National Academies Press: OpenBook

Tribal Transportation Programs (2007)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Themes and Models

« Previous: Chapter Two - Political and Institutional Structure of Tribes
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Themes and Models." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Tribal Transportation Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23177.
×
Page 32

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.

15 The ultimate intent of this study, or any like it, is to uncover common themes that serve to highlight at least the predomi- nant patterns in a particular field of action. In this case, the goal was to determine two things in particular: • The apparent current state of the art with tribal trans- portation programs and • The dominant concerns and challenges among people managing those programs. In addition, we sought to identify the best and most inno- vative practices as a way of directing attention to at least the potential for emerging positive trends. From this we expected to be able to suggest the most likely directions for future research and training in tribal transportation programs. Doing all this requires both careful attention to the design and results of the survey questionnaire used to elicit the information and a familiarity with other literature that may explicate or illuminate these or related trends in the field. With those considerations in mind, this chapter begins by drawing largely qualitative inferences from the case studies across a variety of the topics covered by the questionnaire and supplemented by any additional information provided by the participating tribes. This initial section constitutes the bulk of the chapter and is followed by a discussion of inno- vations, which are also largely drawn from the survey. It is worth noting that the final question in the survey asked inter- viewees to suggest other tribes whose innovative practices might merit being included in the survey. Although most suggestions involved tribes already in the initial list, a few were not and offered new targets for the survey review. The final section addresses questions about and directions for future research. COMMON THEMES FROM CASE STUDIES Administration and Staffing of Transportation Programs Most tribes reported a combination of parties involved in the administration of transportation programs. Increasing diversity of transportation program elements, undoubtedly stemming from both better funding and growing sophisti- cation in program administration among tribal govern- ments, has produced opportunities for tribes that may not be ready to assume total operational responsibility to at least select self-determination for those they are ready to take over. As the survey progressed, we found that our original questionnaire left many nuances unrecorded, and so we sought direct answers about precisely who was responsible for each individual program element, and the palette of responses widened accordingly. The answer was not always as simple as saying the program was run by the tribe, or by the BIA, or the two together. The profiles detail the very individual ways in which tribes used their privileges under P.L. 93-638 to pick and choose the elements for which they felt most capable of assuming responsibility. In Figure 1 and in the profiles we also account for situa- tions where a consultant was given responsibility for some aspect of the program, although this was almost always a matter of the tribe contracting out work for which it retained ultimate responsibility and oversight. Tracking this, how- ever, is a way of assessing those capacities the tribe has been able to develop in-house and those it believes are better han- dled by outside consultants under terms established by tribal officials. Some combination overall of tribal, BIA, and con- sultant involvement was the case with precisely half of our 30 profiled tribes. The other half was divided in terms of sole tribal responsibility for the entire program (six), combined tribal and BIA responsibility with no consultants involved (five), and four that maintained tribal responsibility with con- sultant involvement, but without the BIA in charge of any program elements. Tribal size, at least in our sample of profiles, seems to have little bearing on the decision of a tribe to take over the management of its own program. The most populous tribe— The Cherokee Nation—administers its own transportation program, but so also do some of the least populous tribes, such as the Mashantucket Pequot and Boise Forte Band of Chippewa. Our questionnaire did not yield great insights into how these decisions arose; therefore, this may be an interest- ing issue to pursue in further research. It is also critical to remember that, at least in situations where IRR and BIA maintenance funds still provide most of the tribal transportation funding, the tribal share of such funds will primarily be determined by the road mileage and other facilities in the IRR inventory. That may favor tribes with larger land areas, but only depending on the density of development; vast areas with no roads will not lead to greater tribal shares. The BIA Final Rule (Federal Register CHAPTER THREE THEMES AND MODELS

Tribe, Consultant 3% Tribe 67% Consultant/ Contractor 27% Tribe, BIA, Consultant 3% Tribe, BIA, Third Party 50% Tribe 20% Tribe, Third Party 13% Tribe, BIA 17% 2004, p. 43116) lays out the complexities of the Annual Tribal Transportation Allocation Methodology, but only involves a Population Adjustment Factor for the amount over $275 million if the congressional authorization for IRR exceeds that amount. A comparison of the two relative giants amid the sample may shed light on some factors other than size that affect these decisions. The Cherokee Nation has the largest popu- lation at more than 280,000; it has a full-time equivalent (FTE) transportation staff of 26 and operates its own pro- gram. The Navajo Nation, with more than 180,000 reserva- tion residents, does not manage its own program but has 56 FTE staff. Some logical explanations accompany the com- parison; however, they shed more light on the overall complexity of tribal circumstances than on any single variable. The Navajo Nation, unlike the Cherokee Nation, has a reservation; most eastern tribes in Oklahoma do not have reservations but own land under other arrangements unique to the settlement history of Oklahoma (Bays 2002). Moreover, the Navajo land base is huge compared with any other tribe south of Alaska, encompassing more than 27,000 square miles, an area larger than West Virginia. Distances between communities are significant, and the Navajo face serious challenges just in upgrading their road system to meet the needs of a large, extended population. In addition, they operate an aviation system that includes one airport with hangars, a small terminal, and four airstrips. Their staff includes pilots. The Cherokee Nation possesses a land area slightly more than one-fourth the size of the Navajo reservation; however, that land is considerably more urbanized and closer to other population centers within Oklahoma with which they inter- act. The Navajo reservation is removed from the truly major urban centers of Arizona and New Mexico, although it is near the smaller cities of Gallup and Farmington. The point of this comparison is that even this examination of the relative needs of the two largest tribes in the survey sample shows that 16 staffing levels are influenced by program status, the extent of the land area, population, and proximity to non-tribal urban areas, among other factors, to say nothing of the demands of operating special facilities such as airports or bus systems. (The Navajo Nation also has its own transit system.) None of the tribes gave sole responsibility for trans- portation programs to a consultant or contractor, although most contracted with an outside firm for one or several functions. One of the most common purposes of such con- tracting was the development of a long-range transporta- tion plan. As can be seen in Figure 2, one-third of the tribes profiled used consultants to one degree or another for this purpose, either contracting out the entire task or by having the contractor collaborate with a tribal planning or trans- portation department. We attempted to determine whether staff size or staff per capita relative to the population served had any determining effect on the decision to hire a consultant to prepare the transportation plan or even assist staff with its preparation. There is no apparent connection. Table 1 presents tribes in descending order of transportation staff per 100 persons to determine whether such help tended to be associated with lower staff levels; however, the result is one that scatters such tribes all the way up and down the scale. In many cases, larger staff size, either relatively or in absolute numbers, results more from creating maintenance and transit positions than from adding planners, although one might have expected greater planning capacity and larger staff to have some correlation. Rearranging the very same table in order of numerical staff size does not make any relationship between staff size and use of outside plan preparation assistance any more apparent. It is simply likely that the motives for turning to outside consultants lie elsewhere, as they often do with FIGURE 1 Transportation program responsibility (n = 30). FIGURE 2 Preparation and maintenance of long-range transportation plan (n = 30).

17 non-Indian jurisdictions—having largely to do with the nature of in-house planning expertise, issues that need to be addressed, time involved, and budget. In addition, it matters when a plan was prepared. Tribal capacity to handle such a task can change significantly in just a few years, and the cur- rent plans of the profiled tribes stretch back over the past decade. If one looks only at the number of professional planners each tribe employs (whether or not that individual spends his or her full time on transportation) the only clear result is that every tribe with more than one professional planner pre- pared its own plan in-house (see Figure 3). The only two tribes falling into this category were the Mashantucket Pequot, with three, and the Navajo, with two. Among the 15 tribes employing one planner, 5 prepared their own plan with no outside help; the 4 tribes using a combination of in- house staff and a contractor fall into this category, as do 6 that hired a consultant to prepare the plan. Among the 13 with no planners on staff, 5 prepared their own plan. In short, it is difficult to distinguish the results for any tribes Tribe Tribal Population Transportation Staff (FTE) Staff Per Every 100 Persons Mashantucket Pequot 794 31.3 3.94207 Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation 1,258 31 2.46423 Bad River 1,935 19 0.98191 Bois Forte Band of Chippewa 657 6 0.91324 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 8,166 51 0.62454 Red Lake Band of Chippewa 5,400 25 0.46296 Hoopa Valley Tribe 1,983 8.75 0.44125 Sac and Fox 1,462 5.5 0.37620 Makah Tribe 1,356 3.25 0.23968 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes 4,200 10 0.23810 Native Village of Eyak 379 0.9 0.23747 Alabama–Coushatta Tribe 1,119 2.6 0.23235 Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation 4,319 9 0.20838 Southern Ute 1,117 2 0.17905 Shoshone–Bannock Tribes 5,759 10 0.17364 Craig Community Association 640 1 0.15625 Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 1,388 1 0.07205 Tohono O'Odham 10,734 7.25 0.06754 Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe 11,880 8 0.06734 Kawerak Inc. 9,197 6 0.06524 Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin 6,500 4 0.06154 Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe 7,711 4 0.05187 Standing Rock Sioux 13,848 6 0.04333 Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska* 7,409 3 0.04049 Navajo Nation 180,462 64 0.03546 Fort Belknap 6,427 2 0.03112 Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 14,964 4 0.02673 Pueblo of Zuni 10,132 2 0.01974 Coeur d'Alene 6,511 0.9 0.01382 Cherokee Nation 281,069 24 0.00854 Notes: Tribes using an outside consultant to prepare long-range transportation plans are highlighted in bold; those using some outside assistance in addition to staff are italicized. *BIA prepared the plan. FTE = full-time equivalent. TABLE 1 TRIBAL POPULATION AND TRANSPORTATION STAFF FIGURE 3 Number of planners on staff (n = 30). 0 Planners 43% 1 Planner 50% 3 Planners 3% 2 Planners 3%

with fewer than two professional planners. Those with two or more are a very small group. Most tribes had transportation staffs of fewer than 10. Only seven had significantly more than 10 FTE staff, whereas the Confederated Salish and Kootenai, on the Flat- head Reservation in Montana, and the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes, on the Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho, each reported exactly 10. Both of these tribes have substantial land areas exceeding 500,000 acres. Both have a staff-to-population ratio that is more or less in the middle of the overall range, which lies between 0.01% (Cherokee Nation) and 3.94% (Mashantucket Pequot, in Connecticut); however, the center seems to lie roughly between 0.05% and 0.5%. The two largest tribes, Navajo and Cherokee, actually lie toward the low end of this scale. The Cherokee Nation, however, relies on the city of Tahlequah for transit, a factor that reduces its own staff needs, an interesting contrast to the circumstances of the Eastern Cherokee in North Carolina, who maintain a transit staff the size of the entire transportation staff of the Cherokee in Oklahoma. Such programmatic necessities account for huge differences in staffing needs. The outliers clearly are the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, whose FTE staff of 31 devoted to transportation con- stitutes nearly 2.5% of the resident tribal population of 1,258, and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, whose 31.3 FTE transportation staff members constitute almost 4% of the 794 resident tribal members. No other tribes exceed 1%, although the Bad River Band of Chippewa in northern Wisconsin falls just below that mark. A close examination of the Potawatomi case reveals why the peculiarities of any one tribal situation may say more than mere numbers about the rationale for staffing. The vagaries of trying to compare populations may come into play to some degree because more than half of the total tribal membership of approximately 5,000 lives within 50 miles of the reservation. It can be fairly assumed that they make greater use of the tribal transportation facilities than a tribal membership scattered at far greater distances, because most would be within an hour’s drive of tribal facilities. It is fair to say that this very situation poses a challenge to our assumptions in using resident population as a point of com- parison; however, some universal criterion had to be used that reflected the real user population, knowing that there is no perfect assumption. Funding, however, is another critical factor. In the inter- view, the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation noted that 20 years earlier they had been a poor tribe with nothing but dirt roads on a small reservation of 77,740 acres. Today, 90% of the money supporting transportation operating expenses comes from a tribal gas tax and tribal general fund supple- ments. The tribe has a gaming commission; its reservation is near Topeka and a little more than an hour’s drive west of the Kansas City metropolitan area. Apparently some aggressive 18 economic development has underwritten an equally aggres- sive program of replacing dirt roads and wood plank bridges with a modern, safe infrastructure—something that does not happen without a body of personnel devoted to the task. Moreover, the tribe reports a much larger population off reservation for an enrolled tribal membership of 5,000. In short, circumstances account for a great deal. One cannot merely look at the numbers to understand how tribes com- pare in staffing their transportation programs. One can and should, however, look at the miles of road contained in the IRR inventory, because it is the determi- nant of tribal shares under the IRR program. At the same time, what must be kept in mind with the overall staff, pop- ulation, and funding comparisons between tribes is that, for many tribes, IRR is not the sole source of revenue, nor is road construction the full extent of its transportation pro- gram. This will become clearer as the discussion in this chapter progresses. Nonetheless, IRR is still a central fea- ture of almost all tribal transportation programs, and its funding levels are a major factor in tribal budgeting for transportation needs. An examination of the Mashantucket Pequot situation offers many similar dynamics yielding high staff numbers in relation to population: the operation of a successful casino in close proximity to large metropolitan populations in a popu- lous area and the internal ability to raise revenue to under- write the program. A similar cautionary note must be issued regarding the composition of tribal transportation staffs. Clearly, the Navajo derive some personnel needs simply as a result of operating public transit and aviation. These needs would be less apparent for small tribes with very limited land areas, for whom a ride service for elders might suffice as a transit service. Less obvious is how tribes determine their needs for certain types of professionals, such as planners and engi- neers. However, it is worth considering that because these are professional positions, the cost of attracting and retaining such people can have a significant impact on a small or even modest tribal budget. With that in mind, Figure 4 illustrates how the tribes are divided in terms of the number of profes- sional engineers they reported having on staff. Although most tribes do appear to be in somewhat of a common range in their staffing practices, the fundamental problem with attempting to derive too much meaning from comparing them is that most tribes have small FTE staffs, and even small personnel changes can ratchet the percent- ages up and down dramatically. Adding a planner or an engineer to a five-person staff immediately shifts the staff- to-population ratios significantly. The real questions relate to the desire or ability to contract for professional planning and engineering services, as opposed to retaining in-house staff; why those decisions are made; and what needs are being met either way. For the most part, the survey was not

19 designed or able to access such data. Many staffing deci- sions, as in any jurisdiction, are related to the availability of funds. On the other hand, guidelines for determining effective and appropriate staffing levels for transportation programs, considering the various issues involved may be a worth- while management training endeavor for TTAPs. Whether tribes are actually requesting such assistance from TTAPs, or any other source, we do not know. A discussion of tribal participation in TTAP assistance is described here. Long-Range Transportation Planning and Program Elements The central elements of tribes’ transportation programs were largely consistent. Virtually every tribe profiled either has a long-range plan or is in the process of developing one. The main differences, as noted earlier, concerned responsibility for the preparation of the plan—either in-house staff, a con- sultant, the BIA, or some combination of the three. Figure 2 illustrates the breakdown on this point without differentiating between plans already completed and adopted and those currently in progress. The chart simply shows who is doing (or has done) the work in either case. If a tribe with a plan in place is updating it or developing a new plan, we used the work assignment for the new plan as the defining component in Figure 2. Five tribes reported work underway on their first long- range plan, although two constitute exceptions. Kawerak, Inc., which is a consortium of 19 tribes in northwestern Alaska, is preparing separate plans for each of them, and noted that 9 had been completed. Tohono O’Odham actually had a previous plan that was prepared in 1994, but never accepted; therefore, the one currently being prepared would become the first plan put into effect if it is adopted. In addition, as the following list shows, eight other tribes are currently updating existing plans. • Completed/adopted plans – Bois Forte Chippewa – Cherokee – Coeur d’Alene – Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation – Craig Community Association – Eastern Cherokee – Native Village of Eyak – Fort Belknap – Ho-Chunk – Hoopa Valley – Navajo – Pyramid Lake Paiute – Red Lake Chippewa – Sac and Fox – Saint Regis Mohawk – Standing Rock Sioux • Updating existing plan – Bad River Chippewa – Salish–Kootenai – Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho – Makah – Mashantucket Pequot – Prairie Band Potawatomi – Shoshone–Bannock • First plan in progress – Alabama–Coushatta – Kawerak, Inc. – Seminole Nation of Oklahoma – Tohono O’Odham – Winnebago Of the remaining tribes, the Ho-Chunk Nation has adopted a 5-year plan, but is adding a 20-year plan. Routine annual updates to an existing long-range plan were treated as being part of completed plans. Certain other elements of transportation programs were largely consistent throughout the survey. All but five tribes reported a capital budget or capital improvement plan (Figure 5), and all but one tribe indicated that they design and construct new roads (Figure 6). One tribe reported that it does not oversee contractors on construction projects (Figure 7), without reporting that the BIA did either, and three tribes reported not maintaining existing roads (Figure 8). All tribes indicated that they prepare and maintain a transportation facilities inventory (Figure 9), a legal prerequisite for estab- lishing tribal shares under the IRR program. The charts also show how responsibility was assigned for performing these functions. Contractors are typically working under some sort of tribal supervision. Other elements of transportation programs were less widespread. Only half of the participating tribes reported that they operate a transportation safety program (see Figure 10). However, there is a difference between having a compre- hensive, or even consciously adopted, safety program and FIGURE 4 Number of engineers on staff (n = 30). 0 Engineers 54% 1 Engineer 33% 2 Engineers 10% 5 Engineers 3%

20 Two-thirds of the tribes in the survey reported that they operate some sort of public transportation system. The size and purpose of these systems vary widely; however, their prevalence suggests that this may be a promising area for both future research and technical assistance to tribal gov- ernments, particularly considering that 17 of the 20 tribal governments with public transportation reported operating it themselves, and one of the other three reported working in conjunction with the state government. Although some of the services are fairly basic, involving van rides for seniors to medical clinics and similar services, a few are quite elabo- rate, such as that of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, which operates an entire fleet of buses, and the Navajo Nation, with seven fixed routes across hundreds of miles, FIGURE 6 Design and construction of new roads (n = 30). having various, sometimes uncoordinated, safety measures in place. One must read the safety sections of the profiles individually to determine not only what safety measures are in effect for individual tribes, but the bureaucratic division of labor they may involve. For instance, safe routes to school may be a function of tribal police or the school district pro- viding crossing guards, rather than being directly connected to transportation or planning. Thus, some tribes not reporting a safety element of their transportation program may have specific safety measures or programs in place, often operated by other tribal entities or agencies, the BIA, or even munici- pal, county, or state agencies, as dictated by tradition, need, or simple practical considerations. FIGURE 7 Oversees contractors in construction projects (n = 30). FIGURE 8 Maintenance of existing roads (n = 30). Yes, Unknown 3% Tribe, Consultant 3% Tribe, BIA 7% Tribe 67% None 17% BIA 3% FIGURE 5 Preparation and maintenance of capital budget/capital improvements program (n = 30). None 3% BIA 13% BIA, Consultant 3% Tribe, BIA, Consultant 3% Consultant 10% Yes, Unknown 3% Tribe 50% Tribe, BIA 7% Tribe, Consultant 7% No 3% BIA 7% Consultant 10% Yes, Unknown 3% Tribe 64% Tribe, BIA 10% Tribe, BIA, Consultant 3% No 10% BIA 10% BIA, State Government, County Government 3% Tribe, BIA, State 7% County 3% Tribe 58% Tribe, BIA 3% Tribe, BIA, Consultant 3% Tribe, Consultant 3%

21 rail, port, or multi-modal facility (Figure 14). Most notable in this category is the Navajo aviation program and airstrip, although the Fort Belknap Indian Community also has its own airstrip. The Native Village of Eyak, along Prince William Sound, is working with the state of Alaska on a deep water port. The most singular entry in this category is probably the operation of a heliport by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation by its public works department and Foxwoods Casino (see Figure 14). The survey sought to determine the types of linkages tribes established in their long-range transportation planning with other planning and policy concerns. Certain common linkages were anticipated in the questionnaire and were quite predictable. These included community and economic devel- opment, historic preservation, land-use planning, and to only somewhat like Greyhound intercity service. Importantly, some of these services meet the needs of more than just tribal members, connecting area residents with jobs or shuttling visitors between casinos and hotels, in some cases becoming noticeably entrepreneurial in identifying new market niches (see Figure 11). Most tribes reported that their programs include construc- tion and maintenance of sidewalks, with half undertaking this work themselves and four others either working with the BIA or leaving the responsibility to the BIA alone (Figure 12). Just under half, however, reported that they operate bicycle trails or bike lanes, with only 30% taking exclusive responsibility for the task and five others working with one or more other parties (Figure 13). Only five tribes operate an air, freight, FIGURE 9 Maintenance of inventory of transportation facilities (n = 30). FIGURE 10 Operation of transportation safety program (n = 30). FIGURE 11 Operation of public transportation system (n = 30). FIGURE 12 Construction and maintenance of sidewalks (n = 30). Tribe 68% Tribe, Consultant 3% BIA 3% BIA, State 3% Consultant 7% Tribe, BIA 13% Tribe, BIA, Consultant 3% No 50% Tribe 47% Tribe, BIA 3% No 33% Tribe 57% State Government, County Government 3% City 3%Tribe, State Government 3% BIA 7% No 37% Tribe 50% Tribe, BIA 7%

a slightly lesser extent, public utilities. In standard profes- sional planning practice, it is difficult to conceive of a good long-range transportation plan without most of these link- ages coming into play. Figure 15 illustrates the distribution of such linkages among the plans profiled in Appendix A. Clearly, most tribes followed this standard, and other types of linkages proved largely to be connected with special con- cerns unique to the tribe and its situation. Subsistence agri- culture was a concern meriting linkage with transportation planning for the Alaskan tribes in Kawerak, Inc., some of whom raise herds of reindeer, whereas reforestation was a focus of linkage to road development issues for the Red Lake Band of Chippewa in Minnesota. The Navajo Nation, with a vast and scenic southwestern landscape, was alone in report- ing a linkage with tourism and recreation. Although that could be classified as a form of economic development, and is also often itself linked with historic preservation, it is also 22 fair to say that it involves some unique issues apart from those forms of development. Citizen Participation One of the most straightforward questions in the survey con- cerned the types of citizen participation in which tribes engaged in the process of developing their transportation plans. The results appear in Figures 16 and 17. What is clear is that no single method of fostering partic- ipation was used universally; however, public hearings and public meetings clearly predominate as techniques of choice, with the latter somewhat more popular, perhaps because they are less formal and thus afford more interaction with tribal members. Those findings may not be all that different from those used in many non-tribal communities across the United States, where input into a plan may often be easier to solicit in a less formal environment than a public hearing, although requirements in this regard are sometimes dictated by state planning or transportation law. Charrettes, which involve public participation in reviewing or revising proposed designs, do not appear to have attracted widespread attention. There is no apparent pattern in the use of surveys, which may well be simply a function of choices made by particular tribal transportation directors or elected officials, or even of the familiarity of staff members or contractors with survey methods. In any event, 12 tribes used a survey and 18 did not. The survey did not ask why tribes had made their choices; it merely reports the choices they made. In terms of citizen participation, websites are clearly under used. Only five tribes had made deliberate use of the Internet for citizen participation. The Native Village of Eyak reported that a contractor had made information available on its website. Of the others, the Cherokee Nation; Kawerak, Inc., an Alaskan tribal organization; Red Lake Chippewa; Sac and Fox; and the Ho-Chunk Nation all appear relatively sophisticated in this regard and have websites of notable quality. The Navajo Nation, which has a website with sub- stantial information available, did not report website use as a citizen participation technique in plan development. Cer- tainly, there are currently many more tribal websites than are reported to have been used for citizen participation in the transportation planning process. The most curious aspect of citizen participation is that only four tribes, the Navajo Nation, Sac and Fox, Craig Com- munity Association, and the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes, indicated that they had used tribal or local news media. The Navajo Nation has long had its own extensive internal media system, including newspapers and radio stations, and would be well-equipped to marshal citizen participation through those tools. Many other tribes, however, also have news- papers, and yet did not report using them for this purpose. FIGURE 13 Maintenance and construction of bike lanes (n = 30). FIGURE 14 Operation of air, freight, rail, port, or multi-modal facility (n = 30). BIA 3% State 3% No 53% Tribe 30% Tribe, BIA 7% Tribe, Consultant 3% Tribe, State Government 3% No 83% State Government 7% Tribe 10%

23 This is an issue worth exploring, perhaps in collaboration with a group like the Native American Journalists Associa- tion, which would know more about such practices and what constitutes typical coverage of tribal planning issues. It may simply be that relationships between tribal transportation personnel and tribal news media are not well developed; however, our survey was not equipped to ask or even antici- pate a question of that nature. Citizen participation is not an aspect of tribal transportation programs that appears to have generated much innovation. Beyond the tools included in the survey, few others appeared in the responses. The Bois Forte Band of Chippewa noted that they provided “postings of traffic counts,” which would serve to inform people of the demands being placed on various roads in the system. They also conducted personal interviews in addi- tion to a mail survey. The Mashantucket Pequot reported that key tribal decision makers reviewed the plan before adoption, and the Pueblo of Zuni periodically circulated drafts for review by other governmental bodies and schools. However, those would largely appear to be matters of coordination, which are covered in a later section on coordination with outside agencies. FIGURE 15 Linkages between transportation plan and other plan (n = 30). FIGURE 16 Type of citizen participation used in transportation planning. FIGURE 17 Number of citizen participation methods used in planning process (n = 30). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Ag ric ul tu re Co m m un ity a nd Ec on om ic D ev el op m en t H is to ric Pr es er va tio n La nd -U se Pl an ni ng Pu bl ic Ut ilit ie s R ec re at io n, To ur is m So ci oe co no m ic , En vi ro nm en ta l D at a O th er Type of Plan/Program N o. o f T rib es Yes No 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Charrettes Public Hearings Public Meetings Survey Website Information Other Tribal or Local News Media Type of Citizen Participation N o. o f T rib es Yes No 0 Types 3% 1 Type 20% 2 Types 27% 3 Types 40% 4 Types 7% 5 Types 3%

Need for Technical Assistance It is readily apparent from the interviews that the TTAP gen- erally draws high praise. The TTAPs constitute a useful and highly respected resource for tribal transportation staff. More- over, the tribes with the greatest experience in transportation appear to have made the most use of their regional TTAPs. The nature of the collaboration that has unfolded between tribes and TTAPs appears shaped largely by geographic accessibility, with Alaskan tribes, for example, more likely to engage in some form of distance learning and others closer to the centers able to send staff to attend workshops and confer- ences in person. The overall frequency and common use of TTAP assistance is apparent from Figure 18. Size does not appear to dictate much with regard to training through TTAP or any other source. The tiny Native Village of Eyak, one of the smallest tribes to participate in the survey, indicated that one of its two staff people, neither of whom works on transportation full time, had gone to Spokane for a five-day conference offered by the TTAP at Eastern Washing- ton University. Conversely, some of the largest tribes reported only modest levels of training provided directly to their staff, or provided fairly limited information regarding whatever program existed for in-house staff. The middle group of tribes reported widely varying experiences with training. Another mid-sized tribal group, Kawerak, Inc., which serves a consortium of 20 tribal communities in northwest- ern Alaska, offered some of the most effusive praise for the TTAP, lauding the program at Eastern Washington Univer- sity for an “open door policy with technical questions” and for providing, as a result of the distances involved, telecon- ferencing, as well as an annual symposium in Anchorage that made technical help more accessible. One small tribe with a seemingly outsized transportation program, the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, reported being ranked the 24 number one participant in the Oklahoma-based TTAP among tribes in Kansas and Oklahoma. In this particular case it would appear that a go-getter attitude toward access- ing training and technical assistance may also influence what a tribe is able to do. TTAP staff dealing with very small tribes—the predominant pattern in California, with 109 tribes, many of which occupy “rancherias,” although many small tribes exist elsewhere— often face significant challenges with regard to access to train- able personnel because, in some cases, there is no dedicated staff for transportation programs. Tribal employees in such cases often perform multiple functions, only one of which may involve transportation. Keeping people well-informed about the latest transportation program requirements, opportunities, or developments may involve considerable diligence in main- taining current databases of tribal contacts. Tribes certainly are not limited to the use of TTAPs in accessing assistance. Some clearly are able to find help elsewhere. For example, the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation taps into training available from the Kansas DOT. The Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin, although using TTAP training at Michigan Technical University, also reports using the BIA and the Transportation Information Center of the state of Wisconsin. Curiously, one asset cited in con- nection with the Michigan Technical University TTAP cen- ter was that it posted on its website documents produced by the BIA that the BIA has not been able to post on its own website. BIA use of both its website and e-mail has been suspended for the last few years as a result of the Cobell lawsuit, the on-going, multi-billion dollar, landmark class- action lawsuit to enforce the trust duties owed by the United States to 500,000 individual Indian trust beneficiaries. It would be interesting to know the impact on the productiv- ity of transportation programs of the lack of both website and e-mail access to the BIA over this extended period of time. The Ho-Chunk experience also suggests that there is significant room for positive interaction between tribes and states, which often provide various forms of technical assis- tance to local governments (Rolland and Winchell 2002). As noted in chapter two, a handful of states have estab- lished some sort of tribal liaison within their transportation departments to facilitate such communication. Even with- out it, however, the Ho-Chunk Nation enjoys access to a state service that is generally available. The Minnesota DOT is another state agency that has made training avail- able to tribes, and the two Minnesota tribes profiled in this study have taken advantage of it. What deserves further exploration is the potential for far wider cooperation among the TTAP, tribes, state transportation agencies, BIA, and FHWA in meeting both the training and informational needs of tribal governments. If there is a lesson in all this, it is probably that the TTAPs are serving a clearly demonstrated need and that there is a long-standing demand for technical services. The levels atFIGURE 18 Tribal use of TTAP assistance. 10% 90% Yes, Uses TTAP No, does not use TTAP

25 which various tribes will access those services will vary, probably with a number of variables not readily apparent from the survey conducted for this project, including the dis- position of supervisors and tribal officials to value and make use of the services. It is not clear from the survey answers, however, exactly what types of assistance and training tribes need. This is an area that warrants further study. Often, the answers were not sufficiently specific. It is most likely an arena where TTAP staff will have to customize a number of their services over time to respond to, and even help articu- late, the needs of individual tribes. Those needs appear very different, and there do not appear to be many highly reliable indicators of what those needs are likely to be. One final point is that TTAPs have the ability to overcome old barriers to communication and the dissemination of information in dramatic new ways. One way is to work directly with tribal colleges. TTAP websites, in addition to enabling distance learning, also can provide instant elec- tronic access to information to tribal staff. The majority of urban Americans may take this for granted; however, its transformative impact on rural populations that have long been physically isolated from large libraries and government offices should not be underestimated. The ability to down- load government and other research documents, as well as to receive such information by e-mail, has been a major step forward during the last decade. The leveling power of such access, with or without the availability of such tools from the BIA, has yet to make its full mark in Indian Country, but is a principal target of opportunity. Safety Figure 19 provides a quick overview of the overall distribu- tion of safety programs among the tribes surveyed. Although this chart provides some information on how many tribes have instituted particular types of safety measures, it is important also to stress that the questionnaire did not ask about safety programs in a yes/no format, but was seeking descriptive information with regard to each of the areas listed. The chart is unable to contain the complexities that are expressed in the responses. Those are best contained in the tribal profiles in Appendix A. Certain safety concerns proved to be more pervasive than others within tribal transportation programs. It is apparent that speed control, programs to address alcoholism and sub- stance abuse, distribution of car seats, and signage for safety are high on most tribal safety agendas. None of these ele- ments, however, was present in all programs. The Native Vil- lage of Eyak, in Alaska, reported no active safety programs whatsoever; its land area, however, is the smallest of any reported. All other tribes operated at least some elements of a safety program. As with so many other facets of tribal transportation, many decisions about safety program ele- ments relate to specific circumstances. For instance, the Sac and Fox tribe in Iowa noted that Tama County, the sur- rounding jurisdiction, has enforced speed laws, but that in the near future this responsibility will shift to the tribal police force. Both of these tribes are very small, and the Sac and Fox do not have a reservation; however, over many years they have reacquired 6,951 acres of land in eastern Iowa for a population of 761. As with so many other transportation concerns in the survey, much depends on size, both in terms of population and land area, to even justify the more elabo- rate programs operated by larger tribes. In addition to the Native Village of Eyak, only five other tribes lack a signage safety program, although Tohono O’Odham indicated that the BIA manages theirs. Although in some cases speed control produced slightly more ambigu- ous answers, all but four tribes reported programs in this area. The Confederated Salish/Kootenai Tribes indicated that their area is so rural that speed is not an issue on 95% of their FIGURE 19 Tribal transportation safety programs (n = 30). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Si gn al iza tio n Si gn ag e Ch an ne liz at io n R oa d R ec on fig ur at io n Sp ee d Co nt ro l Pe de st ria n, B icy cle , Si de wa lks Ch ild C ar S e a ts Se a t B el t S a fe ty Sa fe R ou te s to Sc ho ol Al co ho lis m Co un se lin g Type of Safety Program N o. o f T rib es Yes No

roads. Two other tribes, Tohono O’Odham and the Win- nebago Tribe of Nebraska, reported that the BIA handles speed control. Two of the more problematic areas indicated that tribes in rural areas often have no need of some safety programs that largely reflect more urbanized traffic needs. Only 11 tribes, for example, reported that they had signalization programs. In rural areas, traffic lights can be largely superfluous, and stop signs, already part of any signage program, are suffi- cient. Channelization, reported by an equal number of tribes (seven of whom reported both elements), is needed only when enough traffic congestion exists to merit installing left- turn lanes to ease traffic flow. Again, in rural areas, this appears to be unnecessary and most likely a waste of resources. Conversely, road reconfiguration, which involves realign- ing hazardous stretches of road to eliminate design flaws, can be a very real need even in the most rural stretches of Indian Country. It is thus not surprising that this issue received considerably more attention, with 23 tribes reporting active programs in this area, two of which, Kawerak, Inc., and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, indi- cated that this program was under development. Pedestrian and bicycle safety receives slightly less atten- tion, perhaps again because in rural areas it is relatively easy to avoid major problems; however, 19 tribes still reported some type of program. The prevalence of such programs per- haps reflects a growing awareness, highlighted in a recent FHWA study, that “American Indians have the highest rates of pedestrian injury and death per capita of any racial or ethnic group in the United States” (LaValley et al. 2004). Kawerak, Inc., a consortium of 19 native Alaskan vil- lages, reported that the program in its region is operated by another regional services organization, the Norton Sound Health Corporation, which provides children with bicycle helmets. Partnerships with outside agencies are a common way, inside and outside Indian Country, to leverage resources, and other tribes reported teaming with agencies like the NHTSA on issues such as seat belts. The entire issue of building partnerships is perhaps one that merits further research attention as well as being the focus of new training. The Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, in particular, take pride in their initiatives to build collaborative relationships. Although the Norton Sound Health Corporation and Kawerak are separate regional organizations both serving a collection of largely rural native villages in northwest Alaska, the practice of a health-related service handling other safety issues, most notably pertaining to child car seats and seat belts, appears to be quite common. Only six tribes failed to claim any kind of child car seat program, and the most common response was that they were provided by Indian Health Services, a tribal health clinic, health or safety 26 department, or some similar entity. In the case of Tohono O’Odham, distribution of child car seats is handled by the federally funded Women, Infants, and Children program. Three tribes—the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Hoopa Valley, and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska—noted that it was a function of the tribal police department, and two others—Zuni and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation—reported police involvement in com- bination with safety officials in the case of the Zuni, and health officials for Warm Springs. With a few exceptions, many of the same answers pertained to seat belt safety, although only 18 tribes claimed such a program, as com- pared with 24 for child car seats. Among the 18, Kawerak, Inc., indicated that this was a function of the Alaska High- way Patrol. Nineteen tribes provide in some form safe routes to schools, with more rural tribes indicating that this takes the form of school bus pick-ups. Kawerak, Inc., which delegates some responsibilities to the individual member tribes, reported that this was a responsibility left to the individual towns. Ho-Chunk indicated that, although it had no program for children of school age, it did provide safety by posting warning notices at day care centers. Finally, one of the most persistent and troublesome issues facing tribes is that of alcohol and drug abuse. Therefore, it is not surprising that only five tribes surveyed lack any pro- gram in this area. The nature of the intervention takes differ- ent forms, however, with police enforcement common, but counseling a frequent remedy provided by health or human services agencies. Several tribes indicated the use of tribal courts to address recurrent alcohol abuse problems, includ- ing those related to the operation of vehicles; for example, the Southern Ute Tribe has a “wellness court,” which it cites as an innovative method for treating alcoholism. The South- ern Ute may well be leaders in addressing this problem: They also use DUI (driving under the influence) checkpoints and have adopted the 0.08 blood alcohol limit through an inter- governmental agreement with the state of Colorado. The wellness court requires high levels of intense supervision as a means of achieving its successes. Another innovator is the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, which reports that its program for drug and alcohol rehabilitation attracts outside users from other parts of New York State. Only one additional safety issue arose beyond those queried in the survey, and it pertained to all-terrain vehicles, an issue in the northern country where snowmobiles are a common winter mode of transportation. Both Kawerak, Inc., and the Ho-Chunk Nation cited programs dealing with safety for such vehicles. One overarching point that emerged from the pastiche of safety measures and their sponsors is that there may be a need to consider a means of coordinating all highway safety func- tions so that they achieve synergies from working together

27 rather than in isolation. We did not find any prior research that examined this precise question. Maintenance Road maintenance is a subject that elicits complaints of inad- equate funding, often for good reasons. It is handled apart from IRR program funding. BIA Roads Maintenance Pro- gram Funds are added to each tribe’s existing Tribal Priority Allocations. However, many tribes, if they have the means to do so, supplement this BIA funding from other sources, including tribal gas taxes and casino revenues, among other possibilities, to meet outstanding needs. Northern tribes fac- ing volatile winter climates and snow emergencies some- times mentioned that a sizeable portion, if not most, of their annual maintenance budget often is consumed by snow removal and winter road repairs in a normal to bad season. The Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians noted that as much as 90% of their maintenance budget can be used for snow removal in the course of a bad Minnesota winter. The St. Regis Mohawk Nation also reported struggling to stretch $120,000 yearly across 70 miles of roads in the BIA system in a region notorious for heavy winter snowfall. As noted ear- lier, the Hoopa Valley Tribe often confronts its own special problem with rock slides along steep slopes. No chart was designed to summarize maintenance data, because it was not apparent that the types of data collected here lent themselves well to such treatment. It can be said that most tribes handle all or most of their own maintenance functions, sometimes by contracting for maintenance ser- vices, but more often by employing staff to perform this function. In many cases, tribes work out very pragmatic divi- sions of labor, and often state or county transportation agen- cies have legal responsibilities to maintain state or county roads or bridges. The BIA still retains some maintenance responsibility on a significant minority of reservations. There is no single way of handling maintenance assignments or of dividing the responsibilities. Tribal funding to supplement BIA maintenance alloca- tions came in a few cases from a gas tax or some type of road fund maintained by the tribe. Coeur d’Alene and the Stand- ing Rock Sioux both use gas taxes for this purpose, and the Navajo Nation uses its Road Fund for both road building and maintenance. How, or whether, the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Wagnon case (whether an American Indian tribe may enjoin a state from imposing a tax on the receipt of motor fuel by off-reservation distributors who sell motor fuel to the tribe and pass some or all of the tax on to the tribe in the price charged to the tribe) will affect such rev- enues in the future is a question some tribal budget officers are now addressing. Finally, tribes with transit vehicles such as buses and vans face additional maintenance needs. Some, such as the Saint Regis Mohawk Nation, have their own bus garage to handle vehicle repairs. Coordination with Outside Agencies Tribal coordination with other governments is the subject of entire books and legal treatises and certainly the topic least amenable to any sort of quantification or easy presentation through tables and charts. In every case, it depends on his- tory, geography, and the current disposition of officials on both sides. The tribal relationship with federal agencies is necessarily different from its relationship with any other gov- ernments simply because the drafters of the U.S. Constitution specifically cited Indian nations as sovereign nations with whom the new federal government had the sole duty and responsibility of negotiating treaties. The nature of those negotiations, and the legal status of tribes vis-à-vis the fed- eral government, has evolved over more than two centuries, with more than a few sharp turns and even U-turns along the way, to the current status of domestic dependent nations. The preeminence of the federal responsibility, however, has not prevented many efforts by states to exercise various kinds of authority; sometimes upheld in the courts and sometimes not. That larger context merely sets the stage for intergovern- mental relations on transportation, which poses a special interjurisdictional problem, because mobility is the entire point, and roads often cut through tribal lands. The BIA remains the primary agency with which tribes interact on a regular basis. Indeed, the BIA operates trans- portation programs for the many tribes that have not yet entered into compacts with the agency to assume manage- ment of their own programs under P.L. 93-638. Even tribes with compacts by definition must operate within the terms of their agreements with BIA, which provide a funding stream in return for self-determination that meets the stated objec- tives of the program. One way or another, virtually every tribe works with the BIA on the IRR program, although some are actively considering working under FHWA under the terms of the recent highway legislation that allows tribes to take this route to self-determination. This coordination includes work on issues such as right-of-way for tribal trust lands and other Indian-restricted properties, BIA review of environmental assessments, and simple coordination with the agency to participate in meetings on projects and final inspections. Overall, there were few surprises in the answers provided to this particular question. Figure 20 summarizes the data from the coordination sec- tion of the questionnaire in terms of how many tribes actively coordinate with each agency or type of agency described. All tribes coordinate with the BIA, and all but three coordinate in some way with state DOTs. What the chart cannot show is how that coordination occurs and how the each tribe views its relationship with each outside agency. The profiles better convey these complexities.

Coordination with other federal agencies varies and is probably evolving rapidly along with federal transportation legislation, which itself has yielded substantial changes under ISTEA and TEA-21, and is due for new rounds of leg- islated innovations in coming years, including possible changes in federal funding streams designated for Indian reservations. The survey specifically asked about coordination with U.S.DOT, the most obvious target of federal coordination outside the BIA and the agency responsible for administer- ing federal transportation programs. One weakness of the survey instrument, however, is that it did not distinguish between U.S.DOT and its subsidiary agencies such as FHWA and FTA, which are operationally quite separate from the top DOT offices. In retrospect, it appears that ask- ing separately about these agencies might have been prudent because many tribes treated them as separate entities from U.S.DOT. To be consistent with TRB practice as well, these two agencies are treated as “other federal agencies” in aggre- gating survey responses in Figure 20. As a result, there is less reported interaction with U.S.DOT than if we had included them under the DOT umbrella. In many cases, answers concerning coordination with DOTs were either vague or negative. Several tribes responded that they simply had no dealings with DOTs, in one case because no federal highways traversed the reserva- tion. However, even the Navajo Nation indicated very little coordination with DOTs, although the tribe does interact with FTA over airport issues. In some cases, such as the Red Lake Band of Chippewa and the Ho-Chunk Nation, information, including rules and regulations, was chan- neled from the DOT to the tribe through another agency. In the former case, it is the Minnesota DOT, and in the latter the BIA, effectively creating a second-hand relationship with the DOT. State mediation of tribal relations with DOTs occurs in several instances, including the Bad River Band of Chippewa (through the Wisconsin DOT) and 28 Confederated Tribes of Salish–Kootenai (through the Montana DOT). Once the question shifts to coordination with specific DOT agencies, such as FHWA, however, it is clear that some highly productive relationships exist. Thirteen tribes specif- ically cited relationships with FHWA, for a variety of rea- sons; however, one notably relates to a new possibility for self-determination compacting created under SAFETEA- LU; namely, that of permitting tribes to compact with FHWA instead of the BIA. FHWA has been working to establish the bureaucratic mechanisms for enabling this option and plans to make it available in the first half of 2007. Not all tribes find this a desirable alternative, with several explaining that they still saw the BIA as better equipped to handle this function. The Red Lake Band of Chippewa however made clear in its response that it wants “to be the first” to use this option. Per- haps, given the differences in tribal needs and goals, the real value for most tribes lies in having a choice between the two agencies. Tribes have been learning to avail themselves of specific services and funding sources available through FHWA. Kawerak, Inc., has used FHWA assistance with the NEPA process and has also been the beneficiary of Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads following coastal flooding along the Bering Strait. Two other tribes, Hoopa Valley and the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, also reported using Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads funds. The Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation reported making use of transportation enhancement funds, a program initiated under ISTEA, using the money for a pedestrian and bicycle path. As noted previously in the discussion on staffing, this tribe has undertaken an aggressive long-term program of modernizing its transportation infrastructure. Given both the new com- pacting option through FHWA and growing tribal awareness of access to these more specialized funds, future studies in this area could pursue questions of tribal coordination with FHWA in a more detailed fashion than was done in this study. FIGURE 20 Coordination between tribes and other units of government (n = 30). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 BIA USDOT Other Federal Regional Council of Government State Transportation Agencies Municipal Agencies County Agencies Other Unit of Government N o. o f T rib es Yes No

29 The same could also be said of coordination with two other U.S.DOT agencies: FTA and FAA. The Navajo Nation was the only tribe to mention coordination with FAA, as a result of its airport and hangar, and they may be a unique case. As noted earlier, however, many tribes are now either operating or seeking to establish public trans- portation programs or collaborate with neighboring juris- dictions in this area. For example, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma is developing a transit program with FTA and U.S. Department of Agriculture assistance under a program administered by the Community Transit Association. Although the Seminole Nation was one of only three tribes that specifically mentioned coordination with FTA, it appears likely that others could (or already do) benefit from various federal and state funding sources for transit, as well as from training that may be available in this area. The new provisions for transit funding to tribes under SAFETEA-LU were discussed in chapter two. Given a comment from the Eastern Band of Cherokee that TTAP has had little to offer in the area of transit, it may be worth examining the poten- tial for coordination on training between TTAP and FTA or state transit agencies, although it is also clear that this tribe’s transit program already has a working relationship with the North Carolina DOT. Outside of DOTs, coordination by tribes with other fed- eral agencies most often appears to involve agencies involved either with environmental regulation or with man- agement of federal lands. Such coordination most often results from specific needs or projects; however, it is clear that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have the most frequent interactions with tribes. Ho- Chunk Nation files stormwater management plans with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, although the plans are developed through the tribe’s Indian Health Service office and not through the transportation program. The tribe also apparently gets some permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for work affecting navigable waters. Coordination with BLM would occur largely as a result of its status as a neighboring landowner, a common situa- tion in many western states. However, BLM was cited by a handful of tribes for its assistance with geographic infor- mation systems, global positioning systems, and other mapping services. The Native Village of Eyak also noted coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture For- est Service, which owns a significant amount of Alaskan timberland, and two tribes mentioned working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The most extensive set of responses concerning coordination with other federal agen- cies came from the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians; Minnesota tribes appear generally to be adept at establish- ing such relationships. Red Lake reported being “one of the first tribes to work with BLM on the new GCDP,” and is training its staff in some fairly technical skills in this area, in addition to maintaining coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Both the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation cited some coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the former in connection with emergency snow removal. Although the Hoopa Valley Tribe did not mention FEMA as a target of coordination, it could have, because it is the only tribe to report that it had successfully sought FEMA approval of its own Local Hazard Mitigation Plan under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. In this case, necessity has been the mother of invention: Hoopa Valley occupies severely landslide-prone territory in northern California and often needs help dealing with the affects on its roads from severe winter storms. The one other noteworthy area of coordination that emerged from the survey responses involved federal hous- ing and health agencies—the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in two cases involving roads connected with new housing developments, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in facilitating access to housing built for nurses and doctors on the Zuni reservation, and in several instances, the Indian Health Services. Relations with state transportation agencies can be very idiosyncratic in Indian Country, but are evolving fast, with a number of states now having established tribal liaison offices or personnel (Rolland and Winchell 2002). Much of the interaction appears to depend on the extent to which tribes have state highways bordering or traversing their lands, need assistance or funding from state programs, or have some other form of regular contact with state trans- portation officials. Relationships in this area are changing and growing in part as a result of summits and conferences between state and tribal officials (e.g., see Swan 2002). The Cherokee Nation cited a fairly elaborate system of intertribal coordination both within Oklahoma and on an interstate basis with joint meetings of Oklahoma and Kansas tribal officials. Tribes in Minnesota such as the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa reported excellent relation- ships with the Minnesota DOT. Even Iowa, which has just one tribe resident in the state (Sac and Fox), has estab- lished a tribal consultation process to ensure adequate communication (Iowa Tribal . . . 2002). The simple willingness of state and tribal transportation officials to meet as professional peers appears to help estab- lish relationships in which professionals on both sides are working on sensible solutions to mutual problems. In this regard, both the Fort Belknap Indian Community and the Con- federated Salish–Kootenai Tribes meet on a regular basis with the Montana DOT, and the Southern Ute work cooperatively with Colorado officials. At the very least, there is no substi- tute for dialogue in clarifying problems and highlighting

opportunities for cooperation. A positive learning curve appears feasible on both sides, and some real creativity in this area is becoming evident. One sometimes contentious issue in state–tribal rela- tions, however, concerns fuel taxes, a vital source of rev- enue for tribes. The December 2005 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, in which the Court held that the state of Kansas could tax off-reservation sales of fuel to distributors deliv- ering gasoline to the tribe for sale on the reservation, is sure to discourage some tribes that thought that fuel tax agree- ments with states would help drive revenue generation for tribes. Such agreements exist in several states, notably North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, and it remains to be seen how they will be treated in the wake of Wagnon; however, the ruling clearly does not improve the tribes’ negotiating position vis-à-vis the states. Coordination with regional agencies often appears to be a matter of location. More remote tribes have relatively little interaction with regional planning agencies. Kawerak, Inc., basically is the regional organization in northwest Alaska, whose landscape is dominated by native villages and lands. However, regional planning organizations do exist in many rural areas, and tribes such as the Bad River Band of Chippewa Indians in Wisconsin, and the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa Indians, who work routinely with the Arrowhead Regional Development Commission in Minnesota, are helping pave the way toward the development of meaningful relationships with regional entities. The Mashantucket Pequot noted that they are nonvoting members of the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments. The Navajo work with two regional bodies, one in Arizona and one in New Mexico, and the Tohono O’Odham, located entirely in Arizona, indicated that their transportation planner serves on the transportation committee of the Pima County Association of Governments and that the tribal chairman serves on its board. In some cases, particularly where it is possible for a tribe to engage directly with an MPO, the regional planning body designated as a clearinghouse under federal transportation law, there may even be opportunities for tribes to access funds available through the MPO to local governments within its jurisdic- tion. There may be new opportunities for TTAP assistance to tribes by providing training on the development of such relationships and in identifying the opportunities they may represent. INNOVATIVE AND MODEL PRACTICES The survey asked tribes to identify any innovative prac- tices or programs they wished to share that might benefit other tribes. One that was mentioned a few times was that of tribes compacting with the BIA to take over the opera- tion of their own programs. However slow movement may be in this area for some tribes, there is little doubt that 30 self-determination is a powerful aspiration for those tribes that can envision assuming this responsibility, and those that have done so appear to take pride in it and believe strongly that their actions are a model for other tribes that have not yet compacted for management of their programs. The Cherokee Nation cited the ability to use federal pro- gram money in interest-bearing accounts while projects are being developed as a way of enhancing revenue that otherwise would have remained in federal hands. Also, as noted earlier, the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians made clear its intent to be the first to compact with FHWA under recent federal rules allowing this as an alternative to working with the BIA. Beyond compacting under P.L. 93-638, this study identi- fied at least ten distinct areas of innovation, which are dis- cussed individually here. These categories are necessarily informal because innovation by its very nature often defies existing boundaries and frequently blends or blurs them, but the categories nonetheless afford some convenient ways of attempting to understand the various paths to creativity in Indian Country. Relationship Building One tribe, the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, cited its own excellence in building relationships as its prime innovation. It cited a list of very practical projects made possible through working relationships with county and state transportation and public works officials. In a world where cooperation is sometimes everything, innovations in the not-always-so- simple ability to work with others might be worth closer examination. They may not be unique in Minnesota, how- ever, as the profile of the Red Lake Band suggests that they too are highly adept in this area. Some of these innovations may appear workable for medium-to-large tribes, yet inaccessible to many small tribes. However, there are ways in which the smallest tribes can join forces to increase the levels of accomplishment. Tribes in California are moving steadily in the direction of pooling resources to achieve transportation goals that might otherwise have seemed beyond reach. In southern California, the Reservation Transportation Authority serves a consor- tium of small tribes and provides a model not entirely differ- ent from one that the Hoopa Valley tribe is now exploring in northern California. Hoopa Valley reports that it is “in the process of forming an intertribal transportation commission that will represent tribes in our county to our Regional Trans- portation Agency and other public agencies.” Financing and Fundraising Skills The ability to identify new sources of funding for urgent needs can become highly innovative. The Fort Belknap Indian Community’s capital assistance grant from the

31 Montana DOT required that the recipient organization be a registered 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization. Undeterred, the tribe argued that the Internal Revenue Service Code treats tribal organizations in the same way and won its point, gain- ing funding for three Chevrolet minibuses with wheelchair lifts to serve its senior citizens. One of the most significant innovations with regard to cre- ative financing has to do with the flexible financing agree- ment worked out between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the BIA. This agreement, forged with the help of several prominent public officials in North Dakota and South Dakota, allows the tribe to use its tribal shares allocation from the IRR program as payments on a long-term private commercial loan to marshal $26.5 million (approximately 20 years of current IRR shares) to undertake an immediate three-year program of infrastructure improvements. The real significance of the arrangement is not just that it solves many long-term problems with inadequate and unsafe roads, but that by doing so it should enable much more rapid investment and economic growth on the reservation that will positively alter the lifestyles and outlooks of a whole generation of tribal members. The tribal video about this achievement makes clear that it was brought about primarily because of persistence by tribal leaders. Highway Design and Environmental Considerations For many tribes, just getting a seat at the table when the state is planning the route and design for a new highway is a major achievement. Not only did the Confederated Salish–Kootenai Tribes succeed in this regard for the planning of Highway 93 in Idaho, but they exerted a major influence in redesigning the portion of the highway passing through the reservation to include pedestrian lanes, surface texture changes to signal to drivers that they were entering a special area that required additional safety precautions, and numerous wildlife cross- ings that respected the environmental context of the highway right-of-way. The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation succeeded in establishing environ-mental assess- ments for large areas for 20-year buildouts, allowing the tribes to complete a single assessment instead of conducting multi- ple assessments at different phases of new projects, saving time on design and approval. Transit Tribes are increasingly incorporating various provisions for public transportation into their programs; however, the inno- vations needed depend greatly on geographic context; for example, whether the tribe borders on neighboring jurisdic- tions with their own mass transit, how rural or urban the set- ting, and the means for financing the development of transit. The new tribal transit arrangements under SAFETEA-LU will most likely add to the pace of innovation as tribes gain access to new resources; however, as noted in chapter two, tribes are also raising questions with FTA about program design at the outset. Some considerable work, however, has already pre- ceded this new program. The most impressive program found was that of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, who have been identifying market niches in which to expand their program on an entrepreneurial basis, includ- ing a new shuttle service into Smoky Mountain National Park, supported by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Congestion Management and Air Quality grant. The Coeur d’Alene Tribe is working out cooperative links with a neighboring city’s transit program, and the Navajo Nation and Tohono O’Odham are both pursuing their own transit innovations in Arizona and New Mexico, respec- tively, the latter tribe with regard to subsidized purchase of wheelchair-accessible vans. Transit is likely to become one of the most intriguing areas for future research in the field of tribal transportation. Enhancements The term “enhancements” first emerged with regard to trans- portation planning in the 1992 ISTEA legislation. It refers to the development of largely alternative modes of transporta- tion outside the Highway Trust Fund and can include items such as bicycle trails and facilities, pedestrian overpasses, historic preservation, and environmental improvements. In this regard, the most innovative tribes are finding that there are federal funds available for such uses apart from those tra- ditionally set aside for Indian tribal governments. The Coeur d’Alene Tribe worked with the Union Pacific Railroad to convert abandoned track into a rail–trail that is now opening up tourism opportunities, thus affording some economic development as well. The Makah Tribe, occupy- ing a small peninsula in the northwestern corner of Wash- ington State, was able to develop a scenic byway. In some cases, there may be a desire to balance potential increased visitation from tourism with a desire to maintain privacy for tribal members living on the reservation. Enhancements can be conceived not as a means of drawing visitors, but as a better means of serving the internal transportation needs of the tribe itself, or some carefully conceived objective that blends elements of both types of goals. Marketable Technical Skills Some tribal enterprises associated with the operation of transportation programs have become remarkably profi- cient at attracting business from outside the reservation and, in the process, generating needed revenue to finance trans- portation improvements within the reservation. Two efforts stand out: the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho on the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming and the Hoopa

Valley Tribe. The former have created a quality assurance laboratory that contracts for testing work from the state and numerous counties in Wyoming. Hoopa Valley has been the crucible for establishing Ready-Mix and aggregate crushing businesses that have placed the entire program on a profitable footing and, in the process, created a significant economic development model for other tribal transporta- tion programs. Problem Solving for Special Hazards Hoopa Valley claimed a special niche here as well, with respect to its ability to bring together the efforts of nearly 40 tribal departments to cooperate in creating and subse- quently winning FEMA approval for a local hazard mitiga- tion plan. Such plans are required of local governments under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 for them to be eligible for both pre- and post-disaster mitigation grants from FEMA and, as noted earlier, Hoopa Valley faces a special winter landslide problem across its rugged terrain. However, the Disaster Mitigation Act permits multijurisdictional plans, and it has been common for communities to band together through regional or county agencies to create such plans so that not every jurisdiction must develop its own. Hoopa Val- ley, however, decided to master the technical requirements of hazard mitigation planning and develop a plan to meet its own unique needs. With particular consideration of how var- ious natural hazards can affect transportation facilities, there may well be a model here for training other tribes to prepare for a safer future. Use of Planning Tools Concerning the use of planning tools, two examples are particularly noteworthy. One is the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation’s use of Infrastructure 2000 planning soft- ware to better integrate the management of its transporta- tion programs. The other, equally intriguing, is the work of the Red Lake Band in combining geographic information system technology with an E-911 address inventory to overcome a traditional problem of providing location infor- mation for residences where property is owned by the tribe and not individual homeowners and therefore have lacked a street numbering system. 32 Cultural Preservation Techniques In the Navajo Nation profile, we deliberately included a sec- tion not originally provided for in our safety section on archaeology and ethnography. Essentially, we added an addi- tional, lengthy interview with the people who manage a program that greatly influences the Navajo right-of-way decisions for tribal roads. The program involves the use of a cultural specialist fluent in Navajo to interview tribal mem- bers in the path of any proposed project to learn as much as possible about traditional tribal uses of the area in question, including burials, sacred uses, and gathering places for med- icinal herbs, so as to minimize any resulting disruption. The process is worth studying further as an example of well- considered cultural sensitivity. Social Factors Transportation planning involves a number of social issues in any jurisdiction, including safety, access to jobs, and, as Jane Jacobs famously noted in the early 1960s, the quality and vibrancy of life along the street. One of the safety issues involving personal responsibility that cities and the states across the nation have struggled to address since the inven- tion of the automobile has been that of intoxicated drivers. Indian tribes have faced many vexing situations in this regard, and some have produced solutions that offer models for others. As noted earlier, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe created a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program that is now attracting non-Indians from across New York State. The Southern Ute Tribe has developed a wellness court to aug- ment its adoption of a 0.08 alcohol content standard and the use of a speed trailer at special events. Unemployment is a huge challenge on many reservations, but the use of TERO, such as the one described in the Win- nebago profile, offers at least some opportunity to put tribal members to work in developing or repairing needed infra- structure. Although the questionnaire for this study did not explore TERO in any depth, a future study to examine the effectiveness of various approaches in TEROs might be of considerable value. The best guide we found on this subject was a 10-year-old manual from a two-day course developed by FHWA and the National Highway Institute (Partnering for Indian Employment . . . 1997).

Next: Chapter Four - Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Research »
Tribal Transportation Programs Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 366: Tribal Transportation Programs explores innovations and model practices among tribal transportation programs. The report also examines the history, and legal and administrative evolution, of tribal transportation programs within the larger context of issues of tribal sovereignty and relationships with federal, state, and local governments, and local and regional planning agencies.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!