1 / 25

IRR Program Inventory and Funding Formula Update

IRR Program Inventory and Funding Formula Update. M.A.S.T. Impact Week Washington, DC March 10-13. The IRR Inventory and the Funding Formula.

ellison
Download Presentation

IRR Program Inventory and Funding Formula Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IRR Program Inventory and Funding Formula Update M.A.S.T. Impact Week Washington, DC March 10-13

  2. The IRR Inventory and the Funding Formula • The most notable issue in the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program over the past year has been the funding formula and how it is being implemented as well as the resulting funding trend. • This is an issue that impacts all tribes.

  3. Where We Came From • Prior to FY2005, the only routes that generated funding for tribes were the BIA routes included in their respective Inventories. • Public routes owned by others (tribal, state, county, township, other federal, etc) were allowed into the inventory and were eligible to have IRR funds expended on them. However, they did not generate any funding. • Large land-based tribes had the majority of the BIA routes , and therefore received the majority of the funding. • Tribes with little or no reservation, which relied on transportation infrastructures owned by others were unable to participate in the program.

  4. Where We Are Today • In FY2005, new regulations (25 CFR Part 170) were implemented as a result of a lengthy Negotiated Rulemaking Process. • The basic formula concept remained the same. • 50% Cost to construct (CTC). • 30% Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). • 20 % Population. • Public routes owned by others (tribal, state, county, township, other federal, etc) were now eligible to generate funding. • Tribes which relied on transportation infrastructures owned by others were now able to participate in the program.

  5. Implementation of Formula • Since FY2005, when the IRR Program regulations were finalized, portions of the formula have not been fully implemented because certain data in the inventory did not make a distinction as to which roads should generate at 100 %, and which should be factored at a lower percentage as intended in the regulations. This portion of the regulations is 25 CFR 170, Appendix C to Subpart C, Q10.

  6. Implementation of Formula (cont.) • 10. Do All IRR Transportation Facilities in the IRR Inventory Count at 100 Percent of Their CTC and VMT? • No. The CTC and VMT must be computed at the non-Federal share requirement for matching funds for any transportation facility that is added to the IRR inventory and is eligible for funding for construction or reconstruction with Federal funds, other than Federal Lands Highway Program funds. However, if a facility falls into one or more of the following categories, then the CTC and VMT factors must be computed at 100 percent: • (1) The transportation facility was approved, included, and funded at 100 percent of CTC and VMT in the IRR Inventory for funding purposes prior to the issuance of these regulations. • (2) The facility is not eligible for funding for construction or reconstruction with Federal funds, other than Federal Lands Highway Program funds; or • (3) The facility is eligible for funding for construction or reconstruction with Federal funds, however, the public authority responsible for maintenance of the facility provides certification of maintenance responsibility and its inability to provide funding for the project.

  7. Implementation of Formula (cont.) • Not all roads may generate 100% of CTC and VMT, the exceptions are described in three parts in Question 10: • 1. Roads which are ‘grandfathered’ • These are roads that generated funds in the formula used in FY2004 (prior to the regulations being finalized). • 2. Roads which are “not eligible” for federal funds, other than Federal Lands Highways Program funds. • 3. Roads in which the owner certifies of its inability to provide funding for the project and that it has a maintenance responsibility for the facility.

  8. Observing A Trend • Results: • Because the existing database did not distinguish which roads met the specific exception under (2) of Q.10, all road ownerships and classes, with the exception of State roads, were computed at 100%. • The resulting impacts tended to favor roads owned by others, particularly roads that had higher traffic volumes, those classes of roads which do receive or are eligible for Federal funds, other than Federal Lands Highways funds. • Inventory Growth since FY2005 has been primarily in miles owned by other than BIA or tribe.

  9. Observing A Trend

  10. Recognizing a Problem and Seeking a Solution • If during the course of the implementation of the regulations, it is apparent that changes or modifications are needed the BIA through the Secretary needs to first coordinate any changes with the IRRPCC (25CFR170.156(c)) then seek public comment. • “(c) The Committee also reviews and provides recommendations on IRR Program national concerns (including the implementation of this part) brought to its attention.”

  11. Role of IRRPCC • IRR Program Coordinating Committee (IRRPCC) • Has reviewed and discussed this issue over the past year and is not able to come up with a recommendation • Jan2008 the committee provided two views on the issue to Indian Affairs management • Jan29, 2008 committee meeting, some agreement in theory was discussed but no recommendation

  12. Role of IRRPCC (cont.) • The Committee requested that the Bureau make various data runs. • Each run looked at the ownership and classification of routes in the inventory. • Different percentages were applied to the various ownerships & classifications for each run.

  13. Role of IRRPCC (cont.) • The Committee reviewed all of the eligible roads and their corresponding classification. • A matrix was developed to show where some agreement might be possible. • Because of diverse interests, no consensus could be reached. • The following matrix shows the areas of discussion and commonality.

  14. Recommendation • Federal staff have reviewed the various data runs along with the discussion from the Committee. • Federal staff have prepared a recommended re-write of question 10. • A matrix was developed to coincide with the proposed re-write language. • This resulting matrix closely resembles the matrix created by the IRRCC.

  15. Recommendation Cont’d • The percentage of CTC and VMT used in the RNDF calculation is as follows: • (a) For facilities identified in the IRR Inventory as Ownership 1 and 2, – 100 percent; • (b) For facilities identified in the IRR Inventory as Ownership 5, Class 4 & 5 – The percentage used will be that shown under the 80% Federal, 20% State column in the “Sliding Scale Rates of Federal-aid Participation in Public Lands States for Projects not on the Interstate System”, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 120(b)(2); and • (c) For facilities not included in (a) or (b) above - The percentage used will be the difference between 100 and that shown under the 80% Federal, 20% State column in the “Sliding Scale Rates of Federal-aid Participation in Public Lands States for Projects not on the Interstate System”, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 120(b)(2), except for Class 1 roads which shall have a percentage of zero.

  16. Data Runs(Using FY 07’ Inventory Data) • Run 1 – Baseline • “As is” implementation (similar to FY 05’, 06’, 07’) • All ownership w/ exception of 3 calculated at 100% CTC and VMT • Ownership 3 calculated at Non-Federal Match • Run 2 (Committee RUN) • Ownership 1 & 2 100% CTC and VMT • Ownership 5, Class 4 & 5 100%CTC and VMT • All Other At Non-Federal Match • Run 3 (Committee RUN) • Ownership 1 & 2 100% CTC and VMT • Ownership 3-9, Class 4 & 5 100% CTC and VMT • All Others At Non-Federal Match • Run 4 (Committee RUN) • Ownership 1 & 2 100% CTC and VMT • Ownership 4 & 5 At Non-Federal Match • All Others 0% CTC and VMT • Run 5 (BIA Recommendation, see Matrix)

  17. Question 10 Items Understood to Have Majority Agreement • BIA (1 & 6) and Tribal (2) owned roads should generate at 100% of CTC and VMT • Regardless of whether or not the route is on or off reservation • Classes 1-8

  18. Question 10 Items Understood to Have Majority Agreement • Class 2-8 State owned routes regardless of agency (3), should generate at the non-federal share percentage for CTC and VMT • Regardless of location

  19. Question 10 Items Understood to Have Majority Agreement • Class 1 roads other than BIA and Tribal owned should generate 0% CTC and VMT • Major arterial roads with characteristics of serving traffic between large population centers. • ADT 9,999 or more; or • More than two lanes of traffic

  20. Summary • Recognized a Problem. • BIA and tribal roads are generating less. • Roads owned by others are generating more. • BIA and Tribal roads sole source of funding is the IRR Program. • Most roads owned by others are eligible to receive other federal funds.

  21. Summary con’t • Seeking a solution. • The IRRCC has had good discussion on this topic, but is unable to come to consensus. • BIA has prepared a recommended re-write to question 10. • This proposal will be rolled out at various tribal meetings in the near future and published in the federal register as a “Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)” for public comment. • Changes in Regulation will be effective FY2009.

  22. THE END

More Related