[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASSESSING THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF TRIBES, FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT
AGENCIES, AND U.S. TERRITORIES
=======================================================================
(116-52)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 6, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
42-575 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
ROB WOODALL, Georgia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
JOHN KATKO, New York Georgia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana DINA TITUS, Nevada
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MIKE BOST, Illinois JARED HUFFMAN, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California,
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania Vice Chair
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
Puerto Rico ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
ROSS SPANO, Florida GREG STANTON, Arizona
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
GREG PENCE, Indiana COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Columbia, Chair
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DON YOUNG, Alaska STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JOHN GARAMENDI, California
BOB GIBBS, Ohio HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JARED HUFFMAN, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JULIA BROWNLEY, California
ROB WOODALL, Georgia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
JOHN KATKO, New York ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MARK DeSAULNIER, California
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
DOUG LaMALFA, California ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania GREG STANTON, Arizona
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa, Vice Chair
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
ROSS SPANO, Florida CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia HARLEY ROUDA, California
GREG PENCE, Indiana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DINA TITUS, Nevada
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Highways
and Transit:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit:
Opening statement............................................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Alaska:
Opening statement............................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett, a Delegate in Congress from the Virgin
Islands, opening statement..................................... 7
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 83
WITNESSES
Hon. Nelson Petty Jr., P.E., Commissioner, Virgin Islands
Department of Public Works:
Oral statement............................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Christopher B. French, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Oral statement............................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Aron Reif, P.E., Transportation Program Manager, Office of
Acquisition and Property Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior:
Oral statement............................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Hon. Joe A. Garcia, Head Councilman, Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo:
Oral statement............................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Mary Beth Clark, President, Intertribal Transportation
Association:
Oral statement............................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Sergio ``Satch'' Pecori, Chief Executive Officer, Hanson
Professional Services:
Oral statement............................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Greg Stanton:
Letter of January 31, 2020, from Shan Lewis, President, Inter
Tribal Association of Arizona.............................. 65
Letter of February 3, 2020, from Jonathan Nez, President and
Myron Lizer, Vice President, Navajo Nation................. 66
Letter of February 3, 2020, from Martin Harvier, President,
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.................. 67
Statement of Hon. Stephen Roe Lewis, Governor, Gila River
Indian Community........................................... 69
Two Reports by the U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia...... 75
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton:
Letter of February 6, 2020, from the National Parks Second
Century Action Coalition................................... 83
Statement of Harold C. Frazier, Chairman, Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe................................................ 85
Statement of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition........... 90
Letter of February 7, 2019, from Emily Douce, Director,
Operations and Park Funding, National Parks Conservation
Association................................................ 94
Statement of Julian Bear Runner, President, Oglala Sioux
Tribe...................................................... 99
Statement of The Pew Charitable Trusts....................... 103
Letter of February 24, 2020, from Joe Mello, President,
Professional Engineers in California Government............ 111
APPENDIX
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Hon. Nelson Petty Jr.,
P.E., Commissioner, Virgin Islands Department of Public Works.. 113
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Christopher B. French,
Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture...................................... 114
Questions to Aron Reif, P.E., Transportation Program Manager,
Office of Acquisition and Property Management, U.S. Department
of the Interior, from:
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton................................... 114
Hon. Jared Huffman........................................... 115
Questions to Hon. Joe A. Garcia, Head Councilman, Ohkay Owingeh
Pueblo, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 116
Hon. Greg Stanton............................................ 119
Questions to Mary Beth Clark, President, Intertribal
Transportation Association, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 120
Hon. Gary J. Palmer.......................................... 121
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
February 6, 2020
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
RE: LHearing on ``Assessing the Transportation Needs
of Tribes, Federal Land Management Agencies, and U.S.
Territories''
_______________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on
Thursday, February 6, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn House
Office Building to receive testimony related to ``Assessing the
Transportation Needs of Tribes, Federal Land Management
Agencies, and U.S. Territories.'' The purpose of this hearing
is to examine the current state of transportation
infrastructure on tribal, Federal, and U.S. territorial lands
and related policy issues for consideration in surface
transportation reauthorization. The Subcommittee will hear from
representatives of the Virgin Islands, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Ohkay
Owingeh Pueblo, the Intertribal Transportation Association, and
Hanson Professional Services.
BACKGROUND
Congress authorizes funding for highway, highway safety,
transit, and other transportation infrastructure through
distinct Federal-aid highway programs to American Indian tribes
and Alaska Native villages (tribes), Federal Land Management
Agencies (FLMA), U.S. Territories (territories), and Puerto
Rico. These programs were last reauthorized by Congress in 2015
as part of H.R. 22, Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
(FAST Act; P.L. 114-94), and are set to expire on September 30,
2020.
TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION
According to the most recent census data, there are roughly
5.2 million people in the United States who identify as
American Indian and Alaska Native.\1\ Today, there are 573
Federally-recognized tribes across the U.S.\2\ Combined, they
control roughly 100 million acres of land, making Indian
Country equivalent to being the fourth-largest state in the
U.S.\3\ Approximately 20 percent of the American Indian and
Native Alaskan population lives inside American Indian
areas.\4\ There are roughly 157,000 miles of roads on or
providing access to Indian lands \5\ which are managed by
tribal, Federal, State, and local governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/c2010br-10.pdf
\2\ https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions
\3\ http://www.ncai.org/tribalnations/introduction/
Tribal_Nations_and_the_United_States_
An_Introduction-web-.pdf
\4\ https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/c2010br-10.pdf
\5\ https://www.bia.gov/bia/ois/division-transportation/operations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal roads often serve as major corridors for emergency,
medical, educational, commercial, and recreational uses for
tribal members as well as the general public. Transportation
needs vary widely between tribes due to significant differences
in geography, land size, and population. For instance, the
Navajo Nation encompasses 16 million acres across Arizona, New
Mexico, and Utah and has a population of over 330,000,\6\ while
many smaller reservations cover less than 1,000 acres.\7\
According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), in 2014 only
17 percent of BIA-system roads were deemed in ``acceptable''
condition,\8\ and 70 percent of Indian roads remained
unpaved.\9\ Unlike Federal-aid highways, tribes are not
required to report data directly to the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) on the condition and performance of tribal
roads, making it difficult to assess the overall condition of
tribal roads nationally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.discovernavajo.com/fact-sheet.aspx
\7\ https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions
\8\ https://www.bia.gov/bia/ois/division-transportation/operations
\9\ https://www.crs.gov/Reports/
R44359?source=search&guid=efd581175470411
cbb22a8d232b1c96c&index=0#fn13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
The primary source of Federal funding for tribal
transportation comes from the Tribal Transportation Program
(TTP), which was created by Congress in 2012 under MAP-21 (P.L.
112-141), to replace the Indian Reservation Roads program,
which was first authorized in 1928. The TTP, which is
authorized under section 202 of title 23, United States Code,
is jointly administered by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and the BIA and provides funding to Federally-recognized
tribes for core transportation activities such as planning,
design, construction, and road and bridge maintenance. Funding
for the program comes from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and is
distributed to tribes through a statutory formula based on
population, road mileage, and average tribal shares under
previous years. The TTP includes set-asides for various
purposes, including five percent for program administration,
three percent for improving deficient bridges, and two percent
for safety projects. Congress reauthorized the TTP in the FAST
Act at $465 million in FY 2016 and gradually increased it to
$505 million in FY 2020.
DISCRETIONARY GRANTS
MAP-21 authorized a Tribal High Priority Projects Program
(THPP) at $30 million per year out of the general fund, subject
to appropriations. The THPP authorized funding to tribes whose
annual allocation of TTP funding was insufficient to complete
the highest priority project of the tribe, or to any tribe that
had an emergency or disaster occur at a tribal transportation
facility which rendered it unusable. The THPP only received
funding appropriations in FY 2012.
The FAST Act did not reauthorize the THPP and instead
created a new discretionary grant program, the Nationally
Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP) Program,
for which both tribal and FLMAs could compete. Under this
program, authorized at $100 million per year out of the general
fund, grants are available for the construction,
reconstruction, and rehabilitation of nationally-significant
projects within, adjacent to, or accessing Federal and tribal
lands. This program received appropriations of $300 million in
FY 2018, $25 million in FY 2019, and $70 million in FY 2020.
Under the NSFLTP Program, the minimum estimated project
cost is $25 million with priority given to projects costing
over $50 million. Additionally, projects with a larger
percentage of matching funds rank higher than those with less,
as set forth in the program criteria under Section 1123 of the
FAST Act. Tribes have indicated that, in many instances, this
minimum cost threshold excludes many worthy projects, and they
struggle to provide a high level of matching funds in order to
be competitive.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.indian.senate.gov/sites/default/files/
Testimony%20of%20Head%20Councilman
%20Joe%20Garcia.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER PROGRAMS
Other sources of funding include the BIA Road Maintenance
Program and grant programs which are open to multiple entities,
such as BUILD. The BIA Road Maintenance Program funds,
administered through the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI),
are intended to be used for maintaining existing roads and
bridges. Annual funding for the program has ranged from $24
million to $28 million over the past ten years.
TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION SELF-GOVERNANCE PROGRAM
In 2015 under the FAST Act, Congress directed the U.S. DOT
to establish a tribal transportation self-governance program
under which tribes can directly receive and administer Federal
transportation funding provided through U.S. DOT. The Indian
Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act of 1975 (P.L.
93-638) gave tribes the power to contract with the Federal
government to receive Federal funds from agencies as a block
grant in order to give tribes greater control and decision-
making authority while reducing administrative burdens. Other
Federal agencies have instituted successful tribal self-
governance programs, including the U.S. DOI and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Congress instructed
U.S. DOT to develop the self-governance program in coordination
with tribes through a negotiated rulemaking committee. U.S. DOT
published a notice of proposed rulemaking on October 2,
2019.\11\ The deadline for issuance of a final rule is set
forth in statute, under 23 U.S.C. 207(n), and allows for U.S.
DOT to extend the deadline, which U.S. DOT has utilized. The
final rule is now is expected to be published by May 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 84 Fed. Reg. 52706 (October 2, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSPORTATION ON FEDERAL LANDS
Under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982
(STAA; P.L. 97-424), all Federally-owned roads were formally
recognized as ``public roads'' and have since received an
allocation of funding from the HTF to address surface
transportation infrastructure needs. Federal-aid highway funds
are used for projects that improve access to and transportation
within Federal lands, including national forests, national
parks, national wildlife refuges, and national recreation
areas.
FEDERAL LANDS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
In MAP-21, Congress consolidated multiple programs that
funded transportation needs on Federal lands, such as the
Public Lands Highway Program, which included the Forest Highway
and Public Lands Discretionary Programs, into a new Federal
Lands Transportation Program (FLTP), authorized under section
203 of title 23, United States Code. This program provides
funding for the construction, maintenance, and repair of
transportation facilities (highways, roads, bridges, trails, or
transit systems) that are owned and operated by various FLMAs
including:
LNational Park Service (NPS);
LFish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
LU.S. Forest Service (USFS);
LBureau of Land Management (BLM); and
LU.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE).
Under the FAST Act, Congress continued the FLTP and
expanded its eligibility to include the Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR) and other independent Federal agencies with public land
management responsibilities. The FLTP was authorized at $335
million in FY 2016 and gradually increased to $375 million in
FY 2020. Of these amounts, certain agencies receive set-asides
of program funding, including NPS ($300 million in FY 2020),
FWS ($30 million in FY 2020), and USFS ($19 million in FY
2020). The remainder is available to the other FLMAs.
FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM
MAP-21 also replaced programs that previously directed
funding to specific types of public lands with the Federal
Lands Access Program (FLAP) which supports transportation
projects that are on, adjacent to, or provide access to Federal
lands. Funds are distributed by formula to States based on the
number of recreational visitors they receive, Federal road
mileage, and the number of Federally-owned bridges within the
State. Congress reauthorized FLAP in the FAST Act starting at
$250 million in FY 2016 and increasing gradually to $270
million in FY 2020.
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
The FLMAs report a significant backlog in needed repairs
and maintenance to roadways and transportation infrastructure.
According to estimates by the USFS, the backlog of deferred
maintenance for roads, trails, bridges, and tunnels on national
forest lands is $5.2 billion.\12\ The NPS similarly estimates
that the deferred maintenance backlog for bridges, tunnels,
parking areas, and roadways in the national parks is nearly
$6.2 billion.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This information was provided to the Committee by USFS on
January 13, 2020, via email.
\13\ https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-
maintenance.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. TERRITORIES
TERRITORIAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM
In 1970, Congress established the Territorial Highway
Program (THP) to provide Federal assistance for highway
construction to the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American
Samoa.\14\ In 1978, Congress expanded eligibility to include
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In 1982 under
STAA, Congress restructured the THP by setting its
authorization amount at one-fifth of one percent of total
Federal-Aid Highway Program funds, rather than a fixed amount.
THP funds were allocated to the four territories by the
following formula: \1/12\ each for American Samoa and the
Northern Mariana Islands, and \5/12\ each for Guam and the
Virgin Islands.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Federal Highway Administration, ``Territorial Highway
Program,'' in A Guide to Federal-Aid Programs and Projects. 162-164.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/projects.pdf#page=157
\15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1992, at the request of one of the territories, FHWA
reviewed the THP allocation formula.\16\ Based on
considerations of population, land area, and road mileage, the
formula was changed to allocate more funding to the smaller
territories. Since then, THP funding has been allocated by the
following formula: \1/10\ each for American Samoa and the
Northern Mariana Islands, and \4/10\ each for Guam and the
Virgin Islands.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Ibid.
\17\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21, P.L. 105-178) Congress changed the THP funding
allocation from a percentage set-aside to a fixed amount of
$36.4 million per year. In the most recent reauthorization
under the FAST Act, Congress authorized the THP at $42 million
annually for FY2016-FY2020.
PUERTO RICO HIGHWAY PROGRAM
Prior to the passage of TEA-21, Puerto Rico was treated as
a State for purposes of apportioning Federal highway
funding.\18\ In TEA-21, Congress established the Puerto Rico
Highway Program (PRHP) and changed Puerto Rico's highway
funding from an apportioned share to a fixed amount. In the
FAST Act, Congress authorized the PRHP at $158 million annually
for FY 2016-FY 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Federal Highway Administration, ``Puerto Rico Highway
Program,'' in A Guide to Federal-Aid Programs and Projects. 1631-133.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/projects.pdf#page=157
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS LIST
LThe Honorable Nelson Petty Jr., P.E.,
Commissioner, Virgin Islands Department of Public Works
LMr. Christopher B. French, Deputy Chief, National
Forest System, United States Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
LMr. Aron Reif, P.E., Transportation Program
Manager, Office of Acquisition and Property Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior
LMr. Joe A. Garcia, Head Councilman, Ohkay Owingeh
Pueblo
LMs. Mary Beth Clark, President, Intertribal
Transportation Association (ITA)
LMr. Sergio ``Satch'' Pecori, Chief Executive
Officer, Hanson Professional Services
ASSESSING THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF TRIBES, FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT
AGENCIES, AND U.S. TERRITORIES
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton (Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Ms. Norton. The subcommittee will come to order. I ask
unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to declare
recesses during today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
We haven't had a hearing like this for some time, so it is way
overdue. This morning, we are discussing the transportation
infrastructure needs of Tribes, Federal land management
agencies, and the U.S. Territories.
This is our 10th subcommittee hearing. This work will
enable us to hear from the stakeholders regarding policy
changes, and particularly will help us to elevate issues that
have not received thorough consideration for nearly 20 years--
2002 was the last hearing the committee held on the Federal
Lands Highway program. These are significant programs. Under
the FAST Act, Tribal-Federal land and U.S. Territorial
transportation programs receive a combined $6.5 billion over 5
years.
Today, we are going to hear from witnesses that Federal
investment has not kept pace with the needs of each of these
programs. Surprise, surprise. Of particular concern in my
district, for example, there is a substantial maintenance
backlog of National Park Services, and virtually all of our
parks, particularly our neighborhood parks, are National Park
Service parks.
While the National Park Service received $1.4 billion for
transportation assets under the FAST Act, the agency's deferred
maintenance backlog has grown to more than $11 billion--$1.4
billion received; a backlog of $11.4 billion. Transportation
needs constitute the majority of the backlog at over $6
billion. These figures only account for needed repairs and
maintenance to existing transportation infrastructure, not to
the future needs of the Park Service.
I want to take a moment to thank members of this
subcommittee who have highlighted the critical needs of these
programs. Representatives Stanton and Davids have each made
Tribal transportation needs a top priority. Representative
Plaskett of the Virgin Islands has championed infrastructure
investment in the Territories. And Representative Carbajal and
others have supported increased funding for transportation
infrastructure on our Federal lands.
So I look forward to hearing from today's panel and
learning more about what this committee can do to ensure the
transportation infrastructure needs of Tribes, Federal land and
management agencies, and the U.S. Territories are met.
[Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
Congress from the District of Columbia, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Welcome to today's hearing where we will discuss the transportation
infrastructure needs of tribes, Federal land management agencies, and
the U.S. territories. Today's hearing is the 10th hearing the
Subcommittee has held this Congress to support the development of a
transformative surface reauthorization bill. This work has enabled us
to hear from stakeholders regarding policy changes the Committee should
consider, but also to elevate issues that have not received thorough
consideration in the past.
The programs we will assess today have certainly not received
thorough consideration. In 2002--nearly 20 years ago--the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a hearing on the
Federal Lands Highway program. These are significant programs--under
the FAST Act, tribal, Federal land, and U.S. Territorial transportation
programs received a combined $6.5 billion in funding over five years.
Today, we will hear from witnesses that Federal investment has not
kept pace with the needs in each of these programs. Of particular
concern to my district is the substantial maintenance backlog of the
National Park Service. While the National Park Service received $1.4
billion for transportation assets under the FAST Act, the agency's
deferred maintenance backlog has grown to more than $11 billion.
Transportation needs constitute the majority of the backlog at over $6
billion. These figures only account for needed repairs and maintenance
to existing transportation infrastructure, not the future needs of the
Park Service.
I want to take a moment to thank the Members of this Subcommittee
who have highlighted the critical needs of these programs.
Representatives Stanton and Davids have each made tribal transportation
needs a top priority, Representative Plaskett has championed
infrastructure investment in the territories, and Representative
Carbajal and others have supported increased funding for transportation
infrastructure on our Federal lands.
I look forward to hearing from today's panel and learning more
about what this Committee can do to ensure the transportation
infrastructure needs of tribes, Federal land management agencies, and
the U.S. territories are met.
Ms. Norton. At this time, I would like to ask our ranking
member, Mr. Davis, for his opening statement.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair Norton. I want to welcome
everyone to today's hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to
hear from each and every one of you. Programs we authorize in
this committee provide $1.5 billion annually and account for
3.2 percent of all Highway Trust Fund outlays. While I don't
have--like Chairwoman Norton, I don't have Tribal lands in my
district, I do have land managed by Federal agencies like her,
with the National Park Service.
To put the overall $1.5 billion into perspective, the
latest report from the NPS indicates a deferred maintenance
backlog of $11.9 billion. Of that $11.9 billion, nearly $6.2
billion represents NPS' need to repair bridges, tunnels,
parking areas, and roadways in national parks. Addressing the
needs of those testifying today is absolutely linked to this
backlog. As we address deferred maintenance, it will open the
door for new projects and make the funding we authorize go even
further.
In Springfield, Illinois, located within my congressional
district, is one such new project that I have been working to
get designated by the National Park Service as a national
historic monument. The Springfield Race Riot National Historic
Monument would preserve and protect resources associated with
the 1908 Springfield race riot and its role in the formation of
the NAACP.
Just to let my colleagues and the panelists know, we are
going to show a short video, but the artifacts that are going
to be mentioned in this video from the 1908 race riots were
uncovered during an underpass project that was funded by
transportation dollars. So with that, I would love to turn the
video on, please.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Davis. With that, I want to thank our witnesses,
especially Mr. Pecori, who has been working on this project,
and I look forward to hearing everyone's testimony.
[Mr. Davis' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Thank you, Chairwoman Norton. I want to welcome everyone to today's
hearing on the transportation needs of Tribes, Federal Land Management
Agencies, and U.S. Territories.
The programs we authorize in this committee provide $1.5 billion
annually and account for 3.2 percent of all Highway Trust Fund outlays.
While I do not have any tribal lands in my district, I do have land
managed by federal agencies like the National Park Service (NPS).
To put the overall $1.5 billion into perspective, the latest report
from the NPS indicates a deferred maintenance backlog of $11.9 billion.
Of that $11.9 billion, nearly $6.2 billion represents NPS' need to
repair bridges, tunnels, parking areas, and roadways in national parks.
Addressing the needs of those testifying today is absolutely linked
to addressing this backlog. As we address deferred maintenance it will
open the door for new projects and make the funding we authorize go
further.
In Springfield, Illinois, located within my congressional district,
is one such new project that I've been working to get designated by NPS
as a National Historic Monument. The Springfield Race Riot National
Historic Monument would preserve and protect resources associated with
the 1908 Springfield Race Riot and its role in formation of the NAACP.
With that, I want to thank our witnesses for being with us this
morning, including Satch Pecori who has been influential in efforts to
designate the site.
Mr. Davis. Yield back.
Ms. Norton. I want to thank the ranking member. That was
very moving. I want to move now to the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Madam Chair. Staff did some research,
and we can't figure out when it was the last time this
committee convened on these very important issues--the Federal
agencies, Tribes, Territories--and looked at the allocations
they received and the needs they have and the inadequacy of
what we have provided. So I am very pleased we are here today.
In the FAST Act, one of my top priorities was to have
Tribal transportation self-governance, so they wouldn't be
ripped off by the States, or manipulated by the States in the
future, and as they should, as sovereign entities, have their
own discretion in spending those funds. It was a rocky road,
but both, you know, Councilman Garcia and Ms. Clark were
involved in this process. And finally, after a couple of bad
starts, my understanding is, we got it done, and we expect to
see the rule in the very near future. So that is good news.
OK. Now you got self-governance, but, virtually, no money.
So that is the next objective before us. The death rate on
Indian lands in terms of pedestrians and driving accidents is
horrible, and the state of the infrastructure is abysmal. So I
am hoping we can do a lot better in this reauthorization. I
will be happy to hear from you today.
We also have massive deficits on our Federal lands. The
Forest Service has reported a $3.6 billion backlog; the Park
Service, $6 billion. Just in my congressional district for the
Forest Service, it is about $100 million. These needs need to
be addressed, and hopefully again, we can do better in this
bill.
And then finally, we are going to revisit the Territory
issue, which has not been revisited for a couple of decades. It
used to be the Territories got a percentage share.
Unfortunately, a number of years ago, they were set to a fixed
amount of funding instead of a percentage share, and even as
they have grown, the funding has not grown. And as their needs
have grown, the investment hasn't been made.
And, of course, we have had the disasters in Puerto Rico
and in the Virgin Islands. And we are still trying to pry money
out of a number of Federal agencies to deal with that. The
committee will be visiting in the near future with both of
those entities, and we will see firsthand the lack of progress.
So I think this is a very timely hearing, and I thank you.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing today to examine
the infrastructure needs of tribes, Federal Land Management Agencies,
and U.S. territories. An assessment of the Federal-aid highway programs
that support critical infrastructure on tribal, Federal and U.S.
territorial lands is long overdue.
One of my top priorities in the FAST Act was requiring a negotiated
rulemaking committee to establish a Tribal Transportation Self-
Governance Program within U.S. DOT, in keeping with other Federal
agencies who have successfully implemented similar self-governance
programs.
A Tribal Transportation Self-Governance Program will streamline
delivery of Federal funds to tribes while easing administrative burdens
and allow greater autonomy for tribes to address their unique
transportation infrastructure needs. I was pleased to hear that the
negotiated rulemaking committee was able to reach agreement last year,
and I look forward to DOT beginning implementation of this program in
the coming months. I'd also like to thank Head Councilman Garcia and
Ms. Clark, who are here with us today, for their work on the negotiated
rulemaking committee as tribal representatives.
While this progress is encouraging, the state of transportation
infrastructure on tribal lands remains abysmal. I continue to hear from
tribal representatives that basic transportation needs are unmet due to
a lack of resources, and that critical services--safe routes for school
buses, access for first responders, and transit options for commuters--
are hindered as a result.
I also look forward to hearing from the Federal Land Management
Agencies represented here today. We have seen significant
infrastructure improvements on our Federal lands thanks to Highway
Trust Fund investments. In FY 2018 alone, FAST Act funding facilitated
the rehabilitation of 113 bridges, the construction of 39 new bridges,
and the improvement of over 1,600 lane miles on Federal and tribal
lands.
Yet, the needs far outweigh the available resources. The backlog of
deferred transportation infrastructure maintenance at Federal Land
Management Agencies is staggering. The Forest Service reports a
deferred maintenance backlog of $3.6 billion, while the National Park
Service reports a backlog of $6 billion. My district alone has a
deferred maintenance backlog of over $100 million for Forest Service
roads, trails, and bridges. Addressing these maintenance needs is
crucial to ensure these road systems provide access for critical safety
needs such as emergency access and wildfire management.
And finally, we'll hear today about the transportation and
infrastructure needs of U.S. territories. Funding for the Territorial
Highway Program has fallen steadily as a proportion of overall funding
for the last decade, despite growing needs. Today, territories receive
fewer highway program dollars than they received under SAFETEA-LU.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward
to hearing your testimony on how this Committee can uphold its
commitment to our tribal, territorial, and Federal partners.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. I would like to welcome
our witnesses. I am sorry. Mr. Graves has an opening statement.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want
to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, and I will
use my time to yield to the Dean of the House, the former
chairman, whose district has a very big stake in this, and I
will yield to Don Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Ranking Member, and thank you Madam
Chairman. This subcommittee hearing, as has been mentioned, has
been long overdue. I have been participating when we passed
TEA-LU and probably the American Indians/Alaska Natives
transportation issue. And my goal here today, there is no place
like Alaska, and our country demonstrates the Nation's critical
duty to invest in transportation and infrastructure for all
Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and federally
managed lands. We have most of it in the United States in
Alaska.
And Alaska has 229 federally recognized Tribes, and with
over 60 percent of Alaska lands federally owned, these programs
are an essential lifeline for the State and similarly situated
States across the country. I recognize the attention these
issues got in the chairman's Moving Forward Framework. I want
to congratulate him on that. Our Nation is in dire need of
these investments. However, I would be remiss if I did not
state and get serious about the needs we need to get serious
about how to pay for these investments. I stand ready to work
with the chairman, full chairman, subcommittee chairman, and
all the ranking members to try to achieve that goal.
As the committee begins to consider a surface
reauthorization bill, we must continue to build on the progress
made in previous reauthorizations to empower Native communities
through self-governance and strive to create funding
opportunity equality for small and large Tribes. Currently, too
many Alaskan Tribes, due to their size, are unable to benefit
from existing Tribal infrastructure programs.
The Tribal formula program and discretionary programs
should be structured to factor in the unique conditions of
Alaska, including weather, existing infrastructure, and cost
differences. Certainly, we cannot ignore the pressing
transportation investment deficit on federally managed lands. I
mentioned the many parks and refuges we have in Alaska. In
Alaska, Federal land transportation infrastructure on parks,
BLM, and the USFS land is essential for mobility and commerce
in the State.
Alaska's national parks are a national treasure and deliver
huge conservation benefits and economic benefits for the State
of Alaska and for this Nation. Keeping them safe, open, and
accessible is critically important. These topics deserve the
committee's attention. Again, and congratulations for having
this hearing. We need more public investment. In interest in
time, I would submit my suggestions to improve these programs
for the record.
Again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member and
all the members of this committee for holding this hearing. I
have long sought to provide equity and investment for our
Nation's Native communities and rural infrastructure needs. We
look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues
moving forward. And remember every day we have a meeting, my
picture is looking down on you, and I hope you notice it is the
biggest one in the House. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield
back.
[Mr. Young's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Alaska
Chairman and Ranking Member: I want to thank the Subcommittee for
holding this hearing today. Alaska, like no place else in our country,
demonstrates the nation's critical duty to invest in transportation
infrastructure for American Indians, Alaska Natives and federally
managed lands. For Alaska's 229 federally recognized tribes and with
over 60 percent of Alaska's land federally owned, these programs are an
essential lifeline for my state and similarly situated states across
the country.
I recognize the attention these issues got in the Chairman's Moving
Forward Framework. Our nation is in dire need of these investments.
However, I would be remiss if I did not state that to get serious about
the needs, we need to get serious how to pay for these investments. I
stand ready to work with my fellow Committee Members on this front.
As the Committee begins to consider a surface reauthorization bill,
we must continue to build on the progress made in previous
reauthorizations to empower native communities through self-governance
and strive to create funding opportunity equity for small and large
tribes. Currently, too many Alaskan tribes, due to their size, are
unable to benefit from existing tribal infrastructure programs. Tribal
formula programs and discretionary grant programs should be structured
to factor in the unique conditions in Alaska including weather,
existing infrastructure, and cost differences.
Similarly, we cannot ignore the pressing transportation investment
deficit on federally managed lands. In Alaska, federal land
transportation infrastructure on NPS, BLM and USFS land is essential
for mobility and commerce in the state. Alaska's National Parks are a
national treasure and deliver huge conservation benefits and economic
benefits to the state through tourism. Keeping them open and accessible
is critically important.
I want to touch on a few specific programs and issues that I
believe deserve the Committee's attention, increased investment, and I
offer my suggestions for modifications and improvements to these
programs.
1. Topline Funding for the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) &
Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP). We must consider
increasing the topline authorization for the TTP and FLTP. The need is
there and the longer we wait to address the needs the direr the
situation will become.
2. Reauthorize the High Priority Projects Program (HPP). The HPP
discretionary grant program is vital for smaller tribes especially
Alaskan tribes, to fund projects that their formula funding cannot
address. The HPP program authorization should increase proportionally
year over year with the TTP's authorization.
3. Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects
Program (NSFLTP). Tribes and Federal Land Managers both compete for
this program where the needs are great. Over $2.2 billion in requests
were submitted in FY18 and FY19 for funding but only $500 million was
authorized and $395 appropriated over the life of the FAST Act.
Currently, projects $25 million and above are eligible. We should lower
the threshold and increase topline authorization. Frequently there are
programs of great significance that cannot meet the $25 threshold and
remain unfunded.
4. Establish an Office of Self Governance at DOT. As required
under the FAST Act, the impending finalization of the Tribal
Transportation Self Governance Program rulemaking will increase the
number of Tribes seeking to participate in compacts with the DOT.
Currently, DOT lacks dedicated staff to process future compacts and
funding awards. For self-governance program to work effectively, the
institutional resources must be in place at DOT to coordinate with
tribal participants.
5. Federal Lands Transportation Program. The federal government
owns over 60 percent of the land in Alaska and it is noncontiguous.
Alaskans rely on the roads and bridges owned and maintained by the
federal government for mobility and commerce. Transportation
infrastructure on federal lands is critically underfunded. In Alaska
alone, there are $38 million in deferred maintenance costs to National
Park Service lands. For the USFS and NPS the backlog is close to $12
billion. This critical underfunding disproportionately impacts Alaska
and western states. The Committee must listen to the needs presented by
Federal Land Management agencies so that needed investments and
maintenance continue to stack up.
Again, I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding
this hearing. I have long sought to provide equity and investment for
our nation's native communities and rural infrastructure needs. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on these issues moving forward.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Now I would like to
welcome our witnesses: the Honorable Nelson Petty, P.E.,
Commissioner of the Virgin Islands, Department of Public Works;
Mr. Christopher B. French, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, United States Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture; Mr. Aaron Reif, P.E., Transportation Program
Manager, Office of Acquisition and Property Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior; Mr. Joe A. Garcia, head councilman,
Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo--forgive me for obvious mispronunciations;
Ms. Mary Beth Clark, president, Intertribal Transportation
Association; and Mr. Sergio ``Satch'' Pecori, chief executive
officer, Hanson Professional Services.
I thank all of you for being here today and for the
testimony. Before we hear from the panel of witnesses, I
recognize Representative Plaskett to introduce Commissioner
Petty.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I thank all
of the Members for being here. I have the privilege right now
to extend a special welcome and say I am very pleased to have
the Virgin Islands Commissioner for Public Works, the Honorable
Nelson Petty Jr., among our panel of witnesses today.
He has been responsible for the construction and
maintenance of public roads and highways, public transportation
systems, storm drainage systems, public buildings and other
facilities and infrastructure systems throughout the entire
U.S. Virgin Islands under both Republican and Democratic
administrations of our islands.
He brings with him a wealth of hands-on experience, with
the Federal surface transportation programs and their funding
in the U.S. Territories and has extensive relationships with
the other Territories as well.
Along with his extensive previous experience as an
engineer, I will not hold it against him that I understand he
is a Rattler, he went to Florida A&M, where he did his studies,
but he is our representative here on these issues and can
answer as well what some of the other Territories are going
for, and I thank you very much. I look forward to your
testimony, sir.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Representative Plaskett. Without
objection, our witnesses' full statements will be included in
the record. Since your written testimony has been made a part
of the record, the subcommittee requests that you limit your
oral testimony to 5 minutes. Commissioner Petty, you may
proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. NELSON PETTY Jr., P.E., COMMISSIONER, VIRGIN
ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; CHRISTOPHER B. FRENCH,
DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ARON REIF, P.E., TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM MANAGER, OFFICE OF ACQUISITION AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; JOE A. GARCIA, HEAD
COUNCILMAN, OHKAY OWINGEH PUEBLO; MARY BETH CLARK, PRESIDENT,
INTERTRIBAL TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; AND SERGIO ``SATCH''
PECORI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HANSON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Mr. Petty. Good morning, Chair Norton.
Ranking Member Davis, Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves,
members of the subcommittee, and the distinguished panel of
testifiers. Again, I am Nelson Petty Jr., Commissioner of the
United States Virgin Islands Department of Public Works. It is
an honor to be here today to testify on behalf of U.S.
Territories.
The Territories are challenged because of our distance from
the mainland. Resources, such as aggregates for concrete and
asphalt, are limited, and in many instances, monopolized. Every
major component in infrastructure development projects almost
always must be shipped in, adding to project cost and time.
For this reason, 2 years ago, in August of 2018, the
Territories met for the first time as a group at the U.S.
Territorial Peer Exchange in Lakewood, Colorado. This event was
sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration. Those working
sessions allowed us to share best practices and to learn of
similar difficulties in managing our infrastructures.
In the USVI, our ports are the gateway to our economy.
Several billion dollars' worth of commercial activity pass
through our ports on an annual basis. In fact, the Caribbean
ranks only behind Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, and the U.K. in
U.S. export partners. The USVI is the first stop for much of
the cargo that ends up in much of the lower Caribbean Islands.
This also applies for vacationers looking to visit other
islands in the region.
Knowing this, we developed and executed a transportation
master plan that attempts to address the Territory's
transportation needs. In partnership with the Federal Highway
Administration, we developed a 2040 USVI comprehensive
transportation master plan, the first long-range transportation
plan of the Territory. The vision statement of the plan simply
stated: an integrated transportation system which serves the
needs of the USVI community.
The Virgin Islands Port Authority is also engaged in port
expansion projects. Among them is the dredging of the inner
Charlotte Amalie Harbor to allow for the larger Oasis-class
cruise liners to continue to visit our ports.
Another major project is the expansion of the Crown Bay
cargo terminal, which seeks to increase the USVI's position as
a regional and international trans-shipment hub.
It has been proven across the globe that when
infrastructure investments are made on the governmental side,
private investments are sure to follow. Infrastructure
investment also leads to employment opportunities, and is a
beneficial tool for socioeconomic stabilization.
Mass transit provides one example where substantial Federal
investment could provide spillover effects. Public
transportation serves as a lifeline for many of our lower
income residents who do not have access to their own means of
transport. We are in the process of conducting a 5-year review
to evaluate our progress thus far, as well as to determine if
any changes to the plan may be necessary, taking into
consideration the impact of recent natural disasters.
Following the passing of the two category 5 storms of 2017,
Irma and Maria, as Commissioner, I promulgated a new rule that
stated that all local roads shall be rebuilt to Federal
standards. FEMA eventually agreed with this and has adopted
those Federal standards as the basis for the rebuild of our
local, non-Federal roads. The importance of this cannot be
overstated. It was clear after the storms passing that roads
built to those standards received minimal to no damage.
As such, resiliency plays into every aspect of our rebuild.
We have a unique opportunity with the profusion of recovery
projects to be able to rebuild and transform our
infrastructure. Our plan leverages the recovery dollars to
rebuild and upgrade and seeks to utilize the Federal Highway
Administration funding to implement a pavement preservation
program to ensure that those dollars aren't squandered.
The program also utilizes technology as a tool to conduct
condition assessments that allow for real-time data on our
infrastructure.
Our legislative branch is also working along with us to
develop One Dig legislation to ensure that all underground
facility operators are given the opportunity to participate in
upcoming projects and are included in project planning and
development phases.
It should be noted that we are also very much engaged in
ferry boat operations which is also critical to our interisland
commerce. USVI depends heavily on its ferry system for daily
commuters, delivering goods, and equipment, as well as our
tourism product. This is an additional burden as it costs more
to maintain transportation infrastructure in a community that
depends on a ferry system.
In 1998, $14.56 million was allocated to the USVI. In 2019,
we received $16.8 million in FHWA funds. Over the last 20
years, the increase in annual allocations to USVI has not kept
pace with the increase in road construction costs.
We are authorized by our stewardship agreement to perform
engineering and economic surveys and investigations for the
planning and financing of future highway programs. This is
exactly why we are petitioning Congress. Our ports and roads
are the gateway to a thriving USVI island economy. A thriving
economy means less pressure on our healthcare system, our
pension system, and other social services, meaning, ultimately,
less is asked of our fellow U.S. taxpayers and citizens to
sustain our Territory for the future. Thank you for the
opportunity.
[Mr. Petty's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Nelson Petty Jr., P.E., Commissioner, Virgin
Islands Department of Public Works
Good morning Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chair DeFazio,
Ranking Member Graves, members of the subcommittee and other
distinguished panel testifiers. I am Nelson Petty Jr., Commissioner of
the United States Virgin Islands Department of Public Works. It is an
honor to be here today to testify on behalf of U.S. territories.
The territories are challenged because of our distance from the
mainland. Resources such as aggregates for concrete and asphalt are
limited and, in many instances, monopolized. Every major component in
infrastructure development projects almost always must be shipped in,
adding to project cost and time. For this reason, two years ago in
August of 2018, the territories met for the first time as a group at
the US Territorial Peer Exchange (USTPE) in Lakewood, Colorado. This
week-long event was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration.
Those working sessions allowed the territories to share best
practices and to learn of similar difficulties in managing our
infrastructures.
In the USVI, our ports are the gateway to our economy. Several
billion dollars worth of commercial activity pass through our ports on
an annual basis. In fact, the Caribbean ranks only behind Canada,
Mexico, China, Japan and the U.K., in U.S. Export Partners. The USVI is
the first stop for much of the cargo that ends up in much of the lower
Caribbean islands. This also applies for vacationers looking to visit
other islands in the region.
Knowing this, we have developed and executed a Transportation
Master Plan that attempts to address the territory's transportation
needs.
The Virgin Islands Department of Public Works and the U.S. Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) partnered to prepare the 2040 USVI
Comprehensive Transportation Master Plan (CTMP), the first long-range
transportation plan for our territory. The purpose of the plan is to
present a strategy to improve transportation infrastructure throughout
the USVI through the year 2040. A vision statement was adopted early in
the planning process to serve as the foundation of this plan. The
vision was simply stated: An integrated transportation system which
serves the needs of the USVI community.
The Virgin Islands Port Authority is actively engaged in port
expansion projects. Among them is the dredging of the inner Charlotte
Amalie Harbor to allow for the larger, Oasis-class cruise liners to
continue to visit our ports. Another major project is the expansion of
the Crown Bay cargo terminal, which seeks to increase the USVI's
position as a regional and international trans-shipment hub.
It has been proven across the globe that when infrastructure
investments are made on the governmental side, private investments are
sure to follow. Moreover, infrastructure investment leads to employment
opportunities and is a beneficial tool for socioeconomic stabilization.
Mass transit provides one example where a substantial federal
investment could provide spillover effects. Public transportation
serves as a lifeline for many of our low-income residents who do not
have access to their own means of transport. There is evidence that
mass transit can reduce traffic congestion, while highway capacity
expansions provide only temporary relief to congestion.
We are in the process of conducting a 5 year review to evaluate our
progress thus far, as well as to determine if any changes to the plan
may be necessary taking into consideration the impacts of recent
disasters.
Following the passing of the two category 5 Hurricanes of 2017,
Irma and Maria, as Commissioner of Department of Public Works, I
promulgated a new rule that stated that all local roads should be
rebuilt to federal standards. FEMA eventually agreed with this and has
adopted those federal standards as the basis for the rebuild of our
local, non-federal roads. The importance of this action cannot be
overstated. It was clear after the storms' passing that roads built to
those standards received minimal to no damage.
As such, resiliency plays into every aspect of our rebuild. Our
traffic signals are rated for stronger winds and have sturdier
foundations, we are reconstructing our roads from the subbase level--
not just surface treatment, and we are adding technology to how we
process and maintain our infrastructure all in alignment with our 2040
plan.
We have a unique opportunity with the profusion of recovery
projects to be able to rebuild and transform our infrastructure. Our
plan leverages the recovery dollars to rebuild and upgrade and seeks to
utilize the FHWA funding to implement a pavement preservation program
to ensure that those dollars aren't squandered. The program utilizes
technology as a tool to conduct condition assessments that allow for
real time data on our infrastructure. This will lead to better decision
making not only for the department, but for our leaders as well.
Our local legislative branch is also working along with us to
develop One Dig legislation to ensure that all underground facility
operators are given the opportunity to participate in upcoming projects
and are included in project planning and development phases.
While I have focused much of the discussion on our road funding, it
should be noted that we are also very much engaged in ferry boat
operations, which is also critical to our inter-island commerce. We are
in the final stages of the development of a comprehensive ferry boat
program. This program will allow us to apply for ferry boat
discretionary funds available to states and territories with
established ferry boat programs.
The USVI depends heavily on its ferry system for daily commuters,
delivering goods and equipment, as well as our tourism product. This is
an additional burden as it costs more to maintain transportation
infrastructure in a community that depends on a ferry system.
The territories will meet collectively again in July of this year
to continue our partnership with the goal and objective to speak with
one voice to our elected officials.
In 1998, $14.56 million was allocated to the USVI. In 2019, we
received $16.8 million in FHWA Highway funds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Allocation
Years Source Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................ TEA-21............. $14,560,000
2019............................ FAST............... $16,800,000
21.............................. ................... $2,240,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last 20 years the increase in annual allocations to the
USVI has not kept pace with the increase in road construction costs.
The significant shortfalls have limited our ability to perform
necessary work on the federal road system in the USVI, and as a result,
we have had to borrow $100 million through GARVEE Bonds in order to
repair our most critical roads. The GARVEE Bonds are repaid using our
annual allocations, which further reduces the funds available to carry
out the authorized projects and activities.
We have estimated that the USVI annual allocations should increase
to $35 million to carry out this work. If this increase in funding was
given on a short-term basis, even that would be a desirable improvement
over our current situation. At the current levels, it will be extremely
difficult to implement a successful preventative maintenance program,
which is how every transportation office wants to be able to manage
their infrastructure. We believe we have laid the groundwork; the
missing piece is the funding.
Current annual allocations from the Territorial Highway Program:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miles of
Territory FAS Road %Allocation $Allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Samoa................. 80 10% $4,200,000
Guam........................... 171 40% $16,800,000
Virgin Islands................. 320 40% $16,800,000
Northern Mariana............... 129 10% $4,200,000
-------------
Total THP Funds....................................... $42,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are authorized by our Stewardship Agreement to perform
``engineering and economic surveys and investigations for the planning
and financing of future highway programs''. This is exactly why we are
petitioning Congress. The state of our territories' infrastructures is
dire. We do not have enough funding to maintain and improve our
territorial highway systems.
Without the requested funding, our infrastructures will continue to
deteriorate leaving residents and visitors without a safe and reliable
transportation system. The territories rely on our transportation
systems to prosper. Most of our goods arrive via cargo ship at our
ports and are distributed to our businesses on our roads. Without this
funding, our crumbling transportation system will continue to be the
direct contributor of accidents, injuries, damage to vehicles and even
fatalities.
We will not be able to have decent highway systems in the future if
we do not plan to continue increasing annual allocations to match
increases in cost of living.
Our ports and roads are the gateway to a thriving USVI island
economy. A thriving USVI economy means less pressure on our health care
system, our pension system, and other social services--meaning,
ultimately, less is asked of our fellow US taxpayers and citizens to
sustain our territory for the future.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Petty. We will hear
next from Mr. Christopher French, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System.
Mr. French. Thank you, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis,
and members of the subcommittee. I thank you for inviting me
here today, and I look forward to working with the subcommittee
on these important issues. Today, I want to share with you the
importance of the Forest Service road network, the largest
network of any Federal land management agency. And I want to be
clear, my testimony is not about serving the Forest Service, it
is about people; it is about rural America; it is about a way
of life where our transportation system is the transportation
fabric of the communities that we are a part of. Places like
Red River, Idaho; Story, Arkansas; or Douglas County, Oregon.
With that, I want you to remember three main things today:
With over 370,000 miles of road, the Forest Service manages the
largest transportation system of all the Federal land
management agencies. The Forest Service has over $5 billion in
infrastructure repairs that we have not been able to fund,
including $3.6 billion in deferred maintenance just for roads,
bridges, and trails.
Maintaining our roads is critical for emergency response,
fire protection, connecting rural communities, supporting
commerce in rural economies, and providing access to Federal
lands. For some context, the Forest Service manages over 193
million acres across 44 States, or about 8 percent of the land
area of the United States.
But in some counties, the National Forest System lands may
represent more than 90 percent of the land base, and the
majority of that county's transportation infrastructure. This
includes more than 65,000 miles of passenger vehicle roads, and
over 6,000 road bridges. This network provides the roads that
people depend on to get to schools, stores, hospitals, their
own homes. They are critical to their life.
For example, in central Pennsylvania, a single Forest
Service bridge is the only connector to a small subdivision of
around 25 homes. That bridge is in such disrepair that the
community firetrucks and emergency services cannot serve their
homes presently.
Our system is critical to our communities and of our
multiple-use mission. It provides access to more than 300
million hunters, anglers, and recreationists. These visitors
contribute more than $11 billion to the U.S. economy and
sustain nearly 150,000 jobs. Direct timber, grazing, and mining
activities in national forests provide an additional almost
120,000 jobs, and $13 billion to rural economies.
Our roads support and connect people to thousands of sacred
sites, 6,500 grazing permits, 30,000 recreation special-use
permits. They are critical to accessing 122 ski areas; 8,000
outfitters and guides; 400 resorts and marinas; 6,700 Federal
leases for minerals; and 300,000 permits to individuals to
collect firewood or food collection or even Christmas trees.
It is also critical for subsistence hunting in States like
Alaska, and more than 1,500 communication sites that provide
rural broadband and emergency response services to communities
that we are a part of. And often, like counties, our roads are
the gateways to national parks and monuments across the
country.
But perhaps most critically, this road network provides
fire protection to communities. Firefighters and emergency
responders use our roads to protect communities, evacuate
families at risk, and rescue individuals from danger. This is
the number one issue I hear about from our county commissioners
and residents, the need to maintain our road system to reduce
the risk of fire, to attack fires early, and to maintain access
that supports their way of life.
When the Forest Service is forced to close unsafe roads, it
places limitations on our ability to access fires early, before
they turn into catastrophic events.
Unfortunately, repairs and maintenance have been postponed
year after year, resulting in deferred maintenance up to that
amount of $3.6 billion that I spoke about. This leads to more
and more road closures across our system, because, frankly, we
just can't keep up. Our communities see this as failing them,
or worse, as a strike to their liberty and way of life.
To attain safe, sustainable access for the American public,
our agency would require an additional $445 million per year
over the next 10 years. We greatly appreciate the partnership
with the Federal Highway Administration that Congress
authorized most recently through the FAST Act.
Through the Federal Lands Transportation Program, the
Forest Service currently receives approximately $19 million in
annual funding. In fiscal year 2020, that helped us
rehabilitate 546 miles of roads and 29 bridges. It represents
about 8 percent of our annual funds, and about 3 percent of our
estimated annual need.
I would be happy to work with the subcommittee, and I
really appreciate the time this morning to talk about these
important issues. Thank you.
[Mr. French's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher B. French, Deputy Chief, National
Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Madam Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as the
committee considers reauthorization of federal transportation programs.
My testimony today will focus on the importance of the Federal Lands
Transportation Program (FLTP) to the critical transportation system
maintained by the Forest Service.
National Forest System Road Network
The USDA Forest Service manages over 193 million acres of national
forests and grasslands across 44 states and territories. These public
lands amount to approximately 30 percent of all federally managed lands
and comprise approximately 8 percent of the land area in the United
States. On the National Forest System (NFS), infrastructure is the
physical link between Americans and their public lands. It strengthens
communities by giving them safe access to the many ecological,
economic, and social amenities these lands provide. For instance,
people use infrastructure on the National Forest System for ranching,
farming, logging, outdoor recreation, tourism, energy production and
municipal water services, all of which support thriving small
businesses, particularly in local communities. People depend on the
Forest Service road network to get to schools, stores, hospitals, and
homes. Perhaps most critically, forest infrastructure provides fire
protection for communities. Firefighters and emergency responders use
forest infrastructure to access forest lands for firefighting
operations to protect communities, evacuate families from areas at
risk, and rescue individuals from danger.
The infrastructure on the National Forest System includes over
370,000 miles of roads. Of these, nearly 65,000 miles are operated for
passenger vehicles, 203,000 miles are operated for high- clearance
vehicles and over 102,000 are closed to present day traffic, but we
anticipate will be needed to meet future management activities. The
vast transportation system also includes approximately 6,200 road
bridges. Mission essential work that relies on the transportation
network like forest management and timber harvesting, mining, and
livestock grazing sustains over 118,000 jobs and contributes another
$13 billion to rural economies.
In addition to assisting the agency in both administration and
wildland fire management, this transportation system annually supports
more than 300 million hunters, anglers, recreationists and other
travelers over Forest Service roads. In addition, each year over 150
million visitors use the Forest Service transportation system to access
the NFS. These visitors contribute almost $11 billion to the U.S.
economy and sustain more the 148,000 full and part time jobs.
We estimate the cost for preventive maintenance, rehabilitation,
and capital improvements; replacing structurally deficient bridges;
upgrading many of the 22,000 culverts; and trail maintenance and
capital improvements would require a funding level of $445 million per
year for 10 years.
Federal Highway Funding and the National Forest System
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act authorizes
transportation improvement funding through September 2020. The FAST Act
maintained a primary funding program, the Federal Lands Transportation
Program (FLTP), that supports construction activities on infrastructure
that accesses high-use recreation sites and economic generators located
on Federal lands. Under 23 USC 203(a), FLTP funding shall be used
for:
program administration, transportation planning,
research, preventive maintenance, engineering, rehabilitation,
restoration, construction, and reconstruction of Federal lands
transportation facilities,
capital, operations, and maintenance of transit
facilities;
any transportation project eligible for assistance under
this title that is on a public road within or adjacent to, or that
provides access to, Federal lands open to the public; and
environmental mitigation activities (up to $10,000,000).
The FAST Act allocates $355 million average annually to the FLTP
for a total 5-year funding amount of $1.775 billion across the
identified Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMA). Authorized funding
for transportation infrastructure facilities owned by each FLMA is
included in the table below. The FAST Act authorized a total of $85
million in FLTP program funding for the Forest Service for fiscal years
2016-2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Park Service............................... $268M $276M $284M $292M $300M $1.42B
Fish and Wildlife Service........................... $30M $30M $30M $30M $30M $150M
USDA Forest Service................................. $15M $16M $17M $18M $19M $85M
Bureau of Land Management, US Army Corps of $22M $23M $24M $25M $26M $120M
Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Independent
Federal Agencies...................................
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. $335M $345M $355M $365M $375M $1.775B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary funding for Forest Service transportation infrastructure
comes from both Forest Service appropriations and from FLTP. Adjusted
for inflation, appropriated resources have been decreasing over the
past two decades, notwithstanding a spike in funding for roads in 2010
under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Forest Service
receives this FAST Act funding from the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) to enhance access to national forest lands and repair roads
after natural disasters. This funding represents approximately seven
percent of the total funds received for road maintenance and
construction annually through Interior Appropriations and FLTP. The
Forest Service and FHWA work together to enhance road safety
management, develop long range transportation planning, and collect
road condition surveys across the FLTP network. The agency is
developing a National Long-Range Transportation Plan with a focus on
transportation funding and decision-making and will be the first time
the agency has provided national guidance to promote consistency and
transparency in managing the roads program. These planning and data
collection efforts help the Forest Service focus on performance
management when deciding most efficiently what assets to fund
construction on and when.
With projects funded by FLTP funding, the Forest Service has
completed or is programmed through FY20 to complete 150 projects by
spending $70 million in FLTP construction funding, rehabilitating 546
miles of roads, improving access to over 1,300 National Recreation
Areas, replacing 29 bridges in poor condition, reconnecting 204 miles
of aquatic habitat by upgrading road-stream crossings, and improving
196 miles of trails. These investments focus on key transportation
assets that meet recreation, economic benefit, and environmental goals.
Roads directly under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service also
benefit from the Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO)
program. After a natural disaster, ERFO funds are used to restore
critical transportation assets to their pre-existing state. This
program is critical restoring and maintaining access on National Forest
Lands.
Deferred Maintenance on the NFS Road System
The state of the Forest Service's transportation infrastructure has
fallen far behind what is necessary to meet the needs of our forests
and forest users. Approximately $3.6 billion (of a total of $5.2
billion) in infrastructure repairs and maintenance have been postponed
year-after-year, otherwise known as, ``deferred maintenance.'' Forest
roads and bridges are critical for sustaining landscapes across the 193
million acres of National Forest System lands for the benefit of
visitors and communities and are also essential in wildland fire
management.
The agency is taking several actions to help reduce deferred road
maintenance. For example, the Forest Service approach to travel
management helps forests plan a road system that best meets community
needs and transfers ownership to local communities, counties, or States
where appropriate.
We are also taking bold steps to streamline our environmental
review processes and speed up important work that could help protect
communities, livelihoods and resources. The proposed updates would not
only give the Forest Service the tools and flexibility to manage the
land and tackle critical challenges like wildfire, insects, and disease
but also improve service to the American people. The revised rules will
also make it easier to maintain and repair the infrastructure people
need to use and enjoy their public lands including our road network.
The updates will help reduce our maintenance backlog by
implementing a new suite of ``categorical exclusions,'' a
classification under NEPA excluding certain routine activities from
more extensive, time-consuming environmental impact analysis. The
proposed categorical exclusions would include roads and trails
management. The new categorical exclusions are based on intensive
analysis of hundreds of environmental assessments and related data and
when fully implemented will reduce process delays for routine
activities by months or years. We are also streamlining our business
practices and implementing new programmatic agreements for consultation
with other agencies.
In addition, the agency is specifically streamlining business
practices to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog by strategically
prioritizing capital improvement projects. For road projects, the
agency uses the following criteria in order: (a) projects vital for
near-term forest-based economic activity (that is, restoration within
the next 5 years); (b) projects needed for safety; (c) projects that
improve access to recreation sites and trails; and (d) projects that
improve wildlife connectivity, aquatic organism passage, and flood
resiliency. The goals are better community service and better access to
public lands for emergency response, outdoor recreation, and active
resource management. Projects are also evaluated on how they use
partnerships to achieve mutual conservation goals through combined
efforts.
Conclusion
With a backlog of deferred maintenance for forest roads and bridges
at $3.6 billion, the Forest Service cannot achieve a state of good
repair on much of its infrastructure on the National Forest System.
Deteriorating road infrastructure hampers proper management of the
National Forest System and can undermine our firefighting and rescue
capabilities, complicate travel to schools and hospitals and hinder
commerce with local businesses.
The FLTP has been a critically important program that helps
maintain the agency's transportation system and the critical economic
and natural benefits it enables. We look forward to working with the
committee as it considers reauthorization of the program as well as any
infrastructure legislation.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. French.
Mr. Aaron Reif, Transportation Program Manager at the
Department of the Interior.
Mr. Reif. Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the Department of the Interior's Federal Lands and
Tribal Transportation Programs. My name is Aaron Reif, the
Department of the Interior's Transportation Program Manager.
Interior-managed lands and facilities serve nearly 500
million visitors annually and provide schooling for
approximately 47,000 Indian children. Within Interior, the
National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, and
Bureau of Reclamation manage significant inventories of
constructed assets, including transportation systems.
In total, Interior is responsible for nearly 100,000 miles
of road, nearly 4,000 bridges, 63 tunnels, 123 transit systems
and more than 50,000 miles of trail and primitive roads.
Interior's surface transportation network is a key component of
effective Federal land management practices, including wildfire
prevention and response, and invasive species control. It also
provides recreational access for Americans to hunt, fish, and
enjoy other outdoor activities.
These systems support local communities by facilitating the
efficient movement of goods and services by small businesses,
by allowing ranchers to move their stock to range land, and by
providing equipment access to energy projects.
At the end of fiscal year 2019, Interior reported $17.3
billion in deferred maintenance and repair needs, Department-
wide. Approximately one-half of that total is related to
transportation assets. At a time of record-setting visitation
and rapid technological change, many key pieces of Interior
infrastructure, including iconic parkways, bridges, ferries,
tunnels, trails, and bus fleets, have become functionally
inadequate, or have exceeded their design life and require
large investments to bring them back to good condition.
The Federal Lands Transportation Program, or FLTP, is
authorized at $375 million in contract authority from the
Highway Trust Fund in fiscal year 2020, and is a jointly
administered program between the Federal Highway Administration
and the Federal land management agencies.
For decades, this program has successfully played to the
strengths of the partnership. Federal land management agencies
are responsible for prioritizing multimodal transportation
projects, and the Federal Highway Administration provides
program oversight, verifies program eligibility, and provides
technical assistance for delivery upon request.
In carrying out the Federal Lands Transportation Program,
Interior balances optimizing the life cycle of our existing
infrastructure through necessary maintenance and capital
improvements with our resource stewardship responsibilities.
The FLTP is the primary funding source for major capital
investments in Interior transportation facilities. However,
other funding sources are also utilized, including fee revenue
and annual appropriations to Bureaus for construction,
maintenance, and operations.
Interior has identified annual transportation-related needs
of approximately $1.1 billion per year to improve and maintain
its transportation infrastructure in good condition, meet
modernization needs, and develop multimodal transportation
systems.
Transportation infrastructure is also a critical part of
the well-being of Tribal communities. Interior serves as a
steward of more than 56 million acres of Tribal trust lands.
These lands contain more than 27,000 miles of road, 1,600 miles
of trails, and approximately 1,000 bridges.
The largest road program for Tribal Nations is the Tribal
Transportation Program, or TTP, which is also funded from the
Highway Trust Fund. During fiscal year 2020, the TTP is
authorized at $505 million in contract authority, which is
distributed by formula to all federally recognized Tribes
through self-determination contracts or agreements. Each Tribal
Government prioritizes its own projects under this program.
Accompanying the President's fiscal year 2020 budget for
Interior is the reproposal of a public lands infrastructure
fund that, if enacted, would generate up to $6.5 billion over 5
years to address Federal infrastructure needs, including
deferred maintenance attributed to our transportation
infrastructure.
In conclusion, Interior's transportation system is critical
to carrying out our mission to ensure visitor enjoyment,
access, and safety; to protect natural and cultural resources;
and to provide access for resource development and working
landscapes. We thank this committee for continued support of
these transportation programs.
Without the FLTP and TTP, our ability to care for and
provide access to these significant Federal and Tribal lands
would be nearly impossible. We look forward to working with
this committee and others as they consider legislation related
to the administration's proposed public lands infrastructure
fund, and the reauthorization of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act.
Madam Chair, this concludes my statement. I will be pleased
to answer any questions you or other members of the committee
may have.
[Mr. Reif's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Aron Reif, P.E., Transportation Program Manager,
Office of Acquisition and Property Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior
Chairman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department
of the Interior's (Interior) Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation
Programs. My name is Aron Reif, Transportation Program Manager, and my
focus and expertise is on the infrastructure and asset management
policy aspects of these programs.
Interior oversees approximately 20 percent of all land in the
United States and operates in more than 2,400 separate locations across
the country. Interior-managed lands and facilities serve nearly 500
million visitors annually, provide schooling for approximately 47,000
Indian children, and are crucial to the work of 70,000 Interior
employees and 280,000 volunteers. Within Interior, the National Park
Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) manage significant inventories of constructed
infrastructure assets with a replacement value of about $300 billion.
Among these assets are networks of transportation systems. In total,
Interior is responsible for nearly 100,000 miles of road, nearly 4,000
bridges, 63 tunnels, 123 transit systems, and more than 50,000 miles of
trails and primitive roads.
Interior's surface transportation network is a key component of
effective Federal land management practices including wildfire
prevention and response and invasive species control. It also provides
recreational access for Americans to hunt, fish, and enjoy other
outdoor activities on their Federal lands and is essential to enhancing
the visitor experience and ensuring visitor safety. Safe and reliable
transportation systems are also good for business. These systems
support local communities by facilitating the efficient movement of
goods and services across Federal lands by small businesses, such as
river guides, tour operators, and outfitters; by allowing ranchers to
move their stock to rangeland; by linking timber harvesters to saw
mills; and by providing equipment access for development of energy and
mineral extraction projects. Interior's constructed infrastructure
assets directly enable our bureaus to fulfill our varied missions.
After years of increased visitation and use, aging facilities and other
vital structures are in need of reinvestment.
In FY 2018, production and activities on Interior lands in total
contributed about $183 billion to the Nation's GDP, supported about
$315 billion in economic output, and supported an estimated 1.8 million
jobs.\1\ According to the U.S. Commerce Department, in 2017, America's
outdoor economy accounted for $427 billion of the U.S. GDP. Interior
plays a major role in supporting America's outdoor economy through
access to our national parks and other Federal lands. The
modernization, connectivity and the state of condition of the Interior
infrastructure that service these lands facilitate the quality of life
and are economic engines for the communities nearby.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of the Interior Economic Report, FY 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aging infrastructure impacts our ability to serve the public. Many
of these assets require renewal, with older assets becoming more
expensive to repair and maintain in good condition. At the end of FY
2019, Interior reported $17.3 billion in deferred maintenance and
repair needs, and approximately one-half of that total is related to
transportation assets--primarily roads and bridges, but also including
tunnels, parking areas, trails, and infrastructure related to shuttle
buses, ferries, and trams.
According to a National Academy of Sciences study, ``Predicting
Outcomes of Investments in Maintenance and Repair of Federal
Facilities,'' private industry standards require 2-4 percent of the
replacement value of constructed assets be invested in maintenance each
year to maintain constructed assets in good condition. In contrast,
currently, Interior is able to invest less than 0.5 percent each year.
Investments in capital improvements, such as roadway widening to
support increased public use, are in addition to these expenses.
Interior bureaus prioritize investments based on mission criticality,
asset condition, mitigation of health or safety risks to employees or
the public, cost/benefit analyses, and the consequences of further
delays of work.
At a time of record setting visitation and rapid technological
change, many key pieces of Interior infrastructure, including iconic
parkways, bridges, ferries, and bus fleets, have become functionally
inadequate or have exceeded their design life and require large
recapitalization or rehabilitation investments to bring them back to
good condition. This infrastructure requires modernization and long-
term predictable investments that are critical to maintaining public
access and protecting natural and cultural resources.
Federal Lands Transportation Program
The Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) is a jointly-
administered program between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and the Federal land management agencies identified in statute. The
FLTP is funded from the Highway Trust Fund through the U.S. Department
of Transportation (USDOT). For decades, the program has successfully
played to the strengths of the partnership: Federal land management
agencies are responsible for prioritizing multi-modal transportation
projects and the FHWA provides program oversight, verifies program
eligibility, and provides technical assistance upon request. Interior
appreciates FHWA's sharing of technical knowledge and hands-on
technical expertise for delivery of complex projects and capacity
building. In carrying out the FLTP, Interior balances optimizing the
life cycle of our existing transportation infrastructure through
necessary maintenance and investments in capital improvements with our
resource stewardship responsibilities.
The FLTP is the primary funding source for major capital
investments in Interior transportation facilities, which are a Federal
responsibility. However, other funding sources are also utilized,
including fee revenue, and annual appropriations to bureaus for
construction, maintenance, and operations. A large portion of funds--
more than $300 million each year--is associated with the FLTP. This
funding source has been invaluable to Interior.
A key strategy at Interior is to focus a larger share of our
limited transportation funds on applying preventive maintenance
techniques such as pavement seal coats. These preventive maintenance
activities extend the life of pavement for a relatively low unit cost
compared to the repair or reconstruction of our worst condition roads
at a significantly higher unit cost. We can significantly extend the
pavement life of many miles of good condition pavement for the same
cost that it would take to reconstruct one mile to bring it back to
good condition. This allows us to improve the condition of the entire
transportation network over time, while still directing some funding
towards the costly major rehabilitation or reconstruction efforts,
allowing us to maximize appropriated funding.
Through analysis such as pavement deterioration modeling and total
life cycle cost analysis, Interior has identified annual
transportation-related needs of approximately $1.1 billion per year to
improve and maintain its transportation infrastructure in good
condition, meet modernization needs, and develop a multi-modal
transportation system that can accommodate future needs and welcome all
Americans.
National Park Service
The National Park System includes more than 85 million acres across
419 national park units in every state, the District of Columbia,
American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana
Islands and U.S. Virgin Islands. About 9,600 miles of publicly
accessible park roads and parkways exist, approximately 5,500 miles of
which are paved. The condition ratings of paved roads are 65 percent
good, 26 percent fair, and 9 percent poor. The NPS network includes
approximately 1,400 public bridges and 63 public tunnels. The NPS also
has 4,600 miles of front country trails.
The NPS manages 99 discrete transit systems in 65 of the 419 NPS
units. These transit systems accommodate more than 43 million passenger
boardings annually. Shuttle, bus, van, and tram systems make up the
largest share of all system types (61 percent), followed by boat and
ferry systems (33 percent), planes (2 percent), and trains and trolleys
(4 percent). Of these systems, 29 provide the primary access to an NPS
unit because of resource or management needs and geographic
constraints.
Under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act),
the NPS is authorized an average of $284 million per year, starting at
$268 million in fiscal year (FY) 2016 and growing $8 million per year
to $300 million in FY 2020. The NPS has approximately 500 projects
underway at any given time at all stages of project delivery. Some
notable current projects include a rehabilitation of the Linville River
Bridge on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina ($3.3 million),
bridge preservation of the West Fork Sulphur Creek Bridge in Lassen
Volcanic National Park in California ($1.1 million), rockfall
mitigation and a replacement of the Bugstuffer Culvert in Denali
National Park in Alaska ($2.7 million), a replacement of a dilapidated
pier at Scorpion Anchorage at South Cruz Island in Channel Islands
National Park in California ($13 million), and a bridge replacement on
the Main Entrance and Park Central Road in National Capital-East parks
($0.4 million).
There are also a number of large projects with high local,
regional, and national interest such as Arlington Memorial Bridge in
Washington DC, a major commuter artery; the Denali Road in Denali
National Park, Alaska, an essential tourism feature for the park
visitors; and the Tamiami Trail project in Everglades National Park,
Florida, a critical component to South Florida's ecosystem restoration
efforts. The NPS has identified over $2.6 billion in potential future
transportation ``mega'' projects which are defined as over $25 million
in project cost. The NPS celebrated this year the completion of the
Going-to-the-Sun Road Reconstruction in Glacier National Park in
Montana, and completion of the ``missing link'' section of the
Foothills Parkway in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in
Tennessee. Additionally, the rehabilitation of the Arlington Memorial
Bridge is over one-half completed. These projects were some of the most
recent ``mega'' projects that NPS has successfully leveraged NPS funds
with grants from the USDOT and/or state and local government funds to
complete.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The National Wildlife Refuge System managed by the FWS includes
more than 855 million acres of lands and waters across 568 national
wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts, in every state.
In 2017, the FWS welcomed about 55.5 million visitors to national
wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries for recreational
activities, a 13.5 percent increase from 2013. Projects completed in
partnership with Federal Lands Highway make this visitation possible.
According to a 2011 survey of refuge visitors, 75 percent ranked
transportation elements as highly important to their satisfaction.
The FWS operates over 5,400 miles of public use roads and 5,000
parking areas, approximately 540 miles of which are paved. The FWS
network includes approximately 300 public bridges, thousands of
culverts, and 23 public transportation systems. The FWS also has 2,100
miles of trails and boardwalks. Most of FWS' transportation assets are
near the end of their life cycle. Just 15 percent of FWS public roads
and parking areas, 30 percent of FWS public bridges, and 32 percent of
FWS trails and transit systems are under 20 years of age. The average
age of FWS public roads, parking areas, and bridges is 42 years, and
the average age for FWS transit systems and public trails is 32 years.
Under the FAST Act, and previous highway reauthorization bills, the FWS
receives $30 million per year, a funding level that has been consistent
since 2005.
An example of transportation infrastructure needs managed by the
FWS is on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, which covers
over 3,000 square miles and offers a wide array of visitor activities,
including hunting, camping, and educational programs. FWS needs to
rehabilitate the deteriorating Swan Lake Road, which has serious
drainage and safety issues, including signage and visibility concerns
due to vegetation encroachment. The project would extend the life of
the asset and improve safety, access, and the overall visitor
experience at the wildlife refuge. This project will require a $14.7
million investment to complete.
Another example is at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in
Illinois. With over 43,000 acres in southern Illinois, this refuge is a
beloved community asset. Its original 32-mile paved roadway network,
related bridges, and adjacent parking lots have far exceeded their
usable life. All assets need significant repairs just to maintain
reliable public use; the refuge cannot increase capacity sufficiently
to accommodate increasing public use. An $8 million project to improve
the roadways and parking lots is underway. This project will serve 17
miles of road and an additional 36,000 square yards of parking on the
most traveled public routes. As the work moved forward, the scope of
the project expanded and another $2 million will be awarded for
intersection safety improvements and other related road work. Due to
funding constraints, construction has been phased, ultimately
increasing the project's total cost.
The Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge is one of the largest
public open spaces in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Recognizing the limited
access opportunities to the new refuge, FWS and Bernalillo County
formed a partnership and were selected for Federal Lands Access Program
(FLAP) funding that was leveraged with FLTP funds for a total of $8.5
million to improve multi-modal connectivity with the community. A
second multi-modal transportation expansion project was tentatively
selected for FY 2023 FLAP funding with an estimated construction cost
of $8,000,000. These projects expand upon the new visitor center and
FLTP-funded entrance road to greatly enhance public access, safety, and
the visitor experience to the wildlife refuge.
Bureau of Land Management
The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of land, primarily in
the western states. About 45,000 miles of public roads are accessible
by standard passenger cars on these lands; approximately 2,000 miles of
which are paved, and another 14,000 miles are surfaced with aggregate.
The condition ratings of these roads are 1 percent good, 33 percent
fair, and 66 percent poor. Additionally, the BLM operates an additional
30,000 miles of primitive roads, which are only traversable by 4-wheel
drive vehicle. The BLM transportation network also includes 891 public
bridges and more than 15,000 miles of trails.
The FAST Act does not authorize a dedicated funding level for the
BLM each year; instead, the BLM must compete with other Federal land
management agencies for a share of funding averaging $24 million per
year. Under the FAST Act, the BLM has received over $37 million in FLTP
funds (between $6.8 million and $8.1 million per year). These funds
have been used by BLM to reduce deferred maintenance and provide
capital improvements and safety upgrades to existing roads that provide
important access to BLM priority high use recreation sites. The BLM
completed four rehabilitation projects in Oregon, Nevada, California,
and Montana totaling approximately $36 million. These projects improved
access by paving aggregate roads and repaving existing asphalt roads to
improve public access to river rafting, fishing, hiking, rock climbing,
timber harvesting, and access to off-highway vehicle usage areas. In
the design phase, the BLM has four additional rehabilitation projects
underway in Montana, South Dakota, New Mexico, and Alaska, and one
additional rehabilitation project that is currently under construction
in Oregon; these projects will total over $28 million in FLTP funds.
In 2017, Road and Bridge magazine listed the Red Rock Scenic Loop
road rehabilitation project number 3 of their top 10 road pavement
projects in North America, which was a $14 million road rehabilitation
in Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area outside of Las Vegas, NV.
Work included repairs, upgrades, and repaving of 13 miles of roads.
Visitor safety was improved by building two new bridges across low
water crossings that previously left visitors stranded during flash
floods. The BLM also added a pedestrian/bike lane adjacent to the road
to support multimodal travel throughout the Red Rock NCA and reduce
congestion.
Another program highlight for the BLM is the Campbell Tract
project. The Campbell Tract is a 730-acre Special Recreation Management
Area located on the east side of Anchorage, Alaska. It provides a 12-
mile non-motorized trail system that winds through the woods. The BLM
partnered with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), using Federal Lands Access Program funds to
realign the intersection of East 68th Avenue and Elmore Road, and $1.6
million of BLM FLTP funds to realign the BLM entrance road from the new
intersection into Campbell Tract. This project will improve safety and
year around access for motorized and non-motorized visitors.
Bureau of Reclamation
BOR provides water and electricity throughout the western United
States, through a series of dams, lakes, canals, and power generation
sites. The public has access to much of the land surrounding these
water and power facilities. BOR owns approximately 2,800 miles of
public road, 300 public vehicular bridges, and 1,300 miles of public
trails.
The FAST Act does not authorize a dedicated funding level for BOR
each year; instead, BOR must compete with several other Federal land
management agencies for a share of a pot of funding averaging $24
million per year. BOR was added to the FLTP in 2016 in the FAST Act,
and it has been beneficial to the agency, our partners, and the public,
funding over 27 projects for $30 million in 13 of the 17 western states
in which Reclamation has a presence. One of the recent FLTP projects
that was completed was rehabilitating the Hoover Dam Access Road and
parking areas, which had fallen into disrepair due to heavy traffic.
Hoover Dam is BOR's most visited site receiving over 5.5 million
visitors.
Another noteworthy FLTP project BOR has is the Ponderosa Way Bridge
Replacement project. This project is located outside of Auburn,
California over the North Fork of the American River. The original
bridge and road system was built by the Civilian Conservation Corp in
the 1930s as a fire break across the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The
project cost is over $5 million, involving a mixture of FLTP funds and
BOR appropriated funds. Construction is expected to be completed in
2022.
Tribal Transportation Program
Transportation infrastructure is also a critical part of the well-
being of tribal communities. Interior serves as the steward of more
than 56 million acres of tribal trust lands. These lands contain more
than 27,800 miles of road (including 7,300 miles of paved; 5,000 miles
of gravel; and 15,500 miles of earth/primitive surfacing); 1,600 miles
of trails; and approximately 1,000 bridges. These roads represent an
additional $392 million in needs that is separate from those reported
for Interior's owned assets.
The largest road program for tribal nations is the Tribal
Transportation Program (TTP), funded from the Highway Trust Fund
through the USDOT's Federal Highway Administration and authorized by
the FAST Act. During FY 2020, the TTP is authorized at $505 million in
contract authority, which is distributed as directed by Chapter 2 of
Title 23 to federally-recognized tribes, through self-determination
contracts or agreements. Each tribal government prioritizes its
projects under this program via a Tribal Transportation Improvement
Plan, approved by the Federal Highway Administration.
Public Lands Infrastructure Fund
Accompanying the President's FY 2020 budget for Interior is the re-
proposal of a Public Lands Infrastructure Fund that would generate up
to $6.5 billion over five years to address investment needs in the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. Similar legislation has
been introduced on a bipartisan basis both here in the House and in the
Senate, and the Secretary looks forward to working with the Congress to
enact this legislation. The Administration's proposal would support
infrastructure improvements through an allocation of 70 percent for
national parks, 10 percent for national forests, 10 percent for
national wildlife refuges, 5 percent for Bureau of Indian Education
schools, and 5 percent for lands managed by BLM. The Fund will be
funded through the deposit of 50 percent of all Federal energy
development revenue that would otherwise be credited or deposited as
miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury over the 2020-2024 period,
subject to an annual limit of $1.3 billion. Interior and Agriculture
would prioritize projects, monitor implementation, and measure results.
This investment will significantly improve the public's experience at
many of America's most visible, visited, and treasured places.
If enacted, the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund would be used to
help to address Interior's deferred maintenance backlog, including
deferred maintenance attributed to our transportation infrastructure.
In this way, funds generated from the highway trust fund and energy
development revenue would both be deployed to improve the overall
condition of our transportation network and increase or restore access
to our Federal lands.
Conclusion
Interior's transportation and infrastructure system is critical to
carrying out our mission and to ensure visitor enjoyment, access, and
safety; to protect natural and cultural resources; and to provide
access for resource development and working landscapes. We thank this
committee for continued support of these transportation programs, which
in turn have helped Interior to address critical investment needs of
deteriorating roads and bridges, close the gap on incomplete parkways,
and enhance safety for visitors and staff. Without the FLTP and TTP,
our ability to care for and provide access to these significant Federal
and Tribal lands would be nearly impossible. We look forward to working
with this Committee and others as they consider legislation related to
the Administration's proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund and the
reauthorization of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act.
Madam Chair, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Committee may have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Reif, for your statement.
Next, Mr. Joe A. Garcia, head councilman, Ohkay Owingeh
Pueblo.
Mr. Garcia. [Speaking a Native American language.]
Good morning. With all due respect, thank you, Chair
Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the subcommittee
for the opportunity to provide testimony today on the
importance of surface transportation for Indian country. My
name is Joe Garcia. I am head councilman and the former three-
term Governor of Ohkay Owingeh. I am an electrical engineer by
profession, with a B.S. in electrical engineering from the
University of New Mexico. I am the cochair of the National
Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Intertribal Transportation
Association Tribal Transportation Task Force, a former two-term
president of NCAI, and the Tribal cochair of the Department of
Transportation's Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to establish
the Tribal Transportation Self-Governance Program.
Let me begin by thanking the committee and Chairman DeFazio
for including section 1121 in the FAST Act to extend Tribal
self-governance to the Department of Transportation. With your
help, we have a consensus draft rule that will become final
this June. We have some disagreement issues and concerns and
timing issues, such as the timing when the Department may
establish an Office of Self-Governance, whether the Department
might establish an advisory committee or pay Tribes contract
support costs and lease payments. But the draft rule honors
self-governance principles, and this new program will benefit
Indian country.
Today, there are 574 Tribal Nations with a nation-to-nation
relationship with the United States--229 Tribes are located in
Alaska, and 345 are located in 34 other States. Indian
country's 100 million acres would make it the fourth largest
State in the U.S., with some 151,000 miles of roads, 42,000
miles of which are owned and maintained by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and Tribes, with too few resources.
The transportation needs of Indian country, like rural
America, are great. Please build on the improvement to the
existing Federal transportation programs proposed in the Senate
bill, S. 2302, including in it title IV, which includes many
provisions supported by Tribes and the NCAI.
Tribes ceded millions of acres of their aboriginal land to
the United States. In return, the Federal Government promised,
through signed treaties, statutes, and Executive orders, to
extend its protection to Tribal Governments and to our
citizens. That is the binding contract the United States
entered into with the Tribes, from which has arisen the United
States trust responsibility to the Indian Nations and to our
peoples.
With too few Federal appropriations, Tribes are falling
behind the rest of the Nation, and transportation barriers
hinder economic growth. There are 29,400 miles of BIA system
roads, the majority of which are gravel or earth, and over 900
BIA-owned bridges. Tribal Nations own and maintain
approximately 14,000 miles of travel roads and trails, of which
only 1,000 miles are paved. Many of the dirt and gravel routes
are schoolbus routes. These roads are among the most
underdeveloped, unsafe, and poorly maintained road networks in
the country. This committee can authorize more funds to pave
them.
In my written testimony, I discuss the Appalachian region,
and the vision that the 89th Congress had in 1965, to see that
targeted Federal appropriations were made to the region and
peoples that have not shared properly in the Nation's
prosperity. Thanks to the American people, the region prospers
today. I ask this subcommittee to do the same for Indian
country in the next highway bill.
The modern day bipartisan Federal policy of Tribal self-
governance authorizes the transfer from Federal agencies to
Tribal Governments of the day-to-day administration of Federal
programs and funds for Tribes in the most efficient and
streamlined manner, reducing burdensome regulations and
minimizing transactional costs, so that Federal funds are
expended at the local, Tribal level. Today, 95 percent of
Tribes carry out Federal transportation and road maintenance
programs.
In closing, I ask this committee to empower Tribal
Government in the next reauthorization measure by giving Tribes
the resources they need, primarily through the Tribal
Transportation Program, the Tribal Transit Program, and through
set-aside grants. Thank you for giving Tribes a platform today
to share our needs and goals with the subcommittee to
reauthorization. Thank you so much.
[Mr. Garcia's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe A. Garcia, Head Councilman, Ohkay
Owingeh Pueblo
Thank you Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to provide testimony on the importance
of surface transportation infrastructure for Indian country. My name is
Joe Garcia, and I am Head Councilman and former three term Governor of
Ohkay Owingeh, the Co-Chair of the National Congress of American
Indians (NCAI)-Intertribal Transportation Association (ITA) Tribal
Transportation Task Force, a former two term President of NCAI, and the
current Tribal Co-Chair of the Department of Transportation's Tribal
Transportation Self-Governance Program (TTSGP) Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee. Ohkay Owingeh is located 30 miles north of Santa Fe, New
Mexico and 25 miles northeast of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
I, together with many Tribal elected officials, look forward to
working with the members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee to ensure that Federal transportation policies, including the
next surface transportation reauthorization measure, honor the Nation's
treaty and trust responsibilities to Tribes. The transportation needs
of Indian country, like rural America, are great. Please build on the
improvements to existing Federal transportation, public transit, and
highway safety programs proposed by the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee's S. 2302, including its title IV, which includes many
provisions supported by Tribes. At its annual meeting in Albuquerque in
October, NCAI, by resolution (#ABQ-19-076), endorsed the Tribal
provisions of S. 2302, urged Congress to support these provisions, and
to enact reauthorization before the FAST Act expires this September.
Tribes ceded millions of acres of their aboriginal lands to the
United States and in return the Federal government promised, through
signed treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and Federal court
decisions, to extend its protection to Tribal governments and to our
citizens, and provide our peoples with the funds and resources to meet
our basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, to provide us doctors,
teachers, roads, and to give us the resources necessary to sustain our
communities on the lands we reserved. That is the binding contract the
United States entered into with Tribes, and from those treaties and
other laws has arisen the United States' sacred trust responsibility to
the Indian Nations and our peoples.
For that reason, I am encouraged by Committee Chairman DeFazio's
announcement last week of a transformational five-year, $760 billion
investment in infrastructure. The United States and Tribes must move
forward in close partnership to ensure that Indian country--like rural
America--participates fully in this bold initiative. I am confident
that Congress will find a way to pay for this infrastructure initiative
that is so important to the future prosperity of the Nation.
Fifty-five years ago, Congress enacted the Appalachian Regional
Development Act of 1965. In that legislation, Congress found that the
region, ``while abundant in natural resources and rich in potential,
lags behind the rest of the Nation in its economic growth and that its
people have not shared properly in the Nation's prosperity.'' Pub. L.
89-4, 2. The same can be said of Indian country. The indigenous
peoples of the United States have not shared properly in the Nation's
prosperity. We must eliminate the pockets of poverty that persist in
the country.
The Appalachian region today is so much better off than it was in
1965. The 13 States covered by the Appalachian Regional Commission have
improved transportation infrastructure and, as a result, a higher
standard of living because of the vision of the 89th Congress. That
Congress, and every Congress since, believed that Federal
appropriations can and should be targeted to a particular region and to
a people who needed additional assistance. The Appalachian region and
the entire Nation are the beneficiaries of that sage vision. We need
that vision today.
As of January 1, 2020, there are 574 sovereign Tribal Nations with
a formal nation-to-nation relationship with the United States. 229
Tribal Nations are located in Alaska, while 345 Tribes are located in
34 other states. The total land mass under American Indian or Alaska
Native jurisdiction is about 100 million acres, which would make Indian
Country the fourth-largest state geographically in the U.S.
Additionally, there are twelve tribal nations that have a larger land
base than the state of Delaware, and the Navajo Nation, alone, would be
the 42nd-largest state. According to the 2010 Census, 5.2 million
people identified as American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) alone or in
combination with other races, which would make Indian Country the 22nd
most populous state.
In FY 2019, States divided over $50 billion in Federal-Aid Highway
Program and Mass Transit funds to meet their infrastructure and public
transit needs. By comparison, in FY 2019, after reducing Federal
appropriations due to the obligation limitation deduction, and
deductions for BIA and FHWA administrative costs, some 570 Tribes
shared about $401 million in Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) funds
for infrastructure needs, and $35 million in Tribal Transit ``Public
Transportation on Indian Reservation'' funds. Tribes receive 8/10th of
one percent of States.
Indian country needs additional Federal assistance. What little
data exists shows that Indian country continues to fall behind. I ask
that you envision a brighter future for Indian country that is only
possible with targeted and sustained Federal assistance. I encourage
this Subcommittee to think big when it considers the transportation
funding needs of 574 federally-recognized Tribes. Do for Tribes in the
next reauthorization measure what the 89th Congress did for the
Appalachian region in 1965 and Indian country and entire Nation will
reap a bountiful harvest.
I. Tribes and the Department of Transportation Negotiated a Consensus
Draft Rule for the FAST Act's Tribal Transportation Self-
Governance Program that Honors Key Principles of Self-
Governance
I want to personally thank Committee Chairman DeFazio, Ranking
Member Graves, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and the entire
Committee for including the Tribal Transportation Self-Governance
Program in the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 1121), and directing the
Department of Transportation to consult meaningfully with Tribes in the
drafting of the regulation to implement this important Federal program
for Tribes.
What is Tribal self-governance? As former Congressman George Miller
noted: ``The nature of Self-Governance is rooted in the inherent
sovereignty of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. From the
founding of this nation, Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages have
been recognized as 'distinct, independent, political communities'
exercising powers of self-government, not by virtue of any delegation
of powers from the federal government, but rather by virtue of their
own innate sovereignty.'' \1\ The modern day bipartisan Federal policy
of Tribal self-governance authorizes the transfer from Federal agencies
to Tribal governments of the day-to-day administration of federal
programs enacted for their benefit, together with Federal funds, in the
most efficient and streamlined manner, a simple compact and funding
agreement, reducing burdensome regulations and minimizing
``transactional costs'' so that Federal funds are expended where they
are most needed--at the local Tribal level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Rep. No. 105-765, 105th Cong., 2d Sess., House Resources
Committee, Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 1998, Additional Views,
Oct. 2, 1998, p. 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As one of the two Tribal Co-Chairs to the Department of
Transportation's Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, I am pleased to
report that the joint Tribal-Federal Negotiated Rulemaking Committee,
created under the legislation, has developed a consensus draft rule,
which the Rulemaking Committee should complete by March of this year,
with the able assistance of facilitators from the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service (FMCS).
I am grateful to Transportation Secretary Chao and her staff for
supporting the Tribal request in 2018 to use FMCS to help us find
common purpose and to resolve our differences through interest-based
bargaining. It worked and we all are so much better off for it. We have
some disagreement issues. They are significant and mostly concern
issues that have a cost component, such as Tribal eligibility for
Contract Support Cost funds, lease payments, and the Department's
timely establishment of an Office of Self-Governance and an advisory
committee to implement the Program at the Department. I hope the
Department reconsider and accepts the Tribes' positions. Under the
legislation, the Department must publish the final rule for the Program
by June 1, 2020. I am confident that the Department will meet the
deadline. The full Rulemaking Committee will meet next month to review
the public comments and finalize the rule.
Tribes qualify for the new Program by demonstrating to the
Department's satisfaction that they possess the requisite financial
management capability and transportation program management capability.
Once eligible, Tribes can negotiate a simply award instrument and fold
into that agreement program duties and associated funds from FHWA
transportation and safety programs, FTA transit, FAA, NHTSA, as well as
Federal-Aid funds (when a State agrees to transfer such funds to a
Tribe), reduce administrative burdens, and focus on the business of
building transportation infrastructure for their communities. It's that
simple.
II. Empower Tribal Governments in the Next Reauthorization Measure by
Giving Tribes the Resources and Assistance Required to Improve
the Transportation Infrastructure and Transit Systems and Build
Strong Partnerships with Other Transportation Stakeholders.
1. The Federal policy of Self-Determination and Self-
Governance has transformed and Empowered Tribal
Governments.
The bipartisan Federal policy of Tribal self-governance and self-
determination dates back to 1975 with the enactment of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), Pub. L. 93-638, 25
U.S.C. 5301 et seq., has empowered Tribal governments. The ISDEAA
removed the question of whether a Tribe or Tribal Organization could
assume programs and services of the Department of the Interior and
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), or whether Tribes were
entitled to the same level of funding the respective Secretaries were
given by Congress to carry out such programs, together with
administrative overhead costs, known as Indirect Costs and Contract
Support Costs (CSCs).
Over the last 45 years, Tribal nations have contracted, assumed,
and taken control over federal programs for housing, law enforcement,
social services, health care, environmental programs, road maintenance,
rights-of-way, and the planning, design, construction, and
reconstruction of roads and bridges. In 1988, Congress established the
Tribal Self-Governance Program which further empowered Tribes to
redesign and consolidate Federal programs as Tribes determined best to
meet the needs of their citizens.
In 1994, Congress established a permanent self-governance program
at the Department of the Interior (title IV of the ISDEAA) and, in
2000, at the Department of Health and Human Services (title V of the
ISDEAA) and given Tribes the discretion, authority, and flexibility to
redesign or consolidate federal programs to best ``meet the needs of
their communities consistent with their diverse demographic,
geographic, economic, cultural, health, social, religious, and
institutional needs,'' 25 C.F.R. 1000.4(c)(6) (Secretarial self-
governance policies), and without any modification or diminishment of
the trust responsibility owed by the United States to Indian tribes and
individual Indians that exists under treaties, Executive Orders, other
laws, or court decisions. 25 U.S.C. 5366(b) (title IV) and 5387(g)
(title V). Tribes are grateful that the Committee and Congress extended
the Tribal Transportation Self-Governance Program to the Department of
Transportation in the FAST Act.
These laws, and the experience of carrying out governmental
services, have built strong Tribal governments with the administrative
capacity and resources to develop programs, systems and standards, hire
and train dedicated Tribal personnel to oversee and carry out the
programs, account for federal funds, and provide independent audits to
the federal awarding agencies. Under the ISDEAA, every Tribe that meets
the statutory threshold regarding receipt of Federal funds must
complete an independent audit under the Single Audit Act Amendments of
1996 pursuant to the requirements of the statute and the Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audits Requirements
for Federal Awards (2 CFR Part 200).
According to a recent report of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) regarding the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP), as of FY
2017, 131 Tribes operated their TTP program through agreements directly
with FHWA; 205 Tribes carried out the TTP under title I Self-
Determination Act contracts with the BIA; 187 Tribes performed their
TTP duties under TTP Agreements with the BIA; and 23 Tribes carried out
TTP duties under title IV Self-Governance compacts with the BIA. Thus,
546 Tribes carry out the Secretary of the Interior's duties for the
Tribal Transportation Program with growing confidence and ability.
These numbers amply illustrate Tribal transportation capacity.
2. Indian Nations are Public Authorities and have
responsibilities, just like States and counties, to
build and maintain safe transportation
infrastructure and transit systems with the
assistance of the United States in accordance with
the Federal Government's trust responsibilities to
Tribes and Tribal citizens.
Tribal governments are ``public authorities,'' defined under
Federal law as a ``Federal, State, county, town, or township, Indian
tribe, municipal or other local government or instrumentality with
authority to finance, build, operate, or maintain toll or toll-free
facilities.'' 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(21). Tribes work diligently to improve
and maintain public transportation and transit systems with limited
funds, and coordinate with county, city, RPOs, MPOs, State, and Federal
agencies. But Tribal transportation infrastructure and transit systems
do not compare to our non-Indian neighbors. Tribes lack the funds
required to plan, design, and maintain modern transportation and
transit systems. We need more resources to hire and retain personnel to
interact and engage with other transportation stakeholders. We cannot
do the work alone. We must build partnerships to combine our resources,
and collaborate on projects of mutual benefit.
According to the most recent National Tribal Transportation
Facility Inventory (NTTFI), there are approximately 161,000 miles of
roads and trails in Indian Country eligible for federal funding. Of
those, 29,400 miles are BIA System routes, 75 percent of which are
gravel, earth, or primitive routes. Tribes and the BIA maintain the
routes. Tribal nations own and maintain 13,650 miles of roads and
trails, of which only 7.3 percent (1,000 miles) are paved. The other
12,650 miles are gravel, earth, or primitive. Many of these unimproved
routes are school bus routes. Altogether, the 42,000 miles of BIA and
Tribal roads in Indian Country are still among the most underdeveloped,
unsafe, and poorly maintained road networks in the nation, even though
they are the primary means of access to American Indian and Alaska
Native communities by Native and non-Native residents and visitors.
Only this Committee can authorize more funds to pave these routes. Road
maintenance funds only maintain the existing surface--whatever its
condition.
The BIA recently conducted a road maintenance survey that found
that the total dollar value of deferred road maintenance for surveyed
stakeholders is estimated at $498 million. The survey also found that
more funding was the number one priority of stakeholders, followed by
equipment needs.\2\ Data indicated that Tribal nations are using Tribal
Transportation Program (TTP) funds--that could otherwise be used for
road construction or improvement--to address road maintenance needs as
is authorized by Federal law (23 U.S.C. 202(a)(8)). The survey
estimated that the expenditures for road maintenance in FY 2017 were
more than double the allocated amount of funding for the BIA Road
Maintenance program in FY 2017 of $30.3 million.\3\ Borrowing funds
from the TTP to backfill the underfunded BIA Road Maintenance Program
results in a drag on the construction, maintenance, and overall safety
of roads throughout Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Tribal/Interior Budget Council, Roads Maintenance Subcommittee
Presentation, November 15, 2018. http://www.ncai.org/TIBC-
Nov201_ROADS_Subcmte_Preso.pdf
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having safe, well-maintained tribal roads, bridges, and adequate
public transportation is vital to public safety, commerce, and tourism
in tribal communities and benefits tribal citizens and those living in
and around Indian Country. Congress has long recognized that for
economic development to take root there must be community stability,
and it begins with essential infrastructure, including roads and
transit systems, safe drinking water, utilities, broadband, good
schools, health facilities, and access to markets and job
opportunities. Too often, however, Federal appropriations for Tribes
are wholly inadequate to the task and, as a result, Tribal governments
struggle to maintain existing institutions and facilities and carry out
essential government services. With Federal assistance, we can improve
the condition of our infrastructure. Like the States, we need a strong
Federal presence in the next reauthorization measure to bring lasting
change and to build the economies of our Tribes to meet the challenges
of the 21st Century.
3. Indian Country roads are unsafe, outdated, and
contribute to the transportation barriers that
separate Tribal lands from markets, business
opportunities, education, healthcare and jobs.
Our existing road systems create transportation barriers which must
be eliminated if we are to maintain our existing Tribal and non-Indian
residents, and attract businesses, tourism, and jobs to sustain our
peoples. Every Federal policy for Indian country is hindered and made
more difficult by the poor state of transportation infrastructure,
transit, and highway safety in Indian country. Our third-world
transportation systems undermine public safety, education, health care,
job opportunities, and slow or eliminate economic development
opportunities. This is especially so in the Nation's most remote and
rural reservations and Alaska Native villages. The few statistics
regarding motor vehicle and pedestrian fatalities among American
Indians and Alaska Natives indicate that our populations are at a much
greater risk of death than other Americans. These preventable deaths
tear the fabric of Tribal communities and leave scars that seldom heal.
According to FHWA, motor vehicle crashes caused an average of 655
fatalities each year in tribal areas.\4\ Motor vehicle crashes are the
leading cause of unintentional injury death for AI/ANs under the age of
20.\5\ Additionally, motor vehicle-related death rates for AI/ANs ages
20 and older are more than twice that of non-Hispanic whites, and AI/AN
infants have a motor vehicle death rate that is eight times higher than
that of non-Hispanic whites.\6\ This is frightening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Federal Highway Administration, Transportation Safety in Tribal
Areas, FHWA-HRT-18-004, Vol. 82 No. 2, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
publications/publicroads/18summer/02.cfm
\5\ CDC, Tribal Road Safety: Get the Facts, https://www.cdc.gov/
motorvehiclesafety/native/factsheet.html
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these startling statistics, appropriations for tribal road
safety remains woefully underfunded, especially when compared to
funding for States. In FY 2018, State Departments of Transportation
shared $2.23 billion in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds
(23 U.S.C. 402).\7\ By comparison, Tribes compete for $8.9 million in
TTP safety grants (23 U.S.C. 202(e)) and a few Tribes share $5.2
million from BIA's Indian Highway Safety Program (IHSP) (23 U.S.C.
402, 2% set-aside). States receive recurring Federal appropriations for
highway safety. So should Tribes. Otherwise, the horrific motor vehicle
statistics in Indian country will continue. Tribes need recurring
funding to reduce DUIs, increase seat belt use and child safety seat
use, and make highway safety improvements. Please address this unmet
need in reauthorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Federal Highway Administration, Distribution of Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) Funds Apportioned for FY 2018, https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510824/n4510824_t12.cfm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I testified last year before the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee, there is great need for additional surface transportation
funding and data in Indian Country. In December of 2018, the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights released its report, titled Broken Promises:
Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans, as an update
to its 2003 A Quiet Crisis report.\8\ The Broken Promises report
emphasizes federal underinvestment in transportation and other
infrastructure in Indian Country and discusses how the lack of
investment causes significant safety concerns, interrupts the provision
of tribal government services, and affects the overall health of tribal
economies.\9\ In addition to the chronic underinvestment in the
physical infrastructure of Tribal communities, the Commission's report
goes on to highlight the ``severe lack of public transportation in
Indian Country.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Broken Promises: Continued
Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans, https://www.usccr.gov/
pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf
\9\ Id.
\10\ Id., citing U.S. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Testimony before the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, July 12, 2007, https://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110shrg37860/html/CHRG-110shrg37860.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2017, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
conducted a study on tribal transportation data, road management, and
student attendance. GAO found that the NTTFI and Deferred Maintenance
Reporting (DMR) systems contain incomplete and inconsistent road
description and condition data that affect program efficiency and
delivery. As a result, reports and budget submissions that rely on
these datasets ``may not accurately reflect road conditions or
maintenance needs and associated costs . . . inhibit[ing] the ability
of Congress'' and the appropriate bureaus, offices, and agencies to
make better-informed decisions about priorities and the transportation
system as a whole.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Tribal Transportation:
Better Data Could Improve Road Management and Inform Indian Student
Attendance Strategies, GAO-17-432, p. 47 (May 22, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO also identified the significant practical impacts of poor
tribal road conditions. The report concluded that road conditions on
tribal lands pose challenges ``in connecting people to education,
employment, healthcare, and other essential services,'' which are
magnified during adverse weather due to remoteness and existing road
conditions.\12\ Additionally, GAO concluded that road conditions affect
student attendance \13\ and rough road conditions can increase
maintenance needs for school vehicles.\14\ To remedy these conditions,
Congress must better target Federal appropriations and funds to Tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id.
\13\ Id.
\14\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Highlights of GAO-17-
432, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-423
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Tribes are good stewards of Federal appropriations;
Invest in Tribes by increasing Federal
appropriations in transportation formula and
discretionary and competitive grant programs
enacted for the benefit of Tribes or for which
Tribes may compete as public authorities
Over the last five decades, Tribes have developed financial
management, property management, and procurement management systems and
standards to efficiently operate Tribal and Federal programs. Tribes
have demonstrated the transportation program management abilities to be
good stewards of Federal transportation funds. Making Tribes direct
recipients of Federal transportation programs places Federal dollars in
the hands of the local government, the government most responsive to
the needs of Tribal citizens and residents, minimizes regulatory
burdens, saves money and time, builds and maintains Tribal capacity and
confidence in the transportation arena, and sustains Tribal economies.
I urge the Committee to take into account the capacity of Tribal
governments to effectively administer Federal transportation
infrastructure programs, transit systems, and highway safety projects
to benefit their citizens, together with the great unmet transportation
construction, transit, and highway safety needs they face when
determining authorization levels in reauthorization. I recommend that
in the reauthorization of the FAST Act, Congress consider the
following:
1. Tribal Transportation Program--Significantly increase the
authorization level for the Tribal Transportation Program for each year
of reauthorization; TTP funds are the most flexible Federal dollar
awarded to Tribes and can be used for many purposes to further
transportation planning, design, purchase of heavy equipment, perform
deferred and emergency road maintenance work, undertake NEPA
environmental studies, subsidize transit, perform highway safety
improvements, and cover administrative overhead costs;
2. FTA Tribal Transit Program--Significantly increase the
authorization for the FTA's ``Public Transportation on Indian
Reservations'' Tribal Transit Program, 49 U.S.C. 5311(c), including
the formula and discretionary grant programs;
3. Restore a Tribal High Priority Projects Program--Like S. 2302,
restore a Tribal High Priority Projects Program (HTF) for all Tribes so
that Tribes can compete, among Tribes, to fund their highest priority
transportation project or address a road emergency;
4. Make Tribes, as Public Authorities, Eligible for All Federal
Competitive and Discretionary Grant Programs--Tribes should be eligible
to compete for direct Federal assistance from the Department of
Transportation, rather than being a sub-recipient of a State or county.
Too often, the award instruments used by States and counties include
provisions that demand a waiver of Tribal sovereign immunity,
submission to State courts, and other provisions that force Tribes to
decline the grant;
5. Lower Dollar Thresholds and Increase the Federal share to
100%--Like S. 2302, lower the dollar thresholds for such grant programs
as the Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects
(NSFLTP) Program, and increase the Federal share of grants to Tribes to
100%, to better ensure that more Tribes actually receive Federal
competitive grants to improve their transportation and transit systems;
6. Include More Tribal Set-Asides in Existing Federal Grant
Programs--There is a cost to every public authority to compete for
Federal discretionary and competitive grants. Tribes are often at a
disadvantage when competing with States, counties, cities and townships
for Federal grants. By including a dedicated source of Federal funds
that Tribes alone can compete for, Congress will ensure that more
Federal appropriations go to Tribes to address their unmet
infrastructure needs. Historically, Tribes receive a tiny fraction of
Federal discretionary and competitive transportation infrastructure and
highway safety grants, such as TIGER and BUILD grants, despite their
terrible road conditions and motor vehicle and pedestrian fatality
rates;
7. Direct the Department of Transportation to Establish an Office
of Self-Governance and create a Self-Governance Advisory Committee--
Like the Departments of the Interior and Health and Human Services,
which have decades' old Tribal Self-Governance Programs, the Department
of Transportation should promptly establish an Office of Self-
Governance when the final rule for the Tribal Transportation Self-
Governance Program takes effect this year. Instead, the timing of when
to establish such an office at the Department, and whether the
Department will ever create a Self-Governance Advisory Committee, are
non-consensus issues in the proposed rule (see 84 Fed. Reg. 52706,
52710, Oct. 2, 2019). If the government-to-government relationship is
to have relevance, and if the Department is to provide meaningful and
timely consultation with Tribes concerning the Program, Congress should
include statutory language in the reauthorization measure and provide
funding to the Department to do so. We encourage the Committee to press
the Department on this. See S. 2302, 4009; and
8. Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP)--The Tribal
Technical Assistance Program (TTAP) is the only program for the road
construction personnel of Tribal Nations to build their capacity and
maintain certification for operating heavy equipment through training
and technical assistance from experts who oversee and construct
highways and roads in tribal communities. In the Fall of 2016, FHWA
announced the restructuring of the TTAP and eliminated the seven TTAPs
around the country that served all federally-recognized tribal nations.
In December 2017, the FHWA announced a two-year pilot program and
centralized the TTAP at the University of Virginia, Center for
Transportation Studies (CTS) in Virginia. The entire restructuring and
implementation by FHWA of the pilot program proceeded without
meaningful tribal consultation. The pilot program has now been
suspended by FHWA. The program remains an important resource to improve
the technical expertise of tribal transportation officials.
Accordingly, Congress should ensure Tribes are actively consulted on
the Program's future and provide a $5 million increase in TTAP funding.
The relationship between Tribes and the Federal government is
eternal. So long as there is a Constitution that begins ``We the
people,'' we must work together for our mutual benefit. Safe and
reliable transportation infrastructure is vital to the enhancement of
Tribal economic development and to the wellbeing of Tribal communities
and surrounding non-tribal areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important
oversight hearing.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Councilman Garcia.
We will hear next from Mary Beth Clark, president of the
Intertribal Transportation Association.
Ms. Clark. Good morning, Chair Norton, and Ranking Member
Davis, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
me to testify today concerning Tribal transportation needs. My
name is Mary Beth Clark, and I am an enrolled Tribal member of
the Nez Perce Tribe on my father's side and Klamath on my
mother's. For the last 12 years, I have been the transportation
manager for the Nez Perce Tribe. I serve on the Department of
Transportation's Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, and a
regulatory body that provides input to FHWA and BIA concerning
the Tribal Transportation Program.
I have worked in Indian affairs for over 25 years. I
testify today as the president of the Intertribal
Transportation Association, which is called ITA, a nonprofit
Tribal advocacy association which represents the transportation
interests of Tribes.
There are great unmet transportation infrastructure needs
in Indian country. ITA urges the subcommittee in your
reauthorization bill to support and build on the Senate bill,
S. 2302, the Tribal provisions, some of which include ITA
recommendations. Tribes thank the committee for elevating
Tribal transportation needs at the Department of Transportation
by including us as a witness today.
Infrastructure is the greatest catalyst to accelerate
economic development and growth, especially in rural America,
where the most Tribes' members live, and where transportation
infrastructure lags behind the rest of the Nation. It is
important that Congress hear and respond favorably to Tribal
voices as you develop the reauthorization measure.
The level of Federal appropriations today often spells the
difference between the success or failure of the Tribal
Transportation Programs. Unfortunately, American Indians and
Alaska Natives are dying in preventable motor vehicle crashes
well above the national level, due, in part, to poor conditions
of our roads and a lack of safety features and behavioral
issues.
Roads and bridges in Indian country today are known for
their poor maintenance. A majority of these are unimproved dirt
and gravel roads, great distances to trauma centers and
emergency responders, and have poor signage. But too often,
Federal appropriations are insufficient to the needs of Tribes.
Unmet deferred highway reconstruction and road maintenance
needs in Indian country are difficult to qualify, because there
are BIA-owned roads and bridges, Tribally owned roads and
bridges, State and county townships and routes. But Tribes can
assure you, the numbers are in the billions in these unmet
needs and harm Indian country and Indian people in undetermined
economic growth.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration captures
important aspects of successful traffic safety in expressions
of the four E's, which is engineering, enforcement and
regulations, education and information, and emergency response.
I discuss the ``golden hour'' in the written testimony I
provided. If a victim of a motor vehicle crash can reach a
trauma center within 60 minutes to receive medical care, there
is a likelihood that they will survive and not die from their
injuries. Unfortunately, there is seldom that golden hour in
Indian country.
I close by highlighting a few of ITA's recommendations:
Significantly increase the authorization funding level for the
Tribal Transportation Program each year; restore the High
Priority Projects Program funded with Highway Trust Funds;
restore the exemption that once existed in Indian Reservation
Roads, but is now called TTP, from the obligation limitation
deduction; direct the Department of Transportation to establish
the Office of Self-Governance and create the Self-Governance
Advisory Committee; take into account the fact that Tribes use
Federal transportation program funds to help with their road
maintenance when setting your funding levels; and significantly
increase the authorization level for Federal Transit
Administration, FTA, Tribal Transit Programs, lower the dollar
threshold for Tribes in competitive grants and raise the
Federal share to 100 percent.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify, and it has
been an honor. Thank you.
[Ms. Clark's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary Beth Clark, President, Intertribal
Transportation Association
I. Introduction
Good morning Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today concerning
Tribal transportation construction, transit, and highway safety needs.
My name is Mary Beth Clark, I am an enrolled Nez Perce on my father's
side and Klamath on my mother's side. I reside in Lapwai, Idaho located
on the Nez Perce Reservation, where the Tribe's governmental and
administrative offices are located, about 10 miles from the Idaho-
Washington State border along the Snake River.
I speak to you today as the newly elected President of the
Intertribal Transportation Association (ITA), a non-profit Tribal
advocacy association that first met in Polson, Montana in 1993. ITA
represents the transportation interest of the Tribal nations, and was
created to foster the development, operation, and maintenance of
transportation systems that serve the American Indian and Alaska Native
peoples. There are great unmet transportation construction, transit,
and highway safety needs in Indian country. ITA issued a
reauthorization proposal last summer. I am pleased that the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee in its reauthorization measure,
S. 2302, included a number of ITA's recommendations. At our December
meeting, ITA passed Resolution 2019-01 in support of S. 2302's Tribal
provisions and we urge Congress to support and build on the Senate
measure's Tribal provisions.
ITA exists to assist every Tribe develop their transportation
systems, keep Tribes informed on legislative/Federal actions, assist in
coordinating training, and facilitate the government-to-government
relationship between the United States government and the Indian
Nations so that Tribal voices and Tribal viewpoints are shared and
heard by Federal agency officials, Members of Congress and your staff.
ITA, like so many other Tribal organizations, is here to inform you
that the level of Federal appropriations often spells the difference
between the success or failure of federal programs enacted for the
benefit of Indian tribes. Please keep this in mind as you draft the
reauthorization measure for the Nation.
ITA welcomes the opportunity to share our Tribal members' views and
recommendations with the Subcommittee today as you access the
transportation needs of Tribes and draft the next reauthorization bill,
a measure every American hopes will recommit the United States to the
business of transportation infrastructure. Infrastructure is the
greatest catalyst to accelerate economic development and growth,
especially in rural America where most Tribal members live.
For the last twelve years, I have been the Transportation Manager
for the Nez Perce Tribe. I have a BA and Master's degree in Urban and
Regional Planning from Eastern Washington University. I have worked in
Indian Affairs for over 25 years, including a dozen years as the
Economic Development Planner, Planning Manager for the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington State, and two years
as the Senior Tribal Policy Advisor for the Environmental Protection
Agency Region 10. I am the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
(ATNI) Co-Chair of the Transportation Committee, the Northwest
representative on the Tribal Transportation Program Coordinating
Committee (a joint Tribal-Federal regulatory body making
recommendations to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) concerning the Tribal Transportation Program),
the Northwest representative on the Department of Transportation's
Tribal Transportation Self-Governance Program Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee, and the Palouse RTPO Advisory Committee member. I have been
active in Tribal transportation issues for decades.
I thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, Chair Norton
and Ranking Member Davis, and the entire Committee for your advocacy
and support on behalf of Tribes. As a representative of my Tribe and
Region who has participated in the negotiated rulemaking to extend
Tribal Self-Governance to the Department of Transportation since 2016,
I am proud that Congress, and this Committee in particular, supports
the aspirations of the Indian Nations and Tribal citizens to improve
transportation infrastructure on our reservations and make our
communities safer and prosperous, so that we may maintain our culture,
languages, and values and pass them down to our children and
grandchildren. The rulemaking is nearly complete. We hope that you will
support Tribes in our request to the Department to establish an Office
of Self-Governance this year when the regulation takes effect.
The Nez Perce Reservation is about three-quarters of a million
acres in size, with 3,543 Tribal citizens, and approximately 1,800
miles of public roads representing the Tribe's ``Tribal Transportation
Facility'' system. Of that amount, only 95 miles (5%) are BIA-System
and Tribally-owned routes and routes that qualify for funding under the
TTP. In FY 2019, with an authorization of $495 million for the Tribal
Transportation Program, the Nez Perce Tribe received about $525,000 as
our TTP funding allocation and $12,000 for transportation planning, for
a total FY 2019 award of $537,000.
The Tribe also receives $45,000 in BIA Road Maintenance Program
funds under an Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,
Pub. L. 93-638, contract between the Tribe and the BIA that permits us
to assume the duties of the Secretary of the Interior for road
maintenance on the reservation. Under our BIA contract, we receive less
than $472 to maintain a mile of road. States and counties have far more
resources to maintain State and county routes. That is why our TTP
funds, under this Committee's jurisdiction, are so important.
Tribal governments are ``public authorities'' responsible for the
construction and maintenance of transportation systems to serve Tribal
citizens and all residents, Indian and non-Indian. They are the
partners of the Federal government, States, counties, boroughs and
townships and have the capacity and capability to put Federal
appropriations to good use for the benefit of their Tribal citizens and
residents. Invest in Tribes as you invest in the States.
With regard to your deliberations this Congress over how to pay for
a robust reauthorization measure for the Nation, whether it be Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) or an increase to the Federal fuels tax, please
keep Tribes in mind in any solution you develop. If VMT is used as a
means to finance highway construction, transit, and safety programs,
Tribes must have a means to receive and use a share of such revenues
for VMTs that are generated on Tribal lands in order for Tribes to
maintain their transportation facilities. Too often, State-owned and
county-owned routes that cross Indian reservations are not properly
maintained by the facility owner, and BIA system and Tribal routes
don't receive the federal support they require. Overweight trucks and
heavy traffic wears out such routes. Tribes cannot repair such public
routes without recurring Federal funds. Poorly maintained routes have
shortened useful lives and are hazards to all motorists. Infrastructure
worth having is worth paying for.
II. The Challenge Tribes and the United States Face Together
Roads and bridges in Indian country today are known for their poor
maintenance (paved, gravel, or dirt), great distances to trauma
centers, few first responders, lack of highway safety features, and
sun-bleached and wind-worn signage. But too often, Federal
appropriations are insufficient to the needs of Tribes. The resulting
harm to American Indian and Alaska Natives from too few Federal
appropriations, and the consequential poor condition of Indian country
roads, bridges, ferries, and transit systems, is tragic. According to
the Centers for Disease Control:
Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of
unintentional injury death for American Indian/Alaska Natives (AIANs).
Among adult AIANs, motor vehicle-related death rates are more than
twice that of non-Hispanic Caucasians or African Americans;
Among AIANs aged 1 to 19, motor vehicle crashes are the
leading cause of unintentional injury death;
Among AIAN infants less than one year of age, motor
vehicle traffic death rates are eight times higher than that of non-
Hispanic Caucasians.
These statistics cry out for more Federal resources.
Decades ago, when considering amendments to the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, Pub. L. 93-638, Congress
acknowledged that the needs of Indian country and rural America were
the same. The conditions for successful economic development on Indian
lands are founded on community stability that begins with
infrastructure. There must be adequate law enforcement and judicial
systems and basic human services, including roads, safe drinking water,
wastewater, power and communication utilities. When these systems are
in place, Congress understood that Tribes are in the best position to
implement economic development opportunities, empower their Tribal
citizens, and build the economies of their reservations.\1\ Without
such basic infrastructure, community stability becomes uncertain as
young professionals and families seek better opportunities elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ S. Rep. No. 100-274, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 4.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fort Peck Reservation, Montana
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fort Peck Reservation, Montana
As you can see from the above photos, roads in Indian country don't
look like roads in metropolitan areas like Washington, D.C. If the
route is a school bus route, elementary school children, with long bus
rides, must find alternate routes to school, and endure longer rides.
Rurality, the lack of EMS services and trauma centers, the condition of
Tribal roads and bridges, the lack of proper routine and emergency road
maintenance, and the ills of poverty, combine to make Tribal
transportation facilities some of the most dangerous roads in America.
In FY 2017, the last budget justification submitted to Congress by
the Administration that detailed the program performance level of
funding for the BIA Road Maintenance Program (Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies appropriations), the Administration noted that at a
funding level of $27 million, the BIA Road Maintenance Program--carried
out by BIA and Indian Tribes--could provide ``sufficient maintenance''
to classify only 16% of BIA-owned roads as acceptable in terms of
surface condition (fair or better as measured by the Service Level
Index (1-5, with fair being Level 3), and provide ``sufficient
maintenance'' to classify only 62% of the BIA-owned bridges in
``acceptable'' condition based on the Service Level Index. This means
that 84% of BIA-owned roads are in less than fair condition (Level 4
(poor) or Level 5 (Failing), along with 38% of BIA-owned bridges. There
are 29,400 miles of BIA-owned roads, of which only 7,150 miles are
paved, and 900+ bridges. I cannot think of another Federal program that
sets so low a bar for recurring funding (16%) to achieve the agency's
mission. Leaving 84% of 29,400 miles of BIA System roads in poor and
failing condition is unacceptable. The solution to having so few BIA
System roads paved is to fund the reconstruction of gravel and dirt
roads, especially school bus routes. It is costly to maintain dirt and
gravel roads. Regardless of how much money you spend to maintain a dirt
or gravel road, it is still a dirt or gravel road.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Indian Country route in Arizona
The above photo is typical in Indian country. A sign, listing the
speed limit and warning of an upcoming curve, is obstructed by
overgrown vegetation. Notice that the road has no shoulder. At night,
the obscured signs, on a road with few safety features, may contribute
to a motor vehicle crash that may cause injury or death to a motorist
and passengers.
Due to the unmet needs in the BIA Road Maintenance Program, Tribes
must divert their Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) design and
construction funds (Highway Trust Fund dollars), under this
Subcommittee's jurisdiction, to supplement insufficient Federal
appropriations for the BIA Road Maintenance Program. Most Tribes
contract the Road Maintenance Program from the BIA under the Indian
Self-Determination Act, Pub. L. 93-638, knowing that the Federal
appropriation is insufficient for routine and emergency maintenance. As
a result of this fund transfer, authorized by Federal law (23 U.S.C.
202(a)(8)), Tribes receive and have less funds available to plan,
design, reconstruct or build a new road or bridge, undertake a safety
improvement project, or perform environmental studies. This is a drain
on the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP). Please take this fund
transfer into account as you consider the authorized funding level for
the Tribal Transportation Program in reauthorization.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) captures
the important aspects of successful traffic safety in the expression
``the Four Es'' which stand for:
Engineering;
Enforcement and regulation;
Education and information; and
Emergency response.
There is another principle known as the ``Golden Hour.'' Simply
stated, if a victim of a motor vehicle crash can reach a trauma center
within 60 minutes and receive medical care, there is a higher
likelihood that they will survive and not die from their injuries, and
that their recovery will be faster and less costly. Unfortunately,
there is seldom a ``Golden Hour'' in Indian country when motorists or
pedestrians are involved in a serious motor vehicle crash. Few first
responders, too great a distance to a well-equipped medical trauma
center. As a Nation, we must do better by Indian Tribes and think
comprehensively about how to target these conditions to make Tribal
roads safer.
III. ITA Recommendations for Reauthorization
Here are key recommendations ITA wishes to share with the
Subcommittee:
1. Significantly increase the authorization funding level for the
Tribal Transportation Program (TTP), and include generous stepped
increases for each year of the reauthorization so that Tribes can
address our unmet transportation needs;
a) Restore a Tribal High Priority Projects (HPP) Program, funded
with Highway Trust Funds, to benefit small and large Tribes with a high
priority project that a Tribe could not otherwise finance, or to fund
disaster relief for key transportation infrastructure to restore the
route (see S. 2302, 1101(a) and 1129);
2. Restore the exemption that once existed for the Indian
Reservation Roads (now Tribal Transportation Program) from the
obligation limitation deduction that permanently removes Federal funds
from the Tribal Transportation Program; there is no ``August
redistribution'' of withheld funds under the Program resulting from the
obligation limitation deduction as there is with the State Federal-Aid
Highway Program funds;
3. By legislation, direct the Department of Transportation to
establish an Office of Self-Governance at the Department to oversee the
Tribal Transportation Self-Governance Program (TTSGP), and to create a
Tribal-Federal Self-Governance Advisory Committee (such as the
successful TTP Coordinating Committee which provides Tribal input and
recommendations to FHWA and BIA regarding the TTP (25 CFR 170.135-
170.137)), to help implement the TTSGP at the Department, and authorize
appropriations to the Department to finance both entities (See S. 2302,
4009);
4. Since SAFETEA-LU was enacted in 2005, Tribes can use 25% of
their TTP funds, or $500,000, whichever is greater, to carry out road
maintenance on public roads in the Tribe's TTP inventory (23 U.S.C.
202(a)(8)). Tribes make this choice to maintain such routes due to
shortfalls in the BIA Road Maintenance Program (Interior, Environment
and Related Agencies appropriation). Please take this reality into
account when setting the authorization levels for the Tribal
Transportation Program;
5. Make the Tribal Transportation Facility Bridge Program (23
U.S.C. 202(d)) a stand-alone program, funded with Highway Trust
Funds, and include authorization for the design and construction of new
bridges (see S. 2302, 1119 (amending 23 U.S.C. 124(p)).
6. To improve highway safety for every Indian Tribe:
a) Significantly increase the authorization level for FTA's
Public Transportation on Indian Reservations (5311(c)) Tribal Transit
Program; the Tribal Transit Program is woefully underfunded at $30
million (formula) and $5 million (competitive grants) and provides an
important link for Tribal members and other residents to get to work,
healthcare services, other governmental services, colleges, and
commercial businesses in remote rural communities;
b) Increase or establish Tribal set-asides in important USDOT
competitive and discretionary grant programs (e.g., BUILD grants) so
that Tribes are direct recipients and actually receive Federal
supplemental funds (See e.g., S. 2302, 1119(a) (NSFLTP Program),
1125(b) (Wildlife Crossing Safety program), and 1407 (PROTECT grants
program);
c) As ``public authorities'' (23 U.S.C. 101(a)(31)), make
Tribes direct recipients for all Department of Transportation
competitive and discretionary grants rather than sub-recipients of
States or other eligible grantees;
d) Lower dollar thresholds for federal grant eligibility
requirements for Tribes or rural communities, and increase the federal
share to 100% for Tribal grant recipients (see S. 2302, 1129
concerning the NSFLTP Program);
e) Restore the pre-MAP-21 authority under the Highway Safety
Improvement Program ( 148) and TTP Safety Grant Program (23 U.S.C.
202(e)), to permit the use of grant funds for education purposes ``to
promote the awareness of the public and educate the public concerning
highway safety matters'' (see S. 2302, 1111). This will save lives in
Indian Country as Tribes lacks funds to correct poorly designed roads,
pave dirt and gravel routes, or add safety features; and
f) Facilitate environmental studies, such as categorical
exclusions under NEPA required for highway safety improvement projects
(see S. 2302, 4002 and 4003);
7. Elevate the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal
Government Affairs at the Department of Transportation to an Assistant
Secretary level and fund the position (see S. 2302, 4009), to ensure
that Tribal transportation needs are well understood at the Department,
and that the Department's many resources are marshalled effectively and
efficiently to best serve Indian communities (see S. 2302, 4009); and
8. Support the many other positive, pro-Tribal measures included
in the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee's S. 2302,
including title IV.
IV. Tribal Transportation Successes
Despite limited resources, Tribes are making headway. With growing
capacity and confidence, Tribes are working hand-in-hand with States
and other local governments, MPOs and RPOs to coordinate on projects of
mutual concern. The majority of Tribes today assume, under a variety of
Federal award instruments, the duties of the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Health and Human Services for federal programs
enacted for the benefit of Tribes. By June 1, 2020, the Department of
Transportation will publish the final rule for the Tribal
Transportation Self-Governance Program (49 CFR Part 29) and open a new
chapter at the Department for Tribes to streamline the delivery of
federal transportation, transit, and highway safety programs to their
citizens and residents, reduce regulatory burdens, and save money.
The recurring Federal formula programs at the Department of
Transportation--Tribal Transportation Program and Tribal Transit
Program--allow Tribes to plan and budget based on known appropriation
levels to address their transportation priorities. But make no mistake,
with sufficient Federal appropriations and outreach by our Federal
partners, Tribes can do more.
In conclusion, Tribes are willing and capable partners with the
Federal government, States and local governments and are determined to
break down the decades of transportation barriers that have held us
back from taking the fullest advantage of our peoples, resources, and
opportunities to improve our communities. With sufficient resources, we
can grow our economies, reach new markets, retain our Tribal citizens,
and realize the dream of our ancestors to perpetuate our culture, hold
our lands, protect our water and air, and pass down to our children and
grandchildren the rich heritage that is our legacy and the legacy of
this great Nation.
Give Tribes and Tribal Organizations the tools for success and we
will achieve great things together. Thank you for the opportunity to
present the views of ITA.
Ms. Norton. And we thank you, Ms. Clark.
Mr. Sergio Pecori of Hanson Professional Services.
Mr. Pecori. Good morning, Chair Norton, Ranking Member
Davis, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
invitation to testify before you today. It is a real honor and
privilege to be here. I am the CEO of Hanson Professional
Services, an engineering and design firm headquartered in
Springfield, Illinois, with more than 500 employees in 28
offices across the country. We provide engineering, planning,
and other professional consulting services for Federal, State,
and local governments, including Federal land management
agencies and Tribes that are the focus of today's hearing.
I want to make three main points to you today: Number one,
Tribes, Federal lands, and Territories face tremendous
infrastructure investment needs; two, increased funding must be
accompanied by more efficient management and decisionmaking;
and three, private sector firms play an essential role as
trusted advisers in partnering with public agencies to deliver
their projects.
First, there is no question of the significant backlog of
deferred maintenance and other transportation needs facing
Tribes, Federal land management agencies, and Territories. The
other members of this panel have articulated those needs in
much more detail. These funding shortfalls hinder the safety,
mobility, and economic development opportunities for those
communities. For these reasons, I agree that Federal Lands and
Tribal Transportation Programs should receive additional annual
funding in any infrastructure package or surface transportation
reauthorization bill that this committee puts together.
However, funding alone is not sufficient. In my
professional experience, it is clear that the agencies
responsible for administering these programs need to improve
their decisionmaking processes in coordination with the Federal
spectrum, with the State and local officials to ensure that
these funds are spent as efficiently as possible.
Let me highlight one project in particular that exemplifies
these issues. The city of Springfield, Illinois, has initiated
a 6-mile, $315 million rail relocation and consolidation
project. When finished, it will reduce congestion and delays,
improve emergency vehicle access, and enhance vehicle and
pedestrian safety. Hanson is the lead on this project.
In the fall of 2014, shortly after construction,
archaeologists discovered the foundations of seven homes and
other historic artifacts in the right-of-way corridor. Further
investigation revealed that these foundations were homes that
were burned during the Springfield race riots in 1908. The
outcry from this terrible event was the catalyst that led to
the formation of the NAACP that year.
Given the historic significance, the National Park Service
has begun the process of designating the site as a historic
monument. When it is complete, it will be an incredible
memorial to those events and their aftermath. However, the
Federal agency processes have led to 4 years of project delays,
despite widespread community engagement and local stakeholder
agreement on most of the appropriate path forward.
There is much more detail in my written statement, and I
would be happy to answer questions about this project and its
implications for project management and Federal regulatory
reviews.
Lastly, I want to reiterate for the subcommittee the
important role that firms like Hanson and our colleagues in the
engineering industry play in helping our clients deliver
projects in innovative and cost-effective ways. We are trusted
advisers that bring specialized expertise, professional
experience, and technological skills that save time and money.
As you develop your surface transportation reauthorization
bill, I encourage you to advance policies that reflect and
promote that partnership. Specifically, please reject any
provisions that would interfere with the ability of the
Federal, State, or local agencies to partner with us for
professional services that they require. Rather, Congress
should promote contracting practices that ensure that qualified
firms can compete for work and that incentivizes innovation and
efficiency.
I will highlight one contract payment method that is
currently authorized but underutilized. Lump sum or sometimes
referred to as firm fixed price, this negotiated payment
increases the engineer's flexibility to manage a project, and
incentivizes innovation and creativity. It benefits public
agencies by placing all costs and inflation risk on the firm
and streamlining the invoice and auditing process. There are no
statutory barriers to lump sum, but we would like to see it
encouraged on federally funded projects, including those
programs we are discussing today.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
[Mr. Pecori's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sergio ``Satch'' Pecori, Chief Executive Officer,
Hanson Professional Services
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chair Norton, and Ranking
Member Davis:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee.
It's an honor to represent my firm and my colleagues in the nation's
engineering industry to you and the members of the subcommittee today.
My name is Satch Pecori. I am the CEO of Hanson Professional
Services. Our firm is headquartered in Springfield, IL, has over 500
employees, 28 offices in the USA and generated nearly $100M in revenues
in 2019. Hanson provides engineering, planning and allied services in
six markets: Transportation Infrastructure, Railway, Aviation,
Industry, Power and Federal-State Government.
In addition to my professional work, I am also an active member of
the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC)--the trade
association representing more than 600,000 engineers and the nation's
engineering industry. I had the privilege of serving as ACEC National
Chairman in 2017-2018. While I am testifying today on my own behalf,
the policy recommendations I will discuss today are consistent with the
views of my colleagues at ACEC.
Hanson has experience working with federal land management agencies
and tribes on transportation infrastructure, flood damage reduction
projects throughout in Illinois and across the country.
An example is a project in Devils Lake, North Dakota, where the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hired Hanson to complete the design and
analysis computations for 12 miles of consistently flooded roadways on
the Spirit Lake Nation Reservation.
Portions of the North Dakota and Bureau of Indian Affairs (Spirit
Lake Nation Reservation) roadways in the vicinity of Devils Lake and
Fort Totten, North Dakota, were elevated to protect the existing
transportation system, resources and human life from the rising waters
of Devils Lake. Some of the roadway sections' culverts were plugged and
elevated to ``act'' as dams, and others were equalized with water
existing at near-equal levels on both sides of the roadway. The
roadways that ``act'' as dams were not constructed to function as long-
term dams and safely impound water. Under Section 1937 of the 2005
surface transportation act entitled Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU), funding was made
available to address these roadway sections.
To ensure that roadways and other embankments constructed for this
project would safely impound water, the design and construction needed
to satisfy Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) design criteria as
stated within Section 23 CFR 650.115 (c). Also involved in the project
were the Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) of the FHWA in
cooperation with the Spirit Lake Nation, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, FHWA North Dakota Federal Aid Division and
the North Dakota Department of Transportation.
Federal Lands Funding Needs and Project Backlog
We are deeply aware of the need to maintain our nation's
infrastructure, including the roads, trails, historic structures, and
visitor centers that make safe, memorable, and learning experiences out
of travelling to America's national parks and other federal lands.
Unfortunately, after decades of unreliable funding, the National
Park Service (NPS) has an infrastructure repair backlog estimated at
$11.6 billion (FY 2017), half of which consists of roads, bridges, and
tunnels. Deferred maintenance affects almost every national park site
across the country and includes crucial repairs to aging buildings and
historical structures, electrical, water, mechanical, and plumbing
systems, and other infrastructure that is vital to keeping parks
accessible and safe for visitors. Tribes and territories also have
significant transportation infrastructure needs as well.
Increased annual federal funding is certainly necessary to address
deferred maintenance in national parks and other public lands. Federal
lands programs should receive additional resources in any potential
national infrastructure proposal or surface transportation
reauthorization written by this committee. These investments will help
to employ thousands of American workers, support continued tourism and
economic development in hundreds of park communities, and ensure that
our national treasures are preserved for generations to come.
Program Management Inefficiencies and the 1908 Race Riots Project Site
However, additional resources alone are not sufficient. The federal
agencies responsible for administering these programs should improve
their interagency coordination and review their project prioritization
processes to ensure that these funds are spent as efficiently as
possible. Let me tell the committee about one project in particular
that sheds some light on some potential areas for improvement: the 1908
Race Riot Site in Springfield, Illinois.
In 2010, the City of Springfield initiated a project to consolidate
three railroad tracks that extend parallel through the heart of the
city for about six miles. These three tracks are within a 16-block area
and create vehicular traffic delays, congestion, safety issues, and
train horn noise to the residents and businesses in Springfield. The
project will consolidate the two most active tracks into a single
corridor leaving the third track in place with low train volumes of
about four trains per day. The project will also construct nine
railroad grade separations at the highest volume roadways to reduce
congestion and delays, allow emergency vehicle access, and increase
safety for pedestrians and vehicles. The project cost is estimated at
$315 million and scheduled for completion in 2025.
The project has received four Federal grants to date, including two
TIGER grants and one BUILD grant totaling over $50 million. Additional
funding has been received from the Illinois Department of
Transportation, Illinois Commerce Commission, and the City of
Springfield. The project is over halfway in committed funding and
construction of two underpasses is completed with one underway,
expected to be completed by the end of 2020.
As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the lead
federal agency, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), prepared an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project which culminated
in a Record of Decision being signed in December 2012. This allowed
federal funding for the project and the first segment (the Carpenter
Street Underpass) began construction in August 2014.
In the fall of 2014, shortly after construction began,
archaeologists discovered the former foundations of seven homes within
the right-of-way required for the rail corridor. Further investigation
revealed that these foundations were homes that were burned during a
race riot in August of 1908. The aftermath and outcry from this event--
in which two black men were hanged--soon led to the formation of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
The discoveries at the project site resulted in these homes being
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
because their lack of disturbance since 1908 preserved the integrity of
the structures. Also, the homes were originally built in the mid-1840s
adding to their historic significance.
Because of the historic significance of this site, the FRA was
required to proceed with a review under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. This process began in early 2015 by
identifying any interested parties with an interest in the outcome of
this site, called consulting parties. The FRA held two public meetings
in Springfield to identify these groups in March and May of 2015. The
first of three consulting parties was held in July of 2015. A second
meeting was held in August of 2016. The FRA spent the remainder of 2016
and 2017 preparing a Section 4(f) Alternatives Analysis to avoid and
minimize impacts to the site.
In March of 2018, the FRA held their third and final consulting
parties meeting in Springfield to announce their preferred alternative
to minimize impacts to the archaeological site. They requested
mitigation options from the group so that they could draft a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) to proceed with data recovery, or excavation, of the
archaeological site. A couple of months later, the FRA decided that
they were not going to participate in funding any site mitigation and
mitigation was left to the consulting parties.
The consulting parties, independent of FRA support, created a
conceptual memorial during the summer of 2018 for the race riot site to
commemorate the riot and the founding of the NAACP. The proposed
memorial for this site can be viewed in the following link: https://
youtu.be/2K-is9n7A5M. In December 2018, Congressman Davis proposed a
bill (H.R. 139) to establish the Springfield Race Riot National
Historic Monument under the National Park Service.
This site needs to be preserved and memorialized in a way that
allows the story of the 1908 race riot and the people affected by it to
be told.
The National Park Service conducted a Reconnaissance Survey of the
site in April 2019 and made a favorable finding in September 2019 that
the site is suitable for listing with the National Park Service. In
addition, Dr. Carla Hayden, the current Librarian of Congress visited
the site in September 2017 and viewed the artifacts recovered from the
archaeological site. She was very impressed with the artifacts and
mentioned that the Library of Congress houses the most NAACP artifacts
in the country, however there are no artifacts from Springfield where
the NAACP originated. She expressed a great interest in having an
exhibit from Springfield in the Library of Congress.
In October 2018, the FRA executed the MOA which allowed for
excavation of the house sites that were included in the right-of-way of
the rail corridor. Archaeologists began excavations in the spring of
2019, after the winter freeze had thawed, and completed the excavations
on the house sites in October of 2019.
The process implemented by the FRA caused project delays by taking
four years to complete the Section 106 and Section 4(f) evaluations.
The City had identified and evaluated avoidance alternatives and the
consulting parties had agreed on site mitigation objectives at their
first meeting in July 2015. The FRA then undertook a separate analysis
of avoidance alternatives and came to the same conclusions as the City.
They also decided on the same mitigation objectives that had been
agreed on by the consulting parties over three years earlier. A process
that should have taken about one year was extended to four years.
The federal government should not be an impediment to the
implementation of infrastructure construction projects, nor should it
delay decisions on preserving significant historic resources. Over
three years were lost in our construction schedule for this segment of
the Springfield Rail Improvements Project by a process that should have
taken no more than a year. This delay would likely have been much
longer without the persistent inquiries to the FRA Administrator and
his staff by our congressional delegation.
No one wants to lose important resources to construction projects.
But when the project sponsor, the State agencies, and the consulting
parties have all agreed on a path forward the federal agencies should
assist, not delay. The three years lost did nothing to improve the
project or to preserve any resources.
We recommend strict project controls and schedules with milestones
for federal agencies during their review and processing of project
documents. They need to be accountable for lengthy project delays
caused by staffing shortages, budget limitations, or unfamiliarity with
implementation and compliance of federal laws and policies. Better
utilization of budget resources is an important component of reducing
project backlogs.
Other Project Delivery and Procurement Recommendations
Finally, let me highlight three policy recommendations that impact
the federal lands programs that are the subject of today's hearing, but
also have broader implications for all transportation agencies and
clients.
First, as you continue to develop your bill to reauthorize federal
surface transportation programs, I would urge you to oppose policies
that restrict the ability of public agencies to contract with private
sector firms. America's engineering firms are trusted advisors to their
clients, and the industry plays an essential role in helping FHWA,
other Federal land management agencies, state departments of
transportation, and local public agencies deliver critical
infrastructure services to the taxpayer. Engineering firms are involved
in every phase of every type of transportation project: planning
solutions to reduce congestion; assessing environmental impacts;
evaluating and improving the safety and sustainability of roads,
bridges, and tunnels; designing both simple and complex structures;
and, monitoring construction to ensure it complies with approved
designs and materials. Engaging the private sector allows public
agencies to benefit from the specialized experience, innovation, and
on-budget and on-time performance that firms like Hanson bring to the
table to ensure project success.
We have seen some legislative proposals that would mandate that
only public employees conduct certain engineering, design, or
inspection work. These kinds of restrictions would interfere with the
ability of federal, state, and local officials to acquire the most
qualified service providers to perform these functions. Such a
provision would also interfere with the ability of agencies to set
staffing levels in a way that gives them the flexibility to respond to
fluctuations in funding. In the end, costs go up, and the ability of
agencies to efficiently deliver transportation projects to the public
is compromised. This committee should reject any proposals to restrict
the ability of federal, state, or local transportation agencies to
partner with private sector engineering firms.
Second, I would encourage you to promote contracting practices that
ensure qualified, innovative engineering services. Federal statutes and
most state laws require procurement of engineering services through
Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS), a competitive procurement process
that puts emphasis on identifying the most experienced and technically
qualified firms at a fair and reasonable cost. This has been the law of
the land for nearly 50 years, and it is the gold standard for
professional services procurement. According to a 2009 study by the
University of Colorado and Georgia Tech, QBS saves money by reducing
change orders during construction that inflate project cost. To ensure
transparency and that taxpayer funds are properly obligated and spent,
Titles 23 and 49 also provide that engineering and design contracts
funded with federal highway and transit funds must comply with the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) cost principles.
The surface transportation reauthorization should maintain and
expand public procurement rules that require the use of QBS to
emphasize innovation and qualifications to facilitate successful
project delivery. The bill should also continue to include FAR 36.6
compliance as a condition of receipt of funding by state and local
governments for grant, loan, and aid programs. Federal land management
agencies have a pretty good track record with QBS and FAR compliance,
and it has served them well. In fact, ACEC awarded the Western Federal
Lands division of FHWA with our national QBS award last year. They can
be good models for state and local agencies to follow.
Third, Hanson and our colleagues at ACEC would like to promote the
utilization of more lump sum contracting by federal, state, and local
agencies. Lump sum is a negotiated payment method that provides for a
fixed price not subject to adjustment because of changes encountered in
the performance of the work. The consultant assumes responsibility for
costs over or under the negotiated price assuming there is no change in
the scope of the project. This payment method increases the firm's
flexibility to manage the project (relative to a traditional cost-plus-
fixed-fee contract using hourly rates), including the assignment of
staff and utilization of advanced technologies. It also provides
incentive to be innovative and creative, finding efficiencies in
project delivery. Public agencies benefit by placing all cost inflation
risk on the firm. Lump sum contracts are also much easier to manage,
especially invoicing and auditing, saving staff time and money for both
the agencies and firms.
In Hanson's experience, transportation and federal land management
agencies have some experience with lump sum contracting. By contrast,
the Corps of Engineers has been much more proficient and has benefited
from its use. We would like to see more of this value-based contracting
in the transportation sector.
There are no statutory barriers to lump sum; it is an authorized
payment method under federal regulations. Nevertheless, the
reauthorization bill could include provisions to encourage its use on
federally funded projects--both for federal land management agencies
and territories, and by state and local transportation agencies when
utilizing federal-aid funds.
Thank you again for the invitation to testify today. I look forward
to answering any questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Pecori, for your
testimony.
We will move on to Member questions now. I will begin with
my own questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes. Mr. Reif,
could you clarify which portion of that huge number you gave
us, $17.3 billion in deferred maintenance, what portion of that
is National Park Service, both their backlog and the
transportation?
Mr. Reif. I don't have those specific numbers.
Ms. Norton. Well, actually, if you don't have that
breakdown and it wasn't in your testimony, would you get that
breakdown?
Mr. Reif. I will absolutely provide it for the record.
Ms. Norton. Within the next week.
Mr. Reif, the National Park Service includes important
tourist destinations, of course, the Nation's Capital I
represent is one of them, and it affects local transportation
as well. The Arlington Memorial Bridge in my district is being
rebuilt. I have been under that bridge to see what happens when
you defer maintenance and how much more it costs us. The Pew
Charitable Trust says that the District of Columbia has over
$500 million in deferred maintenance for transportation
projects. And when you got that big number like that, I am most
interested in how the Park Service prioritizes investments
among equally compelling transportation needs, and I mean
geographically across the Nation, when you have such a
tremendous deficit, do you just throw darts against a board
when all of it is in need, or how do you decide what the
priorities are? Mr. Reif?
Mr. Reif. Thank you for that question. The Department of
the Interior, for all of our construction investments, has a
long-established, fairly complex process of ranking projects,
including our transportation projects. The process includes
factors of asset condition, mitigation of health and safety
risks, cost-benefit analysis for each project, consequences of
failure to complete the work, and the mission criticality of
the asset.
For transportation projects, there are additional
requirements to align with our long-range transportation plans
that we have developed, as well as the statutory requirements
in title 23 that the project should--pardon me--should inform
that there are statutory measures to reduce the bridge
sufficiencies, improve the state of good repair, and reduce the
improvements to safety needs. So we rank all the projects at
the regional level through all of those lenses to determine the
project needs.
Ms. Norton. A formidable task, I must say.
Mr. Petty, I was interested, because this may provide some
guidance for how we proceed with our new transportation
infrastructure bill. The terrible hurricanes, category 5
hurricanes repeatedly that you have had in the Virgin Islands,
and now you are saying that all local roads should meet Federal
standards, and not just Federal roads. And you stress that. And
you indicate something we need to understand as well, that the
roads that were built to Federal standards withstood these
terrible hurricanes you have gone through. Is there a cost to
this--what percentage of your roads were Federal and what
percentage were local? Is there a cost that the Virgin Islands
is taking into effect? Were you using resilient materials on
the Federal roads? That is something they are looking at for
the next bill. Is it just that they were Federal roads and they
were just better? I would appreciate your guidance on that.
Mr. Petty. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Yes, Chair Norton. The big key
with the Federal roads is that the standards are definitely
higher--or were higher. And drainage, all the critical subbase
work that has to be done on our roads to make sure that it
lasts, those are all components of those Federal roads. The
local roads, many were built many years ago, never had the
opportunity to get reconstructed in a way that it would make it
more resilient. So that is why I made that promulgation to
ensure that when we do rebuild with the FEMA dollars, it is not
just a surface treatment that a few years later or less, we
will be back again after the next storm passes. So I think that
is a critical thing.
We are still negotiating with FEMA for a final dollar
figure, because much of that work requires that subbase work
and that drainage improvement. So once that number is
finalized, I can give you a better indication of the separation
of costs.
Ms. Norton. We certainly would appreciate it, because you
understand that added cost and you obviously calculated it will
save you money in the long run, and you have local, Federal, so
you have something to compare side by side with. So thank you
very much for that guidance.
Ranking Member Davis?
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the
witnesses.
Commissioner Petty, I do want to thank you for sending my
good friend, Stacey Plaskett, here to be your delegate. She is
one of the best. So welcome. I wish I had a question for you,
but I didn't ask her permission first. So next time I will get
that, all right?
Hey, I want to speak with you, Mr. Pecori. Thank you for
your work on the Springfield rail project that you and I have
been working on together for years. It is a project in
persistence, a project that really shows the impact of what we
do here in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee when
it comes to funding, when it comes to the bipartisan issues of
transportation infrastructure that we face here in this
committee.
Give me your perspective on the significance of the
potential race riot site that we saw the wonderful video on,
and, you know, why it is important for us to address a backlog
of projects so that we can look ahead at newer projects like
this. If you could, talk a little bit about the proximity to
other historic sites that this proposed site is located in.
Mr. Pecori. Well, it was interesting when we first started
working on this project, we knew that there could be the
possibility of finding the race riot site or something left of
the homes there. And it happened to be on the right-of-way of
the proposed rail corridor. When it was uncovered, the
significance became a reality, and the significance to
Springfield is something that is going to be hard to measure
right away.
The proximity of the race riot site is just a few blocks
away from the National Park Service Abraham Lincoln Home in the
area encompassing that. So the significance would be tremendous
linkage. It would bring reality to Springfield of the horrors
that it suffered back in 1908, and it is bringing back a
reality so we can teach our children, not only in the
Springfield area in the State, but nationally, something that
should never happen again. So the linkage is very important.
Mr. Davis. The linkage is, and, just a few short blocks
away, too, is the State of Illinois-run Abraham Lincoln
Presidential Museum and Library.
Mr. Pecori. That is correct.
Mr. Davis. I think this is a unique opportunity when we
look at how there is interagency communication. Since the
Department of the Interior runs the Park Service, you know, the
transportation dollars uncovered the artifacts, we have a
unique opportunity if we can get through this backlog.
Mr. Pecori. If I could mention one more thing, Congressman.
The funding for that project that initiated that very first
segment was a TIGER grant, so that was right through the
subcommittee here and the committee in general.
Mr. Davis. Absolutely. You have been awarded, on that rail
project, other transportation funding, too, right?
Mr. Pecori. That is correct.
Mr. Davis. BUILD grant?
Mr. Pecori. Pardon me?
Mr. Davis. BUILD? The BUILD program?
Mr. Pecori. Two TIGER grants, one BUILD grant.
Mr. Davis. Absolutely. Persistence pays off when it comes
to rail relocation.
Do you remember what year you uncovered the artifacts
during that Carpenter Street underpass project?
Mr. Pecori. It was 2014.
Mr. Davis. So it was 2014. And the process you had to
follow once those artifacts were uncovered, you immediately
notified the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency and other
agencies.
Give me a little idea of how that interagency cooperation
worked and possibly how long it took to come up with a
solution, especially one to maybe display the artifacts at the
Library of Congress, per se, or maybe eventually at the
Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and
Culture?
Mr. Pecori. That is correct. What occurred initially was a
decision on who was going to look at the artifacts; how was it
going to be excavated; if it is going to be excavated, is it
going to be covered over? There was quite a discussion on what
was the next step.
The next step actually was from the FRA, who decided that
they would take a look at this and proceed with it.
It took about 3 years since it was uncovered until we were
able to actually excavate the archeological site, and bring up
artifacts that were, again, displayed with you, Congressman,
and Dr. Carla Hayden from the Library of Congress, and her
interest in possibly showing of it--displaying at the Library
of Congress. So that was an integral part.
It took three meetings, over 3 years, to finalize the
conclusion of what would be done, so the archeological
excavation was completed at the end of last year, and now a
report will be prepared on what was found, and, also, where the
artifacts are going to be displayed.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, and thank you for your work. My time
is expired.
Ms. Norton. I thank the ranking member.
Chairman DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Councilman Garcia and/or Ms. Clark, you both have
referenced the idea that now that we have Tribal self-
governance on transportation projects, you now feel that there
is a necessity to have an office in DOT to oversee or
coordinate that?
Could you just tell me what the rationale is there?
Am I loud enough? OK.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, for the question.
We were in deliberations on the self-governance initiative
for the Department of Transportation, and establishing a Self-
Governance Office, we think, in Indian country, is an important
part of the self-governance initiative for the Department as
well as for the Tribes, and, to give you an example, the two
other self-governance initiatives through the BIA have a Self-
Governance Office. The Indian Health Service has a Self-
Governance Office.
And so, because of the amount of work that is necessary to
ensure that the initiatives of self-governance are provided
adequately, and things are run smoothly, you need more
resources dedicated to implementing the self-governance
initiative, and the most important piece, Chairman, is the fact
that, when the rules are published finally in June--and we are
very positive that that is going to happen in June--and begins
to get implemented, at that time, out of the 334 or so Tribes
that are self-governance with BIA and/or IHS or IHS, I think
greater than 50 percent of those are going to want to enact the
opportunity for self-governance on transportation.
And so, we want to be sure that the Department of
Transportation is ready to move forward with implementing the
act of self-governance for the Department of Transportation,
but that is just for the beginning part of it, and so now we
have got to worry about, OK, now it is moving, so----
Mr. DeFazio. Uh-huh.
Mr. Garcia [continuing]. Here we go. We have got to keep
going with the rest of the Tribes that may want to pursue this
option, and, so, the resources are going to be almost endless
in terms of the need to provide support for the Tribes; but, as
well, provide an opportunity for the Tribes to identify that
there are any refinements that need to be made in terms of
operations from the Tribal level and in partnership with the
Department. That needs to be monitored continuously, and the
Self-Gvernance Office would allow that to happen.
And so, right now, we are hoping that the Department of
Transportation will, in time, short time, enact that the Self-
Governance Office will be put in place, and so it will be a
positive thing for both the United States Government,
Department of Transportation, as well as for all of the Tribes
across the land. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Clark, do you want to add anything?
Ms. Clark. No. I believe he covered that.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Great.
Deputy Chief French, the Forest Service maintenance
backlog, $5.2 billion, $3.6 billion attributed to
transportation alone, and you get a very generous $85 million
out of the Federal Lands Transportation Program over the life
of the FAST Act. During the FAST Act, has your maintenance
backlog grown on transportation issues?
Mr. French. It absolutely has. You know, if you look at the
overall needs we have, the FAST Act is helping address maybe 3
percent----
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. French [continuing]. And the growing backlog we have is
outpacing that greatly.
Mr. DeFazio. And some of it, at least I know in my region,
relates to critical environmental issues where you have
culverts that have collapsed or otherwise are causing problems,
erosion and that.
What are the principal needs that you would point to?
Mr. French. I know you are an avid user of our national
forests, and you have probably seen many of these. I would say
the biggest things we have right now is really a crumbling
infrastructure around our bridges; our aquatic passages, as you
mentioned.
But the other part is just the basic road maintenance,
sample basic road maintenance, and, as we feel the growth of
catastrophic fire happening especially in the West, our ability
to use roads, access those areas, as the importance seems to be
growing at the same rate as we are seeing some of the risk of
fire, and our ability to actually go in and keep those roads
open and well maintained so the roads aren't having
environmental effects, that is one of our biggest needs right
now.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. So environment, disasters, fires, and
obviously recreation are the three?
Mr. French. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio.
Mr. LaMalfa?
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, and welcome, panelists. I
appreciate your time and attention here.
I want to zero in on the Forest Service roads, especially
too. I have northern California, where we have had our share of
fire as well, and so we are looking at a situation where we
have about 150 million dead trees in California, as you are
aware, and, in order to catch up with the backlog of trees that
aren't dead, we probably need to take the 150 and plus 300
million more. So access to these lands is going to be extremely
important, and so, looking at the comparison here of funding
for service roads versus national park roads, I am seeing that,
you know, as--Mr. French, you mentioned that--I think Mr.
DeFazio mentioned the number $85 million over a 5-year period,
was it?
Mr. DeFazio. Yeah.
Mr. LaMalfa. So about $19 million a year, or $17 million?
So that, in comparison to, I think, National Park Service
receiving a much bigger number--I think $330 million is what is
proposed, or in an upcoming year, so the disparity there,
especially in that there is four times as many miles of public
road in the forest as there is national parks is the way I have
it.
So we have a problem here, and a disparity, and I know Mr.
Carbajal and I are working on legislation to try and flesh that
up and even that up, so I appreciate being able to work with
him on that, and--tell me, Mr. French, you like the movie ``The
Departed''?
Mr. French. I do.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Good. I will just leave that there. So--
the issue with the disparity here and how far behind we are on
forest management anyway, and the other uses we are talking
about, for access and all the emergency personnel, just how far
behind do you think we are, and what could we be doing to
advance our work around here for vegetation management,
besides, you know, trying to catch up on funding, what are the
roadblocks you are seeing?
Mr. French. Thank you for the question.
You know, if you look over the last 4 years--and, specific
to your question, yes, we have received about $85 million. You
compare that, as you did to the Park Service, that is around
$1.42 billion. So there is a big difference in the way that we
have looked at the funding. And I think that there is a need to
look at the overall needs and the relative amounts to see if
there is a more rational way to look at those. I also think
that the efficiency that has been mentioned earlier about the
way the funds are applied, that could be increased in terms
of----
Mr. LaMalfa. Any flexibility on that?
Mr. French. Excuse me?
Mr. LaMalfa. Flexibility perhaps?
Mr. French. Flexibility, but also, you know, honestly,
probably more direct appropriation to the agencies rather than
the period we go through to receive those. That would bring
funding locally, more quickly, to address issues, especially in
terms of disasters and things like that.
I think the other big thing that is occurring right now for
us, is that as we are driving what limited dollars we have
towards really focusing on addressing the increasing fuels and
fire issue we have, it is actually putting less funds available
for access to recreation sites and maintaining that, but I
would say that connectivity of roads that these rural
communities depend upon.
Mr. LaMalfa. You are having to rob Peter to pay Paul just
to keep up with that a little bit, and that takes away from
some of the management we were talking with, right?
Mr. French. It does, and roads dollars is one of the
biggest factors that limits our ability to do active forest
management. You can't go in and thin forests or reduce fire if
you can't get the equipment over the bridges to get there.
Mr. LaMalfa. Right. Right. OK.
Mr. Reif, do you see a disparity here, too? I mean, you
probably don't want to knock your own budget here, but do you
see, in partnership where you have, you know, contiguous issues
with the Forest Service and the parks? How do you guys come out
so well on funding?
Mr. Reif. Well, thank you for the question.
I would say that I recognize your point about the Park
Service. It is substantially bigger than the Forest Service.
Some of our other Bureaus are much closer in line with the
funding levels that the Forest Service receives, such as the
Bureau of Land Management receives approximately $6 to $8
million per year. Bureau of Reclamation is in that range
somewhere as well. Fish and Wildlife Service is about $30
million per year.
So I understand your question. It does appear to be a
significant difference in funding levels. I will say that the
maintenance backlogs are equally as significant.
Mr. LaMalfa. Maybe borrow their lobbyists a little bit, Mr.
French, on that, when you are getting the funding there, so--I
would love to come to the Tribes here, but the 5 minutes has
already flown by, so I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
We will hear next from Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank
the witnesses for a very important conversation.
Serving as both a member of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, I
see firsthand the importance of fully funding our Federal land
management agencies and their transportation needs. We hear a
lot about the maintenance backlog facing our public lands.
Facilities, campgrounds, water systems, and a lot more than
that contribute to this deferred maintenance, but we can't
forget that almost half the backlog is transportation
infrastructure, paved roads and bridges, and that is why this
committee's work is so critical for our public lands.
Mr. Reif, I would like to start with you. In your
testimony, you outlined the importance of Interior's surface
transportation network for visitors and users of our public
lands, including the role of drawing tourists to different
sites, fostering local economic growth for small businesses and
nearby communities.
That is a very important point, and I think it is important
to remember that our public lands don't exist in isolation;
they exist alongside gateway communities that depend on them
for their local economy, and that is why we have this Federal
Lands Access Program, or FLAP, which is critically important to
districts like mine.
My district starts at the Oregon border, goes to the Golden
Gate Bridge, and so, you can imagine all of the great public
lands that I am honored to represent, from Redwood National
Park to Muir Woods National Monument, Point Reyes National
Seashore, just to name a few.
But this richness of public lands can also create some
challenges, such as the importance of planning for wildlife
crossings in rural areas to avoid unnecessary collisions;
addressing, in some cases, too much traffic from visitation,
like the problems we had at Muir Woods; and the negative
impacts to the local community from that congestion; and also
ensuring that partnerships between Federal agencies and local
communities are functional.
So one of my concerns is we are not doing enough to ensure
that all agencies involved in FLAP are on the same page. I
think we need to include FHWA as a partner alongside public
land agencies, like the National Park Service in working with
local communities, and this is especially true in places like
California, where we see labor shortages and the challenge of
working in remote locations. This can conflict with narrow,
overly prescriptive designs that might percolate up within
Federal agencies.
So an example I have: Portions of my district bleeding out
into the Point Reyes National Seashore where we have frequent
seasonal flooding, ongoing erosion, poor pavement, and more.
And we have seen a bidding and contracting process that is
moving at a glacial pace and is way over budget. You know, one
simple road repair job looks like it is going to consume a
budget that we need to spread among a whole bunch of different
priorities in that part of my district.
So, Mr. Reif, as we look at the next surface transportation
bill, what level of funding do you think is required for our
land management agencies to keep current assets in good working
condition, and to prevent a growing deferred maintenance
backlog?
Mr. Reif. Sure. Thank you for the question, sir.
We have done a variety of analysis, from pavement condition
analysis, pavement condition modeling, cost-benefit analysis,
and long-range pavement condition surveys, and our analysis is
that the Department, as a whole, could benefit from $1.1
billion--our needs as a whole are $1.1 billion, and to return
our roads and bridges and transportation systems to a good
condition, keep it at a good condition, modernize the network,
and provide for multimodal transportation systems.
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate you pegging that number as the
real need, because, right now, I understand that we are
appropriating only about $300 million annually, so we are far
behind catching up to that need, and I appreciate you putting a
fine point on it.
In my remaining time, I want to highlight the importance of
safe bicycling and walking paths. Currently, our Federal Lands
Transportation Program does not ensure that any minimum amount
of funding goes to active transportation, such as walking or
cycling. I have a bill, the Active Transportation for Public
Lands Act, which would create a minimum 5 percent for our
Federal Lands Transportation Program funds for walking and
biking trails and infrastructure associated with active
transportation. This is part of my work with several colleagues
on this committee, including Congressman Pappas and Congressman
Lipinski, and we are trying to ensure that building active
transportation networks support healthy, vibrant communities.
As we work on this surface transportation bill, I hope we
will not only invest in active transportation, but remember the
importance of doing that on our public lands as well.
And, Madam Chair, I thank you for the time and yield back.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Huffman, I certainly hope I am an original
cosponsor of that bill. We want to stress alternative modes of
transportation in our next bill. Nothing could be more--I mean,
scooters, you name it. Certainly walking this very walkable
city. So I appreciate what you have just said.
Mr. Stauber, thank you for yielding your time to the
ranking member, as I understand it.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Stauber, for that time, and thank
you for yielding it to me.
Mr. Stauber. You are welcome, Ranking Member----
Mr. Davis. I yield it back to you, sir.
Mr. Stauber. OK.
Mr. Davis. Thank you for the text, too.
Ms. Norton. There is some kind of trick here, but I will go
along with these Republican tricks.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member
Graves.
Mr. French, it is great to see you again today, and I have
got a couple of comments to state here, then some questions at
the end.
I want to speak a little bit about the Tribal
Transportation Program formula funding that took place in MAP-
21 and the FAST Act.
Rural Minnesota Tribes have expressed a compelling need for
highway infrastructure funding to develop, improve, and
maintain the inadequate road systems on Indian reservations in
the State of Minnesota. Minnesota Tribal leaders are also
telling me their annual funding was drastically cut over the
past decade; at the same time, funding to Tribes in some other
States was increased.
A decade ago, Tribal funding was distributed among Tribes
through a needs-based formula that the Tribes themselves had
negotiated in a Tribal-Federal negotiation rulemaking process
in the early 2000s. However, MAP-21 and FAST Act replaced this
formula with a congressionally written formula that more
heavily weighs population members over road acreage, actual
road conditions and transportation needs.
Under the MAP-21 and FAST Act formulas, Minnesota Tribes,
like the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, whose reservation
consists of more than 840,000 acres, and 561 miles of roads,
have lost more than $10.5 million of funding since the changes
have been implemented.
I will just ask both of you: What is being done to track
the impact that the change in the funding formula has had on
Tribal Governments throughout all of Indian country, region by
region, and State by State?
Mr. French?
Mr. French. Thank you, Representative.
Actually, the specifics of that question, I would defer to
my colleague here from the Department of the Interior.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Reif?
Mr. Reif. Thank you for the question.
I would be honest. I am not sure I know what has been
tracked at that level. That would be a Bureau-specific issue,
and I am not aware of what tracking they are doing, but we can
absolutely provide that for the record.
Mr. Stauber. And that is what I will ask. Would you please
provide the specific data to this committee when you get it,
because we have to know the amount that was taken away from
certain Tribes and given to others because of the formula
change, and I think it is important that we recognize that
there was a diminished funding to certain Tribes.
And then what has the Federal agency done to address the
inequities that have resulted from MAP-21 and FAST Act funding
in Minnesota and throughout Indian country? So we know there
has been a reduction in some areas, and increase in others.
What do you have plans for to help reinvest in those areas that
lost their funding due to the formula change?
Mr. Reif. Thank you for the question.
I don't know what we have been doing to mitigate for
changes in statute.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. French?
Mr. French. Yeah. Thank you, Representative. We actually
don't have oversight in our agency of that, so, again, that is
why I refer that to the Department of the Interior.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for the question.
First off, I think it is important to realize that the
transportation funding formula has changed over the course of
the years, and it may be time to revisit the funding formula,
because I don't know that the Tribes at that time, the past few
times, have been as active and as--you might say, have been
allowed to take part in the development of the funding formula.
But some of the parameters and some of the variables used in
the current funding formula may have changed, and, so, it may
be time to revisit the formula.
But, if that were to happen, what we would suggest is that
Indian country also be a part of the group that begins to look
at first assessing the formula, and then, if there is to be
developed another formula--and I will give you one example,
that, if the funding formula is put in place, the bigger
Tribes, the large, land-based Tribes, are going to fare
differently than Ohkay Owingeh. We have 12,000 acres of land.
And so, right off the bat, if there is population or if
they are land-based and the number of road-miles is a factor--
and it is--the smaller Tribes--the smaller, land-based Tribes
do not fare as well. So there is a discrepancy in that part of
it. But the other thing that may have changed are the--what
would you say--the life changes in this country. One might
think about--an example might be, right now, we are using gas
tax as a means to bring revenue for Department of
Transportation.
So, as time goes on, we may not have as much gas-using
vehicles. We will be turning to electric vehicles, so the
funding amount, revenue stream will tend to go down. But, as we
speak, the funding that is available for self-governance under
the FAST Act started out at $465 million for all Tribes, and it
is up to, I believe, $505 million this year, 2020.
Mr. Stauber. And I think, Mr. Garcia, my time is up, but
you made a real good point. We have to factor in the road-
miles, average daily traffic, and the pavement quality index in
part of that, and so I appreciate it.
And my time is up. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Stauber.
Ms. Brownley?
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. French, Los Padres National Forest is in my district.
In 2017, we had the Thomas fire, which, at the time in 2017,
was the largest wildfire in California's history. I am just
wondering--and Los Padres was very much impacted by that fire--
are you aware of any instances at Los Padres National Forest
where firefighter operations couldn't get to where they needed
to get due to the roads and access?
Mr. French. Thank you for the question.
I mean, you have one of the largest deferred maintenance
backlogs that we have. It is like $510 million in your area. I
can't give you some recent--I mean, specifics. We could follow
up that. But I will share with you, more than 20 years ago,
when I was a firefighter, I was on the Los Padres, and we were
hot spotting, trying to get to areas, and, yes, we very much
ran into that issue where roads that were closed, even for
administrative uses, we could not get into to access. And, as
you know, in the Los Padres, those fires are fast, and, the
quicker that you can get there, the better. But I can certainly
look into getting you more recent examples than my own
experience.
Ms. Brownley. And, just in terms of roads, my
understanding--you just mentioned the large backlog, but my
understanding with roads, it is about $17 million of deferred
maintenance for roads. If that is true, I am just--I am--if you
could get me the information to just share with my office a
list of the projects as well as expected completion dates based
on current funding levels. If you have that, I would appreciate
getting that.
Mr. French. Yeah. We have got it throughout the State of
California, and we can break it down into the specifics of
roads in California and by district, absolutely.
Ms. Brownley. Very good.
Mr. Garcia, first, I want to thank you for your service to
our Nation. Thank you for that. I noticed your Air Force hat,
so I want to thank you for your service.
I recently was in South Dakota and visited two Tribes, the
Cheyenne River Sioux and Standing Rock Sioux, two of the
poorest Tribes. I was really there to look at VA and IHS
healthcare services to our veterans, and access to that, but
what was abundantly clear to me on the trip was seeing the
conditions of the roads there, and those conditions are
impacting our veterans getting to their appointments. Obviously
there are weather conditions. The land mass is huge, but the
horrible roads are really impacting veterans to receive their
healthcare.
And I am just wondering--I know, in one of the testimonies,
it was stated that Tribes are not required to report their data
to the U.S. Department of Transportation on the condition and
performance of Tribal roads, making it difficult to assess the
overall conditions of roads nationally.
Do you believe if we did collect that data--do you think we
should be required to collect that data, and do you think that
that is what would help, in any way, making the case?
Mr. Garcia. First point, I think it is important to
understand that the data is an important means. I mean, we
talked about the funding formula. If you have the wrong data or
you have invalid data or any inadequate data, you are liable to
provide wrong information that then impacts the amount of
dollars that flows through the system.
Well, when you are talking about transportation data, that
could also be data, such as law enforcement data, for highway
safety, accidents, and fatality, and all of that. If you are on
Tribal land, you end up having to deal with at least three
databases: the Tribal database, the law enforcement database,
the State and county and State highway database, and then the
Federal database. And, in this case, the Federal database,
depending on who you report the data to--sometimes BIA,
sometimes other places--the data is not consistent, and the
form of the data is not consistent. The databases are not
consistent. The collection of the data are not consistent.
So, if you look at the discrepancies in those systems, you
are not looking at very accurate data, and, so, I think it is
an important piece of the puzzle to be resolved, and parts of
that can be done by providing funding for developing the data
systems that the BIA uses, that the Tribes use. That could be a
consistent one, and, if we do it together, the more likely that
it is going to suffice and work for both entities. And the same
with when we include the States, then it is important that they
also be involved in the development of whatever data we have.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
Ms. Brownley. I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Clark, what portion of overall transportation funding
comes from the FAST Act programs?
Ms. Clark. Pardon? What did----
Mr. Palmer. What portion of overall transportation funding
comes from FAST Act programs?
Ms. Clark. What portion of the funding?
Mr. Palmer. Yeah.
Ms. Clark. Well, you mean the allocations of FAST Act,
which is----
Mr. Palmer. Of your overall funding, how much of that is
from FAST Act grants or appropriations?
Ms. Clark. Well, in 2019, it was $495 million, and this
year, it is $505 million.
Mr. Palmer. What is your total expenditure for your
transportation programs, then? What is your total outlay?
Ms. Clark. A little----
Mr. Palmer. How much do you spend annually on your
transportation programs? It is more than $505 million, isn't
it?
Ms. Clark. Correct.
Mr. Palmer. Do you know how much it is?
Ms. Clark. That is hard to determine because of the unmet
needs or the deferred maintenance.
Mr. Palmer. Yeah, but you know how much money you actually
have to spend, don't you?
Ms. Clark. On----
Mr. Palmer. You have a budget?
Ms. Clark. Yes.
Mr. Palmer. How much do you budget?
Ms. Clark. For my Tribe personally?
Mr. Palmer. For----
Ms. Clark. For all Tribes?
Mr. Palmer. For all Tribes. Do you know?
Ms. Clark. Oh, for all Tribes, well after the obligation
limitation, we only had $449,000 in our TTP funds. So your
obligation limitation takes most of it out.
Mr. Palmer. All right. I will submit the question in
writing, and I think it will be a little bit easier to answer.
Ms. Clark. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Garcia mentioned a gasoline tax, and I
think accurately identified the fact that that is a declining
source of revenue because of increased fuel efficiency and
conversion to electric vehicles.
What sources of revenue other than the FAST Act programs do
you rely on other than the gas tax? Do you have other sources
of revenues?
Mr. Garcia. Are you talking about one Tribe, or my Tribe,
or other Tribes throughout the----
Mr. Palmer. Well, I would like to know generally all
Tribes, and what I am trying to find out is, are there other
ways that we can provide funding? This actually--I am hoping to
make a point. So you are getting $505 million. Is it just your
Tribe, Ms. Clark, that gets the $505 million, or is that all
Tribes?
Ms. Clark. That is all the--all Tribes.
Mr. Garcia. That is for all Tribes.
Mr. Palmer. OK.
Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Palmer. OK. And then you have other sources of funding,
which, Mr. Garcia, you identified as the gasoline tax, which
you accurately identified as a declining revenue source. Do you
have other sources of revenue to fund your transportation
programs?
Mr. Garcia. Well, I can answer that in a general way, and
that is that many of the Tribes--in fact, all of the Tribes
that are funded through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, through
the Indian Health Service, those funds are, number one, not
adequate to meet the needs of the community--the Tribes.
Mr. Palmer. Let me--I am trying to----
Mr. Garcia. Transportation is in that same boat, that the
Tribe supplement, the funding that it--current funding that
receives--Federal funding that is received----
Mr. Palmer. OK.
Mr. Garcia [continuing]. And so that is the same thing that
would happen with the Department of Transportation funding, is
that the funding that provided for--I will speak for Ohkay
Owingeh--will not meet all of the needs in terms of
transportation, all the projects, the bridges, the----
Mr. Palmer. OK. I am trying to help you out here.
Mr. Garcia. So there won't be revenues available that we
would have to supplement, and so, you know, the revenues are
just like any Government would have.
Mr. Palmer. OK. What I am trying to do is identify how much
we provide through the FAST Act, what other sources of revenues
that you have, and I think we have already pretty well nailed
down the fact that all those revenue sources combined with what
you are getting from the FAST Act are insufficient. You have
got an enormous backlog.
So my next question is: The Tribes, nationwide, have
resources--energy resources--natural gas, oil. And my question,
Mr. Garcia and Ms. Clark, is: Do the Tribes--first of all, do
they allow the sale of these resources, and, if they do, do you
get a portion of the revenues? Do you get all the revenues? Or
is that even a revenue stream that could help support your
infrastructure and transportation needs?
Ms. Clark. I could answer.
Most Tribes receive field tax funding from the--from what
they receive in their reservation, and that is spent--well,
with the Nez Perce Tribe, we spend it on whatever the State
spends their field tax on.
Mr. Palmer. Are those taxes revenues from----
Ms. Clark. Field tax sales.
Mr. Palmer. No. I am talking about, do you have oil and
natural gas on Tribal lands that you should own? As a sovereign
nation, you should own that. Are you allowed to access that for
oil and gas exploration, and are you allowed to take the
revenues from that?
Ms. Clark. Our Tribe, in Nez Perce country, we do not have
any natural gas lines going through that area. However, other
Tribes, it is hard for them to get involved in trying to get a
portion of those fundings, so--they have tried. They have
worked at it, and so, yes, you are right. Most Tribes don't
receive those.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chair. May I just--I am trying
to be helpful with this, and I am not sure that they fully
understood, and I take responsibility for that, so I will
submit some questions in writing, but my intent here is to try
to identify other funding sources that will help the Tribes
meet their needs, and I appreciate your indulgence.
I yield back.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate receiving that--that is an
important question--in writing, and we will make sure to submit
it to the witnesses.
Mr. Lowenthal?
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I want to thank you, the chair, for holding this
very important hearing, the first time in decades that we have
really listened to the transportation needs on Federal lands,
on Tribal lands, and U.S. Territories. For me, I am going to
ask some questions, but the most important thing has just been
listening and understanding, which we haven't had that
opportunity to do before, and so I would like that message to
go out.
Thank you for being here. Thank you for educating us. It is
very important, because we frequently overlook this, but not
because it is deliberate; it is just that we have so many other
needs. Unless somebody takes the time and says, Hey, let's look
at this issue, so I very much appreciate this.
I want to talk about to Commissioner Petty--I am interested
in both climate change and resiliency, how we deal with some of
those issues, and resilient infrastructure in the Territories,
and so your testimony, Commissioner Petty, disclosed just how
important resilient infrastructure is for vulnerable disaster-
prone areas, such as the Virgin Islands. And we have seen the
challenges that deficient infrastructure can pose in these
areas in the wake of the recent hurricanes; especially in
Puerto Rico, we have really seen that directly, where supplies
stacked up in the port areas, not because of the ports, but
because we didn't have the infrastructure to get those
supplies, and we didn't have the surface infrastructure.
So the question is: Are you concerned that the current
Federal funding levels for transportation prevent the
Territories from really constructing resilient infrastructure?
Are we really--you know, when we talk about infra--but we know
the impacts that you have and the vulnerabilities. Are we
building enough resilient, or are we funding enough resilient
infrastructure?
Mr. Petty. Currently, no, we are not, and, for us, we have
been in this catchup mode trying to do the things to sustain
some sort of infrastructure, and doing it the right way, so to
speak, is difficult, because you have to address the needs of
the public right now. But, to do it right, we definitely need
the appropriate funding to build that type of resiliency.
Mr. Lowenthal. And maybe you could fill us in just to
educate us a little bit on how climate change now is affecting
how the Virgin Islands and other Territories are planning for
future transportation issues. You are in a unique situation.
Mr. Petty. Right. So----
Mr. Lowenthal. Maybe you could share that with us, too.
Mr. Petty. Yes. So definitely, all of our projects, we
definitely have to look at sea-level rise, some of the major
expansion projects in our harbors--we are building new roads
just for the increasing population and tourism activity, but
storm surge is a real thing that has impacted our
infrastructure over many of the last few storms that we have
had.
So, when we build these roads--and we have one section of
roadway where we are building right now--it is probably one-
quarter of a mile, and it is costing us $42 million for just
that stretch of road, primarily because of those type of
resiliency type of features that have to go into these types of
projects.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I want to change the subject a
little bit to talk to Mr. Reif about the National Park
Services, the backlog that you have on the national--but how it
is the backlog and the impacts upon the local communities are
really what I am most interested in. You know, we know, you
know, the monies that you spend, and we have heard, but, right
now, at least I am focusing on the importance of the national
parks, or all of our parks to local economies.
Can you give us what the impacts to these economies are
when our parks, our roads, our bridges, tunnels are not in good
repair? How does that impact the local economies?
Mr. Reif. Thank you for the question, sir. The deferred
maintenance backlog does have a significant impact on our local
gateway communities to all of our Federal lands. The small
businesses that rely on access to our Federal lands--you know,
outfitters, guides, ranchers, all of the small businesses in
the area rely on being able to access their local Federal
lands. A number of those small businesses----
Mr. Lowenthal. But you are the engine that drives the local
economy?
Mr. Reif. Absolutely, sir. Many, many small businesses only
have permits to operate in certain locations, and if that
access is not available because the transportation
infrastructure is too deteriorated, then they don't have an
opportunity to succeed. They can't move to the next location
that maybe have better infrastructure.
Even in town, the local hotels and restaurants will have a
much better opportunity to succeed if they have more patrons
who are able to get into their neighboring Federal resources.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Woodall?
Mr. Woodall. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to pick up where Mr. Lowenthal left off. I saw in
your testimony, Mr. French, you were talking about the
categorical exclusions that you all are moving towards using,
and how that is dealing with the backlog, and I want to give
you a chance to expound on that if I have time.
But, Mr. Reif, let's go to Interior, because we do count on
those parks, not just as an environmental engine for those
local communities, but we count on you all to set the standard
for environmental protection, and I don't even expect a project
to show up on your list unless it has gone through your own
rigorous in-house process, to say this is going to fit with the
environmental stewardship that America counts on us for.
So I am thinking about, after you all have gone through
that process to propose a project, that you then have to go
back on a water project for a 404 approval or if it is a large
enough project that you are then going to have to go back and
do a NEPA review, or if it involves historical projects, go
back for a 106 review.
Tell me about that. Thinking about ways that we can find
bipartisan partnership, we disagree on how many reviews are the
right number of reviews, but, because you all do set a standard
for protection of America's resources, if we ought to be able
to start anywhere to consolidate those reviews, expedite those
reviews, deal with the backlog that Mr. Lowenthal talked about,
I would expect it to be with you.
Mr. Reif. Thank you for the question, sir.
Let me start by saying, I don't work on the environmental
compliance end of the program. I mostly work on the
infrastructure engineering side of the program, but my
understanding is a lot of those reviews happen concurrently
while they are working through the environmental process.
Mr. Woodall. And so, what do we find? That the Park Service
is proposing a project, and then we do a 106 review and find
out that that would have been destructive to historical
resources, and you all just didn't know that ahead of time?
Does the Park Service propose a project, and then we go back
and do a 404 review concurrently and find out that the project
you propose was going to be destructive to America's water
resources?
I just expect that a project never even makes it past your
drawing board unless it fits all of these standards that we
expect from one another and that we expect the Park Service to
set a standard on.
So I am--from an engineering perspective, do you find that
you have proposed something and it has gone through an internal
review, and then all of these external reviews come into place,
and you made a mistake when you let it out of an internal
process?
Mr. Reif. Thank you for the question.
So my understanding is that when you propose a project, you
have a pretty good idea of what kind of hurdles you are going
to see in those types of projects, and so, you can work to help
make sure that you avoid those ahead of time. You don't always
succeed.
There sometimes are endangered species that you weren't
aware of, or something along those lines, so it is not perfect.
We are always looking at ways to improve our process and be
more streamlined, but, yes, sir.
Mr. Woodall. I hope we will be able to come back to that,
Madam Chair, because DOI is a trusted partner, and we do all
have a reverence for our parks, and we can share a common
ground on, if we can streamline, if we have a trusted partner
anywhere that would allow us to streamline it, it should be
DOI.
Mr. French, you have a tougher job, because your lands
actually work for a living, and so, it is a different issue,
but can you tell me a little bit about how some of those
categorical exclusions have the potential to deal with backlog
and make a difference?
Mr. French. You bet. You know, as an agency, we have been
in the space with declining resources, mainly because of the
costs of fire suppression, and so we have been looking really
hard about the way we do our work so we can drive as much of
that funding we do have to the ground. We have looked at it in
a variety of ways, and that is one of them.
So it can look at our contracting processes, our investment
processes, how we decide what should be funded. But, on the
environmental review side, we looked at, over the last 5 years,
all the environmental reviews we had done on like-type projects
for roads, let's say, environmental assessments, and, from
that, we took those actions that, under the CEQ regs, say, are
routine and not significant, and we have proposed those into
CEs, and that is based on our administrative record. That
creates tremendous efficiencies. It can change the timeframe of
looking at one of these projects from 2 years down to 6 months.
Mr. Woodall. I don't think there is anyone on this panel
that wants to dodge our stewardship responsibility----
Mr. French. Of course not.
Mr. Woodall [continuing]. But there is a stewardship with
the environment that can be paired with stewardship of dollars
so that we can get more projects done for those communities
that Mr. Lowenthal mentioned. It makes a big difference. So I
appreciate----
Mr. French. Yep.
Mr. Woodall [continuing]. Your leadership in that area.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Woodall.
Mr. Carbajal?
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Deputy Chief French, first, I want to thank you and the
Forest Service for the extraordinary work, especially in
providing emergency response. I represent the central coast of
California, which includes the Los Padres National Forest, and
our forest traditionally has a demanding fire response, as you
know.
That is why I am also proud to have initiated the FOREST
Act, which is a bipartisan legislation, H.R. 5334, that will
address the disparity in funding between the Forest Service and
the National Park Service to address the backlog, and to allow
for the roads to be better maintained, perhaps even expanded,
to do better fuels management, and to provide better access to
our first responders, our firefighters. Today, I want to touch
on that, and also discuss some of the Forest Service needs.
In your testimony, you discussed that the Forest Service
transportation infrastructure has fallen behind in its ability
to meet user needs. The figure on your side is about $3.6
billion deferred maintenance backlog. What are each of the
different fundings or resources available to USFS for your
transportation needs, and how much of that comes out of the
programs authorized by this committee? And, two, with such a
significant backlog, how has this impacted your agency's
ability to do proper forest management or firefighting
activities?
Mr. French. Great. Thank you for the question, and thank
you for your leadership, and Mr. LaMalfa's leadership on
recognizing this issue. We certainly appreciate it.
So, if you look at our overall funding that we have in the
agency, we are getting about $19 million per year. That is our
current--it has been $18 million in the past, and $17 million
directly through the FAST Act. If you look at the funds that we
received through ERFO for disaster-related, that number can be
up to $50 million, but it is usually in response to maybe a
landslide after a fire that has occurred in your district.
Appropriated dollars that are not part of this committee
that go directly to our road and trails is about $220 million
that we receive, and that represents, right now, where it is--
we find that the funding that we have right now represents
about 3 percent of the need of the deferred maintenance we
have, and our primary issue, as you started to point out, is
that trying to address those roads to deal with the broader
active management, the forest-thinning issues that we have, is
a challenge.
Now, there is other sources that we do get, and one of
those is through timber sales. We can receive--we can put--as
part of our timber sales, we can ask the purchasers to improve
roads. The issue that we find ourselves in is that what we are
doing these days is less about high-value commercial timber; it
is about protecting communities, thinning forests to reduce
fire. Sometimes we have to pay to get those trees out of the
woods.
So we used to rely on timber sales to help fund many of
these things. That is not there anymore, because we don't
receive the same receipts that we used to. The value is
different.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. And, again, I really
appreciate the extraordinary work your agency does in my
district. Thanks so much.
Mr. French. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
Mrs. Miller?
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton, and thank you
all for being here today. As a Representative for a largely
rural district, I know firsthand how important highway and road
construction can be, and particularly for connecting our
constituents to essential needs and goods and services, along
with bringing economic development to communities who
desperately need it.
As a member of this committee for the past year, I have
learned so much about how many of our States and our districts
are struggling to meet their infrastructure demands. I know, in
my district of West Virginia, which is very rural and very
mountainous, that our bridges can remain incomplete, roadwork
seems to be never-ending, and our economy suffers from the
consequences.
The Highway Trust Fund remains woefully underfunded, and it
is essential for this committee to find a reasonable solution
to our Nation's infrastructure needs.
Mr. French and Mr. Reif, what problems do the U.S. Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior have with
maintaining rural access roads? And how can Congress ensure
that these rural areas continue to be serviced with quality
roads?
Mr. French. Thank you very much for the question.
It is a huge challenge for us. I mean, the primary first
piece is the overall funding that is available. In West
Virginia, in the Monongahela National Forest, I think in your
district, there is at least $17 million in deferred maintenance
that we are working on right now. We don't even come close to
being able to have the resources to hit all those, so what we
end up doing is stopgap measures.
I mentioned in my testimony about a bridge in Pennsylvania
that services a community that we can't get firetrucks across
right now to protect those communities. We have had to put in a
stopgap temporary fix just to allow that to happen, and that is
the sort of triage that we find ourselves doing at any time.
We think there could be a more rational approach to how the
FAST Act is allocated. I think that we would be open to
discussing other ways that we could look at funding some of
these critical needs, and I think that we very much stand up to
say we should be more efficient and effective in how we use
those dollars and show you that, and accountable. I think all
those three things are important in order to resolve this
issue.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Reif. I will echo my colleague's comments that we are
drastically underfunded with trying to keep up with all of the
deferred maintenance in our portfolio. I referenced in my
testimony a study by the National Academy of Sciences that
indicates that 2 to 4 percent of an asset value should be
attributed to maintenance for every year, annually, for
maintenance, and we are able to contribute about one-half of 1
percent of our budgets towards maintenance of our assets.
So we are just having a hard time keeping up. We are
looking for efficiencies. Within our transportation programs,
we are trying to spend more of our time and effort and funding
on low-cost efforts to preserve what good things we have in
good condition, so that we can slowly build the network back up
over time by keeping what we have in good condition, and then
slowly addressing some of the bigger challenges, the bigger
dollar reconstruction projects as we can, and then, again, to
keep a little bit of money on them to keep them in excellent
condition.
So we are attempting to drive that process, but it is a
really hard boulder to get out from under with just the roads
are naturally just deteriorating faster than we can address
them.
Mrs. Miller. It is never-ending. I have a farm, and the
road to my farm goes by a creek and up and down, and it is
always, always in need of repair, and they repair it, and then
they repair the repair, and then--it is hard.
Mr. French, what steps is the U.S. Forest Service taking to
speed up regulatory hurdles, and are there any regulatory
burdens mandated by Congress that impair the Service's ability
to efficiently maintain their infrastructure?
Mr. French. OK. Thank you.
As I spoke before, one, we have put together a
comprehensive capital improvement strategy, a long-term
transportation strategy, and a deferred maintenance strategy,
because we don't want to just spread the resources; we want to
hit the right things in the right places.
Secondly, we are looking at the processes we use to make
sure that work happens on the ground, whether it is through
contracting, whether it is through design, and looking at more
effective design or through our environmental reviews, trying
to make sure that we are doing that in expedient ways. It is
also about project management, having the right resources in
the right places to get the work done and not just sort of go
on forever.
That is what we are doing on our end.
In terms of Congress, I think many of the ideas that have
been talked about here, looking at the needs of the agencies,
and then looking at the way this program essentially is--feeds
its money through, through Federal Highways, and then the
amounts is something that is worth taking a look at it. It can
create some delays, and I would assert that the amounts are
maybe not commensurate with the needs.
Mrs. Miller. How does the Forest Service coordinate between
the local, State, and Federal levels, and what can be done to
improve those lines of communication?
Ms. Norton. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. The Baltimore-
Washington Parkway is an important regional artery for over
63,000 daily commuters from my district and around the State of
Maryland. Commuters rely on the BW Parkway to get to work and
school every day and are more often than not subject to unsafe
road conditions as a result of years of neglect. The BW Parkway
has become notorious for its potholes and traffic jams.
Last March the situation got so bad that the Maryland
delegation had to appeal to the National Park Service to
conduct emergency repairs on the parkway, and we are thankful
that those repairs were made. However, these repairs were a
Band-Aid and it is only a matter of time until we are back to
where we were last March.
Throughout this process, it has been unclear to me how the
Park Service prioritizes roads that experience high-volume
traffic within its jurisdiction. Data that my staff received
from the Park Service back in October indicated that the agency
assesses the BW Parkway in a state of good repair, with zero
percent of the miles being in poor condition. Anyone who drives
down the parkway regularly knows this is an inaccurate
assessment.
Between 2015 and 2019, the BW Parkway only received $15
million in funding from the Federal Lands Transportation
Program. This is in stark contrast to the $55 million in FLTP
funding that went to Blue Ridge Parkway, the $52 million for
Natchez Trace Parkway, and the $26 million that went into
Foothills Parkway.
According to NPS data, the BW Parkway carries considerably
more drivers each day and yet is getting a fraction of funds
from this program. In an attempt to address this disparity, I,
along with Chairwoman Norton, and some of our colleagues in the
National Capital region have introduced the Commuter Parkway
Safety and Reliability Act. Our bill directs the National Park
Service, through the Federal Lands Transportation Program, to
prioritize high-commuter corridors.
This legislation would ensure that FLTP funds, within the
National Park Service's jurisdiction, are prioritized based on
parkway use.
Mr. Reif, could you please tell the committee how the
National Park Service currently prioritizes these funds and why
parkways that see a high number of commuters each day aren't
receiving a greater percentage of the FLTP funds?
Mr. Reif. Yes, sir, thank you. The Park Service, with their
$284 million per year, first distributes those funds to each
region. And those distributions are based on the inventory
within each region, the condition of the roads within each
region, and visitation data within each region. So that
translates to approximately--oh, and I am sorry--and highway
crashes in the region.
Mr. Brown. Let me ask you then, so I hear two criteria--by
region, highway crashes. Does the Department consider the rate
of daily traffic when prioritizing----
Mr. Reif. Yes, I am sorry, I misspoke. It is not
visitation. It is VMT, vehicle-miles traveled. So, yes, sir, it
does.
Mr. Brown. OK. Does the Department have a long-term plan to
deal with the deferred maintenance backlog of parkways that see
a high rate of commuters?
Mr. Reif. Well, the money that gets down to the regional
level, which, in the National Capital region is approximately
$23 million per year, about 9 percent of the overall--the
region then prioritizes within its needs based on asset
criticality and condition of the assets and a few other
factors, to determine where they want to put that fairly small
sum of money.
Mr. Brown. And then in terms of the allocation to the
regions, is that based on daily commuter volume?
Mr. Reif. That is one of the factors, yes, sir.
Mr. Brown. To go to the regions?
Mr. Reif. To go to the regions.
Mr. Brown. And then within the regions that is another
factor?
Mr. Reif. Within the region, that is--that is a factor to
distribute money to the region, and then within the region,
they look at all of their assets and determine how the----
Mr. Brown. And with just the little bit of time I have
left, can you tell me what metrics the Department of the
Interior uses to determine if a parkway is in a state of good
repair?
Mr. Reif. Yes, sir. The pavement condition rating is what
the Park Service uses for measuring state of good repair. They
have a vehicle that has a number of sensors on it to measure
rutting and cracking and roughness and a number of other
things.
Mr. Brown. Just a yes or no question.
Mr. Reif. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brown. Have you been on the Baltimore-Washington
Parkway recently?
Mr. Reif. Not in the last year or so since we have had the
emergency fix.
Mr. Brown. OK. I invite you to travel that and see if
reality matches up with the assessment.
Mr. Reif. I understand.
Mr. Brown. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mr. Reif. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Stanton?
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It has been
18 years since this committee last had a hearing on Tribal
transportation needs. It is long overdue. So I want to thank
you so much for holding the hearing, granting the request of
Congresswoman Davids and I that we have a hearing focused on
Tribal infrastructure and transportation needs. It is important
that we hear directly from Tribal leaders on their needs and
priorities for reauthorization of the surface transportation
bill.
Transportation infrastructure is critical for our Tribal
communities, including the 22 Tribal Nations in my State of
Arizona, a modern transportation network that fosters economic
opportunity, helps Tribal members reach their jobs, aids
emergency personnel, connects vast distances between Tribal
communities, and transports children to and from school.
The transportation infrastructure needs of our Tribal
Nations are great. Many of the roads and bridges are a barrier
to greater economic opportunities and our travel communities
because they need significant improvement or repair.
This past summer I had the opportunity to visit the Navajo
Nation and see firsthand the significant transportation
infrastructure challenges the Nation is facing. The Navajo
Nation has more than 11,200 miles of roads over 27,000 square
miles, making the Nation first out of all BIA regions for road-
miles.
The vast majority of these roads, 86 percent, are unpaved.
Unpaved roads create numerous challenges, especially in adverse
weather conditions for members of the Navajo Nation, whether
getting to school or work or accessing critical services like
healthcare.
At current funding levels, the Nation estimates it would
take approximately 116 years and $7.9 billion to meet their
current transportation infrastructure needs. Let me repeat
that--116 years. That is unacceptable to everyone here.
Like the Navajo Nation, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community is also experiencing significant infrastructure
challenges. Years ago, the community was on the outer edges of
Phoenix, but now it is bordered by our rapidly growing
communities, impacting traffic throughout Salt River.
Hundreds of thousands of vehicles travel through the Salt
River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community each day, placing great
strain on the Tribe's ability to maintain and keep these roads
safe. The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to
Tribal Nations, which includes providing the resources
necessary to ensure the transportation needs in Native
Communities are addressed. Yet, despite this trust
responsibility, Salt River receives only a tiny fraction of the
Federal funds it needs for maintenance and construction.
While the FAST Act took important steps to help address the
significant transportation needs and disparities in Tribal
communities across the country, more work must be done. We have
an opportunity in the upcoming reauthorization bill to build on
the progress in the FAST Act and make sure Tribes do receive
the resources needed to address these urgent needs.
Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to include in the
record letters from the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona,
the Navajo Nation, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community,
and the Gila River Indian Community to discuss in more detail
their individual needs.
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter of January 31, 2020, from Shan Lewis, President, Inter Tribal
Association of Arizona, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Greg Stanton
January 31, 2020.
Hon. Greg Stanton,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
RE: Support for Transportation Infrastructure Needs in Indian Country
Dear Congressman Stanton,
This letter is being submitted on behalf of the Inter Tribal
Association of Arizona (ITAA) regarding the surface transportation bill
to be reauthorized this year. ITAA is an inter-tribal consortium of 21
federally recognized Indian Tribes with lands in Arizona, California,
and Nevada. The Member Tribes of ITAA have advocated together since
1952 on issues of common interest and concern across Indian Country.
ITAA is governed by the highest elected Tribal officials from each
Tribe, including Tribal chairpersons, presidents and governors.
Improving transportation in Indian Country is critical to ensuring
Tribes are able to meet the needs of their communities and build
economic development opportunities on a framework of modern
infrastructure. Your support for funding programs specifically targeted
to addressing construction and maintenance of transportation
infrastructure in Indian Country, such as the priorities listed below,
is critical in meeting the transportation needs of Tribes. In addition,
we appreciate your continued support for ensuring that the Department
of Interior and the Department of Transportation are adequately
consulting with Tribes and joining with Tribal governments in planning
and developing projects that benefit ITAA's Member Tribes.
As a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, ITAA Member Tribes appreciate your efforts to ensure the
transportation needs of Tribes in Arizona and beyond are included in
the reauthorization process. Please find below a list of tribal
transportation priorities which we seek to have included in the hearing
of the House Subcommittee for Highways and Transit scheduled for
February 6, 2020.
Tribal Transportation Priorities:
Creating within the Department of Transportation an
office to consult and coordinate with Tribal governments:
Establish within the US Department of Transportation an
Office of Tribal Government Affairs to oversee the Tribal
Transportation Self-Governance Program (TTSGP), coordinate tribal
transportation programs and activities in all DOT administrations and
participate in any negotiated rulemaking that affects tribal projects,
programs or TTSGP funding.
Appoint an Assistant Secretary for the Office of Tribal
Government Affairs.
Create a joint tribal and federal advisory committee.
Improving the integrity of the Tribal transportation
system:
Increase annual funding for the Tribal Transportation
Program to $565M in FY21, followed by annual $15M increases through
FY25.
Reinstate a stand-alone Tribal Bridge Program with $16M
for FY21 followed by annual $2M increases through FY25.
Increase annual funding for the BIA Road Maintenance
Program to $50M in FY21 followed by annual $2M increases through FY25.
Remove the annual Obligation Limitation takedown from
the Tribal Transportation Program and Tribal Bridge Program.
Authorize $39M annually for the Tribal High Priority
Project Program.
Increase the set-aside for Tribal Transportation
Program safety from 2% to 8%.
Increase the set-aside for Tribal Transportation
Program planning from 2% to 5%.
Improving the delivery of programs, services and funds to
Tribal governments:
Restructure the Nationally Significant Federal Lands
and Tribal Projects Program by reducing the minimum project size from
$25M to $12.5M, establishing a 50% set-aside for tribal projects and
increasing the federal share to 100%.
Streamline approaches for Tribal governments to form
cooperative agreements with states and local government for highway
planning, design and safety.
Allow the transfer of Customs and Border Protection
funds to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Division of Transportation to
maintain, repair or reconstruct a road, if Customs and Border
Protection is the primary road user.
Complete any approval or review of the safety project
required under NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
in a timely manner and take final action only after Tribal Consultation
is complete, allowing a Tribal government to request a 30-day
extension, if needed.
I appreciate this opportunity for ITAA to participate in the work
of the Subcommittee for Highways and Transit by submitting this letter.
While I regret that I will not be able to attend the subcommittee
hearing, I appreciate the advocacy that you have shown for Tribes in
the past and look forward to your support for additional funding and
reforms to address the transportation needs of ITAA's Member Tribes. If
you should have any questions, please contact Ms. Maria Dadgar, ITAA
Executive Director.
Thank you again for your support.
Sincerely,
Shan Lewis,
President, Inter Tribal
Association of Arizona,
Vice Chairman, Fort Mojave
Indian Tribe.
Letter of February 3, 2020, from Jonathan Nez, President and Myron
Lizer, Vice President, Navajo Nation, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Greg Stanton
February 3, 2020.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Sam Graves,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
RE: Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Hearing on: Assessing the
Transportation Needs of Tribes, Federal Land Management Agencies, and
U.S. Territories
Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves,
As the largest land-based Indian Tribe in the country, the Navajo
Nation encompasses over 27,000 square-miles across three states
(Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah) and has a registered enrollment of over
350,000 members. With such a broad land base and areas that lie within
multi-jurisdictional boundaries, the Navajo Nation encounters some of
the most challenging obstacles when it comes to meeting its
transportation and infrastructure needs.
The Navajo Nation ranks second in population and first in road
mileage out of all of the BIA regions. The Navajo Nation has more than
11,200 miles of roads, with over 9,500 miles remaining unpaved.
Additionally, there are 179 bridges on the Nation; 38 are eligible for
rehabilitation and 28 are eligible for replacement.
The Navajo Nation receives about $54 million annually from the
Federal Highway Administration. Of this amount, 9 percent or $4.9
million goes to Operations and Planning; over 10 percent or $5.6
million goes to Road Maintenance and Safety Projects; over 12 percent
or $6.9 million goes to Preliminary Engineering and Construction
Engineering; and the remaining over 67 percent or $36.6 million goes to
Construction. Since it costs nearly $3 million to pave one mile of new
road, funds appropriated each year allows the Navajo Nation to build
only 12.2 miles of new road.
At the current funding level, Navajo Nation transportation
officials have estimated that it would take approximately 116 years and
$7.9 billion to meet current transportation infrastructure needs.
Pavement deficiencies need approximately $1.4 billion in repair and
upgrades to the remaining roadway system need $6.5 billion.
Unpaved roads negatively impact school and work attendance, and the
delivery of health and other community services. Dirt roads are also
susceptible to damage from snow, floods, and washouts.
During winter storms and heavy downpour, families can be stranded
for days due to the inability of accessing paved major roads. This
results in poor attendance and severe wear and tear on automobiles. For
example, in 2015, San Juan County canceled 10 days of classes in a
single semester because of poor road conditions. Ambulances and first
responders face flooded roads and often ferry with local residents who
have four-wheel drive vehicles to reach their patients. People with
chronic medical conditions like kidney dialysis, often miss their
appointments. Work commutes continue to remain a challenge.
Paved roads are highly valued and needed for dependable, safe
travel for families and school buses. The Navajo Nation's roads are
lifelines and are crucial for planning the development of energy and
water resources, as well as for community and economic development.
It is imperative that the Navajo Nation is appropriated funding for
investment in maintenance and infrastructure of on-reservation
highways, roads and bridges. Paved roads on the Navajo Nation serve as
critical corridors for overland freight transported by the trucking
industry. A significant amount of the traffic which utilizes the Navajo
Nation Highway infrastructure is pass-through traffic.
For the reasons stated above the Navajo Nation implores this
Committee to appropriate funds specifically for utilization towards
fixing these deficiencies. If you have any questions, please contact
the Navajo Nation Washington Office Executive Director, Santee Lewis.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Nez,
President, The Navajo
Nation.
Myron Lizer,
Vice President, The Navajo
Nation.
Letter of February 3, 2020, from Martin Harvier, President, Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Greg
Stanton
February 3, 2020.
Hon. Greg Stanton,
Member,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Stanton,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide information for the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's upcoming hearing on
Assessing the Transportation Needs of Tribes, Federal Land Management
Agencies, and U.S. Territories. On behalf of the Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community, we deeply appreciate your continued interest
in ensuring that federal transportation resources are equitably
distributed across the nation, including in underserved communities
such as ours.
Where the Community was once on the outskirts of the Phoenix
metropolitan area, today we are an integral part of the growing east
valley of Phoenix. The cities that border our Community including
Tempe, Scottsdale, and Mesa, are some of the fastest growing cities in
the country.
The tremendous growth is best described by the average daily
traffic counts on the freeways and major roadways in and around our
Community. Three major freeways--the Loop 101, Loop 202, and State
Route 87--convey more than 400,000 vehicles through the Community each
day. Add to that an estimated 250,000 vehicles on some of the larger
surface roadways--such as McKellips, McDowell, Pima, and Country Club
roads--there are more than 650,000 vehicles traveling daily through our
Reservation.
As you can imagine, this puts a tremendous strain on the
Community's public safety and public works agencies that are
responsible for maintaining and keeping roadways safe for travel.
Insufficient Federal Support for Road Construction and Maintenance
The bottom line is that federal tribal transportation programs are
significantly underfunded. For example, on an annual basis our
Community receives $92,000 from the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA), for road maintenance. This represents 6.5
percent of the total need. As a result, the Community supplements the
meager federal funding with nearly $1.4 million dollars each year.
Further, for the Community's 5-year new-construction plan, BIA
funding will provide only 3%, or $7 million dollars, of the overall
budget.
Clearly, there is not enough money to meet the basic maintenance
needs of our current roads, let alone the funding necessary to support
a robust 21st century transportation system. As a result, we believe an
increase in funds for tribal transportation programs will help tribes
establish, maintain and perpetuate tribal transportation programs.
We urge the Committee to support set-asides in federal
transportation, highway safety, and related programs, as well as reduce
the local match requirement for competitive grants to ensure federal
funds reach Indian country.
Fortunately, the Salt River Indian Community has been uniquely
successful in applying for competitive U.S.D.O.T. Grants. For example,
in 2019 our Community was awarded $49 million from the Nationally
Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Project program. The grant will
support the Pima Road Redevelopment between the Community and the City
of Scottsdale. When complete, it will improve safety, decrease cut-
through traffic, and expand opportunities for economic development
along a major thoroughfare. This is the definition of a major
infrastructure project that will reshape our Community.
It is worth noting, however, the grant to the Community was the
only grant from the program that primarily funded work within Indian
Country. If the Committee is serious about addressing the needs of
Native American Tribes, the time has come to ensure that more of these
transformative grants are awarded for projects on tribal lands.
Transportation Safety
While our connectivity with other jurisdictions encourages economic
development, it also creates unique negative impacts. Most notably, a
significant number of vehicles use the Community's surface roads as an
alternative to regional arteries. This ``cut-through'' traffic
increases wear and tear on roads and creates the potential for safety
issues in and around our residential areas.
Currently our law enforcement and transportation agencies work
closely with neighboring jurisdictions to address safety issues
including:
a. Reducing cut through traffic
b. Reducing severe and fatal crashes
c. Speed reduction
d. Increasing lighting on secondary roads; and
e. Improving pedestrian facilities
Unfortunately, the tribe cannot take advantage of most federal
highway safety programs and funding to support these activities. I urge
the Committee to review and consider the recommendations put forward by
the Tribal Transportation Safety Working Group to help improve vehicle
and pedestrian safety on tribal lands.
Self-Governance
As a matter of policy and practice, our Community believes in Self-
Governance. As you know, this philosophy embraces the idea of allowing
tribal governments to take over the administration of federal programs.
We are proud to say our experience with tribal self-governance has been
very successful, and is a perfect example of the most efficient use of
the federal dollar.
That is why our Community eagerly supported the effort to expand
tribal self-governance into all USDOT programs, as authorized by the
FAST ACT. Our staff proudly served on the Tribal Transportation Self
Governance Program Negotiated Rulemaking Committee with the Department
of Transportation. Our Community is strongly supportive of the
regulation proposed by the Department, and believe it represents a
significant step in the right direction.
While we support the rule, there are some shortcomings that the
Committee can address.
First, the Salt River Indian Community encourages the Department to
explicitly authorize the creation of an Office of Self Governance in
the next surface transportation bill. This office should be modeled
after the Office of Self Governance at the Department of the Interior,
and should be a central location for tribes, and our staff, to go when
interacting with the Department.
Second, the Committee should clarify that contract support costs
are an integral part of self-governance funding and direct the
Department to include these costs in all self-governance agreements.
This is also consistent with Federal Court decisions that have ruled
time and again that these costs are a direct component of federal
contracts and must be included as a part of self-governance agreements.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input on the
Community's transportation priorities. Should you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me, or have your staff contact Gary
Bohnee, Director of the Office of Congressional and Legislative
Affairs.
Sincerely,
Martin Harvier,
President, Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian
Community.
cc: SRPMIC Community Council
Statement of Hon. Stephen Roe Lewis, Governor, Gila River Indian
Community, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Greg Stanton
Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis and Members of the
Subcommittee, I want to thank you for holding this important hearing to
assess the transportation needs of Tribal Nations. Safe and adequate
transportation infrastructure is not only critical for our tribal
citizens and others who utilize our roadways, but also for economic
development and other governmental functions. We appreciate the
Subcommittee holding this hearing to ensure that tribal transportation
needs are considered in the broader conversations occurring nationally
around transportation reauthorization and infrastructure development.
Background on Tribal Transportation
The latest long-term surface transportation reauthorization, the
FAST Act, was signed into law on December 4, 2015. This Act provides
$305 billion in funding for surface transportation infrastructure
through fiscal year 2020, when it is set to expire. Specific to tribal
transportation, the FAST Act reauthorized the Tribal Transportation
program and provided for increased funding for that program from $450
million in 2015 to $465 million in 2016 with step increases of $10
million per year, reaching $505 million in fiscal year 2020. The FAST
Act also placed a focus on tribal safety funding and reporting and
allocated specific funding for tribal planning and bridge maintenance.
With this surface transportation reauthorization set to expire in 2020,
there is a renewed focus on how to build on the gains in the last
reauthorization and ensure that tribal governments have the resources
they need to provide safe and efficient transportation for their
members, residents of surrounding communities, and to promote
development both on and off tribal lands.
Gila River Indian Community Transportation Program
The Community's Reservation abuts the southern boundary of the
Phoenix Metropolitan Area, and is located in the first and third most
populated counties in Arizona--Maricopa County (4.3 million), and Pinal
County (430,000). The Community's Reservation is a 583.7 square mile
rural island with the Phoenix-Metro to its north and Phoenix-Metro
exurbs to its south and east. Approximately 15,000 of the Community's
23,000 members live on our Reservation. The Community's proximity to
the sixth largest metropolitan area in the country, combined with a
sizeable land base, require its transportation programs to address
transportation needs associated with both a rural and a metropolitan
area. This location also means that planning for tribal transportation
programs and significant projects must be done in conjunction with the
local municipalities and the state given that a 20 mile stretch of
Interstate 10 cross the Reservation and five state highway routes are
located on the Reservation.
In 1997, the Community established the Gila River Indian Community
Department of Transportation (``GRIC DOT'') which has grown to a staff
of 45. GRIC DOT oversees the administrative, planning, engineering,
surveying, rights-of-way, construction, operations and maintenance
activities on the Reservation. GRIC DOT is responsible for the
Community's road inventory which consists of approximately 420 miles of
roads and 67 bridges. Of the 420 miles, the majority are Bureau of
Indian Affairs (``BIA'') roads (306.7), with the rest tribal, county
and township and state roads.
In 2003, the Community entered into a self-governance compact with
the BIA to take over those functions that the BIA was performing. In
2009, the Community entered into an agreement with the U.S. Department
of Transportation Federal Highway Administration to take over roads
activities for all BIA and Community-owned roads within the
Reservation, including planning, research, design, engineering,
construction and maintenance of highway, road, bridge, parkway or
transit facility programs or projects located on the Reservation or
provide access to the Community's Reservation. This agreement still
requires a level of coordination with the BIA, but allows the Community
to determine its own priorities through its five-year transportation
plan, which is approved by Council. In taking over those programs
previously performed by the federal agencies, the Community has been
able to be more strategic and purposeful in its transportation
planning.
Although the majority of the Community's funding comes through the
United States Department of Transportation maintenance of the BIA roads
within the Reservation is still funded through the BIA. The shortfall
in maintenance funding for BIA roads nationwide is well documented with
the current deferred maintenance required estimated at nearly $300
million. The Community also faces a maintenance backlog on the BIA
roads within the Reservation. With approximately 307 BIA roads to
maintain and an annual allocation of $3 million, each mile of BIA road
receives $9,771 for maintenance.
This level of funding is highly inadequate to maintain roads that
are considered in good shape. Unfortunately, the BIA roads on the
Community's Reservation have been neglected for decades. At the wholly
inadequate current funding levels all the Community is able to do is
maintain roads that are in poor shape. It is analogous to putting a
band aid over a pothole and expecting it to create a safe mode of
transportation for tribal and non-tribal citizens who utilize those
roads.
GRIC DOT also operates Gila River Transit which is funded through
tribal funds and Rural Transit Program funds administered by the
Arizona Department of Transportation (``ADOT''). The transit staff
includes five full-time employees--one administrator and 4 bus
operators and provides shuttle services in Sacaton which serves
District 3 and the West End which services Districts 6 and 7. Ridership
in the transit program has steadily increased from the first grant year
in 2016 with the Sacaton transit going from 7,800 riders in 2016 to
16,714 in 2018. The West End ridership increased from 2,277 in 2016 to
8,346 in 2018. In September of 2018, GRIC DOT received its second two
year funding award from ADOT's rural transit program and receives
approximately $304,000 annual to operate the transit system. Given it
takes approximately two to three years for a transit route to mature,
the ridership numbers for these two routes is impressive.
The Community would like to continue to add more routes to its
transit service, but limited funding directed towards tribal
governments and increased competition for rural transit funds can bring
uncertainty when tribes are investing in much needed transit systems
for their citizens.
Safety
Transportation safety is a critical issue affecting tribal
communities. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of
unintentional death for American Indians and Alaska Natives with
fatalities more than twice that of other races for adults and eight
times higher among infants less than one year of age.
In the FAST Act, 2% of the funding allocated for the Tribal
Transportation Program is eligible to be used for tribal safety. The
funds are allocated under a discretionary, competitive grant programs
for projects that will address prevention and reduction of
transportation related activities such as motor vehicle crashes. These
grants can also be used to develop and update transportation safety
plans, improve collection of, assessment and analysis of crash data,
and for infrastructure improvements. While this funding is a positive
step forward, the amount remains seriously deficient for the safety
needs in Indian Country. Despite acknowledging that tribal citizens are
the most impacted population by motor vehicle crashes, lack of
available and accessible data is often cited as the reason more funding
is not available.
Therefore, the FAST Act required a report to Congress on Tribal
Governments and Transportation Safety Data with the goal of improving
data collection and sharing among to improve transportation policies,
funding and data collection systems. Some of the major recommendations
were to bring increased coordination and consistency in how data is
collected among tribes and federal entities.
In Arizona, the state encourages all of the law enforcement
agencies within the state to share data, including tribal governments'
law enforcement. The Community has been sharing crash data with the
state and county for the past several years in an effort to ensure that
those incidents that occur on, or near the Reservation are recorded.
This allows the Community to identify those roadways and areas that
require safety features and also offers the opportunity to ensure those
safety projects are not only on the tribal transportation plan, but
also have the data to show why the state should provide resources to
improve safety.
One example of the Community benefiting from sharing safety data
with state and local jurisdictions is the project on State Route 87
which runs through Districts 1, 2, and 4. This route was identified as
needing additional safety infrastructure based on the number of
fatalities that have occurred. Following a study of the safety needs,
and in partnership with ADOT, additional turn lanes were constructed at
15 intersections on State Route 87 and other measures were taken
including new signage, surface treatment, a centerline rumble strip and
new pavement markings.
The continued collection of crash data determined that there are
still three areas in need of additional safety measures--the
intersections of State Route 87 and Gilbert, Sacaton & Olberg roads.
These intersections are located within the Reservation and have been
the site of a number of fatal and incapacitating intersection related
crashes. ADOT has determined that this project is eligible for funding
under the Highway Safety Improvement Program funding. Therefore, three
traffic signals will be place at these three intersections. This type
of project is typical of those that require multi-jurisdictional
cooperation based on state, county, federal, tribal and BIA roads all
running through the Reservation, where the at-risk-site is on the
Reservation, but must be on the State's Transportation Plan in order to
received funding approvals.
Aside from allowing for more targeted funding requests, the
Community's decision to share data with the State also allows for more
targeted law enforcement in those areas that are highest risk and for
more strategic educational outreach to the Community on the effects of
seat belt usage, speeding, drinking and driving, and impaired driving.
Tribal Safety Plan
The Community was the first tribe in Arizona to prepare a tribal
safety plan framework. As of 2013, no tribe in Arizona had a safety
plan which made it difficult for them to collaborate with ADOT and
local municipalities on tribal safety. In conjunction with the
Intertribal Council of Arizona, the Community developed a tribal safety
plan framework that ultimately led to a Tribal Safety Plan approved by
the Community Council.
To develop the Tribal Safety Plan Community workshops were
conducted with other stakeholders including the Federal Highway
Administration, ADOT, BIA, Intertribal Council of Arizona, Maricopa
Association of Governments, Arizona Department of Public Safety, Indian
Health Services, and Community departments such as the police
department, GRIC DOT, emergency services and injury prevention program.
The Community also conducted a Multimodal Pedestrian Safety Study
that evaluated the pedestrian safety needs on the Reservation including
sidewalks/shared use paths, bus stops/turnouts, and other
infrastructure. This study was used to provide data for potential
funding sources and build a comprehensive safety plan for the Community
and included input from external stakeholders such as federal
officials, business, the general public and tribal departments such as
the police department, housing, senior center, school transportation
department, flood control management task force and the youth council.
This study ultimately provided recommendations on issues such as
locations for speed reduction, trails, crosswalks, lighting, sidewalks,
signage, bike lanes and handicap access.
The safety plan made recommendations on responses to and prevention
of crashes and locations deemed in need of safety measures, bicycle and
ATV safety, child safety seat program, seatbelt usage, driving under
the influence. The plan was approved by the Community Council in July
of 2014.
Together these studies have created a roadmap for safety within the
Community. This has allowed the Community to prioritize road
construction and safety projects, work with external partners, such as
the State and local municipalities, in a more collaborative manner and
identify funding sources to address the safety needs of tribal citizens
and non-tribal users of the Community's transportation infrastructure.
Improvements to Interstate 10
One of the issues facing the Community is working with other
governments on planning and construction of large-scale transportation
projects. In some cases, tribal governments are left out of the
planning of large-scale infrastructure projects which hampers their
ability to integrate into project that occur directly off the
Reservation but still have significant and long-term effects on the
transportation needs of the Community. One such case, is the I-10
project in Arizona.
Despite projects underway to widen the stretch of I-10 between
Phoenix and Tucson from 2 lanes to 3 lanes by the end of 2019, there
remains a 20 mile stretch of the highway within the Reservation left
unimproved.
In the past year, ADOT, reached out to the Community for proposals
for a design concept report and environmental study on the addition of
lanes to I-10, along with improvements to existing interchanges. The
study is required for federally funded projects and will have an
accelerated timeline of 18 months. This study will take into account
the strategy needed to improve traffic capacity along the I-10 and to
account for growing needs based on current and future economic
opportunities along the corridor.
Funding
The Governor, ADOT, the Maricopa Association of Governments and the
Community all support funding for the I-10 interchanges. When projects
of this size are contemplated it is imperative that tribal governments,
as equal partners, have access to the same type and level of funding
that state and other governments have. There are few federal funding
agreement that provide direct funding to tribes for projects of this
scope and size. One grant that the Community recommends that Congress
and Appropriators continue to support is the Better Utilizing
Investments to Leverage Development (``BUILD'') program.
The Community has determined this program is one of the only
feasible grants that can provide sufficient funding for projects such
as the I-10 interchange project. This grant is a competitive grant for
surface transportation projects and is open to state, local and tribal
governments for projects like the I-10 that have a significant local or
regional impact. These grants are split between rural and urban
projects, but the Community recommends Congress also consider having a
specific percentage of these grants designated for projects located on
tribal lands. Despite overwhelming need, few tribal governments have
been awarded these grants. In 2018 only one tribe received direct
funding and the other project was a joint application with the state.
In 2019, no tribes received funding under the BUILD grant and there
were no planning grants awarded. The Community submitted a planning
grant for the I-10 study project, but did not receive a grant award
because no planning grants were funded in the last grant cycle.
For the Community, direct funding would allow us to begin working
on this important interchange project. The State could also apply which
would enable the tribe and state to work as partners on this regionally
important project. I encourage Congress to maintain this program in the
next reauthorization and to ensure that tribes are able to secure
grants in the next phase of this allocation of this grant programs.
Office of Self Governance
The Community was encouraged by the language in the FAST Act that
culminated in a self-governance rulemaking to expand self-governance
programs throughout the Department of Transportation. With the
rulemaking completed, the Community encourages the Department to
establish an Office of Self-Governance to oversee the program. This
will ensure self-governance is successful and Tribal Nations are able
to access those programs that will enable them to provide for the
transportation and infrastructure needs of their communities.
Conclusion
The FAST Act provided positive incremental improvements in the
tribal transportation program. It will be important to take those gains
to crate even more significant programmatic advances in the next
reauthorization. Aside from increasing funding levels for surface
transportation, transit and safety programs, Congress should create
incentives for transportation and infrastructure projects that are
multi-jurisdiction and have significant benefits both on, and off, the
Reservation.
Mr. Stanton. These letters highlight the transportation
infrastructure challenges and priorities of the Tribes in
Arizona for your authorization. One of the recommendations I
have heard from Tribes in Arizona and others across the country
is the need for an Office of Self-Governance at the Department
of Transportation to oversee and implement the Tribal
Transportation Self-Governance Program.
Mr. Garcia, you addressed this earlier. I make the same
question then for Ms. Clark. I want to give you an opportunity
to address this issue. You mentioned the importance of
establishing an Office of Self-Governance within the Department
of Transportation. I couldn't agree more.
In the proposed rule for the Tribal Transportation Self-
Governance Program, the Department stated that it does not
foreclose the possibility of establishing an Office of Self-
Governance at the Department at some point in the future. The
Department stated that it also believes that a Tribal Self-
Governance Advisory Committee may provide important information
to the Department as it implements the program.
Ms. Clark, could you explain why establishing an Office of
Self-Governance and a Tribal advisory committee are so
important to the Tribes for this new program?
Ms. Clark. Yes. It is important to the programs because it
is establishing a new self-governance way of working with
Tribes directly with the U.S. DOT and Tribes. And if half of
those just all of a sudden when June comes and wants to enter
into a contract, then U.S. DOT needs to be off and running, and
right now, it is not. And so that would be very helpful, and
the advisory could help guide the self-governance.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you. I am out of time, but I will be
submitting a question as it relates to funding challenges that
our Tribal Nations face that may not be directly proportional
to what State, city, and counties faces as it relates to
matching funds for Federal programs, and I would like to get an
answer on the record for that.
Thank you so very much. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Stanton. Ms. Davids?
Ms. Davids. Thank you, Chairwoman. And I would just like to
associate myself with Congressman Stanton's comments earlier
and also say thank you for making sure that this hearing
happened so quickly after we requested addressing these
important topics.
So first of all, I think that listening to my colleagues
today, it is--and then the testimony that I have heard today,
it is that much more clear to me that the issue of Tribal
transportation and the Tribal-Federal, Government-to-Government
relationship is something that more of us in Congress, and also
more of our staff, need to understand and have a deeper
understanding of, and that includes the relationship of
Territories to the Federal Government-to-Territory relationship
as well.
And with that, I would love to--Mr. Reif, earlier you
mentioned a list of the processes for decisions on investments.
You mentioned a number of things--cost, the criticality of a
project, the condition of assets, the consequences of not
completing a project. I didn't hear you mention the input of
Tribal Governments in that listing. Can you talk a little bit
about the role of the conversations that happen between your
office and that decisionmaking and the Tribes that are impacted
by those decisions?
Mr. Reif. Thank you for the question. The Bureau of Indian
Affairs has that role, so I don't have a lot of direct role
with interactions with Tribes. We can provide some information
for the record if that would help.
Ms. Davids. OK. Because it seems as though when you are
listing out the various pieces of the decisionmaking--cost,
criticality--how do the people who are impacted by this
decision, like, what--that should be a line in there.
And that actually leads to a conversation about the self-
governance and also self-determination of Tribes. I know I
already mentioned this, but there is a Tribal Government-to-
Government relationship. There is also a Federal trust
responsibility that I know my colleague, Mr. Stanton, already
mentioned as well.
And when we are thinking about that, earlier, Mr. Garcia,
you mentioned that if the funding, whether it is formula,
percentages, no matter what happens with any funding that we
are doing as the Federal Government with Tribal Governments,
that that might need to be reevaluated. And when it is
reevaluated, that Tribes need to certainly be at the table.
I know that through the long history of the relationship
between the Federal Government and Tribal Governments, that has
not always been the case. But could you talk a little bit about
the role of not just consultation as a method of informing, but
consultation in the true form of making sure that Tribal
Governments have a real say in not just projects but also how
funding happens with the Federal Government?
Mr. Garcia. Thank you for the request. I sense that English
is kind of a weird language, and so consultation is just one
word that has been used more frequently, but I consider the
other word which starts with a ``C'' as a better word that I
think is probably more implementing, more partnerships, and
that is called collaboration.
And so in this case that any time the Federal Government
has initiated an effort to improve Indian country, conditions
in Indian country, funding whatever it may be, healthcare, in
the past years, the Indian community has been left out. It was
almost like somebody else knew better what our needs were than
we did locally.
And so that piece has changed drastically, and the big
implementation part of it occurred in 1975 when the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act was passed.
Therein lies the root for opportunities in terms of the Tribal
Governments in this country are also Governments, and they know
better what their needs are. They know better how to implement
programs. They know how to run the programs more efficiently
than anyone else would.
And the conditioning that Tribes had faced prior to that is
the old format about, OK, the Federal Government knows better
and the BIA knows better, and so it was proven wrong by virtue
of implementing the Indian Self-Determination Act, and that is
what self-governance is all about. So it is extended through
BIA now and through Indian Health Service, but the extension
now we see happening is through the Department of
Transportation.
Ms. Davids. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia. So therein lies the root opportunity for Tribes
to also do something that they know best in their own country,
in their own land. And so if the resources are then provided by
virtue of the partnership between the United States Government
and the Tribe, every Tribal Nation, then we have fixed a large
portion of the root cause of the problem, and so we are headed
in the right direction.
So that is why the Tribes are so adamant about ensuring
that the FAST Act is reauthorized and that the old FAST Act--I
call it old because it was passed in 2015--gets implemented and
gets put in place in June of this year, so thank you.
Ms. Norton. The gentle lady's time is expired.
Ms. Davids. Thank you, Councilman.
I appreciate your indulgence. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Of course. Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair Norton, and
to all of the witnesses that are here today. The plight of the
indigenous peoples and the dire need for both Federal
investment in our Tribal Nations is personal to me. That is
part of why I recently joined the Natural Resources Committee.
I regret to submit that it has been far too long since this
committee conducted a meaningful assessment of the
infrastructure needs of our Tribal Nations and the U.S.
Territories as well. I want to especially thank Chairwoman
Norton and Chairman DeFazio for taking up this matter.
And, Madam Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into
the record two Government Accountability Office reports that
explore the dire need for infrastructure investment in our
Tribes and Territories at this moment.
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
Two Reports by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia
The reports are retained in committee files and are available
online:
``Tribal Consultation: Additional Federal Actions Needed
for Infrastructure Projects,'' GAO-19-22, March 20, 2019. https://
www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-22
``Tribal Transportation: Better Data Could Improve Road
Management and Inform Indian Student Attendance Strategies,'' GAO-17-
423, May 22, 2017. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-423
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
Tribes continue to receive a fraction of Federal Government
assistance that States get in much needed transportation
funding. Right now, 574 Tribes compete for the same inadequate
pots of money. Five hundred seventy-four Tribes compete for
over $505 million in Tribal Transportation Program funding to
complete all of their transportation infrastructure needs. The
same amount of Tribes are forced to divvy up $30 million for
transit funding. The same amount of Tribes have to work with
just $15 million in safety grant funds.
There are over 42,000 miles of Bureau of Indian Affair
roads and about 14,000 miles, as has been pointed out, are
Tribally owned roads, most of which are not even paved. These
are literal dirt roads. We have left our Native brothers and
sisters high and dry. We must do better.
President Clark, I understand that even the modest plus-ups
in funding for some programs are often nullified by the harmful
effects of the obligation limitation deduction, which
permanently removes tens of millions of dollars from the
critical funding programs for Tribes. Can you help me and
members of this committee better understand the mechanisms of
this deduction and how we can make changes to best support our
indigenous brothers and sisters?
Ms. Clark. Thank you. Yes. In the past 4 years of FAST Act,
let's say, that was an increase of--what was it--$45 million
step increases for the past 4 years. Your obligation limitation
took $147.5 million, so really we are back-pedalling. And so
the obligation limitation was exempted all the years up to the
SAFETEA-LU, and then it started implementing the obligation
limitation.
So kind of looking at it is, let's say in 2019, we received
$495 million TTP funding, $49 million of that went to
obligation limitation. So that left us with $446 million left,
which is only $12 million more than 2009, after obligation
limitations, $12 million more. So it does affect the TTP
funding, and if we get that exempt, we could help put that back
in the field to help the Tribes. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you for that. And what can
Congress do to improve pedestrian and road safety on Indian
reservations and in Alaska Native villages? Could we be
collecting more crash data, enable education grants and
consider Tribal set-asides in Federal grant programs?
Ms. Clark. For me?
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Yes, Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Yes. The crash data and data out in Indian
country is very vague. It is collected by all sorts of means--
the law enforcement, IHS, State, county, Federal. So it is
scattered, and so it is not a complete database. So we need
help on getting and collecting data, and plus the education for
safety. And if we could lower the threshold or even the matches
for 100 percent Federal funding for safety projects, then that
would be very helpful out in Indian country so that we could
have safer roads.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you so much to you and Mr.
Garcia as well. I wonder if we are related, Mr. Garcia. And, of
course, to all of the panel that is here to shed light on the
Tribal communities as well as the Territories. Thank you so
much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Time is expired.
Ms. Plaskett.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Commissioner Petty, you mentioned in your testimony the
severe cuts that the Territorial Highway Program has endured
since 1998, when the formula for apportionment for the
Territorial Highway Program was scrapped.
Instead of continuing to receive a percentage of the
highway funding, the allocation for the Territories was frozen
at a flat dollar amount, and that continues to this day. As a
result, the Territorial Highway Program share of overall
Federal-aid Highway Program funding has progressively declined
and, as you said, by 50 percent.
Would you share with us some more details on the impact
that has had on the state of repair of transportation
infrastructure in the Virgin Islands, how far have road repairs
in the Virgin Islands fallen back, and what has been the impact
on the local government's finances?
Mr. Petty. OK. Yes. It has definitely had a negative impact
on our finances. We have had to use our Federal funding in
creative ways like floating GARVEE bonds which then has a
negative impact because that debt service comes directly from
those same transportation funds. So right now we have a 15-year
debt service on one of our projects that basically cuts our $16
million allotment in half.
Ms. Plaskett. That is tremendous.
Mr. Petty. Yes.
Ms. Plaskett. And when you talk about road repairs and the
need, how long has it been that you have actually created a new
road, done more roadwork?
Mr. Petty. Since I have been--a brandnew road, we haven't
built any new roads. We have been reconstructing old roads. No
new roads have been built.
Ms. Plaskett. And how long have you been there?
Mr. Petty. I have been there 22 years, and we have never
done that.
Ms. Plaskett. So no new roads in the 22 years that you have
been there, just repairing?
Mr. Petty. Just repairing. There was one project that was a
30-year project that actually got built on St. Croix which was
the Christiansted Bypass.
Ms. Plaskett. OK, great. Well, not great, but thanks for
the information.
It is not just residents of the Virgin Islands that use our
transportation infrastructure. There are certainly many
visitors to the islands. So when we talk about the usage of our
roads, it is not just the 100,000 people in the Virgin Islands
that use it. How many tourists on average at our highest point
of tourist visits would there have been?
Mr. Petty. We have peaked at 2 million passengers a year in
cruise passengers alone. So the tourist activity can go
anywhere between 2 to 3 million just by the overnights as well.
We also have a very heavy trans-shipment activity that goes
on, that definitely impacts our infrastructure as far as the
amount of heavy equipment on the roads.
Ms. Plaskett. So when you talked about that trans-shipment,
you mentioned in your oral testimony to us that of the U.S.
exports, outside of oil and gas, the Caribbean is the fifth
largest exporter that the U.S. does. And so that means that a
large amount of that is actually trans-shipped through the
Virgin Islands, correct?
Mr. Petty. That is correct.
Ms. Plaskett. And so that then is heavy equipment, barging,
other kinds of issues?
Mr. Petty. Yes, exactly.
Ms. Plaskett. So, you know, when we think about how we
allocate this funding, it is interesting because among the
Territories, we are split equally. But the division, and not to
cast aspersions or try to fight--Madam Chair, I hate that the
Territories seemingly always have to fight over crumbs among
themselves, and we end up in a competition with each other, but
our needs are very different.
Mr. Petty. Yes.
Ms. Plaskett. And one of the other things you talked about
is the fact that we are a ferry system location, right? People
live on multiple islands and it takes--between St. Croix and
St. Thomas, let's say, we know that we have ferries between St.
John and St. Thomas. What is the distance and how long does it
take, and what is the kind of vessel that is needed to go
between these islands?
Mr. Petty. Well, we need a very seaworthy strong vessel.
The waters between St. Croix and St. Thomas are very deep, one
of the largest trenches in the world, and it takes right now
probably 2\1/2\ hours for one of our private companies to get
interisland in a boat.
Ms. Plaskett. So--and that is a Federal highway, correct?
Mr. Petty. It is a Federal route, yes.
Ms. Plaskett. So I know that I am cosponsoring with the
Dean of the House, Don Young, on legislation with regard to
ferry systems. And how will that impact individuals' lives if
you do have a ferry system? What are the kinds of things that
you would have going between the islands, and how does it
affect the economy?
Mr. Petty. Definitely boosts our interisland commerce. The
activities that happen interisland on a governmental basis as
well. On a daily basis I travel almost interisland on one
service provider that is not able to supply the needs of the
community in a way that a ferry service could.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. And, Mr. Reif, if you could very
quickly, what are some of the causes of deferred maintenance in
the National Park Service? The Virgin Islands has a total of
$46 million in deferred maintenance costs.
Mr. Reif. Thank you for the question. Well, I briefly
mentioned earlier that only one-half of 1 percent of our
appropriations are attributed to maintaining our roads, rather,
or all of our infrastructure. As you are probably aware, as
infrastructure is sitting out in the elements, it deteriorates
over time on its own, even if we don't do anything to it, it
will destroy itself, or the weather will destroy it. And as
infrastructure ages, it is more expensive to repair back to the
original condition.
Ms. Plaskett. I am beyond my time, but what would be the
percentage then that you think it should be, you should be
utilizing? And then I would yield back.
Mr. Reif. The study that I referenced in my testimony from
the National Academy of Sciences indicates 2 to 4 percent is
recommended for Federal facilities.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentlewoman. This 50-percent
reduction she indicated is particularly outrageous, to have a
formula, you know, nobody got increases, but the notion of
allocations going down, particularly in perhaps the most
vulnerable part of our country, parts of our country surrounded
by water. So I want to assure the gentlewoman that the
committee is looking closely at that.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you for your leadership on that as
well.
Ms. Norton. The last--oh, no, it is not. We have two more
Members. And next will be Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was
looking at the Trail of Tears. I googled the Trail of Tears,
and I saw where, you know, untold numbers of Native Americans
were driven out of the Southeast United States pursuant to an
act passed by Congress, the Indian Removal Act in 1830. And I
don't know how many Native Americans lived in the country in
1607, but I am told it was around 30 million or so.
But today we are dealing with 5.2 million people who
identify as American Indian or Alaska Native, 570-some-odd
Tribes stretched across 100 million acres of land which we
refer to as Indian country. Scattered among 34 States, I
believe, and roughly 157,000 miles of roads providing access to
Indian land.
Native Americans have been handled, yeah, very badly in
this country, treated very badly since 1607. And 1830, when the
Indian Removal Act was passed, that was during the height of
the slavery period in this country. And so we have a lot to
atone for, a lot to do right by those who had been done wrong
by.
But I want to ask you, Councilman Garcia, under the
Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects
program, the minimum cost of projects is $25 million, with
priority given to projects that cost over $50 million, or have
a higher percentage of matched funds.
Tribes have indicated that the minimum cost is often too
great for them to meet and many projects go unfunded. In your
experience as a councilman, what is the average price for a
Tribal project?
Mr. Garcia. Well, first of all, thank you for the question,
and I am kind of hard of hearing, but I think what I
understand, what is the price of a Tribal project for----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yeah, what is the average cost of a
Tribal project?
Mr. Garcia. Well, the cost varies from location to
location. It is just the--you might say the regional parts of
the United States. For instance, if you want to do a project in
Alaska, where projects of everything are so high, everything
that is related to the project follows that reality. If you are
elsewhere in the country, you follow the rules of the local
economy, if you will, in terms of pricing.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I understand.
Mr. Garcia. And so with that, the other factor, important
one, sir, really important, is the location of the Tribe and
where the project is being held.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I am going to run out of time
in a second. I want to ask you, the problem is with the
threshold being so high for projects that get priority, it
leaves out a lot of smaller projects that really need to be
done. And is the $25 million threshold for funding Tribal
projects more of an impediment than it is helpful?
Mr. Garcia. They--if that number were a little bit larger,
it would be helpful. If it stays at $25 million, then you are
limited in what you can progress with. And so the number of
projects that are available with that amount go down with the
cost of the project, so----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Correct. OK, thank you. Let me ask
this question of Mr. Reif. Mr. Reif, Georgia has over $48
million in transportation-related deferred maintenance needs at
sites managed by the National Park Service; $1.2 million of
that total is at the Martin Luther King, Jr. National
Historical Park in Atlanta, which honors the life and work of
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This unmet need translates into
diminished visitor access at this cherished site. Can you tell
me what your Department is doing to improve visitor access so
that the public can view these historic landmarks and
appreciate the history contained within them?
Mr. Reif. Thank you for the question. I don't have that
information in front of me, but I can provide something for the
record.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Our last Member to ask questions, we will hear
from at this time, Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Holding up the rear. I have sat through
this a little bit. I didn't hear all of it. I have been on the
Committee on Natural Resources for 21 years, so I have an idea
of how the Tribes are treated as well as the Territories, and
they are second-class citizens, as far as Congress goes,
unfortunately. I am wondering whether--the BIA talks to each
other, all the agencies that handle Indian affairs, do they
talk to each other about how to address the shortcomings in
funding of needs?
Mr. Reif. The needs are provided by Congress, so I don't
know that there is a lot of discussion about how to, amongst
the various agencies about how to address different numbers.
Mrs. Napolitano. How many agencies cover Indian affairs?
Mr. Reif. I am aware of the Department of the Interior has
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Bureau of Indian Education is a
separate Bureau. Department of Transportation has agencies that
deal with----
Mrs. Napolitano. Transportation?
Mr. Reif [continuing]. Not a separate agency that deals
with Indian affairs, but they have components that deal with
the Indian Tribes. Health and Human Services has Indian Health
Service. That is the only ones I am aware of. There may be
others.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, do they ever talk to each other? Do
they ever meet to find out how they cover the needs of the
Tribes?
Mr. Reif. Yes, ma'am. My understanding is they do meet
together to talk about----
Mrs. Napolitano. How often?
Mr. Reif. I don't know that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, it is just unfortunate that we are
only dealing with this part in transportation here where you
need other agencies. But we need to make the Tribes aware, if
the Tribes are not able to get the funding because larger
Tribes get a major part of the funding, maybe there has got to
be a way of getting all the small Tribes together, medium-sized
Tribes, and large, and have the same seat at the table, to be
able to advocate for their needs.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Well, I have 2 minutes to answer. Thank you for
the question. Have you heard of the Tribal-Interior Budget
Council?
Mrs. Napolitano. No.
Mr. Garcia. That is an organization that was formed by
efforts of the Tribal Nations of this country whereby we knew
that we were not being consulted and we were not discussing the
true needs of Indian country. And so the Tribal-Interior Budget
Council was formed some time ago. I think it was in 2001, 2002.
Mrs. Napolitano. What do they discuss?
Mr. Garcia. We talk about the funding elements for all
programs within the Department of the Interior that is related
to Tribal funds----
Mrs. Napolitano. It is only Interior. Why not
transportation and health?
Mr. Garcia. We do that for Department of the Interior, and
we do that for the Indian Health Service through the HHS.
Now, we have not done that similar thing for Department of
Transportation. But I think now that the--that was another
reason for requesting that the Office of Self-Governance be
formed as part of the Department of Transportation, then there
would be another element that would help us to discuss more
closely, collaboratively, the needs of Indian country in terms
of infrastructure and what the Department of Transportation can
do. And that leads back to the funding sources which is
congressional, so----
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, time is short, but I would ask----
Mr. Garcia [continuing]. I think that is where we are
headed.
Mrs. Napolitano [continuing]. Ms. Plaskett and the chair to
maybe do a joint hearing, including the Territories, because
they are just as hurting from funding. And when I look at the
report that Mr. Petty submitted, it is criminal.They are
ignoring the needs of the Territories, as well as the Native
American pueblos.
And I think that we ought to start focusing, maybe we can
get the research bureau to give us information so we can talk
intelligently and get other agencies to come in and do their
part.
Madam Chair, I yield back. I am too upset.
Ms. Norton. We will be glad to consider Mrs. Napolitano's
request.
Are there any further questions from members of the
subcommittee?
Seeing none, I would like to thank all our colleagues, but
especially our witnesses for your very helpful testimony today.
I think you could hear from the responses of members of the
committee that members were often hearing what they have not
heard before. Your contribution to today's discussion has been
very enlightening and very helpful to us.
I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the record of
today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to
them in writing from the members of this subcommittee.
And unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15
days for any additional comments and information submitted by
Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Norton, for holding this hearing, and thank you to
our witnesses for being here today.
Today's hearing focuses on the transportation needs of tribes,
territories, and Federal Land Management Agencies.
Each of these types of entities face unique transportation
challenges.
The perspectives expressed today will be valuable in helping us
shape or modify these tools as part of a long-term surface
transportation reauthorization.
In order to be successful, we must work together to develop a bill
that has robust bipartisan support.
We must work together to sustain our core highway programs so that
they can continue to deliver the resources needed for our communities
and a national system.
Federal lands and tribal areas, much like rural areas, need
dedicated resources as well as flexibility to address their specific
transportation needs.
We must also work to provide adequate resources to our Federal Land
Management Agencies so Americans can enjoy Federal lands.
Thank you to our witnesses for coming today, and thank you again
for holding this hearing.
Letter of February 6, 2020, from the National Parks Second Century
Action Coalition, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton
February 6, 2020.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Chairman,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chairwoman,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Sam Graves,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rodney Davis,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman DeFazio, Subcommittee Chairwoman Holmes Norton and
Ranking Member Graves and Subcommittee Ranking Member Davis:
Our 100+ year old National Park Service (NPS) is challenged by
aging infrastructure, visitation pressures, and decades of inconsistent
funding for maintenance needs. As a result, the agency cannot keep pace
with repairs at its more than 400 park units across the country, which
has led to a maintenance backlog estimated at $11.9 billion (fiscal
year 2018).
On behalf of our organizations, members, and supporters, we
respectfully request that you include the following provisions in a
national infrastructure proposal or surface transportation
reauthorization to stem the backlog of repairs at our parks and public
lands.
National Infrastructure Proposal
The National Park System accommodates hundreds of millions of
visitors annually and contains infrastructure that you would find in
many small cities and towns: roads, tunnels, bridges, parking lots,
electrical and water systems, wastewater systems, and visitor
amenities. In addition, the Park System includes campgrounds, historic
structures, iconic memorials, thousands of miles of trails,
battlefields and cemeteries, marinas and seashores. Over half of these
park assets--which provide for visitor safety and access, among other
uses--need repair.
When the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee crafts its
part of a national infrastructure package, we request that the
Committee supports the inclusion of H.R. 1225, the Restore Our Parks
and Public Lands Act, in the final proposal. The legislation seeks to
address priority repairs within our national parks and other public
lands, as well as Bureau of Indian Education schools. It would direct
up to $6.5 billion over five years to a deferred maintenance fund and
provide parity between transportation and non-transportation related
projects.
Surface Transportation Reauthorization
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act includes
mandatory funding for NPS transportation projects--this consistent and
reliable funding helps park managers better plan for and carry-out
projects. However, it is not nearly enough to address crucial repair
needs. Transportation assets within the National Park System--paved
roads, parking lots, tunnels, and bridges--account for over half of the
total backlog, or $6.15 billion (fiscal year 2018). This number does
not include adjacent trails and seawalls that could be eligible for
funding under Title 23 of the Act.
As the Committee works on the FAST Act reauthorization, our groups
request that it include dedicated funding of $4.7 billion to address
deferred maintenance at NPS' highest and high priority transportation-
related assets (Figure 1).
Figure 1: NPS Highest and High Priority Transportation Needs--FY 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Parking Lot Road Bridge Road Tunnel Roads Grand Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest\\....................................................... $243,283,487 $540,979,361 $20,349,480 $2,463,777,470 $3,268,389,798
High\\.......................................................... $239,161,463 $196,852,200 $1,979,258 $1,061,178,143 $1,499,171,064
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest + High................................................ $482,444,950 $737,831,562 $22,328,738 $3,524,955,612 $4,767,560,862
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Source: National Park Service.
\**\ Transportation-related assets include all road bridges, all road tunnels, and any roads and parking lots classified by NPS as ``paved'' or ``paved
& unpaved''. Roads and parking lots classified as ``unpaved'' are not included
Transportation Mega Projects
The Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects
(NSFLTP) program addresses transportation ``mega projects'' within NPS,
Bureau of Land Management, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Tribal lands, and are defined as those projects that go beyond the
scope of core agency funding. The FAST Act authorized this program at
$100 million per year. Agencies and Tribes compete for program funds,
which are appropriated annually. Transportation projects eligible for
funding must have a price tag of at least $25 million, with those
costing $50 million or more given priority. The first phase of the
current grant cycle has received 39 grant applications that would have
a total of $2.26 billion in NSFLTP program costs, far exceeding the
existing authorized and appropriated amounts.
We urge the committee to fund the NSFLTP program at no less than
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee-passed level of $350
million in annual funding. From that amount, we ask that at least $200
million be designated as mandatory spending. This will better address
the significant discrepancy that exists between transportation
maintenance and construction and core funding levels and provide
managers with consistent, reliable funding they need to plan projects.
Our national parks and public lands generate billions of dollars
for local economies in tourism dollars, jobs and tax revenue. Repairing
and maintaining them is a smart investment, and will create additional
infrastructure-related jobs, as well as preserve visitor access and
resources.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
American Hiking Society.
American Society of Landscape Architects.
Appalachian Trail Conservancy.
Atomic Heritage Foundation.
Coalition to Protect America's National Parks.
Evangelical Environmental Network.
Friends of Acadia.
Friends of Fort McHenry.
Friends of Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park.
International Inbound Travel Association.
National Park Hospitality Association.
National Parks Conservation Association.
National Tour Association.
National Trust for Historic Preservation.
North Cascades Institute.
Outdoor Industry Association.
Outdoor Recreation Roundtable.
RV Industry Association.
Scenic America.
Southeast Tourism Society.
The Corps Network.
The Friends of Dyke Marsh.
United States Tour Operators Association.
Washington's National Park Fund.
Statement of Harold C. Frazier, Chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Harold Frazier and I am the Chairman of the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (CRST). I am pleased to provide this
testimony to the subcommittee illustrating the desperate need for
investments in transportation infrastructure at the Cheyenne River
Reservation and in other Tribal communities across the country and
needed changes to federal transportation programs serving Tribes. The
Cheyenne River Indian Reservation is one of the largest reservations in
the United States. Our Reservation is 2.8 million acres or 4,375 square
miles and includes Dewey County and Ziebach Counties, South Dakota. At
2.8 million acres, our land base is more than three and half times the
size of Rhode Island (776,000 acres) and in between the size of
Delaware (1.6 million acres) and Connecticut (3.5 million acres).
The Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation is home to four bands of the
Teton Sioux--the Mnicoujou, Siha Sapa, Sans Arc, and Oohenumpa--and is
in a rural area of north-central South Dakota. Roughly 35 percent of
the population is under 20 years of age and with an extraordinarily
high unemployment rate, ours are among the poorest counties in the
United States.
As you can imagine, on a rural reservation of this size roads are
absolutely critical to all aspects of everyday life linking our people
with schools, jobs, medical services and commerce. Central
thoroughfares that become impassable lead to much longer commutes for
our citizens to get to school or work, complicate the delivery of goods
to market and creates a life-threatening situation by lengthening
response times for our emergency responders. Our roads are in such bad
shape that one of my Councilmen, showing a bit of grim humor, recently
said to me, ``You know Mr. Chairman, in England they drive on the left
side of the road, but here at Cheyenne River we drive on what's left of
our roads!''
For several years now, our annual allocation from the Department of
Transportation's Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) has hovered around
$2.2 million. The Bureau of Indian Affairs road division on our
reservation also gets about $500,000 that is dedicated to maintenance.
Because the BIA dollars are so small, we are forced to use $600,000
(the maximum allowable) of our DOT funds to supplement the BIA
maintenance funds. This leaves only $1.6 million remaining to try and
address a backlog of $100 million in immediately identifiable road
repair projects that we have determined to be emergency in nature. For
a 2.8 million acre reservation, this is an absurdly low number. This
level of funding means that our Tribe simply does not have the
resources to ensure even the most basic maintenance and safety on our
roadways.
While the comparison is admittedly not a valid one due to the large
number of roads and much larger populations of the states I referenced
above, it may be at least somewhat illustrative to do some comparisons.
Connecticut gets $553 million a year from the Highway Trust Fund and
recently announced a $12 billion 5-year capital transportation budget.
Delaware gets $186 million from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and has
announced a $4 billion capital budget for transportation over the next
7 years. Again, we get only $2.2 million from the HTF. We have no 5- or
7-year capital budget because on a reservation with rampant poverty
there is no tax base or ability to issue and pay off municipal bonds or
set aside capital funds over multiple years as states like those
referenced above can do.
There are 550 miles of county roads on our reservation and Ziebach
and Dewey Counties do try and take care of those roads but as I
mentioned those are two of the poorest counties in the United States
and they do not have a revenue stream capable of generating sufficient
funds for their roads and it should not come as a surprise for you to
know that county roads on Indian reservations are often not the
counties highest priorities. There are 367 miles of official BIA and
Tribal roads that are in the National Tribal Transportation Facility
Inventory (NTTFI) (see discussion below) and another 800 to 1,000 miles
of gravel or dirt roads that are not in the NTTFI and for which we do
not get a penny from either the county or the DOT. We could endeavor to
add those roads to the NTTFI but it would be to no avail as the formula
is frozen and will not generate money even if we could add those miles.
Pedestrians on Indian reservations die at rate that is 80% higher
than pedestrian deaths off reservation. Why? Generally, speaking we
have no sidewalks, no shoulders, no crosswalks, no guardrails and no
overpasses. For motor vehicle deaths. Indian people die at twice the
national average and in the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains regions
that figure is three to four times the national average.
Last year storms and flooding led to the failure of culverts and
the washout of several roads. In addition to a lack of funds for basic
maintenance and repair we have also had great trouble in qualifying for
and accessing U.S. Department of Transportation programs designated for
such emergencies, including the Emergency Relief for Federally Owned
Roads (ERFO) Program and we've run into other obstacles trying to
secure help from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Madam
Chair, how will we ever get sufficient funds to repair our roads? What
do we tell our people about how this situation can ever be resolved?
Unsafe roads pose a grave to danger to our children and first
responders
To illustrate the dangers posed by crumbling and substandard roads
at CRST and the lack of resources to fix them I would like to tell the
subcommittee about a road known as BIA Route 11. It leads to the Takini
School, which houses Kindergarten through 12th grade students. Route 11
is hilly and has so many problems that during winter weather, the bus
driver stops at the bottom of steeper stretches of Route 11 and unloads
the children. He then guns the bus to the top of the hill. The children
walk up the hill and get back on the bus again and he repeats this same
routine at the next hill. He doesn't do this because the bus lacks the
power, he does it because he is fearful the bus will slide off the side
of the road, a road with almost no shoulders and drop offs on either
side. His theory is that if the bus slides off the road and flips over,
it is better that he be the only passenger. Because of poor shoulders,
flip-overs are common in Indian country. In inclement weather, vendors
often refuse to deliver their products--including food for lunches--to
this school because they are fearful of driving on the road. On those
days, they will leave their product in the town of Howes, which is 32
miles away, or the town of Faith, which is 40 miles away. School
employees will then have to undertake a 64- or 80-mile round trip to
retrieve vendors' products.
The Government Accountability Office has found that road conditions
adversely affect student attendance and rough road conditions can also
increase maintenance needs for school vehicles (see GAO Report 17-423).
Including targeted funding in the next surface transportation
reauthorization bill for improvements to school bus routes on Indian
Reservations would be one way to help us ensure that our children can
make it to school safely and in a timely manner. Senator Tom Udall has
been pushing this idea for a few years.
Bad roads lead to death and injury among our Indian people; they
disrupt education; on bad days they make getting to work impossible;
they greatly delay or prohibit emergency response vehicles from
responding in a timely basis and they serve as a major disincentive to
economic development and make it impossible to entice businesses to
locate on such lands. Chairman Norton and Committee Members, we
appreciate the discussions that the Congress has undertaken in trying
to figure out what to do about the employment picture in much of Indian
country. These discussions have led other congressional committees to
enact tax credits as a means of encouraging economic development. While
appreciated and used by a few fortunate tribes, I must respectfully
ask--even with tax credits--what business is going to locate on a
reservation lacking in this most basic aspect of infrastructure?
We already are lacking in nearby hospitals or clinics throughout
much of Indian country but when ambulances endeavoring to retrieve and
deliver a person injured in an auto accident or medical emergency have
to traverse roads like Route 11--which in the best of circumstances
greatly slows them down and in the worst circumstances makes access
nearly impossible--you can imagine what effect that has on the ability
to save a badly injured resident. Engineering estimates are that it
will cost around $12 million to rebuild Route 11 to safe conditions.
That is many times what we receive annually through the TTP for our
total road budget for the entire reservation; and Route 11 is only one
of several roads that are in dangerous condition and in dire need of
immediate repairs.
Compounding the problem of lack of funding through the TTP is the
fact that funding for BIA and Tribal road ``maintenance'' has largely
remained stagnant and not even kept up with inflation in recent years.
Despite that fact the Bureau of Indian Affairs admits that only 16% of
BIA roads are in ``acceptable'' condition funding for the road
maintenance program, which is funded on a discretionary basis each year
by Congress through the Interior Appropriations bill, saw only a
nominal increase in FY2020 to $36.06 million. As a result of years of
underfunding, there is a huge backlog of repair and maintenance needs
for BIA and Tribal roads. Large land-based tribes are forced to
transfer our TTP dollars to Tribal road maintenance, with the result
that our Tribes are falling farther and farther behind on Tribal road
preservation and improvement programs. In recent years, tens of
millions of TTP construction dollars were repurposed for road
maintenance but the figures are still so low that Indian tribes and the
BIA spend less than one-tenth of the amount per mile for maintenance
than states and counties do. The attached chart shows that if you
combine BIA owned and Tribally owned roads together they get $400 per
mile for maintenance. Compare this County roads across the US which
average $16,600 per mile for maintenance and roads in metropolitan
counties that get nearly $30,000 a mile for maintenance. Is there any
wonder why only 16% of BIA roads are in acceptable condition? See the
more detailed discussion on page 4 in the testimony presented at this
hearing by the Inter-Tribal Transportation Association on this point.
Road Maintenance Spending Per Mile
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sources: *Federal Highway Administration
**1997 USDA Report: Rural Roads and Bridges_Financing Local Roads and
Bridges in Rural Areas
Tribal Transportation Program Funding Formula
The current statutory TTP funding formula found at 23 USC 202(b)
which is used to determine tribal shares from the TTP program is not
working for large land base tribes like CRST with predominantly BIA and
Tribal road miles in our inventories. Initially, the primary goal of
the TTP was to focus on planning, design, and construction of BIA and
Tribal roadways on Indian Reservations. TTP formula shares were
supposed to support BIA and Tribal road miles owned and maintained by
Indian Tribes. However, flaws in the current formula have allowed a
large share of the funds to be diverted as routes in the official BIA
National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory (NTTFI) eligible for
funding were opened to allow significant increases of roadways under
other jurisdictions. This resulted in the NTTFI ballooning to 162,000
miles of roadways, of which only 31,386 miles are BIA roads and 27,466
are tribal roads, with the remaining being county, state, and municipal
roads. This change caused a major shift in funding, bringing increases
to places with little to no BIA or Tribal road mileage leading to
county, state, and municipal road mileage to generate funding shares at
the same rate as BIA and Tribal road miles. This is grossly unfair and
an injustice as county, state and municipal roads can access funding
through other sources while the TTP is the sole source of funding to
support our BIA and Tribal roads.
This is in great part because the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
allowed the distribution formula to be manipulated and gamed. It is
inconceivable for instance that the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma with
ZERO miles of BIA or Tribal roads that they are responsible for, is
getting $13 million dollars a year from the TTP or a Tribe in
California with only five miles of road in the NTTFI is receiving over
$4.3 million, when the large land based Tribes in the Great Plains
Region and others, with hundreds and even thousands of miles of roads
in the BIA Roads Inventory are receiving so much less! It is pure
politics and a manipulation of the system that allows tribes in
Oklahoma with no BIA or Tribal roads that they are responsible for
getting figures as high as $13 million while we receive $2.2 million.
It is further manipulation when the distribution formula includes
population figures that include people that are distantly related to
those found in early 1900 Dawes Rolls. An aspect of tribal sovereignty
includes each tribe determining its own membership criteria and the
history of how the US treated the tribes in Oklahoma is both horrific
and part of the problem. However, when that tribal member enrollment
system leads to the type of inequity in allocating roads money as
described above, it is impossible for us to not point this out. Our
only source of money for BIA and Tribal roads is the TTP or the BIA
maintenance budget. Roads in Oklahoma that are fully owned and operated
by the state and counties receive millions of dollars from the state
and counties and those roads then get another $74.8 million from the
TTP. Congress should not perpetrate this inequity. It should also be
observed that tribes in Oklahoma generate over $4 billion from their
many casinos and while the federal government's commitment to Indian
country should never be means tested, the reality is that the tribes in
Oklahoma would be just fine without the $74.8 million in TTP money and
the state of Oklahoma and its counties, just like every other state,
should take care of its roads and not be taking money set aside for BIA
and Tribal roads and using it on it state and county roads. We are
quite sure that South Dakota would love to get tens of millions of
dollars from the TTP every year for its roads but that is not what
those funds are intended for.
We also don't have hundreds of miles of ``proposed'' roads that
stay in proposed status year after year, generating money through the
BIA Inventory, even though the road in question will never be built.
Other Tribes manipulated the system by adding hundreds of miles of
roads ``accessing'' their reservation without proper limits on what is
included and then further include the vehicle miles driven by the
mostly non-Indians who travel those roads. The existing formula also
freezes in place the roads that were identified in the BIA inventory in
2012, not allowing us to add real BIA and Tribal roads while also
freezing in place the state and county roads disingenuously claimed by
other Tribes in their inventories. Because of this inequity, even
though funding for the TTP (and formerly, and more correctly, known as
the Indian Reservation Road (IRR) program) increased from $300 million
in FY2005 to $505 million in FY2020, our allocation has barely changed.
This must not continue! The basis of the formula must focus on BIA and
Tribal roads (not state and county roads) and on total road miles on
our homelands, not populations where reservations do not even exist.
During the hearing Congressman Pete Stauber of Minnesota asked how
the statutory changes made to the formula (via MAP 21 and the FAST Act)
for allocating money among tribes had impacted things and he referenced
the fact that tribes in Minnesota did not do well by those changes.
There is a long and complicated answer to his question that the
witnesses didn't really respond to. To try and summarize what has
occurred we offer the following. TEA 21 (the 1998 Highway bill)
authorized the creation of a negotiated rulemaking committee to
determine an allocation methodology for Indian country funds. That
committee took four years and finally issued the Indian Reservation
Road (IRR) funding rule in 2004. A major problem was that after the
committee issued the draft rule but before it was published and
finalized, the then Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, who was
from Oklahoma, made changes that the committee had not recommended.
Those changes ended up benefitting tribes in Oklahoma and allowed for
the abuse of the formula that we have described previously. One change
was to Question 10 in the negotiating rulemaking which ultimately
allowed tribes to the claim 100% of state and county roads in IRR
Inventories of their Cost to Construct and Vehicle Miles Traveled. That
was not supposed to be the case nor were the inclusion of perpetually
``proposed roads'' that will never be built or extensive ``access
roads.'' After years of tribes from Minnesota as well as most other
large land based tribes in the Dakotas, Montana, Utah, Idaho, New
Mexico, Arizona and elsewhere complaining, Senator Baucus, then Chair
of the Senate Subcommittee, decided that the BIA was incapable of
standing up to the pressure from tribes who had been abusing the
formula and determined that the Congress had no choice but to fix the
formula statutorily. At the time, his ranking member was Senator Inhofe
of Oklahoma, who was determined to protect allocations going to
Oklahoma. Their attempt at fixing the formula contained some changes
that were helpful but ultimately, particularly with Inhofe's insistence
that it continue to rely on population counts (see discussion about the
Dawes Act and the fact that the Cherokee Nation, while having no roads,
has close to 300,000 enrolled members), resulted in the formula not
benefitting tribes with significant road mileage to the extent those
tribes had hoped a statutory formula might do.
Specifically, we ask that you amend the formula found in 23 U.S.C.
202(b)(1)(B) so that 80 percent of the funds go toward BIA and Tribal
roads and/or that you change the existing formula so that 60 percent of
the funding is associated with road miles, 20 percent with population
and 20 percent be allocated to the various BIA regions. We also request
that you amend the basis for the formula found at 23 U.S.C.
202(b)(3)(A) to eliminate the 20 percent funding share allocation using
the former Tribal Transportation Allocation Methodology (TTAM) formula
from the IRR by fiscal year 2023, while also reducing the 30 percent
supplemental allocation set-aside found at 23 U.S.C. 202(b)(3)(C)(I) to
approximately 10 percent. These changes would greatly increase the
share of funds being distributed to BIA and Tribal roads via the new
TTP formula. We also ask that you open up the NTTFI to allow Tribes to
add BIA and Tribal road miles to their respective inventories.
Obligation Limitation
We request that you support exempting the TTP from the annual
Obligation Limitation. As you know, the obligation limitation is a
financing mechanism that effectively deducts a certain percentage of
funds each fiscal year from the TTP Program, including the TTP Bridge
Program and the TTP Safety Program Funds. In FY2019 alone over $49
million was withdrawn from the TTP program due to operation of the
obligation limitation deduction--this is nearly ten percent of the
total funding allocated to the TTP! Prior to passage of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, the
then Indian Reservation Roads Program was appropriately exempt from the
obligation limitation annual deduction. The inclusion of the TTP
Program in the obligation limitation results in the loss of tens of
millions of dollars of otherwise authorized and much needed funding for
Tribal transportation projects every year. Reinstating the exemption
for Tribal transportation programs would thereby assure that the TTP
Program is funded at its full and authorized levels. The deduction for
the obligation limitation has a profound impact on the overall TPP but
is such a small amount in the larger context of the more than $40
billion Federal Aid Highway Program that it wouldn't even be missed.
Finally, tribes, unlike states, do not get any of Obligation Limitation
back in August when the HTF funds are recalculated each year.
New funding needed to address culverts on Tribal lands
Many culverts on Indian reservations are over half a century old
and are falling apart, when culverts fail (and this is happening
frequently) they can and have taken the road with them. Last July two
people drowned on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota
when culverts failed, and a road collapsed sending vehicles into the
body of water below. Miraculously, two others were saved. Deaths like
these due to poor and dangerous road conditions are sadly occurring all
too frequently on our nation's Indian reservations. At Cheyenne River
we have dozens of culverts that have either washed out last year due to
storms or flooding or remain at-risk. Yet, there is no dedicated source
of funding available to Tribes to repair and upgrade culverts. We urge
Congress to include funding in the next highway bill for improvements
to culverts along BIA and Tribal roads.
During the hearing, Congressman Gary Palmer repeatedly asked the
tribal witnesses if there were other sources of funding that tribes
could use to supplement their funding from the TTP. The answer varies
widely from tribe to tribe and is entirely dependent on the wealth or
lack thereof of any given tribe. Tribes with income from oil and gas
might have sufficient resources to supplement the meager allocation
from DOT and BIA and tribes with resources from casinos, such as the
Cherokee of Oklahoma and many casino tribes in California, most
certainly do (although as explained earlier, the Cherokee do not own
roads nor are their BIA roads, that they are responsible for). Other
tribes may have revenue sharing with their states on state gas taxes,
but the tribal share of those funds rarely amounts to enough money to
undertake much serious road construction. Certainly, most tribes with
some source of independent revue likely are supplementing their TTP
dollars to at least some nominal extent but impoverished tribes such as
the Cheyenne River Sioux, do not have revenue that would allow us to do
so.
Flexibility in Tribal Access to U.S. Department of Transportation Grant
Programs
While Congress has certainly been well intentioned when dedicating
funding to national infrastructure programs like the Better Utilizing
Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Transportation
Discretionary Grants (formerly known as TIGER Grants) and the
Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects Program
(NSFLTP), few tribes have been able to access these programs due to
onerous matching requirements, restrictions on use of the funding and
the lack of tribal set-asides. For example, of the 55 BUILD Grants that
DOT awarded funding for in FY2019 only one was a Tribal project. We
would urge Congress to make changes to these programs by waiving the
requirement for Tribes to provide matching funds, allowing design and
engineering costs to be an eligible use of grant funds and creating a
Tribal set aside of funding to give Tribes a fair shot at accessing
funding through these critical infrastructure programs.
Thank you again for holding this important hearing and for allowing
us to submit testimony outlining the many needs at Cheyenne River. We
look forward to working with the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on reauthorization of surface transportation legislation.
Statement of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
The following testimony is submitted on behalf of the Federal
Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC) for the record of your February 6th
hearing on Assessing the Transportation Needs of Tribes, Federal Land
Management Agencies, and U.S. Territories. The Federal Forest Resource
Coalition is a unique national coalition of forest products companies,
loggers, trade associations, local governments, and conservation groups
who support better management of our Federal lands, particularly the
National Forests, BLM O&C and Public Domain timberlands.
Your Committee has rightly identified increased funding for the
Forest Service through the Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP)
as a high priority for the 2020 highway bill. We strongly endorse this
approach.
Forest Service Roads Funding
The Forest Service uses timber receipts, discretionary appropriated
funds, and mandatory spending from the Federal Lands Transportation
Program to maintain over 380,000 miles of roads on the National Forest
System. Overall, the Forest Service has a $5.7 billion maintenance
backlog (Roads, Trails, and Facilities), of this, 70 percent, or $3.99
Billion, is road maintenance. 22 percent of this road system is usable
by low-clearance passenger vehicles (cars). This is 83,600 miles. Just
more than half is open and available for ``high clearance'' vehicles
(i.e.--off road capable SUV's, etc.).
Timber Receipts
The road system on the National Forest System was essentially built
using timber receipts. From 1962 until 1988, the National Forest System
sold well over 10 Billion Board Feet of timber annually, with gross
timber receipts frequently exceeding $1 Billion annually. 10 percent of
the gross funds were made available for road construction, maintenance,
and repair. Beginning in 1990, however, timber sales from the National
Forests declined precipitously, falling from 8.4 Billion Board Feet in
1989 to 1.5 Billion Board Feet in 2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross Timber Roads Funding ($m)
Federal Fiscal Year: Receipts ($m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980............................. $1,948 $194.80
1985............................. $558 $55.80
1990............................. $1,609 $160.90
1995............................. $369 $36.90
2000............................. $187 $18.70
2005............................. $248 $24.80
2010............................. $136 $13.60
2015............................. $200 $20
2019............................. $186 $18.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available timber revenue for road work dropped by more than 90
percent over this 40 year period. With the Forest Service concentrating
its harvest efforts on lower value, smaller diameter second growth
timber, timber receipts are not going to consistently produce the
revenue needed for much of the road work on the National Forest System.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Discretionary Funding
The other funding stream available for maintenance and repair of
the National Forest System roads is discretionary spending.
Discretionary funding for roads has stagnated since 2010. The Roads
program was funded at $235 million in FY 2009. By FY 2017, funding had
dropped to $175 million. In Fiscal Year 2018, the $40 million ``Legacy
Roads & Trails'' program was folded into the CI&M-Roads line. Adjusting
for inflation, discretionary funding for road repair, maintenance, and
reconstruction is down by almost 38 percent since FY 2009 (assuming the
$40 million for Legacy Roads & Trails still focuses mostly on
decommissioning and fish passage).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mandatory Spending
The Federal Lands Transportation Program provides annual mandatory
funding to five Interior agencies and the USDA Forest Service. The
below table shows the Forest Service only receives about 7 percent of
these funds, even though its road system is considerably larger than
the other Federal land management agencies.
The National Forest System roads, as noted, includes over 83,000
miles of passenger vehicle accessible roads. This is almost ten times
as many miles of roads as the National Park Service, which receives 80
percent of Federal Land Transportation Program funding. Overall,
according to the National Parks Conservation Association, Roads,
Bridges, and Parking areas account for 52 percent of the overall Park
Service Maintenance Backlog; this amounts to $6.24 Billion. The Forest
Service Roads backlog of $3.99 Billion is 64 percent of this total.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPS................................................ $268M $276M $284M $292M $300M $1.420B
FWS................................................ $30M $30M $30M $30M $30M $150M
USFS............................................... $15M $16M $17M $18M $19M $85M
BLM, USACE, BOR, and IFAs.......................... $22M $23M $24M $25M $26M $120M
------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ $335M $345M $355M $365M $375M $1.775B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FLTP expires at the end of 2020. FFRC and our partners are
under no illusion that the FS would achieve parity with the Park
Service in the this program: however, at least a tripling of the
available funding could begin to address the disparity and meet public
needs for recreational, firefighting, and resource management access.
The Need for Better Road Maintenance Far Outstrips Available Resources
With limited timber receipts and discretionary appropriations, the
current level of funding through the Federal Lands Transportation
program is inadequate to the needs on our National Forests. This
includes the need for better resource protection and management, the
need for timber access, and the need for wildfire suppression access.
Frequently, the Forest Service will leave a failing road in place
when proposing to manage an overstocked forest; FFRC has hosted field
tours in Oregon where the Forest Service required a company to employ
helicopter logging rather than repair one culvert which would have
enabled the sale to be harvested using ground based equipment. That
means the Forest left a failing culvert in place while treating a fire
prone stand. The reduced fuel load is certainly good news, however, a
failing culvert can threaten water quality over the long term.
Requiring helicopter logging limits the amount a company is willing to
pay, thus reducing receipts to the government, payments to counties,
and funds available for resource improvement (Knutsen-Vandenberg funds,
for instance).
Deteriorating road access harms sportsmen, hikers, anglers, and
others who want to access our public lands. Reduced road access
increases the costs and risks associated with search and rescue
operations on already-remote and hard to access National Forests. And
lack of road access stymies firefighting efforts, forcing the Forest
Service to rely more heavily on expensive aviation resources.
Increased Funding for the Forest Service through the FLTP is Broadly
Supported
As you saw in the attached February 4th letter, there is broad
support from conservation groups, industry, and State governments for
increased funding for the Forest Service through the FLTP. It is not
often that groups as diverse as the Nature Conservancy and National
Wildlife Federation endorse the same priorities as the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association and the public lands timber industry. We
urge you to leverage this broad support to meaningfully increase the
funding available for the Forest Service FLTP.
Attachment--Letter of February 4, 2020, Referenced in Previous
Paragraph
February 4, 2020.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Chairman,
Hon. Sam Graves,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
As the Committee works to assemble a highway bill that modernizes
our transportation infrastructure, the undersigned groups are writing
to urge you to address a pressing issue that is vital to the millions
of Americans who benefit from the many uses and products that healthy,
well managed national forests can provide. A sound road system is
needed to help prevent damage to vital water provisions and to provide
recreation, forestry and fire fighting access that are key to rural
economies and downstream urban citizens.
The recently released ``Moving Forward Framework'' acknowledges the
need to ramp up funding for the Federal Lands Transportation Program.
As the Committee crafts the bill, we urge you to direct a more
equitable portion of the Federal Land Transportation Assistance Program
to the extensive National Forest System (NFS) road network. The road
system managed by the USDA Forest Service has over 370,000 miles of
roads. The agency estimates its backlog at $3 billion just for the
approximately 65,000 miles of passenger car accessible roads, which
only represents under 18 percent of the entire NFS road system.
Much of the current road system was built and maintained from
timber receipts, a model that was viable when the Forest Service sold a
much larger and much more valuable timber program. This timber sale
program generated more than $50 million a year in funding for road
construction, maintenance, and repair, and many years produced well
over $100 million. In more recent years, these funds have usually been
well below $20 million annually.
The other funding stream available for maintenance and repair of
the NFS roads is discretionary appropriations. Discretionary funding
for roads has stagnated since 2010. The Roads program was funded at
$235 million in FY 2009. By FY 2017, funding had dropped to $175
million. In Fiscal Year 2018, the $40 million ``Legacy Roads & Trails''
program was folded into the CI&M-Roads line. Adjusting for inflation,
discretionary funding for road repair, maintenance, and reconstruction
is down by almost 38 percent since FY 2009.
As you know, the Federal Lands Transportation Program provides
annual mandatory funding to five Interior agencies and the USDA Forest
Service. The Forest Service only receives about seven percent of these
funds, even though it's road system is considerably larger than the
other federal land management agencies combined. The NFS roads, as
noted, includes 65,000 miles of passenger vehicle accessible roads.
This is almost six times as many miles of roads as the National Park
Service, which receives 80 percent of Federal Land Transportation
Program funding. Overall, according to the National Parks Conservation
Association, roads, bridges, and parking areas account for 52 percent
of the overall Park Service Maintenance Backlog; this amounts to $6.2
billion. The Forest Service maintenance backlog is $5.2 billion and the
roads backlog of $3 billion only for under 18 percent of the NFS roads
system. The backlog would be significantly bigger if the agency were to
include the remaining more than 305,000 miles of system roads and
60,000 miles of unclassified roads.
The undersigned groups urge you to use the upcoming highway and
infrastructure legislation to significantly increase the available
funding for the Forest Service in this program to address the disparity
and meet public needs for recreational, firefighting, and resource
management access.
Sincerely,
Federal Forest Resource Coalition.
The Nature Conservancy.
Public Lands Council.
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
Forest Resources Association.
National Wildlife Federation.
National Association of State Foresters.
National Cattelmen's Beef Association.
Letter of February 7, 2019, from Emily Douce, Director, Operations and
Park Funding, National Parks Conservation Association, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 7, 2019.
Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and members of the
Committee,
On behalf of our more than 1.3 million members and supporters
nationwide, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
appreciates the opportunity to provide our views regarding the needs of
the National Park System as the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure works to address our nation's infrastructure and
reauthorize the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. Since
1919, NPCA has been the leading voice of the American people in
protecting and enhancing our National Park System.
In summary, we make the following recommendations:
Provide investments to national parks in any
infrastructure package, particularly to address deferred maintenance
projects and water infrastructure in and near parks. Investments should
include funding for both planning and permitting as well as
construction dollars;
Increase the Federal Lands Transportation Program funding
to $920 million per year and dedicate $25 million a year from that
allocation for transit;
Increase the Federal Lands Access Program funding to $300
million per year and consider program modifications for a more
equitable allocation;
Increase the Nationally Significant Federal Lands and
Tribal Projects program funding to $350 million per year, with $200
million per year designated as mandatory spending;
Establish a competitive wildlife crossing pilot program
to reduce the number of wildlife-vehicle collisions and improve
wildlife habitat connectivity; require relevant agencies to conduct a
study of methods to reduce collisions; implement new workforce
trainings; standardize the collection of wildlife collision data
nationally; and integrate wildlife-vehicle collision reduction;
Preserve the protections and public involvement provided
by our nation's environmental laws, including the National
Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered
Species Act;
Prioritize projects that improve energy efficiency and
climate mitigation and resiliency needs.
National Park Service Investments
For more than a century, our national parks have remained America's
favorite places, important pieces of our natural, historical and
cultural heritage set aside for future generations to explore and
enjoy. But as record crowds enjoy our national parks, they find the
facilities in the parks have become worn and inadequate to meet the
demand.
Fixing our national park infrastructure is a good economic
investment for our country. National parks are an important part of the
tourism economy and extremely popular with Americans. National parks
received more than 331 million visits in 2017 that generated $35
billion for the U.S. economy. For every dollar Congress invests in the
National Park Service, $10 is returned to the American economy, with
much of that money directly benefiting parks' gateway communities. With
national parks supporting nearly 300,000 private-sector jobs annually,
these economic engines are worthy of a robust infrastructure investment
in 2019 and beyond.
Infrastructure Repair Challenges Facing our National Parks
The National Park System is second only to the Department of
Defense in the amount of federal infrastructure it manages. In total,
the agency is responsible for protecting and managing over 75,000
assets which include roads and bridges, trails, historic buildings,
employee housing, wastewater and electrical systems, military
fortifications, monuments and memorials, and seawalls.
Needed repairs range from deteriorating water systems to crumbling
roads and trails to antiquated visitor centers that are in desperate
need of updating. For instance, nearly 40% of the 10,000 miles of park
roads are in poor to fair condition.
The backlog of infrastructure projects at our national parks now
totals $11.9 billion, a rise of over $300 million since last year (see
chart below). These projects are not cyclical repairs that parks attend
to constantly, but the more serious repairs that have been awaiting
action for more than a year because of inadequate funding. The National
Park System is a clear example of what happens when nothing or not
enough is done to maintain infrastructure.
National Park Service Asset Inventory
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/upload/NPS-Asset-
Inventory-Summary-FY18-Servicewide_2018.pdf
Examples of Deferred Maintenance in National Parks (from FY17 data):
Mount Rainier National Park (Washington): Trails in Mount
Rainier National Park are heavily used by visitors and are in dire need
of upkeep. Without maintenance funding, the park uses recreation fees
to complete critical projects and address unexpected needs but is
unable to tackle the larger projects and complete critical assessments.
The price tag for trail rehabilitation totals more than $10 million for
the park.
Cuyahoga Valley National Park (Ohio): Paved roads and
bridges comprise about $2 million of the parks deferred maintenance
such as Brandywine Falls road and bridge.
Denali National Park Road (Alaska): Among Denali's most
pressing needs is maintenance on the 92-mile Denali Park Road that is
the only way to access the heart of the park.
Mesa Verde National Park (Colorado): Over $6 million is
needed to rehabilitate historic buildings in the Chapin Mesa National
Historic Landmark District at Mesa Verde National Park.
Kalaupapa National Historical Park (Hawaii): Kalaupapa
National Historical Park tells the story of Hawaiians banished by King
Kamehameha V to the north shore of Molokai for contracting leprosy.
Over $7 million is needed to replace historic buildings.
Yellowstone National Park (Wyoming and Montana): For the
past three decades the National Park Service has been working to
upgrade the park's 254-mile Grand Loop and entrance roads from 1940's
standards that are woefully inadequate for modern day tour busses and
recreational vehicles. Due to insufficient funding, only half of the
loop and entrance roads have been reconstructed. To complete upgrading
of the remainder of the roads in the park will cost anywhere from $800
million to $1.2 billion because the most challenging stretches of road
remain to be rebuilt. At the current pace of funding it will take more
than 75 years to complete the work.
Yosemite National Park (California): Yosemite National
Park is home to some of our country's most breathtaking cliffs, domes
and waterfalls. However, the park suffers from $582 million in needed
repairs. For example, more than $20 million is needed to rehabilitate
trails including the Yosemite Bike Path, the Stubblefield Canyon Trail,
and the Clark Point Spur, a path that leads to the famous Vernal Falls.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area (California): Golden
Gate National Recreation Area will require $9.5 million in wastewater
treatment repairs to remedy all problems. The systems of the Marin
Headlands and Fort Mason are some of the most expensive projects to be
undertaken. Current repairs, such as the Muir Woods Water and
Wastewater Service Rehabilitation project, have been stuck in the
planning stage due to the lack of funding.
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Maine to Georgia): The
world's longest contiguous footpath is conservatively estimated to have
a $20 million repair backlog. More than 6,000 volunteers currently
maintain the 2,200-mile Trail, contributing 250,000 annual hours of
mostly physical work, saving the U.S. government more $6 million each
year. Still, funding is needed to support volunteer work, complete
major deferred projects and cover expenses for materials.
Request: As Congress sets out to repair and rebuild our
nation's declining infrastructure, national park roads,
bridges, trails, campgrounds and other facilities need to
benefit from that investment. A dedicated investment of $6.5
billion to NPS deferred maintenance over five years would
address most of the highest priority projects. This includes
park roads, visitor facilities, trails and other structures.
Any strategy that includes the parks needs to focus on
addressing long overdue repairs. Funding should include
investments for planning and permitting, in addition to
guaranteed construction dollars. This will ensure projects with
the greatest need can be addressed, both those that are
``shovel-ready'' and those that require multi-year planning and
implementation.
Water Infrastructure
NPCA also supports greater investments in water infrastructure in
and beyond the boundaries of national park sites. Within the boundaries
the NPS operates assets that provide drinking water to the 331 million
visitors and treat waste and storm waters, a service critical to
protecting the waterways upon which park flora and fauna depend. A
greater investment is needed to protect water quality and manage the
ever-increasing number of park visitors.
In addition, the country needs a significant investment in water
infrastructure beyond the boundaries of National Park Service managed
sites. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that waste and
storm water systems alone need over $271 billion in the next 20 years.
This is a significant challenge that not only impacts communities
across the country, but also puts our national parks at risk. Many
sites downriver and along our coasts are threatened by untreated urban
and agricultural runoff in addition to untreated human and industrial
waste, toxic substances, debris, and other pollutants stemming from
combined sewer overflows. Greater federal support is needed in these
efforts as paying for these projects often falls on communities that
cannot afford it.
Request: As part of an infrastructure investments, we urge the
committee to triple the funding for the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds in the US EPA to help
address the untreated water from urban and agricultural runoff
and human and industrial waste.
Reauthorizing the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
If the committee decides to focus on the reauthorization of Fixing
America's Surface Transportation (FAST Act) rather than a broader
infrastructure package, we request additional resources for national
parks. The National Park Service received a total of $1.4 billion over
five years in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
through the Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP). In addition,
national parks are eligible to apply for funding from the National
Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Project program authorized for
$100 million to be spent on projects costing at least $25 million.
The national parks received one half of one percent of the entire
funding package in the FAST Act, but the need is much more than that.
In the National Park Service's National Long-Range Transportation Plan,
the agency estimates the funding needed to address all transportation
needs throughout the service will need to be $1.5 billion a year over a
period of 6 to 10 years. This amount includes all activities in the
transportation asset lifecycle, from planning through construction,
operation, maintenance and rehabilitation. According to an estimate
calculated in 2016, annual funding for transportation asset needs
totals an estimated $394 million, which is $1.1 billion below what is
needed.
This funding shortfall is the main contributor to the growth of the
maintenance backlog, totaling $11.9 billion. A little over a half of
that amount ($6.3 billion) relates directly to transportation assets.
That amount includes paved and unpaved roads, tunnels, bridges and
parking lots. Of that amount, $4.6 billion is categorized as highest
and high priority transportation-related NPS assets (see chart below).
Also, nearly a third of overall backlog is for mega projects, such as
the reconstruction of Yellowstone's Grand Loop road. Mega projects are
transportation projects that require an amount of funding beyond what
is available on an annual basis.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Pew Charitable Trusts, Restore Our Parks Campaign, FY17 data
In addition, our parks continue to face increased vehicle
congestion that reduces the visitor experience and threatens the
natural resources. Prior to the FAST Act, there was a specific program,
Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program, that provided funding for
alternative transportation such as shuttle buses, rail connections and
bike trails. That program was subsumed into the Federal Lands
Transportation Program with passage of the FAST Act, but the need is
still there. For instance, the Zion National Park shuttle buses are 20
years old and need to be replaced.
In our recently designated national parks and those in urban areas,
the NPS-owned assets are fairly small within a larger park boundary.
Infrastructure may be limited to buildings and parking lots with roads
owned and maintained by states and city governments. The Federal Lands
Access Program (FLAP) is a critical funding source that provides
incentive to state and local entities to improve roads and transit to
and from national parks.
Requests: To address the highest and high priority
transportation-related NPS funding needs, NPCA requests $4.6
billion over 5 years in the Federal Lands Transportation
Program to address those needs. In addition, we request $25
million a year be set aside specifically out of the FLTP
allocation for transit projects. We also request dedicated
funding for the Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal
Projects program at a level of no less than $350 million a year
to address mega projects, with $200 million of that being
designated as mandatory spending.
To address improvements to transportation and transit to and
from national parks, NPCA requests $300 million over 5 years in
the Federal Lands Access Program to address those needs. In
addition, we request that program criteria be modified from its
current formula based on road mileage, number of bridges, land
area, and visitation.
Additional Provisions
National Park Visitor and Wildlife Protections
We also support Congress addressing the issue of wildlife-vehicle
collisions. The most recent data from the Federal Highway
Administration estimates over 1 million wildlife-vehicle collisions and
26,000 motorist injuries as a result yearly. The associated costs to
motorists from wildlife-vehicle collisions is $8.3 billion yearly in
medical and vehicle damage. Efforts must be made to minimize these
collisions for both human safety and wildlife conservation. Visitors to
America's national parks many times travel to view iconic park
wildlife. We want to be sure both park visitors and wildlife are
protected.
Request: 1) Establish a competitive wildlife crossing pilot
program that provides grants to states, land managers, and
communities that work to reduce the number of wildlife-vehicle
collisions and improve wildlife habitat connectivity; 2)
require relevant agencies to conduct a study of methods to
reduce collisions, an updated and expanded report of the 2008
Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study; 3) implement new
workforce trainings; 4) standardize the collection of wildlife
collision data nationally; 5) and integrate wildlife-vehicle
collision reduction into all relevant sections of the
legislation where transportation projects could utilize
wildlife-vehicle collision mitigation technologies.
Additional Considerations
As Congress works to address infrastructure and reauthorize the
FAST Act, Congress must preserve the protections and public involvement
provided by our nation's environmental laws, including the National
Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered
Species Act, etc. According to the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), 95 percent of federal projects that require environmental review
advance under a Categorical Exclusion (CE), and therefore are exempt
from the most detailed types of environmental review.
In addition, a 2016 U.S. Department of the Treasury report
identified 40 economically significant transportation and water
projects whose completion had been slowed or put in jeopardy. The
report found that ``a lack of public funding is by far the most common
factor hindering the completion of transportation and water
infrastructure projects.'' Further, the report found that delays
resulting from environmental review and permitting were acknowledged as
a challenge to completing less than 25% of the projects.
The National Park Service should also continue to develop
innovative, cost-effective and sustainable strategies for constructing
and managing its assets. NPCA supports prioritization of projects that
improve energy efficiency and address climate mitigation and resiliency
needs. Projects should be avoided that undermine existing
infrastructure, or perpetuate or worsen the threat of fire, erosion,
flooding, wildlife habitat loss and fragmentation.
Conclusion
For too long, the national parks have been undergoing
infrastructure decline. If Congress fails to fix the infrastructure in
our national parks, it will cause the gradual loss of our natural and
cultural heritage and the ability of the American public to enjoy and
be inspired by it as preserved in our national parks.
Thank you for considering our views,
Emily Douce,
Director, Operations and Park Funding,
National Parks Conservation Association.
Statement of Julian Bear Runner, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Introduction
Thank you Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf
of the Oglala Sioux Tribe (``OST'' or ``Tribe'') for the record on the
recent hearing entitled ``Assessing the Transportation Needs of Tribes,
Federal Land Management Agencies, and U.S. Territories.'' My name is
Julian Bear Runner and I serve as the President of OST. Improving
tribal transportation infrastructure, transit, highway safety, and road
conditions on our Reservation is a top priority. We look to you to spur
necessary congressional action to improve and modernize tribal
transportation infrastructure on our Reservation and across the nation.
Background
Our Reservation covers approximately 3 million acres (roughly the
size of the State of Connecticut) and has more than 45,000 enrolled
citizens. Thus, our Tribe is responsible for a large area over which we
have authority and control. Our Tribe is one of 16 sovereign nations in
the Great Plains Region. We are also a part of the Oceti Sakowin (Seven
Council Fires, known as the Great Sioux Nation). Our treaty rights, the
United States' obligations to us, and our unique political relationship
with the United States are set forth in a series of treaties through
1868, including the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 (11 Stat. 749) and the
1868 Sioux Nation Treaty (15 Stat. 635). These treaties establish the
United States' obligations to our Tribe.
Due in part to our remote location, there are few job opportunities
for our people. The lack of good roads, reliable communications
systems, and other necessary infrastructure further impedes economic
development, job creation, and a good quality of life on our
Reservation. These circumstances also contribute to the many social
challenges that our people currently face, which include extreme
poverty, alcohol and substance abuse, inadequate health care, and high
crime rates.
Oglala Lakota County, which is located entirely within our
Reservation, is among the poorest counties in the United States with
approximately 54% of individuals below the poverty line, per capita
income around $10,148, unemployment in the 80% range, and a high school
dropout rate of over 60%. A modernized infrastructure would
significantly improve these conditions, help revitalize our economy,
expand opportunities for our people, and improve the quality of life on
our Reservation.
The winter storm that hit our Reservation in 2019 illustrates the
poor condition of our transportation infrastructure. This storm caused
severe flooding and snowfall that made roads impassable and cut off
access to food, water, and medicine. Many citizens were displaced from
their homes by floodwaters, exacerbating the shortage of adequate
housing that already existed on Pine Ridge before the storm. The
infrastructure within our Reservation is not in a position to handle
another severe weather storm. We already struggle each year with snowy
and muddy conditions. Snow and ice removal can consume up to 65% of our
annual budget each winter.
According to the BIA-approved Road Maintenance Survey generated by
the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Great Plains Region in the Tribal-
Interior Budget Council, the major work components for roads
maintenance in the Great Plain, Rocky Mountain, and Northwest Regions
include snow and ice control, interior pavement sealing, pavement
maintenance, gravel maintenance, and remedial work on improved earth
roads. We need to make sure these categories are adequately funded so
tribes, like ours, can have and enjoy sufficient roads. Significantly,
nineteen responses to the Survey from the Great Plains Region
identified snow and ice removal as their top priority. Congress must
appropriate the necessary funds for this activity.
Transportation Infrastructure is Desperately Needed
Transportation infrastructure is critical to connecting families,
strengthening communities, and furthering economic development on our
Reservation. OST's Road Maintenance maintains 519 miles of Bureau of
Indian Affairs (``BIA'') roads and bridges yet receives approximately
$565,000 in roads maintenance funding. This pales in comparison to the
roads funding comparison to the roads funding of state and local
governments.
According to the 24th Annual Highway Report, the nationwide average
maintenance disbursement per state controlled mile is $11,929 and the
average for South Dakota is $3,917 per state controlled mile.
Maintenance disbursement refers to costs to perform routine upkeep,
such as filling in potholes and repaving roads. The Tribe, however,
receives only $1,113 in BIA Road Maintenance funding per BIA roadway
mile, which includes maintenance for BIA bridges on the National Bridge
Inventory (``NBI''). $1,113 is a fraction of the weighted average that
states, including South Dakota, have access to.\1\ The Tribe, thus,
incurs significant costs in maintaining BIA roadways whose needs far
exceed available federal funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 24th Annual Highway Report, Baruch Feigenbaum, M. Gregory
Fields, & Spence Purnell (Aug. 2019), https://reason.org/wp-content/
uploads/24th-annual-highway-report-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase BIA Roads Funding to Connect Tribal Communities to Essential
Services
Funding for the BIA Road Maintenance program has been under-
resourced for several fiscal year cycles, despite the accumulation of
over $60 million in backlogged maintenance needs in the Great Plains
Region and almost $300 million nationwide. We are often forced to
expend our limited tribal funds to cover the difference in roads
maintenance needs--a financial strain that is compounded by the fact
that efforts to control snow and ice our roadways can consume up to 50%
of our annual budget each winter.
Funding is so tight that routine bridge maintenance is not
performed until it reaches a critical state. Consequently, our members
must confront unsafe road conditions every time they drive their
children to school, commute to work, or try to access emergency
services in Pine Ridge and nearby urban centers. This is unacceptable.
The BIA should receive and distribute adequate funding to tribal
nations so that we can maintain safe transportation networks in our
communities.
Such dire circumstances require bold solutions. One bold solution
is a drastic increase in the BIA Road Maintenance account so tribal
nations, such as ours, can receive a funding amount that is actually
viable to get the much needed maintenance work done adequately. Another
solution is to create a new BIA roads maintenance account that targets
backlogged road and bridge projects by taking mile inventory,
remoteness, and weather conditions into consideration. An influx of
funding for road construction, maintenance, and equipment would
increase public safety, facilitate economic development, decrease
costs, and alleviate the hardships our members currently endure. We
request Congress provide $60 million for the BIA Road Maintenance
program and an initial amount of $15 million to establish a targeted
BIA roads improvement program that accounts for a tribe's geographic
size, location, and mile inventory.
Further, to diversify the federal toolbox of programs and funding
sources targeting roads infrastructure, we urge Congress to re-
establish and fund the Tribal High Priority Project Program within the
Department of Transportation and create a Tribal Set-Aside from the
Highway Safety Implementation Program. Both of these programs would
offer tribes access to critical resources and funding for implementing
tribal roads projects.
Last, as for priorities for tackling roads issues in the Great
Plains Region, please see the attached document entitled, ``Land Based
Tribes Coalition for Maintaining and Improving BIA and Tribal
Roadways.'' This is an informative document that lays out seven
priority solutions for addressing the severe tribal transportation
needs in the Great Plains. We ask this Committee, and Congress overall,
to take the necessary steps to implement these priorities.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on the
critical topic of tribal transportation. We have presented only some of
our infrastructure needs in this testimony. Your work in addressing
these needs is part of the United States' fulfilling its solemn treaty
obligations and trust responsibility to the Oglala Sioux Tribe. The
Subcommittee's recent hearing on this important issue is a positive
step in that direction. We look forward to working with the Members of
the Subcommittee to build, improve, and maintain the infrastructure
that we need on our Reservation. As explained above, infrastructure is
one of our top priority issues since functioning, well-maintained
infrastructure will facilitate economic, and community development,
which we urgently need to improve the lives of our citizens. Please do
not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like
additional information to assist you in this work.
attachment
Land Based Tribes Coalition for Maintaining and Improving BIA and
Tribal Roadways
Background
The Indian Reservation Roads Program (IRR) was created as part of
the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 and was administered
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). The TTP program currently provides funding to
the 567 Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Villages.
Initially, the main focus of this program was on planning, design,
and construction of BIA and Tribal roadways on Indian Reservations and
Indian Lands.
In 2012, under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP-21), the program was changed to the Tribal Transportation
Program (TTP).
Problem
The federal funds that have been made available to support
maintenance and improvements to BIA and Tribal roadways are not
sufficient and are currently being diverted to improvements on roadways
under other agencies' jurisdiction and to address maintenance needs.
This is resulting in a deterioration of these federal roadways.
While the funding for the TTP program has increased in recent years
to the $495,000,000 that is allocated today, the use and distribution
of these funds has undergone a significant transformation. These funds
in the past were primarily used to maintain and improve BIA and Tribal
Roadways. With the transition to the TTP Program, the routes in the
official BIA National Tribal Transportation Field Inventory eligible
for funding were opened to allow significant increases of roadways
under other jurisdictions. This resulted in the inventory ballooning to
162,000 miles of roadways of which only 31,386 miles are BIA and 27,466
are Tribal Roads, with the remaining being county, state, and local
roads. This change along with changes in the Congressionally Mandated
Formula for how funds are distributed has led to a shift that has seen
nearly all the increase in TTP funds going to locations with little or
no BIA or Tribal road mileage, but rather significant county road
mileage, higher traffic volumes, or higher documented population.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The TTP funds are the main, and in many cases the only funding
available for BIA and Tribal routes and these changes have resulted in
a lack of attention to the BIA Roadways that are part of the Federal
Governments Trust Responsibility.
In addition to the Tribal Transportation Program not adequately
funding the BIA and Tribal Roadways, the funding available from the
Department of Interior that is specifically designated for BIA routes
has grown minimally to $34,000,000. This has resulted in a huge backlog
of maintenance needs and forced large land-based tribes with
significant BIA road miles to transfer larger portions of their TTP
dollars to cover routine maintenance. This has further reduced their
ability to fund preservation and improvement projects and led to Tribes
falling significantly behind states in both overall spending and
maintenance spending per mile.
As a result, TTP has had to supplement maintenance needs, meaning
construction dollars are being spent on maintenance in the following
amounts:
FY2016: $34M
FY2017: $47M
FY2018: $46M
Solutions
Priority #1: Increase TTP/IRR allocation annually.
FY2021 $520M
FY2022 $530M
FY2023 $540M
FY2024 $550M
FY2025 $560M
FY2026 $570M
FY2027 $580M
Priority #2: Tribal Transportation Program Formula Reform (insert TTP/
IRR definition and description)
This consortium of Tribes requests that a minimum of 80 percent of
TTP/IRR funding be restricted to the construction and improvement of
BIA and Tribally owned roadways only. The proposed restriction would
not apply to the remaining 20 percent of distribution amounts, however,
if these funds are distributed to non-Tribal and non-BIA roads, a
requirement should be implemented that this must be done via cost
share.
In addition to the new restriction on TTP funding expenditure, the
proposed solution should also include modifying the method in which
funds are distributed through TTP to include the cost to construct,
inclusion in NTIFF, and the volume of BIA/Tribal roadway miles.
Since there are major discrepancies with Census on NAHASDA
population numbers, these should not be a consideration in allocating
funds. Recommendation: distribute TTP on the cost to construct for BIA/
Tribal road miles, remove population and vehicle miles traveled numbers
from the formula.
Funding available for the Tribal Safety Transportation Program
Safety Fund should be increased from 2 percent to 5 percent.
Priority #3: Remove obligation limit for TTP/IRR and road maintenance.
IRR used to be exempt from the obligation limit. This change
would allow a greater share of the TTP allocation be
distributed to Tribes.
Priority #4: Reinstate the Tribal Transportation Bridge Program/IRR as
a standalone program instead of a 2 percent carve out in the
Tribal Transportation Program and increase the amount in the
standalone bridge program to be equivalent to 3 percent of the
TTP. The standalone program should give priority to BIA/
Tribally owned bridges.
Priority #5: Modify road maintenance distribution methods
To modify road maintenance distribution methods, $46 million should
be authorized for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Road Maintenance
Program, with increases of $2 million per year to address the national
maintenance backlog, which is currently nearly $400M.
BIA road maintenance funding should continue to be distributed
through United States Department of Interior as its own separate line
item and exempt from the obligation limit.
Priority #6: Modify USDOT discretionary grant programs with a Tribally
designated portion of funding
Programs such as BUILD, INFRA, and Nationally Significant Federal
Lands and Tribal Projects require significant engineering investment
prior to grant request and matching funds that make it difficult for
Tribes to compete. A Tribally designated portion of funds should be set
aside for planning (i.e. environmental, right-of-way, engineering
design) and construction, and the requirement of nonfederal investment
should be excluded for Tribal projects.
Priority #7: Direct BIA law enforcement to use one standard crash
report form, specifically TRAMS.
Statement of The Pew Charitable Trusts, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for holding a hearing on the transportation needs
facing Tribes, federal land management agencies, and U.S. territories.
The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) asks that this written statement, and
accompanying documents, be included in the hearing record.
Pew applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public
policy, inform the public, and invigorate civic life. Pew's Restore
America's Parks campaign seeks to conserve the natural and cultural
assets of the National Park System by providing common sense, long-term
solutions to its multi-billion dollar repair backlog. Our statement
will focus specifically on the transportation needs of the National
Park Service (NPS).
The National Park Repair Backlog
The NPS is responsible for more than 75,000 assets, second only to
the Department of Defense in the number facilities a federal agency
must maintain. Over half of these assets require repairs, at an
estimated cost of $11.9 billion (based on FY2018 NPS data). Even if the
agency were to tackle just those repairs it considers to be of the
greatest priority, that cost totals $9.1 billion. It is difficult for
NPS managers to keep up with the repairs, due to several factors:
Our National Park System is over 100 years old and much of its
infrastructure--roads, trails, historic structures, water and sewage
systems, electrical systems, campgrounds, memorials, battlegrounds,
seawalls--is aging and deteriorating. Over 90% of the estimated cost to
address the backlog of repairs is attributed to park facilities that
are 40 years old or more. High visitation numbers at many park sites
brings additional pressures on aging park assets, and inconsistent
annual funding for maintenance requires NPS managers to triage the
repairs it undertakes. As a result, unattended maintenance needs become
worse and, more extensive repairs are needed and become more expensive,
and the maintenance backlog compounds.
National Park Service Transportation Assets and Repair Needs
It is an accurate estimation that America's national parks would
never have become the popular attractions they are today without
extensive, reliable transportation to carry visitors to, from, and
through the parks. From the railroads built in the late 1800s and early
1900s to serve the first western parks to the early carriage paths and
roads that followed, transportation infrastructure has been vital to
visitors' access and enjoyment of our park sites. Today, NPS'
transportation infrastructure portfolio is significant: 5,500 miles of
paved roads, 4,100 miles of publicly accessible unpaved roads; 1,442
bridges; 63 publicly accessible tunnels; and more than 5,000 miles of
paved trails (https://mylearning.nps.gov/library-resources/park-roads-
parkways-program-handbook/).
But a significant portion of these transportation assets are
showing their age. Many park roads were constructed decades ago when
cars were smaller; as a result, routes often are narrow and lack
shoulders--an issue for today's larger and heavier cars and
recreational vehicles. Also, increased visits at many park sites lead
to overflowing parking lots, forcing visitors to park on roadsides,
which can be a safety hazard and harm natural resources. Addressing
inadequate and deteriorating park roads, tunnels, bridges, and trails
is important to ensure safe visitor access and the continued protection
of wildlife, natural, and cultural resources.
Transportation-related repair needs within national park sites
across the country total $6.2 billion, over half of the FY2018 backlog.
To address the highest and high priority repairs, an investment of $4.8
billion is needed (see figure 1).
Figure 1: NPS Highest and High Priority Transportation Needs--FY 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Parking Lot Road Bridge Road Tunnel Roads Grand Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest\\....................................................... $243,283,487 $540,979,361 $20,349,480 $2,463,777,470 $3,268,389,798
High\\.......................................................... $239,161,463 $196,852,200 $1,979,258 $1,061,178,143 $1,499,171,064
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest + High................................................ $482,444,950 $737,831,562 $22,328,738 $3,524,955,612 $4,767,560,862
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Source: National Park Service.
\**\ Transportation-related assets include all road bridges, all road tunnels, and any roads and parking lots classified by NPS as ``paved'' or ``paved
& unpaved''. Roads and parking lots classified as ``unpaved'' are not included
Examples of specific NPS transportation-related infrastructure
needs include:
George Washington Memorial Parkway
A sink hole opened on the aging George Washington Memorial
Parkway in May 2019 and required several months to fix. The entire
parkway needs $649 million for transportation-related repairs.
Yellowstone National Park
Road repair in Yellowstone National Park represents a
significant portion of its repair backlog. The Grand Loop Road, the
main transportation corridor through the park, is over 100 years old
and the original road didn't have any shoulders. The park needs $369
million to address all transportation-related deferred maintenance.
Shenandoah National Park
Aging rock walls line the historic Skyline Drive in Shenandoah
National Park. NPS needs $51 million to repair Shenandoah's
transportation network.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
The Foothills Parkway provides breathtaking views of the Great
Smoky Mountains. NPS needs $43 million to repair the scenic park
thoroughfare.
Recommendations for Reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act
As the Subcommittee works with the full Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and other Committees to craft a proposal to
reauthorize the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act),
we urge that robust funding for national park assets be included.
The current FAST Act provides $268-$300 million annually, over its
five-year authorization, for NPS transportation projects that have
helped ensure visitor access within our national parks and it also
established the Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Transportation
Projects (NSFLTP) program. NSFLTP addresses transportation
``megaprojects''--those projects that go beyond the scope of core
agency funding--within NPS and other public and Tribal lands (to view a
list of compliant-ready megaprojects, visit the NPS website: https://
www.nps.gov/subjects/transportation/megaprojects.htm).
While the FAST Act has helped the Park Service begin to address its
vast transportation repair needs, unfortunately, the funds simply have
not been enough. To ensure national park sites across the country
remain accessible to and safe for visitors, and to prevent the
degradation of cultural and natural resources, Pew recommends the
following provisions be included in a Surface Transportation Act
reauthorization measure approved by Congress:
1. Dedicated funding of $4.8 billion for highest and high priority
transportation-related assets within the National Park System.
2. Investment in the NSFLTP program at no less than the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee-passed level of $350 million in
annual funding. Of that amount, the designation of $200 million as
mandatory spending.
Thank you for your consideration of these views and for the
Subcommittee's recognition of the role that infrastructure plays within
our public lands and national parks. Included with this statement is a
factsheet on NPS transportation repair needs and several joint letters
to Congress urging increased investment in park infrastructure.
Contact: Marcia Argust, Director, Restore America's Parks campaign, The
Pew Charitable Trusts
Attachment A--Fact Sheet
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Attachment B--Letter
Re-Building our National Parks
March 5, 2018.
Dear Member of Congress:
As engineers, architects, planners, landscape architects, and trade
and professional associations, we are deeply aware of the need to
maintain our nation's infrastructure, including the roads, trails,
historic structures, and visitor centers that make safe, memorable, and
learning experiences out of travelling to America's national parks.
Unfortunately, after decades of unreliable funding, the National
Park Service (NPS) has an infrastructure repair backlog estimated at
$11.6 billion (FY 2017), half of which consists of roads, bridges, and
tunnels. Without these amenities, visitors would be hindered in getting
to special places like Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park,
Cadillac Mountain in Acadia National Park, and Little Round Top at
Gettysburg National Military Park. Deferred maintenance affects almost
every national park site across the country, and includes crucial
repairs to aging buildings and historical structures, electrical,
water, mechanical, and plumbing systems, and other infrastructure that
is vital to keeping parks accessible and safe for visitors.
A recent study indicates that investment in NPS' maintenance
backlog has the potential to create or support over 110,000 quality
jobs in the infrastructure industry. These jobs could likely benefit
contractors, manufacturers, and tradespeople located in communities
adjacent to national parks and in surrounding areas. We urge you to
provide dedicated annual federal funding to address deferred
maintenance in national parks and to ensure that NPS receives
significant resources for deferred maintenance in any potential
national infrastructure proposal.
Rebuilding and fixing the National Park System will help to employ
thousands of American workers, support continued tourism and economic
development in hundreds of park gateway communities, and ensure that
our national treasures are preserved for generations to come.
Sincerely,
National Signatories
Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
American Coatings Association.
American Concrete Institute.
American Concrete Institute Foundation.
American Concrete Pipe Association.
American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association.
American Concrete Pumping Association.
American Council of Engineering Companies.
American Foundry Society.
American Institute of Architects.
American Planning Association.
American Segmental Bridge Institute.
American Shotcrete Association.
American Society of Civil Engineers.
American Society of Landscape Architects.
American Supply Association.
Associated General Contractors of America.
Association of the Wall and Ceiling Industry.
Concrete Foundations Association.
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute.
Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition.
Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality.
Construction Specifications Institute.
Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association.
Engineering Contractors Association.
Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
Land Improvement Contractors of America.
Mechanical Contractors Association of America.
National Asphalt Pavement Association.
National Association of Minority Contractors.
National Association of Women in Construction.
National Electrical Contractors Association.
National Precast Concrete Association.
National Utility Contractors Association.
Painting and Decorating Contractors of America.
Portland Cement Association.
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute.
Professional TrailBuilders Association.
Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Assoc.
Tilt-Up Concrete Association.
United Steelworkers (USW).
State Signatories
Arizona:
American Council of Engineering Companies of Arizona
American Institute of Architects--Arizona Chapter
American Planning Association--Arizona Chapter
American Society of Landscape Architects--Arizona Chapter
Arizona Construction Trades
Associated General Contractors of America--Arizona Chapter
National Electrical Contractors Association--Arizona Chapter
National Electrical Contractors Association--Southern Arizona Chapter
Arkansas:
National Utility Contractors Association--Arkansas Chapter
California:
American Council of Engineering Companies--California Chapter
American Institute of Architects--California Council
California Asphalt Pavement Association
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association
California Forestry Association
California Nevada Cement Association
National Association of Minority Contractors--Southern California
Chapter
United Contractors--California
Colorado:
American Planning Association--Colorado Chapter
Associated General Contracts--Colorado Chapter
Connecticut:
Utility Contractors Association of Connecticut
Florida:
American Institute of Architects--Florida Chapter
American Planning Association--Florida Chapter
American Society of Landscape Architects--Florida Chapter
Asphalt Contractors Association of Florida, Inc.
Associated Builders & Contractors--Florida Chapter
Florida Engineering Society
Florida Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association
Florida Surveying and Mapping Society
Florida Transportation Builders' Association
National Association of Women in Construction--Greater Palm Beach
National Association of Women in Construction--Tampa Chapter #36
Suncoast Utility Contractors Association
Hawaii:
National Utility Contractors Association--Hawaii Chapter
Indiana:
American Institute of Architects Indiana
Kentucky:
American Institute of Architects Kentucky
Louisiana:
American Council of Engineering Companies--Louisiana Chapter
American Institute of Architects--Louisiana Chapter
American Institute of Architects--New Orleans Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors--Bayou/New Orleans Chapter
Concrete and Aggregates Association of Louisiana
Louisiana Associated General Contractors
Maine:
Associated General Contractors--Maine Chapter
Boston Society of Landscape Architects--Maine Section
Massachusetts:
Boston Society of Landscape Architects
Michigan:
American Institute of Architects--Michigan Chapter
Laborers' Local Union 1191
Minnesota:
American Institute of Architects Minnesota
Associated General Contractors--Minnesota Chapter
Minnesota Asphalt Pavement Association
Minnesota Transportation Alliance
Montana:
American Council of Engineering Companies--Montana Chapter
Montana Building Industry Association
Montana Contractors' Association
Structural Engineers Association of Montana
New Mexico:
American Institute of Architects New Mexico
New York:
American Institute of Architects--Brooklyn Chapter
American Institute of Architects New York
General Contractors Association of New York
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 325
Laborers' Local 1010
National Association of Minority Contractors--Tri-State Chapter
National Electrical Contractors Association--Finger Lakes Chapter
National Electrical Contractors Association--Hudson Valley Chapter
National Electrical Contractors Association--Long Island Chapter
North Dakota:
Associated General Contractors of North Dakota
Ohio:
American Council of Engineering Companies--Ohio Chapter
American Institute of Architects--Ohio Chapter
American Planning Association--Ohio Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors of Northern Ohio
Ohio Cast Metals Association
Oklahoma:
American Institute of Architects--Oklahoma Chapter
Oregon:
American Council of Engineering Companies of Oregon
American Institute of Architects--Portland Chapter
American Planning Association--Oregon Chapter
Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon
Cement Masons Local 555--Oregon, SW Washington, and Southern Idaho
International Union of Elevator Constructors Local 23
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 701
International Union of Painters & Allied Trades District Council 5
Ironworkers Local 29
Laborers International Union of North America Local 737
Oregon Contractors Association
Oregon and Southern Idaho District Council of Laborers
Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Local 16
Teamsters Council Local 37
United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Trades Local 49
Pennsylvania:
American Institute of Architects--Pennsylvania Chapter
National Electrical Contractors Association--Pennsylvania, Delaware,
New Jersey Chapter
National Electrical Contractors Association--Western Pennsylvania
Chapter
South Carolina:
American Institute of Architects South Carolina
South Dakota:
American Institute of Architects South Dakota
Associated General Contractors--South Dakota Chapter
Tennessee:
American Institute of Architects--Tennessee Chapter
American Planning Association--Tennessee Chapter
American Society of Landscape Architects--Tennessee Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors--Tennessee Chapter
Associated General Contractors--Tennessee Chapter
Tennessee Recreation and Parks Association
Tennessee Road Builders Association
Tennessee Solar Energy Industries Association
Texas:
American Planning Association--Texas Chapter
American Society of Landscape Architects--Texas Chapter
Associated General Contractors: Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial
Branch--Texas Chapter
Associated General Contractors: Building Branch--Texas Chapter
Associated Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors of Texas
Central Texas Subcontractor Association
Independent Electrical Contractors of Texas
Mechanical Contractors Association--Texas Chapter
Virginia:
National Association of Women in Construction--Richmond Chapter
National Electrical Contractors Association--Atlantic Coast Chapter
National Utility Contractors Association--Virginia Chapter
Washington:
American Council of Engineering Companies--Washington Chapter
American Institute of Architects--Seattle Chapter
American Institute of Architects Washington
Cement Masons and Plasterers Local 528
Central Washington Building Trades Council
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local 104
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 286
Laborers International Union of North America Local 238 (Spokane)
Laborers International Union of North America Local 1239 (Seattle)
National Electrical Contractors Association--Puget Sound Chapter
Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association Local
72
Pierce County Building Trades Council
SMART Union Transportation Division/United Transportation Union
Washington Asphalt Pavement Association
Washington Building Trades
Washington & Northern Idaho District Council of Laborers
West Virginia:
American Institute of Architects--West Virginia Chapter
Wisconsin:
American Institute of Architects--Wisconsin Chapter
Heat & Frost Insulators Local 127
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 494
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 498
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 139
International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, District Council 82
Laborers' Local 113
Milwaukee Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
NorthEast Wisconsin Building & Construction Trades Council
Sheet Metal Workers (SMART) Local 18
Teamsters Joint Council 39
The United Association Union of Plumbers, Fitters, Welders, & Service
Techs Local 111
Wisconsin Counties Association
Wisconsin Laborers District Council
Wisconsin State AFL-CIO
Wyoming:
Wyoming AFL-CIO
Wyoming Federation of Union Sportsmen
Letter of February 24, 2020, from Joe Mello, President, Professional
Engineers in California Government, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 24, 2020.
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Rodney Davis,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
On behalf of the Professional Engineers in California Government
(PECG), we are pleased to submit this statement for the record of the
Subcommittee on Highway and Transit's February 6, 2020 hearing on
``Assessing the Transportation Needs of Tribes, Federal Land Management
Agencies, and U.S. Territories.''
PECG represents 13,000 state-employed engineers and related
professionals responsible for designing and inspecting California's
highways and bridges, ensuring that schools and hospitals are safe
during earthquakes, and protecting our air, water and beaches. We are
dedicated to ensuring that taxpayers receive safe, high quality
transportation and other infrastructure services at the best possible
price.
PECG fully supports the committee's efforts to advance legislation
addressing the significant underinvestment in the Nation's surface
transportation infrastructure, including the major backlog of deferred
maintenance and capital investment needs of tribal and Federal lands
and territories. While addressing the infrastructure deficit must be a
top priority for surface transportation authorization, it is just as
critical to ensure that federal infrastructure dollars are invested in
safe and cost-effective projects that serve the public interest.
To that end, we strongly support the inclusion of policies to
require public employees to perform the construction inspection on all
federally-funded surface transportation projects. Public sector
inspectors ensure that construction standards are met, that projects
meet safety requirements and that the materials used will stand the
test of time. Inclusion of this common sense provision will end the
troubling practice of private contractors overseeing the work of other
private contractors.
During the Subcommittee's hearing, Sergio Pecori from Hanson
Professional Services, testified in opposition to including provisions
in surface transportation reauthorization legislation that restricts
the ability of public agencies to contract with private sector firms.
PECG does not oppose the appropriate use of outside engineering
consultants where an agency identifies a unique lack of capacity with
in-house staffing and after the agency undertakes and makes publicly
available a comprehensive cost comparison analysis. We do, however,
have serious concerns about the use of outside consultants when there
is not a defined need and there is no comprehensive analysis undertaken
demonstrating that contracting these services out is the most cost
effective means of carrying out these activities while delivering
maximum public benefits.
Construction inspection is one area where it is critical to
maintain appropriate public sector oversight. As we saw with the tragic
March 2018 collapse of the pedestrian bridge under construction at
Florida International University (FIU), which killed one construction
worker and five motorists, the need for independent public sector
construction inspectors on federally-funded projects is critical to
ensuring public safety is the primary focus of this critical oversight.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) report
on the collapse found that the magnitude of the cracks warranted the
immediate closure of the roadway running under the bridge and required
steps be taken to shore up the concrete truss with additional supports
until further evaluations and remedial measures could be taken. Yet the
private sector engineering and construction firms involved in the
design, construction and inspection of this project ``failed to
recognize the bridge was in danger of collapsing when it inspected it
hours before the collapse.'' OSHA specifically called out the private
consulting firm responsible for carrying out construction inspection on
the project for failing ``to exercise its own independent professional
judgement . . . regardless of the opinion'' held by the private
engineering and construction company who was the engineer of record on
the project.
Similarly, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report
on the bridge collapse found that the construction engineering and
inspection firm hired by FIU to provide construction oversight of this
project documented serious concrete cracks in the main span beyond any
level of acceptability, yet the private construction inspection firm
did not utilize its authority to ``direct or authorize partial or
complete road closures as necessary.'' The NTSB also stated that the
private firms involved in the design, construction and inspection of
this bridge `` . . . absolved themselves of responsibility by
rationalizing that if the EOR [engineer of record--Figg Bridge
Engineers] says it's OK, it must be OK, and if anything bad happens--
it's on him. That is not the intent of peer review or safety oversight,
and certainly fails the system of checks and balances in place to
prevent catastrophes like these.''
Based on these findings, the lack of any public sector engineers in
decision making related to the construction inspection of this bridge
meant that protecting the public interest and public safety was not the
primary focus of that oversight. The lack of strong public sector
inspection and oversight on the construction of the FIU bridge
contributed to the conditions that led to this tragic collapse and the
failure to ensure a safe construction work zone.
In addition to ensuring the best use of public resources and
placing the primary focus on delivering public safety, requiring public
inspection also provides an effective way to stretch available Federal-
aid highway funds. In recent years, studies in Tennessee, California,
Utah, Louisiana, and Ohio have found that outsourcing these engineering
and design services such as inspection can cost two to three times as
much as using in-house staff. Looking to find ways to bring some or all
of these activities back in-house can increase the amount of resources
dedicated to building transportation projects.
An example of this occurred when the Tennessee DOT decided to hire
state employees to do the vast majority of construction inspection work
in that state instead of using consultants. The Department made this
decision after it found that expenditures for consultants went from $71
million in 2007 to $127 million in 2012 while delivering relatively the
same volume of construction projects. By increasing the Department's
staff, the agency achieved a net savings after employee expenses of $43
million per year. According to former Tennessee Commissioner of
Transportation John Schroer, every dollar of the $43 million in annual
savings went back into projects. Similarly, the Ohio State Auditor
recently found that the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) could
save upwards of $21 million per year if they utilized in-house staff
for construction inspection services. We recognize that every state is
unique and manages its programs differently, but at a time when policy-
makers are seeking solutions to address a projected shortfall in the
Highway Trust Fund and to increase infrastructure investment, decisions
to insource construction inspection activities would be an effective
way of stretching available revenues and ensure the safe construction
of infrastructure projects.
Finally, in his testimony Mr. Pecori raised the need for the
Subcommittee to include language in its reauthorization proposal
encouraging the use of lump sum or fixed price contracting by federal,
state and local agencies on federally-funded projects. The need for
this provision is not clear to us, since--as Mr. Pecori states in his
testimony--firm fixed price payment is currently an authorized Federal
Highway Administration procurement method.
Based on use of this contracting method by other Federal agencies,
such as the Army Corp of Engineers, lump sum contracting is only
appropriate under very specific conditions--projects with limited risk
factors, minimal technical and administrative complexity, and a low
likelihood of changes in scope. Use of this contracting method requires
an appropriate level of project and contract oversight and cost
controls. It seems that the decision to use of this procurement method
should remain with state DOTs and be based on the size and type of
contract, as well as the duration and degree of risk involved in the
work to be carried out under the contract. We would encourage the
committee to exclude any language encouraging the use of a specific
procurement method.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the
record of this hearing. We appreciate your consideration of policies
that recognize the important role that public employees play in the
planning, design, and construction of the nation's surface
transportation network. We look forward to working with the
Subcommittee as it develops a surface transportation reauthorization
bill.
Sincerely,
Joe Mello,
PECG President.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Hon. Nelson Petty Jr., P.E.,
Commissioner, Virgin Islands Department of Public Works
Question 1. Your testimony notes that highway funding to the Virgin
Islands has barely increased over the past 20 years. Specifically, the
2015 FAST Act allocated $16.8 million annually to the Virgin Islands,
which is barely more than the $14.5 million annually allocated to the
Virgin Islands through TEA-21 over two decades ago.
Commissioner Petty, given the diminishing purchasing power of the
dollar and increasingly frequent natural disasters, how has this small
amount of funding impacted your ability to build 21st-century
infrastructure?
Answer. The lack of adequate funding over the years has definitely
impacted the USVI's ability to build and maintain our infrastructure.
The remoteness of the islands also plays a role in the diminishing
power of the dollar, more so than other jurisdictions. For example, the
cost of asphalt, the primary road building material, costs anywhere
from $85 to $150/ton nationwide--while in the USVI the average price is
around $400/ton. We have recently received bids as high as $600/ton!
As I stated in my verbal testimony, we have been forced to utilize
other funding mechanisms to be able to build our larger more impactful
projects. We recently utilized GARVEE bonds to construct much needed
reconstruction and project expansion of infrastructure that has been
neglected for more than 30 years. However, using GARVEE funds has
handicapped our ability to maintain the rest of our infrastructure,
because our current GARVEE debt service payments account for
approximately half of our $16 million allocation.
Often, projects are delayed until adequate funding is accumulated
over several years of allocation; further lending to our inability to
adequately manage our assets.
So in essence, the lack of funding over the last 20 plus years, has
led to deferred maintenance and a situation where we are so far behind,
that at the current rate of funding, we would never be able to build
21st century infrastructure.
Question 2. What level of funding do you recommend Congress
consider for the U.S. Territorial Highway program?
Answer. For the USVI to regain control of infrastructure, it is
recommended that the territory receive a minimum of $35-$40 million per
year over the next 10 years. That is why we agree with Congresswoman
Stacey Plaskett's request to increase the annual Territorial Highway
Program funding to one-fifth of one percent of the total annual Federal
Aid Highway Program appropriation. Applying this formula under the FAST
Act for FY 2020, it would amount to $37.85 million for the USVI. If the
total Federal Aid Highway Program appropriation is further increased
according to Chairman DeFazio's Moving America Forward framework, the
formula would amount to over $50 million annually for the USVI. This
amount will allow us to transform the infrastructure to a level that
will enable us to stand up a preventative maintenance program during
the rebuild. A properly ran preventative maintenance program will
reduce the need for high levels of funding, as well as allow funding to
be utilized for new expansion and other innovative transportation
initiatives, rather than cyclically replacing or reconstructing the
same infrastructure.
Question 3. Are there additional changes you recommend to the
program to support territories' transportation needs going forward?
Answer. As the territories are essentially islands, separate
funding for ferry boats and other maritime services would be
appropriate. Americans in the USVI live and work on several islands
(mainly St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John) that cannot be connected
by bridges. The primary choice for inter-island transportation is by
air, which is relatively expensive, on a limited schedule, and subject
to strict weight limits. Ferry service is currently limited to mostly
between St. Thomas and St. John, without service to/from St. Croix, the
largest island by size and population. Two routes have been in the
process of being developed: a route that in the past served St. Thomas
and St. Croix, and a new route in downtown Charlotte Amalie.
Although the Virgin Islands received Federal Highway Administration
ferry program funding in the past, it has been locked out of such
funding since the 2015 enactment of section 1112(c)(2) of the FAST Act.
This prohibits federal participation in the construction or purchase,
for private ownership of a ferry boat, ferry terminal facility, or
other eligible project. 23 U.S.C. Sec. 129(c)(3). While the government
of the U.S. Virgin Islands owns the ferry terminals, it cannot afford
to own or operate the ferries. As a result, the ferries themselves are
privately owned and operated.
Amending the law to exempt the Territorial Highway Program island
areas from the restrictions on private ownership and operation would
make the USVI ferry systems once again eligible for Federal Highway
Administration ferry program funding; and thereby allow for a
reasonably-priced ferry system, thus growing the economy.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Christopher B. French, Deputy
Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Question 1. Deputy Chief French, as noted in your testimony the
U.S. Forest Service has a maintenance backlog of $5.2 billion with $3.6
billion attributed to transportation-related maintenance. The Forest
Service received a total of $85 million out of the Federal Lands
Transportation Program over the life of the FAST Act. States and
counties have additionally undertaken projects benefiting Forest
Service roads with Federal Lands Access Program funds.
How much do you currently spend, from all sources of funding, on
USFS transportation assets annually, including maintenance?
Answer. Currently we have two sources of funding that we can
directly manage: the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal
Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) which authorizes approximately $19
million annually to the Forest Service; and the Forest Service
Construction & Maintenance-Roads Program that allocates approximately
$222 million annually to operations and maintenance of roads and
bridges. Funding from timber receipts, Emergency Relief for Federally
Owned Roads, Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, and
other internal and external partners varies from year to year.
Question 2. How does this compare to your needs?
Answer. Beyond the $222 million received annually from the
Construction & Maintenance-Roads Program for operations and regular
maintenance of the Forest Service transportation infrastructure, the
Forest Service has an estimated unmet annual need of $445 million, for
ten years, for maintenance, rehabilitation and major reconstruction of
deteriorated transportation assets.
Question 3. How much did you receive, on average, on an annual
basis under the Forest Highway Program prior to program consolidations
in MAP-21? Were roads on Forest Service land eligible for funding under
this program?
Answer. About $19 million per year was allocated to Forest Service
administered Forest Highways between 2005 and 2012 from the Surface
Transportation Authorization (SAFETEA-LU). Prior to MAP-21, FHWA, the
Forest Service, and state Departments of Transportation jointly
designated roads as Forest Highways eligible for Forest Highway Program
funding. These roads may have been administered by states, counties, or
the Forest Service. On average, about ten percent of Forest Service
roads open to passenger cars were designated as Forest Highways.
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Aron Reif, P.E.,
Transportation Program Manager, Office of Acquisition and Property
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Question 1. Mr. Reif, your testimony highlights that the Department
of Interior has $17.3 billion in deferred maintenance and repair needs,
approximately one half of which is related to transportation assets.
What portion of this deferred maintenance and repair needs is
attributed to National Park Service assets, both total backlog and the
portion attributed to transportation assets?
Answer. Interior reported approximately $17.3 billion in total
deferred maintenance at the end of FY 2019, including more than $8.5
billion in transportation-related deferred maintenance. The National
Park Service (NPS) has both the largest share of total deferred
maintenance, approximately 75%, and the largest share of
transportation-related costs, approximately 90%, among DOI bureaus.
Question 2. Your testimony also notes that NPS has identified over
$2.6 billion in future transportation ``mega projects.''
Can you confirm that this $2.6 billion in future needs is in
addition to the figure you just provided for the backlog?
Answer. The $2.6 billion figure identified for transportation
``mega projects'' is not entirely in addition to the Deferred
Maintenance backlog number but does eliminate the DM for the specific
project. This is because ``mega projects'' are large and complex
transportation projects that address deferred maintenance through the
recapitalization of roads and bridges that are at the end of their
service lives. Cost effective design and construction calls for
modernization of a facility during recapitalization to address today's
safety requirements, functional needs and construction standards.
Deferred maintenance estimates do not address these investment items.
Question 3. Mr. Reif, the National Park System includes important
tourist destinations, but it also manages critical assets that affect
local transportation, such as the Arlington Memorial Bridge in my
district. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, the District of
Columbia has over $500 million in deferred maintenance for
transportation projects.
How does NPS prioritize investments among equally compelling
transportation needs, and geographically across the nation, when you
have such a tremendous deficit?
Answer. To prioritize annual funding allocations, the NPS uses
several layered strategies to maximize investment decisions, stretch
limited funding, and reach performance-based goals on condition of
roads and bridges. Generally, this includes:
Focusing the majority of available Federal Lands
Transportation Program funding on projects that address existing paved
roads and bridges. Bridges are given priority to ensure the safety of
the traveling public from a catastrophic bridge failure. Additionally,
Alternative Transportation Program, which includes all the other modes
of transport throughout the park, are provided a set aside of $15
million annually;
Reviewing projects for strict eligibility criteria
established by Title 23 and NPS policy which focus funding towards
improving the existing NPS transportation systems, discourage ancillary
improvements, and allows only limited capital improvements, such as
road realignments. Funding is focused on the mainline park roads and
parkways--which carry the majority of the visitors--and towards
activities such as resurfacing, repairing, and rehabilitating roads and
bridges; and
Taking individual parks and Regional priorities into
account when projects are prioritized during the NPS Service-wide
Comprehensive Call.
In addition, under applicable statutory authority, NPS is required
to develop a long-range transportation plan and establish management
systems for pavement, bridges, congestion and safety to influence
project selection and priorities.
Finally, resources under jurisdiction of the NPS are to be
protected and impacts on resources and park operations are to be
minimized. These dual mandates require creativity, sensitivity to both
missions, and an innovative balanced approach.
Questions from Hon. Jared Huffman to Aron Reif, P.E., Transportation
Program Manager, Office of Acquisition and Property Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior
Question 4. What level of funding would the Federal Land Management
Agencies require to complete new transportation projects that the
agencies have identified to increase access and safety?
a. Could you please identify any of those proposed projects in
California, with a highlight on projects in California's 2nd district.
Answer (4. & 4.a.). The Department has identified annual
transportation-related needs of approximately $1.1 billion per year to
improve and maintain its transportation infrastructure in good
condition, increase access to our Federal lands, improve safety on our
facilities, meet modernization needs, and develop a multi-modal
transportation system that can accommodate future needs and welcome all
Americans.
More than $553 million in total project costs have been identified
within the State of California. Example projects that focus on
improving access or safety include:
Construction of Multi-Modal Transportation Connections in
San Pablo Bay, National Wildlife Refuge, including the construction of
acceleration and deceleration lanes on Highway 37 at a refuge entry
point and improvements to the construction materials of trails to allow
for bicycle use;
Rehabilitation of the Entry Road and North & Central
Parking Areas, Stinson Beach, Golden Gate National Recreation Area to
reduce sensitive resource impacts, create a turnaround for transit
buses, and replace deteriorated curb and sidewalks to meet current ADA
requirements;
Rehabilitation of Glacier Point Road, Yosemite National
Park, including improvements to formalized pullouts and removal of
informal pullouts in areas with insufficient sight distances, and the
addition of curve widening on short radius curves to better accommodate
shuttles and other large vehicles;
Rehabilitation of Big Oak Flat Road, Yosemite National
Park, including improvements for safety and repairs to poor condition
road sections due to subgrade failures and settlement, which will
significantly improve the condition of only paved access to the town of
Foresta.
Question 5. What are the individual figures for the maintenance
backlog at each of the agencies within Interior?
Answer. Interior manages an infrastructure asset portfolio valued
at more than $300 billion, ranging from large dams and canals in the
West to iconic national landmarks. As discussed at this hearing, at the
end of FY 2019 the Department reported $17.3 billion in deferred
maintenance and repair needs, across its bureaus including the National
Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian
Education.
Question 6. Does the Department of the Interior have any proposals
for legislative changes to the FLTP, FLAP, or other DOT programs that
are authorized to provide transportation opportunities for the Federal
Land Management Agencies?
Answer. The Administration does not have any legislative proposals
related specifically to the FLTP, FLAP or to other DOT programs to
share at this time.
For the second year, the Administration has proposed with the
budget a Public Land Infrastructure Fund (Fund), which would provide up
to $6.5 billion over 5 years to address the infrastructure backlog
needs at the NPS, BLM, FWS, BIE, and at the USDA Forest Service. The
President has called on Congress to enact this important legislation.
Moneys from the Fund would not replace the Federal Lands Transportation
Program and the Tribal Transportation Program, both key funding sources
for major capital investments on Interior and tribal transportation
facilities. Instead, this would be an additional Fund, working in
tandem with existing programs, to help tackle the large balance of
transportation-related deferred maintenance, recapitalization, and
repair needs.
The Department looks forward to working with Congress on the Public
Lands Infrastructure Fund, and on specific proposals for the surface
transportation reauthorization as that legislation moves forward.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Hon. Joe A. Garcia, Head
Councilman, Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo
Question 1. Head Councilman Garcia, your testimony calls for
significantly increasing Federal investment for public transportation
on Indian reservations.
How important is public transportation to tribal nations?
Answer. Public transportation systems are critical to American
Indians and Alaska Natives. The majority of the nation's Indian
reservations and Alaska Native villages are located in rural, remote
areas, which are predominantly low-income and which have limited access
to healthcare and other essential services. With inadequate
transportation infrastructure, public transportation plays an important
role to help Tribal citizens and non-Indian residents who live on
Indian reservations and Alaska Native villages, and who need reliable,
all-year access to get to health services (e.g., medical appointments,
dialysis, physical therapy, substance abuse and other treatment
programs), job centers (on and off-reservation), social service
programs, and governmental offices.
Access to health services is very important to Tribal citizens.
According to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' 2018 report, American
Indians and Alaska Natives receive health services from 46 hospitals,
344 health centers, 105 health stations, and 150 Alaska village clinics
which are operated directly by the Indian Health Service (IHS), or by
Tribes and tribal organizations under authority of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), Pub. L. 93-638, 25
U.S.C. Sec. 5301 et seq., supplemented by 34 Urban Indian
Organizations that provide health services to the American Indians and
Alaska Natives living in urban areas. See U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, Briefing Report, Broken Promises: Continuing Federal Funding
Shortfall for Native Americans, December 2018, Ch. 2: Health Care, pp.
64-65, https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf. The
report noted that between 2005 and 2014, every racial group--except
Native Americans--experienced a decline in infant mortality, and that
depression, substance abuse, and suicide are all too common among
Native youth. Yet despite the great need for increased health services
and programs, poor levels of access to quality health care exacerbate
the situation in Indian country.
Congress appropriates nearly $1 billion for purchased/referred
care, which are funds appropriated by Congress for the Indian Health
Service (IHS) and Tribes/Tribal organizations carrying out health
programs under the ISDEAA, to cover the costs for out-patient health
services that are not otherwise available to a Tribal patient at their
primary IHS- or Tribally-operated health facility. The Tribal patient,
however, must often arrange their own transportation to get to an off-
reservation health provider or facility for such referred care
services. Such non-IHS/non-Tribal facilities are often located in
larger urban areas which are a significant distance from the
reservation or village clinic. Without public transportation, or funds
to cover ambulance service costs for the more seriously ill, many
American Indian and Alaska Native patients must arrange their own
transportation or, in some cases, simply don't follow up and miss these
out-of-town referred care appointments.
According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in general
and across the country: ``Lack of transportation access can create a
barrier for treatment and screening, with an estimated 3.6 million
Americans missing or delaying non-emergency medical care each year
because of transportation issues.'' See https://www.transit.dot.gov/
ccam/about/initiatives. The lack of public transportation is especially
true in Indian country.
Public transportation in Indian country also ties Tribal
communities together, by allowing reservation populations in
neighboring districts to visit friends and relatives, attend Tribal
cultural events, elder and youth events, and other social gatherings.
Public transportation is also a safety measure. By using buses and
other public transit systems, Tribes are providing a safe means of
travel for reservation residents. Public transit removes pedestrians
who may otherwise hitchhike or walk on the side of roads that often do
not have sidewalks, lighting, or broad shoulders to allow for safe
pedestrian travel.
Finally, public transportation promotes economic development.
Having a mobile workforce which can easily get from residential areas
to places of employment ensures that employers can count on their
employees to show up for work and perform their duties each day.
Affordable and reliable public transit is a key factor to attract
businesses in Indian country and spur economic growth.
Question 2. What are the Tribes' existing public transportation
funding needs, and how does that figure compare to the funding Tribes
have received?
Answer. It is a challenge to quantify public transportation needs
that are largely not being met on most reservations and Alaska Native
villages throughout the United States. What is clear, however, is that
Indian tribes are woefully underfunded when it comes to public
transportation needs.
In my written testimony, I noted that the total land mass under
Tribal jurisdiction is about 100 million acres, which if a State would
make ``Indian country'' the fourth-largest State geographically in the
United States. I also noted that according to the 2010 U.S. Decennial
Census, 5.2 million people identified as American Indian/Alaska Native
(AI/AN) alone, or in combination with another race, which would make
``Indian country'' the 22nd most populous State (about the size of
South Carolina or Minnesota).
Yet despite these numbers, together with 29,400 miles of BIA System
roads and over 900 bridges, 13,650 miles of Tribally-owned public roads
(most of which are dirt and gravel), over 110,000 miles of State,
county, township, city, and borough routes that are located on or
provide access to reservations and Alaska Native villages (i.e., all
constituting a ``Tribal transportation facility'' as defined in 23
U.S.C. Sec. 101(a)(31)), and some of the worst motor vehicle fatality
and pedestrian fatality rates in the Nation for any race, Congress
authorizes and appropriates a combined total of $35 million annually
for public transportation programs and services for a small fraction of
the Nation's 575 Federally-recognized tribes (FY 2016-FY 2020).
Under the FAST Act, the $35 million is comprised of $30 million
annually for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) formula-based
``Public Transportation on Indian Reservation Program'' (Sec.
5311(c)(1)(B)), which provides recurring funding to tribes in 29
States, and $5 million annually for FTA's competitive Tribal Transit
Grant Program (Sec. 5311(c)(1)(A)). Indian country receives a fraction
of the federal public transportation funding Congress appropriates each
year to serve Tribal communities in rural, remote areas of the country,
whose public transit systems buses must travel on poor and failing
roads. These conditions increase operating, maintenance, and fuel
costs. The $35 million for Indian country public transportation needs
compares to the FAST Act's $11.417 billion in FY 2019 for all public
transportation programs for the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
and U.S. territories.
If Congress were to compare the FY 2019 non-urbanized area formula
allocation of $716.4 million, available to the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, and U.S. territories (Sec. Sec. 5311 +5340 programs),
versus the Tribal Transit Program allocation of $35 million (formula
and discretionary transit grant (Sec. 5311(c)(1)), the States, the
District of Columbia, and U.S. territories receive more than twenty
(20) times the annual allocation Tribes receive for public
transportation needs. With so little Federal funding, Tribes are
falling further and further behind in meeting public transportation
needs of their citizens and other residents.
Based on U.S. Census Bureau population estimates as of July 1,
2019, the six least populous States are Wyoming (578,759), Vermont
(623,989), Alaska (731,545), North Dakota (762,062), South Dakota
(884,659), and Delaware (973,764). Combined, these five states have an
estimated 2019 population of 4.5 million, still below the 2010 U.S.
Census population for Indian country's 5.2 million AI/AN citizens. In
FY 2019, however, these six States received over $96.5 million in
Federal appropriations in FY 2019 from FTA for the following six FAST
Act programs: 1) Nonurbanized area formula grants (Sec. 5311 and Sec.
5340) ($36.29 million); 2) Urbanized area formula grants (Sec. 5307
and Sec. 5340) ($52.99 million); 3) Metropolitan Planning grants
(Sec. 5303) ($2.74 million); 4) Statewide Planning grants (Sec. 5304)
($717,000); 5) Enhanced Mobility for Older Adults and People with
Disabilities grants (Sec. 5310) ($3.18 million); and 6) RTAP awards
(Sec. 5311(b)(3)) ($638,338). The six States receive near three times
the allocation provided to the Nation's 575 federally-recognized Tribes
for public transportation needs for a comparable service population.
The $96.5 million in FTA funding excludes the FTA's State of Good
Repair Program ($2.8 billion); the Bus and Bus Facilities Formula ($610
million); and the State Safety Oversight Program ($24.1 million), which
States also share.
In July 2019, the Intertribal Transportation Association (ITA)
transmitted to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee its proposed highway
measure, the ``Tribal Transportation Infrastructure and Tribal Transit
Investment Act of 2020,'' to begin the dialogue with Congress over
Tribal infrastructure, transit, and highway safety needs. In its
proposal, ITA proposed a number of provisions--essentially asking
Congress to double authorizations for FTA's formula-based Tribal
Transit Program (to $75 million by FY 2025) and increase the
discretionary Tribal Transit Grant Program to $30 million in FY 2021
with $5 million stepped increases each year thereafter to reach $50
million by FY 2025. I enclose a copy of the ITA proposed legislation.
First, ITA recommended increasing the current authorization for
FTA's formula-based 5311(c)(1)(B) program from $30 million in FY 2020
to $55 million in FY 2021, with stepped increases of $5 million for
Fiscal Years 2022-2025, so that by FY 2025 the formula-based program is
funded at $75 million. See Sec. 101(b)(2) of the ITA proposed measure.
Second, ITA recommended that FTA's discretionary Tribal Transit
Grant Program (Sec. 5311(c)(1)(A)) be increased from $5 million
annually in FY 2020 to $30 million in FY 2021, with stepped increases
of $5 million each year thereafter, so that the program has an
authorized level of $50 million by FY 2025. See Sec. 101(b)(1) of the
ITA proposed measure.
Third, in anticipation of Congress considering a more robust
reauthorization to the FAST Act, ITA proposed an additional
authorization to the formula-based 5311(c)(1)(B) to accelerate Tribal
transit system development, and a similar authorization for the
discretionary Tribal Transit Grant program, asking Congress to double
the initial appropriation for Tribal transit program needs in the next
reauthorization to increase public transit systems in Indian country.
See Sec. 102(a)(6) of the ITA proposed measure.
Finally, to ensure that no Tribe now receiving Tribal Transit
Program formula funds receives less funds for transit needs than they
received from a discretionary Tribal Transit Program grant awarded by
FTA between FY 2006 and FY 2012 (SAFETEA-LU's Tribal Transit
Competitive grant program), ITA proposed that FTA use the initial
increase in funding for FTA's discretionary Tribal Transit grant
program (5311(c)(1)(A)) to bring every Tribe up to at least the highest
discretionary Tribal Transit Program grant that the Tribe received
between FY 2006 and FY 2012. The cost to do so was estimated at between
$10-$12 million. Thus, if Congress were to authorize $30 million for
FTA's discretionary Tribal Transit Grant Program in reauthorization,
the majority of those funds would remain available to FTA for the award
of discretionary Tribal Transit grants. See Sec. 103 of the ITA
proposed measure.
Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Hon. Joe A. Garcia, Head
Councilman, Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo
Question 3. Your testimony outlines several policy proposals for
FAST Act reauthorization which would improve transportation on tribal
lands, including lowering minimum cost thresholds and increasing the
Federal share for grant programs.
What challenges do Tribes face that other local governments, such
as States, counties, and cities, may not in raising matching funds for
Federal grants?
Answer. Tribes face considerable challenges when competing with
States, counties, cities and other public authorities for discretionary
federal grants to improve transportation infrastructure. This is
especially true when Tribes must put up a local match (e.g., 10% or 20%
of the total construction cost) to secure the federal grant. Unlike
States and counties, which have a tax base and can more readily issue
bonds to finance governmental services, Tribes face many obstacles. For
most Tribes that do not have debt rated by a recognized credit rating
organization, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain
funding for a transportation project in the public markets for
infrastructure projects, whether to finance the entire project cost or
to meet a local match requirement. Even bank or other conventional
sources are difficult to access unless the Tribe is able to pledge
collateral to secure a loan from unrelated sources since roads and
other infrastructure projects in Indian Country seldom produce revenues
that can provide security for debt incurred to develop and construct
them.
Tribes with gaming or natural resource enterprises that may provide
a source of collateral often have prior liens on those assets and
revenues. Tribes without such potential sources of collateral generally
have no alternate source of revenue or income to offer as security to
finance infrastructure projects that require local matching funds from
non-federal sources. Therefore, guaranties, or other forms of credit
support and enhancement, or federal programs that eliminate the local
match requirement imposed on Tribes, are desperately needed to support
transportation and other infrastructure projects in Indian country.
Tribes also face challenges of rurality. Construction costs for
projects for Tribes located in rural, remote areas of the country are
costlier. Contractor mobilization costs can be higher to move
personnel, heavy construction equipment, and supplies to remote
reservations. Tribal construction projects with a higher construction
cost require a larger local match, which may be beyond the ability of a
Tribe to finance with available discretionary resources or by financial
arrangements with banks or other lending institutions.
Question 4. Are minimum cost thresholds for Federal grants
preventing otherwise worthy tribal transportation projects from being
completed?
Answer. Yes. Tribes are under-represented as grant recipients from
the larger federal grant programs of the Department of Transportation,
such as the TIGER, BUILD, INFRA grants, and the Nationally Significant
Federal Lands and Tribal Projects Program, due in part to high
construction cost eligibility requirements. If a Tribe must also
finance the local match from non-Federal sources, the Tribe may lack
sufficient funds to cover the local match. Tribes also face challenges
to cover the expense of preparing a cost-benefit analysis to accompany
the grant application for certain Federal awards.
Tribes also face hurdles to compete successfully for Federal grants
with a high local match requirement because Tribes are using available
discretionary funds to often replace outdated heavy construction
equipment (motor graders, backhoe loaders, excavators, trucks, etc.),
or are using discretionary funds for non-transportation priorities
altogether, such as healthcare, scholarships, housing, or law
enforcement services. Too often, Tribes bid out construction work that
Tribes might otherwise perform at less cost using their own Tribal
workforce due to the fact that Tribal heavy construction equipment is
inoperable due to age and lack of spare parts. Lowering Federal dollar
thresholds, or eliminating them altogether, will allow more Tribes to
compete successfully for Federal transportation grants.
While Tribes may well rank high for Federal grants based on traffic
fatalities, safety hazards, population, or need for the project in the
community, available data demonstrates that too few Tribes are grant
recipients of Federal awards when the applicant pool is open to all
public authorities and there is not a set-aside specific to Tribes and
Tribal organizations, or statutory authority for the Secretary of
Transportation to waive the local match requirement under certain
circumstances.
Tribes strongly endorse legislation such as S. 2302, which propose
to amend the Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects
Program to reduce the project eligibility threshold to $12.5 million
(from $25 million), split Federal appropriations 50/50 between Federal
land management agencies and Tribes, and increase the Federal share of
eligible Tribal projects to 100%. See S. 2302, Sec. 1129. The
Committee should consider an even lower dollar threshold for Tribes for
this and other Department of Transportation grant programs.
Many Tribes throughout the country have transportation construction
projects below a $12.5 million threshold, and more in the $2 million-
$10 million cost range. Some Tribes finance such projects through pay-
go or through loans and loan guarantees where Tribes can pledge their
future Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) allocations to repay a loan
principal and interest costs for eligible projects listed on an FHWA-
approved Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP).
Tribes that cannot compete for these higher threshold Federal grant
programs must delay or forego important transportation projects. This
has a negative effect on Tribes, their citizens and residents.
Completing projects in today's dollars is cost-effective. In addition,
completed projects immediately improve transportation mobility and
highway safety, and promote economic development opportunities for
Tribes that may not otherwise be realized for many years.
Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Mary Beth Clark, President,
Intertribal Transportation Association
Question 1. Ms. Clark, your testimony calls for making Tribes
direct recipients for all U.S. DOT competitive and discretionary
grants, rather than sub-recipients of States or other entities.
Can you elaborate on which DOT grants you're referring to
specifically?
Answer. Although an Indian Tribe is defined under Federal law as a
``public authority''--a Federal, State, county, town, or township,
Indian tribe, municipal or other local government or instrumentality
with authority to finance, build, operate, or maintain toll or toll-
free facilities (23 U.S.C. Sec. 101(a)(21))--Indian Tribes are not
listed consistently in Federal statutes and Notices of Funding
Opportunity (NOFOs) as direct recipients/applicants for the
discretionary and competitive grant programs of the U.S. Department of
Transportation. In such instances, Tribes must become a sub-recipient
of a State or other eligible grantee which often raises the
transactional cost to the Tribe by requiring a separate contract or
agreement with the State or other grantee, or by requiring extensive
negotiations to reach mutually agreeable terms and conditions for the
Tribe to accept the subgrant award. As a condition for the grant, for
example, States may ask a Tribe to waive sovereign immunity from suite,
consent to State court jurisdiction or State procurement laws and
regulations which may vary from Tribal procurement laws. In some cases,
Tribes decline to accept a subgrant of a Federal award.
Below, I list a number of current USDOT transportation programs
that do make Tribes direct grantees, but require Tribes to be sub-
recipients of other eligible grantees, such as States and counties. I
recommend that the Committee correct this in the next reauthorization
bill.
FHWA
1. In the FY 2019 BUILD grant NOFO (FHWA), Tribes were not listed
as eligible direct recipients. Tribes should always be listed as direct
recipients of the BUILD grant program, and other recurring Federal
grant programs that award funds for transportation infrastructure,
transit, and highway safety projects.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
2. High Priority Program, 49 U.S.C. 31102(1), providing federal
financial assistance to augment commercial motor vehicle safety
activities and innovative technology deployment. Tribes must be sub-
recipient to an eligible applicant.
3. CMV Operator Discretionary Grant Program, 49 U.S.C. 31103,
provides grants to expand the number of CDL holders who have enhanced
operator safety training and to assist current or former U.S. Armed
Forces personnel and their spouses receive training to transition to
the CMV operation industry. Tribes must be sub-recipients to an
eligible applicant.
4. Commercial Driver's License Program Improvement Discretionary
Grant, 49 U.S.C. 41313, provides financial assistance to States to
achieve compliance with federal regulations (49 CFR Parts 383 and 384)
and to other entities capable of performing national projects that help
States with compliance efforts to improve the national CDL program.
Tribes must be sub-recipients.
5. Outreach and Education Discretionary Grant Program, 49 U.S.C.
31110(c)(1), provides grants to conduct outreach and education programs
to raise the awareness of issues related to CMV safety, household goods
issues, and human trafficking. Tribes must be sub-recipients.
6. Research and Technology Discretionary Grant Program, 49 U.S.C.
31108(a)(6)(C), provides grants for research, development, technology,
and technology transfer activities regarding CMV related accidents and
improving CMV safety through technological improvement. Tribes must be
sub-recipients.
Federal Railroad Administration
7. Despite the numerous railroad crossings on Indian reservations,
ITA cannot identify any federal grant program of the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for which Tribes are eligible recipients--
including enhanced signage, lighting, or safety measures outside the
railway right-of-way to give motorists advance warning that they are
approaching a railroad crossing.
FTA
8. FTA's Rural Areas Formula Program, 49 U.S.C. 5311, which
provides capital, planning, and operating assistance to States to
support transportation in rural areas with populations of less than
50,000, Tribes may only receive funding through the State.
9. Metropolitan Planning Program, 49 U.S.C. 5305(d), provides
funds for multimodal transportation planning in metropolitan areas and
States to facilitate long-range plans and short-range programs of
transportation investment priorities. Tribes may only receive funds as
a sub-recipient.
10. Statewide Planning Program, 49 U.S.C. 5305(e), provides funds
for multimodal transportation planning in metropolitan areas and States
to promote long-range plans and short-range programs of transportation
investment priorities. Tribes may only receive funds as a sub-
recipient.
11. Pilot Program for Innovative Coordinated Access and Mobility,
FAST Act, sec. 3006(b), provides a pilot program for innovative
coordinated access and mobility--available to 5310 recipients to assist
in financing innovative projects for the transportation disadvantaged.
Tribes may only receive funds as a sub-recipient.
Questions from Hon. Gary J. Palmer to Mary Beth Clark, President,
Intertribal Transportation Association
Question 2. What percentage of your overall transportation funding
comes from FAST Act programs?
Answer. I can only answer that as the Transportation Manager for
the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho. The Tribe's estimated annual
transportation funding needs--comprising planning, engineering,
surveys, right-of-way acquisition, environmental compliance under NEPA
and other Federal laws, construction, transit, road maintenance, and
administrative (personnel salaries, audit, and related operating
overhead costs) are approximately $2,935,355. Of this amount, the FAST
Act, through the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP), 23 U.S.C. 202(b),
and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) ``Public Transportation on
Indian Reservation'' Program, funds $1,258,653 of the Tribe's estimated
annual cost. Thus, the FAST Act covers approximately 43% of the Tribe's
annual estimated transportation needs.
Question 3. What sources of revenue, other than Fast Act programs,
do you rely upon to meet transportation infrastructure goals?
Answer. The Nez Perce Tribes assumes the duties of the Secretary of
the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), for the BIA's Road
Maintenance Program (Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
appropriations) under an Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (ISDEAA), Pub. L. 93-638, contract/compact. In FY 2020,
Congress appropriated approximately $36 million for the BIA Road
Maintenance Program which is shared by all recipient Tribes and the
BIA, for direct service tribes, to provide routine and emergency
maintenance of BIA System public roads, bridges, airports, and ferry
systems through the country. The Nez Perce Tribe's share of BIA Road
Maintenance Program funds, together with administrative overhead
Contract Support Costs, under our Pub. L. 93-638 contract/compact is
$45,000 annually.
Under an agreement with the State of Idaho, the Tribe receives
approximately $1,662,000 in State motor fuels taxes the Tribe collects
for on-reservation sales of gasoline and diesel sold to American
Indians/Alaska Natives. However, these funds are appropriated to
various programs that mirror's state use-of-funds. The Nez Perce Tribe
Transit program receives approximately 8% of this fuel tax revenue.
In addition, the Nez Perce Tribe applies for available Federal and
State grants to supplement Tribal and existing Federal formula
allocations to carry out transportation programs and projects for the
benefit of the Tribe. Such as the Idaho State Transit 5311 funding; the
Nez Perce Tribe received $82,488 (FY 19) which is 8% of Tribal Transit
operating cost.
Question 4. Are there additional revenue sources the tribes could
use to supplement FAST Act funds for infrastructure?
Answer. Like State and county governments, Indian tribes may have
additional revenue sources to supplement FAST Act funds for
infrastructure needs, but the decision to expend such alternative
sources of revenue for transportation infrastructure needs, versus
using such funds on other Tribal governmental programs and services,
are decisions left to the local government. Use of discretionary
revenues to any government for transportation projects vary from year
to year and should not be relied upon as recurring revenue sources to
supplement underfunded federal transportation infrastructure programs.
Question 5. Do the tribes receive a portion of the royalties for
energy production on tribal land?
Answer. The Nez Perce Tribe does not have energy production
projects on its lands. The royalties paid by energy developers to
Tribes varies by Tribe and should be posed to energy producing Tribes.
As noted above, however, the use of discretionary revenues by a Tribe
to supplement FAST Act funds for infrastructure projects, is a decision
local Tribal governments make, like States and counties, amid competing
demands for such funds. To date, Congress has not implemented means-
tests for State or Tribal allocations of FAST Act funds based on energy
production within their borders.
Question 6. Are there any restrictions or barriers to accessing oil
and natural gas or minerals on tribal lands?
Answer. The Nez Perce Tribe does not have energy production
projects on its lands. The question is best put to Tribes with active
oil, natural gas, and mineral operations to answer.