ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Navajo Division of Transportation wishes to acknowledge and recognize the following people for their support, contributions, or participation in the 2009 Navajo Long Range Comprehensive Transportation Plan development. Transportation and Community Development Committee: Sampson Begay, Chairperson Willie Begay Leslie Dele Johnny Naize, Vice-Chair Omer Begay Lorenzo Bedonie Advisor: Gerri Harrison Northern Navajo Agency Roads Committee: Lena Clark, Chairperson John Billie Stanley Hardy, Vice-Chair Lucinda Bennalley Western Navajo Agency Roads Committee: Katerine Benally, Chairperson Chester Claw Larry Goodman, Vice-Chair Lorenzo Isaac Jr. Harry Wagoner Stanley Clitso Eastern Navajo Agency Roads Committee: David Lee, Chairperson Thomas Barbone Anthony Begay, Vice-Chair Mark Begay Chinle Agency Roads Committee: Leonard Pete, Chairperson Aaron Yazzie Percey Deal, Vice-Chair David Kedelty Fort Defiance Agency Roads Committee: Raymond Berchman, Chair Mel Begay Andrew Simpson, Vice-Chair Bennie Hanley, Sr. David B. Rico Jerry Bodie Robert C. Begay Herman Farley Evelyn Acothley Freida Maloney Ernest Goatson Rosita Kelly Tony Padilla Pauline McCauley Frank Willeto Annabelle Pino Samuel Yazzie Katherine Arthur Roscoe Smith Willis Nez Roger Paul Christine Wallace BIA - Navajo Region Division of Transportation: Ervin Bekis Regional Road Engineer Harold Riley Assistant Regional Road Engineer Joan Greiser Road Maintenance Engineer Corwyn Henry Structural Engineer 2009 LRTP Technical Advisory Committee Members: Andrew Bertelsen, Coconino County Ben Bennett, Behavioral Health Services Charley Joe, Shiprock Chapter Chris Fetzer, Northern Arizona Council of Governments Dave Keck, San Juan County Ferrin Crosby, Apache County Harold Riley, Bureau of Indian Affairs Homero Vela, Navajo County Jarvis Williams, Kayenta Township John Harper, Arizona Department of Transportation John McElroy, New Mexico Department of Transportation Joyce Nez, Chinle Chapter Lee Bigwater, Navajo Transit System Lynn Johnson, Arizona Department of Transportation Monte Aldridge, Utah Department of Transportation Robert Kuipers, Regional Planning Organization - Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments Calvin Castillo, NRODOT- Fort Defiance Agency Robert Montoya, NRODOT- Northern Navajo Agency Dineh Benally, NRODOT- Eastern Navajo Agency The following individuals or organizations: Trib Choudhary, Division of Economic Development John Largo, Division of Economic Development Verginia Yazzie, Navajo Tourism Development Phefelia Johnson, Navajo Nation Gaming Enterprise Martin Begay, Navajo Parks and Recreation Bradley Nesemeier, Minerals Department Robert L. Kirk, Water Management, Water Resources Department Jason Long, Water Management, Water Resources Department Government Development Office, Navajo Nation Legislative Branch Kayenta Township Federal Aviation Administration Arizona Department of Transportation New Mexico Department of Transportation Utah Department of Transportation Navajo Area Indian Health Service Program Planning and Evaluation Winslow Indian Health Care Center, Incorporated Alamo Navajo Health Center Navajo Housing Authority Navajo Division of Transportation: Tom Platero Larry Joe Riley Wilson Margie Begay Lemont Yazzie Vanessa Taho Jonah Begay Velma Bitsitty Stephen Calvin Patricia White Arlando Teller Valcita Thompson Leanne Roy Theran Tallsalt David Silversmith Funding Agency: ADOT – Small Area Transportation Study Program Principal Editors: Don Sneed, ADOT Misty Dayzie, ADOT Harold Riley, NRO-DOT Dan Marum, Wilson & Company Principal Authors: Salisa Norstog, Navajo DOT Don Sneed, ADOT Susan Anderson, Wilson & Company Jim Townsend, Wilson & Company Jeff Swan, Woodson Engineering Joe Salt Yolanda Woody Darlene Jenkins David Warren Emerson Tracey 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... I-1 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. PLAN INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. I-1 PLAN GOALS ................................................................................................................................ I-1 FEDERAL FUNDING OF INDIAN RESERVATION ROAD SYSTEM ........................................... I-3 SAFETEA-LU REVIEW ................................................................................................................. I-3 ROAD CONSTRUCTION FUNDS................................................................................................. I-4 NAVAJO NATION’S CONCERNS................................................................................................. I-6 LRTP PLANNING PROCESS ..................................................................................................... I-10 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................... I-11 CHAPTER II -NAVAJO NATION PROFILE ................................................................ II-1 A. B. C. D. E. F. NAVAJO NATION GOVERNMENT.............................................................................................. II-1 LAND BASE.................................................................................................................................. II-1 POPULATION............................................................................................................................... II-3 NAVAJO NATION ECONOMY ..................................................................................................... II-4 LAND USE.................................................................................................................................... II-5 MODES OF TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................ II-7 CHAPTER III - NAVAJO NATION INDIAN RESERVATION ROAD SYSTEM......... III-1 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. NAVAJO NATION IRR SYSTEM................................................................................................. III-1 NAVAJO-BIA ROADS ................................................................................................................. III-3 TRIBAL ROADS .......................................................................................................................... III-9 STATE ROADS ......................................................................................................................... III-10 COUNTY ROADS...................................................................................................................... III-11 OTHER BIA PROGRAM ROADS.............................................................................................. III-12 OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY ROADS ...................................................................................... III-13 OTHER ROADS ........................................................................................................................ III-13 CHAPTER IV - NAVAJO-BIA ROADS TRAFFIC DEMAND ...................................... IV-1 A. B. C. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME ................................................................................................... IV-1 TRAFFIC DEMAND FORECAST ................................................................................................ IV-1 TRAVEL PATTERNS .................................................................................................................. IV-2 CHAPTER V -TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT...................................... V-1 A. B. C. PLANNING METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................... V-1 NAVAJO-BIA ROAD ISSUES AND NEEDS ................................................................................ V-4 NEED 1: Highway Geometric Design Deficiencies ..................................................................... V-4 NEED 2: Network Connectivity Needs ....................................................................................... V-6 NEED 3: Pavement Deficiencies............................................................................................... V-11 NEED 4: Safety ......................................................................................................................... V-11 NEED 5: Chapter House Access Needs ................................................................................... V-25 NEED 6: Growth Center Street Needs ...................................................................................... V-27 NEED 7: Community Economic Development Transportation Needs ...................................... V-28 NEED 8: Scenic Byways, Tourism & Recreation Needs........................................................... V-45 NEED 9: Multimodal Transportation Needs .............................................................................. V-49 NEED 10: Other Transportation Needs..................................................................................... V-53 NEED 11: Cultural Environmental Considerations:................................................................... V-56 TOTAL NEEDS........................................................................................................................... V-61 CHAPTER VI -Conclusions and Recommendations for Navajo-BIA Mobility Improvements ........................................................................................................... VI-1 A. B. C. Improvement Types and Mileage ................................................................................................ VI-1 Improvement Cost ....................................................................................................................... VI-3 Implementation Plan.................................................................................................................... VI-3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Safety Improvements................................................................................................................... VI-5 1. Safety Improvement Program ........................................................................................ VI-5 2. Open Range Policy......................................................................................................... VI-6 3. Vendors in the ROW....................................................................................................... VI-6 4. Access Management ...................................................................................................... VI-6 5. Navajo Nation Access Management .............................................................................. VI-6 6. BIA Access Management ............................................................................................... VI-7 7. Arizona Access Management......................................................................................... VI-7 8. New Mexico Access Management ................................................................................. VI-7 9. Utah Access Management ............................................................................................. VI-8 10. Access Management Strategies..................................................................................... VI-8 11. Signing Program............................................................................................................. VI-9 12. Striping Program........................................................................................................... VI-10 Transit........................................................................................................................................ VI-10 Master Planning......................................................................................................................... VI-10 DOT Coordination...................................................................................................................... VI-11 Title VI and Environmental Justice Implications ........................................................................ VI-12 Overall Study Recommendations and Implications................................................................... VI-13 Year 2009-2048 Navajo Nation Long Range Construction Priority Schedule........................... VI-17 CHAPTER VII -GROWTH CENTER MOBILITY ........................................................ VII-1 A. B. C. D. E. Population Projection.................................................................................................................. VII-1 Development Trends .................................................................................................................. VII-1 Transportation Issues ................................................................................................................. VII-1 Planning Methodology ................................................................................................................ VII-2 Growth Center Mobility Improvements ....................................................................................... VII-3 CHAPTER VIII -NAVAJO NATION AIRPORT NEEDS ............................................ VIII-1 A. B. C. D. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... VIII-1 EXISTING AIRPORTS AND INVENTORY................................................................................ VIII-1 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................... VIII-7 LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND PLANS ........................................................... VIII-9 CHAPTER IX -NAVAJO BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ..................................... IX-1 A. B. C. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................... IX-1 FUNDING .................................................................................................................................... IX-1 BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ............................................................................................. IX-1 CHAPTER X -NAVAJO-BIA ROADS MAINTENANCE .............................................. X-1 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................ X-1 BIA NAVAJO ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM ...................................................................... X-1 FUNDING ..................................................................................................................................... X-1 NAVAJO ROAD MAINTENANCE NEEDS ................................................................................... X-2 MAINTENANCE FUNDING NEEDS AND ESTIMATE................................................................. X-5 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS ................................................................................................. X-7 NAVAJO DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM .......................................................... X-7 CHAPTER XI -STATE HIGHWAY NEEDS................................................................. XI-1 A. B. C. STATE ROAD MILEAGE............................................................................................................. XI-1 1. Class 1 Roads: .................................................................................................................... XI-1 2. Class 2 Roads in Arizona: ................................................................................................... XI-1 3. Class 2 Roads in New Mexico: ............................................................................................ XI-1 4. Class 2 Roads in Utah: ........................................................................................................ XI-2 STATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS .................................................................................... XI-2 Arizona State Highways .............................................................................................................. XI-2 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan D. E. 1. I-40:...................................................................................................................................... XI-2 2. US 89: .................................................................................................................................. XI-2 3. US 89A:................................................................................................................................ XI-4 4. US 160: ................................................................................................................................ XI-4 5. US 163: ................................................................................................................................ XI-5 6. US 191: ................................................................................................................................ XI-5 7. AZ 61: .................................................................................................................................. XI-6 8. AZ 64: .................................................................................................................................. XI-7 9. AZ 77: .................................................................................................................................. XI-7 10. AZ 87: .................................................................................................................................. XI-7 11. AZ 98: .................................................................................................................................. XI-8 12. AZ 99: .................................................................................................................................. XI-8 13. AZ 264: ................................................................................................................................ XI-8 14. AZ 564: ................................................................................................................................ XI-9 New Mexico State Highways ..................................................................................................... XI-10 1. I-40:.................................................................................................................................... XI-10 2. US 64: ................................................................................................................................ XI-11 3. US 491: .............................................................................................................................. XI-11 4. US 550: .............................................................................................................................. XI-12 5. NM 57: ............................................................................................................................... XI-13 6. NM 118: ............................................................................................................................. XI-13 7. NM 122: ............................................................................................................................. XI-13 8. NM 134: ............................................................................................................................. XI-14 9. NM 169: ............................................................................................................................. XI-14 10. NM 197: ............................................................................................................................. XI-14 11. NM 264: ............................................................................................................................. XI-15 12. NM 371: ............................................................................................................................. XI-15 13. NM 400: ............................................................................................................................. XI-16 14. NM 509: ............................................................................................................................. XI-16 15. NM 566: ............................................................................................................................. XI-16 16. NM 597: ............................................................................................................................. XI-17 17. NM 602: ............................................................................................................................. XI-17 Utah State Highways ................................................................................................................. XI-18 1. UT 162: .............................................................................................................................. XI-18 2. UT 163: .............................................................................................................................. XI-18 3. UT 262: .............................................................................................................................. XI-19 CHAPTER XII -COUNTY ROAD NEEDS .................................................................. XII-1 A. B. COUNTY ROAD MILEAGE ........................................................................................................ XII-1 COUNTY ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS................................................................................ XII-3 CHAPTER XIII - TRIBAL ROAD NEEDS ................................................................. XIII-1 A. B. TRIBAL ROAD MILEAGE.......................................................................................................... XIII-1 TRIBAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ................................................................................. XIII-3 Appendix A – Returned Survey Questionnaires Appendix B – Access Management Samples Appendix C – Transportation Needs by Route 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan List of Tables Table I-1. Summary of FY 2008 IRR Funding ............................................................................................ I-5 Table I-2. Federal Lands Highway Program – Funding Authorizations Table, FYs 2005-2009 (in Millions)..................................................................................................................................... I-5 Table I-3. Nationwide IRR Inventory Total Mileage.................................................................................... I-7 Table I-4. Total IRR Inventory Roadway Mileage By Region..................................................................... I-7 Table I-5. TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU – IRR Construction Allocations in Million Dollars ........................... I-8 Table II-1. Land Area and Population by Agency..................................................................................... II-2 Table II-2. Population Projection by Agency ............................................................................................ II-4 Table II-3. Navajo Nation Employment Comparison by Sector................................................................ II-4 Table II-4. Navajo Nation's Employment by Industry ............................................................................... II-5 Table III-1. Overall Navajo Nation IRR System (in miles) ....................................................................... III-3 Table III-2. Navajo-BIA Roads by Functional Classification (in miles) .................................................... III-4 Table III-3. Navajo-BIA Roads by Surface Type (in miles)...................................................................... III-8 Table III-4. Tribal Roads (in miles) .......................................................................................................... III-9 Table III-5. State Roads (in miles) ......................................................................................................... III-10 Table III-6. County Roads (in miles) ...................................................................................................... III-11 Table III-7. Other BIA Programs Roads (in miles)................................................................................. III-12 Table III-8. Other Federal Agency Roads (in miles) .............................................................................. III-13 Table V-1. Geometric Design Standards.................................................................................................. V-4 Table V-2. Miles of Navajo-BIA Roads with Geometric Deficiencies/Total NEED 1 ................................ V-5 Table V-3a. Navajo-BIA Roads’ Surface Type By Class........................................................................... V-6 Table V-3. Unpaved Navajo-BIA Class 2 Road Segments with 20-Year ADT > 250 Meeting 81 IAM Requirements to Be Paved ................................................................................................ V-10 Table V-4. Proposed Navajo-BIA Class 2 Roads................................................................................... V-10 Table V-5. Total Class 2 Road Needs .................................................................................................... V-10 Table V-6. Pavement Rating Standards................................................................................................. V-11 Table V-7. Miles of Navajo-BIA Roads with Pavement Deficiencies...................................................... V-11 Table V-8. Crash Rating System ............................................................................................................ V-14 Table V-9. Road Sections with High Crash Rates.................................................................................. V-15 Table V-10. Road Intersections with High Number of Crashes.............................................................. V-15 Table V-11. Locations of Frequent Crashes at Development Access.................................................... V-18 Table V-12 Major Fatal Crashes............................................................................................................. V-20 Table V-13. Potential Sidewalk and Pedestrian Crossing Needs .......................................................... V-21 Table V-14. Total Safety Needs ............................................................................................................. V-23 Table V-15. BIA Class 4 Roads Providing Access to Chapter Houses.................................................. V-25 Table V-16. Growth Centers' Existing Streets, Lighting, and Signalization............................................ V-27 Table V-17. Growth Centers' Proposed Improvements and Needs on Navajo-BIA Roads ................... V-28 Table V-18. Growth Centers' Proposed Improvements and Needs on State Highways........................ V-28 Table V-19. Health Care Visits ............................................................................................................... V-30 Table V-20. Proposed NAIS and Contract Health Care Facilities .......................................................... V-30 Table V-21. Transportation Needs for Proposed NAIS Facilities ........................................................... V-30 Table V-22 Proposed Tribal Health Facilities ......................................................................................... V-31 Table V-23. Proposed Housing and Related Transportation Needs by Chapters ................................. V-31 Table V-24 Enrollment Demographics – SY 2006-07 ............................................................................. V-32 Table V-25 Proposed Schools and Headstart Projects ........................................................................... V-32 Table V-26 Navajo Nation Economic Development Priorities ................................................................. V-35 Table V-27 Other Economic Development Projects................................................................................ V-36 Table V-28. 2009 Capital Improvement Program................................................................................... V-40 Table V-29. Scenic Byway Related Transportation Needs .................................................................... V-45 Table V-30. Park Access Needs with Project Priority............................................................................ V-47 Table V-31. Chapters’ Planned Park and Recreation Projects ............................................................... V-49 Table V-32. Total Scenic Byways, Tourism, and Recreation Transportation Needs .............................. V-49 Table V-33. Airport Road Construction Needs ....................................................................................... V-50 Table V-34. Navajo Transit Recommendations...................................................................................... V-51 Table V-35. Navajo Transit Long Range Plan Recommendation ........................................................... V-51 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table V-36. Total Mulitmodal Transportation Needs............................................................................... V-53 Table V-37 Transportation Needs to Meet I-40 Emergency Detour Use ................................................ V-56 Table V-38 Total Other Transportation Needs ........................................................................................ V-56 Table V-39. Total Transportation Needs/Findings................................................................................... V-64 Table VI-1 Navajo-BIA Roads’ Long Range Road Improvement Needs in Miles .................................... VI-2 Table VI-2 Navajo-BIA Road Improvement Cost (in $millions) ............................................................... VI-3 Table VI-3 Long Range Transportation Planning Priority........................................................................ VI-5 Table VI-4 2007 Racial Demographics.................................................................................................. VI-12 Table VI-5 2007 Socioeconomic Demographics ................................................................................... VI-12 Table VI-6 Overall Long Range Transportation Improvement Needs and Impacts .............................. VI-14 Table VII-1. Growth Center Population Projections for Years 2000-2030............................................... VII-1 Table VIII-1. Existing Navajo Nation Primary Airport Inventory............................................................. VIII-4 Table VIII-2. Existing Navajo Nation Secondary Airport Inventory........................................................ VIII-6 Table VIII-3. Existing Airports within the geographic area not owned or operated by Navajo Nation ........................................................................................................................................ VIII-7 Table VIII-4. Navajo Nation Airport Based Aircraft and Annual Operation Forecast............................. VIII-9 Table VIII-5. Proposed 20-Year Improvement Plan for Primary Airports ............................................ VIII-10 Table VIII-6. Proposed 20-Year Improvement Plan for Secondary Airports ....................................... VIII-13 Table VIII-7. Total Estimated 20-Year Airport Improvement Costs ..................................................... VIII-13 Table IX-1. Navajo Bridges Needing Replacement................................................................................. IX-2 Table IX-2. Navajo Bridges Needing Rehabilitation ................................................................................ IX-3 Table IX-3. Total Funding Needs for Navajo Bridge Improvements........................................................ IX-3 Table X-1. Level of Service ...................................................................................................................... X-3 Table X-2. BIA and County Road Maintenance Data............................................................................... X-6 Table X-3. Navajo Region Road Deferred Maintenance Program FY 2008 ........................................... X-6 Table X-4. Mileage of Roads Maintained Under Interagency Agreements............................................... X-7 Table XI-1. State Roads (in miles)............................................................................................................ XI-1 Table XII-1. County Roads by Surface Type (in miles) .......................................................................... XII-2 Table XII-2. Miles of County Roads with Geometric Design Deficiencies/Total 1,620.4 miles .............. XII-3 Table XII-3. Cost to improve County Roads with Geometric Design Deficiencies.................................. XII-3 Table XIII-1. Tribal Roads by Surface Type (in miles)........................................................................... XIII-2 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan List of Figures Figure I-1. IRR Funding .............................................................................................................................. I-8 Figure I-2. Navajo Nation LRTP Planning Process .................................................................................. I-10 Figure II-1. Navajo Nation Land Base ...................................................................................................... II-2 Figure II-2. Navajo Nation Land Use ........................................................................................................ II-6 Figure III-1. Navajo Nation IRR System ................................................................................................... III-1 Figure III-2. Navajo-BIA Roads................................................................................................................ III-3 Figure III-3. Navajo-BIA Roads by Functional Classification................................................................... III-4 Figure III-4. Navajo-BIA Roads by Surface Type .................................................................................... III-8 Figure III-5. Tribal Roads......................................................................................................................... III-9 Figure III-6. State Roads ....................................................................................................................... III-10 Figure III-7. County Roads .................................................................................................................... III-11 Figure III-8. Other BIA Program Roads ................................................................................................. III-12 Figure III-9. Other Federal Agency Roads ............................................................................................ III-13 Figure IV-1. Navajo-BIA Roads Traffic Volume....................................................................................... IV-1 Figure IV-2: Transportation Modal Split................................................................................................... IV-2 Figure V-1 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan Questionnaire Summary ........................................... V-2 Figure V-2. Planning / Needs Assessment Process................................................................................. V-3 Figure V-3. 1999-2007 Crashes by Road Ownership ............................................................................ V-12 Figure V-4. 1999-2007 Crashes by Agency ........................................................................................... V-12 Figure V-5. 1999-2007 Crashes by Cause............................................................................................. V-13 Figure V-6. 1999-2007 Crashes by Location.......................................................................................... V-14 Figure V-7. 1999-2007 Fatal Crashes .................................................................................................... V-20 Figure X-1 2008 Allocations ...................................................................................................................... X-3 Figure X-2 2007 Allocations ...................................................................................................................... X-3 Figure XII-1. County Road Mileage by County....................................................................................... XII-1 Figure XII-2. County Road Mileage by Surface Type............................................................................. XII-2 Figure XII-3. County Road Mileage by Class ......................................................................................... XII-2 Figure XII-4. 1999-2007 County Road Crashes by Cause..................................................................... XII-4 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan List of Maps Map I-1. Navajo Nation Transportation Plan Area...................................................................................... I-2 Map III 1. Navajo IRR Road System........................................................................................................ III-2 Map III 2. Navajo-BIA Roads by Functional Classification ...................................................................... III-5 Map III 3. Navajo-BIA Roads by Surface Type........................................................................................ III-7 Map V-1. Navajo-BIA System: Class 2 and 4 Roads .............................................................................. V-7 Map V-2. Navajo-BIA System: Paved Class 2 and 4 Roads.................................................................... V-8 Map V-3. Navajo-BIA System: Unpaved Class 2 and 4 Roads with Existing ADT > 250 ........................ V-9 Map V-4. Safety Corridors ....................................................................................................................... V-16 Map V-5. Crashes at Intersections .......................................................................................................... V-17 Map V-6. Animal Involved Crashes ......................................................................................................... V-19 Map V-7. Fatal Crash Locations ............................................................................................................. V-22 Map V-8. Crashes Involving Road Defect ............................................................................................... V-24 Map V-9. Chapter House Access Needs................................................................................................. V-26 Map V-10. Health Facilities..................................................................................................................... V-29 Map V-11. Proposed Schools and Headstart Programs ......................................................................... V-33 Map V-12. Economic Development Projects.......................................................................................... V-38 Map V-13. Navajo Nation Energy Development Plan ............................................................................. V-39 Map V-14. 2009 Capital Improvement Program...................................................................................... V-44 Map V-15. Navajo Nation Scenic Byways ............................................................................................... V-46 Map V-16. Navajo Nation Proposed Parks and Recreation Projects Table V-31. Chapters’ Planned Park and Recreation Projects ................................................................................................... V-48 Map V-17. I-40 Closure Plan ................................................................................................................... V-55 Map V-18. Navajo Nation Aggregate Resources .................................................................................... V-60 Map V-19. Navajo Nation Water Resources - Well Locations................................................................. V-63 Map VII-1. Tuba City Mobility Improvements .......................................................................................... VII-5 Map VII-2. Shiprock Mobility Improvements............................................................................................ VII-9 Map VII-3. Chinle Mobility Improvements............................................................................................. VII-11 Map VII-4. Kayenta Mobility Improvements........................................................................................... VII-13 Map VII-5. Fort Defiance Mobility Improvements .................................................................................. VII-15 Map VII-6. Window Rock/St. Michaels Mobility Improvements ............................................................. VII-17 Map VII-7. Crownpoint Mobility Improvements...................................................................................... VII-19 Map VIII-1. Existing Navajo Nation Airports ........................................................................................... VIII-2 Map VIII-2. Proposed Primary and Secondary Airports ...................................................................... VIII-12 Map IX-1. Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Needs....................................................................... IX-4 ACRONYMS 2009 LRTP 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan AASHTO American Association of State Highway Officials ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation ADT Average Daily Traffic ARC Agency Roads Committee BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BIA-NRODOT Bureau of Indian Affairs - Navajo Regional Office - Division of Transportation BLKM Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad BLM Bureau of Land Management BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad CE Construction Engineering CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHR Community Health Representative CTC Cost to Construct DOE United States Department of Energy DOI Department of the Interior EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FLIP Federal Lands Highway Program FTA Federal Transit Administration HTF Highway Trust Fund HUD Housing and Urban Development IRA Indian Reorganization Act IRR Indian Reservation Roads IRRCC Indian Reservation Roads Coordination Committee ITEA Indian Tribal Economic Alliance LGA Local Governance Act LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MMS Maintenance Management System MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding MW Megawatts NAIHS Navajo Area Indian Health Service Navajo DOT Navajo Division of Transportation NHA Navajo Housing Authority NIIP Navajo Irrigation Industry Project ACRONYMS NMSHTD New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department NPS United States National Park Service NRRI Navajo Region Road Inventory NTP Navajo Transmission Project NTS Navajo Transit Service PE Preliminary Engineering PMS Pavement Management System RIFDS Road Inventory Field Data Module RNDF Relative Needs Distribution Formula ROW Right-Of-Way SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users TCDC Transportation and Community Development Committee TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century TIP Transportation Improvement Program TTAM Tribal Transportation Allocation Methodology TTIP Tribal Transportation Improvement Program UDOT Utah Department of Transportation USFS United States Forestry Service VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VPD Vehicles Per Day 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan 2009 Nation Long Range Transportation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Background The 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan is a twenty-year comprehensive plan developed and updated by the Navajo Division of Transportation (Navajo DOT) in a five-year cycle. The 2009 LRTP identifies the Nation’s multi-modal transportation needs over the next 20 years and develops strategies to meet them. The plan provides long range planning policies and implementation strategies for the Navajo Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program improvements. It is based on a comprehensive analysis of all pertinent factors and issues affecting the Navajo Nation’s existing and future transportation needs. The 2009 LRTP follows the planning process (Figure 0-1) which includes examination of tribal and IRR program policies and transportation issues; socioeconomic data and development plans; all modes of transportation data (roads, bridges, airports, transit and rails (including road inventory data for future traffic volume and transportation improvement needs according to highway design guidelines and pavement management requirements); and crash data analysis for safety needs. The review process includes public involvement at public hearings and final approval by the tribal transportation committees. Figure 0-1. Navajo Nation LRTP Planning Process LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PLANNING PROCESS Step 1. Compile/Update Planning Information •Highway Bill & IRR Funding •Socio-economic Trends •Econ & Community Plans •Chapter Land Use Plans •Healthcare Service Plans •Housing Plans Step 2. Update Navajo IRR System •Navajo IRR Update & Maps *BIA*Tribal*State*County* Intermodal: •Airports •Bridges •Transit •Rails Step 3. Transportation Needs Assessment Public Hearings Transportation Issues: •Funding Issues •Policy Issues •Other issues •Development Needs •Future Land Use Plans Step 4. Needs & Recommendations LRTP Policies: •Goals •Financial Plan •Strategies/Priority Criteria Step 5. Review & Finalize Plan ARC & TCDC Review Step 6. Final TCDC Approval Step 7. Submit LRTP to NRO •ADT/Traffic Demand Analysis •Road Design Deficiency Needs IRR Needs & Recommendations: •BIA Roads •Tribal Roads •State Roads •County Roads Public Hearings Final Plan TCDC Approval •Safety Analysis •Safety Plans •Bike Plans •Pedestrian Pln Other Plans: •Airports •Bridges •Transit •Rails •Growth Centers •Environmental Justice 1 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Public Involvement Process: The Long Range Transportation Plan update included a Technical Advisory Committee made up of representatives from throughout Navajo Nation. The project team held four (4) public meetings, located in Chinle, Tuba City, Window Rock and Shiprock. Additionally, a survey was conducted to understand if any outlying concerns were not being addressed. Figure 0-2 is a summary of the 143 survey responses. Figure 0-2. Navajo Nation LRTP Survey Summary 2 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Navajo IRR Mileage: The overall Navajo IRR system consists of 12,631.5 miles of public roads (2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory – Figure 0-3): Navajo-BIA roads (6,147.9 miles); tribal roads (2,895.7 miles); state roads (1,595.5 miles); county roads (1,907.5 miles); other BIA programs’ roads (46.9 miles); other federal agency roads (37.2 miles), and others roads (0.8 miles). Figure 0-3. Navajo Nation IRR System Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory B. Transportation Needs Assessment Available data including the 2008 road inventory, 1999-2007 crash data, chapter land use plans and planned development projected were used to identify overall transportation needs in relation to tribal and IRR planning and highway design guidelines to meet transportation needs in the following areas: Highway Geometric Design Deficiencies Network Connectivity Needs Pavement Deficiencies Safety Chapter House Access Needs Growth Centers Mobility Needs Community and Economic Development Transportation Needs Scenic Byways, Tourism and Recreation Multimodal Transportation Needs Other Transportation Needs Cultural Environmental Considerations C. Navajo-BIA Road Transportation Needs Of the total 6,147.9 miles Navajo-BIA Roads, 5,995.4 miles needs improvements such as surface upgrade and/or widening. 1,313.8 miles of paved roads need pavement reconstruction and rehabilitation. When these roads have been improved, the transportation needs mentioned above (B) will be addressed. Table VI-1 below shows the recommended road improvement needs of the Navajo-BIA Roads by class. 3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table 0-1 Navajo-BIA Roads’ Long Range Road Improvement Needs in Miles ADS 1 2 CLASS 1-Major Arterial 3 FADT Miles of Roads Needing Only Surface Imp Miles of Roads Needing Only Roadway Widening Miles of Roads Needing Surface Imp & Roadway Widening Sub-Total N/A 0.9 0.1 0.3 1.3 N/A 2.0 0.8 0.0 2.8 N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 13.8 54.0 73.7 8.7 184.0 397.1 589.8 5.3 11.5 2.7 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 >=400 5 6 7 2-Rural Minor Arterial <400 8 9 0.0 24.3 23.0 47.3 0.0 0.0 24.3 24.3 170.7 10 >250 17.5 15.0 138.2 10 50-250 1.8 5.2 365.8 372.8 11 >250 38.6 136.9 988.7 1164.2 50-250 33.7 82.0 1668.6 1784.3 11 11 4-Rural Major Collector 2003 LRTP Total By Class 2009 LRTP Total By Class 0.0 4.1 917.7 754.6 4468.1 3757.0 0 1402.1 <50 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 12 >250 1.9 0.0 76.6 78.5 12 50-250 0.0 0.0 185.4 185.4 13 >400 0.1 5.5 43.1 48.7 13 50-400 125.3 6.6 18.1 150.0 >400 2.9 28.5 72.0 103.4 50-400 68.5 14.7 806.2 889.4 15 >400 0.0 0.0 8.4 8.4 15 50-400 0.0 0.0 202.2 202.2 N/A 0.0 0.9 2.6 3.5 0.0 3.5 14 14 5-Rural Local 17 6-City Min Arterial 7-City Collector N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 3-City Local N/A 8.8 23.5 1.8 34.1 61.5 34.1 Grand Total: 5447.3 5955.4 16 To improve 5,955.4 miles of the Navajo-BIA road system to meet the design standards will cost $6.5 billion (Table VI-2). To address pavement deficiencies of 1,341.4 miles of paved Navajo-BIA roads alone (Chapter 5 Need 3) will cost $1.4 billion. However, when roads are upgraded to meet the design standards, pavement conditions will also be addressed. To address the overall Navajo-BIA road system deficiencies, the Navajo Nation will need approximately $7.0 billion. This figure is seven times the current 20-year funding level of the Navajo IRR Program, which has been about $1 billion or $50 million per year. Table VI-1 summarizes and compares improvement costs between 2009 to 2003 improvement needs of the Navajo-BIA roads. The drastic increase from 2003 cost is partly due to the nearly double in construction cost in recent years caused by fuel cost increase. 4 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table 0-2 Navajo-BIA Road Improvement Cost (in $millions) ADS CLASS 1 2 3 1-Major Arterial FADT Miles of Roads Needing Only Surface Imp Miles of Roads Needing Only Roadway Widening Miles of Roads Needing Surface Imp & Roadway Widening Sub-Total N/A $1,621.18 $97.55 $287.98 $2,006.71 N/A $3,602.63 $1,017.41 $0.00 $4,620.04 N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,962.52 $6,578.34 $46,971.29 $57,512.16 $17,184.79 $143,682.36 $613,970.89 $774,838.04 $7,080.76 $3,064.10 $3,367.38 $13,512.23 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $35,753.95 4 5 >=400 6 7 8 2-Rural Minor Arterial 2003 LRTP Total By Class 2009 LRTP Total By Class $0 $6,626.75 $705,236.00 $910,355.29 $3,481,606.00 $4,149,899.44 $0.00 $17,256.06 $18,497.88 <400 $0.00 $0.00 $28,738.92 $28,738.92 10 >250 $20,997.81 $17,213.29 $153,547.83 $191,758.94 10 50-250 $1,655.74 $3,156.54 $336,300.83 $341,113.11 11 >250 $17,436.49 $108,964.78 $1,169,256.91 $1,295,658.18 11 50-250 $26,248.70 $71,139.17 $2,036,678.17 $2,134,066.04 11 <50 $0.00 $236.23 $0.00 $236.23 >250 $650.75 $0.00 $61,130.04 $61,780.79 50-250 $0.00 $0.00 $125,286.15 $125,286.15 13 >400 $90.84 $3,879.43 $31,595.85 $35,566.11 13 50-400 $66,262.56 $1,552.15 $10,592.06 $78,406.76 14 >400 $6,021.29 $19,050.97 $82,582.36 $107,654.62 14 50-400 $70,716.81 $6,796.71 $933,346.86 $1,010,860.37 >400 $0.00 $0.00 $9,184.22 $9,184.22 50-400 $0.00 $0.00 $154,644.98 $154,644.98 $0 $1,396,317.06 N/A $0.00 $423.78 $1,534.00 $1,957.78 $0 $1,957.78 N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 N/A $13,675.30 $12,962.03 $1,062.00 $27,699.33 $31,535.00 $27,699.33 Grand Total: $4,218,377.00 $6,492,855.65 9 12 12 15 15 16 17 18 4-Rural Major Collector 5-Rural Local 6-City Minor Art 7-City Collector 3-City Local Implementation Strategies: To address the Navajo Nation’s long range transportation needs, transportation decision-makers need to set and follow the long and short range road improvement goals and objectives, funding strategies and priorities. Long Range Goals and Objectives To upgrade roads to meet design standards and management system requirements to correct deficiencies as well as to improve overall network connectivity, travel mobility and accessibility.  To improve travel safety and reduce accidents on the Navajo-BIA roads.  To meet existing and future transportation needs in order to promote community and economic vitality. Funding Strategies Seek to increase the Navajo IRR funding level through lobbying. Under the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP), IRR Program funding needs are factored by population and development growth (through ADT) unlike other FLHP programs, (e.g., Park roads and Parkways, Public Lands Highway Discretionary, Forest Highway and Refuge Roads). These other FLHP roads do not carry the high levels of daily traffic that wear out roads at greater rate: their road miles and traffic volumes are relatively constant. Legislative formula should be established to allocate funds among FLHP programs based on actual needs, instead of each program’s relative share. 5 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan        Seek funding from the IRR Nationwide Bridge Priority Program to help meet the Navajo IRR bridge improvement needs. Seek other funding sources such as the Indian Highway Safety Program ($1.1 million annually), federal Hazard Elimination Program ($550 million annually), which funds safety improvements on highways administered by the State and the BIA. Seek other funding sources such as Public Land Highway Discretionary Funds for Navajo scenic byways projects and/or State Transportation Enhancement Fund for bicycle and pedestrian paths. Seek state/federal share of funding for improvement of Navajo-BIA routes to be used as detours during I-40 emergency closures. Use the Navajo Nation Fuel Excise Tax to supplement the IRR funds. Fund projects according to project/need priority. Taxing: Currently, Kayenta is the only primary growth center with a self imposed sales tax of 2.5 percent. It is recommended that the primary and secondary growth center communities work with the Division of Economic Development to identify and implement self funding mechanisms to aid in enhancing infrastructure investment, ultimately improving economic development opportunities for those that wish to invest within Navajo Nation. Project Prioritization Criteria When funding is insufficient, project prioritization is a crucial implementation strategy to help meet long range mobility goals. The Long Range Transportation Plan recommends projects that address the long range transportation needs as described in Table 0-4 be given ratings from high to low priority accordingly. Table 0-3 Long Range Transportation Planning Priority Points assigned 5-High Priority Projects 3-Moderate Priority Projects 1-Low Priority Projects 0 D. Project Type Immediate, core transportation needs and issues raised by local chapters, tribal programs, school, healthcare providers, housing programs, intermodal needs as well as BIA engineers. School bus routes NHA housing streets and access roads Class 1 & 2 road improvement needs Class 3 & 6 roads-pavement deficiencies Safety improvements, sidewalks Class 1,2 & 4 roads-pavement deficiencies Economic and community development access needs Bridge projects Transportation needs and issues that are recommended for action after the high priority needs have been met and if funds are available. Growth center proposed streets Class 4 & 5 roads-improvement upgrade Scenic byways and park access Important transportation issues and needs to be implemented last. If IRR funds are limited, should be funded from outside resources. Bicycle routes Other transportation needs Not a 20-year need nor listed on the LRTP Plan Recommendations To improve travel safety on the Navajo IRR, the Navajo Nation needs to review or consider developing policies and programs in the following areas:  Safety Improvement Program - An annual Safety Improvement Program should be established to develop a systematic approach for crash mitigation based on reported crash data. The crash data, coupled with the IRR Roadway Inventory database will provide the data necessary to understand the high crash location areas throughout the Navajo Nation transportation system.  Open Range Policy - The Open Range Policy adopted by the Navajo Nation and State of Arizona needs to be re-evaluated to improve safety to prevent animals on roadways and reduce animal related crashes on the Navajo Nation.  Venders in the ROW - Statistics show there are crashes related to vendors within highway ROW selling crafts, foods, etc. As a government, the Navajo decision makers need to partner with the States to jointly establish policy, legislation and enforcement guidelines to make the road safer while still providing a means for local artists and supporting the needed tourism. 6 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan       E. Access Management - A successful Access Management strategy for Navajo Nation should be developed to fully protect the transportation infrastructure investments made on the system. Signing Program - An annual signing program should be established to enhance on-road and roadside safety. The annual signing program would include all signs to regulate, warn or guide motorists and should include new signs as well as signs that need to be replaced due to damage or wear/reflectivity. Striping Program - An annual striping program should be established to enhance on-road and roadside safety. The striping program would first focus on the highest traveled roadways to ensure that roadway stripes can be seen to help drivers navigate in daytime, nighttime and adverse weather conditions. Transit - The demand for Navajo Transit Service (NTS) exceeds the capacity and some market areas are not served. Some growth centers do not have localized service and it is highly recommended that a 20-year Transit Plan be developed to identify: o Expanded Service Needs o Local Service Needs o Regional Service Needs o Park-n-Ride Locations Master Planning - Each Primary and Secondary Growth Center should develop a Community Plan that develops a 20-year plan that examines future land use, multi-modal transportation needs, infrastructure needs, environmental considerations and unique characteristics to the community. DOT Coordination - Common reoccurring coordination between the Navajo Division of Transportation and the state DOTs should occur, either in the form of semi-annual or quarterly meetings to ensure that the needs of the various Divisions within Navajo Nation and the state DOTs have a common understanding of needs, priorities and processes. Additionally, crash data coordination and data standardization between Navajo DOT and the State DOTs should occur so safety and highway related data could be shared. Bridge Improvements There are 178 bridges on the Navajo-BIA roads. Of these 58 bridges were identified for deficiencies, including 33 bridges needing replacement ($15.5M) and 25 bridges needing rehabilitation ($4.4M). The anticipated total funding needs for bridge design and improvements is $23.8M. F. Airports To increase aviation service coverage and maximize FAA funding, develop all eight primary airports and construct a new primary airport in Ramah Chapter to expand service coverage to this satellite Navajo community. To upgrade all primary airports to meet Airplane Design Group II, Approach Category B standards and increase capacity to meet future operation forecasts. G. Maintenance According to the BIA-NRODOT the $5.9 million FY 2008 road maintenance fund was allocated to all agencies. While in FY 2007 $6.5 million was spent on routine maintenance, bridge maintenance, snow and ice control, emergency maintenance, and program management. The shortfall in maintenance is an issue that will degrade the roadways at a quicker pace. H. State Highways State roads are an important part of the Navajo IRR system. They are the main arterials connecting Navajo Nation population centers to the Four Corners Area’s regional road networks, off-reservation towns and major airports. They are part of the interstate, national (U.S.) and state highway systems. Most state routes on the Navajo Reservation are rural two-lane highways except in urbanized areas where they are four-lane with high traffic volume. Table XI-1 summarizes the state road mileage. 7 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table 0-4. State Roads (in miles) Agency Arizona State Highways New Mexico State Highways Utah State Highways Agency Total New Lands 89.3 0.0 0.0 89.3 Northern 70.2 113.8 41.7 225.7 Western 503.5 25.9 529.4 Eastern 0.0 413.2 0.0 413.2 Chinle 60.8 0.0 0.0 60.8 Ft. Defiance 213.3 48.6 0.0 261.9 NIIP 0.0 15.2 0.0 15.2 State Total 937.1 590.8 67.6 1,595.5 Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Arizona, New Mexico and Utah State Departments of Transportation have classified these state roads according to their own functional classification systems. However, under the IRR regulations, these state highways meet the IRR functional classification for: Class 1, Major Arterial Roads, providing an integrated network between large population centers and having average daily traffic of 10,000 vehicles per day with more than two lanes of traffic; and Class 2, Rural Minor Arterial Roads, providing an integrated network between large population centers and having average daily traffic less than 10,000 vehicles per day, may link smaller towns and communities to major resort areas and generally provide for at least in-county or inter-state service and are spaced at intervals consistent with population density. Arizona State Road Needs: Of the total 937.1 miles of Arizona State Highways on the Navajo Nation, the plan identifies transportation improvement needs on 69.2 miles of roadway within 5 years, and an additional 98.4 miles of improvements within 10 years. New Mexico State Road Needs: Of the total 590.8 miles of New Mexico State Highways on the Navajo Nation, the plan identifies transportation improvement needs on 117.3 miles of highway within 5 years, and 49.1 miles of additional highway improvements within 10 years. Utah State Road Needs: Of the total 67.6 miles of Utah State Highways on the Navajo Nation, the plan identifies transportation improvement needs on 9.3 miles of highway within 5 years and 40 miles of highway within 10 years. I. County Road Transportation Needs There are a total 1,907.5 miles of County roads within Navajo Nation and 1,620.4 miles of County roads need surface improvement and roadway widening to safety meet the geometric design guidelines/IRR adequate standards. The total cost to bring County Roads to the Geometric Design Standards is $1.4 billion. J. Tribal Road Transportation Needs There are a total 2,895.7 miles of Tribal Roads within Navajo Nation, and 2,831.0 miles need improvements. Additionally, 53.3 miles of Class 3 Tribal Roads need improvements based on the BIA pavement rating standards. This equates to approximately $2.9M in tribal road related needs. 8 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION A. PLAN INTRODUCTION The 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan (2009 LRTP) is a twenty-year comprehensive plan developed and updated by the Navajo Division of Transportation (Navajo DOT) in a five-year cycle. The study area includes the boundary limits of the Navajo Reservation and tribal ranch areas as situated within the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Map 1-1 depicts the Transportation Plan study area. The 2009 LRTP identifies the Nation’s multi-modal transportation needs over the next 20 years and develops an implementation plan for improvements. The plan provides long range planning policies and implementation guidelines for Navajo Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program improvements. It is based on a comprehensive analysis of all pertinent factors and issues affecting the Navajo Nation’s existing and future transportation needs. The LRTP is an important component in obtaining Federal funding for roadway improvements through the IRR Program. The Navajo IRR Program is administered jointly by the Bureau of Indian Affairs – Division of Transportation and the Federal Lands Highways Program (FLHP) of the Federal Highway Administration. The BIA Navajo Regional Office – Division of Transportation (BIA-NRODOT) administers Navajo Region of the IRR Program construction and maintenance. To qualify for the funding, each Indian Reservation must establish an approved long range transportation plan and Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) which is a 3- to 5-year road and bridge construction priority schedule. The Navajo Nation will use this 2009 LRTP to satisfy the long range transportation plan requirement, and will utilize the findings and recommendations of the LRTP to define a 3-5 year road and bridge construction of the Navajo Nation Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The purpose of this plan, as required by federal agency regulations, is to identify transportation improvement needs for funding of those Navajo Nation long range transportation improvements. This LRTP is also intended to be a transportation planning tool for the Transportation and Community Development Committee (TCDC) of the Navajo Nation Council and the Agency Roads Committees (ARC). It further provides recommendations for long range improvements for Navajo-BIA, State, and County roads, bridge, airport as well as transit improvements. The recommendations of the LRTP will provide guidance to the Navajo Nation, Navajo DOT, the State Departments of Transportation, Chapter communities within the Reservation, and private interests when considering future development plans. B. PLAN GOALS The Navajo Nation LRTP is the Navajo Nation’s vision of future transportation construction to fulfill and meet the Nation’s long term transportation needs. The planning process and methodology used in this plan includes examination of tribal and IRR program goals and objectives, highway design criteria, and transportation issues to identify future needs. Transportation Goals:  To provide a comprehensive transportation system that encompasses all modes of transportation, including rail, bus, and air.  To provide safe and efficient transportation network to and within the Navajo Reservation.  To improve overall road and bridge conditions to achieve a reduction in the number and severity of traffic accidents.  To develop the necessary multimodal transportation system to foster and support economic development and increase employment opportunities.  To provide a high level of connectivity between Growth Centers including Shiprock, Tuba City, Chinle, Fort Defiance, Window Rock, Crownpoint, and Kayenta. I-1 0 5 10 20 30 ± 40 Miles " J " J " ) Leupp ! ( Tuba City Page Flagstaff Utah Arizona " J Holbrook Map I-1 Winslow ( ! Pinon Dilkon ( ! Kayenta Chinle Navajo Tohatchi ! ( ( ! Tsaile/Wheatfields Shiprock ( ! Nahata Dziil " J Ganado " ) Window Rock ! ( Fort Defiance " ) Gallup ( ! Many Farms " ) ( ! NAVAJO NATION " J ( ! Shonto " ) " ) Northern Fort Defiance Eastern Chinle " J Grants Crownpoint Alamo ! ( Tohajiilee ( ! Navajo Nation Ranches, Hopi Land FarmingtonWestern " ) " J Colorado New Mexico New Lands NIIP US and State Highways Interstate 40 Secondary Growth Center Primary Growth Center Border Town AGENCY ( ! " J " ) Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan C. FEDERAL FUNDING OF INDIAN RESERVATION ROAD SYSTEM The IRR program was established to provide for construction of public roads and bridges under Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) administration. Its funding is authorized under the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) and through the Bureau of Indian Affairs-Division of Transportation. The 1948 and subsequent memorandum of agreements between the BIA and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) established their joint responsibilities for the IRR program. The purpose of the IRR program is to provide safe and adequate transportation facilities including public road access to and within Indian reservations, Indian trust land, or Native American communities. Indian Reservation Roads by definition include BIA, state, county, and other local government public roads. In 1998, a funding distribution formula was developed for the IRR Program under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Originally, tribal allocations were distributed according to the Relative Needs Distribution Formula (RNDF). In July 2004, a new distribution formula and updated IRR regulations, referred to as the Tribal Transportation Allocation Methodology (TTAM), as documented in the IRR Program final regulation, 25 CFR Part 170. The TTAM uses an inventory of IRR facilities as the major factor in determining the funding amounts that each Tribe receives. The updated regulation removed growth limitations in the inventory and initiated significant incentives for Tribes to add all eligible tribal, State, and county routes to the inventory with somewhat negative impacts to the larger land based tribes. Using the TTAM allocation formula, the IRR funds are distributed to twelve (12) BIA regional offices. The IRR Program funds can be used for any type of Title 23 transportation project providing access to or located within Federal or Indian reservations, Indian trust land, restricted Indian land, and Alaska native villages, and may be used for the State Local matching share for apportioned Federal-aid Highway Funds. Title 23, United State Code provides statutory requirements for IRR and other federal funded highway programs. Congress has been appropriating funds for IRR through highway appropriations. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized IRR funding for FY2005-2009. As a condition for the continuance of IRR funds and in accordance with 23 USC 116, the BIA Regional Offices and Tribes are responsible for road maintenance of BIA and tribal roads respectively using Department of the Interior (DOI) funds appropriated annually under DOI Appropriation Acts, tribal funds, and up to 25% of IRR construction funds authorized under SAFETEA_LU. The current SAFETEA-LU highway authorization contains a statute that directs the Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, to complete a comprehensive national inventory review of transportation facilities eligible under the IRR Program. Each year, the inventory may be updated by tribes to reflect the transportation needs, which are ranked against the relative needs of other tribes. D. SAFETEA-LU REVIEW P.L. 109-50, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 10, 2005, increasing IRR funding to nearly $2 billion for FY2005-2009. However, it makes some changes to the FLHP, which substantially affects the IRR program and its funding level, as described below. IRR Program Activities IRR funding for a highway, road, bridge, parkway, or transit facility project or activities on an Indian reservation may be carried out, in accordance with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, to a requesting Indian tribal government or consortium (two or more tribes) that has I-3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan satisfactorily demonstrated financial stability and financial management to the Secretary. Funding provided is to include any amount that would have been withheld for IRR Program administrative costs. National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory In order to identify the tribal transportation system and determine relative transportation needs among the tribes, the Secretary 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 with a report to Congress due within 90 days after the inventory is completed. Nationwide Priority Program Separate contract authority (replaces the previous set-aside) for 2005-2009 is provided for carrying out planning, design, engineering, preconstruction, construction, and inspection of projects to replace deficient IRR bridges. The Indian Reservation Road Bridge Program (IRRBP) was amended by establishing new policies and provisions. It authorizes $14 million of IRRBP funds per year for the replacement or rehabilitation of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete IRR bridges. In accordance with these changes, the FHWA, with input and recommendations from the BIA and the Indian Reservation Roads Coordinating Committee (IRRCC), is proposing funding distribution procedures for BIA owned and non-BIA owned IRR bridge projects. The proposed changes allow funding for preliminary engineering (PE), construction engineering (CE), and construction for the replacement or rehabilitation of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete IRR bridges. IRR Road & Bridge Maintenance Up to 25% of a tribe's IRR construction funding may now be used for the purpose of road and bridge maintenance, although BIA will retain primary responsibility for IRR maintenance programs through DOI appropriations. Tribal-State-BIA Road Maintenance Agreements An Indian tribe may enter into a road maintenance agreement with a State and/or BIA to assume the responsibilities of the respective DOT for roads in and providing access to Indian reservations. Annual report to Congress is required beginning in 2005 (prepared and submitted by the Secretary) identifying tribes and States that have entered into these agreements, miles assumed, and funds transferred. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Tribal Government Affairs A new position in DOT is established to plan, coordinate, and implement DOT programs serving Indian tribes. Tribal Transit Grant Program In SAFETEA-LU, Congress created a new Tribal Transit Grant Program, by reserving funds from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rural transit program, called Section 5311 Rural Public Transportation program to make federal transit grant funds directly available to Tribal governments. The available grant funding started at $8 million in FY 2006 and increases in steps to $15 million in FY 2009. E. ROAD CONSTRUCTION FUNDS The Navajo IRR Program’s primary source of funding is the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), an interestbearing account funded by federal gasoline taxes, cross-country trucking levies, and other sources. IRR funds are primarily distributed for construction and improvement of IRR roads, bridges, and other eligible transportation facilities. 1. IRR Funds SAFETEA-LU authorized a total of $1.93 billion for the IRR Program or 40% increase: $300M, $330M, $370M, $410M, and $450M for fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 respectively. Table I-1 shows the FY2008 annual IRR appropriation and take-downs. Table I-2 summarizes the FLHP fund program. I-4 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table I-1. Summary of FY 2008 IRR Funding Tribal Transportation Allocation Methodolgy Authorized Funding Amounts Less Rescission Subtotal Less FHWA takedown per Approps Bill Subtotal Less Lake Tahoe Funding Subtotal Less for Obligation Limitation (7.9%) Subtotal Less Bridge Inspections BIA PM&O/PRAE FLH-HQ (Inventory, Travel, S&O, and Safety) Subtotal LessTribal Trans portation Planning (2%) Subtotal Available for RNDF Distribution Available for High Priority Project Available for Population Adjustment Factor Available for Tribal Transportation Planning Total Funds Available for Distribution Source: Up to $275M 275,000,000 0 275,000,000 0 275,000,000 1,375,000 273,625,000 21,616,375 252,008,625 670,732 16,432,927 1,006,098 233,898,868 5,040,173 228,858,695 @ 95% @ 5% 217,415,762 11,442,935 @ 75% @ 12.5% @ 12.5% 5,040,173 Over $275M 135,000,000 0 135,000,000 0 135,000,000 675,000 134,325,000 10,611,675 123,713,325 329,268 8,067,073 493,902 114,823,082 2,474,267 112,348,815 Total 410,000,000 0 410,000,000 0 410,000,000 2,050,000 407,950,000 32,228,050 375,721,950 1,000,000 24,500,000 1,500,000 348,721,950 7,514,440 341,207,510 84,261,611 14,043,602 14,043,602 2,474,267 301,677,373 25,486,537 14,043,602 7,514,440 348,721,952 Navajo DOT Table I-2. Federal Lands Highway Program – Funding Authorizations Table, FYs 2005-2009 (in Millions) Funded Program 2005 2006 B.1 Emergency Relief - Federal Roads Funding levels determined as needed B.2 Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) 300 B.3a IRR Maintenance Up to 25% of funding in B.2 B.4 IRR Bridge 14 14 14 B.5 Park Roads & Parkways 180 195 B.6 Public Lands Highways 260 B.7 Refuge Roads 29 330 2007 370 2008 410 2009 Total 450 1,860.0 14 14 70.0 210 225 240 1,050.0 280 280 290 300 1,410.0 29 29 29 29 145.0 * BIA Maintenance and IRR Bridge authorizations are estimates. I-5 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan 2. Funding Distribution Formula As a result of the mandated TEA-21 negotiated rulemaking process, the 25 CFR Part 170 Indian Reservation Roads Program regulations set forth the Tribal Transportation Allocation Methodology (TTAM) to allocate IRR Program funds. After appropriate statutory and regulatory set-asides, as well as other takedowns, the remaining funds are allocated as shown in the chart below. F. NAVAJO NATION’S CONCERNS 1. Road Inventory Issue TEA-21 of 1998 mandated a rewriting of the 25 CFR Part 170. The new rule implemented in November 2004 included all IRR roads (state, county, BIA, etc) in the distribution formula. The new 25 CFR Part 170 allows roads other than BIA to be computed in the IRR funding distribution formula that permits tribes and regions to inventory and include roads under the ownerships of State and County. This creates a disproportionate and drastic increase in the national IRR inventory mileage total (See Table I-3 and Table I-4). Regions with high amounts of County and State roads and few BIA roads are allocated higher amounts of funding for their BIA/tribal roads due to this change in the inventory and formula. I-6 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table I-3. Nationwide IRR Inventory Total Mileage Year of Inventory 1994 2005 2006 2007 BIA Roads Mileage 25,700* 27,518 28,882 29,878 Tribal Roads Mileage 2,851 4,287 9,659 State Roads Mileage 25,600* 9,049 13,164 13,676 County Roads Mileage Other Agency Mileage 22,324 34,345 43,077 1,037 4,646 5,393 Approved Total IRR Mileage 51,300 62,779 85,324 101,683 * These categories were combined in 1994. Notes: 1994 and 2004 Additional Mileages were rounded to the nearest mile. Source: FHWA, IRR Program Comprehensive Inventory Report, January 2008. Table I-4. Total IRR Inventory Roadway Mileage By Region Region Great Plains 2005 7,925 2006 12,562 2007 14,343 Southern Plains 2,144 2,217 3,220 Rocky Mountain 3,414 6,575 8,129 Alaska 3,172 7,478 12,722 Midwest 10,173 13,596 14,009 Eastern Oklahoma 2,657 7,628 11,288 Western 7,216 7,218 7,587 Pacific 795 1,272 1,489 Southwest 4,652 5,517 6,117 Navajo 9,753 9,810 10,076 Northwest 9,547 9,983 10,762 Eastern 1,331 1,468 1,931 Total 62,779 85,324 101,683 Source: FHWA, IRR Program Comprehensive Inventory Report, January 2008. 2. Decreased IRR Funding for Navajo Nation This new TTAM method of computing IRR funding has created a dramatic shift in IRR funding distribution among the BIA regions from funding of past years. Now large tribes with high BIA and Tribal road mileage get less percentage of the available funding, while some small tribes and regions with much less BIA road mileage, but with added mileage of state and county roads to their system, get substantial increases. Table I-5 illustrates this redistribution of funds in recent years. Navajo Region’s funding reduced from an average of 26% during TEA-21 share to 17%share during SAFETEA-LU as shown on Figure I-1 below. I-7 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Figure I-1. IRR Funding Table I-5. TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU – IRR Construction Allocations in Million Dollars TEA-21 Region Great Plains South Plains Rocky Mtn Alaska Midwest E Oklahoma Western Pacific Southwest Navajo Northwest Eastern Total SAFETEA-LU FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY 2007 FY 2008 In $million % In $million % In $million % In $million % In $million % $20.225 10.3% $22.243 9.2% $28.115 12.0% $19.600 7.1% $24.500 8.1% $9.455 4.8% $8.847 3.7% $10.331 4.4% $8.800 3.2% $10.100 3.3% $13.940 7.1% $25.197 10.4% $16.850 7.2% $23.300 8.4% $22.800 7.6% $23.569 12.0% $17.997 7.4% $27.099 11.5% $31.300 11.3% $39.400 13.1% $9.859 5.0% $9.931 4.1% $11.340 4.8% $40.200 14.5% $44.400 14.7% $20.213 10.3% $20.059 8.3% $17.303 7.4% $40.600 14.6% $43.700 14.5% $9.455 4.8% $30.369 12.6% $9.894 4.2% $19.600 7.1% $19.200 6.4% $5.257 2.7% $6.229 2.6% $8.303 3.5% $6.400 2.3% $5.700 1.9% $13.485 6.8% $14.184 5.9% $21.231 9.0% $16.800 6.1% $13.200 4.4% $64.493 32.7% $67.528 27.9% $57.320 24.4% $47.400 17.1% $52.200 17.3% $3.368 1.7% $14.482 6.0% $14.273 6.1% $17.400 6.3% $20.200 6.7% $3.811 1.9% $4.745 2.0% $12.754 5.4% $5.900 2.1% $6.300 2.1% $197.132 100% $241.811 100% $234.812 100% $277.300 100% $301.700 100% Source: Navajo Regional Office Division of Transportation. I-8 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Figure I-1 shows while total IRR funding increased 40% during SAFETEA-LU, Navajo Region’s funding decreased. This may derive from not only the change in the inventory to include the State and County roads but also from the 25% set aside (12.5% to High Priority Projects and 12.5% for Population Adjustment Factor) making only 75% of the total IRR program fund available for road construction. This also means that 75% of remaining IRR funds for road construction is not enough and 25% set-aside is too much, indicating the TTAM or formula needs to be changed. This in turn has caused an enormous backlog of transportation need for Navajo due to the funding share dropping while the needs continue to grow. 3. Obligation Limitation & Funding Impacts The obligation limitation is a congressional contract authority reduction on available IRR funds, approximately 7%-15% of each annual appropriation. Prior to TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU, the FLHP, including the IRR, were exempt from this annual deduction. A comparison of the IRR program funding levels to those of State highways funding, indicates that the entire IRR Program is funded less than the smallest state DOT program, even though the mileage of all BIA roads equals the mileage of a comparable state road system. The obligation limitation even further reduces the actual funding available for the IRR road construction, and, thus transportation needs of tribal roads can not be fully funded. 4. Navajo Nation Objectives On June 19, 2008, the TCDC of the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution to approve the Navajo Nation Position on the Indian Reservation Roads Program Funding Distribution and Recommendations to the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Addressing the Concerns in 25 CFR 170, Appendix C to Subpart C. This document states that the Navajo Nation participated in the IRR TEA-21 Negotiated rulemaking process in good faith to develop a fair and equitable funding distribution formula. The Navajo Nation consented to adding a provision to implement a new “Highest Priority Projects Program” along with the “Population Adjustment Factor” to address smaller tribe’s transportation needs. While working with the new regulation, the Navajo Nation realizes that some provisions were modified and the final rule is not as intended. The IRR inventories of other tribes are being inflated with road mileage that are owned by others, i.e. county and state roads, which are eligible to receive separate funding. This is occurring due to 25 CFR 170, Appendix C to Subpart C, Question 10. The Navajo Nation believes the IRR program is to serve members of Indian tribes residing on Reservations. Therefore, the federal IRR funds appropriated for road construction should be primarily used for roads within the reservations. County and state roads are facilities under the jurisdiction of those respective governmental agencies. Thus, the Navajo Nation agrees that 25 CFR 170, Appendix C to Subpart C, Question 10 needs to be re-written to clarify and make a distinction between which roads generate 100% funding in the formula and which roads should be factored in at a lower percentage. The current funding formula favors roads owned by others, with higher traffic volumes, which are eligible for other federal funds. Use of a “Sliding Scale Rates of Federal-Aid Participation in Public Lands State for Projects on the Interstate System” application does not treat all tribes equally because the rates fluctuate from state to state. The Navajo Nation believes that in order to be fair and keep within the intent of the Rulemaking, the county/township and urban roads that were grandfathered into the official inventory at the start of the new regulation be counted at 100% until the end of Fiscal Year 2009, where they may then be counted at a modified non Federal sliding scale. All state, other federal, and interstate roads would be set to 0% Cost to Construct (CTC) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). I-9 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan The Navajo Nation will not support changes to the relative need formula that will negatively influence the additional tribal roads that will be included during the inventory update for this year and in later years. G. LRTP PLANNING PROCESS The long range transportation planning scope is comprehensive. It includes examination of tribal and IRR program goals, objectives and transportation issues; compilation of information (socioeconomic data and development plans); analyses of all modes of transportation data (roads, bridges, airports, transit and rails); evaluation of road inventory data for future transportation according to highway design guidelines and pavement management requirements; and crash data analysis for safety needs. The review process includes public involvement at public hearings and final approval by the tribal transportation committees. Figure I-2 below illustrates the LRTP process and explains the rational of this 2009 LRTP contents and organization. Figure I-2. Navajo Nation LRTP Planning Process LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PLANNING PROCESS Step 1. Compile/Update Planning Information •Highway Bill & IRR Funding •Socio-economic Trends Step 2. Update Navajo IRR System •Econ & Community Dev Plans •Chapter Land Use Plans •Healthcare Service Plans •Housing Plans •Navajo Inventory Update Data *BIA*Tribal*State*County* Intermodal: •Airports •Bridges •Transit •Rails Step 3. Transportation Needs Assessment Public Hearings Transportation Issues: •Funding Issues •Policy Issues •Other issues •Development Needs •Future Land Use Plans Step 4. Needs & Recommendations LRTP Policies: •Goals •Financial Plan •Strategies/Priority Criteria Step 5. Review & Finalize Plan ARC & TCDC Review Step 6. Final TCDC Approval Step 7. Submit LRTP to NRO •ADT/Traffic Demand Analysis •Road Design Deficiency Needs IRR Needs & Recommendations: •BIA Roads •Tribal Roads •State Roads •County Roads Public Hearings Final Plan TCDC Approval •Safety Analysis •Safety Needs •Bike Path Needs •Pedestrian Needs Intermodal needs: •Airports •Bridges •Transit •Rails •Growth Centers •Environmental Justice I-10 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan H. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION The 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan is organized into twelve chapters as follows:                 Chapter 1 documents the process for obtaining Federal funding through the IRR Program and the historical and projected funding levels for the Navajo Nation. Chapter 2 provides a profile of the Navajo Nation to better understand the transportation needs of the general population. This profile provides summaries of the various socioeconomic features of the reservation, including population and employment forecasts, land uses, travel behaviors and demands. Chapter 3 summarizes the IRR inventory for all roadways serving the Navajo Nation Reservation. The inventory classifies the roadways into various jurisdictions, namely: Navajo-BIA, Tribal, State, County, and other agency roads. Characteristics of these roadways are provided, as well as supporting graphics to identify their locations. Chapter 4 discusses existing and future travel demands on the Navajo IRR roadway system. Primary travel patterns and origins/destinations are presented. Chapter 5 comprises the entire transportation needs assessment for the Navajo Nation. Transportation Needs are categorized into 11 focus areas: geometric design deficiencies, Class 2 Road needs, pavement deficiencies, safety concerns, Chapter House access needs, Growth Center Street needs, community and economic development transportation needs, scenic byways and tourism, intermodal transportation, other transportation needs, and cultural and environmental considerations. The information in Chapter 5 captures the recommendations of the later chapters of the study. Chapter 6 presents the conclusions and recommendations for the Navajo-BIA roads. Within this chapter, the long range transportation plan is outlined, along with the improvement plan and funding strategies to prioritize projects. The long range construction priority strategy is established. Chapter 7 presents the unique transportation needs of each Growth Center within the reservation. Development trends are reviewed and the specific transportation issues for each community are discussed. Chapter 8 outlines the Navajo Nation airport needs. Strategies for developing a master airport plan are identified. Chapter 9 summarizes the bridge improvement and maintenance needs. Chapter 10 summarizes the Navajo-BIA road maintenance needs. General information on the Navajo Road maintenance programs and its funding source are presented. Chapter 11 identifies the improvements needed along each major State highway that runs through the Navajo Nation. Chapter 12 identifies the improvements needed along County roads serving the reservation. Chapter 13 identifies the improvements needed along Tribal roads serving the reservation. Appendix A shows returned survey questionnaires. Appendix B shows access management samples. Appendix C shows transportation needs by route. I-11 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER II - NAVAJO NATION PROFILE This chapter provides background information of the Navajo Nation government, socioeconomic and transportation characteristics that underline its transportation needs, funding formula, and decision making, A. NAVAJO NATION GOVERNMENT The first Navajo Tribal Council was established in 1923, but it was not until 1938 that the first election took place and an elected Tribal Chairman headed the Navajo Nation government. The Title II Amendments passed in December 1989 established the present three-branch government of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches. The Executive Branch is headed by the President of the Navajo Nation and the Vice President. The Legislative Branch consists of the Speaker of the Council and the Navajo Nation Council comprised of 88 elected council delegates representing 110 chapters, consisting of the smallest recognized administrative units in the communities. The Judicial Branch includes the Chief Justice and the Navajo Nation courts. Elections for the President of the Navajo Nation and the Council Delegates are held every four years in November. Elections for the local Chapters are held on the offsetting four-year term. Window Rock, Arizona is the capital of the Navajo Nation where the tribal governmental headquarter is located. The Navajo Nation is not an Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) tribe. Instead of a BIA-approved constitution, the Navajo Tribal Codes govern Navajo Nation operations. The 1989 Title II Amendment gives the oversight of all tribal government programs to twelve standing committees of the Navajo Nation Council. One of the standing committees, the TCDC has oversight authority on all transportation development on the Navajo Nation. Five ARCs identify agency-level transportation needs and recommend agency construction priorities to TCDC. Each ARC is appointed by their respective Agency Council. B. LAND BASE The Navajo Nation Reservation is comprised of a complex mix of trust, allotted, railroad, fee, and private lands. Also present is an overlap of state, county, tribal, and federal jurisdictional boundaries. Varying jurisdictional methods for calculating, recording, and coding geographic information, combined with the complexity of land ownership, make it hard to find accurate land acreage for the reservation. The data and figures presented in this report are based on the available data provided by the Navajo Land Department Title Section, BIA, states, counties, and other sources.. The Navajo Nation has the largest land base reservation in the United States. It encompasses approximately 26,600 sq. miles or 17.0 million acres (68% in Arizona, 25% in New Mexico and 7% in Utah).1 The reservation also falls under ten counties: Apache, Coconino, and Navajo in AZ; Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, San Juan, Sandoval, and Socorro in NM; and San Juan in UT. Average density is 6.8 persons per square mile. The Navajo reservation also includes three Navajo satellite communities in Alamo, Tohajiilee, and Ramah that are located in western and central New Mexico. The reservation land is also organized into five agencies, 23 districts and 110 chapters. The majority of the Navajo Reservation land, approximately 83%, is comprised of Navajo Tribal Trust land, while the rest includes Tribal Fee land, Individual Navajo Allotment, State land, U.S. Forestry land, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lease land, and other government tracts such as Executive Orders, Public Land Orders, and school tracts. Most of the tribal fee lands, allotments, and BLM leases are in the Eastern Navajo Agency in New Mexico; these areas are referred to as the Checkerboard area. Figure II-1 shows the distribution of the Navajo Nation land base. 1 Division of Economic Development Website 2008, Navajo Nation Land Area II-1 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Figure II-1. Navajo Nation Land Base The five Navajo agencies are Shiprock/Northern Navajo, Western Navajo, Eastern Navajo, Chinle and Fort Defiance Agencies. The New Lands (Nahat’a’ Dziil) Chapter, which was acquired pursuant to the 1974 Navajo-Hopi Relocation Act and Navajo Irrigation Industry Project (NIIP), which is the commercial agricultural area designated for tribal agri-industry development are considered additional agencies by the BIA -NRODOT for the IRR program management purpose. Ramah is a satellite community that does not have acreage but is counted in the Census. Table II-1 shows the relative population and acreage within each agency. Table II-1. Land Area and Population by Agency Agency 2000 Population Land Acreage Shiprock/Northern Navajo 30,981 2,641,395 Western Navajo 38,260 5,549,025 Eastern Navajo 33,841 3,341,125 Chinle 28,491 1,883,269 Ft. Defiance 45,761 3,157,550 New Lands 1,452 345,032 NIIP 0 110,630 Ramah 1676 Total 180,462 17,028,026 Sources: Census 2000 Data Land Department-Title Section 03/31/98 Notes: Each Agency’s acreage is based on the geographical polygon area from the Agency shapefile. The Navajo IRR Program funds construction and improvement of the Navajo-BIA roads and other transportation infrastructure within the Navajo Reservation for each of these agencies, with the exception of the Ramah area. This area receives separate funding for its administration and programs from the BIA-Southwest Regional Office. The lands covered by the Navajo IRR Program include the newly acquired lands/ranches. These lands are acquired from the Navajo-Hopi dispute and are located within the Western agency. Roads on these newly acquired lands/ranches are being inventoried and will be added to the IRR system. Road development on U.S. Forestry lands receive funding from the FLHP under separate categories. II-2 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan C. POPULATION According to the 2000 Census, the Navajo Nation is the largest Indian tribe in the United States with an estimated nationwide population of 269,202. The 2000 Census population on the Navajo Reservation was 180,462, which represents an annual population growth of 1.96% from the 1990 Census population of 148,658. Of the 180,462 total reservation population, 175,228 (96.4%) were Navajos, with the remaining population comprised of other Indian tribes and races. The FHWA considers a community of 5,000 or greater a small urban area.2 Of the 110 chapters of the Navajo Nation, Shiprock, Tuba City, Chinle, Ft. Defiance, Window Rock/St. Michaels and Kayenta communities had populations greater than 5,000 in 2000, qualifying them as small urban areas. 1. Socioeconomic Characteristics The following provides a discussion of various socioeconomic attributes of the Navajo Nation. The figures are based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s official estimates from its 2007 American Community Survey produced for the Navajo Nation Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Households and Families In 2007 there were 41,645 households on the Navajo Nation Reservation with an average household size of 3.9 people, and a total of 31,398 families with an average of 4.7 persons per family. Geographical Mobility The majority (96%) of the people lived in the same residence. The rest had recently moved from elsewhere. Education The total school enrollment was 52,272 in 2007. Of this, 39,772 were elementary and high school enrollment, 4,833 were preschool and kindergarten enrollment and 7,667 were college and graduate school enrollment. Of those people 25 years of age and older, 64% had, at a minimum, graduated from high school and 9% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Income The Navajo Nation’s median household income was $25,456, or approximately half of the U.S. household median income of $50,740. The Navajo Nation’s per capita income was $10,441, or less than half of the U.S. per capita income of $26,688. Labor Force and Employment 53,458 or 44.3% of people 16 years of age and over were in the labor force. Of the total labor force, 46,246 were employed in civilian labor force and 135 were employed in the Armed Forces. Approximately 14% were unemployed twice the U.S. unemployment rate. However, the 2005-2006 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy by the Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development reports higher unemployment rate of 48.5% in 2005. Poverty In 2007, 36.8% of the population, and 30.8% of all families, lived below the poverty level. Travel to Work A Navajo family has an average of 1.98 cars per household.3 Of those individuals commuting to work, 76.6% drove to work alone, 11.9% carpooled, 0.6% used public transportation, 0.1% walked and 2.1% used other means. Mean travel time to work was 34.5 minutes. 2 3 FHWA Highway Functional Classification - Concepts, Criteria and Procedures 2001 Navajo DOT origin-destination survey II-3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan 2. Future Population Based on the 1990 and 2000 Census data, the Navajo Reservation’s population grew at 1.82% annually from 1990 to 2000 (Table II-2). If the same growth rate continues, the Navajo Nation Reservation’s population in 2030 is estimated to increase to 310,012 people. Table II-2. Population Projection by Agency Agency 2000 Shiprock Agency 30,981 Western Agency 38,260 Eastern Agency 33,841 Chinle Agency 28,491 Ft. Defiance Agency 45,761 New Lands 1,452 Ramah 1,676 Reservation Total 180,462 D. 2010 37,104 45,822 40,530 34,122 54,806 1,739 2,007 216,131 2020 44,438 54,879 48,541 40,867 65,638 2,083 2,404 258,850 2030 53,222 65,726 58,135 48,944 78,612 2,494 2,879 310,012 NAVAJO NATION ECONOMY The economy of the Navajo Nation depends primarily on employment in private and public sectors and in basic industries. Comparing 2000 and 2007 Census data on economic characteristics for the Navajo Nation (Table II-3), employment increased 7,781 jobs or 20.2%. Private sector jobs increased 25% between 2000 and 2007. This private sector accounts for the largest employment sector, at 54.4% of the total employment. Government employees represent the next largest portion of the total employment, at 42.6%. Compared to the Census 2000 data, 52.2% were in private sector and 44.3% were in government, indicating a slight increase in private sector. In 2007, the number of self-employed individual represents the only decrease in employment type. Table II-3. Navajo Nation Employment Comparison by Sector Employment Sector 2000 2007 Difference Private Sector 20,063 25,166 5,103 Government 17,042 19,722 2,680 Self-employed 1,294 1,251 -43 Unpaid family workers 66 107 41 Total 38,465 46,246 7,781 Percent 25% 16% -3% 62% 20% Table II-4 provides additional breakdown of employment type for both 2000 and 2007. As indicated in this table, 739 jobs were lost in wholesale trade, information, transportation, warehousing and utilities and professional, scientific and management while 16,301 jobs were gained in most sectors. In the public sector, employment by schools and Indian public health services was the largest portion of any industry, accounting for nearly 16,000 employees. The Navajo Nation government also employed about 6,500 people. Cuts in government funding made public sector jobs gained only moderate. In the private sector, significant employment increases were documented in the finance, insurance, real estate sector (110%); 76% in agriculture, forestry, mining; and 51% in retail trade. Lease extension of the Pittsburgh and Midway Mine, oil and gas related business expansion and bringing businesses to industrial parks and the Karigan Estate development were probably the major contribution to the employment increase. II-4 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table II-4. Navajo Nation's Employment by Industry Industries/Economic Sectors Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, mining Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation, warehousing, utilities Information Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, leasing Professional. scientific, management, administrative, waste management services Educational, health, social services Arts, entertainment, recreation, hotel, and food services Other services (except public administration) Public administration Total Number of Employees 2000 1,501 4,759 1,702 448 3,201 2,312 321 785 1,071 Number of Employees 2007 2,641 5,683 1,897 294 4,830 1,919 257 1,653 943 75.9% 19.4% 11.5% -34.4% 50.9% -17.0% -19.9% 110.6% -12.0% 13,705 3,280 1,313 4,067 38,465 15,977 3,961 1,509 4,682 46,246 16.6% 20.8% 14.9% 15.1% 20.2% % Increase Source: Census 2000 and 2007 American Community Survey. The Navajo Nation’s economy in 2007 seemed to fare better than in 2000. Per capita income increased to $10,441 in 2007 from $8,536 from Census 2000, unemployment rate was down (this is not the case in the 2005 report by Division Economic Development), and the number of people living below the poverty level reduced to 36.8% in 2007 from 42.9% in 2000. However, the Navajo Nation’s economy, employment, and income were well below the U.S. national average, and comparable to that of a developing country. The gasoline price reduction in 2008 drastically reduced the Navajo Nation’s revenue from oil, resulting in a proposed 15.6% government budget cut for 2010, and, if the trend continues, this may result in future budget cuts. The U.S. recession that started in 2008 has badly reduced the tribal and employee’s 401K investments. The Navajo Nation’s public sector is tied to government funding while the private sector depends on demand in energy and natural resources production and people’s purchasing power. The U.S. recession impacts the Navajo Nation in both fronts. The Navajo Nation, however, has some major economic development projects, such as the Fire Rock Casino, which opened in 2009, and the Desert Rock Power Plant planned to be opened in 2010. The Federal Stimulus Recovery Act may provide additional business developments at major center growth areas such as Shiprock, Tuba City, and Window Rock, that may help create more jobs and revenue. The Obama administration’s economic stimulus plan for infrastructure, expansion of healthcare to all children, and Indian healthcare programs and education may help lessen the severity of the impact of the U.S. economic recession on the Navajo Nation. E. LAND USE 1. Reservation-Wide Land Use The majority of Navajo Reservation land is used for grazing. The reservation’s high desert characteristics, scarcity of water, dry climate and currently inaccessible natural resources become inhibitive development factors. As summarized in Figure II-2, of the Navajo Nation’s total 17.0 million acres, approximately 10 million acres are open grazing lands. 3-4 million acres are designated forest lands (Defiance Plateaus and Chuska Mountain) and wild lands. Only small areas are used for dry farming, and irrigation projects (NIIP in Shiprock Agency). Some lands are leased for oil and gas development and coal mining at Black Mesa areas and in the eastern part of the reservation. Very small areas are non-agricultural such as community, business and residential uses. II-5 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Figure II-2. Navajo Nation Land Use Settlement Patterns The traditional lifestyle of sheep herding provided a stable living in the past, and still provides Navajo families a good supplemental income at present. As a result, Navajos live sparsely across the Navajo Reservation with an average density of 6.8 people per square mile. Population and land are divided into 110 chapters. Each chapter has its own government, which provides services located at a chapter house. A chapter house also serves as a community center. Higher densities of housing, community, and economic development are found in population centers, as dictated by development cost and tribal development policies. 2. Land Use Plans and Practices Primary Growth Centers The Navajo Nation has designated six communities as Primary Growth Centers for economic development: Shiprock, Kayenta, Chinle, Crownpoint, Fort Defiance and Window Rock-St. Michaels. They are also the Navajo Nation’s major population centers. Plans for these communities are to promote local retail business development, in an effort to capture dollars that Navajos normally spend outside the reservation on basic supplies and services. Another goal is to attract major industry/manufacturing to the reservation using availability of ample labor, land and tax incentives. The Navajo Nation is to implement these goals by making land available through land withdrawals, small business loans, and promotion of tourism and industrial sites. Secondary Growth Centers and Navajo Satellite Communities Ganado, Navajo, Many Farms, Pinon, Tsaile/Wheatfields, Nahata Dziil, Tohatchi, Dilkon, Leupp, and Shonto are designated as Secondary Growth Centers in Arizona. In New Mexico, Alamo, Tohajiilee, and Ramah are designated as satellite communities. Each of these areas is secondary in population and employment needing planned economic development. The Local Governance Act (LGA) of 1998 allows chapters to approve land withdrawal, business and homesite leases, and to implement and expedite development plans. However, prior to exercising such authority and implementing any development projects, chapters have to develop a land use plan. There are 72 chapters that have completed and received certification of their land use plans. These land use plans, however, emphasize only housing development sites for the chapters. Recent LGA requirements include general land use, thoroughfare and open space plans as well. All six Primary Growth Centers have developed their land use plans. Of the Secondary Growth Centers, only Many Farms, Pinon, Nahata Dziil, Tohatchi, Leupp, and Shonto have completed their land use plans. For Navajo satellite communities, only Ramah has its land use plan. II-6 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan F. MODES OF TRANSPORTATION Although roads have been the primary mode of transportation on the Navajo Nation, other transportation modes such as air, rail, and public transit have also increased in importance to the Navajo public. At present, access to tribal primary airports, regional railway and transit stations are in place. Access needs for future facilities are identified and discussed in Chapter V, Transportation Needs. Below is background on modes of transportation other than private vehicles in use on the Navajo Nation. 1. Air Transportation There are approximately 32 airfields on the Navajo Reservation and the Checkerboard area. Of these, four are privately owned. Of the 28 public airfields, eight are Navajo Nation Primary Airports: Shiprock, Kayenta, Tuba City, Crownpoint, Chinle, Window Rock, Ganado, and Oljatoh Airports. They are small airports with single paved runways, except for Ganado which has an unpaved runway. All except Ganado Airport are currently in use. The remaining 20 airfields are Navajo Nation Secondary Airports. All have dirt runways with no supporting facilities and are mostly inactive or in poor condition. All Navajo Nation airports are open to the public. Of the Navajo Nation Primary Airports, only Window Rock Airport has a small terminal. The Navajo Nation Air Transportation Services under the Division of General Services operates from the Window Rock Airport providing charter services primarily for the Navajo Nation Government. Eagle Air, a private company, also provides air transportation services and is based in Window Rock, Chinle and Kayenta Airports. The Navajo Nation Primary Airports are used primarily for medical emergencies and secondarily for tribal government business. However, business and tourist use of Navajo Nation airports is increasing, especially at Kayenta and Chinle Airports. The Navajo Department of Transportation (Navajo DOT) is responsible for maintaining and overseeing development of Navajo Nation airports. Chapter VIII provides more information on each airport and overall improvement needs. Adjacent Regional Airports and Air Transports: Gallup, Flagstaff, Page and Farmington are the closest cities with regional airports having commercial airlines servicing to major destinations. 2. Public Transportation Navajo Transit The Navajo Transit System (NTS) provides public transportation services on the Navajo Reservation, serving 57 of 110 chapters. NTS operates intercity bus service on seven fixed routes linking Navajo growth centers and adjacent border towns. The Tuba City-Window Rock, Toyei-Window Rock, KayentaFt. Defiance, Crownpoint-Ft. Defiance, and Farmington-Window Rock routes operate one round trip per day Monday to Friday. Window Rock-Fort Defiance and Tsaile-Gallup routes are core service routes operating four and two round trips each weekday, respectively. In January 2009, the Flagstaff to Tuba City Route was started; this is a one hour trip that will run four times per day. In May 2009, the Kayenta to Tuba City route began to provide a one-hour, one-way trip. NTS connects with Hopi Transit System, Greyhound Busline, Amtrak Passenger Train, Gallup Transit Express, Red Apple Transit, and Flagstaff Mountain Line. NTS has several connections with Navajo Senior Centers along the routes Most NTS fixed routes operate along state highways. NTS fixed route ridership has increased over the years. Ridership was 65,513 in 2008 and it is expected to increase by 20% in FY 2009, due to the $1.00 per day ride fee that was established in November 2008 and will remain in place until November 2010. Fixed route customers are classified as 51% general, 22% elderly, 20% commuters and disabled, youth and students making up the rest. NTS buses pick up riders at designated stops, but no NTS stations have been constructed. NTS charters provide transportation for groups, organizations and private tours on and off the Navajo Nation twelve months a year. NTS charter service includes transportation to Arizona State University, University of New Mexico, Haskell University, and other colleges. II-7 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Other Public Transit Services Other tribal and private services that provide public transportation to Navajos on the reservation are as follows: Community Health Representative (CHR), a Navajo Nation agency providing emergency medical transportation upon request; a transport program run by Navajo Aging Services Department; Toyei Industries; the Horticulture Independent Living Program; St. Michael Special Education; and Safe-Ride Services, a private operation for non-emergency medical transport. The Navajo Nation Headstart Program provides bus service to transport about 800-900 pre-school children and transports teachers for home-study programs. Transport routes depend on customer/client residence location and intended destinations. School districts, including BIA and contract schools and church schools on the reservation, usually provide bus services using government/school district buses. These buses run on fixed routes. A main concern regarding transportation needs is the road condition of school bus routes. The safety and welfare of the children is the main concern. Adjacent Regional Bus Services Regional bus services such as Greyhound have no routes going through the Navajo Reservation. The nearest Greyhound stations are in Holbrook, Flagstaff, and Winslow, Arizona and Gallup and Farmington, New Mexico. Currently the NTS bus stops at the Greyhound station in Gallup. 3. Railroads and Train Services The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad, a transcontinental railway that connects Los Angeles to Chicago, crosses northern Arizona and New Mexico. The BNSF rail line generally runs east-west just south of the Navajo Reservation boundary except in Arizona through the Nahata Dziil (New Lands) Chapter area, and in New Mexico through the Church Rock Chapter and checkerboard area in the Eastern Navajo Agency, where the BNSF line runs on the reservation. The Black Mesa and Lake Powell (BLKM) Railroad operates within the western potion of the Navajo Reservation for the sole purpose of transporting coal from a strip mine at Black Mesa to the Salt River Project Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona. The generating station provides power to three southwestern states. Passenger Rail Service Passenger rail service is provided by Amtrak on the BNSF Railroad line. Amtrak stations closest to the Navajo Nation are in Gallup, New Mexico and in Winslow and Flagstaff, Arizona. Flagstaff had the highest passenger stop/boardings of 39,723 in 2008, while Winslow had 4,767 and Gallup had 12,517. In comparison and based on information in the 2003 LRTP, Flagstaff had the highest passenger stop/boardings of 54,200 in 1993 of 109,700 total passengers boarding in Arizona At the time that figure was anticipated to reach 172,000 by the year 2015, a 57% increase. Freight Rail Service Freight service on the BNSF Railroad also stops in Gallup, Winslow and Flagstaff. In 2005, approximately 135,000,000 tons of freight moved by rail in Arizona.4 This compares to 175,000,000 tons in 1993 which at that time was estimated to increase to 275,000,000 tons by 2015. This includes material shipped in crates and containers and bulk materials such as coal, copper ore, and liquids. The 78-mile BLKM Railroad was constructed in 1972 it is isolated and not connected with any other railroad; and it and hauls 8.4 million tons of coal annually.5 There is a tribal plan to build rail freight access at New Lands for economic development. However, the project is only conceptual. Information on proposed railroad needs is referenced in Chapter 5, NEED 9-Railroads. 4 5 2009 Arizona Multimodal Freight Analysis Study, page 27. 2007 Arizona Railroad Inventory and Assessment, page 46. II-8 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER III - NAVAJO NATION INDIAN RESERVATION ROAD SYSTEM A. NAVAJO NATION IRR SYSTEM An IRR System is defined as a road network serving an Indian reservation, comprised of public road systems located within, or providing access to it. Navajo IRR roads are funded and administered by various government highway programs. According to the 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory (NRRI) database, the Navajo IRR system consists overall of 12,631.5 miles of public roads that can be subdivided by right-of-way ownership or program administration as follows: Navajo-BIA roads (6,147.9 miles); tribal roads (2,895.7 miles); state roads (1,595.5 miles); county roads (1,907.5 miles); other BIA programs’ roads (46.9 miles); other federal agency roads (37.2 miles), and others roads (0.8 miles). Navajo-BIA, state and county roads are the main road systems serving the Navajo Reservation. Figure III-1 shows the percentage and mileage division of the overall Navajo IRR roads by ownership/program administration. Map III-1 shows the overall Navajo IRR road system. Table III-1 shows ownership/program administration and mileage division by administrative agency. Figure III-1. Navajo Nation IRR System Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory III-1 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table III-1. Overall Navajo Nation IRR System (in miles) Tribal State County Other BIA Agency BIA (1) (2) (3) (5) (6) New Lands (00) 86.7 0.0 89.3 0.0 0.0 Northern (32) 1,209.8 558.3 225.7 276.0 2.6 Western (33) 1,446.0 731.5 529.4 242.1 23.3 Eastern (34) 666.0 197.3 413.2 795.2 0.0 Chinle (35) 1,028.0 372.6 60.8 306.9 11.3 Ft. Defiance (36) 1,405.0 1,036.0 261.9 264.9 9.7 NIIP (48) 306.4 0.0 15.2 22.4 0.0 Total 6,147.9 2,895.7 1,595.5 1,907.5 46.9 Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory B. NAVAJO-BIA ROADS 1. Navajo Nation Bureau of Indian Affairs Roads Other Fed (7) 0.0 0.0 2.0 16.3 18.8 0.1 0.0 37.2 Others (8) 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Agency Total 176.0 2,272.4 2,975.1 2,088.0 1,798.4 2,977.6 344.0 12,631.5 Navajo Nation BIA Road System consists of existing and proposed public roads within the Navajo Reservation that meet the IRR definition and for which the BIA Navajo Regional Office Division of Transportation (BIA-NRODOT) has or plans to obtain a legal right-of-way. The Navajo-BIA road system or Navajo Routes include arterial roads, streets and other local public roads either linking to the state highway network or providing access to local Navajo communities. The Navajo-BIA road system, totaling 6,147.9 miles, is the largest component of the Navajo IRR systems. The Navajo-BIA road system is subdivided into seven agencies for administrative and inventory purposes: Shiprock/Northern, Western, Eastern, Chinle, Ft. Defiance, NIIP, and New Lands Agencies. Figure III-2 shows the Navajo-BIA road system mileage in these agencies. Figure III-2. Navajo-BIA Roads Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory III-3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan 2. Navajo-BIA Roads by Functional Classification The Navajo-BIA roads are classified by their functional classification (Map III-2). Figure III-3 provides road mileage and percentage division by functional classification of the Navajo-BIA road system. Table III-2 summarizes the road mileage and percentage division by function classification of Navajo-BIA road system. Figure III-3. Navajo-BIA Roads by Functional Classification Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Table III-2. Navajo-BIA Roads by Functional Classification (in miles) Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Agency Total New Lands 0.0 0.2 17.0 68.3 1.2 0.0 86.7 Northern 0.0 95.0 12.5 783.0 318.4 0.9 1,209.8 Western 1.0 102.4 17.9 804.7 520.0 0.0 1,446.0 Eastern 0.0 111.9 6.8 271.7 273.0 2.6 666.0 Chinle 1.1 234.0 3.4 717.5 72.0 0.0 1,028.0 Ft. Defiance 2.0 242.0 0.5 990.4 170.1 0.0 1,405.0 NIIP 0.0 30.5 0.0 191.8 84.1 0.0 306.4 58.1 3,827.4 1,438.8 3.5 6,147.9 Agency Class Total 4.1 816.0 Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory The following provides a description of the various roadway classifications, as defined in the DOI-BIA IRR Coding Guide, October 2004 Class 1 – Major Arterial Roads: The Navajo-BIA Class 1 roads are major arterial roads providing an integrated network with characteristics for serving traffic between large population centers, generally without stub connections and having average daily traffic volumes of 10,000 vehicles per day or more with more that two lanes of traffic. Class 1 roads constitute 4.1 miles or only 0.07% of the total NavajoBIA system. III-4 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Class 2 – Rural Minor Arterial Roads: The Navajo-BIA Class 2 roads are rural minor arterial roads providing an integrated network having characteristics for serving traffic between large population centers, generally without stub connections. These roads typically link smaller towns and communities to major resort areas that attract travel over long distances and generally provide for relatively high overall travel speeds with minimum interference to through traffic movement. Class 2 roads generally provide for at least inter-county or interstate service and are spaced at intervals consistent with population density. This class of road will have less than 10,000 vehicles per day. Class 2 roads constitute 816.0 miles or 13% of the entire Navajo-BIA system. Class 3 – Streets: Street type roads are located within communities serving residential and other urban areas. These are streets at Navajo Growth Center communities, Navajo Housing Authority housing streets, etc. Class 3 streets amount to 58.1 miles or 1.0% of the total Navajo-BIA system. Class 4 – Rural Collector Roads: The Navajo-BIA Class 4 roads are rural major collector roads that serve as a collector to rural local roads. The Navajo-BIA Class 4 roads make up most of the Navajo-BIA system, 3,827.4 miles or 62%. Class 5 – Rural Local Roads: These roads are rural local roads that may be either section line or stub type roads, which make connections within the grid of the IRR system. This class of road may serve areas around villages, into farming areas, to schools, tourist attractions, or various small enterprises. This class also includes roads and motorized trails for administration of forests, grazing, mining, oil, recreation, or other use purposes. Class 5 roads amount to 1,438.8 miles of the total Navajo-BIA system, or 24%. Class 6 – City Minor Arterial Roads: These roads consist of minor arterial streets that are located within communities and serve as access to major arterials. Class 6 roads amount to 3.5 mile or only 0.06% of the total Navajo-BIA system. Class 7 – City Collector Streets: These are streets located within communities and serve as collectors to the city local streets. The Navajo Nation currently has none of this road class. Classes 8-10 – These are classification for non-road and other intermodal transportation facilities. The Navajo Nation has yet to inventory these. Class 11 – This is a classification to indicate an overlapping or previously inventoried road section (s) and is used to indicate that it is not to be used for accumulating needs data. This class is used for reporting and identification only. 3. Navajo-BIA Roads by Surface Type The majority of Navajo-BIA roads are unpaved (Map III-3). Out of 6,147.9 miles total Navajo-BIA roads, only 1,494.4 miles (24%) are paved, 105.7 miles (2%) are gravel, 4,203.0 miles (68%) are earth, 291.7 miles (5%) are primitive roads, and 8.5 miles (0.1%) are proposed roads. Figure III-4 shows percentages of the Navajo-BIA road system by surface type. Table III-3 shows mileages of the Navajo-BIA road system by surface type and agency. III-6 " J Flagstaff Utah Arizona 0 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " J ! ( ! ( 20 ( ! 30 ± ! ( ! ( ! ( Leupp ! ( Tuba City ! ( " ) 5 10 Page ! ( 40 Miles " J ! ( Winslow ( ! Shonto ! ( ! ( ( ! " J ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( Ganado ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! " ) ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Tohatchi ! ( " J ! ( ! ( ! ( Gallup ! ( ! ( ! ( Fort Defiance ! ( ! ( Window ! " ) Rock ( ) ! (" ( ! Navajo ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Shiprock ! ( Tsaile/Wheatfields ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Nahata Dziil Map III-3 ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( " ) Chinle ( Many Farms ! ! ( ! ( ! ( NAVAJO-BIA ROADS BY EXISTING SURFACE TYPE Holbrook Dilkon ( ! Pinon ! ( ! ( Kayenta ! ( " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Grants ! ( ! ( " J Crownpoint ! ( ! ( " ) ! ( ! ( Farmington ! ( " J New Mexico Colorado Secondary Growth Center Chapter House Border Town ( ! ! ( " J ( ! ! ( ! ( Alamo ! ( NIIP New Lands Western Northern Fort Defiance Eastern Chinle AGENCY Interstate 40 ( ! Tohajiilee US and State Highways Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Gravel Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved Primary Growth Center " ) Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Figure III-4. Navajo-BIA Roads by Surface Type Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Table III-3. Navajo-BIA Roads by Surface Type (in miles) Proposed Earth Gravel Paved Paved Agency (0) (1) (3) (4) (5) Primitive (9) Unknown Agency Total New Lands 0.0 3.1 0.0 83.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.7 Northern 0.0 880.4 40.1 189.3 61.5 37.7 0.8 1,209.8 Western 0.0 1,069.4 27.6 103.8 78.8 166.4 0.0 1,446.0 Eastern 0.0 456.5 5.5 129.2 57.6 17.2 0.0 666.0 Chinle 0.0 752.8 15.7 188.5 52.1 11.2 7.7 1,028.0 Ft. Defiance 0.0 1,040.3 16.8 200.1 88.6 59.2 0.0 1,405.0 NIIP 8.5 0.5 0.0 Surface Total 8.5 4,203.0 105.7 Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory 219.6 41.7 0.0 36.1 306.4 1,114.1 380.3 291.7 44.6 6,147.9 III-8 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan C. TRIBAL ROADS Tribal Roads are public roads under the jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation. The tribal road category consists mostly of minor public roads serving tribal government facilities, housing, communities and commercial areas. Of the 2,895.7 total tribal road mileage, 2,801.1 miles are earth roads, 11.6 miles are gravel roads, 78.6 miles are paved roads, and 4.4 miles are primitive roads. Figure III-5 and Table III-4 show tribal road mileage division by agency. Figure III-5. Tribal Roads Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Table III-4. Tribal Roads (in miles) Agency New Lands Earth(1) Gravel(3) Paved(4) Paved (5) Primitive(9) Agency Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Northern 551.1 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 558.3 Western 698.7 0.0 32.8 0.0 0.0 731.5 Eastern 191.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 4.4 197.3 Chinle 350.4 0.8 21.4 0.0 0.0 372.6 1,009.3 10.8 15.9 0.0 0.0 1,036.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.6 0.0 4.4 2,895.7 Ft. Defiance NIIP Surface Total 2,801.1 11.6 Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory III-9 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan D. STATE ROADS There are 1,595.5 miles of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah state highways that provide access for the Navajo Nation and connections to the surrounding region. State routes are main arterials/thoroughfares of the Navajo Reservation linking the nation’s capital, Window Rock, Arizona and the other Navajo population/growth centers. State highway systems on the Navajo Reservation include 937.1 miles in Arizona, 590.8 miles in New Mexico, and 67.6 miles in Utah. Figure III-6 and Table III-5 show mileage division of state highways by agency. All state highways are paved roads except for the NM57 of which its entire length of 40.1 miles is earth. Figure III-6. State Roads Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Table III-5. State Roads (in miles) New Mexico Arizona State State Highways Highways Agency Utah State Highways Agency Total New Lands 89.3 0.0 0.0 89.3 Northern 70.2 113.8 41.7 225.7 Western 503.5 25.9 529.4 Eastern 0.0 413.2 0.0 413.2 60.8 0.0 0.0 60.8 213.3 48.6 0.0 261.9 0.0 15.2 0.0 15.2 State Total 937.1 590.8 Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory 67.6 1,595.5 Chinle Ft. Defiance NIIP III-10 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan E. COUNTY ROADS County roads on the Navajo Reservation are primarily local collector roads extending from nearby offreservation communities. The majority of county roads are in the Navajo Eastern Agency and Checkerboard areas of that agency where they provide access to Navajo Chapter areas. Other county roads are in Chinle, Shiprock, Western, Ft. Defiance, and NIIP Agencies respectively (see Figure III-7). Of the total 1,907.5 miles of county roads, 1,511.1 miles or 79% are earth roads, 110.3 miles or 6% are gravel, 134.9 miles or 7% are paved, and 151.2 miles or 8% are primitive roads. Table III-6 summarizes the mileage of County roads within the Navajo Nation reservation by county. Figure III-7. County Roads Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Table III-6. County Roads (in miles) Apache Coconino Navajo McKinley Sandoval San Juan NM San Juan UT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Northern 39.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 229.5 276.0 Western 40.2 5.0 20.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.3 242.1 Eastern 0.0 0.0 0.0 351.6 16.4 427.2 0.0 795.2 306.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 306.9 250.1 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 264.9 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 22.4 366.4 16.4 456.5 405.8 1,907.5 Agency New Lands Chinle Ft. Defiance NIIP 0.0 0.0 0.0 County Total 636.8 5.0 20.6 Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Agency Total III-11 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan F. OTHER BIA PROGRAM ROADS This category describes a small group of roads, of which rights-of-way belong to various programs in the BIA (i.e., Forestry, BIA schools and facilities). Of the total 46.9 miles, 16.1 miles are earth roads and 30.8 miles are paved roads. There are no roads under this category in Eastern, NIIP, and New Lands Agencies. Figure III-8 and Table III-7 depict roads under this category by agency in percent and mileage division. Figure III-8. Other BIA Program Roads Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Table III-7. Other BIA Programs Roads (in miles) Agency Agency Total Proposed(0) Earth(1) Gravel(3) Paved(4) Paved(5) Primitive(9) New Lands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Northern 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.6 Western 0.0 13.9 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 23.3 Eastern 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chinle 0.0 1.2 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 11.3 Ft. Defiance 0.0 1.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 9.7 NIIP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.8 0.0 0.0 46.9 Surface Total 0.0 16.1 Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory III-12 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan G. OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY ROADS These roads are under federal agencies, e.g., National Park Service (NPS), BLM that own land/properties within the boundary of the Navajo Reservation. Of the total 37.2 miles, 12.3 miles are earth roads and 24.9 miles are paved roads. There are no roads under this category in Shiprock, NIIP and New Lands Agencies. Figure III-7 and Table III-8 depict roads under this category by agency in percent and mileage division. Figure III-9. Other Federal Agency Roads Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Table III-8. Other Federal Agency Roads (in miles) Agency Agency Total Proposed(0) Earth(1) Gravel(3) Paved(4) Paved(5) Primitive(9) New Lands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Northern 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Western 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Eastern 0.0 12.1 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 16.3 Chinle 0.0 0.2 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0 18.8 Ft. Defiance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 NIIP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.9 0.0 0.0 37.2 Surface Total 0.0 12.3 Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory H. OTHER ROADS This category describes other private and public roads not included to any other categories previously described, such as petroleum and mining, and utility companies. There are only 0.8 miles of other roads in the Western Navajo Agency. III-13 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER IV - NAVAJO-BIA ROADS TRAFFIC DEMAND A. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME The Navajo-BIA road system is generally characterized as rural low volume roads. Out of a total of 6,147.9 miles of the Navajo-BIA roads, 46% or 2,831.4 miles have average daily traffic (ADT) volumes less than 250 vehicles per day (vpd), with 2,830.3 miles of these having an ADT volume between 50-249 vpd and 1.1 miles of these having an ADT volume less than 50 vpd. 28%, or 1,742.9 miles of the Navajo-BIA road system have ADT volumes between 250-9999 vpd, and 0.1%, or 4.9 miles have ADT volumes of 10,000 vpd and greater. B. TRAFFIC DEMAND FORECAST 1. Twenty-Year Traffic Volume The 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Field Data Module (RIFDS) estimates a 2% annual traffic growth rate for all Navajo-BIA roads. Similarly the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) also estimates and uses a 2% annual traffic growth rate for all state routes on the Navajo and Hopi reservations. Based on this projected traffic growth, within the next 20 years 39%, or 2,420.9 miles, of Navajo-BIA roads will have ADT volumes between 250-9999 vehicles per day (vpd) and 0.2%, or 11.9 miles, will have ADT volumes of 10,000 vpd and greater. The majority, 60% or 3,715.1 miles, will have ADT volumes between 50-249 and 1%, or 44.7 miles, will have ADT volumes less than 50 vpd. Figure IV-1 compares miles of Navajo-BIA roads with existing and twenty-year (20) projected ADT volumes (2007 NRRI). The graph shows a significant increase in the next 20 years in Navajo-BIA roads mileage with ADT volumes from less than 50, 50-250 vpd, 250-9999 vpd and those with ADT volumes of 10,000 vpd and greater. Figure IV-1. Navajo-BIA Roads Traffic Volume Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory IV-1 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan 2. Estimate of Daily Person-Trips For planning and estimating purposes, it is assumed that drivers on Navajo-BIA roads follow rural vehicle occupancy patterns, with 1.5 persons per vehicle for passenger cars and one (1) person per vehicle for trucks. ADOT uses these same figures in its planning for state highways on the Navajo Nation. 3. Estimate of Current and Future Modal Split Modal split for Navajo transportation is virtually insignificant. Of the total 45,435 Navajo Nation residents commuting to work, 34,824 or 77% drove alone to work, 5,394 or 12% carpooled, 2,154 walked, and only 288 or 0.6% used transit to go to work (Census 2007, American Community Survey). Modal split is summarized in Figure IV-2. Similar percentages are expected for the future because of the Navajo Nation’s rural setting and vast distance between communities. Figure IV-2: Transportation Modal Split C. TRAVEL PATTERNS Based on the Transportation Planning Program’s origin-destination survey conducted in 2001, a Navajo family has an average of 1.98 cars per household. On a weekday, commuter/driving to work trips generates approximately 41% of trips; driving children to school 31%; and school buses (picking up school children from bus stops to school) make up another 28% of total trips. On average, a Navajo family makes approximately eight trips a year to healthcare facilities, and five trips a month to nearby border towns (usually on the weekend). IV-2 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER V - TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT A. PLANNING METHODOLOGY The Navajo Nation comprehensive Transportation Plan is the Navajo Nation’s vision of future transportation development to meet and fulfill the Nation’s long term transportation needs. The planning process and methodology used in this plan includes examination of tribal and IRR program goals and objectives, transportation planning and highway design criteria, and transportation issues to identify future transportation needs. 1. Transportation Goals:   2. To provide safe and efficient transportation and public road access to and within the Navajo Reservation including improvement of overall road conditions, bridges, and reduction in the number and severity of traffic crashes. To develop the necessary transportation system to foster and support economic development and to increase employment opportunities. Planning Guidelines: In compliance with transportation planning regulations and procedures, including IRR transportation planning guidelines, current SAFETEA-LU funding levels for the IRR Program, highway design criteria in 81 IAM and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) procedures were used in the planning process and the needs assessment. 3. Transportation Issues:    The Navajo Nation is the largest tribe in both land area and population, but due to inadequate funding for the Navajo IRR Program, seventy-six percent (76%) of the Navajo-BIA road system is unpaved. Community transportation survey respondents identified the following important topics (The survey results from the 143 respondents are included in Figure V-1 and individual questionnaire responses are included as Appendix A): 1. Safety improvements were the highest transportation goal, ranked above economic development, access to recreation, connection to transit and connection to freight; 2. Safety improvements (roadway striping, signage, traffic control, guard rail and street lights); 3. Road improvements (paving existing dirt or gravel roads); 4. Road maintenance (pothole repair and blading of dirt roads); and 5. Bridge improvements. The poor condition of local roads, coupled with increased traffic and safety issues have become a primary concern for chapters, school administrators, health care providers, and tribal and transportation leaders. Lack of paved roads has been identified as affecting quality of life. Together, the Navajo Nation’s transportation goals, planning guidelines and tribal transportation issues above, and road inventory and other planning data form the basis for determining transportation needs. The 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Field Data System (RIFDS) data, Navajo Nation Census 2000 demographic data, 1999-2007 crash data, and other pertinent planning information were used to analyze and identify the Navajo Nation’s 20 year transportation needs in a systematic way. The planning/transportation needs assessment process is summarized in Figure V-2 as follows: V-1 " J Flagstaff Utah Arizona ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " J 0 Page ! ( 5 10 ! ( " ) 20 ± ( ! 30 ! ( ! ( Leupp ! ( Tuba City ! ( ! ( ! ( " J ! ( 40 Miles Winslow ! ( Shonto ! ( ( ! " J ! ( ! ( ! ( Holbrook Dilkon ! ( ! ( ! ( Pinon ! ( ! ( Kayenta ( ! ! ( " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( Ganado ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! " ) ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Tohatchi ( ! ! ( " J ! ( ! ( ! ( Gallup ! ( ! ( ! ( Fort Defiance ! ( ! ( Window Rock " ) ! ( ) ! (" ( ! Navajo ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Shiprock ! ( Tsaile/Wheatfields ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Nahata Dziil Map V-1 ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( " ) Chinle ( Many Farms ! ! ( ! ( ! ( NAVAJO-BIA SYSTEM: CLASS 2 & 4 ROADS ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Grants ! ( ! ( " J Crownpoint ! ( ! ( " ) ! ( ! ( " J Farmington New Mexico Colorado New Lands NIIP ( ! ! ( ! ( Alamo ! ( Western Northern Fort Defiance Eastern Chinle ! ( Tohajiilee US and State Highways Interstate 40 BIA Class 4 Roads BIA Class 2 Roads Chapter House Secondary Growth Center Primary Growth Center Border Town AGENCY ! ( ( ! " J " ) Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Figure V-2. Planning / Needs Assessment Process PLANNING / NEEDS Planning Criteria: ASSESSMENT PROCESS Transportation Needs: 1.Highway Geometric Design Deficiencies Transportation Goals: • To provide safe and efficient Transportation system • To provide adequate community Access • To foster and support economic development 2. Network Connectivity Needs: 3. Pavement Deficiencies 4. Safety Needs Planning Guidelines : • IRR Transportation Planning Guidelines • 57BIAM & AASHTO Highway Design Guidelines • TEA -21 Statewide & Metropolitan Transportation Planning Guidelines 5. Chapter House Access Needs 6. Growth Centers Street Needs 7. Community and Economic Development Transportation Needs Transportation Issues: • Poor road conditions, 75% of BIA roads are unpaved • Lack of paved roads to foster economic development • High traffic volume & congestion in growth centers & on class 2 roads • High accidents occurrences • Unpaved school bus routes 8. Scenic Byways, Tourism, and Recreation 9. Intermodal Transportation Needs 10. Other Transportation Needs: 11. Cultural and Environmental Considerations V-3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan B. NAVAJO-BIA ROAD ISSUES AND NEEDS The Navajo-BIA road issues and needs are summarized in the next eleven sections, described as Needs 1 through 11. The needs were developed based on available data sources and public outreach. NEED 1: Highway Geometric Design Deficiencies To meet the Navajo IRR program objectives, design and construction of roads, bridges, and other transportation facilities must be done to current acceptable engineering standards for anticipated 20-year traffic volume. Based on the highway geometric design guidelines and 20-year projected traffic volume (Table V-1), of the total Navajo-BIA roadway system, 97% of total Navajo-BIA road system or 5,955.4 miles have geometric design deficiencies (Table V-2) including upgrades in road geometry, surfacing, and/or highway capacity. Table V-1. Geometric Design Standards ADS Future Functional Needs Surfa ce Needs Needs ADT Classificat ion Upgrade Shoulder Widening Roadway Widening Needs Shoulder Type Upgrade 1,2,3 N/A 1-Major Arte rial Su rface Type<5 Sh oulder Width<6 ft Roadwa y Width <66 ft S houlder Type<3 4,5,6 >=4 00 Sh oulder Width<6 ft Roadwa y Width <36 ft S houlder Type<3 <400 2-Rural Min or A t i l Min or 2-Rural A t i l Maj or 4-Rural Su rface Type<5 7,8,9 Su rface Type<4 Sh oulder Width<4 ft Roadwa y Width <32 ft S houlder Type<3 Su rface Type<5 Sh oulder Width<4 ft Roadwa y Width <32 ft S houlder Type C ll Su rface Type<4 >=4 00 t <3 for ADS1 0; >250<400 <2 for ADS1 1; <1 for ADS1 2; 50-250 10 ,11,12 4-Rural Maj or C ll t Su rface Type<3 Sh oulder Width<4 ft Roadwa y Width <32 ft S houlder Type <3 for ADS1 0; <2 for ADS1 1; <1 for ADS1 2; <50 4-Rural Maj or C ll t Su rface Type <1 Sh oulder Width<4 ft Roadwa y Width <32 ft S houlder Type <3 for ADS1 0; <2 for ADS1 1; <1 for ADS1 2; >400 5-Rural Local Su rface Type <4 Sh oulder Width<2 ft Roadwa y Width <28 ft S houlder Type <3 for ADS1 3; <2 for ADS1 4; <1 for ADS1 5; 50-400 5-Rural Local Su rface Type <3 Sh oulder Width<2 ft Roadwa y Width <28 ft 13 ,14,15 S houlder Type <3 for ADS1 3; <2 for ADS1 4; <1 for ADS1 5; <50 5-Rural Local Su rface Type <1 Sh oulder Width<2 ft Roadwa y Width <28 ft S houlder Type <3 for ADS1 3; <2 for ADS1 4; <1 for ADS1 5; >=4 00 6-City Minor Su rface Type <5 >250<400 7-City Coll ector Su rface Type<4 N/A 50-250 6-City Minor <( 21-38) for ADS 17 or 18 Su rface Type <3 N/A 7-City Coll ector 6-City Minor Roadwa y Width N/A <5 0 for ADS 16, 3-City Local Und er 50 N/A <5 0 for ADS 16, 3-City Local 16 ,17,18 Roadwa y Width <( 21-38) for ADS 17 or 18 Su rface Type <1 N/A Roadwa y Width 7-City Coll ector <5 0 for ADS 16, 3-City Local <( 21-38) for ADS 17 or 18 N/A Source: 25 CFR Part 170, Table 1 – Adequate Standard Characteristics, 7/19/2004, page 43123. Notes: Surface Type Codes: 6, 5, 4=Paved; 3=Gravel; 1=Earth; Shoulder Type Codes: 4=Curb; 3=Paved; 2=Gravel; 1=Earth. V-4 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table V-2. Miles of Navajo-BIA Roads with Geometric Deficiencies/Total NEED 1 ADS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 18 CLASS 1-Major Arterial FADT N/A N/A N/A >=400 2-Rural Minor Arterial <400 >250 50-250 >250 4-Rural Major Collector 50-250 <50 >250 50-250 >400 50-400 >400 5-Rural Local 50-400 >400 50-400 6-City Minor Arterial N/A 7-City Collector N/A 3-City Local N/A Miles of Roads Miles of Roads Needing Only Needing Only Roadway Suface Imp Widening 0.9 2.0 0.0 5.9 8.7 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 1.8 38.6 33.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.1 125.3 2.9 68.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.1 0.8 0.0 13.8 184.0 11.5 0.0 24.3 0.0 15.0 5.2 136.9 82.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 6.6 28.5 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 23.5 Miles of Roads Needing Suface Imp & Roadway Widening 0.3 0.0 0.0 54.0 397.1 2.7 0.0 23.0 24.3 138.2 365.8 988.7 1668.6 0.0 76.6 185.4 43.1 18.1 72.0 806.2 8.4 202.2 2.6 0.0 1.8 Sub-Total 1.3 2.8 0.0 73.7 589.8 19.5 0.0 47.3 24.3 170.7 372.8 1164.2 1784.3 1.1 78.5 185.4 48.7 150.0 103.4 889.4 8.4 202.2 3.5 0.0 34.1 Grand Tota Total By Class 4.1 754.6 3757.0 1402.1 3.5 0.0 34.1 5955.4 Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory. V-5 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan NEED 2: Network Connectivity Needs BIA Class 1 (Major Arterial), Class 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) and Class 4 (Rural Major Collector) roads together work to provide network connectivity from Class 5 (Rural Local) roads to population centers, state road systems and regional network. However, the connectivity of Navajo-BIA roads system is hardly efficient due to the fact that much of these roads are unpaved: 11% of the Navajo-BIA Class 2 roads; 83% of Class 4 roads; and 93% of Class 5 road are unpaved (Table V-3a). This can be easily illustrated by comparing Map V-1, showing all Class 2 & 4 roads as they should have functioned with Map V-2, showing actual paved Class 2 & 4 roads. Missing roads or gaps in Map V-2 clearly show that the paved segments are not continuous throughout the network thus demonstrates poor continuity or inefficiency of the network when the arterials and major collectors are not paved. Table V-3a. Navajo-BIA Roads’ Surface Type By Class Surface Type Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Surface Total Proposed 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 8.5 Earth 0.0 85.0 5.8 2901.7 1210.5 0.0 4,203.0 Gravel 0.0 1.4 2.0 89.5 12.8 0.0 105.7 Paved (4) 3.2 465.0 45.3 534.4 62.7 3.5 1,114.1 Paved (5) 0.9 264.2 5.0 91.9 18.3 0.0 380.3 Primitive 0.0 0.4 0.0 172.2 119.1 0.0 291.7 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.2 15.4 0.0 44.6 Class Total 4.1 816.0 58.1 3,827.4 1,438.8 3.5 6,147.9 11% 13% 83% 93% 0% 75% 89% 87% 16% 6% 100% 24% % Unpaved By Class % Paved By Class 100% Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory. Map V-3 illustrates and Table V-3a lists, the Class 2 and 4 roadway segments that are currently unpaved and carry more than 250 ADT, which would meet the criteria under the 81 IAM to be paved.1 These road sections, although unpaved, have high traffic volume meaning the public is using them regularly because there are no other alternative routes. As shown, there are 19.1 miles of unpaved Class 2 roads that currently carry over 400 ADT, and 33.8 miles that carry over 250 ADT. Of the unpaved Class 4 roads, there are 140.9 miles that currently carry over 400 ADT and 298.2 miles that carry over 250 ADT. At minimum, these roads should be paved to improve the overall Navajo-BIA road connectivity. 1 57 BIAM, Supplement 4, Sec. 2.2B (3), Surface improvement criteria: (1) All class 2 and 4 roads with less than 50 ADT (20-year projected) will not be constructed with gravel surfacing; (2) All class 2 and 4 roads with less than 250 ADT (20-year projected) will not be constructed with paved surfacing. V-6 " J Flagstaff Utah Arizona ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " J 0 Page ! ( 5 10 ! ( " ) ± 20 ( ! ! ( 30 ! ( ! ( Leupp ! ( Tuba City ! ( ! ( " J 40 Miles Winslow ! ( Shonto ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( " J ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( Ganado ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! " ) ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Tohatchi ( ! ! ( " J ! ( ! ( ! ( Gallup ! ( ! ( ! ( Fort Defiance ! ( ! ( Window ! " ) Rock ( ) ! (" ( ! Navajo ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Shiprock ! ( Tsaile/Wheatfields ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Nahata Dziil Map V-2 ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( " ) Chinle ( Many Farms ! ! ( ! ( ! ( NAVAJO-BIA SYSTEM: PAVED CLASS 2 & 4 ROADS Holbrook Dilkon ( ! Pinon ! ( ! ( Kayenta ! ( " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Grants ! ( ! ( " J Crownpoint ! ( ! ( " ) ! ( ! ( " J Farmington New Mexico Colorado Chapter House ( ! ! ( ! ( Alamo ! ( Western Northern Fort Defiance Eastern Chinle AGENCY New Lands NIIP ( ! Tohajiilee US and State Highways Interstate 40 BIA Class 4_Unpaved BIA Class 4_Paved BIA Class 2_Unpaved BIA Class 2_Paved Secondary Growth Center ! ( Primary Growth Center Border Town ( ! " J " ) Legend " J Flagstaff Utah Arizona ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " J 0 Page ! ( 5 10 ! ( " ) ± 20 ( ! ! ( 30 ! ( ! ( Leupp ! ( Tuba City ! ( ! ( " J 40 Miles Winslow ! ( Shonto ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( " J ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( Ganado ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! " ) ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Tohatchi ( ! ! ( " J ! ( ! ( ! ( Gallup ! ( ! ( ! ( Fort Defiance ! ( ! ( Window ! " ) Rock ( ) ! (" ( ! Navajo ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Shiprock ! ( Tsaile/Wheatfields ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Nahata Dziil Map V-2 ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( " ) Chinle ( Many Farms ! ! ( ! ( ! ( NAVAJO-BIA SYSTEM: PAVED CLASS 2 & 4 ROADS Holbrook Dilkon ( ! Pinon ! ( ! ( Kayenta ! ( " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Grants ! ( ! ( " J Crownpoint ! ( ! ( " ) ! ( ! ( " J Farmington New Mexico Colorado Chapter House ( ! ! ( ! ( Alamo ! ( Western Northern Fort Defiance Eastern Chinle AGENCY New Lands NIIP ( ! Tohajiilee US and State Highways Interstate 40 BIA Class 4_Unpaved BIA Class 4_Paved BIA Class 2_Unpaved BIA Class 2_Paved Secondary Growth Center ! ( Primary Growth Center Border Town ( ! " J " ) Legend " J Flagstaff Utah Arizona ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " J 0 Page ! ( 5 10 ! ( " ) ( ! 20 ± 30 ! ( ! ( Leupp ! ( Tuba City ! ( ! ( ! ( " J ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( " J ! ( Holbrook ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Pinon Dilkon ! ( ! ( " ) Kayenta ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( Ganado ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! " ) ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Tohatchi ( ! ! ( " J ! ( ! ( Gallup ! ( ! ( ! ( Fort Defiance ! ( ! ( Window Rock " ) ! ( ) ! (" ( ! Navajo ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Shiprock ! ( Tsaile/Wheatfields ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Nahata Dziil Map V-3 ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( " ) Chinle ( Many Farms ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( NAVAJO-BIA SYSTEM: CLASS 2 & 4 ROADS WITH EXISTING ADT >250 40 Miles Winslow ! ( Shonto ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Grants ! ( ! ( " J Crownpoint ! ( ! ( " ) ! ( ! ( " J Farmington New Mexico Colorado New Lands NIIP ( ! ! ( ! ( Alamo ! ( Western Northern Fort Defiance Eastern Chinle ! ( Tohajiilee US and State Highways Interstate 40 AllClass4_ADT>250 AllClass4_ADT>=400 AllClass2_ADT>250 AllClass2_ADT>=400 Chapter House Secondary Growth Center Primary Growth Center Border Town AGENCY ! ( ( ! " J " ) Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Existing Navajo-BIA Class 2 roads that are already paved, and are nearing or have exceeded their design life and need to be re-constructed are included in the Need (1) category: Highway Geometric Design Deficiencies, for Class 2 roads (Table V-2). Table V-3. Unpaved Navajo-BIA Class 2 Road Segments with 20-Year ADT > 250 Meeting 81 IAM Requirements to Be Paved 20Year ADT Existing Surface Type Agency Route BMP EMP Miles Existing ADT Western N2 30.1 32.3 2.2 1,211 1,798 Earth Western N20 0 4.5 4.5 550 817 Earth Western N20 24.4 29.9 5.5 170 252 Earth Western N41 33.4 34.8 1.4 543 806 Earth Eastern N56 11.3 13.7 2.4 1,551 2,303 Earth Eastern N474 0 6.5 6.5 253 376 Earth Chinle N4 1.3 19.5 18.2 367 545 Earth Chinle N7 13.7 32.6 18.9 241 358 Earth Chinle N13 4.8 9.6 4.8 370 549 Earth Chinle N27 22.4 36.8 14.4 415 616 Earth Chinle N41 21.3 25.6 4.3 543 806 Earth Chinle N41 30.1 32.5 2.4 543 806 Earth Ft. Defiance N7 32.6 36.8 4.2 258 383 Earth Total: 89.7 Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Proposed Navajo-BIA Class 2 Roads: The Navajo Reservation is large with few paved roads. Map V-1 shows Navajo-Class 4 roads that are regularly used by the locals to access state highways. N8031 and N8027 provide a shortcut from Chinle to Tuba City through Pinon; N46 connects N9 to US550 at Counselor; and N55 connects Alamo to I-40. Pinon and Alamo are Navajo Secondary Growth centers. This plan proposes to reclassify these roads, which are identified in Table V-4 to Class 2 since they connect population centers to state roads, thus meeting BIA/FHWA’s class 2 road definition. Reclassifying and paving these roads will improve the overall efficiency of the road network, reduce travel time and conserve fuel. Table V-5 summarizes the total Class 2 road needs. Table V-4. Proposed Navajo-BIA Class 2 Roads Agency CHL CHL ENA ENA 20Year ADT 392 Existing Surface Type Earth Route No., Location N8031* from Pinon to N8027 east of Hard Rock. N8027, from N8031 to AZ264 at Dennetbito Junction BMP 0 EMP 23.1 Miles 23.1 Existing ADT 264 0 7 7 229 340 Earth N46* from Pueblo Pintado to Counselor. N55* from Alamo to I-40 0 19.8 19.8 390 579 Earth 0 40.1 40.1 63 94 Earth Total: 90 Table V-5. Total Class 2 Road Needs Transportation needs To pave existing unpaved Navajo-BIA Class 2 roads To pave proposed Class 2 roads Need 2. Total Total Miles 89.7 90.0 179.7 V-10 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan NEED 3: Pavement Deficiencies Of the total 6,147.9 miles of Navajo-BIA roadways, 24% or 1,494.4 miles are paved. To meet the Pavement Management System (PMS) requirement, pavement deficiencies of Navajo BIA road sections were identified based on BIADOT wearing surface or pavement rating standards (Table V-6). Per the 2008 inventory, a total of 1,313.8 miles of Navajo BIA paved roads have pavement and/or design deficiencies and require reconstruction of the roadway (Table V-7). There are 1.3 miles of Navajo BIA paved roads that have moderate pavement deficiencies and require pavement rehabilitation, while 26.3 miles require minor rehabilitation. A total of 153.0 miles have slight deficiencies or are in good surface condition and only require routine maintenance to extend the life of their pavement. Total cost to improve pavement deficiencies for all Navajo-BIA road classes (Table V-6) is $1.4 billion. Table V-6. Pavement Rating Standards Pavement Rating (PCI) Roadbed Condition (RB) Improvement Criteria Improvement Needs PCI < 40 or RB <5 Reconstruction Very Poor 3 - Min built-up roadbed with inadequate drainage and alignment 10 - 39 Poor 4 - A designed and constructed roadbed with some drainage and alignment 40 - 50 Fair 5 - A roadbed constructed to adequate design standards PCI = 40-50 and RB >=5 Rehabilitation 51 - 69 Good 6 - A roadbed constructed to adequate design standards with curb and gutter on one side PCI = 51-69 and RB >= 5 Minor Rehabilitation Very Good 7 - A roadbed constructed to adequate design standards with curb and gutter on both sides PCI >= 70 and RB >= 5 Maintenance Only 0-9 >=70 Source: 2007 RIFDS Coding Guide – Pavement Rating and Roadbed Condition standards. Table V-7. Miles of Navajo-BIA Roads with Pavement Deficiencies PCI<40 and RB<5, Need Reconstruction for Geometric Design and Road Class Pavement Deterioration RB<5, Need Reconstruction for Geometric Design PCI<40, Need Reconstruction for Pavement Deterioration PCI=40-50 and RB>=5, Need Rehabilitation PCI=51-69 and RB>=5, Need Minor Rehabilitation PCI>=70 and RB>=5, Need Maintenance Only 1 0.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 2 325.3 295.4 0.5 0.0 9.1 98.9 3 22.5 14.1 0.2 0.0 7.9 5.6 4 269.2 298.1 0.3 1.3 8.9 48.5 5 18.0 63.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.6 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 636.1 676.7 1.0 1.3 26.3 153.0 Percent 42.6% 45.3% 0.1% 0.1% 1.8% 10.2% Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory. NEED 4: Safety BIA policy requires that IRR program development2 include identification of sites with high crash potential so they can be brought to the attention of road design engineers. Another requirement is identification of sites with high crash occurrences so that safety projects or a highway safety program can be developed to help reduce the number of crashes. The 2007 Motor Vehicle Crash Facts prepared by ADOT reports that Native Americans made up 15.34% of total crash fatalities (the third largest group after White and Hispanic), while their population was only 5.25% of Arizona. This indicates the seriousness of traffic crashes and safety issues on the Navajo Nation. 2 57BIAM, Road Construction-Development of Program, Sec. 6.11 (B-D) V-11 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan In the years 1999-2007, a total of 11,273 traffic crashes occurred on the Navajo Nation. The majority of the crashes happened on state and Navajo-BIA roads. As summarized in Figure V-3, 52.3% or 5,899 crashes occurred on state highways; 41.4% or 4,669 crashes on Navajo BIA roads; 3.7% or 414 crashes on county roads; 1.6% or 182 crashes on other public roads; and 0.8% on other tribal and government program roads. Figure V-3. 1999-2007 Crashes by Road Ownership 1999‐2007 Crashes By Road Ownership OtherFed, 92, 0.8% Others , 182, 1.6% BIA, 4,669, 41.4% County, 414, 3.7% Sta te, 5,899, 52.3% Tri ba l 17 0.2% When compared to the 1992-1996 statistics (an average of 991 crashes annually), the crash total for 1999-2007 (1,253 crashes annually) has increased by 26%. Figure V-4. 1999-2007 Crashes by Agency 1999‐2007 Crashes Total 11,273 New Lands, 15, 0.1% Fort Defiance, 2,837, 25.2% NIIP, 70, 0.6% Shiprock, 2,977, 26.4% Figure V-4 identifies that from 1999-2007, the highest number of crashes (26.4%) occurred in Shiprock Agency; 25.2% in Fort Defiance; 23.0% in Western; 12.6% in Eastern; 12.0% in Chinle; 0.6% in NIIP; and 0.1% in New Lands. Chinle, 1,353, 12.0% Eastern, 1,423, 12.6% Western, 2,598, 23.0% Statistical Summary:  Fatality: 4.7% of the 1999-2007 traffic crashes resulted in fatalities. Navajo fatality rates were 6.9 times those of Arizona (0.68% in 2007).  Injury: 41.3% resulted in injuries. The Navajo rate of injuries was 10.5% higher than the Arizona rate (30.85%).  Number of Vehicles Involved: 54.9% were one-vehicle crashes, 42.5% were two-vehicle crashes, the remaining 2.6% involved three or more vehicles.  Weather: 85.6% occurred in clear weather. Snow and rain occurred for 5.9% and 3.1% of the crashes respectively. V-12 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan  Road Condition: 72.9% occurred on dry road condition. 8.2% occurred on snow packed roads. Loose sand and gravel, and wet road conditions occurred for 5.1% and 4.7% of crashes, respectively. Cause: As shown in Figure V-5, Driver’s inattention, DUI, speeding, and animals on road were major causes: 19.7%, 16.5%, 15.9%, and 13.8% of total crashes respectively. Only 2.4% involved road defects, and 1.2% involved pedestrian error. Again when compared to statewide Arizona statistics: Navajo crashes that hit an animal were 2.5 times the rate for all rural areas (5.8%), and DUI crashes were 2.9 times the statewide Arizona rate of 5.62%.  Figure V-5. 1999-2007 Crashes by Cause 1999‐2007 Total Crashes By Cause 2,500 2,076 2,000 1,742 1,671 1,452 1,500 774 500 369 65 257 196 351 271 76 123 23 126 38 77 128 5 ‐ Disregarded traffic signal 6 ‐ Following too closely 7 ‐ Drove left of center 8 ‐ Unsafe lane change/passing 9 ‐ Improper turn 10 ‐ Improper backing 11 ‐ Other improper 12 ‐ Object on road 13 ‐ Animal on road 14 ‐ No improper 15 ‐ Under influence of 16 ‐ Under influence of 17 ‐ Pedestrian error 18 ‐ Inadequate brakes 19 ‐ Defective tires 20 ‐ Other mechanical 21 ‐ Road defect 4 ‐ Ran stop sign 3 ‐ Failed to yield right of 2 ‐ Speeding 0 1 ‐ Driver inattention 112 387 252 11 23 ‐ Unknown 696 22 ‐ Traffic control not 1,000 Crash Location: As shown in Figure V-6, of the total 11,273 crashes that have occurred between 1999 and 2007, 7,849 or 69.6% were non-intersection crashes, 1,906 or 16.9% occurred at road intersections, and 1,200 or 10.6% occurred at turnoffs or access to development (e.g., stores, schools, chapter houses, clinics, government offices, etc.). V-13 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Figure V-6. 1999-2007 Crashes by Location 1999‐2007 Crashes By Location Turnoff to Bridge, 39, 0.3% Development, 1200, 10.6% Curve, 258, 2.3% Unknown, 21, 0.2% Intersection, 1906, 16.9% Non‐ Intersection, 7849, 69.6% Crash rates are calculated using the following formula: Number of Crashes x 1,000,000 Crash Rate = Average Daily Traffic1 (ADT) x No. of Days2 x Road Length (mi) Notes: * Crash rate formula utilized by Arizona Department of Transportation 1 Average Daily Traffic volume was acquired from the 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Database 2 No. of Days = 365 x 9 Using the crash rating system (Table V-8), safety of Navajo Nation roads and intersections can be identified and rated accordingly. Table V-8. Crash Rating System Crash Rate > 4.0 2.01 – 4.0 1.75 – 2.0 1.16 – 1.74 0 – 1.15 Rating Very High High Moderate Low Very Low Safety Issues: Dangerous Road Sections: The most dangerous road sections on the Navajo Nation occurred in the major growth centers, on major State, Navajo-BIA and county roads (Table V-9). In the urbanized areas: driver inattention, failure to yield right of way, speeding and following too close were the major causes of the crashes. High traffic volume coupled with excessive access with turning vehicles and congestion in the urbanized areas may have also contributed to these crashes. Appropriate speed limits, road widening, better lane marking, raised medians, sidewalks and street lights are recommended for the growth center areas. Other road sections had a high percentage of crashes caused by animals on road. Fencing along these road sections is highly recommended. Map V-4 identifies road segments that warrant additional study to determine proper safety recommendations. V-14 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table V-9. Road Sections with High Crash Rates US/State Routes: Route BMP EMP ADT Number of Crashes Crash Rate Navajo-BIA Routes: Route BMP EMP Number of Crashes ADT Crash Rate US64 22 32 7800 201 0.78 N2 1 8 211 18 3.71 US160 382 395 4150 190 1.07 N7 0 3 12780 81 0.64 US163 393 399 2186 228 5.29 N12 22 29 2967 101 1.48 US191 409 411 1326 20 2.30 N36 12 28 3200 166 0.99 US191 447 468 3470 272 1.14 AZ264 435 477 4761 607 0.92 US491 89 95 6500 139 Source: Navajo Nation 1999 – 2007 Crash Data 1.08 Dangerous Road Intersections: The road intersections with the highest number of crashes on the Navajo Nation were primarily located in major Navajo growth centers (Table V-10). These fifteen intersections within Navajo Nation experienced a high number of crashes (>20) from 1999-2007, and all but one are located within the segments identified in Table V-9 Map V-4 shows road segments and Map V-5 identifies the intersections should be further studied to identify the appropriate safety treatments required to mitigate the issues. Table V-10. Road Intersections with High Number of Crashes State Routes: Navajo-BIA Routes: Route Community MP ADT Number of Crashes US64/US491(SW) Shiprock Window Rock 21.94 22923 101 N12/N100 475.50 10616 69 N12/N110 US64/US491(NE) Shiprock 22.80 10278 53 US160/AZ264 Tuba City 321.80 13989 45 AZ264/N112 St. Michaels 473.61 10616 43 US191/N7 Chinle 447.83 9917 41 US160/US163 Kayenta 393.55 2264 41 AZ264/US191S Ganado 446.90 6352 34 US491/N531 Shiprock 92.20 10278 33 AZ264/N15/US191 Ganado 441.01 2312 21 US64/POE Access Shiprock 22.50 22923 21 AZ264/N12 Route Community Window Rock Fort Defiance MP ADT Number of Crashes 24.1 34 28.4 32 Source: Navajo Nation 1999 – 2007 Crash Data V-15 0 Utah Arizona 5 10 20 ± 30 N2 40 Miles US163 US191 AZ264 Map V-4 US191 N7 N12 US491 N36 ROAD SEGMENTS WITH SAFETY CONCERNS US160 US64 Colorado New Mexico Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved US and State Highways Road Segment w/ Low-Moderate Safety Rating Road Segment w/ High Safety Rating Legend Utah Arizona 0 5 10 & 20 ± US160/AZ264 30 40 Miles US160/US163 & - -& & AZ264/US191- AZ264/N15 & - US491/US64SW&NE & - N12/N110 -N12/N100 & & -& AZ264/N112 AZ264/N12 US191/N7 Map V-5 INTERSECTIONS WITH SAFETY CONCERNS New Mexico Colorado & & & & & & & & & & 21 - AZ264/N15; US64/POE 32 - N12/N110 33 - US491/N531 34 - AZ264//US191; N12/N100 41 - US191/N7; US160/US163 43 - AZ264/N112 45 - US160/AZ264 53 - US491/US64NE 69 - AZ264/N12 101 - US491/US64SW Total Crashes - Intersection Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Access Management: 1,200 crashes or 10.6% of all crashes occurred at turnoffs or access to development (stores, schools, etc). The Navajo Nation growth centers commercial strips were high among places where crashes occurred. Traffic congestion at multiple access points to convenience stores, fast food restaurants, banks, and shopping centers seemed to be a cause of crashes on main highways within the Growth Center communities. Lack of street lights and access control seemed to be a cause of crashes in these communities. Table V-11 shows commercial strips in the growth center areas where high number of crashes occurred. Table V-11. Locations of Frequent Crashes at Development Access Agency Community Route No. BMP EMP No. Crashes N35 Chinle US191 446.7 448.2 58 N35 Chinle N7 0.0 2.7 54 N36 Ganado AZ264 446.2 447.1 29 N33 Kayenta US163 393.5 396.0 148 N33 Kayenta US160 391.0 394.6 34 N32 Shiprock US491 90.4 93.5 122 N32 Shiprock US64 21.0 24.4 256 N36 St. Michaels AZ264 474.8 476.0 74 N36 St. Michaels AZ264 472.4 473.0 21 N33 Tuba City N1017 0.0 1.6 32 Turns offs to schools, chapter houses, and tourist attractions were other locations where crashes occurred frequently. NHA housing access roads also produced significant numbers of crashes. (Please note that this plan classifies crashes at turnoffs to NHA housing sites as intersection crashes.) Lack of accelerating and decelerating lanes and poor lighting may have contributed to the cause of these crashes. Roads with Animal Crash Problems: Animals (cattle on roadway) appear to be a significant cause of crashes on Navajo Nation roads. 1,452 crashes or 13.8% of all crashes on the Navajo Nation roads were caused by the presence of animals on roadways. This figure is 2.4 times that of all animal-related crashes in rural Arizona in 2007. Of the 1,452 crashes, eight were fatal, as shown in Map V-6. Animals on roadways contributed to high crash occurrences. The Navajo Nation’s open range policy must be revisited when planning safety improvements on Navajo IRR roads. Even state highways, which are normally fenced, become crashprone because cattle owners tend to let their cattle graze the right-of-way. ROW fencing and cattle guards along road sections with high animal-on-road crashes should be installed. Regular repairs and maintenance of ROW fence and cattle guards are needed to prevent crashes. ADOT has identified that animal fencing safety improvements should be installed on US Route 191 north of Chinle. It is critical that a collaborative approach between the states and Navajo DOT be used to ensure that any funding, particularly for safety and capacity upgrades and modifications, is used on longlasting projects. V-18 Utah Arizona 0 5 10 20 ± 30 ( ! 40 Miles ( ! ( ! ! ( Map V-6 ( ! ( ! ANIMAL INVOLVED CRASHES ( ! ( ! New Mexico Colorado ( ! Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Gravel Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved US and State Highways Interstate 40 1999-2007 Animal Crashes Fatal Animal Crashes Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Road Sections with Fatal Crashes: A total of 525 crashes or 4.6% of all crashes resulted in fatalities. Figure V-7 shows DUI related crashes caused 187 or 35.6% of fatal crashes; speeding caused 88 or 16.8%; driver inattention caused 66 or 12.6%; and pedestrian error caused 62 or 11.8%. Taken together, these four causes accounted for over 76% of all Navajo Nation traffic fatalities. Most fatal crashes occurred on State highways and major Navajo-BIA roads where speed and traffic volume may have been the contributing factors. Figure V-7. 1999-2007 Fatal Crashes 1999-2007 Fatal Crashes Total: 525 Road defect , 4, 0.8% Traffic control not functioning, 0, 0.0% Other mechanical defect, 5, 1.0% Unknow n, 27, 5.1% Defective tires, 2, 0.4% Driver Inattention, 66, 12.6% Speeding, 88, 16.8% Inadequate brakes, 1, 0.2% Pedestrian error, 62, 11.8% Failed to yield right of w ay, 12, 2.3% Under influence of drug, 3, 0.6% Ran stop sign, 3, 0.6% Disregarded traffic signal, 3, 0.6% Follow ing too closely, 5, 1.0% Under influence of alcohol, 187, 35.6% Drove left of center, 16, 3.0% No improper driving, 16, 3.0% Animal on road, 8, 1.5% Object on road, 0, 0.0% Unsafe lane change/passing, 7, Improper turn, 5, 1.3% 1.0% Improper backing, 1, 0.2% Other improper driving, 4, 0.8% In growth centers, DUI and pedestrian error seem to be the significant contributing factors. The communities’ increasing demographics suggest monitoring speed limits, possibly installing crosswalk marking and warning signs and enhanced police enforcement. Table V-12 identifies routes where major fatal crashes occurred. (Map V-7 shows all fatal crash locations). Table V-13 identifies the fatal crash locations which involved pedestrian errors and may need additional pedestrian crossing improvements. Table V-12 Major Fatal Crashes No. of Fatal Crashes Route No. Cause 55 US160 18-DUI, 11-Driver Inattention, 7-Unknown 50 US491 20-DUI, 8-Speeding 41 AZ 264 11-DUI, 6-Ped Error, 5-Speeding 35 US 191 9-DUI, 8-Driver Inattention, 6-Speeding 27 N 12 8-DUI, 4-Driver Inattention, 4-Speeding 26 N 26 12-DUI, 7-Driver Inattention, 4-Speeding 20 US 163 6-DUI, 4-Unknown, 3-Ped Error 20 NM 64 6- Ped Error, 4-DUI 18 US 89 5-DUI, 3-Driver Inattention, 3-Speeding 16 N 36 7-DUI, 4-Speeding, 3-Ped Error 14 N 98 7-DUI, 4-Speeding V-20 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table V-13. Potential Sidewalk and Pedestrian Crossing Needs Agency # Fatal Crashes Route # Locations N34 1 0 Baca N32 1 N12 Mexican Water N36 2 N12 St. Michaels N36 1 N12 Ft. Defiance N35 1 N13 Lukachukai N33 1 N15 Leupp N33 1 N21 Tonalea N34 1 CR34 Bread Springs N32 1 N36 Nenahnezad N32 2 N36 Upper Fruitland N36 1 I-40 Lupton N35 1 N59 Many Farms N32 3 NM64 Shiprock N32 3 NM64 Hogback N35 1 N65 Whippoorwill N33 1 US89 Cameron N33 1 US89 Bodaway N36 1 N100 St. Michaels N36 2 N112 Ft. Defiance N34 1 NM122 Baca N32 1 NM134 Sheepsprings N36 1 N151 Steamboat N33 1 US160 Deenhotso N32 1 US160 Red Mesa N33 3 US163 Kayenta N36 1 US191 Wide Ruin N35 1 US191 Chinle N36 1 AZ264 Ganado AZ264 Kinlichee N36 2 N36 3 AZ264 St. Michaels N32 1 N362 Nenahnezad N34 1 US491 Rock Springs N36 1 US491 Twin Lakes N36 1 US491 Tohatchi N32 1 US491 Sheepsprings N36 3 US491 Naschitti N32 2 US491 Sanostee N32 5 US491 Shiprock N32 1 N551 Shiprock N34 2 NM602 Bread Springs N33 1 N1017 Tuba City N32 1 NM-N13 Shiprock MP 0 3 24.0-24.8 28.4 2.2 5.5 5 -17.2 25.3 -25.5 356 0.14 23.6-24.2 26.8-30.7 10.3 462 498.4 -5.8-6.47 10.94 1.2 0 418.5 441.5 394-396.6 -455 446.9 466.0-467.5 473.61-475.43 1.2 9.2 13.6 21.06 48.2 41.1-41.8 70.1-78.6 84.9-94.2 0.74 18.5 0.05 14.8 V-21 ! ! ! ! !! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ( ! ! ! ! ! Utah Arizona !! 0 5 10 ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! 20 ± 30 ! !! ! ! ! ! ! 40 Miles ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ( ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! ( ! ! ( ! ! ( ! ( !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Colorado ( ! ! ! ! New Mexico ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ( !! !! (! (!! ! ((! ( ! (( !! ! ! ! ( ! ! !!! !! !( ! !! !! ( ! ( ! ! ! !! ( ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! (! ! ! ( ! ( ! ! FATAL CRASHES Map V-7 !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! (( ! ! ( ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! (!!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ( ! (! ! (!!!! (! ! (! ! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ( ( ! ! ( ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ( !! ! ! ! ( !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! New Lands NIIP ! ! ! ! Western ! ! Northern Fort Defiance Eastern Chinle ! Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Gravel Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved US and State Highways Interstate 40 1999-2007 pedestrian fatalities 1999-2007 fatal crashes AGENCY ! ( ! Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Crash Locations with Road Defects and Traffic Control Malfunction: Road defects caused 252 crashes or 2.4% of all crashes. There were 11 crashes caused by traffic control malfunction. There were not sufficient data from police reports to get specific information on the road conditions. However, supervisory or design engineers should seek out these road sections to further investigate road defect problem. See Map V-8 for locations of crashes by road defect and nonfunctional traffic signals. Safety Improvement Recommendations: To promote safe mobility and reduce the potential for crashes, this plan has identified roadway segments and intersections that should be examined for safety improvements beyond the location identified in Table V-10. There are two primary focus areas where safety can be improved, including roadway and roadside safety. Roadway safety would help to reduce crashes caused by driver inattention, excessive access, turning vehicles, animals on the road and roadway geometry. Safety improvement strategies that relate to roadway safety would include access management, roadway striping, roadway warning signs, proper intersection control and pedestrian crossing locations. The second grouping of safety improvement strategies would include those that relate to roadside safety. Roadside safety improvements would include strategies that relate to animal related crashes, pedestrian type crashes, and those crashes that involved fixed objects or runoff the road incidents. Safety improvement strategies that relate to roadside safety would include animal fencing, sidewalks, roadway warning signs and clearing roadside hazards (proper clear zone). The crash locations that are included in this Plan are a first step in identifying potential studies and improvement projects that will help make multi-modal travel safer. It is intended that this is a starting point and that as new data is developed, the high crash locations on both the Navajo BIA and State Routes will be examined under a recurring process to ensure that the high crash locations are continuously identified and ultimately fixed. Any improvement project must go through the planning and project development processes to identify the correct solutions to any problem and to identify and program funds for needed improvements. It is highly recommended that the Navajo DOT conduct traffic data collection activities on the segments and at the intersection location that exhibit a high number and/or rate of crashes. This information will ultimately provide for a thorough understanding as projects are scoped and programmed. Table V-14 summarizes total safety needs. Table V-14. Total Safety Needs High Crash Rate Segments 133 Miles High Crash Rate Intersections 13 Intersections Access Management Needs 23.6 Miles Pedestrian Crossing Layouts 62 Locations Corridor Safety Audits 117 Miles Intersection Safety Audits 18 Intersections V-23 Utah Arizona ! 0 5 10 ! ! 20 ± 30 ! ! 40 Miles ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ( ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Gravel Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved US and State Highways Interstate 40 ! ! ! ! 1999-2007 Road Defect Crashes ! 1999-2007 Traffic Control Malfunction Crashes Legend !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! New Mexico !! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( !! ! ! ( ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Map V-8 ! ! ! ( !! !!! ( (! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Colorado CRASHES BY ROAD DEFECT AND TRAFFIC CONTROL MALFUNCTION ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan NEED 5: Chapter House Access Needs Accessibility is a federal policy guiding IRR program development.3 Accessibility to local government and services is an issue in every one of the Navajo Nation’s 110 chapters. The Navajo Nation and BIANRODOT have an affirmative responsibility to provide all-weather access to chapter houses that provide community based government services and facilities. The 1998 Navajo Nation Local Governance Act (LGA) allows the decentralizing of the Navajo Nation government’s authority and functions to the chapters. When a chapter house becomes a center for government services and functions, traffic to it will be dramatically elevated. Aside from housing government programs, a Navajo chapter house is a central place in Navajo community life. A chapter house is where residents can use telephones, pick up mail, receive personal messages, have meetings and social gatherings. Other community facilities such as recreation areas, nursery, schools, housing, and business sites, are generally situated nearby. Sixteen (16) chapters still lack paved access roads to their chapter houses. Access roads to these chapter houses are impassible during severe weather. A total of 164.8 miles of roads (Table V-15) providing access to chapter houses are unpaved. These unpaved access roads include149.8 miles of BIA Class 4 roads and 15.0 miles of County roads. Map V-9 shows these chapter houses with locations and miles of unpaved access roads. Table V-15. BIA Class 4 Roads Providing Access to Chapter Houses Agency SR WNA ENA CHL FTD EMP 28.1 Improvement Miles 20.9 Existing ADT 553 20Year ADT 821 Existing Surface Type Earth Paved 0 2.1 2.1 342 508 Earth Paved 2.1 2.9 0.8 Earth Gravel N5031, to Hogback 7.7 7.8 0.1 398 591 Earth Paved N5056, to Mexican Water 0 5.4 5.4 67 99 Earth Gravel N16, to Navajo Mountain 40.4 50.7 10.3 322 478 Earth Paved N20, to Coppermine 0 29.9 29.9 170 252 Earth Paved N6331, to Kaibeto 0 1.4 1.4 213 316 Earth Paved 1.4 2.4 1 50 74 Earth Gravel N6460, to Dennehotso 24.9 25.9 1 672 998 Earth Paved CR19, to Casamero Lake 5.2 15 9.8 N/A N/A Earth Paved N46, to Counselor 0 5.6 5.6 545 809 Earth Paved 5.6 15.6 10 89 132 Earth Gravel 15.6 23.7 8.1 382 567 Earth Paved N55, to Alamo 7 40.1 33.1 N/A N/A Earth Paved N7057, to White Rock 23.2 23.7 0.5 50 74 Earth Gravel CR7760, to White Rock 0 5.2 5.2 N/A N/A Earth Paved N7111, to Mariano Lake 2.3 2.8 0.5 328 487 Earth Paved N481, to Little Water 16.6 18.4 1.8 225 334 Earth Paved N7119, to to Little Water 0 1.2 1.2 248 368 Earth Paved N8066, to Black Mesa 0 5 5 242 359 Earth Paved 5 15.4 10.4 166 247 Earth Gravel 3 3.7 0.7 1659 2464 Earth Paved Route No., Access to Chapter House. N35, to Sweet Water BMP 7.2 N368, to San Juan N30, to Mexican Springs Total Roads to be paved/gravel: 3 164.8 Total BIA Roads to be paved/gravel: 149.8 Total County Roads to be paved/gravel: 15.0 Source: Proposed Surface Type 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Database. MOA between BIA and FHWA, 5-24-83, the BIA is responsible in the development of public road system which will provide transportation facilities and provide access for use and development of Indian Lands. V-25 " J Flagstaff Utah Arizona ! ( ! ( 0 5 10 ! ( 20 ± ! ( ! ( ! ( 30 ! ( ! ( Coppermine Kaibeto ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " J Page " J ! ( 40 Miles Winslow ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Mexican Water ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Map V-9 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( White Rock " J Farmington New Mexico Colorado ! ( ! ( ! ( " J New Lands NIIP Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Gravel Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved US and State Highways Interstate 40 Unpaved Chapter Access Border Town Chapter House Grants ! ( ! ( Alamo ! ( ! ( Counselor Western Northern Fort Defiance Eastern Chinle ! ( Chapter Hse w/ Unpaved Access AGENCY ! ( Mexican Springs ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( Little Water ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Mariano Lake ! ( ! ( ! ( Casamero Lake ! ( Gallup ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " J ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (Hogback ! ( ! ( SanJuan ( ! ( ! ! ( CHAPTER HOUSE ACCESS NEEDS ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Dennohotso Sweetwater ! ( ! ( ! ( (Mesa Black! Holbrook " J ! ( ! ( Navajo Mountain ! ( ! ( ! ( " J ! ( ! ( Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan NEED 6: Growth Center Street Needs IRR Program planning regulations require that long range transportation planning consider impacts of existing and future traffic generators and land uses. Navajo Nation policies, combined with population growth are driving development of the Navajo Primary Growth Centers. Expansion of infrastructure, including transportation systems, will be required to support this development. While many of Navajo primary growth centers qualify as small urban areas (a community of 5,000 population is classified as a small urban area4), their transportation systems typically are comprised of only a few paved roads. A typical Navajo Primary Growth Center transportation system consists of a state highway and/or a NavajoBIA Class 2 road, NHA housing subdivision streets, short access roads to government facilities, and miscellaneous unpaved system and non-system roads. Table V-16 shows existing signalization, miles of streets and street lights at the Primary Growth Centers. Table V-16. Growth Centers' Existing Streets, Lighting, and Signalization Growth Centers 2000 Population Paved 2-Lane Streets (Miles) 8.7 4.7 1.9 0.2 6.7 2.3 4.5 Gravel Roads Street Lights (Miles) Signalization 8,225 8,156 5,366 4,922 4,061 3,059 2,630 Paved 3 to 5-Lane Streets (Miles) 1.7 7.6 3.3 1.8 2.7 2.2 3.1 Tuba City Shiprock Chinle Kayenta Fort Defiance Window Rock Crownpoint 6.2 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.0 5.0 1.3 2.0 0.9 2.5 0.0 1 4 1 1 3 2 0 Total 36,419 22.4 28.9 11.3 12.7 12 Future Transportation Needs: Population at Navajo Primary Growth Centers Community is estimated to increase at 2.5% growth rate annually. Shiprock, Tuba City, Chinle, Kayenta, Fort Defiance, and Window Rock will be among the most populated communities with populations well over 5,000. School, healthcare, and other community services will be needed as well as employment and economic development. Existing traffic congestion has already strained the main streets in Growth Centers. Traffic crashes were reported high on the primary growth centers’ main streets (see Chapter 5-Need 4: Safety). More streets and an efficient street network are needed for each primary growth center to provide alternate routes in order to reduce traffic congestion and accidents. Chapter VII discusses transportation needs and proposed Primary Growth street plans for Shiprock, Tuba City, Kayenta, Crownpoint, Chinle, Fort Defiance, and Window Rock. These Navajo Primary Growth Centers need additional streets to promote economic development and serve future populations. Tables V-17 and V-18 summarize proposed construction of streets, lighting and signalization needs recommended for Navajo-BIA roads and State Highways at each growth center by 2030. 4 FHWA Highway Functional Classification-Concepts, Criteria and Procedures. V-27 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table V-17. Growth Centers' Proposed Improvements and Needs on Navajo-BIA Roads Growth Centers 2030 Population Sidewalks New Bus Stops 2 1 0 0 0 0 Paved 2-Lane Streets (Miles) 0 8.3 6.32 4.42 5.26 4.47 Gravel Access Total Road Roads Management Improvement Miles 0 0 0 0 0 9.83 6.8 0 13.12 0 0 4.42 0 0 5.26 0 0 4.47 Tuba City Shiprock Chinle Kayenta Fort Defiance Window Rock 17,253 17,018 11,256 10,323 9,133 8,518 0 1.53 2.96 0 0 0 Crownpoint Need 6. Total 5,517 79,018 0.42 4.91 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.4 29.17 0 6.8 0 2 0 0 .82 37.92 Traffic Control Needs Table V-18. Growth Centers' Proposed Improvements and Needs on State Highways Growth Centers 2030 Population Sidewalks New Bus Stops 2 1 0 0 0 0 Paved 2-Lane And 4-lane Streets (Miles) 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 Gravel Access Total Road Roads Management Improvement Miles 0 0 2.1 0 3.85 6.71 0 0.25 0.58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.67 2.67 Tuba City Shiprock Chinle Kayenta Fort Defiance Window Rock 17,253 17,018 11,256 10,323 9,133 8,518 2.1 2.86 0 0 0 0 Crownpoint Need 6. Total 5,517 79,018 0 4.96 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.33 0 0 0 2 0 6.77 0 12.06 Traffic Control Needs NEED 7: Community Economic Development Transportation Needs To meet program objectives, IRR must provide access to development and for land use. Health care facilities, public residential projects, schools, shopping centers, industrial development, coal mines, etc. generate considerable traffic. They are major community and economic development providing employment and are major traffic generators on the Navajo Nation. Access as well as safety improvement needs for existing and future development are discussed below. Health Care Facilities: Navajo Area Indian Health Service  Existing Facilities: The Navajo Area Indian Health Service (NAIHS) is the primary health care provider on the Navajo Nation. NAIHS program administration is divided into 8 service units: Chinle, Crownpoint, Fort Defiance, Gallup, Kayenta, Shiprock, Tuba City, and Winslow Service Units. Within these service units, NAIHS facilities include 6 hospitals, 9 health centers, 12 health stations, and 18 dental clinics (2007) (see Map V-10). NAIHS also provides over 50 primary care services at schools and about 60 at Chapter. V-28 Legend W3 F G F G F G Map V-10 FG G F b F G b N31 F GG F F G F G E71 2011 Thoreau Fitness Center E33 2012 Crownpoint Wellness Ctr N70 2013 Upper Fruitland Health Center N38 2014 Sanostee Medical service center b b b b E90 2014 Alamo Outpatient Clinic W3 2014 Gap/Coppermine Outpatient Clinic E61 2015 Pueblo Pintado Outpatient Clinic F29 2020 Dilkon Outpatient Clinic v ® v ® v ® v ® N31 2010 Rock Point Wellness Center E66 2010 Smith Lake Fitness Center b F G F G N38 b F G b F G F G b b N70 PROPOSED CLINICS & FITNESS CENTERS F G F G F G b F G F29 F®v G v ® F G F G v ® v ® W38 F G W38 2012 Kayenta Health Center G F F G F G v ® Legend v ® Gv F ® Utah Arizona F G E33 F G b b E66 b b E71 b F G b F G Colorado New Mexico F G E61 v ® F G v ® E90 v ® v ® New IHS Clinic v ® 0 5 10 20 ± 30 40 Miles Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Gravel Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved US and State Highways Fitness Center or Clinic b Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table V-19. Health Care Visits Type of Visits Annual Patient Visits Inpatient Discharges 16,494 Outpatient Visits 1,295,955 Dental Visits 133,943 Source: 2007 NAIHS Profile - 2006-2007 IHS Data NAIHS health care programs generate a great number of trips to, from, and within the communities where they are located (Table V-19). NAIHS estimates all facilities generated a minimum of 1.4 million trips or 3,900 road trips per day (not including staff work trips). Hospitals account for 76% of patient visits, health centers 19%, and health stations 5%. Other health care facilities are contract facilities located within or near the Navajo Nation. These include Sage Memorial Hospital (Ganado, AZ), Presbyterian Medical Services (Cuba, NM and Farmington, NM), Winslow Memorial Hospital (Winslow, AZ), and San Juan Health Care Services (Montezuma Creek, UT). These facilities generated approximately 78,000 outpatient visits and 2,300 inpatient admissions annually. Others are private facilities, mostly small dental clinics, and one private clinic provides family care in St. Michael, AZ. Proposed Facilities: NAIHS has proposed replacement and new facilities to meet its short and long range goals. In its FY2011 IHS Planned Health Care facility Construction Budget, NAIHS proposes outpatient facilities for underserved areas of the Navajo Nation, Table V-20 summarizes existing and proposed NAIHS facilities on the Navajo Nation. Table V-20. Proposed NAIS and Contract Health Care Facilities Est. Open Year Proposed New Facility Chapter 2012 Kayenta Health Center w/ 129 staff quarters units Kayenta 2020 Dilkon Health Station w/ 109 staff quarters units Dilkon 2014 2015 Alamo Health Station w/ 33 staff quarters units Alamo Pueblo Pintado Pueblo Pintado Health Station 2014 Bodaway Gap Health Station Gap/Coppermine Source: 2007 NAIHS Profile Navajos depend on transportation to provide access to health care facilities for emergency and routine care. Road development priority should be given to the maintenance and improvement of roads serving health care facilities, especially roads that are major routes for emergency care and air and ambulance transport. To accomplish this, the reservation road network must be efficient, in good condition, and well maintained. Table V-21 shows accessibility and safety improvement needs identified by NAIHS for its existing and proposed facilities. Table V-21. Transportation Needs for Proposed NAIS Facilities Map I.d. Est. Open Year Proposed New Facility W38 2012 Kayenta HC US160 394.5 Widen road to add turning lanes, street lights F29 2020 Dilkon HS N15 54.2 Turning lanes, turn off E90 E61 2014 2015 Alamo HS NM169 N9 23.6 76.1 Turning lanes, turnoff Paving parking lot, and access road, street lights, sidewalks. W3 2014 Gap/Coppermine HS N6321 0.1 Pave access road Rte # MP Pueblo Pintado HS Transportation Needs V-30 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Navajo Division of Health: The Navajo Division of Health departments provide health related services including alcohol/substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, traditional healing, fitness, and health education. The Department of Behavioral Health has planned for four Wellness Centers. In addition, Sanostee and Upper Fruitland Chapters have identified health care facility needs and sites through Capital Improvement Program Planning, Table V-22. Table V-22 Proposed Tribal Health Facilities Map I.d. Est. Open Year Proposed Facility Chapter Rte # MP Transportation Needs E33 2012 Wellness Center Crownpoint N1040 2.1 Street lights E66 2010 Fitness Center Smith Lake N703 0.5 Need of sidewalks, street lights, pave access road, parking lot. E71 2011 Fitness Center Thoreau NM371 1.7 Need of sidewalks, pave access road, and parking lot N31 2010 Wellness Center Rock Point US191 495.3 Paving parking lot, access road and street lights N38 2014 Medical service center Sanostee N34 17.7 Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights N70 2013 Health Center Upper Fruitland N3005 0.8 Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Source: 2009 CIP Project Priorities (WIND) and 2009 Navajo DOT’s chapter survey. The Community Health Representatives (CHR) program provides emergency medical transportation upon request, while Navajo Aging Service provides transportation for Navajo elderly to Senior Centers in some chapters. CHR offices and Senior Centers are located at chapter houses while other offices are mostly located at various Navajo Nation government complexes. Access improvement to all chapter houses and tribal office complexes is identified as a transportation need to improve public access to tribal health care programs. Residential Development: NHA housing subdivisions are major traffic generators throughout the reservation. The Navajo Housing Authority (NHA), funded by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is the major tribal agency building housing for low income families. NHA has planned and constructed less of subdivision housing and more of scattered homes recently. NHA however, cannot provide any planned NHA housing development for this 2009 LRTP update. Chapters nevertheless provided us their proposed housing projects and transportation needs, Table V-23. Table V-23. Proposed Housing and Related Transportation Needs by Chapters Map I.d. Est. Open Year Proposed Facility Chapter Rte # MP Transportation Needs E84 2012 NHA Housing Whitehorse Lake N9 63 Street lights, pave access road F17 2009 Housing Development St. Michaels CR408 0 Pave Street F6 2010 Housing Development Ft. Defiance N110 0.9 Pave Street W26 E45 2012 2014 Residential Housing Complex Mobile Home Park Gap Huerfano US89 CR7150 488.6 5.3 Turn out Lane Street lights, new pave asphalt Source: 2009 CIP Project Priorities (WIND) and 2009 Navajo DOT’s chapter survey. V-31 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Schools: In 2006-2007 school year only 46% or 42,492 of total 92,260 Navajo Nation school children attended 140 public schools located on the Navajo Nation (Table V-24). Of these, 80 are public (state/county) schools and 60 are BIA schools (these figures do not include private, church schools and headstart programs). The other 54% attended public schools at Border Towns such as Flagstaff, Winslow, Holbrook and Page in Arizona; Gallup, Cuba, Aztec, Bloomfields and Farmington in New Mexico; and Mexican Hat and Montezuma in Utah. Table V-24 Enrollment Demographics – SY 2006-07 Institution Location # of Schools Enrollment Arizona Public Schools On Navajo 44 17,304 Arizona Charter Schools On Navajo 4 638 48 17,942 On Navajo 27 7,607 27 7,607 5 984 5 984 60 15,959 Total Arizona New Mexico Public Schools Total New Mexico Utah Public Schools On Navajo Total Utah OIEP-BIA Funded School* On Navajo Total OIEP-BIA 60 15,959 OIEP-BIA Total Enrollment based on SY2004 05 140 42,492 Table V-25 shows proposed schools and Headstart projects and recommended transportation needs. See also Map V-11. Table V-25 Proposed Schools and Headstart Projects Estimated Open Year Proposed Facility Chapter Rte # MP Transportation Needs C1 2010 Head Start Black Mesa, N8066 15.4 Pave N8066 and access road C13 2010 Head Start Cottonwood Tribal Road 0.2 C14 2010 Head Start Whippoorwill N602 0.2 Pave access road, parking lot pavement Parking lot pavement C7 2010 Head Start Nazlini N27 16.85 Parking lot pavement/gravel E14 2010 Preschool Chichiltah N7046 4.3 E17 2011 Head Start Church Rock CR7063 0.3 E40 2014 Preschool Crownpoint N1042 1.3 Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Street lights E46 2010 Head Start Iyanbito CR33 E49 2010 Head Start Little Water N7119 1.2 E67 2011 Head Start Smith Lake N703 0.5 F19 N11 2010 2013 Teesto Cove N60 N5018 22.8 0.2 N57 2011 Sweetwater N35 18.6 N74 2015 Elementary School Head Start building New Head Start building High School Upper Fruitland N3005 1.2 W17 2010 Head Start US163 398.13 W29 2015 New School K-6 Kayenta Coalmine Canyon N6720 39.1 Rd. Construction/access W30 2015 New School Dennehotso US160/N6465 418 Pave N6465 Map I.d. Turning lanes Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Need of sidewalks, pave access road, and parking lot. Pave Access and to School Bus Route Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Access Turn out Source: 2009 CIP Project Priorities (WIND) and 2009 Navajo DOT’s chapter survey. V-32 Legend × × × × × × × W26 Map V-11 F6 × F17 × × × PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT F17 2009 St. Michaels Housing Development F6 2010 Ft. Defiance Housing Development W26 2012 Gap Residential Housing Complx. E84 2012 White Horse Lake NHA Housing E45 2014 Huerfana Mobile Homes Park Legend Utah Arizona × × E45 Colorado New Mexico E84 × × × × 0 5 10 20 ± 30 40 Miles Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Gravel Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved US and State Highways Mobile Homes Park Single Family Subdivision Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Economic Development: The Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development has three major development goals for the near future: industrial, tourism, and commercial and real estate development. Development in these areas will produce base industry growth and job creation. Industrial Development: Economic development and manufacturing is considered to be the most important aspect of industry. There are five industrial plants in operation on the Navajo Nation:  Raytheon at the NAPI Industrial Park.  MechTronics of Arizona in the Fort Defiance Industrial Park.  TDI in the Leupp Industrial Park.  Southwest Cabinet at the Church Rock Industrial Park.  Gallup Camper Sales. Considering the paramount importance of manufacturing, the Division is actively recruiting new industrial businesses, of which the important ones are:  Latex Glove Manufacturing Plant  Montezuma Creek Sewing Factory  BCDS Manufacturing Operation  Housing Panel Manufacturing  Indian Tribal Economic Alliance (ITEA) Tourism Development: Tourism has the potential of generating a substantial amount of income for the Navajo Nation. According to a recent study, the tourism industry has an economic impact of $100 million dollars and supports 3,506 jobs. To promote tourism in the Navajo Nation and to capture more of the tourist dollars, the Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development have planned a number of projects:  Completion of Phase II and Phase III-Antelope Marina & Resort  Shiprock RV Park  Monument Valley Interpretive Center  Dine Biitah Scenic Road  Dine Tourism Corridor Commercial & Real Estate Development: Office and retail space development has been initiated by Chuska/Sahara, utilizing private financing and using the Bureau of Indian Affairs loan guarantee program at various sites. The sites are:  White Cone Commercial Development - Phase I development is in the bid process to prepare a 4.0 acre tract of land in White Cone, AZ, a southwestern community for future business. The target business is an 8,000-10,000 square foot retail center that includes a gas station, convenience store, laundry and a small sit-down eating operation.  Karigan Housing Development Phase II - Phase II development of housing on Karigan Estates in St. Michaels, AZ will began in July, 2004. The project is a continuation of home ownership on fee lands located at Karigan Estates.  Sawmill Retail Center - Site Development for a small retail center currently being advertised for bids. Attract business for the 3.0 acre tract of land in Sawmill, AZ includes a gas station and convenience store.  Newlands Shopping Center - Infrastructure planning and development to accommodate a future full-scale shopping center at Sanders, AZ is in the architect and engineering stages. The project will provide for tenant recruitment and construction of a commercial facility to accommodate the Newlands community.  Tuba City Office and Retail Complex (42,000 sq. ft.) Completion date is June, 2004  Kayenta Office and Retail Complex  Shiprock Office and Retail Complex  Dilkon Office and Retail Complex  Fort Defiance Office and Retail Complex  Crownpoint Office and Retail Complex V-34 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table V-26 identifies the Navajo Nation Economic Development Priorities Table V-26 Navajo Nation Economic Development Priorities Map i.d. Est. Open Year Proposed Facility Chapter Rte # MP Transportation Needs F26 * Nahat’ah Dziil Shopping Center Nahat’ah Dzill N9402 0.1 Roundabout Latex Gloves Manufacturing Plant Church Rock, NM NM118 28.9 Widen NM118 for turning lanes and median NM118 28.9 Widen NM118 for turning lanes and median US191 417.3 Turning lanes US160 320.08 Widen road for turning lanes US160 361.6 Access Turning lanes US160 320.08 Turning lanes E86 * E86 * F7 2010 W33 * W34 W33 * * W35 * W28 2015 W36 N2 * 2011 W37 * Church Rock Gateway Incubator Service Church Rock, NM Commercial Development Kerley Valley Commercial/Industrial Site Shonto Jct. Commercial/Industrial Park Coalmine Canyon Commercial/Industrial Site Ganado Tuba City Chilchinbeto Commercial/Industrial Park Chilchinbeto, AZ Commercial Development Kaibeto Commercial & Tourism Development Bittersprings Kaibeto, AZ Montezuma Shopping Center Shonto, AZ Coalmine Canyon, AZ N59 29.4 Turning lanes US89US89A 524 Turning lanes Aneth AZ98 UT262 331.03 22.5 Turn off Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Antelope Point Resort LeChee/Page N222 4.5 Turn off Auto Parts Store & Auto Repair Chinle, AZ No site identified yet * E82 * 2011 C17 * N77 * F15 2009 C18 * F27 N52 * 2012 Huerfano Roadside Devmt-Tourism Huerfano, NM Torreon Roadside DevelopmentTourism Torreon Tribal Road 0.4 Sidewalks, pave access road, and parking lot Gorman's Trailer Ct redevelopmt Chinle, AZ N8092 0.1 Pave access road (N8092) Convenience Store & Gas station Sheepsprings, NM Widen NM134 for turning lanes St. Michaels Wheatfields, AZ NM134 Tribal Road 0.03 Karigan Housing Wheatfields Lake Renovation 0.1 Pave street 64.2 Turning lanes, multiple access points, parking Karigan Estates Apartment Complex TeecNosPos Commercial Center St. Michaels Teec Nos Pos Convenience Store/Gas Station Chinle, AZ N12 Tribal Road 0.1 465.5 Pave street Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights No site identified yet US491 88 Paving parking lot, access road and street lights AZ264 473.4 None Turn off US160 N No site identified yet * Storage Units Chinle, AZ * 2012 Fair grounds Shiprock * Monarch Park St. Michaels F28 Karigan Restaurant St. Michaels E88 Eastern Navajo Office & Retail Complex Office Complex & Retail Center Crownpoint N9 38.9 Shiprock Shiprock US491 US491 90.7 90.8 N45 N78 N50 2012 Hotel & Conference Center Paving parking lot, access road and street lights American Family Entertainment Center V-35 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan W40 Bottled Water Processing Plant (Leupp, AZ) Leupp/Twin Arrows I-40/N6930 230.4 Pave access road (N6930) Sheepsprings NM134 0.03 Widen NM134 for turning lanes US160 320.08 Widen road for turning lanes N49 1.5 Turn off Seven Rural Commercial Facilities N79 Sheepsprings Welcome Center W33 Kerly Valley Commerical Light Industrial Site Tuba City Navajo Nation Shopping Centers Acciona Thermal Solar Project E89 Mariano Lake Trading Post Source: Division of Economic Development 2007 Notes: *No funding year has been yet established. In addition to the Division of Economic Development priority projects, several Chapters have also planned several more economic development projects for their chapters to be funded under Capital Improvement Programming. The Navajo Nation Gaming Enterprise has also proposed to build three more casinos. See Table V-27 below. Table V-27 Other Economic Development Projects Map I.d. Proposed Project Chapter Rte # MP Transportation Needs E10 Est. Open Year 2013 Convenience store/laundromat Casamero Lake CR19 9.6 Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. E26 2014 Commercial site development (11acres) Counselor US550 97.1 Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalk, street lights E39 2014 Vendor Village Crownpoint N1040 1.6 Street lights E4 2010 Smoke House Baca CR100 0 Paving parking lot, and access road, street lights, sidewalks Street lights E41 2014 Performing Arts Crownpoint N1042 2 E50 2012 Laundromat Little Water N7119 1.2 E52 2014 Bottling Co. Little Water N7119 1.2 E54 E82 2012 2011 Economic dev Arts & Crafts Manuelito Torreon 6.9 0.4 E90 Convenience Store Churchrock NM118 Tribal Road NM118 29.5 Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Turning lanes Sidewalks, pave access road, and parking lot Access mgmt/Turn out E91 Convenience Store Crownpoint N9 39.78 Access mgmt/Turn out F12 2009 Commercial Center Nahat’ah Dziil N2011 1 Pavement of roadway F13 F14 2009 2010 Convenience Store Convenience Store Naschitti Red Lake T6914 N12 12.1 41.6 F16 2010 Golf Course Development St. Michaels N12 22.4 F18 F2 F21 F23 2009 2009 2010 2010 Steamboat Cornfields White Cone Wide Ruins N25 N151 N9062 N9205 0 10.2 21.3 14.8 F24 2010 Convenience Store Convenience Store Convenience Store Convenience Store Dine Tah Gateway Ctr/Gas Station Pavement reconstruction Turn off, access Pave Access from N12 to St. Michaels School Pave Roadway, Access to north Tselani Pave Roadway and pave access Pave access on N9062 Pave roadway N12 0 Access mangement, Sign F3 F8 2009 2009 Convenience Store Convenience Store Lupton Coyote Canyon Ganado N37 N9202 5.95 0 Pave Roadway to 491 Access Traffic Paved Roadway F9 N12 2010 2010 Convenience Store Laundromat Mat Houck Cove N9010 N5018 0 0.2 N14 2011 100 Acres Master Planning Cudeii N57 0.2 N16 2013 Scenic View Hotel Cudeii N571 0 N19 2011 Red Ranch Resort Center Mexican Water N12_UT 2.4 Pave road to Pine Springs from I-40 Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights V-36 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan N25 2014 Convenience store Red Mesa US160 449.9 N43 2012 Visitor Center Shiprock US64 23.16 N49 2011 Hotel & restaurant Shiprock US491 90.8 N52 2012 16 Acres site development Teec Nos Pos US160 465.5 N60 2012 Bingo-Casino Hall Hogback N5031 0.2 N73 2012 Convenience Store N36 21.7 W12 2011 Baby Rock Commercial Ctr. US160 407.5 W19 W20 W31 W32 W7 W41 W42 2012 2012 2010 2010 2010 Tall Mt. Solar Proj. Wind Farm Visitor Ctr/Artist Plaza Antelope Cyn Visitor Ctr Truck Stop Convenience Store Convenience Store Upper Fruitland Dennehotso Navajo Mountain Shonto Shonto LeChee Gap Leupp Dennehotso Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Paving parking lot, access road and street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Access Turn out 2.7 361.6 299.5 486 14.8 417.7 Construction/access Access Turning lanes Sign Access Turn out Access Turn out Access mgmt/Turn out F30 N76 2010 2011 Casino Casino N40 US160 AZ98 US89 N15 US160 I-40/ N2013 N36 320.01 27.8 W39 2012 Casino I-40/ N6930 230.4 Pave access road(N2013) Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road(N6930) Navajo Upper Fruitland Twin Arrows Sources: Navajo Nation Gaming Enterprise, Navajo DOT’s chapter survey, RBDOs, 2009. New access roads, turnoffs, traffic signals, street lights, and accelerate/decelerate lanes are recommended for safety and accessibility for these planned economic developments. Overall transportation system connectivity is also crucial to the Navajo Nation’s economic future. Map V-12 illustrates the proposed economic development projects. Without an adequate transportation system, the Nation’s future economic growth will be severely constrained. Energy Development: Energy development is now an important part to the Navajo Nation’s overall economic development strategies. The Dine’ Power Authority (DPA) oversees energy development for the Navajo Nation has proposed four major projects as follows:  Navajo Transmission Project: The Navajo Transmission Project (NTP) is a 469-mile high voltage transmission line to supply electricity from the Four Corners region power plants to Arizona, Nevada and California substations. This project will supplant the aging existing transmission system eliminating a supply gap in the Southwest grid and providing stability and reliability in the event of outage and impacts to the power plants.  Desert Rock Power Plant: Desert Rock is a coal-fired 1,500 megawatts (MW) power plant planned to start operating in 2010. The project is located in Burnham Chapter. The power plant will create 400 jobs. The project will add commuter and heavy truck traffic impacting N5082, N5, NM371 and US491. There is also a proposed road to be built by BHP Billiton Navajo Coal Company to provide access to its mining sites north of the Desert Rock plant and to Desert Rock Power Plant access road. This road will replace approximately 18.4 miles of N5082 north of N5.  Dine’ Wind Project: DPA has identified potential three (3) high wind resource sites in Grey Mountain/Cameron, Oljatoh/Kayenta and Black Mesa areas. These sites have strong wind that can generate electricity of 200-700 MW, 50-100 MW, and 50-100 MW respectively. Aside from Wind resource, DPA also found potential sites for solar energy development.  Coalbed Methane Production Plant: The Navajo Oil and Gas Company is hoping to add revenue to the Navajo Nation’s coffer by planning to tap into more than 220 billion cubic feet gas reserve in the San Juan Basin. This is a methane gas reserve underneath Upper Fruitland, Nenahnezad and San Juan Chapters. The project will be located east of the BHP Billington Mine and includes gas gathering and compression station. The product will be delivered into some of the existing major interstate pipelines that already exist on the Navajo Nation. These four projects are shown on Map V-13 Navajo Nation Energy Development Plan. V-37 ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ ^ _ _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ W39 W40 _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ W31W34 _ ^ F7 N52 _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ F24 _ ^ ^ _ F27 F28 _ ^ _ ^ _F16 ^ F15 _^ ^ _ _ ^ E86E90 _ ^ F3 _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ N77N79 _ ^ F13 _^ ^ _^ ^ _ _ ^ ^ _ _ N50N78 _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ _^ N45 N60 _ ^ ^ _ N49 N16 E54 F14 _ ^ _ ^ C18 _ ^ _ ^ N12 F9 _ ^ F12 F26 _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ N25 Map V-12 _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ F30 _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ ^^ _ F8 _^ _F2 F23 F1 _ ^ _ ^ F18 _ ^ _ ^ C17 N19 _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ W40 Bottled Water Processing Plant N79 Sheepsprings Welcome Center E89 Mariano Lake Trading Post E10 Convenience store/laundro mat E26 Commercial site development (11acres) E39 Vendor Village E4 Smoke House E41 Performing Arts E50 Laundromat E52 Bottling Co. E54 Economic dev ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ E90 Churchrock Convenience Store E91 Crownpoint Convenience Store F1 Commercial Development F11 Commercial Development F12 Commercial Center F13 Nashitti Convenience Store F14 Convenience Store F16 Golf Course Development F18 Convenience Store F2 Convenience Store F21 Convenience Store _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ E4 _ ^ _^ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ Colorado New Mexico E88E91 _E41 E52 _^ ^ _ ^ _ ^ E89 E50 _ ^ E10 _ ^ N73 _N76 ^^ _ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS _ ^ ^ _ F21 _ ^ F11 _ ^ _ ^ W35 _ ^ _ ^ W42 _ ^ _ W12^ C17 Gorman's Trailer Ct redevelopmt N77 Convenience Store & Gas station F15 Karigan Housing C18 Wheatfields Lake Renovation F27 Karigan Estates Apartment Complex N52 TeecNosPos Commercial Center N45 Fair grounds F28 Karigan Restaurant E88 Eastern Navajo Office & Retail Complex N78 Office Complex & Retail Center N50 Hotel & Conference Center W41 W36 _ ^ _ ^ W33 _ ^ _ ^ W7 W37 ^ _ _ ^ ^ W32 _ _ ^ F26 Nahata Dziil Shopping Center E86 Latex Gloves Manufacturing Plant F7 Commercial Development W34 Shonto Commercial/Industrial Park W33 Kerley Valley Commercial/Industrial W35 Chilchinbeto Commercial/Industrial Park W28 Commercial Development W36 Kaibeto Commercial & Tourism Development N2 Montezuma Shopping Center W37 Antelope Point Resort E82 Torreon Roadside Development-Tourism Legend _ ^ _ ^ W28 Utah Arizona N2 _ ^ _ ^ E26 E82 _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ 0 5 10 30 40 Miles N49 Hotel & restaurant N60 Bingo-Casino Hall N73 Convenience Store W7 Truck Stop W12 Baby Rock Commercial Ctr. W31 Visitor Ctr/Artist Plaza W32 Antelope Cyn Visitor Ctr W41 Leupp Convenience Store W42 Dennenotso Convenience Store F30 2010 Pinta Road Casino N76 2011 Upper Fruitland Casino W39 2012 Twin Arrows Casino 20 ± Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Gravel Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved US and State Highways Economic Dev Priority Chapter Economic Dev Project Casino F23 Convenience Store F24 Dine Tah Gateway Ctr/Gas Station F3 Convenience Store F8 Convenience Store F9 Convenience Store N12 Laundromat Mat N14 100 Acres Master Planning N16 Scenic View Hotel N19 Red Ranch Resort Center N25 Convenience store N43 Visitor Center _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ Legend " J Flagstaff 0 LeChee " J Page Grey Mountain Utah Arizona 5 10 " ) 20 ± ( ! Tuba City 30 40 Miles " J Winslow ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Nahata Dziil ( ! Map V-13 ( ! Chinle " ) " ) Shiprock ( ! " J Gallup " ) Window Rock " ) Fort Defiance ( ! k j " J Farmington Grants " J Crownpoint " ) Paragon Ranch BHP Navajo Mine k j Northern Chuska Mountain Navajo Nation Energy Development Plan Holbrook " J ( ! Black Mesa Kayenta " ) Oljato-Kayenta New Mexico Colorado ( ! Secondary Growth Center Border Town ( ! " J Power/Gas Plant New Lands NIIP Wind Solar Power Plant Coal Western Northern Fort Defiance Eastern Chinle ( ! AGENCY Type Wind Farms k j Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Gravel Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved US and State Highways Interstate 40 Transmission Primary Growth Center " ) Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Community Development: The Navajo Nation and its chapters are actively pursuing community development. The majority of the Navajo Nation Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects are located within the chapter house tracts. Paving the access roads to chapter houses will also provide better transportation access to these facilities. Table V-28 lists the 2009 Navajo Nation CIP listing with related transportation needs for each CIP project. See also Map V-14 for project locations. Table V-28. 2009 Capital Improvement Program Map I.d. Est. Open Year Project Name Chapter Route # Project Route Milepost Transportation Improvement Needs C10 2011 Public Safety Cmplx Pinon N8030 0.9 C11 2010 Police Sub-station Round Rock N12 96.6 C12 2011 Senior Ctr Tsaile N12 76.2 C15 2010 Multi-Purpose Ctr Whippoorwill N602 0.1 Turn off, parking lot pavement, sign Turn off, parking lot pavement, sign Turn off, parking lot pavement, sign Parking lot pavement C16 2011 Transfer station Whippoorwill N65 6.75 Pave access road C2 2011 New Chapter Hse Blue Gap N406 0.05 Parking lot pavement C3 2014 Multi-Purpose Ctr Blue Gap N406 0.05 Parking lot pavement C4 2014 Multi-Purpose Ctr Blue Gap N8068 9.05 C5 2010 Veteran Cemetery Chinle N8094 4.2 Pave access road, parking lot pavement Pave access road C6 2011 New Chapter Hse Hardrock Tribal Road 0.15 C8 2012 New Chapter Hse Nazlini N27 16.85 Pave access road, parking lot pavement Pave access road, C9 2012 ARISE Hogan Bldg Pinon N8030 0.6 Parking lot pavement E1 2011 Senior Center Alamo NM169 25.6 E11 2011 Senior Center Chichiltah N7046 4.3 E12 2014 Jones Ranch Bldg Chichiltah N7046 4.3 E13 2011 Techno Center Chichiltah N7046 4.3 E15 2012 Multi-Purpose Center Chichiltah N7046 4.3 E16 2010 Sr/VA Center Church Rock CR33 0.2 E18 2011 Police Substation Church Rock NM118 28.8 E19 2012 Multi-Purpose Center Church Rock NM118 29.5 E2 2013 Fire Station Alamo NM169 25.6 E20 2014 VA Memorial Park Church Rock NM118 29.2 E21 2010 Senior Center Counselor US550 97.9 E22 2011 Computer Lab Counselor US550 97.9 E23 2012 Fire Equip & Bldg Counselor US550 97.1 E24 2013 Multi-Purpose Ctr Counselor US550 97.9 E25 2013 Transfer Station Counselor US550 97.9 E27 2010 Crownpoint N1040 2.2 E28 2011 Crownpoint Tribal Road E3 2013 Chapter Ofc & Warehouse Domestic Violence Shelter Multi-Purpose Center Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalk, street lights Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalk, street lights Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalk, street lights Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalk, street lights Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalk, street lights Paving parking lot, sidewalk Alamo NM169 25.6 E30 2012 Multi-Purpose Crownpoint N1042 2.16 Paving parking lot, sidewalk Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks Street lights V-40 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan E31 2012 Rodeo Ground Crownpoint N9 36.2 Turn off E32 2012 Agency Admin Cmplx Crownpoint N1042 1.2 Street lights E34 2013 Chapter Cmplx Crownpoint N1040 2.17 Street lights E35 2013 Youth Ctr Crownpoint N1040 2.02 Street lights E36 2014 Judicial Cmplx Crownpoint N1042 2.3 Street lights E37 2014 VA Ofc Crownpoint N1040 2.17 Street lights E42 2010 Senior Ctr Huerfano CR7165 0.15 Street lights, new pave asphalt. E43 2010 Warehouse Huerfano CR7165 0.15 Street lights, new pave asphalt. E44 2011 New Cemetery Huerfano CR7150 5.9 Street lights, new pave asphalt. E47 2011 Warehouse Lake Valley CR7750 0.1 E48 2011 Multi-Purpose Lake Valley CR7750 0.1 E5 2011 Senior Center Baca Tribal Road 0.1 Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, and access road, street lights, sidewalks E51 2013 Senior Ctr/Preschool Little Water N7119 1.2 E53 2011 Multi-Purpose Manuelito CR4 0.3 E55 2011 Senior Ctr Nageezi US550 115.4 E56 2010 Library Ojo Encino N474 16.8 E57 2012 Fire Station Ojo Encino CR474 4.5 E58 2012 Youth Ctr, Pub Ojo Encino N474 16.8 E59 2010 Senior Ctr N9 76.1 E6 2012 New Chapter House Pueblo Pintado Becenti N7120 0.8 E60 2011 Fire Station Pueblo Pintado N9 76.1 E62 2013 Transfer Station Pueblo Pintado N9 76.3 Paving parking lot, and access road, street lights, sidewalks. E63 2014 Senior Center Red Rock CR2 0.7 w. NM602 Paving parking lot, and access road, street lights, sidewalks E64 2010 Multi-Purpose Rock Springs CR9 2.0 s. NM264 Turn off E65 2012 Police Sub-Office Rock Springs CR9 2.0 s. NM264 Turn off E68 2011 Senior Ctr Standing Rock N7057 0.7 E69 2013 Multi-Purpose Standing Rock N7057 0.6 E70 2011 First Response Thoreau NM371 1.7 E73 2010 Child Care Tohajiilee N56 6 E74 2011 New Chapter Hse Tohajiilee N56 3.7 E75 2011 Detention Ctr Tohajiilee N56 6 E76 2011 Youth Multi Tohajiilee N56 3.7 E77 2011 Police Substation Tohajiilee N56 6 E78 2011 Fire/Rescue Tohajiilee N56 6 Need of sidewalks, pave access road, and parking lot. Need of sidewalks, pave access road, and parking lot. Need of sidewalks, pave access road, and parking lot Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving of parking lot, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, and access road, street lights, sidewalks. Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Paving parking lot, and access road, street lights, sidewalks. V-41 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan E79 2012 Tribal Cmplx Tohajiilee N56 5 E8 2012 9.6 2010 Casamero Lake Torreon CR19 E80 Veteran Administration Bldg Police Substation Tribal Road 0.4 E81 2010 Multi-Purpose Torreon Tribal Road 0.4 E83 2010 Senior Ctr N9 62.9 E85 2013 Youth Multi N9 62.9 Pave access road and parking lot. E9 2013 Senior Ctr Whitehorse Lake Whitehorse Lake Casamero Lake Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. Sidewalks, pave access road, and parking lot Sidewalks, pave access road, and parking lot Pave access road and parking lot. CR19 9.6 Paving parking lot, access road, sidewalks, street lights. F10 2010 Community Chapter Complex Jeddito N9751 7.5 Pave Roadway for access route F20 2012 Multi Purpose Bldg Twin Lakes US491 13.2 Street lights and sidewalk F22 2009 Senior Citizen Center Wide Ruins N9345 0 Pave roadway F4 2011 New Chapter House Dilkon F5 N1 2011 2011 Senior Citizen Center Solid Waste facility Dilkon Aneth UT162 22.6 N10 2012 Warehouse building Cove N5018 0.2 N13 2010 Community cemetery Cudeii US64 18.8 N15 2012 Multi-Purpose building Cudeii N57 0.2 N17 2010 Multi-Purpose building N12_UT 2.4 N18 2011 New Chapter House N12_UT 2.4 N21 2011 Education Center Mexican Water Mexican Water Nenahnezad N365 1.6 N22 2012 Newcomb US491 56.7 N23 2013 Multi-Purpose building & Veterans Park Senior Citizen garage Newcomb N5001 12.2 N26 2010 Veterans Center Red Valley N13 25 N27 2011 New Chapter House Red Valley N13 23.8 N28 2011 Red Valley N13_NM 0 N29 2012 Multi-Purpose building/Head Start Transfer Station Red Valley N5020 0.15 N30 2012 Apache County Yard Red Valley N13 24 N32 2011 New Chapter House Rock Point US191 495.3 N33 2012 Elderly Group Home Rock Point US191 495.3 N34 2014 Transfer Station Rock Point US191 495.3 N35 2012 Warehouse Hogback N5031 0.2 N36 2013 Post Office Sanostee N34 17 N37 2014 Public Safety building Sanostee N34 16.7 N39 2014 Storage facility Sanostee N34 16.7 N40 2014 Day Care Center NM134 0.4 N41 2014 Warehouse building N5008 0.5 N42 2014 Community library Sheep Springs Sheep Springs Shiprock US64 23.15 N44 2011 Court building complex Shiprock N531 Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road and parking lot, street lights Pave access road and parking lot, street lights Pave access road and parking lot, street lights Pave access road and parking lot, street lights Pave access road and parking lot, street lights Paving parking lot, access road and street lights Paving parking lot, access road and street lights Paving parking lot, and street lights Paving parking lot, and street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Paving parking lot, access road V-42 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan and street lights N46 2014 Multi-Purpose building Shiprock US491 90.9 N48 2013 Tribal Museum Shiprock N531 N5 2014 Warehouse Aneth UT162 22.5 N51 2010 Solid Waste facility Teec Nos Pos US160 459.6 N54 2014 Multi-Purpose building Burnum N5080 0.8 N55 2011 Warehouse Burnum N5080 0.8 N56 2012 New Chapter House Sweetwater N35 18.6 N58 2012 New Senior Center Sweetwater N35 18.9 N59 2010 Multi-Purpose building Hogback N5031 0.2 N6 2010 New Senior Center Beclabito US64 3.8 N61 2012 Library & computer lab Hogback N5031 0.2 N63 2011 Multi-Purpose Two Grey Hills N5000 15.2 N65 2013 New Chapter House Two Grey Hills N19 11.06 N67 2011 Fire/Police Station N3005 0.8 N68 2012 Senior Citizen Center N3005 0.8 N69 2012 Library N3005 0.8 N71 2014 Day Care Center N3005 0.8 N75 2013 Nursing Home N562 0.3 N9 2010 Multi-Purpose building Upper Fruitland Upper Fruitland Upper Fruitland Upper Fruitland Upper Fruitland Beclabito US64 3.8 W1 2011 Senior Crt W10 2011 W13 Paving parking lot, access road and street lights Paving parking lot, access road and street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights N15 27.4 Access Turn out Multi-Purpose Bldg. Brirdsprings Coalmine canyon N6720 Rd Const. Access Turn out 2011 Multi-Purpose Bldg. Dennehotso N6460 39.1 Sect 50/.73 Construction/access W14 2011 Multi-Purpose Bldg. Kaibeto N21 28.6 Construction/access W15 2012 Safety Complx Kaibeto N21 28.6 Construction/access W16 2012 One-Stop Tribal Cmplx. Kaibeto N21 28.6 Construction/access W18 2010 Detention Bldg. Kayenta US163 398.17 Construction/access W2 2011 Senior Crt Gap N20 0.08 Access Turn out W21 2013 Gov't Cmplx. Shonto N6322 4.8 Rd. Construction/access W22 2012 Multi-Purpose Bldg. Tonalea N21 0.07 Turn out Lane W23 2012 Adult Detention Ctr. Tuba City N1017 0.8 Access Turn out W25 2012 Maintenace Yard Gap US89/N23 486.9 Turn out Lane W27 2015 Multi-Purpose Bldg. Bittersprings US89 523.6 Turn out Lane W4 2012 Youth Ctr. Cedar Ridge US89 502.2 Access turn out W5 2010 New Chapter House Cedar Ridge US89 505.2 Access Turn out W6 2010 Police/Fire station Gap N20 0.08 Access Turn out W8 2011 New Chapter House US89 466.2 Turn out Lane W9 2011 Senior Ctr. Cameron Coalmine Canyon N6720 39.1 Rd Const. Access Turn out Source: 2009 CIP Project Priorities (WIND) and 2009 Navajo DOT’s chapter survey. V-43 ^ C10 Pinon Public Safety Cmplx _ _ C11 Round Rock Police Sub-station ^ _ C12 Tsaile Senior Ctr ^ _ C15 Whippoorwill Multi-Purpose Ctr ^ _ C16 Whippoorwill Transfer station ^ _ C2 Blue Gap New Chapter Hse ^ _ C3 Blue Gap Multi-Purpose Ctr ^ _ C4 Blue Gap Multi-Purpose Ctr ^ _ C5 Chinle Veteran Cemetery ^ _ C6 Hardrock New Chapter Hse ^ _ C8 Nazlini New Chapter Hse ^ _ C9 Pinon ARISE Hogan Bldg ^ _ E1 Alamo Senior Center ^ _ E11 Chichiltah Senior Center ^ _ E12 Chichiltah Jones Ranch Bldg ^ _ E13 Chichiltah Techno Center ^ _ E15 Chichiltah Multi-Purpose Center ^ _ E16 Church Rock Sr/VA Center ^ _ E18 Church Rock Police Substation ^ _ E19 Church Rock Multi-Purpose Center ^ Legend Legend _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ W1 _ ^ _ ^ E37 Crownpoint VA Ofc E42 Huerfano Senior Ctr E43 Huerfano Warehouse E44 Huerfano New Cemetery E31 Crownpoint Rodeo Ground E32 Crownpoint Agency Admin Cmplx E34 Crownpoint Chapter Cmplx E35 Crownpoint Youth Ctr E36 Crownpoint Judicial Cmplx _ ^^ _ _ ^ ^ _ F4 F5 _ ^ _ ^ F10 _ _^ _^ ^ _ ^ _ ^ C4 C3 C10C9^ _ C2 _ ^ _ C15 ^ C16 _ ^ _ ^ W18 _ N56N58 ^ N51 _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ ^^ _ _^ _ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^^ _ _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ E68 Standing Rock Senior Ctr E69 Standing Rock Multi-Purpose E70 Thoreau First Response E73 Tohajiilee Child Care E60 Pueblo Pintado Fire Station E62 Pueblo Pintado Transfer Station E63 Red Rock Senior Center E64 Rock Springs Multi-Purpose E65 Rock Springs Police Sub-Office E48 Lake Valley Multi-Purpose E5 Baca Senior Center E51 Little Water Senior Ctr/Preschool E53 Manuelito Multi-Purpose E55 Nageezi Senior Ctr E56 Ojo Encino Library E57 Ojo Encino Fire Station E58 Ojo Encino Youth Ctr, Pub E59 Pueblo Pintado Senior Ctr E6 Becenti New Chapter House E47 Lake Valley Warehouse Colorado New Mexico _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ Map V-14 ^ _ ^ _ _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ _^ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ ^^ _ _ _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ F5 Dilkon Senior Citizen Center N1 Aneth Solid Waste facility N10 Cove Warehouse building N13 Cudeii Community cemetery E9 Casamero Lk Senior Ctr F10 Jeddito Community Chapter Complex F20 Twin Lakes Multi Purpose Bldg F22 Wide Ruins Senior Citizen Center F4 Dilkon New Chapter House E75 Tohajiilee Detention Ctr E76 Tohajiilee Youth Multi E77 Tohajiilee Police Substation E78 Tohajiilee Fire/Rescue E79 Tohajiilee Tribal Cmplx E8 Casamero Lk Veteran Administration Bldg E80 Torreon Police Substation E81 Torreon Multi-Purpose E83 White Horse Lk Senior Ctr E85 White Horse Lk Youth Multi E74 Tohajiilee New Chapter Hse ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ ^^ _ _ _ ^ ^ _ N37 Sanostee Public Safety building N39 Sanostee Storage facility N40 Sheepsprings Day Care Center N41 Sheepsprings Warehouse building N32 Rock Point New Chapter House N33 Rock Point Elderly Group Home N34 Rock Point Transfer Station N35 Hogback Warehouse N36 Sanostee Post Office ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ E79E77 _ ^ E76 ^ _ E78 ^ _ E73E75 _ ^ _ ^ N68 Uppr N69 Uppr N71 Uppr N75 Uppr Fruitland Senior Citizen Center Fruitland Library Fruitland Day Care Center Fruitland Nursing Home N6 Beclabito New Senior Center N61 Hogback Library & computer lab N63 Two Grey Hills Multi-Purpose N65 Two Grey Hills New Chapter House N67 Uppr Fruitland Fire/Police Station ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ 30 40 Miles W6 Gap Police/Fire station W8 Cameron New Chapter House W9 Coalmine Cyn Senior Ctr. W23 Tuba City Adult Detention Ctr. W25 Gap Maintenance Yard W27 Bittersprings Multi-Purpose Bldg. W4 Cedar Ridge Youth Ctr. W5 Cedar Ridge New Chapter House W1 Birdsprings Senior Crt W10 Coalmine Cyn Multi-Purpose Bldg. W13 Dennehotso Multi-Purpose Bldg. W14 Kaibeto Multi-Purpose Bldg. W15 Kaibeto Safety Complx W16 Kaibeto One-Stop Tribal Cmplx. W18 Kayenta Detention Bldg. W2 Gap Senior Crt W21 Shonto Gov't Cmplx. W22 Tonalea Multi-Purpose Bldg. N9 Beclabito Multi-Purpose building 20 ± Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Gravel Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved US and State Highways CIP Project 0 5 10 Legend N44 Shiprock Court building complex N46 Shiprock Multi-Purpose building N48 Shiprock Tribal Museum N5 Aneth Warehouse N51 Teec Nos Pos Solid Waste facility N54 Burnham Multi-Purpose building N55 Burnham Warehouse N56 Sweetwater New Chapter House N58 Sweetwater New Senior Center N59 Hogback Multi-Purpose building N42 Shiprock Community library E2E3 ^E1 _ N17 Mexican Water Multi-Purpose building N18 Mexican Water New Chapter House N21 Nenahnezad Education Center N22 Newcomb Multi-Purpose Bldg & Veterans Park N23 Newcomb Senior Citizen garage N26 Red Valley Veterans Center N27 Red Valley New Chapter House N28 Red Valley Multi-Purpose building/Head Start N29 Red Valley Transfer Station N30 Red Valley Apache County Yard N15 Cudeii Multi-Purpose building _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ _ N6N9 N48N61N35 ^ _ ^ _ N42 ^ N46 N69N68 N33N34 _N44 _ ^ _ ^ _^ ^ _^ N32 N59^ N15 _N75 ^ _ ^ _ N10 N29N30 N67N71 N26 N28 _N27 C11 ^ E43E44 _^ N37N39 _ ^ _E42 ^ N55 _N63N36N65 N54 ^ C12 E55 _ ^ E25 N22_N23 _ ^ _ E24 ^ ^N41 E22 _N40 ^ _ ^ E21 E47 E48 E23 C5 _ ^ _ ^ E60E62 E56E58E57 _ ^ _^ _E59 ^ ^ C8 _ E83 E85 E6 E68 E69 E80E81 _ ^ _ ^ _ _E31^ _ ^ ^ F20 E36E37 E32 E35 E51 _^ ^ _E65 ^ _ E64 _ E30E34^ E19E20 E8E9 _ E63 ^ E18 _ _ ^ E53 ^ _ ^ E70 F22 E5 _ E16 ^ ^ _ ^ _^ _ ^ E13E15 _ E12 _E11 ^ W13 _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ N17N18 _ ^ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS _ ^ C6 _ ^ W21 E20 Church Rock VA Memorial Park E21 Counselor Senior Center E22 Counselor Computer Lab E23 Counselor Fire Equip & Bldg E24 Counselor Multi-Purpose Ctr E25 Counselor Transfer Station E27 Crownpoint Chapter Ofc & Warehouse E28 Crownpoint Domestic Violence Shelter E3 Alamo Multi-Purpose Center E30 Crownpoint Multi-Purpose E2 Alamo Fire Station _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ W22 W15W16 _ W14 ^ _ ^W2W6 ^ _ W25 _ ^ W23 _^ ^ _ W10W9 _ ^ W8 _ ^ W4W5 W27 Utah Arizona N1 N5 _ ^ 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan NEED 8: Scenic Byways, Tourism & Recreation Needs Tourism is a major industry that can generate $100 million dollars and it supports 3,500 jobs on the Navajo Nation according to the Division of Economic Development. To promote tourism on the Navajo Nation, the Navajo Nation Tourism Department has developed a comprehensive Navajo Nation Scenic Byways Plan identifying scenic routes that links all of the Nation’s attractions that are most scenic, culturally significant and have naturally intrinsic qualities. Among these are the Canyon de Chelly National Monument, Lake Powell, Monument Valley, Navajo National Monument, Antelope Canyon, Four Corners Monument and Chaco Culture National Historical Park. These natural and cultural resources have provided new sources of income to Navajo people and the surrounding communities. The Navajo Nation Tourism Department lead, Parks and Recreation, Navajo Division of Transportation, Chapters and Non-profit organizations all support scenic byways development and provide matching funds to state and federal grants in order to implement the Navajo Nation Scenic Byways plan and projects. Scenic Byways and Projects: The Navajo Nation Scenic Byways Plan on Map V-15 shows the Navajo Nation designated scenic byway corridors. Each corridor has been named based on its intrinsic quality whether it is natural, scenic or of Navajo cultural and historical characters (see Table V-29). The table also identifies transportation improvements that are needed to enhance and support each byway development project. Table V-29. Scenic Byway Related Transportation Needs State Scenic Byways Fredonia Vermillion Cliffs Naatsis’aan/Navajo Mountain Rte No. N12 N64 US89A AZ98 AZ Dine’tah/Among the People BMP EMP Byway Dev. Proj Projects Year 0.0 75.7 Lupton Gateway 2010 0.0 24.5 Ctr 523.9 546.5 4.7 294.7 361.6 Antelope 2010 Canyon Kios Kaibeto Kios Inscription Hse/Navajo Mtn Kios Shonto Visitor Information Kayenta-Monument Valley US163 Tse’nikani/Flat Rock Mesa US191 393.5 416.7 MV Visitor Center 462.0 510.3 NM Trail of the Ancients UT Trail of the Ancients N9 N13 N19 N5001 US64 NM134 NM264 NM371 US491 US550 UT162 US163 UT262 39.8 0 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123.1 14.6 0 0 53.1 21.1 18.3 12.4 31.6 22.3 16.3 105.5 107.0 150.0 32.0 20.6 22.6 Proj MP 0.0 Existing ADT 1213 4.7 299.5 Kios 331.06 349.3K aibeto Kios 33615 168 5289 Kios 2210 01885Ka ibeto Kios 31885 Transportation Needs Signage Access Mgmt Signage Signage Access Mgmt Signage Signage Signage Signage Source: Navajo Tourism Department, 2009. Other tourism developments include plans for the following by the Division of Economic Development: 1. Completion of the Antelope Marina and Resort Phases II & III (N222). 2. Shiprock RV Park V-45 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Map V-15. Navajo Nation Scenic Byways V-46 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Recreation: The U.S. National Park Service operates the Canyon De Chelly National Monument, Lake Powell, Chaco Culture National Historical Park and Navajo National Monument. The Navajo Parks and Recreation Department, established in 1958, manages tribal parks, monuments, a zoo, five fairgrounds and administers fair events and youth recreational programs. Many Navajo parks and recreation areas have poor access. Lack of reasonable access to most Navajo recreation sites, many of which are potential tourist attractions, has discouraged their use. The Navajo Parks and Recreation Department’s revenue is mainly generated from entrance fees collected from Monument Valley Tribal Park and tribal fairs. Other park facilities have no entrance fee. Revenues are primarily used for facility maintenance, and are often insufficient to cover major road improvements. Improvement of access roads to tribal parks and tourist attractions will attract more park users and tourists alike. Good roads to the tribal parks will also extend tourists’ time of stay because there will be more places to explore and things to do. Table V-30 lists all Navajo Nation parks’ access improvement needs, and Map V-16 illustrates these needs. Table V-30. Park Access Needs with Project Priority NUM W41 W42 Project Priority 1 2 W43 3 N80 W46 4 5 W44 W45 F31 6 7 8 F32 9 N81 10 C19 11 Park Name Chapter Monument Valley Tribal Park Marble Canyon Tribal Park Ojatoh Bodaway Route MP No. Non-sys 0 N6110 25.0 Transportation Needs Pave valley (13.0 mi loop road) drive Pave 25.0 mi N6110 to confluence for Grand Canyon East project from Cedar Ridge Little Colorado Gorge Overlook Cameron N6140 4.0 Improve 4.0 mi access road (gravel) to 1st viewpoint Four Corners Monument Teec Nos Pos US160 471.2 Pave parking lot Monument Valley Tribal Park Ojatoh N42 21.8 Pave 2.0 mi loop road around administrative area Upper Antelope Canyon Tribal Park Lechee N222 5.2 Pave parking lot Lower Antelope Canyon Tribal Park Lechee N222 3.5 Pave parking lot Navajo Nation Fairgrounds St. Michaels AZ264 475.0 Pave entire fairgrounds for vehicle parking Bowl Canyon Recreation Area Mexican N31 13.3 Gravel 9.5 mi N31 from Navajo to (Camp Asaayi) Springs N31/N30 jct. Shiprock Pinnacle Shiprock Tribal 2.0 Gravel 2.0 mi Access road and parking Rd lot Wheatfields Lake Wheatfields N12 64.6 Gravel 2.0 mi loop road around north campground Source: Navajo Parks and Recreation Department, August 18, 2009 Chapters also have planned for additional parks and recreation projects for their communities, see Table V-31. V-47 _ ^W24 ñ ð ò ð ñ ò ñ ð ò W41 W46 Map V-16 ð ñ ò ñ ð ò F32 ^ _ ð ñ ò ñ ð ò F31 C19 ð ñ ò ñ ð ò E7 _ ^ _ ^ N81 N47 N62N64 _ N8 ^ _N7 ^ ð ñ ò ð ñ ò N80 ð ñ ò ñ ð ò N53 _ ^ E29 E38 N20 N72 _ ^ _ ^ Colorado New Mexico W41 1. Monument Valley Tribal Park W42 2. Marble Canyon Tribal Park W43 3. Little Colorado Gorge Overlook N80 4. Four Corners Monument W46 5. Monument Valley Tribal Park W44 6. Upper Antelope Canyon Tribal Park W45 7. Lower Antelope Canyon Tribal Park F31 8. Window Rock Navajo Nation Fairgrounds F32 9. Bowl Canyon (Camp Asaayi) N81 10. Shiprock Pinnacle C19 11. Wheatfields Lake ð ñ ò ð ñ ò ð ñ ò ð ñ ò ð ñ ò ð ñ ò ð ñ ò ð ñ ò ð ñ ò ð ñ ò ð ñ ò ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ E29 2011. Crownpoint Skateboard Park N7 2011. Beclabito Skate Park E72 2010. Tohajiilee Skateboard Park E7 2010. Breadsprings Rodeo Arena N66 2010. Uppr Fruitland Fairgrounds improvement N62 2010. Two Grey Hills Rodeo Ground N47 2010. Shiprock Skate Park facilities N20 2010. Nenahnezad Morgan Lake Recreation center Chapter Park & Recreation Projects ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ _E72 ^ N72 2015. Uppr Fruitland Community Park E38 2014. Crownpoint Public Park N53 2013. Teec Nos Pos Rodeo Ground N3 2013. Aneth Veteran Memorial Park N4 2013. Aneth Ball Park W24 2012. Cedar Ridge Veteran Park _ ^ ð ñ ò Legend N64 2012. Two Grey Hills Veterans Park N8 2012. Beclabito Picnic ground PROPOSED PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS Dept. of Parks & Recreation Priority ð ñ ò ñ ð ò W43 W42 ð ñ ò ñ ð ò ñ ð ò ð ñ ò Utah W45 Arizona ñ ð ò ð ñ òW44 _N3 ^ 0 5 10 20 ± 30 Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Gravel Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved US and State Highways Chapter Recreation Project 40 Miles Dept. Parks & Recreation Project 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table V-31. Chapters’ Planned Park and Recreation Projects NUM E29 Estimated Open Year 2011 Project Name Chapter Skateboard Park Crownpoint E38 2014 Public Park Crownpoint E7 2010 Rodeo Arena E72 2010 N20 2010 N3 Route # Transportation Improvement Needs N1042 Project Route Milepost 2.1 N1040 2.1 Street lights Bread Springs CR10 1.9 Gravel road Skateboard Park Tohajiilee N56 3.7 Nenahnezad 2013 Morgan Lake Recreation center Veteran Memorial Park Aneth Tribal Road UT162 22.3 N4 2013 Ball Park Aneth UT162 22.3 N47 2010 Skate Park facilities Shiprock US64 21.5 N53 2013 Rodeo Grounds Teec Nos Pos US160 465.6 N62 2010 Rodeo Ground Two Grey Hills N5000 15.1 N64 2012 Veterans Park Two Grey Hills N19 11 N66 2010 Fairgrounds improvement Upper Fruitland N562 0.2 N7 2011 Skate Park Beclabito US64 3.9 N72 2015 Community Park Upper Fruitland N3005 1 N8 2012 Picnic ground Beclabito US64 3.8 Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Paving parking lot, access road and street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights Pave access road, and parking lot, street lights W24 2012 Veteran Park Cedar Ridge US89 505.2 Street lights Access Turn out Sources: Navajo DOT’s chapter survey, 2009. Table V-32 Summarizes the total scenic byway, tourism and recreation transportation needs. Table V-32. Total Scenic Byways, Tourism, and Recreation Transportation Needs Transportation Needs Navajo-BIA Road Miles N/A State Road Miles N/A County Road Miles N/A Non-Sys Road Miles N/A Total Miles Tribal Park: Access road improvements 38.5 N/A N/A 19.0 57.5 Chapters’ planned park and recreation projects: Access road improvements Need 8. Total N/A N/A 7.0 3.0 10.0 38.5 N/A 7.0 22.0 67.5 Scenic byways and tourism projects: Signage and access management improvements N/A NEED 9: Multimodal Transportation Needs To meet SAFETEA-LU requirements regarding multimodal transportation, transportation planning must promote the use of other modes of transportation. The multimodal needs related to sidewalks and bicycle mobility in the growth centers are included in Chapter VII, Growth Center Mobility Improvements. Need 9 focuses on aviation, railroad and transit related improvements only Airport Access Needs: The Chapter VIII, Navajo Nation Airport Needs has identified airport development needs and recommendations based on State aviation studies and Navajo DOT estimates. The recommendations include new construction of one primary airport in Oljatoh and improvement of eight (8) secondary airports in Ramah Navajo, Rock Point, Navajo Mountain, Monument Valley, Huerfano, Pinon, Dilcon, Alamo and Nahat’a Dziil (New Lands) communities. Priority will be given to the primary airports that are already recognized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in its National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) and are therefore, eligible for FAA funding. However, improvement and new V-49 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan construction of secondary airports are also recommended to provide air transportation to health care facilities and provide emergency landing strips in remote areas. The planned airport developments will help improve air service coverage for the entire reservation including Navajo satellite communities such as Ramah. Approximately 8.5 miles of new access road construction and paving of existing roads are needed to serve the proposed airport development (Table V-33). See also Map VIII-2 for proposed airport development. Table V-33. Airport Road Construction Needs Agency Primary Airports Route Number Est. Access Road Length (miles) CHL Oljatoh Non-System Route (New) 2 SR Rock Point N502/N35 1 WNA Navajo Mountain Non-System Route (New) 1 WNA Monument Valley Non-System Route (New) 0.5 CHL Pinon Non-System Route (New) 0.5 FTD Dilcon Non-System Route (New) 2 NL Nahat’a Dziil Non-System Route (New) 0.5 Alamo Non-System Route (New) 1.0 Ramah Total Navajo-BIA Roads: 1 State Roads: 0.5 Non-Sys Roads: 7 Total: 8.5 Navajo Transit Route Needs: Navajo Transit System Five Year Plan: May 2009: According to the Navajo Transit System Five Year Plan dated May 2009, ridership in 2008 was approximately 70,000 trips per year; however, it is forecasted that there is an estimated demand for transit of nearly 700,000 one-way passenger trips per year. The plan addresses five key areas: Management/Administration, Operations/Service, Marketing, Coordination, and Funding. The Navajo Transit System (NTS) provides public transportation services on the Navajo Reservation, serving 57 of 110 chapters. NTS operates intercity bus service on (13) fixed routes linking Navajo growth centers and adjacent border towns. The Tuba City-Window Rock,Toyei-Window Rock, Kayenta-Ft. Defiance, Crownpoint-Ft. Defiance, Dilkon-Window Rock and routes operate one round trip per day Monday to Friday. Window Rock and Gallup routes are core service routes operating four and two round trips each weekday, respectively. In January 2009, the Flagstaff to Tuba City Route was started; this is a one hour trip that will run four times per day. In 2009, the Kayenta to Tuba City route began to provide a one-hour, one-way trip. NTS connects with Hopi Transit System, Greyhound Busline, Amtrak Passenger Train, Gallup Transit Express, Red Apple Transit, and Flagstaff Mountain Line. NTS has several connections with Navajo Senior Centers along the routes. Most NTS fixed routes operate along state highways. NTS fixed route ridership has increased over the years. Ridership was 65,513 in 2008 and it is expected to increase by 20% in FY 2009, due to the $1.00 per day ride fee that was established in November 2008 and will remain in place until November 2010. Fixed route customers are classified as 51% general, 22% elderly, 20% commuters and disabled, youth and students making up the rest. NTS buses pick up riders at designated stops, but no NTS stations have been constructed. NTS charters provide transportation for groups, organizations and private tours on and off the Navajo Nation twelve months a year. NTS charter service includes transportation to Arizona State University, University of New Mexico, Haskell University, and other colleges.The recommendations within each area are summarized in Table V-34. V-50 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table V-34. Navajo Transit Recommendations Key Area Management Topic Wage Adjustments Operations Personnel/Staffing Route Service Expansion Transit Centers Local Service / Regional Transportation Hubs Navajo Transit Facility Marketing Coordination Capital Plan Equipment Funding Section 5311 ARRA Recommendations Conduct review of driver’s wages/wage history and make adjustments, as appropriate. Add two positions to support marketing and planning. Monitor performance of newly added routes. Implement Routes 11 (Flag/Tuba City) and 12 (Kayenta/Tuba City) Review cost/feasibility of developing transit centers at major activity center to support the truck route system. Identify locations for transit centers that could be expanded to provide connections with other regional transit services. Expand existing transit centers to provide local feeder service to more remote areas and secondary growth centers. Add local circulator service in Fort Defiance/Window Rock area to provide access throughout the day to government and activity centers. Complete construction planning for new facility. Develop marketing program. Partner with other agencies and transportation providers to coordinate transportation services, especially for human services, colleges, employers, and Navajo TANF to increase ridership. Purchase vehicles, shelters, and other amenities. Fund New Maintenance Facility construction. Apply for Section 5311 funding. Apply for ARRA funding; possible source of funding for new NTS facility. At the public open house meetings held for the LRTP, many people noted that there was a need for additional signage to designate the available transit routes, the stop locations, and the schedules. It is recommended that a transit signage program be pursued to encourage ridership and awareness of the transit system that is available. Navajo Transit provides long-haul type routes between the population centers. Additional investigation should be done to identify if local circulator, call-n-ride or other short trip/demand response type system is supportable with in the growth centers. Transit System Long Range Plan: The Navajo Transit System (NTS) Program under the Division of General Services completed the NTS Five Year Plan in 2009. The NTS plan projects transit demand to increase at 1.4% annually estimating approximately 700,000 passenger trips, generally for and between the primary and secondary growth centers in 2025. The plan outlines strategic goals and objectives for NTS to meet the future demand including increasing ridership and enhancing service quality, capabilities and efficiency. Implementing the NTS strategic plan will be a long-term activity. The basic elements of the NTS strategic plan are summarized in Table V-35. Table V-35. Navajo Transit Long Range Plan Recommendation Action Item 1 Name Potential Locations Recommendations Regional Transportation Hubs Construct 8 regional transportation hubs. These facilities would serve as the central location for feeder bus routes to neighboring chapters and secondary growth centers. 2 Facility Upgrades and New Maintenance Facility Trunk Routes Shiprock, Crownpoint, Chinle, Dilcon, Tuba City, Kayenta, Window Rock, Blanding Window Rock or Fort Defiance area Crownpoint-Gallup Shiprock-Farmington Shiprock-Gallup Kayenta-Tuba City Kayenta-Page Tuba City-Flagstaff Chinle-Window Rock Dilcon-Flagstaff Blanding-Shiprock Pueblo Pintado, Torreon, Add Trunk Routes to connect a significant amount of the reservation’s population together in a network of intercity bus routes. 3 4 Feeder Routes Upgrade existing and construct a new maintenance facility. The central facility is at the end of its useful life and should be replaced. Also, minor and preventative maintenance facilities would be included at the Regional Transportation Hubs for vehicles based there. Note: Torreon Chapter recommended future extension of Trunk Routes to the community. Create Feeder Routes to connect secondary growth centers and V-51 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Action Item Name Potential Locations Recommendations Tohatchi, Nageezi, Thoreau, Burnside Sanostee, Tsaille, Sanders, Dilcon, Leupp, Inscription House, Kaibeto, Shonto, Round Rock, Rock Point neighboring chapters to the Regional Transportation Hubs outlined above. These routes would allow residents to board a local bus near the homes, travel to a Regional Transportation Hub, and transfer to the intercity service. 5 Partnerships 6 Acquisition and Rollover Vehicle Fleet Locations 7 Technology Transit Passenger & Maintenance Facilities Note: Torreon Chapter recommended immediate action for Feeder Route extension to the community. Partner with other agencies/transportation providers to coordinate transportation services on the reservation, such as state human services, colleges, employers, and Navajo TANF to increase ridership. Acquire new vehicles. Adequate replacement of vehicles is critical to controlling maintenance costs and providing a reliable service for passengers. A systematic method of vehicle rollover is needed. Utilize new technology. Technological improvements are a benefit to both passengers and transit operations personnel. Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study: The State of Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study provides regionally-based solutions to rural public transportation in Arizona. The Study intended to serve as an objective, analytical basis for establishing Arizona’s long-term strategic direction of rural transit service provision. The study found that transit demand in rural Arizona is projected to increase 34 percent from year 2007 to 2016. There are numerous unmet needs for rural transit services in Arizona. Only 18 percent of the estimated demand for rural transit services is currently being met; while only 13 percent is projected to be met by year 2016. Thus additional rural transit service is needed to meet future demand. Establishing roles and responsibilities between the State, COGs, local governments, tribal governments and transit operators will facilitate the development of public transportation service in rural Arizona. The study noted that additional rural transit services are needed in multiple cities, town, Tribal Reservations, and intercity corridors throughout the State of Arizona. The key market segments should be elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and persons of low income. The primary purpose for rural transit trips include medical appointments, shopping, work, education, personal business and recreation. These findings are consistent with the Navajo Transit System study, discussed previously. The study documented that expanded 5311 local program services have been identified for the Navajo Transit System, namely between the cities of Flagstaff and Tuba City, Tuba City and Page, and Tuba City and Kayenta. Road Improvement Needs: To support the implementation of the NTS long range strategic plan, assuming all of the new truck and feeder routes are established, road improvements of these existing and future NTS routes would ensure safety of both transit riders and general public. Routine pavement preservation is needed on NTS routes to keep them in good condition and safe. Most of the existing NTS Fixed Routes operate on State highways with three routes on N59 from Many Farms to US160; N12 from Navajo, NM to Window Rock; and N9 from US491 to Crownpoint. The NTS Long Range Plan has also proposed numerous Feeder Routes to provide additional transit services to smaller communities. These are communities with 5,000 - 10,000 transit trips per year and are appropriate for feeder transit services using smaller vehicles to operate on an ad-hoc basis. Paving chapter house access will provide all-weather roads for most of the needed feeder routes. Improvement of IRR routes used for transit operation is necessary for safety of NTS riders and traveling public sharing the roads. Railroad Needs: The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad runs along interstate I-40 south of the reservation, and is the only major freight and passenger railroad crossing the Navajo Nation. BNSF connects Albuquerque, NM to the west coast at Los Angeles, CA, and crosses the Navajo Reservation at Nahat’a Dziil (New Lands) Chapter, Church Rock Chapter and checkerboard area in the Eastern Navajo Agency. Freight trains and Amtrak share the BNSF railroad, with stations/stops in Flagstaff, AZ and Gallup, NM. V-52 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Rail development is complex and involves various businesses (freight and passenger rail companies), government entities, as well as economic considerations (demand versus supply). The following proposed rail projects have been in discussion but most likely will not materialize for many years to come. Railroad connection needs for these projects, therefore, are not considered. Table V-36 summarizes the multimodal transportation needs. Table V-36. Total Mulitmodal Transportation Needs Transportation needs Navajo-BIA Road Miles State Road Miles County Road Miles Airport Access Transit Routes Railroads Need 9. Total 1.0 N/A N/A 1.0 0.5 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 Non-System Road Miles 7.0 N/A N/A 6.0 Total Miles 8.5 N/A 0.0 8.5 NEED 10: Other Transportation Needs These are transportation needs related to or identified in other tribal and state plans. They include plans to implement rural addressing, to provide emergency services during snow and mud emergencies and hazardous shipment accidents, to provide road access in regions that are underdeveloped because of land disputes, to improve non-system public roads, proposed state and regional transportation plans. Rural Addressing: The Telecommunications & Utilities Department under the Division of General Services is taking a lead in the Navajo Nation 9-1-1 and Rural Addressing. Its primary goal is to link each telephone number to a physical address in order to enhance efficiency of emergency and public safety responses to 911 calls. A pilot project is being implemented in Tohajiilee with New Mexico State funds for addressing, road naming and signage installation. Snow and Mud Emergencies: Much of the Navajo Reservation soils have high clay content and little ground cover and a large number of the unpaved Navajo-BIA roads pass through low lying areas where snow and rain water collect. Navajo Nation residents thus encounter snow and mud emergencies almost every winter and spring. The majority of Navajos live in scattered homes raising sheep and cattle for supplemental income. Families, seniors and school children getting stranded for days or even weeks due to impassible roads has become a norm of life on the Navajo Reservation. Emergency rescue operations are often difficult or delayed until the weather permits. The Navajo Nation needs more paved roads and maintenance funds to keep roads passable, to reduce the snow and mud emergencies. It needs to build a network of all-weather roads to serve those areas of the reservation where the people live. Hazardous Materials Shipments U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) programs transport approximately 5,000 shipments annually of nonclassified radioactive materials and waste for cleanup, research, and development for medical or industrial uses and national defense purposes. The DOE Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, NM disposes of transuranic waste shipments from other DOE sites. US 666 and I-40 are the main DOE shipment routes going through the Navajo Nation. DOE reported 22 and 50 shipments of hazardous materials through the Navajo Nation in 1998 and 1999 respectively. Numerous other hazardous material shipments from private and public sectors also cross the Navajo reservation. Emergencies involving hazardous material releases and transportation of such materials across the Navajo Nation have been reported (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX). State highways on the Navajo Nation are major hazardous material shipment routes. To make hazardous material transportation on the Navajo Nation safe, all shipment routes should be paved. Approximately 10.5 miles of N4 from Pinon to the Hopi reservation needs to be paved, so all hazardous shipments can be shipped on paved routes. This will improve safety and pose less danger for the surrounding Navajo communities. Routine maintenance for these routes is also necessary to keep them safe. V-53 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Other hazardous material shipments are transported by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad crossing the southeast corner of the Navajo Reservation. Approximately 14,000+ shipments of hazardous materials are transported annually on the BNSF Transportation Needs in Land Dispute Regions: The P.L. 93-531, Navajo-Hopi Relocation Act of 1974 was an attempt by the Congress to resolve the historical land dispute between the Navajo and Hopi Tribes by dividing the 1882 Executive Order Region into the so-called Navajo and Hopi Partitioned Land portions (NPL & HPL). The Bennett Freeze area is a region west of the 1882 Executive Order Region subject to a 1966 administrative freeze on construction, which was enacted into law in 1980. The freeze on housing and infrastructure construction is a result of litigation to resolve claims derived from 1934 Reservation Boundary Act. After 40 years, in December 2006, the Bennett Freeze was lifted The Court found that no lands are any longer in litigation, and that the restrictions on development contained in the Bennett Freeze are of no longer in effect. This allows Navajos to build their homes through normal processes and procedures through Navajo Nation. The Former Bennett Freeze (FBFA) Recovery Plan was completed in December 2008 to address the Navajo Nation’s development needs in the FBFA. The plan recommends improving approximately 40.0 miles of roads within the FBFA as follows: N101 N20 N609 N6331/N6330 $9 million $63 million $6 million $3 million Other recommended transportation projects include: Traffic Safety Improvement Study $500,000 Unpaved Road Study $300,000 Paved Road Study $300,000 Airstrip $50,000 Total Cost: $88 million. Source: Former Bennett Freeze Area (FBFA) Recovery Plan, 2008. ADOT I-40 Emergency Plan: ADOT has developed an I-40 Emergency Interstate Closure Plan (Map V-16) to detour traffic around Interstate closures in cases of emergencies. These plans would only be used in extreme situations such as earthquakes, hazardous material spills or complete roadway failures. The Navajo BIA routes that are part of the I-40 detours are: N15 from the reservation line west of Leupp to AZ264/US191 intersection in Burnside, N6 from AZ77 at the reservation line to N15 intersection 6 miles north of Bitahochee, and N12 from I-40 in Lupton to St. Michaels. To safely accommodate heavy traffic during the I-40 emergency detours and prevent pavement deterioration due to excess load, these Navajo routes will need pavement and sub-base reconstruction, redesign of culverts, and roadway widening for N15 and N6 (N12 has been reconstructed and met standards). Estimated detour period is 48 hours with 8,000 trucks per day (ADOT, Holbrook District). The proposed emergency detours cross 1 bridge on N6, 3 bridges on N12, and 8 bridges on N15. All 12 bridges are rated in good condition and meet standard design load and operating ratings. These IRR bridges should safely carry detour traffic without improvement. However, these bridges are not new and for safety reasons, no more than one truck should be allowed to cross a bridge at a time at a speed no greater than 35 miles per hour. Table V-37 Summarizes the needs to meet the I-40 Emergency Detour use, which are mapped on Map V-17. V-54 " J Flagstaff Utah Arizona 0 " ) 20 ± AZ99 ( ! 30 N15 Leupp Tuba City 5 10 CR505 " J Page 40 Miles " J Winslow ( ! AZ87 Shonto Holbrook AZ77 N6 N15 ( ! Chinle Tohatchi " J Gallup " ) Window Rock " ) Nahata Dziil Map V-17 ( ! ( ! Fort Defiance Navajo ( ! Tsaile/Wheatfields ( ! N12 Ganado AZ264 " ) US191 ( ! Many Farms I-40 CLOSURE AND DETOUR PLAN " J Dilkon ( ! Pinon ( ! " ) Kayenta " ) Shiprock " ) " J " J Crownpoint Farmington New Mexico Colorado Grants Secondary Growth Center Border Town ( ! " J ( ! Alamo Western Northern Fort Defiance Eastern Chinle AGENCY New Lands NIIP ( ! Tohajiilee Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Gravel Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved US and State Highways I-40 Detour Interstate 40 Primary Growth Center " ) Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table V-37 Transportation Needs to Meet I-40 Emergency Detour Use Agency Route #/ Location BMP EMP WNA/ FTD FTD N15, from reservation line to AZ264 at Burnside. 0 103.1 Total reconstruction and roadway widening (miles) 103.1 N6 from AZ77 at reservation line to North N15/N6 intersection at Bitahochee. N12 from Lupton to AZ264 Junction in St. Michaels 0 19.9 19.90 0 24.7 24.7 147.7 FTD Total Table V-38 summarizes all of the other transportation needs. Table V-38 Total Other Transportation Needs Transportation needs Rural Addressing: Miles of unimproved County and Tribal Roads needing improvements. Snow and Mud Emergencies: Miles of unimproved Navajo-BIA Roads needing improvements. Hazardous Material Transportation: Miles of shipment routes needing improvements Improve 40.0 miles of Navajo-BIA roads in Former Bennett Freeze . I-40 Closure/Detour: Miles of Navajo-BIA roads used in emergency detour needing improvements Need 10. Total NavajoBIA Rd Miles State Road Miles N/A County Road Miles 1,735.8 Tribal Roads 2,812.7 4,238.6 10.5 Total Miles 4,548.5 4,238.6 N/A N/A N/A 10.5 147.7 N/A N/A N/A 147.7 4,436.8 0 1,735.8 2,812.7 8,985.3 40.0 NEED 11: Cultural Environmental Considerations: IRR long-range transportation plans are required to consider the impacts of existing and proposed transportation system on the environment, and balance the needs of development and the environment (i.e., wildlife, plant life, clean air and water, etc.). This Navajo Nation’s cultural and environmental resources are protected under the National Historic Preservation Act, NEPA, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. They are considered as follows. Archeological and Historical Resources: Any federally-funded action requires the identification and evaluation of historic properties in accordance with the requirements of Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800, Section 106- the review process established in the National Historic Preservation Act. Title 49, United States Code (USC), Section 303 (originally Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966) specifies that special efforts be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges and historic sites. For these reasons, listed or eligible historic properties and areas expected to have high density of historic properties have been identified as important considerations associated with the transportation planning of the Navajo Nation. The entire Navajo Nation is rich with archeological and historical resources. Evidence of prehistoric Navajo habitation on the present day Navajo Reservation and surrounding area is recorded in various archeological investigations, studies required for development on the reservation, the Navajo and Hopi land dispute litigation and fuel resources development. These archeological investigations, including studies of Navajo migration, and other publications cite evidence of Navajo settlements throughout the region. In general, the Navajo settlement in the area ranges from one ruin per 4 square miles for highest density site to one ruin per 33-167 square miles. The concentration of ruin sites appears to be related to pinon-juniper zones where hunting, gathering and alluvial farming could be practiced. Evidence of Hopi and Anasazi occupations is also found near the Hopi reservation and the surrounding areas making the Navajo lands bordering the Hopi Reservation particularly rich in archeological and historical sites. This greatly impacts planning of the road construction. Clearances of past road construction projects have taken longer time due to the many archeological sites. V-56 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Planning for new road construction, such as new street expansion for Growth Center communities (NEED 6)and proposed airports’ access roads (NEED 9) will require longer time for archaeological clearance. Other road construction projects involving widening or realignments such as N7 from Canyon De Chelly to Sawmill (NEED 1), N4 from Pinon to Hopi Reservation (NEED 10) will also be subject to additional archeological clearance work thus, will need extra project planning time. Wildlife: The Navajo Nation is unique for its natural resources. It is a large Indian reservation with low population and development density and a rich natural environment. The reservation has become a sanctuary for wildlife, rare animals and plant life. The Fort Defiance Plateau and Chuska Mountains have been identified one of the Arizona habitats for the endangered Mexican Spotted Owls. The Endangered Species Act protects populations and habitat of a variety of listed species of plants and animals on federal lands. The Navajo Reservation, as trust land, is subject to all provisions of the Act. All projects on the reservation which require federal or tribal review, even commercial and home site leases, must be reviewed for possible impacts on listed species. These must be documented in the Environmental Assessment (EA), which accompanies the project documents in the review package. Planning and design of road projects must meet the Endangered Species Act requirements when applying for right of way clearance. Project planning should provide enough lead time for a lengthy review process and required species surveys. When planning for widening of an existing roadway, environmental clearance will be required as well. Three years should be a nominal time for project R.O.W clearance in general. Proposed road projects in Fort Defiance Plateau and Chuska Mountains such as N13 over the Buffalo Pass will require a lengthy survey and review process since it is in sensitive habitat. The road R.O.W. width should also be reduced to the minimum requirement to minimize impacts to the habitat of the endangered species. Wetlands: Federal law on wetlands (E.O. 11990) mandates protection of all wetlands on public lands. Wetlands in an arid region are groundwater recharge areas. Wetlands house rich wildlife habitats and plant communities. Wetlands that are part of drainage channels/systems are crucial to the overall drainage system. They connect the system and maintain the existence of the ecosystem. Wetlands contribute to groundwater recharge. Alluvial deposits such as in wetlands allow water to infiltrate through underlying rock fractures, allowing the recharge of ephemeral streams. Wetlands in high altitude/headwater areas that are often found interwoven with forested areas allow water to percolate through underlying unconsolidated rocks. The Navajo Nation wetlands are of both permanent and seasonal characteristics influenced by its climatic condition, drainage pattern and soil development. Permanent wetlands are found along washes and major drainage channels such as the Little Colorado River, San Juan River, Chaco River and Chinle Wash and their tributaries. Most seasonal wetlands are often a part of pond and lake system. The Nation wetlands are found more in the eastern region than in the western part of the reservation. The majority of them are found around headwater areas in the Defiance Plateau, Chuska and Carizzo mountains. Others are often small sparse ephemeral wetlands created by seasonal floods or rain storms. Wetlands in the western region are found at high altitudes where precipitation concentrates, such as Navajo Mountain and Black Mesa areas. Others are perennial lakes that are part of interrupted drainage systems and ephemeral streams. There are many small ephemeral lakes, as typified in Red Lake/Tonalea Chapter along Moenkopi Wash and Tolani Lake in the Oraibi Wash drainage. Wetlands on the Navajo Reservation are sensitive. Prolonged drought can eliminate a wetland completely. Other mechanisms that sustain wetlands include groundwater discharge, non-disruption of surface drainage system and ground cover. Destruction of wetlands may interrupt or even destroy the entire ecosystem--drainage system, plant or animal communities or drying up our water supply. Road development should avoid wetlands, especially those that are part of an overall drainage system. Road development should be carefully planned to avoid the destruction of wetlands especially at headwater recharge areas such as in the Defiance Plateau, Chuska and Carizzo Mountains and Black Mesa. V-57 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Water Quality: The federal Clean Water Act of 1972, (33 U.S.C., Sec. 1251-1376) contains provisions for regulating and maintaining ground and water surface quality. The Clean Water Act is administered by the U.S. EPA and by the Navajo Nation EPA. The main impact of the Clean Water Act on highway development and construction is through its regulation of non-point sources of water pollution. Unimproved dirt roads erode easily, their sediments often entering surface drainage watercourses. Since a high proportion of Navajo Reservation roads are unimproved dirt, upgrading these roads could be a significant element of future Navajo Nation plans for controlling non-point source pollution of surface waters. Future road construction projects will in all likelihood have to meet some standards for runoff control, and will require permits by Navajo EPA. Compliance with applicable Clean Water Act provisions as administered by Navajo EPA should be factored into funding and scheduling calculations for future road projects. Air Quality: The Clean Air Act amendment of 1990 requirements applies mostly to metropolitan transportation planning. Transportation-related pollutants must be addressed in planning for an area designated nonattainment (not attained to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards) or a maintenance plan must be implemented under Clean Air Act section 175 A (i.e. ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers, etc.). The Act requires incorporation of appropriate measures for air pollution control or congestion reduction to protect the public health. A program such as the implementation of high occupancy vehicle lane in some metropolitan areas is an example of a congestion reduction measure. Most communities and areas on the Navajo Reservation are classified as attainment or unclassifiable, except for a small area in the northwest New Mexico that is classified as non-attainment area due to generation stations emission. Nonetheless, this is not a transportation-related non-attainment designation. The Navajo Nation has approved its air quality codes (Air Pollution Prevention and Control). These codes mostly deal with industrial pollutants. The Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency is currently concerned about road construction projects. On the Navajo Reservation, air pollution from transportation-related activities is usually caused by road construction, since during road construction particulates may be produced beyond the acceptable level. The Navajo EPA follows State and Federal EPA criteria and procedures for determining conformity for the reservation attainment areas regarding road construction. The Navajo Nation Growth Centers have become urbanized. Traffic congestion occurs briefly during rush hours in some communities because these communities are served by few roads. Development mainly clusters along the main roads or at intersections. Growth Centers are the fastest growing communities, fueled by development planned by the Navajo Nation. These communities will need urban street systems soon to accommodate future traffic and provide even distribution of traffic to prevent air pollution caused by the traffic congestion. Chinle, Kayenta, Tuba City, and Shiprock have high population as well as tourist traffic. Their needs for urban street systems have become apparent, especially during the tourist season. Considerations and Needs: In all, a balance between development and protecting these delicate resources must be exercised to minimize the impacts of road construction and promote development without destroying the Navajo Nation’s valuable cultural and natural heritages. A balance can be achieved through careful planning and engineering.  Future Transportation Plans: Future planning such as street expansion and plans have been proposed for the Navajo Growth Centers to cope with growing population and development at these communities in the future. Good street system, such as those in other urban areas can prevent traffic congestion and air pollution by distributing traffic more evenly. No new roads are proposed to avoid opening up of new areas and disturbance to archeological, wildlife habitats, wetlands and drainage channels. Paving unimproved roads have been proposed and given priority to reduce erosion and sediments to water courses and particulate air pollution. V-58 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan    Project Planning: Adequate time is recommended for surveys of archeological as well as environmental resources, and the R.O.W review process for most projects. Project planning should include three years for R.O.W assessment and clearance process prior to construction. To assure minimum disturbance to the environment, problems must be identified during these surveys and assessments and engineering solutions must be developed. Engineering: Engineering and design of road projects must identify and mitigate drainage problems, soil erosion, channel erosion, and other environmental impacts. Road improvements in sensitive areas must minimize impacts to the surrounding environment such as minimizing R.O.W. width to minimize disturbance to archeological resources, and plant and animal communities (e.g.., N7 from Canyon De Chelly to Sawmill). Environmental Studies: The R.O.W. clearance process is a crucial element in identifying and protecting cultural and environmental resources. Sound and complete archeological and environmental studies should be completed for all construction. These studies should be structured to include strong and useful alternatives for protecting cultural and environmental resources or mitigating a project’s impacts on them. Based on past Navajo IRR budget, the estimated need for project environmental and archaeological assessments are $100 million for 20 years or $5 million per year. V-59 " J " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) ) " ) "" ) ! ? 0 ! ? ! ? ! ?") ! ? ! ? ! ?! ? Flagstaff " ) " ) ? " ) ! ?" J Utah Arizona ! ?Page ?! ! ? ! ? 5 10 ! ? " ) " ) " ) ! ? " ) " ) ! ? 20 ± " ) " ) 30 " ) " ) ! ? ? !! ? ! ? " ) 40 Miles ! ? ! ? Winslow " ) " J! ? ! ? ! ? " ) " ) ! ? " ) " ) " J " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) ! ? " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) ! ? " ) ! ? ") ! ? ! ? ! ? " ) ! ? ") ! ? " ) ? ! ?! Map V-18 " ) " ) " ) ! ? ! ? " ) " ) " ) )) "" " ) " ) ? ! ?")! " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) ? ? ") " )" ) ) " ) " )" " ) ) " " ) ) " ! ? " ) " ) ! ?") " ) " ) Navajo Nation Aggregate Resources " ) " ) Holbrook " ) " ) " )" ) ! ! ?? ?! ? ? !! ! ? ! ?! ! ?! ?? ! ?! ? " ) ! ? " ) " ) ) " )" " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) ! ? " ) " ) !") ! ? ? ! ? " ) " ) ! ?Gallup ! ? " J ! ? ! ? " ) ! ? ? " ) ! ! ? ")! ?! ? ! ?? ") ! " ) " ) " J " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " )" )" ) Silicified Sandstone or Conglomerate Gravelly Sand Limestone Red Dog Pediment Gravel Precambrian Terrance Sand & Gravel Igneous Rock Border Town Grants " ) " ) " ) " J " ) " ) " ) " ) Farmington New Mexico Colorado Gravel Pits " J State Pit or Prospect Locations BIA Pit or Prospect locations NN Rock Outcrop Samples Prospect Pits ! ? " ) ? Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Other Resources Issues: Aggregate and water resources costs for road construction on the Navajo Nation have become more and more expensive. Great distance between projects, availability and transportation of construction materials all contribute to the high cost. Aggregate Resources: In 2005 the Division of Natural Resources Minerals Department completed the survey and mapping of all aggregate resources on the Navajo Nation. The findings show that the Navajo Nation has aggregate resources that make available for road construction and maintenance. These aggregate resources are scattered throughout the Navajo Nation and can be summarized by agency as follows: Northern Navajo Agency: San Juan River is the major source of quality gravel on the Navajo Nation, from Farmington to Aneth, Utah. Materials are unconsolidated and various in size from sand and gravel size to boulder size thus reduce cost for quarry and crushing. Carrizo Mountains are large sources of pediment gravel and igneous rock. Newcomb has pediment deposits with ABC quality. Bands of limestone, sand, sediment gravel and more igneous rocks are also scattered. Western Navajo Agency: East of Colorado River to US89A and US89 from Gap to Marble Canyon is a good source for limestone. Grand Falls, west of Leupp, and along N70 areas have high quality porous limestone with high magnesium carbonate good for gravel requiring quarry and crushing. South-southwest of Leupp has good quality Igneous-basalt sediment but needs to be quarried for processing. Shadow Mountain near Tuba City is an old mine with quality basalt sediment. Shadow Mountain west of US89 has basic infrastructure gravel. Navajo Bridge in north Western Navajo Agency has quality gravel material for bus routes. Mexican Hat has limestone sediment, good quality for ABC material. Fort Defiance Agency: Precambrian Quartzite quarry sites located in Blue Canyon in Ft. Defiance area and Hunter’s Point have the highest quality gravel for cement and asphalt. Basalt sediments in Hopi Buttes, Dilkon, Indian Wells areas are good quality materials for gravel and cement. Indian Wells basalt quarry currently is in operation by a private firm. Limestone sediment southeast of Greasewood to Leupp (Chinle Plateau) is good-to-fair quality gravel source for bus routes. Eastern Navajo Agency: There are no quality aggregate sources in most of the Eastern Agency, however, there is a lot of low quality sand gravel. Currently gravel has to be hauled from Farmington and/or Thoreau, NM. Chinle Agency: Rock outcrops along US191 and Chinle Wash is a good source for limestone. Recommendations:  The Navajo Nation with its oversight committees could develop a strategic plan in developing aggregate resources and resolving this issue. There are several avenues that the Navajo Nation can develop its aggregate resources: 1. NECA can develop gravel pits to supply gravel and sand for road construction and maintenance. 2. The Navajo Nation and Chapters partner with other entities to develop gravel pits. Several projects have been in progress as follows: o Carrizo Gravel Pit Project. The Navajo Division of Transportation is currently partnering with the Apache County on the Carrizo Gravel Pit Development as a pilot project. The Navajo DOT is responsible with land withdrawal and the County with its operation. o Dennethotso Gravel Pit. Another partnering project between the Navajo Division of Transportation and Apache County. o Peabody Red Dog Gravel Project. The Peabody Coal Company in Black Mesa is working with the Navajo Nation. It offers to make available its coal mine tailings known as ‘Red Dogs’ gravel to the Navajo Nation. The project is now only waiting for the final agreement with the Nation. o Shiprock partnership with NECA on a gravel pit project. o Gadiaaha and Sanostee are partnering with private companies on gravel pit projects. V-61 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan 3. Partnership with railroad companies to have aggregate transport by rail to the Navajo Nation. Rail transport cost is less than trucking cost.  Resource Development Priority: The plan recommends that the first priority be aggregate resources in Shiprock Agency, i.e., San Juan River and Charizzo resources; the second be Fort Defiance Agency resources because these produce quality aggregates that withstand weigh better than limestone sources.  The Navajo Nation and its oversight committees need to develop policies to support aggregate resources development. There are critical works that need to be done prior to actual resource development and are often seen as project obstacles because they usually delay or derail a project. Various actions and program partnership need to be resolved on a number of issues: 1. Navajo Nation Permits: Presently, the Mineral Department can only permit gravel extractions of only 5,000 cu. yards per year. This will not meet the demand of all road constructions. The regulation may have to be changed with special intergovernmental collaboration. 2. Land User Support: Grazing boards must be involved and agree upon at the earliest stage of the project development. Land users need to give consent or compensation. 3. Chapter Support: Chapters need to be involved and 4. Archeology and Environmental Assessments: The process is long and often delays projects thus need to done early. 5. Navajo Nation Contractual Process: The process often discourages contractors, needs to involve those who approve contracts early on for efficient planning. Water Resources: Well water is the source of water used in road construction. In general, contractors will drill a well near the road construction site. For the most part of the Navajo Nation, groundwater is available and this is preferred practice than the costly hauling of water to the construction sites. Groundwater is found in four major aquifers underlining the Navajo Nation: 413, 290, 50 and 1.18 million acre-feet are estimated water storage capacity for Coconino, Navajo, Dakota and San Juan Aquifers. Also available are alluvial aquifers underlining many of the washes on the Navajo Nation. Drilling depth is ranging from 200-1000 feet deep. For the most part of the Navajo Nation, contractors can drill a 200-foot deep well for road construction usage except in the farther west of the Western Navajo Agency and a certern part of the Chinle Agency. Recommendations:  The Navajo Nation with its oversight committees could develop a strategic plan in developing water resources to resolve the water issue.  Allow contractors to tap into abandoned well or seek the IHS permission to use their existing wells. The Department of Water Resources has database on well location, ownership, and depth of water table. It plans to do a water need study by chapter. A road construction’s water need should also be included. The Navajo DOT can assist with Water Resources in identifying water resources in association with project locations. V-62 " J Flagstaff Utah Arizona " J 0 Page 5 10 20 ± 30 " J 40 Miles Winslow " J Map V-19 Navajo Nation Water Resources - Well Locations Holbrook Gallup " J " J Farmington New Mexico Colorado " J " J Grants Border Town Wells within Navajo Nation Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan C. TOTAL NEEDS Table V-39 summarizes overall findings and long range transportation needs discussed in this chapter (NEEDS 1-11). Table V-39. Total Transportation Needs/Findings Transportation Needs/Findings 1 Highway To meet highway design guidelines Geometric based on 20-yr ADT, 5,955.4miles of Design Navajo-BIA roads need surface upgrade Deficiencies and roadway widening. Total 2009 LRTP Needs Total 2003 LRTP Needs NavajoBIA Road Miles 5,955.4 State Road Miles N/A County Road Miles N/A Tribal Road Miles N/A Miles 5,955.4 Miles 5,352.5 2 Network Connectivity 89.7 miles of Class 2 roads need to be paved, and 90.0 miles of Class 4 meet criteria for Class 2 definitions and need to be paved. 179.7 N/A N/A N/A 179.7 230.7 3 Pavement Deficiencies 1,313.8 miles of Navajo-BIA roads have severe pavement and need reconstruction. 27.6miles have moderate pavement and need rehabilitation. 1,341.4 N/A N/A N/A 1,341.4 898.2 4 Safety Needs Safety improvement corridors and high crash locations make up 23 percent of the crashes. Safety improvements at these locations should be further studied 33 100 0 N/A 133.0 109.3 5 Chapter Access Needs 16 chapter houses lack paved access roads: 149.8 of Navajo-BIA roads and 15.0 miles of County roads need paving. 149.8 N/A 15 N/A 164.8 230.1 6 Growth Centers Street Needs To meet future population and development needs: Six Primary Growth Centers need 22.8 miles of 5-lane streets, 70.1 miles of paved 2-lane streets, and 21.7 miles of graveled roads; 30.9 miles of street lights; and evaluation for 26 traffic signalizations. 99.7 15.0 N/A N/A 114.7 114.7 V-64 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Transportation Needs/Findings 7 Community/ Healthcare Facilities: turn lanes; street Economic lights; paving access roads; parking lot Development facilities; sidewalks. Needs NHA Housing Projects: turn lanes; street lights; paving access roads; parking lot facilities; sidewalks. Schools: turn lanes; street lights; paving access roads; parking lot facilities; sidewalks. Economic Development: turn lanes; street lights; intersection control; paving access roads; parking lot facilities; sidewalks. CIP Projects: turn lanes; street lights; intersection control; paving access roads; parking lot facilities; sidewalks. (See Tables in Chapter 5.B. Need 7) NavajoBIA Road Miles N/A State Road Miles N/A County Road Miles N/A Tribal Road Miles N/A Total 2009 LRTP Needs Miles N/A Total 2003 LRTP Needs Miles 3,021.7 8 Scenic Byways, Tourism & Recreation Needs 67.5 miles of roads providing access to tribal parks need to be paved. 38.5 N/A 7.0 22.0 67.5 195.4 9 Multimodal Transportation Airport Development: 8.5 miles of new access roads need to be constructed. Transit Routes: Implement 5-year plan; expand and provide transit centers; local circulator service in Growth Centers. Bicycle Routes and Sidewalks need improvement, connectivity and new routes need to be constructed. (See Tables in Chapter 5.B. Need 9) 1.0 0.5 0 7.0 8.5 422.5 10 Other Transportation Needs Rural Addressing and Snow and Mud Emergencies: 4,238.6 miles of Navajo-BIA, 1,735.8 miles of County Roads, and 2,812.7 miles of Tribal Roads are unpaved. Improve these will address these issues. Improve 10.5 miles of Navajo-BIA roads for hazardous material shipment route. Improve 40.0 miles of unpaved Navajo-BIA roads in former Land Dispute areas, and 147.7 miles of roads used for I-40 emergency detours need improvements. (See Tables in Chapter 5.B. Need 10) 4,436.8 0 1,735.8 2,812.7 8,985.3 5,239.8 11 Cultural/ Environmental Considerations To minimize environmental and cultural impacts of proposed transportation projects through implementing necessary environmental assessment. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A V-65 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER VI - Conclusions and Recommendations for Navajo-BIA Mobility Improvements A. Improvement Types and Mileage The Navajo-BIA roads’ long range transportation needs are identified and summarized in Chapter V, Transportation Needs Assessment. These needs are the result of past inadequate funding of the Navajo Indian Reservation Roads Program. The Navajo-BIA roads’ long range transportation needs and issues include the needs to improve roads to meet the federal design standards and to keep up with Navajo Nation population, traffic volume, and economic growth. The Navajo-BIA roads’ long range transportation needs summarized in Table VI-1 are recommended improvements to the overall Navajo-BIA system by road class to meet the current design standards. These include correcting system deficiencies, improving safety while meeting Navajo Nation development needs. To address these unmet and future transportation needs, a total of 5,955.4 miles of Navajo-BIA roads needing upgrade and 1,341.4 miles needing to address pavement deficiencies. These are summarized by road class and construction type as follows:     Navajo-BIA Class 2 and 4 Road Upgrade: To improve network connectivity and to meet the 81 IAM and AASHTO highway design and improvement standards. Improvement of these arterial and major collector roads will also address other transportation needs such as community and economic development needs, scenic byways, intermodal connections and other transportation needs. Navajo-BIA Class 5 Road Upgrade: To improve access to rural areas to make connections within the grid of the IRR system. These roads serve areas around Navajo communities, chapter house access, farming areas, school access, tourist attractions, or various small enterprises, forests, grazing, mining, oil, recreation, or other uses. Navajo-BIA Class 3, 6, and 7 Street Upgrade: Class 3, 6, and 7 roads serve within Navajo urban and community areas providing access to schools, residential, commercial, and government offices areas. They carry moderate to heavy traffic and much of these roads are in poor to severe conditions due to the lack of adequate IRR funds. NHA housing streets are the best example. Most NHA streets badly need reconstruction. The pavement deficiency analysis (Chapter 5 Need 3) identifies the need to improve these roads thus improves residential and community areas access. Safety Improvement: Several areas of safety improvement are needed to address the broad reaching areas of improving multi-modal safety throughout Navajo Nation. VI-1 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table VI-1 Navajo-BIA Roads’ Long Range Road Improvement Needs in Miles Miles of Miles of Miles of Roads Roads Roads Needing Needing Needing Only Only Suface Imp & Suface Roadway Roadway Widening Widening ADS CLASS FADT Imp Sub-Total 1 N/A 0.9 0.1 0.3 1.3 1-Major 2 N/A 2.0 0.8 0.0 2.8 Arterial 3 N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 5.9 13.8 54.0 73.7 >=400 8.7 5 184.0 397.1 589.8 2-Rural 6 5.3 11.5 2.7 19.5 Minor 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arterial <400 8 0.0 24.3 23.0 47.3 9 0.0 0.0 24.3 24.3 10 >250 17.5 15.0 138.2 170.7 10 50-250 1.8 5.2 365.8 372.8 11 >250 38.6 136.9 988.7 1164.2 4-Rural Major 11 50-250 33.7 82.0 1668.6 1784.3 Collector <50 11 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 12 >250 1.9 0.0 76.6 78.5 12 50-250 0.0 0.0 185.4 185.4 13 >400 0.1 5.5 43.1 48.7 13 50-400 125.3 6.6 18.1 150.0 5-Rural 14 >400 2.9 28.5 72.0 103.4 Local 14 50-400 68.5 14.7 806.2 889.4 15 >400 0.0 0.0 8.4 8.4 50-400 0.0 0.0 202.2 202.2 15 6-City Min Arterial 16 N/A 0.0 0.9 2.6 3.5 7-City Collector N/A 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3-City 18 Local N/A 8.8 23.5 1.8 34.1 Grand Total: 2009 LRTP 2003 LRTP Total By Total By Class Class 4.1 0.0 754.6 917.7 3757.0 4468.1 1402.1 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.1 61.5 5955.4 5447.3  VI-2 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 10/22/2009 B. Improvement Cost To improve 5,955.4 miles of the Navajo-BIA road system to meet the design standards will cost $6.5 billion (Table VI-2). To address pavement deficiencies of 1,341.4 miles of paved Navajo-BIA roads alone (Chapter 5 Need 3) will cost $1.4 billion. However, when upgrade roads to meet the design standards, pavement conditions will also be addressed. It is safe to say to address the overall Navajo-BIA road system deficiencies, the Navajo Nation will need approximately $7.0 billion. This figure is seven times the current 20-year funding level of the Navajo IRR Program which has been about $1 billion or $50 million per year. Table VI-1 summarizes and compares improvement costs between LRTP 2003 and LRTP 2009 improvement needs of the Navajo-BIA roads. The drastic increase from 2003 cost is partly due to the nearly double in construction cost in recent years caused by fuel cost increase. Table VI-2 Navajo-BIA Road Improvement Cost (in $millions) FADT Miles of Roads Needing Only Surface Imp Miles of Roads Needing Only Roadway Widening 1 N/A $1,621.18 2 N/A $3,602.63 N/A $0.00 ADS 3 CLASS 1-Major Arterial Miles of Roads Needing Surface Imp & Roadway Widening Sub-Total $97.55 $287.98 $2,006.71 $1,017.41 $0.00 $4,620.04 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2009 LRTP Total By Class 2003 LRTP Total By Class $6,626.75 $0 $910,355.29 $705,236.00 $4,149,899.44 $3,481,606.00 4 $3,962.52 $6,578.34 $46,971.29 $57,512.16 5 $17,184.79 $143,682.36 $613,970.89 $774,838.04 $7,080.76 $3,064.10 $3,367.38 $13,512.23 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $17,256.06 $18,497.88 $35,753.95 <400 $0.00 $0.00 $28,738.92 $28,738.92 10 >250 $20,997.81 $17,213.29 $153,547.83 $191,758.94 10 50-250 $1,655.74 $3,156.54 $336,300.83 $341,113.11 11 >250 $17,436.49 $108,964.78 $1,169,256.91 $1,295,658.18 11 50-250 $26,248.70 $71,139.17 $2,036,678.17 $2,134,066.04 11 <50 $0.00 $236.23 $0.00 $236.23 >250 $650.75 $0.00 $61,130.04 $61,780.79 50-250 $0.00 $0.00 $125,286.15 $125,286.15 13 >400 $90.84 $3,879.43 $31,595.85 $35,566.11 13 50-400 $66,262.56 $1,552.15 $10,592.06 $78,406.76 14 >400 $6,021.29 $19,050.97 $82,582.36 $107,654.62 14 50-400 $70,716.81 $6,796.71 $933,346.86 $1,010,860.37 15 >400 $0.00 $0.00 $9,184.22 $9,184.22 50-400 $0.00 $0.00 $154,644.98 $154,644.98 $1,396,317.06 $0 N/A $0.00 $423.78 $1,534.00 $1,957.78 $1,957.78 $0 N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 N/A $13,675.30 $12,962.03 $1,062.00 $27,699.33 $27,699.33 $31,535.00 Grand Total: $6,492,855.65 $4,218,377.00 >=400 6 7 8 9 12 12 15 16 17 18 C. 2-Rural Minor Arterial 4-Rural Major Collector 5-Rural Local 6-City Minor Art 7-City Collector 3-City Local Implementation Plan To address the Navajo Nation’s long range transportation needs, this plan recommends planning and implementation strategies. These strategies should be adopted and meticulously followed by Navajo Indian Reservation Roads transportation decision-makers at all levels. Elected and administration decision makers should set long and short range road improvement goals and objectives to meet these needs. Long and short range road improvement planning and prioritization criteria must have the same VI-3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 objective of meeting the transportation needs and goals. This plan also recommends seeking other sources of funds to supplement the Indian Reservation Roads Fund. 1. Long Range Goals and Objectives To address the Navajo Nation’s long range transportation needs and issues, the long range planning and implementation of the Navajo-BIA road improvements must address and include the long range goals and objectives as follows:    2. To upgrade roads to meet design standards and management system requirements to correct deficiencies as well as to improve overall network connectivity, travel mobility and accessibility. To improve travel safety and reduce accidents on the Navajo-BIA roads. To meet existing and future transportation needs in order to promote community and economic vitality. Funding Strategies To meet the Navajo-BIA roads’ long range transportation needs, the Navajo Nation’s transportation decision-makers must explore all avenues to increase funding of Navajo-BIA road long range improvements. This LRTP recommends the following strategies:         Seek to increase the Navajo IRR funding level through lobbying. Under the Federal Lands Highway Program, IRR Program funding needs are factored by population and development growth (through ADT) unlike other FLHP programs, (i.e., Park roads and Parkways, Public Lands Highway Discretionary, Forest Highway and Refuge Roads). These other FLHP roads do not carry the high levels of daily traffic that wear out roads at greater rate: their road miles and traffic volumes are relatively constant. Legislative formula should be established to allocate funds among FLHP programs based on actual needs, instead of each program’s relative share. Seek funding from the IRR Nationwide Bridge Priority Program to help meet the Navajo IRR bridge improvement needs. Seek other funding sources such as the Indian Highway Safety Program ($1.1 million annually), federal Hazard Elimination Program ($550 million annually) which funds safety improvements on highways administered by State and the BIA. Seek other funding sources such as Public Land Highway Discretionary Funds for Navajo scenic byways projects and/or State Transportation Enhancement Fund for bicycle and pedestrian paths. Seek state/federal share of funding for improvement of Navajo-BIA routes to be used as detours during I-40 emergency closures. Use the Navajo Nation Fuel Excise Tax to supplement the IRR funds. Fund projects according to project/need priority. Taxing: Currently, Kayenta is the only primary growth center with a self imposed sales tax of 2.5 percent. It is recommended that the primary and secondary growth center communities work with the Division of Economic Development to identify and implement self funding mechanisms to aid in enhancing infrastructure investment, ultimately improving economic development opportunities for those that wish to invest within Navajo Nation. The funding opportunities that are identified should be integrated into the ARCs and overall strategic Implementation Program for any recommended transportation improvements within the communities. This provides an opportunity for community, Agency, and ultimately Nation buy-in for ultimate investment and community growth. 3. Project Prioritization Criteria Project prioritization becomes crucial when funding is inadequate. Priority should be given to projects in the order from the most needs/benefits to the least critical. Addressing these priority projects first will most effectively use limited resources to address the Navajo Nation’s long range transportation needs. This plan recommends that Navajo Nation transportation decision-makers at the agency and Navajo Nation levels prioritize and implement road improvements according to the prioritization criteria described in Table VI-3 below: Each transportation project shall be rated based on the planning and engineering criteria by assigning points based on each engineering criterion. A project with the highest points will indicate that the VI-4 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 project has the most transportation needs or provide most benefits and also the most ready for construction thus should be given the highest priority. Table VI-3 Long Range Transportation Planning Priority Points assigned 5-High Priority Projects 3-Moderate Priority Projects 1-Low Priority Projects 0 D. Project Type Immediate, core transportation needs and issues raised by local chapters, tribal programs, school, healthcare providers, housing programs, intermodal needs as well as BIA engineers. School bus routes NHA housing streets and access roads Class 1 & 2 road improvement needs Class 3 & 6 roads-pavement deficiencies Safety improvements, sidewalks Class 1,2 & 4 roads-pavement deficiencies Economic and community development access needs Bridge projects Transportation needs and issues that are recommended for action after the high priority needs have been met and if funds are available. Growth center proposed streets Class 4 & 5 roads-improvement upgrade Scenic byways and park access Important transportation issues and needs to be implemented last. If IRR funds are limited, should be funded from outside resources. Bicycle routes Other transportation needs Not a 20-year need nor listed on the LRTP Safety Improvements Public safety on the Navajo Nation roadways was identified as a key concern of residents, survey respondents and public meeting participants. There are essential components of safety improvements that can improve the overall modal safety within Navajo Nation, including:  Safety Improvement Program  Open Range Policy  Access Management  Signing Program  Striping Program  Crash Data Coordination  Data Organization Standardization  Retrieval  Analysis 1. Safety Improvement Program An annual Safety Improvement Program should be established to develop a systematic approach for crash mitigation based on reported crash data. The crash data, coupled with the IRR Roadway Inventory database will provide the data necessary to understand the high crash location areas throughout the Navajo Nation transportation system. The Safety Improvement Program should be based on two categories of safety analysis, including the calculated crash rate and the raw number of crashes based on three years of historic crash data. Projects that would be evaluated in the Safety Improvement Program would include those segments and spot locations/intersections that exhibit a higher than average number of crashes compared to similar types of facilities or throughout Navajo Nation. Each crash location or segment within the Safety Improvement Program would be evaluated based on three years of historic crash data and a field review would be required. The crash data should be summarized in a crash diagram to identify travel direction, crash type, time of day, and severity. The crash diagram will help to identify trends. The field review would examine geometric issues such as pavement width, shoulder width, roadway curvature, lighting condition, roadway stripes (paint), speeds, traffic counts, signs and markers. Additionally, other factors such as open range cattle, pedestrian and/or bicycle use, and driveways should be noted. VI-5 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 After the office-based and field-based investigations are complete, documentation of the probable causes and safety issues would be developed and recommendations made. The recommendations would include immediate next steps or programmatic next steps which typically would include design and environmental clearance, particularly if geometric improvements are required. The current TTIP shows that approximately $1.0 million is dedicated for safety improvements annually. Based on the extent of the system and the increase in crashes experienced on the system, it is recommended that at least $2.0 million be dedicated for safety improvements annually until the crash levels reach a level that is anticipated for the level of traffic and facility type. 2. Open Range Policy The Open Range Policy adopted by the Navajo Nation and State of Arizona needs to be re-evaluated. Navajo Ranchers may be in favor of this policy but when human and animals life are in danger, policy makers need to come up with a better solution. Highway design such as ROW fencing and other innovations need to be implemented and enforced to improve safety to prevent animals on roadways and reduce animal related crashes on the Navajo Nation such as policies/regulations that make the livestock owner more responsible for their livestock. 3. Vendors in the ROW Although there were few statistics on crashes related to vendors within highway ROW selling crafts, foods, etc., it is a real concern to State DOTs and need to be addressed by all stakeholders especially the Navajo Nation. Vendors say it is their livelihood and economic development. As a government, the Navajo decision makers need to partner with the States to jointly establish policy, legislation and enforcement guidelines to make the road safer while still provide a mean for local artists and support the needed tourism. 4. Access Management Access management is defined in the TRB 2003 Access Management Manual, as the “systematic control of the location, spacing, design, and operation of driveways, median openings, interchanges, and street connections to a roadway.” Application of the best practices of access management has benefits for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, business people, government agencies, and communities. The desired outcomes of access management are highways that:  Are safer for vehicular and pedestrian traffic;  Allow motorists to operate vehicles with fewer delays, less fuel consumption, and fewer emissions;  Provide reasonable access to properties;  Maintain their functional integrity and efficiency, helping to protect the investment of taxpayer dollars;  Reflect coordination between land use and transportation decisions; and  Are used for the purposes (functions) for which they are designed. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains an access management website, http://www.accessmanagement.gov and provides extensive documentation of current practice and benefits of access management for all functional levels of the roadway system. The FHWA defines access management as “a set of techniques that state and local governments can use to control access to highways, major arterials, and other roadways.” The techniques provide tools that increase roadway capacity, manage congestion and reduce crashes. In addition, the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering at the University of South Florida developed “Ten Ways to Manage Roadway Access in Your Community” to help communities develop an understanding of the benefits of access management. This is provided as Appendix B. 5. Navajo Nation Access Management The Navajo Nation currently does not have an access management policy or program in place. The Navajo Division of Transportation (Navajo DOT) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs - Navajo Regional Office VI-6 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 (BIA-NRO) agree that access management is an important transportation planning issue. Currently the Navajo DOT and BIA work with the State DOT district engineers to comply with the state highway access permitting policies and requirements. Access permitting agreements are negotiated between the State DOTs and Navajo Nation departments; and the BIA is required to be included in the communication with both parties. Furthermore, the BIA NRODOT has its own permitting process that is used to control facility access for the safety of the traveling public. A major issue with regard to access management on the Navajo Nation is that although the Navajo DOT and BIA are following the BIA and State access management requirements, other Navajo departments do not always follow the procedures and do not communicate development plans. Therefore improved communication is needed between all Navajo Nation departments, ADOT and BIA on access issues regarding state highways and BIA routes. During a meeting in 2008, the Arizona DOT (ADOT) Multimodal Planning Division met with both the Navajo DOT and BIA-NRO to discuss access management concerns. It was agreed that Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) on Access Management should be pursued by the Navajo Nation, BIA-NRO and the State DOTs. These MOUs should also include reference to the various Navajo Nation departments that require access permits. It was also suggested that separate MOUs for access management be developed between BIA and the Navajo Nation. 6. BIA Access Management The BIA NRDOT's access management includes control of over size and overweight vehicles as well as utility crossing and roadway access permitting as defined in 23 CFR Parts 500 & 645. 7. Arizona Access Management Access permitting is currently carried out pursuant to ARS 28-7053 which prohibits unauthorized encroachments in state highways. For an encroachment to be lawful, it must be authorized by the State DOT Director. The Director has adopted administrative rules (regulations) governing encroachments. These rules are published as Arizona Administrative Code, R17-3-501 Highway Encroachments and Permits - which includes access connections to state highways. The rule states that each encroachment requires a permit. Permits for driveways (encroachments) onto a state highway may be granted by ADOT's Engineering Districts, a delegation from the Director. Further, in accordance with a policy of the Arizona State Transportation Board, ADOT has developed and is currently undertaking the implementation of a Statewide Access Management Program which has the intent of preserving the functional integrity of the State Highway System. The Program includes the development of an access management classification system for state highways, and a comprehensive manual to guide the uniform application of access management throughout the State. As of September 2009, ADOT is expected to move forward with implementation of the Program by including the establishment of revised Administrative Rules. Upon initiation of the formal rulemaking process, ADOT will then solicit public comment on the Program. The ADOT Intermodal Transportation Division, Traffic Engineering Group oversees the Arizona Access Management Program. 8. New Mexico Access Management The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (NMSHTD) has developed a State Access Management Manual to facilitate the management of access to and from the state highway system. It is the responsibility of the NMSHTD to regulate the location, design, and operation of public and private access streets and driveways along the state highway system, and to reconcile, to the extent feasible, the needs and rights of both property owners and roadway users. Under the Constitution and Laws of New Mexico, the State Highway Commission is charged with the duty of determining all matters of policy relating to the design of state highways and public roads. Rules and regulations governing the design, construction, and maintenance of access points and median openings along state highways have been established by the NMSHTD. These rules and regulations are contained in the New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) and are identified as 18.31.6 NMAC, State Highway Access Management Requirements. The Utah Access Management Program oversight is the responsibility of the NMSHTD Land Management Division, Right of Way Bureau. VI-7 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 9. Utah Access Management The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) addresses access management under State Rule for the issuance of State Highway grant of access permits. The Utah State Highway Access Management Rule is contained within Rule 930-6, Chapter 7: State Highway Access Management. Rule 930-6 is also known as the Department document, "Accommodation of Utilities and the Control and Protection of State Highway Rights of Way. The code clarifies the permitting process, establishes access categories assigned to the State Highway system, and provides spacing standards for access points in relation to the categories. The development and application of standards for the spacing and location of access points is vital to ensuring that the Department continues to provide a system that enhances the mobility and economic vitality of the State. The Department recognizes the many benefits associated with the application of an access management program such as the reduction in potential accidents. The Utah Access Management Program is overseen by the UDOT Project Development Group, Right of Way Division. 10. Access Management Strategies There are three main access management implementation mechanisms. Planning-based approaches typically develop functional classification, roadway system, or corridor based practices that specify access management characteristics. Regulatory methods apply permitting procedures to manage access development. Design-based approaches define engineering standards and methods. Each separate implementation mechanism is a piece of an overall strategy that makes a successful access management program. Various strategies have differing benefits. A successful Access Management Program may use measures from all three main implementation mechanisms. A. Planning Based Access Management Planning-based access management approaches develop access management programs using the transportation planning tools available. All of the following examples typically require adoption by the appropriate Commissions, Councils, and Boards to be used in planning decision making. Examples include:  Integrating access management into the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and/or General Plan;  Establishing a Major Roadway Plan that identifies and classifies the roadway network within a plan area;  Developing an access classification system with standards that directly relate to the established roadway functional classification system;  Defining the appropriate level of access for each classification to include property access, types of allowed movements and identifying potential traffic controls allowed;  Establishing spacing criteria for intersections;  Establishing spacing criteria for signalized intersections;  Ensuring coordination with appropriate agencies for review authority; and  Creating these planning mechanisms by involving the stakeholders and the public. Planning based mechanisms create the base understanding where the public and policy makers establish and define how the system will develop (if undeveloped) or evolve (if developed). Once the community desires for access management are intertwined into the adopted plans and regulations, the connection between land use planning and access spacing occur. Also, by integrating access management strategies into adopted planning documents, then expectations can be understood by those desiring to develop or redevelop property. B. Regulatory Based Access Management A regulatory-based access management approach applies permitting procedures to best regulate corridor access. Examples include:  Planning permits for driveways;  Engineering permits for design standards;  Engineering permits for traffic control by all affected agencies; and  Creating a link between zoning and the adjacent and surrounding transportation system. Permitting processes and trained staff to conduct the permitting activities, are critical for a successful access management program. The TRB Access Management Manual defines a permit as, “a legal document that grants approval to construct and operate a driveway or other access of a certain design at a VI-8 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 specified location on a given roadway for specific purposes.” The permitting process is based on a set of application requirements, a formal submittal, review by the permitting agency, and action by the agency to issue or deny the access. Typically, larger developments would be required to submit a site plan and an associated traffic impact study. Traffic study reporting requirements vary by permitting agency, but generally describe the driveway location, number of driveways, size and profile, and examine circulation patterns, safety, roadway capacity, intersection traffic control and projected traffic operating conditions. A permitting process must have a method for applicant appeals and waivers. The desired practice, and cost effective method, would be to maintain an administrative level appeals process. To ensure that the approved access location meets the agreed upon conditions and design standards, an inspection and enforcement program by the responsible agency is needed. Again, the staff responsible for inspection must be trained in materials and construction criteria. C. Design Based Access Management A design-based access management approach applies engineering standards that are to be met by all new developments and improvements. Examples include:  Developing a roadway design manual that has engineering standards that address roadway geometry and access geometry standards;  Integrating traffic impact studies as part of the design process;  Developing design standards for turning lane geometry; and  Developing design standards for median treatments. There are nine key design criteria identified in the TRB Access Control Manual, including:  Preserve the functional intent of the roadway to which access is to be provided;  Minimize the difference in speed between turning vehicles and through traffic to produce a safe traffic environment;  Eliminate encroachment of turning vehicles on adjacent lanes;  Use a combination of throat width and return radii that will accommodate the intended exit and entry operations of the selected design vehicle;  Provide adequate sight distance for drivers exiting a site;  Provide sufficient storage within the driveway for traffic entering the site to prevent spill-back onto the abutting road;  Provide sufficient queuing within the driveway to produce efficient traffic flow for vehicles leaving the site;  Minimize the number of conflict points at the junction of the access connection with the abutting road; and  Provide adequate storage for turn lanes and within access connections to accommodate peak traffic demand. A successful Access Management strategy for Navajo Nation should include Planning, Regulatory and Design based strategies to fully protect the transportation infrastructure investments made on the system. It is highly recommended that a study be conducted to identify and develop the best components of an Access Management Program for Navajo Nation. 11. Signing Program An annual signing program should be established to enhance on-road and roadside safety. The annual signing program would include all signs to regulate, warn or guide motorists. All signs should be developed consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The signing program should include new signs as well as signs that need to be replaced due to damage or wear/reflectivity. The signing program should be prioritized by roadway classification, focusing on the higher class roadways and higher volume roadways. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 162 and the Missouri Manual on Identification, Analysis and Correction of High Accident Locations identify that signing can help correct 20 to 40 percent of correctable crashes due to curves, intersections or sections of roadway that need advance warning. VI-9 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 The current TTIP does not dedicate any funds directly to a signing program. Based on the traffic mix, volumes and crash history, an annual signing program funded at $500,000 per year is recommended, focused primarily on the paved system. 12. Striping Program An annual striping program should be established to enhance on-road and roadside safety. The striping program would first focus on the highest traveled roadways to ensure that roadway stripes can be seen to help drivers navigate in daytime, nighttime and adverse weather conditions. According to the Missouri Manual on Identification, Analysis and Correction of High Accident Locations, pavement markings have found to reduce crashes by up to 40 percent. This reduction is based on the standards set up in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and analysis for appropriate treatments according to sight distance and terrain. The current TTIP dies not dedicate funds directly to an annual striping program. To stripe all of the Navajo-BIA routes would cost approximately $24 million. An annual program of at least $5 million per year would allow approximately 300 miles of 2-lane roads to be striped annually. This strategy would allow for the highest volume roads to be painted annually or semi-annually with high quality, long lasting paint. E. Transit Navajo Transit System (NTS) provides transit service throughout Navajo Nation. The Navajo Transit System's services and priorities are providing safe and reliable charter and public transportation for the Navajo Nation. This is achieved through improving the quality of life for all citizens for the Navajo Nation by increasing the accessibility to services and resources of the public and private sectors, particularly in meeting the needs of health care, education, employment, recreation, entertainment and shopping. The NTS provides public transportation services to 41 chapters out of 110 Navajo Chapter communities; many fixed routes operate along state highways. NTS buses pick up passengers at designated stops within the 41 chapters, and generally provide both long distance and some local service within select growth centers. The demand for services exceeds the number of buses and routes because the Navajo Nation occupies a substantial land area with a large population, long driving distances between destinations. With the limited number of routes available now, and the confinements of buses to major highways, many people who want services are not able to reach locations where buses normally pick up passengers. Because the demand for NTS service exceeds the capacity, some market areas are not served, and some growth centers do not have localized service, it is highly recommended that a 20-year Transit Plan be developed to identify:  Expanded Service Needs  Local  Regional  Park-n-Ride Locations The 20-year Transit Plan should also be integrated into the appropriate plans within Arizona, New Mexico and Utah to enhance funding partnership opportunities. F. Master Planning Each Primary and Secondary Growth Center should develop a community 20-year plan that examines future land use, multi-modal transportation needs, infrastructure needs, environmental considerations and unique characteristics to the community. The future land use should examine the type, density, distribution and locations of land uses throughout the growth center, and be balanced with the anticipated infrastructure/transportation needs to accommodate the additional growth. The layout of each growth center has a direct correlation to the amount of infrastructure investment, economic development potential, and ultimately the community context and livability that is equated to the quality of life for the growth center residents. VI-10 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 The LRTP currently is a needs-based plan. It considers the existing transportation system and facilities and identifies current and future needs based on socioeconomic and transportation projections. The process for analyzing the transportation needs is cumbersome and highly data intensive. The analysis process is currently being undertaken every five years by the Navajo DOT to update the LRTP. Planning for the Navajo Nation transportation system is a monumental task and requires the efforts and skills of multiple agencies and the several communities that make up the Nation. Therefore, the LRTP encompasses recommendations and considerations from a variety of planning documents prepared by other agencies. With the contribution from these various groups, these plans should provide a consistent and accurate description of the transportation needs of the Navajo Nation and the opportunities for improvement. In an effort to streamline the long-range transportation planning process and to provide increased flexibility, it is recommended that the Navajo Nation consider producing general plans at an Agency level, as well as at the Growth Center level. This would allow for bottom-up transportation planning that will build upon the efforts of the prior plan. The growth center plans would feed into the agency plans, and agency plans would feed into the LRTP. Community plans would incorporate a land use element as well as a transportation element. There is a strong relationship between land use and transportation: they are directly related. The issue of population growth and resulting transportation needs should be addressed cooperatively to effectively identify and implement improvements. Land use planning efforts are already being undertaken at many of the primary growth centers. These future land use plans are serving to accommodate the future growth trends of the communities. To support these plans, each will require an associated transportation system plan. The transportation and land use plans may be developed with close coordination from the public to specifically identify the needs of the community and capture the vision of that particular growth center. Agency level planning would allow for the comprehensive planning of an entire Agency’s land area, including the primary and secondary growth centers, and the supporting transportation system. The specific transportation needs and priorities of each agency could be highlighted within its plan. This would allow each Agency to develop its own vision for future development and focus its efforts on the needs it feels are most important to serving its communities and future needs. For example, one Agency could envision it strength is in serving future tourism needs and providing services that will promote and sustain those efforts; while another Agency will value community connectivity and wants to focus on the needs of all-weather access to its residents. Each agency would be able to develop a list of prioritized transportation projects that reflect their vision for the future. The prioritized list of projects from each Agency plan’s transportation element could then be provided to the ARC for incorporation into the nation-wide LRTP. In developing the Navajo Nation’s prioritized list of transportation projects, the ARC would need to remain cognizant of the individual goals of each Agency and treat them as relatively important, based on the Agency’s prioritization. Other considerations that should be included in Master Planning efforts could include topics such as:  Drainage improvements  Energy corridors  Freight movement  Environmentally sensitive areas (cultural/historic/archeological, wildlife, etc…) G. DOT Coordination The Navajo Nation has 10,076 miles of roadway, including approximately 1,678 miles of state routes that provide the primary routes between growth center communities and Navajo Transit System routes. The Arizona, New Mexico and Utah departments of transportation must be true partners to invest in roadway and safety improvements on the state system within Navajo Nation. Understanding that the DOTs must balance the needs of the state highways within Navajo Nation with the needs outside of Navajo Nation, and with shrinking budgets, the need for additional coordination between the Navajo Division of VI-11 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 Transportation and the three state DOTs is essential to ensure the maximum investment on state highways within Navajo Nation. Understanding the State Transportation Improvement Program cycles, each state’s process for project prioritization and areas of investment are crucial for a true partnership. Each state has individual goals, just like Navajo Nation. Based on agency and legislative direction, each state may weigh safety improvements, maintenance, freight, multi-modal or capacity improvements differently based on their programs. Because of this, common reoccurring coordination between the Navajo Division of Transportation and the state DOTs should occur, either in the form of semi-annual or quarterly meetings to ensure that the needs of the various Divisions within Navajo Nation and the state DOTs have a common understanding of needs, priorities and processes. Additionally, state DOTs generally guide and prioritize projects that are community driven, plan and agency supported. These plan driven requests are those that are supported by Community Plans, programs such as the Safety Improvement Program mentioned above, the Long Range Transportation Plan and other planning processes that show redundancy based on broad-based adopted and accepted support. H. Title VI and Environmental Justice Implications Transportation projects that utilize United States federal aid are required to certify non-discrimination under the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Also, in 1997, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued DOT Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations to summarize and expand upon the requirements of Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. In accordance with the intent of these federal requirements, a preliminary assessment was completed for this plan to identify impacted minority and low-income populations within the Navajo Reservation area and any affects to those populations by proposed transportation improvements. The following outlines the generalized approach to a Title VI and Environmental Justice evaluation. 1. Racial Demographics Racial demographics are shown in Table VI-3. According to a special 2007 Census, the Navajo Nation was comprised of 164,332 persons; the majority of the population (97%) was classified as American Indian. Those classified as White comprised 2.1% of the population. While the remainder of the population classifications totaled less than 1% for their population groups. Table VI-4 2007 Racial Demographics Area Total Population White (%) Black or African American Percent (%) American Indian and Alaska Native (%) Asian (%) Two or More Races (%) Hispanic of any race (%) Navajo Nation 164,332 2.1 0.2 97.0 0.4 0.3 0.9 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2007 American Community Survey 1Year Estimate. 2. Socioeconomic Demographics Socioeconomic demographics are summarized in Table VI-4. Identified is the median age of the population on the Navajo Nation and the number and percentages of persons 65 years and older, below poverty level, disabled and female head of household. Table VI-5 2007 Socioeconomic Demographics Area Median Age Navajo Nation 29.5 Age 65 Years and Over No. 16,105 % 9.8 Below Poverty Level Disabled No. 60,474 No. 33,031 % 36.8 Female Head of Household % 20.1 No. 20,364 % 12.4 VI-12 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2007 American Community Survey 1Year Estimate. Based upon the Census data Navajo Nation has a population of young adults with the median age of the area at almost 30 years. Another significant Census figure shows that just over one- third (36.8%) of the Navajo Nation population is below the poverty level. I. Overall Study Recommendations and Implications Since the Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) coverage area is totally situated within the Navajo Reservation, all areas have high percentages of impacted populations. It is anticipated that a number of the transportation improvement projects recommended through this plan may differentially affect those populations. Chapter Five of this plan identified potential positive effects that the recommended projects could have on Navajo Nation community members. A Title VI and Environmental Justice preliminary assessment of the plan’s recommended projects indicates that several could potentially place disproportionate burdens on community members and other minority or low-income populations. The preliminary assessment also shows considerations that dictated the recommended projects over alternative actions according to this plans need analysis. During the planning process, consideration was also given to the Title VI and Environmental Justice factors to ensure that impacted populations were included in the plan’s public participation process. Several public involvement efforts were conducted to reach minority and low-income populations when conducting the two public involvement meetings held during the planning process. As recommended projects are implemented additional effort will need to be conducted in order to detail activities that can avoid, minimize or mitigate the impacts. This is in addition to ensuring that the impacted population groups are provided the opportunity to participate in future project-specific public input processes. Details on this plan’s public outreach efforts are included in the LRTP Public Participation Report. Chapter Five of this plan identifies overall Navajo Nation roadway system issues and needs along with recommended improvements. Chapter Seven identifies transportation mobility improvement opportunities for each Growth Center. Specific project details are included in each Chapter’s narrative, tables and maps. Table VI-6 below summarizes the overall long-range transportation improvements by category and possible adverse impacts and benefits of each recommendation. See also Chapter 5, Table V-39. VI-13 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 Table VI-6 Overall Long Range Transportation Improvement Needs and Impacts Project Type Project Description Impacted Population(s) Potential Disproportionate and/or Adverse Impact(s) Consideration(s) Dictating Recommended Actions Over Alternative Actions Minority and lowIncome including: Tribal Members Local Residents Area Visitors Temporary constraint to street accessibility Improved overall efficiency of the road network Improved road conditions Traffic crash reduction and severity Minority and lowIncome including: Tribal Members Local Residents Area Visitors Temporary constraint to street accessibility Decreased air quality Increased traffic through the project areas Increased traffic noise Improved regional connectivity Improved overall efficiency of the road network Reduced travel time Conserved fuel Traffic crash reduction and severity Improved emergency response time Minority and lowIncome including: Tribal Members Local Residents Area Visitors Temporary constraint to street accessibility Decreased air quality Increased traffic through the project areas Increased traffic noise Improved overall efficiency of the road network Traffic crash reduction and severity Improved emergency response time Minority and lowIncome including: Tribal Members Local Residents Area Visitors Temporary constraint to street accessibility Improved overall efficiency of the road network Promote safe mobility Relieve traffic congestion Traffic crash reduction and severity Improved pedestrian safety Minority and lowIncome including: Tribal Members Local Residents Area Visitors Temporary constraint to street accessibility Decreased air quality Increased traffic through the project areas Increased traffic noise Improved local connectivity Improved overall efficiency of the road network Reduced travel time Conserved fuel Traffic crash reduction and severity Improved emergency response time NEED 1: Highway Geometric Design Deficiencies Roadway To meet highway design guidelines based on 20Year ADT, 5,955.4 miles of Navajo-BIA roads need surface upgrade and roadway widening. (See Tables in Chapter 5.B. Need 1) NEED 2: Network Connectivity Roadway 89.7 miles of Navajo-BIA Class 2 roads need to be paved, and 90.0 miles of Class 4 meet criteria for Class 2 definitions and need to be paved. (See Tables in Chapter 5.B. Need 2) NEED 3: Pavement Deficiencies Roadway 1,313.8 miles of Navajo-BIA roads have severe pavement and need reconstruction. 27.6 miles have moderate pavement and need surface rehabilitation. (See Tables in Chapter 5.B. Need 3) NEED 4: Safety Safety Improvements and Access Control To reduce traffic accidents Navajo-BIA roads: 33 miles and two specific intersections need further study for geometric/safety improvements. General safety improvements are needed including striping, signing, access management, animal fencing and sidewalks. (See Tables in Chapter 5.B. Need 4) NEED 5: Chapter House Access Roadway 16 Chapter houses lack paved access roads: 149.8 of Navajo-BIA roads and 15.0 miles of County roads need paving. (See Tables in Chapter 5.B. Need 5) VI-14 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 NEED 6: Growth Center Streets Roadway To meet future population and development needs: Seven primary growth centers need multi-modal system improvements to balance with current and future land uses. (See Tables in Chapter 5.B. Need 6) Minority and lowIncome including: Tribal Members Local Residents Area Visitors Temporary constraint to street accessibility Decreased air quality Increased traffic through the project areas Increased traffic noise Mobility Improvements: Roadway Paving, New Roads, Pedestrian Facilities, Access Control To meet the need for efficient and safe street networks to meet the demands of growing urbanization, to avoid traffic congestion and accidents, to promote economic development and meet future population growth. (See Maps in Chapter 7.E.) Minority and lowIncome including: Tribal Members Local Residents Area Visitors Temporary constraint to street accessibility Increased traffic through the project areas Increased traffic noise Improved local connectivity Improved overall efficiency of the road network Reduced travel time Conserved fuel Traffic crash reduction and severity Improved emergency response time Promote safe mobility Relieve traffic congestion Traffic crash reduction and severity Improved pedestrian safety Improved local connectivity Improved overall efficiency of the road network Reduced travel time Conserved fuel Traffic crash reduction and severity Improved emergency response time Promote safe mobility Relieve traffic congestion Traffic crash reduction and severity Improved pedestrian safety NEED 7: Community/Economic Development Roadway Healthcare Facilities: turn lanes; street lights; paving access roads; parking lot facilities; sidewalks. NHA Housing Projects: turn lanes; street lights; paving access roads; parking lot facilities; sidewalks. Schools: turn lanes; street lights; paving access roads; parking lot facilities; sidewalks. Economic Development: turn lanes; street lights; intersection control; paving access roads; parking lot facilities; sidewalks. CIP Projects: turn lanes; street lights; intersection control; paving access roads; parking lot facilities; sidewalks. (See Tables in Chapter 5.B. Need 7) Minority and lowIncome including: Tribal Members Local Residents Area Visitors Temporary constraint to street accessibility Increased traffic through the project areas Increased traffic noise Improved Health, Community and Economic Opportunities Improved local connectivity Improved overall efficiency of the road network Reduced travel time Conserved fuel Traffic crash reduction and severity Improved emergency response time Promote safe mobility Relieve traffic congestion Traffic crash reduction and severity Improved pedestrian safety VI-15 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 NEED 8: Scenic Byways, Tourism & Recreation Roadway, Signage Improvements and Access Control Install signage and implement access management on scenic byways and improve 67.5 miles of access roads providing access to park and recreation areas. (See Tables in Chapter 5.B. Need 8) Minority and lowIncome including: Tribal Members Local Residents Area Visitors Temporary constraint to street accessibility Increased traffic through the project areas Improved regional connectivity Improved overall efficiency of the road network Reduced travel time Conserved fuel Traffic crash reduction and severity Improved emergency response time Promote safe mobility Relieve traffic congestion Minority and lowIncome including: Tribal Members Local Residents Area Visitors Temporary constraint to street accessibility Transit Route and Schedule Change Travel time change Conserved fuel Promote safe mobility Provide improved transit connections Improved pedestrian safety Minority and lowIncome including: Tribal Members Local Residents Area Visitors I-40 Travelers Temporary constraint to street accessibility Increased traffic through the project areas Increased traffic noise Improved regional and local connectivity Improved overall efficiency of the road network Reduced travel time Conserved fuel Traffic crash reduction and severity Improved emergency response time Promote safe mobility Relieve traffic congestion Traffic crash reduction and severity None identified. Improved overall efficiency of the road network NEED 9: Multimodal Transportation Roadway, Bicycle, Pedestrian Facility Improvements Airport Development: 8.5 miles of new access roads need to be constructed. Transit Routes: Implement 5-year plan; expand and provide transit centers; local circulator service in Growth Centers. Bicycle Routes and Sidewalks need improvement, connectivity and new routes need to be constructed. (See Tables in Chapter 5.B. Need 9) NEED 10: Other Transportation Roadway Rural Addressing, Snow and Mud Emergencies, Hazardous Material Transportation, Former Bennett Freeze Area and I40 Detour: 4,436.8 miles of Navajo-BIA roads, 1,735.8 miles of County roads and 2,812.7 miles of Tribal roads need improvements. (See Tables in Chapter 5.B. Need 10) NEED 11: Cultural Environmental Considerations Roadway Planning & Engineering To minimize environmental and cultural impacts of proposed transportation projects through implementation of necessary environmental assessments. (See Narrative in Chapter 5.B. Need 3) Minority and lowIncome including: Tribal Members Local Residents Area Visitors VI-16 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 J. Year 2009-2048 Navajo Nation Long Range Construction Priority Schedule The Transportation and Community Development Committee of the Navajo Nation Council approved the Navajo Nation 40 -Year Roads Construction Priority Schedule for FY 2009 to FY 2048 on March 16, 2004. The plan is a culmination of road construction priorities based on recommendations from five Agency Roads Committees. As a result of IRR Program funding constraints, the Fiscal Year 2009-2048 Navajo Nation Long Range Construction Priority Schedule total is averaged at $53.58 million per annum. Compared to overall long range transportation needs (Table VI-2), the Navajo IRR Program funding addresses only one-fourth of the Navajo Nation’s actual long range transportation needs. The 2008 TCDC resolution and the Fiscal Year 2009-2048 Navajo Nation Long Range Construction Priority Schedule list is included in the following tables. VI-17 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER VII - GROWTH CENTER MOBILITY The Navajo Nation’s growth centers have been designated for economic and community development. They are also the Nation’s major population centers. The following discussions explain transportation needs, planning considerations, and the proposed mobility improvements for the Navajo Nation Primary Growth Centers. A. Population Projection Population of the Navajo Nation’s Primary Growth Center communities made up 21% of total Navajo Nation population (Census 2000). Based on projected growth rate of 2.5% (1.84% growth was Navajo reservation’s overall growth rate from 1990 to 2000), Table VII-1 illustrates that more of these communities will become small urban communities. FHWA classifies a small urban area as one having over 5,000 population (FHWA Highway Functional Classification-Concepts, Criteria and Procedures). The new 2010 Census will provide an updated growth rate by Growth Center and enable Navajo Nation planners to better understand how development is changing the population in the Growth Centers. Table VII-1. Growth Center Population Projections for Years 2000-2030 Growth Centers 2000* 2010 2020 2025 2030 Tuba City 8,225 10,529 13,478 15,249 17,253 Shiprock 8,156 10,440 13,365 15,121 17,018 Chinle 5,366 6,869 8,793 9,948 11,256 Kayenta 4,922 6,301 8,065 9,124 10,323 Window Rock/St. Michaels 4,354 5,574 7,135 8,073 9,133 Ft. Defiance 4,061 5,198 6,654 7,528 8,518 Crownpoint 2,630 3,367 4,310 4,876 5,517 Notes: * 2000 Census data for Census Designated Place (CDP). Projection was computed using formula: P1 = P0 (1+r)^n P0 = Base Year Population; P1 = Future Year Population; r = Growth Rate; n = Number of Years B. Development Trends The Primary Growth Center designation was a result of the Navajo Nation’s economic development strategies. This policy is supported by Indian Health Services (HIS), Navajo Housing Authority (NHA), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation Local Governance Act further supports the Primary Growth Center development concept by requiring a land use plan for these communities. More economic, community, and government services development is assumed for the Primary Growth Centers. Increased school enrollment, health care services, employment, and businesses generally occur in the Primary Growth Centers. C. Transportation Issues Current Navajo Nation infrastructure, particularly the transportation system is inadequate to support more development. Components of the present transportation system are already at capacity, resulting in transportation issues described below: High Traffic Volume: As population and development occurs, traffic increases in primary growth centers frequently resulting in traffic congestion and higher crash occurrences on most primary growth centers’ main thoroughfares. VII-1 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Traffic Congestion: All primary growth centers have already experienced traffic congestion during rush hours and Navajo Nation Fair times. Limited paved roads results in traffic congestion on main streets and at development access locations. Poor Access Management: Limited paved roads led to ribbon development along the state and Navajo BIA roads in the primary Growth Center communities. Lack of alternate routes and access management to these development sites produced numerous access points on these main streets resulting in more congestion and decreased motorist and pedestrian/bicyclist safety. High Traffic Accidents: A high percentage of the Nation’s traffic accidents occurred on road sections and intersections within the Growth Centers (See also Chapter V-Need 4: Safety). Highway safety has become a major concern for the primary growth center communities. Discouraged Economic Development: Transportation and infrastructure are crucial factors determining the success of economic development. The lack of transportation routes and limited paved streets in the Growth Centers result in limited economic development opportunities. This, in turn, makes it difficult to attract outside businesses. Lack of paved streets also limits developable sites. As the seven Navajo Nation Primary Growth Centers defined within this Long Range Transportation Plan chapter continue to grow, the need for an efficient and safe street network to meet the demands of their growing urbanization, to avoid traffic congestion and accidents, and to promote economic development and meet future population growth is required. D. Planning Methodology The primary purpose for the Navajo Primary Growth Center Mobility Improvements is to provide a comprehensive street network that safely and efficiently serves the primary growth center communities. Federal transportation planning guidelines are used to address transportation issues while meeting the development goals. Street planning goals and guiding principles include: Economic Vitality Expand usable land for economic development: commercial, industrial, and agricultural according to land resources potential. Safety Increase safety by providing more alternative routes to avoid congestion. Install street lights and signalization at major intersections as warranted. Separate motorized and non-motorized users (bicycle paths and sidewalks). Control access to and from developments. Accessibility & Mobility Promote mobility for people and freight with an efficient network that enhances connectivity to regional transportation system. Environment Protect and enhance the natural environment by avoiding sensitive areas and providing recreational access to natural areas. Multimodal Improve modal choice and enhance connection between transportation modes. Energy and Efficiency Promote energy conservation through efficient transportation system planning. Cultural/Community Values VII-2 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Promote a community’s cultural identity, values, and sense of a place. Meet cultural and community needs. Land Use Support use of land for existing and future development by providing necessary access. E. Growth Center Mobility Improvements The following sections describe existing transportation issues as identified during the planning process conducted for this Navajo LRTP Update. Also identified are transportation mobility improvement opportunities for each Growth Center to consider as development occurs. VII-3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Tuba City Mobility Improvements Background Tuba City is the most populated Navajo Nation Growth Center. In 2000 it had a population of 8,225 and it is projected to grow to 17,253 by 2030. It is located approximately 60 miles north of Flagstaff, Arizona. It is a major community in the Navajo Nation’s northwestern region. Tuba City’s land size is estimated at 37,556.5 acres consisting of grazing land surrounding housing sites and the administrative area. Tuba City was part of the Bennett Freeze Order, the 1977 Settlement Act (PL 93-531) amended by the PL. 96305 in 1980, Navajo-Hopi land dispute. The Bennett Freeze restricted any construction of any kind but Tuba City was set aside as administrative area where some developments were allowed. However, the Bennett Freeze was lifted in 2007. It is a significant employment center in the region and culturally and historically significant to the Navajo as well as the Hopi Tribe and San Juan Paiute Tribe. The Tuba City Airport is located nine miles west of Tuba City on US160. It is a regional center for health care and community services, schools, public safety as well as banking, shopping, dining and other services. Future Land Use In 2007 the Tuba City Chapter was certified and changed its name to “To’Nanees’Dizi Chapter.” That same year the Chapter adopted its land use plan, which was funded by a Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act (NAHSDA) grant. The Chapter recognizes the importance of using land use planning for the housing site identification as well as commercial, industrial, recreational and other land use zoning to create a workable community. The Chapter land use plan was developed with its vision statement in mind, it reads: “The To’Nanees’Dizi Chapter will be a chapter with both an urban and rural flavor. The rural area will continue to accommodate farming and the traditional Navajo way of life. The administrative area will be a community which is home to commercial activity and denser residential development. The community will have an approved land use plan which identifies the road network and delineates commercial and residential land uses. All residents of the chapter, be they Dine or non-chapter members, will have access to safe and affordable housing and all basic infrastructure.” Goals and Strategies Improve infrastructure because they are crucial to future development. Plan in-fill to take advantage of existing infrastructure and cut cost for new development then build new infrastructure. Actively withdraw lands for development as planned. Proposed Future Development The plan identifies future development needs and proposed sites as follows: Residential Development  Single Family Housing: Three (3) Sites were proposed as shown on Map VII-1. These sites contain 10-acres each exclusively for housing development. Although one of the sites is not within the To’Nanees’Dizi community boundary, it is within the Chapter boundary.  Single Family Housing with Commercial Development: The Moenave Site is also outside of the To’Nanees’Dizi community but is still within the Chapter boundary. In addition to 10-acre housing development, its plan includes 3-acre commercial development, 4-acre recreation with a basketball court and 3-acre open space.  Trailer Park: A 5-acre site is proposed near the future Dine College expansion, see Map VII-1. VII-4 % , , % Need Pedestrian Crossing h 160 t u h , % , % , % , % 264 , % LEGEND t u 160 IRR Public Route , % Existing Stop Location US Highway h Proposed Stop Location Land Use Type AIRPORT COMMERCIAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT HEALTH PD/FIRE R1 R2 ± 0 750 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 Feet Transit Stops BIA Route R3 RECREATION RELIGION RURAL SF UTILITY Traffic Control í é è Additional Traffic Control Desirable Existing Flasher Existing Traffic Signal Mobility Improvements Pave Gravel Road Proposed New Road Sidewalk Needs Note: Transparent land uses shown are existing. Nontransparent land uses are proposed/future. TUBA CITY PROPOSED MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS MAP VII-1 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Commercial Development Dinosaur Tracks Business Site: Approximately 22 acres are proposed for commercial development next to the Dinosaur Tracks tourist attraction. The site is located along US 160 northeast of the US160/N23 junction. US89/US160 Business Site: 21 miles west of To’Nanees’Dizi, approximately 60 acres are proposed for commercial development at the northeast corner of the intersection. This location is aimed at attracting tourists on US89 en route to Lake Powell. However, it needs waterline extension from Moenkopi or existing line on US160. Industrial Development There are no existing industrial sites in To’Nanees’Dizi, however, three sites are being considered for future development. These are as follows: Dinosaur Track Business Site There is a five-acre site west of To’Nanees’Dizi livestock pens adjacent to US160. Additionally, there is undetermined acreage west of the rodeo grounds adjacent to US160. Education Future expansion of Dine College: Future expansion of Dine College is planned within the existing college property. In-fill Development The plan recommends in-fill development for housing and commercial uses. Building from partially complete subdivisions first will reduce infrastructure cost before the Chapter begins building at the new sites, which require extension of infrastructure. Town Center The plan recommends To’Nanees’Dizi to undertake the development of a “Town Center” to create cohesiveness for the community. VII-6 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK VII-7 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan SHIPROCK MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS Existing Conditions and Transportation Issues Shiprock, New Mexico is the second largest Navajo Nation Growth Center with a population of 8,156 according to the 2000 Census. Its population is expected to reach 17,018 by 2030. The Shiprock community is divided into two areas near the San Juan River, with government services in the north and a new commercial area in the south. Most development is concentrated along US491 and NM64, which merge to become the main thoroughfare collecting traffic from developments and access roads to housing, hospital, and government facilities. Shiprock is about a one-half hour drive from Farmington, New Mexico and Cortez, Colorado. These border towns provide employment opportunities for Shiprock residents. Commuter traffic to and from Shiprock contributes to rush hour traffic congestion in Shiprock. US491/NM64 between the south and north junctions experience traffic congestion and have the highest number of concentrated crashes on the Navajo Nation reservation. Demand for future development will certainly strain US491 and NM64. Commercial and industrial development has been proposed along US491 south of the San Juan River. As land develops, parallel streets are needed to support future growth, offer alternative routes and avoid further ribbon development adjacent to US491 and NM64 which will only expand upon currently congested areas. Street Plan Goals & Objectives  To create networks of streets to expand the use of land for the purpose of economic development towards the south and serve the government center.  To create two street networks separated by the San Juan River, each providing an efficient distribution of traffic to reduce congestion and accidents.  To provide an alternate crossing of the San Juan River towards the west.  To create alternate routes and increase accessibility.  To minimize environmental and cultural impacts by conserving areas adjacent to the San Juan River for recreation, and building new improved routes on existing dirt roads.  To strengthen the historical sense of the place by creating a new government/town center upon old settlement area known as the Shiprock chapter house/BIA compound.  To enhance multi-modal options and mobility by providing a pedestrian bridge across the San Juan River, safely linking the two primary development areas within Shiprock. VII-8 64 t u ± Pedestrian Bridge h N 0 491 t u 750 1,500 % , , % OO DP LA Proposed I WASH / FL , % í é è 491 t u D IL W 3,000 FE LI 6,000 Feet , % UTILITY UTILITY RURAL RURAL SF SF RELIGION RELIGION RECREATION RECREATION R3 R3 R2 R2 R1 R1 PD/FIRE PD/FIRE GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT HEALTH HEALTH EDUCATION EDUCATION COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL AIRPORT AIRPORT Existing Existing Traffic Traffic Signal Signal Existing Existing Flasher Flasher Additional Additional Traffic Traffic Control Control Desirable Desirable Note: Transparent land uses shown are existing. Non-transparent land uses are proposed/future. Sidewalk SidewalksNeeds Proposed Proposed New New Road Road Access Management Pave Pave Gravel Gravel Road Road Mobility Mobility Improvements Improvements í é è Traffic Traffic Control Control Proposed Proposed Stop Stop Location Location h US US Highway Highway Land Land Use Use Type Type Existing Existing Stop Stop Location Location , % BIA BIA Route Route Bus Transit Stops Stops LEGEND í é è IRR IRR Public Public Route Route , % 64 t u Pave 5031 to US-64 BIA Emergency Route MAP VII-2 SHIPROCK PROPOSED MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS 4,500 R IDO R R CO 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHINLE MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS Existing Conditions and Transportation Issues Chinle is the third largest Navajo Nation Growth Center with 5,366 in population during 2000. Its population is expected to grow to 11,256 by 2030. Approximately 2 million tourists pass through Chinle annually, as it is the gateway to the Canyon de Chelly National Monument. Chinle is primarily accessible and connected to other regions by US191. N7 provides access from US191and from the Fort Defiance Agency to the Canyon de Chelly National Monument. N64 provides access from Tsaile through the national park. These are the main paved roads in Chinle, other than the hospital and NHA access roads. Nazlini Wash divides Chinle into two areas: the old settlement comprising the BIA compound and chapter government in the east, and commercial development, schools and hospital in the west. Land along N7 is very much developed and confined by the wash. US191 becomes a busy thoroughfare with high concentration of crashes from N102 to N7. High traffic volume and frequent points of access on US191 and N7 contribute to congestion and safety issues on both roads. Lack of alternate routes into Chinle also causes traffic congestion on N7. Due to the extent of access and traffic along N7, an examination of turn lanes and access management techniques should be explored to improve safety and mobility. Tourism as well as population growth will promote the demands for more developable areas. Better links between Chinle’s east and west sides are needed to improve transportation access to the hospital, the new airport, and tourist destinations. Residents are both concerned about their grazing rights and the need for economic development. Street Plan Goals & Objectives  To create a safe multi-modal street network that connects all parts of Chinle more effectively.  To create ring roads/outer loops to accommodate new land use/development and divert through traffic from US191 and N7.  To improve paved roads using existing dirt roads to avoid relocation and conflict with residents of existing built-up areas.  To create a town center from the old settlement area to promote town history and attract tourists.  To provide sufficient and efficient alternative routes, i.e., ring roads to bypass or cross town. Alternate routes should be examined to quantify time savings, safety improvement and congestion reduction. These loops connect south and north parts of town to the new Chinle Airport, and provide access to the new commercial and industrial centers, as well as new housing and schools. The improvements could potentially help improve traffic congestion on US191 and N7. This plan keeps existing scattered housing sites as rural residential areas. It proposes to minimize road construction and land use within the 100-year flood prone areas. Some roads would also serve as dikes to protect nearby existing and new developments from flooding. Most areas along the 100-year flood prone area are proposed for recreation and agricultural uses. A drainage study should be completed to identify needed drainage improvements to alleviate the recurring flooding issues southeast of the US191/N7 intersection. The plan proposes to expand US191 to 5 lanes with raised median, street lights, traffic signalization and landscaping from the airport exit to N8091. Bicycle paths and sidewalks are proposed along N7 from US191 to Canyon de Chelly and along the Nazlini Wash. Additionally, this portion of N7 should also be converted from a four-lane roadway to a two-lane roadway with a center two-way-left-turn lane to enhance corridor safety and capacity. Map VII-3 identifies needed transportation enhancements within this Growth Center. VII-10 ± 0 , % 750 1,500 3,000 4,500 Add Guide Sign for Canyon de Chelly 191 t u , % , % , % RELIGION RURAL SF UTILITY GOVERNMENT HEALTH PD/FIRE , % Existing Stop Location Proposed Stop Location , % h Transit Stops Sidewalk Needs Proposed New Road Pave Gravel Road Mobility Improvements Existing Traffic Signal Traffic Control MAP VII-3 CHINLE PROPOSED MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS Note: Transparent land uses shown are existing. Non-transparent land uses are proposed/future. R1 BIA Route RECREATION US Highway County Route R3 LEGEND EDUCATION 27 7 N-27 Paving Scheduled for 2012 , % COMMERCIAL , % R2 , % % , AIRPORT Land Use Type , % Study Potential to Restripe from 4-lanes to 3-lanes (center turn-lane) Access Management Issues Widen to 5-lanes Scheduled for 2013 , % , %% , 6,000 Feet Major Drainage Issues Add Guide Sign for Canyon de Chelly ards e Gu l t t a C g New d Fencin an 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan KAYENTA MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS Existing Conditions and Transportation Issues Kayenta had a population of 4,922 in 2000 and is expected to grow to 10,323 by 2030. Kayenta is the only Navajo community that has become a township. Its economy is tied to Monument Valley, a national and international tourist destination. Kayenta collects its own sales tax, passes laws and enforces its land use plan and ordinances. The first Kayenta land use plan was developed and approved in 1986. The township covers approximately 5.5 acres of land. US160 and US163 are Kayenta’s main thoroughfares. Other existing paved roads are NHA and school access. The junction of US160/US163 has experienced very high levels of crashes. US160 from US163 to N59 and US163 from N6485 to UT state line/Monument Valley also had a high number of crashes. Kayenta Township has been progressive in establishing a township commission, administration and in planning for development. Land use regulations and development policies have been developed and enforced. With an independent revenue source from its sales tax, Kayenta is likely to be the fastest growing Navajo Nation Growth Center in economic development. Street Plan Goals & Objectives:  To create a multimodal network that supports the land use plan by providing managed access to different land areas/uses.  To create an efficient street system that provides a comprehensive transportation network for effective connectivity, distribution of traffic and enhances pedestrian and bicycle mobility. Map VII-4 illustrates the transportation mobility improvements desired for the region to support the stated goals and objectives. VII-12 , % , % Land Use Type ± R2 COMMERCIAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT HEALTH R3 RECREATION County Route RELIGION RURAL SF US/STATE Highway PD/FIRE UTILITY R1 0 415 830 1,660 2,490 LEGEND AIRPORT Traffic Control Existing Traffic Signal Monitor for Future Traffic Control BIA Route Transit Stops Mobility Improvements Pave Gravel Road , % Existing Stop Location h Proposed New Road Proposed Stop Location Sidewalk Needs 3,320 Note: Transparent land uses shown are existing. Feet Non-transparent land uses are proposed/future. KAYENTA PROPOSED MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS MAP VII-4 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Fort Defiance Mobility Improvements Existing Conditions and Transportation Issues Fort Defiance’s population was 4,061 in 2000 and is expected to increase to 8,518 by 2030. Fort Defiance was the first American military post in the region in 1851. Later it became the Bureau of Indian Affairs agency headquarters. It is the largest community in the Fort Defiance Agency. Several arterial (Class 2) roads provide access to Fort Defiance: N12 connects Fort Defiance with Window Rock and other parts of the Fort Defiance Agency; N7 provides access from Chinle Agency; N112 connects to St. Michaels and Navajo, New Mexico; and N54 connects Fort Defiance to NM264 in Eastern Agency. N110, a five-lane road is considered the main street in Fort Defiance. N110 from N12 to N112 had a high number of accidents. Fort Defiance continues to be the federal government headquarters for the agency. Fort Defiance Hospital, schools, light industries, BIA and Navajo Nation offices are major employers. The community and the Navajo Nation continue to promote industrial development and attract more companies to Fort Defiance. Street Plan Goals & Objectives:  To create a growth center’s street system that provides access and travel continuity as well as promotes new development.  To create an efficient street system that promotes network connectivity, distribution of traffic and enhances pedestrian and bicycle mobility. Map VII-5 illustrates the proposed transportation mobility improvements for the Fort Defiance Growth Center. VII-14 12 , % 7 , % 110 , % % , , % , % 54 112 12 Land Use Type ± LEGEND AIRPORT R2 COMMERCIAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT HEALTH R3 RECREATION County Route RELIGION RURAL SF US/STATE Highway PD/FIRE UTILITY R1 0 700 1,400 2,800 4,200 Existing Traffic Signal Monitor for Future Traffic Control BIA Route Transit Stops Mobility Improvements Pave Gravel Road , % Existing Stop Location h Proposed New Road Proposed Stop Location Sidewalk Needs 5,600Note: Transparent land uses shown are existing. Feet Non-transparent land uses are proposed/future. Traffic Control FORT DEFIANCE PROPOSED MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS MAP VII-5 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Window Rock/St. Michaels Mobility Improvements Background The Window Rock community is located within the St. Michaels Chapter boundary. It is the capital of the Navajo Nation where the headquarters of all branches of the tribal government and Indian Health Services are located. Other major employers in Window Rock are State of Arizona MVD and Department of Economic Security, BLM, Dine College, Window Rock Elementary School, two grocery stores and various businesses. Window Rock and St. Michaels CDP population were 3,059 and 1,295 respectively (2000 Census). Most development extends along AZ264 and N12 corridors making St. Michaels-Window Rock into an urbanized area. Future Land Use The St. Michaels Chapter Land Use Plan developed in 2004 suggests few changes in land use categories for the Chapter in the next several years. Housing development is always in demand in Window Rock. The plan forecasts a demand for housing to meet the need of employees of the Navajo Nation and other employers and small commercial development for the Window Rock area. Goals and Priorities To provide development and land use opportunities to meet economic and housing needs. To develop with environmental and cultural suitability Residential Development A 20-acre site is proposed for mixed residential and commercial development north of the Window Rock Post Office. Commercial Development  48-acre Black Creek Commercial Site north of AZ 264.  Small neighborhood commercial development similar to the mixed residential and commercial development north of the Window Rock Post Office. Education Dine College is intending to develop a full-on campus within St. Michaels Chapter. The Chapter suggests that it purchases a 21-acre land parcel owned by St. Michaels Mission west of St. Michaels Housing area for the proposed future Dine College campus and student and staff housing. Recreation The Navajo Nation Fair Ground is planned to expand to a 14-acre site east of Church’s Chicken. However, St. Michaels Chapter needs to clear this with the Federal Aviation Administration because of its proximity to the Window Rock Airport. FAA regulations restrict building height within the flight approach zone. VII-16 ± 264 0 650 1,300 , % 2,600 3,900 5,200 Feet , % UTILITY R3 HEALTH EDUCATION Existing Stop Location Proposed Stop Location h , % , % Transit Stops US Highway BIA Route IRR Public Route LEGEND , % , % % , , % , % 264 Improve Gravel Road Proposed New Road Sidewalk Needs Access Management Needs Mobility Improvements Monitor for Future Traffic Control Devices Existing Traffic Signal Traffic Control , % MAP VII-6 WINDOWROCK/ST. MICHAELS PROPOSED MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS Note: Transparent land uses shown are existing. Non-transparent land uses are proposed/future. RECREATION PD/FIRE RURAL SF R2 COMMERCIAL GOVERNMENT RELIGION R1 Land Use Type AIRPORT 12 , % 12 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Crownpoint Mobility Improvements Background Crownpoint is the regional center for Eastern Navajo Agency in New Mexico. It is located approximately 24 miles north of Thoreau, New Mexico in McKinly County. Unlike other Navajo Nation Primary Growth Centers which are located entirely on the Navajo Nation Trust Land, Crownpoint is part of the Nation’s “Checkerboard” area that dominates the Eastern Navajo Agency. Estimated land size of Crownpoint is approximately 71,604 acres. It consists mostly of Navajo Nation Trust Land (44%) and Indian Allotments (39%), while State, Tribal Fee, BLM, private and others make up the rest (17%). It is a major employment center and government services in the region. The Crownpoint Airport is located 3 miles west of Crownpoint on N9. It is a regional center for health care and community services, schools, and public safety, shopping, dining and other services. Future Land Use Crownpoint adopted its Land Use Plan in 2004. It envisioned a community where people who live and work there believe in the beauty, history, natural and cultural importance of the community and its viability; where members want to stay, work, shop, live, share, raise their families, and prosper in a selfsustaining way; where people value peacefulness and own strength in building and working together to continuously improve lives and preserve traditions. Goals and Priorities  To become a self-sustaining community. Promote economic and tourism development to create and sustain jobs, contribute to tax base, and share local traditions and customs.  To balance land uses and development to strengthen community’s vision, rural character and lifestyle.  To create an attractive community while preserving the character of the community and protect traditional and cultural properties.  To provide adequate community facilities and services to protect health, promote safety and welfare of general public.  To identify areas for orderly development.  To provide adequate infrastructure to meet current and future needs of Crownpoint while not exceeding its physical capacity and preserve water resources.  To provide a variety of transportation modes for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic while keeping in mind the need for emergency access. Residential Development Single Family Housing: 20 new houses are proposed by IHS in central Crownpoint. 30 housing units are proposed by NHA in north Crownpoint. ARC, Inc. completed a study for the chapter and identified two sites: 165 acres located at N9/N11 junction and 473 acres near north NM371/N9 junction. Commercial Development The community recommended businesses such as restaurants, sport and auto stores. For tourism, the community recommended a paved flea market and art and crafts pavilion for local artists and a casino. Rental office spaces and a truck stop were also recommended. Industrial Development Community members expressed a desire to encourage industrial development that does not negatively impact the health and welfare of the community members. Recreation The community desired to expand recreation to be enjoyed by the community members and tourists alike such as parks and a golf course. Map VII-7 illustrates the proposed mobility improvements for the area. VII-18 9 LEGEND Land Use Type AIRPORT R2 COMMERCIAL R3 EDUCATION RECREATION GOVERNMENT HEALTH RELIGION PD/FIRE UTILITY RURAL SF R1 Note: Transparent land uses shown are existing. Non-transparent land uses are proposed/future. 9 1042 County Route 1048 BIA Route 371 1040 US Highway Transit Stops , % Existing Stop Location h Proposed Stop Location Traffic Control Existing Traffic Signal Monitor For Future Traffic Control Mobility Improvements 1042 ± Pave Gravel Road Proposed New Road 0 750 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 Feet Sidewalk Needs CROWNPOINT PROPOSED MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS MAP VII-7 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Community Services  Proposed public facilities to meet the needs of specific groups (e.g., children, youth, elderly, veterans, ranchers, etc.)  Proposed office complex or multi-purpose facilities for centralization of BIA and Navajo Nation programs, NTUA, etc.  Proposed cultural and civic facilities such as veteran’s memorial, museum, rodeo hall of fame, boys & girls club, etc.  Proposed common areas including a “plaza” for flea market, farmers market, arts & crafts, festival, etc.  Restore old and historic buildings and sites to stimulate the community’s quality of life and economic vitality. These are town hall, old school warehouse, superintendent’s house, BIA Park, etc. Crownpoint Indian Health Service Programs:  Priority #1: Expansion or additions of IHS Programs, southeast from hospital.  Priority #2: New Housing units with 7.92 acres (currently Ropes Course) of new housing. The Ropes Course has been turned over to the Navajo Department of Youth and will be moved to north of the new housing.  Priority #3: 2.5 aces to be leased to NN Division of Health for Behavioral Health programs: Wellness Center, Outpatient Treatment & Detoxification Center. VII-20 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER VIII - NAVAJO NATION AIRPORT NEEDS Air transportation is an important part of transportation services on the Navajo Reservation. Considering the size of the reservation, 26,600 sq. miles with an average density of 6.8 persons per square mile, aviation provides an efficient transportation connection to remote areas of the reservation and to the other part of the country. It becomes a crucial means of transportation for medical emergencies, for tribal official business, and for tourism. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funds airport and airfield development with aviation fuel excise tax. Congress enacted Vision 100 - Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act in 2003. Recognizing the important role of runways, the Vision 100 has increased the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding from $3.4 billion in FY2004 with $100 million increments over the next three fiscal years. AIP provides funding for airfield pavement projects. Vision 100 also includes a program for airport security upgrades to be funded separately. Under the legislation, non-primary airports will be allowed to pool their annual AIP funds. This will allow such airports to do higher-cost capital projects than they could individually. These annual AIP funds are only available if there have been qualified projects submitted under the Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP). Non-hub airports will now be able to use their AIP funds to carry out pavement maintenance activities. As of the date of this study, Congress is in the process of reauthorizing Vision 100 and FAA has been funded through a series of continuing resolutions. The Navajo DOT has been receiving FAA funding for construction and improvements for its airports. As in the IRR program, FAA funds are not allowed to be used for maintenance. The Navajo Nation is required to provide 5% local match with FAA funds and the responsibility and funding of airport maintenance. The Navajo DOT has had a few airport system plans developed since 1975. The Division has used them as guidelines for airport development. The 1992 Navajo Nation Aviation Systems Plan is the most current plan Navajo DOT has followed. This plan was approved by the TCDC in 1993. The FAA accepted the 1992 plan and incorporated eight of the Navajo Nation airports into the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). A. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Navajo Nation has outlined its aviation goals and objectives as follows:  To develop a system of safe, efficient airports which meet acceptable development standards of federal, state and local agencies, as well as the aviation industry.  To plan for future growth of the aviation system consistent with national, state, and local air transportation needs through continuous updating of the Navajo Nation Aviation Systems Plan and to take actions to land bank and avoid operational restrictions at existing and new airports.  To provide a system of airports, which will provide a minimum level of service and meet acceptable performance standards.  To identify improvements needed to ensure adequate access to all system airports and users.  To enhance opportunities for local economic development and improved employment consistent with local growth policies and plans.  To finance aviation facility development to maximum feasible extent with innovative techniques taking full advantage of private sector initiatives and opportunities to assist in developing and operating facilities in the public aviation system.  To establish operating procedures, budgets and an organizational structure to ensure proper maintenance of all Navajo Nation airports.  To provide a framework for aviation planning and programming to meet needs in areas of airport development, airspace utilization and air navigation facilities and services. B. EXISTING AIRPORTS AND INVENTORY Navajo Nation airport system consists of approximately 32 airports/airstrips within the Navajo Reservation and the checkerboard area (Map VIII-1). Five are privately owned. Only six of the Navajo Nation airports are currently in use (shown with* in Table VIII-1). Only fourteen are registered or included in the NPIAS and state airport systems. They are Tuba City, Kayenta, Chinle, Window Rock, Ganado, Rock Point, VIII-1 ® q ® q ® q Tuba City Cameron ® q ® q 0 5 10 ® q ® q 20 ± 30 ® q ® q Polacca 40 Miles Greasewood ® q ® q ® q Shiprock Sanostee ® q ® q ® q New Mexico Colorado ® q ® q ® q ® q ® q ® q Type ® q Alamo ® q Torreon ® q Cuba Landing Strip Navajo-BIA Roads - Dirt Navajo-BIA Roads - Gravel Navajo-BIA Roads - Paved US and State Highways Interstate 40 Private NN Primary Airport NN Secondary Airport Hopi Airport Border Town Airport Existing Airports Grants-Milan Municipal ® q Crownpoint Four Corners Regional ® q Ramah Gallup Municipal Window Rock Pine Springs Map VIII-1 ® q ® q Lukachukai Transwestern Ganado Holbrook Municipal Airport ® q ® q Toyei School ® q Nazlini Chinle ® q ® q ® q Rock Point ® q Teec Nos Pos EXISTING NAVAJO NATION AIRPORTS ® q Pinon Black Mesa ® q Kayenta ®q q ® Winslow Municipal ® q ® q Oljato Monument Valley Rocky Ridge ® q Shonto Leupp Transwestern ® ® q q Kaibito ®q q ® Inscription House Page Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Utah Arizona Navajo Mountain AZ Minerals ® q Bluff Legend 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Shonto, Pinon, Lukachukai, Rocky Ridge, and Pine Springs Airstrips in Arizona; Shiprock and Crownpoint Airports in New Mexico; and Oljatoh Airstrip in Utah. These airports/airstrips are classified as Navajo Nation Primary and Secondary Airports as described below: 1. Navajo Nation Primary Airports Eight (8) airports. They are owned and maintained by the Navajo Nation. Six have a paved single runway for small aircraft operations. Some have navigational aids and are equipped for night operations. They are located at the Navajo Nation Primary Growth Centers and open for public use. Most usage of these airports is for medical emergencies, secondarily by tribal business, with occasional uses by tourists. Construction work on Shiprock, Tuba City, Crownpoint, and Chinle airports was completed from 1998 to 2003. Window Rock Airport is being planned for an upgrade in 2009. Except for Window Rock Airport, none of the primary airports have a terminal building. Kayenta Airport improvements included relocation of the runway and parking area and electrical upgrades between 1998 and 2003. Airport programming and operations are now administered by the Kayenta Township. Ganado Airport mostly serves medical transportation to and from the Sage Memorial Hospital. Its dirt runway is too short. A master plan and initial design (2008) for a 6,600' x 75' paved runway has been completed. Window Rock is operated by the Navajo Nation Air Transportation Services under the Division of General Services, which provides charter services to the Navajo Nation President and other tribal programs. Other private air transportation services are also available at Window Rock Airport. 2. Navajo Nation Secondary Airports Nineteen (19) airports/airstrips. All are dirt airstrips without supporting facilities and receiving no maintenance. They are mostly closed, in poor condition, or unusable. Six of the Navajo Nation Secondary Airports are in the Arizona Airport System Plan (Rock Point, Shonto, Pinon, Lukachukai, Rocky Ridge, and Pine Springs). These airports/airstrips are necessary since they can be used for medical emergencies and emergency landings. Private Airports Five (5) are privately own and maintained airports. 3. Hopi Tribal Airport The Polacca airport is located by the Hopi Health Center in Polacca. Currently this airport is considered a primary general aviation use airport in the Arizona DOT system. There are approximately $11,000,000 budgeted for improvements to the runway and clearance of obstructions for this airport. This airport is used by governmental agencies accessing this region along with health related emergencies for both Hopi and Navajo tribal members in the region. The existing Navajo Nation airport information identified above and in Tables VIII-1 and VIII-2 are based on latest FAA record, State airport plans and Navajo DOT survey. Table VIII-3 provides information on those airports that are owned and operated by others than the Navajo Nation but are generally within the confines of the Navajo Nation geographical area VIII-3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table VIII-1. Existing Navajo Nation Primary Airport Inventory Airport Name Runway Runway Based Aircraft Runway Data/ Dimension Direction Conditions Shiprock* 4,840'x75' 02/20 Navigational Lighting Aids Other Facilities Annual Operations Performance and Capacity Needs Single Eng: 0 Asphalt/Poor. Poor None Multi Eng: 0 markings. Broken glass & debris on rwy. Obstructions: 50 ft wide, 1225 ft fr rwy 02, 300 ft left of ctrln, 20:1 slope to clear 250' left at controlling point rwy 02. None: None Stolen (vandalism) 1,150 (Avg 22/week) 87% transient; 13% local Recons rwy and paint. Clear obstacles. Deepen drainage ditch. Connect twy to rwy 20. Tuba City* 6,230' 75' 15/33 Single Eng: 0 Asphalt/Good. Very Multi Eng: 0 uneven and cracked (1520' on S-Closed 1200' rwy 15). Brush on rwy. Fair markings. Obstructions: 34ft. hill fr rwy 15, 17:1 slope to clear. 1 ft ridge parallel to rwy 15; 280 ft fr rwy 33, 8:1 slope to clear. Livestock. Rotating beacon; PAPI; windsock Yes Aircraft parking apron 6,500 Recons 1520 ft rwy. Weed maint. Kayenta* 7,140'x75' 05/23 Single Eng: 3 Asphalt/Poor. Good Multi Eng: 0 markings. Holdline on twy fr tie-dn to rwy is 203 ft fr rwy ctrln. Unrestricted access to rwy fr US160. Plants on rwy & twy. Segmented Yes circle-rotating beacon; wind indicator Apron w/ 8 tie-downs; 10 cars parking. 4,700 Recons rwy. (Avg Weed maint. 90/week) 53% local 26% transient 21% air taxi Oljetoh 3,950'x50' 14/32 Single Eng: 0 Asphalt/Poor (Closed). Multi Eng: 0 Has ruts and potholes. Deteriorating badly to bare earth. No markings. Obstructions: 1:1 slope to clear 4' fence 90'-100' fr rwy. Wind indicator; segmented circle. 5,000 sq. ft Avg 30/week apron w/ 6 76% air taxi tie-downs; 2 22% gas pumps; transient water; 2% local electricity. hangars Unsafe runway, needs to relocate and construct new rwy. Crownpoint* 5,820'x60' 18/36 Single Eng: 0 Asphalt /Poor. Loose Multi Eng: 0 gravel and cracked rwy. Fair markings. Obstructions: 43 ft hill, 1500 ft fr rwy 18, 30:1 slope to clear. 40 ft wide, 800 ft fr rwy 36, 15:1 slope to clear. Radio MIRL controlled rotating beacon; wind indicator 35,600 sq. ft paved apron w/ 9 tie-downs; 500 sq. ft trailer (poor cond.) 500 (Avg 42/month) 60% air taxi 40% transient Runway rehabilitation. Needs crosswind runway fr westerly wind Chinle* 6,149'x60' 18/36 Single Eng: 3; Asphalt/Good. Good Multi Eng: 3 markings. Radio controlled rotating beacon; PAPI; windsock Yes Paved apron 2,400 (Avg 46/week) 67% transient; 17% local 17% com’ercial Window Rock* 7,000’x75’ 02/20 Single Eng: 3; Asphalt/Poor runway. Multi Eng: 5 Good markings. Obstructions: 18 ft. hill fr rwy 2, 125 ft right of ctrln, 8 ft trees 400 ft fr rwy 20. 24:1 slope to clear 4 ft fence. Hill and cliffs all quadrants. Livestock. N Twy closed. Rwy 02/20 closed to aircrafts over 24,000 lbs. Beacon; AWOS, PAPI; windsock Yes Apron, hangars, terminal 7,000 (Avg 134/week) 79% transient 21% local None VIII-4 Recons. Runway. 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Airport Name Runway Runway Based Aircraft Runway Data/ Dimension Direction Conditions Ganado 4500’x130’ 18/36 None Navigational Lighting Aids Dirt/Fair (Closed). Rwy Windsock 175’ wide except where sideslope up steeply. Ends and shoulders: scattered soft sandy-clay. AER 36 rocky. Obstructions: 3’ fence, 60’ fr rwy 36, 20:1 slope to clear. No line of sight btwn rwy ends. Water on rwy and gulleys after heavy rain. Livestock. None Other Facilities Annual Operations None 700 (Avg 58/month) 100% transient general aviation Performance and Capacity Needs Source: Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000; New Mexico Airport System Plan 2003; FAA Airport Master Record 2004; 2001 NDOT survey. Notes: * Airports currently in use. VIII-5 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table VIII-2. Existing Navajo Nation Secondary Airport Inventory Airport Name Runway Runway Based Aircraft Runway Data/ Dimension Direction Conditions Shiprock* 4,840'x75' 02/20 Sanostee Rock Point** 3,500’x45’ 3,700’x50’ Teec Nos Pos 3,000’x80’ Shonto** 3,500’x75’ Navigational Lighting Aids Other Facilities Annual Operations Single Eng: 0 Asphalt/Poor. Poor markings. None Multi Eng: 0 Broken glass & debris on rwy. Obstructions: 50 ft wide, 1225 ft fr rwy 02, 300 ft left of ctrln, 20:1 slope to clear 250' left at controlling point rwy 02. None: None Stolen (vandalism ) 1,150 (Avg 22/week) 87% transient; 13% local 01/19 None None None None None None None None 0 60 01/19 None None None None None None None None 0 0 Dirt/Poor. No longer exists. Dirt/Poor. Steep hill is too close in the NE for takeoff. Inactive. Dirt/Poor. No longer exists. Dirt/Poor. Good location. Chilchinbeto 1,850’x20’ None Dirt. No longer exists. Poor location. Needs new location. None None None 0 Leupp 1 mile None None None 0 Inscription House Navajo Mountain Cameron 4,500’x75’ None Old airstrip by N15 is vacant. Dirt None runway is gone. Currently, planes land at Transwestern’s Winslow Compressor Station 9 miles E. for medical emergencies: paved runway. Dirt. Unsafe and unusable. None None None 0 3,600’x100’ None Dirt/Poor. Good location 4,000’x75’ None Dirt/Poor. No activity Kaibeto 3,500’x75’ None Torreon 2,400’x50’ None Pinon** 3,200’x60’ 01/19 None Lukachukai** 3,350’x75’ Rocky Ridge** 2,500’x45’ 12/30 03/21 None None Dirt/Poor. Unsafe: encroached by residential dev. Needs new location. Dirt/Runway damaged beyond repairs. Not in use. No longer exists. Dirt. Site has been encroached with storage buildings and power lines. Dirt/Poor. No longer exists Dirt Lower 4,750’x50’ Greasewood Pine Springs** 2,275’x100’ 05/23 None Dirt/Poor. None Dirt. 3000’x50’ None Dirt runway with paved apron 200’x20’ None Dirt runway No information Monument Valley Nazlini Alamo Wind indicator None None None 0 None None 0 None None None 0 None None None 0 None None None 0 None Wind indicator None None None None None 60 0 None None 0 Wind indicator Unknown None None 60 None None Unknown None None Source: Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000; New Mexico Airport System Plan 2003; FAA Airport Master Record 2004; 2001 NDOT survey. Notes: * Airports currently in use **Airports included in the AZ SASP. VIII-6 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table VIII-3. Existing Airports within the geographic area not owned or operated by Navajo Nation Airport Name Runway Runway Based Aircraft Runway Data/ Dimension Direction Conditions Goulding’s 3,200’ Unknown Thoreau None Lake Valley 2,600’x60’ None Klagetoh None Black Mesa 6000’x75’ 18/36 Polacca (Hopi) 4200’x50’ 04/22 Navigational Lighting Aids Private, serving tourists; runway Unknown locates half on private land and half on Navajo Nation (half paved/ half dirt); apron w/ 2-3 tie-downs; hangar; office bldg. Severe down draft from mountain. Private: Owned by Transwestern None Pipeline. Not open to public. Asphalt runway. Private: Owned by La Vida Windsock Mission, Inc for transport of doctors. Gravel runway; no runway marking. Well maintained. Private: Owned by Transwestern Unknown Single Eng: 3 Private, Asphalt, Good Condition, AWOS Owned by Peabody Mining PAPI Windsock Single Eng: 1 Owned by Hopi Tribe and Windsock operated by BIA, runway paving is in fair condition C. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Issues Other Facilities Annual Operations Unknown Unknown Unknown None None 0 None None 0 Unknown Unk 0 Yes Unknown Unknown No None 900 Numerous issues are facing the Navajo Nation airport development. FAA funding criteria limit the number of airports qualified for funding. State funding and local matching are scarce, while airport maintenance funds are virtually non existent. As a result, only the Navajo Primary Airports get funded. This makes the Navajo Nation airport system less efficient with limited coverage service areas leaving many remote areas without air transportation or usable airstrips for safety landing and medical evacuation. Funding: Development Funds: To be funded by FAA AIP, an airport must be included in the NPIAS. Only eight of the Navajo Nation airports are included in the national plan, and are eligible for funding. Funding all planned development to meet airport development goals and air transportation needs is an issue facing the Navajo Nation. State Aviation Funds: New Mexico has a program which will fund elgible projects at one-half of the local share which would mean the Navajo Nation would then be responsible for the other 2.5% of the local share. Arizona and Utah have shown limited interest in assisting the Navajo Nation in funding the federal AIP program though Arizona has introduced legislation allowing the contribution of state funds to Native American airports. The state share in airport federal aid projects will normally be 2.5% with 2.5% contributed by the local sponsor, the Navajo Nation. The remaining 95% would be federal aid. Navajo DOT has not pursued the use of state funds in the past. Maintenance Funds: FAA funds are not available for airport maintenance. However, airports constructed with FAA AIP funds must be maintained, requiring the use of local funding sources. In the past, the Nation’s airport maintenance fund was scarce and inadequate. The Vision 100 provision regarding nonhub airports may change all that. It allows the Nation to acquire funds from FAA for airport maintenance. Navajo DOT needs to check whether its airports are qualified for maintenance funds under the new aviation legislation so that they can be used to supplement the Navajo Nation’s new airport maintenance funding source, the Navajo Nation Fuel Excise Tax. Matching Funds: With the availability of the Navajo Nation Fuel Excise Tax, the lack of local matching funds will be a thing of the past. However, the Transportation and Community Development Committee needs to make certain that the tribal matching funds requirement (Approximately 5% of total project cost) will be available to secure FAA funding through appropriation of the Navajo Nation Fuel Excise Tax. VIII-7 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Medical Evacuation: Medical transportation is the primary use for the Navajo Nation airports. Only six Navajo Nation Primary Airports serve this purpose. Many clinics and healthcare facilities lack access to air transportation or are over 30 minutes drive from an airport. Although five of the IHS healthcare facilities have helipads (Chinle Hospital, Inscription House Clinic, Shiprock Hospital, Crownpoint Hospital, and Ft. Defiance Hospital which is planned to get one soon). These helipads are for licensed medevac flights only. IHS highly recommends development of more landing strips for medical and public uses, because there is a need for routine air transport of doctors and patients Aviation Safety: The Navajo Reservation is large and remote, availability of emergency landing strips is crucial for aviation safety. Many of the Navajo Nation Secondary Airports are unsafe or unusable. These airports need improvements as well as new airport development to meet the coverage radius of 25 miles to be used for emergency landings on the Navajo Reservation. 2. Planning Criteria To address medical transportation and safety issues, aviation service coverage on the reservation must increase. To provide aviation safety and to qualify for the FAA funding, all airports must meet federal and aviation industry design standards. Aside from meeting medical and aviation safety needs, air transportation must also meet the needs for the Navajo Nation’s economic development. Service Coverage: Geographic coverage of 25-mile radius for each airport is a nominal goal for the Navajo Nation airport system development. A 25 mile distance is a minimum 30-minute drive. It is assumed that any ground transportation time exceeding 30 minutes will discourage use of air transportation in rural areas. Currently only six Navajo Nation Primary Airports are developed, but their locations are spaced apart beyond the 25-mile radius. Therefore, more airports need to be developed to reduce the service coverage gap. Airport Design Standards: To make Navajo Nation Primary Airports safe and fully efficient and meet future operations forecasts (Table VIII-4), they need to meet standards for Airplane Design Group II, Approach Category B with full length taxiways. The future forecast is based on regional and local aviation demand studies by State aviation divisions and the 1992 Navajo Nation Airport System Plan’s recommendation. Tourism Needs: The Navajo Nation air transportation has yet to expand to its full potential to meet tourism demand. Due to the enormous size of the Navajo Reservation, auto travel to many places takes most of a day. Air transportation can drastically cut travel time and becomes an alternate mode of touring of the Navajo Reservation to make it more attractive. Chaco Canyon National Historical Park is nationally known but presently has no usable airstrip close by. There have been reports that both the Chinle and Kayenta airports have seen increased usage in tourist traffic where tourists have been flown in to the area and then proceed to either Canyon De Chelly or Monument Valley via tour bus or van. Community Needs: There are communities within the Nation boundaries that have expressed interest in developing airports/airstrips for use by community members, commercial enterprises, and governmental entities. One such community is Pinon where the school district has expressed interest in assisting in developing some type of airport/airstrip for use by their staff and others in the community. To create an efficient and safe airport system, the Navajo Nation long range transportation airport planning thus must address these issues and set to meet the planning criteria mentioned above. Below is a summary and specifics of the long range development goals and plans. VIII-8 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan D. LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND PLANS 1. Primary Airports To increase aviation service coverage and maximize FAA funding, develop all eight primary airports. To upgrade all primary airports to meet Airplane Design Group II, Approach Category B standards and increase capacity to meet future operation forecasts. To meet airport design standards and capacity goals. The followings are recommended capacity goals for each primary airport: VFR hourly capacity: 98 operations IFR hourly capacity: 59 operations Annual service volume: 230,000 operations Annual projected demand: 8,000 -12,000 (Tuba City, Window Rock) 4,000 - 6,000 (Shiprock, Chinle, Kayenta) 1,000-3,000 (Oljatoh, Ganado, Crownpoint) Average delay per operation: 0 Ultimate full length taxiways Non-precision instrument approach Table VIII-4 illustrates projected based aircraft and annual operation forecast based on state aviation needs studies and NDOT estimate. Table VIII-4. Navajo Nation Airport Based Aircraft and Annual Operation Forecast Airport 2000 Based Aircraft 2020 Based Aircraft 2000 Annual Operations 2020 Annual Operations Shiprock 0 2 1,150 4,100 Tuba City 0 0 6,500 **8,000 Kayenta 3 3 4,700 **6,000 Oljetoh 0 2 0 **1,000 Crownpoint 0 2 500 1,000 Chinle Window R k Ganado 6 6 2,400 **4,000 8 16 7,000 **11,000 0 1 700 **1,000 Source: Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000; New Mexico Airport System Plan 2003; and NDOT Estimate (**) To meet the aviation goals and forecast described above, this plan recommends improvement of all existing primary airports and construct a new primary airport in Ramah Chapter to expand service coverage to this satellite Navajo community (Table VIII-5). These Navajo primary airports including Ramah are eligible for FAA funding. Goulding’s is a private airport. Its runway is only half paved on the private land and half dirt on the Navajo Nation’s land (Table VIII-3). There is an obstruction close by to the south. Overall, the airport is unsafe. Navajo DOT, therefore, recommends constructing a new Oljatoh airport to replace Goulding’s and the old Oljatoh Airports. The local community has rejected any plans for relocation of the Oljetoh airport and though considered to be a part of the Navajo Nation airport system it is not included in any future planning other than identifying that something in the area needs to be addressed. VIII-9 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table VIII-5. Proposed 20-Year Improvement Plan for Primary Airports Airport Improvement Needs and Recommendations FY Window Rock Total 20-year Improvements: 2000-2020 Estimated Construction Cost $7,250,000 Taxiway reconstruction, navigational aid replacement, auto parking lot rehabilitation 2009 $1,000,000 Pavement maintenance Construct remaining partial parallel taxiway Acquire additional 142 acres Connect three connecting stubs Install ASOS Painting and striping runway Pavement maintenance Pavement maintenance Total 20-year Improvements: Parallel taxiway construction, apron expansion Install electrical, water, and phone Complete parallel taxiway construction Construct pilot waiting area Construct restroom Construct maintenance facility Pavement maintenance Install VISAIDS Extend Rwy 17-35 by 2930' (7,130'x 60') Construct full parallel taxiway: 7170'x25' Construct one connecting stub Pavement maintenance Install AWOS Upgrade AWOS AWOS-3 Install NPI Pavement maintenance Total 20-year Improvements: New paved runway construction 18/36, 6,600' x 75'; runway lights Install VISAIDS Pavement maintenance Construct 250 sq. ft building Runway lighting, install MIEL, MIRL & PAPI Construct pilot waiting area Construct rest room Install electrical, water, phone Pavement maintenance Pave partial taxiway Pave apron Pavement maintenance Total 20-year Improvements: Runway reconstruction1,600'x75', drainage improvements Painting and striping runway Lighting improvements Construct partial parallel taxiway Construct taxiway parallel to runway Construct pilot waiting area Pavement maintenance AWOS-3 Complete full parallel taxiway (6,230'x75') Pavement maintenance Total 20-year Improvements: Runway rehabilitation, turnaround rehabilitation Install security fencing/gates/lights Rehabilitate runway lighting (MIRL/electrical vault) Install guidance signs Rehabilitate runway (Crack seal/fog seal/restripe) Rehabilitate apron (Crack seal/fog seal/restripe/replace tiedowns) Remove/relocate obstruction (powerline) Conduct airport action plan/ALP Update Rehabilitate automobile parking/access road 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2006-2010 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2000-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2000-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2000-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2000-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 $500,000 $800,000 $200,000 $50,000 $190,000 $10,000 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $6,415,000 $1,000,000 $50,000 $400,000 $60,000 $30,000 $100,000 $500,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $20,000 $100,000 $120,000 $180,000 $75,000 $80,000 $100,000 $4,970,000 $3,000,000 $100,000 $500,000 $100,000 $400,000 $60,000 $30,000 $80,000 $100,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $6,270,000 $2,000,000 $10,000 $100,000 $300,000 $1,700,000 $60,000 $100,000 $100,000 $1,500,000 $400,000 $3,020,000 $1,000,000 $150,000 $250,000 $30,000 $200,000 $90,000 $150,000 $150,000 $200,000 Chinle Ganado Tuba City Crownpoint VIII-10 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Airport Shiprock Kayenta Improvement Needs and Recommendations FY Acquire maintenance equipment (snow removal/mover) Construct maintenance equipment building Install weather reporting equipment (AWOS-3, P/T) Acquire/install emergency generator Annual maintenance Total 20-year Improvements: Runway rehabilitation, reshape and marking; taxiway shoulders Maintenance Runway lighting, install MIEL, MIRL & PAPI, beacon and wind tower replacement Install security fencing/gates/lights Improve service roads Rehabilitate taxiway Extend taxiway to runway 20 Rehabilitate apron Improve airport drainage Maintenance Total 20-year Improvements: Construct Apron (1) Construct Access Road (1) Construct Storage Building for Maintenance Equipment (1) Wildlife Perimeter Fencing (1) Helicopter pads (1) Parallel Taxiway, Grade and Drain (1) Parallel Taxiway, Paving (1) Install Taxiway Lighting (1) Conduct Obstruction Survey (1) Construct two tie-downs Construct restroom Install electrical, water and phone services Pavement maintenance Overlay runway w/ 2" asphaltic concrete Painting and striping Construct airport terminal On-site waste water disposal system Construct pilot waiting area Install REIL Install PAPI Install AWOS/VISAIDS Extend runway 05-23 by 30' (7,130'x75') Install ILS Install HIRL Purchase ARFF vehicle Pavement maintenance 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2000-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2000-2020 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 2010-2020 Total Estimated Construction Cost $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $50,000 $300,000 $6,790,000 $1,500,000 $100,000 $1,900,000 $400,000 $300,000 $1,200,000 $300,000 $390,000 $500,000 $200,000 $14,855,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $400,000 $600,000 $500,000 $1,200,000 $1,800,000 $400,000 $75,000 $5,000 $60,000 $70,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $50,000 $500,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $150,000 $100,000 $1,800,000 $500,000 $400,000 $1,500,000 $49,570,000 Notes: * Construction year contingent to local government/chapter approval. Cost estimate does not include planning and engineering. (1) Included in the ADOT Tentative Program, FY 2010 - 2014 PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator REIL - Runway End Indicator Lights HIRL - High Intensity Runway Lights MIRL - Medium Intensity Runway Lights MITL - Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights AWOS - Automated Weather Observing System Map VIII-2 illustrates the proposed primary and secondary airport locations. VIII-11 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan 2. Secondary Airports To increase airport service coverage within the Navajo Reservation; to provide air transportation services to healthcare facilities in remote areas; and to provide for emergency landings. To upgrade secondary airports to make them usable, efficient, and safe; to improve and develop the secondary airports to meet design standards for Airplane Design Group I, Approach Category B standards. This plan recommends improvements of Navajo Nation Secondary Airports at six locations (Map VIII-2). Table VIII-6 shows recommended improvements of these Navajo Secondary Airports to meet long range development goals described above. However, these Navajo secondary airports are not eligible for FAA funding, this plan recommends funding them with the Navajo Nation Fuel Excise Tax, State, and/or other funding sources. Table VIII-6. Proposed 20-Year Improvement Plan for Secondary Airports Airport Service Coverage/Needs Proposed Improvements FY Estimated Construction Cost Rock Point To serve Red Mesa and Rock Point clinics/areas 2010-2020 $1,000,000 Navajo Mountain To serve Navajo Mountain and Inscription House clinics/areas Grading, 8" Aggregate Base Course (ABC) to the surface Paving and navigational aids. Grading, 8" Aggregate Base Course (ABC) to the surface Paving and navigational aids. Grading, 8" Aggregate Base Course (ABC) to the surface Paving and navigational aids. Grading, 8" Aggregate Base Course (ABC) to the surface Paving and navigational aids. Grading, 8" Aggregate Base Course (ABC) to the surface Paving and navigational aids. Grading, 8” Aggregate Base Course (ABC) to the surface Grade and place Aggregate Base on runway surface Construct paved runway, navigational aids, apron, runway lights Paving and navigational aids Airport Maintenance 2010-2020 2010-2020 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 2010-2020 2010-2020 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 2010-2020 2010-2020 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 2010-2020 2010-2020 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 2010-2020 2010-2020 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 2010–2020 $1,000,000 2000-2010 $3,700,000 2010-2020 2010-2020 $3,000,000 $360,000 $29,060,000 Monument Valley Dilcon To serve Dilcon, Leupp, and Lower Greasewood areas. New Lands To serve Nahata Dziil Community and economic development. Alamo Pinon Ramah All Total Table VIII-7. Total Estimated 20-Year Airport Improvement Costs Funding Source FAA Airport Category Primary Airports # of Airports 9 FY 2000-2020 NNFET, State, Others Total Secondary Airports 6 2000-2020 Cost $49,570, 000 $29,060,000 $78,630,000 VIII-13 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER IX - NAVAJO BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT NEEDS A. BACKGROUND The Indian Reservation Roads bridge system includes BIA owned and non-BIA owned bridges. IRR bridges must be on public roads within or providing access to an Indian reservation. They can be owned by states, counties, BIA, tribal, or local government. There are 745 bridges owned and maintained by the BIA in 30 states. Of these, 178 (approximately 24 percent) are bridges on the Navajo-BIA roads. To identify bridge improvement needs, the BIADOT is required to develop a bridge inventory and inspect all BIA bridges every two years. To be included on the National Bridge Inventory (NBI), a bridge or multiple opening culvert must have a span length of at least 20 feet and be of a required configuration. The inspection identifies bridge rehabilitation and replacement needs for each region. The BIA bridge inspection data is forwarded to FLHO for inclusion in the NBI. FHWA maintains the NBI and inspection database and provides copies to BIA Regional Offices. B. FUNDING Section 1119 of the SAFETEA-LU authorizes $14 million per year for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 from the Highway Trust Fund for the Indian Reservation Roads Bridge Program (IRRBP) to carry out preliminary engineering (PE), construction engineering (CE), and construction to replace or rehabilitate structurally deficient or functionally obsolete IRR bridges. C. BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT NEEDS SAFETEA-LU, Section 1115 requires an implementation of a Bridge Management System (BMS) in IRR transportation planning and improvement program. The BIA bridge inspection and database are used in identifying a sufficiency rating for each bridge. The 2007 bridge inventory is used to identify bridge improvement needs in this plan. Of the total 178 bridges, 58 bridges were identified for deficiencies, including 33 bridges needing replacement (Table IX-1) and 25 bridges needing rehabilitation ( IX-1 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table IX-2) by BIA-NRODOT Bridge Design Section. Map IX-1 shows locations of all bridges and those needing improvement. BIA-NRODOT Bridge Design Section estimates a total cost of $23,804,000 (Table IX-3) to improve all 58 deficient bridges. These cost estimates are for replacement and rehabilitation of existing bridges only. They do not address any new or proposed bridge construction needs beyond any identified deficiencies or current capacity. Criteria are used in the improvement needs assessment to identify bridge deficiencies for reasons of condition or function. These criteria are then used to develop an overall sufficiency rating. A bridge having sufficiency rating of less than 50 qualifies for replacement. A bridge having sufficiency rating between 50 and 80 qualifies for rehabilitation. Table IX-1. Navajo Bridges Needing Replacement Agency FORT DEFIANCE FORT DEFIANCE SHIPROCK SHIPROCK SHIPROCK FORT DEFIANCE FORT DEFIANCE FORT DEFIANCE FORT DEFIANCE SHIPROCK FORT DEFIANCE FORT DEFIANCE FORT DEFIANCE FORT DEFIANCE FORT DEFIANCE W ESTERN NAVAJO FORT DEFIANCE W ESTERN NAVAJO SHIPROCK CHINLE FORT DEFIANCE CHINLE W ESTERN NAVAJO FORT DEFIANCE SHIPROCK W ESTERN NAVAJO SHIPROCK CHINLE FORT DEFIANCE W ESTERN NAVAJO FORT DEFIANCE FORT DEFIANCE EASTERN NAVAJO TOTAL Needs Priority 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Bridge No. N617 N628C N228 N241 N226 N642 N619C N629 N666 N214C N660 N667 N616 N606 N649 N307 N651 N323 N235 N517 N613 N521 N314 N656 N248 N309 N230 N507 N636 N320 N645 N658 N487 Bridge Name SAND SPRING CREEK KIN LI CHEE WASH TOH-CHIN-LINI WASH TOADLENA WASH IRRIGATION CANAL SAGE W ASH COAL MINE WASH KIN LI CHEE WASH RIO PUERCO RIVER CAPTAIN TOM WASH FIQUERDO WASH CRYSTAL CREEK CRYSTAL CREEK UPPER BONITO WASH WASH MOENKOPI WASH WASH PIUTE CREEK GARFIELD LOOP WASH TSE CHIZZI WASH TODILITO W ASH BIS LI AH WASH LAGUNA CREEK RIO PUERCO W ASH WALKER CREEK DINNEBITO WASH KIT SILI WASH CHINLE W ASH WHITEWATER CREEK DENNEBITO WASH STEAMBOAT WASH WIDE RUINS WASH WHITE ROCK WASH 33 Bridges Route No. N321 N39 N5037 N5001 N5031 N39 N541 N203 N00 N5001 N9504 N9603 N321 N9073 N9660 N6731 N108 N6310 N132 N67 N12 N26 N6486 N9402 N35 N6720 N5045 N8086 N9402 N6732 N9054 N28 N7057 Sufficiency Rating Status Length (meters) 2.0 2.0 3.0 6.4 9.3 9.9 13.8 16.4 16.4 16.6 16.6 17.5 18.2 19.7 20.5 24.0 28.6 30.6 35.7 35.8 37.0 38.2 39.7 41.3 44.6 45.4 45.5 46.0 48.1 48.3 48.8 48.9 49.6 SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD FO SD FO SD SD FO SD SD FO SD 23.8 16.0 18.2 13.6 9.9 9.0 25.9 14.1 86.6 27.0 27.2 19.1 26.2 15.0 15.4 22.1 32.6 27.4 6.1 32.5 74.3 55.1 10.7 124.7 27.3 15.4 9.1 134.9 19.9 19.9 9.1 12.4 9.0 Estimated Improvement Cost $350,000 $331,000 $380,000 $295,000 $225,000 $195,000 $338,000 $352,000 $1,122,000 $337,000 $450,000 $217,000 $445,000 $253,000 $350,000 $485,000 $530,000 $112,000 $180,000 $50,000 $2,100,000 $810,000 $440,000 $1,800,000 $510,000 $480,000 $235,000 $412,000 $490,000 $350,000 $370,000 $350,000 $205,000 $15,549,000 Source: BIA-NRODOT Bridge Design Section, April 24, 2009. Notes: SD = Structurally Deficient FO = Functionally Obsolete IX-2 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Table IX-2. Navajo Bridges Needing Rehabilitation Agency SHIPROCK SHIPROCK FORT DEFIANCE W ESTERN NAVAJO FORT DEFIANCE EASTERN NAVAJO SHIPROCK CHINLE CHINLE CHINLE SHIPROCK W ESTERN NAVAJO W ESTERN NAVAJO W ESTERN NAVAJO FORT DEFIANCE SHIPROCK SHIPROCK W ESTERN NAVAJO CHINLE CHINLE FORT DEFIANCE EASTERN NAVAJO FORT DEFIANCE CHINLE CHINLE TOTAL Needs Priority 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Bridge No. N225 N257 N665 N310C N641 N488 N231 N540 N516 N504 N255 N319 N318 N308 N682 N213 N252 N313 N512 N503 N675 N486 N623 * N532 * N538 * Bridge Name IMMANUEL MISSION WASH WASH SLICK ROCK CREEK KAIBETO WASH LONE TULE WASH INDIAN CREEK MONTEZUMA CREEK WEPO WASH TSE CHIZZI WASH WHEATFIELD CREEK WASH SAN FRANCISCO W ASH SAN FRANCISCO W ASH LAGUNA CREEK BLACK CANYON WASH CLAH WASH CHINLE W ASH LAGUNA CREEK TOHOTSO WASH WHISKEY CREEK PEACH SPRINGS WASH CHURCH CAMP WASH COYOTE WASH EAST FORK DENNEBIT0 WASH COTTONWOOD WASH 25 Bridges Route No. N5037 N33 N12 N6331 N39 N9652 N5099 N4 N65 N12 N33 N6910 N6923 N6486 N15 N5001 N8070 N6461 N133 N12 N9 N7054 N60 N41 N251 Sufficiency Rating Status Length (meters) 54.9 55.7 56.1 60.4 63.7 64.3 66.6 66.7 68.8 70.7 71.8 71.9 72.0 72.2 72.6 74.2 74.9 75.8 75.8 79.3 79.6 79.9 86.2 95.7 95.8 FO SD SD SD FO SD SD SD SD FO SD FO FO FO SD FO FO FO FO SD FO FO SD FO SD 9.1 13.8 12.1 15.3 10.8 15.4 56.4 8.1 32.5 29.4 8.7 19.9 19.5 20.0 7.6 11.0 182.9 18.3 31.4 29.4 9.8 18.3 42.5 52.8 24.4 Estimated Improvement Cost $145,000 $25,000 $46,000 $117,000 $100,000 $116,000 $154,000 $34,000 $108,000 $311,000 $18,000 $102,000 $107,000 $150,000 $19,000 $125,000 $1,700,000 $150,000 $427,000 $159,000 $53,000 $201,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,367,000 Source: BIA-NRODOT Bridge Design Section, April 24, 2009. Notes: SD = Structurally Deficient FO = Functionally Obsolete * Bridges with sufficiency rating higher that 80 and status of Structurally Deficient or Functionally Obsolete. $0 cost as defined by the Recording and Coding Guide were not necessary for these bridges. Table IX-3. Total Funding Needs for Navajo Bridge Improvements Total # of Bridges Needing Improvement 58 Total Estimated Design Cost* Total Estimated Replacement Cost Total Estimated Rehabilitation Cost Total Funding Needs $3,888,000 $15,549,000 $4,367,000 $23,804,000 Source: BIA-NRODOT Bridge Design Section, April 24, 2009. * Design cost estimated as 25% of replacement cost. IX-3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER X - NAVAJO-BIA ROADS MAINTENANCE A. BACKGROUND As a condition for the continuing use of Federal Lands Highway funds including IRR and in accordance with 23 USC 116, roads and projects constructed with the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) must be maintained to FHWA standards. If any projects or roads constructed with such funds are not properly maintained, the Secretary of Transportation may withhold approval of further FHWA projects. IRR roads and bridges are to be maintained to guarantee safe transportation for the traveling public. Prior federal transportation legislation requires the IRR road maintenance program to implement a Pavement Management System (PMS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS). Furthermore, road maintenance must also be performed in compliance with all applicable federal and tribal regulations and codes including the Clean Water Act, Cultural Resources Protection Act, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Noxious Weeds, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Endangered Species Act. Since 1951, Congress has appropriated the Department of Interior funds for road maintenance annually under the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA). Funds allocated for road maintenance are to be spent on BIA system roads and on other Indian Reservation roads when covered by an agreement. The BIA Regional Offices and Agencies are responsible for maintenance of roads and bridges on the BIA road inventory. As of 1994, nationwide IRR roads maintained by BIA consisted of 25,700 miles of BIA and tribal owned roads (IRR Stewardship Plan, 1996). The national BIA road maintenance budget allocations have decreased with $26.4 million being allocated in FY 2000 versus $24.8 million in FY 2009. The Department of Interior (DOI) allocates road maintenance funds to BIA regional offices by formula (used for distributing TPA). This formula is outdated and does not reflect individual tribal needs (National Academy of Public Administration Study of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Management and Administration, September, 1999). Under Tribal Priority Allocations, road maintenance has low priority. After the allocation is made for road maintenance at the Department level, funds are distributed between the BIA Regional Offices based on mileage and the type of road surface. The BIA-NRODOT distributes road maintenance funds to BIA-NRODOT agency offices in a similar manner. B. BIA NAVAJO ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Funded by DOI road maintenance funds, the Navajo IRR Road Maintenance Program is a program within the BIA-NRODOT. It consists of engineers and technical employees at the Regional and Agency Offices including Shiprock and Crownpoint in New Mexico; Tuba City, Chinle, and Fort Defiance in Arizona; and other maintenance units at Farmington, New Mexico (Navajo Irrigation Industry Project) and Sanders, Arizona (New Lands). The BIA Road Maintenance Program may only preserve, repair, or restore system roads to their original condition. The Road Maintenance Program may not expend maintenance funds to improve roads. Navajo road maintenance is accomplished mainly through force account operations, which is the use of BIA employees and equipment to complete the routine work. Some activities such as striping and chip sealing are contracted. Maintenance is under the authority and supervision of the NRO Road Engineer delegated to the Agency/unit Road Engineers and the Superintendent in the Eastern Navajo Agency in Crownpoint. C. FUNDING Prior to 1992, the Navajo road maintenance funds increased from $1.57 million in FY1975 to $9.86 million in FY1991, representing an average of 39.5% of funding requests or maintenance needs. However, since then funding for the Navajo Region Road Maintenance Program has declined with FY 2008 being funded at $5.9 million. While road maintenance needs have increased in proportion to increasing road construction funding (roads/projects constructed with HTF must be maintained), Navajo road maintenance funds instead have declined steadily for the past several years. X-1 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan According to the BIA-NRODOT the $5.9 million FY 2008 road maintenance fund was allocated to all agencies as indicated in Figure X-1. While in FY 2007 $6.5 million was spent on routine maintenance, bridge maintenance, snow and ice control, emergency maintenance, and program management as shown in Figure X-2. Figure X-1 – 2008 Allocations FY 2008 Allocations Navajo Region, $335,169 (6%) New Lands, $313,810 (5%) Shiprock, $888,351 (15%) NIIP, $457,485 (8%) Western Navajo, $1,013,603 (17%) Fort Defiance, $1,181,101 (20%) Eastern Navajo , $760,446 (13%) Chinle, $963,868 (16%) Figure X-2 2007 Allocations FY 2007 Expenditures Bridge Maintenance, $17,996 (1%) Program Management, $1,859,059 (29%) Snow & Ice, $153,483 (2%) Routine Maintenance, $4,395,267 (68%) D. Emergency Maintenance, $89,733 (1%) NAVAJO ROAD MAINTENANCE NEEDS The BIA-NRODOT reports that there is limited supporting statistical data to analytically verify the Navajo Nation’s backlog of road and bridge deferred maintenance needs due to the lack of MMS and PMS data. To address the need for data concerning deferred maintenance BIA-NRODOT has been using a combination of Level of Service (LOS) measurements and developing estimated road maintenance costs for the different classes and types of roadways. BIA-NRODOT rates road maintenance conditions based on the LOS measurements outlined in Table X1. Using the LOS, the Agency Roads Engineers and the Gallup office determine the roadway condition and serviceability. Since the goal is to maintain the roadway to the condition it was when constructed, there is an effort to maintain those roadways more recently improved while performing the work that is required to keep older roadways passable. This rating system is not correlated with any other system that is used to determine the roadway need for improvement. X-2 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 Table X-1 – Level of Service LOS 1 2 3 4 5 1. Description This is a very high maintenance service in which the roadway and associated features are in excellent condition. All systems are operational and users experience no delays. At this maintenance service level, very few deficiencies are present and the overall appearance is pleasing. Preventive maintenance is practiced in all maintenance activities resulting in overall low life-cycle costs and pleasing appearance. Routine activities take place on a regular basis, requiring minimal corrective maintenance activities. This is a high maintenance service level in which the roadway and associated features are in good condition. All systems are operational. User may experience occasional delays. At this maintenance service level, very few deficiencies are present in safety and investment protection activities, but moderate deficiencies exist in all other areas. Preventive maintenance is practiced for safety-related work, is deferred in other maintenance areas, resulting in additional routine and corrective maintenance measures. Corrective maintenance of all elements is handled in a timely manner. Life-cycle costs for maintenance activities are generally low. This is a medium maintenance service leveling which the roadway and associated features are in fair condition. Systems may occasionally be inoperable and not available to users. Short-term delays may be experienced when repairs are being made, but would not be excessive. At this maintenance service level, very few deficiencies are present in safety related activities, but moderate deficiencies exist for investment protection activities and significant aesthetic related deficiencies. Preventive maintenance is deferred for most activities except safety-critical work. A backlog of deficiencies begins to build up that will have to be dealt with eventually at a higher cost. Some roadway structural problems begin to appear due to long-term deterioration of the system. There is a noticeable decrease in appearance. This is a low maintenance service level in which the roadway and associated features are kept in generally poor condition. System failures occur regularly because it is impossible to react in a timely manner to all problems. Occasionally delays may be significant. At this maintenance service level, moderate deficiencies are present in safety related activities, and significant deficiencies for all other activities. Little preventive maintenance is accomplished. Maintenance has become very reactionary and places emphasis on correcting problems as they occur. A significant backlog of deficiencies will begin to build up that will have to be dealt with eventually, at a much higher cost. Safety problems begin to appear that increase risk and liability, and significant roadway structural deficiencies exist that accelerate the long-term deterioration of the system. The overall appearance is very poor. This is a very low maintenance service level in which the roadway and associated features are kept in very poor to failing condition. A backlog of system failures would occur because it is impossible to react in a timely manner to all problems. Significant delays occur on a regular basis. At this maintenance service level, significant deficiencies are present in all maintenance activities. The overall appearance is not aesthetically pleasing. Preventive maintenance is not realistic for any maintenance activity. Maintenance is totally reactive, and places emphasis on correcting problems after they occur. Significant backlogs of maintenance treatments are not enough to correct the deficiencies that exist, necessitating additional high-cost remedial construction reservation projects in the future. Overall maintenance operations are at their highest lifecycle cost. Pavement Maintenance Miles of Paved Roads to be Maintained: Out of 6,147.9 miles of the total Navajo-BIA roads, 1,494.4 miles or 24% are paved roads. Using service level rating system, approximately 478 miles of paved Navajo-BIA roads are rated at a level 1 or 2 (GPRA Road Maintenance, FY09, 3rd Quarter). The maintenance of paved roads is a high priority since most paved roads on the Navajo-BIA road system are Class 2 or major or minor arterial highways serving traffic between population centers, Class 4 roads with high ADT collecting local traffic onto the arterial roads, and Class 3 roads or streets within community/population centers serving residential and commercial areas. The higher priority is also due to the policy in maintaining roads constructed using Federal Highway funds since the use of these funds require a commitment to maintenance by the user of these funds. Also, paved roads have substantially more investment per mile when constructed and require a significant effort to protect that investment. Paved roads require routine maintenance such as snow plowing, roadside clean-up, mowing and striping. An inadequate road maintenance budget does not allow for sufficient equipment, personnel, and materials to adequately maintain all paved roads to acceptable standards. As a result, only main paved Navajo-BIA roads can be plowed in the winter leaving most community and residential streets covered with snow and ice. Roadside mowing and restriping cannot be done in a routine manner, as a result pavement marking is faded region wide, invisible at night and during bad weather. Roads in populated areas serving tribal government offices and housing are full of potholes. Major Class 2 and Class 4 roads are cracked and have become unsafe for heavy traffic. X-3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 Paved road maintenance includes: Patching; crack sealing; ditch, culvert, and cattle guard clean-out; striping; guardrail, sign and delineator replacements; repair, and cleaning; fence and gate repair; roadside clean-up and mowing; sealing; oversize and encroachment permits; cooperation with other public road agencies. NHA Street Maintenance: The 1994 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the BIA-and NHA for the BIA-NRODOT to maintain NHA housing streets was cancelled by NHA and the BIA Contracting Officer never renewed it. Since the Navajo DOT has inventoried these housing streets as tribal roads, the NHA street maintenance thus falls under the Navajo DOT’s responsibilities. It can be funded by the Navajo Nation or the IRR funds set aside for road maintenance (25% of IRR fund can be used for road maintenance). Compound and Education Streets: These roads were built by the BIA Branch of Facility Management and with education funds. However, the maintenance responsibility still lies with the BIA schools and BIA facility Management. The road maintenance of these roads should not to funded by IRR, DOI, or Navajo Nation funds. 2. Gravel and Dirt Road Maintenance: Miles of Gravel and Dirt Roads to be Maintained: Out of 6,147.9 miles of total Navajo-BIA roads, 105.7 miles are gravel roads, 4,203 miles are dirt roads, and 277 miles are considered primitive roads (see Chapter 3). The maintenance of unpaved roads is typically at a lower priority than that of paved roads. However, 76% (4,600 miles) of the Navajo-BIA road system is unpaved. These are Class 4 and 5 roads collecting traffic for arterial roads and providing connections within the grid of the Navajo IRR road systems. They serve areas around Navajo population centers, farming areas, schools, tourist attractions and commercial areas. They may include forest roads, roads serving grazing areas, mines, recreation, and other purposes (e.g., school bus routes). Unpaved roads require labor intensive routine maintenance such as surface grading on a regular basis and after periods of inclement weather to make them passable. Navajo reservation soils are generally poor. Many miles of roads are on clay, sand and silt soils. In some areas monthly blading is still inadequate. Earth road maintenance includes: Surface blading; ditch pulling; culvert and ditch clean-out, cattle guard clean-out; fence repair; rock outcrop removal; limited stretches of mud bridging; culvert installation when necessary to protect the existing road; sign replacement; rock raking; cooperation with other public road agencies, etc. Additional Miles of Gravel and Dirt Roads to be Maintained: BIA-NRODOT has a cooperative agreement with the BIA-Western Region Office (Phoenix) for maintenance of 650.5 miles of roads in the former Navajo-Hopi Joint Use Area. The road maintenance to be provided by the BIA-NRODOT Chinle, Fort Defiance, and Western agencies in number of miles is identified below: Western Navajo Agency: Chinle Agency: Fort Defiance Agency: Hopi Agency: 68.0 miles 255.5 miles 101.0 miles 226.0 miles Other Responsibilities: BIA-NRODOT Fort Defiance and Chinle Agencies have agreements with local chapters to supply fuel and other supplies for chapter graders in order for them to perform maintenance on BIA system roads. X-4 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 3. Bridge Maintenance: See Chapter XI for bridge maintenance. 4. Airport Maintenance: Number of Airports to be Maintained: Seven (7) airports on the Navajo Nation are to be maintained by the BIA-NRODOT Agency Offices. They are the Shiprock, Crownpoint, Tuba City, Chinle, Pinon, Ganado, and Window Rock airports. Kayenta airport is maintained by the Kayenta Township. The 58BIAM manual includes airports as functional classification Class 7, entitled to be included in the road inventory and maintenance needs. Due to inadequate road maintenance funding, maintenance of Navajo airports by the BIA-NRODOT is often reduced to emergency maintenance. The Navajo Division of Transportation provides small maintenance functions (e.g. weed control, runway light ball replacement, runway repairs) with in-house labor/staff when funds are available. Navajo DOT has no full airport maintenance program in place with a budget for crew and equipment to do a full scale airport maintenance. Airport maintenance includes: Snow removal, surface grading and patching, fence repair, emergency maintenance services as determined by the Navajo Region Road Engineer. 5. Equipment Needs: Most of the heavy equipment utilized by the Navajo road Maintenance program to maintain roads and bridges is old and in need of replacement. This includes graders, loaders, tractor/trailer combinations, and snow removal equipment. The current inventory shows heavy equipment is inadequate and in too poor condition to provide for sufficient road and bridge maintenance. New equipment such as rollers, dozers, brooms, and crack sealers is also needed. The basic road maintenance budget is inadequate to fund road maintenance operations; adequate equipment purchases are generally unattainable with the allocated funds. According to BIADOT–NRO maintenance records for FY 2007 the deferred minor and major repairs are equal to $3.28 million for just over 190 pieces of equipment. 6. Personnel Needs: The road maintenance program requires sufficient and skilled maintenance crews. Full-time professional, technical, administrative, and seasonal employees are all necessary. Currently, the BIA-NRODOT Road Maintenance Program does not receive enough funds to be staffed with necessary and sufficient crews to provide all necessary maintenance activities. Additional employees are needed. 7. Facilities Needs: The BIA-NRODOT Road Maintenance Program must also provide a safe working environment for all employees in the form of buildings, equipment shops, and offices. The existing program has limited the maintenance of existing facilities and shops to safe standards for the employee working environment, and limited acquiring new facilities to replace cramped, inefficient, and environmentally hazardous facilities. E. MAINTENANCE FUNDING NEEDS AND ESTIMATE When the “2003 Navajo Nation LRTP” was completed, DOI had changed the method used for funding requests. Budget planning is based on base funding with a justification for an increase. The justification for increased amount is required in a narrative to identify specific program needs and request funding for them. The written justification is very important to highlight the program’s importance and the impact of not being a top TPA priority. X-5 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 The BIA program manual for road maintenance (82 IAM), requires each BIA Regional Office to submit a Road Maintenance Budget Needs Report each year for two years in the future. The report is required to use a fixed cost per mile based on road type when preparing a funding request. The original cost per mile numbers are listed below. $2,500/mile for paved road maintenance $1,900/mile for gravel road maintenance $1,300/mile for improved dirt road maintenance $600/mile for unimproved dirt road maintenance These road maintenance cost figures were formulated in 1988 and have not been updated. The budget request is also to be prepared only for once-a-year maintenance. To illustrate that the 82 IAM required road maintenance cost figures are unrealistic, BIA-NRODOT compares its road maintenance funding per mile and total miles of maintained roads with the county road maintenance program figures (Table X-2). Table X-2. BIA and County Road Maintenance Data Highway Agency Apache County Coconino County Navajo County San Juan County McKinley County BIA-NRODOT Average Funding Per Mile of All Roads (FY94 Dollars) $2,175 $7,842 $10,821 $1,378 $3,057 $1,311 Total Miles Maintained 1,716.0 848.0 437.0 300.0 19.5 9,430.0 Source: BIA-NRODOT 2000 Briefing In the past few years the Navajo Region Office has not been instructed to request funds as outlined above, but receives funding as some percentage of what has been allocated in the past. The allocations received by BIA-NRODOT have varied from a low of $5.5 million in FY 2004 to a high of $6.7 million in FY 2007 with an allocation of $5.9 million for FY 2008. Secondly, the numbers listed above for calculating the average per mile maintenance costs have been updated and vary from a low of $1,250 to $22,400 per mile. Based on the information received from BIANRO, the unit mile cost is applied based on a combination of road surface type, traffic, and maintenance level of service. The method of determining the unit cost is unclear at this point. FY2008 BIA-NRODOT road maintenance deferred maintenance costs and current allocations are shown in Table X-3. The calculated road maintenance cost has been done by BIA-NRODOT for each segment of BIA routes and the allocation shown is what has been allocated to each of the agencies for FY 2008. Table X-3. Navajo Region Road Deferred Maintenance Program FY 2008 Agency Allocation Calculated Road Maintenance Cost Deferred Maintenance BIA-NRODOT $335,169 $371,220 $36,051 NIIP $313,810 $2,195,802 $1,881,992 New Lands $457,485 $0 $(457,485) Shiprock $888,351 $8,774,570 $7,886,219 Western $1,013,603 $7,967,674 $6,954,071 Eastern $760,446 $4,245,840 $3,485,394 Chinle $963,868 $6,838,720 $5,874,852 Fort Defiance $1,181,101 $7,974,390 $6,793,289 Total $5,913,833 $38,368,216 $32,454,383 Source: Spreadsheet titled ROADS_def_maint_N_FY2008_Q4, BIA-NRODOT. X-6 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 The 58BIAM required road maintenance cost figures can be considered low and make it difficult to get a reasonable funding estimate that will meet the Navajo Nation’s road maintenance needs. Should the TPA Navajo Road Maintenance continue to be funded at the base funding level as it has been for past decades, maintenance of Navajo roads will continue to be deferred. Moreover, to keep within budget, less miles of roads will be maintained. Maintenance of unpaved BIANavajo roads (75% of the Navajo-BIA road system) will be most affected when funding is inadequate. Unpaved roads need more than once-a-year maintenance to be passable in winter and spring seasons. F. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS To compensate for insufficient road maintenance funding from DOI, BIA-NRODOT has several cooperative agreements and contracts with Counties and other local entities to acquire funds or their assistance for maintenance of BIA roads. Since enactment of TEA-21, a School Bus Route Maintenance Fund [Section 1214 (d)(2)] has become an additional funding source for maintenance of county and Navajo-BIA routes used by school or Headstart buses. As of August 2009, the status of the road maintenance agreements and contracts that BIA-NRODOT entered into with various entities is as follows: Apache County, AZ: Maintenance contract is expired. Coconino County, AZ: IGA has expired. The original was for the county to provide maintenance of 218 miles of roads providing access to the Navajo Reservation including Navajo-BIA roads. Navajo County, AZ: MOA is current, to fund heavy equipment (for loan to BIA-NRODOT), fund a temporary employee, and fund road maintenance materials and supplies for Fort Defiance, Chinle, and Western Navajo Agencies BIA for maintenance of Navajo-BIA routes. San Juan County, NM: No current agreements. San Juan County, UT: Maintenance contracts with Shiprock and Western BIA-NRODOT for BIA routes is currently under review. Alamo Navajo, NM: P.L. 93-638 contract, to provide road maintenance services on Navajo-BIA routes within the Alamo reservation boundary. Table X-4. Mileage of Roads Maintained Under Interagency Agreements County Apache, AZ Coconino, AZ Navajo, AZ San Juan, NM San Juan, UT Miles of Roads Maintained Under MOU/IGA N/A N/A 320 (by BIA) N/A MOA under review by County $ BIA Received From County $0 $0 Funds received on a per project basis N/A $33,888 for Western Navajo Agency $45,000 for Shiprock Agency Source: BIA-NRODOT, 2009 G. NAVAJO DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM Navajo DOT has initially developed a maintenance program to complement the BIA program. Currently the program has 35 employees mostly classified as laborers and equipment operators. The Division now owns 20 motor graders, 4 front-end loaders, and 2 dump trucks along with various pickups and other miscellaneous vehicles. The program, at this point, complements both the BIA and county efforts in maintaining approximately 1,200 miles of existing dirt and gravel roadways and performing maintenance activities on transportation infrastructure not under BIA purview. There is an MOA between the BIA and Navajo DOT concerning the maintenance of BIA semi-improved roadways. X-7 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan – Draft 11/30/2009 1. PL93-638 Proposals: Navajo DOT is in the process of proposing to contract with BIA under PL93-638 and assume the road maintenance for the BIA roads within the boundaries of the Navajo Nation. This contract is designed to enable the Navajo DOT to receive the maintenance funding from BIA and do the work to maintain the BIA designated routes. Based on employee salaries and fringe benefits it is expected that Navajo DOT may be able to do more work for the same amount of funding that BIA now receives. The proposal is expected to be forwarded to BIA-NRO in September 2009 with the intent to contract road maintenance beginning January 1, 2010. 2. Funding: The Navajo DOT maintenance funding is a combination of Navajo Nation general funding and use of the Nation Fuel Excise Tax. The fuel excise tax is a result of a compact the Nation has entered into with the States of New Mexico and Arizona where the states collect the state fuel excise tax for fuel used within reservation boundaries and rebates the state tax amount to the Nation. This fund is used for both construction and maintenance activities on Nation roadways and other transportation infrastructure. Navajo DOT has requested and programmed in the TTIP the funds available for maintenance activities from the funding formulas established under the last Federal Transportation Act titled SAFETEA-LU. Under the Act, the Nation can program up to 25% of its allocated federal funds for transportation construction. These funds are in addition to the BIA Road Maintenance Allocation that is distributed by the Department of the Interior. X-8 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER XI - STATE HIGHWAY NEEDS A. STATE ROAD MILEAGE State roads are an important part of the Navajo IRR system. They are the main arterials connecting Navajo population centers to the Four Corners Area’s regional road networks, off-reservation towns and major airports. They are part of the interstate, national (U.S.) and state highway systems. Most state routes on the Navajo Reservation are rural two-lane highways except in urbanized areas where they are four-lane with high traffic volume. Table XI-1 summarizes the state road mileage. Table XI-1. State Roads (in miles) Agency Arizona Highways New Lands State New Mexico State Highways Utah Highways State 89.3 0.0 0.0 89.3 Northern 70.2 113.8 41.7 225.7 Western 503.5 25.9 529.4 Agency Total Eastern 0.0 413.2 0.0 413.2 Chinle 60.8 0.0 0.0 60.8 Ft. Defiance 213.3 48.6 0.0 261.9 NIIP 0.0 15.2 0.0 15.2 State Total 937.1 590.8 67.6 1,595.5 Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Arizona, New Mexico and Utah State Departments of Transportation have classified these state roads according to their own functional classification systems. However, under the IRR regulations, these state highways meet the IRR functional classification for: Class 1, Major Arterial Roads, providing an integrated network between large population centers and having average daily traffic of 10,000 vehicles per day with more than two lanes of traffic; and Class 2, Rural Minor Arterial Roads, providing an integrated network between large population centers and having average daily traffic less than 10,000 vehicles per day, may link smaller towns and communities to major resort areas and generally provide for at least in-county or inter-state service and are spaced at intervals consistent with population density. 1. Class 1 Roads: I-40 connects Flagstaff-Gallup-Albuquerque. Class 1 four-lane state roads with 10,000 ADT are AZ 264 and NM 264 from Window Rock to US 491, and US 64 and US 491 in Shiprock. 2. Class 2 Roads in Arizona: US 89 (Flagstaff-Page); US 89A (Bitter Springs-Fredonia); US 160 (Tuba City-Kayenta); US 163 (Kayenta-Monument Valley); US 191 (Chambers-Ganado-Chinle); AZ 61 (Zuni-Ramah); AZ 64 (Cameron-Grand Canyon); AZ 77 (Holbrook-Indian Wells-Keams Canyon Hopi Village); AZ 87 (WinslowSecond Mesa Hopi Village); AZ 98 (Page-Kaibeto-Shonto); AZ 99 (Leupp-Winslow); AZ 264 (Tuba CityWindow Rock); and AZ 564 (Navajo National Monument access). 3. Class 2 Roads in New Mexico: US 64 (Shiprock-Farmington); US 491 (Gallup-Shiprock); US 550 (Bloomfield-Nageezi-CubaAlbuquerque); NM 6 (Correo-Los Lunas); NM 57 (Chaco Canyon National Historical Park access); NM 118 (Manuelito-Gallup-Church Rock); NM 122 (Thoreau-Baca); NM 134 (Sheepsprings-Crystal); NM 169 (Alamo-Magdalena); NM 197 (Torreon-Cuba); NM 264 (Window Rock-Gallup); NM 371 (CrownpointFarmington); NM 400 (Fort Wingate-McGaffey); NM 509 (Whitehorse Lake-Ambrosia Lake); NM 566 (Church Rock-Pinedale); NM 597(Four Corners Monument access); and NM 602 (Gallup-Zuni-Ramah). XI-1 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan 4. Class 2 Roads in Utah: UT 163 (Monument Valley-Mexican-Hat); US 191 (Mexican Water-Bluff); UT 162 (Bluff-Aneth-Reservation line; UT 262 (US 191 – Montezuma Creek). B. STATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS The following is a discussion of state road improvement needs situated within the Navajo Nation boundaries as identified by the Navajo Department of Transportation. Future development and plans, transportation issues, and recommended transportation facility improvements are described for the major state route corridors serving the Navajo Nation. C. Arizona State Highways 1. I-40: Interstate 40 from Flagstaff, AZ to New Mexico State line provides access to the Navajo Nation’s main reservation and the Nahat’a’ Dziil Chapter south of I-40 near Sanders, AZ Future Development and Plans:  Proposed Navajo Nation Casino at Twin Arrows Exit (approx. MP 230.4)  Proposed Nation Casino in Navajo at Pinta Road Exit (approx MP 320.01)  Nahat’a’ Dziill Commercial Center, a 35,000 sq. ft. commercial center is a proposal to house a supermarket, laundromat, retail shops, cultural/visitor center, and gas station in Sanders, Arizona. The project is located on a frontage road off the I-40 T.I. in Sanders, AZ. The shopping center will serve travelers on I-40, US191 and local residents.  Westbound I-40 Sanders Port of Entry (POE) construction in 2007. Transportation Issues:  I-40 Sanders Traffic Interchange needs a reconstruction to accommodate truck traffic to the new POE.  Local school bus drivers and residents complained of speeding vehicles and difficulty when entering onto the busy I-40. Recommendations:  Construct a new traffic interchange at Sanders.  Lengthen merging/entering lanes at interchanges.  Lower speed limit to 70 mph or implement safety zone on I-40 from Sanders to New Mexico State line (MP 339 – MP 359.5). 2. US 89: US 89 is Arizona’s principal arterial linking I-40 in Flagstaff to Utah border. Of its entire 139 miles, 87 miles are on the Navajo Reservation. XI-2 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Future Development and Plans: Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Needs W8 2011 W7 2010 W25 Improvement New Chapter House Cameron 466.2 Access mgmt, street lights Truck Stop Gap 486.0 Access mgmt, street lights 2012 Maintenance Yard Gap 486.9 Access mgmt, at N23 Jct. W26 2012 Residential Housing Complx. Gap 488.6 Access mgmt W4 2012 Youth Ctr. Cedar Ridge 502.2 Access turn out W5 2010 New Chapter House Cedar Ridge 505.2 Access mgmt, street lights W24 2012 Veteran Park Cedar Ridge 505.2 Access Turn out W27 W28 2015 2015 Multi-Purpose Bldg. Commercial Development Bittersprings Bittersprings 523.6 524.0 Turn out Lane Access mgmt, street lights at US89A Jct Transportation Issues:  US 89 from Cameron to Bittersprings had 10 fatal accidents from 1999 - 2006. One occurred at the AZ 64 intersection. One accident involved pedestrian (MP 498.4, Gap) possibly caused by vendor sales along roadway. Speeding, lane change, and following too close contributed to 40% of the traffic accidents.  Accidents caused by animals occurred primarily between Cameron and Gap.  Several Navajo BIA road improvements including N20 paving from Coppermine to Gap will collect and likely increase traffic on US 89.  Many local residents ignore the daylight headlight implementation.  Increased traffic due to future development along US 89 will require better access management design. Cameron Chapter, while supporting economic development in Cameron, has a safety concern for residents traveling to school and getting around on US 89. The casino project will increase traffic on US 89 and Cameron area.  ADOT identifies Cameron Bridge (MP 467), Wash Bridge (MP 482) as structurally deficient, and Five Mile Wash Bridge (MP 471.43) and Moenkopi Wash Bridge (MP 477) as functionally obsolete and needing replacement.  Lack of transit services between Flagstaff, Page and Tuba City. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  4-lane roadway from AZ 64 to Cameron (MP 465 - MP 468) to mitigate increasing tourist traffic and development at Cameron and MP 549.5 to the Colorado River Bridge to mitigate Lake Powell tourist traffic.  Passing sight distance improvements at Gap (MP 498 - MP 504).  Passing and uphill lanes from Cameron to Page.  Passing and uphill lanes from MP 546 – MP 550.  Address transportation needs for future developments above.  Long Term Plans:  4-lane roadway from Cameron to US 160 and a traffic signal or new interchange at US 160 intersection.  Transit services between Flagstaff, Page and Tuba City.  Pedestrian and bicycle paths between AZ 64 and Cameron.  Traffic lights at the proposed Casino access on US 89. XI-3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan 3. US 89A: Future Development and Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Needs Improvement W28 2015 Commercial Development Bodaway 524.0 Fredonia-Vermillion Cliffs Scenic Byway Bodaway 523.9546.5 Access mgmt, street lights at US89A Jct (Bittersprings) Signs, access mgmt at scenic stops Transportation Issues:  None Recommendations:  Address transportation needs for future developments above. 4. US 160: US 160 is an Arizona principal arterial connecting US 89 to the Four Corners and is identified by ADOT State Transportation Plan as a National Truck Route for trucks and hazardous materials. Future Development and Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Needs W31 2010 Visitor Ctr/Artist Convenience store Shonto 361.6 Access lights W12 2011 2010 Baby Rock Commercial Ctr. Dennehotso 407.5 Access Turn out Convenience store Dennehotso 417.7 Access mgmt, street lights W30 N25 2015 New School Dennehotso 418.0 Access mgmt, street lights 2014 Convenience store Red Mesa 449.9 Access mgmt, street lights N24 2010 Airstrip Red Mesa 451.4 Access mgmt, street lights N51 2010 Solid waste facility Teec Nos Pos 459.6 Access management N53 2013 Rodeo grounds Teec Nos Pos 465.6 Access mgmt, street lights N52 2012 16 Acres site development Teec Nos Pos 465.5 Access mgmt, street lights Plaza/ Improvement management, street Transportation Issues:  US 160 is a regional truck route connecting northern Arizona to Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado. The area is also a destination of fuel transportation to numerous local gas stations on and near US 160 corridor. Hazardous material transport incidents involving the release of gasoline, diesel, and oil have been reported. Sharing of relatively heavy truck and tourist traffic on a rural 2-lane road has become a safety issue.  Tuba City: Traffic accident records from 1999-2006 show high accident ratings on US 160 in Tuba City from AZ 264 to Warrior Dr.; and at AZ 264 intersection.  Kayenta: US 160 had high traffic volume and accident ratings at US 163 intersection; and on US 160 from MP 392.5 -MP 393.5 due to traffic congestion at shopping center and hotel development.  US 160 have high traffic volume turning at US 89 and moderate traffic volume turning to N59 and US 64. Safety is a concern at these junctions.  US 160 from US 163 intersection to N59 intersection had a high accident rate, with 33% caused by animal.  US 160 at US 191 intersection had a high accident rate with 78.6% occurred after dark.  Commuters are concerned that there are no passing lanes on US 160 between MP 361 to MP 371, and rolling hills from MP 381 to MP 384.  MP 464 to MP 466 in Teec Nos Pos has a steep grade and with increasing development, the 2-lane highway with a passing lane will no longer be efficient. Recommendations: XI-4 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan  Short Term Plans:  Tuba City – MP 321.8 - MP 322.5: Street lights, 5-lane widening, landscaping, bicycle paths and sidewalks from AZ 264 to the high school.  Kayenta: Street lights, raised medians, and limited access/turnoff between MP392-MP393.5.  Intersection lighting and warning signs at N59 (MP 402); US 191 (MP 434.8); US 64 (MP 465.4).  Address transportation needs for future developments above.  Long Term Plans:  Passing and uphill lanes from MP 381 to MP 384.  Passing and climbing lanes between AZ 98 to AZ 564 intersections (MP 361 to MP 371). 5. US 163: Future Development Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Improvement Needs W17 2010 Head Start Kayenta 398.13 Access management W18 2010 Detention Bldg. Kayenta 398.17 Access management Transportation Issues:  Kayenta: US163 from MP 393.5 -MP 395 had high accidents at access to development (stores, hotel, tribal offices, and school).  120 accidents occurred from N6485 to Utah state line: 36% happened after dark, 22% caused by animals, 4% involved pedestrians, and 7 were fatal accidents.  Tourist traffic to the Monument Valley Park includes those who stop to take pictures. Tourists often pull over even if no space/shoulder is available. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Kayenta: Street lights, raised medians, and limited access/turnoffs between MP 393.5-MP 396.  Fencing and cattle guard maintenance from Kayenta to state line.  Address transportation needs for future developments above.  6. Long Term Plans:  Pullouts for tourists for safe picture taking stops along US 163. US 191: All of the US 191 is designated as an Arizona major collector with the segment through Chinle designated a minor arterial and IRR Class 1. XI-5 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Future Development and Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter F7 2010 Commercial Development Ganado 417.3 Access mgmt, street lights N31 2010 Wellness Center Rock Point 495.3 Access mgmt, street lights N32 2011 New Chapter House Rock Point 495.3 Access mgmt, street lights N33 2012 Elderly Group Home Rock Point 495.3 Access mgmt, street lights N34 2014 Transfer Station Rock Point 495.3 Access mgmt Many FarmsRock Pt 462510.3 Signs, access mgmt at scenic stops Tse’nikani/Flat Byway Rock Mesa MP Transportation Improvement Needs Transportation Issues:  Chinle: traffic safety is the transportation issue of greatest concern due to lack of traffic signals at the hospital access road, and lack of access control to cope with increasing congestion caused by numerous developments (N102 to the shopping center/flea market). Other safety issues involve change in roadway width from 2 to 4 lane, and animals on the road.  US191 from Wide Ruins to Round Rock (MP 387 – MP 482) had 25 fatal accidents (1999-2006). Driver inattention, speeding, failure to yield right of way, and drove left of centerline caused majority of these accidents.  Limitation of developable land area will become an issue. Chinle is limited by a 100-year flood plain and mesa to the west. Future development is likely to extend along US 191.  Burnside Junction with its future development will become a major stop for locals as well as travelers, increasing congestion. The present angled intersection layout will become an even greater problem.  Many Farms already has congestion and access problems at the NHA housing site and hospital. Proposed future growth will add to the existing congestion problem.  The US 191/N12 junction in Round Rock had frequent accidents involving animals, running stop sign, and running off road due to lack of visible intersection warning and poor intersection design.  US 191 from N28 in Klagetoh to AZ264 (E Ganado junction) had high accident rating, 51% caused by animals on roadway. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Chinle: Street lights at the hospital access road (N102).  MP 417.5 – MP 425.3: Pavement reconstruction  Fencing and cattle guard maintenance from Klagetoh to Ganado.  Address transportation needs for future developments above.  7. Long Term Plans:  Chinle: 5-lane widening, access management design, roadway widening to the flea market for safety improvement: raised medians, and limited access/turnoffs between MP 446 – MP 449.  Street lights on US 191 from airport access to N8090.  Chinle: Amenities such as bicycle paths and sidewalks will support tourism and create a livable community atmosphere.  Many Farms: 5-lane widening from junction N59/US 191 to High School turnoff.  MP 378.6 – MP 385.3: Pavement reconstruction is needed.  Round Rock: Intersection warning lights, layout improvement, and fencing at US 191/N12 junction. AZ 61: AZ 61 turns into NM 53 in New Mexico, providing access to Ramah Chapter and Zuni Reservation from US 191. XI-6 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Future Development Plans:  None. Transportation Issues:  AZ 61 has high truck traffic of 12%.  MP 416.6 – MP 430.3: Poor pavement condition. Recommendations:  MP 416.6 – MP 430.3: Pavement rehab is needed. 8. AZ 64: Future Development Plans:  The Navajo Department of Park and Recreation has proposed to develop the Little Colorado Gorge Overlook and an access road north of AZ 64 near Cameron.  The Coalmine Canyon Chapter has proposed a 70-acre casino and hotel project with an expansion to include residential/commercial development, a golf course, and an airport east of US 89 and North of AZ 64 along the Little Colorado River. Transportation Issues:  The proposed Little Colorado Gorge Overlook access will require turning lanes and the casino project will increase traffic in AZ 64 and Cameron area. Recommendations:  Roadway widening and turn lanes at the Little Colorado Gorge Overlook access.  Reduce speed on AZ 64 in Cameron area. 9. AZ 77: AZ 77 is a school bus route for Navajo children attending schools in Holbrook. It is also a route used by delivery and gasoline trucks to Indian well, Lower Greasewood, White Cone and Jeddito Chapters. The route also provides access to Keams Canyon Village on the Hopi Reservation. Future Development Plans:  None. Transportation Issues:  AZ 77 has no shoulder. Recommendations:  MP 395.7 – MP 408.9: Widen/add shoulders to increase safety in winter time. 10. AZ 87: AZ 87 is the main access to I-40 for Hopi villages and Dilcon Chapter, and to Winslow for shopping, school and medical care. Future Development Plans:  None. Transportation Issues:  There were 7 fatal accidents on AZ 87 from 1999-2006 in Dilkon between MP 365 – MP 380, one fatal accident happened at the AZ 87/N15 intersection. Of the total 39 accidents, 8 occurred at intersections: 3 at AZ 87/N15 (MP 375.5); 3 occurred at AZ 87/N60 (MP 365.7); 1 at AZ 87/N602 (MP 381.1); and 1 at AZ 87/N60 (MP 384.4, Seba Dalkai School access). XI-7 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Recommendations:  Reduced speed to 55 mph between MP 365.7 – MP 384.4 and install intersection warnings for N60 intersection (MP 365.7); N15 intersection (MP 375.3); and Seba Dalkai School access (MP 384.4). 11. AZ 98: Future Development Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Improvement Needs W32 2010 Antelope Cyn Visitor Ctr LeChee 299.5 Access mgmt, signage. W31 2010 Visitor Ctr/Artist Plaza/Conv Store Naatsis’aan/Navajo Mountain Byway Shonto LecheeShonto 361.6 294361.6 Access mgmt, street lights Signs, access mgmt at scenic stops Transportation Issues:  MP 298.2 – MP 300.9: Pavement condition is poor. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans :  MP 298.2 – MP 300.9: Pavement rehab is needed.  Address transportation needs for future developments above.  Long Term Plans:  Long-term pavement management is recommended. 12. AZ 99: AZ 99 provides access to local residents to go to Winslow, AZ for shopping, school and medical care. Future Development Plans:  None. Transportation Issues:  Sixty-three percent of traffic accidents on AZ 99 were caused by speeding. Twelve percent of total traffic is truck traffic. Recommendations:  MP 69 – MP 72.16: Reduce speed limit on AZ 99 and widen shoulders.  MO 71.2 – MP 72.16: Surface rehab. 13. AZ 264: The 157 mile-long highway is classified as an Arizona minor arterial linking Tuba City to Window Rock then turns into NM 264 at the Arizona/New Mexico State line. Future Development Plans:  Ganado Shopping Center at AZ 264/N5/US 191 intersection is a major future development on AZ 264.  Ganado community development concentrates and extends along AZ 264 between Ganado high school and Burnside Junction. A feasibility study for runway extension and paving is being done (2001) for Ganado Airport, located approximately 1 mile east of the high school.  Karigan Estates, St. Michaels is a mixed use planned development including residential (300 housing units), office and commercial areas. The project is located at northwest corner of AZ 264/N112 junction.  Window Rock golf course is being proposed for recreational and tourism development purposes. The Franciscan Fathers of St. Michael Catholic Church is willing to lease 125 acres to the Navajo Nation for the project. Transportation Issues: XI-8 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan     AZ 264 from N112 Junction to Port of Entry had a high traffic accident rate. Primary cause is congestion from Window Rock shopping centers and other surrounding development. Junctions AZ 264/N12 in Window Rock and AZ 264/N112 in St. Michaels had high accident rates. There were 52 fatal accidents (1999-2006) on AZ 264 from MP 412 – MP 475.5 (Jeddito to Window Rock), majority of these occurred between Burnside Junction and Window Rock. Ganado: AZ 264 had a high accident rate from N27 to Ganado/Hubble Trading Post. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Window Rock: Raised medians and limited access/turnoffs between MP 474.5 to MP 476.5.  Long Term Plans:  5-lane widening from Burnside to Summit. 14. AZ 564: AZ 564 is an access to the Navajo National Monument. Adequate maintenance is crucial. Future Development Plans:  None Transportation Issues:  None Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Routine maintenance and during inclement weather is recommended.  Long Term Plans:  Long-term pavement management is recommended ARIZONA HIGHWAY NEEDS 0-5 YEAR PRIORITY: Priori ty 1 Route No. I-40 Project Mileposts and Improvement Needs 2 US163 2 US160 3 US89 MP 393.5-MP 395.7: Street lights, raised median, limited turn offs Kayenta-MP 392-MP 393.6: Street lights, raised median, limited access/turn off. MP 546-MP 550: Needs passing lanes. 4 US160 5 AZ264 6 7 8 9 AZ98 US191 US191 US89 10 US160 11 I-40 12 13 14 AZ64 AZ87 AZ87 MP 339-MP 359.5: Lower speed limits to 70 mph. Tuba City-MP 321.8-MP 322.5: Street lights, 5-lane widening, and intersection layout redesign. Window Rock-MP474.5-MP 476.5: Raised median to limit turn offs MP 298.4-MP 300.9: Pavement rehab. Chinle Hospital/N106 Jct-MP 446.7: Street lights MP 417.5-MP 425.3: Pavement reconstruction. MP 498-MP 504: Passing sight distance improvements in Gap/Bodaway. N59 (MP 402); US 191 (MP 434.8); US 64 (MP 465.4): Intersection lightings and warning signs MP 339.5/Sanders Exit: Lengthen exit merging/entering lanes Cameron-MP 294-MP 295.8: Reduce speed to 50 mph. MP 365-MP 385: Reduce speed to 55 mph. MP365.7; MP 375.5; MP 384.4: Install intersection warning signs. Project Miles 20.5 ADT 2.2 1734518536 13527 Pavement Condition ModerateGood Moderate 1.6 4914 Moderate 4.0 0.7 53876964 6147 ModerateGood Moderate 2.0 16477 Good 2.5 0 7.8 6.0 5289 5237 3505 3488 Poor Moderate Poor Moderate 0 2364 2944 4039 Moderate Good Good 0.1 18000 Moderate 1.8 20.0 0 3289 1728 1728 Moderate Moderate Moderate ARIZONA HIGHWAY NEEDS 5-10 YEAR PRIORITY XI-9 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Priori ty Route No. Project Mileposts and Improvement Needs Project Miles ADT Pavement Condition 1 AZ264 24.5 1 2 US191 US191 ModerateVery good Poor Poor US191 US191 US191 US89 0.01 3 0.7 3.0 1.1 0 15.0 53087041 3505 9917 2 2 2 3 9917 9917 5237 7999 3 4 5 US89 US160 US160 Burnside-Summit (MP 441-MP 465.5): 5-lane widening Burnside Junction-MP417.5: New Intersection design Chinle-MP 446-MP 449: Raised median, widen; MP 448.3-449: Widen to 5-lane Chinle-MP 446-MP 449: Bicycle path and sidewalks MP 446.7 – MP 447.8: Pavement reconstruction. MP 445.7/Chinle Airport access: Street lights Cameron-US180 Jct. MP 465-MP 480: Widen to 4-lane US89/US160 Jct: Traffic signalization/Interchange MP 381-MP 384: Passing lane. MP 361-MP 371: Passing lane 0 3.0 10.0 7999 4914 4341 6 AZ64 0.1 3289 Poor Poor Moderate ModerateGood Good Good ModerateGood Moderate 7 8 US163 AZ77 13.2 2893 1702 Good Moderate 9 10 US191 US191 0.8 0.1 1597 1597 Moderate Moderate 11 12 US191 AZ99 6.9 2.2 1310 630 Poor Moderate 13 AZ61 1.0 13.7 630 238 Poor Poor Little ColoradoGorge Overlook MP 294.5: Roadway widening and turning lanes MP 396-MP 416.7/UT State line: Pullouts MP 395.7-MP 408.9: Widen/add shoulders to improve safety US191/N59-HS (MP 461.7-462.5): 3-lane widening Round Rock-US191/N12 Jct: Intersection warning lights, layout improvement and fencing MP 378.6 – MP 385.5: Pavement reconstruction. MP 69-MP 71.2: Reduce speed limit and widen shoulders. MP 71.2-MP 72.2: Surface rehab. MP 416.6-MP 430.3: Pavement rehab. D. New Mexico State Highways 1. I-40: Approximately 140 miles of Interstate 40 extends from Arizona State line into New Mexico providing access to Navajo Nation residents from Nahat’a’ Dziil/Sanders, AZ to the Navajo Nation’s capital, Window Rock and connecting Navajo communities along I-40 (Manuelito, Church Rock, Iyanbito, Thoreau, Tohajiilee and Alamo Chapters) to Gallup, NM and Albuquerque, NM. Future Development and Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Improvement Needs N6 2010 New Senior Center Beclabito 3.8 Access mgmt, street lights N8 2012 Picnic ground Beclabito 3.8 Access mgmt N9 2010 Multi-Purpose building Beclabito 3.8 Access mgmt, street lights N7 2011 Skate Park Beclabito 3.9 Access mgmt, street lights N13 2010 Community cemetery Cudeii 18.8 Access mgmt N47 2010 Skate Park facilities Shiprock 21.5 Access mgmt, street lights N42 2014 Community library Shiprock 23.15 Access mgmt, street lights N43 2012 Visitor Center Shiprock 23.16 Access mgmt, street lights Trail of the Ancients Byway Tee Nos PosFarmington 0-60 Signs, access mgmt at scenic stops Other planned developments include:  Gadiihi-Tokoi Chapter land use plans include development of scenic view site of Shiprock “Rock with Wings” and Tribal Park at MP 17 and Navajo Route N-571 to become a State, Tribal or National Park.  Hogback- Proposed economic and community development plans for Tse Daa Kaan (formerly known as Hogback) to western end of AZ state line. XI-10 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Transportation Issues:  I-40 between Church Rock and Iyanbito has been sometime flooded during heavy rain storms. Currently there is no direct access from I-40 to Fire Rock or Red Rock State Park. Recommendations:  A highway interchange on I-40 at Red Rock State Park access/NM566 to provide a direct access to the Fire Rock Casino is recommended in order for the casino to be successful. 2. US 64: Future Development Plans:  Future land use and development in Shiprock is likely to extend along US64 corridor to the east and west of US491 intersections in Shiprock.  Beclabito Chapter land use plans includes development of community development at MP 6.  Gadiihi-Tokoi Chapter land use plans includes development of scenic view site of Shiprock “Rock with Wings” and Tribal Park at MP 17 & Navajo Route N-571 to become a State, Tribal or National Park.  Hogback- Proposed economic and community developments plans for Tse Daa Kaan (formerly known as Hogback) to western end of AZ Stateline. Transportation Issues:  There were a total of 18 fatal accidents on US64 from MP 18.0 - MP 31.0, three involved pedestrians (at MP 23.6, MP 23.7, and MP 26.8).  Most frequent traffic accidents occurred between MP 21.8 – MP 23.1 (260 accidents from 1999 2006): 77% of these accidents were caused by driver inattention, speeding, failure to yield right of way, following too close and improper turn due to congestion from development along US64.  US491/US64 SW and NE junctions also had high accident rating among road intersections. High turning traffic volume and poor intersection design may contribute to high accident number.  Poor night visibility at entrances of Shiprock High School, Career Prep High School, Eva Stokely Elementary School, Dine College, Office Navajo Tribal Utility Authority and other tribal programs.  NM 64 between US491/NM 64 SW to NE Junctions had the highest accident rate among all road sections on the Navajo Nation (1999-2007). Traffic congestion at access to commercial developments and several school establishments are contributed to traffic accidents in Shiprock.  Gadiiahi Chapter House turn out road (N57) or highway 64 MP 17 is in need of traffic lights, turn out lane and accelerating and decelerating lanes.  Tokoi community at the N571 and Highway 64 intersection is in need of street lights, turn out lanes and accelerating and decelerating lanes.  Beclabito Chapter House, NM Highway 64, MP 4, is in need of street lights; turn out lanes at access to chapter house, housing subdivision, and commercial outlet stores.  From Shiprock to AZ Stateline, the road needs to complete new overlaying of asphalt. The road has many cracks, narrow shoulders and some bridges are recommended for replacements.  Shiprock Bridge over San Juan River is in dire need of replacement. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Install street lights on NM64 from MP 20.0 (Shiprock High School) to MP 23.4.  Reduce speed limit from MP 20 – MP 24.  Widen U.S. 64 along the Shiprock High School zone, MP 20-22.  Address transportation needs for future developments above.  3. Long Term Plans:  Install street lights, sidewalks, and complete US64 widening to 4-lanes from MP 20 to MP 24.6 to provide safety for future development including turning lanes at access road to Gadiiahi Chapter and Tokoi communities.  Redesign US491/US64 SW and NE intersections.  Recommended as Scenic Byways in the Four Corners Region. When recognized by the State, Navajo Nation, and Federal to create rest areas and other local scenic/overlook stops. US 491: XI-11 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Future Development Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Improvement Needs F20 2012 Multi Purpose Bldg Twin Lakes 13.2 Street lights and sidewalks N22 2012 Multi-Purpose Veterans Park Newcomb 56.7 Access mgmt, street lights N45 2012 Fair grounds Shiprock 88.0 Access mgmt, street lights N49 2011 Hotel & restaurant Shiprock 90.8 Access mgmt, street lights N50 2012 Hotel & Conference Center Shiprock 90.8 Access mgmt, street lights N46 2014 Multi-Purpose building Shiprock 90.9 Access mgmt, street lights Trail of the Ancients Byway GallupShiprock 0-107 Signs, access mgmt at scenic stops building & Transportation Issues:  US491 has become a major north-south truck route. Passing and safety become problems on US491 due to high truck traffic volume.  Nighttime visibility is very poor at access roads to Navajo communities, Chapter houses and schools along US 491. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Install street lights at Twin Lakes Chapter House, N9, N30 (Mexican Springs), N108/N130 (Tohatchi Chapter House and schools), Nashitti School/Chapter House, N5001 (Newcomb school/Chapter House), N19/N5 (Two Grey Hills), N34 (Sanostee), and N13 (Red Valley/Cove) junctions.  Address transportation needs for future developments above.  Long Term Plans:  4-lane widening from Shiprock to Cortez, CO is recommended in distant future. 4. US 550: Future Development Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Improvement Needs E23 2012 Fire Equip & Bldg Counselor 97.1 Access mgmt, sidewalks, street lights E26 2014 Commercial site development (11acres) Counselor 97.1 Access mgmt, sidewalks, street lights E21 2010 Senior Center Counselor 97.9 Access mgmt, sidewalks, street lights E22 2011 Computer Lab Counselor 97.9 Access mgmt, sidewalks, street lights E24 2013 Multi-Purpose Ctr Counselor 97.9 Access mgmt, sidewalks, street lights E25 2013 Transfer Station Counselor 97.9 Access mgmt E55 2011 Senior Ctr Nageezi 115.4 Access mgmt, sidewalks, street lights Trail of the Ancients Byway NageeziBloomfield 123.1150 Signs, access mgmt at scenic stops XI-12 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Transportation Issues:  Increased traffic due to the casino can become a safety issue. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Address transportation needs for future developments above.  Long Term Plans:  Traffic signal and lights at NM 197, and street lights in Cuba. 5. NM 57: Future Development Plans:  None. Transportation Issues:  NM57 provides access to the Chaco Canyon National Historic Park and Navajo residents in the area. However, the entire 40.1 miles is dirt surface and during wet weather it becomes impassable to the Park visitor and residents. Recommendations:  Gravel and partially pave NM57 with respect to the National Park’s need to minimize disturbance to the ruins. 6. NM 118: Future Development Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Improvement Needs E54 2012 Economic dev Manuelito 6.9 Turning lanes E18 2011 Police Substation Church Rock 28.9 Access mgmt, sidewalks, street lights E20 2014 VA Memorial Park Church Rock 29.2 Access mgmt, sidewalks, street lights E19 2012 Multi-Purpose Center Church Rock 29.5 Access mgmt, sidewalks, street lights 2010 Convenience Store Church Rock 29.5 Access mgmt, sidewalks, street lights Transportation Issues:  The Fire Rock Casino has dramatically increased traffic on NM118. NM118 was already collected traffic from Church Rock Chapter and vicinity, visitors to Red Rock State Park, and business and truck traffic to Church Rock Industrial Park. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Widen NM118 to 4-lane road and acquire land to resolve roadway widening and drainage problem.  Address transportation needs for future developments above.  7. Long Term Plans:  I-40 Interchange to provide access to Church Rock Chapter, industrial park and the Fire Rock Casino. NM 122: Future Development Plans:  None Transportation Issues: XI-13 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan  Safety for school bus traffic due to increased traffic. Recommendations:  Access management at school turn-off  Routine maintenance of NM 122, especially during inclement weather 8. NM 134: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Improvement Needs N40 2014 Day Care Center/Visitor Ctr Sheep Springs 0.4 Access management and street lights Trail of the Ancients Byway SheepspringsCrystal 0-23 Signs, access mgmt at scenic stops Transportation Issues:  None. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Install street lights and 3-lane widening of NM134 and US491 at Sheep Springs to improve safety and accommodate Sheep Springs Visitor Center, commercial store, day care and NHA housing traffic.  Address transportation needs for future developments above.  Long Term Plans:  No recommendations. 9. NM 169: NM169 provides access to Alamo Navajo Chapter residents to Socorro, NM and I-25 and links this Navajo Nation’s satellite community with the main reservation and Window Rock via N55 and I-40. NM169 is the main road through Alamo Chapter and the main school bus route. Future Development and Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Improvement Needs E1 2011 Senior Center Alamo 25.6 Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks E2 2013 Fire Station Alamo 25.6 Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks E3 2013 Multi-Purpose Center Alamo 25.6 Turning lanes, street lights, sidewalks Transportation Issues:  NM169 through Alamo is a winding road with some sharp curves. This road condition becomes challenging and dangerous at night. Traffic accidents occurred mostly between MP 24 – MP 36/End of NM169. 50% of the accidents occurred after sundown. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Use highly reflective road paint/markers from MP 19 to MP 36 and reduce speed to 50 MPH from MP 24 to MP 30.  Address transportation needs for future developments above. 10. NM 197: NM197 is the main road through Torreon Chapter and the main school bus route. XI-14 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Future Development and Plans:  The town of Cuba is likely to expand residential development and cattle ranching along NM197. Transportation Issues:  Most traffic accidents occurred between MP 23 – MP 30. Safety issues include animals in ROW and 60% of traffic accident occurred after sundown. Recommendations:  Needs reflective paint/striping and reduce speed to 50 mph from MP 25-MP 30.  Maintain fences and regularly clean cattle guards. 11. NM 264: Future Development Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Improvement Needs Trail of the Ancients Byway Tse Bonito-Rock Springs 0-16 Signs, access mgmt at scenic stops Transportation Issues:  Tse Bonito has numerous commercial developments along NM264. Lack of street lights at night makes it hard to see the road and business turnoffs.  Lack of cross drainage on NM264 between Black Hat and Yah-Ta-Hey causes flooding during heavy rain and icy road condition in the winter.  Pavement condition from MP 7 – MP 14 is deteriorating, chipsealing no longer holds. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Street lights from Arizona POE or AZ/NM state line to Hill Top School.  Pavement reconstruction and Improve roadway cross grading for better drainage between Black Hat and Yah-Ta-Hey (MP 7 – MP 14).  Address transportation needs for future developments above.  Long Term Plans:  Better roadway design with good cross drainage. 12. NM 371: Future Development Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Improvement Needs E70 2011 First Response Thoreau 1.7 Access mgmt, street lights E71 2011 Fitness Center Thoreau 1.7 Access mgmt, street lights 2010 Convenience store Crownpoint 25.2 Access mgmt, street lights Business & Community Cmplx White Rock 49.0 Access mgmt, street lights Trail of the Ancients Byway ThoreauFarmington 0-105 Signs, access mgmt at scenic stops Transportation Issues:  Pavement conditions are poor to fair throughout the entire route from Thoreau to Farmington.  Crownpoint is a designated Navajo Primary Growth Center with increasing business and community development. Streets will become more congested. Highway safety will increasingly become an issue.  Major intersections are safety concerns and should have street lighting. XI-15 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Pavement improvement where condition is severe.  Accelerate and decelerate lanes at Becenti NHA housing project entrance.  Accelerate and decelerate lanes at Whiterock Chapter access road  Accelerate and decelerate lanes at Lake Valley Chapter access road  Accelerate and decelerate lanes at Smith Lake Chapter access road and N49.  Address transportation needs for future developments above.  Long Term Plans:  Roadway widening to five lanes to accommodate future development in Crownpoint.  Long-term pavement management is recommended. 13. NM 400: NM400 is an access and school bus route to Fort Wingate Elementary and High Schools. It is also an access road from I-40 to the Cibola National Forest and recreation area. It connects to County Road 50, which extends from Ramah Navajo Chapter and Zuni Reservation. Future Development and Plans:  We have seen more and more use by bicyclists to the Cibola National Forest and recreation area. Transportation Issues:  Roadway width is narrow with 0-2 foot shoulders. Pavement condition is moderate with water damage and rough/poor from MP 5.6 – MP 10.6. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Pavement reconstruction from MP 5.6 – MP 10.6.  Long Term Plans:  MP 2.4 - MP 3.4: Roadway widening to add turning lanes and sidewalks from High School to housing development.  MP 0 - MP 10.6: Shoulder widening to Cibola National Forest recreation areas to accommodate bicycle traffic to park. 14. NM 509: Future Development and Plans:  None Transportation Issues:  Nighttime visibility issues at NM509/N9 Recommendations:  Intersection light is needed to increase safety at night. 15. NM 566: Future Development and Plans:  The Fire Rock Casino will recreate a need for more housing developments along NM566.  Proposed convenience store at NM118/NM566 intersection. Transportation Issues:  None, currently road is in good condition. However, pavement condition is moderate from MP 6.5 to end of road at the uranium mine entrance.  Traffic accidents occurred mostly between MP 4 - MP 9.5, three occurred at the NM566/N11 Junction. Speeding and driver inattention are the causes of accidents. 50% of the traffic accidents occurred after dark. XI-16 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Warning sign and reduced speed are needed for the NM566/N118 intersection.  Street light and access management at NM118/NM566 intersection  Long Term Plans:  MP 0 - MP 0.7: Roadway widening to accommodate turning lanes to housing developments. 16. NM 597: Future Development and Plans:  NM597 is the access road to Four Corners Monument Transportation Issues:  None Recommendations:  None 17. NM 602: Future Development and Plans:  Current development particularly at the gas station near MP 17 creates frequent traffic from the gas station to Breadsprings Road (N7062) on a steep slope. Transportation Issues:  Most traffic accidents on NM602 occurred between MP 15 (N7046 Junction, Jones Ranch road) and MP 18 (N7062 Junction, Breadsprings access) and they happened after dark. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Install a Chevron sign for end of T-intersection on NM602 at the NM602/N7062.  Lights at the NM602/N7046 and NM602/N7062 Junctions. Long Term Plans:  Roadway widening to add turning lanes at the NM602/N7046 and NM602/N7062 Junctions. NEW MEXICO HIGHWAY NEEDS 0-5 YEAR PRIORITY NM Dist. 6 Priority Project Mileposts and Improvement Needs ADT 1 Route No. US491 MP 17.5-MP 47.3 (NM134 Jct): Widening to 4-lane. 5 2 US64 MP 20-MP 21.9:Reduce speed limit to 45 mph. 6 3 NM371 6 4 NM602 MP 1.4-MP 27.9: Pavement Reconstruction or Rehab NM602/N7062 Jct: Install chevron to mark end of Tintersection. 57499693 467223115 4192 6 5 5 6 NM122 US491 MP 9-MP 19: Pavement Reconstruction MP 47.3-MP 84.7: Widen to 4- Lane 5 7 US64 MP 20-MP 21.9:Install street lights and sidewalks 6 6 8 9 NM264 NM118 5 6 6 10 11 12 NM134 NM400 I-40 MP 0-MP 0.6: Install street lights MP 25.8-MP 29.5 (NM566 Jct): Widening & Reconstruction. MP 0- MP 0.5: Widening to 3-lane MP 5.6-MP 10.6: Pavement reconstruction I-40 Interchange to provide access to Fire Rock Casino and Red Rock State Park Pavement Condition PoorModerate Moderate Poor 8052 Good 1833 38084471 467223115 10751 5356 Poor PoorModerate Moderate Good Poor 1553 1380 >24000 Moderate Poor Moderate Funding Source 08-10 GRIP 09 Econ Stimulus Submitted PIF appl. Feb.2009 Submitted PIF appl. Feb.2009 08-10 GRIP 09 Econ Stimulus XI-17 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan NEW MEXICO HIGHWAY NEEDS 5-10 YEAR PRIORITY NM Dist. Priority Route No. Project Mileposts and Improvement Needs ADT Pavement Condition 6 1 NM264 10751 Poor 6 2 NM602 8052 Good 6 3 US550 8047 Good 5 4 US491 23115 Moderate 6 6 6 5 6 7 NM566 NM566 NM197 4637 4637 1507 Moderate Good Moderate 6 6 8 9 NM400 NM169 1380 661 Moderate Good 6 10 NM371 3868 Poor 6 11 NM400 MP 7-MP 14: Pavement reconstruction w/ increased cross slope. N7062 & N7046 Jcts: Intersection widening to add turning lanes and lights US550/NM197 Jct: Traffic signal and street lights in Cuba. US491/US64 SW&NE Jcts Shiprock: Redesign intersection layouts. NM566/N11 Jct: Warning sign and reduce speed. MP 0-MP 0.7: Roadway widening to add turning lanes MP 25-MP 30: Needs reflective paint/striping and reduce speed to 50 mph. MP 0-MP 10.6: Shoulder widening MP 19-MP 36: Needs reflective paint/striping MP 24MP 30: Reduce speed to 50 mph. MP 23.8-MP 25.6: Widening to 3-lane & Reconstruction. MP 2.4-MP 3.4: Roadway widening to add turning lanes and sidewalks. 1380 Moderate E. Utah State Highways 1. UT 162: Funding Source Future Development and Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Improvement Needs N3 2013 Veteran Memorial Park Aneth 22.3 Access management, street lights N4 2013 Ball Park Aneth 22.3 Access management, street lights N5 2014 Warehouse Aneth 22.5 Access management N1 2011 Solid Waste facility Aneth 22.6 Access management Trail of the Ancients Byway MontezumaAneth 14.632.0 Signs, access mgmt at scenic stops Recommendations  Address transportation needs for future developments above. 2. US 163: Future Development Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Kayenta-Monument Byway Valley Scenic Chapter MP Transportation Improvement Needs Kayenta 0-20.0 Signs, access mgmt at scenic stops Transportation Issues:  The proposed Monument Valley Gateway Welcome Center will have a positive impact by eliminating makeshift vendor stalls at the US163/N42 intersection.  High tourist traffic to the Monument Valley Park, especially at the park turnoff, and overnight use of park camping area will require traffic lights and warning lights at the US 163/N42 intersection.  Tourist traffic to the Monument Valley Park includes those who stop to take pictures. Tourists often pull over even if no space/shoulder is available. Recommendations:  Short Term Plans:  Fencing and cattle guard maintenance from state line to Mexican Hat.  Address transportation needs for future developments above. XI-18 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan  Long Term Plans:  Pullouts for tourists for safe picture taking stops along US 163. 3. UT 262: Future Development and Plans: NUM Project Year Project Name Chapter MP Transportation Improvement Needs N2 2011 Montezuma Shopping Ctr Clinic Trail of the Ancients Byway Aneth 22.5 Access management, street lights Montezuma 0-22.6 Signs, access mgmt at scenic stops Recommendations  Address transportation needs for future development above. The following list identifies UDOT related improvement projects identified in the UDOT STIP, including:  US-191  Mile Post 12 to 21  Crack Repair  Concept Design in 2011  SR-162  Over McElmo Creek  Design complete  SR-162  Montezuma Creek to Aneth EIS  Record of Decision, July 2009  3 Bridge Preservation Projects in San Juan County  Preliminary Design  Montezuma Creek Sidewalk/Lighting Project  In Final Design  Halchita Bridge at Gypsum Wash  Environmental and Preliminary Design  US-163 - Halchita to Mexican Hat  Intersection and Lighting Improvements  Final Design  Highway 162 in Aneth  Lighting and Add Center Turn Lane  Final Design  Navajo N-35 Resurfacing Project  Bus Route Preservation within Navajo Nation  N5063  San Juan County Road 442  San Juan County Road 444  San Juan County Road 479 XI-19 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER XII - COUNTY ROAD NEEDS A. COUNTY ROAD MILEAGE According to the 2008 road inventory, County roads make up 15.0% or 1,907.5 miles of all Navajo Indian Reservation Roads. The majority of Navajo Nation county-maintained IRR system roads are in New Mexico: 456.5 miles are in San Juan County; 366.4 miles in McKinley County; with 16.4 miles in Sandoval County. Arizona county-maintained IRR system roads include 636.8 miles in Apache County; 5.0 miles in Coconino County; and 20.6 miles in Navajo County. Utah’s San Juan County maintains 405.8 miles of county roads. These county roads provide access to Navajo communities in the checkerboard areas in Eastern Agency and remote areas in Chinle, Shiprock, Western, Ft. Defiance, and NIIP Agencies. See Figure XII-1. Figure XII-1. County Road Mileage by County Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory The majority of county roads on the Navajo Nation are unpaved. Of the total 1,907.5 miles of county roads, 79% or 1,511.1 miles are earth roads, 8% or 151.2 miles are primitive roads, 6% or 110.3 miles are graveled, and only 6% or 119.4 miles are paved, as summarized in Figure XII-2 and Table XII-1. The majority or 56% of county roads are Class 5 roads; 29% are Class 4 roads and 0.13% are Class 6 roads (Figure XII-3). XII-1 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Figure XII-2. County Road Mileage by Surface Type Table XII-1. County Roads by Surface Type (in miles) Agency Apache Coconino Navajo McKinley Sandoval San Juan NM San Juan UT Surface Type Total Earth (1) 617.9 0.0 0.0 249.0 0.0 263.2 381.0 1511.1 Gravel (3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.1 0.0 64.6 13.6 110.3 Paved (4) 0.4 5 20.6 58.4 11.3 17.0 6.7 119.4 Paved (5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 7.9 0.0 15.5 Primitive (9) 18.5 0.0 0.0 19.3 5.1 103.8 4.5 151.2 County Total 636.8 5.0 20.6 366.4 16.4 456.5 405.8 1907.5 Figure XII-3. County Road Mileage by Class XII-2 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan B. COUNTY ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS Of the total 1,907.5 miles of County roads, 1,620.4 miles of County Roads need surface improvement and roadway widening to safety meet the geometric design guidelines/IRR adequate standards by County as follows: Table XII-2. Miles of County Roads with Geometric Design Deficiencies/Total 1,620.4 miles Apache ADS CLASS >250 10 50-250 11 4-Rural Major Collector <50 >250 12 50-250 13 >400 13 50-400 14 87.3 50-250 12 5-Rural Local 7.8 >250 11 14 McKinley Sandoval San Juan NM San Juan UT 95.1 11.3 49.4 5.3 18.7 30 220.4 3.8 3.6 198.1 224.2 FADT 10 11 Navajo 528.6 50-400 >400 15 50-400 10.3 13.1 >400 15 10.3 636.8 5.1 20.6 315.7 98 16.4 307.2 323.7 Grand Total: 1620.4 Table XII-3 shows total cost to bring County Roads to the Geometric Design Standards, $1.4 billion. Table XII-3. Cost to improve County Roads with Geometric Design Deficiencies ADS CLASS FADT 10 >250 10 50-250 11 11 4-Rural Major Collector >250 50-250 11 <50 12 >250 12 50-250 13 >400 13 50-400 14 14 5-Rural Local >400 50-400 15 >400 15 50-400 Apache $ 13,017.64 $ 125,739.15 Navajo $17,924.25 $13,743.40 McKinley Sandoval San Juan NM San Juan UT $ 73,889.32 $5,025.68 $ 46,318.37 $ 889.08 $ 11,471.82 $ 6,574.99 $ 18,935.89 $ 8,085.52 $ 19,053.06 $ 2,133.51 $ $109,238.86 $ 2,021.22 $ 76,539.28 27,230.31 $ 865,378.30 $1,031,365.40 $2,074.05 $31,667.64 $193,347.20 $7,099.72 Grand Total: $143,931.93 $1,426,347.79 XII-3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan 1. Safety Needs: Of the total 11,273 traffic crashes that occurred between 1999-2007, 3.7% or 415 accidents occurred on county roads. 30.2% of these accidents occurred in McKinley, 29% in San Juan, UT; 25.3% in San Juan, NM; 13.6% in Apache, 0.6% each in Navajo, Sandoval, and Socorro Counties. Of the crashes that occurred on County roads, 23.1% of the accidents were caused by speeding; 17.6% by DUI; 16.6% by driver’s inattention; 6.7% by animal on roads; 6.5% by other improper driving; 6.0% by road defect; 2.4% by drove left of centerline; 1.7% each by failed to yield right of way, following too close, and object on road; 1.2% by unsafe lane change, 1.0% by pedestrian error; and less than 1% each by improper turn, improper backing, under influence of drug, defective tires, and other mechanical defects. Figure XII-4. 1999-2007 County Road Crashes by Cause 1999‐2007 County Road Crashes By Cause 96 100 80 73 69 60 40 25 15 2 2 7 2 4 1 3 3 0 23 ‐ Unknown 5 22 ‐ Traffic control not 0 7 10 28 5 ‐ Disregarded traffic signal 6 ‐ Following too closely 7 ‐ Drove left of center 8 ‐ Unsafe lane change/passing 9 ‐ Improper turn 10 ‐ Improper backing 11 ‐ Other improper 12 ‐ Object on road 13 ‐ Animal on road 14 ‐ No improper 15 ‐ Under influence of 16 ‐ Under influence of 17 ‐ Pedestrian error 18 ‐ Inadequate brakes 19 ‐ Defective tires 20 ‐ Other mechanical 21 ‐ Road defect 1 4 ‐ Ran stop sign 3 ‐ Failed to yield right of 2 ‐ Speeding 7 1 ‐ Driver inattention 0 28 27 20 The 415 crashes that occurred on County roads resulted in 264 property damage only crashes, 136 injury crashes, and 15 fatal crashes. Of the injury crashes, there were 93 one-person injury crashes, 27 twoperson injuries, and 16 crashes where more than 2 persons were injured. Majority of the accidents or 370 accidents happened during clear weather, 16 rainy, 18 snowy, and 6 during windy conditions. Fatal Crashes: Of the total 415 crashes that have occurred between 1999 and 2007, 15 were fatal, of which 4 accidents were caused by DUI, 3 were due to driver inattention; 2 were caused by speeding; 2 were due to pedestrian error; and one each for failure to yield right or way, other improper driving, driving under the influence of drugs, and unknown circumstance. Crashes By Road Conditions: 283 accidents happened on dry roads; 50 on loose sand; 39 on snow packed; 20 on wet; 6 on roads with potholes and 4 accidents happened at curve on roads. Recommendations: Because of the low volume characteristic of county roads [Due to a lack of traffic volume data (ADT) on county roads (except for CR6675), accident rate for county roads cannot be computed], even roads with low number of accidents may present a serious safety issue. Planning for county road improvements therefore should pay attention to safety issue of accident clusters. XII-4 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan CHAPTER XIII A. TRIBAL ROAD NEEDS TRIBAL ROAD MILEAGE In 2008 the Navajo Division of Transportation inventoried 2,895.7 miles of public roads and added them to its total IRR system under the Tribal Road category. For the purpose of addressing the transportation needs of these Tribal Roads, the 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan thus used the 2008 road inventory data to analyze the Tribal Roads’ transportation needs. Of the total 12,772 overall mileage of the Navajo Nation IRR system in 2008, tribal roads make up 22.6% or 2,895.7 miles. The tribal roads consist mostly of minor public roads ranging from those serving tribal government facilities, housing, communities and commercial areas to rural collector and local roads. Figure XII-1 shows that the tribal roadways are distributed among the agencies: 1036.0 miles in Fort Defiance Agency, 731.5 miles in Western Agency, 558.3 miles in Shiprock Agency, 372.6 miles in Chinle Agency, and 197.3 miles in Eastern Agency. Figure XIII-1. Tribal Road Mileage by Agency Total: 2,895.7 miles Shiprock 558.3 19.3% Ft. Defiance 1,036.0 35.8% Western 731.5 25.3% Chinle 372.6 12.9% Eastern 197.3 6.8% Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory The majority of tribal roads on the Navajo Nation are unpaved. Of the total 2,895.7 miles of tribal roads, 96.7% or 2801.1 miles are earthen roads, 2.7% or 78.6 miles are paved roads, 0.4% or 11.6 miles are gravel roadways, and 0.2% or 4.4 miles are primitive roads, as summarized in Figure XIII-2 and Table XIII-1. XIII-1 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Figure XIII-2. Tribal Road Mileage by Surface Type Total: 2,895.7 miles Gravel 11.6 0.4% Earth 2,801.1 96.7% Paved 78.6 2.7% Primitive 4.4 0.2% Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Table XIII-1. Tribal Roads by Surface Type (in miles) Agency Shiprock Western Eastern Chinle Ft. Defiance NIIP New Lands Total Earth (1) 551.1 698.7 191.6 350.4 1,009.3 0.0 0.0 2,801.1 Gravel (3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 10.8 0.0 0.0 11.6 Paved (4, Primitive (9) 5, & 6) 7.2 32.8 1.3 21.4 15.9 0.0 0.0 78.6 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 Total 558.3 731.5 197.3 372.6 1,036.0 0.0 0.0 2,895.7 Figure XIII-3 illustrates that the Navajo Nation Tribal Roads consists of 2.9 miles of Class 6 (City Minor Arterial) and 58.3 miles of Class 3 (City Local) roads serving Navajo population centers, community and residential areas with 24.5 miles of Class 4 (Rural Major Collector) and the majority, 2,803.8 miles of Class 5 (Rural Local) roads serving the rural areas. See Figure XIII-3. XIII-2 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Figure XIII-3. Tribal Road Mileage by Class Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory B. TRIBAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS Based on the geometric design guidelines/IRR adequate standards, 2,831.0 miles of Tribal Roads need improvements by class as follows: Table XIII-2. Miles of Tribal Roads with Geometric Deficiencies/ Total: 2,831.0 miles Miles of Roads Needing Only Roadway Widening Miles of Roads Needing Surface Imp & Roadway Widening Sub-Total Total By Class 0.2 12.2 12.4 24.5 12.1 12.1 >400 11.2 11.2 14 50-400 2792.6 2792.6 15 >400 ADS CLASS FADT 10 >250 10 50-250 11 11 >250 4-Rural Major Collector 50-250 11 <50 12 >250 12 50-250 13 >400 13 50-400 14 5-Rural Local 15 16 Miles of Roads Needing Only Surface Imp 2803.8 50-400 6-City Minor N/A 17 N/A 18 N/A 2.7 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 Grand Total: 2831.0 XIII-3 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan Based on the BIA pavement rating standards, a total of 53.3 miles of Class 3 Tribal Roads need improvements (Table XIII-3). Table XIII-3. Miles of Tribal Roads with Pavement Deficiencies/ Total: 53.3 miles Road Class PCI<40 and RB<5, Need Reconstruction for Geometric Design and Pavement Deterioration RB<5, Need Reconstruction for Geometric Design PCI<40, Need Reconstruction for Pavement Deterioration 3 46.6 3.7 2.4 0.6 Total 46.6 3.7 2.4 0.6 Percent 87.4% 6.9% 4.5% PCI=40-50 and RB>=5, Need Rehabilitation 0.0% PCI=51-69 and RB>=5, Need Minor Rehabilitation 0.0% PCI>=70 and RB>=5, Need Maintenance Only 1.1% Table XIII-4. Total Tribal Road Transportation Needs Road Class Total Miles Needing Improvements Cost in $1000 3 53.3 $56,019.06 4 24.5 $16,927.63 5 2,803.8 $2,832,249.04 6 2.7 $3,807.82 Total 2,884.3 $2,909,003.55 Safety Needs Of the total 11,273 traffic crashes that occurred between 1999 and 2007, only 17 accidents occurred on tribal roads. Of the crashes that occurred on tribal roads, 35.3% of the accidents were caused by driving under the influence of alcohol; 17.6 % by driver’s inattention; 11.7% by speeding; 11.7% had no improper driving; and 5.9% each for following too close, unsafe lane change, inadequate brakes, and other improper driving. The 17 crashes that occurred on tribal roads resulted in 9 property damage only crashes, 7 injury crashes, and one fatal crash. The fatal crash resulted from a driver driving under the influence of alcohol during snowy weather. The majority of the accidents or 10 accidents happened during clear weather, 4 during cloudy, 2 during snowy, and one during rainy conditions. Six accidents happened on dry roads; 3 on loose sand; 2 on snow packed; 2 on wet; 2 on roads with potholes; 1 with changing road width, and 1 on a road under construction. XIII-4 2009LONGRANGETRANSPORTATIONPLANQUESTIONNAIRE  1. What are your concerns regarding road and bridge improvements and where are they? 2. What are your priorities from high (8) to low (1)? ______ Road Improvements ______ Transit Improvements ______ Airport Improvements ______ Road maintenance 3. ______ Bridge Improvements ______ Safety Improvements ______ Bicycle paths and sidewalk ______ Other………………………….. Road Improvement: What are your priorities from high (5) to low (1)? ______ To pave more dirt or gravel roads ______ To improve existing paved roads (i.e., rehab/chip seal, widen, etc.) ______ To grade and improve drainage on dirt/gravel roads ______ To rehabilitate or replace bridges ______ Other………………………….. 4. Road Maintenance: What are your priorities from high (6) to low (1)? ______ Snow removal ______ Pothole repair of existing paved roads ______ Blading of dirt roads ______ Maintenance during emergencies ______ Bridge maintenance ______ Other………………………….. 5. Safety Improvement: What are your priorities from high (8) to low (1)? ______ Install sidewalks and bicycle paths ______ Install traffic signals ______ Install guard rails ______ Roadway signage 6. ______ Install street lights ______ Install cross walks ______ Roadway striping ______ Other………………………….. What should be the transportation/road improvement goals from high (6) to low (1)? ______ Improve travel safety ______ Support economic development ______ Connection to transit, airports, etc... ______ Connections for freight access/movement ______ Access to recreation ______ Other………………………….. 7. What are your major development (economic, transportation) concerns from high (5) to low (1)? ______ Cultural Preservation ______ Increased pollution of all types (noise, air) ______ Safety ______ Privacy ______ Others  Thankyouforyourinput Appendix A Returned Survey Questionnaires Appendix B Access Management Samples Appendix C Transportation Needs By Route Ten Ways to Manage Roadway Access in Your Community KCPB KCPB Ten Ways to Manage Roadway Access in Your Community Costly improvements are not always the solution to safety and congestion problems. Roads, like other resources, also need to be carefully managed. Corridor access management strategies extend the useful life of roads at little or no cost to taxpayers. Following are ten ways that you can make the most out of your transportation system. 1 Lay the foundation for access management in your local comprehensive plan. To assure that your roadways are managed properly, your comprehensive plan needs to address certain key issues. First, include goals, objectives, and policies related to access management in the plan. Tailor policy statements to advance the access management principles in this brochure. For example, a policy could be adopted promoting interconnection of adjacent developments along major roadways. Second, make sure that your local transportation plan classifies roadways according to function and desired level of access control. This hierarchy of roadways is reinforced through roadway design and access standards in your land development code. For example, arterials require a much higher level of access control and different design standards than collectors or local streets. Some roadways require special attention because of their importance, the need for additional right-of-way, or due to significant access problems. These areas may be designated for special treatment in the comprehensive plan. Third, provide for a greater variety of street types with varying design standards. Options could include access lanes, alleys, variations in on-street parking, and so on. This reduces development costs, promotes compact development, increases opportunities to interconnect streets, and helps save your major thoroughfare system. Many communities have only a few residential street design options that apply whether a subdivision has 8 homes or 80. Lack of design flexibility impedes infill development and results in a monotonous street layout. It can also cause a proliferation of substandard and inadequately maintained private streets. 2 Restrict the number of driveways per lot. Establish a basic requirement that driveways are limited to one per parcel, with special conditions for additional driveways. Lots with larger frontages, or those with needs for separate right and left-turn entrances, could be permitted more than one driveway, in accordance with driveway spacing standards. Limitations on new driveways may be established using a “corridor overlay” approach, which adds new requirements onto the underlying zoning (see Figure1). It is necessary to first identify and map the boundaries of all existing lots and parcels along the corridor. Then you could assign one driveway to each mapped parcel by right. This land may be further subdivided, but all new lots would need to obtain access from the existing access point. assured by establishing a larger minimum lot size for corner lots. You could impose conditional use limitations where adequate corner clearance cannot be obtained. This helps assure that corner properties do not experience access problems as traffic volumes grow. 4 Connect parking lots and consolidate driveways. Figure 1. Corridor overlay 3 Internal connections between neighboring properties allow vehicles to circulate between businesses without having to re-enter the major roadway (see Figures 3 and 4).Joint and cross access requirements in your land development code can help to assure connections between major developments, as well as between smaller businesses along a corridor. Locate driveways away from intersections. Setting driveways and connections back from intersections reduces the number of conflicts and provides more time and space for vehicles to turn or merge safely across lanes. This spacing between intersections and driveways is known as corner clearance. Adequate corner clearance can also be Figure 2. Inadequate corner clearance. Figure 3. Joint and cross access. Cross access also needs to be provided for pedestrians. Sidewalks are typically placed far away from buildings on the right-of-way of major roadways, or are not provided at all. Pedestrians prefer the shortest distance between two points and will walk if walkways are provided near buildings. Joint and cross access strategies help to relieve demand on major roadways for short trips, thereby helping preserve roadway capacity. They also help to improve customer convenience, emergency access, and access for delivery vehicles. Figure 4. Cross access. Figure 5. Shared access. 5 Provide residential access through neighborhood streets. Residential driveways on major roadways result in dangerous conflicts between high-speed traffic and residents entering and exiting their driveway. As the number of driveways increase, the roadway is gradually transformed into a high speed version of a local residential street. Subdivisions should always be designed so that lots fronting on major roadways have internal access from a residential street or lane (also known as “reverse frontage”—see Figures 5 and 6). Minor land division activity can be managed by establishing a restriction on new access points and allowing land to be further subdivided, provided all new lots obtain access via the permitted access point. A variation of this approach is to allow lot splits on major roadways only where access is consolidated. Another step is to prohibit “flag lots” along major thoroughfares. Some property owners subdivide their Figure 6. Reverse Frontage. Figure 8. Lot frontage requirements. Figure 7. Avoid flag lots. land into lots shaped like flags to avoid the cost of platting and providing a road. Instead, the flag lots are stacked on top of each other, with the “flag poles” serving as driveways to major roads (see Figure 7). This results in closely spaced driveways that undermine the safety and efficiency of the highway. Eventually, residents may petition for construction of a local public road passing the cost of providing a subdivision road onto the community. 6 Increase minimum lot frontage on major roads. Minimum lot frontages need to be larger for lots that front on major roadways, than those fronting on local roads. Narrow lots are a problem on major roads because they result in closely spaced driveways. Lots need to be deeper and wider along arterials to allow adequate flexibility in site design and to increase separation of access points (see Figure 8). Assuring an adequate lot size also protects the development potential and market value of corridor properties. 7 Promote a connected street system. As communities grow and land is subdivided for development, it is essential to assure continuation and extension of the existing local street system. Dead end streets, cul-desacs, and gated communities force more traffic onto collectors and arterials. Fragmented street systems also impede emergency access and increase the number and length of automobile trips. A connected road network advances the following growth management objectives: • fewer vehicle miles traveled • decreased congestion • alternative routes for short, local trips • improved accessibility of developed areas • facilitation of walking, bicycling, and use of transit • reduced demand on major thoroughfares • more environmentally sensitive layout of streets and lots • interconnected neighborhoods foster a sense of community • safer school bus routes Connectivity can be enhanced by a) allowing shorter blocks (600 ft.) and excluding cul-de-sacs from the definition of intersection; b) requiring stub streets to serve adjacent undeveloped properties; c) requiring street connec- tions to nearby activity centers; d) requiring connections to or continuation of existing or approved public streets; and e) requiring bicycle/pedestrian access-ways at the end of cul-de-sacs or between residential areas and parks, schools, shopping areas or other activity centers. It is also important to allow a greater variety of street types. 8 Encourage internal access to outparcels. Shopping center developments often include separate lots or “outparcels” fronting on the major roadway. The outparcels are leased or sold to businesses looking for highly valued corridor locations. Access to these outparcels should be incorporated into the access and circulation system of the principal retail center. This reduces the need for separate driveways on the major road, while maintaining overall accessibility to the site. To accomplish this, establish that development sites under the same ownership or those consolidated for development will be treated as one site for the purposes of access management.Then require a unified traffic circulation and access plan for the overall development site. 9 Regulate the location, spacing, and design of driveways. Driveway spacing standards establish the minimum distance between driveways along major thoroughfares (see Figure 9). These standards help to reduce the potential for collisions, as travelers enter or exit the roadway. They also encourage the sharing of access for smaller parcels, and can improve community character by reducing the number of driveways and providing more area for pedestrians and landscaping. The location of driveways affects the ability of drivers to safely enter and exit a site. If driveways do not provide adequate sight distance, exiting vehicles may be unable to see oncoming traffic. In turn, motorists on the roadway may not have adequate time to avoid a crash. Driveway design standards assure that driveways have an adequate design so vehicles can easily turn onto the site. Standards also need to address the depth of the driveway area. Where driveways are too shallow, vehicles are sometimes obstructed from entering the site causing others behind them to wait in through lanes. This blocks traffic and increases the potential for rearend collisions. Figure 9. Driveway spacing standards. 10 Coordinate with the Department of Transportation. The Florida Department of Transportation is responsible for access permits along state roadways. Local governments oversee land use, subdivision, and site design decisions that affect access needs. Therefore, State and local coordination is essential to effective access management. Lack of coordination can undermine the effectiveness of regulatory programs and cause unnecessary frustration for permit applicants. Timely communication is key to an effective review procedure. Begin by establishing a coordinated process for review of access permits along state highways. The state per- mitting official could have applicants send a copy of the complete permit application to the designated local reviewing official. Prior to any decision or recommendation, the state permitting official could then discuss the application with the local reviewing official. Property owners also may be required to submit the necessary certificates of approval from other affected regulatory agencies, before a building permit is issued. In Florida, this should include a “notice of intent to permit” from the Florida Department of Transportation where access to the state highway system is requested. An effective method of coordinating review and approval between developers and various government agencies is through a tiered process. The first stage is an informal meeting and “concept review” period, which allows officials to advise the developer about information needed to process a development application. This includes information on required state and local permits, and any special considerations for the development site. The concept review provides the developer with early feedback on a proposal, before the preliminary plat or site plan has been drafted. Once the preliminary plan is drafted, it can be checked to determine if additional conditions are required for approval. The final plan that is formally submitted should then require only an administrative review. Local governments could also request a response from the FDOT prior to approval of plats on the state highway system. Applicants could be required to send a copy of the subdivision application to the state access permitting official. This should occur early in the plat review process, pref- erably during conceptual review. Early monitoring of platting activity would allow the Department of Transportation an opportunity to identify problems and work on acceptable alternatives. Intergovernmental agreements or resolutions can facilitate coordination between the state and local governments on access management. These tools can be used to clarify the purpose and intent of managing access along major thoroughfares, roadways that will receive special attention, and state and local responsibilities for advancing access management objectives. Additional References “Model Land Development Regulations that Support Access Management,” Center for Urban Transportation Research, 1994. Williams, K., Marshall, M. “Managing Corridor Development,” Center for Urban Transportation Research, 1996. Williams, K., Forrester, R., “NCHRP Synthesis 233: Land Development Regulations that Promote Access Management.” Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996. Training Opportunities “Access Management: Site Planning,” FDOT 1997 (A Training Unit), available through Gary Sokolow. “Land Development Regulations that Support Access Management,” FDOT 1997 (A Training Unit), available through Gary Sokolow. Visit our Web Page at: http://www.cutr.eng.usf.edu For More Information, Contact: Kristine M. Williams, AICP, Senior Research Associate Center for Urban Transportation Research (813) 974-9807 e-mail krwillia@cutr.eng.usf.edu Gary Sokolow, Systems Planning Office Florida Department of Transportation (850) 488-9747 e-mail gary.sokolow@dot.state.fl.us Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, Florida 33620-5375 (813) 974-3120 SunCom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Web: http://www.cutr.eng.usf.edu Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS1S ADS1S ADS1S Total ADS1W ADS1W Total ADS1SW ADS1SW ADS1SW Total ADS2S ADS2S ADS2S ADS2S ADS2S Total ADS2W ADS2W ADS2W Total ADS4 ADS4 ADS4 ADS4 ADS4 ADS4 ADS4 ADS4 ADS4 ADS4 ADS4 Total ADS4S ADS4S ADS4S ADS4S ADS4S ADS4S ADS4S ADS4S ADS4S ADS4S ADS4S Total ADS4W ADS4W ADS4W ADS4W ADS4W ADS4W Total ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 33 1017 10 2008 35 7 10 ADS 1 needing only surface upgrad 2008 35 7 15 ADS 1 needing only roadway widen 2008 33 1017 20 2008 33 1017 25 ADS 1 needing surface upgrade and 2008 36 12 100 2008 36 12 105 2008 36 12 110 2008 36 12 115 ADS 2 needing only surface upgrad 2008 35 7 30 2008 35 7 40 ADS 2 needing only roadway widen 2008 36 12 160 2008 36 12 165 2008 36 110 40 2008 36 110 43 2008 36 110 46 2008 36 12 180 2008 36 54 90 2008 36 54 80 2008 36 9 20 2008 36 9 25 2008 36 12 150 2008 36 110 10 2008 36 110 30 2008 36 110 35 2008 36 15 200 2008 36 15 190 2008 36 15 210 2008 36 15 348 2008 33 15 110 2008 36 7 146 ADS 4 needing only surface upgrad 2008 36 12 226 2008 34 56 40 2008 34 56 60 2008 36 54 20 2008 33 2 80 ADS 4 needing only roadway widen 2008 36 12 228 2008 32 364 80 2008 32 364 82 2008 32 364 84 2008 32 364 86 2008 36 112 50 2008 36 112 60 2008 36 7 150 2008 36 15 270 2008 36 15 346 2008 36 12 250 2008 36 7 140 2008 34 56 10 2008 34 56 20 2008 34 56 30 2008 36 15 165 2008 33 2 70 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.8 2.0 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.6 1.3 4.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 2.5 0.4 5.9 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 12.5 13.8 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 6.4 0.3 1.8 0.6 2.3 2.5 2.1 1.6 2.2 68 68 3 3 4 4 19554 18978 60 4 5 18978 56 56 4 4 4 4 17645 15327 88 88 78 78 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 14849 14849 14849 14849 60 60 4 4 5 5 16761 15423 66 66 39 39 39 68 50 51 36 36 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 14849 14849 12709 8502 8502 7958 4706 3776 3303 3190 78 68 68 68 46 46 46 50 36 46 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 14849 14849 14849 14849 3946 3144 3059 3053 1623 1538 30 28 28 26 28 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 8684 2303 2303 2193 1798 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 8684 5699 5699 5699 5699 5414 4534 3218 3059 3053 2771 2474 2303 2303 2303 2034 1798 24 24 24 24 24 32 34 34 34 24 24 32 28 28 28 32 24 Page 1 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1260.919 1 360.2625 1621.181 1 97.54595 97.54595 1 191.9886 1 95.99428 287.9828 2 900.6563 2 720.525 2 540.3938 2 1441.05 3602.625 2 13.40898 2 1004.005 1017.414 4 146.0678 4 803.3726 4 73.03388 4 73.03388 4 73.03388 4 231.25 4 35.65821 4 0.84 4 0 4 0 1436.29 4 360.2415 4 270.1811 4 180.1208 4 270.1811 4 450.3019 4 270.1811 4 450.3019 4 450.3019 4 1086.821 4 173.8913 3962.523 4 115.625 4 1.47 4 0.63 4 0.42 4 6460.197 6578.342 4 134.725 4 172.44 4 431.1 4 215.55 4 431.1 4 180.1208 4 180.1208 4 86.94566 4 5763.864 4 270.1811 4 2425.05 4 540.3623 4 3098.675 4 3368.125 4 2829.225 4 1440.966 4 1943.972 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW ADS4SW Total ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 ADS5 Total ADS5S ADS5S ADS5S ADS5S ADS5S ADS5S Total ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 33 15 60 2008 33 15 80 2008 33 15 115 2008 33 15 120 2008 36 15 160 2008 33 2 60 ADS 4 needing surface upgrade and 2008 35 7 42 2008 35 7 44 2008 35 7 46 2008 35 7 48 2008 36 12 224 2008 36 12 185 2008 36 12 190 2008 36 12 195 2008 36 12 210 2008 36 12 220 2008 36 12 222 2008 36 12 170 2008 32 36 95 2008 32 36 96 2008 32 36 97 2008 32 36 99 2008 32 36 190 2008 34 9 183 2008 34 9 186 2008 35 27 190 2008 35 27 193 2008 35 27 196 2008 35 27 200 2008 33 15 30 2008 33 15 33 2008 33 15 36 2008 35 4 136 2008 35 4 132 2008 34 9 180 2008 36 9 10 2008 36 9 40 2008 36 9 45 2008 33 15 10 2008 35 4 134 2008 36 54 10 2008 36 9 60 2008 36 9 70 2008 36 12 130 2008 36 100 10 2008 36 100 15 2008 33 15 20 2008 36 7 90 ADS 5 needing only surface upgrad 2008 36 12 80 2008 36 12 85 2008 32 36 100 2008 32 36 110 2008 35 4 34 2008 35 4 36 2008 35 4 50 2008 35 59 245 2008 36 12 66 2008 32 36 94 3.9 1.2 3.0 7.6 0.9 14.0 54.0 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 4.9 0.8 3.6 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.9 0.3 0.4 1.3 4.9 0.5 3.4 2.2 1.5 5.4 2.0 0.8 1.6 3.8 48.2 2.8 0.4 0.1 4.9 0.5 8.7 0.3 0.7 4.6 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.5 3.6 3.4 34 34 34 34 32 28 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 1623 1623 1596 1596 1596 1516 4 4 4 4 4 4 60 60 60 60 76 68 40 40 40 40 76 68 46 58 46 46 40 56 56 40 40 40 45 36 36 36 40 40 56 36 36 36 36 40 48 36 36 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 13077 13077 10634 10634 8684 8362 8362 8362 8362 8362 8362 7958 6583 6583 6583 6583 6583 4710 4710 4238 4238 4238 4238 4137 4137 4137 3338 3332 3328 3303 3190 3190 3179 3010 2565 1743 1638 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 78 62 62 36 56 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 20882 14849 14849 3084 1485 5 5 5 5 5 28 28 34 34 30 30 30 34 28 34 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7339 7339 6583 6583 6056 6056 6056 5570 4406 4252 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 2 of 47 3512.355 521.674 2701.811 3303.935 810.5434 12608.45 46971.29 860.1115 344.0446 860.1115 172.0223 137.781 137.781 2250.423 367.416 1653.372 137.781 367.416 344.0446 179.3079 119.5386 358.6158 119.5386 505.197 298.8465 137.781 344.0446 172.0223 172.0223 172.0223 4870.082 53.96112 71.94816 2236.29 8429.093 229.635 0 0 0 6743.191 3440.446 42.2688 0 200.7768 36528.93 5702.74 387.1298 96.78244 9979.796 1018.347 17184.79 516.0669 1204.156 2749.388 321.489 860.1115 688.0892 1548.201 860.1115 6192.803 2032.156 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 35 48 48 48 48 48 34 34 34 35 35 35 32 32 32 32 35 32 32 32 32 32 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 35 36 36 36 36 36 35 35 35 33 33 36 34 36 36 34 34 34 4 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 9 9 9 13 13 4 36 36 36 36 4 36 36 36 36 13 59 59 59 59 59 59 12 12 12 12 12 54 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 12 12 12 12 12 59 59 59 59 59 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 53 90 95 110 130 135 125 140 170 10 30 56 55 60 80 90 130 10 20 40 50 95 205 210 213 216 230 240 35 50 55 60 63 30 40 60 70 90 110 120 130 140 160 170 10 12 14 16 30 190 195 200 10 30 90 120 110 115 200 205 220 3.5 0.3 2.1 0.1 2.8 2.0 0.5 2.3 7.7 0.7 1.3 0.2 5.4 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.1 7.5 0.4 0.6 3.0 6.4 1.9 0.9 6.5 0.9 4.2 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.5 1.2 0.9 2.2 2.6 0.7 1.3 0.2 2.0 0.5 1.6 5.9 0.7 0.2 0.1 1.6 1.8 11.5 1.8 1.4 3.0 0.3 3.6 4.9 3.5 1.3 30 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 30 30 30 34 34 34 34 24 34 34 34 34 28 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 28 28 28 28 26 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 24 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 Page 3 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4189 4110 4110 4110 4110 4110 3328 3328 3328 3323 3323 3078 2862 2862 2658 2658 2587 2541 2541 2541 2541 2487 2346 2346 2346 2346 2346 2346 2287 2287 2287 2287 2287 2193 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1801 1801 1801 1801 1801 1789 1789 1789 1766 1766 1685 1638 1638 1638 1412 1412 1412 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6020.781 76.5018 535.5126 25.5006 714.0168 510.012 229.635 1056.321 4602.236 1204.156 2236.29 344.0446 2480.058 275.562 358.6158 537.9237 172.0223 4482.698 183.708 275.562 1377.81 13034.84 341.7538 1548.201 11181.45 1548.201 7224.937 344.0446 71.94816 1892.245 1376.178 1032.134 1548.201 47.5524 17.98704 89.9352 215.8445 161.8834 395.7149 467.663 1204.156 233.8315 35.97408 359.7408 0 0 0 125.9093 35.97408 17.98704 287.7926 323.7667 2068.51 323.7667 73.9704 1377.81 15.8508 190.2096 2250.423 1607.445 597.051 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W ADS5W Total ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW 2008 34 9 223 2008 34 9 226 2008 34 9 230 2008 36 54 40 2008 35 27 60 2008 35 27 70 2008 35 27 80 2008 36 27 10 2008 36 27 30 2008 36 27 35 2008 36 27 40 2008 36 27 45 2008 36 27 50 2008 35 13 35 2008 35 13 50 2008 35 13 55 2008 35 27 40 2008 35 27 83 2008 35 27 86 2008 32 13 90 2008 36 54 50 2008 36 54 70 ADS 5 needing only roadway widen 2008 36 100 20 2008 36 100 25 2008 35 7 50 2008 36 12 240 2008 35 7 52 2008 35 4 32 2008 32 364 65 2008 33 20 90 2008 36 112 10 2008 36 112 30 2008 36 112 35 2008 35 64 10 2008 35 64 15 2008 35 64 20 2008 33 20 80 2008 35 41 10 2008 35 41 12 2008 48 3005 40 2008 48 3005 45 2008 35 64 24 2008 35 64 25 2008 35 64 26 2008 33 15 50 2008 48 3003 60 2008 48 3003 80 2008 36 112 63 2008 36 112 66 2008 48 3003 55 2008 36 15 341 2008 36 110 50 2008 36 110 55 2008 35 64 21 2008 35 64 23 2008 35 4 90 2008 34 9 150 2008 34 9 160 2008 35 4 110 2008 35 12 450 4.2 0.4 6.2 3.2 1.4 0.3 0.8 1.4 4.9 0.5 1.3 4.0 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.9 2.2 1.0 2.8 1.3 4.0 1.4 184.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.8 0.7 0.2 1.3 1.6 3.4 2.3 0.3 5.3 6.5 2.2 12.7 0.6 1.0 4.7 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.4 5.0 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.4 1.6 0.4 0.5 3.5 5.8 1.3 4.5 1.0 4.1 2.6 34 34 34 26 32 32 32 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 32 32 32 28 29 29 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1412 1412 1412 1124 1053 1053 1053 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1016 1002 1002 1002 875 716 716 541 429 429 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 26 26 22 24 22 30 24 32 32 32 32 24 24 24 32 28 28 26 26 24 24 24 34 34 34 34 34 34 24 24 24 24 24 24 34 34 24 22 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 14849 14849 10634 8684 7407 6056 5699 5557 5414 5414 5414 5104 5104 5104 4837 4706 4706 4391 4391 4302 4302 4302 4137 4110 4110 3885 3885 3813 3689 3610 3610 3598 3598 3427 3328 3328 3315 3312 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 4 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1928.934 183.708 2847.474 169.0752 1748.235 374.6217 998.9912 2408.312 8429.093 860.1115 2236.29 6880.892 1032.134 1376.178 1892.245 1548.201 2747.226 1248.739 3496.469 2647.701 211.344 73.9704 143682.4 203.6693 203.6693 814.6772 1075.847 1425.685 407.3386 514.1799 3258.709 6924.756 4684.394 611.0079 10794.47 13238.5 4480.725 25866 1222.016 2036.693 2809.157 179.3079 1222.016 814.6772 203.6693 387.1298 2988.465 418.3851 1833.024 407.3386 239.0772 3258.709 814.6772 1018.347 7128.426 11812.82 2647.701 2689.619 597.693 8350.441 5295.402 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 35 35 35 35 36 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 34 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 48 36 35 35 36 33 36 36 36 12 12 4 4 4 15 15 15 4 4 4 12 12 12 12 12 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 6 12 12 4 4 7 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 56 12 12 6 15 6 6 6 6 6 3005 6 12 12 7 15 15 15 15 455 470 100 70 73 230 342 344 25 30 120 245 260 280 285 290 290 295 300 305 310 315 320 325 330 340 63 473 476 76 95 120 100 120 130 140 160 170 190 210 230 240 70 420 440 70 180 10 20 40 50 60 35 66 480 485 105 100 130 135 150 1.4 2.9 1.8 0.3 3.1 3.6 0.6 0.4 1.3 0.3 6.0 4.4 1.8 1.7 4.9 0.2 1.7 1.4 0.9 4.2 1.5 1.0 2.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 3.3 6.6 0.6 3.9 1.1 0.4 0.9 1.0 3.2 1.1 0.5 4.3 0.1 0.1 5.7 4.5 0.4 7.7 2.2 4.4 2.3 8.3 2.4 1.7 3.5 0.5 4.2 14.2 7.0 6.8 1.3 2.5 3.0 0.8 5.1 22 22 24 24 24 28 24 24 24 30 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 28 22 22 24 24 32 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 20 22 22 28 32 28 26 28 28 28 26 28 28 28 34 34 30 30 30 Page 5 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3312 3312 3276 3078 3078 3059 3053 3053 3009 3009 2896 2771 2771 2771 2771 2771 2677 2677 2677 2677 2677 2677 2677 2677 2677 2677 2621 2606 2606 2527 2527 2525 2487 2487 2487 2487 2487 2487 2487 2487 2487 2487 2303 2291 2291 2236 2034 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1919 1847 1746 1746 1639 1623 1596 1596 1596 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2851.37 5906.41 3666.047 611.0079 6313.748 7332.095 1222.016 814.6772 2569.757 611.0079 12220.16 2629.849 1075.847 1016.078 2928.696 407.3386 3462.378 2851.37 1833.024 8554.111 3055.04 2036.693 5702.74 2444.032 3258.709 4888.063 6721.087 13442.17 1222.016 7943.103 2240.362 814.6772 1833.024 2036.693 1912.618 657.4623 298.8465 2570.08 59.7693 59.7693 3406.85 2689.619 232.0324 15682.54 4480.725 8961.449 4684.394 16904.55 4888.063 3462.378 7128.426 1018.347 2510.311 28921.04 14256.85 13849.51 2647.701 2419.561 6110.079 1629.354 10387.13 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW ADS5SW Total ADS6 ADS6 ADS6 Total ADS6S ADS6S ADS6S ADS6S Total ADS6W ADS6W ADS6W ADS6W ADS6W Total ADS6SW ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 36 15 155 2008 36 6 80 2008 35 7 54 2008 35 7 56 2008 35 41 14 2008 36 7 85 2008 36 7 100 2008 48 3003 50 2008 34 9 240 2008 34 9 242 2008 34 9 244 2008 34 9 246 2008 34 9 250 2008 34 9 252 2008 34 9 254 2008 32 12 530 2008 32 12 540 2008 32 12 560 2008 48 3005 15 2008 48 3005 30 2008 35 27 180 2008 35 27 183 2008 35 27 186 2008 32 12 520 2008 34 9 256 2008 34 9 260 2008 34 9 262 2008 34 9 264 2008 34 9 266 2008 35 41 120 2008 35 41 140 2008 35 41 16 2008 35 41 30 2008 35 41 50 2008 35 41 60 2008 35 41 70 2008 35 41 90 2008 35 41 110 2008 34 56 72 2008 35 27 170 2008 35 13 60 2008 35 4 20 2008 35 27 90 2008 35 27 100 2008 35 27 120 2008 35 27 140 2008 35 27 150 ADS 5 needing surface upgrade and 2008 35 27 50 2008 35 27 55 2008 36 7 115 2008 36 7 110 2008 35 41 65 ADS 6 needing only surface upgrad 2008 36 12 40 2008 36 12 43 2008 36 12 46 2008 32 13 80 ADS 6 needing only roadway widen 2008 35 13 70 2.8 2.3 7.1 3.1 6.1 1.2 8.8 3.2 4.3 4.8 1.6 4.8 1.0 0.4 10.2 12.3 8.4 0.6 3.7 0.6 0.6 2.3 0.1 5.1 0.5 0.2 0.4 4.9 4.8 4.3 2.4 1.1 1.3 2.0 0.9 4.4 2.5 0.3 2.0 0.8 2.1 7.7 2.5 1.3 0.1 4.1 2.6 397.1 0.2 1.0 1.2 2.1 2.1 1.1 5.3 3.1 2.7 0.5 5.2 11.5 1.2 30 28 22 22 28 34 34 34 30 30 30 30 34 34 34 34 34 32 26 26 22 22 22 34 34 34 34 34 34 22 22 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 20 24 22 24 20 18 24 20 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1596 1592 1521 1521 1497 1485 1485 1429 1412 1412 1412 1412 1412 1412 1412 1320 1320 1320 1249 1249 1084 1084 1084 1083 974 974 974 974 974 806 806 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 695 616 549 545 408 408 408 408 408 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 42 42 3 3 5 5 875 875 6 6 44 44 40 3 3 3 4 4 4 1639 1485 729 6 6 6 28 28 28 28 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 2287 2287 2287 541 6 6 6 6 1 549 6 22 Page 6 of 47 5702.74 4684.394 14460.52 6313.748 12423.83 2444.032 17922.9 1912.618 2570.08 2868.926 956.3088 2868.926 597.693 239.0772 6096.469 2063.325 1409.1 100.65 2211.464 358.6158 1186.042 4546.493 197.6736 10387.13 298.8465 119.5386 239.0772 2928.696 2868.926 8499.966 4744.167 2240.362 2647.701 4073.386 1833.024 8961.449 5091.733 611.0079 1160.162 1581.389 4151.146 15220.87 4941.841 2569.757 197.6736 8104.618 5139.514 613970.9 189.7926 948.963 1138.756 2805.583 2805.583 1469.591 7080.758 825.9739 719.3966 133.2216 1385.505 3064.097 1496.613 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS6SW ADS6SW Total ADS7 ADS7 ADS7 ADS7 Total ADS8 ADS8 Total ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W ADS8W Total ADS8SW ADS8SW ADS8SW ADS8SW ADS8SW ADS8SW ADS8SW ADS8SW ADS8SW ADS8SW ADS8SW Total ADS9SW ADS9SW ADS9SW ADS9SW ADS9SW Total ADS10 ADS10 ADS10 ADS10 ADS10 ADS10 Total ADS10S ADS10S ADS10S ADS10S ADS10S ADS10S ADS10S ADS10S Total ADS10SG ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 35 13 75 ADS 6 needing surface upgrade and 2008 36 15 170 2008 36 9 51 2008 36 9 53 2008 36 15 280 2008 34 474 60 2008 34 474 65 2008 34 474 70 2008 34 474 90 2008 34 474 95 2008 34 474 110 2008 34 474 30 2008 34 474 35 2008 34 474 40 2008 34 474 50 2008 34 474 53 2008 34 474 56 2008 0 2006 70 2008 35 4 114 2008 35 4 116 2008 35 12 471 2008 36 15 220 2008 36 15 240 2008 36 15 260 2008 48 3005 10 2008 35 4 51 ADS 8 needing only roadway widen 2008 34 474 10 2008 34 474 20 2008 34 474 25 2008 35 7 60 2008 35 4 15 2008 34 56 74 2008 35 4 10 2008 33 20 60 2008 34 56 76 2008 35 41 150 ADS 8 needing surface upgrade and 2008 36 7 70 2008 35 7 63 2008 35 7 66 2008 36 7 75 ADS 9 needing surface upgrade and 2008 33 607 20 2008 33 607 30 2008 32 514 10 2008 34 55 10 2008 0 2025 10 2008 35 102 10 2008 34 11 50 2008 34 11 60 2008 34 11 70 2008 34 11 75 2008 32 34 60 2008 32 513 10 ADS 10 needing only surface upgra 2008 32 368 40 1.5 2.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.8 6.4 6.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.0 3.9 0.1 1.2 3.1 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 6.5 3.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 24.3 0.5 1.7 4.3 0.2 9.2 1.8 1.3 0.4 2.7 0.9 23.0 4.2 9.5 9.2 1.4 24.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 7.5 0.7 8.8 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.8 2.6 9.0 0.1 17.5 0.1 22 1 549 32 36 36 3 3 3 4 5 5 149 149 149 36 3 4 149 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 24 24 24 22 28 28 28 26 30 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 391 391 391 391 391 391 376 376 376 376 376 376 218 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 26 26 26 22 24 20 24 24 20 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 376 376 376 358 346 244 184 169 149 149 20 22 22 18 1 1 1 3 383 358 358 149 5841 5841 399 107 74 6151 3828 3828 3828 2787 2161 477 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 40 40 34 40 32 4 4 3 3 5 5 4 5 4 40 36 36 36 36 34 34 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 74 Page 7 of 47 6 1870.766 3367.38 7 231.125 7 11.4324 7 0 242.5574 8 2958.4 2958.4 8 122.3535 8 122.3535 8 734.1209 8 489.4139 8 489.4139 8 1223.535 8 2295.575 8 58.86089 8 706.3307 8 3792.958 8 1101.181 8 122.3535 8 92.45 8 92.45 8 184.9 8 92.45 8 3004.625 8 1664.1 8 231.125 8 489.4139 8 146.1 17256.06 8 589.4947 8 2004.282 8 5069.655 8 92.15 8 4238.9 8 2122.181 8 598.975 8 184.3 8 3183.272 8 414.675 18497.88 9 4984.35 9 11223.78 9 10869.34 9 1661.45 28738.92 10 152.5726 10 228.8589 10 120.3649 10 6336.977 10 401.7601 7240.533 10 1137.602 10 1444.379 10 2166.569 10 2166.569 10 3129.488 10 10832.84 10 120.3649 20997.81 10 91.9855 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS10SG ADS10SG ADS10SG Total ADS10W ADS10W ADS10W ADS10W ADS10W ADS10W ADS10W ADS10W ADS10W ADS10W ADS10W ADS10W ADS10W ADS10W ADS10W Total ADS10WG ADS10WG ADS10WG ADS10WG ADS10WG ADS10WG ADS10WG ADS10WG ADS10WG ADS10WG Total ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW 2008 32 368 44 2008 48 4164 20 ADS 10 needing only surface upgra 2008 33 607 10 2008 32 502 10 2008 32 502 20 2008 32 514 20 2008 32 504 10 2008 33 24 10 2008 48 4069 10 2008 48 4018 10 2008 48 4056 10 2008 48 4081 10 2008 48 4089 10 2008 33 42 60 2008 48 4003 10 2008 48 4005 10 ADS 10 needing only roadway wide 2008 32 5080 10 2008 32 5080 14 2008 32 5080 16 2008 34 706 10 2008 34 703 10 2008 34 704 10 2008 35 808 10 2008 35 809 10 2008 48 4043 20 ADS 10 (FADT 50-250) needing on 2008 36 110 70 2008 36 113 30 2008 36 108 65 2008 36 108 10 2008 36 108 20 2008 36 108 25 2008 36 9202 10 2008 36 9202 30 2008 33 221 10 2008 33 221 15 2008 35 133 10 2008 35 133 30 2008 36 157 25 2008 35 8078 10 2008 32 562 40 2008 32 562 10 2008 32 562 30 2008 36 60 35 2008 36 693 10 2008 36 157 30 2008 35 172 20 2008 36 108 30 2008 35 65 40 2008 36 153 30 2008 36 112 110 2008 36 112 115 2008 36 153 20 2008 36 153 25 2008 33 6460 60 2008 36 113 10 2008 33 6460 70 2008 35 60 30 2008 35 60 10 0.7 1.0 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 4.4 0.1 0.7 1.5 0.5 0.1 2.6 1.9 2.0 15.0 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 2.2 5.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.0 1.8 2.7 0.2 0.2 2.2 0.6 1.5 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 5.9 2.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.4 74 74 28 26 26 22 28 28 22 26 26 28 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 28 30 24 24 24 26 24 22 22 22 28 28 28 28 28 28 30 30 18 30 18 26 26 22 28 24 30 18 30 18 18 18 18 18 20 20 20 28 28 Page 8 of 47 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5841 2294 2294 399 376 342 334 327 315 315 315 294 285 285 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 163 163 163 74 74 74 74 74 74 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 3610 3432 2948 2620 2620 2620 2517 2517 1818 1818 1795 1795 1773 1734 1675 1675 1675 1666 1527 1497 1432 1329 1276 1244 1221 1221 1135 1135 998 992 849 836 812 10 643.8985 10 919.855 1655.739 10 76.2863 10 152.5726 10 51.91232 10 601.8246 10 240.7299 10 5005.449 10 120.3649 10 842.5545 10 1805.474 10 601.8246 10 62.30379 10 2957.765 10 2286.934 10 2407.299 17213.29 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 337.9721 10 422.4651 10 422.4651 10 57.3943 10 57.3943 10 1858.847 3156.538 10 113.7602 10 341.2806 10 481.4597 10 361.0948 10 62.30379 10 124.6076 10 341.2806 10 1137.602 10 2047.684 10 3071.525 10 227.5204 10 227.5204 10 2450.921 10 682.5612 10 1673.314 10 481.4597 10 120.3649 10 455.0408 10 361.0948 10 568.801 10 113.7602 10 111.5543 10 796.3214 10 568.801 10 446.2172 10 557.7715 10 6572.923 10 2450.921 10 341.2806 10 557.0274 10 227.5204 10 1820.163 10 455.0408 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 35 36 36 36 36 36 32 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 33 33 36 36 34 32 32 32 32 34 34 36 35 35 32 32 32 36 48 35 35 36 35 0 48 48 0 32 35 36 33 34 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 33 33 36 36 36 33 33 36 60 151 151 151 60 60 8070 8090 67 67 8095 8095 8095 8095 6460 6460 9402 602 7140 5031 5031 5031 5031 7057 7057 9073 673 673 368 364 34 151 4095 25 25 31 65 2012 4095 4095 2020 192 251 9501 61 7119 7119 9402 9402 9402 9402 69 69 2 2 9003 9003 9003 2 2 9003 20 10 30 35 60 65 30 80 10 30 10 30 33 36 50 40 105 10 10 10 20 30 50 10 15 20 10 30 20 40 50 40 16 60 65 13 20 10 10 13 10 20 80 40 30 10 15 70 40 60 65 45 50 30 40 10 15 20 10 20 25 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.7 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.3 2.6 0.8 2.2 2.7 2.8 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.5 1.7 0.5 6.9 3.4 0.3 0.8 2.0 0.7 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 2.7 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.9 2.6 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.0 3.1 1.6 12.9 13.6 1.0 9.6 0.2 1.4 0.7 28 26 26 26 20 20 24 24 28 28 20 20 20 20 20 20 18 20 22 12 10 16 16 28 28 18 24 24 15 27 24 26 28 26 26 16 30 24 28 28 24 13 22 20 16 25 25 18 20 20 20 21 20 24 24 18 18 18 24 24 18 Page 9 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 4 1 1 9 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 1 812 809 809 809 800 800 783 783 771 771 661 661 661 661 652 652 646 643 600 591 591 591 591 532 532 514 512 512 508 508 499 484 466 441 441 423 419 417 416 416 411 408 401 398 389 368 368 331 331 331 331 324 324 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 287 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1933.923 455.0408 455.0408 341.2806 568.801 113.7602 334.2164 445.6219 341.2806 1933.923 557.0274 1002.649 1559.677 1114.055 1448.271 796.3214 334.2164 2957.765 962.9194 2454.194 3011.966 3123.52 111.5543 361.0948 481.4597 111.4055 557.0274 1893.893 557.7715 8305.18 4092.407 341.2806 962.9194 2228.11 779.8384 1338.652 455.0408 682.5612 240.7299 3249.853 1137.602 780.8801 910.0816 1003.989 431.73 842.5545 557.7715 222.811 227.5204 113.7602 227.5204 1115.543 3458.183 1782.488 14371.31 15151.15 1114.055 10694.93 227.5204 1559.677 779.8384 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW ADS10SW Total ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG ADS10SWG 2008 36 9003 30 2008 36 9003 33 2008 36 9003 36 2008 36 9003 40 2008 36 9003 50 2008 35 8092 10 2008 32 5008 10 2008 36 9504 10 2008 36 9504 30 2008 36 9504 35 2008 36 9659 15 ADS 10 needing surface upgrade an 2008 32 369 10 2008 32 8014 10 2008 32 5002 20 2008 32 5002 40 2008 32 5002 60 2008 32 5002 80 2008 36 37 20 2008 33 6730 10 2008 33 6730 20 2008 32 557 10 2008 36 69 30 2008 36 9066 10 2008 33 6812 10 2008 36 9005 10 2008 32 5080 20 2008 32 5080 25 2008 32 5080 30 2008 32 5080 40 2008 32 5080 50 2008 34 7128 30 2008 32 565 10 2008 32 5017 10 2008 33 6820 10 2008 33 6820 20 2008 33 6820 30 2008 35 172 40 2008 35 172 45 2008 36 9652 10 2008 36 9652 13 2008 32 8070 15 2008 32 563 10 2008 36 9806 10 2008 32 366 10 2008 34 7059 10 2008 34 7059 20 2008 36 9654 10 2008 36 28 10 2008 32 566 10 2008 36 9402 100 2008 33 6720 10 2008 32 561 10 2008 32 5091 20 2008 36 603 10 2008 32 5018 10 2008 32 353 10 2008 32 353 20 2008 32 5060 70 2008 36 9846 10 2008 33 6920 10 1.4 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 4.4 1.5 138.2 0.2 2.7 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.7 1.1 0.8 15.0 1.1 1.8 3.7 4.1 4.0 6.8 7.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 7.1 3.2 2.2 9.4 0.8 0.2 1.2 0.8 14.0 0.6 8.2 0.5 4.7 2.7 3.1 0.5 0.3 6.8 2.0 0.1 0.7 7.7 1.1 4.7 2.0 1.8 5.0 1.8 18 18 18 18 18 24 18 18 18 18 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 287 287 287 287 287 276 269 254 254 254 252 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 18 16 18 18 18 18 18 24 24 20 21 18 24 18 24 24 24 16 30 18 16 24 22 24 24 30 30 18 18 18 16 18 12 20 20 16 22 24 18 24 30 20 16 19 14 14 24 18 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 249 242 198 198 198 198 193 187 187 183 171 169 168 165 163 163 163 163 163 156 153 144 144 144 144 140 140 137 137 132 126 123 120 120 120 120 113 110 110 105 101 99 94 92 88 88 86 86 85 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Page 10 of 47 1559.677 1225.46 445.6219 445.6219 1002.649 1225.46 780.8801 111.5543 111.5543 4908.389 1673.314 153547.8 183.971 2497.864 1563.753 1471.768 1195.811 1563.753 1011.84 740.1078 13877.02 1011.84 1655.739 3422.999 3793.053 3700.539 6255.014 6438.985 91.9855 275.9565 275.9565 275.9565 275.9565 6530.97 2960.431 2035.297 8696.267 758.9456 189.7364 1103.826 735.884 12951.89 551.913 7586.105 459.9275 4323.318 2483.608 2851.55 462.5674 275.9565 6290.917 1850.27 91.9855 643.8985 7123.538 1017.648 4348.134 1850.27 93.69 4625.674 1665.243 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS10SWG 2008 33 6920 20 ADS10SWG 2008 33 6920 30 ADS10SWG 2008 35 8085 10 ADS10SWG 2008 36 37 25 ADS10SWG 2008 36 37 45 ADS10SWG 2008 36 9103 10 ADS10SWG 2008 36 9606 10 ADS10SWG 2008 33 118 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 18 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 181 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 558 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 559 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 564 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 5007 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 5007 13 ADS10SWG 2008 32 5007 16 ADS10SWG 2008 32 5007 60 ADS10SWG 2008 32 5007 80 ADS10SWG 2008 32 5011 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 5015 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 5023 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 5052 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 5057 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 8009 40 ADS10SWG 2008 32 8009 60 ADS10SWG 2008 32 8070 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 8081 10 ADS10SWG 2008 33 215 20 ADS10SWG 2008 33 1012 10 ADS10SWG 2008 33 6710 20 ADS10SWG 2008 33 6710 30 ADS10SWG 2008 33 6710 40 ADS10SWG 2008 33 6811 10 ADS10SWG 2008 33 6811 20 ADS10SWG 2008 33 6932 10 ADS10SWG 2008 33 6933 10 ADS10SWG 2008 33 8014 10 ADS10SWG 2008 33 6033 10 ADS10SWG 2008 33 6033 20 ADS10SWG 2008 33 6710 10 ADS10SWG 2008 34 9652 40 ADS10SWG 2008 36 31 20 ADS10SWG 2008 36 69 35 ADS10SWG 2008 36 9004 10 ADS10SWG 2008 36 9157 10 ADS10SWG 2008 36 9652 16 ADS10SWG 2008 36 9652 20 ADS10SWG 2008 36 9652 30 ADS10SWG 2008 36 9752 10 ADS10SWG 2008 36 9854 10 ADS10SWG 2008 36 9855 10 ADS10SWG 2008 36 9858 10 ADS10SWG 2008 32 5007 20 ADS10SWG 2008 32 5007 30 ADS10SWG 2008 32 5007 40 ADS10SWG 2008 36 9657 10 ADS10SWG Total ADS 10 (FADT 50-250) needing su ADS11 2008 32 5114 10 ADS11 2008 32 5114 15 ADS11 2008 34 49 10 ADS11 2008 34 49 20 2.1 3.8 4.9 0.2 6.3 3.1 2.1 17.9 9.4 4.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 6.7 3.7 1.4 2.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 7.7 4.4 4.4 0.7 7.4 2.8 5.8 8.4 0.9 4.7 4.5 3.8 5.5 1.8 1.7 4.4 5.0 4.8 3.8 5.1 3.2 1.2 1.3 3.7 5.5 7.9 2.0 5.4 6.5 1.2 2.4 2.3 4.3 4.5 1.2 5.0 365.8 0.4 1.2 4.4 3.7 24 24 20 18 18 18 16 24 18 20 19 22 12 22 22 22 10 16 12 15 12 12 22 20 20 18 22 30 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 16 22 22 24 20 18 21 16 18 18 18 16 16 16 16 16 8 8 8 18 40 34 34 34 Page 11 of 47 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 85 85 80 80 80 80 79 79 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 2903 2903 2787 2787 11 11 11 11 1942.783 3515.512 4533.161 183.971 5795.086 2867.918 1942.783 16559.91 8696.267 4163.107 735.884 551.913 459.9275 6163.028 3403.463 1287.797 2483.608 275.9565 367.942 91.9855 7123.538 4070.593 4070.593 647.5944 6845.998 2590.377 5365.782 7771.132 832.6213 4348.134 4163.107 3515.512 5088.241 1665.243 1572.729 4070.593 4625.674 4440.647 3515.512 4718.187 2943.536 1103.826 1195.811 3422.999 5088.241 7266.854 1839.71 4967.217 6013.376 1110.162 2220.324 2127.81 3955.376 4139.347 1103.826 4599.275 336300.8 533.7241 1601.172 1494.9 1257.075 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 ADS11 Total ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S ADS11S Total ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG ADS11SG Total ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 34 48 34 34 36 33 36 48 48 48 0 48 48 48 48 48 0 48 48 48 48 49 3003 49 49 39 59 39 4055 4055 3003 2030 4133 4135 4182 4188 4190 2025 4178 4178 4178 4178 45 15 35 40 10 45 13 15 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 10 30 40 60 2008 35 8030 10 2008 35 8030 12 2008 36 112 70 2008 34 11 10 2008 34 11 30 2008 33 619 10 2008 48 3002 95 2008 35 8030 14 2008 34 48 76 2008 34 48 80 2008 34 48 90 2008 34 49 30 2008 48 3002 60 2008 48 3002 70 2008 48 3002 90 2008 34 48 60 2008 34 48 70 2008 34 48 73 2008 48 4066 10 2008 32 5 10 2008 32 5 30 ADS 11 needing only surface upgra 2008 33 591 30 2008 32 5020 10 2008 35 172 100 2008 35 8081 20 2008 35 8081 40 2008 35 8084 10 2008 35 8084 30 2008 35 8084 35 2008 48 4055 10 2008 48 4055 77 2008 48 4055 80 2008 48 3002 10 2008 48 3002 20 2008 48 3002 30 2008 48 3002 50 2008 48 4162 10 ADS 11 needing only surface upgra 0.2 2.9 1.7 2.0 1.4 2.1 1.0 3.2 1.4 3.1 12.0 0.5 1.6 2.0 3.5 0.9 4.5 3.4 0.6 3.1 0.1 60.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 4.1 1.5 4.0 0.4 0.6 1.7 1.3 0.4 1.9 1.6 2.2 2.5 0.8 1.4 1.0 8.4 3.2 38.6 6.0 0.3 3.8 0.7 0.4 0.8 1.3 0.7 2.9 0.3 1.7 3.0 7.0 0.6 0.9 3.3 33.7 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 32 32 34 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 48 48 34 36 36 32 34 48 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 32 34 34 4 4 3 3 3 36 38 Page 12 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 5 5 5 2441 1734 1596 1596 1414 707 570 399 399 258 125 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3971 3971 3885 3828 3828 2242 1977 1783 1620 1620 1620 1596 692 692 692 585 585 585 451 422 422 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 1 193 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 67.95 985.275 577.575 679.5 2188.098 449.1289 1562.927 1423.2 622.65 1053.225 16011.72 154.425 494.16 617.7 1080.975 277.965 6004.396 730.15 128.85 665.725 21.475 40683.94 0 0 522.0655 311.325 1823.475 2503.392 1779 0 157.62 446.59 341.51 177.9 845.025 711.6 978.45 656.75 210.16 367.78 444.75 3735.9 1423.2 17436.49 8641.866 432.0933 5473.182 1008.218 576.1244 1152.249 1872.404 1008.218 895.665 92.655 525.045 926.55 2161.95 185.31 277.965 1019.205 26248.7 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 36 36 32 32 32 32 34 33 33 33 33 48 48 36 32 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 35 36 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 0 0 0 0 32 48 48 0 32 32 6331 6331 16 16 16 16 16 222 9101 9101 5068 5068 5068 5068 7120 21 16 222 222 4156 4156 31 5 4055 4055 4055 4087 4040 4045 4060 16 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 251 251 251 9402 4007 4011 4043 4047 4059 4059 4057 2015 2015 2015 2015 57 4035 4035 2007 33 33 60 70 80 100 110 120 85 10 10 13 20 30 35 40 20 75 125 15 20 10 20 10 40 30 50 70 15 10 10 10 130 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 40 50 55 35 10 16 10 10 10 20 10 40 45 50 60 15 10 15 25 10 30 0.7 0.3 0.5 3.5 2.0 5.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.3 5.1 0.3 3.7 1.5 0.6 1.6 1.5 2.7 1.7 0.1 1.0 3.0 5.8 2.0 1.5 1.4 2.6 2.6 2.2 1.0 6.9 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.7 5.3 0.1 4.4 1.6 2.4 5.8 2.5 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 6.3 3.5 5.2 2.1 0.4 0.3 28 28 30 30 30 30 30 30 28 28 26 26 26 26 26 26 30 30 30 30 30 26 28 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 22 22 24 20 26 28 26 26 28 28 26 30 30 30 30 26 26 26 24 26 26 Page 13 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3295 3295 1718 1718 1718 1718 1651 1296 1146 1146 849 849 849 849 587 539 450 435 435 428 428 423 422 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 391 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 336 336 336 331 327 327 327 327 319 319 315 306 306 306 306 303 293 293 291 288 288 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1094.049 468.8782 870.1091 6090.764 3480.437 9397.179 870.1091 1250.342 192.4838 278.0322 768.825 45.225 557.775 226.125 19.62 342.1934 2610.327 4219.904 2656.976 33.975 339.75 0 1245.55 889.5 667.125 622.65 1156.35 1156.35 978.45 444.75 4276.474 870.1091 174.0218 870.1091 348.0437 348.0437 348.0437 696.0873 174.0218 174.0218 3306.415 1218.153 9223.157 174.0218 1956.9 711.6 1067.4 2579.55 1111.875 444.75 400.275 1044.131 348.0437 174.0218 174.0218 2801.925 1556.625 2312.7 3654.458 696.0873 522.0655 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W ADS11W Total ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG 2008 32 33 40 2008 32 33 50 2008 48 4064 10 2008 48 4001 10 2008 48 4006 10 2008 35 251 20 2008 48 4022 10 2008 48 4022 15 2008 48 4022 30 2008 48 4022 50 2008 48 4022 60 2008 48 4022 70 2008 48 4022 90 2008 0 2004 70 2008 0 2004 80 2008 32 5060 10 2008 32 5060 30 ADS 11 needing only roadway wide 2008 34 7030 20 2008 35 25 40 2008 36 9345 30 2008 32 5069 10 2008 48 4017 15 2008 48 4017 20 2008 48 4017 30 2008 48 4055 75 2008 0 2009 10 2008 32 5012 40 2008 33 6731 10 2008 33 6731 20 2008 33 6731 40 2008 0 2003 10 2008 0 2007 10 2008 0 2007 20 2008 35 8080 10 2008 35 8080 20 2008 35 8080 30 2008 35 8080 40 2008 35 8080 50 2008 36 9010 50 2008 0 2002 10 2008 0 2002 20 2008 0 2002 30 2008 0 2005 10 2008 0 2018 35 2008 34 7034 10 2008 32 63 95 2008 32 63 100 2008 0 2002 50 2008 36 28 60 2008 36 9345 50 2008 36 9402 26 2008 48 4065 50 2008 48 4065 60 2008 48 4087 10 2008 48 4011 10 2008 48 4011 13 2008 48 4014 10 2008 48 4014 15 2008 48 4014 20 2008 48 4014 25 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 3.1 6.1 0.3 1.1 0.1 1.9 0.6 2.4 1.0 0.3 0.1 1.4 2.1 136.9 0.6 0.3 0.1 2.7 2.0 2.3 3.1 0.3 1.2 2.3 7.4 0.7 1.3 0.4 5.6 1.2 4.2 0.5 1.2 0.4 4.4 12.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 3.0 0.2 0.2 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.3 2.7 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.9 1.8 0.5 26 26 26 26 26 20 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 24 24 24 24 18 20 28 16 26 26 26 26 26 24 24 24 22 26 24 24 20 20 20 20 20 18 26 26 26 24 24 24 28 28 28 26 28 24 26 26 26 28 28 26 26 26 26 Page 14 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 288 288 285 285 285 272 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 264 264 261 261 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 245 233 220 218 215 215 215 214 189 177 135 135 135 129 120 120 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 105 92 91 80 80 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 2610.327 2610.327 222.375 222.375 1378.725 10615.33 133.425 489.225 44.475 845.025 266.85 1067.4 444.75 522.0655 174.0218 234.85 352.275 108964.8 191.85 400.2931 21.38709 145.125 429.5 493.925 665.725 64.425 1601.172 735.425 11185.85 1058.121 1965.082 533.7241 7472.137 1601.172 6348.725 159.875 383.7 604.6405 6651.046 18139.22 266.8621 266.8621 266.8621 400.2931 400.2931 959.25 266.8621 266.8621 2401.758 266.8621 42.77418 400.2931 279.175 579.825 193.275 21.475 21.475 42.95 408.025 386.55 107.375 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG ADS11WG Total ADS11WE ADS11WE Total ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW 2008 48 4017 10 2008 48 4017 35 2008 48 4028 10 2008 48 4028 15 2008 48 4028 20 2008 48 4028 40 2008 48 4028 45 2008 48 4030 20 2008 48 4030 25 2008 48 4047 20 2008 48 4047 30 2008 48 4078 10 ADS 11 (FADT 50-250) needing on 2008 48 4055 12 ADS 11 (FADT <50) needing only 2008 33 42 38 2008 33 6485 13 2008 33 6485 16 2008 36 110 60 2008 36 110 80 2008 33 42 40 2008 33 42 50 2008 36 108 60 2008 36 60 30 2008 36 60 15 2008 33 6410 20 2008 33 6410 30 2008 33 6410 40 2008 35 8077 30 2008 0 2011 10 2008 0 2011 30 2008 0 2011 31 2008 0 2011 40 2008 0 2011 50 2008 0 2011 60 2008 0 2011 70 2008 0 2011 80 2008 0 2011 90 2008 0 2011 100 2008 0 2011 110 2008 0 2011 120 2008 0 2011 130 2008 0 2011 20 2008 36 9202 40 2008 36 30 20 2008 36 30 10 2008 36 30 15 2008 33 21 90 2008 33 619 20 2008 33 619 30 2008 33 619 40 2008 33 619 60 2008 35 8066 130 2008 35 8066 135 2008 33 42 30 2008 33 42 36 2008 33 21 50 2008 34 7046 33 2008 34 7046 36 2008 34 7046 40 2008 48 3003 30 1.2 1.1 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 2.2 1.5 0.8 82.0 1.1 1.1 1.9 1.7 0.5 0.1 0.6 1.7 1.1 0.1 0.7 7.5 2.8 1.1 1.1 1.4 0.5 0.1 1.9 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.4 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.5 1.3 1.1 1.3 2.9 5.4 0.8 1.7 4.8 0.3 1.0 26 26 28 28 28 28 28 28 26 26 26 30 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 30 3 5 10 11 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4898 4535 4535 3610 3610 3438 3196 2948 2894 2790 2713 2713 2713 2609 2536 2536 2536 2536 2536 2536 2536 2536 2536 2536 2536 2536 2536 2536 2517 2464 2464 2464 2443 2242 2242 2242 2242 1977 1977 1947 1947 1795 1775 1775 1775 1734 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 22 24 24 22 24 22 26 22 22 22 22 22 20 30 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 28 18 22 28 28 24 30 30 30 30 28 28 22 22 24 22 22 22 24 Page 15 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 39.24 236.225 21.475 214.75 214.75 300.65 21.475 85.9 85.9 472.45 322.125 26.16 71139.17 236.225 236.225 318.725 2958.371 834.464 166.8928 1001.357 285.175 184.525 44.475 1218.153 13051.64 4672.998 182.655 184.525 2436.306 309.8895 61.97789 1177.58 433.8452 61.97789 61.97789 123.9558 185.9337 123.9558 247.9116 123.9558 247.9116 61.97789 309.8895 1668.928 173.54 667.125 667.125 1001.357 834.464 333.7856 834.464 2169.606 1914.24 2262.284 486.475 905.85 1335.142 756.075 2134.8 133.425 444.75 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 33 0 0 0 0 32 35 35 48 36 36 36 33 33 33 34 36 35 33 34 34 34 34 34 35 36 36 36 36 35 35 0 0 0 32 32 36 36 36 36 36 32 32 32 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 36 35 33 35 0 0 0 33 32 32 16 2009 2009 2009 2009 19 65 172 3003 60 108 60 6220 6220 6220 7062 112 271 21 7046 7046 7046 7044 7044 8073 9031 9031 9031 9031 29 131 2015 2015 2015 57 5068 30 30 30 30 30 35 35 35 20 20 46 46 46 41 41 60 8090 6440 8078 2018 2018 2018 162 35 35 60 20 30 40 50 20 60 10 40 10 50 40 30 10 20 10 106 20 80 10 20 30 10 30 20 20 30 10 15 30 10 10 20 30 10 10 23 26 28 40 60 35 40 50 10 30 10 15 20 130 135 50 66 80 20 10 20 30 10 60 70 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 6.2 12.2 6.5 0.2 1.1 5.4 0.1 4.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 2.5 0.1 0.2 4.3 1.3 2.9 2.2 1.1 2.0 2.5 6.5 3.2 1.8 1.0 7.0 0.2 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 3.2 0.2 0.2 1.5 1.0 1.0 7.1 2.8 8.2 0.2 1.8 0.3 4.1 1.2 1.4 3.1 5.9 0.1 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.7 5.8 3.4 30 26 26 26 26 26 30 24 24 22 18 22 20 24 24 26 18 22 24 22 22 22 22 22 22 18 18 24 22 28 26 30 30 30 26 24 22 22 22 22 20 30 24 24 24 24 24 24 20 22 22 22 22 20 24 24 24 24 14 24 16 Page 16 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 3 4 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 1718 1570 1570 1570 1570 1525 1467 1432 1429 1400 1329 1328 1298 1298 1298 1247 1221 1081 1047 1035 1035 1035 1019 1019 974 944 944 944 944 921 919 912 912 912 897 849 841 841 841 841 841 821 821 821 817 817 809 809 809 806 806 800 783 748 744 732 732 732 723 723 723 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 522.0655 174.0218 348.0437 348.0437 10789.35 5425.95 11311.42 348.0437 489.225 9397.179 43.385 7134.895 1001.357 522.0655 174.0218 1111.875 166.8928 348.0437 7176.39 578.175 1289.775 978.45 489.225 889.5 4350.546 10848.03 5340.569 3132.393 1740.218 12181.53 123.9558 3480.437 174.0218 174.0218 236.43 536.8 86.77 86.77 650.775 433.85 433.85 11849.39 4872.611 1375.55 333.7856 3004.07 130.155 1778.785 520.62 2436.306 5394.677 10267.29 166.8928 184.525 2088.262 174.0218 174.0218 1566.196 116.235 972.95 570.35 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 32 32 36 36 36 33 48 48 34 34 48 48 33 35 33 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 35 35 33 34 34 34 34 34 32 32 32 33 33 36 36 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 35 9660 9660 9660 6530 4067 4067 11 11 4063 4063 42 8086 42 42 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 9402 63 63 63 63 63 571 21 21 21 6486 6486 6486 8027 8027 619 7140 7140 7140 7140 7140 367 367 367 16 16 544 544 7120 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 67 80 90 10 30 50 10 10 20 80 100 10 30 25 70 10 20 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 120 10 30 50 70 90 10 15 20 30 35 50 55 22 24 65 30 50 70 90 110 10 20 15 140 200 10 30 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 45 1.8 0.9 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.0 3.9 1.8 4.0 3.3 0.8 3.1 2.0 0.7 2.3 1.9 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 4.0 1.7 0.4 1.9 2.2 2.4 5.7 8.9 1.2 6.6 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 3.0 2.2 2.8 0.8 0.3 1.9 1.2 1.6 5.0 3.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 30 24 20 18 18 22 26 26 24 24 26 26 22 26 30 22 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 18 28 28 28 28 28 22 24 24 24 22 20 20 24 24 30 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 26 24 24 26 26 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Page 17 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 723 723 705 705 705 701 688 688 686 686 686 686 685 676 667 667 662 662 662 662 662 662 662 662 662 646 640 640 640 640 640 624 612 612 612 610 610 610 604 604 603 600 600 600 600 600 598 598 598 598 595 591 591 587 576 576 576 576 576 576 570 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 301.95 150.975 911.085 867.7 911.085 1668.928 1734.525 800.55 1735.4 1431.705 355.8 1378.725 332.1 1218.153 3838.534 315.495 1914.24 348.0437 174.0218 174.0218 696.0873 870.1091 174.0218 174.0218 174.0218 1335.142 6960.873 2958.371 696.0873 3306.415 3828.48 1041.24 9512.889 14853.46 2002.714 11014.92 834.464 1044.131 61.97789 123.9558 500.6784 1334.25 978.45 1245.3 355.8 133.425 845.025 520.62 711.6 1069.355 587.125 522.0655 174.0218 26.27 522.0655 348.0437 522.0655 174.0218 348.0437 174.0218 500.6784 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 35 34 34 34 34 34 32 32 32 32 32 32 36 36 36 36 36 36 32 35 32 32 32 34 34 34 33 33 33 33 36 36 32 32 36 36 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 35 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 34 33 36 36 35 33 36 67 46 48 48 48 48 5099 5099 5099 5099 5099 5099 112 112 112 112 112 112 5099 8072 5000 5000 5000 7062 7062 7062 21 21 21 21 9405 9405 5016 5016 9073 9073 364 364 368 364 364 34 34 5012 5012 8094 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 7111 16 151 151 8029 16 9345 50 45 10 20 23 30 40 10 15 30 50 53 80 82 84 86 100 102 56 10 40 60 80 15 20 25 77 60 65 70 20 10 10 30 10 15 15 30 10 50 60 30 40 10 30 26 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 10 150 50 55 10 170 64 5.5 4.2 2.4 2.1 2.7 0.3 2.4 3.0 4.0 0.6 2.2 7.5 1.9 1.3 4.1 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.3 5.6 0.1 2.8 0.7 1.4 2.5 1.1 4.5 7.0 2.3 1.1 6.7 0.8 7.8 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.8 3.6 1.6 2.0 0.9 0.7 2.3 1.2 2.1 2.0 0.3 0.8 1.6 2.4 0.7 1.4 1.5 0.7 2.8 2.5 4.2 4.7 0.1 4.1 0.4 24 20 28 28 28 28 22 24 24 24 24 24 18 18 18 18 18 18 24 20 28 28 28 26 24 24 24 24 24 24 18 24 24 24 18 18 12 18 30 24 24 12 24 24 24 20 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 28 24 18 20 20 20 24 28 Page 18 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 570 567 566 566 566 566 563 563 563 563 563 563 561 561 561 561 561 561 554 548 542 542 542 542 542 542 539 539 539 539 520 520 518 518 514 514 508 508 508 508 508 499 499 495 495 493 490 490 490 490 490 490 490 490 487 486 484 484 480 478 475 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 9179.104 1822.17 1041.24 911.085 1171.395 130.155 398.52 503.25 671 100.65 369.05 1258.125 3170.963 2169.606 6842.605 2670.285 3004.07 333.7856 50.325 9745.222 44.475 1245.3 311.325 622.65 1111.875 489.225 7510.176 11682.5 3838.534 1835.821 11181.82 1335.142 3384.03 347.08 2169.606 1001.357 347.08 1561.86 694.16 525.4 236.43 311.325 997.855 533.7 933.975 3337.856 522.0655 1392.175 991.6462 4176.524 1218.153 2436.306 2610.327 1218.153 1214.78 4172.32 7009.497 7843.961 174.0218 6842.605 247.9116 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 36 36 35 35 35 35 35 35 34 35 33 33 48 48 48 32 35 32 32 33 33 33 33 48 48 48 48 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 33 32 35 35 33 36 33 35 35 32 32 32 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 35 35 9345 321 8031 8031 8031 8031 8031 8031 7052 61 71 71 4095 4095 4095 5049 65 5001 5001 6510 6510 6510 6510 4002 4002 4002 4002 61 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 6221 6221 556 25 8073 591 9551 71 133 133 5010 5010 35 7034 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 26 26 60 8078 70 80 50 60 40 10 30 35 30 60 10 30 20 30 35 10 10 10 15 10 20 30 40 10 13 16 30 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 10 45 30 10 10 50 40 45 90 110 10 20 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 40 40 0.5 0.2 0.8 1.5 0.5 1.2 3.2 1.1 0.4 4.8 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.9 3.6 2.7 0.2 0.1 5.8 1.6 2.8 2.5 1.6 0.6 3.2 2.8 1.4 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.7 1.2 2.0 4.3 8.8 3.1 2.8 0.6 1.7 2.2 2.8 4.9 1.9 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 8.6 0.3 1.4 4.1 28 18 22 22 22 24 24 22 18 20 29 29 28 28 28 12 22 20 20 24 24 20 20 26 26 26 26 22 26 26 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 22 20 18 20 22 24 16 29 22 22 30 30 30 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 20 20 22 26 Page 19 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 1 3 4 4 4 1 1 3 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 1 9 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 475 471 468 468 468 468 468 468 466 466 466 466 466 466 466 465 463 460 460 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 448 447 447 447 447 447 447 447 447 447 446 446 441 441 440 440 438 434 432 432 429 429 428 428 423 423 423 423 423 423 420 420 420 420 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 309.8895 88.95 1335.142 2503.392 870.1091 743.7347 1983.292 681.7568 177.9 8353.048 1218.153 1566.196 44.475 177.9 400.275 6264.786 4506.105 86.77 43.385 9679.782 2670.285 4672.998 4172.32 711.6 266.85 1423.2 1245.3 234.85 1914.24 2088.262 174.0218 522.0655 348.0437 174.0218 348.0437 348.0437 348.0437 1835.821 2837.178 520.62 3480.437 7482.938 14686.57 1344.935 4872.611 1001.357 2837.178 954.47 1214.78 8177.747 845.025 1218.153 348.0437 174.0218 174.0218 174.0218 522.0655 14352.78 500.6784 2336.499 7134.895 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 36 0 48 48 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 36 35 35 35 35 35 34 48 48 48 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 33 33 33 33 35 34 34 33 32 32 33 33 9408 2002 4050 4050 2021 192 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 321 321 8031 8031 8031 8031 8031 1045 4065 4065 4065 251 251 9501 9501 9345 9345 9054 9054 16 16 16 16 8087 57 57 61 366 366 6222 16 10 40 10 20 10 10 360 370 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 83 86 90 100 105 65 80 10 10 30 40 60 65 10 30 10 20 10 30 10 30 40 50 10 10 20 20 30 40 10 160 3.4 0.2 1.0 5.3 1.0 3.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.9 2.8 1.0 7.5 2.6 0.9 0.6 7.6 0.9 2.6 8.5 6.0 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.3 5.3 0.2 0.5 2.0 5.8 6.5 0.8 2.6 2.0 5.6 0.9 1.4 2.0 1.4 18 26 26 26 24 20 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 18 18 22 22 22 22 22 24 30 26 26 22 22 18 18 20 24 20 20 28 28 28 30 20 20 14 30 24 22 20 24 Page 20 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 419 417 413 413 411 408 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 404 404 402 402 402 402 402 402 402 402 402 401 401 398 398 396 396 394 394 391 391 391 391 391 389 389 389 380 380 373 371 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 5674.355 348.0437 444.75 2357.175 1740.218 1605.245 433.8452 61.97789 61.97789 123.9558 61.97789 185.9337 123.9558 123.9558 61.97789 61.97789 61.97789 123.9558 61.97789 61.97789 61.97789 61.97789 123.9558 61.97789 61.97789 123.9558 123.9558 61.97789 123.9558 123.9558 216.925 824.315 4672.998 1668.928 12516.96 4339.213 1502.035 266.85 3380.1 400.275 1156.35 14791.86 10441.31 303.695 737.545 667.5712 500.6784 8845.318 333.7856 834.464 3337.856 9679.782 10848.03 1335.142 1128.01 867.7 939.4 390.465 607.39 3337.856 2336.499 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 33 33 36 36 35 35 35 35 35 32 32 36 33 35 32 32 32 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 32 36 33 33 35 35 35 32 32 32 36 34 33 35 36 0 0 0 36 36 36 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 32 32 36 36 36 33 33 36 16 16 9402 694 61 8091 8091 8066 8066 362 362 9010 6720 67 5012 5012 5012 8027 8073 8027 9402 9402 9062 39 68 9065 6331 6331 8087 8087 8087 8008 8008 8008 9010 485 6485 8027 9252 2007 2007 2007 9702 9010 9010 471 471 471 8059 8059 39 39 39 35 35 28 28 28 21 21 9010 180 190 10 10 40 10 15 10 30 40 50 20 70 55 65 80 100 40 10 20 80 30 40 40 10 15 10 20 30 34 36 10 30 50 10 10 10 10 10 30 35 50 10 25 30 10 30 35 10 15 20 60 80 15 30 70 73 76 103 100 35 1.7 1.1 1.6 1.2 2.4 1.2 0.3 0.9 4.1 1.5 1.7 0.2 13.3 2.9 2.2 4.1 0.9 4.1 10.8 2.4 1.0 0.1 4.6 0.9 11.1 13.3 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.8 0.8 3.9 0.8 9.8 8.0 2.4 7.0 2.7 1.1 0.1 1.1 8.9 9.6 8.6 3.9 1.6 6.4 4.2 1.9 0.1 3.1 0.7 8.1 8.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 2.1 2.6 3.2 24 24 20 15 20 24 24 22 22 18 22 16 24 24 24 24 24 20 22 20 18 20 20 18 22 18 30 30 20 20 20 30 18 18 24 22 24 20 18 24 24 24 18 20 18 20 20 20 20 20 18 18 18 30 30 22 20 20 24 24 20 Page 21 of 47 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 371 371 364 362 361 361 361 359 359 356 356 352 350 350 347 347 347 340 336 333 331 331 330 325 318 318 316 316 316 316 316 315 315 315 312 306 300 300 297 291 291 291 291 288 288 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 285 285 285 285 285 281 281 279 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 2837.178 184.525 2670.285 520.62 4176.524 2002.714 500.6784 1566.196 7134.895 650.775 737.545 333.7856 22196.74 4839.891 954.47 1823.475 390.465 7134.895 18794.36 4176.524 1668.928 174.0218 7677.069 1502.035 18525.1 22196.74 1668.928 667.5712 166.8928 166.8928 3004.07 1335.142 6508.819 1335.142 16355.49 3470.8 4176.524 12181.53 4506.105 681.7568 61.97789 681.7568 14853.46 16021.71 14352.78 1692.015 694.16 2776.64 7308.917 3306.415 166.8928 5173.677 1168.25 13518.32 13852.1 348.0437 348.0437 870.1091 3504.749 4339.213 5340.569 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW ADS11SW Total ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG 2008 36 9010 40 2008 36 9010 45 2008 33 20 40 2008 35 8062 20 2008 35 8068 10 2008 35 8067 10 2008 34 7035 10 2008 35 8086 35 2008 35 8086 50 2008 34 59 10 2008 32 5000 90 2008 32 5000 100 2008 32 5000 120 2008 32 5000 130 2008 32 5000 135 2008 32 5000 150 2008 32 5000 170 2008 32 5000 190 2008 32 5000 210 2008 34 7049 10 2008 36 693 20 2008 32 364 10 2008 35 8066 40 2008 35 8066 50 2008 35 8066 55 2008 35 8066 70 2008 33 6410 10 2008 35 67 40 2008 32 5060 20 2008 32 56 10 2008 36 9052 10 2008 36 9201 10 2008 32 5066 10 2008 35 8068 50 2008 36 9659 10 2008 33 20 70 2008 34 52 10 2008 34 52 15 2008 34 52 20 2008 34 52 30 2008 34 52 35 2008 35 8029 20 2008 35 8059 100 2008 35 8059 110 2008 35 8059 120 ADS 11 needing surface upgrade an 2008 36 9503 10 2008 32 5113 33 2008 32 5113 36 2008 36 31 30 2008 35 25 20 2008 35 25 30 2008 36 25 10 2008 36 153 10 2008 36 9101 20 2008 36 9101 30 2008 36 9101 16 2008 36 9101 40 2008 36 9402 20 2008 36 9402 23 2008 33 6730 50 0.3 0.6 2.5 11.0 9.5 4.8 4.5 2.1 2.3 5.4 0.5 1.4 1.6 0.3 0.2 1.7 3.0 1.3 1.0 5.1 4.1 1.5 2.3 0.8 5.0 0.1 0.6 2.5 9.1 3.4 10.8 5.8 8.7 9.3 5.6 5.5 1.5 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.2 5.0 1.0 1.6 1.0 988.7 4.2 5.1 0.1 1.8 4.5 4.7 9.3 7.4 1.6 4.0 2.6 3.6 4.5 4.6 1.7 24 24 24 20 20 24 18 22 26 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 20 18 12 22 20 20 20 18 24 28 24 18 18 18 20 18 24 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 279 279 279 278 278 276 275 275 275 273 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 269 269 264 264 264 264 264 263 263 261 260 258 258 255 252 252 252 251 251 251 251 251 251 251 251 251 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 18 22 22 20 21 21 18 18 18 18 18 18 20 20 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 247 236 236 236 233 233 233 233 233 233 230 230 229 229 224 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Page 22 of 47 500.6784 1001.357 4172.32 19142.4 16532.07 8010.854 1952.325 3504.749 3838.534 2342.79 216.925 607.39 694.16 130.155 86.77 737.545 1301.55 564.005 433.85 2212.635 1778.785 650.775 4002.502 1392.175 8701.091 174.0218 99.63 4172.32 1526.525 1475.09 18024.42 9679.782 1444.635 16184.03 2429.56 9179.104 650.775 260.31 477.235 433.85 86.77 8701.091 1740.218 2784.349 1740.218 1169257 1297.17 1575.135 30.885 555.93 6481.399 6769.461 13394.89 10658.3 2304.498 5761.244 3744.808 5185.119 6481.399 6625.43 2448.529 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 32 33 33 33 36 33 33 35 35 35 36 36 32 36 32 32 32 32 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 32 32 32 35 35 32 36 32 33 36 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 36 36 32 32 33 33 35 36 36 36 36 33 32 35 35 5000 6460 6460 6460 9402 6486 6486 8066 8066 8066 9000 9000 5003 9901 5010 5010 5010 5010 8029 28 28 28 28 28 28 5010 5010 5010 271 271 5002 692 8009 591 37 5001 5001 5001 5001 5001 5001 5001 5001 5001 6730 6730 9065 9401 5113 5113 221 221 8017 9062 9062 9062 9062 221 30 8059 8066 30 10 15 20 15 10 30 72 75 80 40 45 10 10 10 20 65 80 30 52 54 56 57 58 59 40 50 60 10 15 10 10 10 20 15 30 35 50 70 71 72 73 74 75 30 40 10 10 10 30 55 60 10 10 30 20 25 70 260 30 110 2.8 14.0 7.3 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.3 1.0 3.5 0.7 0.7 4.7 1.8 9.9 4.4 0.1 0.3 1.1 3.6 4.4 0.4 1.7 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.9 1.3 0.3 2.0 1.4 0.6 2.1 6.5 2.4 2.1 3.0 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 1.3 1.7 3.3 11.4 14.8 6.1 10.7 5.6 1.1 2.4 3.0 0.5 1.6 4.9 6.6 3.5 1.6 0.6 0.7 1.0 24 20 20 20 20 17 22 24 22 22 18 18 12 24 18 18 12 12 20 18 18 20 22 24 26 18 12 12 22 22 16 23 10 24 18 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 24 24 18 18 22 22 24 24 20 22 20 20 20 24 18 20 20 Page 23 of 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 220 218 218 218 212 209 209 209 209 209 206 206 205 203 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 199 199 198 196 195 193 193 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 187 187 187 187 186 186 183 183 183 183 183 183 183 183 181 181 181 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 864.78 20164.35 10514.27 1296.28 1728.373 1296.28 1872.404 1511.601 5290.604 1058.121 1008.218 6769.461 555.93 14259.08 1358.94 30.885 92.655 339.735 5441.765 6651.046 604.6405 2569.722 1058.121 302.3203 302.3203 277.965 401.505 92.655 2880.622 2016.435 185.31 648.585 9362.021 3456.746 648.585 926.55 339.735 123.54 123.54 92.655 185.31 401.505 525.045 1019.205 16419.54 21316.6 8785.897 15411.33 1729.56 339.735 3456.746 4320.933 720.1555 2304.498 7057.524 9506.052 5041.088 2304.498 864.1866 1058.121 1511.601 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 33 36 36 33 33 32 35 36 33 35 33 33 36 36 36 32 32 32 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 35 35 36 36 33 34 34 34 32 32 32 32 36 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 35 35 36 36 35 35 71 9355 9844 6450 6450 5012 8079 69 20 251 20 20 9404 9404 9404 5005 5005 5005 8027 8027 8027 9005 9005 9205 9703 9840 29 29 9001 9001 71 7057 7128 7128 63 5020 5020 5020 9011 8074 8074 8074 8074 8074 8084 8084 8084 8084 8084 8084 8084 8043 8063 9055 9406 172 8068 30 9053 8034 8034 60 10 10 40 50 60 10 10 50 10 45 65 10 20 30 10 20 40 26 28 30 20 30 10 10 10 10 20 10 15 70 20 10 20 180 26 40 60 10 10 30 40 50 20 40 60 66 80 100 105 110 10 10 10 10 50 30 80 10 10 20 3.6 14.6 8.1 8.7 3.2 1.6 5.9 3.5 13.1 2.0 3.4 3.0 2.8 3.3 3.3 1.7 0.5 6.6 2.9 6.3 9.6 4.9 1.5 3.9 15.6 4.9 4.7 19.1 3.9 9.9 4.3 0.5 2.1 6.0 1.9 2.2 3.4 9.5 8.5 1.7 5.4 3.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.1 1.2 1.6 9.8 2.0 3.9 10.8 7.1 9.5 5.4 4.2 1.9 0.9 6.9 4.1 3.6 26 18 18 10 20 24 22 20 24 20 24 24 22 18 16 24 24 24 22 20 22 18 18 18 18 18 22 23 18 18 22 20 17 18 24 24 24 24 18 22 22 22 22 22 20 22 20 20 20 18 18 20 26 18 18 22 20 20 18 20 20 Page 24 of 47 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 181 180 180 178 178 177 174 171 169 169 169 169 168 168 168 166 166 166 166 166 166 165 165 163 163 163 160 160 160 160 159 156 156 156 154 154 154 154 153 151 151 151 151 151 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 147 144 143 143 140 140 140 138 137 137 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 5185.119 21028.54 11666.52 12530.71 4608.995 494.16 8497.835 1080.975 18868.07 2880.622 4897.057 4320.933 4032.871 4753.026 4753.026 525.045 154.425 2038.41 4383.644 9523.088 14511.37 7057.524 2160.466 5617.213 23580.98 7406.846 6769.461 27509.94 5617.213 14259.08 6193.337 154.425 648.585 1853.1 586.815 679.47 1050.09 2934.075 12242.64 2448.529 7777.679 4320.933 1008.218 1008.218 1209.281 151.1601 1813.922 2418.562 14813.69 3023.203 5895.245 16325.29 10732.37 13682.95 7777.679 6348.725 2872.042 277.965 9938.146 5905.275 5185.119 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 35 35 32 32 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 35 35 35 36 33 35 35 35 32 33 33 33 35 35 35 35 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 36 36 33 33 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 33 33 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 35 35 36 36 8066 8066 38 38 46 46 46 8090 8090 321 9051 9051 8065 8065 8077 203 213 8090 8090 8090 366 6810 6810 6810 8090 8090 8090 8090 5010 5010 70 70 70 70 70 9000 9000 70 70 8042 9002 9002 9411 9450 9860 9010 9074 70 6330 8086 8086 8088 28 28 28 28 28 8015 8015 9061 9402 140 150 10 20 25 30 40 60 62 40 10 20 10 30 20 10 10 36 40 45 20 10 16 20 10 30 32 34 120 140 40 42 44 46 60 10 30 70 80 10 10 20 10 10 10 60 10 10 5 10 30 10 30 40 43 46 50 10 30 10 85 4.5 1.2 4.4 2.0 5.4 4.0 0.6 7.3 6.5 3.8 3.7 4.6 9.4 0.5 16.2 17.8 1.7 3.2 5.2 2.5 3.3 4.7 0.2 5.0 13.3 4.7 5.1 6.0 2.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.1 1.7 0.6 0.6 3.0 7.8 8.6 1.2 3.1 0.8 21.9 2.0 1.1 3.6 3.0 6.8 5.7 4.8 0.4 1.0 4.6 4.4 0.5 1.6 5.5 3.9 1.4 22 20 12 12 20 20 20 22 22 18 18 18 22 22 20 18 24 22 22 22 18 28 28 28 22 22 22 22 12 12 24 24 24 24 24 20 18 24 24 18 18 18 20 18 18 16 18 24 16 22 22 24 20 22 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Page 25 of 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 134 134 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 131 131 131 129 129 129 129 123 123 123 123 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 117 117 117 117 117 117 114 114 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 111 111 110 110 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 6802.206 1813.922 1358.94 617.7 1667.79 1235.4 185.31 10514.27 9362.021 1173.63 5329.151 6625.43 14209.05 755.8006 24487.94 25637.53 2448.529 4608.995 7489.617 3779.003 1019.205 6769.461 288.0622 7201.555 19156.14 6769.461 7345.586 8641.866 648.585 61.77 720.1555 1296.28 288.0622 432.0933 144.0311 2448.529 864.1866 864.1866 4320.933 11790.49 12386.67 1728.373 4464.964 1152.249 31542.81 2880.622 1584.342 5185.119 4320.933 9794.114 8209.772 6913.493 604.6405 1440.311 6625.43 6337.368 755.8006 2304.498 7921.71 5617.213 2016.435 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 35 32 34 34 35 33 33 33 33 34 34 35 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 35 35 35 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 35 35 35 33 36 35 35 35 33 33 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 32 32 32 36 36 32 33 33 35 35 8074 5201 55 55 8062 6720 6720 6720 6720 58 58 171 5200 6440 6440 6440 6440 6440 6440 753 8017 8017 8017 5056 5056 5091 5091 5091 5091 5091 5091 5091 5091 5091 26 26 26 6530 9857 8060 8060 8030 6830 6830 8008 8082 171 8059 8059 8059 8059 5060 5060 5060 9754 9811 191 70 70 18 18 60 10 20 30 10 20 30 50 60 10 20 10 10 10 30 40 50 70 75 10 30 50 70 10 30 10 30 40 60 70 90 110 120 50 40 60 80 20 10 20 10 16 10 20 10 10 30 40 60 70 80 40 50 80 10 10 10 30 20 10 30 0.1 1.7 16.7 7.0 1.2 12.4 0.5 3.8 10.2 2.3 4.1 3.2 3.2 7.4 5.0 2.3 5.7 1.8 0.3 1.9 1.9 0.5 1.0 2.9 2.5 2.8 3.3 7.1 3.2 0.5 5.0 4.5 1.1 0.3 1.7 1.0 3.3 1.9 12.0 4.9 0.7 15.0 3.8 6.0 1.4 9.1 4.2 3.4 2.7 1.6 2.0 8.6 2.0 5.2 3.7 8.3 2.5 1.0 2.9 4.5 5.1 20 12 20 20 20 24 24 22 24 20 20 24 12 20 30 30 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 17 17 20 20 10 10 22 22 22 12 10 20 20 20 26 20 20 20 18 24 20 22 22 24 20 20 20 20 24 18 24 16 16 20 24 24 22 22 Page 26 of 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 108 107 107 107 107 105 105 105 105 105 105 102 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 97 97 94 94 91 89 89 89 89 88 88 88 88 88 86 86 86 86 86 85 85 85 83 83 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 144.0311 525.045 5157.795 2161.95 1728.373 17859.86 720.1555 5473.182 14691.17 710.355 1266.285 4608.995 988.32 10658.3 7201.555 119.715 296.685 93.69 15.615 586.815 2736.591 720.1555 1440.311 4176.902 3600.777 864.78 1019.205 2192.835 988.32 154.425 1544.25 1389.825 339.735 92.655 2448.529 1440.311 4753.026 2736.591 17283.73 7057.524 1008.218 22674.02 5473.182 8641.866 2016.435 13755.57 6049.306 5139.444 4081.323 2418.562 3023.203 447.63 104.1 7489.617 5329.151 11954.58 772.125 1440.311 4176.902 6481.399 7345.586 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 35 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 36 36 36 36 36 36 33 32 32 34 34 34 32 32 35 35 35 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 18 362 362 362 5004 5004 5054 5054 161 37 9068 9311 9606 9841 9864 21 5021 5021 57 57 57 5040 5040 8061 61 61 5 57 63 133 133 133 133 334 334 334 5009 5009 5013 5013 5013 5014 5019 5020 5020 5048 5053 5055 5058 5058 5058 5067 5090 5111 5111 5111 5111 5111 8009 5 70 40 10 15 20 10 20 10 30 10 40 10 10 20 10 10 10 10 30 23 26 30 10 20 10 10 30 45 20 170 10 30 50 60 10 20 35 10 30 5 10 30 20 10 20 23 10 10 10 10 20 30 10 10 10 30 40 60 80 20 50 90 7.8 3.8 1.3 1.1 3.7 1.5 5.8 3.1 6.8 4.3 6.1 1.9 13.8 4.8 6.5 7.6 2.7 1.3 0.6 2.6 2.6 12.8 0.6 2.4 0.3 1.1 9.7 1.0 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.2 3.3 1.0 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.3 1.0 1.6 2.0 1.7 7.6 2.0 5.0 3.2 1.0 2.1 5.1 2.5 2.1 0.6 3.0 1.5 0.8 1.1 2.5 1.3 3.0 22 20 20 24 15 10 12 12 10 18 18 16 16 18 16 24 17 17 14 14 16 24 18 18 18 18 16 20 16 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 22 22 18 18 18 12 22 24 24 14 12 12 12 12 12 16 14 10 16 18 18 18 10 16 24 Page 27 of 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 83 82 82 82 82 82 80 80 80 80 79 79 79 79 79 79 77 77 77 77 77 76 76 76 76 76 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11234.43 1173.63 401.505 339.735 1142.745 463.275 8353.804 4464.964 9794.114 1328.055 8785.897 2736.591 19876.29 6913.493 9362.021 10946.36 833.895 401.505 185.31 803.01 803.01 18435.98 864.1866 3627.843 453.4804 1662.761 2995.845 308.85 370.62 720.1555 1008.218 30.885 61.77 4753.026 1440.311 2592.56 339.735 339.735 2304.498 92.655 308.85 494.16 2880.622 525.045 2347.26 2880.622 7201.555 4608.995 1440.311 109.305 7345.586 130.125 109.305 864.1866 4320.933 463.275 247.08 339.735 3600.777 401.505 4320.933 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ADS11SWG ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 212 213 213 213 213 213 213 214 1012 5910 6329 6330 6330 6330 6330 6330 6331 6331 6541 6732 6732 6733 6910 6910 6910 6910 6910 6921 6922 6923 6923 6923 6930 6930 6930 6930 6931 8071 6910 6930 6250 6250 7031 7057 7057 7057 7057 7057 7057 7057 7057 7057 172 172 8034 8034 8076 8083 8083 8083 8088 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 10 20 10 10 10 20 30 40 45 40 45 10 10 30 10 10 30 35 40 45 10 10 10 20 40 10 20 30 40 10 10 10 5 10 20 10 22 24 30 40 50 60 80 90 110 70 90 25 30 10 10 30 50 20 2.5 4.7 5.3 2.3 0.8 2.7 4.2 2.9 5.6 3.8 1.1 11.8 3.0 5.2 7.9 3.5 2.4 0.8 5.7 5.5 15.5 5.6 6.4 1.6 0.5 4.0 7.9 5.9 2.4 2.5 3.7 0.1 0.3 5.4 5.9 0.3 5.7 12.9 2.8 3.4 4.9 3.9 0.5 2.3 2.8 1.1 7.7 2.1 5.0 1.4 0.8 5.2 2.4 3.5 1.9 15.3 10.5 4.0 4.9 1.5 6.5 20 24 24 24 24 24 23 20 16 21 16 13 18 18 22 22 24 24 30 24 24 15 18 18 18 24 24 24 18 18 18 20 18 18 20 24 24 18 18 18 15 20 18 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 18 18 18 18 20 20 25 22 22 22 18 Page 28 of 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 3600.777 6769.461 7633.648 3312.715 1152.249 3888.84 6049.306 4176.902 8065.741 5473.182 1584.342 16995.67 4320.933 7489.617 11378.46 5041.088 3456.746 1152.249 8209.772 7921.71 22324.82 8065.741 9217.99 2304.498 720.1555 5761.244 11378.46 8497.835 3456.746 3600.777 5329.151 144.0311 432.0933 7777.679 8497.835 432.0933 8209.772 18580.01 4032.871 4897.057 7057.524 5617.213 154.425 710.355 864.78 339.735 2378.145 648.585 1544.25 432.39 247.08 1606.02 3456.746 5041.088 2736.591 22036.76 15871.81 5761.244 7057.524 2160.466 9362.021 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS11SWG 2008 35 8089 10 4.1 ADS11SWG 2008 35 8089 20 6.1 ADS11SWG 2008 35 8094 10 1.2 ADS11SWG 2008 35 8094 20 0.3 ADS11SWG 2008 35 8094 23 5.7 ADS11SWG 2008 36 69 40 1.4 ADS11SWG 2008 36 152 10 0.8 ADS11SWG 2008 36 152 20 0.5 ADS11SWG 2008 36 155 10 8.4 ADS11SWG 2008 36 601 10 4.2 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9012 10 1.2 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9014 10 5.2 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9031 40 2.4 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9057 10 12.5 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9067 10 1.3 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9101 18 3.2 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9102 20 7.6 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9304 10 6.7 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9310 10 1.5 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9345 25 0.8 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9351 10 1.2 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9351 20 4.1 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9352 10 6.0 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9353 10 2.8 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9410 10 10.2 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9502 10 2.9 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9653 10 9.5 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9753 10 6.5 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9801 10 2.7 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9843 10 5.5 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9845 10 3.9 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9858 30 5.2 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9859 10 2.2 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9861 10 5.8 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9863 10 1.4 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9000 20 1.3 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9102 10 0.5 ADS11SWG 2008 32 63 110 1.3 ADS11SWG 2008 32 63 130 2.8 ADS11SWG 2008 32 63 150 3.4 ADS11SWG 2008 33 21 106 2.2 ADS11SWG 2008 33 40 10 3.5 ADS11SWG 2008 33 40 20 3.5 ADS11SWG 2008 34 47 10 1.6 ADS11SWG 2008 34 47 20 4.3 ADS11SWG 2008 35 8077 10 5.5 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9655 10 9.7 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9803 10 7.2 ADS11SWG 2008 36 9812 10 1.2 ADS11SWG Total ADS 11 (FADT 50-250) needing su 1668.6 ADS12 2008 33 221 20 0.5 ADS12 2008 33 221 25 0.1 ADS12 2008 33 221 40 0.1 ADS12 Total 0.7 ADS12S 2008 34 48 50 1.9 1.9 ADS12S Total ADS 12 Needing only surface upgra ADS12SW 2008 34 11 90 5.1 ADS12SW 2008 32 364 20 0.5 ADS12SW 2008 36 125 10 3.7 ADS12SW 2008 36 125 15 0.7 ADS12SW 2008 36 30 170 7.5 12 22 20 20 20 21 16 16 16 16 24 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 16 18 16 14 18 18 18 18 18 14 16 18 18 16 18 14 16 24 18 8 8 8 24 22 22 17 16 8 18 16 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 32 32 34 3 3 3 5 5 5 1476 1476 1476 12 12 12 34 3 4 566 12 1 1 1 1 1 686 508 487 487 486 12 12 12 12 12 24 12 20 20 26 Page 29 of 47 5905.275 8785.897 1728.373 432.0933 8209.772 432.39 1152.249 720.1555 12098.61 6049.306 1728.373 7489.617 3456.746 18003.89 1872.404 4608.995 10946.36 9650.083 2160.466 1152.249 1728.373 5905.275 8641.866 4032.871 14691.17 895.665 2934.075 9362.021 3888.84 7921.71 5617.213 7489.617 3168.684 8353.804 2016.435 1872.404 720.1555 1872.404 864.78 1050.09 3168.684 5041.088 5041.088 494.16 1328.055 7921.71 2995.845 10370.24 1728.373 2036678 0 9.741 0 9.741 650.75 650.75 4405.125 431.875 2625.243 496.6675 6478.125 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW ADS12SW Total 2008 34 7052 10 2008 34 7052 40 2008 35 25 50 2008 35 26 30 2008 36 321 100 2008 36 321 105 2008 36 9501 20 2008 36 7 80 2008 32 362 30 2008 33 221 50 2008 32 68 20 2008 32 68 30 2008 36 9702 20 2008 36 28 90 2008 36 28 93 2008 36 28 96 2008 36 28 116 2008 36 9658 10 2008 36 9658 20 2008 36 321 110 ADS 12 needing surface upgrade an ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG ADS12SWG 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 34 34 36 32 35 36 33 33 33 32 32 32 32 32 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 32 35 35 35 32 32 32 32 32 52 52 31 5000 8029 37 6450 6450 6450 30 30 30 30 30 8066 8066 30 9603 9603 30 30 30 30 30 30 321 321 321 28 28 19 8015 8015 8017 5006 5006 30 30 34 40 50 35 20 40 10 10 20 30 210 220 230 240 250 90 100 180 10 30 100 120 140 143 146 160 10 20 30 110 113 10 40 60 20 10 15 190 200 10 3.3 1.3 0.5 0.7 2.0 0.8 6.2 1.3 0.5 2.1 2.1 6.1 5.8 2.9 2.1 6.1 1.2 3.2 9.1 1.8 76.6 18 18 26 20 18 18 18 24 20 24 22 18 14 18 18 16 18 18 18 18 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 466 466 441 420 404 404 398 383 356 347 318 318 291 285 285 285 279 273 273 251 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 2861.925 1122.875 354.7625 496.6675 1727.5 691 5355.25 922.3825 431.875 1490.003 1490.003 4328.103 4115.245 2151.786 1558.19 4526.17 890.394 2764 7860.125 1554.75 61130.04 0.8 1.3 1.5 5.0 10.6 3.9 3.4 3.6 2.4 8.3 0.3 2.5 5.4 2.3 4.3 3.8 2.8 0.3 1.3 0.8 1.0 2.2 2.2 0.2 7.0 2.8 1.7 1.4 6.4 5.4 6.1 3.7 2.5 0.6 1.2 1.5 17.5 5.2 0.5 20 20 20 16 20 18 10 12 14 12 12 12 12 10 20 20 18 16 16 20 20 20 20 20 20 16 16 16 20 26 16 18 20 20 16 16 22 12 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 236 236 236 220 202 193 190 190 190 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 175 175 140 140 140 140 140 140 131 131 131 117 117 114 111 111 101 97 97 74 74 74 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 558.2 907.075 1046.625 3488.75 7019.225 2721.225 2141.051 2266.996 1511.33 5791.325 188.9163 1744.375 3400.493 1448.358 2847.421 2516.326 1953.7 209.325 907.075 558.2 697.75 1535.05 1535.05 139.55 4884.25 1953.7 1186.175 976.85 4238.022 3575.831 4256.275 2329.968 1574.303 377.8326 837.3 1046.625 12271.88 3628.3 314.8605 Page 30 of 47 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS12SWG 2008 32 34 20 ADS12SWG 2008 32 5000 10 ADS12SWG 2008 32 5013 50 ADS12SWG 2008 32 5013 60 ADS12SWG 2008 32 5013 80 ADS12SWG 2008 32 5013 90 ADS12SWG 2008 32 5014 10 ADS12SWG 2008 33 215 10 ADS12SWG 2008 35 172 60 ADS12SWG 2008 35 8030 20 ADS12SWG 2008 35 8030 30 ADS12SWG 2008 33 40 30 ADS12SWG Total ADS 12 (FADT 50-250) needing su ADS13 2008 48 4080 10 ADS13 2008 48 4083 10 ADS13 2008 36 123 20 ADS13 2008 48 4145 20 ADS13 Total ADS13S 2008 32 5050 10 ADS13S Total ADS 13 needing only surface upgra ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 34 34 32 32 34 32 33 34 32 34 34 34 33 36 34 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 7114 486 5092 5041 482 5024 594 551 5205 7077 7009 7009 6110 691 7136 132 132 132 546 547 548 549 550 5035 5081 5085 6261 6261 6261 6326 6326 6822 7036 7036 7038 7072 7073 7075 7021 7141 10 10 40 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 40 10 10 30 40 20 10 10 10 10 10 30 10 10 20 30 10 40 10 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 9.8 3.6 0.2 0.3 4.3 6.3 2.1 4.9 0.7 4.7 5.6 9.2 185.4 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.2 1.7 0.1 0.1 12 24 12 12 12 12 12 16 18 18 18 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 4 4 3 5 315 315 146 74 13 13 13 13 28 1 465 13 5.3 3.5 2.9 0.2 6.5 2.2 9.4 0.8 3.7 0.8 3.1 1.1 1.0 1.5 8.8 0.5 0.7 2.3 0.6 1.8 2.2 1.9 1.9 6.0 3.3 7.3 9.7 0.8 0.7 1.3 0.9 4.9 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.5 1.4 1.9 4.3 0.3 13 21 12 20 22 24 26 18 12 20 18 18 18 14 18 18 10 24 22 22 22 16 16 16 12 24 18 20 15 18 20 18 18 21 20 18 18 20 18 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 144 126 119 111 107 105 105 102 101 101 101 101 99 99 79 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 28 28 28 28 Page 31 of 47 3 3 3 1 1 1 6837.95 2511.9 139.55 209.325 3000.325 4395.825 1465.275 3085.633 440.8047 3112.298 3708.27 5793.433 125286.1 341.25 170.625 488.55 40.35 1040.775 90.835 90.835 1936.885 1279.075 1059.805 162.47 2375.425 1787.17 7636.09 292.36 1352.165 292.36 1132.895 401.995 812.35 548.175 3215.96 182.725 255.815 840.535 219.27 657.81 803.99 694.355 694.355 4874.1 1205.985 2667.785 7879.795 649.88 568.645 1056.055 731.115 3980.515 255.815 328.905 365.45 182.725 511.63 694.355 1571.435 109.635 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG ADS13SG Total ADS13W ADS13W ADS13W ADS13W ADS13W ADS13W ADS13W ADS13W ADS13W Total 2008 34 9652 60 2008 34 9652 65 2008 34 9652 70 2008 34 9652 75 2008 34 7043 30 2008 34 7117 10 2008 34 7130 10 2008 34 7141 20 2008 36 9760 30 2008 36 9751 10 2008 48 101 10 2008 32 5094 10 ADS 13 needing only surface upgra 2008 36 543 10 2008 36 543 30 2008 0 2016 10 2008 0 2016 20 2008 48 4085 10 2008 48 4103 10 2008 48 4068 10 2008 33 6150 40 ADS 13 needing only roadway wide 0.4 1.4 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.8 3.1 1.8 6.9 0.1 0.3 125.3 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.2 1.4 1.3 0.3 1.2 5.5 20 20 20 20 20 18 14 20 14 18 22 20 22 22 24 24 26 26 26 24 ADS13WG 2008 0 2316 12 ADS13WG 2008 32 546 10 ADS13WG 2008 32 551 10 ADS13WG 2008 32 552 10 ADS13WG 2008 32 553 10 ADS13WG 2008 35 803 10 ADS13WG Total ADS 13 (FADT 50-400) needing on ADS13SW 2008 34 7054 20 ADS13SW 2008 32 5073 10 ADS13SW 2008 48 101 20 ADS13SW 2008 36 691 30 ADS13SW 2008 36 541 10 ADS13SW 2008 36 541 30 ADS13SW 2008 34 481 10 ADS13SW 2008 34 481 20 ADS13SW 2008 34 481 30 ADS13SW 2008 34 481 35 ADS13SW 2008 34 488 10 ADS13SW 2008 34 541 10 ADS13SW 2008 36 157 10 ADS13SW 2008 36 157 20 ADS13SW Total ADS 13 needing surface upgrade an ADS13SWG 2008 32 193 20 ADS13SWG 2008 32 193 30 ADS13SWG 2008 36 691 20 ADS13SWG 2008 36 9759 10 ADS13SWG 2008 33 6260 10 ADS13SWG 2008 34 7135 10 ADS13SWG 2008 36 9452 10 ADS13SWG 2008 32 5070 10 ADS13SWG 2008 36 9813 10 ADS13SWG 2008 32 5022 10 ADS13SWG 2008 32 5022 20 ADS13SWG Total ADS 13 (FADT 50-400) needing su ADS14 2008 32 365 60 ADS14 2008 48 4100 10 ADS14 2008 48 4100 20 ADS14 2008 48 4100 25 0.2 1.7 0.8 2.7 1.0 0.2 6.6 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 4.8 7.1 1.7 4.8 1.0 0.7 15.2 6.0 43.1 0.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 2.0 3.0 0.2 0.8 5.5 0.7 1.3 18.1 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 18 22 24 24 24 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1466 1466 402 402 315 315 285 272 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 74 74 74 74 74 74 13 13 13 13 13 13 24 14 22 14 24 24 24 24 24 24 22 24 18 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1044 887 689 386 350 350 334 334 334 334 284 257 252 252 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 20 16 8 20 16 18 12 22 24 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 244 244 200 187 186 181 177 175 159 150 150 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 4 4 4 4 2600 593 593 593 14 14 14 14 30 32 32 32 Page 32 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 13 146.18 13 511.63 13 146.18 13 219.27 13 37.275 13 292.36 13 292.36 13 1132.895 13 1462.23 13 5605.215 13 37.275 13 111.825 66262.56 13 113.75 13 56.875 13 728.2 13 182.05 13 796.25 13 739.375 13 170.625 13 1092.3 3879.425 150.65 342.975 161.4 544.725 201.75 150.65 1552.15 112.29 336.87 227.5 168.435 56.145 112.29 2730 3986.295 954.465 2694.96 561.45 398.125 13806.92 5450.1 31595.85 219.27 511.63 511.63 974.82 1624.7 1096.35 162.47 292.36 4467.925 255.815 475.085 10592.06 836.8929 139.4822 278.9643 488.1875 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 ADS14 Total ADS14S ADS14S Total ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG ADS14SG Total ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 48 35 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 32 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 32 32 32 32 32 33 36 4049 291 4145 4146 4146 4154 4154 4155 4155 363 4164 4150 4104 4104 4104 4101 4101 4101 332 332 332 332 332 6470 391 20 10 10 10 20 10 20 10 20 20 10 10 10 20 25 10 15 20 10 30 35 40 60 10 10 2008 33 6150 30 ADS 14 needing only surface upgra 2008 34 7113 15 2008 33 6310 10 2008 33 6310 15 2008 33 6480 10 2008 33 6135 10 2008 33 592 10 2008 33 6325 30 2008 32 332 70 2008 33 6320 10 2008 32 5081 10 2008 33 593 10 2008 48 4049 10 2008 48 4126 10 2008 48 4131 10 2008 48 4134 10 2008 48 4145 30 ADS 14 needing only surface upgra 2008 32 365 50 2008 48 4061 10 2008 48 4061 20 2008 48 4070 10 2008 48 4142 10 2008 48 4146 30 2008 48 4121 10 2008 48 4140 10 2008 48 4123 10 2008 48 4062 20 2008 48 4062 10 2008 48 4111 10 2008 48 4072 10 2008 48 4073 10 2008 48 4077 10 2008 48 4082 10 4.2 0.7 2.1 0.1 1.9 0.7 3.4 0.7 1.1 0.1 1.4 4.9 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.8 0.3 1.8 2.4 1.0 0.1 0.1 2.0 0.5 35.0 2.9 2.9 0.9 1.9 2.1 6.3 14.0 2.8 1.5 4.3 12.0 3.4 3.9 2.3 4.1 4.5 1.4 3.1 68.5 0.6 0.1 0.3 1.1 1.5 1.0 4.8 2.1 3.3 1.6 1.7 2.5 1.2 2.0 3.8 0.2 28 28 30 32 32 30 30 30 30 34 30 30 30 30 30 32 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 34 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 456 441 404 404 404 399 399 399 399 389 251 249 189 189 189 153 153 153 151 151 76 76 76 74 74 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 30 1 272 14 28 30 30 36 30 36 30 30 30 30 30 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 134 129 129 99 99 97 83 76 76 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 851 423 423 423 404 404 399 399 327 322 322 319 315 315 315 315 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 Page 33 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2929.125 1507.097 445.1512 21.19768 955.1523 351.8982 1709.22 148.3837 233.1744 50.27118 703.7965 1038.686 105.9884 105.9884 211.9768 42.39535 169.5814 63.59303 3178.061 4237.414 1765.589 176.5589 176.5589 107.5 781.8266 22959.71 6021.294 6021.294 347.813 98.895 109.305 327.915 23644.63 4728.926 78.075 7262.279 20266.83 1313.96 6586.718 888.8554 1584.481 1739.065 541.0424 1198.022 70716.81 418.4465 69.74108 209.2232 767.1518 1046.116 697.4108 3347.572 1464.563 2301.455 1115.857 360.3605 1743.527 836.8929 1394.822 2650.161 139.4822 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS14W ADS14W ADS14W Total ADS14WG ADS14WG ADS14WG ADS14WG ADS14WG ADS14WG ADS14WG ADS14WG ADS14WG ADS14WG ADS14WG ADS14WG ADS14WG ADS14WG ADS14WG Total ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW ADS14SW Total ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG 2008 48 4109 10 2008 36 542 10 ADS 14 needing only roadway wide 2008 48 4062 25 2008 32 5112 10 2008 32 331 10 2008 32 331 30 2008 32 333 10 2008 36 203 50 2008 35 602 10 2008 35 806 10 2008 48 4093 10 2008 48 4093 20 2008 48 4093 22 2008 48 4093 24 2008 48 4093 26 2008 48 4093 28 ADS 14 (FADT 50-400) needing on 2008 32 5071 10 2008 32 5071 20 2008 34 7054 10 2008 34 7037 20 2008 32 365 40 2008 35 136 10 2008 33 6461 10 2008 33 6461 30 2008 32 5065 10 2008 32 361 10 2008 32 5059 10 2008 33 164 10 2008 35 132 10 2008 33 6325 35 2008 33 6325 40 2008 33 6325 60 2008 33 23 10 2008 35 136 30 2008 35 134 10 2008 32 365 10 2008 32 365 20 2008 32 365 30 2008 36 96 10 2008 36 203 20 2008 36 203 40 2008 36 26 10 2008 32 5037 10 2008 32 5037 30 2008 32 5037 50 2008 34 541 20 ADS 14 needing surface upgrade an 2008 34 7030 10 2008 32 193 10 2008 32 351 10 2008 32 351 15 2008 32 5045 10 2008 33 23 15 2008 35 135 10 2008 35 135 30 2008 32 342 20 2008 33 6262 10 2008 34 7124 10 2008 34 7004 10 0.4 0.3 28.5 2.7 0.5 0.6 0.1 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.5 4.4 2.1 0.8 0.2 14.7 0.9 1.2 7.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 2.7 6.0 2.0 2.1 0.3 2.3 3.3 3.4 0.5 5.3 2.4 2.7 0.3 0.2 0.7 14.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 0.2 0.5 1.3 0.3 72.0 3.1 1.9 1.5 1.9 10.4 2.5 0.2 0.7 1.2 2.0 6.4 17.6 26 24 3 3 4 4 285 270 26 22 24 24 24 18 26 24 28 28 28 26 26 26 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 218 159 116 116 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 12 16 24 22 22 22 20 24 22 18 12 24 22 30 30 30 24 22 20 22 16 20 16 20 18 20 18 12 12 24 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1228 1228 1044 979 851 809 745 745 551 474 402 383 374 364 364 364 350 350 342 321 321 321 291 278 278 276 257 257 257 257 18 20 20 20 14 24 24 24 22 26 20 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 245 244 226 226 209 206 202 202 199 195 193 189 Page 34 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 14 278.9643 14 209.2232 19050.97 14 572.3372 14 203.3379 14 1059.354 14 176.5589 14 2471.825 14 0 14 312.7307 14 156.3653 14 148.3837 14 105.9884 14 932.6977 14 445.1512 14 169.5814 14 42.39535 6796.706 14 609.4745 14 812.6326 14 5282.112 14 541.7551 14 348.7054 14 1038.154 14 1453.416 14 5606.032 14 996.3 14 1354.388 14 4360.247 14 50.325 14 4775.509 14 547.965 14 564.57 14 83.025 14 11004.43 14 4983.14 14 5606.032 14 203.1582 14 135.4388 14 474.0357 14 9954.75 14 5813.663 14 5813.663 14 5813.663 14 415.2616 14 1038.154 14 2699.201 14 203.1582 82582.36 14 1198.022 14 734.2718 14 2533.353 14 3208.914 14 17564.58 14 4222.255 14 337.7804 14 1182.232 14 463.7506 14 3377.804 14 2473.337 14 6801.676 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 34 33 33 35 35 36 34 32 34 36 32 32 32 33 33 32 34 34 36 36 34 34 34 36 36 32 32 32 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 34 32 32 32 32 32 36 36 36 32 32 33 33 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 34 34 32 32 7004 6260 6260 8069 8069 126 492 363 7005 372 5027 5027 5070 6312 6312 5063 475 475 124 124 7101 7101 7122 154 371 354 354 5036 483 473 473 7133 7113 7113 131 7032 5065 5092 5092 335 335 9451 9451 9856 5089 5089 6270 6270 5087 5087 5087 5034 5034 5034 5034 6420 6240 7126 7053 5082 5082 15 40 50 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 30 20 10 30 10 10 20 10 20 10 20 10 10 10 10 30 10 10 10 20 10 10 20 20 10 15 10 30 10 30 10 20 10 10 20 10 20 10 30 50 10 30 50 60 10 20 10 10 10 15 4.8 3.0 6.8 3.2 1.0 1.2 2.9 1.6 1.6 2.2 0.8 0.4 2.2 5.7 1.4 3.5 2.7 6.2 3.3 6.9 2.7 4.6 2.2 6.3 4.0 0.7 3.8 1.9 5.1 0.9 5.5 4.3 3.3 4.3 3.2 2.9 1.3 1.9 0.9 2.8 0.3 0.9 0.8 3.1 2.9 4.2 3.2 5.6 0.7 1.2 2.1 4.3 1.1 1.0 5.9 8.0 4.2 2.7 1.9 5.3 8.1 18 18 20 22 22 16 18 18 19 18 24 24 24 22 22 24 18 20 18 18 20 20 20 16 18 16 16 14 22 16 16 18 22 21 22 16 22 18 18 24 24 18 18 18 16 16 20 20 18 18 18 22 18 18 12 26 18 18 20 21 21 Page 35 of 47 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 189 186 186 186 186 186 181 178 178 177 175 175 175 169 169 166 165 165 163 163 160 160 156 156 156 150 150 143 143 140 140 140 134 134 132 128 122 119 119 117 117 117 117 117 113 113 113 113 110 110 110 108 108 108 108 105 104 104 102 101 101 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 1855.002 5066.706 11484.53 5649.886 1765.589 463.7506 1120.731 650.6812 618.3342 850.2095 309.1671 154.5835 850.2095 9626.742 2364.463 182.175 1043.439 2396.045 5573.377 11653.42 1043.439 1777.711 850.2095 10640.08 1545.835 1182.232 6417.828 3208.914 1970.94 347.813 2125.524 1661.773 1275.314 1661.773 5404.487 1120.731 67.665 734.2718 347.813 4728.926 506.6706 1520.012 309.1671 5235.597 4897.816 218.61 5404.487 9457.852 270.5212 463.7506 811.5636 7262.279 1857.792 1688.902 9964.523 13511.22 7093.389 1043.439 734.2718 2048.232 3130.317 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 32 32 35 35 33 33 33 34 34 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 36 36 36 36 36 33 34 34 34 34 34 32 32 35 34 33 35 36 36 35 35 34 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 5204 5206 8018 8018 6110 6132 6140 7017 7029 6130 6130 6130 6011 6011 6131 489 123 691 9751 9760 9760 6211 7060 476 491 7013 7132 5047 5047 8032 98 6240 8009 156 156 8033 8033 112 5042 5043 5043 121 336 546 5025 5026 5028 5029 5030 5037 5037 5038 5038 5039 5045 5059 5062 5063 5063 5063 5063 10 10 10 30 30 10 20 10 10 20 30 40 10 20 10 10 30 10 20 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 30 10 10 10 30 10 10 30 10 20 10 10 10 55 70 10 30 10 30 30 10 15 20 25 30 2.0 3.6 2.8 1.0 7.0 3.8 14.9 2.2 1.0 2.1 3.4 3.9 1.7 1.6 4.8 1.6 2.5 2.0 0.6 2.0 1.6 8.7 4.1 6.9 3.3 1.1 4.4 3.3 5.3 9.9 0.9 1.2 5.6 1.3 2.4 2.5 4.0 0.8 3.5 6.7 2.8 5.4 1.9 1.9 2.3 1.5 0.8 2.1 13.7 2.3 2.7 0.9 0.6 2.9 0.3 0.8 4.1 3.4 3.8 5.4 1.5 12 10 20 20 22 22 10 22 20 18 18 22 26 22 22 18 14 18 18 14 14 18 20 16 18 18 18 24 18 18 20 14 22 18 16 22 22 20 14 12 12 14 18 16 12 12 18 16 18 12 12 13 13 16 14 12 12 24 20 20 18 Page 36 of 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 101 101 101 101 99 99 99 99 99 98 98 98 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 95 95 95 95 95 95 94 94 92 91 89 88 86 86 79 79 77 76 76 76 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 772.9177 1391.252 4728.926 1688.902 11822.32 6417.828 25164.64 850.2095 386.4589 3546.695 5742.267 6586.718 2871.134 2702.243 8106.73 618.3342 4222.255 772.9177 1013.341 3377.804 2702.243 14693.45 1584.481 2666.566 1275.314 425.1047 1700.419 5573.377 8951.181 17479.33 347.813 2026.683 9457.852 2195.573 4053.365 4413.973 7062.357 309.1671 5911.158 11315.64 4728.926 281.07 3208.914 734.2718 3884.475 579.6883 1351.122 811.5636 5294.486 3884.475 4560.036 347.813 231.8753 4897.816 506.6706 1351.122 213.405 176.97 197.79 281.07 78.075 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ADS14SWG ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 5072 5072 5072 5081 5081 5203 5203 211 595 2121 6011 6120 6133 6133 6134 6134 6134 6135 6210 6210 6210 6210 6230 6231 6231 6310 6310 6310 6310 6310 6315 6321 6322 6326 6326 6430 6462 6463 6465 6465 6466 6471 6487 6490 6491 6520 7033 7039 7041 7042 7071 7071 7074 7123 91 93 111 491 7008 7014 7043 10 20 30 20 25 10 30 10 10 10 25 20 10 20 10 20 30 20 10 20 30 40 10 10 20 40 50 55 60 65 10 10 10 20 30 10 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 2.5 1.1 1.1 3.5 11.1 1.7 1.8 6.2 3.9 2.6 4.1 8.6 10.9 11.8 5.7 7.1 7.5 2.8 12.0 0.6 0.2 0.2 14.3 9.5 12.4 12.3 10.4 10.2 8.1 1.7 4.1 8.2 4.6 1.0 3.3 5.7 3.9 5.5 8.6 1.0 6.3 3.4 10.8 6.8 8.0 4.4 1.9 3.6 2.0 4.1 1.0 0.5 0.8 1.9 9.0 4.8 1.9 1.0 2.3 2.9 0.4 22 10 15 18 18 12 12 22 24 20 22 22 18 20 12 18 22 24 24 24 24 24 22 22 22 14 17 17 20 20 14 20 24 20 20 24 20 20 20 24 20 20 20 21 16 22 16 21 18 18 20 20 18 18 18 18 20 18 20 18 20 Page 37 of 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 966.1471 425.1047 425.1047 1352.606 4289.693 656.98 695.6259 10471.19 6586.718 4391.146 6924.499 14524.56 18409.03 19929.05 9626.742 11991.21 12666.77 4728.926 20266.83 1013.341 337.7804 337.7804 24151.3 16044.57 20942.39 640.215 17564.58 17226.8 13680.11 2871.134 213.405 13849 7768.95 1688.902 5573.377 9626.742 6586.718 9288.962 14524.56 1688.902 10640.08 176.97 18240.14 11484.53 13511.22 7431.169 734.2718 1391.252 772.9177 1584.481 386.4589 193.2294 309.1671 734.2718 3478.13 1855.002 734.2718 386.4589 888.8554 1120.731 154.5835 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS14SWG 2008 34 7043 13 ADS14SWG 2008 34 7043 16 ADS14SWG 2008 34 7043 50 ADS14SWG 2008 34 7129 10 ADS14SWG 2008 34 7134 10 ADS14SWG 2008 35 641 10 ADS14SWG 2008 35 672 10 ADS14SWG 2008 35 672 20 ADS14SWG 2008 35 8016 10 ADS14SWG 2008 36 111 10 ADS14SWG 2008 36 9452 20 ADS14SWG 2008 33 201 10 ADS14SWG 2008 33 6306 10 ADS14SWG 2008 34 542 10 ADS14SWG 2008 34 561 10 ADS14SWG 2008 34 7131 10 ADS14SWG Total ADS 14 (FADT 50-400) needing su ADS15SW 2008 34 7037 10 ADS15SW 2008 33 164 5 ADS15SW 2008 36 26 15 ADS15SW Total ADS 15 needing surface upgrade an ADS15SWG 2008 36 31 40 ADS15SWG 2008 36 31 50 ADS15SWG 2008 32 342 10 ADS15SWG 2008 36 9604 10 ADS15SWG 2008 36 9604 15 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6260 20 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6260 30 ADS15SWG 2008 36 126 60 ADS15SWG 2008 36 126 20 ADS15SWG 2008 36 126 30 ADS15SWG 2008 36 126 40 ADS15SWG 2008 36 31 55 ADS15SWG 2008 36 31 60 ADS15SWG 2008 34 493 10 ADS15SWG 2008 34 50 10 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6310 20 ADS15SWG 2008 32 5034 20 ADS15SWG 2008 32 5034 40 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6110 10 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6140 10 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6130 10 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6130 50 ADS15SWG 2008 34 98 20 ADS15SWG 2008 35 8028 10 ADS15SWG 2008 35 8033 40 ADS15SWG 2008 32 336 20 ADS15SWG 2008 32 336 50 ADS15SWG 2008 32 681 10 ADS15SWG 2008 32 5026 10 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6120 10 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6150 10 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6150 20 ADS15SWG 2008 34 7076 10 ADS15SWG 2008 36 203 70 ADS15SWG 2008 32 336 40 ADS15SWG 2008 32 5040 15 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6305 10 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6305 20 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6325 10 ADS15SWG 2008 33 6325 20 4.5 2.5 3.4 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.1 3.3 6.3 1.0 2.0 12.4 3.3 0.8 3.6 0.2 806.2 1.8 0.1 6.5 8.4 0.8 2.5 6.4 0.1 5.5 1.0 0.2 7.9 4.3 5.0 5.5 1.1 6.0 5.1 7.0 2.6 1.8 3.3 7.0 2.1 4.1 2.0 3.1 8.7 5.7 0.4 8.9 10.0 2.8 3.0 4.6 13.7 4.8 0.6 2.5 15.2 1.5 3.2 4.6 12.9 20 20 20 22 20 20 20 20 20 18 18 20 8 18 20 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 18 24 20 1 3 1 979 383 276 15 15 15 18 20 22 18 18 20 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 16 20 14 12 18 12 12 12 22 20 20 8 12 12 22 12 22 20 20 18 18 12 12 8 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 236 236 199 198 198 186 186 186 186 186 186 163 163 140 134 129 108 108 99 99 98 98 91 80 79 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Page 38 of 47 1830.041 1016.689 1382.698 966.1471 772.9177 4560.036 3546.695 5573.377 10640.08 386.4589 772.9177 20942.39 171.765 309.1671 1391.252 77.29177 933346.9 1262.07 21.075 7901.075 9184.22 364.92 1140.375 2919.36 45.615 2508.825 1119.55 223.91 3603.585 1961.445 2280.75 2508.825 501.765 2736.9 2326.365 3193.05 170.69 2015.19 3694.515 7836.85 2351.055 4590.155 2239.1 1414.065 9815.775 6431.025 447.82 9963.995 11195.5 1277.22 3358.65 5149.93 15337.84 2189.52 0 2798.875 17017.16 98.475 210.08 301.99 846.885 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS15SWG 2008 36 126 50 ADS15SWG 2008 36 203 80 ADS15SWG 2008 36 203 90 ADS15SWG Total ADS 15 (FADT 50-400) needing su ADS16WG 2008 32 500 10 ADS16WG 2008 32 501 10 ADS16WG 2008 32 510 10 ADS16WG 2008 32 515 10 ADS16WG Total ADS 16 (FADT 50-400) needing on ADS16SW 2008 34 1042 32 ADS16SW 2008 34 1042 34 ADS16SW 2008 34 1042 36 ADS16SW 2008 34 1042 40 ADS16SW 2008 34 1048 20 ADS16SW 2008 34 1042 10 ADS16SW 2008 34 1042 15 ADS16SW 2008 34 1042 20 ADS16SW 2008 34 1042 25 ADS16SW 2008 34 1042 30 ADS16SW Total ADS 16 needing surface upgrade an ADS18 2008 33 608 5 ADS18 2008 33 608 10 ADS18 2008 33 608 15 ADS18 2008 33 608 20 ADS18 2008 34 1040 25 ADS18 2008 34 1040 30 ADS18 2008 34 1043 10 ADS18 2008 32 530 10 ADS18 2008 32 530 20 ADS18 2008 32 545 20 ADS18 2008 32 545 30 ADS18 2008 32 545 40 ADS18 2008 32 570 30 ADS18 2008 33 1017 42 ADS18 2008 35 300 10 ADS18 2008 35 301 10 ADS18 2008 35 810 10 ADS18 2008 35 810 20 ADS18 2008 36 133 10 ADS18 2008 32 531 50 ADS18 2008 32 503 10 ADS18 2008 32 509 10 ADS18 2008 32 509 40 ADS18 2008 32 509 50 ADS18 2008 32 509 60 ADS18 2008 32 509 70 ADS18 2008 32 512 10 ADS18 2008 32 512 20 ADS18 2008 32 531 20 ADS18 2008 32 545 10 ADS18 2008 33 601 10 ADS18 2008 33 602 10 ADS18 2008 33 602 20 ADS18 2008 33 603 10 ADS18 2008 33 604 40 ADS18 2008 33 605 30 ADS18 2008 33 610 10 ADS18 2008 33 612 10 ADS18 2008 33 613 10 ADS18 2008 33 617 10 ADS18 2008 33 618 10 3.5 4.8 6.4 202.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 2.6 0.1 1.2 0.1 1.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.5 2.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 18 18 21 9 9 9 74 74 74 24 24 24 24 3 3 4 4 4 4 74 74 74 74 40 40 40 40 32 36 28 40 40 40 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6418 6418 6418 6418 5643 3392 3392 3392 3392 3392 34 32 32 32 30 30 34 28 21 25 25 25 24 24 26 24 24 24 24 22 24 22 24 22 24 30 24 24 22 25 24 26 24 26 24 24 38 38 38 38 38 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8563 8563 8563 8563 3359 3359 1241 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Page 39 of 47 4 4 4 4 4 15 3918.425 15 5373.84 15 7165.12 154645 16 51.768 16 155.304 16 61.4 16 155.304 423.776 16 295 16 236 16 59 16 59 16 118 16 236 16 118 16 236 16 118 16 59 1534 18 29.97 18 359.64 18 29.97 18 389.61 18 171.2 18 214 18 128.4 18 29.26 18 87.78 18 29.26 18 58.52 18 175.56 18 175.56 18 332.4141 18 110.8047 18 110.8047 18 120.7947 18 120.7947 18 110.8047 18 30.7 18 362.3841 18 184.2 18 30.7 18 214.9 18 92.1 18 61.4 18 307 18 30.7 18 122.8 18 92.1 18 120.7947 18 603.9735 18 2657.483 18 724.7682 18 120.7947 18 120.7947 18 362.3841 18 362.3841 18 362.3841 18 241.5894 18 241.5894 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 ADS18 Total ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 33 33 33 35 1011 1011 1015 1017 6001 6141 716 701 705 705 101 104 105 106 200 201 202 203 205 206 302 400 403 405 406 601 603 800 606 1015 1015 100 10 20 10 41 10 10 10 10 10 30 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4 5 10 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 33 34 34 34 34 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 35 35 35 33 33 33 33 36 33 33 608 1044 1046 1047 1048 106 600 600 614 600 600 1017 600 609 609 609 609 609 597 597 597 614 614 614 6003 100 1017 616 50 10 10 20 10 10 30 40 30 10 20 45 5 10 20 22 24 26 10 20 30 5 10 20 10 50 40 5 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 24.0 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 33 34 38 22 38 38 24 26 28 28 24 24 24 26 26 26 26 34 24 26 26 28 28 24 24 24 26 24 28 34 34 42 28 40 26 30 43 24 38 38 38 35 38 24 34 36 36 36 36 36 28 28 28 34 38 38 38 24 24 34 Page 40 of 47 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 8563 5643 5643 5643 5643 4805 4056 4056 3784 2320 2320 1981 1972 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1642 1642 1642 999 999 999 958 799 777 677 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 120.7947 845.5629 966.3576 362.3841 120.7947 241.5894 153.5 368.4 153.5 122.8 241.5894 241.5894 241.5894 241.5894 120.7947 120.7947 120.7947 59.94 120.7947 120.7947 241.5894 120.7947 120.7947 120.7947 120.7947 120.7947 241.5894 120.7947 241.5894 483.1788 483.1788 120.7947 17855.72 713.178 59 118 177 354 713.178 891.4725 713.178 713.178 178.2945 356.589 841.5225 174.9396 504.9135 336.609 673.218 841.5225 356.589 178.2945 356.589 178.2945 174.9396 178.2945 713.178 178.2945 713.178 504.9135 356.589 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S ADS18S Total ADS18WE ADS18WE Total ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W 2008 33 616 10 2008 33 616 20 2008 33 615 10 2008 33 6002 10 ADS 18 needing only surface upgra 2008 32 570 10 ADS 18 needing only roadway wide 2008 32 531 40 2008 32 569 10 2008 0 2302 11 2008 0 2302 12 2008 0 2302 13 2008 0 2302 14 2008 0 2302 21 2008 0 2302 31 2008 0 2303 41 2008 0 2303 43 2008 0 2303 51 2008 0 2303 72 2008 0 2303 81 2008 0 2304 22 2008 0 2304 31 2008 0 2304 41 2008 0 2304 52 2008 0 2304 62 2008 0 2305 21 2008 0 2305 62 2008 0 2305 71 2008 0 2305 82 2008 0 2306 31 2008 0 2306 41 2008 0 2306 51 2008 0 2306 52 2008 0 2306 61 2008 0 2309 11 2008 0 2309 21 2008 0 2309 31 2008 0 2309 41 2008 0 2311 41 2008 0 2311 52 2008 0 2311 71 2008 0 2311 81 2008 0 2311 91 2008 0 2311 101 2008 0 2311 122 2008 0 2311 141 2008 0 2311 162 2008 0 2311 181 2008 0 2311 182 2008 0 2311 191 2008 0 2311 202 2008 0 2311 204 2008 0 2311 212 2008 0 2311 214 2008 0 2311 216 2008 0 2311 218 2008 0 2311 221 2008 0 2311 222 2008 0 2311 231 2008 0 2311 241 2008 0 2311 252 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 8.8 0.4 0.4 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 38 34 38 38 4 4 4 4 677 677 578 459 18 18 18 18 16 1 37 18 12 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Page 41 of 47 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 891.4725 178.2945 178.2945 178.2945 13675.3 117.04 117.04 30.7 552.6 120.7947 483.1788 120.7947 241.5894 120.7947 120.7947 89.91 29.97 59.94 59.94 29.97 29.97 59.94 29.97 29.97 89.91 120.7947 120.7947 120.7947 241.5894 483.1788 120.7947 362.3841 241.5894 241.5894 362.3841 603.9735 120.7947 483.1788 89.91 59.94 119.88 59.94 29.97 29.97 29.97 29.97 89.91 89.91 59.94 29.97 149.85 29.97 149.85 29.97 29.97 29.97 29.97 59.94 59.94 29.97 59.94 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W ADS18W Total ADS18SW ADS18SW ADS18SW ADS18SW Total ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 0 2311 272 2008 0 2311 281 2008 0 2311 283 2008 0 2311 292 2008 0 2311 294 2008 0 2311 302 2008 0 2311 312 2008 0 2311 331 2008 0 2311 352 2008 0 2311 354 2008 0 2315 11 2008 0 2315 13 2008 0 2315 21 2008 0 2315 31 2008 0 2315 41 2008 0 2315 42 2008 0 2315 52 2008 0 2317 31 2008 0 2317 52 2008 0 2317 61 2008 0 2317 62 2008 0 2317 82 2008 0 2318 11 2008 0 2318 12 2008 0 2318 13 2008 32 509 20 2008 32 509 30 2008 32 512 30 2008 32 512 40 2008 32 512 50 2008 32 531 10 2008 32 531 30 2008 32 570 20 ADS 18 needing only roadway wide 2008 34 1040 10 2008 34 1040 20 2008 34 1041 10 ADS 18 needing surface upgrade an 2008 0 2007 40 2008 32 5 20 2008 32 13 110 2008 32 13 150 2008 32 13 180 2008 32 13 200 2008 32 13 220 2008 32 33 20 2008 32 33 60 2008 32 33 80 2008 32 33 100 2008 32 33 120 2008 32 33 140 2008 32 33 160 2008 32 33 180 2008 32 33 200 2008 32 34 35 2008 32 34 45 2008 32 35 20 2008 32 36 30 2008 32 36 70 2008 32 36 98 2008 32 63 20 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.4 1.7 0.5 0.1 0.1 23.1 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.8 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 20 20 20 20 20 18 18 18 20 20 20 20 12 20 14 20 18 18 18 14 Page 42 of 47 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 1 4 4 1040 1040 5643 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 59.94 59.94 29.97 29.97 29.97 59.94 119.88 29.97 89.91 29.97 119.88 29.97 59.94 89.91 59.94 89.91 239.76 120.7947 241.5894 120.7947 241.5894 120.7947 724.7682 724.7682 845.5629 61.4 245.6 122.8 122.8 521.9 153.5 30.7 30.7 12962.03 18 295 18 413 18 354 1062 1089 0 0 0 0 124 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 309 386 348 0 0 0 0 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 63 63 63 63 63 63 132 133 133 331 332 332 334 335 336 354 364 368 562 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5001 5001 5001 5002 5002 5002 5005 5007 5007 5009 5010 5010 5010 5010 5012 5012 5012 5012 5013 5013 5016 5020 5020 5021 5027 5031 5037 5037 5037 5037 5038 5043 5045 5049 5054 40 60 80 120 140 160 20 20 40 20 20 50 30 20 30 20 70 15 20 50 70 110 140 160 180 200 20 40 60 30 50 70 30 50 70 20 30 70 100 130 20 50 70 90 20 70 20 30 50 20 20 40 20 40 60 80 20 20 20 20 20 0 0 0 309 386 1159 77 232 232 309 386 0 386 309 309 116 0 124 81 0 0 154 154 154 154 0 174 139 344 154 154 154 309 154 154 154 154 232 154 154 386 154 154 232 309 309 116 309 463 309 116 124 116 232 154 154 116 386 116 232 116 Page 43 of 47 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 5056 5059 5063 5080 5087 5087 5091 5091 5092 5099 5111 5111 5111 5113 5203 8008 8008 8009 8009 8070 12 368 15 15 15 16 16 16 20 59 59 59 59 59 70 71 71 221 6310 6312 6325 6331 6440 6460 6461 6486 6486 6731 6732 6810 6910 6923 6720 56 9 7057 7057 9652 9 11 11 20 20 27 12 20 40 80 100 20 20 20 50 70 20 20 20 40 30 50 20 550 42 40 70 90 20 70 90 20 20 50 80 100 150 50 20 40 30 30 20 50 30 60 30 20 20 40 30 20 13 20 30 40 50 130 70 100 50 210 20 40 154 116 1159 0 154 154 232 116 116 0 116 116 116 232 154 386 154 309 154 2317 0 1159 0 0 0 328 0 0 772 0 0 0 0 0 1545 0 0 0 0 290 0 193 386 966 232 135 255 282 251 579 251 0 197 0 0 112 193 193 0 0 0 Page 44 of 47 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 471 474 474 705 7043 7043 7044 7052 7054 7140 7140 7140 7140 7140 4 4 4 4 4 7 12 12 12 13 13 26 26 27 27 27 41 41 41 41 59 59 61 65 65 67 133 135 136 171 172 172 251 673 8015 8015 8017 8017 8018 8031 8033 8059 8059 8059 8065 8066 8066 20 80 100 20 20 40 20 20 30 20 40 60 80 100 40 60 80 112 118 20 410 430 460 20 40 50 70 110 130 160 20 40 80 100 180 220 50 30 50 20 20 20 20 20 30 80 70 20 20 50 40 60 20 20 20 20 50 90 20 20 35 398 0 0 0 765 294 0 309 232 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 463 0 996 0 0 0 0 0 348 699 409 97 0 479 0 0 0 0 0 386 0 463 413 398 579 1545 348 0 386 0 695 772 579 888 1159 888 0 309 1004 1545 425 1004 232 232 Page 45 of 47 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 8066 8066 8066 8068 8068 8081 8083 8083 8084 8084 8084 8084 8084 8086 8086 8086 8087 8087 8090 8090 8090 8095 61 8031 6 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 15 15 15 15 15 27 28 28 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 37 39 39 39 54 60 69 45 51 60 20 40 30 20 40 20 50 63 70 90 20 40 60 20 32 20 64 70 20 20 70 30 130 30 50 52 55 80 100 20 70 120 140 200 230 270 140 185 215 235 250 20 20 80 30 50 70 90 110 130 16 30 30 50 70 60 20 20 232 232 425 386 386 3090 1159 772 966 966 966 309 772 888 116 1711 1159 1159 463 1159 1159 463 772 463 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 560 0 0 154 0 942 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 657 158 541 309 386 541 309 386 850 270 201 120 135 0 0 116 Page 46 of 47 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 1: HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN DEFICIENCIES NEED 1 ROUTE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ MSRISD_ MSRISD_ FISCAL_ AGENCY_ NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ ROADWAY_ SHOULDER_ SURFACE_ FUTURE_AD ADS_NUMBE MSRISD_ YEAR CODE R NUMBER LENGTH WIDTH TYPE_CODE TYPE_CODE T_COUNT R BIA_CTI 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 Grand Total 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 108 110 112 112 112 113 123 151 203 203 321 321 541 543 544 9054 9073 9202 9345 9345 9402 9402 9402 9504 9603 9660 9660 3003 3005 4055 4055 4063 4065 3002 3002 3003 3003 3003 4002 4022 4022 4022 4028 4030 4178 4178 40 20 20 40 90 20 10 20 30 60 70 90 20 20 20 20 30 20 40 65 50 90 110 20 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 20 20 40 80 70 100 120 20 20 40 80 30 10 20 50 413 0 0 0 154 0 0 0 178 0 332 301 328 0 0 116 197 0 0 0 0 251 1580 344 243 197 406 0 0 0 0 77 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6706062 6147.9 Page 47 of 47 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 35 36 36 36 36 35 35 33 33 33 35 35 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 780 7 10 780 12 110 Class 1 PCI<40andRB<5 780 12 100 780 12 105 780 12 115 780 7 40 780 7 15 780 1017 10 Class 1 RB<5 780 1017 20 780 1017 25 780 7 30 Class 1 PCI=51-69andRB>=5 780 4 32 780 12 520 780 12 530 780 12 540 780 13 100 780 13 120 780 13 130 780 13 140 780 13 160 780 13 170 780 13 190 780 13 210 780 13 230 780 13 240 780 20 80 796 20 90 796 9 250 796 9 252 796 9 254 796 9 256 796 9 260 780 4 70 780 4 73 780 4 76 780 4 90 780 4 95 780 4 100 780 4 110 780 4 114 780 4 116 780 4 120 780 7 50 780 7 52 780 7 56 780 12 420 780 12 440 780 12 450 780 12 455 780 12 470 780 12 471 780 12 473 780 12 476 780 64 10 780 64 15 780 64 20 780 64 21 780 64 23 780 64 24 780 64 25 780 64 26 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.7 3.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 5.1 12.3 8.4 0.9 1 3.2 1.1 0.5 4.3 0.1 0.1 5.7 4.5 12.7 1.6 1 0.4 10.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 3.1 3.9 1.3 1.1 1.8 4.1 0.2 0.4 6 0.4 0.7 3.1 7.7 2.2 2.6 1.4 2.9 0.2 6.6 0.6 5.3 6.5 2.2 3.5 5.8 0.6 0.4 0.1 1 1 4 4 12 24 4 360.263 4 540.394 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 5 5 4 40 40 40 58 62 65 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 5 65 65 66 7 191.989 7 95.9943 7 13.409 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 900.6563 900.656 720.525 1441.05 1004 97.546 1260.92 5424.701 301.3918 Page 1 of 17 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 407.339 10387.1 2063.33 1409.1 1833.02 2036.69 1912.62 657.462 298.847 2570.08 59.7693 59.7693 3406.85 2689.62 25866 3258.71 597.693 239.077 6096.47 298.847 119.539 611.008 6313.75 7943.1 2647.7 2240.36 3666.05 8350.44 92.45 184.9 12220.2 814.677 1425.69 6313.75 15682.5 4480.72 5295.4 2851.37 5906.41 92.45 13442.2 1222.02 10794.5 13238.5 4480.72 7128.43 11812.8 1222.02 814.677 203.669 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 34 34 34 34 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 34 34 34 34 36 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 796 796 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 724 724 724 796 780 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 110 9 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 7 9 9 9 9 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 110 56 56 56 474 7 80 85 100 105 110 115 120 140 55 160 10 12 14 16 30 50 60 65 70 90 110 54 240 242 244 246 80 90 94 95 96 97 99 100 341 342 344 346 130 135 150 155 160 165 170 180 190 200 210 260 300 305 310 315 320 325 330 340 50 10 20 30 95 90 2.3 1.2 8.8 1.3 2.1 2.1 0.4 0.6 0.5 1 0.6 1 6.1 1.1 1.3 2 0.9 1.1 4.4 2.5 0.3 7.1 4.3 4.8 1.6 4.8 0.6 0.9 3.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.2 4.6 1.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 3 0.8 5.1 2.8 0.9 1.6 0.5 2.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 4.2 1.5 1 2.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 0.4 2.3 2.5 2.1 0.4 0.5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Page 2 of 17 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 15 15 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 24 24 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4684.39 2444.03 17922.9 2647.7 2805.58 2805.58 814.677 540.362 1018.35 597.693 1222.02 2036.69 12423.8 2240.36 2647.7 4073.39 1833.02 1469.59 8961.45 5091.73 611.008 14460.5 2570.08 2868.93 956.309 2868.93 358.616 537.924 2032.16 179.308 119.539 358.616 119.539 2749.39 3258.71 1222.02 814.677 270.181 6110.08 1629.35 10387.1 5702.74 810.543 1440.97 231.125 4684.39 270.181 450.302 450.302 231.125 1833.02 8554.11 3055.04 2036.69 5702.74 2444.03 3258.71 4888.06 814.677 3098.68 3368.13 2829.23 489.414 1018.35 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 34 34 34 34 34 36 32 34 34 32 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 32 32 0 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 35 35 35 35 35 35 48 48 48 48 36 36 36 36 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 34 34 780 15 780 15 780 15 780 15 780 15 780 15 780 15 796 474 796 474 796 474 796 474 796 474 780 6 780 36 796 9 796 9 Class 2 PCI<40andRB<5 796 12 796 9 796 9 796 9 780 12 780 12 780 6 780 6 780 12 780 12 780 110 780 110 780 110 780 13 780 13 780 2006 780 4 780 6 780 6 780 6 780 6 780 100 780 100 780 4 780 4 780 4 780 4 780 4 780 4 796 3003 796 3003 796 3003 796 3003 780 112 780 112 780 112 780 112 780 36 780 36 780 36 780 36 780 36 796 36 780 36 780 59 796 9 796 9 220 230 240 270 280 290 295 60 65 70 90 110 10 10 170 183 560 262 264 266 480 485 60 66 130 150 10 30 35 90 95 70 30 20 40 50 63 20 25 34 36 50 51 53 56 80 50 55 60 10 30 35 50 20 40 50 55 60 190 110 130 180 186 6.5 3.6 3.6 6.4 6.4 1.7 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.4 1 8.3 7.5 7.7 0.5 325.3 0.6 0.4 4.9 4.8 7 6.8 0.5 14.2 2.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.3 6.4 0.2 0.3 2.4 1.7 3.5 3.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.4 3.5 0.2 0.7 3.2 0.4 5 3.4 2.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.6 3 5.4 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 27 27 27 27 27 29 31 36 36 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3004.63 7332.09 1664.1 5763.86 2958.4 3462.38 2851.37 122.353 122.353 734.121 489.414 1223.53 16904.6 4482.7 4602.24 298.847 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 42 44 44 44 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 49 49 49 49 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 100.65 239.077 2928.7 2868.93 14256.9 13849.5 1018.35 28921 5702.74 360.242 270.181 180.121 270.181 2647.7 13034.8 92.45 611.008 4888.06 3462.38 7128.43 6721.09 203.669 203.669 860.112 688.089 1548.2 146.1 6020.78 344.045 418.385 1912.62 239.077 2988.47 6924.76 4684.39 611.008 180.121 183.708 275.562 1377.81 2480.06 275.562 505.197 321.489 1204.16 229.635 137.781 464203.9 Page 3 of 17 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 K80 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 48 48 48 48 48 48 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 796 796 796 796 796 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 9 9 9 9 9 9 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 15 112 112 112 6 4 4 4 4 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 27 27 27 27 27 27 110 110 110 3005 3005 3005 3005 3005 3005 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 27 27 200 205 220 223 226 230 10 30 35 50 55 220 222 224 226 228 240 245 250 260 280 285 290 348 60 63 66 70 130 132 134 136 160 165 170 180 185 190 195 210 10 30 35 40 45 50 40 43 46 10 15 30 35 40 45 120 125 140 42 44 46 48 190 193 4.9 3.5 1.3 4.2 0.4 6.2 0.7 1.3 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.8 4.4 1.8 1.8 1.7 4.9 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.2 4.4 0.1 4.9 2 1.3 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 4.9 0.8 3.6 1.4 4.9 0.5 1.3 4 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 3.7 0.6 4.2 4.7 0.3 3 0.5 2.3 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Page 4 of 17 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 55 55 55 55 55 55 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2250.42 1607.45 597.051 1928.93 183.708 2847.47 1204.16 2236.29 1376.18 1892.25 1548.2 137.781 367.416 137.781 115.625 134.725 1075.85 2629.85 2425.05 1075.85 1016.08 2928.7 407.339 450.302 180.121 1833.02 407.339 8961.45 172.022 8429.09 3440.45 2236.29 146.068 803.373 344.045 231.25 137.781 2250.42 367.416 1653.37 2408.31 8429.09 860.112 2236.29 6880.89 1032.13 73.0339 73.0339 73.0339 489.414 2211.46 358.616 2510.31 2809.16 179.308 1377.81 229.635 1056.32 860.112 344.045 860.112 172.022 344.045 172.022 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 48 48 48 48 33 33 33 33 48 33 K80 33 33 36 36 36 36 34 34 34 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 35 35 35 35 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 796 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 796 796 796 780 780 780 780 796 27 196 27 200 59 210 59 213 59 216 59 230 59 240 59 245 12 50 12 55 12 60 12 63 12 66 12 80 12 85 9 150 474 50 474 53 474 56 27 40 27 50 27 55 27 60 27 70 27 80 27 83 27 86 3003 95 3003 110 3003 130 3003 135 2 60 15 20 15 10 15 30 3003 90 2 80 780 15 60 780 15 115 Class 2 RB<5 780 9 70 780 9 90 780 9 110 780 9 115 Class 2 PCI=51-69andRB>=5 796 474 30 796 474 35 796 474 40 780 59 10 780 59 30 780 59 40 780 59 60 780 59 70 780 59 90 780 59 110 780 59 120 780 59 140 780 59 160 724 56 40 724 56 60 780 59 170 780 59 190 780 59 195 780 59 200 0.1 0.1 0.9 6.5 0.9 4.2 0.2 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.9 3.6 0.3 0.7 4.5 3.1 0.9 0.1 2.2 0.2 1 1.4 0.3 0.8 1 2.8 2.1 0.1 2.8 2 14 4.9 5.4 3.9 0.3 12.5 3.9 3 295.4 3.8 1.4 0.3 3.6 9.1 3.9 0.1 1.2 11.5 1.8 0.1 0.5 1.2 0.9 2.2 2.6 1.3 0.2 0.7 0.3 2 0.1 1.6 1.8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 65 66 66 66 66 75 90 90 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 172.022 172.022 1548.2 11181.4 1548.2 7224.94 344.045 860.112 1892.25 1376.18 1032.13 1548.2 6192.8 516.067 1204.16 2689.62 3792.96 1101.18 122.353 2747.23 189.793 948.963 1748.23 374.622 998.991 1248.74 3496.47 535.513 25.5006 714.017 510.012 12608.5 9979.8 6743.19 4870.08 76.5018 6460.2 3512.35 2701.81 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 66 66 66 66 5 200.777 5 73.9704 5 15.8508 5 190.21 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 347734.6 480.8076 Page 5 of 17 2295.57 58.8609 706.331 2068.51 323.767 17.987 89.9352 215.844 161.883 395.715 467.663 233.832 35.9741 1.47 0.63 359.741 17.987 287.793 323.767 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 32 32 32 32 32 36 36 32 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 36 36 36 36 36 32 32 32 32 32 34 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 780 59 205 780 12 16 780 12 30 780 12 35 780 12 40 780 12 43 780 12 46 780 364 65 780 364 80 780 364 82 780 364 84 780 364 86 780 7 146 780 7 150 780 13 80 780 54 30 780 54 40 780 54 50 780 54 70 796 54 10 796 54 20 780 9 45 780 9 51 780 12 10 780 12 12 780 12 14 780 9 53 780 9 10 780 9 20 780 9 40 780 9 60 780 15 50 780 15 80 780 15 100 780 15 110 780 15 120 780 15 33 780 15 36 780 9 25 Class 2 PCI>=70 and RB>=5 780 100 10 780 100 15 Class 2 PCI<40 780 54 80 780 54 90 Class 2 PCI>=70 and RB>=5 780 503 10 780 509 10 780 509 40 780 509 60 780 545 10 796 1041 10 780 509 20 780 509 30 780 509 50 780 509 70 780 512 10 780 512 20 780 512 30 780 512 40 780 512 50 780 531 10 780 531 20 780 531 30 1.9 0.7 0.2 0.4 3.1 2.7 0.5 1.3 0.4 1 0.5 1 0.4 0.2 5.2 0.9 3.2 4 1.4 0.8 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.5 1.6 5.9 0.1 3.4 0.6 2.2 1.6 0.4 1.2 2.5 2.5 7.6 0.3 0.4 1.3 97.8 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.7 1.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.2 1 0.1 0.4 0.4 1.7 0.5 0.4 0.1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 78 78 78 78 78 78 82 82 82 82 82 84 86 86 86 87 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 341.754 125.909 35.9741 71.9482 825.974 719.397 133.222 514.18 172.44 431.1 215.55 431.1 173.891 86.9457 1385.5 47.5524 169.075 211.344 73.9704 42.2688 0.42 0 11.4324 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 387.13 521.674 2419.56 1086.82 3303.94 53.9611 71.9482 0 2 2 4 4 30 30 6 387.13 6 96.7824 2 2 5 5 78 78 7 0.84 7 35.6582 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 362.384 3 184.2 3 30.7 3 92.1 3 92.1 3 354 4 61.4 4 245.6 4 214.9 4 61.4 4 307 4 30.7 4 122.8 4 122.8 4 521.9 4 153.5 4 122.8 4 30.7 22129.25 483.9122 36.49821 Page 6 of 17 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 35 33 34 34 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 35 34 0 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 35 35 0 0 34 33 33 33 33 33 35 35 35 34 34 34 34 34 33 780 570 780 601 780 602 780 602 780 604 780 605 780 609 780 1017 780 101 780 104 780 105 780 200 780 201 780 205 780 302 780 400 780 601 780 405 780 100 780 206 780 106 796 705 796 705 780 614 780 614 780 614 780 615 780 616 780 616 780 6002 780 6003 780 106 724 716 780 2318 780 610 780 612 780 613 780 617 780 618 780 1011 780 1011 780 1015 780 6141 780 608 780 406 780 603 Class 3 PCI<40andRB<5 780 2318 780 2318 796 1044 780 600 780 600 780 600 780 600 780 6001 780 202 780 403 780 800 796 1046 796 1047 796 1048 796 1040 796 1040 780 603 20 10 10 20 40 30 26 41 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 50 10 10 10 30 10 20 30 10 10 20 10 10 10 10 13 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 10 50 10 10 11 12 10 10 20 30 40 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 25 30 10 0.1 0.1 0.5 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 22.5 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 10 19 20 22 22 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 29 30 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 35 38 38 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 30.7 120.795 603.974 2657.48 120.795 120.795 356.589 362.384 241.589 241.589 241.589 120.795 120.795 120.795 241.589 120.795 120.795 120.795 713.178 120.795 713.178 153.5 122.8 178.295 713.178 713.178 178.295 891.473 178.295 178.295 178.295 241.589 153.5 845.563 362.384 362.384 362.384 241.589 241.589 120.795 845.563 966.358 241.589 713.178 120.795 241.589 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 41 41 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 49 49 49 49 49 50 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 724.768 724.768 59 178.295 356.589 891.473 713.178 120.795 120.795 120.795 120.795 118 177 354 171.2 214 724.768 20269.23 Page 7 of 17 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 34 35 35 35 34 34 33 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 33 33 796 780 780 780 796 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 35 780 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 1040 20 597 10 597 20 597 30 1043 10 701 10 606 10 100 10 2302 11 2302 12 2302 13 2302 14 2302 21 2302 31 2305 21 2305 62 2305 71 2305 82 2306 31 2306 41 2306 51 2306 52 2306 61 2309 11 2309 21 2309 31 2309 41 2317 31 2317 52 2317 61 2317 62 2317 82 616 5 1015 4 1015 5 Class 3 RB<5 203 10 Class 3 PCI<40 614 5 2311 41 2311 52 2311 71 2311 81 2311 91 2311 101 2311 122 2311 141 2311 162 2311 181 2311 182 2311 191 2311 202 2311 204 2311 212 2311 214 2311 216 2311 218 2311 221 2311 222 2311 231 2311 241 2311 252 2311 272 2311 281 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 14.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 54 54 54 54 58 60 62 62 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 413 178.295 356.589 178.295 128.4 368.4 241.589 120.795 120.795 483.179 120.795 241.589 120.795 120.795 120.795 120.795 120.795 241.589 483.179 120.795 362.384 241.589 241.589 362.384 603.974 120.795 483.179 120.795 241.589 120.795 241.589 120.795 356.589 483.179 483.179 3 4 6 5 59.94 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 66 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 174.94 89.91 59.94 119.88 59.94 29.97 29.97 29.97 29.97 89.91 89.91 59.94 29.97 149.85 29.97 149.85 29.97 29.97 29.97 29.97 59.94 59.94 29.97 59.94 59.94 59.94 14875.88 59.94 Page 8 of 17 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 33 33 33 33 34 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 780 2311 283 780 2311 292 780 2311 294 780 2311 302 780 2311 312 780 2311 331 780 2311 352 780 2311 354 780 2315 41 780 2315 42 780 2315 52 Class 3 PCI=51-69andRB>=5 780 2303 41 780 2303 43 780 2303 51 780 2303 72 780 2303 81 780 2304 22 780 2304 31 780 2304 41 780 2304 52 780 2304 62 780 2315 11 780 2315 13 780 2315 21 780 2315 31 780 608 10 780 608 15 780 608 20 780 600 5 780 608 5 Class 3 PCI>=70 and RB>=5 796 1045 10 780 5 10 780 5 30 780 35 40 780 35 50 780 35 60 780 35 70 780 35 80 780 35 90 780 5060 10 780 5060 30 780 5068 10 780 5099 10 780 5099 15 780 5099 30 780 5099 50 780 5099 53 780 5099 56 780 42 30 780 42 36 780 42 38 780 42 40 780 61 10 780 221 10 780 221 15 780 6410 40 780 6440 80 780 6460 70 796 7062 10 796 7062 15 796 7062 20 796 7062 25 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 7.9 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.1 5.6 0.6 8.4 3.2 2.8 8.2 5.8 3.4 1.8 0.9 1.4 2.1 3.2 3 4 0.6 2.2 7.5 0.3 2.9 5.4 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.8 2.7 1.1 1.1 0.2 2.5 1.4 2.5 1.1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 29.97 29.97 29.97 59.94 119.88 29.97 89.91 29.97 59.94 89.91 239.76 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 74 74 74 74 80 80 80 85 80 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 89.91 29.97 59.94 59.94 29.97 29.97 59.94 29.97 29.97 89.91 119.88 29.97 59.94 89.91 359.64 29.97 389.61 174.94 29.97 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 266.85 3735.9 1423.2 4872.61 1375.55 972.95 570.35 301.95 150.975 234.85 352.275 536.8 503.25 671 100.65 369.05 1258.13 50.325 486.475 905.85 318.725 285.175 234.85 2047.68 3071.53 184.525 184.525 227.52 1111.88 622.65 1111.88 489.225 2482.63 1793.32 Page 9 of 17 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 48 48 48 48 32 34 34 36 36 33 35 35 35 35 K80 35 K80 36 36 36 36 34 34 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 32 32 35 35 35 34 34 34 34 34 34 48 35 34 34 796 796 796 796 796 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 796 796 780 796 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 796 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 780 796 796 7140 7140 7140 7140 7140 7140 172 251 251 251 271 808 809 8077 8078 8078 108 602 9402 4069 3002 3002 3002 34 7046 7046 113 321 6220 60 65 65 60 60 151 151 151 151 7044 7044 7046 60 60 60 108 110 112 9031 9031 562 562 65 67 67 11 11 11 11 11 11 4022 29 704 7046 10 30 50 70 90 110 10 60 65 80 20 10 10 30 10 20 65 10 35 10 60 90 95 60 30 33 30 80 20 30 20 60 10 20 10 30 35 40 10 30 36 10 15 30 60 70 70 10 15 10 30 40 10 30 10 30 50 60 70 75 70 30 10 40 0.8 3 2.2 2.8 0.8 0.3 0.2 8.5 6 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.6 1.2 0.4 2.6 0.1 0.1 1.9 2.2 4 9 2.2 1.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.6 0.4 6.5 0.4 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.1 2 4.8 5.4 7.5 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.8 1 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.3 1.7 0.7 4.1 1.2 1.8 1.8 2.6 2.4 7 0.5 0.3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Page 10 of 17 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 10 10 10 10 12 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 22 22 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 27 30 30 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 962.919 1334.25 978.45 1245.3 355.8 133.425 348.044 14791.9 10441.3 910.082 348.044 57.3943 57.3943 2436.31 682.561 2088.26 481.46 2957.77 174.022 120.365 845.025 978.45 1779 10832.8 978.45 756.075 341.281 88.95 174.022 1820.16 455.041 11311.4 455.041 1933.92 455.041 455.041 341.281 341.281 489.225 889.5 2134.8 9397.18 13051.6 1218.15 44.475 113.76 522.065 3132.39 1740.22 481.46 120.365 796.321 341.281 1933.92 311.325 1823.48 1444.38 2166.57 2166.57 3129.49 1067.4 12181.5 422.465 133.425 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 36 36 36 36 48 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 35 36 36 33 33 33 36 36 48 48 48 48 32 35 35 33 33 33 34 32 32 36 36 36 36 36 48 48 48 48 48 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 780 60 780 60 780 60 780 108 796 4043 796 4043 780 2015 780 2015 780 2015 780 2015 780 2015 780 2015 780 63 780 63 780 63 780 63 780 63 780 63 780 63 780 251 780 9202 780 9202 780 16 780 16 780 16 780 9402 780 157 796 4006 796 4047 796 4047 796 4047 780 514 780 25 780 25 780 16 780 16 780 16 723 706 Class 4 PCI<40andRB<5 780 19 780 514 780 30 780 30 780 60 780 60 780 153 780 4055 780 4055 780 4056 796 3002 796 4045 796 4060 780 2002 780 2002 780 2002 780 2002 780 2003 780 2003 780 2003 780 2003 780 2003 780 2003 780 2003 780 2003 35 40 50 10 10 20 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 30 50 70 90 95 100 20 10 30 80 85 100 26 30 10 10 20 30 10 40 45 110 120 125 10 20 20 10 15 60 65 30 70 75 10 70 10 10 10 20 30 40 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.4 4.1 5.9 0.3 2.4 2.2 2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 4 1.7 0.4 1.9 2.2 0.2 0.2 6.1 0.3 1 0.5 0.5 3.5 0.3 0.5 3.1 5.8 2.2 1.5 0.1 0.3 2 2 5.4 1.5 0.4 269.2 12.2 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.5 1.4 0.3 1.5 1.6 2.2 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 34 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 38 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 455.041 7134.89 10267.3 361.095 1067.4 1858.85 3480.44 174.022 174.022 1044.13 174.022 174.022 6960.87 2958.37 696.087 3306.41 3828.48 266.862 266.862 10615.3 341.281 1137.6 870.109 870.109 6090.76 400.293 568.801 1378.73 2579.55 472.45 322.125 120.365 400.293 3480.44 3480.44 9397.18 2610.33 337.972 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5425.95 601.825 667.125 667.125 568.801 113.76 568.801 622.65 64.425 1805.47 711.6 978.45 444.75 266.862 266.862 266.862 348.044 533.724 1914.24 2088.26 174.022 522.065 348.044 174.022 348.044 255653.2 Page 11 of 17 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 36 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 780 780 780 780 796 796 796 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2012 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2020 2021 2030 2002 102 693 3003 3003 4018 4022 4022 4022 4057 4059 4063 4063 4064 4065 4065 4065 80 90 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 30 35 10 10 10 50 10 10 10 15 10 10 15 30 10 10 10 30 10 30 40 50 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 6.2 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.3 1 1 12 1.8 1 0.3 3.1 2.9 0.7 0.3 1.1 0.1 0.9 2.5 0.8 3.1 0.5 0.9 2.6 1.3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Page 12 of 17 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 348.044 348.044 1218.15 348.044 174.022 174.022 174.022 522.065 522.065 174.022 400.293 1914.24 348.044 174.022 174.022 696.087 870.109 174.022 174.022 174.022 522.065 348.044 522.065 174.022 348.044 174.022 1601.17 174.022 348.044 348.044 10789.4 682.561 174.022 870.109 348.044 348.044 348.044 696.087 174.022 174.022 174.022 174.022 1566.2 400.293 1137.6 1740.22 16011.7 2401.76 1137.6 361.095 1053.23 985.275 842.554 133.425 489.225 44.475 400.275 1111.88 355.8 1378.73 222.375 400.275 1156.35 279.175 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 48 48 48 48 0 0 0 0 32 35 35 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 33 33 33 33 33 0 48 48 48 34 0 0 48 32 32 48 48 33 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 32 32 32 34 34 36 36 48 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 780 780 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 4065 4067 4067 4081 2007 2007 2007 2017 513 133 133 4014 4014 4014 4014 4017 4017 4017 4017 4028 4028 4028 4028 4028 4030 4030 4035 4035 607 607 607 6331 6331 2015 3003 3003 4059 49 2025 2025 4055 5068 5068 4050 4007 16 4050 4001 4002 4002 4002 4002 4003 4022 4022 4022 5000 5000 5000 7057 7057 544 544 4005 60 10 20 10 10 20 25 10 10 10 30 10 15 20 25 15 20 30 35 10 15 20 40 45 20 25 10 15 10 20 30 60 70 45 30 40 20 40 10 15 20 35 40 10 10 60 20 10 10 13 16 30 10 50 60 90 40 60 80 10 15 10 30 10 2.7 3.9 1.8 0.5 5.6 1.2 2.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.9 1.8 0.5 2 2.3 3.1 1.1 0.1 1 1 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 3.5 5.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.2 1 1.1 1 2 0.7 4.5 1.4 3.7 1.5 1 4.4 0.3 5.3 0.5 1.6 0.6 3.2 2.8 1.9 1.9 0.6 1 0.1 2.8 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Page 13 of 17 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 44 44 44 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 48 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 579.825 1734.53 800.55 601.825 7472.14 1601.17 3654.46 870.109 120.365 227.52 227.52 42.95 408.025 386.55 107.375 429.5 493.925 665.725 236.225 21.475 214.75 214.75 300.65 21.475 85.9 85.9 1556.63 2312.7 76.2863 152.573 228.859 1094.05 468.878 348.044 444.75 489.225 444.75 679.5 401.76 6004.4 622.65 557.775 226.125 444.75 1956.9 522.065 2357.18 222.375 711.6 266.85 1423.2 1245.3 2286.93 845.025 266.85 444.75 44.475 1245.3 311.325 361.095 481.46 522.065 174.022 2407.3 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 32 32 33 33 33 36 36 48 34 35 35 35 35 35 32 34 34 34 34 48 48 33 33 34 34 48 48 48 48 34 32 32 34 48 48 48 48 32 32 48 48 48 48 48 48 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 48 48 33 48 48 48 48 36 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 796 796 796 796 796 780 780 796 796 796 796 796 796 723 780 780 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 796 796 796 780 5068 5068 222 222 222 39 39 4066 703 251 251 251 8066 8066 502 49 49 49 49 4156 4156 42 42 7046 7046 4011 4011 4011 4040 55 57 504 49 4055 4055 4065 4087 5114 5114 4095 4095 4095 4095 4095 4095 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 4055 4087 24 4178 4178 4178 4178 28 20 30 10 15 20 10 13 10 10 40 50 55 130 135 10 10 20 35 45 10 20 50 60 10 20 10 13 16 10 10 15 10 30 30 50 10 10 10 15 10 13 16 20 30 35 10 30 40 50 70 90 130 150 170 190 210 15 15 10 10 30 40 60 60 5.1 0.3 0.8 2.7 1.7 1.4 1 1 0.5 1.9 0.7 5.3 1.1 1.3 0.2 4.4 3.7 1.7 0.2 0.1 1 1.1 2.6 1.3 2.9 0.1 0.1 1.6 2.6 7.5 6.3 0.2 0.4 2 1.5 7.6 0.9 0.4 1.2 0.2 2.7 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.3 1.5 1.5 0.3 0.8 2.4 0.7 1.4 1.5 0.7 3.2 2.6 4.4 3.4 0.6 3.1 0.1 0.2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Page 14 of 17 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 56 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 65 65 65 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 70 75 75 75 75 80 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 768.825 45.225 1250.34 4219.9 2656.98 2188.1 1562.93 444.75 422.465 3306.41 1218.15 9223.16 1914.24 2262.28 152.573 1494.9 1257.08 577.575 67.95 33.975 339.75 184.525 2957.77 578.175 1289.78 21.475 21.475 711.6 1156.35 6336.98 2801.93 240.73 177.9 889.5 667.125 3380.1 193.275 533.724 1601.17 240.73 3249.85 962.919 44.475 177.9 400.275 696.087 522.065 2610.33 2610.33 522.065 1392.17 4176.52 1218.15 2436.31 2610.33 1218.15 1423.2 1156.35 5005.45 730.15 128.85 665.725 21.475 266.862 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 48 32 48 48 32 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 33 34 36 0 32 32 36 35 35 35 35 35 33 780 780 4055 12 5 40 Class 4 RB<5 780 4089 10 796 4017 10 Class 4 PCI=40-50andRB>=5 780 502 20 780 33 110 780 2011 10 780 2011 30 780 2011 40 780 2011 50 780 2011 60 780 2011 70 780 2011 80 780 2011 90 780 2011 100 780 2011 110 780 2011 120 780 2011 130 780 2011 140 780 2011 150 780 2011 160 780 2011 170 780 2011 180 780 2011 190 780 2011 200 780 2011 210 780 2011 220 780 2011 230 780 2011 240 780 2011 250 780 2011 260 780 2011 270 780 2011 280 780 2011 290 780 2011 300 780 2011 310 780 2011 320 780 2011 330 780 2011 340 780 2011 350 Class 4 PCI=51-69andRB>=5 796 48 50 796 48 60 796 48 70 796 48 73 796 48 76 796 48 80 796 48 90 796 7120 10 780 59 45 796 7120 20 780 9101 10 780 2011 31 780 364 50 780 364 60 780 9345 30 780 8027 22 780 8027 24 780 8031 10 780 8031 30 780 8031 35 780 16 130 1.1 5.8 298.1 0.1 1.2 1.3 0.2 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 8.4 1.9 2.5 0.8 1.4 0.6 1.7 1.3 0.1 2.1 0.6 0.9 1.9 2 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.2 3.2 1.1 6.9 4 4 5 5 85 86 4 236.225 4 1245.55 4 4 4 4 44 45 5 62.3038 5 39.24 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 58 66 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 51.9123 991.646 309.889 61.9779 433.845 61.9779 61.9779 123.956 185.934 123.956 247.912 123.956 247.912 61.9779 61.9779 123.956 61.9779 185.934 123.956 123.956 61.9779 61.9779 61.9779 123.956 61.9779 61.9779 61.9779 61.9779 123.956 61.9779 61.9779 123.956 123.956 61.9779 123.956 123.956 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 74 74 74 75 78 78 78 78 78 80 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 650.75 656.75 210.16 367.78 157.62 446.59 341.51 26.27 449.129 19.62 192.484 1177.58 525.4 236.43 21.3871 61.9779 123.956 743.735 1983.29 681.757 4276.47 234089.1 101.5438 5134.099 Page 15 of 17 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 36 36 36 33 36 35 33 33 33 33 32 32 32 32 48 36 36 0 36 35 35 35 32 32 32 32 33 35 48 35 48 35 48 48 48 48 0 0 48 48 36 36 36 35 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 780 9345 50 780 9345 64 780 9345 70 780 16 140 780 31 10 780 131 10 780 221 20 780 221 25 780 221 40 780 21 75 780 57 10 780 5080 10 780 5080 14 780 5080 16 780 4078 10 Class 4 PCI>=70 and RB>=5 780 108 20 780 108 25 Class 4 PCI<40 796 2011 20 Class 4 PCI=51-69andRB>=5 780 9101 13 780 8030 10 780 8030 12 780 8030 14 Class 4 PCI>=70 and RB>=5 780 546 10 780 553 10 780 551 10 780 552 10 796 6150 40 780 806 10 780 4082 10 780 803 10 780 4103 10 780 291 10 796 4140 10 796 4142 10 780 4083 10 780 4093 28 780 2016 10 780 2016 20 780 4085 10 780 4093 26 780 542 10 780 543 10 780 543 30 780 602 10 Class 5 PCI<40andRB<5 780 4073 10 780 4093 10 780 4093 20 780 4093 22 780 4093 24 780 4111 10 796 4049 20 796 4101 10 796 4101 15 796 4101 20 780 4068 10 780 4072 10 780 4080 10 780 4061 10 780 4061 20 0.2 0.4 0.5 5 3 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.8 46.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 2.3 1.7 1 0.8 2.7 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.7 2.1 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.2 1.4 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 18 2 0.7 0.5 4.4 2.1 2.5 4.2 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 80 80 80 80 80 82 82 82 82 85 86 86 86 86 86 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 42.7742 247.912 309.889 1069.35 0 123.956 0 9.741 0 342.193 236.43 0 0 0 26.16 4 4 4 4 30 30 6 62.3038 6 124.608 4 4 68 7 309.889 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 70 98 98 98 7 278.032 7 0 7 0 7 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 19 20 22 22 22 30 30 31 31 35 35 36 36 36 38 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 342.975 201.75 161.4 544.725 1092.3 156.365 139.482 150.65 739.375 1507.1 1464.56 1046.12 170.625 42.3954 728.2 182.05 796.25 169.581 209.223 113.75 56.875 312.731 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 44 44 44 45 45 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1394.82 148.384 105.988 932.698 445.151 1743.53 2929.13 42.3954 169.581 63.593 170.625 836.893 341.25 69.7411 209.223 15759.06 186.9114 309.8895 278.0322 10328.48 Page 16 of 17 Appendix C - Long Range Improvement Needs for Navajo-BIA Roads NEED 3: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ROUTE_ AGENCY_ RESERVATION NUMBE SECTION_ SECTION_ MSRIS__CLASS_C MSRIS__SURFACE_ MSRIS__ MSRIS__ROADBED_ MSRISD_ TOTAL CODE _CODE R NUMBER LENGTH ODE TYPE_CODE PCI CONDITION_CODE BIA_CTI COST 48 48 32 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 36 48 48 48 48 48 48 32 32 48 48 0 48 48 32 32 34 32 32 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 780 796 780 780 780 780 796 780 780 780 780 796 796 796 796 796 780 780 780 780 780 780 796 780 780 780 796 780 780 796 4104 4146 363 4070 4154 4164 4146 4062 4062 4077 4109 4100 4100 4100 4121 4123 391 4104 4104 4150 4154 4062 4146 365 365 4155 4145 2316 4155 4145 Class 5 RB<5 780 501 780 500 796 1048 Class 6 PCI<40andRB<5 780 515 780 510 796 1042 796 1042 796 1042 796 1042 796 1042 796 1042 796 1042 796 1042 796 1042 Class 6 RB<5 Grand Total 10 30 20 10 10 10 20 20 25 10 10 10 20 25 10 10 10 20 25 10 20 10 10 50 60 10 10 12 20 20 10 10 20 10 10 10 15 20 25 30 32 34 36 40 0.5 1 0.1 1.1 0.7 1.4 1.9 1.6 2.7 3.8 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.7 4.8 3.3 0.5 0.5 1 4.9 3.4 1.7 0.1 0.6 1.2 0.7 2.1 0.2 1.1 0.2 63 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 2.9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 45 45 45 46 49 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 54 54 54 58 58 62 65 66 66 66 66 69 72 75 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 105.988 697.411 50.2712 767.152 351.898 703.796 955.152 1115.86 572.337 2650.16 278.964 139.482 278.964 488.188 3347.57 2301.46 781.827 105.988 211.977 1038.69 1709.22 360.36 21.1977 418.446 836.893 148.384 445.151 150.65 233.174 40.35 6 6 6 4 4 4 24 0 31 3 155.304 4 51.768 4 118 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 45 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 4 155.304 4 61.4 4 236 4 118 4 236 4 118 4 59 4 295 4 236 4 59 4 59 30909.95 325.072 1632.704 1435885 Page 17 of 17 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 25 CFR 81 Indian Affairs Manual, Draft, October 2009. Arizona DOT, 2008 Arizona State Airports System Plan (Draft), 2009 Arizona Multimodal Freight Analysis Study, 2009. Arizona Railroad Inventory and Assessment, 2007. BIADOT, Condition Rating of Service Levels for Roads (Paved/Unpaved), No Date. Chinle Land Use Plan, 2006. Crownpoint Land Use Plan, 2001. Division of Community Development Website (WIND), 2009 CIP Project Priorities. Division of Economic Development Website, Navajo Nation Land Area, 2008. Division of Economic Development, 2005-2006 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy of the Navajo Nation. Division of Economic Development, FY2009 Project Priority Listing. Federal Register, 25 CFR Part 170 Indian Reservation Roads Program; Final Rule, July 19, 2004. FHWA, Highway Functional Classification - Concepts, Criteria and Procedures. FHWA, IRR Program Comprehensive Inventory Report, January 2008. Fort Defiance Land Use Plan, 2004. Indian Health Services, 2005 Navajo Community Health Status Assessment. Indian Health Services, 2007 Navajo Area Health Service Profile. Kayenta Land Use Plan, 2001. Land Department, Title Section 03/31/98. Navajo Department of Education, 2006-2007 School Year Statistics. Navajo DOT, 1999-2007 Navajo Nation Crash Data. Navajo DOT, 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan Questionnaire. Navajo DOT, Origin-Destination Survey, 2001. NRODOT, 2007 National Bridge Inventory NRODOT, 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory Field Data System (RIFDS). NRODOT, Spreadsheet titled ROADS_def_maint_N_FY2008_Q4, BIA-NRODOT. P.L. 109-59; Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. Shiprock Land Use Plan, 2006. St. Michaels Land Use Plan, 2005. Transportation Research Board, Access Management Manual, 2003 Tuba City Land Use Plan, 2007. U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. USDOI, Government Performance and Result Act, Road Maintenance, FY09, 3rd Quarter USDOI-DOT, IRR Coding Guide and Instructions for the IRR Inventory, 10-19-07 Draft. WHPacific Inc., Former Bennett Freeze Area (FBFA) Recovery Plan(Draft), 2008. Gap to Coppermine New Lands Rio Puerco Bridge Replace ARRA Pavement rehabs US491 to SR371 ARRA Pavmt rehabs US491 to N5(3)Burnham ARRA Pavmt rehabs US98 to Shonto School ARRA Pavmt rehabs JCT N6 to greasewood various sections ARRA Pavmt rehabs Borrego Pass South loop ARRA Pavmt rehabs Pueblo Pintado to Torreon N6486(1)1,2 § N6720(1)1,2,3 § N6923(1)1,2 § N6910(1)1,2 § N20(3)(4)(5)2,4 *** N2007(1-1)1,2,4 * N666 N36(5-2)(6-2)(7-2)4 § N5(1-1)(2-1)4 § N221(1-1)4 § N15(4-2)/N6(1-2)4 § N11(3-1)(4-2)/ N48(2-2)4 § N9(11-1)(13-1)4 § N6486 N6720 N6923 N6910 N2007 N36 N5 N221 N15/N6 N48/N11 N9 NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD (3) BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Construction Work Quality Assurance Legend and Comments ARRA Project Non-project Related Transportation Planning BIA Direct Service NN Archeology NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 Transportation Planning - NDOT 204(b) Transit * Transportation Planning Area Wide (4) Maintenance Projects ** NDOT Maintenance Yards NDOT Maintenance N20 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ QA Lower Laguna Creek Brdg Rehab - N308 & N314 Dinnebito Wash Bridge N309 replacement San Francisco Brdg Rehab - N318 Canyon Diablo Brdg Rehab - N319 N16(6)/ N162(2)/N164(1)2,4 * N16/N162/N164 (2) Pinion to Hard Rocks N4(5)/N8031(2)2&3 *** Maintenance Projects ** Many Farms US191 to Windmill N8084(1)2,3 *** N8084 N4(5)/N8031 N5031 N35 N28 N108 N39 N9010 US491 N7057 BRF-0262(6)30 N5031(1)1,2,4 § N35(9)2 ** N28(1)1,2,3 *** N108(3)1,2,4 * N39(1-1)(2)1,2 * N9010(1)2&4 AC-GRIP-(NH)-491-1(11)59 & (8)68 N7057(1)1,2 § US162 Projects Moved from FY-09 to 2010 TTIP Special Funded Project, Moved up in Priority Administration under 638 Task Orders Design & construction Access Roads QA & Construction Management Consents and ROW Document Processing Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on FY08 Funded Projects for on-going construction Tribal Maintenance Yard in Pinon & Dilkon Additional Planning funds to carry NDOT thru end of year Transit Facility Project Project Development -A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Tribal Road Maintenance on Tribal Routes (4) Navajo Mountain w/ Chapter & School Access US 491, North to Shiprock White Rock Wash Brdg N487 Irrigation Canal Brdg N226 US160 to Sweet Water Brdg N658 replacement Tohatchi Bicentennial Bridge N651 Kinlichee Wash Brdg N628 I-40 to Pine Springs SR264/N15/US191 Round-about N9 Pueblo Pintado to New School McElmo Creek Bridge D-710 channel Rehab by State of Utah US491 to Red Valley Pavement rehab Burnt Corn Wash to Polacca Wash N41 to Kitsilli w/ N59 safety N13(3-2)4 * N4(4-3)/N810(1)2,4 * N8066(2)/N59(2-1)2,4 * N15(2-3)2&4 N46(1)1,2,4 * N13 N4/ N810 N8066/ N59 N15/US191/SR264 N46 Project Name/Description Project No. Resolution: TCDCAP-xx-09 Fiscal Year 2009 Route No. Various Various GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M *** (3) full full full N/A N/A N/A N/A full partial N/A N/A Partial partial partial Partial Partial Partial partial Partial partial partial partial partial full IRR F31 Funding $51.20 $47.00 $4.20 $2.10 $5.00 $4.10 $5.60 $7.76 $4.64 $0.00 $0.00 $4.80 $4.64 $2.56 $2.00 $8.00 ARRA $8.98 $3.00 $1.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.65 $0.40 $0.80 $0.70 $0.30 0.2 $0.43 IRRBP Funding Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Preliminary Engineering Work Only Does not include the $134k + for road maintenance activities NDOT Ranking: Not Aplicable N/A NDOT Ranking $0.78 $0.50 $65.50 65.50 $0.00 $0.50 $1.81 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $2.00 $0.94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.90 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.47 $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.46 $14.68 $15.86 $0.00 $6.10 F31 Million (1) N/A Pln M M R R R GDG GDSB R R R GBG GBG GDB GDB GDS GDG GDG GDSB GDB GDBS GDBS GDBS GDBS GDS GDS GDB RC GDS GDS GDS GDSB Const Type Various Various Various Various 0.00 0.00 N/A 22.53 31.22 18.67 14.97 1.77 19.31 18.67 7.24 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 9.24 18.19 20.92 0.02 0.16 10.98 0.02 0.16 0.16 18.68 7.24 0.16 18.35 11.07 11.91 0.80 3.59 Length kilometers Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance N/A Various 0.00 N/A TS N/A 0.00 N/A 14.00 19.40 11.60 9.30 1.10 12.00 11.60 4.50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 5.74 11.30 13.00 0.01 0.10 6.82 0.01 0.10 0.10 11.61 4.50 0.10 11.40 6.88 7.40 0.50 2.23 Length Miles ABCG BC BH BH BH ABCDU A BH BH BH ABCG ABCG ABG ABCG AH ABCD ABCD W H HW ABCD ACBGW AG AG I AG W HW W W HW Comment Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2009 REVISED Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM $8.00 $0.72 $1.00 $0.76 $0.48 $3.44 $1.60 HPP Funding $1.47 Region $0.17 $1.30 PLHD Funding Various Various Various Various Various Region Various Region Region Yes Fort Def Eastern Eastern Western NLands Northern Northern Western Western Western Western Western Western Chinle Chinle Northern Northern Northern Ft. Def Ft. Def Ft. Def Ft. Def Fort Def Eastern Northern Chinle Chinle Fort Def Eastern Agency No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes*** Yes Yes Yes Yes Update Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YES Yes Yes Yes Yes Update Project in Inventory N/A N/A High N/A N/A N/A 475 166 N/A N/A N/A 475 43 14 28 313 ? 339 1035 381 422 ? 514 195 259 >10000 14 1678 1978 114/1194 114/1194 204 ADT Current N/A High N/A High High Moderate High High High High High Low High Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Moderate High High Low High Low Low Low Low Low Low Safety Need N/A N/A N/A 30 N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 64 N/A N/A N/A 50 40 N/A 70 N/A 30 27 N/A <50 N/A Pavement Rating EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 88 N/A N/A N/A 64 52 50 41 41 87 32 42 N/A 67 67 N/A N/A N/A 85 N/A 57 81 65 34 N/A 58 NDOT Ranking 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2013 2002 2009 2009 2009 2013 2014 2015 2015 2003 2012 2011 2007 2001 2003 2008 2001 2001 2009 2008 2001 2021 2003 2009 2009 2004 First Yr Sch for Const Fiscal Year 2010 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2010 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 4\0 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Project Name/Description AG H 5.74 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.60 1.10 0.01 6.00 1.60 5.24 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 6.81 2.23 4.99 1.18 6.82 Length Miles 19.15 29.13 9.24 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.97 1.77 0.02 9.66 2.57 8.43 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 10.96 3.59 8.03 1.90 10.98 Length kilometers R R R R R R R GDS GBG GBG GDB GDB GDGB GDS GDSB GDSB GDS GDS GDBS GDB GDB GDB GDB GDBS GDBS GDBS GDG GDSB GDS GDGB GDBS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.56 $10.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3.07 $9.81 $0.15 $0.15 $0.30 $0.30 $0.41 $0.00 $0.00 $5.22 $1.44 $8.20 $4.00 $2.00 full N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A full full N/A partial full full Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial full full full full full $2.80 $1.52 $6.96 $0.54 $0.75 $3.00 $0.20 $4.76 $7.24 Chinle/Northern Fort Def Eastern Eastern Chinle Eastern Western NIIP Northern Western Western Western Western Western Western NIIP NLands Northern Northern Ft. Def. Ft. Def. Ft. Def. Ft. Def. Ft. Def. Ft. Def. Ft. Def Ft. Def Ft. Def Eastern Eastern Western Northern Northern Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes*** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Update Update Yes Yes Project in Inventory N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 313 475 43 14 28 28 ? 166 1035 >10000 446 96 55 108 258 407 166 514 195 101 204 275 273 Northern ADT Current High High High High Med High Med Med Med Low Low High Low Low Low Low High Low High Moderate Low High High High High High High High Low Low Low Low Update Safety Need N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 58.1 64 70 N/A N/A <50 <50 <50 <50 31 50 40 <50 N/A N/A <50 422 Pavement Rating N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 87 52 50 41 41 29 N/A N/A N/A N/A 42 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 38 58 38 36 35 NDOT Ranking 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2003 2013 2014 2015 2015 2004 2017 2002 2007 2008 2001 2002 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2004 2004 2003 Low First Yr Sch for Const EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 McElmo Creek Bridge D-710 channel Rehab by State of Utah Lukachukai Wash Bridge US160 to Sweet Water W H CH AH AG AG ACG ABCG ABDHW ACBGW AG ABCHU HW AH 18.10 2.90 12.07 0.80 R HPP Funding US 491 North to Shiprock Wide Ruins Access Navajo toward Mex Springs N31/N321 Jct w/ 75m Brdg Crystal North Brdg N667 West Coal Mine Wash Brdg N619 Steamboat Wash Brdg N645 Rio Puerco Brdg N656 Fiquerdo Wash Brdg N660 Tohatchi Bicentennial Bridge N651 Kinlichee Wash Brdg N628 Alamo to I-40 N9 Pueblo Pintado to New School AH ABCG ABCG ABG ABCG ABCG ABCDU A 11.90 28.00 2.90 R IRRBP Funding Project No. Red Lake to Kaibeto BH 1.80 7.50 0.50 6.12 ARRA Route No. N8008(1)1,2,4 * N35(9)2,4 * ** Lower Dinnebito Brdg Rehab - N320 Ojo Amarillo School Access New Lands Rio Puerco Bridge Replace BH 17.40 1.80 11.27 IRR F31 Funding US162 N8008 N35 BRF-0262(6)30 AC-GRIP-(NH)-491-1(11)59 & (8)68 N9345(2)2&4 * N31(4)1,2,4 * N9603(1)1,2 § N541(1)1,2 § N9054(1)1,2 § ** N9402(1)1,2 § N9504(1)1,2 § N108(3)1,2,4 * N39(1-1)(2)1,2 * N55(2)2,4 * N46(1)1,2,4 * N21(3)2&4 * ARRA Pavmt rehab BH BH BH 3.80 Est. Cost Million (1) US491 N9345 N31 N9603 N541 N9054 N9402 N9504 N108 N39 N55 N46 N21 N16(6)/ N162(2)/N164(1)2,4 * N6486(1)1,2 § N6720(1)1,2,3 § N6923(1)1,2 § N6910(1)1,2 § N6732(1)1,2 * N101(1)2&4 § ** N2007(1-1)1,2,4 * N666 ARRA Pavmt rehabs NIIP Blk 8 BH BH 7.00 Const Type N16/N162/N164 N6486 N6720 N6923 N6910 N6732 N101 N2007 N35(2-1)4 § BH Comment N35/N251 N4104(1-1)/N4017(1-1)/N4059(1-1)4 § N102(1-1)/N104(1-1)/N105(1-1)/N106(11)4 § N55(1-1)4 § N106(1-1)4 § BH GDS Resolution: TCDCAP-xx-09 N4104/N4017/N4059 N7140(1-1)/N7062(1-1)4 § N474(1-1)(2-1)2&4 § ARRA Pavmt rehabs Chinle ARRA Pavmt rehabs Alamo to I-40 ARRA Pavmt rehab Kayenta Housing Access ARRA Pavmt rehab I-40 frontage Rd & Bread Sprg School Acc ARRA rehab Ojo Encino north ARRA Pavmt rehab US264 to Toyei tribal police Academy & WR Gov Streets ARRA Pavmt rehabs 5mi south of N64 junction & Round Rock School Acc 13.84 4.02 Lower Laguna Creek Brdg Rehab - N308 & N314 Dinnebito Wash Bridge N309 replacement San Francisco Brdg Rehab - N318 Canyon Diablo Brdg Rehab - N319 $0.22 $0.42 $0.32 $1.58 $0.30 $0.70 $0.30 $1.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.65 $0.50 $3.00 Fort Def Western Yes Yes N/A N/A Med High N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2008 2009 2009 $1.00 $0.00 $3.44 $1.50 $0.00 0.2 N102/N104/N105/N106 N55 N106 N9031(1-1)/N100(1)4 § 8.60 2.50 $1.60 N7140/N7062 N474 N12(14-2)(13-2)/N172(1-1)4 § BH BH $10.00 N9031/N100 ARRA Pavmt rehab Greasewood to Cornfields various sections ARRA Bird Springs recon Navajo Mountain w/ Chapter & School Access N12/N172 N15(4-2) § N71(1)(2)2&4 § M N/A N/A 0.00 High N/A 0.00 $0.50 $2.00 N/A N/A ABCG TS N/A Various No Tribal Maintenance N/A N/A $2.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 Region Region full $10.68 $0.00 Maintenance Projects ** Transit Facility Project Project Development -A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects N/A N/A N/A N/A $0.00 $0.00 204(b) Transit * NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on FY08 Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads QA & Construction Management Consents and ROW Document Processing $42.71 Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Does not include the $134k + for road maintenance activities Tribal Road Maintenance NDOT Ranking Not Aplicable Various Various Various Various Administration under 638 Task Orders $0.78 $1.00 $57.04 $57.03 -$0.01 NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archaeology HPD (3) NN Archaeology N/A Various N/A Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M (3) (4) N/A NDOT Ranking: ARRA Project Legend and Comments ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Construction Work Quality Assurance Special Funded Project, Moved up in Priority Projects Moved from FY-08/09 TTIP (4) N15 N71 NDOT Maintenance Yards Area Wide BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ QA P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service N15 Area Wide Projects Moved from FY-2010 TTIP Special Funded Project, Moved up in Priority Administration under 638 Task Orders Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads QA & Construction Management Consents and ROW Document Processing Transit Facility Project Various Project Development -A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects N15(4-1) pavement safety project Alamo to I-40 N9 to Mariano Lake Nazlini North to Chinle Trading Post Brdg Rehab - N310 Kerly Street Tuba City US160 to Sweet Water Project Name/Description Legend and Comments A ROW Needed B Environmental Assessment Needed C Archeological Clearance Needed D Surveying Data Needed E Construction Easement Needed F Design Completed G Design Plans Revision Needed H Design in Progress I Under Construction J Eligibility to be determined K Pending Request for Proposal TS Transit Project U Utility Relocation Needed W Within Existing ROW ¥ Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Q Archeological Clearance is Questionable (!) Partially Funded ++ Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed QA Construction Work Quality Assurance NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD(3) NN Archeology 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning (2) N35(9)2,4 * ** N55(3)2 ** N11(2)2,4 * N27(2-2)1,2&4 * N6331(2)2&4/N6330(1)1,2,4 * N609(1)2,4 ¥ § N35 N55 N11 N27 N6331/N6330 N609 Maintenance Projects ** Project No. Fiscal Year 2011 Route No. 0.00 N/A 10.98 15.74 9.98 6.76 3.69 1.93 Length kilometers S M GDBS GDG GDS GDS GDGB GDS Const Type GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M (3) $0.78 $1.00 $57.03 57.03 $0.00 $1.52 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.50 $2.00 $8.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3.31 $12.00 $10.32 $8.00 $4.41 $2.05 Est. Cost Million (1) full full full full full full full N/A full IRR F31 Funding $0.00 $0.10 IRRBP Funding Yes Update Update Yes Yes Yes Update Northern Eastern Eastern Chinle Western Western Region Region Project in Inventory Agency Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Does not include the $134k + for road maintenance activities NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable NDOT Ranking Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Various Various Various Various Various Various N/A Various N/A N/A 0.00 N/A 6.82 9.78 6.20 4.20 2.29 1.20 Length Miles BD TS BD H ABH ACH DW ABG ACHU Comment Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2011 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM N/A N/A 422 108 186 466 26 1400 ADT Current High N/A Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Safety Need N/A N/A N/A NA 55 30 60.3 40 Pavement Rating EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 N/A 67 30 26 33 32 47 NDOT Ranking 2006 2003 2004 2004 2002 2004 2002 First Yr Sch for Const Fiscal Year 2012 Route No. Project No. Project Name/Description N4(5)/N8031 N35 N203 N9073 N106 (2) Comment ABCD ABG ABCDUQ ABCDU ABCD ABHD ABCG N/A N/A 7.12 0.10 6.50 2.40 11.30 2.00 0.10 Length Miles 0.00 N/A 11.46 0.16 10.46 3.86 18.19 3.22 0.16 Length kilometers S M GDBS GDB GDGB GDS GDG GBG BR Const Type 0.00 $10.22 $0.47 $12.47 $3.95 $18.80 $2.40 $0.15 Est. Cost Million (1) full full full full Partial full full full Partial Partial IRR F31 Funding $0.50 $1.65 N/A $1.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $0.50 $57.03 57.03 $0.00 Various Various Various Various Various $1.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.48 0.50 $0.40 $0.34 $0.24 IRRBP Funding Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2012 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads QA & Construction Management Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance HPP Funding $0.00 EXHIBIT A Agency Update YES Yes No Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory N/A N/A 422 236 452 3106 ? 102 28 ADT Current High N/A Low High Moderate High Low Low Moderate Safety Need N/A N/A N/A <50 N/A 20 N/A 49 >30 Pavement Rating 32 N/A 56 32 20 40 40 NDOT Ranking 2003 2001 2012 2014 2012 2004 2025 First Yr Sch for Const 8/14/2009 Northern Ft. Def. Ft. Def. Western Chinle Western Western Yes 2006 Region Region Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Does not include the $134k + for road maintenance activities NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M (3) Projects Moved from FY-2011 TTIP Special Funded Project, Moved up in Priority Legend and Comments ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Construction Work Quality Assurance NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way (3) NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning Maintenance Projects ** US191 to Sweet Water Kinlichee Wash Brdg N629 Blue Canyon Road w/ brdg N606 Kayenta PHS Street- Wetherill Rd Pinion to Hard Rocks Gun Club Road Bridge N307 Piute Canyon Bridge N323 rehab N6731 N6310 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 Region wide safety projects BD TS Transit Facility Project Various BD Project Development -A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects N/A N35(8)/N5045(1)1,2,4 * N203(2)1,2 * N9073(1)1,2,4 § N106(1)2&4 § N4(5)/N8031(2)2&3 N6731(1)1,2,3 N6310(1)1,2,3 § A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ QA N35(5-1)4 § N11(1)2,4 * N8095(1)/N8081(1)1,2&3 § N26(1)1,2 * ** N9073(2)2,4 § N6810(1)1,2 N6485(1)2,4 N4000 & N3000 Series Maintenance Projects (2) 204(b) Transit * N42(1-1)4 § N7(3-1)/N7A(1-1)4 N27(4-2)4 N16(1-1)(2-1)4 N12D(1-1)4 NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning N35 N11 N8095/N8081 N26 N9073 N6810 N6485 N4000/N3000 R Pavement Rehabilitation Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Construction Work Quality Assurance § £ (1) (2) $$ M (3) full full full full full full full full full full Partial Partial full full full IRR Funding $0.38 $0.38 IRRBP Funding Region Region Western Chinle Chinle Western Fort Def Northern Eastern Chinle Chinle Ft. Def. Western Western NIIP Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Does not include the $134k + for road maintenance activities CY Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP U W ¥ Q (!) ++ QA TS Transit Project * Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project ** Proposed Force Account Project K Pending Request for Proposal J Eligibility to be determined PR Pavement Resurfacing BR Bridge Reconstruction I Under Construction GDSB Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction CS Chip Sealing H Design in Progress G Design Plans Revision Needed F Design Completed E Construction Easement Needed RC Reconstruction GDS Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction D Surveying Data Needed C Archeological Clearance Needed GD Grade and Drain Construction NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List GDG Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Special Funded Project, Moved up in Priority $0.78 $1.00 $57.03 57.03 $0.00 $2.22 $0.00 $3.00 $0.15 $0.50 $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.38 $0.30 $0.05 $2.00 $2.14 $1.80 $10.19 $2.14 $8.90 $12.66 $0.93 $2.79 $1.10 Est. Cost Million (1) B Environmental Assessment Needed A ROW Needed Legend and Comments CS CS CS CS CS M R GDS GDGB GDB GDGB GB GDS CS Const Type Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Various Various NN Archeology HPD (3) NN Archeology P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 Administration under 638 Task Orders Various Various Various Various BIA Direct Service N/A Various 3.7 2.46 0.45 12.00 11.73 N/A N/A 5.95 3.96 0.72 19.31 18.88 N/A BD TS DW DW DW DW DW 4.51 9.98 1.61 11.27 10.62 0.24 2.74 24.94 Length kilometers 2.80 6.20 1.00 7.00 6.60 0.15 1.70 15.50 Length Miles BD ACH ABCD ABCD ABCDUQ ABCD ABCD DW Comment BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects US160 north to State Line N9 to Mariano Lake Chinle Valley Road Nazlini N27 to US191 Brdg N521 Blue Canyon Road w/ brdg N606 Corn Creek Bridge Kayenta Access US163 to US160 Wetherill Rd Chip Sealing Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Monument Valley Chip Seal South Chinle Streets Chip Seal Chinle Streets Chip Seal Chip Sealing Chip Sealing Project Name/Description Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous NRDOT Construction Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing NN Right-of-Way BIA Direct Service Various Area Wide N42 N7 N27 N16 N12 Project No. Route No. Fiscal Year 2013 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2013 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM N/A N/A 2013 17530 2580 NA N/A 318 415 460 114 452 67 2685 N/A ADT Current High N/A Low Low Low NA N/A Low Moderate Low High Moderate Low Low Low Safety Need N/A N/A 40 >70 >70 NA N/A 55 >70 >50 55 N/A 37 N/A 8/14/2009 Pavement Rating EXHIBIT A 52 N/A N/A 39 N/A 25 30 43/22 26 56 18 22 N/A NDOT Ranking 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2006 2017 2003 2008 2015 2012 2006 2006 2002 First Yr Sch for Const 6.10 8.40 7.00 2.00 4.65 Length Miles 9.82 13.52 11.27 3.22 7.48 Length kilometers M CS CS GDSB GDS GDBP GDS GDG Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List IRR Funding IRRBP Funding 8/14/2009 EXHIBIT A Safety Need First Yr Sch for Const ADT Current 2006 NDOT Ranking Project in Inventory 30 N/A Pavement Rating Agency Low Low Low Moderate Low N/A 55 117 190 97 842 475 2004 2005 2009 2002 2013 Update Yes Yes Update Yes N/A N/A 43 29 26 47 68 Northern Chinle Chinle Western Western N/A full full full full full High N/A $11.73 $5.78 $13.43 $3.96 $7.64 Yes N/A Region Low Low Region N/A 2017 2017 N/A full full full full Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project $0.00 $0.00 $0.94 $2.88 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million (1) Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2014 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Project Name/Description ABDU ABCD ABCD ABCDU ABCDU N/A 12.67 38.62 Fiscal Year 2014 Project No. Newcomb to Toadlena Spider Rock Jct. to Agency Line N41 to Kitsilli Colorado Street Tuba City Gap to Coppermine N/A 7.87 24.00 Const Type Route No. Region wide safety projects BD BDW BDW TS Comment N5001 N7 N8066 N619 N5001(1)1,2,4 w/N241 N7(7)2,4 * N8066(3)1,2,4 N619(1)2,4 ¥ § N20(3)2,4 Chip Sealing Chip Sealing Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 (2) N20 Maintenance Projects N4121/N4123(1)4 N3003(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)4 204(b) Transit * $2.25 Various N4121/N4123 N3003 Area Wide $0.50 N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List $3.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.00 $57.03 57.03 $0.00 N/A NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Non-project Related Transportation Planning N/A GD Grade and Drain Construction N/A NDOT Ranking: Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Various BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology Special Funded Project, Moved up in Priority Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 Legend and Comments GDS Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction GDG Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction A ROW Needed B Environmental Assessment Needed * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M BR Bridge Reconstruction PR Pavement Resurfacing GDSB Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction CS Chip Sealing R Pavement Rehabilitation RC Reconstruction C Archeological Clearance Needed D Surveying Data Needed F Design Completed E Construction Easement Needed G Design Plans Revision Needed Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Construction Work Quality Assurance I Under Construction H Design in Progress J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ QA BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service N25 Various Area Wide N/A 9.01 4.04 12.63 4.67 9.82 7.48 5.15 N/A Length kilometers GDS GDS CS GDSB GDSB GDG GD M Const Type F Design Completed E Construction Easement Needed R Pavement Rehabilitation CS Chip Sealing J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $0.00 IRRBP Funding Yes Yes Yes Yes Update Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory 246 60 2017 488 117 475 264 N/A N/A ADT Current Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High N/A Safety Need N/A N/A N/A 70 N/A N/A N/A 55 N/A N/A 8/14/2009 Pavement Rating EXHIBIT A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List Ft. Def. Ft. Def. NIIP Northern Northern Western Chinle Region Region Agency Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project PR Pavement Resurfacing BR Bridge Reconstruction I Under Construction full full full full full full full full full IRR Funding GDSB Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction H Design in Progress G Design Plans Revision Needed RC Reconstruction GDS Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction D Surveying Data Needed C Archeological Clearance Needed $2.00 $4.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.00 $61.00 61.00 $0.00 $0.50 $2.73 $10.74 $5.76 $0.94 $7.77 $11.73 $7.64 $5.26 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million (1) GD Grade and Drain Construction GDG Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Various Various Various Various Various Various Various 5.60 2.51 7.85 2.90 6.10 4.65 3.20 N/A Length Miles Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders N/A D ABHU BDW ABCD ABDU ABCDU ABCDU BD TS Comment A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Sawmill to Fluted Rock Navajo to N30/N31 Jct. Chip Sealing Hog Back US64 to N36 Newcomb to Toadlena Gap to Coppermine Cottonwood to Salina T.P. Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Project Name/Description Legend and Comments A ROW Needed B Environmental Assessment Needed NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning N7(4-1)2,4 N31(3)2,4 * N3002(1)(2)(3)4 N368(1)1,2,4 * N5001(1)1,2,4 w/N241 N20(4)2,4 N25(4)2,4 § Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * N7 N31 N3002 N368 N5001 N20 Project No. Route No. Fiscal Year 2015 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2015 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM 25 30 N/A 21 43 74 18 NDOT Ranking Sc Route No. Project No. Project Name/Description Fiscal Year 2016 N474 N9652 N5037/N5045/N351 N20 Comment Length kilometers Const Type Est. Cost Million (1) $7.68 $19.35 $11.16 $17.84 $0.00 $0.00 IRR Funding full full Partial full full full HPP Funding $0.80 Agency Yes Yes Update Yes Yes Project in Inventory 352 143 167 134 N/A N/A ADT Current Low Low Low Low High N/A Safety Need <50 55 111 N/A N/A N/A Pavement Rating 23 20 26 29 NDOT Ranking 2001 2002 2005 2013 2006 First Yr Sch for Const EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Eastern Eastern Northern Western Region Region Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2016 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Length Miles GDSB GDBG GDBS GDG M $1.00 8.69 20.76 9.37 14.97 N/A $0.50 5.40 12.90 5.82 9.30 N/A N/A Various ADU ABCD ABH ABCDU BD TS A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects $1.00 $0.00 All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $0.50 $62.95 61.00 -$1.95 Various Various Appache Corner to N46 SR371 to Whiterock Emmanuel Mission/ N228 Gap to Coppermine Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeaology HPD NN Archeaology Special Funded Project, Moved up in Priority Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List NDOT Ranking: N/A N/A GD Grade and Drain Construction Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Non Project Inherant Federal Function N/A Modifications & balances due on PreviousFunded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads N474(4)1,2,4 § N9652(1)1,2,3 * N5037/N351(1)1,2,4 N20(5)2,4 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 Legend and Comments GDS Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction GDG Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction A ROW Needed B Environmental Assessment Needed ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project * Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project BR Bridge Reconstruction PR Pavement Resurfacing GDSB Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction CS Chip Sealing R Pavement Rehabilitation RC Reconstruction C Archeological Clearance Needed D Surveying Data Needed F Design Completed E Construction Easement Needed G Design Plans Revision Needed H Design in Progress I Under Construction Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed J Eligibility to be determined K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service Various Area Wide A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Birdsprings to N15 & Little Singer Acc N9 Pueblo Pintado to Councelor US191 to Sweet Water Many Farms US191 to Windmill Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project Various Project Name/Description ABCD ABCD AD ABCD BD TS BD Comment Legend and Comments Special Funded Project, Moved up in Priority ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed 0.00 0.00 Various Various Various Various Various Various N/A Various 12.07 10.54 11.19 10.46 N/A Length kilometers 7.50 6.55 6.96 6.50 N/A Length Miles S GDG GDSB GDBS GDG M Const Type GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $1.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $0.50 $52.20 61.00 $8.80 $0.50 $2.00 $12.33 $10.77 $11.43 $9.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million (1) full full full full full full full IRR Funding Western Eastern Northern Chinle Region Region Agency Yes Update Update Yes Yes Project in Inventory 54 204 218 339 N/A N/A ADT Current Moderate Moderate Low Low High N/A Safety Need 55 55 N/A N/A N/A Pavement Rating EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 8 22 22 38 NDOT Ranking Grade and Drain Construction NDOT Ranking: Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Reconstruction Project is already listed on prior year Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Non Project Inherent Federal Function N/A Modifications & balances due on Previous NRDOT Construction Funded Projects for on-going construction NHA Housing Access Design & construction Access Roads NRDOT Construction Monitoring All Projects in construction NN Right-of-Way Consents and ROW Document Processing NN Archeology HPD Administration under 638 NN Archeology Task Orders N71(3)2&3 N46(2)2,4 N35(7)1,2,4 * N8084(1)2,3 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning N71 N46 N35 N8084 Project No. Route No. Fiscal Year 2017 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2017 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM 2006 2004 2002 2011 2006 First Yr Sch for Const Fiscal Year 2018 Comment Length kilometers Const Type Est. Cost Million (1) $1.66 $6.66 $10.83 $10.17 $17.84 $0.13 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.50 $0.50 $0.00 $2.50 $0.14 $0.78 $0.50 $52.20 61.00 $8.80 IRR F31 Funding Eastern Ft. Def. Chinle Western Western Region Region Agency Update Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory 204 3545 386 134 672 N/A N/A ADT Current Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate High N/A Safety Need 55 26 30 N/A 20 N/A N/A 8/14/2009 Pavement Rating EXHIBIT A full full full full full full full full Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2018 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Length Miles Project No. Project Name/Description Route No. Special Funded Project, Moved up in Priority Grade and Drain Construction NDOT Ranking: Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project N46 N15 N27 N20 N6461 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 Legend and Comments ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M N46(3)2,4 N9 Pueblo Pintado to Councelor ABCD 4.05 6.52 GDSB N15(2-2)2&4 SR264 to Cornfields- Sunrise BCDW 6.59 10.61 GDS N27(2-3)2&4 Nazlini North to Chinle DW 5.30 8.53 GDS N20(6)2,4 Gap to Coppermine ABCDU 9.30 14.97 GDG N6461(1)2&4 Dennehotso School Access ABCD 0.20 0.32 GDS Region wide safety projects Maintenance Projects BD N/A N/A M 204(b) Transit * Transit Facility Project TS Chip Sealing Various BD 0.00 0.00 S NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Various Non-project Related Transportation Planning Non Project Inherent Federal Function N/A N/A Modifications & balances due on Previous NRDOT Construction Funded Projects for on-going construction Various NHA Housing Access Design & construction Access Roads Various NRDOT Construction Monitoring All Projects in construction, QA Various NN Right-of-Way Consents and ROW Document Processing Various NN Archeology, HPD Administration under 638 Various NN Archeology Task Orders Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ 16 No Data 33 NDOT Ranking 2004 2003 2004 2013 2010 2006 First Yr Sch for Const 25 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service N70/N6910 N221 Various Area Wide N8084 Legend and Comments Various Various Various Various Various Various N/A S GDS GDG GBG GDS M Const Type H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed G Design Plans Revision Needed F Design Completed E Construction Easement Needed D Surveying Data Needed full full full full full full full IRR F31 Funding PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M Eastern Chinle Western Western Region Region Agency N/A N/A Moderate Low Moderate Low High N/A Safety Need N/A N/A 55 N/A 10 Pavement Rating EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List 204 339 54 313 N/A N/A ADT Current NDOT Ranking: Update Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project GDSB Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction CS Chip Sealing R Pavement Rehabilitation RC Reconstruction GDS Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction C Archeological Clearance Needed GD Grade and Drain Construction GDG Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Special Funded Project, Moved up in Priority $0.50 $0.00 $2.14 $0.14 $0.78 $0.00 $52.20 61.00 $8.80 $0.50 $1.00 $15.90 $9.75 $6.53 $14.96 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million (1) B Environmental Assessment Needed A ROW Needed 0.00 0.00 Various 17.06 10.46 3.78 12.55 N/A Length kilometers 10.60 6.50 2.35 7.80 N/A Length Miles Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance N46(4)2,4 N46(2)/N474 to Counselor ABCD N8084(2)2,3 Many Farms US191 to Windmill ABCD N70(1)1,2,3/N6910(1)2,3 Grandfalls Bridge toward N15 ABCD N221(2)2,4 *** Shonto to Betatakin ABCD Region wide safety projects Maintenance Projects BD 204(b) Transit * Transit Facility Project TS Chip Sealing Various BD NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Non-project Related Transportation Planning Non Project Inherent Federal Function N/A Modifications & balances due on Previous NRDOT Construction Funded Projects for on-going construction NHA Housing Access Design & construction Access Roads NRDOT Construction Monitoring All Projects in construction, QA NN Right-of-Way Consents and ROW Document Processing NN Archeology, HPD Administration under 638 NN Archeology Task Orders Comment N46 Project Name/Description Project No. Route No. Fiscal Year 2019 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2019 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM 22 41 18 NDOT Ranking 2004 2011 2006 2007 2006 First Yr Sch for Const Fiscal Year 2020 Route No. Project No. N103(7)4 N63(2)1,2,3 N13(3-3)4 N46(5)2,4 N12(13-2)1,2&4 N8090(1)2,3 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Rrelated Transportation Planning N103 N63 N13 N46 N12 N8090 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 Legend and Comments Project Name/Description Non P/C housing street Oak Springs/Beclabito Bridge US491 to Red Valley Pavement rehab N46(3)/N474 to Counselor Agency Line to Wheatfields Rough Rock to N59 Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project Various A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders Est. Cost Million (1) $5.40 $9.04 $7.28 $7.91 $12.86 $11.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 IRR F31 Funding full full full full full full full full full First Yr Sch for Const EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 NDOT Ranking Agency Safety Need Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project 42 16 ? ADT Current N/A N/A Pavement Rating Project in Inventory Low Low Moderate Moderate High Low High N/A Not Available 28 53 250 302 1678 204 1989 125 N/A N/A 2017 2011 2021 2004 2003 2012 2006 No Yes Yes Update Yes Yes Yes 30 55 60 Northern Northern Northern Eastern Chinle Chinle Region Region 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Comment Length kilometers S RC GDGB RC GDS GDS GDG M Const Type Length Miles 5.79 9.66 18.19 8.48 7.24 12.07 N/A $1.20 0.00 $0.50 3.60 6.00 11.30 5.27 4.50 7.50 N/A N/A Various 0.00 N/A $1.36 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $0.50 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 ABCD ABCD BDW ABCD BCDW ABCD BD TS BD Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List NDOT Ranking: N/A N/A GD Grade and Drain Construction GDS Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction GDG Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction A ROW Needed B Environmental Assessment Needed BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M PR Pavement Resurfacing GDSB Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction CS Chip Sealing R Pavement Rehabilitation RC Reconstruction C Archeological Clearance Needed D Surveying Data Needed E Construction Easement Needed F Design Completed G Design Plans Revision Needed Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed H Design in Progress I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Various Various Various Various Various Various All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders S GDS GDS GDS M Const Type GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.00 $48.88 61.00 $12.12 $1.81 $0.00 $0.50 $1.50 $9.86 $12.64 $17.65 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million (1) full full full full full full IRR Funding Ft. Def. Chinle Chinle Region Region Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory 1412 1989 134 N/A N/A ADT Current Moderate High Low High N/A Safety Need 26 60 N/A N/A N/A Pavement Rating EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 No Data 42 25 NDOT Ranking Grade and Drain Construction NDOT Ranking: Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance N/A 0.00 0.00 Various N/A 9.66 7.08 14.81 N/A Length kilometers 6.00 4.40 9.20 N/A Length Miles Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads BCW BCDW ABCD BD TS BD Comment A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Cornfields to Greasewood Agency Line to Wheatfields Spider Rock Jct. to Agency Line Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project Various Project Name/Description ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology NN Archeology N15(3-1)2&4 N12(13-3)1,2&4 N7(8)2&4 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning N15 N12 N7 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service Project No. Route No. Fiscal Year 2021 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2021 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM 2006 2003 2007 2006 First Yr Sch for Const Route No. Project No. Fiscal Year 2022 N12 N12 N63 N67/N673 N12 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology N12(12-2)2,4 N12(22)(23)4 N63(2)1,2,3 N67(1)/N673(1)1,2,4 N12(19-4)2,4 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 Legend and Comments Project Name/Description Navajo to Whiskey Creek US160 north to State Line Oak Springs/Beclabito Bridge Low Mountain to N4 Smoke Signal Wheatfields to Lukachukai Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project Various A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders 7.40 5.10 6.00 7.20 10.00 N/A Length Miles 0.00 11.91 8.21 9.66 11.59 16.09 N/A Length kilometers S GDS RC GDGB GDSB GDS M Const Type 0.00 Est. Cost Million (1) $1.50 $14.19 $11.17 $9.04 $0.00 $19.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.51 Various N/A Safety Need EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 ADT Current First Yr Sch for Const Project in Inventory 50 N/A N/A NDOT Ranking Agency High Moderate Low Low High High N/A Pavement Rating IRR Funding 2138 670 302 367/308 2517 N/A N/A 48 46 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2007 2017 2011 2007 2006 2006 Ft. Def. Northern Northern Chinle Chinle Region Region No Data 30 28 35/20 53 full full full full full full full full Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2022 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Comment BCDW BDW ABCD ABCD BCDW BD TS BD N/A $1.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $0.70 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List NDOT Ranking: N/A GD Grade and Drain Construction GDG Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction A ROW Needed B Environmental Assessment Needed N/A Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Project is already listed on prior year GDS Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M BR Bridge Reconstruction PR Pavement Resurfacing GDSB Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction CS Chip Sealing R Pavement Rehabilitation RC Reconstruction C Archeological Clearance Needed D Surveying Data Needed F Design Completed E Construction Easement Needed G Design Plans Revision Needed Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed I Under Construction H Design in Progress J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service Various Area Wide N321 N55 N56 N530 N545 N569 N42 N15 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Various Various Various Various Various Various All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders S GDG GDG GDS GDS GDS S GDS GDS M Const Type GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M Spotted Owl Hjabitat, May Require 2 Years of Surveys $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.00 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 $1.13 $0.00 $0.50 $1.20 $22.65 $4.17 $0.26 $0.26 $1.03 $6.60 $8.38 $10.11 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million(1) full full full full full full full Partial full full full IRR Funding $1.20 $1.20 IRRBP Funding Eastern Eastern Northern Northern Northern Western Ft. Def. Ft. Def. Region Region Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory ADT Current Safety Need 108 198 458 1810 1711 514 1412 278 N/A N/A Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Low High N/A NA 55 40 55 30 44 26 N/A N/A N/A Grade and Drain Construction NDOT Ranking: Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance N/A 0.00 0.00 Various N/A 22.18 11.91 0.64 0.64 2.57 23.17 8.21 9.90 N/A Length kilometers 13.78 7.40 0.40 0.4 1.6 14.40 5.10 6.15 N/A Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads ABCD ABCD BCDQ BCDQ ABCDU BCD BCW ABCDU BD TS BD A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Alamo to I-40 Canoncito to Res. Line North Hilltop Road Northern Mesa School Road Indian Village Co-Op w/NMDOT Oljetoh Road North Cornfields to Greasewood Crystal to Whiskey Creek / N616 Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project Various ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology N55(4)/N551(1)2&4 N56(2)2 N530(1)2,4 N545(1)2&4 N569(1)2&4 N42(1-1)4 N15(2-2)(2-3)2&4 N321(1)1,2,4 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning Length Miles 8/14/2009 Pavement Rating Comment EXHIBIT A Project Name/Description Route No. Project No. Fiscal Year 2023 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2023 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM 18 38 24 39 28 25 No Data 22 NDOT Ranking 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2006 2006 2006 2006 First Yr Sch for Const Project No. Project Name/Description Route No. Fiscal Year 2024 N4178 N6461 N15 Various Area Wide N321 Nizhoni & Tse Bitai School Access NW Shiprock Housing Access N13to N34 N34 South Lower Wheatfields Road Salina North Loop Crystal to Whiskey Creek / N617 Chip Sealing Dennehotso Access & Brdg Rehab - N313 Reservation line to Leupp Chip Seal region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various N512 N509 N5012 N5010 N8079 N251 N512(1)2,4 N509(1)2&4 N5012(1)2,3 N5010(2)2&3 N8079(1)2 N251(1-1)4 N321(2)1,2,4 N4178(1)4 N6461(1-1)/N6461(2)1,2&4 N15(1-1)(2-1)4 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W non-project related Transportation Planning BIA Direct Service Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects BIA Direct Service NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology 0.50 1.00 13.80 6.70 5.90 15.30 6.15 7.24 3.20 14.00 N/A Length Miles 0.00 0.80 1.61 22.21 10.78 9.49 24.62 9.90 11.65 5.15 22.53 N/A Length Kilometers S GDS GDS GDG GDG GD S GDS CS GDS CS M Const Type 0.00 N/A Various Est. Cost Million(1) IRR Funding $0.50 IRRBP Funding $0.10 full full full full full full Partial full full full full full full $0.60 Northern Northern Northern Northern Chinle Chinle Ft. Def. NIIP Western Western Region Region Various Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Update Yes Yes Project in Inventory 908 3265 229 283 32 126 278 N/A 502 2046 N/A N/A ADT Current Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High N/A Safety Need Pavement Rating EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 40 40 N/A 50 N/A 50/ 75.8 40 N/A N/A NDOT Ranking 33 10 22 11 21 22 25 43 2007 2007 2012 2006 2017 2008 2021 2017 2004 2002 2006 First Yr Sch for Const Grade and Drain Construction NDOT Ranking: Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project $1.44 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $0.50 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 $0.50 $1.20 $0.75 $1.50 $20.70 $5.63 $3.80 $7.01 $10.11 $0.60 $2.23 $1.32 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2024 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Comment ABCD BCDQ ABCD ABCD ABCD DWQ ABCDU BDW ABCD DW BD TS D N/A GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Spotted Owl Hjabitat, May Require 2 Years of Surveys ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service N36 N503 N5 N12 N30 Various Area Wide Route No. Fiscal Year 2026 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Length 0.00 0.00 CS R R R GDS GDS M Type Const GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $2.00 $58.01 61.00 2.99 $3.00 $0.00 $0.50 $1.20 $7.13 $0.19 $8.42 $19.18 $12.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Million(1) Est. Cost IRR full full full full full full full full Funding Northern Northern Northern Chinle Ft. Def. Region Area Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Inventory Project in ADT 4564 250 177 2517 471 N/A N/A Current Low Low Low High Low High N/A Need Safety Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Various Various Various Various All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders N/A Various 16.41 0.48 19.79 16.09 10.46 N/A Kilometers 10.20 0.30 12.30 10.00 6.50 N/A Various Various N/A BDW DBW BDW BDW ABCDU BD TS D Miles Comment Length Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Reservation Bndry to Nenahnezad Red Valley School Access US491 to Burnham Wheatfields to Lukachukai Mexican Springs to Navajo N31 Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various Project Name/Description ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology N36(6A-1)(7-1)4 N501(1-1)4 N5(1-1)(2-1)4 N12(19-5)2,4 N30(2)2,4 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning Project No. Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2026 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM NDOT 35 25 41 52 38 Ranking 2017 2017 2017 2009 2008 2006 First Yr Sch for Const NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Project is already listed on prior year 88 10 54 60 N/A N/A N/A Rating EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Pavement Fiscal Year 2025 Route No. N13 N172 N8077 N7004 N31 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 Project No. N13(4-1)4 N172(1)2 N8077(1)2&4 N7004(1)2 N31(1)1,2,3 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology Legend and Comments Project Name/Description Red Valley to Buffalo Pass Round Rock to Cove Black Rock Road N9 Whitehorse to Rincon Marquis Tohatchi west to N30/N31 Jct. Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders 7.70 12.80 7.30 16.80 12.96 N/A Length Miles 0.00 12.39 20.60 11.75 27.04 20.86 N/A Length Kilometers S R GD GDS GD GD M Const Type 0.00 Est. Cost Million(1) $1.20 $4.96 $8.24 $10.15 $5.88 $24.86 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.50 Various N/A full full full full full full full full IRR Funding Northern Chinle Chinle Eastern Ft. Def. Region Region Various Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory 519 92 503 85 82 N/A N/A ADT Current Low Low Low Low Low High N/A Safety Need Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2025 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Comment BDW ABCDU ABCD ACDGH ABCDU BD TS D N/A $1.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $0.50 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Pavement Rating 60 N/A 20 N/A N/A 34 8 22 21 22 NDOT Ranking 2017 2013 2017 2007 2007 2006 First Yr Sch for Const Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List NDOT Ranking: N/A N/A GD Grade and Drain Construction GDS Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction GDG Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction A ROW Needed B Environmental Assessment Needed GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project CS Chip Sealing R Pavement Rehabilitation RC Reconstruction C Archeological Clearance Needed D Surveying Data Needed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed F Design Completed E Construction Easement Needed G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service Various Area Wide N3002 N7046 N421 N70/N6920 N6440 0.00 0.00 CS GDG GDS GD GDGB GDSB M Const Type ADT Current (1) Excluding Funds from other sources (2) May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC $$ Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC M Road Maintenance Project ¥ Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Q Archeological Clearance is Questionable (!) Partially Funded ++ Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed £ Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. 44 415 54 86 490 N/A N/A § Buy-Indian Project Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Project in Inventory W Within Existing ROW CY Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Eastern Western Western Western NIIP Region Area Agency U Utility Relocation Needed TS Transit Project * Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project ** Proposed Force Account Project K Pending Request for Proposal J Eligibility to be determined PR Pavement Resurfacing BR Bridge Reconstruction I Under Construction GDSB Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction CS Chip Sealing R Pavement Rehabilitation RC Reconstruction H Design in Progress G Design Plans Revision Needed F Design Completed E Construction Easement Needed D Surveying Data Needed GDS Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction full full full full full full full full IRR Funding C Archeological Clearance Needed GD Grade and Drain Construction $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.00 $42.67 61.00 18.33 $3.32 $0.00 $0.50 $1.36 $7.20 $3.29 $7.65 $1.13 $13.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million(1) GDG Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Project was abandoned in FY-1998 for lack of support Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Various Various Various Various All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders N/A Various 7.72 3.22 8.21 0.40 13.74 N/A Length Kilometers 4.80 2.00 5.10 0.25 8.54 N/A Various Various N/A ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD BD TS D Non Project Inherant Federal Function Modifications & balances due on PreviousFunded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Jones Ranch to State Line Oljato Chapter Access Grandfalls to N15 Halgaitoh Wash Bridge NIIP Blk 9 SR371 to Chaco Plant Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various Length Miles B Environmental Assessment Needed A ROW Needed Legend and Comments NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeaology HPD NN Archeaology N7046(3)2,3 N421(1)2,4 N70(2)2/N6920(1)2 N6440(1)1,2,3 N3002(4)1,2,4 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning Comment Safety Need Low Low Moderate Low Low High N/A N/A N/A 2009 2006 2007 2008 2016 2006 First Yr Sch for Const Project is already listed on prior year Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List 22 21 12 10 NDOT Ranking NDOT Ranking: N/A N/A 55 55 10 N/A Pavement Rating Project Name/Description Route No. Project No. EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Fiscal Year 2027 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2027 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2028 Route No. N551 N552 N553 N500 N501 N531 N9202 N69 N30 N7043 N7062/N74 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Project No. Project Name/Description N551(1)4 Shiprock Farm Road N552(1)4 Shiprock Farm Road N553(1)4 Shiprock Farm Road N500(1)4 Aneth NHA Access N501(1)4 Aneth School Access N531(1)4 Agency Roads Access N9202(1)1,2,4 Ganado Loop Access to SR264/US191 N69(1)1,2 US666 Naschitti East N30(3)1,2,4 Mexican Springs to Navajo N31 N7043(1)2,3 N7046 to N7140 N7062/N74(1-2)4 NM 602 to Breadsprings Pavement Reconst Region wide safety projects Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Chip Sealing Various NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Non-project related Transportation Planning Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded NRDOT Construction Projects for on-going construction NHA Housing Access Design & construction Access Roads NRDOT Construction MonitoringAll Projects in construction, QA NN Right-of-Way Consents and ROW Document Processing NN Archeology HPD Administration under 638 NN Archeology Task Orders Legend and Comments ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed 0.80 2.70 1.00 0.10 0.30 1.00 1.00 12.00 6.50 10.90 7.40 N/A Length Miles 0.00 1.29 4.35 1.61 0.16 0.48 1.61 1.61 19.31 10.46 17.54 11.91 N/A Length Kilometers CS RC RC RC RC RC RC GDSB GDG GDSB GDG S M Const Type 0.00 N/A Various Est. Cost Million(1) $1.07 $0.39 $1.31 $0.48 $0.05 $0.15 $0.48 $2.14 $18.25 $11.04 $16.35 $3.58 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.50 IRR Funding Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Ft. Def Ft. Def. Ft. Def. Eastern Eastern Region Region Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory 712 883 418 250 250 350 2070 130 496 242 592 N/A N/A ADT Current ? ? ? ? ? Low Medium Low Low Low Moderate High N/A Safety Need Pavement Rating NDOT Ranking First Yr Sch for Const EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 40 40 40 10 10 10 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2009 2008 2007 2008 2012 2006 55 36 28 28 24 24 28 20 20 26 14 21 50 N/A N/A NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List full full full full full full full full full full full full full full Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2028 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Comment BCDW BCDW BCDW BCDW ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCDU ABCD BDW BD TS D N/A $1.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $0.50 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCDU ABCD BD BD BD TS D 0.00 0.00 Various Various Various Various Various Various N/A Various 27.20 1.61 1.61 12.87 6.44 6.44 24.14 N/A 16.90 1.00 1.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 15.00 N/A Length Kilometers CS GD GDS GDS GDG GDS GDS R M Const Type GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $1.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.00 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 $0.50 $1.23 $25.35 $1.20 $1.20 $6.55 $6.00 $6.00 $7.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million(1) full full full full full full full full full full IRR Funding $0.00 IRRBP Funding $0.00 PLHD Funding Agency Eastern Western Western Western NIIP NIIP NIIP Region Region Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Non Project Inherent Federal Function N/A Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for ongoing construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Torreon to Rincon Marquis (Co-Op) Tuba City Main Street Re-hab-Facility St Main Street north to N608 US160 to SR98 NIIP Blk I- Cnty Rd to Hammond Rd NIIP Blk II Experiment Sta to N36 NIIP rehab Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology NN Archeology BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service N7028(1)1,2 N101(8)2&4 N101(9)2&4 N16(7)2&3 N4002(1)2&4 N4059(1)2&4 N4000 Blk II & III Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning N7028 N101 N101 N16 N4002 N4059 N4000 Various Area Wide Length Miles Project in Inventory ADT Current Safety Need 60 13843 1334 341 262 N/A N/A N/A N/A Low High Moderate Low Low Low Low High N/A N/A N/A N/A 30 NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List County No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8/14/2009 Pavement Rating Comment EXHIBIT A Project Name/Description Route No. Project No. Fiscal Year 2029 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2029 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan - INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM 14 37 37 12 NDOT Ranking 2008 2010 2010 2008 2007 2009 2009 2006 First Yr Sch for Const Fiscal Year 2030 Project Name/Description Comment Length Miles Length Kilometers Const Type R GDB GD GD GDS GDG GDG M Est. Cost Million(1) $1.20 $6.16 $20.89 $0.98 $19.95 $0.72 $1.10 $3.29 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.50 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 IRR Funding full full full full full full full full full full IRRBP Funding $0.00 PLHD Funding $0.00 Project in Inventory ADT Current Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High N/A Safety Need N/A N/A 60 8/14/2009 Pavement Rating 40 NDOT Ranking 2017 2008 2017 2009 2013 2012 2017 2006 First Yr Sch for Const EXHIBIT A Agency 750 128 116 33 208 71 485 N/A N/A 20 11 19 16 21 Yes Yes ? Yes No Yes Yes Yes Grade and Drain Construction NDOT Ranking: Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Northern Northern Northern Eastern Eastern Eastern Chinle Region Region Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2030 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Project No. 19.63 19.96 6.76 21.40 1.85 2.41 3.22 N/A Route No. 12.20 12.40 4.20 13.30 1.15 1.50 2.00 N/A N19 N5113 N546 N7057 N104 N52 N41 Various Area Wide Various N/A 0.00 S BDW ABCD ABCDU ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD BD TS D 0.00 US491 to Toadlena SR64 to Arizona Line Bluff Road Standing Rock to SR371 Crownpoint Sunnyside Street Access Dalton Pass Chapter Access West Dinnebito Wash to Turquoise Trail Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various BIA Direct Service A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects N19(1-1)4 with r/w Fencing N5113(1)1,2 N546(1)2 N7057(2)2 N104(3-1)2&4 N52(1)2&3 N41(7)2&3 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance N/A BIA Direct Service NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service N8090 N8065 N8080 N6485 N20 N591 Various Area Wide A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCDU BCD ABCD BD TS D Various Various Various Various Various Various N/A Various 0.00 7.50 9.90 5.80 4.20 13.60 8.50 N/A Length Miles Const Type GDG GDGB GDG GDS RC GD M 0.00 S 12.07 15.93 9.33 6.76 21.89 13.68 N/A Length Kilometers GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $0.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $0.62 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 $0.50 $1.20 $9.75 $13.32 $7.54 $6.90 $6.41 $11.05 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million(1) full full full full full full full full full IRR Funding $0.00 IRRBP Funding $0.00 PLHD Funding Chinle Chinle Chinle Western Western Western Region Area Agency Project in Inventory ADT Current Safety Need Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 125 78 29 3106 225 258 N/A N/A Low Low Low Low High Low High N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 20 12 15 28 35 30 NDOT Ranking Grade and Drain Construction NDOT Ranking: Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Non Project Inherent Federal Function N/A Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Rough rock to N59 Kitsilli West to N8066 w/N023 Wheatfields around the Lake Kayenta to US 160 Copper Mine/LeChee to Page Rehab Kayenta to N59 Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology N8090(1)2,3 N8065(1)1,2,3 N8080(1)2,3 N6485(2)2,4 N20(1-1)2&4 N591(1)2,3 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning Comment Pavement Rating Project Name/Description Route No. Project No. EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Fiscal Year 2031 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2031 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM 2012 2017 2017 2012 2014 2017 2006 First Yr Sch for Const Fiscal Year 2032 Project Name/Description Comment N/A ABCD ABCDU ABCD ABCDU ABCDU ABCD ABCD BD TS D 9.20 14.00 5.30 6.20 6.00 9.50 8.00 N/A Length Miles 0.00 14.81 22.53 8.53 9.98 9.66 15.29 12.87 N/A Length Kilometers CS GDS GDG GDG GD GD GDG GDG M Const Type 0.00 Various N/A Est. Cost Million(1) $17.65 $9.02 $6.89 $2.30 $2.23 $7.78 $6.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.38 $0.50 61.00 -$0.21 $1.50 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.50 $61.21 Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount IRR Funding Ft. Def Fort Def Eastern Eastern Eastern Chinle Western Region Area Agency Yes Yes County County Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory 131 266 96 209 62 31 500 N/A N/A ADT Current Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High N/A Safety Need EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Pavement Rating N/A N/A 18 14 10 14 16 11 10 NDOT Ranking 2010 2013 2013 2011 2010 2017 2011 2006 First Yr Sch for Const Grade and Drain Construction NDOT Ranking: Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M full full full full full full full full full full Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2032 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Project No. Route No. N9010(2)2,4 N28(1)2,3 N7114(1)2&3 N10(1)2,3 N7059(1)2,3 N8089(1)2,3 N6440(2)2,3 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit* Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning Pine Springs to SR264 Oak Springs to Greasewood Littleboy Road, NM371 To Becenti NM371 to Lake Valley NHA Housing North NM371 to Lake Valley NHA Housing Acc South N8077 toward Del Muerto Canyon Halgaitoh Road Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders N9010 N28 N7114 N10/CR7750 N7059 N8089 N6440 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ N8063(1)1,2,3 N547(1)2,3 N549(1)2,3 N550(1)2,3 N36(3-2)4 N481(1)/N7119(1)2&3 N58(1)2 N100(1-1)2&4 N101(7-2)4 N16(8)2&3 N4000 Blk II & III Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit* Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning N8063 N547 N549 N550 N364 N481/N7119 N58 N100 N101 N16 N4000 Various Area Wide Little Rough Rock N12 to N13 Farm Lane Road Farm Lane Road Farm Lane Road Farm Mesa Road Chip Seal Littlewater Chapter Access N57 northeast to CR334 Window Rock Streets Tuba City Main Ext to N608, Birch & Fir US160 to SR98 NIIP rehab Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders 0.00 0.00 Various N/A Various Various Various Various Various Various 11.43 2.90 3.06 3.06 11.43 5.63 15.61 4.83 2.41 11.27 9.66 N/A 7.10 1.80 1.90 1.90 7.10 3.50 9.70 3.00 1.50 7.00 15.00 N/A Length Kilometers CS GDS GDG GDG GDG CS GDG GD GDS R GDG R M Const Type GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $1.30 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.14 $61.01 61.00 -$0.01 $6.31 $0.70 $0.74 $0.74 $3.44 $1.37 $2.27 $6.09 $3.05 $5.73 $22.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.20 $0.50 Est. Cost Million(1) full full full full full full full full full full full full full full IRR Funding Chinle Northern Northern Northern Northern Eastern Eastern Fort Def Western Western NIIP Region Area Agency Project in Inventory ADT Current Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NDOT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 87 63 66 68 840 243 54 8000 8265 370 N/A N/A N/A Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance N/A ABCD ABCDU ABCDU ABCDU BDW BCDQ ABCD CDUW BDW ABCDU BD BD TS D Length Miles Safety Need N/A N/A N/A 12 19 13 15 23 18/22 6 39 23 20 NDOT Ranking 2017 2013 2013 2013 2017 2013 2014 2013 2014 2009 2007 2006 First Yr Sch for Const NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Project is already listed on prior year Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High Low Low Low High N/A Pavement Rating Comment EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Project Name/Description Route No. Project No. Fiscal Year 2033 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2033 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Project Name/Description Fiscal Year 2034 Project No. Route No. N8062(1)2,3 N5063(1)1,2,3 N112(3)1,2,4 N125(1)2 N9652(2)2 N3005(1)4 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit* Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning N8031 to Black Spot N12 to Montezuma Creek N7 to Navajo N12 Sawmill to Fort Defiance US491 to Whiterock Blk 2&5 to Blk 3 Chip Sealing Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders N8062 N5063 N112 N125 N9652 N3005 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Comment N/A ABCD ABCD ABCDU ABCD ABCDU BDW BD TS D Length Miles 17.70 28.32 11.75 7.24 16.09 22.40 N/A Length Kilometers CS GDG GDS GDBS GD GD CS M $9.01 $11.83 $12.50 $5.85 $13.00 $1.39 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.20 $0.50 Est. Cost Million(1) full full full full full full full full full IRR Funding $0.00 IRRBP Funding $0.00 PLHD Funding Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2034 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM 11.00 17.60 7.30 4.50 10 13.92 N/A 0.00 Const Type 0.00 Various N/A $1.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.00 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 Project in Inventory 134 107 2458 574 15 N/A N/A N/A ADT Current Low Low Low Moderate Low Low High N/A Safety Need N/A N/A Pavement Rating EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Chinle Northern Ft. Def. Fort Def Fort Def NIIP Region Area Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M 12 18 21 26 20 NDOT Ranking 2017 2009 2011 2013 2014 2017 2006 First Yr Sch for Const BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service N59 N221 N609/N614 N101 N112 N9652 N8060 N36 N36 Various Area Wide A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ 40.23 7.24 2.30 8.37 7.40 17.86 7.89 2.41 1.77 N/A Length Kilometers CS R R CS GDBS GD GDG R R M Const Type GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $2.00 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 $2.50 $0.00 $0.50 $1.42 $11.78 $7.40 $0.99 $0.52 $8.06 $14.43 $6.37 $0.77 $0.56 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million(1) full full full full full full full full full full full IRR Funding Western Western Western Western Ft. Def. Fort Def Chinle Northern Northern Region Region Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory ADT Current NA 1368 2018? N/A 2458 15 54 4790 2999 N/A N/A Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Various Various Various Various All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders N/A Various 25.00 4.50 1.43 5.20 4.60 11.1 4.90 1.50 1.10 N/A Various Various N/A CDW CDW CDW CDW ABCDU ABCDU ABCD BDW BDW BD TS Length Miles Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects US160 to Agency Line w/ Chilchinbeto Chip Seal Shonto School Access Rehab Kerley Street & Navajo Blvd - Tuba City Rehab Tuba City Streets Chip Seal N7 to Navajo N12 US491 to Whiterock N8031 to East Twin Mesa SR371 to Reservation Line APS Overpass Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology NN Archeology N59(4-2)(5-2)4 N221(1-1)2&4 N609(1-1)/N614(1-1)2&4 Tuba City Streets N112(4)1,2,4 N9652(3)2 N8060(1)2,3 N36(6B-1)4 N36(7B-3)4 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit* NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning Comment Safety Need >70 >70 N/A N/A 60 30 30 60 21 20 16 29 34 42 44 52 NDOT Ranking 2024 2024 2024 2024 2011 2014 2017 2017 2017 2006 First Yr Sch for Const NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High N/A Pavement Rating Project Name/Description Route No. Project No. EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Fiscal Year 2035 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2035 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Route No. Fiscal Year 2036 N151 N136 N704 N36 N548 N4000 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ N151(1)2 N136(1)1,2&4 N704(1)2&4 N36(5A-1)4 N548(1)2,3 Project No. US191 to Cornfields St. Isabel Mission Rd w/ N009 Dzil-Na-O-Dith-hle School Access US491 to Chaco Wash Farm Lane Road Project Name/Description N4077/N4080/N4081/N4103/ N4109/N4011(1-1)2,4 NIIP Blk 2&3 Rehabilitation Region wide safety projects Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit* Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Non-project Related Transportation Planning Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology NN Archaeology Legend and Comments ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2036 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Length Kilometers GD GDSB GDS R GDG $27.84 $0.00 $0.00 $12.12 $5.22 $0.75 $3.77 $2.64 full full full full full full full full IRR Funding NIIP Region Area Ft. Def Chinle Eastern Northern Northern Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory N/A N/A N/A 363 211 2366 1468 85 ADT Current Low High N/A Low Low Low Low Low Safety Need Est. Cost Million(1) Length Miles 16.25 2.90 0.80 11.91 3.54 RC M Const Type 10.10 2.90 0.50 7.40 2.20 29.87 N/A Comment ABCD ABCD ABCDU BDW ABCDU 18.56 N/A EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Pavement Rating N/A N/A 26 12 24 29 13 NDOT Ranking 2017 2017 2013 2017 2013 First Yr Sch for Const 2012 2006 NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List BDW BD TS $1.20 $0.50 $2.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.25 $61.21 61.00 Various N/A -$0.21 N/A Balance Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service N57 N7044 N8015 N70 N4000 N4062/N4065 Various Area Wide A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Various Various Various Various All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders CS GDG GDG GDSB GD R S M Const Type GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.50 $61.22 61.00 -$0.22 $1.50 $0.00 $0.50 $1.20 $11.88 $11.70 $11.33 $5.70 $9.42 $2.57 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million(1) full full full full full full full full full IRR Funding Eastern Eastern Chinle Western NIIP NIIP Region Area Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory ADT Current Safety Need 275 534 28 68 N/A ? N/A N/A Low Low Low Low Low Low High N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 21 10 NDOT Ranking 2014 2013 2017 2014 2017 2011 2006 First Yr Sch for Const Grade and Drain Construction NDOT Ranking: Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance N/A Various Various N/A 0.00 0.00 Various 15.93 14.48 2.90 12.23 32.19 10.83 N/A Length Kilometers 9.90 9.00 13.30 7.60 20.00 6.73 N/A Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads ABCD DW ABCD ABCDU BDW BDW BD TS D Length Miles A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Canoncito School to CR334 NM602 to Chichiltah N27 to N7 Nazlini Grand Falls to N15 Blk IV rehab NIIP APS Mine & Airport South to Blk 8 Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology NN Archeology N57(1)2,3 N7044(1)2&3 N8015(1)1,2,3 N70(3)2 N4000 Series N4062(1-1)/N4065(1-1)4 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit * Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning Comment Pavement Rating Project Name/Description Route No. Project No. EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Fiscal Year 2037 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2037 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Route No. Fiscal Year 2038 N41 N36 N8086 N28 N9205 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 A B C D E F G H I J K T U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Project Name/Description Comment Length Miles Length Kilometers Const Type R GDS GDG GDBS GD M Est. Cost Million(1) $4.28 $16.44 $10.56 $10.71 $11.03 $0.00 $0.00 full full full full full full IRR Funding Northern Western Chinle Fort Def Ft. Def Region Agency Yes tribe Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory 1468 298 257 92 161 N/A ADT Current Low Low Low Low Low High Safety Need Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2038 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Project No. 13.52 16.09 14.16 9.90 23.66 N/A $1.20 8.40 10.00 8.80 6.15 14.70 N/A Various $0.50 Pavement Rating NDOT Ranking 2017 2011 2024 2017 2017 2006 First Yr Sch for Const EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 <50 28 32 14 14 19 N/A Grade and Drain Construction NDOT Ranking: Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.50 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 N/A BDW ABCDW ABCD ABCDU ABCD BD TS D N/A GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance $1.07 $0.00 Chaco Wash to Nenahnezad Chinle Agny Line to US160 Many Farms to Chinle US191 East to N9010 US191 to Sunrise Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders Peabody Owned Coal Lease Area Various Various N36(5B-1)(7B-1)4 N41(2)2&4 N8086(1)2,3 N28(2)1,2,4 N9205(1)2 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology NN Archeology Legend and Comments ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service Various Area Wide N41 N7049 CR1 N8086 N28 N60 N571 N332 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Various Various Various Various Various Various All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders Peabody Owned Coal Lease Area N/A 22.53 17.70 14.16 15.21 9.01 5.63 8.53 20.76 N/A Length Kilometers GD S GDG GDS GDS GDG GDG CS M Const Type GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.10 $61.22 61.00 -$0.22 $0.00 $0.00 $0.50 $1.20 $5.47 $5.23 $10.56 $15.54 $9.21 $2.87 $4.34 $1.29 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million(1) full full full full full full full full full IRR Funding Eastern Eastern Chinle Fort Def Fort Def Northern Northern Western Region Agency No County Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tribe Yes Project in Inventory ADT Current 227? 747 257 139 529 420 48 NA N/A Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Various N/A 14.00 11.00 8.80 9.45 5.6 3.50 5.30 12.90 N/A Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCDU CBD ABCD ABCD ABCD BD TS D A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects UN Mine North to Standing Rock Defiance to Wildcat Many Farms to Chinle N12 West to N9010 Dilcon to Teesto & Seba-Dalkai US64 to Rattlesnake N33 to Blackhorse Wash Black Mesa Chip Seal Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology N7049(2)2,3 CR1 N8086(2)2,3 N28(3)2,4 N60(1-1)2&4 N571(1)2,3 N332(1)2,3 N41(1-1)4 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning Length Miles Safety Need NA NA 60 N/A <50 NA No Data 14 16 No Data 18 18 32 NDOT Ranking 2017 2013 2024 2017 2014 2017 2017 2022 2006 First Yr Sch for Const NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High Pavement Rating Comment EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Project Name/Description Route No. Project No. Fiscal Year 2039 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2039 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2040 Route No. N34 N57 N56 N60 N29 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Project No. N34(1-1)4 N57(2)2&4 N56(1-2-3)2&4 N60(1-2)2&4 N29(3)2,3 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology Legend and Comments Project Name/Description IRR Funding full full full full full full full full First Yr Sch for Const EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 NDOT Ranking Agency Safety Need 60 ADT Current N/A Pavement Rating Project in Inventory Low Low Moderate Low Low High NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List 68 925 412 1512 529 105 N/A 2017 2017 2017 2014 2017 2006 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 35 22 38 No Data 14 Northern Northern Eastern Fort Def Chinle Region Region Region Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2040 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Comment Length Kilometers Est. Cost Million(1) Length Miles 14.81 11.59 12.57 9.01 2.90 N/A Const Type 9.20 7.20 7.81 5.6 24.00 N/A $1.23 $3.68 $10.80 $11.72 $9.21 $19.66 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 RC RC GDS GDS GDS M Various $0.50 BDW ABCDU BDW CBD ABCD BD TS D N/A $0.00 $0.00 US491 to Sanostee US64 to Gadiiahi NM Access Canoncito Access Widening Dilcon to Teesto & Seba-Dalkai Tachee Loop Road - Blue Gap Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Various Various Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $0.50 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 Non Project Inherent Federal Function N/A Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service N591 N9052 N9062 N9806 N9201 Various Area Wide A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ 0.00 13.68 17.38 35.08 12.55 9.33 N/A Length Kilometers GD GDG GDG GDG GDG M Const Type GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $0.50 $61.00 61.00 $0.00 $1.40 $0.00 $0.50 $2.00 $11.05 $8.85 $17.85 $6.39 $7.54 $1.00 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million(1) full full full full full full full IRR Funding Region Western Ft. Def Ft. Def Ft. Def Ft. Def Region Agency Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory ADT Current 258 138 325 53 501 N/A Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Various Various Various Various All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders N/A Various 0.00 8.50 10.80 21.80 7.80 5.80 N/A Various Various N/A ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD BD TS D Length Miles Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects N59 to Kayenta Balakai Rd SR264 to Agency Line Whitecone to Teesto Sunflower Butte to N6 Ganado North Mesa Road Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology N591(2)2,3 N9052(1)2,3 N9062(1)2,3 N9806(1)2,3 N9201(1)2,3 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project related Transportation Planning Comment Safety Need 211 N/A N/A 26 10 12 16 26 NDOT Ranking 2024 2017 2017 2017 2017 2006 First Yr Sch for Const NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Project is already listed on prior year Low Low Low Low Low High Pavement Rating Project Name/Description Route No. Project No. EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Fiscal Year 2041 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2041 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2042 Route No. N262 N5060 CR49 N7071 N8085 N8059 N28 N9901 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 Project No. N262(1)1,2,3 N5060(1)2,3 CR49(1)2 N7071(1)2,3 N8085(1)2,3 N8059(1)2&3 N28(4)2,4 N9901(1)2 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Related Transportation Planning NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology Legend and Comments Project Name/Description Chinle Wash Bridge US160 to UT State Line N49 county north loop Pinedale N56 south to Desidero Complex Center N27 to N7 Nazlini Low Mountain School Road N12 West to N9010 Seba Dalkai West Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders A ROW Needed B Environmental Assessment Needed C Archeological Clearance Needed D Surveying Data Needed E Construction Easement Needed F Design Completed G Design Plans Revision Needed H Design in Progress I Under Construction J Eligibility to be determined K Pending Request for Proposal T Transit Project U Utility Relocation Needed W Within Existing ROW ¥ Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Q Archeological Clearance is Questionable (!) Partially Funded ++ Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Length Miles Length Kilometers Const Type GDGB GDG GD GD GD GDS GDS GD M Est. Cost Million(1) $0.78 $4.10 $1.76 $0.27 $4.01 $16.46 $16.44 $11.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.50 $1.10 0.16 8.05 7.24 1.13 7.89 32.35 16.09 16.58 N/A N/A $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $0.50 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 $0.00 $0.00 Various 0.10 5.00 4.50 0.70 4.90 20.10 10.00 10.30 N/A IRR Funding full full partial full full full full full full Agency No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory 435 58 ? 49 50 58 139 119 N/A ADT Current Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low High Safety Need EXHIBIT A Pavement Rating 14 28 12 N/A NDOT Ranking First Yr Sch for Const 8/14/2009 N/A N/A <50 N/A 14 2024 2024 2026 2026 2024 2015 2017 2017 2006 N/A NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Northern Northern Eastern Eastern Chinle Fort Def/Chinle Fort Def Ft. Def Region Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2042 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Comment ABCD ABCDU ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCDU ABCD BD TS D N/A Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance GD Grade and Drain Construction GDG Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction GDS Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction RC Reconstruction R Pavement Rehabilitation CS Chip Sealing GDSB Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction PR Pavement Resurfacing BR Bridge Reconstruction * Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project ** Proposed Force Account Project CY Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP § Buy-Indian Project £ Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. (1) Excluding Funds from other sources (2) May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC $$ Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC M Road Maintenance Project BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service N5016 N5002 N7113 N52 N15 N9103 N3003 Various Area Wide Route No. A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Fiscal Year 2043 A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects US491 to N5012 US491 to N5001 Two Grey Hills Peshlakai Road- Mariano Lake Dalton Pass NHA Housing Access Sunrise to Greasewood SR264 Jeddito NW Chip Sealing Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various Project Name/Description ABCDU ABCDU ABCD ABCD BCD ABCD BDW BD TS D Comment Legend and Comments ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Various Various Various Various Various Various N/A Various 8.60 6.70 8.50 4.4/4 9.40 3.10 24.44 N/A Length Miles 13.84 10.78 13.68 13.52 15.13 4.99 39.33 N/A Length Kilometers GDG GDS GD GDG GDS GD CS M Const Type GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $0.50 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $0.50 $61.22 61.00 -$0.22 $0.50 $1.10 $10.32 $8.04 $10.20 $4.03 $15.45 $3.72 $2.93 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million(1) full full full full full full full full IRR Funding Northern Northern Eastern Eastern Fort Def Ft. Def NIIP Region Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory 349 133 82 140 1486 39 N/A N/A ADT Current Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Non Project Inherent Federal Function N/A Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded NRDOT Construction Projects for on-going construction NHA Housing Access Design & construction Access Roads NRDOT Construction Monitoring All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing NN Right-of-Way Administration under 638 NN Archeology HPD Task Orders NN Archeology N5016(1)2,3 N5002(1)2&3 N7113(1)2,3 N52(2)2,3/ N98(1)2,3 N15(3-1)2&4 N9103(1)2 N3003(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)4 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Transportation Planning Project No. Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2043 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM N/A N/A 140 <60 Pavement Rating 12 4 No Data 11 NDOT Ranking 2024 2024 2026 2024 2011 2017 2017 2006 First Yr Sch for Const NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low High Safety Need EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Project Name/Description Fiscal Year 2044 Project No. Route No. US491 to N19 Two Grey Hills SR371 Bisti to NM44 (Co-Op) Second Canyon Road to Pinedale Littlewater (Heart butte Loop) Teesto to Nahtee N6 Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various N192 CR7500 N7054 N481 N9065 Various Area Wide N192(1)2,3 SJCR7500 N7054(1)2&4 N481(2)2,4 N9065(1)2,3 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Transportation Planning BIA Direct Service Length Miles Length Kilometers Const Type Est. Cost Million(1) $1.68 $14.25 $11.70 $11.15 $15.72 $0.00 $0.00 $1.28 GDG GD GDS GDG GDG M $0.50 6.92 30.58 12.55 30.58 30.90 N/A N/A Safety Need EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 ADT Current First Yr Sch for Const Project in Inventory NDOT Ranking Agency N/A Pavement Rating IRR Funding Low Low Low Low Low High NA 26 112 703 206 163 N/A 2024 2014 2017 2024 2017 2006 Yes County Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 6 12 20 12 Northern Eastern Eastern Eastern Ft. Def Region NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List full full full full full full Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project $1.00 $0.00 $2.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.00 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 Various 4.30 19.00 7.80 19.00 19.20 N/A Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2044 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Comment ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD BD TS D GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Non Project Inherent Federal Function N/A Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects BIA Direct Service NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ N/A 13.52 12.07 13.20 12.54 18.49 16.09 16.09 16.09 14.48 14.48 N/A Length Kilometers GDG GDG GDG GDS GDS GDS GDS GDS GD GD M Const Type $1.88 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.00 $20.95 61.00 $40.05 $0.50 $1.20 $4.03 $3.60 $4.81 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million(1) full full full full full full full full full full full IRR Funding Eastern Eastern Eastern NIIP NIIP NIIP NIIP NIIP NIIP NIIP Region Agency Yes Yes Yes No No No No No NO NO Yes Project in Inventory GD Grade and Drain Construction GDG Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction GDS Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction RC Reconstruction R Pavement Rehabilitation CS Chip Sealing GDSB Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction PR Pavement Resurfacing BR Bridge Reconstruction * Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project ** Proposed Force Account Project CY Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP § Buy-Indian Project £ Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. (1) Excluding Funds from other sources (2) May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC $$ Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC M Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance Various Various Various Various Various Various Various N/A 4.4/4 7.50 8.20 7.79 11.49 10.00 10.00 10.00 9.00 9.00 N/A Length Miles Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCDQ ABCDQ BD ABCDU ABCDU ABCDU ABCDU BD TS D Comment A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Dalton Pass NHA Housing Access Littlewater to CR 19 Casamero Lake to N48 NIIP Block 9 NIIP Block 9 NIIP Block 10 Phase I NIIP Block 10 Phase II NIIP Block 10 Phase III Blk XI Phase II Blk XI Phase I Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various Project Name/Description A ROW Needed B Environmental Assessment Needed C Archeological Clearance Needed D Surveying Data Needed E Construction Easement Needed F Design Completed G Design Plans Revision Needed H Design in Progress I Under Construction J Eligibility to be determined K Pending Request for Proposal TS Transit Project U Utility Relocation Needed W Within Existing ROW ¥ Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Q Archeological Clearance is Questionable (!) Partially Funded ++ Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service N52(2)2,3/ N98(1)2,3 N482(1)2,3 N485(1)2,4 N4134/N4145/N4162(1)2&4 N4049/N4126/N4131(1)2,4 NIIP Block X NIIP Block X NIIP Block X N4000 Series N4000 Series Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Transportation Planning Project No. N52 N482 N485 N4134/N4145/N4162 N4049/N4126/N4131 N4000 N4000 N4000 N4000 N4000 Various Area Wide Route No. Fiscal Year 2045 Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP Fiscal Year 2045 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM 140 72 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A ADT Current N/A N/A N/A N/A 140 Pavement Rating 4 14 18 NDOT Ranking 2024 2024 2024 2003 2005 2006 2008 2009 2017 2017 2006 First Yr Sch for Const NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Project is already listed on prior year Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High Safety Need EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Project Name/Description Fiscal Year 2046 Project No. SR264 East of Steamboat to Sunrise Cornfield to N9205 SR264 north to Agency Line Castle Butte to N6 Sunrise Loop Rd to N15 Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various Route No. N9055(1)2 N9155(1)2 N25(1)2,3 N9860(1)2,3 N9005(1)2,3 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Transportation Planning BIA Direct Service N9055 N9155 N25 N9860 N9005 Various Area Wide BIA Direct Service NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 Legend and Comments A ROW Needed B Environmental Assessment Needed C Archeological Clearance Needed D Surveying Data Needed E Construction Easement Needed F Design Completed G Design Plans Revision Needed H Design in Progress I Under Construction J Eligibility to be determined K Pending Request for Proposal TS Transit Project U Utility Relocation Needed W Within Existing ROW ¥ Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Q Archeological Clearance is Questionable (!) Partially Funded ++ Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Comment ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD BD TS D N/A Length Kilometers Const Type Est. Cost Million(1) $11.40 $7.92 $7.62 $17.94 $8.52 $0.00 $0.00 Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Project in Inventory 77 79 254 117 74 N/A ADT Current Low Low Low Low Low High Safety Need N/A Pavement Rating EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 IRR Funding Ft. Def Ft. Def Ft. Def Ft. Def Ft. Def Region 12 7 16 8 11 NDOT Ranking 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2006 First Yr Sch for Const NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List full full full full full full Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP Fiscal Year 2046 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Length Miles GD GD GDG GD GD M $1.40 15.29 10.62 14.97 35.24 16.74 N/A $0.50 9.50 6.60 9.30 21.90 10.40 N/A N/A $1.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.00 $61.21 61.00 -$0.21 Various Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance GD Grade and Drain Construction GDG Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction GDS Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction RC Reconstruction R Pavement Rehabilitation CS Chip Sealing GDSB Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction PR Pavement Resurfacing BR Bridge Reconstruction * Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project ** Proposed Force Account Project CY Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP § Buy-Indian Project £ Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. (1) Excluding Funds from other sources (2) May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC $$ Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC M Road Maintenance Project BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service N15 N37 N9751 N9857 N4000 Various Area Wide Route No. A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Fiscal Year 2047 A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various Sunrise to Greasewood N9 South to Coal Mine Jeddito N9102 to N9062 N60 to Smith Butte Blk XII Phase I &II Region wide safety projects Project Name/Description ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous NRDOT Construction Funded Projects for on-going construction NHA Housing Access Design & construction Access Roads NRDOT Construction Monitoring All Projects in construction, QA NN Right-of-Way Consents and ROW Document Processing NN Archeology HPD Administration under 638 NN Archeology Task Orders N15(3-1)2&4 N37(1)2,3 N9751(1)2,3 N9857(1)2 N4000 Series Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Transportation Planning Project No. Various Various Various Various Various Various N/A Various 9.40 5.00 3.40 6.60 20.00 N/A Length Miles 15.13 8.05 5.47 10.62 32.19 N/A Length Kilometers GDS GDG GDG GD GD M Const Type GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M $1.13 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.00 $61.00 61.00 $0.00 $0.50 $1.20 $15.45 $4.10 $2.78 $7.92 $23.00 $0.00 $0.00 Est. Cost Million(1) full full full full full full IRR Funding Fort Def Ft. Def Ft. Def Ft. Def NIIP Region Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes NO Yes Project in Inventory Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance N/A BCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCDU BD TS D Comment Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2047 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM 1486 162 65 63 N/A N/A ADT Current N/A N/A <60 Pavement Rating No Data 14 12 10 NDOT Ranking 2011 2017 2017 2017 2017 2006 First Yr Sch for Const NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Project is already listed on prior year Moderate Low Low Low Low High Safety Need EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Fiscal Year 2048 Route No. N9010 N9010 N3003 Various Area Wide Project No. N9010(4)2,4 N9010(3)2,4 N3003(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)4 Maintenance Projects 204(b) Transit Chip Sealing NRDOT Planning, Survey, Design, NEPA, R/W Non-project Transportation Planning BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service NRDOT Construction NHA Housing Access NRDOT Construction Monitoring NN Right-of-Way NN Archeology HPD NN Archeology Project Name/Description Pine Springs to SR264 Pine Springs to SR264 Chip Sealing Region wide safety projects Transit Facility Project under PL93-638 Various A/E Contracts & In-house for all projects Non Project Inherent Federal Function Modifications & balances due on Previous Funded Projects for on-going construction Design & construction Access Roads All Projects in construction, QA Consents and ROW Document Processing Administration under 638 Task Orders ROW Needed Environmental Assessment Needed Archeological Clearance Needed Surveying Data Needed Construction Easement Needed Design Completed Design Plans Revision Needed Design in Progress Under Construction Eligibility to be determined Pending Request for Proposal Transit Project Utility Relocation Needed Within Existing ROW Major ROW, Utility, Archeolocial, etc., Problem Archeological Clearance is Questionable Partially Funded Critical Pavement Rehabilitation Work Needed Legend and Comments BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service BIA Direct Service P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 P.L. 93-638 A B C D E F G H I J K TS U W ¥ Q (!) ++ Length Kilometers Const Type Est. Cost Million(1) $15.25 $15.12 $2.93 $0.00 $0.00 IRR Funding full full full full Project in Inventory 190 190 N/A N/A ADT Current Low Low Low High Safety Need N/A Pavement Rating EXHIBIT A 8/14/2009 Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes 18 NDOT Ranking 2010 2010 2017 2006 First Yr Sch for Const NDOT Ranking: N/A Not Aplicable. Project is on ARC List N/A Not Aplicable. Project is not on ARC List Project is already listed on prior year Ft. Def Ft. Def NIIP Region Navajo Nation Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) Fiscal Year 2048 Final Update Navajo Nation Council's Transportation and Community Development Committee 40 Year Plan- INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM Comment Length Miles GDS GDS CS M $1.90 12.79 14.81 39.33 N/A $0.50 7.95 9.20 24.44 N/A N/A Various ABCD ABCD BDW BD TS D N/A $2.00 $0.00 $3.00 $0.14 $0.78 $1.00 $42.63 61.00 $18.37 Grade and Drain Construction Grade, Drain, and Gravel Construction Grade, Drain, and Surfacing (Pavement) Construction Reconstruction Pavement Rehabilitation Chip Sealing Grade, Drain, Surfacing (Pavement), & Bridge Construction Pavement Resurfacing Bridge Reconstruction Proposed Public Law 93-638 Project Proposed Force Account Project Project Carry Over from Prior Year TTIP Buy-Indian Project Project Designed by School Consultant, BIA perform Construction, ROW needs to be transferred to BIA. Excluding Funds from other sources May be used to supplement Road Maintenance Funding as authorized by TCDC Transportation Planning for Inventory Updates and other approved by TCDC Road Maintenance Project Various Various Various Various Various Various Total Estimated Amount Projected Funding Amount based on FY-2008 Funding Balance GD GDG GDS RC R CS GDSB PR BR * ** CY § £ (1) (2) $$ M