TIBC Road Maintenance Sub-Committee Meeting TIBC RM Subcommittee Washington Plaza Washington, DC April 10, 2019

Subcommittee Background Established March 2016 Purpose: “Establish a workgroup of Bureau of Indian Affairs and TIBC members to analyze, record, and develop data for road maintenance budget needs.” “support budget development with realistic and verifiable data” The TIBC RM Subcommittee was established in March 2016 at the request of the full TIBC. The purpose was to “establish a workgroup of BIA and TIBC members to analyze, record and develop data for road maintenance budget need.” and “to support budget development with realistic and verifiable data”.

What is the difference? Construction vs. Road Maintenance Road and bridge maintenance by definition is the preservation of the structure/roadway in the as-built condition. It is not a reconstruction or improvement activity. Construction is a rebuilding and/or improvement activity. Construction activities for Tribal Transportation facilities administered by the BIA and the Federal Highway Administration is funded with funds provided from the federal allocated dollars from USDOT (23 USC 202). In FY2019, the construction account makes $495 M available to perform eligible activities, of which construction and improvement are included. In FY2019, the BIA road maintenance account makes ~$34 M available to perform eligible BIA transportation facilities maintenance. It is important that the differences between “road and bridge construction” and “road and bridge maintenance” are understood. Maintenance is the “preservation of a structure/roadway in the “as-built” condition. It is not a reconstruction or improvement activity. Construction on the other hand is the “rebuilding and/or improvement” of a transportation facility. The construction program is mostly funded through the highway trust funded account of USDOT or through funds made available under 23 U.S.C. 202. The construction account for all tribes is approximately $495 M, while the BIA road maintenance account for those locations where BIA roads are located is approximately $34 M.

Construction funds allow reconstruction and improvement of roads, whereas maintenance is restricted to maintaining as-is. Const./Improve Maintenance PAVED ROADS 23 USC 202, TTP$ TPA DOI RM $

Construction funds allow the reconstruction and improvement of roads, whereas maintenance is restricted in maintaining as-is. This is most apparent when the existing roads in an unimproved earth road Const./Improve Maintenance EARTH ROADS 23 USC 202, TTP$ TPA DOI RM $

TIBC Road Maintenance Subcommittee Actions Dec. 2016: The subcommittee through the tribes in the Great Plains Region and BIA developed a on-line survey of tribes/BIA agency offices on road maintenance functions, costs, priorities and needs. April 18, 2018: DOI and OMB approve distribution of road maintenance survey nation- wide. Sept. 30, 2018: Survey link is closed and data finalized. November 2018: Summary Analysis interpreted. Milestones in the actions of the Subcommittee.

Data is needed to improve on “NEED” DATA MANAGEMENT Data is needed on a tribal level of Maintenance data for roads, bridges, equipment needs, ferry facilities, Miles of roads maintained Surface Type, Functional Classification Cost for each activity (routine, emergency, repair, snow/ice) Pavement management Bridge management Bridge Maintenance activities It is essential that the intent of the this subcommittee to look at ways that need could be assessed based on available information as well as other tools (like management tools (pavement, maintenance, bridge and asset)).

In the Winter of 2016, the tribes within the TIBC subcommittee working with the BIA Great Plains Region, begin developing an on-line survey to gather information on what tribes/agencies were doing to management their road maintenance programs. The survey was approved for use in April 2018. When the survey closed in September 2018, 142 responses were made to the survey. While this represented only ~25% of the tribes, the respondents represented in this survey represented over 85% of all the BIA road miles and bridges. The survey was open to all tribes/agencies.

Survey Categories/Data Request Respondent ID ASSESSMENT PRIORITIES TOP 3 RM ISSUES INVENTORY/ASSET MANAGEMENT TRAINING/COMPLIANCE PARTNERSHIPS SAFETY/SECURITY YARDS EXPENDITURES COST PER MILE VEHICLES/BUILDINGS TRAILS/PATHWAYS The tribes within the GPRO along with assistance of the Region, developed the survey to reflect responses of the individual tribes and agencies to program related functions. Functions such as “how do you assess your current RM needs”, “what are your priorities as program operators”; “what are your top 3 RM issues”; “do you perform an assessment of assets or inventory of transportation facilities”; “what type of training do you utilize for operations and compliance”; “what kinds of partnerships have you developed with other stakeholders”; “what is the current status of safety and security of equipment, yards and personnel”; “what are you expenditures for the different types of maintenance activities”; “how does you cost relate to unit cost, for example: cost to maintain a paved road per mile”; “what additional costs add to your total management of RM activities (vehicles / buildings, etc.)”; “do you have a path or trails maintenance program”.

PRIORITIES (highest to lowest) Snow/Ice Removal Pavement Maintenance (potholes or pavement markings) Gravel Maintenance Signing Pavement Sealing ROW Maintenance (ditch mowing, tree removal, etc.) Culverts Remedial work on improved earth roads The tribes/agencies ranked their priorities from highest to lowest. The highest ranked maintenance concerned was “snow/ice removal”; followed by maintenance of paved roads; then maintenance of gravel roads.

Top 3 Road Maint. Issues Funding - 125 Equipment Needs - 95 Paved Road Maint. - 69 Winter Activities - 38 Earth Road Maint. - 36 Qualified Operators - 19 Erosion Control/Dust - 15 Training - 11 Traffic Control- 9 Bridge Maint. -7 Gravel Road Maint. - 1 Storm Repairs - 1 Question: On your reservation, please identify the current 3 top road maintenance issues. Do this by checking 3 boxes to identify the top three in rank order by entering a "1", "2" or "3", of which 1 is of the highest priority. One question asked the respondents about their top 3 road maintenance program issues (this included both administrative as well as operational). The highest was funding, followed by equipment needs (proper equipment to perform the work) and then paved road maintenance.

Summary: When asked if they have a road inventory, 94% responded: “Yes” When asked if they have an active asset management system, 62% responded: “No” When asked about methods of data collection, 8.5% responded: “Electronic” If electronic data collection is used, is it shareable, 67% responded: “No” When asked if they “maintain data on road maintenance activities”, 76% responded: “Yes” Regarding data and data collection, the following responses from the tribes/agencies indicate that: Tribes/agencies have a documented road inventory. Whiile they do have an inventory (showing physical attributes), they lack the ability to record and assess assets necessary for decision making with the limited funds they have. Of the methods of data collection, paper or electronic, tribes/agencies indicated a small amount of the data is in an electronic format for sharing or further evaluation and analysis. When tribes/agencies have developed a method of collecting (which is a small number) electronically, they do not have an ability to share with others or a national reporting process that can justify national needs, trends or successes. To reinforce the notion, over 3/4s of the tribes/agencies indicated that they do track or keep road maintenance data on activities, but is remains locally because they cannot share the information regionally or nationally.

TTP EXPENDITURES IN FY 16 & FY17- at a glance Fiscal Year 2016 2017 Safety (non-construction) $1.16 M $2.08 M Transit (non-construction) $6.29 M $7.58 M Administration $23.78 M $38.8 M Maintenance $34.73 M $47.26 M Planning $10.99 M $14.89 M Other Non-Construction $1.75 M $3.66 M Active Design/Construction Projects $188.78 M $183.9 M Total $267.48 M $298.17 M Since 2005, congress has allowed tribes to use a portion of their construction funds to perform road maintenance. In FY16 and FY17, tribes chose to use between 13-16% of the available construction funds for maintenance of roads within their tribal lands, communities and villages. This means that tribes such a high priority that they are willing to use their construction funds to maintain roads (all roads). Since 2005, congress has allowed tribes to use a portion of their construction funds to perform road maintenance. In FY16 and FY17, tribes chose to use between 13- 16% of the available construction funds for maintenance of roads within their tribal lands, communities and villages.

Next Steps It is important that BIA and TIBC RM Subcommittee begin the process of following up on developing methods to manage and track data associated with road maintenance activities by tribes/agencies. What is needed? A road maintenance management system that tribes can use to report data describing need, performance and accomplishments. A pilot project at a region to develop an asset management tool “to analyze, record, and develop data for road maintenance budget needs.”