Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
3PURPOSE OF REPORT The status of Native American tribal transportation programs has not been the subject of much major research; hence, the literature on the topic is relatively scarce. Most of that liter- ature consists of case studies of individual tribal situations, reviews of the legal framework and its evolution, or pro- ceedings of conferences exploring one or more dimensions of the subject. In the last decade, the creation of the Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP) by the U.S. Congress has spawned an increase of some of this literature by devot- ing resources to tribal technical assistance and training in the transportation arena. Comparative studies across numerous tribal jurisdictions and their transportation programs are very few indeed. Moreover, changes in both law and practice have arisen as tribes have sought greater levels of self-determination; a trend often accompanied by an increase in fiscal resources as a result of economic development. U.S. Public Law (P.L.) 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, passed in 1975, afforded tribes new options for taking control of their own transportation futures through self-determination contracts and compacts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and many have accepted the challenge. However, it took the funding increases of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1992 and of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) six years later, coupled with the provi- sion of technical assistance, to make such options mean- ingful for many tribes. These changes have created new opportunities for tribal self-determination in federal and state transportation programs. It is important that research both monitor and interpret those changes so that the tribes can benefit. At the same time, a study of any significant number of tribal programs soon reveals what many familiar with Indian Country already know: Every case is different. Tribes operate in a variety of circumstances, ranging from small populations on large land areas to highly concentrated pop- ulations on small land bases, with or without reservations, near large metropolitan areas, and as remote from such met- ropolitan areas as one can be within the United States. They are rural and urban; prosperous and poor; large, medium, and small; and scattered across the majority of the 50 states from east to west, north to south. With all those variations in circumstances come inevitable variations in tribal trans- portation needs, issues, programs, and resources. Trans- portation needs are influenced by both demographics and geography. The former influences the need for services; the latter influences both the nature of the services needed and the types of neighboring or overlapping jurisdictions with whom tribal leaders and planners must interact to provide them. Because researchers must, in the end, be willing to explain each case on its own terms, a large portion of this study is devoted to individual profiles of the tribes that par- ticipated in our survey. The variables influencing program development that one could examine may well outnumber the tribes being surveyed. Still, some common factors do emerge even under these circumstances, and one object of the study is to uncover those factors and highlight them to clarify whatever overriding issues may exist. Statistical validity is generally not possible; however, a judicious mixture of qualitative and quantitative analysis, based on an understanding of both the federal and state legal structures affecting tribal transportation and other factors, can yield some insights into both the state of the art and the trends affecting the various programs. The aim of this study was to use such judgment to reach whatever meaning- ful conclusions seem possible. In turn, it is hoped that the findings could be useful for federal and state policy and program development with regard to tribal transportation in a way that facilitates improvements and greater efficiencies in intergovernmental interactions. We have structured the report with an eye to those objectives. Ultimately, the purpose of the report, regardless of the complexities and anomalies within its findings, is to pro- vide information that may prove useful to tribal govern- ments, and state, local, and federal agencies in determining the state of tribal transportation programs, and the steps needed to assist tribes in developing the capacity to effec- tively perform transportation-related functions. Further- more, with the impressive evolution of the transportation community within the United States since the early 1900s, this synthesis serves as an important milestone signifying the inclusion of tribal governments as an essential compo- nent of that national dialogue and assessing future tribal capacity and resource needs. A century later, this effort seems long overdue. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT We have organized this report into four chapters, followed by appendixes that include the individual tribal profiles and afford the reader supporting information about how the study was conducted and what resources were consulted. The goal is to provide readers with the most straightforward presenta- tion possible of the underlying structure not only of tribal transportation programs, but of the tribal governance struc- ture that sustains them, followed by the data collected by the American Planning Association (APA) research team. Chapter one provides an introduction to the purpose and organization of the report, as well as the approach used in gathering and analyzing data. Chapter two offers an overview of tribal governing struc- tures; the concept and legal framework for tribal sovereignty, a subject often misunderstood by those not experienced in Indian affairs; and how tribes relate to the federal government. The chapter moves from this broad framework to the narrower questions pertaining to the management of tribal transportation programs and how tribes interact on this particular topic with the federal, state, and local governments. The chapter con- cludes with a review of other issues meriting consideration and a summary of the previous studies in this arena. Chapter three examines common themes and models that emerged from across the range of case studies being reviewed and compared. Given the complexity of the sur- vey used to produce the profiles in Appendix A, these larger themes and models touch on a number of aspects of tribal transportation programs, ranging from issues of funding to self-determination contracts for the operation of trans- portation programs, and from planning to maintenance and issues of staffing and technical capacity. The chapter con- cludes by taking note of the more innovative practices revealed through interviews and by describing what are potentially fruitful avenues for future research and training in this area. A list of references cited and a glossary to help readers understand some of the essential terminology used in tribal transportation programs are also included, Appendix A provides profiles of individual tribal trans- portation programs based on the interviews and supplemen- tal material provided by tribes that were contacted and chose to participate in the survey. Here it is explained how the selections were made with the aim of including tribes of various population sizes and locations, as well as those with different funding levels for transportation programs, to con- struct a good cross section for research purposes. The remaining appendices provide a timeline of the evolution of tribal transportation programs and policies (Appendix B), a list of the tribal contacts for the profiles 4 found in Appendix A (Appendix C), and the questionnaire used to develop the profiles (Appendix D). STUDY APPROACH The first step was to gather and review whatever literature could be identified that had a bearing on the topic of tribal transportation. In a broader sense, literature was identified that would provide essential background on the evolution of tribal governance mechanisms that might influence practical choices in the management of transportation programs. The broad issue of tribal sovereignty clearly has a bearing on choices made with regard to governance concerning the highly practical subject of transportation. At the same time, tribes must achieve a certain level of technical capacity to manage their own transportation programs. The nature and amount of technical capacity required will vary with the tribeâs transportation needs, which, as noted earlier, will depend on demographics and geography. With those considerations in mind, the literature was sur- veyed first, primarily to gain an understanding of the current state of affairs and recent developments in the management of tribal transportation programs. Because a wide variety of individual variables influence the direction tribes take in making choices concerning the operation of their programs, the funding levels available to them, the needs that confront them, and numerous other factors, it became clear that a straightforward statistical evaluation of the programs simply was not possible. In such circumstances, it is far more valuable to use a case study approach. Case studies allow, and should be conducted so as to facilitate, the integration of data and knowledge from multiple sources (Scholz and Tietje 2001). At the same time, it was necessary to include enough case studies to represent the broad cross section of current Native American tribal government experience with operating transportation pro- grams. It was decided, in consultation with the review panel, to concentrate on 30 tribes that currently compose approxi- mately 80% of Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) road mileage or budget, or both. In addition, the list of prospects was developed to represent diversity in geographic location, pop- ulation size, and in the level of funding received for trans- portation. Sources of information included data from the BIA on funding under the IRR program and U.S. Census data on individual tribes. In addition, the TRB panel specified a list of 22 tribes for specific consideration in the initial round of contacts with tribal officials. The IRR program is authorized under the Federal Lands Highway Program, but dates its creation to 1928. It has evolved through numerous legal and programmatic changes since then, involving a partnership between the BIA and FHWA. Today, the IRR system includes approx- imately 25,700 miles of BIA and tribally owned roads and
525,600 miles of state, county, and local government public roads. In FY 2006, the program budget was approximately $330 million, subject to congressional allocations. BIA appropriated $26 million separately to maintenance, lead- ing to shortfalls that produced frequent complaints from tribal transportation officials about inadequate funding. Geographic location raised issues not only of achieving a spread from east to west, and north to south, including Alaska, but of recognizing that some states have a much greater concentration of tribes than others. In addition, the size range of tribes within some states is very different from others. For example, Alaska has 229 BIA-recognized tribes (native villages for the most part), most of them relatively small (fewer than 1,000 individuals), and 12 regional native nonprofit corporations (technically tribal organizations under the law) that may take on governmental programs such as transportation under the authority of tribal resolutions. Fur- thermore, there are 12 for-profit corporations and 228 village corporations, incorporated under state law, which own and administer lands and dollars provided to them under the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act. These lands are for the most part outside native village town sites. The state of Washington has 28 federally recognized tribes, mostly of average size; and Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah contain portions of the Navajo Nation, the largest reservation in the United States in both land area and population. Meanwhile, Oklahoma includes many tribes, among whom are the Cherokee, which like the Navajo number more than 200,000. APAâs data collection plan called for including at least one tribe from every state with a large number of tribes. Because a number of states, particularly in the East, have rel- atively few Native American populations, choosing 30 tribes overall to survey still left room to guarantee that states that met this criterion no matter how it was defined, such as Alaska, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Washington State, could all be included for at least one tribe apiece, and perhaps two, to achieve this goal. Other states with smaller indigenous pop- ulations could then become candidates for the one tribe to be included based on the other criteria for selection. Geographic size also significantly influences transporta- tion needs. For example, even with a widely scattered popu- lation, the Navajo reservation, which incorporates in excess of 27,000 square miles, larger than the state of West Virginia, has vast needs for connecting its population over long dis- tances and maintains aviation facilities as well. Tribes in Alaska often have hundreds, if not thousands, of square miles, dotted with small, remote villages. Much larger, densely populated groups in Oklahoma may also have large land areas, but large populations to serve as well. For instance, Cherokee lands incorporate some 7,000 square miles. Several reservations in South Dakota are just as large as neighboring counties. On the other hand, some tribes have fewer than 1,000 people on a few hundred to a few thousand acres, served by relatively small internal road systems. The geographically smallest reservations get relatively little federal money for transportation and may rely heavily on the outside world for access roads or mass transit services. In between are a variety of reservations with varying needs based on size and proximity to other jurisdictions with trans- portation services that sometimes overlap or at least interact with those of the tribe. Complicating the picture is that there are multiple categories of tribal land. Tribal trust lands are those placed in trust status with the approval of the BIA. Trust status basically means that the land is held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the tribe or individual. Conversely, tribes can acquire land through fee simple pur- chase or any other mechanism available to other owners of real property; however, those other lands may not be removed from the tax rolls or regulation of states and local governments unless they are placed in trust. In addition, there are lands that have been alienated to non-tribal landowners, who may even reside there. These often are still within reser- vation boundaries, a problem known as âcheckerboarding,â which presents special challenges with regard to transporta- tion planning. How could any tribe meaningfully sort out tribal and non-tribal users of transportation facilities on a reservation whose land ownership is divided in such a fashion? In cases in Alaska and Oklahoma, moreover, owing to his- toric differences, tribes may not even have a reservation, yet be responsible for the transportation needs of their com- munity within and with connections to and through other jurisdictions. Population size was a significant consideration because it affects both the scope of the transportation programs needed by tribal members as well as, to a lesser extent, the scope of the resources that may be available. This is not as straight- forward a number, in many cases, as it would be for saying that a hypothetical city in Kansas had 45,200 residents in the last U.S. census. The resident population of a reservation often does not reflect the total membership of the tribe, much of which may live off reservation and perhaps even be widely scattered across the United States. However, a transportation program would be poorly calibrated in size or purpose if geared to a large nonresident membership; the relevant issue is the population within the geographic area served by the program. At the same time, some reservations may house large numbers of individuals who are not tribal members; some may belong to other tribes and others may be non- Indians with inholdings within the reservation. These people, however, can be expected to use the roads and perhaps even the transit facilities. What then is the most relevant trans- portation number? The answer will often depend on the par- ticular circumstances. Nonetheless, some division of size was needed to determine the overall balance of the tribes chosen. As the complexity of this issue became clear, the study tried to consider, to the extent possible, the size of the most likely user population with a classification system that related to the range of possibilities, to test the distribution of the resulting profiles from participating tribes. It was decided early in the study to define âsmallâ as 2,000 or fewer;
âmediumâ as 2,001 to 50,000; and âlargeâ as those with more than 50,000 individuals. Of the 30 profiled tribes, 12 fell into the small category, 16 into the medium category, and only 2, the Navajo and Cherokee Nations, qualified as large. How- ever, it must be noted that these latter two are clearly in a class of their own. Both have memberships exceeding 200,000. None of the âmediumâ tribes profiled has a resident population of even 20,000. The gap between large and medium, in other words, is huge. Finally, federal funding is an indicator of financial capac- ity for both transportation planning and program operations and management. Therefore, about 30 tribes that receive approximately 80% of federal transportation funds available to tribes were identified. Below a certain minimum of fund- ing, it is difficult or impossible to execute meaningful trans- portation projects, no matter how great the need. On the other hand, although some large tribes may have needs that greatly exceed their resources, the resources available to them at least afford the ability to fashion some sort of pro- gram of planning, construction, and maintenance. More- over, at a certain scale, tribes appear to begin to generate means of mustering their own internal resources in addition to those provided by federal or state agencies. A balance that would account for these practical realities is established. The questionnaire used is a fairly complex instrument. Fol- lowing the logic of a case study format, although it used some yes/no questions and some numerical data, it allowed for con- siderable latitude in most areas for interviewees to elaborate on their answers and provide additional data. The additional data often enriched the context for understanding the tribeâs program and facilitated the preparation of a more meaningful profile. Overall, information was requested in the following areas (the full questionnaire is contained in Appendix D): ⢠Land area and population served; ⢠Tribal governance structure; ⢠Components of the tribal transportation program and whether the tribe operated its own program; ⢠Funding amounts and sources for both operating and capital expenditures; ⢠Coordination with federal and state agencies and sur- rounding regional agencies, as well as any other trans- portation providers; ⢠Training and continuing education of tribal transporta- tion staff; ⢠Status of tribal transportation planning, the primary components of the plan, and its linkages with other 6 planning activities conducted by the tribe, such as land- use planning or historical, cultural, and archaeological resources; ⢠Description of maintenance activities and how they are conducted; ⢠Transportation safety programs, including signaliza- tion, channelization, road reconfiguration, signage, child car seats, and seat belt enforcement; ⢠Any provisions concerning public transit service; ⢠Identification of any innovative or best practices, including identification of other tribes with positive reputations in transportation; ⢠Challenges facing the tribe in planning and delivery of transportation services, and how those were overcome; and ⢠Changes desired in federal tribal transportation programs. Once the initial selection of tribes was made, a letter was sent from the TRB executive director to leaders of the cho- sen tribes, with the questionnaire attached, introducing the project indicating that APA wanted to reach the most appro- priate contact person(s) for an interview. In most cases, this individual was interviewed by telephone by one or more APA researchers. Some, however, chose to complete the interview in writing and mail, fax, or e-mail the completed form to the APA Research Department. In either case, APA project team members used the answers to prepare the pro- files that appear in chapter three. These were designed to fol- low a uniform format to allow readers the ability to compare comparable information. The interviewees were given the option of reviewing those profiles, and some did so in consultation with other tribal officials and forwarded comments that were then taken into account in fashioning a final version of each case study. Also, tribes were asked to provide copies of their plans or other documents that would help shed additional light on their programs, and APA has received such material from a number of tribes. In some cases, this material was available on a tribal or other website, and the tribe provided the URL so that APA could access the material. Following the development of the profiles, APA conducted a content analysis of the complete selection to identify recur- ring themes, acquire an understanding in some depth of the variations in programs and how they occur, and make valid inferences about the state of tribal transportation programs from the data and the context in which they occur.
