the Federal 

Highway Administration administers that provide support to 

Tribes to address these issues. 

Accompanying me today is Mr. Robert Sparrow, he is our Indian 

Reservation Roads Program Manager. 

The FHWA is committed to improving safe transportation access 

to and through Tribal lands through our stewardship and oversight 

responsibilities for the Federal lands and the Federal-aid programs. 

The Indian Reservation Roads program, which is administered by 

FHWA in partnership with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, serves 

565 federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native villages 

in 32 States. In many cases, this program is the only source of 

funds for transportation improvements. 

Today I would like to focus on three key areas where our agency 

has been working to address the transportation challenges in Indian Country. These include safety, outreach and capacity building 

and infrastructure. Despite reaching record low traffic deaths for 

the past two years on all of our Nation’s roads, the annual fatality 

rate in Indian Reservation Roads is still more than two times the 

national average. To address this serious problem, FHWA has cosponsored 11 summits in the past two years to focus on this issue 

and bring safety partners together. Two additional State-based 

summits, as well as another national Tribal safety summit are 

planned for the near future. 

4

The agency also continues to implement SAFETEA–LU programs, such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program and the 

Safe Routes to School Program, which benefit Tribes as well as 

States, and are aimed at reducing traffic fatalities and injuries on 

public roads through the implementation of infrastructure improvements. 

FHWA also supports Tribes through outreach and capacity building programs. We maintain seven Tribal technical assistance program centers that 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 project management 

and other topics. 

Infrastructure condition remains a significant challenge in Indian Country. The Indian Reservation Roads system consists of 

over 140,000 miles of roads that link housing, schools, emergency 

services and places of employment and facilitate tourism and resource use. Billions of vehicle miles are traveled annually on the 

Indian Reservation Road system, even though it is among the most 

rudimentary of any transportation network in the U.S. 

Just over 60 percent of the network is unpaved, and about 27 

percent of the bridges are classified as deficient. These conditions 

make even the most basic travel difficult for residents of Tribal 

communities. 

The Recovery Act supplemented SAFETEA–LU funding for Tribal communities by providing an additional $310 million for the Indian Reservation Roads program. Much of the Indian Reservation 

Roads portion of the Recovery Act has been dedicated to improving 

roads that provide critical links between Tribal residences and vital 

community services, such as workplaces, schools and health care 

facilities. 

In July of this year, Secretary LaHood announced the availability 

of $527 million in funding for a third round of the Transportation 

Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program. This discretionary funding will provide an additional opportunity for Tribes to compete for capital Improvement funds as direct recipients. 

In recognition of the importance of this program to the Tribes, 

DOT will hold a webinar tomorrow, actually, to provide outreach 

and education to the Tribes on the application process. Such outreach will continue through the application process over the next 

few weeks. 

We recognize that transportation is a critical tool for Tribes to 

improve the quality of life for Tribal residents by providing safe access to jobs, hospitals and schools. FHWA is committed to maintaining and improving the safety and conditions of transportation 

systems serving Indian lands and Alaska Native villages. 

Chairman Akaka, again, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

and I will be pleased to answer any questions that you or other 

members may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baxter follows:]

5

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN R. BAXTER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION

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

thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding transportation issues facing 

Native American communities and the programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that provide support to Tribes for addressing these 

issues. 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) recognizes that transportation needs for 

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. 

Secretary LaHood shares President Obama’s commitment to addressing Tribal 

issues and concerns. Last year, meeting with the National Congress of American Indians, the Secretary emphasized the DOT’s commitment to improving existing Tribal transportation programs by seeking Tribal input on important regulations, providing timely technical assistance, and ensuring that Tribes are given ample opportunities to compete for grants. The Department also has implemented its Tribal 

Consultation Plan, a detailed plan of action the agency will take when developing, 

changing, or implementing policies, programs, or services with Tribal implications. 

FHWA has a long history of supporting Tribal governments’ rights to self-determination and working directly with Tribes in a government-to-government relationship. FHWA’s top leadership continues to meet directly with Tribal government 

elected officials and transportation staff, and is committed to delivering a transportation program that works for all Tribes whether the Tribe has a large or small population. 

FHWA has sought to improve Tribal transportation by working directly with Tribal governments to improve Tribes’ technical capacity, to improve safety on reservations and Native communities, and to foster partnerships between Tribal governments, local governments, Federal agencies, and State DOTs. 

The Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program, administered by FHWA in partnership with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), is critical to supporting Tribal transportation needs. In many cases, it is the only source of revenue for transportation 

improvements. In working through FHWA’s partnership with the Tribes and the 

BIA, the IRR program 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 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in coordinating transportation programs that focus on planning, safety, and construction of roads and transit services within Indian country. 

Overview 

The IRR system of roads provides access to and within Indian reservations, Indian trust land, restricted Indian land, eligible Indian communities, and Alaska Native villages. The IRR system consists of more than 140,000 miles of roads that link 

housing, schools, emergency services, and places of employment, and facilitate tourism and resource use. Almost 11 billion vehicle miles are traveled annually on the 

IRR system, even though it is among the most rudimentary of any transportation 

network in the United States. Just over 60 percent of the system is unpaved. If only 

BIA and Tribal roads of the IRR system are considered, this number increases to 

approximately 80 percent. Within the system, there are more than 8,000 bridges 

and approximately 27 percent of these bridges are classified as deficient. These conditions make it very difficult for residents of Tribal communities to travel to employment centers, hospitals, schools, and stores—the most basic needs for a livable community. 

The poor road quality on Tribal lands also affects safety. For the past two years, 

traffic deaths on U.S. roads have reached record lows. However, despite the gains 

we have made on other systems, the annual fatality rate on Indian reservation 

roads continues to be more than twice the national average. Safety continues to be 

the Department’s top priority, and FHWA is working closely with Tribes, the BIA, 

NHTSA, and others to address this disproportionate level of fatalities on Tribal 

roads. 

The IRR program 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 IRR program serves 565 Federally-recognized Indian Tribes 

6

and Alaska Native villages in 32 States. FHWA co-administers the IRR program 

with the BIA under an agreement originating in 1948 and a Stewardship Plan from 

July 1996. 

IRR program funding has grown significantly under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), from 

a program size of $275 million annually under the Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century (TEA–21) to $450 million annually today. This equates to a total 

of $2.76 billion over the life of SAFETEA–LU, including the extensions through the 

end of this fiscal year. These funds have been distributed according to a Tribal 

shares formula, which was developed through a negotiated rulemaking with Tribal 

governments. SAFETEA–LU also increased the eligible uses of IRR program funds 

by allowing a Tribe to use up to 25 percent of its share of funds for road and bridge 

maintenance activities. This change allowed Tribes to supplement the funding they 

receive annually from the Department of the Interior (DOI) for maintenance activities. It also allowed the Tribes to address critical safety, snow removal, and pavement preservation issues. The increased funding and programmatic changes provided in SAFETEA–LU for the IRR program, along with an additional $310 million 

provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), 

discussed below, have provided tools and resources to substantially improve Tribal 

transportation. 

Safety Programs 

Safety remains a significant transportation issue in Indian Country. Native Americans are overrepresented in several traffic fatality categories—including individuals 

under the age of 35, unbelted drivers, and individuals driving under the influence 

of alcohol. Eleven safety summits, including ten State-based and one national summit held in the past two years have focused on the subject, bringing the many safety 

partners together to discuss the safety issues affecting them. Two additional Statebased summits, as well as an updated national Tribal safety summit are planned 

for the near future. FHWA and NHTSA will continue these summits to promote 

safety strategies across the four E’s of safety—engineering, enforcement, education, 

and emergency medical services. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program 

SAFETEA–LU established the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads through the implementation of infrastructure-related 

highway safety improvements. HSIP funding has been utilized for Tribal lands 

projects across the country. In Montana, for example, two HSIP construction projects totaling $1.88 million 

provided improvements such as the installation of Variable Message Signs on US–

2 on the Blackfeet Reservation and the addition of a left-turn bay on US–93 on the 

Flathead Reservation. 

A $107,650 HSIP project in North Carolina along US–74 from the Haywood County line to NC–28 (North), in Eastern Band of Cherokee Nation, funded the installation of milled rumble strips on the median and outside shoulders. In North Dakota, two HSIP projects totaling $300,000 provided improvements 

along State highways within reservation boundaries of Standing Rock Reservation 

and Fort Berthold Reservation. Such improvements included the installation of 

shoulder and centerline rumble strips along State Highways 23 and 24. In Wisconsin, a $316,000 HSIP project was undertaken by the Wisconsin DOT 

along with the Forest County Potawatomi Tribe to improve a Tribal owned intersection at Everybody’s Road and USH 8 in Forest County. The intersection project was 

combined with $900,000 BIA funds and $74,000 Tribal funds to construct a newly 

relocated intersection and frontage road (Everybody’s Road) that leads to the Tribal 

headquarters offices and Tribal Community Center. 

Safe Routes to School 

The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program is a Federally-funded but State-managed and administered grant program established by section 1404 of SAFETEA–LU. 

Under this program, each State has received at least $1 million each fiscal year to 

fund planning, design, and construction of infrastructure-related projects to improve 

the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school. A portion of each State’s SRTS 

funding must also be used for non-infrastructure-related activities to encourage 

walking and bicycling to school. Federally-recognized Tribes are eligible sub-recipients of this State-administered program. 

Several States are working closely with Tribes to promote the SRTS program. For 

example, in Washington State, DOT provided SRTS funds to the Suquamish Tribe 

to install sidewalks, bike lanes and signs and to conduct education and enforcement 

7

activities to teach children pedestrian safety skills. Similarly, in Arizona, the 

Yavapai-Apache Nation utilized SRTS funds to add signs and roadway striping 

throughout the community surrounding a Montessori Children’s House school. In 

Montana, SRTS funds were utilized in the City of Arlee for an elementary school 

traffic education program and construction of a pathway. The Santee Sioux Nation 

Indian Reservation used SRTS funds in Nebraska to build a path for children that 

connected a local school with a residential community and increased pedestrian visibility. In Oregon, Warm Springs Elementary School on the Warm Springs Reservation, received a $1000 mini-grant in Safe Routes to School Clearinghouse Funds to 

reduce speeding and improve yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks. These funds will 

be used for a media campaign and to hire a crossing guard trainer for crossing 

guard volunteers. 

Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Funds 

NHTSA provides safety grant funds to the Secretary of the Interior to save lives, 

prevent injuries, and reduce economic loss due to motor vehicle related crashes on 

Tribal land. The BIA administers the funds, known as the Section 402 State and 

Community Highway Safety Grant Funds. NHTSA provides technical assistance to 

Tribes through partnership with the BIA. 

SAFETEA–LU Funding for Tribal Transportation 

Although the IRR program is the principal funding source for Tribal roads, these 

roads are eligible to receive funding under other SAFETEA–LU programs as well. 

Indian Reservation Roads Bridge Program (IRRBP) 

The Indian Reservation Roads Bridge Program (IRRBP) was established under 

TEA–21 and funded using $13 million of the primary IRR Program. The program’s 

purpose was to provide funding for reconstruction or rehabilitation of structurally 

deficient or functionally obsolete IRR bridges. SAFETEA–LU amended the IRRBP 

by establishing it as an independently funded program, authorized at $14 million 

per year, and allowing design activities to be funded. FHWA worked with the Indian 

Reservation Roads Program Coordinating Committee to implement these legislative 

changes. Since its inception in TEA–21, the IRRBP has provided more than $175 

million in funding to over 300 bridge projects in Indian Country. 

National Scenic Byways Program 

Indian Tribes have participated in the National Scenic Byways Program since its 

inception under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

(ISTEA). SAFETEA–LU authorized the Secretary of Transportation to make grants 

from this program directly to Indian Tribes and to allow Tribes to nominate Indian 

roads directly to FHWA (without going through a State department of transportation) for possible designation as a National Scenic Byway or an All-American 

Road. 

FHWA has participated in Tribal transportation conferences to inform Tribes of 

these changes to the National Scenic Byways Program. FHWA also worked with the 

America’s Byways Resource Center in Duluth, Minnesota to establish a Tribal liaison position within the Resource Center to provide technical assistance to Indian 

Tribes for establishing Tribal scenic byways programs and designating roads as Indian Tribe scenic byways. 

In addition, FHWA has modified its grant application procedures so that Indian 

Tribes may submit grant applications directly to FHWA. In fiscal year 2011, Tribes 

submitted nine applications directly to FHWA and two applications through the 

State departments of transportation, requesting a total of $3.13 million. FHWA selected five of the projects, providing a total of $2,104,796 in funding. 

Public Lands Discretionary Program 

The Public Lands Highway Discretionary program is another source of funding 

available to Tribes for transportation needs. The program provides funding to any 

project eligible under title 23, United States Code, that is within, adjacent to, or 

provides access to Tribal or Federal public lands. Over the life of SAFETEA–LU, 

including the extensions through the end of this fiscal year, nearly $570 million was 

made available through this program. Of the $570 million, $72 million was provided 

for 78 Tribal related transportation projects. This year alone, 16 Tribal projects totaling more than $20 million will receive funding through this program. 

FHWA Implementation of SAFETEA–LU Requirements for Tribal Transportation 

In addition to increased funding, SAFETEA–LU brought about many changes in 

how the IRR program is administered and to the roles and responsibilities of all 

8

parties involved in transportation delivery to Tribal communities. Prior to 

SAFETEA–LU, FHWA provided stewardship and oversight to the IRR program from 

a national perspective, and the BIA worked with the Tribes by delivering the funds 

and providing technical assistance. With the passage of SAFETEA–LU, Tribes now 

have the option to enter into IRR Program Funding Agreements and work directly 

with FHWA for their IRR Program share as long as the Tribes meet financial audit 

and management capacity requirements. The number of Tribes electing this option 

has grown from three the first year to more than 92 Tribes today. 

In response to this increase in the number of Tribes, and increased stewardship 

and oversight responsibilities, FHWA’s FLH Office, which has direct responsibility 

for administering the IRR program, has increased staffing and worked closely with 

the Tribes and the BIA to develop uniform program guidance. In addition to carrying out numerous face-to-face meetings with each Tribe and conducting outreach 

and training through webinars, regional conferences, and organized classes, FLH developed a new program manual for all Tribes, States, counties, and Federal agencies 

that communicates program expectations, roles and responsibilities, and best practices. 

National Indian Reservation Road Inventory 

SAFETEA–LU directed FHWA to complete a comprehensive national inventory of 

IRR eligible transportation facilities and submit a Report to Congress. The purpose 

of the inventory study was to ensure that the data in the existing inventory is accurate, and to help streamline the procedures that Tribes utilize for updating their 

inventory. The inventory is the most significant factor used to calculate the Tribal 

shares of IRR program funding; thus, it is critical that data in the inventory be accurate. 

FHWA completed and delivered the required Report to Congress in 2008. The Report outlined the Agency’s assessment of the inventory process, including its accuracy and consistency of application. The Report included the identification of more 

than 100,000 miles of road as well as recommendations for improvement and additional study areas. Since issuance of the Report, the inventory has grown to more 

than 140,000 miles of road. As a result of the Report and issues that have arisen 

from the Question 10 series of consultations, FHWA plans to work with a consultant 

to review more than 75 percent of the inventory data. This work will clarify programmatic definitions of the inventory entries and correct critical data errors and 

omissions that exist within the current inventory in order to ensure an accurate 

data system. Ultimately, the inventory will reflect the needs of Tribal road transportation and serve as an important tool to help make the program fair and equitable 

for all Tribes. 

Outreach and Capacity Building 

Road Safety Audits and Safety Trainings 

Strategies such as Road Safety Audits (RSAs) and community-based enforcement 

are proving to be effective tools for reducing fatalities on Tribal lands. The FHWA 

Office of Safety sponsors training on Road Safety Fundamentals and RSAs, and 

works with State and local jurisdictions and Tribal governments to integrate RSAs 

into the project development process for new and existing roads and intersections. 

RSAs examine the safety performance of an existing or future road or intersection 

by an independent, multidisciplinary team. They estimate and report on potential 

road safety issues and identify opportunities for improvements in safety for all road 

users. RSAs enable localities and Indian Tribes with little or no safety data to get 

an expert assessment on how to improve the safety of their roads. 

RSAs were conducted for the following Tribal entities—Santa Clara Pueblo and 

Jemez Springs Pueblo, New Mexico; Standing Rock Sioux, North Dakota; the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, North Carolina; the Navajo Nation, Utah; Red Cliff 

Band of Lake Superior Wisconsin; Smith River Rancheria, California; Native Villages of Minto and Manley Hot Springs Village, and on Prince of Wales Island in 

Alaska; and six additional Tribes in Arizona. These RSAs were carried out in cooperation with State DOTs. 

Tribal Technical Assistance Program 

Tribes report that education and training remain significant challenges. Many 

Tribes do not have a sustainable level of transportation expertise, given their size 

and resources. The FHWA supports a Tribal transportation assistance program with 

seven centers serving Indian Country. These Tribal Technical Assistance Program 

(TTAP) centers 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 manageVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
9

ment, and other issues. The centers are a key resource for basic services and to help 

many Tribes become self-sufficient as sovereign nations in transportation delivery. 

The purpose of our seven TTAP centers is to foster a safe, efficient, and environmentally sound surface transportation system by improving the skills and increasing the knowledge of local transportation professionals. 

The TTAP centers provide access to information, training, and program management enhancements that may not have otherwise been accessible to Tribes. In 2010, 

the TTAP Centers provided 299 training courses to over 7,000 participants. 

Through the TTAPs, FHWA also continues to provide technical assistance and 

training to Tribes on conducting their own RSAs. For example, FHWA has provided 

funding and support to the Northern Plains TTAP to sponsor a Road Safety Audit 

Outreach Coordinator, who has provided training and RSAs for the Spirit Lake Nation, the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, and others. 

While FHWA has remained focused on implementing SAFETEA–LU programs, 

the Agency has also been recently hard at work ensuring that Tribes use the much 

needed supplemental resources provided by the Recovery Act. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

In addition to SAFETEA–LU funding, the Recovery Act has supplemented fund- ing for Tribal communities by providing an additional $310 million for the IRR program. Since the Recovery Act was signed into law, FHWA and BIA have worked 

diligently to ensure that the funds for these projects are distributed quickly, wisely, 

and with unprecedented transparency and accountability. The Federally-recognized 

Tribes were eligible to receive Recovery Act funding based on the IRR formula, 

which takes into account the highway projects’ estimated construction cost, volume 

of traffic along the route, and the Tribe’s current population. Much of the IRR portion of the Recovery Act has been dedicated to improving roads that provide critical 

links between Tribal residences and vital community services such as schools and 

health care facilities. 

FHWA, along with BIA and with input from Tribes, developed a process that described the requirements for Tribes to receive and obligate their share of Recovery 

Act funding by focusing on obligating the majority of the $310 million before the 

end of fiscal year 2010. FHWA and BIA also developed guidance to ensure a fair 

and transparent process to redistribute funds in cases where funds would not otherwise be obligated. The redistribution of more than $22.5 million to approximately 

25 Tribes nationwide helped ensure the efficient and effective use of Recovery Act 

funds. To date, the more than 518 ARRA funded projects are on average 80 percent 

complete, and according to documentation provided by the Tribes, these projects 

have generated more than 8,500 jobs. 

An example includes the Blackfeet Indian Tribe in Montana that awarded a 

project for $916,068 to improve a 14-mile segment of road known as the Starr School 

Road. This completed project is now providing a safer facility for school buses and 

other school traffic through sign replacement, new right of way fences, and new 

roadway striping. The drainage and pavement improvements made will extend the 

life of the facility. 

Another example is the Ramah Navajo Chapter in New Mexico that used its Recovery Act funding along with its allocated IRR funding to construct a $2.2 million 

project to provide an all weather surfaced road to a new housing development. 

These residents had previously been required to access their homes via a two-track 

mud road which became impassible in inclement weather. 

In the Native Village of Tuntutuliak in Alaska, the Tribe combined Recovery Act 

funding with IRR Program funds and funding from the Denali Commission to reconstruct a 30-year-old board road. This $846,000 project now allows villagers to move 

within the village without having to trudge through the tundra. The BIA reports 

that this project was completed using all Tribal employment. 

For the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant 

award program, Congress dedicated $1.5 billion under TIGER I and $600 million 

under TIGER II for DOT to provide direct grants to State, local, and Tribal governments, to fund surface transportation projects that have a significant impact on the 

Nation, a region or a metropolitan area. DOT was able to fund 51 innovative capital 

projects under TIGER I, and an additional 42 capital projects under TIGER II. 

TIGER II also featured a planning grant category, and DOT was able to fund 33 

planning grant projects. Both TIGER programs involved a highly competitive process and received tremendous applicant interest. Tribal projects were selected under 

both TIGER I and TIGER II. 

The Navajo Nation received a $31 million TIGER I grant to improve US–491, the 

primary north-south highway that connects the Tribe to other parts of New Mexico, 

Colorado, and the Four Corners area, by constructing two new lanes and making 

10

safety improvements. The project is being administered by the New Mexico DOT 

and will improve safety and transportation efficiency. It will also create potential 

economic development opportunities for the Navajo Nation. 

TIGER I funds were also used to reconstruct a portion of US–18 between Oglala and Pine Ridge on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. This $10 million 

project upgraded 15.6 miles of a two lane highway that had no shoulders and deteriorating pavement. These improvements will significantly improve the overall safety of this section of road which has experienced an accident rate more than 2.5 

times the South Dakota average. The Pueblo of Laguna received a $1,470,000 TIGER II planning grant to plan and 

design approximately 40 miles of trails on the reservation to connect six distinct 

communities with a focus on their traditional village cores. Creating links between 

five villages supports the collaborative efforts of the communities on the reservation 

and provides inexpensive transportation choices in this rural region of need. On July 6, 2011, Secretary LaHood announced the availability of $527 million in 

funding for a third round of the TIGER grant program. This discretionary funding 

will provide an additional opportunity for Tribes to compete for capital improvement 

funds as direct recipients. In recognition of the importance of this program to the 

Tribes, DOT will hold a webinar tomorrow to provide outreach and education to the 

Tribes on the application process. Such outreach will continue through the application process in order to ensure quality applications are received for consideration. 

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

answer any questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Baxter. 

I would like to ask Mr. Tsosie to please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL TSOSIE, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF 

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY LEROY 

GISHI, CHIEF, DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF 

INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. TSOSIE. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and other 

members of the Committee. Aloha. 

The CHAIRMAN. Aloha. 

Mr. TSOSIE. My name is Paul Tsosie. I am the Chief of Staff for 

the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. And as is customary 

with Navajos, I am going to introduce myself in Navajo. 

[Greeting in Native tongue.] 

Mr. TSOSIE. In preparation for this testimony, I want to thank 

certain individuals, Mr. Darren Pete and Chastity Bodoni, who 

both work in the Office of Congressional Affairs for the Department 

of Interior. I also want to give a special thanks to Leroy Gishi, who 

is here to my right, the Division Chief for the BIA’s Division of 

Transportation. He will be here with me to answer any technical 

questions after I testify. 

Last week, the President of the United States gave an urgent 

message about the lagging economy, the need to create jogs, to put 

people to work, to rebuild decaying roads and bridges. On behalf 

of the Department of Interior, we have a duty to carry this out for 

Indian communities. 

11

Now, as a piece of background, I want to give the baseline. We 

have around 145,000 roads in Indian communities; 31,000 of those 

are BIA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, roads. That is about 22 percent. 

And 20,000 of those are unpaved, which means that two-thirds of 

the BIA roads are automatically considered inadequate for BIA 

standards. We need investment in our road system. If we invest in 

our road system, we can create jobs and safer communities. 

Since 1982, under the IRR program, the Department of Interior, 

along with the Department of Transportation, we have invested 

over $6 billion into infrastructure within Indian communities. Another good example of our investment into Indian communities is 

ARRA. Under ARRA, about 6,500 jobs were created in Indian communities. That was over 800 projects estimated to be around $440 

million into these projects. And we had an obligation on behalf of 

the Department of Interior of 99.9 percent. And 90 percent of these 

funds made it directly into Tribal communities and local economies. 

This was investment into local economies where unemployment 

is high, the average income is low, and people are hungry for the 

work. As far as safety goes, our roads are being used every day by 

police officers, ambulance drivers, school buses, everyday traffic. 

And to add on top of this, these past few years in Indian Country 

have been some of the worst, with floods, rain, snow, natural disasters in Indian Country. These natural disasters emphasize the 

need for safe roads within Indian communities. 

Mr. Baxter just testified that the annual fatality rate on Indian 

reservation roads is more than twice the national average. So what 

all these facts add up to is that we have a big job to do. We have 

a big job to invest in infrastructure which will lead to jobs and 

safety. 

Now, this is not just a responsibility of the Department of Interior. It is not just the responsibility of the Department of Transportation. This is a responsibility of the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. We look forward to working together with Mr. Jefferson Keel from NCAI, Chairman Murphy from Standing Rock. We 

look forward to working together with them and we also look forward to working together with State, county and local entities. 

And especially, we look forward to working together with this 

Committee on any SAFETEA–LU reauthorizations where we can 

offer specific recommendations to this Committee to make sure this 

happens. Because in Indian Country right now, Tribal individuals 

need employment. Tribal companies need to be put to work. Tribal 

communities are waiting for infrastructure development. Roads and 

bridges are there that need to be repaired. There are projects in 

the Southwest, Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains and Alaska that 

need to be completed. We need to provide job opportunities and 

safe roads for our Indian people. 

Thank you, mahalo. I will be here for any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tsosie follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL TSOSIE, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Introduction 

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Paul 

Tsosie and I am the Chief of Staff for the office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian 

12

Affairs at the Department of the Interior (Department). With me today is Mr. LeRoy 

Gishi, the Division Chief for the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) Division of Transportation. 

Last week President Obama reminded us of the urgency of addressing our country’s lagging economy, the need to create jobs, the need to put people to work rebuilding America, and to address our badly decaying roads and bridges all over our 

country. This includes the roads and bridges that are constructed, maintained and 

traversed in Indian Country. This Administration has been focusing on improving 

the lives of people living in Indian Country through the BIA Indian Reservation 

Roads and the Roads Maintenance Programs. This focus has also been supplemented with the federal government’s investment through the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) funding authorizations. 

Improving and adequately maintaining transportation systems provides 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. Thus, we are pleased to testify before this 

Committee on Tribal Transportation: Paving the Way for Jobs, Infrastructure, and 

Safety in Native Communities, and to provide an overview of the BIA’s Road Maintenance Program and the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program. 

Overview 

The BIA has 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. During this time, approximately $1.2 

billion was provided for both construction and maintenance of reservation roads. 

The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (Public Law 97–424) created the 

Federal Lands Highway Program (Title 23 U.S. Code, Chapter 2) and established 

the IRR Program as a category of public roads providing access to or within Indian 

reservations, lands, communities and Alaska Native villages. The IRR Program is 

now jointly administered by the BIA in the Department, and the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), which is within the Department of Transportation. 

BIA Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program 

The change in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 meant that the 

IRR Program would be funded by the Department of Transportation’s Highway 

Trust Fund. Since the establishment of the IRR Program, the Federal construction 

investment in the IRR system that is now comprised of BIA, Tribal, state, county 

and local roads and bridges has exceeded $6 billion. 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 IRR Program supports over 145,000 miles of public roads with multiple 

owners, including Indian Tribes, the BIA, states and counties. There remains a 

great and continuing need to improve the transportation system throughout Indian 

Country. The BIA views this as a joint responsibility including not only Federal 

agencies, but state and local governments with transportation investments on or 

near American Indian and Alaska Native communities, as well. Coordination among 

all of these owners is required in order to maximize available resources to address 

transportation needs. 

Question 10 of 25 CFR Part 170

Specific to the IRR Program, in 2004, the Department of the Interior published 

the Final Rule establishing the policies and procedures governing the IRR Program. 

See 69 Fed. Reg. 43090 (July 19, 2004), codified at 25 C.F.R. Part 170. Question 10, 

in Appendix C to Subpart C of the Final Rule, addressed a question regarding the 

IRR Program’s funding formula. Since 2004, the IRR Program and Tribes have been 

struggling with ‘‘Question 10’’ and the BIA and FHWA have worked to clarify the 

interpretation. 

Question 10 (Q10) addresses whether a road’s Cost to Construct (CTC) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is to count at 100 percent in the formula calculation, or 

at the non-Federal share if the road is otherwise eligible for Federal-aid funds. See

69 Fed. Reg. at 43121. The non-Federal share is the local match percentage as established by the FHWA for federal aid highways, which varies from 5 percent to 

20 percent. The Federal share is the percentage of cost of Federal aid projects payable by the Federal Government. 

13

While the answer specified in the Final Rule was that a non-Federal share percentage should be applied, the BIA has administered the program with all costs 

counting 100 percent (except for State-owned roads), since there was no data in the 

inventory to clearly distinguish roads that were only eligible for certain types of 

Federal funds. The Final Rule on IRR also established an IRR Program Coordinating Committee (IRRPCC), to provide input and recommendations to both the BIA 

and the FHWA in the development or revision of the IRR Program’s policies and 

procedures. The IRRPCC took up the Q10 issue beginning in August of 2006 but 

was unable to agree upon a recommendation. As a result, representatives from the 

IRRPCC requested that BIA and FHWA develop a proposed clarification for Q10. 

The BIA and FHWA proposal eliminates road ownership from consideration in the 

IRR formula calculation and places the determination strictly on roadway classification. This clarification calls for the non-Federal share percentages to be applied to 

roads that are determined to be otherwise eligible for Federal funds, resulting in 

a consistent application of the non-Federal share across all roads in the IRR Program inventory. 

This proposed clarification recognizes that any road with a functional classification above local road or rural minor collector will contribute its CTC and VMT at 

the non-Federal share rate, except for BIA and Tribally owned roads which contribute 100 percent to the CTC and VMT regardless of functional classification. This 

interpretation is aligned with the original language of Q10. 

It is anticipated that the proposed clarification of Q10 will appropriately move the 

focus of discussions surrounding the IRR Program roads inventory and funding process from Q10 to the broader issues of the quality, physical size and composition of 

the IRR Program roads inventory. Over the past 6 years the inventory has increased 

from approximately 65,000 miles in 2005 to approximately 145,000 in 2010. Achieving consistency in the IRR Program roads inventory is an on-going effort involving 

training, process improvements, and implementing consistent parameters that will 

require a dedicated effort from all parties. 

More recently, the FHWA, working with BIA, has entered into a contract with an 

independent engineering firm to review more than 75 percent of the inventory data. 

This work will clarify programmatic definitions of the inventory entries and correct 

critical data errors and omissions that exist within the current IRR inventory in 

order to ensure an accurate data system. This data review and clarification of the 

inventory will reflect the needs of Tribal road transportation and serve as an important tool to help make the program fair and equitable for all Tribes. 

BIA Road Maintenance 

The BIA currently implements both the Department of Transportation’s Highway 

Trust Funded IRR program and the Department of the Interior-funded BIA Road 

Maintenance Program. The BIA Road Maintenance Program has traditionally been 

responsible for maintaining only roads owned by the BIA. Today, of the 145,000 

miles of roads in the IRR Program, the BIA has responsibility for 31,000 miles of 

roads designated as BIA system roads. The BIA receives Tribal Priority Allocation 

(TPA) funding annually for the administration of the road maintenance program for 

those roads. 

Further, approximately 30 percent of Tribes with BIA system roads within their 

reservation boundaries currently carry out the BIA Road Maintenance Program 

through P.L. 93–638 self-determination contracts or agreements in lieu of federal 

employees. Approximately 20,500 miles (66 percent) of the BIA system roads are not 

paved and are, thus, considered ‘‘inadequate’’ from the perspective of the Level of 

Service index used to assess roads and bridges in the BIA road system. 

There are numerous different vehicles utilizing the road systems, paved and unpaved, in Indian Country. Passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles and public safety 

and emergency medical vehicles use these roads. The IRR Program does not track 

the specific type of vehicle using the road systems in Indian Country. Building, repairing and maintaining the roads system in Indian Country is crucial for providing 

safe and adequate roads for individuals and commercial businesses and for public 

safety in Indian Country. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) (ARRA). ARRA provided supplemental funding for infrastructure investment in Indian Country. A portion of ARRA 

funding was provided to the IRR Program within Indian Affairs, subject to certain 

restrictions and requirements. ARRA offered a unique opportunity to make tangible 

improvements to Indian communities while promoting economic recovery through 

the preservation and creation of jobs. A few of the requirements, such as, obligating 

14

and expending the ARRA funds within two years, resulted in an increase in employment for road construction in Indian Country in order to meet these requirements. 

Based on reports by Tribes that participate in the IRR Program, we estimate that 

over 6,500 jobs were created under the ARRA funding that flowed into Indian Country. This figure may be higher if the Tribes who did not report job increases did 

in fact have increased employment numbers as it related to ARRA funding they received for road construction. 

As of September 30, 2010, 99.9 percent of the funding provided by ARRA for both 

Repair and Restoration of BIA roads and bridges and the construction and reconstruction of IRR Program facilities had been obligated to projects approved by the 

Secretaries of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Transportation. 

Within the Repair and Restoration of BIA roads program, over 400 projects were 

awarded totaling over $141 million. Within the IRR Program, approximately 420 

projects were awarded totaling over $225 million. In addition, over $50 million was 

awarded to Tribes contracting directly with the FHWA. 

ARRA funds made a significant contribution to improving transportation facilities 

in Indian Country. Each eligible Tribe was given the opportunity to receive maintenance and construction improvements on their BIA and IRR Program facilities, including roads, bridges, transit structures, docks, and boardwalks. In addition, the 

provisions of ARRA authorized the Secretary of Transportation to redistribute unobligated funds to projects submitted by Tribes based on a call for projects in February 

2010. The total ARRA funding redistributed by both agencies was approximately 

$22.5 million. 

Reauthorization of SAFETEA–LU 

As we discuss the need for jobs, infrastructure and safety of roads in Indian communities, it is important to note that there is the need for prompt and immediate 

reauthorization of the SAFETEA–LU Act. This reauthorization is crucial to Tribal 

governments that rely on early notification of their Tribal shares from the funding 

formula to plan their priority projects. The numerous short term extensions of 

SAFETEA–LU result in infrequent and delayed allocations to the Tribes and have 

also resulted in late planning and obligations to Tribal contracts. These delays force 

projects to be delayed as much as one year. 

Indian Affairs established its priorities for the reauthorization of the surface 

transportation programs. These priorities include, but are not limited to, additional 

resources to meet the need of a deteriorating roads system, establish an IRR Safety 

Program, additional resources for the IRR Bridge Program, and increase the planning set-aside from the IRR Programs from two percent to four percent. 

Conclusion 

Indian Affairs is committed to addressing the transportation needs in Indian 

Country through our support for the IRR Program, the Road Maintenance Program, 

and applaud the infusion of ARRA funding for transportation in Indian Country. As 

the President stated last Thursday, ‘‘[t]here are private construction companies all 

across America just waiting to get to work. There’s a bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that’s on one of the busiest trucking routes in North 

America. A public transit project in Houston that will help clear up one of the worst 

areas of traffic in the country.’’ A similar statement can be made for Indian Country. 

We know there are American Indian owned and Tribally owned construction companies all across Indian Country just waiting to get to work. There are bridges that 

need repair on Tribal lands in New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and on 

Tribal lands in Wyoming. And there are transit projects on Tribal lands that provide 

rural transportation on those Tribal lands. And as part of the immediate infrastructure investments that the President sent to Congress in the American Jobs Act, 

$310 million would be directed towards the Indian Reservation Roads program. 

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. 

We will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Tsosie, for your testimony. 

I know that some of my colleagues are limited in how long they 

will be able to stay for today’s hearing, so I am going to ask the 

first panel one question, and then I will defer to my colleagues to 

make an opening statement and to ask their questions. 

15

My question to both witnesses is, whether you think that the Administration’s recommendations to deal with the IRR funding formula issue, or what we call Question 10, will resolve that issue? 

Or is legislative action necessary? Mr. Baxter? 

Mr. BAXTER. Mr. Chairman, my sense is that we have done quite 

a bit of work to remedy the issue of Question 10. Of course, the 

issue gets to whether the non-Federal share is applied toward the 

inventory process or not. There have been a number of discussions 

related to the issue. And recently, the Department has been working with Tribes and the coordinating committee to make sure that 

we address the issue and are moving forward with the intent of the 

original rulemaking process. 

We have undergone efforts to make the guidance more clear. We 

are working on the coding guides to eliminate any subjectivity that 

might be part of that. And we are developing teams that will look 

at the quality of the data that is in the inventory. 

We actually have a consultant on board to review about 75 percent of the inventory that is in question, and whether or not those 

roads are otherwise eligible for Federal aid. And that determines 

the percentage of the funds that are counted toward the inventory 

process. 

So we have been working directly with the Tribes. We think we 

have an appropriate solution that honors the original intent of the 

rulemaking process. And therefore, we don’t believe that there is 

a legislative fix necessary. We believe that what we are doing, in 

partnership with the Tribal leadership, is moving the issue forward, and we will resolve it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Baxter. 

Mr. Tsosie? 

Mr. TSOSIE. Mr. Baxter exactly, he stole my answer. But I just 

wanted to address the Committee and indicate that it is premature 

at this time for any legislative action because this rule was developed with consultation with Indian Tribes, the rulemaking process, 

and now we are implementing it in a fair manner that is consistent 

with the law. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Now I would like to call on our Vice Chairman, Senator 

Barrasso, for any opening statement he may have and questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for holding this hearing today. 

Before I begin with the questions, I do want to welcome Wes 

Martel, who is Co-Chair of the Eastern Shoshone Tribe in Wyoming, as well as Jim Shakespeare, who is Chair of the Northern 

Arapaho Tribe in Wyoming. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a brief opening statement, because transportation facilities are key to improving the quality of life in Indian 

Country. Tribes and their members need safe, accessible and wellmaintained roads. They need them to get to work, to get their children to and from school and to allow police and firefighters and 

other emergency responders to do their jobs as well. 

16

They need these roads also to make economic development possible. The Indian Reservation Roads program has over the years 

greatly improved transportation infrastructure in Indian Country. 

As we have heard, though, still much work needs to be done. So 

hopefully we are hearing today how we can continue working toward safe and reliable infrastructure in Native communities. 

My first question for both witnesses is this: in the second panel 

we are going to hear John Healy testifying about inconsistent interpretations of the definition of ‘‘Indian reservation roads,’’ and that 

inconsistent interpretation has resulted in some misrepresentation 

of the needs in Indian Country. 

Do you think that maybe your agencies should adopt a uniform 

guideline for determining what roads qualify as Indian Reservation 

Roads? Mr. Baxter, we can start with you, and then Mr. Tsosie. 

Mr. BAXTER. Thank you. 

I do believe that discussions we have had on the Q10 issue are 

addressed in that issue. As we know, the Indian Reservation Roads 

program consists of roads that are owned and operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, those that are Tribally owned, as well as 

those that are owned by State and county governments. When we 

look at those roads, we look at the classifications of them, the types 

of facilities, how much it costs to reconstruct those facilities, the 

volumes, the population base that they support, all those things are 

part of the formula, part of the necessary analysis of determining 

what is a fair and equitable distribution of funds through that inventory process. 

So we apply those definitions of the different types of roadways 

and whether it is on a reservation or not. A lot of roads are not 

within a reservation boundary, but they certainly serve and provide 

access to Tribal lands and access to Tribal communities. 

So I think we are addressing those definitions through the process of the Q10 issue as well as the inventory items that we addressed. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Tsosie? 

Mr. TSOSIE. Thank you. 

On this question, I am going to defer to Mr. Leroy Gishi. 

Mr. GISHI. Thank you. 

Senator Barrasso, what Mr. Baxter said is exactly correct. In 

fact, one of the significant changes in the regulations as a result 

of the negotiated rulemaking was to develop a committee of Tribal 

representatives, one of the few, in fact, that we have at the Department of Interior that are in regulation. This Committee, the Indian 

Reservation Roads program coordinating committee, we have been 

working with them since they were developed as part of the regulation. And part of that process is to work through a lot of these 

issues. 

We are currently working on three major issues, one of them was 

Question 10, and working with that same committee, as well as, as 

Mr. Baxter indicated, those roads which are identified as access 

roads, proposed roads. We continue to work with them and coordinate. The committee, 24 members from Indian Country throughout 

the Nation, are very dedicated in helping us to resolve those very 

issues that are out there. And we do recognize that and they do 

also. 

17

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Baxter, last October I think you testified that the number of 

traffic deaths on U.S. roads reached a record low. Meanwhile, the 

annual fatality rate on Indian reservation roads continued to be 

more than three times the national average. You also testified that 

safety summits were held to address these high fatality rates. 

Today you have testified regarding additional highway safety efforts. 

Can you tell us a little bit about the effects of these efforts, what 

they have had on the fatality rates in Indian communities? 

Mr. BAXTER. Thank you. We have been very aggressive in the 

safety area in Indian Country. We applied a comprehensive approach, we call it the 4E approach of safety, we looked at engineering countermeasures, we looked at enforcement, we looked at education and we looked at emergency services. We need to make 

progress in all four of those areas. 

We are working very closely with the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration on behavioral programs such as belt usage 

and DUI enforcement. In Indian Country, alcohol usage is above 

the national average, 48 percent versus 32 percent. And percentage 

of unrestrained occupants is 75 percent versus 55 percent. So we 

have some areas that we really need to make some improvements 

and focus our resources. 

On the infrastructure side, there are a number of proven technologies and proven strategies that we use on all of our roads 

across the Country. Certainly the use of rumble strips and guardrails and roundabouts, the way we approach and design intersections, adequate shoulders, all these things are basic safety measures that we can take. So we have been very aggressive in that 

area. 

We also have a Tribal safety planning steering committee which 

is represented by a number of Federal agencies as well as a number of Tribal leaders around the Country. This past summer, they 

developed a Tribal safety plan which identifies a number of these 

strategies, such as the summits and plans. Road safety audits are 

a very important tool, because oftentimes in Indian Country we 

don’t have adequate data to support the analysis of highway crashes. So we use multidisciplinary teams to look at these areas, corridors and roads, and make determinations based on safety issues 

as to what improvements need to be made. So that is very important as well. 

Senator BARRASSO. I have a final question for Mr. Tsosie. In February of 2010, the Office of Inspector General issued a report on 

the Department of the Interior roads program, citing several concerns including inaccuracies in road inventories and prioritizing 

needs and the inability to adequately detect mismanagement or 

any mis-use of funds. Your response to the report noted that the 

BIA was implementing a corrective plan for the inventories. I wonder if you could just bring us up to date on the corrective action 

plan and how you are addressing the other concerns of the Inspector General. 

Mr. TSOSIE. Two parts of that corrective action plan. One, we 

have an internal committee within the Department of Interior comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
18

posed of the bureaus within the Department of Interior. And we 

meet on a regular basis. And we monitor what is going on on a policy level. 

The second part of that is that we did not decentralize or we kept 

these functions out in the field where they belong, because that is 

where the experts are. We are keeping a close tab on that. 

The rest of the answer I am going to turn over to Mr. Leroy 

Gishi. 

Mr. GISHI. One of the areas that is very critical to this process 

is the majority of the work that is done in the field is performed 

by Tribal members through contracts under self-determination. 

And that is very critical, because for us to be able to do that as 

an agency, whether Federal highways or BIA, would be very difficult. The provisions are there within the law. 

So for that reason, it is very important to make sure that it was 

understood that bringing these types of activities into central office 

in terms of the actual work, the expert level work, was not necessary and that it will continue to be handled at the field level. But 

the policy areas will be handled at the central office level. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Franken, any opening statement or questions you may 

have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. Sure, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

first for holding this hearing on this important issue, and I want 

to thank all the witnesses for your great testimony. 

I really agree with the Vice Chairman, who said that on roads 

in Indian Country, you have police cars and firefighters and school 

buses and normal, everyday traffic, families and of course economic 

activity, goods and services. So you have the need for safe, accessible, well-maintained roads. It is a source of economic development. I think that was well put by the Vice Chairman. 

I was interested, because Mr. Tsosie, you said that during the 

ARRA, or the Recovery Act, that there were 6,500 jobs approximately created in Indian Country. Is that correct? 

Mr. TSOSIE. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. That was during the Recovery Act? 

Mr. TSOSIE. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. What some people have referred to as the 

stimulus. 

Mr. TSOSIE. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. That is interesting to me. Were these Tribal 

contractors, by and large, and workers on the Tribes, on the reservations? 

Mr. TSOSIE. Initially, the money goes into Indian communities 

and the local communities surrounding Indian communities. I can 

get back to you with a breakdown of, as far as the information that 

we have, about exactly where the money went. 

Senator FRANKEN. But it put 6,500 people to work in Indian 

Country building infrastructure? 

19

Mr. TSOSIE. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. That is interesting, because that is 

6,500 more than some of my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle say that the Recovery Act created, which I think is really interesting. Because somewhere, 6,500 jobs are uncreated somewhere 

else, I guess, in the entirety of the Recovery Act. 

I can’t agree with the Vice Chairman more that infrastructure 

creates economic development. When I go around the State of Minnesota, I have companies talking about getting their goods around 

the State. And yet I hear from members of the other side that during the stimulus package, we created zero jobs, or the only jobs created were Federal bureaucrats. Were these people building the 

roads in Indian Country, were they Federal bureaucrats? Were 

they like bean counters in the GAO or something? 

Mr. TSOSIE. The money was used for infrastructure projects. 

Senator FRANKEN. Right. 

Mr. TSOSIE. Not bean counters. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, that is what I thought. 

Mr. Baxter, in your testimony you say that 27 percent of bridges 

within the Indian Reservation Roads program are classified as deficient. And the current backlog to bring all Indian reservation roads 

to adequate condition is $69 billion. How would you say the state 

of the roads and bridges in Indian Country compares to those in 

the rest of the United States? 

Mr. BAXTER. That is a good question. As far as the percentage 

of deficient bridges, compared to the States, the State side is 24 

percent deficient bridges, for local governments it is 27 percent deficient bridges, which is about the same overall number as the 

Tribal bridges. The biggest difference is the the percentage that are 

structurally deficient. On the State side of the 24 percent, 7.9 percent are structurally deficient. For the local percentage, 27 percent, 

15 percent of that is structurally deficient. 

But in Indian Country, for BIA’s roads, of the 27 percent, 20.7 

percent are structurally deficient. So what we are seeing is a disproportionately higher number of bridges that are structurally deficient in Indian Country compared to other routes. 

Senator FRANKEN. So we have relatively higher need in Indian 

Country. 

Mr. BAXTER. That is correct. 

Senator FRANKEN. Now, under current law, 25 percent of Indian 

Reservation Roads construction funds can be used for maintenance, 

and the rest of the maintenance money comes from annual appropriations through the BIA. In States like Minnesota, maintenance 

projects like snow removal and pavement preservation can be incredibly expensive. 

Given the backlog, as we have just discussed, are we spending 

enough on road maintenance compared to what we spend on new 

construction? Anybody. And my time has run out, so I apologize. 

But if I can get an answer. 

Mr. TSOSIE. On this answer, I am going to defer to Mr. Leroy 

Gishi again. 

Mr. GISHI. That is correct. The provision in SAFETEA–LU provided that 25 percent of the funds be used for road maintenance. 

And these are for all IRR roads that are out there. 

20

As we begin to see the Tribes, in the first few years, continue to 

defer to the owner agencies to continue to maintain roads, it has 

in the last few years increased from the standpoint of about $7 million to $8 million a year to $32 million a year. So the Tribes are 

realizing and making an effort to address those roads which are 

out there, and a lot of times they are even utilizing their own funds 

to be able to maintain roads. That is one of the critical areas that 

are out there. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. Thank you all. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator 

Franken. 

Senator Udall, an opening statement or questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka, for 

holding this important hearing on Tribal transportation. 

Right now there is much debate about the future of surface 

transportation. As you know, an extension of that surface transportation bill is awaiting Senate action. That same extension may be 

held up due to a disagreement on how our transportation dollars 

are spent. 

What we know, however, is that our Nation needs investment in 

our infrastructure. That includes the Tribal transportation system. 

We should not allow political fighting to hold up the critical extension, and ultimately a long-term reauthorization bill. 

I am pleased to see that Mr. Paulson Chaco will be joining us 

today on the third panel. He serves as the Executive Director for 

the Navajo Nation Division of Transportation. Mr. Chaco has a 

challenging job to address the transportation needs of the vast 

Navajo Nation. In the past, he has worked to develop the Navajo 

Nation fuel excise tax program. This program results in $10 million 

annually for road construction on the Nation. 

He was also successful in applying for and receiving a TIGER 

grant to improve a critical section of roadway in New Mexico and 

make it safer for all travelers. I look forward to hearing his testimony and that of the other witnesses, and I look forward to working aggressively to draft legislation to ensure that adequate funding is provided to maintain and improve the transportation network in Tribal communities. 

Now, a question for this panel. I am impressed with what seems 

like very positive impacts of SAFETEA–LU and IRR in Indian 

Country. Yet I remain concerned with the growing safety and fatality rates that persist. You all have stressed the need for increased 

and sustained funding in the reauthorization of SAFETEA–LU. Yet 

the numbers you have given us, increased car and pedestrian fatalities, show that even with this program, the issues of safety persist. 

How do we account for the rising numbers of fatalities in Indian 

Country, even after SAFETEA–LU, with its increased funding and 

additional programs, has been implemented? Mr. Baxter, why don’t 

you start, then I would love to hear from Mr. Tsosie. 

Mr. BAXTER. Thank you. In recognition of the continued needs for 

safety in Indian Country, what we have proposed in our 2012 budgVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
21

et is that we would have a dedicated safety fund for the Indian 

Reservation Roads program, essentially taking about 2 percent of 

those funds, dedicated specifically toward safety projects. We think 

that will make a major impact. 

We also have within our safety program, our overall program, 

proposed funding for rural safety, up to 10 percent of the funds for 

rural safety. Again, we believe Tribes will compete well in that program, and that will offer opportunities for projects that would address the safety and fatality issue. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Mr. Tsosie? 

Mr. TSOSIE. Yes, and on this question again, I am going to defer 

to Mr. Leroy Gishi. 

Mr. GISHI. It is important to note that the roads which we refer 

to in the Indian Reservation Roads program are traditionally 20 to 

30 years behind what the State systems are. Many of the roads 

that are out there were roads that were put in place by utility companies, resource companies and were never engineered. So when 

these companies leave, a lot of the roads are no longer usable at 

55 miles an hour. 

So when we talk about the $69 billion backlog, it really reflects 

the need to bring the system to an adequate standard, not overkill, 

but to an adequate standard. So that is the reason why there are 

a lot of those problems that are out there, because of the condition 

of the roads. 

Senator UDALL. I think the point that you are making is that, 

and it cannot be made enough, is that we have to bring Tribal 

roads up to the level of our other roads at the State and Federal 

level. And we need to do that soon because of the safety issue. So 

that is the message that I get from you. 

I very much appreciate Chairman Akaka. He has been very aggressive on all of the issues across Native nations, and this Tribal 

transportation is an important one. He once again is bringing it to 

the forefront. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. 

I want to thank this panel. In the interest of time, I will send 

my remaining questions and any questions remaining members 

may have to you for responses. And I want to thank you so much, 

mahalo nui loa, for being here and giving us invaluable information 

that is going to help us deal with the problems that we are facing 

on transportation and jobs. 

So thank you very much, panel one. 

I would like to invite the second panel to the witness table. 

Serving on the second panel is the Honorable Jefferson Keel, 

President of the National Congress of American Indians, and Mr. 

C. John Healy, Sr., President of the InterTribal Transportation Association. 

Mr. Keel, will you please proceed with your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERSON KEEL, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Committee members. 

My name is Jefferson Keel. I am Lieutenant Governor of the 

Chickasaw Nation and the President of the National Congress of 

22

American Indians. I am honored to be here today. I want to thank 

you, Mr. Chairman and Senators, for holding this hearing. 

This is an extremely important hearing and the topic is something that is not new to us. In fact, I have testified before this 

Committee on other occasions, even regarding this topic. And in the 

past, we have provided the Committee with the national Tribal 

leadership on transportation priorities for Tribes. 

I don’t need to reiterate the importance of this. You have heard 

from the previous panel how important it is for Tribal members to 

have access to transportation. The idea that 60 percent of the system is still under-improved earth in Indian communities, of that 

140,000 miles that we have talked about, and the bridges that are 

structurally deficient, you have already heard. 

The transit, rights of way, safety, and increasing the Indian Reservation Roads program and streamlining the process through selfdetermination contracting will greatly enhance our efforts. Today, 

I want to talk a little bit about the job challenges and focus on 

Tribal transportation for sustainable economic development. That 

is something that is very important to Indian communities. As this 

Committee is aware, unemployment is high in many Tribal communities. Creating and sustain jobs are a significant issue for Tribal 

leaders and for our Nation. Transportation infrastructure is critical 

in addressing these issues. 

Of course, everyone wants to create jobs. But the question is, 

what is the best investment? How can you spend Federal funds in 

a way that creates jobs and also spurs new development in the private sector that leads to even more jobs? How can you get the multiplier effect moving? 

The answer is, transportation. Every form of development starts 

with transportation. When transport systems are improved, they 

provide economic opportunities and benefits that result in positive 

multiplier effects with new investments from business, better 

accessability to markets and more employment. The productivity of 

land, capital and labor increases with improvements in transportation. 

Indian Country gets more out of every transportation dollar because so much of what we do is infrastructure development. When 

we pave a dirt road or build a new bridge, there are immediate and 

profound effects on the economy, on the businesses and on the lives 

of the very people that we are representing. 

While I am on the subject of jobs, jobs in Tribal transportation 

provide training and skill development for our Tribal members in 

the transportation construction and planning fields. Many Tribes 

have the capacity today to hire architects, engineers and planners 

to help us develop those systems that we need. Some Tribes do not. 

But the fact is, many Tribes are engaged in that activity as we 

speak. 

We need more support for the Tribal Technical Assistance Program, which is the only technical assistance program that provides 

education and training to Tribal governments for transportation 

and roads projects. Training and education is important to assist 

in building a viable transportation workforce. 

Last week, President Obama proposed the American Jobs Act, to 

establish a national infrastructure bank. We would like to have our 

23

1 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 4. 

2 Algernon Austin, (2010), ‘‘Different Race, Different Recession: American Indian Unemployment in 2010.’’ Retrieved at: http://www.epi.org/page/-/pdf/ib289.pdf?nocdn=1

own Tribal infrastructure bank. This would increase the ability of 

Tribes to obtain funding for a broad range of infrastructure 

projects, especially when Federal spending is becoming more limited. 

In closing, as we move forward in addressing these challenges, 

it is critical to realize that Tribal communities offer unique innovations that can make significant contributions to the policy debate 

regarding the economy. The National Congress of American Indians looks forward to partnering with the Committee to ensure that 

Tribes are included in developing and paving the way for Tribal 

transportation. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keel follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERSON KEEL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS

OF AMERICAN INDIANS

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), thank you for 

the opportunity to testify on Tribal transportation in Indian Country. NCAI is the 

oldest and largest national organization of Indian Tribes in the United States and 

is dedicated to protecting the rights of Tribal governments to achieve self-determination and self-sufficiency. NCAI looks forward to working with members of this Committee to enhance transportation infrastructure and jobs for Indian Country. 

Transportation infrastructure development is critical to economic development, 

creating jobs, and improving living conditions for individuals and families in Indian 

Country, and the millions of Americans who travel through our reservations every 

day. Construction of transportation systems that allows for safe travel and promotes 

economic expansion will help us strengthen our Tribal communities while at the 

same time making valuable contributions to much of rural America. Surface transportation in Indian Country involves thousands of miles of roads, bridges, and highways. It connects and serves both Tribal and non-Tribal communities. 

Currently, there are over 140,000 miles of Indian reservation roads with multiple 

owners, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Tribes, states and counties. 

Indian reservation roads are still the most underdeveloped road network in the nation however; it is the principal transportation system for all residents of and visitors to Tribal and Alaska Native communities. Approximately eight billion vehicle 

miles traveled on Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program system annually. Many 

road conditions on Indian reservations are unsafe, inequitable and it is the primary 

barrier to economic development and improvement of living conditions. For example, 

more than 60 percent of the system is unimproved earth and gravel, and approximately 24 percent of IRR bridges are classified as deficient. American Indians have 

the highest rates of pedestrian injury and vehicle deaths per capita of any racial 

or ethnic group in the United States. These conditions make it very difficult for residents of Tribal communities to travel to hospitals, stores, schools, and employment 

centers. 

The passage of a new transportation authorization is imperative for Indian Country for construction of roads and bridges; and the generation of jobs in Indian Country. As you are aware, Tribal communities have faced Depression level unemployment for generations. In 2000, when the national unemployment rate was less than 

3.5 percent, the on-reservation unemployment rate was 22 percent. 1 The Economic 

Policy Institute reports that the Native unemployment rate has risen at a rate 1.6 

times the size of the white increase during the recession (to 15.2 percent for all Native people). 2 Jobs and unemployment are important issues for this Administration 

and Tribal leaders, and next transportation authorization will help address these 

concerns for Indian and Alaskan Native communities. 

Jobs In Tribal Transportation 

Transportation infrastructure development not only provides economic development but it also provides access to job training and employment in transportation 

related field. Unfortunately, there are not adequate unemployment data to show the 

depiction of accurate numbers of unemployment for every Indian Tribes and Alaska 

24

3 Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2007). The Path of Many Journeys: The Benefits of 

Higher Education for Native People and Communities. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher 

Education Policy. 

Native villages. And, it is particularly concerning to us that the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics does not include on-reservation unemployment rates (often at levels well 

beyond 50 percent) in their monthly employment reports. This absence means that 

the unemployment rate for states with high Native populations is likely considerably understated, whether states with higher than average unemployment rates (as 

in Michigan or Oregon at 14.1 and 12.1 percent, respectively) or lower than average 

(as in Arizona or Montana, at 8.2 or 6.2 percent respectively). The role of this data 

in directing federal appropriations and guiding federal, Tribal and state policymaking underscore the importance of remedying this situation. 

Long-term Job Planning 

In order for any viable economic development growth there must be initiatives for 

workforce development for Tribal and Alaska Native communities. To ensure that 

Indian Country develops and enhances a sophisticated skilled Tribal work force in 

transportation construction it is important that Congress consider at long-term job 

planning. Job planning includes job training and skill development; and providing 

employment resources such as entrepreneurship training, resume building, internship programs, and referral services. 

The recruitment and need for engineers, planners, entrepreneur and other skilled 

professional within Tribal communities are necessary for transportation infrastructure. Tribal colleges and universities can play an important role in workforce and 

skills development, family support, and community education services. They are 

true community-based institutions, providing the education and skills development 

needed for entrepreneurship and job creation. According to a 2007 report from the 

Institute for Higher Education Policy, an associate’s or bachelor’s degree on a reservation may enable a person to create jobs by starting a business, foster the spirit 

of leadership and entrepreneurship, and alter negative cultural perceptions of education for future generations. 3 The economic and social benefits of one Tribal citizen 

receiving a college degree are experienced throughout a community. 

Tribal governments can serve as significant incubators of economic growth in relation to long-term job planning in general, and in innovating areas of transportation 

infrastructure specifically. To address these opportunities in the areas of transportation related jobs: supporting job programs such as Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families, creating transportation related apprenticeship and the potential of 

Tribal colleges and universities to spur job growth to the benefit of a range of rural 

communities. 

Tribal Technical Assistance 

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, having well qualified skilled workers enables Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 

Villages to further develop Tribal transportation infrastructure. 

There are currently seven TTAP centers located around the country. TTAP is 

funded by both the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and U.S. Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA). Currently, each TTAP receives $280,000 a year in total 

funding, which is comprised of $140,000 from the Local Technical Assistance Program and $140,000 from the IRR program. This totals about $1.9 million for the 

overall TTAP funding each fiscal year to serve all 565 federally recognized Tribes. 

To ensure that the 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 have the U.S. Department 

of Transportation institute a TTAP for each of the twelve BIA Regions. Additionally, 

NCAI recommends an increase to the overall funding of TTAPs from $1.9 million 

to $4.2 million each fiscal year. This much needed funding will assist each TTAP 

center to adequately address the increasing need for transportation technical assistances. 

Infrastructure 

After years of little investment in Tribal infrastructure, America faces a national 

deficit of $14.2 trillion that is prompting federal budget reductions that are likely 

to severely impede economic investment and undermine any progress towards estabVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
25

lishing an Indian Country economy. As federal spending become more limited the 

need for enhancing infrastructure in Indian Country will continue to grow. 

To help address the tough economy and budget deficit, infrastructure development 

is still essential for Tribal economic growth. To achieve this there are some issues 

we would like this Committee and Congress to address that would spur infrastructure development:

• Establishing a Tribal infrastructure bank that would form an independent financial institution owned by the government and Tribes. This would give Tribes 

the ability obtain funding for a broad range of infrastructure projects, and to 

be able to sell or issue general purpose bonds to raise funds for lending and investment.

• The equitable access to transportation is more critical in rural Tribal communities because many Tribal members do not own personal vehicles and must 

travel long distances to get to a job or school, or even see a healthcare professional. Supporting the Tribal public transportation is essential to improving 

transportation infrastructure in Indian Country.

• Extending the Indian Self Determination Act and Educational Assistance Act 

(ISDEAA) to the Department of Transportation and its modal administrations 

will streamline the negotiation, execution and implementation of grant, contract 

and funding agreements for federal transportation program funding available to 

Tribes and more effectively target program dollars to the improvement of our 

Tribal transportation system.

• In order for Tribes to construct road projects or improve existing road routes, 

Tribes have to go to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to acquire rights-of-way. It 

has been articulated by Tribes that obtaining the rights-of-way is a frustrating 

time-consuming and costly which hampers the transportation infrastructure development.

Tribal Infrastructure Bank 

Last week, the President proposed the ‘‘American Jobs Act’’ that included the establishment of a National Infrastructure bank. In the proposal, the President has 

asked Congress to fund the infrastructure bank with $10 billion to assist in 

leveraging with private and public capital to invest in infrastructure projects. This 

would provide the ability to fund a broad range of infrastructure projects; it would 

make loans and loan guarantees and leverage private capital. It should be able to 

sell or issue general purpose bonds to raise funds for lending and investment, sell 

specific project bonds when necessary, and invite private investment, along with 

Tribal government pension plan investments. 

To address Tribal specific transportation infrastructure needs, NCAI would like 

Congress to establish a Tribal Infrastructure Bank with an initial capital investment of $10 million per year for five years. Section 350 of the National Highway 

System Designation Act of 1995, Public Law 104–59, authorized the U.S. Department of Transportation to establish the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Pilot Program. A SIB is a revolving fund mechanism for financing a wide variety of highway 

and transit projects through loans and credit enhancement. SIBs were designed to 

complement traditional Federal-aid highway and transit grants by providing States 

increased flexibility for financing infrastructure investments. Under the initial SIB 

Pilot Program, ten states were authorized to establish SIBs. In 1996 Congress 

passed supplemental SIB legislation as part of the DOT Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 Appropriations Act that enabled additional qualified states to participate in the SIB 

pilot program. This legislation included a $150 million General Fund appropriation 

for SIB capitalization. Since then, Congress has continued to support the SIB program, and specifically reauthorized it in SAFETEA–LU. 

The Tribal Infrastructure Bank (TIB) Pilot Program under which Tribes would be 

eligible to obtain infrastructure funds in the form of capital investments for use on 

authorized transportation projects. The TIB would operate much like the SIBs. The 

TIB would be initially funded with Federal start-up capital, with the goal of becoming self-sufficient through its capital lending program. Tribes would be eligible to 

leverage their IRR program and other Federal transportation funds to obtain financing from the TIB at reasonable rates as one preferred method of the flexible financing techniques described above. Loans from the TIB shall not exceed a 20 year period. 

Transit 

All transportation infrastructures including transit are important to economic 

growth in Indian Country. Tribal transit is a necessary element to transportation 

infrastructure because it offers Tribal members access to employment, health, eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
26

cation and commerce for Tribes. Lack of employment has continuously been a difficult issue for Tribes. Currently, the approximate unemployment rate for on-reservation Indians is 18.6 percent, while for Alaska Native villages it is 25.1 percent. 

In addition, 15 percent of Tribal members have to travel over 100 miles to access 

basic services such as a bank or ATM. The combination of high unemployment and 

the long distances to travel to access basic services result in a great need for public 

transportation infrastructure in Indian Country and surrounding non-Indian rural 

communities. 

In 2005, the enactment of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), Public Law 109–59, authorized the 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to administer Section 5311 (c), the ‘‘Public Transportation on Indian Reservations Program’’ 

or as it is referred to as, Tribal Transit Program. The purpose of the Tribal Transit 

Program is to fund capital, operating, planning, and administrative expenses for 

public transit projects in rural Tribal communities. 

The Tribal Transit Program provides grant transit funding through a national 

competitive process to federally-recognized Tribes. The Tribal Transit Program funding level began at $8 million for FY 2006 and increased to $15 million for FY 2010. 

Since the initiation of the Tribal Transit Program, FTA has awarded approximately 

236 grants to Tribes totaling $60 million. However, the total amount requested by 

Tribes who have applied for the Tribal Transit program is approximately $189 million. So, even though the amounts that have been awarded thus far are a good start 

on addressing the immense need for public transportation in Indian Country, the 

overall need is much greater. 

Many Tribes utilize the Tribal Transit Program to begin or maintain their transit 

services on Tribal lands. NCAI is conscious of the significant role that public transportation infrastructure plays in Indian Country, and how much Tribes rely on this 

transit funding to further their transportation infrastructure. It is important Congress continues to sustain the Tribal Transit Program. 

NCAI recommends the following: (1.) Funding: increase funding for Tribal Transit 

Program to $35 million for FY2012 with stepped increases of $10 million for every 

year thereafter to $85 million; and (2.) Transit Planning: raise the current cap for 

Transit Planning Grants to $50,000. Currently, Tribes are capped at $25,000 to use 

for planning and design. This cap is a hindrance for Tribes who do not possess the 

financial resources to initially establish a reliable transit system on their Tribal 

land. 

Extend the ISDEAA to all DOT Programs 

Since the implementation of the Indian Self Determination Act and Educational 

Assistance Act in 1975, infrastructure needs for many Tribes have grown. Tribes 

opted to contract their own services in health, government and education, capitalintensive programs, it has spurred infrastructure development. New local jobs became available and many professional Tribal members returned back to their Tribal 

communities. Because of the diversity of Tribal operations that were created as result of building local capacity, Tribal governments were elevated to full-time operations. 

Under the past few reauthorizations, Congress has sought to extend greater authority to Tribes to carry out the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program under 

ISDEAA agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Federal Highway 

Administration. As a result, Tribes have succeeded in reducing transaction costs and 

eliminating counterproductive bureaucratic practices in order to maximize federal 

investment in roads infrastructure and to put more people to work. 

Still, conflicting grant conditions and contract requirements arising from other 

federal transportation programs continue to obstruct the efficient and cost-effective 

transportation infrastructure development Congress has envisioned for Indian Country. Few Tribal governments have the staff or resources for negotiations to conform 

these extensive conditions and requirements to Tribal-specific legal and policy considerations or to establish duplicative administrations for managing disparate contract and grant requirements—and they should not have to. In other agencies, Tribal implementation of federal programs under the ISDEAA has allowed Tribes to 

adopt uniform and more cost-effective accounting, management, procurement and 

reporting systems. Under ISDEAA, Tribes spend less on program administration 

and more on program services and activities. 

NCAI recommends the ISDEAA be extended to all Department of Transportation 

(DOT) programs serving Tribes, including programs administered by the Federal 

Highways Administration (FHWA), FHWA-Federal Lands Highway, Federal Transit 

Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and other federal 

transportation agencies. Extending the ISDEAA to the DOT and its modal adminisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
27

4 Center for Disease Control, Injuries Among American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/AN): CDC 

Activities (2011), http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/Native/research.html.

trations will streamline the negotiation, execution and implementation of grant, contract and funding agreements and more effectively direct program dollars to enhancing our nation’s transportation infrastructure system. 

Right of Way 

Congress has the opportunity to significantly enhance efficiency and cost-savings 

in infrastructure investment by requiring BIA to maintain adequate rights-of-way 

(ROW) records. Currently, BIA has no streamlined process to assist Tribes in securing proof of ROW quickly or in processing trust allotted land ROW applications in 

a short, defined timeline. Tribes preparing infrastructure improvements too frequently face delays and additional costs in their project administration because the 

BIA lack records of rights-of-way the Agency acquired, disposed of, or otherwise 

transferred long ago. For example, right now the Oglala Sioux Tribe has been working on securing BIA assistance to examine rights of way in the BIA’s Land Title 

Records Office for a 21 mile project on Pine Ridge; to date, BIA has not been helpful. 

This echoes examples for numerous Tribes when attempting to develop road projects 

on Tribal lands. And, the timeline in receiving ROW varies depending on many variables including ownership of the road (State, county, BIA, or Tribal route), the 

length in miles of the project, the reservation, whether the project crosses fee, restricted fee, allotted, or trust lands, whether the project is new construction or reconstruction of an existing route, the agency or regional office involved, the Tribe 

involved, etc. 

To mitigate delays, NCAI recommends this Committee and Congress to require 

that BIA respond to a Tribe’s request for right-of-way documentation for routes on 

its priority construction list within 120 days. If the BIA lacks right-of-way documentation, the BIA—and not the Tribe—should be responsible for the costs associated with obtaining enforceable rights-of-way. To fulfill this objective, NCAI proposes that Congress launch a $10 million initiative for the Department of Interior 

to catalogue, organize, update and computerize right-of-way documentation. 

Safety 

State governments spend between $4,000 and $5,000 per road mile on state road 

and highway maintenance. In contrast, road maintenance spending in Indian Country is less than $500 per road mile. Indian Country has an unmet immediate need 

of well over $258 million in maintenance funding for roads and bridges. Tribal members and communities are threatened by unsafe and often inaccessible roads, 

bridges, and ferries. Indian people suffer from injury and death by driving and 

walking along reservation roadways at rates far above the national average. According to Center Disease Control, ‘‘American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) are 

at increased risk of motor-vehicle related injury and death with rates 1.5 to 3 times 

higher than rates for other Americans.’’ 4 And, other data shows 5,962 fatal motor 

vehicle crashes were reported on Indian reservation roads between 1975 and 2002 

with 7,093 lives lost. The trend is on the increase, up nearly 25 percent, to over 

284 lives lost per year in the last five years of study. While the number of fatal 

crashes in the nation during the study period declined 2.2 percent, the number of 

fatal motor vehicle crashes per year on Indian reservations increased 52.5 percent. 

American Indians also have the highest rates of pedestrian injury and death per 

capita of any racial or ethnic group in the United States. 

Tribal communities share many similar concerns and obstacles as rural communities in addressing how to improve the safety needs. NCAI has worked diligently 

with Tribal governments to find solutions for improving the safety and infrastructure of Indian Country. Presently, Tribes receive a two percent set aside of the total 

allocation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); the 

funding is then allocated to BIA where the BIA Highway Indian Safety Program administers the programs. The purpose of this program is to assist Tribes with their 

proposed highway safety projects, which are intended to reduce traffic crashes and 

impaired driving crashes; increase occupant protection education; provide emergency 

medical service training; and increase police traffic services. The two percent set 

aside is equivalent to $14 million annually, and it is a competitive grant process. 

NCAI has heard concerns from Tribal leaders about the inadequate effectiveness of 

the BIA Highway Indian Safety Program. In the past, there has been significant 

employee and leadership turnover within the BIA office. This has created a lack of 

guidance and support to Tribes. For example, Tribes have been denied competitive 

grant funding, but were not informed of the reasons for the denial. As a result, 

28

5 Bureau of Indian Affairs, Transportation Serving Native American Lands: TEA–21 Reauthorization Resource Paper (2003). 6 Id.

7 Id.

8 National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes on Indian Reservations: 1975–2002, (2004). 9 BIA Paper, supra note 1. 10 U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, TEA–21, A Summary 

(1998). 11 Brief of Amicus Curiae the Inter-Tribal Transportation Association in Wagnon v. Prairie 

Band of Potawatomi, available at http://www.narf.org/sct/richardsvpbp/

ITA%20amicus%20final.pdf. 12 Id.

Tribes contacted the office for a rationale for denial but were not provided assistance nor a return phone call. 

NCAI recommends this Committee and Congress assist in confronting the high injury and fatalities on Tribal roadways and to resolve the concerns about the BIA 

Highway Indian Safety Program by (1) establishing a two percent Tribal funding 

set-aside within the High Risk Rural Roads Program, (2) creating a new Tribal Traffic Safety Program within the FHWA-Federal Lands Highways office, and (3) funding each NHTSA, at $50 million annually to dramatically reduce the incidence of 

death and injury on America’s Indian reservation roads. The creation of these new 

programs would help to reduce the safety and behavioral problems that contribute 

to the high rates of death and injury on Indian reservation roads. 

Gas Excise Tax 

To date, there are over 140,000 miles in the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) system but yet it is the most underdeveloped road network in the nation, 5 and it is 

the primary transportation system for all residents of and visitors to American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Over two-thirds of the roads on the system 

are unimproved dirt or gravel roads, and less than 12 percent of IRR roads are 

rated as good. 6 The condition of IRR bridges is equally troubling. Over 25 percent 

of bridges on the system are structurally deficient. 7

Tribal economies, education systems, health care and social service programs are 

threatened by unsafe and often inaccessible roads, bridges and ferries. A recent Federal traffic safety study showed that Indian Tribes suffer the highest per capita traffic fatality rate in the Nation, more than four times the national average. 8 Each 

year, drivers on the IRR system travel over 2 billion vehicle miles on a system that 

is a clear health and safety hazard for our communities and an impediment to 

meaningful economic development. 9

Funding for Tribal Transportation Systems 

The current scheme for funding surface transportation in the United States is 

based on a federal-state motor fuel taxation regime that precludes Tribes from participating in the system on an equitable basis. While the system of using federal 

fuel tax revenue for road construction and state fuel tax revenue for maintenance 

has worked to dramatically improve roads in many parts of the nation, it has failed 

miserably in Indian Country. 

Like states, Indian Tribes receive some funding for road construction from the federal Highway Trust Fund, but the amount given to Tribes is much less than what 

states receive. Currently, Indian Reservation Roads make up nearly three percent 

of federal roadways, but they receive less than 0.5 percent of total federal highway 

funding. 10 At the current funding levels, the IRR program receives only about half 

the amount per road mile that states receive. 

The Federal Government also makes some funds available to Tribes for IRR maintenance under the BIA Maintenance Program. This Program is also woefully inadequate. The BIA spends less than $1000 per mile for road maintenance, compared 

to estimates of $4,000–$5,000 per mile used by states to fund non-IRR maintenance. 11 Moreover, the states, who receive federal funding for their own roads that 

fall within reservations, frequently shirk their obligation to improve or maintain 

these roads and instead siphon off the funds for use elsewhere. 12

Faced with a severe inadequacy of funding from federal and state sources, Tribal 

governments have looked for other sources of revenue, including levying their own 

motor fuel taxes. While Tribes have the same authority as other governments to collect taxes, the ability of Tribes to tax fuel on Tribal lands has been severely diminished by the Supreme Court. The Court has upheld the authority of the states to 

reach onto Tribal land to collect a state motor fuel tax. The dual taxation that would 

result if both states and Tribes impose a motor fuel tax makes it impractical for 

Tribes to generate revenue through motor fuel taxes. Although some Tribes and 

29

states have been able to negotiate motor fuel tax revenue-sharing agreements, those 

cases are the exception rather than the rule. In most areas, the state governments’ 

collection of motor fuel taxes in Indian country displaces the ability of Tribal governments to collect motor fuel taxes. 

NCAI encourages this Committee to explore alternate sources of revenue for reservations roads. Given the dire conditions of reservation roads, it is unconscionable 

that the IRR program does not enjoy parity with the amount given to other governments through the Highway Trust Fund. NCAI feels strongly that this inequity of 

distribution must be addressed in whatever new system is devised to fund transportation systems across the nation. In addition, if motor fuel taxes are to remain the 

primary source of funding for road construction and maintenance, we urge the Committee to recommend that Congress clarify authority of Indian Tribes to collect this 

tax on Tribal lands. Finally, if the Committee recommends a dramatic change to the 

way revenue is raised for transportation costs, NCAI recommends that any such 

system be devised in a manner that treats Indian Tribal governments equitably and 

gives them the same authority as state and local governments to raise revenue to 

fund the costs associated with building and maintaining transportation infrastructure. 

Conclusion 

This testimony has highlighted the unique challenges Tribes and their members 

have faced for generations. NCAI’s member Tribes, and their citizens, face significant challenges—particularly in the midst of the budget reduction climate. However, 

as we move forward in addressing these challenges, it is critical to realize that Tribal communities offer unique innovations that can make significant contributions to 

the policy debate regarding the economic crisis and the prospects for a fair and equitable recovery for all Americans. Indian Tribes recognize that transportation infrastructure is vital to the enhancement of Indian Tribal economic development and 

to provide safe and reliable transportation infrastructure to Tribal communities and 

surrounding non-Tribal areas. NCAI look forward to partnering with the Committee, as critical members of the federal policymaking community, to ensure Tribes 

are included in developing and paving a way for Tribal transportation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Keel, for your testimony. 

Mr. Healy, will you please proceed with your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF C. ‘‘JOHN’’ HEALY, SR., PRESIDENT, 

INTERTRIBAL TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HEALY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. 

Senator FRANKEN. Mr. Healy, I really apologize. I have to leave, 

but thank you for your testimony, and I will be absorbing it. Thank 

you. 

Mr. HEALY. Thank you. Nice to meet you. I liked Saturday Night 

Live. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Thanks for remembering. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HEALY. Good afternoon, members of the Committee, Mr. 

Chairman, staff. I would just like to thank everybody for holding 

this hearing on this very crucial issue for Indian Country. I would 

also like to thank my Native brothers and sisters in the back of me 

for attending. As you can see, it is a very important subject we are 

taking up today. 

As President of the InterTribal Transportation Association, our 

founding father, so to speak, we were created and organized back 

in 1993 with the hopes of having a seat at the table, as we are here 

today. Back then, Tribal transportation was of course just being 

recognized and Tribes were just starting to get into Tribal transportation. So I am glad to see that we have actually come a long 

30

way since 1993 with the help of our congressional delegations, dedicated staff, such as Mark. 

So we have come a long way in Tribal transportation over the 

years. Of course, we would like to continue that. We have, in my 

written comments that I submitted, I have many points I brought 

up, which I won’t go into them all right now. But I agree with 

much of what has been said so far as far as streamlining the process. I attended the roundtable here in May. I also submitted some 

testimony then. In that I mentioned some of the points about 

streamlining. 

As far as advocating for Indian Country, we partnered with 

NCAI back in 2007. We formally created the NCAI–ITA Joint Task 

Force on Tribal Transportation. Within that group, we have created, you have probably seen the national leadership paper, it was 

called, or white paper. In that, it points out many areas that the 

Tribes are concerned with as a whole across the Country. 

We have tried to garner comments from Tribes across the Country on common Tribal transportation issues, and of course, over the 

last year or so, it has been concentrating on reauthorization and 

some of the funding levels the Tribes would like to see in the next 

Highway Bill. 

Of course, the continued funding of these programs would be 

much appreciated. Being that ITA represents Tribes across the Nation, small, medium and large, we try to not really get into the controversial issues. However, there are some issues out there of controversy. But as was mentioned by panel one, those issues are 

being addressed. 

Some of the funding issues, I will touch on these real quick, of 

course we would like to continue funding of the IRR program. Continued funding for transit, transit is a very, very important avenue 

for Tribes out there to pursue. There are many Tribes into Tribal 

transit now. It goes along with the sustainability and livability concepts that DOT has adopted as well. Because as Native Americans, 

of course, some of the areas we live are very isolated. So having 

a Tribal transit system comes in very handy for a lot of people. It 

gets them to jobs, school, many college students use these Tribal 

transit systems. Students, elderly, it is open to the public and it 

saves people a lot of money plus it is directly tied into economic development as well. So we would like to continue our Tribal transit 

program. 

The streamlining, we have some suggestions in our packet about 

streamlining funding, some direct funding is needed for some of the 

programs. With that, Mr. Chairman, you have my written testimony and I will answer any questions that you have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Healy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF C. ‘‘JOHN’’ HEALY, SR., PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL

TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony today. 

On behalf of the InterTribal Transportation Association (ITA), Executive Committee and Member Tribes we formally submit these written comments at the Senate Committee of Indian Affairs (SCAI), Hearing today. 

ITA’s involvement with NCAI, and our involvement in the development of the National Tribal Leadership Paper on Tribal Transportation (White Paper), is in line 

31

with our Strategic Plan Objectives. Since ITA inception (circa 1993), one of the goals 

was to partner with organizations to assist in getting the Tribes voices heard. I believe we have accomplished this over the last four years, without this partnership 

I don’t think we would have developed such a comprehensive document. 

We must show unity to the furthest extent possible, there is strength in numbers, 

there will always be issues we have differences on, however let us show unity on 

the big issues that will help us prosper as a Nation, as a family. 

We have for many years viewed the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR), Program as 

a Jobs Program at the local reservation level. Each year our construction crews employee many enrolled members which supports their families not only during the 

construction months but year round. 

This is why were pleased to hear in the President’s speech of his plan for job creation to reinvigorate the economy. 

We support the rebuilding our deficient roads and bridges. There is no shortage 

of these roads on reservations across the nation. 

We support the ‘‘American Jobs Act.’’

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP–21): 

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW): released an bipartisan outline titled, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, or MAP–21 in 

mid-July. The bill supports is a 2 year reauthorization with a total cost of $109 billion or $54.5 billion a year. There is still the issue of how to pay for this bill, and 

it will be up to the Senate Finance Committee to figure this out, and as mentioned 

numerous times raising the gas tax is not an option. 

We support President Obama’s jobs bill and the benefit it will have for Indian 

Country. 

Areas That Can Be Addressed During the Reauthorization Process 

Key points that address needed improvements to Tribal transportation.

1) Fund the IRR Program with annual 50 million dollars increases starting at 

800 million in FY–12 and increasing annually reaching 1,050,000,000 in FY–

16 and restore the obligation limitation deduction exemption that existed for 

the IRR Program under ISTEA.

2) Increase funding for BIA Road Maintenance Program to at least 150 million 

annually

3) Increase FTA’s Tribal transit Grant Program to:

FY 2012: $35,000,000

FY 2013: $45,000,000

FY 2014: $55,000,000

FY 2015: $65,000,000

FY 2016: $75,000,000

4) Increase funding for IRR Bridge Program to:

FY 2012: $75,000,000

FY 2013: $87,500,000

FY 2014: $100,000,000

FY 2015: $100,000,000

FY 2016: $100,000,000

5) Enforce the statutory requirement in SAFETEA–LU which mandates the BIA 

to make IRR Program funds ‘‘immediately available’’ for Tribes within 30 

days of the BIA’s receipt of funds from FHWA.

6) Simplify the award process by which Federal transportation funds are distributed to Tribes by creating uniform grant eligibility, application, and administration criteria

7) Develop model funding agreements for use by DOI and DOT to facilitate the 

efficient transfer of transportation funding and program authority to the 

Tribes.

8) Increase the number of DOT Programs which Tribes may participate in as 

direct funding recipients from the Federal Government, rather than as sub 

recipients through the States.

9) Establish a Federal Lands Highway Safety Program for Indian reservation 

roads, establish a Tribal set aside for the High Risk Rural Road Program, 

Increase funding to the TTAP’s to at least 2.5 million annually.

10) Promote the use of innovative financing techniques in standard Indian SelfDetermination contracts and self governance agreements to provide Tribes 

with better tools to reduce their road construction backlog.

32

11) Carry out Right of Way reform in Indian Country to reduce costs and expedite the design, construction and reconstruction of Tribal roads and bridges.

Indian Reservation Roads (IRR), Issue 

Various Tribal Organizations such as Council of Large Land Based Tribes, MT–

WY Tribal Leaders Council, Transportation Sub-committee, & the Great Plains 

Tribal Chairman’s Association have voiced their view on several issues/concerns regarding the implementation of Question #10 of 25 CFR Part 170, Subpart C, Indian 

Reservation Roads Program over the last several years (since 2006). 

ITA has membership from small, medium and large Tribes, therefore we have 

been very careful in our comments, we would however like to offer our assistance 

in this matter in the way of facilitating meetings to come up with solutions to the 

matter. This also falls within our Strategic Plan. 

The large land-based and rural Tribes are losing millions of dollars because the 

BIA is misinterpreting the provisions of SAFETEA–LU. Dollars continue to hemorrhage from our reservations and people to those BIA Regions that have included 

countless miles of state and county roads. With this, the IRR program has become 

a program dominated by state and county roads within the inventory that drives 

the funding formula. 

Over the past four years Large Land Based Tribes have expressed their concerns 

with regard to the ‘‘uncontrolled implementation’’ of the IRR Inventory system due 

to a misapplication and/or erroneous interpretation of 25 CFR 170 on numerous occasions with little or no response. This correspondence also included language which 

provided recommended solutions to the misapplication of the regulations. 

This has proven to be detrimental to large land-based Tribes. There are critical 

issues the BIA and FHWA must address in order to arrest the uncontrolled implementation of inventory data that is allowing non-BIA and non-Tribal roads to generate enormous formula amounts. 

Tribes have been told the only way to fix the problem is when reauthorization of 

the Federal Highway Bill is being considered. 

The Time Is Now 

Tribes have been very frustrated in attempting to get some action, much less even 

a response to our concerns. The issue of uncontrolled inventory updates, the issue 

remains urgent to large land-based Tribes since they deal with massive on-reservation vehicular transportation needs. Needs arise from Tribal and BIA roads, and 

meeting them relies primarily on IRR funding. The geographic isolation of most 

large land-based Tribes prohibit them from competing in a system of adding Interstates/NHS highways, State and County roads onto the IRR system just to reap the 

inflated formula amounts. Also most large land-based Tribes’ priorities are not others’ interstate or state roads, but the very roads they must travel to get the basic 

medical and educational services. On the BIA system alone, there is a documented 

backlog of $13 Billion just to improve the system to a safe and adequate standard. 

At present funding levels, and without further deterioration of the system, it would 

take 28 years to address this need. Allowing State and County roads into the IRR 

system simply to generate funding is siphoning off critical road construction funding 

for Tribes whose only source of funding is the IRR program. 

The direct nature of the Tribes comments is a reflection of the frustration the 

Tribes have experienced over the last several years attempting to elevate this issue, 

however it is in no way intended as an indictment of any Tribal entity or of the 

BIA/FHWA itself. In fact we are confident that this problem can be solved and that 

25 CFR 170 is workable regulation. 

Increased IRR funding three and four fold by inappropriately applying the regulations regarding generation of funding on state, county, and proposed routes that 

have been added to the IRR Inventory. 

The core issues regarding the uncontrolled implementation of the IRR Inventory. 

The heart of this issue is threefold and includes; relaxing the protocol which requires 

minimum attachments supporting each update; inconsistent interpretation of the Program regulations at 25 CFR 170 and in defining an ‘‘Indian Reservation Road’’; and 

allowing an uncontrolled expansion of the IRR system.

Solution 

Minimum Attachments must be required. Explicitly defined Attachments were 

originally required in the IRR road inventory update process to substantiate each 

request. These requirements provide a fundamental tool to the BIA for quality assurance of each update. In order to concur with a recommended update, BIA officials 

must at least be assured that the facility exists (section photo), that the documented 

physical attributes of the facility are accurately reflected in the database (representVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
33

ative section photo), that facility ownership is confirmed and post-improvement 

maintenance responsibility is acknowledged (MOA Owner Agreement), and that 

each facility is incorporated into the Tribal Long Range Transportation Plan 

(LRTP). It is inconceivable to think that waiving the requirement of these fundamental tools results in an adequate, representative IRR database. In fact, this measure is counterproductive, at the least requiring more in-depth, time-consuming inquiries at the Regional/BIADOT level, or, more likely, simply disregarding the confirmation process and approving unverified records. 

It is also recommended that surface condition ratings be supplemented by a wearing surface calculation worksheet along with representative photo to verify published indices. Being somewhat subjective by nature, backup documentation will result in more accurate, objective results in incorporating SCI into the crucial CTC 

calculation. 

An Indian Reservation Road ‘‘providing access to an Indian reservation or Indian 

trust land’’ must be interpreted consistently. Vague, inconsistent interpretations of 

IRR roads have resulted in gross misrepresentation of the relative need across Indian country. Refining the regulations did not redefine the definition. We recommend that federal officials provide written guidance and direction in defining precisely what qualifies as an IRR and provide training to all BIA Regional Road Engineers and BIA/DOT personnel to ensure uniformity and consistency in the interpretation and application of the update process. 

Many reservations possess a network of Tribal roads which provide public rural 

local access to remote Tribal lands within the exterior boundaries of the reservation. 

These routes are included on the IRR system as construction need miles to support 

the economic development of large land-based Tribes. In order to promote Tribal self 

determination through economic development as it was intended, these facilities 

must be enhanced. Contesting, or otherwise rejecting these routes from inclusion as 

a Rural Local road, regardless of the surface type, prevents the LLBT’s from quantifying their relative need, which is ultimately reflected in the distribution of Program 

funds. 

Large land-based Tribes are generally located in remote/rural areas in which a 

majority of the public access roads are BIA or Tribally owned. In order to enhance 

public health and safety on these facilities, we are solely reliant on IRR Program 

funds. As funds are shifted to roads owned by state and local governments, the trust 

responsibility of the federal government is severely compromised, in turn jeopardizing the general health and welfare of the traveling public on these facilities. 

There are thousands of miles of non-BIA/Tribal routes on the IRR inventory that 

are not in compliance with 25 CFR 170. By regulation, at 25 CFR 170 Appendix 

C to Subpart C, under no circumstances should any non-BIA/Tribal route generate 

100 percent funding. Likewise, National Highway System/Interstate highways 

should never generate funding. County-owned facilities which meet the precisely established criteria (as recommended above) of an IRR road shall generate at the federal sliding scale percentage, however state-owned facilities, which meet the precisely established criteria of an IRR road, shall not generate funding unless a project 

exists for said route, and then only at the non-federal share until construction of 

the facility. NonBIA/Tribal roads, particularly state-owned roads, are adequately 

maintained and funded through 23 USC and state-owned roads were never intended 

to be included in ascertaining the relative need of Indian Tribes. 

The IRR Inventory has experienced an unprecedented growth rate in the past 3 

years. Of particular significance is the expansion of the very definition of an IRR 

road. Inconsistent determinations of IRR eligible facilities have resulted in a skewed 

system which is detrimental to those Tribes who rely solely on the IRR Program 

to address public health and safety on public roads within Indian reservations. BIA 

must limit the growth rate of the Program to a respectable, realistic level. 

Proposed roads have had a major impact on the funding distributions in the IRR 

Program. These forever funded facilities include numerous miles which will never 

be built, but are simply added to the database to generate funding. A well-established justification in the LRTP must be submitted with each update to assure that 

these proposed roads are in fact included in the future development plans of the respective Tribe(s) as a project. Further, proposed roads should only generate funding 

for up to five years, at which time inactivity results in CTC = 0 VMT = 0. 

In order to assure that Road Inventory Field Data System (RIFDS) records portray the spirit and character of the IRR Program, a review team consisting preferably of Tribal officials or an outside, impartial review team should be employed 

to assess the interpretation of BIADOT and assure each submitted record lies within the scope of the regulations. 

In accordance with 25 CFR 170.444(f), the BIA provides each Tribe with copies 

of the Relative Need Distribution Factor (RNDF) distribution percentages by August 

34

15 of each year. Providing this information allows Tribes to plan and prepare the 

IRR Program for the upcoming fiscal year, including preparing budgets and funding 

Agreements; procuring materials, equipment, and manpower for upcoming projects; 

and identifying projects to be including onto the Tribal Transportation Improvement 

Program (TTIP). However, the FY 2008 distribution percentages were not published 

until July 2008. This situation creates an extreme burden on the Tribes in their efforts to deliver an efficient, productive Program from year to year. 

Issue 

Another concern which is directly related to the funding issues, is the BIA DOT 

review and approval of RIFDS records. The Program regulations, at 25 CFR 

170.444, explicate the process by which the IRR inventory is updated. In order to 

provide the RNDF distribution percentages by August 15th. 

Solution 

Action must be taken on the inventory update submittals, i.e. they must be approved or rejected, and discharged within this timeframe. There has been no consistency in this process since the promulgation of the Final Rule in 2004. Communication is obviously the missing element in delivering this process with efficiency and 

accuracy, particularly in providing feedback to the Regional offices regarding the 

records submitted by the Tribes. The BIA must correct this process and take action 

on RIFDS records in order that these overriding issues do not continue to trickle 

down to the Tribal programs, hindering our abilities to function efficiently and productively. 

The Montana/Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council have identified many issues and 

shared with 

Mike Black, Director Of The Bureau Of Indian Affairs on April 30, 2010

Regulations governing the Indian Reservation Roads program are having a negative effect on how funding is calculated for Land Based Tribes and Tribes seek to 

rectify those issues through the administrative process. Issues that were brought to 

Mr. Black’s attention were as follows:

• Bogus data being allowed into the IRR inventory:

Surface Condition Ratings require a visual inspection of the road surfaces and a 

mathematical calculation to determine the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Many 

of the paved surfaces of roads owned by Agencies other than the BIA or Tribes are 

given a rating of exactly 60 or below. It is theoretically impossible to derive a pavement rating of 60 when applying the many components of field data that must be 

considered in the calculation of the pavement rating. 

Field observations of surface conditions were not conducted and actual calculations were not made on thousands of miles included in the IRR inventory. 

Solution 

All non-BIA system roads included in the IRR inventory be reviewed for accuracy 

and all routes that do not have evidence of an actual computation of the PCI be 

removed from the system.

• Tribes are allowed to include roads in the inventory that are not located within 

or provide access to the reservation or trust lands.

25 CFR 170.5 defines an Indian Reservation Road as ‘‘a public road that is located 

within or provides access to an Indian reservation or Indian trust land, or restricted 

Indian land that is not subject to fee title alienation without the approval of the 

Federal government, or Indian or Alaska Native Villages, groups, or communities 

in which Indians and Alaska Natives reside, whom the Secretary of the Interior has 

determined are eligible for services generally available to Indians under Federal 

laws specifically applicable to Indians.’’

The BIA is allowing Tribes to include State (including Federal Highway System 

roads) and County roads into their IRR inventory that are not located within nor 

do they provide access to the reservation or trust lands. In several cases, these 

routes are allowed to generate IRR funding at 100 percent. 

It is our understanding that a road that provides access to an Indian reservation 

or trust lands must physically connect to the reservation or trust land. We know 

of a Region that is allowing State and County roads into the system that are 10 

to 15 miles away from the reservation. 

We are requesting that all routes that do not physically connect to the Reservation or Trust lands be removed from the system.

35

• Certain Tribes are allowed to generate funding on State and County roads included in the inventory without evidence that a project will ever be constructed on 

the route.

The 3rd category of Question 10 of Appendix C to Subpart C, 25 CFR 170, stipulates that ‘‘The facility is eligible for funding for construction or reconstruction with 

Federal funds, however, the Public Authority responsible for maintenance of the facility provides certification of maintenance responsibility and its inability to provide 

funding for the Project. 

23 USC 101(a) definition of a project is as follows: The term ‘‘project’’ means and 

undertaking to construct a particular portion of a highway, or if the context so implies, the particular portion so constructed or any other undertaking eligible for assistance under this title.’’

The same Section defines Construction as follows: The term ‘‘Construction’’ means 

the supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence of all costs incidental to 

the construction or reconstruction of a highway. 

There are thousands of miles of roads owned by others (States and Counties) that 

are included into IRR inventory and generating funding, (many miles generating at 

100 percent) without any evidence that a project or any type of construction is 

planned on the route. The BIA is encouraging and allowing Tribes to include routes 

owned by others into the IRR inventory only to generate funding. 

We are requesting that all non-BIA system routes that do not have a project 

agreement in place with the owning agency be removed from the system.

• Some Tribes are allowed to generate funds over and above the local match/nonFederal Federal share amount.

Tribes in certain Regions are allowed to generate IRR funding at 100 percent on 

State and County routes. On approved projects, Tribes can coop a project with another Public Authority, however the funding they provide for the project is limited 

to the non-Federal share or local match. 

23 U.S.C. states: ‘‘Before approving as a project on an Indian reservation road any 

project eligible for funds apportioned under section 104 or section 144 of this title 

in a State, the secretary must determine that the obligation of funds for such project 

is supplementary to and not in lieu of the obligation, for obligation of funds for such 

project is supplementary to and not in lieu of the obligation, for projects on Indian 

reservation roads, of a fair and equitable share of funds apportioned to such State 

under section 104 of this title.’’

We are requesting that all non-BIA routes that are generating IRR funds over and 

above the non-Federal share be removed from the system.

• Other Issues

We are also requesting to begin start a dialog on the following issues:

• Definition of Access 

• Definition of Indian Reservation Road 

• Legality of Question 10

• Definition of Project 

• Proposed Roads 

• Road Maintenance 

• Establishment of and Inventory Oversight Committee 

• Comprehensive Inventory by Federal Highway Administration

On June 3–4, 2009 I was honored to attend several meetings in our nation’s capitol with a delegation of Tribal leaders from the Rocky Mountain Region. 

As we were leaving the U.S. Capitol Building and walking through the Rotunda 

I couldn’t help but to think about the history of the United States. More specifically 

the history of the Native American relative to transportation as many of the highways that exist to this day are built over the path of a hunting trail or path the 

Native American traveled. This gave me a renewed strength to advocate for the interest of the ITA Executive Committee and member Tribes. I believe these DC trips 

were beneficial for ITA and our member Tribes. 

It was with the people in mind that ITA was formed on that blustery day in May 

of 1993 in Polson, Mt. Formed so we may go forth into the future with one thought 

in mind, with one ideal in mind, and with service to the people in our heart. 

I think we can all agree that to build strong Tribal nations, Indian Tribes must 

build a transportation infrastructure that permits safe travel and promotes economic expansion. Connecting people within Tribal communities and Tribal communities to the surrounding area means greater economic development and improved 

delivery of Tribal government services. Yet many Indian reservation roads and 

36

bridges are known more for their impassable condition than for their use as a safe 

means of transportation. The poor condition of many Tribal roads and bridges jeopardizes the health, safety, security and economic well-being of our Tribal members. 

Tribal roads and bridges are often in such disrepair that children are prevented 

from attending school, sick and injured people are prevented from reaching hospitals 

and emergency responders are delayed in providing timely assistance to people in 

need. 

It is with that thought in mind that we must move on and be persistent in our 

efforts to continue the educational process for our people. 

The SCAI timely leadership can help Tribes expand on the gains that have been 

made in the transportation arena. We look forward to working with you and your 

staff to continue improving the quality of transportation infrastructure for the benefit of our Tribal members and our surrounding communities. 

I thank you for this opportunity to submit these written comments.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Healy, for your testimony. 

This question is for both of our witnesses. One of the recommendations the Committee has heard throughout the years is 

that Tribes need direct access to more transportation programs. 

And we would like to pursue that line. So my question to both of 

you is, in your view, do your members have the capacity to carry 

out safety and other programs now handled through the States? 

Mr. Keel? 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. The answer is yes, there are some Tribes that have the capacity to carry 

out all those programs, safety, planning, engineering, event the architecture. There are some Tribes that simply do not, because of 

their infrastructure and their Tribal structure itself. 

But the transit program, having access to more of those programs, in fact, the Jobs Act, the Jobs bill, included in that Jobs bill 

was $310 million, I believe, for the Indian Reservation Roads and 

Tribal transportation. Of that, there is only $7 million that was 

provided for the transit program, which is a competitive grant program. 

So $7 million doesn’t go very far when you have 565 Tribes competing for those dollars. So we would ask that that be increased, 

so that those Tribe that do have the capacity for planning and taking some of those programs could access those funds and thereby 

help greatly. 

Additionally, there are Tribes that have a good working relationship with the State departments of transportation. Those Tribes do 

a very good job of managing those programs and working in partnership with them. There are some Tribes who do not, and who do 

not enjoy that same level of cooperation. 

I hope that answers your question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Healy? 

Mr. HEALY. Thank you. Yes, I believe many Tribes out there do 

have the capacity. We hear success stories all the time about 

Tribes working with States and/or counties on their particular 

projects. Most recently, there has been a lot of success in Tribes 

working with the Public Lands Highway discretionary grants. Of 

course, those were supposed to go through the State as well. 

But with some of the new direct funding agreements that have 

been created over the last few years, the Tribes do get direct funding. I believe they do have the capacity to administer these 

projects. 

37

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I would like to extend a further question to both of you. Can you describe the impact the road condition 

and lack of adequate infrastructure have on a Tribe’s ability to create jobs and attract economic development to Native communities? 

Mr. Keel? 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Once again, there are Tribes that have the capacity, as I said, 

to develop, have economic development within their areas. It is 

very difficult to attract businesses to the reservation or to our 

areas when the infrastructure is seemingly not very well maintained or unkempt or in disarray. 

So the answer is, a well-maintained transportation system is 

vital to economic development in Indian Country or anywhere else, 

for that matter. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Healy? 

Mr. HEALY. Thank you. I would agree with that. Many businesses, when they want to locate to a reservation, one of the first 

things they research is your transportation system and how they 

can move their goods and services from Point A to Point B. Of 

course, sometimes they make a site visit. If in their mind they feel 

the transportation infrastructure system, roads, are not up to their 

standard, they may go down the road and go somewhere else, 

which of course affects economic development initiatives. 

So yes, I believe maintaining a good, safe transportation system 

is vital, not only to economic development but for the safety of our 

children. As was mentioned, safety is a key issue for Indian Country, as well as the ambulances traveling these roads, school buses. 

So yes, I do believe it is very important. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, thank you very much. 

And now I would like to call on Senator Hoeven for any comments or questions he may have for our witnesses. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

thank both of these gentlemen for being here with us today. I will 

start by asking Mr. Keel to just talk a little bit about what he perceives as both the real needs in terms of transportation on the reservations and how we can most effectively address it. 

Mr. KEEL. Well, as has already been stated, the needs in Indian 

Country on particularly our reservation roads, because of the 

bridges that are structurally deficient, it affects not only the safety 

or our ability to attract businesses to our communities, but the fact 

of the matter is that many of our people depend on those roads. 

Some of our citizens don’t have adequate transportation to get to 

and from work. 

So the needs there are multiplied by the fact that when a bridge 

or road washes out, for instance, or we have a natural disaster, we 

don’t have the funding to maintain or repair those roads in a timely manner. Those needs then are exacerbated. So the need cannot 

be understated. 

I would like to point out also that last week, the President proposed in the American Jobs Act the establishment of a national infrastructure bank. We believe that a Tribal infrastructure bank 

38

would work, thereby giving the Tribes the ability to leverage dollars that we receive. We would propose a $10 million bank, which 

is relatively small in terms of a bank. But for Indian Country, it 

would be significant in that we could take that and leverage those 

dollars and make some improvements, necessary improvements 

that we have. 

I hope that answers your question. 

Senator HOEVEN. And I would just follow up with a question actually to both of you gentlemen. In addition to Federal funds for 

roads, do you have any other funding sources, are there any local 

or State funding sources that any of the Tribes receive to help on 

their roads? 

Mr. HEALY. For Tribes in the rural areas, the IRR program is the 

only funding source. So being from a rural area, in Montana, the 

IRR program is very key to our sustainability as a Tribe, as a nation, as a people. It is very key to our livelihood. 

Senator HOEVEN. Mr. Keel, are you aware of any other? Have 

any of the Tribes developed any other funding sources that you are 

aware of? 

Mr. KEEL. Many of the Tribes today supplement the funding that 

they receive, even through the Indian Reservation Roads program. 

There are Tribes that have a good relationship, as I stated earlier, 

with their State departments of transportation and local county 

commissioners. And they are able to repair, make repairs locally in 

some cases. But not necessarily from funding, they simply supplement the funding that they receive. 

Senator HOEVEN. The reason I ask is, in the State of North Dakota, one of the things we have done is that the State gas tax, the 

portion that is collected on the reservations goes back to the reservations. So they have that as a funding source in our State. I am 

just wondering if other States and other Tribes have developed 

some funding sources to help, given the pressure on Federal dollars. Particularly when we are talking about some of the rural reservations, where you have so many miles of road and not a large 

number of people. It is a real challenge to maintain those roads. 

So that is why I was just looking for any other ideas at the local, 

State, or Tribal level. Are there any other ideas that either of you 

might be aware of to help fund roads, in addition to the Federal 

funds? 

Mr. KEEL. Yes, in fact, there is very limited funding. In the State 

of Oklahoma, for instance, there is an agreement, or compacts, 

there are several Tribes that have compacts with the State in 

terms of collecting the Federal gasoline tax, for instance. Those 

funds are then returned to the Tribes and they can use that for a 

variety of things. But they are very specific in what they can be 

used for, health, education and in some cases transportation and 

safety. 

Senator HOEVEN. Right. That is exactly the kind of thing I was 

referring to. I was just wondering if there are any others that either one of you had run cross. 

Mr. KEEL. I am not aware of any. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Hoeven. 

39

I want to thank this panel very much. I have further questions 

that I will send to you and other members may have that, too. So 

I thank you so much, because we are trying to put this together 

and deal with the problem of transportation mainly, and with that, 

of course, jobs for the Tribes. So we look forward to keeping in close 

contact with you and continuing to work with you on this. 

So thank you very much, panel two. 

I would like to invite the third panel to the witness table. Serving in our third panel is the Honorable Charles W. Murphy, Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; the Honorable Wes Martel, 

Co-Chairman of the Joint Business Council for the Shoshone and 

Arapaho Tribes of the Wind River Indian Reservation; also Mr. 

Paulson Chaco, Director of the Division of Transportation for the 

Navajo Nation; and Ms. Jacque Hostler, Chief Executive Officer of 

the Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria. 

Mr. Murphy, will you please proceed with your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. MURPHY, CHAIRMAN, 

STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE; ACCOMPANIED BY PETE RED 

TOMAHAWK, TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Charles Murphy. I am the Chairman of the Standing 

Rock Sioux Tribe. I want to thank you, Senator, for paving the way 

for jobs and safety for Native communities. 

I heard testimony earlier, but what I would like to say, Mr. 

Chairman, is that I live on a reservation where we deal with several emergencies each day. One of them is that the Corps did not 

mange the water properly going into the community or headquarters of Fort Yates, North Dakota. Fort Yates is a community 

that takes care of eight districts within our 2.3 million acres. 

What happened is if that road should wash out, we would lose 

emergency, health needs, water needs to several of our district people. Number one is that roads is the number one thing for our reservation. They play a big part within Standing Rock. 

Because our reservation is so large, we have to use snow plows 

in the winter time to take the ambulance out to bring our people 

into the hospital into Fort Yates, which sometimes may be a round 

trip of 180 miles. 

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that we have bridges that are 

over 50 years old. Because of the high floods, high water, we had 

knocked the pillars down or the joists. We had to have our kids 

walk across the bridge so that way we do not have anything happen to our kids, so we can get our kids to school and back from 

school. 

Mr. Chairman, if there is any way that we could get funding directly to the Tribes without going through all the other branches 

I think that we would have a better and safer place to live within 

our reservations and also create more jobs within our reservation. 

We have, again, we have dialysis people that we have to worry 

about, not only in the summer time, but in the winter time. Like 

I stated earlier, if that road should wash out, we would have been, 

and Bismarck would not have been able to take those 64 people 

that were on dialysis, too. So there was no way for us to get them 

off this island. 

40

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I have written testimony and I support what was said earlier about direct funding to Tribes. And we 

need more infrastructure on our reservation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. MURPHY, CHAIRMAN, STANDING ROCK

SIOUX TRIBE


915a1.eps
41


915a2.eps
42


915a3.eps
43


915a4.eps
44


915a5.eps
45


915a6.eps
46


915a7.eps
47


915a8.eps
48

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Hoeven? 

Senator HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have a meeting of 

our appropriations committee at the same time, and the subcommittee of which I am ranking member has to present subcommittee budget for legislative branch, which, Mr. Chairman, you 

know that is pretty important, so that we address that. Since I will 

have to leave in a few minutes, if I could, take just a minute to 

say a few words about Chairman Murphy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Please proceed, Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. 

I want to welcome all of our guests, but I would like to say just 

a few words about Chairman Murphy. I think that Chairman Murphy is now serving his sixth term as the Chairman of the Standing 

Rock people. I have had the wonderful good fortune to work with 

him for over a decade now. 

It is very appropriate that he is here talking about transportation today, because he was an absolute leader in our State of 

North Dakota in transportation. And he is right, his reservation 

used to be Fort Yates, now it is Standing Rock Reservation, which 

covers a big part of two States, both in North Dakota and in South 

Dakota. So geographically, it is very, very large, and the Missouri 

River runs through the area they serve, so there are many challenges geographically. 

And one of the things that Chairman Murphy did is that he was 

instrumental in putting together an agreement with the individual 

who was governor before I was Governor Schafer, that really provided a collaborative working agreement between the reservation, 

the Tribe and the counties throughout the entire area. So that 


915a9.eps
49

when it came to maintaining roads, plowing roads, getting snow off 

the roads, and addressing a lot of these issues, they had a cooperative agreement so that they could work together on the roads, both 

on-reservation and off, which was frankly a very cost-effective way 

to do it. 

It was his leadership in setting up those types of agreements 

that really led us to gas tax agreements with all the Tribes in 

North Dakota. And we have parts, or all, of five reservations in our 

State, and many Tribes. It was that leadership that led to resources going not only to his own people at Standing Rock, but to 

all of the Tribes, because it was the model of the cooperative road 

maintenance agreement that we followed. 

Chairman Murphy is a Vietnam veteran. He is somebody who 

has been a leader not just to his people on his reservation in North 

Dakota and South Dakota, but a State leader in North Dakota. So 

when we talk about somebody who has great respect, Chairman 

Murphy has great respect. When he is here talking about transportation issues, he is somebody who isn’t just here talking about 

them, he is dealing with them every single day, between floods, tornadoes, and fires. We have been out there fighting fires with 

Blackhawk helicopters and pulling water out of the Missouri River. 

And here he is again, although he is a young man still in his 

sixth term, again leading the Standing Rock Sioux and doing a 

great job. So it is wonderful to have you here. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Senator HOEVEN. I know one of the points that you are going to 

make, and I would like to emphasize it as well, Mr. Chairman. We 

have to do everything we can with the dollars we have. It is hard 

right now, because we are in a financially difficult situation. 

So every dollar we use, we have to use as effectively as we can. 

I think one of the ways to use them most effectively is exactly what 

you and I talked about last week when I was home, and I know 

you will be here talking about it today, and I hope, Chairman 

Akaka, that you have an opportunity to hear more from Chairman 

Murphy. We have to make sure those dollars get to the local leaders like Chairman Murphy, so that they can use them for best effect on the reservation. 

So we have challenges with dollars, and of course we have so 

many miles of road in areas that are not heavily populated. In our 

case we also have energy impacts, where we have a lot of traffic 

and big trucks running on these roads that put ruts in them and 

can make them more dangerous. Both from a traffic standpoint and 

from a wear on the roads standpoint, it is really important that we 

get these dollars to the local leaders like Chairman Murphy. 

Any way we can work to do that and streamline the process 

through Interior and through BIA to get those dollars down to the 

local leaders is very important. I think there may be some ways we 

can work on that, and I look forward to working with you on it. 

Chairman Murphy, I hope as you have time to present more testimony that you are able to go into that a little bit. I think it is a 

very good idea. It is an idea that you brought to me and I very 

much agree with, and I want to help you to do all we can in that 

regard. 

50

It is certainly true in transportation, it is true in other areas, too, 

health services and so forth. But certainly transportation, if we can 

get those dollars to the local level. And then too, following up on 

the question I asked the earlier panel, leverage those dollars. For 

example, where you have been able to bring in local gas tax dollars 

and work with the State and the counties to leverage those dollars, 

I think you have really been a leader there and I hope we can do 

more of those things. 

Thank you for being here, Chairman Murphy. Thank you to our 

other panel members for being here. Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

letting me present for just a minute. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hoeven, thank you for being here, and 

thank you for your comments. I have to say, thank you for your 

sound advice. It is for sure that we need to try to use whatever 

funds we have as wisely as we can. And I think this is a point in 

time when we can do that. So we have to do it together. I look forward to working with Senator Hoeven and our other members and 

with also you and the Tribes. So thank you very much for your 

comments. 

Now let me go on to our next witness, Mr. Martel, for your testimony, please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WES MARTEL, VICE CHAIRMAN,

EASTERN SHOSHONE BUSINESS COUNCIL; ACCOMPANIED 

BY JIM SHAKESPEARE, CHAIRMAN, NORTHERN ARAPAHO 

BUSINESS COUNCIL, JOHN P. SMITH, TRANSPORTATION

DIRECTOR, SHOSHONE AND ARAPAHO TRIBES, AND

JIM GARRIGAN, TRANSPORTATION PLANNER, RED LAKE

BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

Mr. MARTEL. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. My name is Wes Martel and I am the Co-Chairman of 

the Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Wind River Reservation, in Wyoming. 

On behalf of the Joint Business Council of the Eastern Shoshone 

Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, I thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony concerning transportation issues in Indian Country. I also am pleased 

that Chairman Jim Shakespeare, from the Northern Arapaho 

Tribe, is accompanying me today, as is John Smith and Jim 

Garrigan, who are our transportation technical support team. 

I am pleased that our Senator Barrasso and his keen understanding of our issues and concerns helps provide input and dialogue between the Tribe and the Select Committee. I will now summarize my remarks. 

The Federal Lands Highway Program and 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 Wind River Tribes 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 Tribes. 

While Congress has been responsive, it is painful for me to tell 

you that the manner by which the BIA allocates money through 

the IRR system has become a disaster. For our 2.2 million acre resVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
51

ervation, it is not doing what Congress intended to do when you 

enacted SAFETEA–LU. We pray that the leaders of this Committee, who have helped pass highway bills for the benefit of Tribes 

will once again weigh in and help fix the formula problems that the 

BIA seems incapable of fixing itself. 

BIA officials have turned a blind eye to the fact that millions and 

millions of IRR funds are being diverted, sometimes through illegal 

and fraudulent fashion, to non-BIA and non-Tribal roads. These actions are also contrary to the trust responsibility the BIA owes my 

Tribes. 

For the past six years, the Council of Large Land-Based Tribes 

has been attempting to correct the misinterpretation and 

misapplication by the BIA and the Federal Highway Administration of the enacted regulation of the Indian roads program as contained in 25 C.F.R. 170. This misinterpretation and misapplication 

manifested itself as the uncontrolled implementation of the road inventory update process which is used to generate formula shares 

for all Tribes. 

Because of this uncontrolled implementation of the inventory update process, that part of the inventory which generates formula 

shares amounts for the land-based Tribes has been reduced significantly from 76 percent in 2006 to less than 20 percent in 2011, and 

is declining at an alarming rate. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to consider the implications of this incredible situation. Only 20 percent of the money Congress appropriates for Indian Reservation Road program is being used on BIA 

and Tribal reservation roads. Surely this is not what Congress intended. 

You will hear from the BIA that the problems identified above 

are as a result of a negotiated rulemaking process. First of all, that 

process was flawed. But as importantly, it must be noted that after 

the rulemaking committee issued its recommendations, the BIA 

took those recommendations and on their own, arbitrarily and unilaterally made changes before they were finalized and placed in the 

Federal Register. The impact of those changes resulted in reducing 

the funding allocations as much as 60 percent to land-based Tribes 

by allowing some Tribes to indiscriminately add State, county 

roads and proposed roads into their IRR inventory without justification. 

Roads on Indian reservations are considered Federal roads due 

to the fact that the Indian reservations are considered Federal 

lands and the Federal Government is responsible for constructing 

and maintaining these roads. State and county roads are not considered Federal roads, and they have separate funding sources and 

should not be siphoning off critical funding meant for Indian reservations. 

To allow the diversion of funds away from land-based reservations to continue is a travesty, and land-based Tribes will never be 

able to reduce the tragic statistics that are discussed in previous 

testimony and testimony that we will be submitting in our written 

presentations. Allowing State and county roads into the IRR system simply to generate funding is siphoning off critical road construction funding for Tribes whose only source of funding is the 

IRR program. 

52

Based on the above, the Wind River Tribes have identified several items that must be incorporated into a new reauthorization 

bill in order to make 25 C.F.R. 170 a usable rule. Replace the Tribal Transportation Allocation Methodology, TTAM. The Tribal 

Transportation Allocation Methodology, TTAM, as contained in 25 

C.F.R. 170, has been so misconstrued by BIA, TTAM, that it favors 

only those direct service Tribes whose trust lands are surrounded 

by high volume State and county roads, and it has resulted in pitting Tribes against Tribes. 

The most fair and equitable solution to the problem is for the 

Secretary of Interior to suspend 25 C.F.R. 170 until it be corrected 

to reflect the actual intent of Congress. The previous rule should 

be temporarily put into effect during the time period that the existing rule is scrutinized. 

Define access. The current statute and regulation does not define 

access, nor does it place any limit onto what extent the route can 

be included in the IRR inventory. Because of this ambiguity, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs is allowing tens of thousands of non-BIA 

miles or non-Tribal system routes into the IRR inventory. These 

routes include interstate highways, national highway system roads, 

State, county and township roads, Federal forest roads and proposed roads. Most of these routes are not located within nor do 

they provide access to Indian or Native lands, with some even 

roadless and wilderness areas. Some BIA regional road engineers 

are allowing this abuse and others are prohibiting it as they believe such annexing is not allowed. 

Restrict proposed roads into IRR inventory. Proposed roads are 

being added indiscriminately to the IRR system. The BIA and the 

Federal Highway Administration are allowing thousands of miles 

of proposed roads into the IRR inventory only to generate huge 

funding amounts. 

Establish an IRR inventory oversight committee. From the uncontrolled and indiscriminate manner in which inventory is being 

added into the IRR inventory, 33 plus thousand miles in 2004, now 

in 2011 that is 140,000 miles, it is obvious that neither the BIA 

nor the Federal Highways are providing any quality control or 

quality assurance of the inventory data that is being used to calculate funding for IRR distribution. 

An inventory oversight committee made up of Tribal transportation officials must be established to monitor the inventory data 

that is being submitted. This committee will review all inventory 

data and will decide what data is eligible to be included into the 

official inventory. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Martel, will you please summarize your 

statement? 

Mr. MARTEL. It seems inevitable, the only practical solution we 

see for this problem is that since the roads on the BIA system are 

considered Federal roads, we must look at other options to get that 

funding in there. We want to work with Congress any way we can 

to get that in place. 

Thank you for inviting us to give testimony. If we can answer 

any questions, we will be glad to do that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martel follows:]

53

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WES MARTEL, VICE CHAIRMAN, EASTERN SHOSHONE

BUSINESS COUNCIL


915b1.eps
54


915b2.eps
55


915b3.eps
56


915b4.eps
57


915b5.eps
58


915b6.eps
59


915b7.eps 915b8.eps
60


915b9.eps
61

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. All of your full statements will be 

placed in the record. 

Mr. Chaco, will you please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PAULSON CHACO, DIVISION DIRECTOR, 

NAVAJO NATION DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. CHACO. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and esteemed members of the Committee. 

My name is Paulson Chaco and I am the Director for the Navajo 

Nation Division of Transportation. Today I would like to speak 

with you about four major concerns of Navajo Nation transportation. 

First, I will discuss the issue of direct funding, followed by job 

creation and road maintenance. And briefly ending with the Navajo 

Nation’s great concern with Question 10 of 25 C.F.R., Part 170, regarding the definition of Indian Reservation Roads. 

The Navajo Nation has gone to great measures over the years to 

create a sophisticated level of government and ensure quality public service for the Navajo people and everyone who may be guests 

on Navajo land. As a people and a nation, we continue to grow and 

progress, continually looking forward to the emerging global economy to pave a path for the Navajo people. 

However, in 2011, our Nation finds itself being held to a different 

set of standards. And in many regards, second class citizens. While 

the United States has made great strides to foster a more positive 


915b10.eps
62

relationship with Tribal nations, there are still improvements to be 

made. 

Perhaps the greatest issue facing the Navajo Nation is access to 

direct funding. Many programs, such as the TIGER grants, transit, 

emergency relief for federally-owned roads and safety grants are 

not truly available to Tribes unless we have partnered with a 

State. We ask the question, why is this? 

The Navajo Division of Transportation is a sophisticated and 

quality public service. There is no reason we should not have the 

ability to apply for all the same funding as any State in the Union. 

Allowing the Navajo Nation access to direct funding will allow for 

greater oversight in planning and management. Additionally, the 

decision where the funding is to be utilized will rest in the hands 

of the Navajo Nation, allowing for more services to be provided in 

the areas not of interest to any particular State Government. 

My division is tasked with the construction and maintenance of 

roads. Many of these roads are the only access our people may have 

for public service and basic human necessities. Yet today we find 

ourselves at the mercy of other departments of transportation. This 

is an issue that clearly needs to be addressed through legislation, 

so that the Navajo Nation and other Tribal nations can begin to acquire direct access to transportation funding. 

Job creation is an integral part of the Navajo’s current agenda, 

just as it is across the entire Nation. Unlike the majority of the 

Country, Navajo and other rural or large land-based Tribes have 

a unique problem. Tribal members lack access to job opportunities 

because of inadequate roadways. For 2011, the Navajo Nation used 

ARRA funding for eight separate road projects on the Navajo Nation, including Western Agency, Eastern Agency, Fort Defiance and 

Shiprock. All funding was used within the allotted time frame and 

to date, all projects are completed. 

This funding was instrumental not only in creating Navajo construction jobs, but secondary industries as well, specifically merchants and food vendors saw an increase in revenue from our presence, and the creation of roads allowed more people more efficient 

access to job opportunities throughout the Navajo Nation. 

Additionally, many of the social ills that plague Native American 

communities are a direct result of unemployment and lack of job 

opportunities. As roads are created and employment and access to 

opportunities increases, we have a greater ability to curtail these 

countless social problems that have hurt so many of our community 

members. 

While road creation does assist the Navajo people in accessing 

employment opportunities, receiving all forms of public service and 

obtaining basic human necessities, it is only half the battle. Once 

the roads are built, the question for the Navajo Nation and all 

Tribes is, how do we maintain them? Currently the transportation 

funding received by the Navajo Nation is never specifically for road 

maintenance, meaning that the roads can be built, but not maintained. This is a major obstacle for the Navajo Nation. 

Unlike State governments that have an array of methods for generating revenue to assist in road maintenance, the Navajo Nation 

is not so fortunate. This is not a problem unique to the Navajo, but 

is a reality across Indian Country and stems from systematic inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
63

equalities in taxation, taxation methods, economic development. 

Until the underlying issues are addressed, discretionary transportation funding needs to also include road maintenance. 

Mr. Chairman, it is common knowledge throughout Indian Country that there is a growing great concern over the definition of Indian Reservation Roads for transportation. Funding purposes specifically proposed an access road as described in 25 C.F.R. Part 

170. While I will not go into great length on this issue, I will state 

that the Navajo Nation does firmly believe that the roads which 

are continuously and systematically maintained by the State and 

county governments should be excluded from the definition of true 

Indian reservation roads. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that the 

Navajo Nation hopes to see greater access to direct funding which 

in turn allows for greater employment opportunities and job creation. Additionally, it is essential to allow separate funding based 

on total number of BIA and Tribal road miles and bridges for the 

road maintenance, and there must be legislation addressing the 

definition of Indian Reservation Roads under 25 C.F.R. Part 170. 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman Akaka and other esteemed members of the Committee for inviting me here to speak. 

The Navajo Nation understands that this is a difficult economy. 

Many hard decisions have to be made that will affect the great citizens of this great Country. 

However, when it comes to transportation issues, it is important 

to remember that in order to grow and progress, there must be a 

path for people to follow. Without this path, there is no greater destination for the people than the circumstances in which they currently live. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chaco follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAULSON CHACO, DIVISION DIRECTOR, NAVAJO NATION

DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and esteemed members of the Committee; 

My name is Paulson Chaco and I am the Division Director for the Navajo Nation 

Division of Transportation. Today I would like to speak to you about four major concerns that the Navajo Nation has regarding transportation. First, I will discuss the 

issue of Direct Funding, followed by Job Creation and Road Maintenance, and briefly ending with the Navajo Nation’s concerns with question 10 of 25 CFR part 170 

regarding the definition of Indian Reservation Roads. 

The Navajo Nation has gone to great measures over the years to create a sophisticated level of government and ensure quality public services for the Navajo people 

and everyone who may be guests on Navajo Land. As a people and a Nation we continue to grow and progress, continually looking forward in this emerging global 

economy to pave a path for the Navajo people. However, in 2011, our Nation still 

finds itself being held to a different set of standards and in many regards as second—-class citizens. While the United States has made great strides to foster a 

more positive relationship with Tribal Nations there are still improvements to be 

made. 

Direct Funding 

Perhaps the greatest issue that faces Navajo Transportation is access to direct 

funding. 

Many programs such as TIGER GRANTS, TRANSIT, EMERGENCY RELIEF 

FOR FEDERALLY OWNED ROADS and SAFETY GRANTS are not truly available 

to Tribes unless they have partnered with a State. Why is this? The Navajo Nation 

Division of Transportation is a sophisticated and quality public service. There is no 

reason that we should not have the ability to apply for all the same funding as any 

state in the union. Allowing the Navajo Nation access to direct funding will allow 

64

for greater oversight in planning and management of funding. Additionally, the decision of where the funding is to be utilized will rest in the hands of the Navajo 

Nation, allowing for more services to be provided in areas not of interest to any particular state government. 

My Division is tasked with the construction and maintenance of Navajo roads. 

Many of these roads are the only access our people may have for public services and 

basic human necessities. Yet today, we still find ourselves at the mercy of other departments of transportation. This is an issue that clearly needs to be addressed 

through legislation so that the Navajo Nation and other Tribal Nations can begin 

to acquire direct access to Transportation funding. 

Job Creation 

Job creation is an integral part of the Navajo Nation’s current agenda, just as it 

is across the entire Nation. Unlike the majority of the Country, Navajo and other 

rural or large land-based Tribes have a unique problem: Tribal member access to 

job opportunities because of inadequate roadways. 

For 2011, the Navajo Nation used A.R.R.A funding for eight separate road 

projects in the Western Agency, Eastern Agency, Fort Defiance and Shiprock. All 

funding was used within the allotted timeframe and to date all projects are completed. This funding was instrumental in not only creating Navajo construction jobs 

but in secondary industries as well. Specifically, merchants and food vendors saw 

an increase in revenues from our presence and the creation of roads allowed people 

more efficient access to job opportunities throughout the Navajo Nation. Additionally, many of the social ills that plague Native American communities are a direct 

result of unemployment and lack of opportunity. As roads are created, and employment and access to opportunities increase, we have a greater ability to curtail these 

countless social problems that have hurt so many in our community. 

Road Maintenance 

While road creation does assist The Navajo Nation people in accessing employment opportunities, receiving all forms of public services and obtaining basic human 

necessities, it is only half the battle. Once the roads are built the question for the 

Navajo Nation, and all Tribes, is ‘‘how do we maintain them? ’’

Currently, transportation funding received by the Navajo Nation is never earmarked for road maintenance, meaning that the roads can be built but not maintained. This is a major obstacle for the Navajo Nation. Unlike State Governments 

that have an array of methods for generating revenue to assist in road maintenance, 

the Navajo Nation is not so fortunate. This is not a problem that is unique to the 

Navajo, but is a reality across Indian Country and stems from systematic inequalities in taxation methods and economic development. Until those underlying issues 

are addressed, discretionary transportation funding needs to also include road maintenance. 

Defining Indian Reservation Roads Under Question 10 Of 25 CFR Part 170

It is common knowledge throughout Indian Country that there is a growing concern over the definition of an ‘‘Indian Reservation Road’’ for Transportation funding 

purposes, specifically proposed and access roads as described in 25 CFR Part 170. 

While I will not go into great length on this issue—I will state that the Navajo Nation does firmly believe that roads, which are continuously and systematically maintained by State and County governments, should be excluded from the definition of 

a true ‘‘Indian Reservation Road.’’

Conclusion 

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the Navajo Nation hopes to see greater access to direct funding, which in turn allows for greater employment opportunities and job creation. Additionally, it is essential to allow separate funding based 

on the total number of BIA and Tribal road miles and bridges for Road Maintenance 

and there must be legislation addressing the definition of Indian Reservation Roads 

under 25 CFR Part 170. 

I would like to thank Chairman Akaka and the other esteemed members of the 

Committee for inviting me here to speak today. The Navajo Nation understands 

that in this difficult economy many hard decisions are to be made that will affect 

all citizens of our great Country. However, when it comes to Transportation issues 

it is important to remember that in order to grow and progress there must be a path 

for people to follow. Without this path, there is no greater destination for them than 

the circumstances in which they currently live. Thank you.

65

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chaco, for your testimony. 

Ms. Hostler, will you please proceed with your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF JACQUE HOSTLER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, CHER–AE HEIGHTS INDIAN COMMUNITY OF THE

TRINIDAD RANCHERIA 

Ms. HOSTLER. Thank you, Senator Akaka. It is my extreme honor 

and pleasure to be here today. My name is Jacque Hostler. I am 

the Chief Executive Officer of the Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria in Northern California. 

I am honored to present this testimony on behalf of my Tribal 

chairman, who sends his greetings, the Honorable Garth Sundberg, 

and the Tribal council of the Trinidad Rancheria, as well as the 

Northern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, representing 11 

Tribes. 

My testimony is informed by my experience in the construction 

industry as well as my experience in building capacity and infrastructure in Indian Country for Tribal governments and my family, 

who are Hoopa Tribal members. My testimony honors my deceased 

husband today, who was a Hoopa Tribal councilman. He began the 

first transit program for his Tribe in 1987. Today the Hoopa Tribe, 

the Yurok Tribe and the Karuk Tribe partner with a local provider 

to provide transportation to Tribal members that cover an area of 

approximately 150 miles spanning three reservations and three rivers. This is one of the numerous success stories, due to perseverance and the determination of SAFETEA–LU. 

Lives are lost in Northern California on roads, as well, that are 

not maintained and safety issues are not addressed. Services are 

over one and two hours away to medical facilities. We need your 

understanding and help, as well. We need your commitment to 

work with us to protect the Tribal transportation gains made in the 

last seven years. As we continue to address the critical issues 

across Indian lands, both large and small land-based Tribes. We 

understand that. 

As the Committee is well aware, the unmet transportation needs 

have been discussed, the $69 billion unmet transportation infrastructure need in Indian Country, while the IRR program receives 

$454 million per year. Through SAFETEA–LU’s funding, increases 

to the Indian Reservation Roads program and program enhancements, Tribes have been able to build lasting improvements that 

have positively impacted Indian Country. The IRR program, in conjunction with other Federal transportation programs, has enabled 

Indian Tribes to build critical capacity and deliver major projects 

that have improved the safety of Tribal communities and have 

brought jobs to Tribal members and the local community. 

California has one of the largest Native American populations in 

the Nation and is home to over 110 Tribes. Tribal governments 

have learned to maximize IRR dollars. I am sorry that Senator 

Hoeven is not here. Because we have had to go into our local communities where there have been no monies. California’s unratified 

treaties checkerboarded the lands. County and State roads do bisect our reservations that the lands were taken. We have no conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
66

trol over that. But we still have the duty to provide for safe communities for our Tribal members and families. 

The economic indicators, we have all talked about that. Nearly 

one quarter of Native Americans live in poverty compared to a national average of 11.6 percent. And in Trinidad Rancheria, we are 

located on a remote north coastline. We have struggled for some 

time with a loss of jobs in the logging and forest products industry 

and commercial fishing industry. With the Recovery Act, we were 

able to develop capacity and deliver projects. We have a North 

Coast Tribal Transportation Commission that is home to 11 Tribes. 

And my full testimony talks about what those Tribes have accomplished. 

A joint Yurok Tribal-Humboldt County project utilizing multiple 

funding sources including Recovery Act funding, I can go on and 

on. One of the major projects we have been working on is a regional marine facility, a pier for Trinidad Rancheria, that promotes 

the economy. We are driving piles as we speak. 

By working together, Tribal programs are leveraging their internal capacity. And by coordinating with State and regional agencies, 

we are able to leverage our funding resources and plan projects 

that are mutually beneficial. Separately, we cannot be effective. Together, we cross over and leverage our funds, save lives, create jobs 

and improve our communities. 

On the North Coast, the Tribal transportation commission has 

provided technical support to all of the Tribes in our region. I have 

four specific ways I am recommending to improve and build upon 

the successes in SAFETEA–LU, which are, increase funding for 

Tribal transportation, authorizing direct access to a broader range 

of Federal funded programs, to maximize the Federal investment 

and reduce bureaucratic red tape. There are ways to save dollars 

in streamlining the Federal investment and also streamlining the 

environmental review and permitting process. 

On behalf of the Trinidad Rancheria, the Northern California 

Tribal Chairmens Association, the California Tribes and my Hoopa 

family, we thank the Committee for this opportunity to provide testimony. We look forward to the Committee’s continued effort to 

build upon this success in the coming transportation reauthorization. And for your dedication, Senator Akaka, and your fellow Committee members, to improve the lives of Tribal people. 

May God bless you, may God bless the Tribal nations, and may 

God bless America. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hostler follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACQUE HOSTLER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHER-AE

HEIGHTS INDIAN COMMUNITY OF THE TRINIDAD RANCHERIA

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is Jacque Hostler, and I am the Chief Executive Officer of 

the Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria (referred to herein as the ‘‘Tribe’’ or ‘‘Trinidad Rancheria’’). I am honored to present this testimony 

on behalf of the Tribe, and I bring the greetings of the Tribal Council and Tribal 

Chairman and thank the Committee for this opportunity. While I am providing testimony today solely in my capacity as a representative of the Trinidad Rancheria, 

my testimony is informed by my experience serving as the Representative for the 

Pacific Region and Vice-Chair of the Indian Reservation Road Program Coordinating 

Committee, a representative on the Caltrans Tribal Advisory Committee, the ChairVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
67

person of the North Coast Tribal Transportation Commission, and my previous experience as a Tribal transportation coordinator and construction manager. 

The Trinidad Rancheria would like to commend the Committee for holding this 

important and timely hearing and for your continued attention to Tribal transportation issues. As reflected in the title of today’s hearing, Tribal transportation is a 

critical component of Tribal economies and Tribal government. Although Indian 

Tribes continue to suffer disproportionately from substantial unmet transportation 

and infrastructure needs, the Indian Reservation Road (IRR) Program, as implemented under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: 

A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), has been an important success. The IRR Program in conjunction with other federal transportation programs in which Tribes directly participate has enabled Indian Tribes to build critical Tribal capacity and deliver major transportation projects that improve safety of Tribal communities, bring 

jobs to Tribal members and the community at large, support Tribal economic development and enhance the delivery of government services. For many Tribes, 

SAFETEA–LU’s funding increases and program enhancements have allowed Tribes 

to build lasting improvements that serve the Tribal community in all these sectors. 

Congress’ investment in Tribal transportation and infrastructure produces solid and 

meaningful returns and constitutes a critical way for Congress to fulfill its unique 

trust obligations to Indian Tribes. 

The achievements Indian Tribes have generated through SAFETEA–LU are vitally important to Indian Tribes, and we must build upon this record of success and 

continue to move forward to build a more prosperous and safe future for our Tribal 

communities. We cannot afford any steps backwards. 

The Cost of Existing Tribal Transportation and Infrastructure Deficiencies 

As the Committee is well aware, there are tremendous unmet transportation and 

infrastructure needs in Indian country. In order to consider how to improve Tribal 

transportation and infrastructure, we must first recognize the current condition of 

transportation facilities on the IRR System and the adverse impacts these unmet 

transportation and infrastructure needs cause to Tribal communities. 

Indian Tribes rely on the roads on the IRR System to travel within our communities, to commute to work and school, to access health care. Our livelihood and welfare depend on these roads, yet an assessment prepared by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) described the IRR System as the most underdeveloped road network 

in the United States. The BIA has further estimated that the backlog of improvement needs for selected State and local Indian reservation roads exceeds $11.8 billion for BIA-owned roads and 9.1 billion for State, Tribal, and locally owned roads. 

In previous testimony before this Committee, John Baxter, Associate Administrator 

for Federal Lands for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), observed that 

these conditions make it very difficult for residents of Tribal communities to travel 

to hospitals, stores, schools, and employment centers. 

The BIA further determined that the IRR System is a clear health and safety hazard for Tribal communities and an impediment to meaningful economic development. A federal traffic safety study shows that Indian Tribes suffer the highest per 

capita traffic facility rates in the United States—more than four times the national 

average. A report prepared by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

observed grimly that, although the number of traffic fatalities is declining nationally, the number of fatal crashes on Indian reservations has increased by 52.5 percent. Data indicate that American Indians also have the highest rates of pedestrian 

injury and death per capita of any racial group in the United States. As alarming 

as these statistics are, they do not adequately convey the true human and economic 

toll, which Tribal communities know too well. 

Economic indicators underscore the need for job creation on Indian reservations, 

and Tribal transportation projects can bring not only construction jobs but also spur 

economic growth within Tribal communities. Nearly one-quarter of Native Americans live in poverty compared to a national average poverty rate of 11.6 percent. 

The BIA’s Indian Labor Force Report also calculates that 49 percent of the total Indian labor force living on or near reservations was unemployed. The economic situation faced by the Trinidad Rancheria reflects these statistics. We are located on the 

remote north coast of California, which has struggled for some time with the loss 

of jobs in the logging and forest products industry and the commercial fishing industry. Unemployment for the Tribe is 52 percent, and bringing jobs to this economically distressed areas is a top priority for the Tribe. 

68

Achievements Realized Under SAFETEA–LU 

Expanding Access and Building a Foundation 

Prior to SAFETEA–LU, the IRR Program was a smaller program that served a 

relatively narrow slice of the national Tribal transportation needs. Many Tribes, 

expecially in California, were not able to participate directly in the IRR Program 

and their transportation needs were not addressed through the program. Congressional action in TEA–21, the IRR Program negotiated rulemaking and funding increases in SAFETEALU have opened participation in the IRR Program to all Tribes, 

with funding to be allocated according to relative need and construction challenges. 

The Indian Reservation Road System (IRR System) was similarly opened up to include all public roads that provide access to Indian reservations and Indian and 

Alaska Native communities, regardless of road ownership. 

These changes have enabled Tribes throughout the United States to develop 

transportation programs to plan and deliver projects that tackle long-standing 

transportation and infrastructure needs. For example, on the Trinidad Rancheria, 

the annual funding we receive from the IRR Program has enabled the Tribe, for the 

first time, to establish a Tribal roads department, conduct a thorough inventory of 

the roads eligible for the IRR System, assess the Tribe’s transportation and infrastructure needs, and develop a Tribal plan to address these needs. Thanks to 

SAFETEA–LU, the Tribe has developed the capacity to administer its own roads 

program through a direct program agreement with the FHWA, and, as discussed 

below, it has allowed us to develop major transportation projects and leverage the 

additional funds necessary to deliver these projects. We are also better able to coordinate with federal, state and regional transportation agencies. 

Planning and Building Projects and Delivering Jobs 

SAFETEA–LU authorizes Tribes to identify their transportation needs, develop a 

Tribal transportation improvement program, and plan and deliver transportation infrastructure projects. Indian Tribes have used this authority to develop their capacity to carry out these functions, and the records maintained under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) demonstrates the internal capacity Tribes 

have established. 

In 2009, Congress appropriated $310 million to the IRR Program (the ‘‘ARRA IRR 

Program’’), above the annual IRR Program funding for FY 2009. The BIA and the 

FHWA have reported that 99 percent of the ARRA IRR Program funds were obligated on 518 projects and that 94 percent of these funds were obligated through 

contracts or compacts with Indian Tribes. Under the ARRA IRR Program, Indian 

Tribes developed and submitted the ARRA transportation improvement plans to 

fund 20 bridge projects, 1,300 road construction projects covering 1,300 miles of 

road, 17 transit projects, 60 road maintenance projects, and 320 design projects. The 

success of the ARRA IRR Program shows that not only is there a great unmet transportation infrastructure need, but that Indian Tribes have the capacity to plan and 

deliver these transportation projects. 

The Trinidad Rancheria is pleased to report that the Tribe has recently commenced construction of a major transportation infrastructure project to replace a deteriorating transportation facility—the Trinidad Pier. This project, which is funded 

through a combination of federal, state, and Tribal funds (including the IRR Program and the IRR High Priority Program), is currently providing significant construction jobs and supporting the employment of local and regional suppliers. Moreover, the reconstructed pier will anchor the Tribal and local regional economy by 

supporting the jobs of commercial fishermen, recreational fishing businesses, various harbor businesses operated by the Tribe (e.g., a restaurant, tackle shop, and 

boat maintenance facilities), and the local hospitality industry. Additionally, the 

project will benefit the unique marine environment in Trinidad Harbor and help develop employment in the growing environmental tourism industry. 

Below are examples of transportation projects several member Tribes of the North 

Coast Tribal Transportation Commission have delivered, or are in the process of delivering, which provide jobs and address the significant transportation needs:

• The Yurok Tribe’s Bald Hill Road Paving Project was a joint Yurok Tribe- Humboldt County project utilizing multiple funding sources, including Recovery Act 

funding.

• The Karuk Tribe receives its IRR funding though a direct agreement with the 

FHWA. Construction on Itroop Road became a top priority when surface cracks 

on that road increased to more than 8’’ wide and threatened the viability of this 

sole access route for residents of a multi-unit single family Tribal housing community.

69

• The Smith River Rancheria conducted one of the first Tribally-led Road Safety 

Audit/Value Engineering (RSA/VE) study in which a state DOT, county government and FHWA fully participated. The study involved on-site field visits and 

inspections at all hours and in different weather conditions in order to experience, first hand, the road traffic and safety conditions at play.

• In the absence of public transit services in its region, the Blue Lake Rancheria 

Tribe, working closely with CalTrans, the California Highway Patrol, local hospitals and other groups, made public transit a reality. Thanks to funding from 

FTA’s Tribal Transit Program, by 2010, the Tribe was providing 17,000 one way 

rides a year.

• The Hoopa Valley Tribe has implemented the Bald Hill Stabilization Project to 

prevent closure of an emergency exit from the Reservation and avoid a lengthy 

detour for residents, extended Redwood Grove Road for residential development, 

and developed a project study to provide crosswalks, sidewalks and medians on 

the Reservation.

• To enhance safety, the Elk Valley Rancheria has designed underpasses and trail 

corridors to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists crossing highway 101 and is 

coordinating with a wildlife scientist to incorporate elk crossing features.

These examples represent a small sample of transportation projects being delivered by Indian Tribes. They all highlight the ability of rural Tribes to deliver major 

projects to economically distressed areas. 

Partnering and Coordination 

Partnerships and coordination among Tribes and between Tribes and state and 

local agencies are a necessity for many Tribes, especially in California where the 

IRR Program funding is relatively limited. SAFETEA–LU has provided Tribes with 

the resources necessary to develop such relationships. By working together, Tribal 

programs are leveraging their internal capacity, and by coordinating with state and 

regional agencies, we are able to leverage our funding resources and plan projects 

that are mutually beneficial. On the North Coast of California, we have formed the 

North Coast Tribal Transportation Commission, which has eight member Tribes 

who work together on common interests, provide mutual technical assistance, and 

coordinate with the local regional transportation agencies and the California Department of Transportation. Our Tribal transportation commission has successfully 

built a number of productive partnerships. The Commission’s successful collaboration has been recognized by the Director of the California Transportation Commission and received a Federal Highways Exemplary Human Service Award. 

Improving and Building Upon SAFETEA–LU 

While SAFETEA–LU has advanced important policy and program opportunities, 

in many respects it has showed us how much remains to be done. Indeed, experience 

has shown that the funding and scope of Tribal programs in SAFETEA–LU are insufficient to make sufficient progress addressing transportation needs on the 

ground. In order to more fully address the unmet infrastructure and safety needs 

of Indian Tribes we need to build upon the progress made in SAFETEA–LU. 

For several years a broad cross section of Indian Tribes have worked with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the InterTribal Transportation Association (ITA) joint task force to develop a consensus set of Tribal priorities for the 

reauthorization of SAFETEA–LU. These consensus priorities are set forth in the 

National Tribal Leadership Paper on Tribal Transportation Priorities (‘‘White 

Paper’’), which has been adopted by both NCAI and ITA. The Committee on Indian 

Affairs clearly recognizes the significance of such a broad interTribal consensus on 

these issues, and, in 2009, the Committee Chairman released draft legislation which 

largely tracked these provisions. Below are some of the key priorities identified in 

White Paper. 

Funding 

While we understand that it is a difficult time to increase funding for any government program and that many programs are facing budget cuts. However, there is 

a strong justification providing an increase to the IRR Program. In addition to the 

unmet need, Indian Tribes have suffered from historical funding inequities. Although Indian Reservation Roads make up nearly three percent of the federal roadways, they receive less than 0.5 percent of the total federal highway funding. The 

funding inequities are even sharper when the funding for Tribal programs is compared to the funding provided to states. For example, at the current funding levels, 

the IRR Program receives only about half the amount per road mile that states receive. Moreover, there is evidence that states, who receive federal funding for their 

70

own roads that fall within reservations, do not fulfill their obligation to improve or 

maintain these roads. 

Any reduction to the IRR Program funding would seriously impair the ability of 

Indian Tribes to deliver actual projects on the ground. Under the SAFETEA–LU 

funding levels for FY 2009, Tribes with relatively small transportation programs 

must coble resources together from a number of sources and over several years to 

carry out solely the design and permitting phase of a major project. If IRR Program 

funding is not increased or even diminished, many Tribes may be precluded from 

delivering major projects. Not only would this breach Congress’ trust obligation to 

Tribes, it would undermine the Tribal government capacity which has been built 

under SAFETEA–LU. 

Direct Access to a Broader Range of Federally Funded Programs 

Transportation safety is DOT’s highest priority, yet the data clearly indicates that 

Congress and the Administration have not succeeded in reducing the appalling rate 

of traffic fatalities in Indian country. Under SAFETEA–LU Congress authorized 

$1.275 billion in FY 2008 alone for State-administered High Risk Rural Road Program, and nearly $700 million for the NHTSA-administered Highway Safety Programs. However, Tribal governments, who face the greatest growing highway safety 

problem, have not been able to access these programs. To effectively combat the factors that contribute to highway accidents in Indian country, Tribes must be provided direct access to these programs, and to accomplish this the White Paper recommends establishing a two (2) percent Tribal funding set aside within the High 

Risk Rural Roads Program and creating new Tribal traffic safety programs with 

FHWA and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). 

Maximize the Federal Investment 

There is general agreement within Congress and the Administration of the need 

to reduce bureaucratic hurdles that impair efficient program administration and to 

increase program flexibility. This is particularly important for Indian Tribes, which 

have extremely limited program budgets. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) has a proven record as an effective and accountable 

way to reduce administrative costs and studies show that programs administered 

under ISDEAA have become engines for economic growth in their communities. 

Congress has sought to extend greater authority to Tribes to carry out the Indian 

Reservation Roads (IRR) Program under ISDEAA agreements with the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and direct program agreements with the Federal Highway Administration. By increasing the scope of the programs that can be included in ISDEAA 

agreements, Congress can maximize federal investment in roads infrastructure and 

to put more people to work. 

In particular, we support extending the ISDEAA agreements to all Department 

of Transportation (DOT) programs serving Tribes, including programs administered 

by the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), FHWA-Federal Lands Highway, 

Federal Transit Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

and other federal transportation agencies. The FHWA has successfully implemented 

direct program agreements with Tribes, and the program has grown quickly over 

the last two years. Based on this experience, we believe that DOT would be able 

to establish and implement a successful Tribal transportation program under the 

ISDEAA and we support extending such a program to DOT. 

Streamline Environmental Review and Permitting Processes 

The Administration and Congress have noted that it takes far too long to deliver 

a transportation project and have indicated support for streamlining the environmental review and permitting processes for transportation projects. The Trinidad 

Rancheria wholeheartedly agrees. Because many Tribal projects depend on both federal and state funding, or involve transportation facilities located on state rights of 

way, Tribes must often comply with overlapping federal and state environmental review and permitting requirements, which can delay projects for years and result in 

significant additional costs for even modest projects. The Tribe supports the protection of environmental resources and we have undertaken several projects to reduce 

existing impacts to the environment. However, there must be balance, and we respectfully urge the Committee to work with the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee to ensure that Indian Tribes benefit equally from any efforts to 

streamline these requirements for state projects. Additionally, Tribal projects should 

not be burdened with any additional state requirements or costs that are not imposed on projects implemented by state or local government agencies. 

71

Conclusion 

On behalf of the Trinidad Rancheria, I thank the Committee for your continued 

attention to Tribal transportation issues. Tribal transportation is a critical component of Tribal economies and Tribal government. The opportunities created by 

SAFETEA–LU and the Recovery Act have led to numerous important successes in 

which Tribes have improved safety of Tribal communities, brought jobs to Tribal 

members and the community at large, supported Tribal economic development and 

enhanced the delivery of government services. We look forward to the Committee’s 

continued effort to build upon these successes in the coming transportation reauthorization.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Jacque Hostler, for 

your testimony. I want to thank this panel for your testimony 

today. 

As we heard today, and this question is for the entire panel, as 

we heard today, many of the Tribes have had a number of natural 

disasters over the years, which have had significant impacts on 

Tribal roads and bridges. We have heard that from other witnesses. 

My question to you is, what recommendations do you have for 

ensuring that Tribes are able to repair and restore their roads after 

natural disasters? 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, for the record, can I have Mr. Pete 

Red Tomahawk answer that for our Tribe, the Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe? Because we have had several of them, and we talked about 

this. I will let him explain that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Thank you. Will you please give your name 

and position? 

Mr. RED TOMAHAWK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is 

Pete Red Tomahawk. I am a member of the Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe. [Greeting in Native tongue]. Good afternoon. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon. 

Mr. RED TOMAHAWK. I see on your bio your birthday is coming 

up. I want to wish you a happy birthday. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mahalo, thank you very much. 

Mr. RED TOMAHAWK. Mr. Chairman, we have been experiencing 

a lot of disasters. First, we deal with the snow issue, and then we 

get a lot of snow, 18, 20 feet of snow. Our road maintenance can’t 

handle that snow. 

We go to the BIA and the BIA, when Mike Black was the regional director, he contacted the Rocky Mountain Region, their regional director. What they were able to do was contact the Tribes 

within their region. They came together like the Blackfeet, Fort 

Belknap, Fort Peck, the Assiniboine Sioux, the Crow, the Northern 

Cheyenne and all these Tribes came together and they brought 

equipment. And they came down and they helped us, not only 

Standing Rock, but Cheyenne River. We were in dire, dire need of 

help and they came and they helped us. They helped us open the 

roads. 

And them next comes the floods. As soon as the snow melts, then 

we have a lot of water. This year was really bad, because of the 

melted snow. It affected the whole Missouri River. This is the first 

time there is dams on the Missouri River with Fort Peck Garrison 

Dam, the Walhee Dam and Pier, Big Bed in Fort Thompson, Fort 

Randall, the Gavins Point and looking at all these dams here. This 

is the first time, with the Garrison Dam, there are 28 spillways. 

72

And with the 28 spillways, this is the first time all 28 spillways 

were open 

There were 285,000 CFSs of water coming through the spillways. 

As the water, it was just overwhelming all the houses and looking 

at the community that Senator Hoeven comes out of, looking at all 

that, it was just terrible. And one of the Tribes, the Lower Brule 

Sioux Tribe, they experienced death where the water went over the 

road, and there were two elderly ladies thinking that the water 

just went over the road. And it created a huge tunnel underneath 

and the ladies lost their lives. Later on there was another accident 

that took four more. 

So this flood is really bad, and we are going into the fire next. 

So we have back to back disasters on Standing Rock. That is where 

it is at, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Martel? 

Mr. MARTEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on my transportation director to update us, but before I do, last year we had probably a thousand year flood on our reservation. For some reason we 

got all this rain and snow, and we had a real warm spring and all 

the snow melted at once and wiped out one of our major bridges 

through the main thoroughfare on our reservation, destroyed a lot 

of roads, threatened a lot of homes. We were fortunate that we 

didn’t lose any lives but we utilized a lot of our local resources, 

FEMA was there to help us. We are one of the reservations that 

has a pretty decent relationship with the Wyoming Department of 

Transportation. They lent their assistance and their expertise to 

us. But I would like to ask our transportation director to give you 

a little more detail on that. 

Mr. SMITH. Hapa. That is hello, friend. As far as our opportunity 

this year, like Pete, it is our second year of floods. In 2010, we experienced over $2.2 million worth of damage to our roads and our 

bridges. As the Federal agency, the emergency Federal aid that 

was provided to the Tribes, was calculated to absorb two bridges 

that we have suffered huge damages with and we have lost one 

total bridge between our two reservation communities, which is the 

direct access for goods and services. I think their Wal-Mart took a 

big hit last year, because we weren’t able to get down and have a 

lot of people. 

And the bridge is passable at this time. Just as we were reshaping up our roads and our bridges from last year, because the money 

came in in December and January, where you can’t work in Wyoming very well, when the ice is flowing and so forth, that we were 

just now cleaning up from the previous year’s flood damage and we 

got hit again. 

But several good things have happened with our technology that 

we also use, it is satellite technology and GIS–GPS surveying. So 

we knew where our danger spots were, so we shored those up. To 

this year’s damages, we are in the range of $300,000. So even 

though we had more water, we were able to absorb a lot of the 

damages. 

But the unfortunate thing is, as Mr. Red Tomahawk can attest, 

we get the money, but in order to get the money you have to spend 

your existing IRR money. So that doesn’t let you build many 

projects that you had planned for in the years ahead to get your 

73

money back and put those funds back into the system. So it really 

hinders, a double whammy, so to speak, on your road projects. 

So we are very limited in projects we could perform this year, because we do not have the allocation or the funds available. And 

with the present system of funding as has been dribbled out to us 

in appropriations in a segment process that really defeats our longterm process of being able to complete our projects. That is a real 

hindrance, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. If I could answer any questions, I will be happy to. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chaco? 

Mr. CHACO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. The question is, what recommendation. For Navajo, we 

have our testimony, which is related to direct funding. Direct funding for basically one is a streamlining of reimbursement processes 

from FEMA. Secondly is the ability for the nations to declare their 

own emergencies. The other one is the ability to move the minimum funding requirements within FEMA. Normally what happens, I came from a small Tribe, worked for a small Tribe. In that 

case, we literally had to include several Tribes in order to meet the 

qualifications under FEMA regulations. 

So those are the recommendations that I pose forward. 

The fourth is funding in road maintenance. Road maintenance is 

funded under the Department of Interior budget. As other Tribes 

have indicated, that has to be shored up in order to maintain our 

roads, and includes road maintenance and washouts. Right now, on 

Navajo, I have over 50 washouts of culverts as we speak. The 

photos that you see on the pictures here is recent rains and recent 

washouts that we have. We have families that can’t get across the 

washout. 

So those are my recommendations, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chaco. 

Ms. Hostler? 

Ms. HOSTLER. Senator Akaka, I managed over two emergencies 

in the Hoopa Tribe for over three years. It took over a year to get 

funding flowing in. And all of these gentlemen are exactly correct: 

the biggest need is that direct access for immediate emergency 

funds to come into the reservation. 

Currently we have to wait for the Federal Highways representative to make it to the reservation. Sometimes that takes months. 

Then we have to wait for the partnership with the Federal Highways representative and the regional road engineer. That also 

takes weeks at times. Then we have to expend our own maintenance funds, and oftentimes by the winter, those funds are already 

expended. So in order to open roads and to have safe passage we 

have to use any construction funding that may be available, which 

oftentimes is not reimbursed for over a year. 

So I concur with all of my colleagues. 

Additionally, those contracts that come through the BIA are 93–

638 contracts and take months to initiate. It is a cost reimbursable 

contract, most of the time. So all of those bureaucracies add to the 

pain and suffering of the Tribal members on the reservation. 

The timing of the delivery of funding and again, Mr. Chaco just 

mentioned the BIA maintenance money. If the roads have not been 

74

maintained properly for any reason, whether it is lack of funds or 

lack of time, those roads are not eligible. Because they say, if the 

maintenance would have been done, those roads would be eligible 

and those assessments can move forward. If I didn’t have funding 

to manage 300 miles of roads on the Hoopa Tribe, I was only funded at 11 percent of need, then I could not, I was not eligible for 

those roads to be reimbursed for emergencies. 

So there is a series of things that need to be corrected in coordination with the agencies and that direct access to the Tribe. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much for your testimonies and 

your responses. And again, I want to express my mahalo to the witnesses at today’s hearing. The testimony we have heard today is 

very valuable and the Committee will consider it as we move forward to draft Tribal transportation legislation. 

I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Indian Affairs Committee and the other Senate committees that deal 

with transportation issues to make sure that Tribal priorities are 

considered as the Senate moves forward with surface transportation reauthorization. So this is what we are trying to get into before we arrive there. 

So your responses have been very valuable. Again, mahalo, 

thank you very much. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m, the Committee was adjourned.] 

(75)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HOFFMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF

VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS (AVCP) 

Introduction 

I wish to thank the Committee, and especially Chairman Akaka and Vice Chairman Barrasso, as well as our wonderful Senator on this Committee, Lisa Murkowski, for the time and attention the Committee is giving to the crucial topic of 

transportation in Indian Country. 

Background 

The Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP), headquartered in Bethel, 

Alaska, is a Native organization providing social, economic and educational services 

to 56 separate Tribal governments in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Our 56 member 

Tribes are scattered throughout the YK-Delta in an area that is approximately 

59,000 square miles and roughly the size of the state of Oregon. Our villages are 

not connected by road to one another nor to the rest of Alaska. Our unique geography poses great challenges to our efforts to provide safe access to basic essential 

services. 

Summary Points—Safety and Access 

AVCP has made it a top Tribal priority to maximize its utilization of the authority 

granted to it in SAFETEA–LU so that our citizens can have access to basic services 

and safe passage on par with the rest of America. Access and safety is our goal. 

For decades, AVCP and the rest of Native Alaska were left behind the rest of Indian 

Country when it came to federal support for building transportation systems. As a 

result, our unmet need became overwhelmingly huge. We have begun, however, to 

make significant efforts toward meeting some of that unmet need in the past five 

or six years. SAFETEA–LU has made that possible, by placing Alaska Native Tribes 

at the table with our fellow Tribes throughout Indian Country and offering us the 

opportunity to meet the same rules and regulations that applied to other Tribes. Accordingly, we have been able to begin to address critical issues that impact the 

health and safety of our people. We strongly urge this Committee to ensure that 

your colleagues do not alter the basic framework that was put in place in 

SAFETEA–LU. We ask that you do everything within your power to leverage additional resources to Indian Country because all of our unmet needs for access to basic 

essential services and traffic safety make a compelling case for a larger share of federal funding when compared to the rest of America. 

Funding Formula 

In recent months, the funding formula that is required by SAFETEA–LU has 

come under attack by some who believe that it has reallocated funding away from 

true need. We believe the attack is without a basis in fact. The funding distribution 

formula has resulted in an increased pool of Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) funding that more precisely identifies and addresses actual need for safety and access 

throughout all of Indian Country. 

An example of this is the eligibility of remotely located Native villages who, until 

SAFETEA–LU, had no access to IRR funding for basic access to essential health, 

education and work resources as well as important cultural sites. Maintaining the 

existing statutory and regulatory authority for proposed and primary access roads 

is an extremely crucial issue for us, and we urge the Committee to resist all calls 

to alter that framework that has begun to work for all corners of Indian Country, 

especially those in its most remote locations. 

Unity is Key 

As we have urged our Tribal leader colleagues in forum after forum, we believe 

it is in all of our best interests to join together to seek, in unity, a greater share 

of the federal funding resources based upon our combined unmet need for safe acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
76

cess to essential services, which need is far greater than the needs of nearly every 

other group in America. 

Indian Country is, for the most part, located far from the services most Americans 

take for granted. Safe and reliable access to basic health care, education, commerce, 

and employment are a huge challenge for most of Indian Country, and together, we 

can make the best case for a greater share of federal resources. When this issue of 

‘‘access to basic services’’ is combined with the issue of how unsafe are the transportation systems in much of Indian Country, we should have an overwhelming claim 

to federal resources. Access and safety each implicate life and death challenges that 

daily confront Native communities throughout all of Indian Country. Access and 

safety should be the rallying cry for all Indian Tribes and Native communities. We 

urge this Committee to urge its colleagues to strengthen SAFETEA–LU rather than 

weaken it. 

Feasibility and Survival 

Any effort to impose a ‘‘feasibility’’ standard or other length limitation on eligibility is a proposal to forsake entire Native communities and thwart Indian self-determination and the right to preserve our own ways of life. Writing off entire communities simply because they are home to ‘‘too few’’ people or are ‘‘too remote’’ for 

some urbanites’ notions of what is ‘‘inhabitable’’ is an affront to Native culture and 

way of life and a direct and repulsive threat to our future. We urge the Committee 

to resist calls to change SAFETEA–LU’s basic framework of eligible funding distribution formulas and inventory eligible for funding. Any effort to place a length 

limitation on a remotely Native village is to once again rule out their participation 

in the IRR program and impede our progress to address critical safety issues in our 

region. 

Proposed and Primary Access Routes 

We wish to re-emphasize to the Committee the importance that proposed and primary access intermodal routes play in Alaska’s very underdeveloped transportation 

infrastructure; especially across the large Native land areas that are not served by 

state or federal road systems. Under SAFETEA–LU, we are delivering critical transportation plans, projects, and programs to ‘‘undeveloped’’ and ‘‘underdeveloped’’ 

rural Alaska. We are providing primary access routes that connect our people to 

basic health, education, safety, and employment resources that are absolutely vital 

to the survival of many Tribal citizens who struggle to survive across a vast Native 

land base. 

We oppose the various suggestions that have been proposed that would limit funding, including setting a defined mileage length, after which a route would generate 

no funding under the IRR formula. Tribes in Alaska collectively have a very unique 

land base. Any proposed solution to any national Tribal issue that is based on land 

boundaries would be fundamentally unworkable in Alaska. For example, one suggestion has been to limit funding only to roads that extend no more than 15 miles from 

a reservation boundary or Native village or corporation boundary. Such boundaries 

in Alaska do not correspond with transportation needs. They are far removed from 

population centers and have no resemblance to reservation boundaries in the Lower 

48. In Alaska, where the federal and state highway system is virtually nonexistent 

in most areas, and the unique landscape and land ownership is diverse from Tribe 

to Tribe and region to region, trying to implement such a radical proposal in a fair 

manner would be impossible. 

Transportation and Access to Services 

Notably, for purposes of service delivery, the BlA has long considered the entire 

State of Alaska to be a single service delivery area without boundaries, with nearly 

80,000 Tribal members of 229 Tribes residing in communities throughout a large 

land area that is over twice the size of Texas and larger than the combined area 

of the 22 smallest states. Likewise, the IHS has long considered the entire State 

of Alaska to be one Contract Health Services Delivery Area for purposes of providing health care to American Indians and Alaska Natives. In providing federal 

support for transportation services, the federal government uses the same approach 

it uses to provide support for BIA and IHS services. Indeed, transportation without 

boundaries throughout all of Alaska is absolutely necessary in order for SAFETEA–

LU to be of use in Alaska. It would be a callous and craven federal policy to offer 

IHS and BIA services without boundaries but then deny the supposed beneficiaries 

transportation access to those services. 

Relative Need 

We object to any effort to cap a Tribe’s proposed routes by limiting the proposed 

miles funded to no more than 2 percent of the miles already built in the Tribe’s inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:57 Jun 12, 2012 Jkt 073248 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\73248.TXT JACK
77

ventory each year. Such a proposal, if implemented, would have a destructive effect 

on all Tribes who, like most of those in Alaska, have only recently become eligible 

to participate in the IRR program under the new authority provided in SAFETEA–

LU. Before SAFETEA–LU, Alaska Tribes were unable to secure much funding because of the way BIA distributed funds. With SAFETEA–LU, and its focus on proposed and primary access roads, Alaska Tribes now have authority and funding to 

begin address to decades of neglect and isolation from basic human services. 

While most Tribes in the Lower 48 states are likewise relatively neglected and 

isolated, the BIA IRR program and surrounding state and county transportation 

programs have been addressing their transportation needs for at least four decades. 

In Alaska, however, Tribes are much further behind not only the rest of America, 

but also, much further behind the Tribes in the Lower 48 states, having had only 

a few years of participation in the IRR program under SAFETEA–LU. 

Alaska Offers Opportunity 

By adhering to SAFETEA–LU authority, and by following the rules promulgated 

under it, Alaska regional Tribes and Tribal organizations have begun to make great 

strides toward improving safe and reliable access of their citizens to essential services. We are rebuilding access to villages for citizens who were forcibly removed by 

the United States decades ago. We are rebuilding access to small, remote villages 

whose way of life deserves to be preserved not abandoned. 

Until SAFETEA–LU, the IRR program allocated very little funding to address the 

staggering transportation needs of Tribes in Alaska. After SAFETEA–LU and its 

Relative Needs Formula that was produced by a negotiated rulemaking process in 

which everyone participated, Alaska Tribes in the last several years began to receive a long overdue relative needs share of the underfunded IRR program. The increases to meet relative needs in Alaska have been lawfully allocated, in compliance 

with the tools and authorities in SAFETEA–LU that are available to all Tribes 

wherever situated. We urge the Committee to resist all calls to weaken the 

SAFETEA–LU statute and instead ask the Committee to reauthorize the law so 

that it can work as intended for everyone. 

Conclusion 

Transportation needs in Indian Country for safe access to basic essential services 

are much more acute than in the rest of America, and the federal funding to meet 

those needs has been far from sufficient. The increases in funding that accompanied 

SAFETEA–LU were the product of a unified voice and approach from all of Indian 

Country that compared the relative needs of Indian Country, including safe access 

to health and other basic services, with the rest of America. We ask the Committee 

to focus on this in its efforts to direct a greater portion of federal transportation 

funding in Indian Country. 

We thank you for this opportunity to speak on this very critical issue. There is 

a lot at stake for us and our Tribal members. Safe access to basic services is critical 

to our survival as a people. We hope our diverse voices today will help inform your 

decisions on reauthorization of SAFETEA–LU. 

78

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF JULIA F. DORRIS, PRESIDENT AND LOREEN J. 

STEEVES, VICE PRESIDENT, VILLAGE OF KALSKAG TRADITIONAL COUNCIL


915c1.eps
79


915c2.eps
80


915c3.eps
81

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF ZECHARIAH C. CHALIAK, SR., PRESIDENT AND

WASSILIE PLEASANT, SECRETARY, NATIVE VILLAGE OF NUNAPITCHUK (IRA

COUNCIL) TRIBE


915d1.eps
82


915d2.eps
83


915d3.eps
84

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JON GREENDEER, PRESIDENT, HO-CHUNK NATION


915d4.eps
85


915d1.eps
86


915d2.eps
87

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TEX HALL ‘‘RED TIPPED ARROW’’, CHAIRMAN, MANDAN, 

HIDATSA, ARIKARA, THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES, GREAT PLAINS TRIBAL CHAIRMAN’S

ASSOCIATION


915e1.eps
88


915e2.eps 915e3.eps
89


915f1.eps
90


915f2.eps
91


915f3.eps
92


915f4.eps
93

Æ


915f5.eps