[slide 1]

[slide 2]

• Today, we will begin by briefly reviewing some of the 30,000 foot level provisions of SAFETEA-LU before we focus in greater detail on the FLH program and other provisions of interest to our Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA) partners.

[slide 3]

• After much debate and multiple continuing resolutions, the bill was signed into law on August 10th by President Bush.
• For Federal Lands Highway, the new Act offers some good news and disappointing news.
• The disappointing news is SAFETEA-LU did not include two new programs the Administration had proposed, namely the Recreation Roads Program and Safety Program.
• The good news is the Federal Lands Highway Program continues to be an authorized program in SAFETEA-LU! And, the overall funding level for FLHP program increased by approximately 26% when compared to the last 5 years of TEA-21.

[slide 4]

• The information thus far provided a general overview of the new law and some of the overall funding considerations that support it.
• Now, we would like to transition into the provisions that pertain to the Federal Lands Highway Program and walk through this information program-by-program.
• For each program, we will address 3 questions 1) what are the funding differences between TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU, 2) are there any policy changes, and 3) if there are policy changes, will they require further guidance and/or rulemakings?
• The funding information will be provided in two forms for each program. First, we provide a comparison of total program dollars in SAFETEA-LU to the last 5 years of TEA-21, so we have an apples-to-apples comparison. Second, we show the annual authorizations over the life of SAFETEA-LU, i.e., 2005-2009.

[slide 5]

• Here is a quick look at the annual authorizations from TEA-21 thru the 5 years of SAFETEA-LU. The funding amounts within SAFETEA-LU are for 2005 through 2009.

[slide 6]

• Although the Park Roads and Parkways Program did not receive the full funding as requested in the Administration's bill, which supported President Bush's Park Legacy initiative, SAFETEA-LU still represents a 27% increase over 5 years! Good news.
• In Section 1101, it states that the PRP program will allocate not less than 3% of PRP funds to any state containing more than 50% of the total acreage of the national park system. So, this means Alaska receives 3% off the top of the PRP program (after deductions). This represents a 1% increase for Alaska from previous years.
• There are no major policy changes to the program.

[slide 7]

• Here is a snapshot of the funding thresholds for the IRR program from TEA-21 thru SAFETEA-LU. The funding amounts in SAFETEA-LU are for 2005 through 2009. You will note the significant increase between 2005-9.

[slide 8]

• Funding: The IRR Program funding increased by approximately 40%.
• Unlike in TEA-21 where the bridge program was a set-aside, the bridge program authorization is in addition to the core IRR funds.

[slide 9]

• SAFETEA-LU provides a significant change in the administration of the IRR program. IRR funding may be provided directly in accordance with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to a requesting Indian tribal government(s) that has satisfactorily demonstrated financial stability and financial management to the Secretary.
• This new responsibility has major implications for FHWA. Over 500 contracts were managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs with tribes in 2004. The term "contract" means an agreement between two governments. This new responsibility now lies with the Office of Federal Lands Highway.
• Inventory - The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, is required to complete a comprehensive national inventory of transportation facilities that are eligible for assistance under the IRR program within 2 years of enactment of SAFETEA-LU. The IRR system includes approximately 59,000 miles of roads (where more than half are state and/or locally owned) and over 4300 bridges.
• Up to 25% of a tribe's IRR Program funds may now be used for the purpose of road and bridge maintenance, although the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) will retain primary responsibility for IRR maintenance programs through DOI appropriations.
• An Indian tribe may enter into a road maintenance agreement with a State to assume the responsibilities of the State for roads in and providing access to Indian reservations. DOT is required to submit an annual report to Congress that captures the number of lane miles negotiated between tribes and State DOTs and the dollars associated with performing maintenance activities on those negotiated segments of highways.

[slide 10]

• Indian tribal governments, through a contract or agreement under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), can approve plans, specifications, and estimates and commence road and bridge construction using available funds. The Indian tribal government would need to certify to the Secretary of Transportation that the construction would meet or exceed applicable health and safety standards and is required to obtain advance review of the plans and specifications from a State-licensed civil engineer that has certified that the plans and specifications meet or exceed the applicable health and safety standards.
• Planning - IRR funds shall only be expended on projects identified in a transportation improvement program approved by the Secretary.
• Bridge Program: New eligible activities for the IRR Bridge Program are listed here. Bridges must be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete to be eligible.
• A new position in DOT is established for a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Tribal Government Affairs responsible for policy and programs serving Indian tribes and tribal organizations.

[slide 11]

• The Public Lands Highway program continues in SAFETEA-LU with relatively few changes.
• The PLH program is comprised of two components, namely, the Forest Highway Program that is funded at 66% and the PLH-Discretionary Program that is funded with the balance of 34%. Toward the end TEA-21, the funding for the PLH-Discretionary program became 100% earmarks. We foresee the same trend in SAFETEA-LU.
• Here, you see the actual total numbers in SAFETEA-LU compared to the last 5 years in TEA-21.

[slide 12]

• This chart provides the annual breakdown of authorized amounts for both the Forest Highway and Discretionary components of the Public Lands Highway program in SAFETEA-LU only.

[slide 13]

• In SAFETEA-LU, we will continue to set aside approximately $6M off the top of the PLH program (FH and PLH-D) and administer the funds based on criteria from FHWA. Guidance on eligible uses of the planning monies is available on our website (click on SAFETEA-LU). The recipients of the planning set-aside are listed here.
• The core FLHP partners can use their program dollars for planning. The FLMAs listed here do not possess a funding source for transportation planning - thus the set-aside. Note - For the Forest Service, the planning monies here apply to Public Forest Service Roads only - not Forest Highways. Many of the old logging roads historically used by the Forest Service personnel are now being used for public recreational access and access to some local economies (up to 60K miles). Therefore, we made an exception with the Forest Service for this type of road only. Transportation planning money for Forest Highways (29K miles) will continue to stem from the PLH Program.

[slide 14]

• FLH Interpretation 
  • All amounts listed in Sec. 119(m) are Forest Highway (FH) program funds. They will not impact the Public Lands Highways - Discretionary program.
  • The amounts listed in Sec. 1119(m)(1) and 1119(m)(2) are not set-asides; they will not be separated from the FH formula. Rather, they are newly eligible activities of the FH program, with funding limits on those activities. Any funding spent on maintenance or hunting/fishing signs will come directly from the States' annual allocation of FH funds. Tracking will be required for any FH funding spent on these activities to ensure that annual funding caps are not exceeded.
  • Maintenance projects will be treated just like any other FH project: they must be put into the multi-year FH plan, and agreed to by representatives of the Forest Service (FS), the Federal Highway Administration, and the relevant State Highway Administration. Maintenance is defined in 23 USC 101(a)(14): The term "maintenance" means the preservation of the entire highway, including surface, shoulders, roadsides, structures, and such traffic-control devices as are necessary for safe and efficient utilization of the highway.
  • Per Sec. 1119(m)(3), $10,000,000 per year is to be used by the Forest Service for Aquatic Organism Passage projects on Forest Highways within the National Forest System. The FS will create a nationally prioritized list of projects each year. These funds will come off the top of the Forest Highway program. Due to the $10,000,000 limit, any of these funds not obligated in a previous year will not carry over to a future year for this purpose; the remainder will be returned to the general Forest Highway program. Because this section of law gives the Secretary of Agriculture sole discretion over these funds, they are not subject to the usual tri-partite FH agreement. Since the FS will use the total amount available for Aquatic Organism Passage projects, no Aquatic Organism Passage projects should be advanced using FH funds allocated to the States or Federal Lands Highway Divisions under the FH formula.
  • Within Title 23, Section 202 (a), under Allocations - The language was changed to include national forests and grasslands.

[slide 15]

• FLH collaborates with our partner, Fish and Wildlife Service, in administering the Refuge Road program.
• The Refuge Roads Program increased from $20M per year under TEA-21 to $29M per year under SAFETEA-LU.

[slide 16]

• Amends Section 204(k) so that interpretive signage is now an eligible item for this program.
• Amends Section 204(k) so that recreational trails are eligible under this program, but limits the total amount spent on trails at 5%. The 5% cap is based on the total program.
• Amends Section 204(k) so that funds made available under the refuge roads program can now be used as the non-federal match for any project funded under Title 23 or chapter 53 of Title 49, so long as that project provides access to or within a wildlife refuge.

This concludes the review of the 4 core FLHP programs. The next chart depicts the before and after for all FLHP programs in a single table.

[slide 17]

• Again, for comparison purposes, the numbers and percentages reflect the last 5 years in TEA-21 against the 5 years reflected in SAFETEA-LU.
• You will note that the yearly FLHP sum increased from about $700M in TEA-21 to over $900M per year in SAFETEA-LU.

[slide 18]

Now, we will transition to other FLHP-related programs and provisions in SAFETEA-LU.

[slide 19]

• The Office of Safety will lead this effort for FHWA and FLH will support it. Carol Tan is the POC from the Office of Safety R&D, (202) 493-3315.
• There is a great deal of information published about this topic, therefore, we plan to leverage and build upon it.

[slide 20]

• Title III, Section 3021 of the Act authorizes a new alternative transportation program (ATP) for parks and other public lands. Eligible agencies include the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Forest Service.
• The Conferees adopted the Senate proposal with some modifications including making Forest Service facilities eligible and adding bicycle, pedestrian and non-motorized watercraft projects to the definition of alternative transportation. The purchase or replacement of rolling stock that incorporates clean fuel technology is specifically mentioned.

[slide 21]

• Responsibility for the program is shared between USDOT and USDOI. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is managing this program. ("The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, would be authorized to award grants, or enter into contracts, cooperative agreements, interagency agreements, intra-agency agreements, or other agreement to carry out qualified projects that would enhance the protection of national parks and public lands and increase the enjoyment of those visiting the parks and public lands.")
• Funding for planning, research and technical assistance is limited to 10 percent of funds. In addition, no qualified project would be eligible to receive more than 25 percent of the total amount made available under section 5338(b)(2)(J) for any fiscal year.
• Annual Report: The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, will be required to submit an annual report to Congress on the allocation of amounts made available to assist qualified projects.
• The annual authorizations are shown here. You will note program funding does not begin until 2006.

[slide 22]

• Indian tribes are eligible recipients of Federal transit program grants. The eligible uses of these monies are listed here. Again, FTA will be the lead DOT agency.

[slide 23]

• We reviewed the lists of High Priority Projects and Transportation Improvements and identified about 115 projects totaling $339M. The list can be accessed on FLH's website (click on SAFETEA-LU).
• Many of these earmarks are spread over 5 years. States can borrow/loan for some of the earmarks while others have no flexibility. A fact sheet on FLH-related earmarks is also available on FLH's website.
• In addition, there are separate authorizations for the Going to the Sun Road Project in Montana. This project authorizes $10M per year up to $50M total - until expended. This authorization does not have contract authority so it is susceptible to the yearly appropriations process.
• The Hoover Dam project in the Lake Mead area is included in Section 1114 - Highway Bridge Program, and has a set-aside for $12.5M year starting in 2006 - for a total of $50M.

[slide 24]

• In both metropolitan and statewide planning sections in SAFETEA-LU, greater emphasis was placed on consulting with FLMAs and tribal governments on planning issues and including Federal Lands' projects in TIPs and STIPs.
• The Office of Federal Lands Highways is supporting FHWA's Office of Planning in developing guidance and rulemakings in the planning area.

[slide 25]

• Title VI also includes a number of provisions that modify current environmental practice for federally funded transportation projects.
• Section 6002 seeks to increase the efficiency of the environmental review process - including reducing time for federal agency reviews. FHWA is in the process of developing guidance on this provision.
• Section 6009 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue rules establishing a new standard for de minimis impacts to parks, recreation areas and historic sites and properties.
• Section 6005 creates a pilot where the environmental reviews are conducted by the states. However, the pilot program will not apply to FLHP-related projects in the pilot States.

[slide 26]

• The ER program has permanent authorization of $100M per year in 23 USC 125. SAFETEA-LU allows for greater ER funding above that amount
• The SAFETEA-LU authorization for additional ER funds is from the General Fund and is subject to appropriation

[slide 27]

• In Title 23, Sec. 120 (k), Use of Federal Land Management Agency Funds, greater flexibility was included in SAFETEA-LU by striking existing language that read "...funds appropriated to any FLMA may be used to pay the non-federal share of the cost of any Federal-aid highway project the federal share of which is funded under section 104." to "...share of the cost of any project the federal share of which is funded under this title or chapter 53 of title 49."

[slide 28]

• FLH (EFL) has been designated as the lead implementing agency to conduct this traffic analysis and then act on the findings.

[slide 29]

• This provision allows FLH dollars to be used for standalone Bike and Ped projects.

[slide 30]

• SAFETEA-LU language explicitly allows Indian tribal governments to be recipients of byways' grants and technical assistance.
• On average, the program is approximately $35M per yr. over 5 years.

[slide 31]

• For further information, please visit our SAFETEA-LU link on the FLH homepage. We have posted Fact Sheets, Interim Guidance, Presentations and other information.

[slide 32]