Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report December 2014 This report was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data, and for the use or adaptation of previously published material, presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. STUDY OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 1 Study Area Overview ........................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................................. 5 Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 6 Study Process ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) ...................................................................................................... 7 2. PREVIOUS STUDIES, REPORTS, AND PLANS ....................................................................... 8 Ongoing and Completed Studies ......................................................................................................... 8 Programmed and Scoped Projects ...................................................................................................... 16 3. LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS ................................................................ 17 Land Ownership ............................................................................................................................... 17 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions ..................................................................................................... 22 Future Development and Growth Trends ............................................................................................. 26 4. EXISTING AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ................................................... 27 Roadway Inventory ............................................................................................................................ Existing Roadway Characteristics......................................................................................................... Existing Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................................. Crash Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... Other Modes of Transportation .......................................................................................................... Future Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................................... 27 27 41 47 52 60 5. EVALUATION OF IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................. 75 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 75 Evaluation of Roadway Improvements ................................................................................................. 76 Evaluation of Intersection Improvements ............................................................................................ 105 Evaluation of Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Improvements.................................................................... 109 Evaluation of Transit Improvements ................................................................................................... 111 6. STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC OUTREACH......................................................................... 112 Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................... 112 Agency/Stakeholder Coordination .................................................................................................... 114 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page 7. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS .......................................... 117 Topography and Geology................................................................................................................ Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... Biology .......................................................................................................................................... Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... Prime and Unique Farmlands ........................................................................................................... Noise Impacts ................................................................................................................................ Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................................... Visual Resources ............................................................................................................................. Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................... Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources .............................................................................................. Environmental Justice Review (Title VI) ............................................................................................... 117 118 119 122 125 125 126 126 127 128 128 134 135 8 PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................... 136 Roadway Improvement Recommendations ......................................................................................... Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Improvement Recommendations ............................................................. Transit Improvement Recommendations............................................................................................. Aviation and Maritime Improvement Recommendations....................................................................... Functional Classification Recommendations ....................................................................................... Tribal Transportation Program Update Recommendations ................................................................... Title VI Implications ......................................................................................................................... 136 178 180 181 182 186 189 9. ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES........................................................................... 191 Benefits of Access Management........................................................................................................ Existing Access Management ............................................................................................................ Access Management Recommendations ............................................................................................ Access Management Tools and Strategies.......................................................................................... 192 192 193 193 10. ROADWAY MAINTENANCE PLAN .............................................................................. 199 Study Roadway Maintenance Needs .................................................................................................. 199 Roadway Maintenance Estimates ...................................................................................................... 210 11. TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................. 211 Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................. 211 Implementation Guidelines .............................................................................................................. 220 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Appendix A: Public Meeting 1 Summary Report Appendix B: Public Meeting 2 Summary Report Appendix C: Stakeholder Phase 1 Summary Report Appendix D: Stakeholder Phase 2 Summary Report Appendix E: BIA Tribal Transportation Inventory Update Recommendations Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report iii LIST OF TABLES Page 2.1: ADOT State Transportation Improvement Projects (STIP) FY 2015 – 2019 .............................................. 16 2.2: ADOT Airport Capital Improvement Program FY 2015 – 2019 ............................................................. 16 3.1: Population and Housing Unit Growth Trends ...................................................................................... 22 3.2: Existing Socioeconomic Data ............................................................................................................ 23 3.3: Potential Study Area Developments .................................................................................................... 26 3.4: Future Population, Housing Units, and Employment............................................................................. 26 4.1: FHWA Functional Classification Definition .......................................................................................... 29 4.2: BIA Functional Classification Definition .............................................................................................. 29 4.3: Study Area Railroad Crossings .......................................................................................................... 38 4.4: FHWA Bridge Condition Ratings........................................................................................................ 40 4.5: Crash Locations, Crash Rate, and Leading Crash Cause ...................................................................... 48 4.6: Health-Education and Wellness Center Transportation Demand by Month (FY 2012-13) ......................... 55 4.7: Means of Transportation to Work ...................................................................................................... 56 4.8: Travel Time to Work ........................................................................................................................ 56 4.9: Vehicles per Household .................................................................................................................... 57 4.10: Arizona Airport Ranking by Activity ................................................................................................... 58 5.1: Evaluation and Prioritization Criteria .................................................................................................. 75 5.2: Evaluation of Road Surface Treatment Projects .................................................................................... 78 5.3: Treatment and Maintenance Options for Unpaved Road Surfaces ......................................................... 80 5.4: Street Cross-Sections ....................................................................................................................... 81 5.5: Evaluation of Safety Improvements..................................................................................................... 86 5.6: Evaluation of Safety Projects ............................................................................................................. 89 5.7: Railroad Crossing Improvement Options ............................................................................................ 96 5.8: Evaluation of At-Grade Railroad Projects............................................................................................ 97 5.9: Evaluation of Railroad Crossing Options at Diamond Creek Road ........................................................ 98 5.10: Evaluation of Bridge Improvement Projects ....................................................................................... 99 5.11: Traffic Calming Options ............................................................................................................... 100 5.12: Evaluation of Traffic Calming Projects ............................................................................................ 103 5.13: Evaluation of Intersection Improvement Projects .............................................................................. 107 5.14: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Improvement Options......................................................................... 110 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report iv LIST OF TABLES Page 7.1: Special Status Species and Critical Habitats in Project Vicinity ............................................................. 120 8.1: Short-Term Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 136 8.2: Mid-Term Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 174 8.3: Long-Term Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 176 8.4: Recommended Roadway Functional Classification ............................................................................. 183 8.5: Summary of Proposed BIA Road System Mileage Revisions ................................................................. 186 8.6: Summary of Proposed Tribal Road System Mileage Revisions .............................................................. 186 8.7: Summary of Proposed Non-BIA Road System Mileage Revisions .......................................................... 186 8.8: Recommended Project Impacts and Advantages on Title VI Populations ............................................... 189 9.1: Driveway Spacing .......................................................................................................................... 197 10.1: Current Road Maintenance........................................................................................................... 199 10.2: Road Maintenance Activities ......................................................................................................... 200 10.3: Level of Development .................................................................................................................. 204 10.4: Level of Development 1 Maintenance Activities and Frequency ......................................................... 205 10.5: Level of Development 2 Maintenance Activities and Frequency ......................................................... 206 10.6: Level of Development 3 Maintenance Activities and Frequency ......................................................... 207 10.7: Level of Development 4 Maintenance Activities and Frequency ......................................................... 208 10.8: Level of Development 5 Maintenance Activities and Frequency ......................................................... 209 10.9: Road Maintenance Cost Estimates ................................................................................................. 210 11.1: Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................................................ 213 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report v LIST OF FIGURES Page 1.1: Study Area ........................................................................................................................................ 3 1.2: Study Area (Outlying Areas) ................................................................................................................ 4 1.3: Study Process .................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1: Land Ownership .............................................................................................................................. 17 3.2: Land Use and Major Activity Centers.................................................................................................. 20 3.3: Land Use and Major Activity Centers (Peach Springs and Valentine)....................................................... 21 3.4: Total Population Per Square Mile ...................................................................................................... 24 3.5: Total Housing Units Per Square Mile .................................................................................................. 25 4.1: FHWA-Approved Functional Classification.......................................................................................... 31 4.2: Roadway Surface Conditions ............................................................................................................ 32 4.3: Number of Lanes and Posted Speed Limits ......................................................................................... 34 4.4: Speed Limits Versus Actual Travel Speeds ........................................................................................... 35 4.5: Railroad Crossing Locations.............................................................................................................. 39 4.6: Level of Service ............................................................................................................................... 42 4.7: Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service .................................................................. 43 4.8: Existing Intersection Lane Configuration ............................................................................................. 44 4.9: Existing Intersection Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ................................................................. 45 4.10: Existing Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service ................................................................................. 46 4.11: Crash Location and Crash Severity .................................................................................................. 49 4.12: Crash Density and Major Cause of Crash......................................................................................... 50 4.13: Existing Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................................ 53 4.14: 2019 Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ..................................................... 61 4.15: 2019 Intersection Lane Configuration .............................................................................................. 62 4.16: 2019 Intersection Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes .................................................................. 63 4.17: 2019 Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service .................................................................................... 64 4.18: 2024 Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ..................................................... 66 4.19: 2024 Intersection Lane Configuration .............................................................................................. 67 4.20: 2024 Intersection Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes .................................................................. 68 4.21: 2024 Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service .................................................................................... 69 4.22: 2034 Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ..................................................... 71 4.23: 2034 Intersection Lane Configurations............................................................................................. 72 4.24: 2034 Intersection Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes .................................................................. 73 4.25: 2034 Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service .................................................................................... 74 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report vi LIST OF FIGURES Page 5.1: Road Surface Treatment Projects ....................................................................................................... 77 5.2: Safety Projects ................................................................................................................................. 88 5.3: Traffic Calming Projects ................................................................................................................. 102 5.4: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Improvements...................................................................................... 109 7.1: Topography and Geological Conditions .......................................................................................... 118 7.2: Hydrological Features and Prime Farmlands ..................................................................................... 124 8.1: Recommended Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Improvements................................................................ 179 8.2: Recommended Cross-section with Transit Pull-Out ............................................................................ 181 8.3: BIA and FWHA Functional Classification Systems .............................................................................. 183 8.4: Recommended BIA Functional Classification ..................................................................................... 184 8.5: Recommended FHWA Functional Classification ................................................................................ 185 8.6: Recommended NTTFI Updates ........................................................................................................ 187 8.7: Recommended NTTFI Updates - Outlying Districts ............................................................................. 188 9.1: Roadway Functional Classification Hierarchy .................................................................................... 191 9.2: Driveway Treatments ...................................................................................................................... 195 9.3: Raised Median at Intersections ........................................................................................................ 195 9.4: Frontage Road .............................................................................................................................. 196 9.5: Minimum Corner Clearances for Signature Intersections .................................................................... 197 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report vii 1. STUDY OVERVIEW The Hualapai Indian Tribe and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) conducted a longrange transportation plan to identify and address the most critical current and future transportation needs on the Hualapai Indian Reservation. The study was funded by the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) State Planning and Research Program and administered through ADOT’s Multimodal Planning Division's Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program. The primary goal of this study was to develop a transportation improvement plan that promotes safety and mobility, enhances economic vitality, improves community livability, encourages environmental and cultural sensitivity, and supports current and planned economic development. The study also included a comprehensive inventory update of the Hualapai Tribe's roads in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) Road Inventory Field Data System (RIFDS). Roadway conditions currently in the inventory were updated, additional roadways were added, and some roads were removed. Technical Advisory Committee The study was guided by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The role of the TAC was to provide technical guidance, support, advice, suggestions, recommendations, and to perform document reviews throughout the study process. TAC members included representatives from: • Hualapai Indian Tribe • Coconino County Public Works • Hualapai Public Works Department • Hualapai Planning Department • Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources • Mohave County Public Works • Bureau of Land Management • ADOT Kingman District Office • Hualapai Department of Natural Resources • BIA Western Regional Office - Division of • ADOT Flagstaff District Office • Western Arizona Council of Governments (WACOG) • ADOT Communications Transportation • Grand Canyon Resort Corporation • ADOT Multimodal Planning Division Stakeholders Study Overview To develop a thorough understanding of the issues, deficiencies, and needs, the study team identified and interviewed a core group of stakeholders on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 and Thursday, February 13, 2014. The stakeholders included representatives from all major Hualapai Tribal Government departments, Grand Canyon Resort Corporation, BIA Truxton Canon Agency, WACOG, Mohave County, Kingman Area Regional Transit, Peach Springs Unified School District #8, and ADOT. A second set of stakeholder interviews was conducted on Wednesday, July 9th, 2014 and Thursday, July 10th, 2014 to garner input on potential improvement recommendations. At both meetings, a questionnaire was distributed to each stakeholder present at the meeting and was followed up with an open discussion. Each phase of stakeholder outreach also included a presentation and discussion with Tribal members who utilize the Hualapai Senior Center. Chapter 6 provides a summary of the stakeholder outreach process. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 1 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW Established by the Executive Order of 1883, the Hualapai Indian Reservation occupies nearly 1 million acres of land along 108 miles of the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon. Traversing through three counties in northern Arizona, the Reservation consists of five separate areas, and has a tribal enrollment of 2,313. Located on Historic Route 66 and the Grand Canyon, the Hualapai Indian Tribe's economy relies heavily on tourism. Opened in March 2007, the Skywalk at Grand Canyon West has quickly become a major tourist destination in Arizona - allowing visitors the unique opportunity to view the Grand Canyon through a glass floor 4,000 feet above the Colorado River. Reservation areas analyzed for this study include: Main Reservation: The Main Reservation area is comprised of nearly 1 million acres of land in northwest Arizona. Located along Historic Route 66, Peach Springs is the capital of the Hualapai Indian Reservation and home to the Peach Springs Unified School District #8, Hualapai Lodge, and numerous Tribal Government facilities. Grand Canyon West, the Tribe's major tourism development is located in the northwestern portion of the Reservation. Tribal housing within the Main Reservation is primarily in Peach Springs and along Buck and Doe Road; however, some employee housing is available at Grand Canyon West. Valentine: Over 750 acres of trust land along State Route 66 are located within Valentine, approximately 10 miles west of the Main Reservation area. While primarily a rural and residential area, the BIA Truxton Canon Field Office is also located within Valentine. Truxton Triangle: Currently the Tribe is in the process of transferring a 142 acre parcel of undeveloped fee land northeast of Truxton into trust status. Big Sandy Allotments and Cholla Canyon Ranch: Located off US 93 near Wikieup in Mohave County, Big Sandy Allotments and Cholla Canyon Ranch are primarily ranching areas utilized by the Tribe. Currently, Cholla Canyon Ranch serves as a special event area with a guest ranch and cultural areas. Figures 1.1 and 1.2 provide an overview of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, the influence area, and study roadways. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Study Overview Influence Area: To access employment centers and schools in Kingman, Grand Canyon West, and Seligman, Tribal members must utilize non-tribal regional roadways on a daily basis. In order to provide the Hualapai Indian Tribe with a comprehensive long-range transportation plan that addresses all major roadways utilized by Tribal members, the influence area includes major routes such as State Route 66, Antares Road, Pierce Ferry Road, and Diamond Bar Road, which are maintained by Mohave County and ADOT. 2 Study Overview Figure 1.1: Study Area Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 3 Study Overview Figure 1.2: Study Area (Outlying Areas) Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 4 PURPOSE AND NEED The Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe was initiated to develop a phased, planning strategy to guide multimodal improvements with the ultimate goal of enhancing safety, accessibility, mobility, and economic growth. The need for this study stemmed directly from the Hualapai Indian Tribe's desire to increase economic vitality, improve community livability, update the existing roadway inventory, and to enhance transportation conditions along major local and regional transportation routes. The purpose of the project is demonstrated with the following statements of need: • Update the Tribe's Roadway Inventory. No official road condition survey has been completed on the Hualapai Indian Reservation since 1999. In order to qualify for federal funding, the Tribe's roadway inventory needs to be updated to reflect existing roadway conditions. • Promote Economic Growth and Community Livability. A plan for transportation investments that encourages economic growth while maintaining the cultural and historic nature of the study area needs to be developed. Transportation investments that provide multimodal, transportation choices and connections at the local and regional level can spur business growth and job creation, provide much needed transportation for the underserved area, encourage physical activity among residents, and promote tourism. • Accommodate Planned Growth. Grand Canyon West employee vans must take a detour route to/from Peach Springs due to the poor road conditions along Buck and Doe Road. As development occurs at Grand Canyon West, the demand for safe, reasonable travel time to/from Peach Springs will significantly increase and will require upgrades to facilities to accommodate traffic and to promote multimodal transportation. • Address Safety, Mobility, and Operational Needs. The current roadway network needs to be evaluated to identify solutions to improve safety and mobility, optimize traffic operations, develop maintenance procedures, and to enhance the overall streetscaping. Key issues that need to be addressed include: o Existing paved and unpaved roadways are in poor condition and are deteriorating; a strategic improvement plan needs to be developed to maximize funding. o State Route 66 through Peach Springs is in need of enhanced safety features and streetscaping to encourage tourism. o Vehicles travel at high speeds, particularly when approaching Valentine and Peach Springs, causing unsafe driving and walking conditions. o A high number of crashes occur on State Route 66, Diamond Bar Road, and Supai Road. o Roadways need to be upgraded to meet BIA design standards. o In order to qualify and compete for federal funding, the functional classifications of Tribal roadways need to be reclassified. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Study Overview o The BNSF Railroad splits the communities of Valentine and Peach Springs causing accessibility issues and potentially unsafe conditions at the at-grade crossings. 5 o The area has limited pedestrian walkways, crosswalks, bicycle facilities, and trails. o There is currently no public transit service for local or regional needs. • Provide Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trail Connections Between Activity Centers. Sidewalks and bike paths are limited and unsafe within numerous locations of the study area. Improvements are necessary to provide continuous and safe connections between business and activity centers for residents and for recreational purposes. The primary purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive, phased transportation improvement plan that can provide guidance to the Hualapai Indian Tribe when making future land use and transportation decisions. Recommendations in this study will enable the Hualapai Indian Tribe, Mohave County, Coconino County, and Yavapai County to facilitate safer and more efficient infrastructure for the traveling public and guide the development along the study roadways. Study findings will also be used to update the BIA’s Road Inventory Field Data System (RIFDS) to include changes to the Hualapai Indian Tribe’s National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory (NTTFI), and the Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP) for the next 5-year, 10-year and 20-year planning horizon periods. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES With the overall goal to improve safety and mobility, the primary purpose of this study was to: Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the multimodal transportation network within the Hualapai Indian Reservation. • Develop a three-phased Improvement Plan that promotes safety and mobility, supports economic development, and improves community livability. • Identify specific improvement strategies to address the needs of the study area. • Conduct a roadway field inventory and update the BIA RIFDS database. • Develop a Safety Plan that includes a prioritized list of safety improvement projects. • Develop a roadway maintenance plan that provides guidance on preservation, striping, signage, and pavement maintenance/re-paving cycle. • Communicate with Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), stakeholders, Tribal members, Tribal officials, and officials from Mohave, Coconino, and Yavapai County at appropriate intervals to present results and obtain feedback. Study Overview • Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 6 STUDY PROCESS Development of the transportation plan consisted of a comprehensive six phase process: data collection, analysis of existing and future conditions, stakeholder involvement, analysis of improvement scenarios recommendations, and public outreach. Throughout the process, the study team maintained consistent contact with the TAC, and stakeholders and conducted extensive public outreach efforts. Figure 1.3 illustrates the process that was utilized for this study. Working Paper 1: Existing and Future Conditions inventoried and analyzed the existing and future conditions in the study area, including existing transportation system deficiencies, issues, and needs. The First Public Open House was conducted on May 1, 2014 to present existing and projected transportation conditions and issues. Working Paper 2: Draft Transportation Improvement Plan, evaluated and identified improvement projects that addressed the needs and deficiencies identified in Working Paper 1. The Second Public Open House was conducted on August 20, 2014 to present the Draft Transportation Improvement Plan. Chapter 6 provides a summary of the public outreach process. Figure 1.3: Study Process TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (TTP) The NTTFI, which replaces the IRR inventory under the TTP, is a comprehensive national inventory of tribal transportation facilities that are eligible for assistance under the TTP. In order to obtain proper funding, it is imperative that the NTTFI accurately reflects the conditions of the tribal roadways. As a part of this study, a comprehensive roadway inventory was conducted in order to update the Hualapai Tribe's NTTFI, which was last updated 1999. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Study Overview Jointly administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA and BIA, the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP), formerly known as the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program, addresses the transportation needs of Tribal governments by providing safe and adequate transportation and public road access to and within Indian Reservations, Indian lands, and Alaska Native Village communities. Under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), the TTP generally continues the IRR program, but, includes two additional 2% takedowns for bridge replacement and safety projects. 7 2. PREVIOUS STUDIES, REPORTS, AND PLANS This chapter presents a review of studies, plans, and programs relevant to this study. Review of completed and current planning efforts often provides an insight into previously identified transportation issues and potential transportation improvements. This chapter also summarizes approved future transportation improvements within the study area. ONGOING AND COMPLETED STUDIES Grand Canyon West Master Plan The Grand Canyon West Corporation, in partnership with Plan/Et and Worth Group Architects, is in the process of developing a master plan for the Grand Canyon West area. The master plan includes an indepth assessment of current conditions and facilities, projected demand and growth patterns, and a framework for the land use and development of the Grand Canyon West. Hualapai Tribe Master Plan • • • • • • • • High Unemployment and Business Opportunities - creation of jobs and employment opportunities through economic development Overcrowded Housing - develop affordable housing opportunities Infrastructure Improvement - enhance existing Public Works programs to ensure the improvement of transportation network and utilities Peach Springs - develop a commercial corridor along State Route 66 and provide safe, livable housing areas with proper walkability Grand Canyon West - create a sustainable, planned community that supports housing and commercial developments Diamond Creek - expand recreational area to support eco-tourism, rafting operations, and limited commercial activities Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) - expansion of residential development to Mud Tank Road and commercial and residential development along State Route 66 to Music Mountain High School Frazier Wells - expand the Hualapai Youth Camp, provide tourist business ventures along Supai Road (BIA 18), and build employee housing Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Previous Studies, Reports, and Plans The Hualapai Tribe is currently in the process of developing their first Master Development Plan, which will help identify the Tribe's development priorities and help guide the Tribe's future. The study included conducting a community needs assessment survey to solicit input from Tribal members on their ultimate vision for the Reservation. Critical needs identified through the community needs assessment and ultimately the Master Plan included: 8 • • Valentine - add small, local-and-tourist commercial development while preserving the unique character of the community Clay Springs - energy and water resources development area 2000 Hualapai Tribe 20 Year Transportation Plan Update • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Grade, drain, and pave Diamond Bar Road (BIA 1) from Pierce Ferry Road (C025) to the reservation's western boundary (14.1 miles) to promote economic development at Grand Canyon West. Three-phased roadway improvement plan along Diamond Creek Road (BIA 101) to expand recreation opportunities along the Colorado River. Phase I entails realign, grade, and install drainage along the entire route; provide all-weather gravel surfacing in Phase II; and pave the roadway in Phase III. Grade, drain, and pave Grand Canyon West Loop Road to provide alternative access to the Grand Canyon West housing area. Construct two trails to provide education and recreational opportunities. o Grand Canyon West/Colorado River Loop Trail - Construct a rim-to-river-to-rim hiking trail (15.0 miles). o Yampai Canyon Loop trail - From the Hualapai Lodge south to Yampai Canyon Area (5.0 miles). Improve at-grade railroad crossing and pavement condition at Diamond Creek Road (BIA 101)/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. Conduct a Railroad Crossing Route Location Study to evaluate an alternative railroad crossing site location on Nelson Road (BIA 19). Realign, grade, drain, and pave unimproved section of Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) to provide safe access for visitors and employees to the Grand Canyon West. Realign and resurface Frazier Wells Road (BIA 10) and Oak Tank Road (BIA 15). Resurface Thornton Tower Road (BIA 17) from BIA Route 18 to BIA Route 13, Lone Pine Road (BIA 11). Grade, drain, and pave Peach Springs Cemetery Road (BIA 43), BIA Route 13, and Wilaha Road. Pave Clay Springs Road (BIA 2), Nelson Road (BIA 19), and Antares Road (Mohave County Route 261). Realign and resurface Oak Tank Road (BIA 15) to promote tourism. Grade, drain, and pave Hanaga Hill Drive, Miller Court, Shady Lane, Valley Lane, Rodeo Road, Rodeo Loop Road, and Wahonda Way in Peach Springs to alleviate flooding and improve access. Grade, drain, and pave BIA Route 103 routes in Valentine to access residences and the BIA Field Office in Valentine. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Previous Studies, Reports, and Plans The 2000 Hualapai Tribe 20 Year Transportation Plan Update identified the multimodal transportation needs for the next 20 years within the Hualapai Indian Reservation, in conjunction with development strategies for implementing improvements. Based on analysis of existing and future needs and deficiencies, the study developed a set of roadway, intersection, and multimodal improvement projects to enhance safety and mobility within the reservation. Recommended improvements included: 9 Conduct an Airport Facilities Location study to identify a site for the relocation of the Grand Canyon West airport facilities. • • Pave deteriorating gravel parking area to improve the Frontage Road in Peach Springs to improve access to the primary business area. Intersection improvements: o State Route 66/Diamond Creek Road (BIA 101): Add left-turn lanes in all directions and pedestrian crosswalks on State Highway 66. o State Route 66/Hualapai Way (BIA 101): Widen State Route 66 to add a left-turn lane and acceleration and a deceleration lane westbound and install east and westbound flashing warning lights. o State Route 66/BIA Lane (BIA 101): Widen eastbound State Route 66 to add a left-turn lane, stripe westbound State Highway 66 to add a deceleration lane, reduce westbound speed on State Highway 66 to 35 MPH, and install rumble strips and a flashing warning light on westbound State Highway 66 east of the intersection. o State Route 66/Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): Construct a westbound deceleration lane on State Highway 66, eastbound left-turn lane on State Highway 66, install flashing warning lights in each direction on State Highway 66, and on Buck and Doe Road add flashing signs of the approaching intersection. o State Route 66/Supai Road (BIA 18): Construct a separate left-turn lane on eastbound State Highway 66. o Relocate the Valentine Cemetery Road intersection and rail railroad crossing of Valentine to the north and grade and drain. 2011 BIA 18 Road Safety Assessment • • • Based on an analysis of ten years of crash data (2000 - 2009) from the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), the corridor's crash rate was 135 crashes per 100 million vehicle-miles (MVM), which is 62% higher than the average rate for Arizona 2-lane rural roads of 84 crashes per 100 MVM. 40% of all crashes that occurred on Supai Road (BIA 18) are animal related, with 27% striking an animal and 13% involving overturns due to driver swerving to avoid an animal on the road. Safety issues identified along Supai Road (BIA 18) within the Hualapai Indian Reservation included: o Poor pavement conditions with potholes, raveling, and cracks, especially between mileposts 21 and 26. Pavement conditions along Supai Road (BIA 18) were o Lack of centerline and edge line pavement cited as a major safety issues in the 2011 BIA 18 Road Safety Assessment Report. markings making nighttime travel difficult. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Previous Studies, Reports, and Plans Conducted in 2011, the BIA 18 Road Safety Assessment (RSA) was requested by the Havasupai Tribe to identify countermeasures to reduce motor vehicle crashes along the road. The study investigated roadway characteristics, historical crash records, and safety conditions to highlight various safety issues along the corridor. Key elements identified in the study include: 10 • o Improper signage and lack of signage warning vehicles of speeds and sharp curves. o Outdated guardrails with vegetation growth. Recommended improvements to the corridor included: o Chip seal surface treatment of the pavement between mileposts 0 and 40. o Install thermoplastic centerline and edge line markings to provide 12-foot lanes and 2foot shoulders. o Conduct a ball bank analysis of curves to determine appropriate warning signs, advisory speeds, and sign locations. o Provide consistent signing for speed zones. o Install roadside delineators at curves. o Replace outdated guardrails and remove vegetation in front of guardrails. o Install Open Range signs where appropriate and repair fences and cattle guards at locations that provide openings for livestock to access the road. 2011 SR 66 MP 96 to 112.3 Road Safety Assessment • • • • • • Based an analysis of ten years of crash data (2000 - 2009) from the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), the corridor's crash rate was 139 crashes per 100 million vehicle-miles (MVM). State Route 66 is a two-lane road with a speed limit of 65 MPH for the majority of the corridor, with speeds of 45 mph on the approaches to Peach Springs (MP 102.76 to 102.92, MP 103.74 to 104.76), and 35 MPH through Peach Springs (MP 102.92 to 103.74). Paved shoulders range from 7 to 8 FT in width in most locations, with curb and gutter in Peach Springs. The corridor generally has wide paved shoulders, newer guardrails, good sign reflectivity, proper vegetation management, good horizontal and vertical alignment, and adequate sight distance. Due to the rerouting of traffic from I-40 during closures, the study recommended that the Tribe Pavement deterioration was noted along State develop an Incident Management Plan and to Highway 66 from MP 96 to 112.3 RSA participate in ADOT’s Incident Management Plan. Safety issues generally identified along State Route 66 included: o Stop bars on intersecting roadways are faded or incorrectly placed, particularly on Hualapai Way (in which the stop bar is located 58 FT from the edge line). The study recommends relocating stop bars to improve sight distances. o There are no street signs at intersections, limited roadside delineators, no rumble strips on shoulders, and pavement markings are faded. The study recommends installing Elk Crossing signs where needed, street name signs at intersections, roadside delineators as Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Previous Studies, Reports, and Plans A Road Safety Assessment (RSA) of State Route 66 within the Hualapai Indian Reservation (milepost 96 to 112.3) was completed in 2011 upon request by the Hualapai Indian Tribe to identify safety improvements for the overall safety performance of State Route 66. Based upon an evaluation of historical crash records and a comprehensive field review, the following key elements were reported: 11 • • • Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Previous Studies, Reports, and Plans • needed, shoulder rumble strips, and to refresh pavement markings and turn lane markings at the high school. State Route 66/Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) Intersection: o East and westbound right-turn lanes on State Highway 66 to access roadway. o Pavement markings are faded and stop sign on Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) was installed at an improper height. o Pavement edge deterioration on the westbound State Highway 66 approach to the intersection. o Unpaved road access to Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) is in the middle of a curve, which upon development may cause safety issues. State Route 66 through Peach Springs: o On-street parking in front of the Hualapai Lodge causes sight restrictions for motorists exiting the Lodge parking lot. o Overgrown vegetation along the roadway reduces sign visibility and obstructs sidewalks. o Sidewalks are present west of the Lodge; however pedestrians were observed both day and night walking on the shoulder along State Route 66 east of the Hualapai Lodge. o The study recommended eliminating parking near the Hualapai Lodge driveways, trimming trees along sidewalks and shoulders, and extending the sidewalk at least to the Fire Department. State Route 66 from MP 104.4 to MP 105.7: o One mile segment of road with a long Faded pavement markings identified in the SR 66 MP 96 passing lane, speeds of 65 MPH, and a 6% to 112.3 RSA grade. Several signs are located on the westbound approach warning drivers of approaching reduced speed areas in Peach Springs. Paved shoulders narrow greatly in the passing lane section (MP 104.5). At the Juvenile Detention Center intersection the stop bar is faded and vegetation located east and west of the intersection restricts sight distance. Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings: o The Valentine crossing is a narrow, 15 FT lane with no Highway-Rail Grade Crossing advance warning signs. The crossing is utilized by the public; however, the crossing is listed in the Federal Railroad System as private. The study recommended that a request be made to the BNSF Railroad to improve the crossing to improve the alignment and width, install advance warning signs, install a yield or stop light, and install a "Look" sign with crossbucks. o The Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6) crossing includes flashing lights with automatic gates; however, advance warning signs are missing from the northbound approach. The study recommended installing an advance warning sign on the northbound approach, stop bars 12 on both approaches, and developing a communication plan with the BNSF Railroad to deal with crossing closures. 2013 Hualapai Housing Needs Assessment Completed in 2013, the Hualapai Housing Needs Assessment was conducted with the ultimate goal of quantifying the demand of housing on the Hualapai Indian Reservation. The study utilized the Hualapai Housing Department's Housing Data Systems (HDS) database and conducted an employer and employee survey and keypad polling to determine the existing housing supply, projected housing needs, and areas of potential development. The study concluded that an additional 210 homes are currently needed to alleviate crowding and to address the demand by the current workforce and if future growth continues to follow historical growth patterns, another 400 homes will be required by 2032. In addition, the report suggested that, based on historical growth, there will be a total of 1,560 jobs on the Hualapai Reservation by 2032. Based on the study's community event keypad polling, it was noted that 63% of respondents drive their own car to work while 6% carpool. Of the respondents identified Off-Reservation, Peach Springs, keypad polling respondents, 59% of all respondents Survey Buck and Doe Road, and Truxton as ideal locations for future stated that they would take a shuttle to and from housing projects. work if it were available, while 62% of employee respondents would take a shuttle. Employers that responded to the survey commented that the time required for Hualapai commuters to reach their workplace is a source of employee turnover; of those employers 31% reported having employee commuting related challenges. Employer respondents identified Peach Springs, Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1), Truxton, and Grand Canyon West as ideal areas for additional housing, while employees preferred Peach Springs, Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1), Truxton, and off-reservation areas. Developed for the Hualapai Indian Tribe, the Community Development and Strategic Energy Launch Plan was conducted with the purpose of outlining the needs of the Tribe and its members, along with the uniform goals of the Tribe. Through public participation, the study team indentified the Tribe’s history, positive trends, negative trends, advantages, and recent accomplishments. In addition, the study team helped tribal members come to agreement about a vision for the future of the tribe. The participants outlined the following goals: • • • • • • • • All Hualapai Tribal members should have access to free or affordable transportation. The Tribe needs to reach sustainable economic security. Use sustainable clean energy to aid protection of the environment. Achieve better relations and accountability between the Government and the people. Create energy independence. Help Tribal members live happy and healthy lifestyles. Integrate the cultural identity of the Tribe with daily life. Make healthy food available to the community. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Previous Studies, Reports, and Plans Community Development and Strategic Energy Launch Plan 13 • Create local access to various education options. • Allocate resources to care for the elderly. The participants to the study helped develop ways to achieve the goals before the year 2022. The workshop helped participants create a list of potential actions that could be taken by the Tribe to implement their vision. The recommended actions are as follows: • • • • • Coordinate a multi agency effort to establish a transit system with a mini-van route, mechanic shop, lower fuel costs, and a Tribal Transit System, which would serve local areas. Diversify development opportunities to nurture learning, growth, and achievement. Develop community awareness and participation in responsible energy opportunities. Communicate easy to understand information with opportunities for feedback. Identify a Tribal Council champion to participate and represent each effort. 2012 Hualapai Wind Project Feasibility Report Initiated by the Hualapai Department of Planning and Economic Development, the 2012 Hualapai Wind Project Feasibility Report was conducted with the purpose of evaluating the Hualapai Wind Project for site constructability, wind resource, transmission/interconnection, environmental, and overall economic feasibility. In addition, the study also identified the site area for development and its suitability for construction. The report included six different studies which yielded the following results: • The location study identified Grand Canyon West and Clay Springs areas as the best areas for developing a single, large wind project. o Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) was analyzed for transportation of construction equipment and did not show any fatal flaws.  A priority site area is located on the Hualapai Indian Reservation and features turbines with 80 meter and 92 meter hub height.  The secondary site is located on the Hualapai Potential wind farm locations analyzed in the 2012 Hualapai Wind Indian Reservation as well Project Feasibility Report. as adjacent BLM lands. This will increase potential for future developer interest. • Wind data collection was initiated in December 2005 on the Hualapai Indian Reservation and lasted through August 2012. After the analysis period, four of the initial five meteorological towers were operating at the end of the data analysis period. • As part of the study, engineers performed a transmission and interconnection feasibility analysis on three different Points of Interconnection based on engineering design and estimated costs. The transmission lines includes: Perkins to Mead 500kv line, Mead-Peacock 345kV line, and Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Previous Studies, Reports, and Plans o Two site options were evaluated for feasibility: 14 Moenkopi-Eldorado 500kV line. Upon completion of the study, the Mead-Peacock 345kV line was identified as the preferred Point of Interconnection. • The initial permitting and environmental assessment of the wind project site did not indicate any fatal flaws that would affect the viability of the project. • Additionally, the feasibility study found that the Hualapai Wind Project is economically feasible; however, the Tribal Council has declined the request to pursue a wind farm at this time. Hualapai Solar Project Feasibility Report The Hualapai Solar Project Feasibility Report was conducted under the guidance of the Hualapai Planning and Economic Development Department to meet the goals of the previously developed Strategic Energy Plan. The study aims to evaluate proposed design of solar facilities on Hualapai owned or entrusted lands. The report considered two solar development projects: • • Clay Springs Solar Project – a 100MW solar power plant development at Clay Springs. The Clay Springs Solar Project is comprised of an electrical generating facility transmission line connecting the plant to a new 345kV switchyard. Nelson Solar Project – a 20MW solar power plant development at Nelson with interconnection to an existing 69kV transmission line owned and operated by Mohave Electric Cooperative. The study process identified that the project will be beneficial to the Hualapai Indian Tribe's economic stability by: Creating significant revenues for the Hualapai Indian The Hualapai Solar Project Feasibility Report evaluated Tribe by way of land lease revenues and/or electricity the feasibility of developing solar generating facilities in Clay Springs and along Nelson Road. sales. • Increasing the number of jobs by adding about 250 construction jobs and 15-25 full-time positions for each of the two sites. • Helping the Tribe increase its industrial portfolio by adding solar technologies. • Preserving and benefitting the environment through clean, renewable, and sustainable technology. • Contributing to a sustainable future by reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy. Finally, the study results conclude that both of the proposed projects are feasible and will provide multiple long-term benefits. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Previous Studies, Reports, and Plans • 15 PROGRAMMED AND SCOPED PROJECTS ADOT's Multimodal Planning Division publishes the Arizona State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which identifies priority transportation projects that utilize federal funds over a five-year timeframe. The ADOT MPD Planning and Programming section compiles the STIP from a list of projects from regional transportation improvement programs’ TIPs. Projects included in the STIP are consistent with statewide long-range transportation plan and metropolitan TIPs. The STIP includes projects recommended by the Tribal Transportation Program's (TTP) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for all federally recognized Tribes in Arizona. The Hualapai Indian Tribe's TIP is included in the BIA Western Region's TIP. Table 2.1 lists the improvement projects included in the Draft Arizona State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Fiscal Years 2015-2019. Table 2.1: ADOT State Transportation Improvement Projects (STIP) FY 2015 – 2019 Year Project Location 2014 H68605 : Supai Road Type of Improvement Safety Improvements Total Costs $980,174 Source: ADOT Multimodal Planning Division In conjunction with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and public airports, ADOT develops a Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) for airport development. Funding for the Airport Program is mainly derived from flight property tax, aircraft lieu tax, aircraft registration, and aviation fuel tax. Table 2.2 lists the improvement projects included in the Draft 2015-2019 Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program. Table 2.2: ADOT Airport Capital Improvement Program FY 2015 – 2019 Year Type of Improvement Total Costs 2015 Conduct EA for new terminal building $650,000 2015 Regrade and modify drainage to address ponding water $200,000 2016 Design for terminal building on west side of runway $1,500,000 2017 Construct terminal building on west side of Runway (Phase 1) $16,499,000 2018 Construct terminal building on west side of Runway (Phase 2) $16,499,000 2019 Construct Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) and SRE facility (design only) Source: ADOT Multimodal Planning Division Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report $500,000 Previous Studies, Reports, and Plans Grand Canyon West Airport 16 3. LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS This section summarizes current and future land use and socioeconomic conditions for the study area. LAND OWNERSHIP The Hualapai Indian Reservation covers approximately one-million acres along the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona. In 1925, the U.S. Department of the Interior restated recognition that the Hualapai Tribe is the rightful legal owner of the entire Hualapai Reservation by right of occupancy. In addition to the main reservation area, the Reservation consists of the following separate areas: Valentine, Big Sandy Allotments, Cholla Canyon Ranch, and Clay Springs. The Tribe has also acquired properties through purchase and donations, including 142 acres of fee land currently in the process of conversion in the Truxton Triangle and 360 acres in Cholla Canyon Ranch. The Tribe also has plans for future land acquisition in Big Sandy Allotments and Cholla Canyon Ranch. Surrounding the Hualapai Indian Reservation are the Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Land Department, the federally maintained Grand Canyon National Park, the Havasupai Indian Reservation, and private owners. Figure 3.1 illustrates the land ownership within the vicinity of the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions Figure 3.1: Land Ownership Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 17 LAND USE Integrating land use into transportation planning is essential so communities can support "smart growth" processes and promote sustainable development. Sustainable development improves mobility, supports economic growth, and ensures the financial stability of the transportation system. This approach helps maintain the quality of living for the people, the quality of the community as a whole, and also reduces the need for roadway expansion. • Residential: According to the Hualapai Tribe Master Plan, residential land uses within the Reservation include: rural density (1 dwelling per acre), low density (1-2 dwelling units per acre), medium density (3-8 dwelling units per acre), and urban (9-16 dwelling units per acre). Residential areas primarily consists of rural to medium density single family homes in Peach Springs, along Buck and Doe Road, Valentine, and at the Grand Canyon West. Due to the remote location of the Grand Canyon West, temporary dwelling units were added to provide housing for employees. Future residential expansion is expected to occur in the Box Canyon area along Buck and Doe Road, in the Truxton Triangle, and at the Grand Canyon West. • Agriculture/Forestry/Grazing: With approximately 750,000 acres of rangeland, agriculture is the predominant land use within the Reservation. The majority of the rangeland is held for forestry and woodland purposes. In addition, rangeland is divided into five separate grazing districts, each with their own range management plan, for ranching and farming purposes. In addition to cattle grazing, crops such as corn, squash, alfalfa, and watermelon are grown on portions of the Big Sandy Allotments. The Tribe's Natural Resources Department also maintains a fish hatchery facility off of Supai Road (BIA 18) in Frazier Wells. • Education: Located northwest of the Diamond Creek Road/Shady Lane intersection, the Peach Springs Unified School District #8 provides education to Tribal members from kindergarten to 8th grade. According to the Arizona Department of Education, 194 students are enrolled at Peach Springs Unified School District #8. The Hualapai Head Start program, located on Hualapai Way in Peach Springs, serves approximately 57 children. Since the closure of Music Mountain Junior/Senior High School on State Route 66, students now attend high schools in Kingman or Seligman. Valentine Elementary School, in Truxton, is a public school with approximately 68 students from kindergarten to 8th grade. • Institutional/Government: The majority of Tribal and government institutions are located within Peach Springs, with the exception of BIA Field office in Valentine. Government facilities located in Peach Springs include: Hualapai Tribal Headquarters, Hualapai Tribal Juvenile and Adult Detention centers; Hualapai Day Care; Hualapai Housing Authority (HHA), Hualapai Elderly Center, U.S. Post Office, Tribal Court, Emergency Medical Service, and the Planning Department. • Health: Located in Peach Springs, the Indian Health Service (IHS) clinic and the Hualapai Health Education and Wellness Department provide non-emergency health services to Tribal members. The Hualapai Nation Emergency Service Department provides emergency transportation to the nearest hospital in Kingman as necessary. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions Existing land use data was compiled based on existing planning documents and a comprehensive field review. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 illustrate existing land uses within the study area per the 2000 Hualapai Tribe 20 Year Transportation Plan Update and the Hualapai Master Plan. As illustrated in the figures, land use types include: 18 Commercial: Commercial services within the Reservation are primarily located in Peach Springs and Grand Canyon West. Within Peach Springs, commercial land includes the Hualapai Cultural Center, Best Market & Deli (currently in the process of being remodeled by the Grand Canyon Resort Corporation), the Hualapai Lodge, Diamond Creek Restaurant, and Pop's Laundromat. The international tourist destination of the Grand Canyon West is the Tribe's largest commercial development, and includes a heliport, visitor’s center, multiple dining facilities, the Grand Canyon Skywalk, overnight lodging facilities, and scenic viewpoints of the Grand Canyon. The Hualapai Lodge, in Peach Springs, is also the headquarters of the Hualapai River Runner's rafting operations that provides river rafting tours along the Grand Canyon. Commercial services located on State Route 66 are primarily establishments for tourists, such as a hotel and RV park in Truxton and the Grand Canyon Caverns east of the Reservation. In Truxton there is also a fullservice gas station, an auto repair shop, and a convenience store. Future commercial developments are proposed at the Grand Canyon West, in Peach Springs, along State Route 66, and along Supai Road (BIA 18). • Industrial: Lhoist North America owns and operates a lime quarry and plant on Nelson Road (BIA 19) southeast of Peach Springs. Additionally, there is an existing five acre flagstone quarry west of the Reservation. • Public and Recreation: Recreational facilities located in Peach Springs include the Francis Munoz Roping Arena, the Warren Querta Memorial Gym, a children's playground, the Veterans' Memorial Park, Boys and Girls Club, and a community park on State Route 66. The Colorado River Recreation area, located at the terminus of Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6), hosts a boat launch for the Hualapai River Runners as well as fishing and hiking opportunities. Located on Youth Camp Road (BIA 17), the Hualapai Tribe maintained Youth Camp provides camping, fishing, and recreational opportunities for Tribal and non-Tribal groups. Additional recreation areas include a scenic site off of Pine Springs Road (BIA 22), Twenty Pines recreational area off Supai Road (BIA 18), and a playground in the Milkweed subdivision. • Undeveloped Open Space: Undeveloped open space includes areas that are preserved due to cultural sensitivity or preservation, as well as areas that are not likely to be developed due to topography. Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions • Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 19 Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions Figure 3.2: Land Use and Major Activity Centers Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 20 Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions Figure 3.3: Land Use and Major Activity Centers (Peach Springs and Valentine) Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 21 EXISTING SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS A review of existing population and employment was conducted to understand the demographic characteristics of the Hualapai Indian Reservation and the surrounding region. As identified by the US Census Bureau, Table 3.1 summarizes the population and housing unit growth trends from 2000 to 2010 for the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Peach Springs Census Designated Place (CDP), Valentine CDP, Truxton CDP, Grand Canyon West CDP, Mohave and Coconino County, and the State of Arizona. According to the US Census Bureau, the Hualapai Indian Reservation overall had a slight decrease (1.3 percent decrease) in population since 2000, while Peach Springs CDP's total number of housing units and population dramatically increased. This significant increase can primarily be attributed to the geographic expansion of the Peach Springs CDP to include the housing developments of Buck and Doe and Milkweed Springs. Table 3.1: Population and Housing Unit Growth Trends Population Housing Units 2000 2010 2000 2010 Population Growth Hualapai Reservation 1353 1335 -1.3% 351 422 20.2% Peach Springs CDP 600 1090 81.7% 219 334 52.5% Valentine CDP - 38 - - 14 - Truxton CDP - 134 - - 73 - Grand Canyon West CDP - 2 - - 19 - Mohave County 155,032 200,186 29.13% 53,443 63,321 18.5% Coconino County 116,320 134,421 15.6% 80,062 110,911 38.5% State of Arizona 5,130,632 6,392,017 24.6% 2,189,189 2,844,526 29.9% Geographic Area Housing Unit Growth Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5 illustrate the total population and housing units per square mile, respectively. As illustrated in the figures, areas with high population and housing unit concentrations are located within Peach Springs, Valentine, along Buck and Doe Road, and in Truxton. According to the 2010 US Census, nearly 82% of the Hualapai Indian Reservation's population resides within Peach Springs. The highest concentration of housing units and population is located north of Hualapai Way between Diamond Creek Road and State Route 66; this area contains 41.6% of the Reservation's population. Areas within Peach Springs and along Buck and Doe Road with a lower housing density but higher population density suggest that the areas are comprised of dwelling units with a high occupancy rate. The 2010 US Census determined that 86% of housing units on the Reservation are occupied with an average household size of 3.68; which is higher than the Arizona state average household size of 2.63. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions Source: 2010 US Census, 2000 US Census *Valentine CDP, Truxton CDP, Grand Canyon West CDP were newly defined for the 2010 US Census 22 Employment Overview To determine primary employment industries and current employment levels within the Reservation, meetings were held with Hualapai officials and data was compiled from ReferenceUSA. Based on the ReferenceUSA database, there are approximately 960 employees within the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Based on the input from Hualapai officials, major employers for Tribal members include: • Tribal government/institutions - 350 employees • Grand Canyon Resort Corporation - 550 employees The Grand Canyon Resort Corporation, a major employer for Tribal and non-Tribal members and the leading economic generator for the Hualapai Tribe, includes the following enterprises: • Grand Canyon West. Grand Canyon West is a 9,000 acre development along Grand Canyon's West Rim. Established on February 14, 1988, Grand Canyon West has developed into a major tourist attraction that received approximately 800,000 visitors in 2012. The most well known attraction is the Grand Canyon Skywalk, which is a glass bridge extending from the Canyon's edge giving visitors an unrivaled view of the Grand Canyon and Colorado River. Additional attractions include a scenic view point and dining facility at Guano Point, the Native American Village, an amphitheater to showcase live Native American performances, the Hualapai Market, and Hualapai Ranch. • Hualapai Rivers Runners. Headquartered at the Hualapai Lodge, the Hualapai River Runners offer one and two-day rafting trips along the Colorado River from Diamond Creek Road to Grand Canyon West. • Hualapai Lodge. Located in Peach Springs, Hualapai Lodge is a 60-room hotel that hosts a small gift shop, two meeting rooms, and a full-service restaurant. The Lodge is the headquarters for the Hualapai River Runners and is frequented by tourists traveling along Route 66 or visiting Havasupai Falls. • Diamond Creek Restaurant. Located at the Hualapai Lodge, Diamond Creek Restaurant is a fullservice restaurant open for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. For this study, a travel demand model was developed to evaluate the existing and projected performance of the Tribe's roadway network and to quantify the impacts of roadway improvements. A road network was created utilizing a system of links and nodes to represent existing streets and intersections. Population, housing units, and various types of employment categories were inventoried for each Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) in the study area. TAZs are geographic subdivisions of the study area bounded by roads, political boundaries, natural and man-made geographical constraints (such as rivers, washes, etc.). Table 3.2 summarizes the population, housing units, and detailed employment in the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Table 3.2: Existing Socioeconomic Data Socioeconomic Data Variable Units Total Population Persons Housing Units Dwelling Units 422 Occupied Dwelling Units Dwelling Units 362 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 1,335 Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions Travel Demand Model 23 Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions Figure 3.4: Total Population Per Square Mile Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 24 Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions Figure 3.5: Total Housing Units Per Square Mile Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 25 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH TRENDS Forecasting socioeconomic conditions allows planners to anticipate changes in future travel demand and to envision potential solutions. Development of rational projections for population, housing units, and employment for each horizon year is vital to the process of forecasting realistic traffic volumes. Potential future developments within the study area identified in the Hualapai Tribe Master Plan and input received from Tribal officials are outlined in Table 3.3. Table 3.4 lists the estimated population and housing unit totals for the next 5- 10-, and 20-year horizon periods. Table 3.3: Potential Study Area Developments Potential Development Grand Canyon West • Residential development - approximately 100 homes constructed by 2034. • Expansion of facilities including a hotel, new airport terminal, RV parks and campgrounds and additional tourist facilities. • Commercial facilities to include a convenience store, gas station, grocery store, and restaurants. Diamond Creek • Expanded recreational opportunities to include camping, RV facilities, hiking, trail riding, and limited commercial activities such as a convenience store. State Route 66 and Buck and Doe Road • Commercial services along State Route 66 serve tourists and light industrial development. Truxton Triangle • 142 acre fee land conversion to Trust Land. • Residential development - approximately 100 homes constructed by 2034. Peach Springs • Increased tourist and commercial facilities along State Route 66. • Expansion of Elderly Center and Adult Detention Center. • Remodel existing grocery store next to Post Office and fuel station. • Residential development - approximately 62 new housing units in Box Canyon along Buck and Doe Road. • New Natural Resources building at the existing location. Frazier Wells • Youth Camp Pavilion expansion - 24 person bunk house, RV park, meeting pavilion, and recreation facilities. • Commercial facilities on Supai Road (BIA 18) along with employee housing. Valentine • Residential development - approximately 20 homes constructed by 2019. Clay Springs • Renewable energy and water resources development, including a potential wind and solar farm. Cholla Ranch • Commercial facilities to include a guest ranch, cultural attractions, RV parking, hiking and equestrian trails, and camp sites. Mohave County • Mohave County Wind Farm • Hualapai Valley Solar Table 3.4: Future Population, Housing Units, and Employment 2014 2019 2024 2034 1,335 1,501 1,815 1,999 Total Housing Units 422 467 552 702 Employment 960 980 1,020 1,560 Total Population Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions Planning Area 26 4. EXISTING AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS This section inventories essential elements of the existing transportation system and documents the status/condition of each element. Major elements inventoried include roadway characteristics, crash history, and roadway performance conditions. ROADWAY INVENTORY A two-phase roadway inventory program was developed in order to identify roadway conditions on major roadways and for the update of the NTTFI. The first phase of the roadway inventory was conducted in February 2014 of major roadways within the Hualapai Indian Reservation and other major regional routes utilized by Tribal members. Phase two of the roadway inventory was conducted in July 2014 and October 2014 that primarily included rural and other lesser traveled roadways within the reservation. In order to streamline data collection, a field inventory data collection sheet was developed to document roadway characteristics per the requirements set-forth by the BIA. Upon completion, field data collection sheets will be transferred to BIA inventory forms, along with photo and map attachments, for submittal to Road Inventory Field Data System (RIFDS). The roadway inventory included conducting a windshield survey and video logging roadway segments to capture the following key items: • Road identification - length, class, location, road purpose • Roadway conditions - number of lanes, width, surface conditions, shoulders • Drainage - bridge locations and drainage conditions • Alignment conditions • Safety hazards EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS The study area is comprised of a network of over 900 miles of paved and unpaved roadways. Regional roadways that serve the Hualapai Reservation include a network of roadways that connect residential areas with employment and educational facilities. Major roads serving the Hualapai Indian Reservation include: • • • • State Route 66: Regional highway connecting Kingman, Valentine, Truxton, Peach Springs, and Seligman. Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): North-south roadway that provides the primary access to Grand Canyon West from Peach Springs. Buck and Doe Road's conditions range from paved to dirt and gravel. Due to the poor conditions of the roadway, Grand Canyon West employee vans utilize an alternate travel route consisting of various county and state roads which results in a 157-mile daily commute versus a 100-mile commute on Buck and Doe Road. Diamond Creek Road (BIA Route 6): Unimproved roadway, which provides access to the Colorado River Recreation Area traverses along the Peach Springs Wash north of Peach Springs. Supai Road (BIA Route 18): Major tourist route for visitors traveling to the Havasupai Indian Reservation, Supai Road is a two-lane roadway on the eastern portion of the Reservation. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions The following sections provide an overview of information provided in the NTTFI as well as conditions identified during a comprehensive field review conducted by the study team. 27 • • • Antares Road: Mohave County maintained, bladed roadway that connects State Route 66 to Pierce Ferry Road/Diamond Bar Road. Pierce Ferry Road: Mohave County maintained, paved roadway that serves as the major tourist route for visitors from Las Vegas traveling to Grand Canyon West. Diamond Bar Road: Connects Pierce Ferry Road to the Hualapai Indian Reservation and the Grand Canyon West. Recently a nine-mile, unpaved portion of Diamond Bar Road was graded, paved, and realigned to improve safety and to promote economic development at the Grand Canyon West. In a study conducted by Harvey Economics, it was concluded that with the reconstruction of Diamond Bar Road, the Grand Canyon West may see a 20 percent increase in visitors. Functional Classification Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes according to their role of moving traffic through a roadway network. Planners and engineers utilize this hierarchy to establish a roadway's design standards, speed, capacity, access management features, and land use development. Functional classification also impacts a roadway's eligibility for federal transportation funds for road improvements and maintenance. Roads within the Hualapai Indian Reservation are classified by both FHWA and BIA functional classification system. • • Rural Major Collector: o State Route 66 o Pierce Ferry Road Rural Minor Collector: o Antares Road o Diamond Bar Road (BIA 1) o Diamond Creek Road (BIA 101): SR 66 to Shandy Lane o Hualapai Way (BIA 101): Diamond Creek Road to SR 66 o Nelson Road (BIA 19): Yavapai County portion only Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions FHWA Functional Classification Federal Functional Classification is assigned to all public roads using federal guidelines and is approved by FHWA. Table 4.1 provides an overview of each FHWA approved classification within rural areas. Although tribal governments primarily receive funding through BIA, in order to qualify for federal funds roadways must be federally classified as a minor collector or above. Roadways that do not have a FHWA-approved functional classification are deemed ineligible for federal funding. Figure 4.1 illustrates the FHWA provided functional classification within the study area. Based on FHWA-approved functional classifications, the following roadways within the study are federally classified: 28 Table 4.1: FHWA Functional Classification Definition Classification Principal Arterial Description Serve corridor movements having trip length and travel density characteristics indicative of substantial statewide or interstate travel. They serve and connect most areas with populations of 25,000 or more, and provide an integrated network of continuous routes without stub connections. Minor Arterial Link cities and larger towns and form an integrated network providing interstate and inter-county service. Are spaced at appropriate intervals to allow for a reasonable distance from developed areas. They have relatively high travel speeds and minimum interference to through movements. Major Collector Primarily serve intra-county rather than statewide travel, by linking county seats, larger towns, and other traffic generators to nearby towns and cities or higher classified routes. Minor Collector Provide access for population and traffic from locals roads to major collectors. Typically serve smaller communities and link local, traffic generators. Local Roads Provide access to land next to the collector network and several travelers over short distances. Source: FHWA BIA Functional Classification Roadway functional classification data was obtained from the existing BIA NTTFI roadway inventory. Table 4.2 lists the BIA functional classification types and definitions. According to the existing NTTFI inventory, 673.8 miles of roadways within the Hualapai Indian Reservation are classified as class 4 and 3. Upon discussion with the BIA Western Office, it was determined that the functional classification of roadways in the current NTTFI needs to be updated to reflect changes made to the BIA functional classification guidelines in 2007. Class 1 Description 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 than two lanes of traffic. 2 Rural minor arterial roads providing an integrated network having the characteristics for serving traffic between large population centers, generally without stub connections. May also 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. Generally provide for at least inter-county or inter-state service and are spaced at intervals consistent with population density. This class of road will have less than 10,000 vehicles per day. 3 Streets that are located within communities serving residential areas. 4 Rural major collector road is collector to rural local roads. 5 Rural local road that is either a section line and/or stub type roads, make connections within the grid of the TTP system. This class of road may serve areas around villages, into farming areas, to schools, tourist attractions, or various small enterprises. Also included are roads and motorized trails for administration of forests, grazing, mining, oil, recreation, or other use purposes. 6 City minor arterial streets that are located within communities, and serve as access to major arterials. Source: Bureau of Indian Affairs Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Table 4.2: BIA Functional Classification Definition 29 Table 4.2: BIA Functional Classification Definition (Continued) Class 7 Description City collector streets that are located within communities and serve as collectors to the city local streets. 8 This class encompasses all non-road projects such as paths, trails, walkways, or other designated types of routes for public use by foot traffic, bicycles, trail bikes, snowmobiles, all terrain vehicles, or other uses to provide for the general access of non-vehicular traffic. 9 This classification encompasses other transportation facilities such as public parking facilities adjacent to TTP routes and scenic byways, rest areas, and other scenic pullouts, ferry boat terminals, and transit terminals. 10 This classification encompasses airstrips that are within the boundaries of the TTP system grid and are open to the public. These airstrips are included for inventory and maintenance purposes only. 11 This classification indicates an overlapping or previously inventoried section or sections of a route and is used to indicate that it is not to be used for accumulating needs data. This class is used for reporting and identification purposes only. Source: Bureau of Indian Affairs Roadway Surface Conditions • Milepost 72 - 79: Fair condition, IRI 103-132 • Milepost 92 - 113: Fair condition, IRI 105 - 141 • Milepost 118 - 119: Fair condition, IRI 116 Condition Term Categories Very Good Good Fair Mediocre Poor IRI Rating Interstate < 60 60 – 94 95 – 119 120 – 170 > 170 Other < 60 60 – 94 95 – 170 171 – 220 > 220 FHWA International Roughness Index Rating Classification It is important to note State Route SR 66 was chip sealed between MP 62 and 81 in 2012; therefore improving conditions. The remaining study roadway conditions were determined through visual inspection during the roadway inventory. Figure 4.2 provides an illustration of roadway conditions within the Hualapai Indian Reservation. The study area is comprised of over 910 miles of roadways, of which 22 miles were determined to have poor pavement conditions and 713 miles are unpaved. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Pavement condition information for ADOT owned facilities was obtained from the ADOT Pavement Management System. The FHWA rates pavement conditions with the International Roughness Index (IRI). This index is a statistic used to estimate the amount of roughness in a measured longitudinal profile. Based on 2011 IRI values, the pavement condition of State Route 66 is in good condition except for the following segments: 30 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.1: FHWA-Approved Functional Classification Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 31 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.2: Roadway Surface Conditions Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 32 Number of Lanes Data regarding the number of lanes on each major study roadway was collected during the field review portion of this study. As illustrated in Figure 4.3, the majority of study roadways are two lane roadways, except the following: • State Route 66 - MP 86 to MP 90: Two eastbound lanes and one westbound lane • State Route 66 - MP 104.79 to MP 105.73: Two lanes in each direction • State Route 66 - MP 103.16 to MP 103.54: One lane in each direction with a center turn lane through Peach Springs • State Route 66 - MP 115 to MP 115.67: Divided, four-lane roadway with two lanes in each direction Posted Speed Limits Posted speed limits were recorded during the roadway inventory and Figure 4.3 provides an illustration of posted speed limits. As illustrated in the figure, speed limits within the study area include: State Route 66 - range between 65 to 35 MPH in the community of Peach Springs Antares Road: 45 MPH Pierce Ferry Road: 55 MPH Diamond Bar Road (BIA 1): 45 MPH; due to current construction portions or road have posted speed limits of 25 MPH • Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): 25 to 45 MPH • Supai Road (BIA 18): varies from 35 MPH due to turns and grade changes to 50 MPH • Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6): 15 to 25 MPH • Peach Springs local roadways: 15 to 25 MPH Traffic and speed counts were conducted in November 2013 as part of this study process. The traffic count data obtained validates the stakeholders' claims that actual travel speeds are much higher than the posted speed limits. Figure 4.4 illustrates the posted speed limits versus the actual travel speeds. As illustrated in the Figure, dangerously high vehicle speeds were witnessed on Supai Road (BIA 18), State Route 66, Pierce Ferry Road, and Diamond Bar Road. Traffic Control The usage of traffic control devices ensures orderly traffic flow at intersections and along roadway networks. Within the study area, there are no signalized intersections. Stop signs are generally located at major intersections with State Route 66, Supai Road (BIA 18), Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1), Pierce Ferry Road, as well as within the residential communities of Peach Springs, Valentine, and the Milkweed Springs area. In addition, traffic control signs throughout the study area are faded and deteriorating. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions • • • • 33 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.3: Number of Lanes and Posted Speed Limits Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 34 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.4: Speed Limits Versus Actual Travel Speeds Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 35 Access Management Access management is a set of techniques used to proactively manage and regulate the design, spacing, and operation of intersections, driveways, and median openings along a roadway. Roadways with more access points and intersections have more opportunities for conflicts, and significant friction to throughtraffic, which contributes to congestion and crashes. The objective of access management is to provide access to enhance the flow of traffic on a corridor or roadway system by improving safety, capacity, and speed. The Hualapai Indian Tribe currently does not have an access management policy in place. Access to State Route 66 is regulated by ADOT. Within Peach Springs, driveway spacing on SR 66 ranges between approximately 80 and 290 FT apart. The close driveway spacing increases potential conflicts, particularly coupled with limited sight distance issues caused by on-street parking. Guidelines for minimum driveway or local street spacing should consider the speed of the roadway, stopping sight distance, the elimination of right-turn conflicts in the area of the Approximate driveway spacing on State Route 66 in Peach Springs. access points. Street Lighting and Pavement Striping Street lighting fixtures are only present in Peach Springs and the Milkweed area. Based on the comprehensive field review, study team members noted that pavement striping along State Route 66 and Supai Road (BIA 18) generally was faded and in need of maintenance. Paved roadways in Peach Springs, Valentine, and along Buck and Doe Road are in need to pavement striping and lighting in order to increase night visibility for motorists. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Effective access management strategies control the number of driveways, decrease the number of crashes, reduce travel time and traffic congestion, preserve the flow of traffic, and improve access to properties. Primary design techniques include increasing driveway spacing, utilizing turning lanes, gradeseparating intersections, traffic signals, and medians. Applying access management techniques can also enhance the livability of a community, improve pedestrian/bicycle safety, enhance customer safety and convenience to businesses, provide additional areas for streetscaping, and promote efficient land and site design. 36 Shoulder Conditions Roadside shoulders are an important safety feature that may also be utilized for future bicycle lanes, new sidewalks, or extended sidewalks/buffers. According to the Arizona Statewide Bicycle Pedestrian Plan, bike lanes should be four FT in width to safely accommodate bicyclists. Shoulder conditions vary throughout the study area; at the time of the roadway inventory the following conditions were found: • State Route 66 - shoulders are in generally good conditions with widths from 6 to 8 FT, except in areas where passing lanes occur and shoulders narrow to about one FT in width. The shoulders are level with the roadway surface and, in some areas, have rumble strips to warn drivers that leave the roadway. Shoulder striping is visible at day and night. • State Route 66 (Peach Springs) - curb and gutter from Honoga Hill Road to the Hualapai Lodge. • Within Peach Springs - shoulders are generally about two FT wide and include curb and gutter drainage. The shoulder structure conditions are generally excellent; however there are drainage issues during heavy rains. • Supai Road (BIA 18) - shoulders are generally two FT wide throughout the corridor. Between State Route 66 and mile post 22, shoulders are paved, level with the roadway and in excellent conditions; however, east of mile post 22, shoulder conditions quickly deteriorate. Vehicles could experience loss of control due to the cracking and deterioration evident on the shoulder. Drainage Conditions • Antares Road: graded roadway that crosses Truxton Wash • Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6): following along Peach Spring Wash, Diamond Creek Road is vulnerable to severe flash floods that cause major erosion along the roadway. • Within Peach Springs, a low water crossing is present on Diamond Creek Road north of Peach Springs Elementary School and is plagued with flooding issues. • Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): storm water runoff erodes unimproved portions of the roadway. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Diamond Creek Road crosses Peach Spring Wash multiple times and is susceptible to flash floods Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Roadway drainage conditions were inventoried during the roadway inventory. Based on field review findings, the following roadways have severe drainage problems: 37 Railroad Crossings • Diamond Creek Road (BIA 101) south of State Route 66: At-grade crossing with crossbucks, automatic gates, flashing lights, and advance warning signs. Stakeholder and TAC members commented that when a stopped train blocks the crossing, particularly during extended periods, there is no alternative route to access portions of Peach Springs and response times by emergency vehicles is significantly increased. • BIA Route 6 in Valentine: At-grade crossing with crossbucks only. It was noted during the roadway inventory that due to the alignment of the roadway at the railroad crossing, low-sprung or limited ground clearance vehicles may have difficulty clearing the railroad tracks and may become stuck. Additionally, during winter season, snow can obscure the location of the crossing limiting drivers view of the road. • Valentine Way: As an alternative to the at-grade crossing, Valentine residents can access an underpass one-mile north via an unimproved roadway. • Valentine Cemetery Road: At-grade crossing with crossbucks and stop signs in both directions. Similarly to BIA Route 6 crossing, snow could cause visibility issues of the crossing platform, which is about only 14 FT wide. Figure 4.5 illustrates the location of at-grade crosses within the study area. Stakeholders, TAC members, and the public all expressed concern over existing safety issues caused by these at-grade crossings. Table 4.3: Study Area Railroad Crossings Crossing # Street Railroad Type of Crossing 025215V Diamond Creek Road (BIA 101) BNSF At-grade 025225B BIA Route 6 BNSF At-grade 025224U Valentine Way Valentine Cemetery Road BNSF Underpass BNSF At-grade 025226H Traffic Control Devices Automatic gates Flashing lights Stop signs Crossbucks None Crossbucks Stop signs Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Advance Warning Signs Pavement Markings Number of Daily Trains Y N 86 N N 86 N N 86 N N 86 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad transverses the entire span of the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Three at-grade crossings and one overpass are located within the Hualapai Indian Reservation. During stakeholder and TAC meetings, it was noted that trains pass approximately every 15-20 minutes and that stopped trains often block access to residential/commercial area. In addition, train traffic noise from the BNSF Railroad causes significant noise pollution and is a major complaint of Peach Springs residents and visitors at the Hualapai Lodge. As listed in Table 4.3 railroad crossings include: 38 Bridge Conditions A comprehensive and detailed inventory of bridge and culvert conditions was conducted along major roadways. Based on visual inspection during the roadway inventory, structures located on study roadways are in good conditions; however, some structures on Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) and Supai Road (BIA 18) may require cleaning due to vegetation in the drain. ADOT's Bridge Inventory identifies 24 bridges along State Highway 66 within the study area, Table 5.4 presents the sufficiency rating for each of these structures. State Route 66 bridge at milepost 91.6 has a sufficiency rating of 69.7 and is currently being rehabilitated. The current NTTFI also cites that bridges on the Hualapai Indian Reservation as being in good condition. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.5: Railroad Crossing Locations 39 Table 4.4: FHWA Bridge Condition Ratings Milepost 73.09 75.84 75.90 80.10 80.51 81.90 84.94 87.91 88.90 89.00 90.57 91.61 92.37 93.32 95.02 104.15 109.02 119.51 120.78 121.27 124.70 126.60 130.42 132.49 139.40 Source: 2013 FHWA National Bridge Inventory Structure Crossing Wash Wash Wash Hackberry Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Truxton Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Year Constructed 1936 1936 1936 1962 1962 1932 1933 1937 1962 1962 1935 1934 1934 1935 1935 1963 1962 1936 1936 1936 1936 1936 1936 1965 1989 Sufficiency Rating 93.8 93.7 94.7 91.6 82.3 97.7 97.7 88 82.3 82.3 97.7 69.7 (Structurally Deficient) 83.9 97.7 69.7 97.7 94.7 98.2 98.2 98.2 98.5 98.5 87.3 98.5 97.7 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Structure Number 4225 4226 4227 738 4229 4230 4231 192 4232 4233 4234 141 134 4235 142 6077 4236 4237 4238 4239 7754 7755 7756 7757 7758 40 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic and turning movement counts were conducted in November 2013 as part of this study process. Daily traffic counts were collected at 46 locations along the study roadways and 10 turn movement counts for the AM/PM peak two hour periods for the critical intersections. The traffic counts also provided vehicle classification distribution and average travel speeds at each location. To account for the seasonal increase of tourists to the region, seasonal factors were applied to existing traffic counts and then modeled for annual average daily traffic (AADT). This data was compared against ADOT's traffic counts for validation purposes. Figure 4.7 displays the existing daily traffic volumes. Key observations noted in the Figure include: • State Route 66 has the highest amount of traffic within the study area, particularly within the Peach Spring community. This increase of traffic in Peach Springs is probably due to local traffic utilizing State Route 66 to access activity centers and residential areas. • Diamond Creek Road has a significant amount of traffic between the BNSF Railroad and Hualapai Way. • High View Drive and Hualapai Way carry a considerable amount of local traffic within Peach Springs. • Antares Road's traffic volumes are highest in the paved, southern section of the roadway, probably due to the higher population totals along that section of the roadway. • According to the traffic counts, approximately 50% of the traffic on Buck and Doe Road south of Diamond Bar Road are classified by the FHWA as class 4-7 (i.e., 2, 3, or 4 axle buses and trucks). These high traffic volumes may be caused by construction vehicles accessing materials stored off of Buck and Doe Road. • Diamond Bar Road carries a significant of traffic supports a wide variety of traffic including tourists, employee vans, tour buses, and construction vehicles. Traffic congestion levels of study roadways were estimated using traffic count data. The degree of traffic congestion is commonly expressed in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a measurement of traffic congestion conditions defined by the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). For a planning level analysis, the roadway LOS is determined based on the ratio of traffic volume on the road to capacity of the road. Capacity of the road is a function of the number of lanes, functional classification, speed, and roadway geometrics and provides thresholds for the maximum number of cars allowed to travel on a lane for the peak or daily conditions. Each level of service is given a letter grade based on its level of congestion, ranging from “A” through “F”, with LOS A representing free flowing traffic conditions where vehicles experience minimal delays and LOS F representing failure conditions where vehicles experience long delays. Figure 4.6 is an illustration of the LOS types. Road segment LOS is characterized by the HCM as follows: • LOS A: Best, free flow operations (on uninterrupted flow facilities) and very low delay (on interrupted flow facilities). Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within traffic is extremely high. • LOS B: Flow is stable, but presence of other users is noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within traffic. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Level of Service 41 • LOS C: Speed is becoming affected by the presence of other users. Maneuvering within traffic requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. • LOS D: High density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted. The driver is experiencing a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. • LOS E: Flow is at or near capacity. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within traffic is extremely difficult. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor. • LOS F: Worse, facility has failed, or a breakdown has occurred. Figure 4.6: Level of Service In general for rural areas, LOS A and B represent no congestion, LOS C and D represent moderate congestion, and LOS E and F represent severe congestion. Current Roadway Level of Service Figure 4.7 displays the existing LOS for the study roadways. Road segments performing at a LOS B or worse include: • LOS B: o State Route 66: Antares Road to Diamond Creek Road o State Route 66: Diamond Creek Road to Seligman o Pierce Ferry Road: West of Antares Road to Diamond Bar Road Utilizing the turning movement count data, LOS conditions were estimated for major intersections within the study area. Figure 4.8 displays the current lane configuration and traffic control type at each intersection and Figure 4.9 displays the turn movement volumes. Figure 4.10 displays the overall intersection LOS, and the LOS at each turn movement for each leg/approach for each intersection. Based on existing traffic counts, all intersection approaches and overall intersection perform at LOS A. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Current Intersection Level of Service 42 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.7: Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 43 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.8: Existing Intersection Lane Configuration Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 44 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.9: Existing Intersection Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 45 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.10: Existing Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 46 CRASH DATA ANALYSIS Crash analysis was conducted for the study corridors to identify trends, patterns, predominant crash reasons, and high crash rate intersections and corridors. The purpose of the crash analysis is to discover safety hazard locations that need to be addressed to improve area safety. Motor vehicle crash data was obtained from the Hualapai Nation Police Department (HNPD) for crashes occurring between January 2008 and December 2013. During this six year period, a total of 164 crashes occurred along the study roadways. To supplement the HNPD records, data provided by ADOT from January 2008 to January 2013 was utilized. A total of 165 crashes occurred on State and county maintained study roadways during this time period. Figure 4.11 illustrates location of crashes within the study area, as well as the crashes that resulted in injuries or fatalities. Figure 4.12 presents the overall crash density and the location of major crashes. Based on review of the each crash characteristic and location, the following trends were identified for crashes recorded between January 2008 and December 2013. Crash Location by Road: Identifying crash locations and the type of crashes for each roadway corridor aids in identifying deficiencies and developing safety improvement scenarios. Table 4.5 provides a summary of the number of crashes, crash rates, and the major cause of crashes along the study roadways. As shown in the table, approximately 40% occurred within the Hualapai Indian Reservation (including crashes that occurred on State maintained State Route 66). Within the Hualapai Indian Reservation, over 26% of crashes occurred on Buck and Doe. These crashes were primarily located south of BIA Route 32. State Route 66, between Diamond Creek Road (BIA 101) and Supai Road (BIA 18), and Supai Road (BIA 18), also experienced a high total number of crashes with 25 and 19 total crashes, respectively. Injury Severity: Approximately 43.7% of crashes resulted in an injury along study roadways. Since 2008 a total of nine fatal crashes occurred within the study area. Figure 4.11 provides an illustration of the location of crashes that resulted in a fatality. Three fatal crashes occurred on State Route 66 between mileposts 97 to 99; these crashes were cited as single vehicle, rollover crashes. Two crash related fatalities occurred on Pierce Ferry Road, with one crash cited as a head-on collision and the other a single vehicle that ran off the road. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Outside of the Reservation, the major economic corridor of Pierce Ferry Road and Diamond Bar Road experienced a significantly high number of crashes between January 2008 and December 2011; with 60 crashes occurring on Diamond Bar Road and 29 on Pierce Ferry Road. In addition, a high number of crashes occurred on State Route 66, particularly between Antares Road and Valentine and between Valentine and the West Reservation. 47 Number of Crashes Percent of All Crashes Road Length (Miles) Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) 35 10.6% 14.81 Diamond Bar Road (BIA 7) Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6) Diamond Creek Circle (BIA 101) Hualapai Way (BIA 101) Milkweed Springs Road (BIA 6) Nelson Road (BIA 19) Supai Road (BIA 18) State Route 66 - West Reservation Line to Buck and Doe Road State Route 66 - Buck and Doe Road to Diamond Creek Road State Route 66 Diamond Creek Road Supai Road State Route 66 Supai Road to East Reservation Line State Route 66 - Valentine Influence Area Antares Road 10 6 1 1 1 1 19 3.0% 1.8% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 5.8% 6.27 20.43 0.67 0.48 1.46 8.73 40.06 Animal On Road (35%) Speed (34%) Fixed Object (30%) Speed (66%) Pedestrian (100%) Speed (66%) Intoxication (100%) Intoxication (100%) Animal On Road (63%) 15 4.6% 4.53 Intoxication (20%) Pedestrian (7%) 11 3.3% 2.76 Inattention (36%) 25 7.6% 7.13 Animal on Road (48%) 2 0.6% 1.79 Snow (100%) 5 1.5% 1.65 Animal on Road (20%) 11 3.3% 32.32 Diamond Bar Road 60 18.2% 14 Pierce Ferry Road State Route 66 West of Antares Road State Route 66 Antares Road to Valentine State Route 66 Valentine to West Reservation Line State Route 66 East Reservation Line to Seligman State Route 66 - Seligman 29 8.8% 6.65 Animal On Road (45%) Fixed Object (28%) Overturn Rollover (17%) Animal On Road (55%) 11 3.3% 3.89 Fixed Object (45%) 36 10.9% 9.94 Animal On Road (28%) Fixed Object (25%) 38 11.6% 9.72 Fixed Object (29%) 5 1.5% 29.12 Turning Vehicle (40%) 7 2.1% 0.92 Motor Vehicle (100%) Location Hualapai Indian Reservation Leading Crash Cause (Percent) Source: Hualapai Nation Police Department (January 2008-December 2013); ADOT Accident Location Identification Surveillance System (January 2008 - January 2013) Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Table 4.5: Crash Locations, Crash Rate, and Leading Crash Cause 48 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.11: Crash Location and Crash Severity Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 49 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.12: Crash Density and Major Cause of Crash Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 50 Pedestrian and bicyclists: Pedestrians were involved in two serious crashes. One pedestrian related crash occurred on State Route 66 west of Buck and Doe Road. The crash was cited as a head-on collision when a single vehicle struck a pedestrian walking in the roadway. A separate pedestrian related crash occurred on Diamond Creek Circle, the crash was cited as a single vehicle that the driver fell asleep at the wheel and struck a pedestrian. There were no bicyclist related crashes within the study area. Intersection Relation: A total of 17 crashes (5.2% of all crashes) were identified as intersection related crashes. The majority of intersection related crashes occurred along State Route 66 between Honaga Hill Road and Hualapai Way in Peach Springs. These crashes were primarily cited as driver inattention and failure to yield that resulted in sideswipe or side impact crashes. At the intersection of State Route 66/Diamond Creek Road, there was a rear-end, hit and run crash that resulted in a rollover. It was noted during the field review that sight distance may be an issue at the following intersections with State Route 66: Honaga Hill, Hualapai Lodge Drive, Nelson Road, Hualapai Way, and Mesa View Drive. In addition, parked cars along State Route 66 may limit motorist visibility of vehicles exiting driveways and for vehicles entering Route 66 from Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6). Crash Event Summary: Analyzing the crash event assists in identifying hazards that cause safety issues along study roadways. Key observations made from the analysis of crash events include: • The leading causes for crashes in the study area were cited as "animal on roadway" (25.2%). o 20% (16 total crashes) of all animal related crashes occurred on Pierce Ferry Road. Animal related crashes on Pierce Ferry Road were largely collisions with livestock during dark lighting conditions. o All 13 crashes that occurred on Buck and Doe Road were cited as involving an animal on the roadway. These crashes were primarily cited as collisions with deer and cow and were largely located north of the Milkweed Springs development area (mile post 4) to west of BIA Route 32. o 63% (12 out of 19 total crashes) of crashes that occurred on Supai Road (BIA 18) were animal related. Animal related crashes on Supai Road (BIA 18) primarily occurred between milepost 3 to 5, 18 to 20, and 26 to 31. These crashes were largely due to impacts with Elk. o The highest number of animal related crashes on State Route 66 occurred between milepost 105 to Supai Road (BIA 18). Collisions with fixed objects accounted for approximately 15.5% of all crashes within the study area. o Nine crashes occurred on Diamond Bar Road with motorist colliding with roadside embankments. These crashes primarily occurred on curvy portions of the roadway milepost 11 to16. o Seven crashes relating motorist colliding with a roadside tree stump occurred on Diamond Bar Road. o East of Valentine, six crashes occurred on State Route 66 with motorists colliding with the roadside guardrail. • While not cited as intersection related, four crashes occurred on State Route 66 at the Grand Canyon Caverns. These accidents were identified as rear-end or left-turn related crashes. • Speeding and intoxication was cited as a contributing factor for the majority of crashes. Speeding related crashes were largely a part of crashes occurring on Buck and Doe Road, Diamond Bar Road, Diamond Creek Road, and State Route 66. Poor road conditions, such as pot holes and ruts, were also a major contributing factor cited on Diamond Bar Road. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions • 51 OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION Existing Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Equestrian Facilities During the field review, many pedestrians were witnessed utilizing the shoulders along State Route 66 and on local roads within Peach Springs for exercise and to access activity centers and residential areas. In addition, it was noted that due to the lack of alternative transportation, pedestrians walk along State Route 66 from Peach Springs to Truxton. Since pedestrian facilities are limited, Peach Springs Elementary students are forced to walk within the road's right-of-way to and from school. It was also noted during the field review that a man-made pedestrian path was created off Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6) to access Best Market. Limited pedestrian sidewalks in Peach Springs forces residents to utilize road shoulders, dirt roads, and unofficial trails to access activity centers and homes. Currently there are no bicycle lanes or designated The Truxton Wash Bridge, in Peach Springs, is the only equestrian trails within the study area. Bicyclists, particularly pedestrian access point to cross Truxton Wash. along State Route 66, are forced to utilize vehicle travel lanes because of narrow shoulders in downtown Peach Springs and where passing lanes occur. Pedestrian Needs Since the Reservation currently has limited pedestrian and bicycle facilities, input from stakeholders and community members suggests an overriding need for increased pedestrian access between residential areas and activity centers. According to the 2013 Hualapai Housing Needs Assessment, 71% of community members surveyed commented that the ability to walk or bike to work, store, and other amenities is very important. Furthermore, survey results found that 7% of respondents currently bike or walk to work. Comments made from the TAC and stakeholders regarding sidewalks, paths, pedestrian related needs, and bicycle facilities included: • • • Sidewalks with additional street lighting are needed in Peach Springs to encourage children to walk to/from schools. Crosswalks are needed at the State Route 66/Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6). Students from Milkweed Springs Road and Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) areas are utilizing pathways behind homes to access Peach Springs Elementary School. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Sidewalks are currently present along State Route 66 within Peach Springs, as well as in the vicinity of the Hualapai Elderly Center, and adjacent to the Health, Education and Wellness Center at Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6) and Hualapai Way. Truxton Wash Bridge, located south of the BNSF railroad tracks, provides the only pedestrian facility to access homes and community services in the southern section of Peach Springs. Figure 4.13 illustrates the existing sidewalks and pedestrian facilities within Peach Springs. Currently, there are no public pedestrian facilities in Truxton, Valentine, and the Grand Canyon West. 52 • • • • • A trail system linking Milkweed Springs/Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) to Peach Springs would be heavily utilized and is desired. Stakeholders suggested reviewing the trail system currently in place in Laughlin, Nevada as a guideline for trail standards. Mountain bike trails in and around Peach Springs are needed. Lighting is needed on Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) due to the high number of pedestrian that walk along the road. The Hualapai Healthy Heart Program is interested in identifying and developing bicycle routes. Equestrian trails would enhance livability and promote tourism. Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.13: Existing Pedestrian Facilities Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 53 Existing Transit Services Currently there is no official public transit service within the Hualapai Indian Reservation; however, limited transit options are available from the following sources: • Grand Canyon West Corporation - provides two employee shuttle buses, one from Kingman and one from the Hualapai Lodge in Peach Springs. This very popular service carries approximately 60 passengers each way daily. Stakeholders commented that due to the popularity of the service, riders must arrive early to secure a seat and many riders do not have alternative means of transportation, so if they miss the bus they also must miss work. • Health and Wellness Department - a Section 5310, Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program is currently in place. The Health Center has five vehicles and each can accommodate five people. Transportation is provided for Hualapai Tribal members that have medical appointments, locally or out of local area for shopping at a fee of $10 per 100 miles per person. Although medical appointments take priority, the service can be used to non-medical appointments, special events, and local as well as out-of-town shopping. Service is provided for dialysis patients to Kingman Hospital three days a week, twice per day. Service to Phoenix is provided twice a week, Las Vegas two to three times a week, and to Tuba City twice a month. To request transportation services, an appointment request form must be provided. Table 4.6 provides an overview of the ridership and the number of trips provided by the Hualapai Health and Wellness Department in 2012. • Boys and Girls Club - provides pick-up and drop-off services to Peach Springs and Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1). • Hualapai Head Start - bus transportation is provided to and from school for enrolled students. • Kingman High School - bus transportation from Truxton is available for high school students to Kingman High School in Kingman via Peach Springs Unified School District #8 school buses. • Seligman High School - provides bus transportation from Seligman High School to Grand Canyon Caverns, approximately 15 miles east of Peach Springs. In order for students to board the bus, family members must drop off students at the Grand Canyon Caverns. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions The Hualapai Health and Wellness Department provides appointment-only transit services for medical and shopping needs. 54 Table 4.6 Health-Education and Wellness Center Transportation Demand by Month (FY 2012-13) Month Number of Riders Number of Trips Miles Traveled January 246 477 17,484.5 February 249 500 11,959.1 March 241 501 16,279.1 April 297 555 16,202.2 May 213 451 13,634.2 June 202 399 14,304.0 July 190 394 16,737.0 August 237 467 20,791.8 September 183 338 14,776.1 October 295 541 15,814.1 November 146 266 22,560.4 December 203 351 17,165.5 Total 2,702 5,240 197,705 Peach Springs Unified School District #8 Peach Springs Unified School District #8 provides school bus transportation for their students to school and schoolrelated activities. Currently, the school has three bus drivers and three buses that serve Peach Springs area and Buck and Doe Road area. Within Peach Springs, buses drop-off/pick-up students at the end of street blocks and go door-to-door along Buck and Doe Road. Approximately 7-16 high school students also are given daily transportation to/from Truxton, where they board a separate bus operated by the Kingman High School. Recent 100-day counts of ridership found that an average of 170 students a day utilize Peach Springs Unified School District #8 transportation. Gary Halbert, Maintenance/Transportation Supervisor, commented that the number one issue with the Tribe's roadway network is the lack of street signs and posted house numbers. He went on to say that without street signs and house numbers, new bus drivers have difficulty identifying school routes and student's homes. Kingman Area Regional Transit (KART) Established in 2003, Kingman Area Regional Transit (KART) operates four deviated fixed transit routes and serves more than 100 bus stops in the Kingman area. KART operates Monday through Friday from 6am to 6pm, with a regular bus fare costing $1.50 one-way. In addition to the fixed route service, KART provides Curb-to-Curb service that allows riders to schedule a pick-up and drop-off at locations not included in the regular bus schedule. Curb-to-Curb service is only available for individuals over the age of 60 and for persons with qualifying disabilities. KART does not currently operate service to the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Source: Western Arizona Council of Governments 5300 Program Data 55 Commuting Characteristics Utilizing 2008-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) data, employee commuting patterns and vehicle availability was identified. Table 4.7 summarizes the mode of transportation for workers age 16 and older to commute to work and Table 4.8 outlines the typical travel time to work on the Hualapai Indian Reservation. As presented in the table, approximately 56% of those surveyed either carpooled, walked, or took public transportation to work, while over 36% drove alone. According to the ACS, the mean travel time for workers on the Hualapai Indian Reservation is 30.7 minutes. As outlined in Table 6.3, 60% of employees on the Hualapai Indian Reservation have a commute time of under 10 minutes. This small commute time is probably due to the number of employees in Peach Springs and Buck and Doe Road that work in Peach Springs. An additional 24.2% of employees have a commute time of over 90 minutes. Vehicle availability may limit a person's ability to commute to work or get to an activity center. Depending on the number of people living in each household, a certain number of vehicles may not be able to provide everyone with a means of transportation. Table 4.9outlines the total number of vehicles available per occupied housing unit on the Hualapai Indian Reservation. According to the 2008-2012 ACS, 16.5% of occupied housing units do not have any vehicles available, forcing residents to utilize alternative means of transportation. Means of Transportation Total Population Percent Car, Truck, of Van - Drove Alone 106 36.9% Carpooled 118 41.1% Public Transportation 6 2.1% Walked 38 13.2% Other Means 17 6.0% Worked at Home 2 0.7% 287 100% Total Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey Table 4.8: Travel Time to Work Travel Time Total Percent Less than 5 Minutes 55 19.3% 5 to 9 Minutes 116 40.7% 10 to 19 Minutes 38 13.3% 20 to 29 Minutes 0 0% 30 to 89 Minutes 7 2.5% Greater Than 90 Minutes 69 24.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Table 4.7: Means of Transportation to Work 56 Table 4.9: Vehicles per Household Number of Vehicles Housing Units Percent No Vehicles Available 30 16.5% 1 Vehicle Available 96 52.7% 2 Vehicles Available 40 22.0% 3 or More Vehicles Available 16 8.8% Total 182 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey Transit Need While the Reservation currently does not have transit service, input from stakeholders and community members suggests an overriding need for transit services to access employment centers, retail facilities, medical appointments, and activity centers. According to the 2013 Hualapai Housing Needs Assessment, 50% of employers identified costs and time required for commuters to reach work as a source of employee turnover, while 31% of employees have commute related challenges. Results from the keypad polling in the Hualapai Housing Needs Assessment found that 20% of respondents currently carpool or receive a ride from someone to access work. Employee respondents commented that they typically leave work between 6:00 am and 8:00 am and return home between 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Furthermore, 62% of participants commented that they would ride a bus/shuttle to and from work if it were available. Comments relating to transit related needs from TAC and stakeholder input included: • • • • • Transit service from Peach Springs to Kingman is very important for the community members to access medical, shopping, entertainment, services, and activity centers. Several dialysis patients must travel to Kingman Hospital for service. Regional transit service to Phoenix, Flagstaff, Las Vegas, Laughlin, Tucson, and other major areas would be beneficial. Transit access to specific destinations not currently served by Kingman's KART system is requested. Emergency Services commented that many patients refuse to be taken by ambulance to Kingman for emergency services because they do not have transportation back to their home. Limited drivers are available for existing medical transport service provided on an on-call basis. Hiring a full-time transit coordinator to manage and expand transit service operation within the Reservation is needed in the long-term. Stakeholders suggested identifying a transit "champion" to manage funding, grant application, and transit related needs. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions • 57 Aviation Conditions • • • • • Grand Canyon West Airport - public airport located at the Grand Canyon West. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Grand Canyon West had 147,794 passenger boardings (enplanements) in 2012. As illustrated in Table 4.10, Grand Canyon West is the fifth busiest airport in Arizona in terms of passenger boardings. Grand Canyon West is primarily utilized by tourists and the Grand Canyon West Corporation. Passengers can fly from/to Las Vegas or arrange for helicopter of plane tours of the Grand Canyon and Colorado River. o The existing runway configuration consists of one active runway, Runway 17/35. It is 5,058 feet long and 60 feet wide. There are also a taxiway, aircraft parking, and multiple heliports. o According to the ADOT Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program, multiple airport improvements are scheduled for construction, including the design and construction of a terminal building. Hualapai Airport - private use airport located eight miles northeast of Peach Springs. The airport has one paved runway and is privately owned by the Hualapai Indian Tribe. The Grand Canyon West Airport is the fifth busiest airport in Hualapai Airport is utilized primarily by Arizona, and hosts one runway and multiple heliports. business owners visiting the Hualapai Tribe, the Grand Canyon West Corporation, by the Department of Natural Resources to conduct surveys, and for wildlife observation. Grand Canyon Caverns Airport - public use airport located at the Grand Canyon Caverns on State Route 66. Per FAA records, the airport had 98 passenger boardings in 2012. Kingman, Seligman, and Meadview also have public airports that serve the areas surrounding the Hualapai Reservation. International airports include McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona. Table 4.10: Arizona Airport Ranking by Activity Rank Airport Name 2012 Enplanements 1 Phoenix Sky Harbor International 19,560,870 2 Tucson International 1,710,649 3 Phoenix-Mesa Gateway 744,685 4 Grand Canyon National Park 336,716 5 Grand Canyon West 147,794 Source: Federal Aviation Administration Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions In order to gain a better understanding of all of the factors contributing to the regional transportation conditions, it is important to consider air travel. Airports serving the Hualapai Indian Reservation include: 58 Maritime Facilities The Hualapai River Runners, operated by the Grand Canyon Resort Coporation and headquarted in the Hualapai Lodge, operates oneday river rafting tours along the Colorado River. Guests are transported from Peach Springs to the Colorado River via Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6). Eight-passenger whitewater rafts are launched from the Colorado River's bank and head west towards Grand Canyon West (river mile 266), where passengers are helicoptered out of the Canyon and then utlimately driven back to the Hualapai Lodge. Approximately 95 percent of the Tribe's maritime business is based on downstream trips from Diamond Creek to Grand Canyon West. According to the Hualapai Master Plan, 14,000 -19,000 Hualapai River Runners boat launching location off Diamond Creek Road seats were available during the six to eight month rafting season in 2000. In 2014, operations will be extended to last from March 15th to October 31st, a total of 230 days. During this period the potential number of travelers per season could go as high as 25,760 individuals. Additional commerical rafting operators provide Quartermaster Canyon embark/disembark location along the 30-minute boat trips on Lake Mead and utilize the Colorado River. Photo Courtesy of Google Streetview (2014). ramadas at River Mile 266 as the embark/disembark point. The Hualapai Tribe also sells permits for boaters to camp along the Colorado River or those wishing to camp at the Diamond Creek embarkation point. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions At the Diamond Creek embarkation point, a small ramada is available. At Quartermaster Canyon, river mile 266, the Grand Canyon West Corporation permits and monitors the ramada area and helicopter tours. According to the Hualapai Master Plan, a Labor Day survey showed 72 helicopters in one 24-hour period at the ramadas and two of the upper Quatermaster landing sites. 59 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The primary purpose of forecasting traffic volumes is to estimate the additional travel demand added to existing roadways and to forecast congestion levels due to projected growth in population and employment. In addition, this analysis provides valuable insight into potential transportation solutions. Future traffic volumes were estimated using a travel demand model developed for this study. The future forecasts represent traffic volumes without any roadway improvements (No-Build scenario) while using future socioeconomic/growth projections. This analysis helps evaluate how roadways perform in the future if no improvements are made. Future traffic volumes were estimated using a travel demand model developed for this study. Working Paper 1 presented future traffic conditions if no roadway improvements are made (No-Build). Projected No-Build traffic conditions serve as a baseline to determine if roadway improvements alleviate congestion. Projected 2019 Traffic Conditions Projected 2019 Roadway Level of Service Figure 4.14 displays the projected 2019 daily traffic volumes and LOS for the roadway network. Traffic volumes and LOS results in this section represent average annual daily traffic conditions. Road segments performing at a LOS B or worse include: LOS B: o State Route 66: Antares Road to Diamond Creek Road o State Route 66: Diamond Creek Road to Seligman o Pierce Ferry Road: Antares Road to Diamond Bar Road Projected 2019 Intersection Level of Service Based on the projected 2019 daily traffic volumes, intersection turn movement volumes were estimated using NCHRP Report 255 methods. Intersection improvements such as additional turn lanes and traffic signals were identified to accommodate 2019 traffic conditions. Figure 4.15 displays the enhanced 2019 lane configuration; Figure 4.16 displays the projected 2019 turn movement volumes; and Figure 4.17 displays the intersection LOS conditions. Based on projected 2019 traffic volumes, all intersections and approaches perform at a LOS of A, except for the following: • LOS B: o Antares Road/State Route 66 Northbound PM turning movement o Antares Road/State Route 66 Northbound PM intersection approach Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Existing and Future Transportation Conditions • 60 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.14: 2019 Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 61 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.15: 2019 Intersection Lane Configuration Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 62 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.16: 2019 Intersection Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 63 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.17: 2019 Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 64 Projected 2024 Traffic Conditions Projected 2024 Roadway Level of Service Figure 4.18 displays the projected 2024 daily traffic volumes and the LOS for the roadway network. Traffic volumes and LOS results in this section represent average annual daily traffic conditions. Road segments performing at a LOS B or worse include: • LOS B: o State Route 66: Antares Road to Diamond Creek Road o State Route 66: Diamond Creek Road to Seligman o Pierce Ferry Road: Antares Road to Diamond Bar Road Projected 2024 Intersection Level of Service Based on the projected 2024 daily traffic volumes, intersection turn movement volumes were estimated using NCHRP Report 255 methods. Intersection improvements such as additional turn lanes and traffic signals were identified to accommodate 2024 traffic conditions. Figure 4.19 displays the enhanced 2024 lane configuration; Figure 4.20 displays the projected 2024 turn movement volumes; and Figure 4.21 displays the intersection LOS conditions. Based on projected 2024 traffic volumes all intersections and approaches perform at a LOS of A, except for the following: LOS B: o Antares Road/State Route 66 Northbound PM turning movement o Antares Road/State Route 66 Northbound PM intersection approach o Antares Road/Pierce Ferry Road Northbound PM turning movement o Antares Road/Pierce Ferry Road Northbound PM intersection approach Existing and Future Transportation Conditions • Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 65 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.18: 2024 Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 66 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.19: 2024 Intersection Lane Configuration Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 67 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.20: 2024 Intersection Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 68 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.21: 2024 Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 69 Projected 2034 Traffic Conditions Projected 2034 Roadway Level of Service Figure 4.22 displays the projected 2034 daily traffic volumes and the LOS for the roadway network. Traffic volumes and LOS results in this section represent average annual daily traffic conditions. Road segments performing at a LOS B or worse include: • LOS B: o State Route 66: Antares Road to Diamond Creek Road o State Route 66: Diamond Creek Road to Seligman o Pierce Ferry Road: Antares Road to Diamond Bar Road o Diamond Bar Road: Pierce Ferry Road to Grand Canyon West Projected 2034 Intersection Level of Service Based on the projected 2034 daily traffic volumes, intersection turn movement volumes were estimated using NCHRP Report 255 methods. Intersection improvements such as additional turn lanes and traffic signals were identified to accommodate 2034 traffic conditions. Figure 4.23 displays the enhanced 2034 lane configuration; Figure 4.24 displays the projected 2034 turn movement volumes; and Figure 4.25 displays the intersection LOS conditions. Based on projected 2034 traffic volumes all intersections and approaches perform at a LOS of A, except for the following: LOS B: o Antares Road/State Route 66 Northbound PM turning movement o Antares Road/State Route 66 Northbound PM intersection approach o Antares Road/Pierce Ferry Road Northbound PM turning movement o Antares Road/Pierce Ferry Road Northbound PM intersection approach Existing and Future Transportation Conditions • Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 70 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.22: 2034 Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 71 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.23: 2034 Intersection Lane Configurations Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 72 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.24: 2034 Intersection Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 73 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Figure 4.25: 2034 Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 74 5. EVALUATION OF IMPROVEMENTS This chapter presents the initial improvement concepts and the criteria used for evaluating recommendations for the study area. Initial concepts were developed based on deficiencies and needs identified in the existing conditions analyses, future land use, socioeconomics, traffic conditions, and the goals and objectives established by the study team and the TAC at the onset of the study. EVALUATION CRITERIA Transportation system deficiency analysis and input from the public, stakeholders, and the TAC resulted in a comprehensive list of existing and future transportation issues and needs for the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Potential improvements identified were evaluated and prioritized to determine the projects/improvements that best serve the needs of the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Table 5.1 summarizes the criteria utilized to evaluate and to quantify the benefits of each potential transportation improvement option. Based on the results of the evaluation, projects were prioritized into short-, mid-, and long-term implementation phases. Planning level cost estimates were also developed based on typical per mile/foot construction costs in 2014. Estimated costs for each project are expressed in 2014 dollars and do not include ROW acquisition costs. Actual costs for projects could vary at the time of implementation; therefore, a detailed analysis should be performed on a case-by-case basis to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. Evaluation Criteria Safety Objective • Reduce vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle collisions • Improve access for emergency services Infrastructure Preservation /Maintenance Mobility and Accessibility • Preserve and maintain existing • • • transportation infrastructure Reduce congestion, bottlenecks and travel times for all modes Support future traffic demand Improve linkages between vehicular, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle modes Support economic growth Measure Improves overall Safety Benefit Scale* (High Low) High Med Low Serves as alternative/emergency access route Yes - No Enhances pedestrian/bicyclist Safety High Med Low Preserves existing infrastructure Yes - No Current and future traffic volume levels High Med Low Improves multimodal access Yes - No Improves network connectivity Yes - No Serves tourist or economic development High Med Low Low Med High Positive Neutral Negative High Med Low High Med Low Low Med High Economic Development • Environmental and Title VI Impacts • Protect natural and cultural environment Impact on environmental/cultural resources • Avoid or minimize negative impacts on Title VI population groups Implementation Feasibility • Minimize capital cost of improvements, Impact on Title VI Construction feasibility including preservation of ROW Cost effectiveness • Reduce ROW impacts ROW impacts • Implementable and flexible *Tables 4.2 - 4.13 provide detailed evaluation and prioritization results for each recommended improvement. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements Table 5.1: Evaluation and Prioritization Criteria 75 EVALUATION OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Based on the traffic analysis, summarized in Chapter 4, study area roadways have enough capacity to accommodate future traffic demand. In order to enhance safety and to adhere to BIA standards, the following safety and general roadway improvements were evaluated: • Roadway pavement treatments • Street cross-section enhancements • Safety features • Railroad crossing enhancements • Traffic calming measures The following section presents a summary of the different safety enhancements evaluated to identify the most effective improvements for the study area. Paved Road Treatments On-going, paved road maintenance and pavement reconstruction is critical to the overall safety of the Hualapai Tribe's transportation network. Maintaining a road's pavement condition can lessen maintenance costs on vehicles, improve overall safety, and provide motorists with a smoother, more comfortable ride. Pavement improvement projects include: • Pavement Rehabilitation: Minor rehabilitation consists of non-structural enhancements to eliminate age-related, top-down surface cracking that develops in flexible pavements due to environmental exposure. Major rehabilitation consists of structural enhancements that both extend the service life of an existing pavement and/or improve its load-carrying capability. Surface treatment methods include microsurfacing, chip seal, slurry seal, and crack seal. • Pavement Reconstruction: Complete removal and replacement of the existing pavement structure. Required when a pavement has either failed or has become functionally obsolete. Reconstruction is also warranted when pavement needs to be widened to meet BIA standards. According to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 25, Part 170, Subpart C, Appendix D, BIA functionally classified roadways require the following minimum standards: o Class 4: 32 FT roadway width with 4 FT shoulders o Class 5: 28 FT roadway width with 2 FT shoulders o Class 3: 21 FT roadway width Unpaved Road Treatments Paving road surfaces results in a number of benefits, including reduced vehicle maintenance, improved driving experience and safety, and reduced dust emissions. Figure 5.1 illustrates dirt roads identified for paving and Table 5.2 lists and evaluates new paving projects. The majority of roads located within the Hualapai Indian Reservation are unpaved roads. Since these roads are low volume facilities, they generally do not meet the minimum requirements to qualify for paving; therefore, continued maintenance of these roads will be required. Gravel roads often have the advantage of lower construction and sometimes lower maintenance costs. If properly maintained, a gravel road can safely serve traffic for many years. The challenges and potential solutions to maintaining unpaved roadways are outlined in Table 5.3. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements Figure 5.1 illustrates roadways in need of pavement maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. Table 5.2 lists and evaluates pavement surface treatment projects in the study area. 76 Evaluation of Improvements Figure 5.1: Road Surface Treatment Projects Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 77 Table 5.2: Evaluation of Road Surface Treatment Projects Existing A A DT Existing LOS A A DT 2034 LOS 2034 Overall Safety A lt./Emergency Route Ped/Bike Safety Preserves Infrastructure Multimodal A ccess Network Connectivity Tourist/Economic Environ./ Cultural Resources Title VI Construction Feasibility Cost Effectiveness ROW Impacts Project Description 0 <100 A <100 A H N L Y Y Y H L NI H H L Short $7,500 20.0 10 32 135 A 189 A H N M Y Y Y H M Pos H M L Short *Currently under Design 30 115 A 161 A H N H Y Y Y H M Pos L M M Long $3,000,000 2.5 1 7 367 A 514 A H Y L Y N Y M M NI L M L Mid $2,300,000 1.3 0 0.4 0 0 0 <100 <100 A A <100 <100 A A H H Y Y L L Y Y Y Y Y Y L L M M NI NI L L M M L L Mid Mid $1,200,000 $375,000 0.40 0 0 <100 A <100 A H N H Y Y Y L L Pos M M L Mid $400,000 No. of Crashes Project Location Project Phase Length (miles) On Road Crash Severity (EPDO) Evaluation C riteria C ost (2014 dollars) P a vemen t Reh a b ilita tio n BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) Sections 40, 70, 100, 160180, 280 Pavement Rehabilitation - Chip Seal 2.6 0 P a vemen t Rec o n s tr u c tio n P r o jec ts Supai Road (BIA 18) MP 20 to MP 40 Structural Overlay Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road Reconstruct roadway to include 5 FT shoulders, center turn lane, and 3.5 7 12 FT travel lanes Lhoist Lime Plant to State Route 66 Sections 10 - 110 Section 10 Shandy Lane (Sections 50 and 30); BIA Lane (Section 260) Section 40 and Section 50 Grade and pave roadway Grade and pave roadway 0.6 0 0 <100 A <100 A H N H Y Y Y M M NI M M L Mid $550,000 State Route 66 to Youth Camp Pavement Ending to Pierce Ferry Road Pavement ending to Lhoist Lime Plant State Route 66 to Valentine Cemetery Grade and pave roadway Grade and pave roadway 3.8 0 0 <100 A <100 A H N L Y N Y M M NI M M L Mid $350,000 31.6 11 20 38 A 53 A H Y L N Y Y H M NI L L L Long $30,000,000 5.6 1 7 105 A 147 A H N L Y N Y M M NI L L L Long $2,000,000 0.9 0 0 <100 A <100 A H N L Y N N L M NI L L L Long $1,200,000 Nelson Road BIA Route 103 (Valentine) BIA Route 9103 (Valentine) BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) BIA Route 104 Youth Camp Road Antares Road Nelson Road BIA Route 8000 (Valentine Cemetery Road)     Grade and pave roadway Grade and pave roadway Grade and pave roadway Grade and pave roadway Grade and pave roadway Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers. EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1 Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements P a ve U n p a ved Ro a d w a ys 78 Table 5.2: Evaluation of Road Surface Treatment Projects (Continued) Existing A A DT Existing LOS A A DT 2034 LOS 2034 Overall Safety A lt./Emergency Route Ped/Bike Safety Preserves Infrastructure Multimodal A ccess Network Connectivity Tourist/Economic Environ./ Cultural Resources Title VI Construction Feasibility Cost Effectiveness ROW Impacts Project Description Crash Severity (EPDO) Project Location No. of Crashes On Road Length (miles) Evaluation C riteria Project Phase 1.6 1 4 <100 A <100 A H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $2,600 0 0 <100 A <100 A H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $8,500 3.5 7 30 115 A 161 A H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $15,000 3.7 3 6 723 A 1,012 B H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $12,000 0.76 1 7 231 A 323 A H Y L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $2,500 0.3 0 0 105 A 147 A H N L Y N N M L NI H H L Short $1,200 2.1 1 4 <100 A <100 A H N L Y N N M L NI H H L Short $8,000 C ost (2014 dollars) P a vemen t Str ip in g Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) Antares Road Nelson Road (BIA 101 Section 310) BIA Route 104     Diamond Creek Road (Section 100 and 280); Hualapai Way (Section 70); High View Drive (Section 110) Sections 20, 40-60, 90, 110, 130-190, 210-270 State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road Diamond Bar Road to Grand Canyon West State Route 66 to Pavement Ending State Route 66 to Pavement Ending Milkweed Springs Road and Music Mountain Road Add pavement striping Add pavement striping Add pavement striping Restripe faded pavement striping Add pavement striping Add pavement striping Add pavement striping Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers. EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1 Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) 79 Table 5.3: Treatment and Maintenance Options for Unpaved Road Surfaces Challenges Possible Causes and Solutions Longitudinal (lengthwise) erosion of the • Flat or u-shaped road. A crown or tilting of the road (super-elevation) is needed to shed water laterally off road surface the outer edge(s) of the road surface. Keep the road graded with the proper crown. • Small ridge of soil or grass growth along the outer edge of the road is preventing water from draining off the road surface. Edge needs to be graded to remove this ridge. • Water is traveling in a wheel rut. Road needs to be re-graded and re-crowned. This problem often results from soft roads. • Road ditch is not large enough and overflows onto road surface. Install more frequent turnouts to allow water to drain from the road; if this is not possible the ditches need to be made larger. Washboarding • Mainly due to poor road surface materials. This will most likely result from a lack of fines and moisture. Check gradation of road material, and adjust as necessary. A grader should be used to remove washboarding and mix road materials. • Alternative road surface materials may be necessary in certain high stress areas. Consideration should be given to using soil stabilizers, these need to be selected based on the gradation and other factors. Tire rutting on soft roads • Poor road base material does not drain efficiently. Road base needs to be reconstructed with suitable soil materials, or consider using geotextiles. One option is to use soil stabilizers, these need to be selected based on the gradation and other factors. • Road is too low and the base is in the water table. Build road up above grade and/or install sub surface drains. • Poorly drained native soils that may be unsuitable for typical gravel roads. Consider using geotextiles or rock sandwiches, or restricting access for seasonal use only. • Insufficient road base thickness. Road base should be reconstructed, or consider using geotextiles or soil stabilizers. • Insufficient ditching. Ditches need to allow subsurface water to drain out of the road base. If road ditch is in a groundwater seep area, ditch may need to be rip rapped to prevent slumping. Muddy or slippery road surface • Poor road surface material containing too many fines. Good surface material needs to be added or blended with existing surface using appropriate grading equipment. • Insufficient road tilting (super-elevation) or road crown, which allows water to sit on the road surface. Road needs to be tilted or re-crowned to continuously to promote proper drainage • Poor road surface material and low moisture content. Apply new road surface material with the proper soil Dust gradations, or use of calcium chloride or other chemical binding agent as a dust suppressant. • Poor road surface material that lacks fines due to dusting, heavy traffic or erosion. New road surface material is needed or the road needs to be re-graded and re-compacted. Lateral erosion cutting across the road surface • This most often occurs at a low spot by the road or where a ditch filled up and no longer functions; water Potholes • Potholes usually result from road sections on poorly drained soils or from insufficient crown or road tilting. builds up and eventually overflows and erodes the road and sediment that has settled in the ditch. The water needs to be conveyed to the other side of the road by means of a culvert, sub drainage, or ford. Rebuild the road with proper materials, or re-grade road to remove potholes, then re-crown or super-elevate. Source: Gravel Road Maintenance Manual, A Guide for Landowners on Camp and Other Gravel Roads Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements Too much loose gravel 80 Street Cross-Sections Roadway cross-sections provide the framework for designing and improving community roadways. A road's cross-section is based on several factors, including: • Existing and future traffic volumes • Type of traffic that utilizes the facility • Function of the facility • Level of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activity • Surrounding land use • Right-of-way (ROW) availability • Proposed development surrounding the corridor To accommodate multiple transportation modes, many communities are utilizing "Complete Streets" initiatives to develop cross-sections to enhance the safety along roadways. According to the National Complete Streets Coalition, typical elements that make up a complete street include sidewalks, bicycle lanes, shared-use paths, and safe pedestrian crossings. Based on input from the TAC, stakeholders, and the public; cross-section concepts were developed for the study roadways that incorporate complete street elements while maintaining the character of the community. Table 5.4 summarizes cross-sections evaluated for the study area. Table 5.4: Street Cross-Sections Rural Local Roadway Context: • Provides local access to ranching areas, water tanks, and other remote areas Number of Lanes & Median: One 10-11 FT lane in each direction Right-of-Way Width: 30 -38 FT Street Elements: 5-8 FT unpaved shoulders on both sides of road Pedestrian/Bike Facilities: No pedestrian or bicycle facilities Comments: Suitable for roads such as Youth Camp Road Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements • Very Low traffic volumes 81 Table 5.4: Street Cross-Sections (Continued) Rural Collector Roadway Context: • Provides local access • Low traffic volumes Number of Lanes & Median: One 10-11 FT lane in each direction Right-of-Way Width: 30 -38 FT Street Elements: 5-8 FT unpaved shoulders on both sides of road Pedestrian/Bike Facilities: No pedestrian or bicycle facilities Comments: Suitable for roads such as Buck and Doe Road Rural Minor Arterial (AADT Less than 400) Roadway Context: • Provides local and regional access to tourist activity centers Number of Lanes & Median: One 10-11 FT lane in each direction Right-of-Way Width: 30-38 FT Street Elements: 5-8 FT paved shoulders on both sides of road Pedestrian/Bike Facilities: No pedestrian or bicycle facilities Comments: Suitable for roads such as Supai Road Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements • Links cities and larger towns 82 Table 5.4: Street Cross-Sections (Continued) Rural Minor Arterial (AADT Greater than 400) Roadway Context: • Provides local and regional access to tourist activity centers • Links cities and larger towns Number of Lanes & Median: One 10-11 FT lane in each direction Right-of-Way Width: 32-38 FT Street Elements: 6-8 FT paved shoulders on both sides of road Pedestrian/Bike Facilities: No pedestrian or bicycle facilities Comments: Suitable for roads such as State Route 66 (Seligman to Hualapai Indian Reservation Boundary) Rural Major Arterial Roadway Context: • Provides regional access to tourist activity centers Number of Lanes & Median: One 12 FT lane in each direction Right-of-Way Width: 36-40 FT Street Elements: 6-8 FT paved shoulders on both sides of road Pedestrian/Bike Facilities: No pedestrian or bicycle facilities Comments: Suitable for roads such as State Route 66 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements • Connects regional roadways and larger communities 83 Table 5.4: Street Cross-Sections (Continued) Urban Local Roadway Context: • Provides access for local traffic to residential areas • Restricted ROW conditions Number of Lanes & Median: One 10-11 FT lane in each direction Right-of-Way Width: 23-30 FT Street Elements: • Street and sidewalk lighting (Optional) • Curb and gutter • Utility buffer Pedestrian/Bike Facilities: 3-8 FT concrete sidewalk on one side of the road Comments: Suitable for local residential streets in Peach Springs Roadway Context: • Serves as a connection for employment and activity centers Number of Lanes & Median: • Curb and gutter • Limited ROW One 10-11 FT lane in each direction Right-of-Way Width: 26-35 FT Street Elements: • 3-5 FT Landscape buffer on both sides of road • Street and pedestrian path lighting Pedestrian/Bike Facilities: 3-8 FT concrete sidewalk in both directions Comments: Suitable for roads such as Diamond Creek Road, Hualapai Way, or High View Drive Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements Urban Collector 84 Table 5.4: Street Cross-Sections (Continued) Urban Minor Arterial Roadway Context: • Experiences high traffic volumes • Serves local commercial/tourist areas Number of Lanes & Median: • One 12 FT lane in each direction • Serves regional and local traffic • Located in developed area with growth potential • On-street parking • 10-12 FT two-way center turn lane Right-of-Way Width: 55-68 FT Street Elements: • 3-5 FT landscape buffer on both sides of road • Street and sidewalk lighting • Optional parallel parking on one side of the road Pedestrian/Bike Facilities: 8-12 FT concrete shared-use path in one direction Comments: Suitable for roads such as State Route 66 through Peach Springs Roadway Context: • Major roadway linking educational, residential, commercial, and employment land uses • Restricted ROW conditions Number of Lanes & Median: • One 12 FT lane in each direction • Serves regional and local traffic • High amount of pedestrian traffic • Frequent tourist use • 10-12 FT two-way center turn lane Right-of-Way Width: 70-90 FT Street Elements: • 3-5 FT landscape buffer on both sides of road • Street and sidewalk lighting • Parallel parking on both sides of road Pedestrian/Bike Facilities: 8-12 FT concrete shared-use path in both directions Comments: Suitable for roads such as State Route 66 through Peach Springs Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements Urban Major Arterial 85 Safety Features Based on stakeholder and public input as well as a comprehensive roadway inventory, study area roadways currently have numerous safety issues that require improvement. Key issues identified in Working Paper 1 included: livestock and wildlife entering ROW, paved roadways lack pavement markings, nighttime vision is limited on roadways, and limited street and direction signs to aid in navigation. Table 5.5 provides a summary of potential safety enhancements that could be implemented to enhance safety on study area roadways. Based on evaluation results, Figure 5.2 and Table 5.6 summarize proposed safety improvements. Table 5.5: Evaluation of Safety Improvements Enhancement Permeable Fencing Description Considerations The primary purpose of a fence is to enclose livestock or to exclude • According to the AZGF, to be permeable for deer and elk, or direct livestock/wildlife from entering a road's right-of-way. the top and bottom wires of a barbed wire fence should be Woven wire fencing, referred to as "game fencing", is commonly barbless. used to enclose sheep pastures. Barbed wire fencing is the most • In Bighorn Sheep habitats, AZGF recommends a three-wire cost-effective fencing material. AZGF recommends a maximum fence no more than 39 inch high, with T-posts spaced 20height of 42 inches and the bottom wire to be 18-20 inches off the 25 FT apart and the bottom wire 20 inches off the ground. ground to allow pronghorn and deer fawns to go under. AZGF • To allow deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep to cross a recommend that fencing be located as far from the road as fence (not elk or livestock), AZGF suggests a special ladder practicable. In pronghorn sheep habitats a 300 FT buffer is comprised of two 10 FT vertical wooden posts 20 inches recommended. Additional information is located at: apart. http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/documents/110125_AGFD_fencing_guidelines.pdf Road Markers Reflective road markers, either raised pavement markers or • Raised pavement markers are used to supplement standard delineator posts that communicate the road’s alignment to pavement markings when a higher degree of nighttime motorists. Recessed pavement markers also alert to drivers that visibility is warranted. they are crossing into the shoulder area or the opposite lane. • Solar powered, LED markers create a highly visible line of light directing motorists at night. • Post mounted delineators can be seen from up to 1,000 FT under normal conditions. Pavement Markings Pavement markings provide important traffic control information • Recessed striping and rumple strips provide long-term to motorists as well as guidance to motorists and pedestrians. delineation on routinely snow-plowed routes. Longitudinal rumble strips enhance safety by alerting drivers that • Traffic striping requires minimum levels of retroreflectivity. their vehicle is leaving the travel lane. Additional information is located at: www.azdot.gov/business/engineering-and-construction/traffic/signing-and-markingstandard-drawings/current Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements • Deer can be excluded, funneled, or directed in a specific Funnel/Non Permeable Fencing Funnel fencing is installed to prevent wildlife/livestock from crossing high risk areas and guide them to safer crossings direction by use of a woven wire, 8 FT fence. (underpass, bridge, and culvert) or to open areas with adequate • Pronghorn deer are capable of jumping, but prefer to go visibility for motorists to avoid collisions. Additional information under fences; therefore, AZGF recommends a 5 FT, woven is located at: wire fence. www.azgfd.gov/w_c/documents/110125_AGFD_fencing_guidelines.pdf • In high elk activity areas, AZGF suggests the following and types of fencing: Buck and Pole, extended ROW barbed www.azdot.gov/docs/default-source/planning/wildlife_funnel_fencing_summary.pdf wire extension, 8 FT woven wire fence, or 7 FT braided electric rope fence. • ADOT suggests a 12-20 FT wide rock, rip-rap swath as a fencing alternative to deter elk from crossing the roadway and funneling wildlife into crossing structure. 86 Table 5.5: Evaluation of Safety Improvements (Continued) Enhancement Description Considerations Upgrade Signage Traffic signs communicate rules, warnings, and guidance to drivers • At horizontal curves, installing chevron signs and curve to safely and effectively navigate the roadway system. warning signs guide motorists on the road's alignment, particularly during nighttime driving. • A sign technician should review the placement of signs to ensure that the position is visible, particularly at night. Clear Zones Unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows drivers to regain control of their vehicle that has left the travel lane. Clear zones can reduce the severity of crashes and provide a safe recovery area rather than a crash. Street Lighting Street and pedestrian lighting is intended to create a safe, • Aesthetically, street light poles and fixtures can also nighttime environment by increasing visibility between create a defining visual characteristic to enhance a pedestrians, motorists, and their surroundings. For motor vehicles, community's character. installing street lighting improves driver's visibility and in turn can • If not properly designed and installed, however, light reduce the risk of traffic accidents and the severity of crashes. pollution caused by street and pedestrian lighting can Good outdoor lighting can also create and encourage a pedestrian increase glare for drivers and reduce sky visibility. friendly environment by providing extended hours of light to utilize pedestrian facilities. Safety Laws, Programs, and Campaigns Seat belt laws allow law enforcement to ticket drivers and passengers for not wearing seat belts; therefore, creating a deterrent to drivers. Seat belt usage is a proven countermeasure that can reduce crash severity. • AASHTO provides a range of clear zone width based on Evaluation of Improvements speed, traffic, and roadside slope. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 87 Evaluation of Improvements Figure 5.2: Safety Projects Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 88 Table 5.6: Evaluation of Safety Projects Shoulder Improvements State Route 66 Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) Antares Road Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) Supai Road C lear Roadside Vegetation Supai Road BIA Route 103 (Valentine) BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs)     Existing A A DT Existing LOS A A DT 2034 LOS 2034 Overall Safety A lt./Emergency Route Ped/Bike Safety Preserves Infrastructure Multimodal A ccess Network Connectivity Tourist/Economic Environ./ Cultural Resources Title VI Construction Feasibility Cost Effectiveness ROW Impacts Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): Mud Realign roadway at sharp curves (MP Tank Road to Diamond Bar Road 17.5 - 18.5; MP 26 - 29; MP 30 32; MP 34 - 36) 44.9 22 15 68 A 95 A H Y L Y N Y H M NI L L L Long Crash Rate Project Description $51,000,000 0 1,996 B 2,794 B H Y L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $2,000 0.3 1 1 1,459 B 2,403 B 3.6 23 88 1,459 B 2,403 B H H Y Y H H Y Y Y Y N N H H L L Pos Pos M H H M M M Short Short $160,000 $2,000,000 3.7 3 6 723 A 1,012 B H N H Y Y Y H M NI M H M Short $250,000 0.76 1 7 231 A 323 A H Y H Y Y Y H M Pos H H M Mid $200,000 3.5 7 30 115 A 161 A H N M Y Y Y H M Pos M M M Mid $1,500,000 20.1 8 32 135 20.0 10 32 135 A A 189 189 A A H H N N M M Y Y Y Y Y Y M M M L NI NI M H H H M M Mid Mid $5,000,000 $5,000,000 23.0 2.5 38 135 A 189 A H N L Y N N M M NI M H L Short $15,000 1.3 0 0 <100 A <100 A H N M Y Y N L L NI H H L Short $1,200 1.63 1 4 <100 A <100 A H N H Y Y N L L NI H H L Short $1,000 East of Hualapai Way to West of Repave and restripe roadway to include 0.57 0 High View Drive center turn lane MP 86 to MP 86.5 MP 86.5 to MP 90 Diamond Bar Road to Grand Canyon West State Route 66 to Pavement Ending State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road Widen shoulders to 8 FT Widen shoulders to 8 FT Add 5 FT unpaved shoulders State Route 66 to MP 20 MP 20 to Reservation Boundary Add 5 FT unpaved shoulders Add 5 FT unpaved shoulders MP 17 to MP 40 Clear roadside vegetation to the fence line Clear roadside vegetation Clear roadside vegetation Sections 10 - 110 Diamond Creek Road (Section 100 and 280); Hualapai Way (Section 70); High View Drive (Section 110) Add 5 FT unpaved shoulders Add 5 FT unpaved shoulders C ost (2014 dollars) Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers. EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1 Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements Install C enter Turn Lane State Route 66 Project Location Project Phase Length (miles) On Road Roadway Realignment Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) Crash Severity (EPDO) Evaluation C riteria 89 Table 5.6: Evaluation of Safety Projects (Continued)    Tourist/Economic Environ./ Cultural Resources Title VI Construction Feasibility Cost Effectiveness ROW Impacts L N N N L L NI H H L Short $500 H N L N N N L L NI H H L Short $500 H N L N N N H L NI H H L Short $500 H Y L Y Y Y H L NI H H L Short $35,000 H N L Y N N M L NI M H L Mid $350,000 H Y L N Y Y H M NI L L L Long - H N L Y N N L L NI L L L Long $120,000 A 3,185 B H N L Y N N H M NI M H L Short $450,000 A 1,012 B H N L Y N N H M NI M H L Short $470,000 A 1,099 B H N L Y N N H M NI M H L Short $1,800,000 A H N L Y N N H M NI M H L Short $305,000 LOS 2034 Y A A DT 2034 H Existing LOS Existing A A DT Crash Severity (EPDO) Project Phase Install "Do Not Enter When Flooded" 0.4 0 0 <100 A <100 A sign Install "Do Not Enter When Flooded" 0.9 0 0 <100 A <100 A sign Install "Do Not Enter When Flooded" 19.0 5 26 <100 A <100 A sign Conduct a drainage study to assess roadway to determine water flow 31.5 11 20 38 A 53 A patterns and possible culvert locations. Install 22 culverts 44.9 28 83 76 A 95 A Install drainage improvement 31.6 11 20 38 A 53 A recommended in the drainage study Buildup roadway and install culvert (1) 0.9 0 0 <100 A <100 A at Truxton Wash State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF 7 30 115 standards 3.5 Diamond Bar Road to Grand Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF 3 6 723 3.7 Canyon West standards Pierce Ferry Road to Hualapai Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF 63 130 785 Indian Reservation standards 14.0 Hualapai Indian Reservation to Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF 8 32 135 Buck and Doe Road standards 2.4 189 A C ost (2014 dollars) Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers. EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1 Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements  Network Connectivity Diamond Bar Road Multimodal A ccess BIA Route 8000 (Valentine Cemetery Road) Roadside Fencing Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) Preserves Infrastructure Antares Road Mud Tank Road to Diamond Bar Road Pavement Ending to Pierce Ferry Road State Route 66 to Valentine Cemetery Ped/Bike Safety Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) State Route 66 to Valentine Cemetery Diamond Creek Road: Pavement Ending to Colorado River Pavement Ending to Pierce Ferry Road A lt./Emergency Route Antares Road Section 10 Project Description Overall Safety BIA Route 8000 (Valentine Cemetery Road) Diamond Creek Road Project Location Crash Rate On Road Drainage Improvements BIA Route 9103 (Valentine) Length (miles) Evaluation C riteria 90 Table 5.6: Evaluation of Safety Projects (Continued) Antares Road Street Lighting State Route 66 BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) MP 85.2 to MP 85.5 Install street lighting Sections 30, 50, 70, 100, 120, Install street lighting 200 - 220, 260 - 290 State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road Install street lighting LOS 2034 Overall Safety A lt./Emergency Route Ped/Bike Safety Preserves Infrastructure Multimodal A ccess Network Connectivity Tourist/Economic Environ./ Cultural Resources Title VI Construction Feasibility Cost Effectiveness ROW Impacts 135 A 189 A H N L Y N N M M NI M H L Short $375,000 3.0 6.8 11 135 A 189 A H N L Y N N M M NI M H L Short $375,000 6.0 2.7 16 135 A 189 A H N L Y N N M M NI M H L Short $750,000 29 63 1,447 B 2,026 B H N L Y N N H M NI H H L Short $840,000 41 134 1,625 B 2,275 B H N L Y N N H M NI H H L Short $1,600,000 41 144 1,459 B 2,403 B H N L Y N N H M NI M H L Short $1,300,000 21 60 1,760 B 2,464 B H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $950,000 12 Crash Rate 9 3.0 4.1 6.6 12.9 9.7 7.4 27.2 13.0 0.76 31.6 0.3 4.5 C ost ( 2014 dollars) 7 905 A 1,267 A H Y L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $3,500,000 14 57 68 A 95 A H N L Y N N M M NI L M L Mid $375,000 1 7 231 A 323 A H Y L Y N N H M NI M H L Mid $100,000 11 20 38 A 53 A H Y L Y N N H M NI H M L Mid $4,000,000 2 4 1,459 B 2,403 B H Y H Y N N H L NI H M L Short $40,000 1 4 <100 A <100 A H N H Y Y N L L Pos M M L Short $520,000 7 30 115 A 3,185 B H N H Y Y Y H L Pos M M L Short $400,000 3.5  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs.  Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers.  EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1  Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) A A DT 2034 State Route 66 Existing LOS Pierce Ferry Road Project Description Upgrade existing roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards MP 17.5 to MP 20.5 Upgrade existing roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards MP 25.5 to MP 31.5 Upgrade existing roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards Antares Road to Diamond Bar Road Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards MP 71 to MP 84 Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards MP 86.5 to Western Reservation Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF Boundary standards MP 105 to Eastern Reservation Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF Boundary standards Eastern Reservation Boundary to Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards Seligman MP 4 to MP 17 Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards State Route 66 to Pavement Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF Ending standards Pavement Ending to Pierce Ferry Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF Road standards Existing A A DT Supai Road Project Location MP 2.5 to MP 5.5 Project Phase Length (miles) On Road Crash Severity (EPDO) Evaluation C riteria 91 Table 5.6: Evaluation of Safety Projects (Continued) Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) Pierce Ferry Road Diamond Bar Road State Route 66 BIA Route 8000 (Valentine Cemetery Road)     Install street lighting Install recessed reflective pavement markers Install recessed reflective pavement markers Install guardrails along sharp curves MP 20 to Hualapai Indian Reservation Boundary MP 17.5 - 18.5; MP 26 - 29; MP 30 - 32; MP 34 - 36 Diamond Bar Road to Grand Install recessed reflective pavement Canyon West markers Antares Road to Diamond Bar Road Install recessed reflective pavement markers Pierce Ferry Road to Hualapai Install recessed reflective pavement Indian Reservation markers Hualapai Indian Reservation to Install recessed reflective pavement Buck and Doe Road markers MP 71 to MP 84 Install recessed reflective pavement markers Clean roadside clear zones State Route 66 to Valentine Replace and widen cattle guards (2) Cemetery Existing A A DT Existing LOS A A DT 2034 LOS 2034 Overall Safety A lt./Emergency Route Ped/Bike Safety Preserves Infrastructure Multimodal A ccess Network Connectivity Tourist/Economic Environ./ Cultural Resources Title VI Construction Feasibility Cost Effectiveness ROW Impacts Technical analysis does not warrant installing street lighting; however, 0.76 1 stakeholders and public expressed need for street lighting to improve safety. Project Phase 7 231 A 323 A H Y H Y Y N H L Pos M M L Short C ost (2014 dollars) $80,000 0.6 0 0 <100 A <100 A H N H Y Y N M L Pos M M L Short $80,000 20.1 8 32 135 A 189 A H N L Y N N M L NI H H L Short $15,000 20.0 10 32 135 A 189 A H N L Y N N M L NI H H L Short $15,000 8.5 2 5 68 A 95 A H N L Y N N M L NI H H L Short $10,300 3.7 3 6 723 A 1,012 B H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $2,500 6.6 29 63 1,447 B 2,026 B H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $5,000 14.0 63 130 785 A 1,099 B H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $10,000 12 1,447 A 2,026 B H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $10,000 12.9 41 134 1,625 B 2,275 B 12.9 41 134 1,625 B 2,275 B H H Y Y L L Y Y N Y N N H H L L NI NI H H H H L L Short Short $10,000 $13,000 0.9 0 H N L Y N N L L NI L M L Mid $8,000 2.4 8 0 <100 A <100 A Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers. EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1 Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements BIA Route 104 Section 40 and Section 50 Additional Roadside Safety Features Supai Road State Route 66 to MP 20 Project Description Install street lighting Crash Severity (EPDO) Project Location State Route 66 to Pavement Ending Crash Rate On Road Antares Road Length (miles) Evaluation C riteria 92 Table 5.6: Evaluation of Safety Projects (Continued) Alt./Emergency Route Ped/Bike Safety Preserves Infrastructure Multimodal Access Network Connectivity Tourist/Economic Environ./ Cultural Resources Title VI Construction Feasibility Cost Effectiveness ROW Impacts Y N N H L NI H H L Short $1,800 144 1,459 B 2,403 B H Y L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $8,000 91 1,760 B 2,464 B H Y L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $4,000 28 2,275 B 3,185 B H Y L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $2,000 18 2,275 B 3,185 B H Y L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $500 31 1,996 B 2,794 B H Y L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $1,200 4 1,996 B 2,794 B H Y H Y Y Y H L Pos H H L Short $75,000 60 1,760 B 2,464 B H Y L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $6,000 7 A 1,267 A H Y L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $20,000 4 2,275 B 3,185 B H Y M Y N N H L NI M H L Mid $300,000 905 LOS 2034 L AADT 2034 Y Existing LOS H Existing AADT 20 1,459 B 2,403 B C ost ( 2014 dollars) Diamond Creek Road (Section Install Street Name and Wayfiding Signs - 1 4 <100 A <100 A H N H Y Y N H L NI H H L Short $3,000 100 and 280); Hualapai Way (Section 70); High View Drive (Section 110) L NI H H L Short $10,000 Sections 20, 40-60, 90, 110, Install Street Name and Wayfiding Signs - 0 0 <100 A <100 A H N H Y Y N H 130-190, 210-270  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs.  Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers.  EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1  Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements Signage BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) Project Phase Crash Severity (EPDO) Project Description Install recessed reflective pavement 2.4 8 markers MP 86.5 to Western Reservation Install recessed reflective pavement 9.7 41 Boundary markers Western Reservation Boundary to Install recessed reflective pavement 4.9 15 MP 101 markers MP 101 to MP 103 Install recessed reflective pavement 2.0 10 markers MP 103 to Diamond Creek Road Install recessed reflective pavement 0.4 6 markers Diamond Creek Road to MP 105 Install recessed reflective pavement 1.6 10 markers Diamond Creek Road to Nelson Upgrade street lighting, install 0.12 1 Road wayfinding signs, enhance landscaping MP 105 to Eastern Reservation Install recessed reflective pavement 7.4 21 Boundary markers Eastern Reservation Boundary to Install recessed reflective pavement 27.2 12 Seligman markers Honga Hill Road to Diamond Creek Consolidate driveways to the Cultural Road Center, Post Office, and Planning 0.25 1 Department Overall Safety State Route 66 Project Location MP 84 to MP 86.5 Crash Rate On Road State Route 66 Length (miles) Evaluation C riteria 93 Table 5.6: Evaluation of Safety Projects (Continued)    LOS 2034 Overall Safety A lt./Emergency Route Ped/Bike Safety Preserves Infrastructure Multimodal A ccess Network Connectivity Tourist/Economic Environ./ Cultural Resources Title VI Construction Feasibility Cost Effectiveness ROW Impacts 30 115 A 161 A H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1)/ Mud Tank Road Intersection Mud Tank Road to Diamond Bar Road MP 17 - MP 20 MP 26 - MP 29 MP 17 - MP 20 MP 26 - MP 29 Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1)/ Diamond Bar Road Intersection Diamond Bar Road to Grand Canyon West Antares Road/Pavement Ending Intersection Install Road Conditions Warning Signs - 0 0 115 A 161 A H N L Y N N M L NI H H L Short $500 Install Animal Crossing Warning Signs - 28 76 68 A 95 A H N L Y N N M L NI H H L Short $15,000 Install Curve Warning Signs Install Curve Warning Signs Install Curve Warning Signs Install Curve Warning Signs Install Road Conditions Warning Signs - 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 5 1 68 68 68 68 68 A A A A A 95 95 95 95 95 A A A A A H H H H H N N N N N L L L L L Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M L L L L L NI NI NI NI NI H H H H H H H H H H L L L L L Short Short Short Short Short $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $500 Install Curve Warning Signs - 3 6 723 A 1,012 B H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $5,000 Supplement existing W11-4 (Advance Cattle Crossing) signs at MPs 3.64 SB, 8.51 NB, 12.08 NB, and 31.66 SB - 0 0 38 A A H Y L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $31,000 - 29 63 1,447 B 2,026 B H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $6,000 - 29 63 1,447 B 2,026 B H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $6,000 - 29 63 1,447 B 2,026 B H N L Y Y N H L NI H H L Short $8,000 Antares Road to Diamond Bar Road Supplement existing Curve Warning Signs Supplement existing W11-4 (Advance Cattle Crossing) sign at MP 22.94 SB Install wayfinding signs for tourists Existing A A DT 7 Project Description Project Location State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road Install Animal Crossing Warning Signs Crash Severity (EPDO) - Project Phase Short 53 C ost (2014 dollars) $4,000 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers. EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1 Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements  A A DT 2034 Pierce Ferry Road Existing LOS Antares Road Crash Rate On Road Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) Length (miles) Evaluation C riteria 94 Table 5.6: Evaluation of Safety Projects (Continued)    Title VI C onstruction Feasibility C ost Effectiveness ROW Impacts L L Y Y Y N Y N H H L L NI NI H H H H L L - 63 130 785 A 1,099 B H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $16,000 - 8 8 12 1,447 A 2,026 B 12 1,447 A 2,026 B H H N N L L Y Y Y N Y N H H L L NI NI H H H H L L Short Short $1,500 $5,000 - 8 12 1,447 A 2,026 B H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $10,000 - 8 32 135 A 189 A H N L Y Y Y M L NI H H L Short $2,000 - 8 32 135 8 32 135 1 4 135 1 4 135 10 32 135 A A A A A 189 189 189 189 189 A A A A A H H H H H N N N N N L L L L L Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y N N N N Y M M M M M L L L L L NI NI NI NI NI H H H H H H H H H H L L L L L Short Short Short Short Short $4,000 $15,000 $1,000 $2,500 $2,000 - 10 32 135 10 32 135 1 7 367 A A A 189 189 514 A A A H H H N N N L L L Y Y Y N N N N N N M M M L L L NI NI NI H H H H H H L L L Short Short Short $4,000 $15,000 $2,500 - 0 0 <100 A <100 A H N H Y Y N L L Pos M H L Mid $20,000 LOS 2034 N N A A DT 2034 H H Existing LOS A 1,099 B A 1,099 B Existing A A DT 63 130 785 63 130 785 C rash Severity (EPDO) - Cost (2014 dollars) $18,000 $12,000 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers. EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1 Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements  Install Street Name and Wayfinding Signs Environ./ C ultural Resources BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) Lhoist Lime Plant to State Route 66 Shandy Lane (Sections 50 and 30); BIA Lane (Section 200) Tourist/Economic Nelson Road Network C onnectivity MP 20 to Hualapai Indian Reservation Boundary Multimodal A ccess MP 13 to MP 15 Preserves Infrastructure State Route 66 to MP 20 Ped/Bike Safety Supai Road A lt./Emergency Route Hualapai Indian Reservation to Buck and Doe Road Project Description Install wayfinding signs for tourists Supplement existing Curve Warning Signs Supplement existing Animal Crossing Warning Signs Install wayfinding signs for tourists Supplement existing Curve Warning Signs Supplement existing Animal Crossing Warning Signs Install Street Name and Wayfinding Signs Install Animal Crossing Warning Signs Signage Inventory Install Curve Warning Signs Install Curve Warning Signs Install Street Name and Wayfinding Signs Install Animal Crossing Warning Signs Signage Inventory Install Hill Warning Signage C rash Rate Project Location Pierce Ferry Road to Hualapai Indian Reservation Project Phase Short Short Length (miles) On Road Diamond Bar Road Overall Safety Evaluation Criteria 95 Railroad Crossings Railroad crossing improvements can range from low-cost signage installation to major rail and road reconstruction projects. Table 5.7 provides a summary of potential enhancement options that can be utilized in the study area to improve railroad crossings. Based on a comprehensive inventory of at-grade crossing and evaluation of potential improvements to the crossings, Table 5.8 summarizes proposed safety improvements. Table 5.7: Railroad Crossing Improvement Options Description Considerations Pedestrian Grade Separated Crossing A bicycle or pedestrian crossing structure, typically either an underpass or a bridge, which allows access across a railroad track. • Can be expensive and difficult to implement. • Pedestrians may still cross tracks. Flashing Light Signal Flashing signs that are placed to warn drivers of approaching railroad crossing. Warns drivers and pedestrians of oncoming train. • May be disruptive to nearby residential areas Active traffic control devices are activated by the passage of a train over a detection circuit as it approaches a crossing. Active traffic control devices include flashing light signals (both mast-mounted and cantilevered), bells, automatic gates, active advance warning devices, and highway traffic signals. • High installation costs. • Pedestrians and motorists may ignore warning Quiet Zones Stretch of track that trains are not required to routinely sound the horn at each public crossing, except in emergencies. • To qualify, traffic control device upgrades must Over or Underpass Grade-separated railroad crossings include a bridge, • High construction costs and on-going tunnel, or similar structure that allows motorists to safely maintenance. cross a railroad. • Underpasses may result in restricted horizontal or vertical clearance, have drainage concerts, and may restrict expansion of the railroad line. Active Traffic Control Device Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report at night. devices. be installed. Evaluation of Improvements Railroad Crossing Improvement 96 Table 5.8: Evaluation of At-Grade Railroad Projects BIA Route 103 (Valentine) BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs)     0 0 0 0 0 <100 1,008 <100 1,008 1,008 A A A A A <100 1,411 <100 1,411 1,411 Preserves Infrastructure Multimodal Access Network Connectivity Tourist/Economic Environ./ Cultural Resources Title VI Construction Feasibility Cost Effectiveness ROW Impacts LOS 2034 A Ped/Bike Safety <100 Alt./Emergency Route A AADT 2034 Existing LOS Existing AADT <100 H N L Y N N L L NI H H L Project Phase Short H N L Y N N L L NI H H L Short H N L Y N N L L NI H H L Short A $8,000 $8,000 H N L Y N N L L NI H H L Short H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short A $1,000 $8,000 H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short H N H N Y Y L L Pos L M M Mid A A C ost ( 2014 dollars) $1,500 $1,500 $800 L N L Y N N L L Pos M M L Mid L N L Y N N H L Pos M M L Mid H N M N Y Y H M NI L L M Long H N M N Y Y H M NI L L M Long $5,000 $8,000 $3,700,000 $3,800,000 A H N M N Y Y H M NI L L M Long $2,200,000 H N M N Y Y H M NI L L M Long $6,000,000 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers. EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1 Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) 0 Overall Safety BIA Route 103 (Valentine) Project Location Project Description Valentine Cemetery Road/ Install crossbucks Coordinate with BNSF to conduct an atBNSF Railroad Crossing 0 grade crossing safety assessment to determine necessary improvements Section 70 and 80/ Coordinate with BNSF to conduct an atBNSF Railroad Crossing grade crossing safety assessment to 0 determine necessary improvements Install "Look" and "Yield" sign at crossing Diamond Creek Road/ Coordinate with BNSF to conduct an atBNSF Rail road Crossing grade crossing safety assessment to 0 determine necessary improvements Restripe roadway to include stop line and pavement marking symbols Section 70 and 80/ Coordinate with BNSF to level and widen BNSF Railroad Crossing roadway; install gates; and flashing lights 0.2 Section 70 and 80/ Establish Quiet Zone through Valentine BNSF Railroad Crossing Community Diamond Creek Road/ Establish Quiet Zone through Peach 0.2 BNSF Rail road Crossing Springs Community Diamond Creek Road/ O ption 1: Replace current at-grade BNSF Rail road Crossing crossing with new 500 FT overpass O ption 2: Extend Rodeo Way to State Route 66 with a new 450 FT railroad overpass 0.2 O ption 3: Realign Rodeo Circle to connect to Nelson Road with a new 250 FT railroad overpass O ption 4: Construct new railroad underpass west of existing at-grade crossing Crash Severity (EPDO) O n Road BIA Route 8000 (Valentine Cemetery Road) Crash Rate Evaluation C riteria 97 Diamond Creek Road (BIA 101)/BNSF Railroad Alternative Crossing As the only access point to the south side of Peach Springs, community members and emergency vehicles are often restricted from crossing the BNSF railroad when a train is stopped at the crossing for an extended period of time. In order to improve connectivity within Peach Springs, an alternative railroad crossing needs to be constructed. Table 5.9 presents a summary of preliminary alternative options. Potential funding sources to implement safety improvements at railroad crossings include the TIGER Discretionary Grant program, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) grant programs, and the Railway-Highways Crossing (Section 130) Program. Additional funding source information can be found in Chapter 9. Table 5.9: Evaluation of Railroad Crossing Options at Diamond Creek Road Option 1- Diamond Creek Road Description Considerations Approximate Cost Replace current at-grade crossing with new Construction will obstruct the crossing and 500 FT overpass limit connectivity $3.7 million 2- Rodeo Way to State Route 66 Extend Rodeo Way to State Route 66 with a Will increase traffic at Nelson Road/State new 450 FT railroad overpass Route 66 intersection $3.8 million 3- Rodeo Way to Nelson Road Realign Rodeo Circle to connect to Nelson Road with a new 250 FT railroad overpass Nelson Road will need to be upgraded to accommodate increased traffic $2.2 million 4- Underpass Construct underpass west of the existing atgrade railroad crossing Additional expense to pump storm water may be needed $6.0 million Proposed bridge improvement projects were developed based on input received by stakeholders, review of existing conditions, and sufficiency ratings obtained from ADOT's bridge inventory. Bridge #141, located on State Route 66 at milepost 91.6, is structurally deficient and is currently being rehabilitated. For bridges and culverts maintained by BIA and the Hualapai Indian Tribe, a comprehensive inventory was conducted to identify bridges that are in need repair or maintenance. Table 5.10 summarizes bridge improvement projects. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements Bridge Improvements 98 Table 5.10: Evaluation of Bridge Improvement Projects BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs)     Pavement Ending to Pierce Ferry Road Truxton Wash Bridge (Section 290) ROW Impacts Cost Effectiveness Construction Feasibility Tourist/Economic Environ./ Cultural Resources Title VI Network Connectivity Multimodal A ccess Preserves Infrastructure Ped/Bike Safety A lt./Emergency Route Overall Safety Future LOS A A DT 2034 Existing LOS Phase $5,000 Clear vegetation and cleanout bridge Clear vegetation and cleanout bridge $5,000 0 0 68 A 95 A H N L Y Y N M L NI H H L Short $5,000 Clear vegetation and cleanout bridge $5,000 Bridge Rehabilitation 1 Antares Road Existing A A DT P r o jec t Des c r ip tio n Clear vegetation and cleanout bridge Construct bridge over Truxton Wash Widen bridge Co s t (2014 d o lla r s ) 0 32 11 0 0 H Y L Y N N H L NI M M L Short *Currently Under Construction A H Y L N Y Y H M NI L L L Long $2,000,000 A 1,411 A H N L N Y Y H M Pos L L L Long $700,000 1,459 B 20 A 1,008 2,403 B 53 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers. EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1 Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements State Route 66 P r o jec t Lo c a tio n BIA Route 1, Section 22 (~MP 15.5) BIA Route 1, Section 27 (~MP 17.8) BIA Route 1, Section 30 (~MP 18.2) BIA Route 1, Section 52 (~MP 19.9) Bridge #141 (MP 91.6) Crash Severity (EPDO) On Ro a d Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) Length (miles) Evaluation C riteria 99 Traffic Calming Measures As identified in Chapter 4, travel speeds through the study area are generally much greater than actual posted speed limits. Traffic calming measures are often utilized to improve safety by encouraging motorists to reduce traveling speeds. Traffic calming is a self-enforcing traffic management approach that forces motorists to alter their speed or direction of travel. Research has found that installing traffic calming devices not only reduces automobile speeds but also the number and severity of crashes. Traffic calming devices can range from options that require no physical roadway modifications to major roadway alterations, such as roadway closures. Table 5.11 provides a summary of potential roadway enhancements that can be utilized in the study area to reduce traveling speeds. Based on evaluation results, Figure 5.3 and Table 5.12 summarize traffic calming improvements in the study area. Table 5.11: Traffic Calming Options Traffic Calming Device Description Advantages Considerations Grooves or raised markers placed in/on the roadway surface that transmits sound and vibration to alert drivers to changing conditions. • Low installation costs • Do not require any • Noise and vibration created by Speed Limit Pavement Markings Highly visible in-pavement markings, which are also visible at night, alerting drivers of speed limit. • Inexpensive installation • Easily wears off and requires Speed Hump or Table Raised pavement section requires motorists to • Speed reduction drive at a reduced speed over an undulation. • Relatively inexpensive installation costs In-Road/On-Road Rumble Strips additional ROW costs • Can be quickly installed the rumble strips may affect the adjacent residences • Can interfere with snow plow operations regular maintenance • Not visible on snow covered roads • Increased roadway noise • Increased maintenance costs • Requires highly visible warning signage • May slow emergency vehicle Transverse Lane Markings Pavement markings spaced to give drivers the • Low cost to install perception that they are speeding up. This • Cost-effective gives a driver the perception of going too fast • Do not affect vehicle or speeding up and encourages them to operation, pedestrians, or reduce their speed. bicyclists Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report • Additional maintenance costs • Less effective in winter conditions Evaluation of Improvements response times • Can interfere with snow plow operations 100 Table 5.11. Traffic Calming Options (Continued) Description Advantages Considerations Traffic Islands and Medians Concrete or landscaped islands typically • Provides a mid-block • May restrict access to located down the center of a roadway or at a pedestrian refuge driveways in one direction roadway entrance. • Can improve the aesthetics of a roadway Roundabout or Traffic Circle Roundabouts require traffic to circulate • Roundabout can moderate counterclockwise around a center island at an traffic speeds on arterial intersection. Traffic circles are small islands roadways placed in intersections, in which vehicles must • Less expensive than slow down in order to navigate the circle. operating a traffic signal • Provides landscaping opportunities • May require additional ROW to Radar activated signs relay a vehicle's speed • Do not affect vehicle or displays messages such as "Slow Down" or operation, pedestrians, or "Reduce Speed". bicyclists • Can be quickly implemented • High cost to purchase • Require regular maintenance HAWK Pedestrian Beacon Pushbutton-activated, signalized, mid-block • Provides a "red" condition pedestrian crossing signal. The pedestrian which requires vehicles to hybrid beacon is used to warn and control stop for pedestrians traffic to assist pedestrians in crossing a street • Improves visibility of at a marked crosswalk. crossing and pedestrians • High installation and Community Gateways Gateway signs indicate to motorists that they • Enhances streetscape are leaving a rural area and entering a city or • Personalized to reflect town with increased pedestrian and motor community vehicle traffic. Gateways should be placed in speed transition zones where a gradual reduction of speed is desired. • May infringe on clear zones • Require on-going maintenance Dynamic Speed Displays Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report construct • Emergency vehicles and large trucks may have difficulty navigating and a power source • May encourage some drivers to speed • Speed radar trailers are portable devices that can be moved as needed maintenance costs Evaluation of Improvements Traffic Calming Device 101 Evaluation of Improvements Figure 5.3: Traffic Calming Projects Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 102 Table 5.12: Evaluation of Traffic Calming Projects    Ped/Bike Safety Preserves Infrastructure Multimodal A ccess Network C onnectivity Tourist/Economic Environ./ C ultural Resources Title VI C onstruction Feasibility C ost Effectiveness ROW Impacts Y N N H L NI H H L Short $1,000 A 1,099 B H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short - H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short H N L Y Y N H L NI H H L Short 14.0 63 130 785 A A DT 2034 Y Existing LOS N Existing A A DT H C rash Severity (EPDO) 0 1,008 A 1,411 A No. of C rashes Project Phase 2.4 8 12 1,447 A 2,026 B 2.4 6.6 29 63 1,447 B 2,026 B Cost (2014 dollars) $30, 000 per location $3,000 per location - Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers. EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1 Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements  Antares Road to Diamond Bar Road 0 A lt./Emergency Route Pierce Ferry Road - Overall Safety Hualapai Indian Reservation to Buck and Doe Road Project Description Extend school zone from south of Shandy Lane to Indian Way Mohave County successfully obtained a $314,000 Highway Safety Improvement Program project to design, install, and evaluate the installation of 20 driver feedback speed limit signs countywide. Design is scheduled to commence this fiscal year with installation in FY 17. Option 1: Install flashing, speed limit signs Option 2: Install speed limit pavement markings Mohave County successfully obtained a $314,000 Highway Safety Improvement Program project to design, install, and evaluate the installation of 20 driver feedback speed limit signs countywide. Design is scheduled to commence this fiscal year with installation in FY 17. C rash Rate Project Location On Road Diamond Creek Road (BIA Shandy Lane to Indian Way 101) Diamond Bar Road (BIA 1) Pierce Ferry Road to Hualapai Indian Reservation Length (miles) Evaluation Criteria 103 Table 5.12: Evaluation of Traffic Calming Projects (Continued)     A lt./Emergency Route Ped/Bike Safety Preserves Infrastructure Multimodal A ccess Network Connectivity Tourist/Economic Environ./ Cultural Resources Title VI Construction Feasibility Cost Effectiveness ROW Impacts Y N N H L NI H H L Short $12,000 8 1,459 B 2,403 B H Y H Y N N H L NI H H L Short $2,500 9.7 41 144 1,459 B 2,403 B H Y M Y N N H L NI H H L Short $1,000 4.9 15 91 1,760 B 2,464 B H Y M Y N N H L NI H H L Short $5,000 2.0 10 28 2,275 B 3,185 B H Y M Y N N H L NI H H L Short $4,000 H Y H Y N N H L Pos H H L Short H Y H Y N N H L Pos H H L Short H Y H Y N N H L Pos H H L Short H Y H Y N N H L Pos H H L Short 1.5 2 A A DT 2034 M Existing LOS Y Existing A A DT H Crash Severity (EPDO) 2,275 B No. of Crashes 12.9 41 134 1,625 B Crash Rate Project Description Install speed limit signs within 500 FT of major intersection MP 85 to MP 86.5 Reduce speed limit to 45 MPH MP 86.5 to Western Reservation Boundary Install speed limit signs within 500 FT of major intersection Western Reservation Boundary to MP 102 Install speed limit signs within 500 FT of major intersection MP 101 to MP 103 Install speed limit signs within 500 FT of major intersection MP 103 to Diamond Creek Road Option 1: Install flashing, speed limit signs Option 2: I install speed limit pavement markings Diamond Creek Road to MP 105 Option 1: Install flashing, speed limit signs Option 2: I install speed limit pavement markings Nelson Road to East of High View Drive Reduce speed limit to 35 MPH MP 105 to Eastern Reservation Boundary Install speed limit signs within 500 FT of major intersection MP 103 to Diamond Creek Road Construct Chicane East of High View Drive Construct Chicane C ost (2014 dollars) 8 1,459 B 2,403 B H Y H Y N N H L NI H H L Short $30, 000 per location $3,000 per location $30, 000 per location $3,000 per location $2,500 7.4 21 60 1,760 B 2,464 B H Y H Y N N H L NI H H L Short $7,500 0.4 6 0.7 0 3,185 B 2,794 B H H Y Y L L Y Y Y Y Y Y H H L L NI NI M M H H L L Mid Mid $350,000 $350,000 0.4 6 18 2,275 B 3,185 B 0.4 1.6 10 31 1,996 B 2,794 B 1.6 1.5 2 18 2,275 B 0 1,996 B Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers. EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1 Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements State Route 66 Project Location MP 71 to MP 84 Project Phase Length (miles) On Road State Route 66 Overall Safety Evaluation C riteria 104 EVALUATION OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS To address the existing deficiencies, future needs, and to enhance safety and mobility, preliminary improvement concepts were developed for the Diamond Creek Road/State Route 66 intersection. The following section presents a summary of these preliminary improvement concepts. Additional intersection improvements are summarized in Table 5.13. Diamond Creek Road/State Route 66 Intersection - Option 1: Signalized Intersection As illustrated in the figure bellow, in Option 1: • Intersection is converted to a four-way, signalized intersection • Eastern entrance to the Hualapai Lodge is widened to become the main entrance to the hotel • Western entrance to the Hualapai Lodge is converted to right-in/right-out • Sidewalks extended to Nelson Road • Signage and pavement markings are improved • Crosswalks are incorporated on all legs of the intersection • Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are located throughout • Reconstructed ramps to meet ADA compliance • Long-Term: Widen Diamond Creek Road to incorporate an exclusive left-turn lane Advantages • No additional right-of-way needed • No learning curve for motorists Disadvantages • Current traffic volumes do not meet requirements for traffic signal • High maintenance costs • May not reduce speeding, which is currently an issue • Minor loss of on-street parking Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements • Improves safety 105 Diamond Creek Road/State Route 66 Intersection - Option 2: Roundabout As illustrated in the figure below, in Option 2: • Intersection is converted to a one-lane roundabout • Eastern entrance to the Hualapai Lodge is widened to become the main entrance to the hotel • Western entrance to the Hualapai Lodge is converted to right-in/right-out • Sidewalks extended to Nelson Road • Crosswalks are incorporated on all legs of the intersection • Raised medians provide a safe refuge area for pedestrians crossing the road • Signage and pavement markings are improved • Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are located throughout • Incorporates ADA compliant ramps Advantages • Forces drivers to slow down as they approach the intersection • Improves safety for turning movements • Lesser delays and backups at the intersection • Provides opportunities for landscaping, new sidewalks, and bike lanes • Improves the aesthetic appearance of the area Disadvantages • Additional right-of-way needed • High implementation costs • Drivers unaccustomed to roundabouts may find the roundabout confusing Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements • Some on-street parking spots will need to be removed 106 Table 5.13: Evaluation of Intersection Improvement Projects    Existing LOS A A DT 2034 LOS 2034 Overall Safety A lt./Emergency Route Ped/Bike Safety Preserves Infrastructure Multimodal A ccess Network Connectivity Tourist/Economic Environ./ Cultural Resources Title VI Construction Feasibility Cost Effectiveness ROW Impacts Restripe intersection to include lane markings and stop bar Restripe intersection to include lane markings and stop bar Restripe intersection to include lane markings and stop bar Option 1 (Traffic Signal): Upgrade traffic signal; install raised medians on State Route 66; install pedestrian crosswalks and ADA compliant ramps; convert western entrance Hualapai Lodge to a right-in/right-out only; widen eastern entrance to Hualapai Lodge; restripe roadway; add pedestrian crosswalks; improve intersection signage Option 2 (Roundabout): Reconfigure intersection to include a roundabout; convert western entrance Hualapai Lodge to a right-in/right-out only; widen eastern entrance to Hualapai Lodge; installed raised medians; pedestrian crosswalks and sidewalks incorporated into design; improve intersection signage Phase 0 0 <100 A <100 A H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $1,500 0 0 <100 A <100 A H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $1,500 1 2 115 A 161 A H N L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $1,500 0 0 105 A 147 A H N M Y Y Y M L Pos H H L Short $1,500 1 7 231 A 323 A H Y L Y N N H L NI H H L Short $1,500 4 0 2,275 B 3,185 B H Y H Y Y Y H L NI M M M Short $350,000 4 0 2,275 B 3,185 B H Y H Y Y Y H L NI L M H Short $750,000 Co s t (2014 d o lla r s ) Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers. EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1 Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Evaluation of Improvements  Restripe intersection to include lane markings and stop bar Restripe intersection to include lane markings and stop bar Existing A A DT BIA Lane (BIA Route 101 Section 200)/ State Route 66 Intersection High View Drive (BIA Route 101 Section 120)/ State Route 66 Intersection Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1)/ State Route 66 Intersection State Route 66/Nelson Road Intersection (Peach Springs) Antares Road/State Route 66 Intersection State Route 66/ Diamond Creek Road Intersection P r o jec t Des c r ip tio n Crash Severity (EPDO) On Ro a d Total No. of Crashes Evaluation C riteria 107 Table 5.13: Evaluation of Intersection Improvement Projects (Continued)    Existing LOS A A DT 2034 LOS 2034 Overall Safety A lt./Emergency Route Ped/Bike Safety Preserves Infrastructure Multimodal A ccess Network Connectivity Tourist/Economic Environ./ Cultural Resources Title VI Construction Feasibility Cost Effectiveness ROW Impacts Phase 1 0 115 A 161 A H N M Y Y Y M L NI M M L Long $175,000 0 105 A 147 A H N L Y Y Y M L NI L M L Long $300,000 0 105 A 147 A H N M Y Y Y M L Pos L M M Long $250,000 0 0 <100 A <100 A H Y L Y Y Y L L NI L L L Long $250,000 0 0 <100 A <100 A H N L Y N Y M L NI M L M Long $250,000 Widen intersection so trucks turning EB can easily access 0 State Route 66 Redesign and realign intersection to a T-intersection 0 Level intersection Reconfigure intersection Co s t (2014 d o lla r s ) Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and an analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route and section numbers. EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only value. EPDO is a method for ranking crash locations in terms of crash severity. The higher the EPDO value for a road segment the higher the crash severity. Following EPDO multipliers were used for each crash: Fatal Crash =12; Severe Injury = 7; Minor Injury = 4; Possible Injury = 2; No Injury = 1 Title VI Implications: NI= No Impact; Pos. = Positive Impact; Neg. = Negative Impact Evaluation of Improvements  Widen intersection to include exclusive left-turn lane Existing A A DT Buck and Doe Road/ State Route 66 State Route 66/ Nelson Road Intersection State Route 66/Nelson Road Intersection (Peach Springs) BIA Route 103 Section 20/State Route 66 Intersection Shandy Lane/Honaga Hill Road/Ridge Road Intersection P r o jec t Des c r ip tio n Crash Severity (EPDO) On Ro a d Total No. of Crashes Evaluation C riteria Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 108 EVALUATION OF PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS Alternative modes of transportation, such as sidewalks, bike paths/routes, and trails (including equestrian), are an important aspect of the multimodal transportation network as they provide mobility for those not able to operate or without access to a vehicle, and also for recreational purpose. At the onset of the study, community members, stakeholders, and the TAC, all expressed interest in enhancing existing pedestrian facilities to allow pedestrians to safely walk between residential areas and activity centers. Developing a community-wide pedestrian and bicycle network can lead to many benefits, including: • Lowering traffic congestion by reducing dependence on automobiles • Enhancing residents’ quality of life through promoting healthier lifestyles • Expanding tourism opportunities and enhancing local economy • Providing mobility for those without a vehicle or are unable to drive • Improving community aesthetics while preserving the natural environment Table 5.14 and Figure 5.4 provide an overview of potential pedestrian, bicycle, and trail facilities that could enhance the Hualapai Indian Reservation's existing transportation network. Evaluation of Improvements Figure 5.4: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Improvements Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 109 Table 5.14: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Improvement Options Pedestrian Facility Sidewalk Only Considerations Applicable Locations • Pedestrians have safe buffer zone • Diamond Creek Road within between motor vehicles • Provides opportunity to enhance streetscaping Illustration Peach Springs • Hualapai Way • Nelson Road • High View Drive from Diamond Creek Road to Mesa View Drive • Other residential streets in Peach Springs • Milkweed Springs Road • Buck and Doe Road • State Route 66 from Diamond Creek Road to Hualapai Way Unpaved, multi-use trail • Increased construction and • Ridgeline Road from Peach Unpaved multi-use path with trailside amenities • Trailside amenities provide • State Route 66 from Peach maintenance costs • Can be designated for off-highway vehicle or equestrian use • Trailside amenities provide additional recreational opportunities additional recreational opportunities • Increased installation and maintenance costs Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Springs to Milkweed Springs Springs to Buck and Doe Road Evaluation of Improvements Asphalt shared-use-path offset • Offset sidewalk provides a safe from roadway buffer zone between motor vehicles • Can be utilized by multiple modes, including bicyclists, in-line skaters, wheelchair users, etc. • Minimizes potential crossing conflicts with motor vehicles • Provides opportunity to enhance streetscaping Paved multi-use path with • Can be utilized by multiple modes, trailside amenities including bicyclists, in-line skaters, wheelchair users, etc. • Trailside amenities provide additional recreational opportunities • Promotes tourism • Increased construction and maintenance costs 110 EVALUATION OF TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Successful transit systems open economic opportunities for local residents and businesses, link neighboring destinations, and generally enhance the quality of life of residents and the economic vitality of rural communities. Summary of Transit Need and Demand During public outreach events, stakeholder meetings, and TAC meetings, Tribal members often expressed the desire for transit service within the Indian Reservation and to outlying, regional activity centers. Due to the lack of vehicles available to Tribal members and long travel distances, the Grand Canyon West Corporation began providing van service for employees between Peach Springs, Truxton, and Kingman to the Grand Canyon West. The employee vans carry approximately 60 passengers per day and are often overcrowded. The Health and Wellness Department also provides van service for medical appointments and limited, fee-based service to local activity centers; in 2012 this service provided over 5,240 trips and logged over 197,700 miles. According to the 2013 Hualapai Housing Needs Assessment, 50% of employers identified costs and time required for commuters to reach work as a source of employee turnover, while 31% of employees have commute related challenges. This high demand for transit service within the Hualapai Indian Reservation clearly demonstrates the need for a programmed transit service and warrants a pilot program. Based on analysis of existing transit needs, potential growth within the study area, and input from Tribal staff, the need for transit service within the Hualapai Indian Reservation includes: • • • Fixed route system that provides access between activity centers within Peach Springs to Buck and Doe Road. Phased transit system that includes service between Peach Springs, Truxton, Valentine, and Grand Canyon West; as well as regional connections to Seligman and Kingman. Regional transit service to Phoenix, Flagstaff, Las Vegas, and Laughlin. Evaluation of Improvements In order to establish a transit service, a transit demand analysis must be performed in order to effectively determine the service design, capacity, and schedule. A comprehensive Transit Feasibility Study and a subsequent Transit Implementation Study should be conducted with assistance from ADOT. Currently, the Tribe is in the process of publishing an RFP to conduct a Transit Feasibility Study. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 111 6. STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC OUTREACH Public involvement is essential to the broad acceptance and successful implementation of any transportation improvement plan. The goal of community outreach is to educate stakeholders and the public about the study, provide opportunities for input, and to create a process to build consensus in support of the study recommendations. For this study, Phase 1 of the outreach focused on current transportation issues, problem areas, and needs; and Phase 2 focused on improvement recommendations for the problem areas identified in the first phase. This chapter presents public outreach efforts conducted during the first phase and stakeholder outreach efforts conducted during the second phase. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public involvement is the process of involving the public throughout the transportation planning process through meaningful communication with interested citizens. To ensure that transportation decisions reflect the public's best interests, public involvement is a critical component of the transportation planning process. To engage the public, the study work plan includes two public meetings to inform, discuss, and to seek input. Additionally, a project website was developed and hosted by ADOT to enable citizens and the public to access study documents and to submit comments or questions. Phase I of public outreach efforts introduced the project to the public with a focus on existing and future conditions. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the deficiencies and needs of the study area, and elicit input on the public’s "vision" for the future for the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Phase II presented the draft transportation improvement plan in order to receive feedback and fine tune the study recommendations. Special outreach efforts were made for additional groups such as the Tribal Council, Elderly, and the Youth Council. Each of these groups received their own opportunity to obtain information regarding the study and provide input for the recommended transportation improvements. Phase 1 The meeting commenced with a brief presentation of the study goals and objectives, summary of existing conditions, and key issues identified by the study team. The presentation was followed by an opportunity for participants to pose questions, comments, and to provide recommendations on areas of improvement. Oversized boards were also displayed to further communicate information and to generate conversation between the public and study team members. The boards displayed included: study overview; map of current roadway issues at a region-wide scale as identified by the study team; map of current roadway issues within Peach Springs, Big Sandy Allotments, Valentine, and Cholla Canyon Ranch as identified by the study team; and a map of the multimodal issues. Comment forms were also provided to each meeting attendee. A booth was also setup, on April 25, 2014, at the Hualapai Indian Tribe’s Earth Day Celebration to obtain additional feedback from the public on the study goals and objectives and other information presented at the May 1, 2014 public meeting. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Stakeholder and Public Input The Hualapai Indian Tribe, ADOT, and the study team hosted the first of two public meetings on May 1, 2014 at the Hualapai Gymnasium. The goal of the meeting was to inform the public of the project's goals and objectives, discuss the deficiencies and needs of the study area, and elicit input on the public's "vision" for the future of the Hualapai Indian Reservation. In total, there were 12 members of the community in attendance, not including study team members. 112 Key comments received during the public meeting and Earth Day celebration included: • State Route 66 and Diamond Creek Road intersection is a major problem that would benefit from traffic control (traffic signal or roundabout), lighting, and pedestrian facilities. • High traffic speeds on State Route 66 in Peach Springs create unsafe conditions for pedestrians. • The BNSF railroad crossing in Peach Springs requires additional safety features and a pedestrian crossing. • Paved roadways, particularly BIA 18 and State Route 66, currently have poor pavement conditions, vegetation that encroaches into the roadway, and lack roadside reflectors. • Monsoon rains cause severe flooding on local roadways and State Route 66. • Unpaved roadways limit tourist activity. • Since there are limited pedestrian and bicycle facilities, pedestrians are forced to walk close to the vehicle travel lanes. • Public transportation to activity centers for elders and the youth is a priority need. • The maintenance of the roads needs to be revisited and maintained often, for the safety of all traffic. Appendix A provides a comprehensive summary of the first public meeting. PHASE 2 The Hualapai Indian Tribe, ADOT, and the study team hosted a second public open house at the Hualapai Gym on August 20, 2014. The purpose of the meeting was to elicit input and feedback from the public on recommended improvement projects for the next 5, 10, and 20 years. In total, there were 17 members of the community and five study team members present. A presentation was given at the open house and a comment form was provided to each attendee. The presentation provided an overview of the existing deficiencies and outlined recommended improvement projects. Oversized boards were displayed to illustrate the location of recommended improvements and to encourage conversation between the public and the study team. Comment forms provided to the attendees asked for feedback on intersection improvements, traffic calming measures, at-grade railroad crossing enhancements, pedestrian/bike/trail improvements, and transit service routes. • Nine out of 19 comment forms received were in favor of converting the State Route 66/Diamond Creek Road intersection into a signalized intersection. • Seven out of 19 comment forms received were in favor of installing a roundabout at the State Route 66/Diamond Creek Road intersection. Comments received included: • o "I have a concern with the roundabout in so far as commercial vehicle traffic is concerned. They will impede truck and bus traffic in the downtown area." o "I feel this roundabout is a good option to slow traffic in a high pedestrian area seems the most efficient option for the area and the amount of vehicle traffic." Comments were received about removing on-street parking on State Route 66, particularly near the Diamond Creek Road intersection. One attendee suggested constructing a parking lot area next to the John Ostermann Gas Station to provide parking for visitors. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Stakeholder and Public Outreach Key comments received during the public meeting included: 113 • One attendee recommended creating an employee parking lot for Hualapai Lodge and Grand Canyon West Employees, as well as a "pick-up" parking area for take-out orders. • Seven comment forms were in favor of installing rumble strips. One comment form stated, "Rumble strips, great idea. Always late night travelers neither out of towners, locals coming from work late (GCW). As a personal view coming home from Grand Canyon West after work I’ve almost gone off the road a couple times being tired, always though the rumble strips would be a good idea around Peach Springs and Diamond Bar area." • Attendees did not come to a consensus on one railroad crossing improvement; however, respondents were in favor of installing flashing signals and gates, establishing quiet zones, and constructing structure to allow pedestrian access. • Pedestrian, bicycle, and trail facilities were highly favored by meeting attendees. Locations desired for improvement included: o Roadside sidewalks within Peach Springs with lighting for children to walk to school and to provide safe access. o Roadside sidewalks to Buck and Doe Road. o Roadside sidewalks to Truxton with lighting. • Short-term local service in Peach Springs, to Kingman, and to Grand Canyon West is desired. • Visual signs need to be added for tourists. • Turning lanes to the Tribal Office, Roads Department entrance, Hackberry General Store, and Valentine are desired. In response to the recommended improvements, the General Manager of the Hualapai Lodge submitted a letter of response to the Hualapai Indian Tribe. The letter states that the Hualapai Lodge supports to recommendation of establishing a quiet zone at the BNSF/Diamond Creek Road at-grade crossing. According to the letter, the noise from the railroad has a significant, negative impact on the Lodge's operations. There are only 22 roadside rooms available, limiting their ability to sell out since most guests do not want to stay trackside. Guests at the Hualapai Lodge often complain about noise from the railroad. AGENCY/STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION To facilitate agency and stakeholder communication, the study team conducted meetings with the following groups: • • Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Comprised of agency representatives, TAC meetings are held at key milestones throughout the project and allow agencies with vested interest in the project an opportunity to provide input and feedback. Stakeholders: These meetings help the study team understand the issues, concerns, and needs of the study area from the unique perspective of the stakeholders. Stakeholders for this study include utility companies, schools, fire and police, local tribal staff, local business owners, and persons with vested interest in the project. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Stakeholder and Public Outreach Appendix B provides a comprehensive summary of the second public meeting. 114 Phase 1 To develop a thorough understanding of the issues, deficiencies, and needs, the study team identified and interviewed a core group of stakeholders. The stakeholders included representatives from all major Hualapai Tribal Government departments, Grand Canyon Resort Corporation, BIA Western Regional Office, BIA Truxton Canon Agency, WACOG, Mohave County, Kingman Area Regional Transit, Peach Springs Unified School District #8, and ADOT. The first set of stakeholder interviews were conducted on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 and Thursday, February 13, 2014. At each stakeholder meeting, a questionnaire was given to participants and a roundtable discussion took place to identify key issues within the study area. Appendix C provides a detailed list of the stakeholders, questionnaire distributed during the meeting, and a summary of the comments received. Key concerns identified by the stakeholders include: • Railroad crossings are generally unsafe; • Majority of paved roads are in need of maintenance and repair; • Most unpaved roads have poor conditions with drainage problems and unsafe alignment; • Pedestrian and recreation trails are needed throughout Peach Springs and between activity centers; • There is a need for local and regional transit service; and • Roadway lighting and/or safety signage is needed throughout the study area. Phase 2 • The majority of stakeholders preferred converting the Diamond Creek Road/State Route 66 intersection to a four-way traffic light, instead of a roundabout. • Preferred locations for traffic calming were Diamond Bar Road, and State Route 66 within Peach Springs and Valentine. • The majority of responses recommended pavement markings and flashing speed signs as the top choices for reducing vehicle speed in traffic calming areas. • Several stakeholders expressed a concern for vehicle speeds along Diamond Bar Road and recommended a reduction of the speed limit along the roadway. • Respondents preferred adding sidewalks to Diamond Creek Road, Hualapai Way, and Nelson Road in an effort to increase pedestrian access to school. • Trail connections between Peach Springs and Milkweed Springs are highly desired – both along Ridge Road and State Route 66. Additional trails were recommended between Peach Springs and Valentine and north of Peach Springs. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Stakeholder and Public Outreach The Hualapai Indian Tribe, ADOT, and the study team hosted a second round of meetings for stakeholders to provide input on improvement scenarios and to discuss the long-term "vision" of the study area. The meetings were held on Wednesday, July 9th, 2014 and Thursday, July 10th, 2014 in Peach Springs. Meetings included a brief presentation by the study team on potential improvement projects and an interactive discussion on major multimodal improvement scenarios. Following is a summary of comments received from the stakeholders: 115 • Stakeholders preferred constructing a railroad overpass and pedestrian bridge along Diamond Creek Road. In Valentine, stakeholders preferred installing gates with flashing lights at the atgrade railroad crossing. In addition, stakeholders recommended establishing a Quiet Zone within Peach Springs and Valentine. • Preferred transit routes included service within Peach Springs; Peach Springs to Milkweed Springs; and Peach Springs to Grand Canyon West. Transit service from Peach Springs to Kingman, Flagstaff, and Phoenix was not identified as a high priority. Stakeholders also commented that safe, weather protected bus stops are needed. • Roadside safety improvements recommended by stakeholders included installing wayfinding signs on Diamond Creek Road, installing street lighting in Peach Springs and Valentine, and installing wildlife fencing to keep livestock and wildlife from entering a road’s right-of-way. Stakeholder and Public Outreach Appendix D provides a comprehensive summary of the second phase of stakeholder meetings. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 116 7. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Inventory of the physical, natural, and cultural environment is an important component of the transportation planning process. When environmental conditions and concerns are reviewed in the early stages of the transportation planning process, transportation solutions can be developed to avoid or lessen the negative impacts on the natural environment. This chapter presents a review of environmental conditions within the study area. TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY Earth fissures and faults are associated with earth displacement and seismic activity, which can negatively impact infrastructure. According to the Arizona Geological Survey (AZGS), earth fissures form as a result of land subsidence driven by groundwater withdrawal. Within the Hualapai Indian Reservation, the AZGS has not identified any fissures. Faults are defined by the United States Geological Society (USGS) as a fracture or zone of fractures between two blocks of rock that allow the blocks to move relative to each other. According to the USGS, the majority of faults lines within the Hualapai Indian Reservation are deemed as high-angle fault lines; however, there are multiple quaternary faults within the Reservation. Quaternary faults are active fault lines that have been identified on the surface and have moved in the past 1.6 million years. Within the Hualapai Indian Reservation, quaternary faults are located in the eastern portion of the Reservation and include the southern section of the Aubrey fault zone, the southern section of the Hurricane fault zone, and the southern portion of the Sevier/Toroweap fault line. The AZGS also identified the Hualapai Indian Reservation as being located within an area of moderate hazards for earthquakes, with moderate historical seismicity and numerous young fault lines. Figure 7.1 provides an overview of the Hualapai Indian Reservation’s topography and geological conditions. As illustrated in the Figure, BIA 18 crosses the Aubrey Fault line near MP 24. Due to the active nature of the Aubrey fault line, ground displacement may occur which could affect the roadway's structure. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns Due to the Reservation's location along the southwest edge of the Colorado Plateau, the topography varies greatly from plateaus to mountainous terrain. The northern portion of the Reservation is characterized by high plateaus and steep vertical cliffs along the Lower Granite Gorge. To the west of the Reservation are the Music Mountains and Grand Wash Cliffs, while the Blue Mountains and Aubrey Valley/Aubrey Cliffs are located in the eastern portion of the Reservation. Elevations range from over 7,300 feet atop the Aubrey Cliffs to 1,150 feet along the Colorado River. The Valentine area is located within Truxton Canyon between the Grand Wash Cliffs and the Cottonwood Cliffs. Situated along the Big Sandy River and Valley, the Big Sandy Allotments border the Aquarius Mountains and have an approximate elevation of 2,450 feet. The Cholla Canyon Ranch District, located southeast of Wikieup, is situated along Bitter Creek in the The Hualapai Indian Reservation's terrain varies from high Aquarius Mountains and has an approximate plateaus, mountainous terrain, to low-lying valleys. elevation of 1,900 feet. 117 Recommendations for Further Analysis A geotechnical evaluation of soils will need to be conducted during the design phase of project implementation to determine pavement, slope protection, and structural needs. A corridor specific, geotechnical evaluation is particularly important along Supai Road (BIA 18) in order to develop effective design parameters if roadway reconstruction is needed in the future. An analysis of drainage needs will also need to be performed during the Design Concept Report/Environmental Assessment (DCR/EA) phase. VEGETATION The Hualapai Indian Reservation contains the following vegetation communities: • Great Basin Conifer Woodland - mainly comprised of medium sized conifers, the pinyon pine and juniper, this vegetation community covers approximately 60% of the Hualapai Indian Reservation. • Great Basin Desertscrub - scattered throughout the Reservation, this vegetation community is dominated by the presence of sagebrush, blackbrush, shadescale, and grasses. • Mohave Desertscrub - this barren desert community characterized by scattered, low shrubs is located along the Grand Canyon Rim in the northern portion of the Reservation. Joshua trees, a type of yucca plant, are unique to this community. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns Figure 7.1: Topography and Geological Conditions 118 • Plains and Great Basin Grassland - located in the southern and eastern portion of the Reservation, this vegetation community is primarily composed of mixed or short-grass communities. • Petran (Rocky Mountain) Montane Conifer Forest - located along Supai Road (BIA 18) in the eastern portion of the Reservation, this vegetation community is dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. • Arizona Upland Subdivision – found within the Big Sandy Allotments and in Cholla Canyon Ranch, Arizona Upland is a part of the Sonoran Desert Subdivision biotic community and is comprised of leguminous trees and succulents. • Semidesert Grasslands - primarily characterized by grasses interspersed with some succulents, such as prickly-pear cactus and yucca. Semidesert grasslands are located in the Big Sandy Allotments and Valentine. No formal inventory of native plants was conducted; however, native plants may occur within the study area. According to the Arizona Game and Fish Department's (AGFD) Heritage Data Management System (HDMS), the following salvage restricted protected native plants may be located within the Hualapai Indian Reservation: Grand Canyon beavertail cactus, Grand Canyon cottontop cactus, and the varied fishhook cactus. Recommendations for Further Analysis Any improvements to study area roadways have the potential to affect native plants. During the design phase, a detailed review will need to be conducted to identify impacts on protected plant species. Close coordination with the Hualapai Department of Natural Resources should occur during the design phase to ensure native vegetation is protected. The AGFD's Heritage Data Management System was accessed to determine special status species and threatened, endangered, and candidate species in the vicinity of the study area. Table 7.1 outlines the special status species and critical habitat identified utilizing the HDMS online retrieval system within the study area. As outlined in the table, within the Hualapai Indian Reservation, there is a designated critical habitat for the razorback sucker. Critical habitats are geographic areas that are essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species that may require special management and protection. Under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, a portion of the Hualapai Indian Reservation has been designated as a Section 10(j) area for the Colorado condor and a portion of land along State Route 66 between Seligman and the Hualapai Indian Reservation for the Black-footed ferret. Section 10(j) designations allow for the reintroduction of populations of listed species as "experimental populations" to determine if the experimental population is "essential" or "nonessential" for the continued existence of a species. From 1996-2001, 144 Black-footed ferrets have been released in the Aubrey Valley; while 41 California condors were released between 2007-2011 in northern Arizona. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns BIOLOGY 119 Table 7.1: Special Status Species and Critical Habitats in Project Vicinity Common Name FWS USFS BLM State Spotted Bat SC S S WSC Arizona Phlox S Gila Longfin Dace SC Arizona Toad SC Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Western U.S. DPS) PT S WSC Sonoran Desert Tortoise C* S WSC Northern Leopard Frog S S S Varied Fishhook Cactus SR Hualapai Milkwort S Golden Eagle BGA S Flannelmouth Sucker SC S Grand Canyon Cottontop Cactus SR Southwestern Willow Flycatcher LE American Peregrine Falcon SC WSC S S Grand Canyon Beavertail Cactus WSC SR SC Bluehead Sucker S S Hualapai Mexican Vole LE Grand Canyon Evening-primrose SC Humpback Chub LE WSC WSC Designated Critical Habitat Razorback Sucker 10(J) Status Area California Condor Black-footed Ferret Status Definitions (Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department): FWS: SC = US Fish and Wildlife Species of Concern PT = Proposed Threatened LE = Listed Endangered: imminent jeopardy of extinction C = US Fish and Wildlife Candidate Species C* = US Fish and Wildlife species identified for which the FWS made a continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted petition by the code “C*” in the category column. BGA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act: Prohibits take of bald and golden eagles without prior USFWS permit. USFS: S = US Forest Service Sensitive BLM: S = US Forest Service Sensitive State: WGS = AZGFS Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona SR = Arizona Native Plant Law Salvage Restricted plant; collection only with permit. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns Speckled Dace WSC 120 The Hualapai Department of Natural Resources is responsible for overall monitoring of the environment and natural resources on the Hualapai Indian Reservation. The overall goals of the Hualapai Department of Natural Resources are to conserve, protect, and to enhance the Reservation's natural resources while ensuring long-term sustainability between multiple uses. Annually, Desert bighorn sheep surveys are conducted to determine distribution, population size, and sex ratios; during the 2002 survey, a total of 232 Desert bighorn sheep were identified within the Hualapai Indian Reservation. According to the Hualapai Department of Natural Resource's annual survey of Pronghorn Antelope, over the past ten years, the antelope population has significantly declined; a total of 126 Pronghorn Antelope were surveyed in 2002, while only 62 were identified in 2010. The most important cultural and economic big game species in the Hualapai Indian Reservation are Rocky Mountain Elk. In 1993, the Hualapai Indian Tribe partnered with the AGFDt to transport elk into Arizona from the Yellowstone National Park. The original shipment consisted of 40 elk, while a 2010 aerial survey identified 581 elk within the Reservation. Big game trophy elk hunting has become a major revenue source for the Hualapai Indian Tribe, with the Hualapai Fish and Game Department selling a limited number of permits annually for hunting activities. Non-Native Animals Feral animals, or non-native animals, which live outside of domestic control, can cause significant impacts by damaging native plant species and by trampling springs and wetlands. According to the Hualapai Department of Natural Resources, past aerial surveys have identified 185 wild horses in the National and Mohawk Canyons. In addition, a number of wild donkeys have been captured and removed from the Reservation. Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Two BLM designated ACEC areas bound the Hualapai Indian Reservation. The Joshua Tree Forest and Grand Wash Cliffs ACEC, located along Diamond Bar Road, was designated to protect a large Joshua tree forest and the scenic beauty of the Grand Wash Cliffs. The Wright- The Joshua Tree Forest along Diamond Bar Road is designated as a BLM Area of Cirtical Concern (ACEC). Cottonwood Creeks Riparian and Cultural ACEC, located east of Valentine, were established to improve and maintain aquatic and riparian habitation locations and to protect cultural resources in the area. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns The Hualapai Indian Tribe has also constructed an Endangered Fish Rearing Facility on 80 acres of land. The Tribe, in agreement with Arizona Fishery Resources Office, raised 5,000 Razorback sucker fingerlings for reintroduction in Tribal and non-Tribal waters. The Tribe also works in cooperation with the USFWS and AZGS to establish refuge populations of the endangered Grand Canyon Humpback Chub and to protect its habitat along the Little Colorado River. 121 Riparian Habitats Riparian habitats are ecologically diverse areas typically found along the banks of rivers, lakes, or other bodies of water with unique soil and plant characteristics. These riparian areas provide a transition zone between dry and wet ecosystems and are among the most biologically rich habitats. Riparian habitats for Cottonwood Willow, Mesquite, Mixed Broadleaf, Strand, and Tamarisk are present within the Big Sandy Allotments and in Cholla Canyon Ranch. Recommendations for Further Analysis Construction within the study area may have the potential to affect plants and wildlife identified in the AGFD special status species list or the USFWS threatened and endangered species list. Any improvements in the study area may have the potential to affect plants and wildlife. During the design and environmental overview phase of project implementation, a detailed biological analysis will need to be conducted to determine the specific presence/absence of projected species and potential mitigation measures. During the design process, coordination will need to occur with the AZGFD, the USFWS, and the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup to incorporate elements to protect wildlife from roadway traffic and to allow for the safe wildlife movement across the study area. On-going communication is also recommended between the Hualapai Indian Tribe, BLM, AGFD, USFWS, Mohave County, Coconino County, and Yavapai County to coordinate mitigation measures to protect all environmentally sensitive species in the area during the construction phase. Major hydrological features within the Hualapai Indian Reservation include the Colorado River, the northern boundary of the Reservation; Diamond Creek, a tributary of the Colorado River that flows from Peach Springs to the Colorado River; Truxton Wash, a major wash transverses through the Reservation south of State Route 66 and crosses Antares Road; and Big Sandy River, that cuts through both the Big Sandy Allotments and Cholla Canyon Ranch. Additional prominent water features include: Albers Wash, Lost Creek, Mohawk Canyon, Prospect Creek, Spencer Canyon, and Reference Point Creek. Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) The National Park Service maintains a list of free-flowing river segments that possess one or more outstanding remarkable values (ORVs) of local or regional significance. Within the study area, the following rivers have been identified in the National Rivers Inventory (NRI): • • Big Sandy River - Listed in 1993, Big Sandy River is listed as a "wild river" with scenic, fish, and wildlife ORVs. Colorado River - Listed in 1982, Colorado River is listed as a "wild river" with scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historical, and cultural ORVs. Wild river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. Water Quality The Colorado River was identified in the 2006/2008 303(d) Impaired Waters Report, released by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), as an impaired water due to selenium (total), turbidity, and suspended sediment concentration. According to the assessment, sediment may pose a Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns HYDROLOGY 122 threat to aquatic life. To preserve and protect water resources, the Hualapai Indian Tribe adopted a Water Resource Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to protect Tribal water, prescribe narrative and numeric water quality standards, minimize degradation of existing water quality, promote the social welfare and economic well being of the Hualapai Indian Tribe, and to protect the health and welfare of the Hualapai people through safe water. In conjunction with the Water Resource Ordinance, the Hualapai Indian Tribe also adheres to the same standards set forth by the Clean Water Act's Section 106- Water Pollution Control Program. Wetlands With the ultimate goal of maintaining or increasing wetland area, enhancing wetland function, establishing wetland parameters data, and identifying wetland areas in need of protection and/or restoration the Hualapai Indian Reservation the Tribe has adopted its own Wetlands Protection Program. This Wetland Projection Plan will be implemented between 2011 and 2017 and will include monitoring 27 wetland alternating sites every three year. The Hualapai Department of Natural Resources currently monitors 19 separate wetland sites. Monitoring activities include scheduled site visits each year to conduct field parameter water quality sampling, measuring pH, temperature, conductivity, salinity, total dissolved solids, dissolved oxygen and turbidity. Wells The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) administers and enforces groundwater code and surface rights law in Arizona. Drilling a well within Arizona requires a Notice of Intent to Drill to be filed with the ADWR in order to manage and protect groundwater. ADWR's Well55 Registry lists 12 wells within the main Reservation area, two in Valentine, and five in Cholla Canyon Ranch. Floodplains The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has not conducted an official flood study of the Reservation to determine potential flood hazards; however, during the roadway inventory, flooding and drainage issues were identified on a large percentage of roadways. Roadways with significant flooding issues include: Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1), Antares Road, Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6), Youth Camp Road (BIA 17), and several other unpaved roadways throughout the Reservation. Figure 7.2 illustrates the location of hydrologic features in the study area. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns The United States Fish & Wildlife's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) indicates that freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, freshwater emergent wetlands, freshwater ponds, and riverine wetlands may be present within the Hualapai Indian Reservation. According to the NWI, riverine, freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, freshwater emergent wetlands may border the Colorado River along the eastern portion of the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, freshwater emergent wetlands, and freshwater ponds may occur throughout the eastern portion of the Reservation. Riverine and freshwater forested/shrub wetlands may follow the Big Sandy River in the Big Sandy Allotments, while in Cholla Canyon Ranch riverine, freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, freshwater emergent wetlands may be located along Big Sandy River and Bitter Creek. Wetlands are defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface. Wetlands typically are areas where water covers the soil or is present at/near the surface of the soil year-round or during varying periods throughout the year. 123 Recommendations for Further Analysis Priority should be given to protecting the Colorado River and Big Sandy River to protect the free-flowing conditions and outstanding remarkable values that qualify the rivers for inclusion in the NPS National River Inventory. A drainage analysis will need to be conducted during the design phase to determine the degree of impacts on the area's hydrological features and to identify potential mitigation measures. An impact to hydrological features from roadway construction needs to be considered to reduce or eliminate induced increases to flood event water surface elevations. During the design process, coordination will need to occur with the USFWS and EPA to identify and to incorporate elements that protect wetlands in and around the study area. Furthermore, landscaping considerations should be given to incorporate low water use desert or desert adaptable planting. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns Figure 7.2: Hydrological Features and Prime Farmland 124 PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS The Hualapai Indian Reservation is located in the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database soil survey area AZ 699. According to the NRCS survey, the study area contains approximately 2,476 acres of prime farmland and 14,842 acres of prime farmland, if irrigated. Figure 7.2 illustrates the location of the prime farmland within the study area. Recommendations for Further Analysis Coordination between the Hualapai Indian Tribe, Mohave County, Coconino County, Yavapai County, USDA, and the USFS is needed to identify areas of potential or prime unique farmlands. If soil types in the area are considered prime or unique as identified on the USDA prime and unique farmlands soils list, analysis needs to be conducted to determine whether water delivery irrigation systems associated with the farmlands are adversely affected by the recommended improvements. NOISE IMPACTS Other than paved roadways, noise generators within the Hualapai Indian Reservation include the BNSF Railway, truck traffic generated from the Lhoist Lime Plant on Nelson Road (BIA 19), Peach Springs Airport, and the significant helicopter and fixed wing aircraft activity at the Grand Canyon West Airport. The BNSF Railway transverses the entire length of the main Reservation and Valentine; with trains passing every 15 to 20 minutes (about 80 per day), high decibel horn noise from passing trains is the largest noise generator in the Reservation. As the fifth busiest airport in Arizona, helicopter and plane noise is a major noise generator at the Grand Canyon West's visitor center. Recommendations for Further Analysis During any project-related construction, care should be taken to maintain acceptable noise levels to preserve the characteristics of residential and recreational facilities. A detailed noise analysis study would need to be conducted to identify if potential noise levels exceed FHWA noise thresholds. During the DCR/EA phase of the project, noise-sensitive receivers should be modeled using the FHWA's approved Traffic Noise Model version 2.5 (TNM2.5) and validated against field measurements. As residential development occurs at the Grand Canyon West, the Hualapai Indian Tribe should consider establishing a noise ordinance that regulates aviation and motor vehicle noise levels for noise sensitive land. In addition, the Hualapai Indian Tribe should coordinate with the BNSF Railway, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and ADOT establish quiet zones in Valentine and Peach Springs and to implement quiet zone improvements. A quiet zone is a section of a rail line at least one-half mile in length where the FRA has agreed that trains, except in emergency situations, are not required to routinely sound the horn at each public crossing. In order to establish a quiet zone, a diagnostic team should first review the crossing and Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs), such as flashing lights and gates, need to be installed. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns Maintaining acceptable noise levels to preserve the character of open spaces, residential quiet zones, and recreational facilities should be considered when selecting a potential transportation improvement project. Schools, hospitals, residential development, and community uses requiring low noise levels are included in the list of potential noise-sensitive receptors. There are numerous existing noise-sensitive receptors within the study area, including the Peach Springs Elementary School; residential areas within Peach Springs, Valentine, Grand Canyon West, and along Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1); the Hualapai Lodge; community centers; parks; and churches. Potential future noise-sensitive receptors include new residential development, existing housing redevelopment, and the Music Mountain High School if it is converted back into an education center. 125 AIR QUALITY Based on data provided by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), air quality in the study area meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set forth by the Clean Air Act (CAA) for criteria pollutants carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns or 10 microns (PM2.5 and PM10, respectively), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The Hualapai Indian Tribe has adopted its own Air Ordinance and EPA 105 approved program. The Hualapai Indian Tribe’s Air Quality Program currently operates a Class 2 air shed and is considering re-designating their air shed from a Class 2 to a Class 1 air shed. The Hualapai Indian Tribe's Air Quality Program Dust from dirt roadways adversely impacts air operates under the Hualapai Air Ordinance with an EPA approved quality and the health of native vegetation. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Currently, the Hualapai Air Program monitors air quality at three monitoring stations on the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Designated as a Class 1 airshed by the EPA, the Grand Canyon requires the highest level of protection under the Clean Air Act of 1970. Dust, due to the majority of roadways being unpaved, is the main pollutant on the Reservation. The health of the Joshua Tree Forest along Diamond Bar Road is particularly a concern, as the forest's health is declining due to dusts from traveling motorists. It was noted, however, that during a field review conducted after the paving of Diamond Bar Road that the Joshua Tree Forest is recovering. Measures should be taken to ensure that improvements made do not negatively impact the air quality of the region. During the project implementation phase, proposed improvements will require a detailed evaluation to identify the impacts with respect to the increase and decrease in criteria pollutants and mobile source air toxins. Coordination will need to occur between the Hualapai Indian Tribe, Mohave County, Yavapai County, and Coconino County to ensure that any proposed improvements comply with EPA ordinances and policies for air quality. UTILITIES Mohave Electric Cooperative (MEC) is the main service provider to the Hualapai Indian Reservation; Hualapai Public Works is the local water provider; and water, sewer, and waste are managed by the Hualapai Public Works Department. While the majority of the Reservation does not have electricity, service is provided to Peach Springs, Valentine, and areas along Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1). The MEC also provides single-phase electrical service to Youth Camp, Thorton Tower, and Bender Tank. Energy projects currently underway or recently constructed in the Hualapai Indian Reservation include: • As part of the Renewable Energy Standard Tariff (REST), MEC with assistance from the Grand Canyon Trust funded a 19kW solar array that should offset the annual electrical costs of Peach Springs Elementary School by 10-12%. • Solar powered water pipeline, funded by USDA/HUD/ARRA funds, carries water to the Grand Canyon West from a water storage reservoir 26 miles south. • The Grand Canyon West installed 2.5 KW solar arrays at Guano Point to power lights, appliances, and evaporative cooling units. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns Recommendations for Further Analysis 126 • United States Department of Agricultural (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) High Energy Cost Grant Program provided funding to the Tribe to install a 34 KW hybrid solar photo-voltaic electric system. The system will help support the Grand Canyon West Airport, commercial facilities, worker housings, a water system plant, and approximately 50 homes. • BLM Mohave County Wind Farm Project - The BIA is currently in the process of analyzing a 38,000 acre site for the construction of a Wind Farm Site. The project is proposed to consist of up to 283 wind turbine generators and will connect with the main electrical power grid. • Department of Energy Wind Energy Development - the Hualapai Department of Planning and Economic Development recently completed the Wind Project Feasibility Study. The study identified site areas for the feasible construction of a potential wind project. The study examined areas in Peach Springs, Blue Mountain, Grand Canyon West, the Nelson Road area, and Clay Springs for feasibility and fatal flaws. Results of the study identified the Grand Canyon West and Clay Springs area has the most suitable locations for a wind project. The Hualapai Tribal Council, however, has declined the request to develop a wind farm at this time. • Solar Power Project - the Hualapai Planning and Economic Development Department recently completed the Hualapai Solar Project Feasibility Report that identified locations on Nelson Road and Clay Springs as feasible locations for the development of two solar facilities. Recommendations for Further Analysis During the project pre-design and DCR/EA phase, additional investigations need to be made concerning the degree of impacts and to see if any relocation or service interruptions would need to be made. Coordination between the utility companies and the Hualapai Indian Tribe is imperative during the pre-design and design phase of project implementation. A regulatory review of federal and state hazardous material databases was conducted to identify the presence of hazardous materials in the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Through this evaluation it was found that no Superfund sites, solid waste landfills, or hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) are located within the study area. According to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) AZURITE database, there are no current leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) on the Reservation. There are no authorized landfills operating on the Hualapai Reservation; however, residents have established an unauthorized landfill on an unpaved road between Peach Springs and the Milkweed area. The Tribe does own a Solid Waste Transfer Station; therefore, waste is hauled to the Mohave County operated landfill in Mineral Park approximately 70 miles away. Recommendations for Further Analysis Construction of recommended improvements has no direct impact on hazardous sites. Future hazardous materials investigations may also include sampling and testing for asbestos in concrete and lead-based paint in roadway striping and structures. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 127 VISUAL RESOURCES The visual character of the study area varies between breathtaking views of the Grand Canyon, scenic mountainous terrain, thriving forests, and developed residential areas. State Route 66 is designated by the FHWA's American Byways program as a National Scenic Byway and All-American Road. As defined by the FWHA, the America's Byways program aims to recognize, preserve, and enhance roadways with one or more archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities. The 2005 Historic Route 66 Corridor Management Plan was developed by ADOT to guide the management, development, and conservation of the historic corridor. No other land-managing agencies with visual impact requirements (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management) own or have jurisdiction over land in the study area. The Bureau of Land Management's Visual Resource Inventory (VRI); however, classifies areas along State Route 66, Antares Road, and Diamond Bar Road as class II, class III and class IV. The objectives of class III and IV areas are partial or no retention of the existing landscape character; while class II areas should have low changes to the existing character of the landscape. The proposed improvements are consistent in scope and scale with the current facility, adjacent land use, and the visual character of the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Vegetation removal and aesthetic treatment/landscaping should coordinate with the Tribe's vision and follow ordinances set forth by the Hualapai Indian Tribe, Mohave County, Coconino County, and Yavapai County. Due to the scenic nature of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, design consideration should be given to maintain vistas from the roadway and to incorporate cohesive planting design that allows for views of the surrounding landscape. Coordination should also occur between the Hualapai Indian Tribe and ADOT to develop a comprehensive signage system, landscaping standards, and corridor maintenance plan, for State Route 66, which promotes economic vitality while maintaining the historic nature of the roadway. CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources are properties that reflect the heritage of local communities, states, and nations. Properties judged to be significant and to retain sufficient integrity to convey that significance are termed “historic properties” and are afforded certain protection in accordance with state and federal legislation. Cultural resources within Hualapai Reservation are a unique resource, which needs to be protected. In order to quantify the impacts of potential transportation improvement projects on cultural resources within the Hualapai Indian Reservation, the Hualapai Indian Tribe's Department of Cultural Resources will conduct a high level review of archaeological sites and ethnohistorical places of cultural and historical significance. Identification of these resources will help the study team develop mitigation plans to protect those resources while resolving transportation issues. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns Recommendations for Further Analysis 128 This section provides a cultural resources overview of the various general transportation route areas, and highlights potential issues that may affect implementation of undertakings in those areas. For the purposes of this section, the discussion will focus on general environmental zones and the types and anticipated densities of archaeological sites found in these zones, as well as an overview of ethnohistoric places of cultural and historical significance, which are typically referred to as traditional cultural places (TCPs). Considered collectively, the various areas of the Hualapai Indian Reservation may be thought of as a patchwork of overlapping cultural landscapes that individually hold significance to the descendants of one or more ancestral bands, as well as the Hualapai people as a whole. Potential Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) concerns are also considered. The information summarized in this section was obtained from two main sources: the Hualapai Indian Tribe’s Department of Cultural Resources archaeological database and from a GIS-based atlas of Hualapai places of historical and cultural importance (the Hualapai Atlas). This discussion does not include specific ethnohistoric information or other kinds of sensitive subject matter, which would normally only be brought forth in response to actual undertakings that may adversely affect such places. History For the purposes of this discussion, the study area will be divided into western, central, and eastern. Within each division there may be several diverse ecological zones, which had a significant effect on the kinds of subsistence activities that could be undertaken, although not necessarily deterministically so. In each case, the Colorado River of the western Grand Canyon defines the northern extent of band territory, as well as the Hualapai Reservation boundary. Traditional band terriroties within and surrounding the roadway inventory. Western Division The western part of the analysis area was mainly occupied by the Clay Springs Band (Ha Du:ba Pa’a in Hualapai), conceptually tethered to the landscape surrounding Clay Springs located just below the western escarpment of the Grand Wash Cliffs, but ranging over a very broad area surrounding Clay Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns The current Hualapai Indian Reservation comprises approximately one million acres in northwestern Arizona. Hualapai ancestral territory, however, was approximately seven times larger, reaching to the Colorado River to the north and west, the Little Colorado River area and San Francisco Peaks to the east, and the Bill Williams River to the south. Historically, at least 14 bands were known to occupy this extensive area. The image on the right depicts the general territories used by bands in the vicinity of the road inventory being analyzed in the plan. These boundaries were not clearly delineated across the landscape, but were fluid, overlapping, and commonly shared among bands. 129 Springs. Their neighbors were the Grass Springs Band to the west, the Hackberry Springs Band to the south, and the Milkweed Springs Band to the southeast. The landscape of this area ranges from grasslands and open juniper woodland to the south, climbing to a very diverse piñon-juniper woodland vegetation community, incised by rugged canyons that drain into the Colorado River, as one moves north. Toward the northern extent, elevation decreases to the area now known as Grand Canyon West, where once again open grasslands and sparse and patchy juniper woodland becomes more typical. The west part of the Hualapai Indian Reservation is framed by the prominent Grand Wash Cliffs, through which a number of routes could be traversed to access the lower elevations of the Hualapai Valley. As the long-time home base for the Clay Springs Band, the area holds considerable importance to Hualapai history and culture. Occupying the territory along the Grand Wash Cliffs, the Clay Springs Band had access to a very diverse variety of food and material resources. Aside from crucial water sources at the numerous springs issuing along the cliffs, they hunted and gathered from the upland areas of the western edge of the Colorado Plateau, the canyon country that incised the plateau, and the broad valley bottoms to the west that mark the transition to the Basin and Range physiographic province (e.g., the Hualapai Valley and Red Lake areas). Some areas were favorable for gardening and smallscale agriculture, either in the immediate vicinity of springs or, during moister climatic periods, in upper alluvial washes and sagebrush valleys where dry farming was sometimes possible. This latter scenario in particular is demonstrated at archaeological sites that contain evidence of maize consumption, habitation features, and in general more sedentary occupation necessary to maintain field areas. Likewise, the Milkweed Springs Band area was also very diverse, encompassing the Grand Wash Cliffs as well as the canyon country that ultimately leads down to the Colorado River. Although on average it lies a bit lower than much of the Clay Springs Band country, the diversity of plant and associated animal resources available allowed for a varied lifeway that, similar to the Clay Springs area, included hunting and gathering as well as horticulture. In contrast, the open grassland areas are more typically found in landscapes where less surface water is readily available. Although occupied less intensively and with lower site densities, they were nonetheless important for obtaining certain resources, such as grass seeds, small game, and deer and antelope. The vast majority of known sites that have been recorded in the western reservation are open artifact scatters. These tend to be concentrated in piñon-juniper woodland areas above 5000 ft in elevation. In fact, as elevation increases, vegetation diversity also seems to increase, and site density and intensity also generally increases. Sites throughout this area range from camps with diverse artifact types (such as chipped stone, ceramics, and grinding tools occurring together, interpreted as evidence of seasonal residential use), to hunting oriented camps (primarily chipped stone, often with several projectile points and cutting tools), gathering and seed processing loci (with multiple grinding tools, often with relatively low numbers of chipped stone artifacts), to residential agricultural sites (with deep, formalized trough and basin metates, abundant ceramics, and generally more diverse artifact assemblages resulting from more intensive long-term occupation). Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns Archaeologically, the Grand Wash Cliffs area is one of the most intensively occupied areas on the Hualapai Indian Reservation and in northwestern Arizona in general. It is not uncommon for sites to exceed 10 acres in area or to contain habitation features, chipped stone, ceramics, and grinding tools. Furthermore, as the Hualapai people hold their ancestral territory sacred and have been very protective of ancient sites from intrusion by non-tribal members, it is clear that there has been little looting or illicit artifact collecting relative to most other areas in the southwestern United States, particularly when compared with non-reservation lands in general. 130 Notable larger archaeological projects completed in the western part of the Transportation Plan study area include a survey of APS’ 500kV transmission line (which in fact traversed the entire reservation from east to west); drought relief/waterline surveys that currently provide water for livestock and Grand Canyon West (these were generally narrow corridors running north-south); a sample survey of six 160acre parcels across the Hualapai Reservation (three of which occurred in the western area); the Boston Patch Fuelwood Survey (generally near the interface between the Milkweed Springs, Clay Springs, and Hackberry Springs band areas, and containing abundant archaeological sites); a seven mile fenceline survey from the vicinity of Buck and Doe Road to the rim of the Grand Wash Cliffs generally overlooking Clay Springs; and a mitigation project associated with the realignment of Buck and Doe Road near Milkweed Springs, which involved some archaeological testing. Most recently, archaeological inventory related to the Diamond Bar Road paving project has resulted in the identification of several archaeological sites, including the discovery of human remains (although this occurred on BLM lands west of the reservation). Although the area undoubtedly contains many burial sites, their locations are largely unknown (notwithstanding the above exception, which was only discovered through significant ground disturbing activity). This is especially true with those interred prior to the establishment of family or community cemeteries in the past 100 years or so. Common past burial practices, including interment underground, included cremation or placing the deceased in rock crevices. Because of the low-visibility, as well as the dispersed and obscure locations of these burial sites, it is extremely difficult to inventory or predict where they might be. Considering the general area was a major settlement and use area for many centuries for the Hualapai, it follows that there would be many burial sites throughout the area. Upon assessment it is evident that any large-scale transportation development in this area would entail numerous issues. Direct and indirect impacts to an extremely important cultural and historic traditional cultural place (TCP) would raise complicated and potentially difficult mitigation challenges. Concerning the abundant archaeological sites in this area, it would also be challenging to avoid direct impacts to sites during any type of extensive road construction. Mitigation would therefore likely involve extensive archaeological excavations, analysis, and curation, all of which entail considerable expense. Identifying and mitigating impacts to TCPs, perhaps most obviously the visual and other indirect effects of road paving and related development that potentially promote easier (and perhaps unauthorized) access, should include broad participation by Tribal members, especially those with direct ancestral ties to the area. This recommendation holds true for all areas to be considered in the transportation plan. Although the focus for future road improvement in this area would most likely be on Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) to promote easier access to the Grand Canyon West development from State Route 66 and Peach Springs, many other smaller “feeder” routes adjoin Buck and Doe Road. These will almost certainly receive more traffic if Buck and Doe is further improved or paved, as well, whether authorized or not. As these have enjoyed relative isolation from illegal or unwanted visitation and molestation of sensitive cultural resources up to the present, they will be subject to increased risk if this country is opened to increased access. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns In addition, because of the long history of occupation and the importance of the area on many levels, there are numerous landmarks and places of cultural and historical importance (TCPs) throughout the area, some of which have been documented but others that are very likely not yet documented. A comprehensive ethnohistoric study, analogous to an archaeological inventory, should be conducted as part of any planning for large scale development in the area as early in the process as possible, especially development that has the potential to increase access to areas that were previously isolated. 131 Central Division The central area, which in this discussion includes the Peach Springs Band and the eastern Milkweed Springs Band areas, stands in marked contrast to either the western or eastern areas in that it contains a somewhat less diverse environment. For the most part the higher elevation zones that climb above 5000 feet are not present within the reservation boundaries, although these band territories extend further to the south and ultimately encompass many higher elevation mountainous areas. Accordingly, the subsistence and material resources available to the occupants in the immediate vicinity were somewhat more limited although it was an integral part of the annual settlement and subsistence tradition going back countless generations. The central area is characterized by grasslands and open juniper woodlands descending to lower desert and canyon environments. It is also where the town of Peach Springs is located, which tends to have relatively greater development within and surrounding it. State Route 66 is the main thoroughfare through the area, attracting thousands of tourists each year. A number of other paved and unpaved existing routes access residential areas, ranching related facilities, such as corrals and tanks, and the frequently travelled road commonly known as Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6), which is unique in that it accesses the Colorado River at one of the main take-out and launch points on the river. Recorded archaeological sites within this area include artifact scatters, roasting pit complexes, rockshelters, and petroglyph and pictograph sites. Sites in the lower desert areas are generally smaller and less dense than in the western and eastern upland areas, and appear to be focused on specific seasonal activities, such as collecting and roasting agave. In some of the upland areas that supported stands of perennial native grasses, seed gathering and processing was also an important subsistence pursuit. Hunting would have been important in both the upland and lower desert areas. Several ethnohistorically important places are known in the central area, including springs and mineral gathering areas. In addition, some remote places near the Colorado River in rugged canyon country served as refuges during conflict with the U.S. Army in the 1860s. In some of these areas, it was reported that horticulture and intensive settlement occurred, especially in the vicinity of springs and streams with reliable water. Because there has been relatively little archaeological study of the central area, the summary described above should be viewed as tentative. As demonstrated on a map of the current road inventory, this area of the western Grand Canyon country contains some of the more remote undeveloped roadless areas of the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Eastern Division The eastern area of the reservation was primarily occupied historically by the Pine Springs Band, who ranged over a very broad territory. This area was also very ecologically diverse, comprising lower desert and canyon country near the Colorado River, upland piñon-juniper woodlands and grasslands, and, unique to the Hualapai Indian Reservation, ponderosa pine forests at elevations above 6800 ft. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns Relative to the western and eastern areas, there has been less archaeological work conducted in the area (with the exception of numerous homesite and other small survey projects within the immediate Peach Springs vicinity). A few exceptions include the APS 500kV transmission line survey noted above, surveys of proposed hiking trails that lead from Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6), and a survey of a waterline route north of Peach Springs along Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6). Other investigations during the late 1930s by the Museum of Northern Arizona and early 1950s by Robert C. Euler also focused on sites along Diamond Creek Road; however, site locations are not precisely known due to the lack of detailed maps available when the work was conducted. 132 The eastern area of the reservation would appear to have the greatest number and density of archaeological sites. Certainly there are a great number of sites, but the overall picture may be skewed by the fact that this area has also received the greatest amount of archaeological survey coverage, by far. This is due to forestry related inventory projects that extend back to at least the early 1980s in and near ponderosa pine stands. This work was driven specifically by timber and forest management and continues to the present day. This area also contains numerous roads and routes in the current road inventory, many of which are mere two-tracks that serve primarily as service roads used by tribal forest and range managers. In the ponderosa pine and adjacent piñon-juniper transition ecotones in particular are numerous sites that demonstrate both agricultural subsistence strategies and hunting and gathering pursuits. These include masonry, jacal, and pithouse living structures, abundant and diverse artifact assemblages, and site locations near small alluvial valleys that appear to have supported dry farming. Advanced chipped stone lithic assemblages with projectile points and cutting tools point to an emphasis on hunting, and grinding tools suitable for small seed grinding as well as maize processing indicate both wild plant foods and domesticates were important staples. Elsewhere in the eastern area, the piñon-juniper woodlands supported a diverse plant and animal community and was intensively occupied, although perhaps only seasonally. Sites in these contexts tend to comprise artifact scatters only, although Wikieup shelters were known to be commonly used but have mostly collapsed and deteriorated over time. The importance of nutritious piñon “nuts” to the Hualapai diet should not be underestimated. Tribal members continue to be on the lookout for the next abundant harvest and gather crops in good years using traditional methods. TCPs in the eastern area include the numerous springs, canyons, prominent landforms, and settlement areas. Because of the extensive and intensive occupation of the area extending back countless generations, it would be expected that there are a great many burial sites, as well, although very few have been specifically documented. These may be subsurface graves at some of the more permanent settlements in the high country, or cremation, crevice, or cairn burials in the rugged canyon country. The benefits of relative isolation to the preservation of ancient sites cannot be overstated. This, coupled with the Hualapai Indian Tribe’s approach to restricting travel to a few well-travelled routes and the overall ethic of preservation among tribal members, has resulted in a cultural landscape more intact than most of the western United States. Continuing these practices will help to ensure that this landscape remains so for generations to come. Similar to many other relatively undeveloped areas of the southwestern United States, which are managed by various tribal, federal, and state land management agencies, the vast majority of the Hualapai Reservation has not been intensively surveyed or studied in detail. The synopsis provided above, then, is based on somewhat limited knowledge. In providing a general overview, the emphasis is placed on the typical and on patterns and trends, rather than on the unique. There are many unknown and forgotten archaeological locations within the study area which calls for the need of mitigation of dramatic impacts. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns Similar to other areas, grasslands were important for native perennial seeds, such as Indian rice grass and Sporobolus, as well as a species of Mentzelia known in Hualapai as selé, which thrived in grassy valleys and open desert areas before being decimated by cattle grazing. The rugged canyon country near the Colorado River has received very little archaeological attention, with the exception of the river corridor proper, which is of course a road less area and is not a factor. 133 SECTION 4(F) AND SECTION 6(F) RESOURCES Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and the Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act are intended to protect the nation's recreational resources from significant transportation-related impacts. Section 6(f) is a component of the LWCF Act of 1965 that protects recreational properties acquired or developed with LWCF Act funds that could be affected by transportation projects. No Section 6(f) properties have been identified in the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Section 4(f) stipulates that the FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land for transportation improvements on publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unless there is no feasible alternative or the projects include all possible planning to minimize harm to the property. The "use" of Section 4(f) is defined in CFR Title 23, Part 771.135(p) as: • • • • • • • • • Boys and Girls Club, which includes a playground area, at the southwest corner of Hualapai Way (BIA 101)/Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6) intersection. Hualapai Day Care, which includes a playground area, located on Hualapai Drive. A community park at the northeast corner of the State Route 66/Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6) intersection. Recreation area along Rodeo Circle, which includes two baseball fields, a playground, Querta Memorial Gym, and an amphitheater. Peach Springs Trading Post, located on State Route 66 in Peach Springs, is listed in the NRHP. Schoolhouse at Truxton Canyon Training School, located in Valentine, is listed in the NRHP. John Osterman Gas Station, located on State Route 66 in Peach Springs, is listed in the NRHP. Recommendations for Further Analysis Additional analysis needs to be conducted into resources eligible for protection under Section 6(f) and Section 4(f) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed improvements on these resources. A Section 4(f) evaluation report should be conducted that documents coordination efforts between agencies and local communities; attempts to avoid the resources, direct or constructive use impacts; and measures to minimize harm and impacts from temporary occupancy (if needed). During the DCR/EA phase, Section 4(f) properties need to be analyzed for measures to minimize harm on planned recreational facilities in proximity to the project area, if warranted. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns When property is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; When there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s preservation purpose; or • When there is a constructive use of a Section 4(f) property. A constructive use of Section 4(f) resource occurs when the proximity impacts of a proposed project adjacent or nearby a Section 4(f) property results in a substantial impairment to the property's activities or features that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f). A historic site is considered a Section 4(f) property if it is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A, B, or C if the site is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Potential Section 4(f) properties within the study area include: 134 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE REVIEW (TITLE VI) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes ensure that individuals are not excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, and disability. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, dictates that programs, policies, and activities identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Protected populations considered in this analysis include: minority, elderly, lowincome, and disabled populations. Detailed analysis of the environmental justice conditions based on Census 2010, ACS 2006-2010, and Census 2000 data can be found in Working Paper 1. Key findings noted in Working Paper 1 include: • Age 65 and Older -Within the Hualapai Indian Reservation, approximately 5.9% of the total population is over the age of 65. Concentrations of elderly populations can be found along Diamond Creek Road within Peach Springs. Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1) and south of SR 66 in Peach Springs also have concentrations of age 65 and older populations. • Minority Population -According to the 2010 Census, approximately 98% of the total population within the study area are minorities. This high percentage of minority population is due to the study being located within the Hualapai Indian Reservation. • Female Head of Households - Census data estimates that approximately 35.6% of households within the Reservation consist of have a female head of household. Additionally, 17.1% of all households are female head of households with their own children residing at home. • Below Poverty Population - According to the 2006-2010 ACS approximately 41% of the • Disabled Population - According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 17% of the population on the Hualapai Indian Reservation is disabled. Multimodal transportation improvements would provide numerous positive impacts to environmental justice populations in the study area. Enhanced streetscaping that provides bicycle and pedestrian facilities would increase protected population's ease of access to local activity centers, places of employment, medical services, and community facilities. Additionally, incorporating transit services will provide protected populations even greater accessibility to local and regional activity centers, as well as employment centers. Recommendations for Further Analysis The potential positive and negative impacts on the protected populations should be discussed in the environmental analysis of the design phase. The environmental justice data will also need to be updated as data becomes available; continued coordination with ADOT environmental planners will determine the appropriate data source for the most accurate environmental justice review. Consideration should be given during the construction phase of project implementation on the impacts to minority-owned businesses, the mobility needs of the protected populations, and on residential parcels of protected populations. In addition, on-going outreach efforts need to be made to include meaningful participation by all residents, including low-income, disabled, below poverty and minority populations, throughout project development. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Affected Environment and Environmental Concerns Hualapai Indian Reservation's population is considered to be below the poverty level. 135 8. PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS This section presents the Plan for Improvements for the short-, mid-, and long-term phases. This transportation plan is the result of the deficiency analysis, Public Open House input, and feedback from Tribal staff and stakeholders. It is a multimodal plan that includes roadway, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, trails, aviation, and maritime improvements. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Short-Term (2019) Improvements Short-term phase projects are recommended to be completed as the study area reaches year 2019. Table 8.1 presents a comprehensive list of the transportation recommendations for this phase, as well as the project number, location, description, and estimated costs for each project. Each project is assigned a unique project number that can be used to track project progress. Planning level cost estimates were developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs. Estimated costs for each project are expressed in 2014 dollars and do not include ROW acquisition costs. Actual costs for projects could vary at the time of implementation; therefore, a detailed analysis should be performed on a case-bycase basis to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. Table 8.1: Short-Term Recommendations Project ID Project Location Project Description Length (miles) Cost Hualapai Indian Tribe BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) $914,300 ST-1.1 BIA Lane (Section 200)/State Route 66 Intersection ST-1.2 High View Drive (Section 120)/State Route 66 Intersection Restripe intersection to include a stop bar - $1,500 Restripe intersection to include a stop bar - $1,500 ST-1.3 BIA 101 (Section 20)/Honaga Hill Road Intersection ST-1.4 Ridge Road/Honaga Hill Road Intersection Install "Yield" Sign on BIA 101 (Section 20) - $500 Install "Yield" Sign on Honaga Hill Road - $500 ST-1.5 Shandy Lane/Honaga Hill Road Intersection Rodeo Way/Diamond Creek Road/Diamond Creek Circle ST-1.6 Intersection Install "Yield" Sign on Honaga Hill Road - $500 Install "Stop" Sign on Rodeo Way and "Yield" Sign on Diamond Creek Circle - $1,000 ST-1.7 Sections 10, 20, 60, and 300 Diamond Creek Road/BNSF Railroad Crossing ST-1.8 Install "Hill" Signs at steep hills - $2,500 Coordinate with BNSF to conduct an at-grade crossing safety assessment to determine necessary improvements Restripe roadway to include stop line and pavement marking symbols ST-1.9 ST-1.10 Diamond Creek Road (Section 100) Extend School Zone from south of Shandy Lane to Indian Way $8,000 $1,500 - $1,000 ST-1.11 Diamond Creek Road (Section 100 and 280); Hualapai Way ST-1.12 (Section 70); High View Drive (Section 110) Add pavement striping 1.63 $2,600 Install street signs and wayfinding signs 1.63 $3,000 ST-1.13 Clear roadside vegetation 1.63 $1,200  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements ST-1 136 Table 8.1: Short-Term Recommendations (Continued) Project ID Hualapai Indian Tribe ST-1 Project Location Project Description Length (miles) Cost BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) (Continued) ST-1.14 Sections 40, 70, 100, 160 – 180, 280 Pavement Preservation – Chip Seal 2.6 $7,500 ST-1.15 Sections 20, 40-60, 90, 110, 130-190, 210-270 Add pavement striping 5.26 $8,500 Install street signs and wayfinding signs 5.26 $10,000 ST-1.16 ST-1.17 Hualapai Lodge to End of Nelson Road Extend concrete shared-use path to Nelson Road 0.25 $40,000 ST-1.18 Diamond Creek Road: Rodeo Way to Canyon View Drive Construct concrete shared-use path 1.16 $175,000 ST-1.19 Hualapai Way: State Route 66 to Indian Way Construct concrete shared-use path 0.33 $50,000 ST-1.20 High View Drive: Diamond Creek Road to BIA Lane Construct concrete shared-use path 0.26 $42,000 ST-1.21 High View Drive: BIA Lane to State Route 66 Construct ashpalt shared-use path $36,000 ST-1.22 Sections 30, 50, 70, 100, 120, 200 - 220, 260 - 290 Install street lighting 0.22 4.5 ST-2 ST-2.1 BIA Route 103 (Valentine) Section 70 and 80/BNSF Railroad Crossing ST-2.2 ST-2.3 ST-3 ST-3.1 ST-4 Sections 10 - 110 $10,000 Coordinate with BNSF to conduct an at-grade crossing safety assessment to determine necessary improvements 0.2 Install "Look" and "Yield" sign at crossing 0.2 $1,000 Clear roadside vegetation 1.3 $1,000 $500 Install "Do Not Enter When Flooded" sign 0.4 BIA Route 8000 (Valentine Cemetery Road) State Route 66 to Valentine Cemetery Install "Do Not Enter When Flooded" sign ST-4.2 Valentine Cemetery Road/BNSF Railroad Crossing Install crossbucks Coordinate with BNSF to conduct an at-grade crossing safety assessment to determine necessary improvements ST-4.3 $500 $10,000 ST-4.1 ST-5 $8,000 Valentine Way (BIA Route 9103) Section 10 $520,000 0.9 $500 - $1,500 $8,000 - Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road $870,500 ST-5.1 Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1)/State Route 66 Intersection Restripe intersection to include a stop bar ST-5.2 State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road Add pavement striping 3.5 $15,000 ST-5.3 Install animal crossing warning signs 3.5 $4,000 ST-5.4 Install roadside fencing to ADOT and AZGF standards $450,000 ST-5.5 Install street lighting 3.5 3.5 $400,000 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Plan for Improvements  $1,500 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 137 Table 8.1: Short-Term Recommendations (Continued) ST-6 Project Location Project Description Length (miles) Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): Mud Tank Road to Diamond Bar Road $60,300 Install sharp curve ahead warning signs 3 $2,000 Install chevron signs at curves 3 $2,000 Install sharp curve ahead warning signs 3 $2,000 ST-6.4 Install chevron signs at curves 3 $2,000 ST-6.5 Install guardrails along sharp curves 3 $4,300 Install sharp curve ahead warning signs 2 $2,000 ST-6.7 Install chevron signs at curves 2 $1,000 ST-6.8 Install guardrails along sharp curves 2 $3,000 Install sharp curve ahead warning signs 2 $2,000 ST-6.10 Install chevron signs at curves 2 $1,000 ST-6.11 Install guardrails along sharp curves 2 $3,000 ST-6.1 MP 17 - MP 20 Cost ST-6.2 ST-6.3 ST-6.6 ST-6.9 MP 26 - MP 29 MP 30 - MP 32 MP 34 - MP 36 ST-6.12 Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1)/ Diamond Bar Road Intersection Install "Rough Road Travel At Your Own Risk" sign - $500 ST-6.13 Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1)/ Mud Tank Road Intersection Install "Rough Road Travel At Your Own Risk" sign - $500 ST-6.14 Mud Tank Road to Diamond Bar Road Install animal crossing warning signs 44.9 $15,000 ST-6.15 BIA Route 1, Section 22 (~MP 15.5) Clear vegetation and cleanout structure - $5,000 ST-6.16 BIA Route 1, Section 27 (~MP 17.8) Clear vegetation and cleanout structure - $5,000 ST-6.17 BIA Route 1, Section 30 (~MP 18.2) Clear vegetation and cleanout structure - $5,000 ST-6-18 BIA Route 1, Section 52 (~MP 19.9) Clear vegetation and cleanout structure - $5,000 ST-7 Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): Diamond Bar Road to Grand Canyon West Restripe faded pavement striping 3.7 $12,000 ST-7.2 Install raised, reflective pavement markers 3.7 $2,500 ST-7.3 Install chevron signs at curves 3.7 $5,000 ST-7.4 Add 4 FT unpaved shoulders 3.7 $250,000 ST-7.5 Install roadside fencing to ADOT and AZGF standards 3.7 $470,000 ST-7.1 ST-8 Diamond Bar Road to Grand Canyon West $739,500 Diamond Bar Road (BIA 1): Hualapai Indian Reservation to Buck and Doe Road Install wayfinding signs for tourists 2.4 $1,500 ST-8.2 Install raised, reflective pavement markers 2.4 $1,600 ST-8.3 Option 1: Install flashing, speed limit signs 2.4 $30,000 ST-8.4 Option 2: Install speed limit pavement markings 2.4 $3,000 ST-8.5 Install chevron signs at curves 2.4 $5,000 ST-8.6 Install animal crossing warning signs 2.4 $10,000 ST-8.7 Install roadside fencing to ADOT and AZGF standards 2.4 $305,000 ST-8.8 Conduct Roadway Safety Assessment 2.4 $15,000 ST-8.1  Hualapai Indian Reservation to Buck and Doe Road $371,100 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project ID Hualapai Indian Tribe 138 Table 8.1: Short-Term Recommendations (Continued) Project Description Project ID Project Location Length (miles) Cost Hualapai Indian Tribe Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6): Pavement Ending to Colorado River $1,000 ST-9.1 Diamond Creek Road/Pavement Ending Intersection Install "Rough Road Travel At Your Own Risk" sign - $500 ST-9.2 Pavement Ending Install "Do Not Enter When Flooded" sign - $500 ST-10 Supai Road: State Route 66 to MP 20 $829,500 Install recessed reflective pavement markers 20.1 $15,000 ST-10.2 Install street signs and wayfinding signs to Youth Camp and Havasupai Indian Reservation 20.1 $2,000 ST-10.3 Install animal crossing warning signs 20.1 $4,000 ST-10.4 Conduct a sign inventory and update signs that do not meet reflectivity standards or are in need of repair 20.1 $15,000 ST-10.5 Replace signage 20.1 $40,000 3 $375,000 2 $1,000 Install chevron signs at curves 2 $2,500 Upgrade existing roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards 3 $375,000 ST-10.1 ST-10.6 ST-10.7 State Route 66 to MP 20 MP 2.5 to MP 5.5 MP 13 to MP 15 ST-10.8 ST-10.9 ST-11 ST-11.1 MP 17.5 to MP 20.5 Upgrade existing roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards Install "Sharp Curve Ahead" warning signs Supai Road: MP 20 to Hualapai Indian Reservation Boundary MP 20 to Hualapai Indian Reservation Boundary $860,000 Pavement Reconstruction - Structural Overlay 20 *Currently Under Design ST-11.2 Install raised, reflective pavement markers 20 $15,000 ST-11.3 Install street signs and wayfinding signs to Youth Camp and Havasupai Indian Reservation 20 $2,000 ST-11.4 Install animal crossing warning signs 20 $4,000 ST-11.5 Conduct a sign inventory and update signs that do not meet reflectivity standards or are in need of repair 20 $15,000 ST-11.6 Replace signage 20 $40,000 ST-11.7 Clean roadside clear zones 20 $20,000 6 $750,000 20 $14,000 ST-11.8 ST-11.9  MP 25.5 to MP 31.5 MP 20 to MP 40 Upgrade existing roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards Clear roadside vegetation to the fence line Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements ST-9 139 Table 8.1: Short-Term Recommendations (Continued) Project ID Hualapai Indian Tribe ST-12 Nelson Road ST-12.1 ST-12.2 Project Location State Route 66 to Pavement Ending State Route 66/Nelson Road Intersection (Peach Springs) ST-12.3 Lhoist Lime Plant to State Route 66 ST-13 ST-13.1 ST-13.2 ST-14 BIA Route 104 ST-14.1 ST-14.2 ST-14.3 Milkweed Springs Road and Buck Music Mountain Road Section 40 and Section 50 Multi-Use Trail System State Route 66: Peach Springs to Buck and Doe Road Ridgeline Road: Peach Springs to Milkweed Springs Road Buck and Doe Road Project Description Length (miles) Cost $5,200 Add pavement striping Restripe intersection to include a lane markings and stop bar Install "Hill Blocks View" warning signs 0.3 $1,200 $1,500 2.5 $2,500 $88,000 Add pavement striping Install street lighting 2.1 0.6 Construct a multi-use trail offset from State Route 66 from Honaga Hill Road to Buck and Doe Road 2.5 Construct a multi-use trail along Ridgeline Road from Shandy Lane to Milkweed Springs Road Construct a multi-use path to connect Ridgeline Road trail to multi-use trail along State Route 66 $8,000 $80,000 $365,000 $160,000 $160,000 2.4 $45,000 0.65 Mohave County Antares Road: State Route 66 to Pavement Ending $84,000 ST-15.1 Antares Road/State Route 66 Intersection Restripe intersection to include a stop bar ST-15.2 State Route 66 to Pavement Ending Add pavement striping Install street lighting Technical analysis does not warrant installing street lighting; however, stakeholders and public expressed need for street lighting to improve safety. ST-15.3 ST-16 ST-16.1 ST-17.1 $1,500 0.76 0.76 $2,500 Antares Road: Pavement Ending to Pierce Ferry Road Pavement Ending to Pierce Ferry Road Conduct a drainage study to assess roadway to determine water flow patterns and possible culvert locations. $35,000 31.5 $31,000 31.5 Pierce Ferry Road: Antares Road to Diamond Bar Road Antares Road to Diamond Bar Road $40,000 Install raised, reflective pavement markers Mohave County successfully obtained a $314,000 Highway Safety Improvement Program project to design, install, and evaluate the installation of 20 driver feedback speed limit signs countywide. Supplement existing chevron signs as needed ST-17.2 ST-17.3 $80,000 $66,000 Supplement existing W11-4 (Advance Cattle Crossing) signs at Mile Posts 3.64 SB, 8.51 NB, 12.08 NB, and 31.66 SB ST-16.2 ST-17 - 6.6 $5,000 - 6.6 6.6 $6,000 6.6 ST-17.5 Supplement existing W11-4 (Advance Cattle Crossing) sign at Mile Post 22.94 SB Conduct Roadway Safety Assessment 6.6 $15,000 ST-17.6 Install wayfinding signs for tourists 6.6 $8,000 ST-17.4  $6,000 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements ST-15 140 Table 8.1: Short-Term Recommendations (Continued) Project ID Project Location Project Description Mohave County ST-18 Diamond Bar Road: Pierce Ferry Road to Hualapai Indian Reservation Pierce Ferry Road to Hualapai Indian Reservation Install wayfinding signs for tourists ST-18.1 Note: Mohave County maintains one D7-1 (Advance Recreational Area) sign for the Grand Canyon Skywalk at Mile Post 0.03 EB Install raised, reflective pavement markers Length (miles) Cost $86,000 14 $18,000 14 $10,000 ST-18.3 Mohave County successfully obtained a $314,000 Highway Safety Improvement Program project to design, install, and evaluate the installation of 20 driver feedback speed limit signs countywide. 14 - ST-18.4 Supplement existing chevron signs as needed 14 $12,000 14 $16,000 14 $30,000 - $350,000 - $750,000 Note: Mohave County secured a High Risk Rural Roads Program project to install centerline and shoulder rumble strips along the first 4.5 miles of Diamond Bar Road in 2015. ST-18.2 Supplement existing animal crossing warning signs as needed ST-18.5 ST-18.6 Arizona Department of Transportation ST-19 State Route 66/Diamond Creek Road Intersection State Route 66/Diamond Creek Road Intersection ST-19.1 Option 1 (No Roundabout): Upgrade traffic signal; install raised medians on State Route 66; install pedestrian crosswalks and ADA compliant ramps; convert western entrance Hualapai Lodge to a right-in/right-out only; widen eastern entrance to Hualapai Lodge; restripe roadway; add pedestrian crosswalks; improve intersection signage Option 2 (Roundabout): Reconfigure intersection to include a roundabout; convert western entrance Hualapai Lodge to a rightin/right-out only; widen eastern entrance to Hualapai Lodge; installed raised medians; pedestrian crosswalks and sidewalks incorporated into design; improve intersection signage ST-19.2 ST-20 Conduct Roadway Safety Assessment State Route 66: MP 71 to MP 84 12.9 $12,000 ST-20.2 Install animal crossing warning signs 12.9 $14,000 ST-20.3 Install roadside fencing to ADOT and AZGF standards 12.9 $1,600,000 ST-20.4 Install raised, reflective pavement markers 12.9 $10,000 ST-20.5 Clean roadside clear zones 12.9 $13,000 ST-20.6 State Route 66/Antares Road Intersection Install street signs and wayfinding signs - $2,500 ST-20.7 State Route 66/Valentine Cemetery Road Intersection Install "Hidden Driveway" sign - $500  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Install speed limit signs within 500 FT of major intersections ST-20.1 MP 71 to MP 84 $1,652,000 141 Table 8.1: Short-Term Recommendations (Continued) Project ID Project Location Arizona Department of Transportation ST-21 Project Description Length (miles) State Route 66: MP 84 to MP 86.5 (Valentine) $208,300 Widen shoulders to 8 FT 0.3 $160,000 ST-21.2 Install raised, reflective pavement markers 2.4 $1,800 ST-21.3 Reduce speed limit to 45 MPH 1.5 $2,500 ST-21.4 Install street signs at intersections 1.5 $4,000 Install street lighting 0.3 $40,000 ST-21.1 ST-21.5 ST-22 MP 85 to MP 86.5 Cost MP 85.2 to MP 85.5 State Route 66: MP 86.5 to Western Reservation Boundary $3,745,000 ST-22.1 MP 86.5 to MP 90 Widen shoulders to 8 FT ST-22.2 Bridge #141 (MP 91.6) Bridge Rehabilitation MP 86.5 to Western Reservation Boundary ST-22.4 Install speed limit signs within 500 FT of major intersection Install animal crossing warning signs ST-22.5 3.6 $2,000,000 - $400,000 9.7 $10,000 9.7 $10,000 Install roadside fencing to ADOT and AZGF standards 9.7 $1,300,000 ST-22.6 Install raised, reflective pavement markers 9.7 $8,000 ST-22.7 Install chevron signs at curves 9.7 $9,000 ST-22.8 Install street signs and wayfinding signs 9.7 $8,000 ST-23 State Route 66: Western Reservation Boundary to MP 101 ST-23.2 Install speed limit signs within 500 FT of major intersection Conduct Roadway Safety Assessment ST-23.3 Install raised, reflective pavement markers 4.9 $4,000 ST-23.4 Install street signs and wayfinding signs 4.9 $4,000 Install street signs and wayfinding signs - $1,500 ST-23.1 ST-23.5 ST-24 ST-24.1 Western Reservation Boundary to MP 101 $34,500 State Route 66/Buck and Doe Road Intersection $5,000 4.9 $20,000 State Route 66: MP 101 to MP 103 MP 101 to MP 103 ST-24.2 ST-25 4.9 $6,000 Install raised, reflective pavement markers 2 $2,000 Install speed limit signs 2 $4,000 State Route 66: MP 103 to Diamond Creek Road Option 1: Install flashing, speed limit signs entering Peach Springs 0.4 $30,000 ST-25.2 Option 2: Install speed limit pavement markings entering Peach Springs 0.4 $3,000 ST-25.3 Install community gateway signs 0.4 $4,000 ST-25.4 Conduct Roadway Safety Assessment 0.4 $15,000 ST-25.5 Install raised, reflective pavement markers 0.4 $500 ST-25.6 Install street signs at Honaga Hill Road and Diamond Creek Road 0.4 $2,000 ST-25.1  MP 103 to Diamond Creek Road $54,500 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements ST-22.3 142 Table 8.1: Short-Term Recommendations (Continued) Project ID ST-26 Project Location State Route 66: Diamond Creek Road to MP 105 Cost $134,900 Option 1: Install flashing, speed limit signs entering Peach Springs 1.6 $30,000 ST-26.2 Option 2: Install speed limit pavement markings entering Peach Springs 1.6 $3,000 ST-26.3 Install community gateway signs 1.6 $4,000 ST-26.4 Install street signs at Nelson Road, Wahanda Way, Hualapai Way, BIA Lane, and High View Drive 1.6 $4,000 ST-26.5 Conduct Roadway Safety Assessment 1.6 $15,000 ST-26.6 Install raised, reflective pavement markers 1.6 $1,200 Diamond Creek Road to Nelson Road Upgrade street lighting, install wayfinding signs, enhance landscaping 0.12 $75,000 Nelson Road to East of High View Drive Reduce speed limit to 35 MPH 1.5 $2,500 East of Hualapai Way to West of High View Drive Repave and restripe roadway to include center turn lane 0.57 $200 ST-26.1 ST-26.7 ST-26.8 Diamond Creek Road to MP 105 Project Description Length (miles) ST-26.9 Arizona Department of Transportation ST-27 State Route 66: MP 105 to Eastern Reservation Boundary ST-27.2 Install speed limit signs within 500 FT of major intersection Install roadside fencing to ADOT and AZGF standards ST-27.3 Install raised, reflective pavement markers ST-27.1 MP 105 to Eastern Reservation Boundary $966,500 7.4 $7,000 7.4 $950,000 7.4 $6,000 ST-27.4 State Route 66/Supai Road Install street signs and wayfinding signs $2,000 ST-27.5 State Route 66/Nelson Road Install "Trucks Entering Highway" sign $1,500 ST-28 ST-28.1 State Route 66: Eastern Reservation Boundary to Seligman Eastern Reservation Boundary to Seligman ST-28.2 Install roadside fencing to ADOT and AZGF standards 27.2 $3,500,000 Install raised, reflective pavement markers 27.2 $20,000 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Plan for Improvements  $3,520,000 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 143 Project #ST-1. BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) Route Name: BIA 101 Section Number: 10 - 310 Project Map: Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 1.63 miles • Paved and unpaved local streets that provide access to residential areas and activity centers • Functional Classification: 7 (City Collector) and 3 (City Local) • Speed Limit:15-25 MPH • Potential economic development and increased tourism traffic Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions (Diamond Creek Road): • Existing ADT:1,008 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT: 1,321 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. ST-1.9 Improvement Cost Estimate Restripe intersection to include a stop bar $1,500 Purpose/Benefit Increase driver awareness and safety Restripe intersection to include a stop bar Increase driver awareness and safety Install "Yield" Sign on BIA 101 (Section 20) Install "Yield" Sign on Honaga Hill Road Install "Yield" Sign on Honaga Hill Road Install "Stop" Sign on Rodeo Way and "Yield" Sign on Diamond Creek Circle Install "Hill" Signs at steep hills Coordinate with BNSF to conduct an atgrade crossing safety assessment to determine necessary improvements Restripe roadway to include stop line and pavement marking symbols Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report $1,500 $500 $500 $500 $1,000 $2,500 Increase driver awareness and safety Increase driver awareness and safety Increase driver awareness and safety Increase driver awareness and safety $8,000 Increase driver awareness and safety Identify improvement scenarios to enhance safety $1,500 Increase driver awareness and safety at railroad crossing Plan for Improvements Project Description: Project ID Location ST-1.1 BIA Lane (Section 200)/State Route 66 Intersection ST-1.2 High View Drive (Section 120)/State Route 66 Intersection ST-1.3 BIA 101 (Section 20)/Honaga Hill Road Intersection ST-1. 4 Ridge Road/Honaga Hill Road Intersection ST-1.5 Shandy Lane/Honaga Hill Road Intersection ST-1.6 Rodeo Way/Diamond Creek Road/Diamond Creek Circle Intersection ST-1.7 Sections 10, 20, 60, and 300 ST-1.8 Diamond Creek Road/BNSF Rail road Crossing 144 Project #ST-1. BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) (Continued) Project Description: Project ID Location Improvement ST-1.10 Diamond Creek Road (Section 100) Extend School Zone from South of Shandy Lane to Indian Way ST-1.11 Diamond Creek Road (Section 100 and 280); Add pavement striping ST-1.12 Hualapai Way (Section 70); High View Drive Install street signs and wayfinding signs ST-1.13 (Section 110) Clear roadside vegetation ST-1.14 Cost Estimate $1,000 $2,600 $3,000 $1,200 Purpose/Benefit Enhance pedestrian safety Improve lane visibility; Enhance safety Increase driver awareness and safety Improve driver visibility, drainage, and safety Extend pavement life; Improve driver experience Improve lane visibility; Enhance safety Improve lane visibility; Enhance safety Pedestrian/Bicycle mobility Sections 40, 70, 100, 160-180, 280 (2.6 Pavement Rehabilitation - Chip Seal $7,500 miles) $8,500 ST-1.15 Sections 20, 40-60, 90, 110, 130-190, 210- Add pavement striping 270 $10,000 ST-1.16 Install street signs and wayfinding signs ST-1.17 Hualapai Lodge to Nelson Road Extend concrete shared-use path to $40,000 Nelson Road Pedestrian/Bicycle mobility ST-1.18 Diamond Creek Road: Rodeo Way to Construct concrete shared-use path (one$175,000 Canyon View Drive direction) Pedestrian/Bicycle mobility ST-1.19 Hualapai Way: State Route 66 to Indian Way Construct concrete shared-use path (one$50,000 direction) Pedestrian/Bicycle mobility ST-1.20 High View Drive: Diamond Creek Road to BIA Construct concrete shared-use path (one$42,000 Lane direction) Pedestrian/Bicycle mobility ST-1.21 High View Drive: BIA Lane to State Route 66 Construct asphalt shared-use path (one$36,000 direction) ST-1.22 Sections 30, 50, 70, 100, 120, 200 - 220, Install street lighting Increase nighttime visibility; $520,000 pedestrian/bicycle safety 260 - 290 Environmental Overview: Area is developed; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, and noise receptors. Issues Addressed: Roadway safety concerns; pavement conditions; railroad crossing safety; lack of street signage Project Benefits: Improved motor vehicle, pedestrian, bicyclist safety conditions; improved pavement conditions Potential Funding Sources: Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Plan for Improvements  Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant; Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 145 Project #ST-2. BIA Route 103 (Valentine) Route Name: BIA 103 Section Number: 10 - 110 Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 1.30 miles • Unpaved road; Residential area • Functional Classification: 3 (City Local) • Speed Limit:<25 MPH • Potential residential development • Existing ADT:<100 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT:<200 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location ST-2.1 Section 70 and 80/BNSF Railroad Crossing ST-2.2 ST-2.3 Sections 10 - 110 Environmental Overview: Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Potential Funding Sources:  Improvement Cost Estimate Coordinate with BNSF to conduct an atgrade crossing safety assessment to $8,000 determine necessary improvements Install "Look" and "Yield" sign at crossing $1,000 Purpose/Benefit Identify improvement scenarios to enhance safety Increase driver awareness and safety at railroad crossing Clear roadside vegetation Improve driver visibility, drainage, and $1,000 safety Area is developed; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, and noise receptors. Roadway safety concerns; railroad crossing safety; vegetation limiting sight distance Improved driver awareness at railroad crossing; coordination and identification of improvements at the railroad crossing; increased driver visibility Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 146 Project #ST-3. Valentine Way (BIA Route 9103) Route Name: BIA 9103 Section Number: 10 Project Map: Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 0.4 miles • Unpaved Road; Alternative route to residential area • Functional Classification: 3 (City Local) • Speed Limit:<25 MPH • Potential residential development Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: • Existing ADT:<100 Project Description: Project ID Location ST-3.1 Section 10 Environmental Overview: Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT:<200 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Improvement Cost Estimate Purpose/Benefit Install "Do Not Enter When Flooded" sign $500 Alerts motorists of roadway conditions Sign placement is along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources. Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Roadway safety concerns Alerts drivers of roadway conditions Potential Funding Sources: Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Plan for Improvements  Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 147 Project #ST-4. Valentine Cemetery Road(BIA Route 8000) Route Name: Valentine Cemetery Road Section Number: BIA Route 8000 Project Map: Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 0.9 miles • Unpaved Road • Functional Classification: 3 (City Local) • Speed Limit:<25 MPH • No planned growth Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: • Existing ADT:<100 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT:<200 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location ST-4.1 State Route 66 to Valentine Cemetery ST-4.2 Valentine Cemetery Road/BNSF Railroad Crossing ST-4.3 Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Potential Funding Sources:  Purpose/Benefit Increase driver awareness and safety Increase driver awareness and safety at railroad crossing Identify improvement scenarios to enhance safety Coordinate with BNSF to conduct an atgrade crossing safety assessment to $8,000 determine necessary improvements Sign placement is along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources and utilities. Railroad crossing safety; Roadway safety concerns Improved driver awareness at railroad crossing; coordination and identification of improvements at the railroad crossing; alerts drivers of roadway conditions Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Environmental Overview: Improvement Cost Estimate Install "Do Not Enter When Flooded" sign $500 Install crossbucks $1,500 148 Project #ST-5. Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road Route Name: BIA 1 Section Number: 10 Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 3.5 miles • Paved Road; Residential Area • Functional Classification: 4 (Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 45 MPH • Potential residential growth; Increased traffic due to development at Grand Canyon West • Existing ADT:115 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT:127 Project Description: Project ID Location ST-5.1 Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1)/ State Route 66 Intersection ST-5.2 State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road ST-5.3 ST-5.4 ST-5.5 Environmental Overview: 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Improvement Cost Estimate Restripe intersection to include a stop bar $1,500 Purpose/Benefit Increase driver awareness and safety Add pavement striping Install animal crossing warning signs Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards Install street lighting Increase driver awareness and safety Increase driver awareness and safety Restrict wildlife from entering right-of-way $450,000 Increase nighttime visibility; pedestrian/bicycle safety Corridor is developed; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Roadway safety concerns Improved motor vehicle conditions; increased roadway safety Potential Funding Sources: Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant  $15,000 $4,000 $400,000 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 149 Project #ST-6.Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): Mud Tank Road to Diamond Bar Road Route Name: BIA 1 Section Number: 20 - 50 Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 44.9 miles • Unpaved Road; Route to Grand Canyon West • Functional Classification: 4 (Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit:25-45 MPH • Increased traffic due to development at Grand Canyon West • Existing ADT:68 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT: 75 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location ST-6.1 MP 17 - MP 20 ST-6.2 ST-6.3 MP 26 - MP 29 ST-6.4 ST-6.5 ST-6.6 MP 30 - MP 32 ST-6.7 ST-6.8 ST-6.9 MP 34 - MP 36 ST-6.10 ST-6.11 ST-6.12 Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1)/ Diamond Bar Road Intersection ST-6.13 Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1)/ Mud Tank Road Intersection Improvement Install sharp curve ahead warning signs Install chevron signs at curves Install sharp curve ahead warning signs Install chevron signs at curves Install guardrails along sharp curves Install sharp curve ahead warning signs Install chevron signs at curves Install guardrails along sharp curves Install sharp curve ahead warning signs Install chevron signs at curves Install guardrails along sharp curves Install "Rough Road Travel At Your Own Risk" sign Install "Rough Road Travel At Your Own Risk" sign Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Cost Estimate $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $4,300 $2,000 $1,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $3,000 $500 $500 Purpose/Benefit Increase driver awareness and safety Improves road visibility; Enhances safety Increase driver awareness and safety Improves road visibility; Enhances safety Improves road visibility; Enhances safety Increase driver awareness and safety Improves road visibility; Enhances safety Improves road visibility; Enhances safety Increase driver awareness and safety Improves road visibility; Enhances safety Improves road visibility; Enhances safety Alert tourists of roadway conditions Alert tourists of roadway conditions Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 150 Project #ST-6.Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): Mud Tank Road to Diamond Bar Road (Continued) Project Description: Project ID Location Improvement Cost Estimate Purpose/Benefit ST-6.14 Mud Tank Road to Diamond Bar Road Install animal crossing warning signs $15,000 Increase driver awareness and safety ST-6.15 BIA Route 1, Section 22 (~MP 15.5) Clear vegetation and cleanout structure $5,000 Improves drainage ST-6.16 BIA Route 1, Section 27 (~MP 17.8) Clear vegetation and cleanout structure $5,000 Improves drainage ST-6.17 BIA Route 1, Section 30 (~MP 18.2) Clear vegetation and cleanout structure $5,000 Improves drainage ST-6.18 BIA Route 1, Section 52 (~MP 19.9) Clear vegetation and cleanout structure $5,000 Improves drainage Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be Environmental Overview: given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Roadway safety concerns; Drainage conditions; Tourists routed on roadway by GPS units Improved roadway safety conditions; improved roadway drainage; alerts tourists of poor roadway conditions Potential Funding Sources: Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Plan for Improvements  Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 151 Project #ST-7.Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): Diamond Bar Road to Grand Canyon West Route Name: BIA 7 Section Number: 10 Project Map: Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 3.7 miles • Paved Roadway; Tourist Corridor to Grand Canyon West • Functional Classification: 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit:45 MPH • Increased traffic due to development at Grand Canyon West • Existing ADT:723 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT: 796 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location ST-7.1 Diamond Bar Road to Grand Canyon West ST-7.2 Environmental Overview: Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Roadway safety concerns Improved driving conditions; increased roadway safety; enhanced night time driving conditions Potential Funding Sources: Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements ST-7.3 ST-7.4 ST-7.5 Improvement Cost Estimate Purpose/Benefit Restripe faded pavement striping $12,000 Improves lane visibility; Enhances safety Install recessed reflective pavement Improve night time visibility; Enhance $2,500 markers safety Install chevron signs at curves $5,000 Increase driver awareness and safety Add 5 FT unpaved shoulders $250,000 Provide safe area for vehicles to pull over Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF Restrict wildlife from entering right-of-way $470,000 standards Corridor is developed; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. 152 Project #ST-8.Diamond Bar Road (BIA 1): Hualapai Indian Reservation to Buck and Doe Road Route Name: BIA 1 Section Number: 70 Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 2.4 miles • Paved Roadway; Tourist Corridor to Grand Canyon West • Functional Classification: 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit:45 MPH • Increased traffic due to development at Grand Canyon West • Existing ADT:1,447 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT: 864 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location ST-8.1 Hualapai Indian Reservation to Buck and Doe ST-8.2 Road ST-8.3 ST-8.4 ST-8.5 ST-8.6 ST-8.7 Install animal crossing warning signs Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards Conduct Roadway Safety Assessment ST-8.8 Environmental Overview: Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Potential Funding Sources:  Improvement Install wayfinding signs for tourists Install recessed reflective pavement markers Option 1: Install flashing, speed limit signs Option 2: Install speed limit pavement markings Install chevron signs at curves Cost Estimate $1,500 Purpose/Benefit Provide directional information Improve night time visibility; Enhance $1,600 safety $30,000 per Alert drivers of speed conditions location $3,000 per Alert drivers of speed conditions location Improve night time visibility; Enhance $5,000 safety $10,000 Increase driver awareness and safety Restrict wildlife from entering right-of-way $305,000 Identify improvement scenarios to enhance safety Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Roadway safety concerns; high vehicle speeds; Tourist accommodations Improved motor vehicle conditions; reduced vehicle speeds; increased roadway safety; enhanced night time driving conditions; provides tourists with directional information Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant $15,000 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 153 Project #ST-9. Diamond Creek Road (BIA 6): Pavement Ending to Colorado River Route Name: BIA 6 Section Number: 10 Project Map: Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 19.0 miles • Unpaved Gravel Roadway; Route to Hualapai Rivers Runners • Functional Classification: 5 (Rural Local) • Speed Limit:<25 MPH • Increased traffic due to increased commercial development by the Hualapai River Rafters • Existing ADT: <100 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT: 383 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Roadway safety concerns; Tourists driving on roadway Alerts tourists of poor roadway conditions Potential Funding Sources: Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Description: Project ID Location Improvement Cost Estimate Purpose/Benefit ST-9.1 Diamond Creek Road/ Install "Rough Road Travel At Your Own Provide awareness to tourists of roadway $500 Pavement Ending Intersection Risk" sign conditions ST-9.2 Pavement Ending to Colorado River Install "Do Not Enter When Flooded" sign $500 Increase driver awareness and safety Sign placement is along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to Environmental Overview: impacts on cultural resources, wildlife, and utilities. 154 Project #ST-10. Supai Road (BIA 18): State Route 66 to MP 20 Route Name: BIA 18 Section Number: 10 Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: Project Description: Project ID Location ST-10.1 State Route 66 to MP 20 ST-10.2 20.1 miles • Paved Roadway; Open Range Land; Tourist Corridor to Youth Camp and Havasupai Falls • Functional Classification: 4 (Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit:50 MPH • Potential economic development • Existing ADT:135 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT: 149 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Improvement Install recessed reflective pavement markers Cost Estimate $15,000 Purpose/Benefit Improve driver visibility, drainage, and safety Provide directional information Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Install street signs and wayfinding signs to Youth Camp and $2,000 Havasupai Indian Reservation Install animal crossing warning signs $4,000 Increase driver awareness and safety Conduct a sign inventory and update signs that do not meet Identify signs that are in need of $15,000 reflectivity standards or are in need of repair replacement Replace signage $40,000 Increase driver awareness and safety Upgrade existing roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards $375,000 Restrict wildlife from entering right-of-way Install "Sharp Curve Ahead" warning signs $1,000 Increase driver awareness and safety Install chevron signs at curves $2,500 Increase driver awareness and safety Upgrade existing roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards $375,000 Restrict wildlife from entering right-of-way Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Roadway safety concerns; signage conditions Improved driving conditions; increased roadway safety; enhanced night time driving conditions Potential Funding Sources: Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant ST-10.3 ST-10.4 ST-10.5 ST-10.6 MP 2.5 to MP 5.5 ST-10.7 MP 13 to MP 15 ST-10.8 ST-10.9 MP 17.5 to MP 20.5 Environmental Overview:  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 155 Project #ST-11. Supai Road (BIA 18): MP 20 to Hualapai Indian Reservation Boundary Route Name: BIA 18 Section Number: 50 Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 20.0 miles • Paved Roadway; Open Range Land; Tourist Corridor to Youth Camp and Havasupai Falls • Functional Classification: 4 (Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit:50 MPH • Potential economic development • Existing ADT:135 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT: 149 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location Improvement Cost Estimate Purpose/Benefit ST-11.1 MP 20 to Hualapai Indian Reservation Boundary Pavement Reconstruction - Structural *Currently Improve driver experience and safety Overlay under Design ST-11.2 Install recessed reflective pavement Improve night time visibility; Enhance $15,000 markers safety ST-11.3 Install street signs and wayfinding signs Provide directional information to Youth Camp and Havasupai Indian $2,000 Reservation ST-11.4 Install animal crossing warning signs $4,000 Increase driver awareness and safety ST-11.5 Conduct a sign inventory and update Identify signs that are in need of signs that do not meet reflectivity $15,000 replacement standards or are in need of repair ST-11.7 Replace signage $40,000 increase driver awareness and safety ST-11.8 Upgrade existing roadside fencing to Restrict wildlife from entering right-of-way MP 25.5 to MP 31.5 $750,000 ADOT/AZGF standards ST-11.9 Clear roadside vegetation to the fence Provide safe area for vehicles to pull over MP 20 o MP 40 $14,000 line Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to Environmental Overview: impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Issues Addressed: Roadway safety concerns; signage conditions Project Benefits: Improved driving conditions; increased roadway safety; enhanced night time driving conditions Potential Funding Sources: Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 156 Project #ST-12. Nelson Road Route Name: Section Number: Project Map: BIA 19 10–60 Project Length: 9.8 miles Existing and Future Conditions: • Unpaved Roadway; Alternative Route to Lhoist Lime Plant • Functional Classification: 4 (Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit:15-35 MPH Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: • No planned development • Existing ADT:367 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT: 404 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location Improvement Cost Estimate Purpose/Benefit ST-12.1 State Route 66 to Pavement Ending Add pavement striping $1,200 Improve lane visibility; Enhance safety ST-12.2 State Route 66/Nelson Road Intersection Restripe intersection to include a lane Improve lane visibility; Enhance safety $1,500 (Peach Springs) markings and stop bar ST-12.3 Lhoist Lime Plant to State Route 66 Install "Hill Blocks View" warning sign $2,500 Increase driver awareness and safety Corridor is developed; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural Environmental Overview: resources, utilities, and noise receptors. Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Roadway safety concerns; Lack of pavement striping Improved driving conditions; increased roadway safety Potential Funding Sources: Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Plan for Improvements  Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 157 Project #ST-13. BIA Route 104 Route Name: Section Number: Project Map: Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: BIA 104 10-30 2.1 miles • Paved Roadway; Residential Development Area • Functional Classification: 3 (City Local) • Speed Limit:<25-45 MPH • Potential residential development • Existing ADT:<100 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT:<200 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location Improvement ST-13.1 Milkweed Springs Road and Buck Music Mountain Add pavement striping Road ST-13.2 Section 40 and Section 50 Install street lighting Environmental Overview: $8,000 Purpose/Benefit Improve lane visibility; Enhance safety Increase nighttime visibility; pedestrian/bicycle safety Corridors are developed; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, and noise receptors. Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Lack of pavement striping Increased roadway safety Potential Funding Sources: Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant $80,000 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Plan for Improvements  Cost Estimate Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 158 Project #ST-14. Multi-Use Trail System Route Name: N/A Section Number: N/A Project Map: Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 5.55 miles • Projects in undeveloped areas between the established community of Peach Springs and the residential development area along Buck and Doe Road. • Potential residential development along Buck and Doe Road Project Description: Project ID Location Improvement Cost Estimate Purpose/Benefit ST-14.1 State Route 66: Peach Springs to Buck and Doe Construct a multi-use trail offset from Improve pedestrian mobility and safety Road State Route 66 from Honaga Hill Road to $160,000 Buck and Doe Road ST-14.2 Ridgeline Road: Peach Springs to Milkweed Construct a multi-use trail along Ridgeline Improve pedestrian mobility and safety Springs Road Road from Shandy Lane to Milkweed $160,000 Springs Road ST-14.3 Buck and Doe Road Construct a multi-use path to connect Improve pedestrian mobility and safety Ridgeline Road trail to multi-use trail $45,000 along State Route 66 Multi-use trails follow existing man-made trails; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given Environmental Overview: to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, and noise receptors. Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Limited pedestrian facilities connecting Peach Springs and Buck and Doe Road Increased pedestrian mobility Potential Funding Sources: Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant; Transportation Alternatives Programs Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Plan for Improvements  Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 159 Project #ST-15. Antares Road: State Route 66 to Pavement Ending Route Name: Antares Road Section Number: State Route 66 to Pavement Ending Project Map: Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 0.76 miles • Paved Roadway; Residential Area; Route to Grand Canyon West • Functional Classification:4 (Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 45 MPH • Potential residential growth in Antares • Existing ADT:231 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT: 254 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location ST-15.1 Antares Road/State Route 66 Intersection ST-15.2 ST-15.3 State Route 66 to Pavement Ending Improvement Restripe intersection to include a stop bar Add pavement striping Install street lighting Technical analysis does not warrant installing street lighting; however, stakeholders and public expressed need for street lighting to improve safety. Cost Estimate $1,500 $2,500 $80,000 Purpose/Benefit Improve lane visibility; Enhance safety Improve lane visibility; Enhance safety Improve nighttime visibility; Enhance safety Corridor is developed; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, and noise receptors. Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Lack of pavement striping, nighttime visibility, safety concerns Increased roadway safety Potential Funding Sources: Surface Transportation Program (STP); Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Environmental Overview: 160 Project #ST-16. Antares Road: Pavement Ending to Pierce Ferry Road Route Name: Antares Road Section Number: Pavement Ending to Pierce Ferry Road Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 31.6 miles • Unpaved Roadway; Open Rangeland; Route to Grand Canyon West • Functional Classification: 4 (Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 45 MPH • Increased traffic due to development at Grand Canyon West • Existing ADT:38 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT: 42 2019 LOS: A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location Improvement Cost Estimate ST-16.1 Pavement Ending to Pierce Ferry Road Conduct a drainage study to assess roadway to determine water flow patterns and possible culvert $35,000 locations. ST-16.2 Supplement existing W11-4 (Advance Cattle Crossing) signs at MPs 3.64 SB, 8.51 NB, 12.08 $31,000 NB, and 31.66 SB Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are Environmental Overview: impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Issues Addressed: Roadway safety concerns; Tourists routed on roadway by GPS units Project Benefits: Improved roadway safety conditions; alerts tourists of poor roadway conditions Potential Funding Sources:  Purpose/Benefit Conduct detailed analysis of drainage conditions to determine improvement scenarios Increase driver awareness and safety minimal. Consideration should be given to Surface Transportation Program (STP); Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 161 Project #ST-17. Pierce Ferry Road: Antares Road to Diamond Bar Road Route Name: Pierce Ferry Road Section Number: Antares Road to Diamond Bar Road Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 6.6 miles • Paved County Roadway; Tourist Corridor to Grand Canyon West • Functional Classification: 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 55 MPH • Increased traffic due to development at Grand Canyon West • Existing ADT:1,447 Existing LOS: B 2019 ADT: 1,592 2019 LOS: B Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location ST-17.1 Antares Road to Diamond Bar Road ST-17.2 ST-17.3 ST-17.4 ST-17.5 ST-17.6 Environmental Overview: Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Potential Funding Sources:  Improvement Install recessed reflective pavement markers Cost Estimate $5,000 Purpose/Benefit Improve night time visibility; Enhance safety Alert drivers of speed conditions Mohave County successfully obtained a $314,000 Highway Safety Improvement Program project to design, install, and evaluate $30,000 per the installation of 20 driver feedback speed location limit signs countywide. Design is scheduled to commence this fiscal year with installation in FY 17. Supplement existing chevron signs as needed Improve night time visibility; Enhance $6,000 safety Supplement existing W11-4 (Advance Cattle Increase driver awareness and safety $6,000 Crossing) sign at MP 22.94 SB Conduct Roadway Safety Assessment Identify improvement scenarios to $15,000 enhance safety Install wayfinding signs for tourists $8,000 Provide directional information Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Roadway safety concerns; high vehicle speeds; lack of directional signage Increased roadway safety; reduced vehicle speeds; enhanced night time driving conditions; provides tourists with directional information Surface Transportation Program (STP); Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 162 Project #ST-18. Diamond Bar Road: Pierce Ferry Road to Hualapai Indian Reservation Route Name: BIA 1 Section Number: 70 Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 14.0 miles • Paved County Roadway; Tourist Corridor to Grand Canyon West • Functional Classification: 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 45 MPH • Increased traffic due to development at Grand Canyon West • Existing ADT:785 Existing LOS: A 2019 ADT: 864 2019 LOS: B Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location Improvement Install wayfinding signs for tourists ST-18.1 Pierce Ferry Road to ST-18.2 Hualapai Indian Reservation Install reflective pavement markers Note: Mohave County secured a High Risk Rural Roads Program project to install centerline and shoulder rumble strips along the first 4.5 miles of Diamond Bar Road in 2015. ST-18.3 Mohave County successfully obtained a $314,000 Highway Safety Improvement Program project to design, install, and evaluate the installation of 20 driver feedback speed limit signs countywide. Design is scheduled to commence this fiscal year with installation in FY 17. Supplement existing chevron signs as needed ST-18.5 ST-18.6 ST-18.7 Environmental Overview: Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Potential Funding Sources:  Cost Estimate $18,000 $10,000 Purpose/Benefit Provide directional information Improve night time visibility; Enhance safety Alert drivers of speed conditions - Improve night time visibility; Enhance safety Supplement existing animal crossing warning signs as needed $16,000 Increase driver awareness and safety Conduct Roadway Safety Assessment $30,000 per Identify improvement scenarios to location enhance safety Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Roadway safety concerns; high vehicle speeds; tourist accommodations Increased roadway safety; reduced vehicle speeds; enhanced night time driving conditions; provides tourists with directional information Surface Transportation Program (STP); Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); TIGER Grant; Road Safety Assessment $12,000 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 163 Project #ST-19. State Route 66/Diamond Creek Road Intersection Route Name: State Route 66 / BIA 101 Section 100 Section Number: N/A Existing and Future Conditions: • Paved State Highway; Major intersection in developed Peach Springs • Functional Classification:6 (City Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 35 MPH • Potential commercial development • Existing ADT:2,275 Existing LOS: B Existing and Projected Traffic 2019 ADT: 2,503 2019 LOS: B Conditions (Diamond Creek Road): Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Cost Project ID Improvement Project Figure Purpose/Benefit Estimate ST-19.1 Option 1 (Traffic Signal): Install Improve overall safety and traffic signal; install raised medians operations of the intersection on State Route 66; install pedestrian crosswalks and ADA compliant ramps; convert western entrance Hualapai $350,000 Lodge to a right-in/right-out only; widen eastern entrance to Hualapai Lodge; restripe roadway; add pedestrian crosswalks; improve intersection signage Option 2 (Roundabout): Reconfigure intersection to include a roundabout; convert western entrance Hualapai Lodge to a right-in/right-out only; widen eastern entrance to Hualapai Lodge; installed raised medians; pedestrian crosswalks and sidewalks incorporated into design; improve intersection signage Improve overall safety and operations of the intersection $750,000 Environmental Overview: Improvements are located at an existing intersection; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Additionally, effort should be made to limit the impacts on Title VI populations during construction Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Intersection congestion; roadway safety concerns; high vehicle speeds; lack of street signage Increased roadway safety; reduced vehicle speeds; reduced turning movement conflicts; improved driving experiences; enhanced streetscaping potential Tribal Transportation Program (TTP); Surface Transportation Program (STP); Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Potential Funding Sources:  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements ST-19.2 164 Project #ST-20. State Route 66: MP 71 to MP 84 Route Name: State Route 66 Section Number: MP 71 to MP84 Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: Project Description: Project ID Location ST-20.1 MP 71 to MP 84 ST-20.2 ST-20.3 ST-20.4 ST-20.5 ST-20.6 12.9 • Paved State Highway • Functional Classification: 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 65 MPH • Potential residential growth in Antares • Existing ADT:1,625 Existing LOS: B 2019 ADT: 1,788 2019 LOS: B Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Improvement Cost Estimate Install speed limit signs within 500 FT $12,000 of major intersections Install animal crossing warning signs $14,000 Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF $1,600,000 standards Install recessed reflective pavement $10,000 markers Clean roadside clear zones $13,000 Install street signs and wayfinding signs $2,500 Purpose/Benefit Alert drivers of speed conditions Increase driver awareness and safety Restrict wildlife from entering right-of-way Improve night time visibility; Enhance safety Provide safe area for vehicles to pull over Provide directional information State Route 66/ Antares Road Intersection ST-20.7 State Route 66/Valentine Cemetery Road Install "Hidden Driveway" sign Increase driver awareness and safety $500 Intersection Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to Environmental Overview: impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Issues Addressed: Roadway safety concerns; high vehicle speeds; lack of directional signage Project Benefits: Increased roadway safety; reduced vehicle speeds; enhanced night time driving conditions; provides tourists with directional information Potential Funding Sources: Surface Transportation Program (STP); Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 165 Project #ST-21. State Route 66: MP 84 to MP 86.5 (Valentine) Route Name: State Route 66 Section Number: MP 84 to MP 86.5 Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: Project Description: Project ID Location ST-21.1 MP 85 to MP 86.5 ST-21.2 ST-21.3 ST-21.4 ST-21.5 MP 85.2 to MP 85.5 Environmental Overview: Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Potential Funding Sources:  2.4 • Paved State Highway; Transverses Through Developed Valentine Community • Functional Classification: 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 65 MPH • Potential residential development • Existing ADT:1,459 Existing LOS: B 2019 ADT: 1,605 2019 LOS: B Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Improvement Widen shoulders to 8 FT Install recessed reflective pavement markers Reduce speed limit to 45 MPH Cost Estimate $160,000 $1,800 Purpose/Benefit Provide safe area for vehicles to pull over Improves lane visibility; Enhances safety Pedestrian/Bicycle safety; Reduce speeding Install street signs at intersections $4,000 Provide directional information Install street lighting Increase nighttime visibility; $40,000 pedestrian/bicycle safety Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. $2,500 Roadway safety concerns; pedestrian/bicycle safety; high vehicle speeds; narrow shoulders; lack of street signage Increased roadway safety; reduced vehicle speeds; increased pedestrian and bicyclist safety conditions; enhanced night time driving conditions; provides motorists with directional information Surface Transportation Program (STP); Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 166 Project #ST-22. State Route 66: MP 86.5 to Western Reservation Boundary Route Name: State Route 66 Project Location: MP 86.5 to Western Reservation Boundary Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 9.7 • Paved State Highway; Transverses Through Developed Truxton Community • Functional Classification: 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 65 MPH • Potential residential growth in Truxton • Existing ADT:1,459 Existing LOS: B 2019 ADT: 1,605 2019 LOS: B Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location ST-22.1 MP 86.5 to MP 90 ST-22.2 Bridge #141 (MP 91.6) ST-22.3 MP 86.5 to Western Reservation Boundary ST-22.4 ST-22.5 ST-22.6 ST-22.7 ST-22.8 Environmental Overview: Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Potential Funding Sources:  Improvement Cost Estimate Widen shoulders to 8 FT $2,000,000 Bridge Rehabilitation $400,000 Install speed limit signs within 500 FT $10,000 of major intersection Install animal crossing warning signs $10,000 Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF $1,300,000 standards Install recessed reflective pavement $8,000 markers Install chevron signs at curves $9,000 Purpose/Benefit Provide safe area for vehicles to pull over Structural sufficient bridge Alert drivers of speed conditions Increase driver awareness and safety Restrict wildlife from entering right-of-way Improve night time visibility; Enhance safety Improve night time visibility; Enhance safety Install street signs and wayfinding signs $8,000 Provide directional information Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Roadway safety concerns; pedestrian/bicycle safety; high vehicle speeds; bridge conditions; narrow shoulders; lack of street signage Increased roadway safety; reduced vehicle speeds; increased pedestrian and bicyclist safety conditions; enhanced night time driving conditions; provides motorists with directional information; improved bridge conditions Surface Transportation Program (STP); Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 167 Project #ST-23. State Route 66: Western Reservation Boundary to MP 101 Route Name: State Route 66 Project Location: Western Reservation Boundary to MP 101 Project Map: Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 4.9 miles • Paved State Highway • Functional Classification: 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 65 MPH • No planned growth • Existing ADT:1,760 Existing LOS: B 2019 ADT: 1,936 2019 LOS: B Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location ST-23.1 Western Reservation Boundary to MP 101 ST-23.2 ST-23.3 Improvement Cost Estimate Install speed limit signs within 500 FT of $5,000 major intersection Conduct Roadway Safety Assessment $20,000 Install recessed reflective pavement markers Install street signs and wayfinding signs Install street signs and wayfinding signs ST-23.4 ST-23.5 $4,000 $4,000 Purpose/Benefit Alert drivers of speed conditions Identify improvement scenarios to enhance safety Improve night time visibility; Enhance safety Provide directional information Provide directional information Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Potential Funding Sources:  Roadway safety concerns; high vehicle speeds; lack of street signage Increased roadway safety; reduced vehicle speeds; enhanced night time driving conditions; provides motorists with directional information Surface Transportation Program (STP); Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); Road Safety Assessment Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements State Route 66/ $1,500 Buck and Doe Road Intersection Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to Environmental Overview: impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. 168 Project #ST-24. State Route 66: MP 101 to MP 103 Route Name: State Route 66 Project Location: MP 101 to MP 103 Project Map: Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 2.0 miles • Paved State Highway • Functional Classification:2 (Rural Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 35 MPH • No planned growth Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: • Existing ADT:2,275 ST-24.2 Environmental Overview: Improvement Cost Estimate Install recessed reflective pavement $2,000 markers Install speed limit signs within 500 FT $4,000 of major intersection Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Purpose/Benefit Improve night time visibility; Enhance safety Alert drivers of speed conditions minimal. Consideration should be given to Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Roadway safety concerns; high vehicle speeds Increased roadway safety; reduced vehicle speeds; enhanced night time driving conditions Potential Funding Sources: Surface Transportation Program (STP); Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Description: Project ID Location ST-24.1 MP 101 to MP 103 Existing LOS: B 2019 ADT: 2,503 2019 LOS: B Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. 169 Project #ST-25. State Route 66: MP 103 to Diamond Creek Road Route Name: State Route 66 Project Location: MP 103 to Diamond Creek Road Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 0.4 miles • Paved State Highway; Transverses Through Developed Peach Springs Community • Functional Classification:6 (City Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 35 MPH • Potential commercial development • Existing ADT:2,275 Existing LOS: B 2019 ADT: 2,503 2019 LOS: B Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location ST-25.1 MP 103 to Diamond Creek Road ST-25.3 Improvement Option 1: Install flashing, speed limit signs entering Peach Springs Option 2: Install speed limit pavement markings entering Peach Springs Install community gateway signs ST-25.4 Conduct Roadway Safety Assessment ST-25.2 ST-25.5 ST-25.6 Environmental Overview: Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Potential Funding Sources:  Cost Estimate Purpose/Benefit $30,000 per Alert drivers of speed conditions location $3,000 per Alert drivers of speed conditions location Alert drivers that they are entering a $4,000 residential area; Enhance aesthetics Identify improvement scenarios to $15,000 enhance safety Improve night time visibility; Enhance $500 safety Provide directional information $2,000 Install recessed reflective pavement markers Install street signs at Honaga Hill Road and Diamond Creek Road Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Roadway safety concerns; high vehicle speeds; lack of street signage Increased roadway safety; reduced vehicle speeds; enhanced night time driving conditions; provides motorists with directional information Surface Transportation Program (STP); Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); Road Safety Assessment Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 170 Project #ST-26. State Route 66: Diamond Creek Road to MP 105 Route Name: State Route 66 Project Location: Diamond Creek Road to MP 105 Project Map: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 1.6 miles • Paved State Highway; Transverses Through Developed Peach Springs Community • Functional Classification: 6 (City Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 45-65 MPH • Potential commercial development • Existing ADT:1,996 Existing LOS: B 2019 ADT: 2,169 2019 LOS: B Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location ST-26.1 Diamond Creek Road to MP 105 ST-26.2 ST-26.3 ST-26.4 Improvement Option 1: Install flashing, speed limit signs entering Peach Springs Option 2: Install speed limit pavement markings entering Peach Springs Install community gateway signs Install street signs at Nelson Road, Wahanda Way, Hualapai Way, BIA Lane, and High View Drive Conduct Roadway Safety Assessment ST-26.5 ST-26.6 ST-26.7 Diamond Creek Road to Nelson Road ST-26.8 Nelson Road to East of High View Drive Install recessed reflective pavement markers Upgrade street lighting, install wayfinding signs, enhance landscaping Reduce speed limit to 35 MPH ST-26.9 Cost Estimate Purpose/Benefit $30,000 per Alert drivers of speed conditions location $3,000 per Alert drivers of speed conditions location Alert drivers that they are entering a $4,000 residential area; Enhance aesthetics Provide directional information $4,000 $15,000 $1,200 $75,000 $2,500 Identify improvement scenarios to enhance safety Improve night time visibility; Enhance safety Improve night time visibility; Enhance safety Pedestrian/Bicycle safety; reduce speeding Provide safe area for motorist to turn on/off of State Route 66 minimal. Consideration should be given to East of Hualapai Way to West of High View Drive Repave and restripe roadway to include $2,000 center turn lane Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are Environmental Overview: impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. Issues Addressed: Roadway safety concerns; high vehicle speeds; turning movements to/from State Route 66; lack of street signage Project Benefits: Increased roadway safety; reduced vehicle speeds; provides motorists with directional information Potential Funding Sources:  Surface Transportation Program (STP); Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: 171 Project #ST-27 State Route 66: MP 105 to Eastern Reservation Boundary Route Name: State Route 66 Project Location: MP 105 to Eastern Reservation Boundary Project Map: Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 7.4 miles • Paved State Highway • Functional Classification:2 (Rural Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 65 MPH • No planned growth • Existing ADT:1,760 Existing LOS: B 2019 ADT: 1,936 2019 LOS: B Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location ST-27.1 MP 105 to Eastern Reservation Boundary Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Potential Funding Sources:  Roadway safety concerns; high vehicle speeds; lack of street signage Increased roadway safety; reduced vehicle speeds; enhanced night time driving conditions; provides motorists with directional information Surface Transportation Program (STP); Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Improvement Cost Estimate Purpose/Benefit Install speed limit signs within 500 FT of Alert drivers of speed conditions $7,000 major intersection ST-27.2 Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF Restrict wildlife from entering right-of-way $950,000 standards ST-27.3 Install recessed reflective pavement Increase driver awareness and safety $6,000 markers ST-27.4 State Route 66/Supai Road Install street signs and wayfinding signs $2,000 Provide directional information ST-27.5 State Route 66/Nelson Road Install "Trucks Entering Highway" sign $1,500 Increase driver awareness and safety Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to Environmental Overview: impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. 172 Project #ST-28. State Route 66: Eastern Reservation Boundary to Seligman Route Name: State Route 66 Project Location: MP 105 to Eastern Reservation Boundary to MP 139 Project Map: Project Length: Existing and Future Conditions: Existing and Projected Traffic Conditions: 27.3 miles • Paved State Highway • Functional Classification:2 (Rural Minor Arterial) (FHWA - Rural Major Collector) • Speed Limit: 65 MPH • No planned growth • Existing ADT:- 905 Existing LOS: B 2019 ADT: 1,201 2019 LOS: B Average Daily Traffic (ADT) refers to a roadway's total traffic volume during a 24-hour period. Level of Service (LOS) is measurement of traffic congestion. LOS is expressed using letters "A" through "F”, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing failed conditions. Project Description: Project ID Location ST-28.1 Eastern Reservation Boundary to Seligman Environmental Overview: Issues Addressed: Project Benefits: Roadway safety concerns Increased roadway safety; enhanced night time driving conditions Potential Funding Sources: Surface Transportation Program (STP); Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Route and Section Numbers refer to the BIA TTP roadway inventory route numbers. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements ST-28.2 Improvement Cost Estimate Purpose/Benefit Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF Restrict wildlife from entering right-of-way $3,500,000 standards Increase driver awareness and safety Install recessed reflective pavement $20,000 markers Projects are along established roadway; therefore environmental impacts are minimal. Consideration should be given to impacts on cultural resources, utilities, wildlife, and noise receptors. 173 Mid-Term (2024) Improvements Mid-term phase projects are recommended to be completed as the study area reaches year 2024. Table 8.2 presents a comprehensive list of the transportation recommendations for this phase, as well as the project number, location, description, and estimated costs for each project. Each project is assigned a unique project number that can be used to track project progress. Planning level cost estimates were developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs. Estimated costs for each project are expressed in 2014 dollars and do not include ROW acquisition costs. Actual costs for projects could vary at the time of implementation; therefore, a detailed analysis should be performed on a case-bycase basis to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. Table 8.2: Mid-Term Recommendations MT-1 Project Location Project Description BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) Cost $888,000 MT-1.1 Diamond Creek Road/BNSF Rail road Crossing Establish Quiet Zone through Peach Springs Community - $8,000 MT-1.2 MT-1.3 Shandy Lane (Sections 50 and 30); BIA Lane (Section 260) Grade and pave roadway 0.4 $400,000 Install street signs and wayfinding signs 0.4 $20,000 MT-1.4 Rodeo Circle Construct concrete shared-use path 0.57 $100,000 MT-1.5 Shandy Lane: Diamond Creek Road to Hualapai Way Construct concrete shared-use path 0.37 $70,000 MT-1.6 Sections 90, 130 -190 BIA Route 103 (Valentine) Construct concrete shared-use path 1.88 $290,000 Sections 10 -110 Grade and pave roadway 1.3 $1,200,000 Construct asphalt shared-use path 1.7 $350,000 Coordinate with BNSF to level and widen roadway; install gates; and flashing light - $8,000 Establish Quiet Zone through Valentine - $5,000 MT-2 MT-2.1 MT-2.2 MT-2.3 Section 70 and 80/BNSF Railroad Crossing MT-2.4 MT-3 MT-3.1 MT-4 MT-4.1 MT-5 $1,563,000 BIA Route 9103 (Valentine) Section 10 $375,000 Grade and pave roadway 0.4 BIA Route 8000 (Valentine Cemetery Road) State Route 66 to Valentine Cemetery $375,000 $8,000 Replace and widen cattleguards (2) 0.9 BIA Route 104 $8,000 $590,000 MT-5.1 Milkweed Springs Road Construct concrete shared-use path 0.2 $40,000 MT-5.2 Section 40 and Section 50 Grade and pave roadway 0.6 $550,000 MT-6 MT-6.1 Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road Add 5 FT unpaved shoulders $1,700,000 3.5 $1,500,000 Construct asphalt shared-use path 1.1 $200,000 MT-6.2 State Route 66 to Music Mountain Road  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project ID Hualapai Indian Tribe Length (miles) 174 Table 8.2: Mid-Term Recommendations (Continued) Project ID Hualapai Indian Tribe MT-7 Project Location Project Description Length (miles) Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): Mud Tank Road to Diamond Bar Road Cost $725,000 MT-7.1 MP 4 to MP 17 Install roadside fencing to ADOT/AZGF standards 13.0 $375,000 MT-7.2 Mud Tank Road to Diamond Bar Road Install Culvert (22) 44.9 $350,000 MT-8 MT-8.1 MT-9 Supai Road (BIA 18): State Route 66 to MP 20 State Route 66 to MP 20 MP 20 to Hualapai Indian Reservation Boundary MT-10 Nelson Road (BIA 19): State Route 66 to State Route 66 MT-10.2 MT-11 MT-11.1 MT-12 MT-12.1 Add 5 FT unpaved shoulders 20.1 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 20 $5,000,000 Supai Road (BIA 18): MP 20 to Hualapai Indian Reservation Boundary MT-9.1 MT-10.1 $5,000,000 State Route 66/Nelson Road Intersection (Peach Springs) State Route 66/Nelson Road Intersection Add 5 FT unpaved shoulders $900,000 Redesign and realign intersection to a T-intersection - $400,000 Widen intersection so trucks turning EB can easily access State Route 66 - $500,000 Youth Camp Road (BIA 17): State Route 66 to Youth Camp State Route 66 to Youth Camp $350,000 Grade and pave roadway 3.8 Multi-Use Trail System Hualapai Lodge to BIA Lane $350,000 $320,000 Construct a concrete shared-use path with trail side amenities 1.04 $160,000 Mohave County MT-13 MT-13.1 Antares Road: State Route 66 to Pavement Ending State Route 66 to Pavement Ending MT-13.2 $390,000 Add 5 FT unpaved shoulders 0.76 $200,000 Install multi-use path 0.76 $190,000 Arizona Department of Transportation MT-14.1 MT-14.2 State Route 66: Buck and Doe Road to Diamond Creek Road $600,000 MP 103 to Diamond Creek Road Install Chicane to reduce speeds Honaga Hill Road to Diamond Creek Road Consolidate driveways to the Cultural Center, Post Office, and Planning Department MT-15 State Route 66: Diamond Creek Road to MP 105 MT-15.1 West of Hualapai Way to East of High View Drive Restripe roadway to include a center turn lane MT-15.2 East of High View Drive Install Chicane to reduce speeds Hualapai Lodge to BIA Lane Construct a concrete shared-use path with trail side amenities MT-15.3  - $300,000 0.25 $300,000 $463,000 0.7 $3,000 - $300,000 1.04 $160,000 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements MT-14 175 Long-Term (2034) Improvements Long-term phase projects are recommended to be completed as the study area reaches year 2034. Table 8.3 presents a comprehensive list of the transportation recommendations for this phase, as well as the project number, location, description, and estimated costs for each project. Each project is assigned a unique project number that can be used to track project progress. Planning level cost estimates were developed based on typical per-mile/foot construction costs. Estimated costs for each project are expressed in 2014 dollars and do not include ROW acquisition costs. Actual costs for projects could vary at the time of implementation; therefore, a detailed analysis should be performed on a case-bycase basis to determine actual costs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended projects are not yet funded. Table 8.3: Long-Term Recommendations Length (miles) Cost Reconfigure intersection - $3,150,000 to $6,950,000 $250,000 Option 1: Replace current at-grade crossing with new 500 FT overpass - $3,700,000 LT-1.3 Option 2: Extend Rodeo Way to State Route 66 with a new 450 FT railroad overpass - $3,800,000 LT-1.4 Option 3: Realign Rodeo Circle to connect to Nelson Road with a new 250 FT railroad overpass Option 4: Construct new railroad underpass west of existing at-grade crossing - $2,200,000 - $6,000,000 Widen Bridge - Level intersection - Hualapai Indian Tribe Project Location LT-1 BIA Route 101 (Peach Springs) LT-1.1 Shandy Lane/Honaga Hill Road/Ridge Road Intersection Diamond Creek Road/BNSF Rail road Crossing LT-1.2 LT-1.5 LT-1.6 LT-2 LT-2.1 LT-3 LT-3.1 LT-4 LT-4.1 LT-4.2 Truxton Wash Bridge (Section 290) Project Description Grade and pave roadway 0.9 $700,000 $250,000 $250,000 $2,100,000 $900,000 Buildup roadway and install culvert (1) at Truxton Wash 0.9 $1,200,000 BIA Route 9103 (Valentine) Section 20/State Route 66 Intersection BIA Route 8000 (Valentine Cemetery Road) State Route 66 to Valentine Cemetery Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road State Route 66 Intersection Widen intersection to include an exclusive left-turn lane State Route 66 to Mud Tank Road Reconstruct roadway to include 5 FT shoulders, center turn lane, and 12 FT travel lanes $3,175,000 - $175,000 3.5 $3,000,000 LT-5 $51,000,000 Buck and Doe Road (BIA 1): Mud Tank Road to Diamond Bar Road LT-5.1 MP 17.5 - 18.5 Realign roadway at sharp curves 1.5 $9,000,000 LT-5.2 MP 26 - 29 Realign roadway at sharp curves 3 $18,000,000 LT-5.3 MP 30 - 32 Realign roadway at sharp curves 2 $12,000,000 LT-5.4 MP 34 - 36 Realign roadway at sharp curves 2 $12,000,000  Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Project ID 176 Table 8.3: Long-Term Recommendations (Continued) Project ID Project Location Project Description Length (miles) Cost Hualapai Indian Tribe LT-6 Nelson Road: State Route 66 to State Route 66 LT-6.1 Residential area to Rodeo Ground Extend concrete shared-use path to rodeo ground 0.6 $40,000 LT-6.2 Pavement ending to Lhoist Lime Plant Grade and pave roadway 5.6 $5,000,000 LT-7 Multi-Use Trail System Ridgeline Road: Shandy Lane to Milkweed Springs Road LT-7.1 LT-7.2 $5,040,000 $950,000 Construct unpaved multi-use trail 3.11 $200,000 Buck and Doe Road to Honaga Hill Road Upgrade trail to a concrete shared-use path with trailside amenities 2.5 $500,000 Peach Springs Area Construct unpaved multi-use trail system north of Peach Springs; west of Diamond Creek Road; and along Wahanda Way 4.2 $250,000 0.76 $100,000 $100,000 LT-7.3 Mohave County LT-8 LT-8.1 LT-9 LT-9.1 Antares Road: State Route 66 to Pavement Ending State Route 66 to Pavement Ending Install roadside fencing to ADOT and AZGF standards Antares Road: Pavement Ending to Pierce Ferry Road Pavement Ending to Pierce Ferry Road Grade and pave roadway Install drainage improvement recommended in the drainage study Install roadside fencing to ADOT and AZGF standards LT-9.2 Fencing needs and standards should be re-evaluated after Antares Road is paved and updated animal crash data is analyzed. ST-9.3 LT-9.4 LT-10 Construct bridge over Truxton Wash Diamond Bar Road: Pierce Ferry Road to Hualapai Indian Reservation Install roadside fencing to ADOT and AZGF standards Pierce Ferry Road to Hualapai Indian Reservation 31.6 $30,000,000 31.6 $30,000 per location $4,000,000 31.5 $2,000,000 $1,800,000 LT-10.1 14 $1,800,000 Projects identified on Mohave County and ADOT maintained roads are recommendations only. These recommendations are based on stakeholder/public input, a roadway inventory, and analysis of deficiencies and needs. Plan for Improvements  Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 177 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The Hualapai Indian Tribe study area's pedestrian facilities and trails were reviewed in relation to: • The location of activity centers such as schools, retail establishments, medical facilities, recreation centers; • Residential community developments; and • Existing roadway alignments. Analyzing the study area's existing pedestrian and trail facilities helped to identify locations that would benefit from these amenities and that would be closely integrated with the area's roadway system while maintaining pedestrian safety, and keeping in mind the priorities of the community. The prioritization of the pedestrian and trail improvement projects is based on input from the TAC, stakeholders, and the public. Figure 8.1 places the improvements into short-, mid- and long- terms. Short-Term (2019) Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Improvement Recommendations • Construct concrete shared-use path o Nelson Road: extend sidewalk from Hualapai Lodge to end of pavement (0.25 miles) o Diamond Creek Road: from Diamond Creek Circle to Canyon View Drive (1.16 miles) o Hualapai Way: from Indian Way to State Route 66 (0.33 miles) o High View Drive: from Diamond Creek Road to BIA Lane (0.26 miles) • Construct asphalt shared-use path o High View Drive: from BIA Lane to State Route 66 (0.22 miles) • Construct multi-use trail system: o State Route 66: Honaga Hill Road to Buck and Doe Road (2.50 miles) o Ridgeline Road: from Shandy Lane to Milkweed Springs Road (2.40 miles) o Connect Ridgeline Road trail and State Route 66 trail (0.65 miles) Mid-Term (2024) Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Improvement Recommendations • Construct concrete shared-use path o Milkweed Springs Road: Loop to and from Buck and Doe Road (0.21 miles) o State Route 66: from Hualapai Lodge to BIA Lane (1.04 miles) o Shandy Lane: from Diamond Creek Road to Hualapai Way (0.37 miles) o BIA 101: Sections 90, 130 - 190 (1.88 miles) • Construct asphalt shared-use path o Valentine residential streets (1.08 miles) o Buck and Doe Road: from State Route 66 to Music Mountain Road (1.01 miles) Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements o Rodeo Circle (0.57 miles) 178 Long-Term (2034) Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Improvement Recommendations • Construct concrete shared-use path o Nelson Road: end of pavement to Rodeo Ground (0.57 miles) o Upgrade trail on State Route 66 from Honaga Hill to Buck and Doe Road to a concrete shared-use path with trailside amenities (2.50) • Expand multi-use trail system: o Trail system within Peach Springs: north of Peach Springs; west of Diamond Creek Road; and along Wahanda Way (4.20 miles) Plan for Improvements Figure 8.1: Recommended Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Improvements Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 179 TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The identification of transit projects were based on input from the TAC, stakeholders, public input, Kingman Area Regional Transit (KART), and a review of previous planning studies. Short-Term (2018) Transit Recommendations • Establish a volunteer Transit Advisory Committee composed of residents, city officials, and stakeholders to guide the development of a local transit system. • Designate a Tribal Transit Coordinator that plans, develops, and leads transit planning and grant administration for the Hualapai Indian Tribe. • Conduct Transit Feasibility Study to determine the need and feasibility for implementing transit service within the Hualapai Indian Reservation. • Conduct a transit ridership survey to determine the need for local transit service within Peach Springs. • Upon completion of the Transit Feasibility Study, conduct a Transit Implementation Plan that identifies recommended transit services and serves as a guideline for the implementation of a local and regional transit system. • Utilize current private transit funds expended by Grand Canyon West as Tribal match to obtain additional ADOT transit funding as well as 5311(c) FTA Tribal Transit funds to start a formal transit service. • Establish a partnership between KART and the Havasupai Tribe to maximize return on investment. • Establish a Local Circulator that operates daily between 8am – 5pm and connects government and activity centers within Peach Springs. • Establish a Regional Circulator that operates daily and connects Peach Springs, Valentine, Truxton, Kingman, and Grand Canyon West • Install shelters at bus stop locations to provide safety for waiting passengers and to encourage transit ridership. Mid-Term (2024) Transit Recommendations • Establish regional transit service that connects Peach Springs to Phoenix, Las Vegas, Laughlin, and Flagstaff. • As transit service is implemented in the Hualapai Indian Reservation, bus pullouts will be required. Install bus pullouts and advanced warning signage at the pullouts to reduce delays and to lower the potential for rear-end collisions with motor vehicles. Figure 8.2 provides an illustration of a cross-section on a Minor Arterial roadway that includes a transit pull-out. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Long-Term (2034) Transit Recommendations 180 Figure 8.2: Recommended Cross-section with Transit Pull-Out AVIATION AND MARITIME IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The identification of aviation and maritime projects were based on a review of the draft Master Plan for Grand Canyon West and ADOT’s 2014-2018 Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program. Currently, the Grand Canyon West Corporation is in the process of developing an updated Master Plan for the Grand Canyon West area. Per details of the updated Master Plan, developed by PlanET, the Grand Canyon West airport's boundary may be expanded. Once completed, recommendations provided below may need to be updated to incorporate recommendations made in the Master Plan update. Short-Term (2014) Recommendations • Grand Canyon West Airport improvements: o Design of terminal building on west side of runway o Fog seal, crack seal, and remark runway o Construct terminal building o Design for Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) building o Construction of Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) building o Environmental Assessment for widening, strengthening, and extending runway • Expand recreational opportunities at the Colorado River Recreation Area to include shelters, camping facilities, etc. • Continue to coordinate with the FAA and ADOT to identify necessary airport improvements for inclusion in the Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP). Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Mid-Term (2024) Recommendations 181 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes according to their role of moving traffic through a roadway network. Planners and engineers utilize this hierarchy to establish a roadway's design standards, speed, capacity, access management features, and land use development. Functional classification also impacts a roadway's eligibility for federal transportation funds for road improvements and maintenance. Roads within the Hualapai Indian Reservation are classified by both FHWA and BIA functional classification system. Figure 8.3 illustrates the relationship between BIA and FHWA's functional classification systems; Figures 6.4 and 6.5 illustrate the recommended functional classifications for the Hualapai Indian Reservation by FHWA and BIA functional classification systems. Table 8.4 also presents the recommended functional classification. Figure 8.3: BIA and FWHA Functional Classification Systems Plan for Improvements Source: Bureau of Indian Affairs Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 182 Table 8.4: Recommended Roadway Functional Classification Road State Route 66 Beginning Ending Previous BIA Functional Classification New BIA Functional Classification MP 74 MP 103 N/A MP 103 MP 105 N/A MP 105 Seligman N/A Antares Road State Route 66 Pierce Ferry Road N/A Pierce Ferry Road Antares Road Diamond Bar Road N/A Diamond Bar Road Pierce Ferry Road Buck and Doe Road N/A Buck and Doe Road State Route 66 Diamond Bar Road Diamond Bar Road Grand Canyon West Supai Road State Route 66 Diamond Creek Road Rodeo Way Hualapai Indian Reservation Boundary State Route 66 4 (Rural Major Collector) 4 (Rural Major Collector) 4 (Rural Major Collector) 3 (City Local) 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) 6 (City Minor Arterial) 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) 4 (Rural Major Collector) 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) 4 (Rural Major Collector) 2 (Rural Minor Arterial) 4 (Rural Major Collector) 7 (City Collector) State Route 66 Pavement Ending 3 (City Local) 7 (City Collector) Pavement Ending Colorado River 5 (Rural Local) Hualapai Way State Route 66 Shandy Lane 4 (Rural Major Collector) 3 (City Local) 7 (City Collector) High View Drive State Route 66 Diamond Creek Road 3 (City Local) 7 (City Collector) 3 (City Local) Peach Springs Roadways (All Other Roads) FHWA Classification ~ AADT Rural Minor Arterial Rural Minor Arterial Rural Minor Arterial Rural Minor Collector Rural Major Collector Rural Major Collector Rural Minor Collector Rural Major Collector Rural Major Collector Rural Minor Collector Rural Minor Collector N/A 1,400 1,800 1,900 2,300 1,400 1,800 40 - 200 1,400 700 60 - 400 700 100 - 400 1,000 300 -1,200 550 3 (City Local) Rural Minor Collector Rural Minor Collector N/A 500 - Milkweed Springs Road Buck and Doe Road Buck and Doe Road 3 (City Local) 3 (City Local) N/A - Music Mountain Road Buck and Doe Road 3 (City Local) 3 (City Local) N/A - 3 (City Local) 3 (City Local) N/A - 4 (Rural Major Collector) 4 (Rural Major Collector) 4 (Rural Major Collector) 5 (Rural Local) Rural Major Collector N/A 100 - 400 Buck and Doe Road Valentine Roadways (All Roads) State Route 66 State Route 66 Youth Camp Road State Route 66 State Route 66 - Plan for Improvements Nelson Road Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 183 Plan for Improvements Figure 8.4: Recommended BIA Functional Classification Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 184 Plan for Improvements Figure 8.5: Recommended FHWA Functional Classification Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 185 TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS The National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory (NTTFI) is a comprehensive national inventory of all tribal transportation facilities that are eligible for TTP funding, and includes specific facility information, such as classification, route/bridge number, current and projected traffic volumes, pavement conditions, etc, and is utilized for the ongoing review of facility conditions. This inventory is utilized as the basis to identify a tribe's transportation system, determine the transportation needs of a tribe, and serves as a basis for apportioning federal funds. In order to obtain funding and accurately report the status of the tribe's transportation system, the current NTTFI for the Hualapai Indian Tribe was reviewed against field review conditions and GIS analysis to identify necessary corrections and updates. Tables 8.5-8.7 provide summaries of the proposed mileage revisions to the Hualapai Tribe's NTTFI. Figures 8.6 and 8.7 illustrate the roadways recommended for inclusion in the NTTFI. Detailed mileage revision information can be found in Appendix E. Appendix E also provides an overview of the structures and AADT revisions recommended for inclusion in the Hualapai Indian Tribe's inventory. Table 8.5: Summary of Proposed BIA Road System Mileage Revisions Miles Existing BIA DOT Inventory Roads to be Added to BIA System 675.0 0 Roads to be Deleted from BIA System -23.4 Mileage Revisions to BIA System 12.7 Proposed BIA Road System 664.3 *Recommended mileage revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Table 8.6: Summary of Proposed Tribal Road System Mileage Revisions Miles Existing Tribal System Roads to be Added to Tribal System 3.8 144.2 Roads to be Deleted from Tribal System -3.5 Mileage Revisions to Tribal System 0.7 Proposed Tribal System 145.2 *Recommended mileage revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Table 8.7: Summary of Proposed Non-BIA Road System Mileage Revisions Miles Roads to be Deleted from Non-BIA System 15 116.5 0 Mileage Revisions to Non-BIA System -14.1 Proposed BIA Road System 117.4 *Recommended mileage revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Existing Non-BIA DOT Inventory Roads to be Added to Non-BIA System 186 Plan for Improvements Figure 8.6: Recommended NTTFI Updates Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 187 Plan for Improvements Figure 8.7: Recommended NTTFI Updates - Outlying Districts Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 188 TITLE VI IMPLICATIONS To ensure that the recommended projects provide a fair distribution of benefits and burdens to all residents, an analysis of potential impacts on protected populations was conducted. Since the study is primarily located within the Hualapai Indian Reservation, the study area has a high percentage of Title VI populations. It is anticipated, however, that recommended transportation improvement projects will only have negative impacts during construction periods. Ultimately, this plan's recommendations will provide protected populations with enhanced, safer multimodal transportation. Table 8.8 provides an overview of potential impacts and benefits of recommended improvements on Title VI population groups. Throughout the course of the study, efforts were made to include meaningful participation by all residents through stakeholder and public outreach. The two-phase public involvement process included two public meetings in which protected populations were invited to voice their opinion on the needs of the community and to comment on recommended improvements. As recommended projects are implemented, it is vital that on-going outreach efforts to protected populations continue. Furthermore, consideration should be given during project development and construction to minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to minority business owners, the mobility needs of the protected populations, and residential parcels of protected populations. Project Type Impacted Populations Minority, low-income, age 65 and older, and disabled populations. Disproportionate/ Adverse Impacts Temporary constraints to access businesses, residential areas, and activity centers during construction. Increased noise during construction. Benefits of Recommended Improvement Improved overall safety and efficiency of roadway network. Improved road conditions and emergency response time. Improved pedestrian safety. Reduction in crashes and crash severity. Project Number Project Description Roadway Deficiencies ST: 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22 MT: 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 18, LT: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 Pavement preservation, pavement rehabilitation, roadway striping, install shoulders, install bridge; bridge rehabilitation. Roadside Safety Enhancements ST: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 MT: 1, 4 , 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 LT: 1, 2, 8, 9 Install cattle guards, upgrade Minority, low-income, fencing, install street lighting; age 65 and older, and install roadway markers; disabled populations. remove vegetation; and install wayfinding signage. Temporary constraints and Improved overall safety and increased noise during efficiency of roadway network. construction. Reduction in crashes and crash severity. Intersection Traffic Control and Safety Enhancement ST: 19 MT: 10, 16, 17 LT: 1, 2, 5, 6 Install traffic signals; consolidate driveway; add turn lanes, and reconfigure intersection to roundabout. Temporary constraints and Improved overall safety and increased noise during efficiency of roadway network. construction. Improved road conditions and emergency response time. Improved pedestrian safety. Reduction in crashes and crash severity. Relieve traffic congestion. Minority, low-income, age 65 and older, and disabled populations. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Plan for Improvements Table 8.8: Recommended Project Impacts and Advantages on Title VI Populations 189 Table 8.8: Recommended Project Impacts and Advantages on Title VI Populations (Continued) Impacted Populations Install shared-use paths, Minority, low-income, sidewalks, and multi-use trails. age 65 and older, and disabled populations. Disproportionate/ Benefits of Recommended Adverse Impacts Improvement Temporary constraints and Improved pedestrian, bicycle, and increased noise during roadway safety. Promote safe construction. mobility and exercise. Provide alternative means of transportation. ST: 8, 17, 18, 20, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, MT: 16, 18 Install traffic calming devices such as chicane median, flashing speed limit signs, pavement markings, speed reduction, and speed limit signs Minority, low-income, age 65 and older, and disabled populations. Temporary constraints and Improved pedestrian, bicycle, and increased noise during roadway safety. Reduction in construction. crashes and crash severity. ST: 1, 2, 4 MT: 1, 2 LT: 1 Conduct safety assessment, install advance warning devices; upgrade at-grade crossing to an over or underpass; and establish a Quiet Zone. Minority, low-income, age 65 and older, and disabled populations. Temporary constraints to access businesses, residential areas, and activity centers during construction. Increased noise during construction. Project Number Pedestrian Mobility ST: 1, 14, 19 MT: 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, 18 LT: 4, 6, 7 Traffic Calming and Community Safety Improvements Railroad Crossing Safety Project Description Improved overall safety and efficiency of roadway network. Improved road conditions and emergency response time. Improved pedestrian safety. Quiet Zone will reduce noise pollution and improve overall community livability. Plan for Improvements Project Type Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 190 9. ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES Access management is a set of techniques used to proactively manage and regulate the design, spacing, and operation of intersections, driveways, and median openings along a roadway. Roadways with more access points and intersections have more opportunities for conflicts, and significant friction to throughtraffic, which contributes to congestion and crashes. The objective of access management is to provide access to enhance the flow of traffic on a corridor or roadway system by improving safety, capacity, and speed. Effective access management strategies control the number of driveways, decrease the number of crashes, reduce travel time and traffic congestion, preserve the flow of traffic, and improve access to properties. Access management includes several techniques that are designed to increase the capacity of roads, manage congestion, and reduce crashes, including: • Increasing the distance between traffic signals and interchanges to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion • Increasing driveway spacing to reduce the number of vehicular conflict points • Developing safe turning lanes to reduce conflicts at intersections • Using service and frontage roads • Constructing medians, which regulate access • Preserving ROW for future widening and to maintain good driver sight distance • Low volume and low speed facilities (such as local roads) serve to provide direct and frequent access to properties. • Higher volumes and higher speed facilities (such as freeways) serve to provide mobility and restrict direct access to adjacent land uses. Figure 9.1: Roadway Functional Classification Hierarchy The challenge of managing access is establishing a program of legal, administrative, and technical strategies with the appropriate balance between private property access rights and the need to control access to serve public need. Ideally, these strategies will be implemented through planning practices, rules, engineering standards, and procedures resulting in access decisions that successfully, fairly, and consistently determine access management for each unique situation. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Access Management Guidelines It is important to implement these controls without overly restricting reasonable access to property. Controlling access improves mobility and is linked to the function of a particular roadway. Figure 9.1 illustrates that the amount of appropriate access is related to the level of mobility and the specific function of a road, such as: 191 BENEFITS OF ACCESS MANAGEMENT Roadways utilizing access management techniques are likely to be safer, provide better circulation, and improve travel times. The frequency of intersections greatly influences the capacity and function of roadways. Roadways with more access points and intersections have more opportunities for conflicts, and significant friction to through-traffic, which contributes to congestion and crashes. Examples of access management techniques include: • Increasing driveway spacing • Utilizing turning lanes • Grade-separating intersections • Installing medians Applying access management techniques can also enhance the livability of a community, improve pedestrian/bicycle safety, enhance customer safety and convenience to businesses, provide additional areas for streetscaping, and promote efficient land and site design. The potential economic benefits of access management include reserving the market area for businesses, improving customer safety and convenience, providing more efficient freight movement, and raising property values. Communities that have implemented access management have more area for landscaping, while preserving community/scenic character and promoting more efficient land and site design. Additionally, access management can reduce emissions and fuel consumption due to improved traffic progression, and can help avoid substandard access to lot splits caused by excessive driveways. EXISTING ACCESS MANAGEMENT The Hualapai Indian Tribe currently does not have an access management policy in place. Access to State highways, such as State Route 66, is regulated by ADOT. Within Peach Springs, driveway spacing on State Route 66 ranges between approximately 50 and 630 FT apart. The close driveway spacing increases potential conflicts, particularly coupled with limited sight distance issues caused by on-street parking. Guidelines for minimum driveway or local street spacing should consider the speed of the roadway, stopping sight distance, the elimination of right-turn conflicts in Approximate driveway spacing on SR 66 in Peach Springs. the area of the access points. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Access Management Guidelines Access management guidelines for driveway spacing often range between 150 FT to over 300 FT. The Salt River Indian Community utilizes the City of Scottsdale's Design Standards & Policies Manual for managing access for high capacity corridors that provide commuter access to Scottsdale; minimum driveway spacing required by the City of Scottsdale includes 165 FT for minor collectors and 250 FT on minor arterials. The City of Somerton requires driveways along Major Arterials to have a minimum spacing of 200 FT in commercial and residential areas, while The City of Casa Grande requires a minimum driveway spacing of 200 FT on Major Arterials in commercial areas and 150 FT on minor arterials. Coconino County's Engineering Design and Construction Manual states that driveways are not permitted within 50 FT of a street intersection, 25 FT of a guardrail end, and within 100 FT of a bridge. 192 ACCESS MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The challenge of managing access is establishing a program of legal, administrative, and technical strategies with the appropriate balance between private property access rights and the need to control access to serve public need. Ideally, these strategies will be implemented through planning practices, rules, engineering standards, and procedures resulting in access decisions that successfully, fairly, and consistently determine access management for each unique situation. As a long-term undertaking, the Hualapai Indian Reservation should work towards: • Developing a comprehensive access management standards guidebook. This guidebook should comprehensively categorize the roadway system by access management categories, provide specific guidelines for each category, and define the design criteria for each category. • Implementing an access management ordinance that provides the specific guidance for access to land uses. In the interim, the Hualapai Indian Tribe could use access management strategies outlined in the following section and utilize FHWA’s Access Management website for further guidance. (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/access_mgmt/resources.htm) ACCESS MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND STRATEGIES The following describes planning, design, and regulatory tools for managing land use and development. Land Development Regulation Flexible or Cluster Zoning Flexible zoning is another way of achieving access control. Planned Unit Developments (PUD) incorporate flexible zoning concepts to cluster denser development in one portion of a development and provide open space in another portion. PUDs incorporate flexible zoning in order to achieve the same gross densities while avoiding encroachment of development into future ROW. Access points can be few in number, yet designed to optimally serve the more densely developed areas. In order to promote creative site design, land-use and lot dimensional zoning are relaxed. Overlay Zones Overlay zoning can add special requirements onto an existing zoning district. With overlay zoning, standards can be tailored by priority or intensity of access, safety, and congestion problems of a corridor. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Access Management Guidelines Access management can be implemented successfully in areas where local jurisdictions participate in managing development through comprehensive planning, land development regulation, and development review (Listokin and Walker, 1989, Land Development and Subdivision Regulation that Support Access Management). Local plans and ordinances provide a policy foundation for managing access, which is carried out through development review and permitting actions. The information contained in general and land use plans, for example, provides the overall guidance on how to balance mobility with access. A community’s transportation plan, on the other hand, describes a community’s future roadway network based on anticipated development patterns. Based on the anticipated future development and the future functional classification of the roadways, access management categories can be established. These categories provide guidance in regard to the application of access management strategies and help identify the type and number of access points required along a highway. 193 Subdivision Regulations and Site Plan Review Subdivision regulations provide guidance on the division or subdivision of land into lots, blocks, and public ways. These regulations complement the underlying zoning. The subdivision plat review can require documentation of all access points and the internal circulation system. Access and design standards can require such items as traffic signals, medians, and on-site circulation. The subdivision review process should result in an affirmative response to questions such as: • Is the road system designed to meet the projected traffic demand and does the road network consist of a hierarchy of roads designed according to function? • Is access properly placed in relation to sight distance, driveway spacing, and other related considerations? • Do units front on residential access streets rather than major roadways? • Does the project avoid areas unsuitable for development? • Does the pedestrian path system link buildings with parking areas, entrances to the development, open space, and recreational and other community facilities? • Have utilities been properly placed? The site plan review process for large-scale uses on individual property parcels (such as large commercial developments) can include procedures similar to a subdivision review process. Zoning Regulation Zoning regulations provide information on the type of land use or development that can occur within each defined parcel. Zoning regulations work in conjunction with land use plans and subdivision regulations. Some types of lot configurations encourage inadequate spacing between access points. Zoning regulation can help reorient lots in order to access local streets instead of the main highway, as well as to ensure adequate spacing between access points. Controlling lot dimensions can have impacts on driveway spacing, on-site circulation, and driveway lengths. Driveway Consolidation As shown in Figure 9.2, driveways are consolidated in order to limit the number of access points along a roadway and to provide adequate access spacing. Retrofit strategies include: • Selectively relocate or reconstruct substandard driveways. • Negotiate driveway closure, reconstruction, or relocation during roadway resurfacing or improvement projects. • Require improvement of access during redevelopment or expansion of an existing use, including joint and cross access with abutting properties. • Negotiate redesign of driveway access during sidewalk maintenance, reconstruction, or additions. • Consolidate access when adjacent properties come under common ownership. • Improve the traffic signal system through longer, more uniform intervals with advance traffic monitoring and control capabilities. • Use raised medians or other traffic barriers at hazardous intersections, or along certain roadway segments to control mid-block turning movements and improve safety. • Develop special corridor overlay zoning districts that are tailored to the circumstances of build-up areas. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Access Management Guidelines Access Control Type 194 Figure 9.2: Driveway Treatments Joint Driveway/Cross-Access Joint Driveway/Cross-Access provides for a unified on-site circulation plan serving several properties on a commercial corridor. Cross-access connects adjacent parcels and allows for circulation between the parcels without using the arterial street system. In the case that lot frontage is inadequate, joint access/cross access can achieve adequate driveway spacing. The method requires that joint-use driveways and cross access easements need to be established between the adjacent properties. Additionally building sites must reflect the circulation system. The jurisdiction with the zoning authority would need to adopt cross access standards. Raised Medians at Intersections As shown in Figure 9.3, raised medians at intersections provide a center barrier to prevent certain turning movements, such as left turn-in only/no left turn-out, which allows greater access to the adjacent property and leaves right turns unrestricted. Right-in and right-out driveways are also commonly used. The overall advantage of raised medians at intersections is the ability to define allowed movements while eliminating undesirable ones. Access Management Guidelines Figure 9.3: Raised Median at Intersections Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 195 Full Raised Medians Medians are effective for the control and management of left turns and crossing movements and may be located at intersection approaches, or along the full length of a road between intersections (shown in Figure 9.3). A variety of designs allow for full or restricted turning movements. The presence or absence of a median barrier has a substantial effect on the safety and operations of major roadways. The main advantage of a raised median is that it reduces conflict points by restricting turn movements to right-in and right-out movements. In addition, it provides a means of controlling highway crossings to specific locations where sight distance and vehicle storage can be provided. A sufficiently wide median can provide shelter for vehicles or pedestrians crossing the roadway. The disadvantage of a raised median is that through the limitations of crossing movements, the number of U-turns will most likely increase, which might lead to an increase in rear-end crashes Alternative Access Ways The long-term planning objective for major corridors is to develop a system of side streets, parallel roads, and traffic control features to support existing and planned development. Main components of such a system are frontage or reverse access roads, which together with interparcel connections provide alternative routes for short local trips, thereby helping to reduce local traffic on the arterial. Frontage roads are typically constructed adjacent to the main corridor highway, but outside the highway ROW, providing access to properties fronting the highway. This allows funneling of local traffic to a common point gaining access to the highway. Figure 9.4 provides an example how a frontage road provides local access. Reverse access roads, or backage roads, are also paralleling the highway, but are off-set from the ROW to provide site access at the back of the property rather than the highway side. Both concepts help to provide access to local properties while preserving the safety and capacity of the highway. One issue to consider is the provision for adequate separation between the highway and frontage road, especially in areas where cross streets intersect with the highway at at-grade intersections. If not properly designed, traffic might backup into the intersection of the backage road and cross street. Access Management Guidelines Figure 9.4: Frontage Road Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 196 Driveway Spacing Adjacent driveways must be have adequate spacing to allow for safe queue, acceleration, deceleration, minimal interference to cross conflicting traffic or traffic using adjacent driveway. Table 9.1 lists the minimum driveway spacing for arterial and collector streets, with a design ADT greater than 5,000. Distances provided in Table 9.1 are measured from driveway center line to driveway centerline. If the proposed access does meet the spacing criteria, then joint access may be recommended for the two adjacent developments. Table 9.1: Driveway Spacing Single Family Posted Speed (MPH) 20 Driveway Type* S-1 Arterial/Collector Min. Spacing (Ft.) 65 Single Family 25 S-1 65 Single Family 30 S-1 85 Single Family 35 S-1 85 Single Family 40 S-1 105 CL-1: Low volume commercial; Single Family 45 S-1 105 Single Family 50 & > S-1 105 CH-2: High volume commercial opposite median openings Multi-Family (Low volume) M-1 65 Multi-Family (High volume) M-2 330 Commercial All CL-1 165 Commercial All CH-2 330 Industrial All CL-1 165 Land Use DRIVEWAY TYPE *S-1: Single family; M-1: Low volume residential M -2: High volume residential Source: MCDOT Major Streets and Routes Plan Policy Document Driveway Corner Clearance Figure 9.5 displays the minimum distance driveways should be when in proximity of a major intersection or median. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 1. Subject intersection to downstream driveway (without median) 2. Upstream driveway to subject intersection (with median) 3. Upstream driveway to subject intersection (without median) 4. Subject intersection to downstream driveway (with median) 5. Downstream driveway to median break Access Management Guidelines Figure 9.5: Minimum Corner Clearances for Signature Intersections 197 Item Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local 1 230 / 115 175 / 75 50 / 50 2 115 / 115 85 / 85 50 / 50 3 230 / 85 175 / 85 50 / 50 4 230 / 115 175 / 75 50 / 50 5 75 / 75 75 / 0 0/0 X for Signalized Intersection X for Un-signalized Intersection Source: City of Casa Grande Small Area Transportation Study Driveway Location Restrictions Situations where new driveways or altered driveways are not permitted include: • Within 10 FT of any commercial property line, except when it is a joint-use driveway serving two abutting commercial properties and access agreements have been exchanged between and recorded by the two abutting property owners • Within 25 FT of a guardrail ending • Within 100 FT of a bridge or other structure, except canal service roads • Within the minimum spacing as established in this section • When adequate sight distance cannot be provided for vehicles on the driveway attempting to access the street, as those movements will be prohibited • When the nearest edge of any driveway flare or radius must be at least 2 FT from the nearest projection of a fire hydrant, utility pole, drop inlet and/or appurtenances, traffic signal, or light standards • For parking or loading areas that require backing maneuvers in a public ROW except for singlefamily or duplex residential uses on local roads • Driveways should be located directly opposite each other to ensure that they share a single access location. • Where lots are not large enough to allow accesses on opposite sides of the street to be aligned, the center of driveways not in alignment will normally be offset a minimum of 150 FT on all collector roads, and 330 FT on major collector and arterial roads. Greater distances may be required if left turn storage lanes require them. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Access Management Guidelines Driveway Location Coordination Access points for properties on either side of a principal and/or minor arterial and major collector should be coordinated so there is minimal interference. Appropriate coordination includes: 198 10. ROADWAY MAINTENANCE PLAN The Hualapai Indian Tribe currently provides regular maintenance on 130.2 miles paved, gravel, and earth surface roads and occasional maintenance on 186.7 miles of gravel and earth surface roadways. Regular maintenance, per the Hualapai Indian Tribe's Road Department, is defined as performing surface pavement patching, surface blading, slope maintenance, weed control, repair to bridge railing, and ditch and culvert cleaning. Occasional maintenance refers to the performance of work on an intermittent basis to paved surface roadways, including the application of asphalt rejuvenating agents and seal coating. Table 10.1 provides a summary of existing roadways currently maintained by the Hualapai Indian Tribe. As roadways are added to the Tribe’s roadway inventory and roadway improvements are completed, additional maintenance will need to occur to ensure the preservation, repair, and restoration of Hualapai tribal roads. In effort to establish a standard schedule for which road shall be maintained, the following Roadway Maintenance Plan provides an overview of standard maintenance activities and frequency for which maintenance should occur. STUDY ROADWAY MAINTENANCE NEEDS Paved roads require routine maintenance such as patching; crack sealing; snow plowing; guardrail, sign and delineator replacements; repair, and cleaning; fence and gate repair; roadside clean-up and mowing; and striping. As identified by the BIA Road Maintenance Manual, the following is the minimum acceptable level for paved road maintenance: • • • Route No. Roate Name Miles Regular Maintenance 1 Buck and Doe Road 51.3 6 Diamond Creek Road 19.6 17 Youth Camp Road 3.9 18 Supai Road 40.1 19 Nelson Road 9.8 101 Peach Springs Streets 5.5 Total 130.2 Occasional Maintenance 2 Clay Springs Road 4.9 3 Meriwitka Road 7.8 4 Jackson Tank Road 6.4 5 Bridge Canyon Road 20.0 7 Buck and Doe Road 9.0 8 Milkweed Road 2.1 9 Mudd Tank Road 2.7 10 Prospect Valley Road 30.1 11 Township Corner Road 24.3 12 National Road 22.4 13 Manzanita Road 19.8 14 Dike Tank Road 8.3 15 Oak Tank Road 8.4 16 Hog Tank Road 6.5 18 Supai Road (reclamite) 5.0 20 Pipeline Road 5.0 21 X1 Road 2.2 22 Pine Tank Road 1.8 Total 186.7 Maintaining all roadways, shoulders, traffic signs, drainage structures, and pavement markings; Patching potholes and localized failures is necessary; Sealing cracks in the pavement; and Pavement sealing when deterioration is moderate, with small areas rated as severe. Table 10.2 provides an overview of standard road maintenance activities per the BIA Road Maintenance Manual and ADOT Performance Guidelines Manual. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Roadway Maintenance Plan • Table 10.1: Current Road Maintenance 199 Table 10.2: Road Maintenance Activities Maintenance Activity Description and Purpose Guidelines Season Replace Surface / Base The removal and replacement of badly cracked and broken asphalt surface and deteriorated base with new material. Spring or Fall Patching Surface Patch potholes, severe depressions, edge breakup, and breaks in roadway and shoulder surfaces using premix materials. Material shall be removed a minimum depth of 4" and a minimum thickness of 2" asphaltic premix surface material should be used. 1. Potholes and localized failures are to be repaired as soon as scheduling permits, but no later than one week after notification, except when: a. The speed limit on the road is 35 MPH or less. The hole or localized failure is not over 2" deep as measured from the adjacent pavement. Repair work is within existing schedules. b. Sealing or resurfacing project is starting within the month. 2. Apply either temporary or permanent patches. Use permanent patching unless overlays or other general repairs are scheduled. Crack Sealing Rout and/or clean 1/4" or greater expansion or working cracks and seal in AC or PCC pavements to prevent the passage of water through the surface crack into the pavement structure or subgrade. This should be done in cool weather when cracks are open (spring or fall). Not in inclement weather which would interfere with adherence of the asphalt. Winter Sand Seal Coat Full-surface treatment on continuous sections of bituminous pavement with one application of liquid asphalt and cover material to seal and restore surface life, flexibility, and skid resistance. Sand seals enrich weathered pavements and fills fine cracks in the pavement surface. This should be done when deterioration is moderate, with perhaps small areas rated as severe. Severe deterioration requires a decision of whether to return the road to gravel or repave; and may require a report on why deterioration was allowed to progress so far. Spring or Fall Chip Seal Full-surface treatment on continuous sections of bituminous pavement with one application of liquid asphalt and cover material to seal and restore surface life, flexibility and skid resistance. Section of surface to be treated must be large Spring or Fall enough to utilize at least twenty-one tons of liquid asphalt spread by the supplier. This should be done when deterioration is moderate, with perhaps small areas rated as severe. Severe deterioration requires a decision of whether to return the road to gravel or repave; and may require a report on why deterioration was allowed to progress so far Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Roadway Maintenance Plan Source: BIA Road Maintenance Manual; ADOT Performance Guidelines Manual Can be performed year-round 200 Table 10.2: Road Maintenance Activities (Continued) Maintenance Activity Description and Purpose Guidelines Season Tight Blading The application of premix with a blade to fill ruts and raveling in asphaltic pavement and/or ACFC finishing course. (1-1/2 inches deep or less) Schedule seal coat at least one month after completion to allow to cure and to get additional traffic compaction. Should be coordinated with the District Traffic Engineer to avoid covering recently painted stripe and allow for restriping schedule. Spring or Fall Surface Blading and Reshaping Grade unpaved roads, including frontage Grading is best performed after rain or when roads, to restore proper shape, surface materials are moist to insure proper smoothness and drainage. This activity compaction. includes forming or reforming of drainage gutters, removal of berms, and placement of cut material on the roadway. Dust Control Blade Unpaved Shoulders Repair Shoulders Reconstruction Apply water to reinforce soil characteristics for dust control and maintenance of unpaved surfaces, stockpiles, etc. Blade and reshape shoulders & drainage ditches including fill & cut sections, if necessary, to correct pavement drop-off, rutting of shoulders, build-up of shoulder material, and to restore a smooth, safe surface with proper drainage. Can be performed year-round Grading is best performed when shoulder material is moist to insure maximum workability of material. Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Add or remove material to shoulder and Should be scheduled before rutting along the Spring or Fall slope to eliminate pavement drop-off, edge of the pavement affects the integrity of the roadway or when slope erosion, if left rutted or eroded conditions. unrepaired, will deteriorate into major damage. When a roadway has reached the end of Material shall be removed a minimum depth of Spring or Fall its life cycle and can no longer be 4" and a minimum thickness of 2" asphaltic rehabilitated, a new road must be premix surface material should be used. The constructed. All existing pavement will be base shall be replaced when unstable. removed and recycled for use as a new sub-base. The old sub-base will be regraded and compacted and a new hotmix asphalt surface applied. Source: BIA Road Maintenance Manual; ADOT Performance Guidelines Manual Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Apply magnesium chloride at recommended rate for dust control or compaction on gravel or dirt roads; do not exceed 300 gallons per lane mile per day. Apply a sufficient amount of water to settle dust or form a crust Roadway Maintenance Plan Soil Stabilization Unpaved Apply magnesium chloride soil stabilizers to promote compaction and dust control Roads on dirt or gravel roads Spring or Fall 201 Maintenance Activity Description and Purpose Guidelines Season Pavement Striping Paint traffic lines which include center lines, lane lines, no passing stripes, gore stripes and edge stripes on roadways, frontage roads, all re-paved or sealed roadways and other pavement markings. Striping should be scheduled to follow seal coats. Spring or Fall Asphalt Sidewalks and Shared-Use Paths Repair pop-outs; potholes, buckled sidewalks, broken curbs, sunken pavement, root infiltration. Can be performed year-round Concrete Sidewalk and Shared-Use Paths Repair potholes, buckled sidewalks, broken curbs, crumbling concrete, sunken pavement. Check drainage components for proper function; Identify and complete joint and crack sealing and patching; perform seal coating. If widespread subgrade issues are suspected, removal and replacement is the only option Check drainage components for proper function, no pooling water; Identify and complete joint and crack sealing and patching. If widespread subgrade issues are suspected, removal and replacement is the only option Guardrail Replacement, Repair, and Cleaning Replace and upgrade guardrail systems Maintenance work is scheduled as required and as necessary to replace and upgrade guardrail system Can be performed year-round Cattle Guard Maintenance and Clean-Out Replace, repair grills and/or clean cattle guards. When damaged, cattle guards become a traffic safety hazard or allow livestock to enter rightof-way, this activity should be treated as an emergency. Can be performed year-round Drainage Maintenance and Clean-Out Clean inlet and outlet drainage ditches This work shall be performed on drainage within right-of-way and drainage installations, as required. easements, including those for roadway dips. Clean catch basins, drop right-of-way and drainage easements, including those for roadway dips. Clean catch basins, drop inlets and down drains. Fencing and Gate Repair Inspect, maintain, repair or replace all fencing and gates Sign Clean/ Wash/ Inspect Inspect and clean to maintain unit at optimum designed efficiency. Sign Repair and Replacement Repair and replace existing signs due to graffiti, accident, weather damage, or retroreflectivity The BIA shall install and replace signs in accordance with the current edition of the MUTCD. Can be performed year-round Sweeping Sweeping of the curbed and other portions of the roadway with a mechanical sweeper Sweeping shall be accomplished when possible during times of low traffic volume and in accordance with the applicable route schedule. Can be performed year-round Source: BIA Road Maintenance Manual; ADOT Performance Guidelines Manual Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Maintenance work is as necessary to replace Can be performed and upgrade fence system, including installation year-round and maintenance of gates. Can be performed year-round Roadway Maintenance Plan Table 10.2: Road Maintenance Activities (Continued) 202 Table 10.2: Road Maintenance Activities (Continued) Maintenance Activity Description and Purpose Guidelines Season Roadside Mowing Machine mow road edge on road shoulders to improve sight distance, control weeds, tree seedlings, eliminate snowdrift, reduce summer fire fuels and enhance view of hazard markers, guardrails and delineators. Vegetation is not to be mowed unless average height of plants is greater than 17". In order to preserve perennial grasses needed for shoulder stability, do not mow lower than 4". Can be performed year-round Brush and Tree Removal Trim shrubs and ground cover in landscaped areas to maintain sight distance, or to improve plant barrier density. Various conditions and/or shrub varieties require pruning at different times during the year. Can be performed year-round Roadside Clean-up Pick up and disposal of all litter within the right-of-way. Includes removal of all unsightly objects and items which could cause damage to roadside mowing equipment. Work shall be accomplished as needed to preserve the aesthetic appearance of the highway and assure safety of roadside mowing equipment. Can be performed year-round Removal of Traffic Obstacles During routine maintenance and roadway inspection, immediately remove all obstacles within the right-of-way that is potentially hazardous to roadway users. Obstacles include fallen trees and posts, rocks, brush, trash, dead animals, unauthorized signs, etc. Can be performed year-round Winter Preparation Conduct winter patrol of snow and ice areas of the road to determine the possible development of hazardous conditions requiring maintenance attention. Winter storm patrol shall be used as weather forecasts and conditions warrant. Remove deicer from equipment to prevent excessive corrosion. Fall and Winter Snow and Ice Control Plow snow and/or apply de-icing agents to the roadway as conditions warrant Plow and/or apply abrasives / deicers to locations where needed. Abrasive material may be treated with de-icing agents. Winter Bridge Clean and Inspect Inspect, clean, remove graffiti from, and otherwise maintain decks, joints, footings, abutments, wing walls, superstructure, and rails Scheduling shall become an emergency when conditions require immediate attention for public safety. Can be performed year-round Roadway Maintenance Plan Source: BIA Road Maintenance Manual; ADOT Performance Guidelines Manual Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 203 Within the Hualapai Indian Reservation the maintenance of minor arterials and major collectors is a high priority since they serve traffic between population centers and carry high volumes of local traffic. To prioritize maintenance, a road classification system was developed based on a road's function, land use, and traffic conditions. This classification system, referred to as "Level of Development", serves as a guide for determining the type and timetable of maintenance activities within the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Table 10.3 outlines LOD Classification System utilized in this study as well as corresponding study roadways. Table 10.3: Level of Development LOD LOD 1 LOD 2 LOD 3 LOD 4 LOD 5 Roadway Context • Arterial roadway • Moderate to high traffic volumes • Regional and local traffic • Major tourist route • Arterial roadway • Moderate to low traffic volumes • Regional and local traffic • Tourist Route • School bus route • Collector roadway • Moderate to low traffic volumes • Provides access to residence and businesses • School bus route • Gravel or earth surface • Low traffic volumes • Tourist and local traffic • Rural area • Gravel or earth surface • Very low traffic volumes • Rural area Study Roadways • State Route 66 • Diamond Bar Road • Supai Road • Buck and Doe Road • Diamond Creek Road • Hualapai Way • High View Drive • Peach Springs roadways • Milkweed Springs Road • Music Mountain Road and Music Mountain Circle • Nelson Road • Valentine Roadways • Diamond Creek Road • Youth Camp Road • Nelson Road • All Other BIA Routes Roadway Maintenance Plan For each LOD classified roadway, a specific maintenance schedule should be followed in order to maintain the safety of the traveling public. Tables 10.4 - 10.8 illustrate the recommended maintenance schedule for roadways classified as LOD 1-5, respectively. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 204 Maintenance Activity Frequency 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034   Crack Sealing 5 years    Shoulder Maintenance 10 years  Drainage Structure Clean-Out 2 years            and Repair Guardrail Replacement, Repair, 2 years            and Cleaning Fence, Cattleguard, and Gate 2 years            Clean-Out and Repair   Chip Sealing 7 years     Sign Replacement 7 years   Overlay 20 years   Reconstruction 40 years Surface Blading N/A                      Maintenance Performed Once a Year Patching Surface Should be performed in Spring or Fall Surface Inspection Can be performed year-round Pavement Striping Can be performed year-round Drainage Structure Inspection Can be performed year-round Guardrail Inspection Can be performed year-round Fence, Cattleguard, and Gate Can be performed year-round Inspection Maintenance Performed Twice a Year                      Surface Cleaning Can be performed year-round Roadside Cleanup Can be performed year-round Roadside Mowing Can be performed year-round Sign Inspection Can be performed year-round Brush and Tree Removal Can be performed year-round Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Roadway Maintenance Plan Table 10.4: Level of Development 1 Maintenance Activities and Frequency 205 Table 10.5: Level of Development 2 Maintenance Activities and Frequency Frequency 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034     5 years   10 years 2 years            2 years            2 years            7 years  7 years  30 years  40 years N/A Year    Should be performed in Spring or Fall Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round                       Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report   Roadway Maintenance Plan Maintenance Activity Crack Sealing Shoulder Maintenance Drainage Structure Clean-Out and Repair Guardrail Replacement, Repair, and Cleaning Fence, Cattleguard, and Gate Clean-Out and Repair Chip Sealing Sign Replacement Overlay Reconstruction Surface Blading Maintenance Performed Once a Patching Surface Surface Inspection Pavement Striping Drainage Structure Inspection Guardrail Inspection Fence, Cattleguard, and Gate Inspection Surface Cleaning Roadside Cleanup Roadside Mowing Sign Inspection Brush and Tree Removal 206 Table 10.6: Level of Development 3 Maintenance Activities and Frequency Frequency 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034  5 years    10 years   3 years        3 years        3 years        7 years  7 years  30 years  30 years Year    Should be performed in Spring or Fall Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round                       Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Where Needed, Once Every 6 Weeks Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report   Roadway Maintenance Plan Maintenance Activity Crack Sealing Shoulder Maintenance Drainage Structure Clean-Out and Repair Guardrail Replacement, Repair, and Cleaning Fence, Cattleguard, and Gate Clean-Out and Repair Chip Sealing Sign Replacement Overlay Reconstruction Maintenance Performed Once a Patching Surface Surface Inspection Pavement Striping Drainage Structure Inspection Guardrail Inspection Fence, Cattleguard, and Gate Inspection Surface Cleaning Roadside Cleanup Roadside Mowing Sign Inspection Brush and Tree Removal Surface Blading 207 Table 10.7: Level of Development 4 Maintenance Activities and Frequency Frequency 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Every 17 Weeks                      4 years       4 years       4 years       10 years  Year  Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round                       Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Roadway Maintenance Plan Maintenance Activity Surface Blading Dust Control Soil Stabilization Drainage Structure Clean-Out and Repair Guardrail Replacement, Repair, and Cleaning Fence, Cattleguard, and Gate Clean-Out and Repair Sign Replacement Maintenance Performed Once a Surface Inspection Drainage Structure Inspection Guardrail Inspection Fence, Cattleguard, and Gate Inspection Roadside Cleanup Sign Inspection Brush and Tree Removal Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 208 Table10.8: Level of Development 5 Maintenance Activities and Frequency 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034                      Can be performed year-round Can be performed in Spring or Fall Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Can be performed year-round Roadway Maintenance Plan Maintenance Activity Maintenance Performed As Needed Surface Inspection Surface Blading and Reshaping Drainage Structure Inspection Drainage Structure Clean-Out and Repair Guardrail Inspection Guardrail Replacement, Repair, and Cleaning Fence, Cattleguard, and Gate Inspection Fence, Cattleguard, and Gate Clean-Out and Repair Sign Inspection Sign Replacement Roadside Cleanup Brush and Tree Removal Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 209 ROADWAY MAINTENANCE ESTIMATES Table 10.9 outlines typical maintenance procedures and planning cost estimates for each. These costs estimates should be used for planning purposes and initial project budgeting only; during the design phase of a project engineering estimates should be developed. Cost estimates provided in this section do not include right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation costs, or purchasing new equipment. Table 10.9: Road Maintenance Cost Estimates Cost Per Installation Cost Per Linear Unit Replace Surface / Base Cost Per Mile $80,000 Patching Surface $150 per sqft Crack Sealing $15,000 $30,000 per location Chip Seal $0.416 x pavement width $2,204 x pavement width Surface Blading and Reshaping $20,000 Dust Control $125,000 Asphalt-Concrete Overlay (1 1/2") $0.706 x pavement width + $1.69 x length $3,768 x pavement width + $10,223 Asphalt Grinding $0.476 x pavement width $2,520 x pavement width $0.30 $15,000 per lane mile to reshape. Additional $5,000 per mile to place millings $1,600 per mile per lane $6.25 $825 per lane $23.10 $122,000 Sidewalk (5-foot, one side only) $16.38 $86,500 Bike Path (8-foot asphalt-concrete; separate from road) $18.08 $95,500 Fencing - Chain Link (6-FT high) $23.10 $122,000 Repair Shoulders Pavement Striping Continuous or Broken Pavement Markings $420 Per Marking (Symbol or Word) Raised Pavement Markers (reflectors) $6.25 each Guardrail Replacement $40 per linear foot; Additional $1,500 per end terminal Fencing - Chain Link (6-FT high) Sign Replacement $485 each installation Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Roadway Maintenance Plan Maintenance Item 210 11. TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION This section discusses available funding sources and implementation actions to help execute the Plan for Improvements. FUNDING SOURCES The successful implementation of the Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe is contingent upon the availability of funding for design and construction of the improvement projects. Primary funding sources for the area include Federal programs, BIA, ADOT, and other regional government agencies. Passed in July 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) reauthorized surface transportation programs through fiscal year 2014. The program was enacted to create a streamlined, performance-based, and multimodal program to address the many challenges facing the Nation's transportation system. MAP-21 authorizes Federal-aid highway programs for the next two-years while maintaining current spending levels by consolidating core highway programs of SAFETEA-LU. Included in MAP-21 is a new program called Tribal High Priority Projects Program (THPP). The THPP is a special funding pool that may be utilized for tribes or governmental subdivisions whose annual allocation is insufficient to complete its highest priority project; or for emergency/disasters on any TTP facilities. MAP-21 authorizes $30 million per year from the General Fund (subject to appropriation) for this new program. In addition, MAP-21 gives FTA significant new authority to strengthen the safety of public transportation systems throughout the United States. The Act aims to align Federal funding to progress towards the goals of restoring and replacing aged public transportation infrastructure, supporting development, and improving the efficiency of administering grant programs by consolidating and streamlining several programs. MAP-21 provides federal funding for public transit assistance through the Tribal Transit Program (TTP). The TTP is a set-aside from the Formula Grants for Rural Areas program and consists of a $25 million formula program and a $5 million discretionary grant program. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Transportation Plan Implementation Under MAP-21, the new Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) provides $450 million annually with the ultimate goal to provide safe and adequate transportation and public road access to and within Indian reservations and Indian lands. While generally following the existing Indian Reservation Roads program, the TTP also includes new standards that a certain percentage of funds should be allocated for tribal bridge and tribal safety projects. Funds through the TTP are allocated to Tribes utilizing a statutory formula based on tribal population, road mileage, and average tribal shares of SAFETEA-LU funding. In accordance with MAP-21, Tribes may utilize up to 25% or $500,000 of their TTP funds, whichever is greater, for eligible road maintenance activities identified in 25 CFR 170.800. 211 Table 11.1 presents a comprehensive matrix of potential funding sources for roadway, safety, pedestrian and bicycle, and transit improvements that the Hualapai Indian Tribe can apply for funding to implement the Plan for Improvements. The following resources also provide additional information related to funding sources. Local Public Agency Projects Manual for Federal-aid Funded Projects The ADOT Local Public Agency Projects Manual provides information and guidance to assist local public agencies (i.e., counties, cities, towns) and tribal governments with projects funded through the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP), from planning to final acceptance. The manual outlines the ADOT and FHWA policies and procedures when developing, delivering, and administering transportation projects. The Manual is available at the following website link: http://www.azdot.gov/business/programs-and-partnerships/LocalPublicAgency/lpa-projects-manual Additionally, another available tool is the Federal-aid Essentials. It is web-based and can be accessed at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federal-aidessentials/index.cfm Arizona Tribal Transportation Website Funding Resources Links The Arizona Tribal Transportation website is hosted by ADOT and provides a central location for statetribal transportation related partnerships, projects, activities, groups, links, and other related information. The website contains a listing of transportation related funding resources, which can be found at the following link: Transportation Plan Implementation http://www.aztribaltransportation.com/funding.asp Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 212 Funding Program Eligible Uses Roadway and Safety Projects Tribal Transportation TTP funds may be used by the Tribe to pay the costs of the Program (TTP) following activities: Transportation planning, research, maintenance, engineering, rehabilitation, restoration, construction, and reconstruction of tribal transportation facilities; Operation and maintenance of transit programs and facilities that are located on, or provide access to, tribal land, or are administered by a tribal government. Administering Agency Program and Funding Details Federal Funds Allocated to BIA-DOT Western Regional Office on a formula basis Funding formula is based on each tribe's Improvement projects total population and mileage. must be submitted to Improvement projects must be included in FHWA by August the Hualapai Indian Tribe’s TIP. Bob Maxwell Regional Transportation Planner BIA-DOT Western Regional Office Division of Transportation 4th Floor Mailroom, MS 370 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: 602- 379-6782 Email: robert.maxwell@bia.gov Tribal High Priority Projects (THPP) Repair or reconstruction of eligible facilities in the national inventory of tribal transportation facilities. Funds may not be used for transportation planning; research; routine maintenance activities; structures and erosion protection; landscaping and irrigation systems; purchasing equipment; or condemnation of land for recreational trails. Federal Funds are allocated to the Regional Office based on approved Tribal Applications for these funds. Funds appropriated from the Federal General Fund, to remain available until September 30 of the third fiscal year after the year appropriated. An applicant may have only one application for assistance pending at any one time. Project funding is limited to a $1 million per application. Tribal Transportation Planning Program Transportation planning procedures for the TTP must be consistent with Statewide and Metropolitan planning processes. Federal Funds Allocated to BIA-DOT Western Regional Office on a formula basis and distributed on a project by project basis Funded by a set-aside of up to 2% from TTP funds. Funds are allocated directly to Tribe based on a formula, and distributed on a project by project basis. Tribal Transportation Program Safety Funds (TTPSF) MAP-21 established Tribal Safety funds by setting aside not more than 2 percent of the funds made available under the Tribal Transportation Program for each fiscal year. Eligible activities include: Tribal Safety Plans; Enforcement and EMS; Education Programs; Engineering Improvements; Data Collection; Data analysis and improvement; Road Safety Audits; and funding goals for each category. Federal Funds are allocated to the Regional Office based on approved Tribal Applications for these funds. Projects ranked by BIA, FHWA and Tribes. Funded by a set-aside of up to 2% from TTP funds. Maximum of $9,000,000 could be made available in each of FYs 2013 and 2014 for TTPSF. Bob Maxwell Regional Transportation Planner BIA-DOT Western Regional Office Division of Transportation 4th Floor Mailroom, MS 370 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: 602- 379-6782 Email: robert.maxwell@bia.gov Bob Maxwell Regional Transportation Planner BIA-DOT Western Regional Office Division of Transportation 4th Floor Mailroom, MS 370 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: 602- 379-6782 Email: robert.maxwell@bia.gov Russell Garcia TTPSF Program Manager Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 Phone: (202) 366-9815 Email: russell.garcia@dot.gov Source: FHWA, ADOT, USDOT, AmeriCorps, USDA, Arizona State Parks Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Application Deadline Contact Information Transportation Plan Implementation Table 11.1: Potential Funding Sources 213 Funding Program Tribal Bridge Program Eligible Uses Funds may be used for planning, design, engineering, preconstruction, construction, and inspection of a project to replace, rehabilitate, seismically retrofit, paint, or for antiicing and deicing, or to implement any countermeasures (including multiple-pipe culverts) for eligible tribal transportation facility bridges. To be eligible, a bridge must have an opening of at least 20 FT, be classified as a tribal transportation facility, and be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Administering Agency Federal Funds are allocated to the Regional Office based on approved applications from the Region for these funds. Program and Funding Details Funded by a set-aside of up to 2% from TTP funds. Surface Transportation Program (STP) States and metropolitan regions may use these funds for highway, bridge, transit (including intercity bus terminals), and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: • Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, preservation, or operational improvements for highways, bridges, and tunnels on any public roadway • Construction of new bridges and tunnels on a Federalaid highway • Inspection and evaluation of bridges, tunnels and other highway assets as well as training for bridge and tunnel inspectors • Transit capital projects • Bicycle, pedestrian, and recreational trails • Environmental mitigation efforts From the State's STP apportionment, States are required to obligate a portion of funds (not from sub allocated amounts) for bridges not on Federal-aid highways (offsystem bridges). Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: replacement, deicing, construction, inspection and evaluation of bridges. Federal Highway Administration Funds Administered Through ADOT and Planning Organizations In general, STP projects may not be on local or rural minor collectors. Special rule allows States to use up to 15% of funds sub allocated for areas with a population of 5,000 or less on rural minor collectors. Project is scoped and request for funding submitted to NACOG. Federal Highway Administration Funds Administered through ADOT and Regional Planning Organizations For projects to replace or rehabilitate deficient off-system bridges funded wholly by State/local sources, any amounts spent post-enactment that are in excess of 20% of project costs may be credited to the non-Federal share of eligible bridge projects in the State. Surface Transportation Program (STP) -OffSystem Bridges Source: FHWA, ADOT, USDOT, AmeriCorps, USDA, Arizona State Parks Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Application Deadline Contact Information Bob Maxwell Regional Transportation Planner BIA-DOT Western Regional Office Division of Transportation 4th Floor Mailroom, MS 370 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: 602- 379-6782 Email: robert.maxwell@bia.gov Craig Raborn WACOG Transportation Planner 208 N. 4th Street Kingman, AZ 86401 Phone: 928-377-1070 Email: craigr@wacog.com Project is scoped and request for funding submitted to WACOG. Project is scoped and request for funding submitted to Planning Organization. Craig Raborn WACOG Transportation Planner 208 N. 4th Street Kingman, AZ 86401 Phone: 928-377-1070 Email: craigr@wacog.com Transportation Plan Implementation Table 11.1: Potential Funding Sources (Continued) 214 Funding Program Eligible Uses Administering Agency Program and Funding Details Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: • Program administration, transportation planning, research, preventive maintenance, engineering, rehabilitation, restoration, construction, and reconstruction of Federal lands transportation facilities • Operations and maintenance of transit facilities • Any transportation project eligible under title 23 of the United States Code that is within or adjacent to, or that provides access to Federal lands open to the public. Funded by contract authority from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund On October 1 of each fiscal year, funds will be allocated among Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA) partners Federal Lands Access Program Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: • Transportation planning, research, engineering, preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, construction, and reconstruction of Federal Lands Access Transportation Facilities • Operation and maintenance of transit facilities • Any transportation project eligible under title 23 of the United States Code that is within or adjacent to, or that provides access to Federal lands open to the public. Funded by contract authority from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund The funds made available under this program will be available for the current year plus three additional years. Funds are distributed by formula among States that have Federal lands Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The HSIP is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. Any project on a public road, trail or path that is consistent with the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan and corrects a safety problem is eligible for HSIP funding. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: • Intersection improvements • Construction of shoulders • Traffic calming • Improvements for bicyclists, pedestrians, and individuals with disabilities. • Minimum standards of retro-reflectivity of traffic signs and pavement markings Federal Highway Administration Funds Administered Through ADOT and Planning Organizations Project is scoped and request for funding Applications due in submitted to Regional Planning May Organization. The HSIP Local Government Coordinator provides assistance to local agencies throughout the process of identifying and developing the projects. 5.7% for most projects Source: FHWA, ADOT, USDOT, AmeriCorps, USDA, Arizona State Parks Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Application Deadline Contact Information Arizona Division Federal Highway Administration 4000 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 For information, visit: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv Allen Grasmick Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, CO 80228 Phone: (720) 963-3500 Email: Allen.Grasmick@dot.gov For general program information, visit: http://www.cflhd.gov/programs /flap/AZ/index.cfm Mona Aglan-Swick HSIP Manager ADOT Statewide HSIP Program Phone: (602) 712-7374 Email: maglan@azdot.gov Transportation Plan Implementation Table 11.1: Potential Funding Sources (Continued) 215 Funding Program Governor’s Office of Highway Safety National Priority Safety Program Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program Road Safety Assessment Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Grants Eligible Uses Finances State and local government highway safety projects. Eligible projects include: inventories, need studies, engineering studies, system development, program implementation, or for purchasing equipment. Cannot be used for the construction, design, or maintenance of highways or for highway construction research papers. Programs include: • Section 405(b): Occupant Protection • Section 405(c): State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements • Section 405(d): Impaired Driving Countermeasures • Section 405(e): Distracted Driving • Section 405(f): Motorcyclist Safety • Section 405(g): Graduated Driver Licensing Funds can be spent in accordance with national guidelines for programs such as reducing impaired driving; reducing speeding; encouraging the use of occupant protection; improving motorcycle safety; improving pedestrian and bicycle safety; improving enforcement of traffic safety laws; improving traffic records; and emergency services. The Road Safety Assessments (RSA) program conducts Road Safety Assessments on state, local and tribal road facilities. An RSA is defined as a formal examination of user safety of a future or existing roadway by an independent multidisciplinary audit team, which includes qualified and experienced members. FRA supports passenger and freight railroading through a variety of competitive grant, dedicated grant, and loan programs to develop safety improvements, relieve congestion, and encourage the expansion and upgrade of passenger and freight rail infrastructure and services. Source: FHWA, ADOT, FRA, USDOT, AmeriCorps, USDA, Arizona State Parks Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Administering Agency Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) Program and Funding Details Project funding is limited to a maximum of $50,000 per project contract Application Deadline Applications due in February Contact Information Director Alberto Gutier Governor’s Office of Highway Safety 3030 North Central Ave #1550 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the federal level and Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety at the state level Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety Applications due in July Director Alberto Gutier Governor’s Office of Highway Safety 3030 North Central Ave #1550 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 MAP-21 authorizes funding for the 402 program at $235 million each year in FY 2013 and FY 2014. Proposals due to the Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety in April/May Director Alberto Gutier Governor’s Office of Highway Safety 3030 North Central Ave #1550 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 ADOT Traffic Safety Section Technical assistance, no actual awarding of funds On-going Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) All applicants must also submit a Statement of Work (SOW), scope, schedule, and budget. On-going Richard S. Weeks, PE, PTOE Program Manager Road Safety Assessment 1615 West Jackson St., Mail Drop 065R Phoenix, AZ 85007-3217 Phone: 602-712-4382 Fax: 602-712-3243 Email: rweeks@azdot.gov Additional information can be found at: www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0021 Transportation Plan Implementation Table 11.1: Potential Funding Sources (Continued) 216 Funding Program Railway-Highways Crossing (Section 130) Program Eligible Uses Administering Agency Program and Funding Details Application Deadline The Section 130 program funds are eligible for projects at ADOT Utility & Railroad Project selection is based on input from On-going all public crossings including roadways, bike trails and Engineering Group the ADOT Railroad crossing database. pedestrian paths. Fifty percent of a State's apportionment is dedicated for the installation of protective devices at crossings. The remainder of the funds apportionment can be used for any hazard elimination project, including protective devices. AmeriCorps Indian Tribes AmeriCorps planning grants provide up to $75,000 for a AmeriCorps Planning Grants one-year period to provide support to an Indian Tribe for the development of an AmeriCorps program that will engage AmeriCorps members in order to address pressing community problems. AmeriCorps State and National sets aside one percent of grant funds to support programs operated by American Indian Tribes USDA Community Facility Grants Grant funds may be used to assist in the development of essential community facilities. Grant funds can be used to construct, enlarge, or improve community facilities for health care, public safety, and community and public services. This can include the purchase of equipment required for a facility's operation. Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) Program PARA funds are limited to planning applications and may Federal funds not be used for the design or construction of transportation administered through facilities. PARA funds may be applied to address a broad ADOT range of planning issues related to roadway and nonmotorized transportation modes. Funds may also be applied to studies dedicated solely to the planning of public transportation services. The PARA program is funded 100% by ADOT using Federal Statewide Planning and Research (SPR) funds. The awarded funding is a limit or cap of $250,000 for each PARA study process. Applications for projects are submitted to ADOT MPD on an annual basis. Applications for planning projects are submitted to ADOT on an annual basis in early summer. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: • Accelerate adoption of innovative technologies in all aspects of highway transportation • Construct longer-lasting highways • Improve highway efficiency, safety, mobility, reliability, service life, environmental protection, and sustainability Award recipients must obligate awarded funds to project within 6 months of allocation. Open, rolling solicitation. Applicants must submit applications electronically through Grants.gov. Accelerated Innovation Deployment (AID) Demonstration Source: FHWA, ADOT, USDOT, AmeriCorps, USDA, Arizona State Parks Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Federal Highway Administration Funds Contact Information Robert Travis ADOT Railroad Liaison Phone: 602-712-6193 Email: rtravis@azdot.gov www.azdot.gov/business/engine ering-and-construction/utility-andrailroad-engineering/railroad For general program information, contact: Phone: (202) 606-7508 Email: americorpsgrants@cns.gov http://www.nationalservice.gov/ build-your-capacity/grants/ USDA Rural Development 230 N 1st Avenue, Suite 509 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Phone: (602) 280-8701 Fax: (602) 280-8770 For general program information, visit: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/RD _grants.html Justin Feek, Program Manager Arizona Department of Transportation - MPD 206 S. 17th Ave., MD 310B Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: 602.712.6196 Fax: 602.712.6412 Email: jfeek@azdot.gov For general program information, visit: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ accelerating/grants/ Transportation Plan Implementation Table 11.1: Potential Funding Sources (Continued) 217 Funding Program TIGER Grants Eligible Uses Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: • Highway or bridge projects eligible under title 23, United States Code; • Public transportation projects eligible under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code; • Freight rail projects; • High speed and intercity passenger rail projects; and Port infrastructure investments Administering Agency United States Department of Transportation Program and Funding Details Application Deadline • $1 million minimum grant Applications must be submitted through • No match requirement, though Grants.gov competitive • applications often feature a match • Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) Funds are eligible to match/complete financing Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: • Bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Safe routes projects for non-drivers • Construction of turnouts and overlooks • Community improvement activities including vegetation management and historic preservation • Environmental mitigation activity including NEPA compliance Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Projects Transportation Safe Routes to School (SRTS) eligible projects and Alternatives Program activities include: (TAP) - Safe Routes to • Infrastructure-related projects. School • No infrastructure-related activities. • Safe Routes to School coordinator Federal Highway Administration Funds Administered Through ADOT and Regional Planning Organizations TAP funds are available for obligation for a period of 3 years after the last day of the fiscal year for which the funds are authorized. Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) - Recreational Trails Program (RTP) FHWA Administered through Arizona State Parks Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds to the States to develop and maintain recreational trails and trailrelated facilities for both nonmotorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Source: FHWA, ADOT, USDOT, AmeriCorps, USDA, Arizona State Parks Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 80 percent Federal/20 percent State or local match subject to the sliding scale adjustment Contact Information Office of the Under Secretary for Policy Office of the Secretary of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 Phone: 202-366-4544 For general program information, visit: http://www.dot.gov/tiger Patrick Stone TE Section Manager Department of Transportation 1615 W. Jackson Street, MD EM10 Phoenix, AZ 85226 Phone: 602-712-4428 Email: pstone@azdot.gov Kristin Myers Arizona Department of Transportation Local Public Agency Section 1615 W. Jackson St., Mail Drop EM11 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: (602) 712-6166 Email: KMyers@azdot.gov Robert Baldwin State Trails Coordinator Arizona State Parks Resources Management Section 1300 W Washington St Phoenix AZ 85007-2932 Phone: 602-542-7130 Email: rbb2@azstateparks.gov Transportation Plan Implementation Table 11.1: Potential Funding Sources (Continued) 218 Table 11.1: Potential Funding Sources (Continued) Eligible Uses Administering Agency Program and Funding Details Eligible projects include public transportation capital projects for start-ups, replacement or expansion, operating costs for start-ups, and planning. Federal Transit Administration In FY 13 approximately $5 million in funding was available for the TTP. The federal share for projects selected under the TTP discretionary program was up to a 90 percent federal share of project costs, unless the Indian tribe could demonstrate a financial hardship in their application. Eligible applicants could also apply for planning grants of up to $25,000 for planning studies. Check the TTP Notice of Funding Availability upon publication in the Federal Register. The FY 13 TTP NOFA was published on May 9, 2013 and TTP project applications were due July 8, 2013. Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) Program funds are used for capital assistance, the purchase Federal funds of vehicles, related equipment and operating funds administered through statewide. Eligible recipients include private nonprofit and ADOT public agencies that provide transportation to the elderly and disabled. Using these funds for operating expenses requires a 50 percent local match while using these funds for capital expenses (including acquisition of public transportation services) requires a 20 percent local match. Applications due to WACOG in March Rural Area Formula Grants (Section 5311) The Rural Program provides funding to States for the purpose of supporting public transportation in rural areas including funding for Tribal Transit, Appalachian region, Intercity Bus and technical assistance programs and services. Rural areas are locations with populations less than 50,000, where many residents often rely on public transit to reach their destinations. Federal funds administered through ADOT Applications are submitted in December, and awards are generally made in July of each year. Rural Transit Assistance Program Training, technical assistance, research, and outreach funding to all 5310, 5311, 5316, and 5317 grantees statewide. Federal funds administered through ADOT The Tribal program now consists of a $25 million formula program and a $5 million discretionary grant program. Formula factors include vehicle revenue miles and the number of low-income individuals residing on tribal lands. Federal share may exceed 85% for certain projects related to ADA, CAA, and for certain bicycle projects. To be eligible to receive a RTAP Scholarsh ip, applicants must be an active Arizona g rantee receiving 5311 and 5310 FTA pro gram funding. Source: FHWA, ADOT, USDOT, AmeriCorps, USDA, Arizona State Parks Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Application Deadline All grantees must submit a RTAP Application at least 30 days prior to the training event. Contact Information Contact the appropriate FTA Regional Office at http://www.fta.dot.gov for proposal-specific information and issues. For general program information, contact : Lorna Wilson, Office of Program Management, (202) 366–0893, Email: lorna.wilson@dot.gov Elan Flippin, Office of Program Management, (202) 366–3800, Email: elan.flippin@dot.gov. Michele Walker WACOG Mobility Manager 208 N. 4th Street Kingman, AZ 86401 Phone: (928) 753-1374 Email: michelew@wacog.com Sara Allred 5311 Program Manager 206 S 17th Ave MD 340B Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: 602-712‐4498 Email: sallred@azdot.gov Sara Allred 5311 Program Manager 206 S 17th Ave MD 340B Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: 602-712‐4498 Email: sallred@azdot.gov Transportation Plan Implementation Funding Program Transit Projects Tribal Transit Program (TTP) 219 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES Implementation of the Plan for Improvements requires active participation from local citizens, private entities, and local, County, and State government officials. The following actions are recommended in order to successfully implement the Plan for Improvements developed as part of this study. • The Hualapai Tribal Council needs to formally approve this plan in order to initiate the process of requesting project inclusion in the BIA TTP TIP and to subsequently receive Federal Lands Highway Program funds or other MAP-21 funds. • Incorporate high priority improvement projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), if needed to acquire federal funding. • Coordinate with the BIA the entry of updated Hualapai road inventory data into the Road Inventory Field Data System (RIFDS) for inclusion in the National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory (NTTFI). • Establish a partnership with Mohave County, ADOT, and the Grand Canyon West Corporation for the on-going planning, maintenance, improvement, and funding for roadways that provide access to the Grand Canyon West and other tourist locations. • Establish a partnership with the Havasupai Tribe for on-going planning, maintenance, and funding for improvements to Supai Road. • Work with Mohave County, ADOT, and BIA to confirm existing ROW widths and identify areas where additional ROW is required. It is important that as existing roads are reconstructed that right-of-way descriptions are prepared as part of the design surveys. If needed, purchase required ROW from property owners. • Traffic calming devices should be considered in the design of new roads serving housing, governmental facilities, or commercial developments. • Solicit grants for bicycle and pedestrian improvements to add bicycle lanes, enhance connections to existing facilities, and to construct new facilities in deficient locations. • • Develop policies and procedures to promote alternative modes of transportation. Transportation Plan Implementation Further research and apply for funding for each project identified in the Plan for Improvements. Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report 220 APPENDIX A. PUBLIC MEETING 1 SUMMARY REPORT Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Public Meeting Summary Hualapai Indian Tribe Long Range Transportation Plan June 2014 Prepared by Arizona Department of Transportation Public Meeting Summary Introduction The purpose of this project is to update the Hualapai Indian Tribe’s long range transportation plan. The plan will provide recommendations to improve automobile, bus, bicycle, equestrian, pedestrian, aviation and marine transportation for the next five, 10 and 20 years. Public Meeting To inform and involve community members in the study, ADOT hosted a public open house at the Hualapai Gym, 930 Rodeo way, Peach Springs, AZ 86434 on Thursday, May 1, 2014 from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. Staff present at the meeting included Vamshi Yellisetty and Rick Powers (Jacobs Engineering), Misty Klann and Michele Beggs (ADOT), Philip Wisely and Kevin Davidson (Hualapai Indian Tribe). During the open house, a presentation was given followed by an opportunity for Q&A, comments and recommendations on areas for improvement. In total, 12 members of the community were in attendance. A copy of the sign-in sheets can be found in Appendix A Newspaper Advertisements and Announcements A newspaper advertisement providing the date and location of the public meeting was published in the following newspaper: Gamyu Newsletter published on March 28, April 11, and April 25 Kingman Daily Miner (weeks of April 14 and 21) A copy of the advertisements can be found in Appendix B. Presentation and Meeting Materials A presentation was given at the open house and a comment form was provided to each attendee of the meeting. During the Earth Day celebration on April 25th, a booth was set up with the presentation boards and comment forms available A copy of the comment form can be found in Appendix C of this report. Comment Summary The following comments were made and noted during the public meeting forum and through written submissions: What do you see as the top three transportation issues in and around the Hualapai Indian Reservation? Intersection downtown Peach Springs traffic speeding/pedestrians Railroad crossing and pedestrians crossing tracks Need a red light four way stop sign or roundabout Diamond Creek Road and Rt. 66 intersections need lighting or roundabout Public Meeting Summary Traffic congestion due to all new infrastructure in central Peach Springs Flooding of roads gets bad during monsoon season The roads to Kingman need to be fixed (rough road) Roads to Seligman need to be fixed (rough road) Vegetation on sides of Route 66/reflectors needed Stop lights at main intersection Pave dirt roads for tourism Walkway at railroad tracks What do you feel are the major pedestrian, bicycle and trail issues in the Hualapai Indian Reservation? We need room on Route 66 for biking/walking Crossing Route 66 and the railroad crossing-pedestrians are on our paved roads because of no sidewalks Limited to no area for any pedestrians to walk along road, especially in central Peach Springs; in years back majority of pedestrians would use man-made dirt trails but recent infrastructure has cut off most dirt trails and forced pedestrians to walk main roads and is highly dangerous, especially with fast drivers Please identify what you feel are the priority public transportation needs Sidewalks for public to utilize, especially with the lighting so that pedestrians may feel safe and use them adequately and good reliance Transportation to building for elders and youth to and from departments Cut vegetation on Route 66 Fix roads Route 66 to Kingman/Seligman Reflectors for roadway What solutions would you suggest for the issues presented? For someone to listen to our needs, only work on main roads, do not work on off roads The maintenance of our roads needs to be revisited and maintained often, for the safety of all traffic The downtown intersection needs major attention as well as Diamond Creek Road as it harms tourism in the summer (high tourism time) Do you have any additional comments you with to share with the project team? Keep up the good research! Phil Wisely does not know what Peach Springs needs, he does not live here, he comes and goes. Residents need to be heard! We know what’s needed for our future and present! Public Meeting Summary Appendix A Public Meeting Summary Public Meeting Summary Appendix B Public Meeting Summary Appendix C APPENDIX B. PUBLIC MEETING 2 SUMMARY REPORT Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Public Meeting 2 Summary Hualapai Indian Tribe Long Range Transportation Plan September 2014 Prepared by Arizona Department of Transportation Public Meeting 2 Summary Introduction The purpose of this project is to update the Hualapai Indian Tribe’s long range transportation plan. The plan will provide recommendations to improve automobile, bus, bicycle, equestrian, pedestrian, aviation and marine transportation for the next five, 10 and 20 years. Public Meeting To inform and involve community members of the study, ADOT in coordination with Hualapai Planning and Public Works Departments hosted a second (in a series of two for this study) public open house at the Hualapai Gym, 930 Rodeo Way, Peach Springs, AZ 86434 on Wednesday, August 20, 2014 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. Staff present at the meeting included Vamshi Yellisetty and Rick Powers (Jacobs Engineering), Misty Klann and Michele Beggs (ADOT), and Kevin Davidson (Hualapai Indian Tribe). During the open house, a presentation was given followed by an opportunity for Q&A, comments and recommendations on areas for improvement. In total, 17 members of the community were in attendance. A copy of the sign-in sheets can be found in Appendix A Newspaper Advertisements and Announcements A newspaper/newsletter advertisement providing the date and location of the public meeting was published in the following:  Gamyu Newsletter published on July 18, August 1, August 15  Kingman Daily Miner Newspaper (weeks of July 20 and August 17) A copy of the advertisements can be found in Appendix B. Presentation and Meeting Materials A presentation was given at the open house and a comment form was provided to each attendee of the meeting. A copy of the comment form can be found in Appendix C of this report. Comment Summary The following comments were made and noted during the public meeting forum and through written submissions: Safety – Intersection Improvement: Option 1 Traffic Signal and Option 2 Roundabout  Traffic signal  Traffic light will be the only way to go  I like Option #2 Roundabout. I would suggest creating more parking areas for lodge & GCW employees. Restaurant parking can get very congested during lunch time. Suggest to add a “Pick up” parking lot for take-out orders. Or 15 min. parking. Public Meeting 2 Summary                Option 2: Roundabout, less maintenance on traffic lights. I have a concern with the roundabout in so far as commercial vehicle traffic is concerned. They will impede truck and bus traffic in the downtown area. Additionally the locals will use other areas to get on Route 66 rather than drive the roundabout. People are lazy and will find easier ways to get around this area. I feel this roundabout is a good option to slow traffic in a high pedestrian area seems the most efficient option for the area and the amount of vehicle traffic. I think that Option 2 would be good for the traffic for Peach Springs Option 1 Traffic Signal Roundabout, maybe help with traffic and improve flow of cars Restrict parking on 66 near intersection (to hard to see when crossing/pulling on to 66) Parking area across street beside old gas station. No parking on street – can’t see oncoming traffic. Make a roundabout Option 1 I like. Option 2 not good for the amount of traffic Option 1: Traffic Signal Traffic light Roundabout to slow down traffic If we have to pick one I would like #1 traffic signal - #2 is crazy! No no no no Dangerous! Option 1 – traffic signal good Option 1 would be a lot better vs the roundabout Safety – Traffic Calming (Pavement Markings, Flashing Speed Sign, Rumble Strips, Double Chicane  Rumble strips, great idea. Always late night travelers neither out of towners, locals coming from work late (GCW). As a personal view coming home from Grand Canyon West after work I’ve almost gone off the road a couple times being tired, always though the rumble strips would be a good idea around Peach Springs and Diamond Bar area.  Highly visible working & good enough  Flashing speed sign  Rumble strips to alert driver inside vehicle. Place where needed.  The rumble strips would be a good option prior to reaching the roundabout to get the attention of drivers.  I think Double Chicane would be good for it.  Flashing speed sign.  Rumble strips so I can feel the rumble while driving  Rumble strips – people ignore the rest!  I like pavement markings & rumble strips  Rumble strips will wake up drivers  Pavement markings  All of the above  Yes to all of the above Public Meeting 2 Summary    Flashing speed sign or pavement markings Flashing speed sign would work wonders Flashing speed signs would be great Safety – Railroad Crossing (Flashing Light Signal, Automatic Gates, Pedestrian Bridge, Quiet Zone)  Option 1  The flashing light signal, gates, and quiet zone would be a great addition to the RR crossings. As a previous resident you would have these concerns.  Automatic gates  I like #1 overpass bridge for both vehicles and people who are walking. Save $$$$  Quiet zone needed at Peach Springs and Valentine. At times the train blows horn 12 times or more. Place automatic gates in Peach Springs, Valentine and to grave yard in Valentine.  This is a public safety issue, however, no real opinion on this as it will take big $ and neg. by all means to do  #2 for overpass  Quiet zone at night  Option 4 would be the better option for pedestrian traffic. Elimination of train horn use, and emergency response to the community south of the tracks.  Don’t know  Pedestrian Bridge, so I can walk over the train and look at the emptiness of Peach Springs, AZ.  Pedestrian Bridge  Quiet zone for both  Pedestrian  Bridge for traffic & pedestrians Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Facilities (Roadside Sidewalk, Offset Asphalt Shared-Use-Path, Unpaved Multi-Use Trail, Unpaved Multi-Use Trail with Amenities, Paved Multi-use Path)  Roadside sidewalks, I do see a need, especially up Diamond Creek Rd. with children walking to and from school in crowds on the pavement you often see vehicles driving on the opposite side to avoid accidents causing grounds for potential danger.  Stay on main roads only  Looks good!  Unpaved multi-use trail  Paved multi-use path  Just make a roadside sidewalk all the way to Truxton, and put roadside lights for the late night walkers.  Need a safe sidewalk for kids walking through whole community!  Bike path & trail for Buck & Doe & 66 Rd. Bike path & sidewalk for Diamond Creek  Roadside sidewalk would be nice  Sidewalks with amenities through Peach Springs AZ Public Meeting 2 Summary    Peach Springs to Buck N Doe Rd would be good Peach Springs to Buck N Doe Rd. for walk – great! I think the road needs to have a sidewalk from Peach Springs to Buck and Doe for safety of the people who exercise and the ones who ride bikes. Transit Improvements (Recommended Transit Service)  I don’t know, don’t ever go that way  Continue putting gravel on road to GCW – Buck-N-Doe Road (look at implementing identified Short-Term services)  Short term would be nice  Short term to Kingman and local service within Peach Springs Do you have any additional comments you with to share with the project team?  Roads to Kingman need to be worked on, also roads to Seligman need to be fixed.  Sidewalks from 66 up Diamond Creek would help school students’ safety. Right now they walk in the middle of the street.  I like local service within Peach Springs. Set up a KART service for the local area. Transit to Kingman only. Also maybe to Truxton Gas & Grub.  Roundabout needed at intersection to tribal office.  Unpaved multi-use trail for Peach Springs to Buck & Doe.  Having pedestrian facilities for community members and visitors would be great. Would be a positive for the tribe and could be good for tourism & revenue for the tribe as well.  Don’t know???  Need more visual signs for the tourists  Fix the bridge to Hackberry (66), make turning lanes at Tribal Office and at Roads dept. entrance. Turning lane at Hackberry General Store & Valentine.  Make a road to GCW (paved).  Turning lanes to Tribal Office, Roads Dept., Valentine, AZ, Hackberry Store. No parking on Rt. 66. Have to pull into middle of Rt. 66 to get on main road.  NO PARKING Rt. 66 have to pullout in the middle of street to cross  Peach Springs to Kingman, Peach Springs to Grand Canyon West, Peach Spring to Phoenix, Peach Springs to Laughlin  We have many tribal members without transportation  From: Nancy Echeverria [mailto:Nancy.Echeverria@grandcanyonresort.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:27 PM To: Kevin Davidson; Philip Wisely Subject: Submittal of Comments regarding Safety-Railroad Crossing Hello, Public Meeting 2 Summary Thank you for the opportunity to submit our thoughts on this important topic of Safety-Railroad Crossing at Diamond Creek Road in Peach Springs. I have been the GM of Hualapai Lodge for the past 9 years and support the Quiet Zone. We have numerous complaints daily regarding the noise of the train from our guests lodging at our property. If you go to our Trip Advisor page and look at the comments you will see that most people complain about the train noise. This effects our ability to sell out our hotel as we only have 22 rooms on road side and now that is what most people want; so we loose a lot of business due to train noise or loose the reservation entirely as they stay away due to the train noise. I also feel that in providing the upgraded safety fittings that must go in for a quiet zone would also assist in keeping this area safe and draw more attention that the train crossing is there. I appreciate the opportunity to support this important project for both the community and Hualapai Lodge. Best Regards, Nancy Echeverria Property Manager, Hualapai Lodge General Manager, Hualapai Tourism Reservation Center 900 Historic Route 66 Peach Springs, AZ 86434-0538 work-928 769 2344 fax-928 769 2331 Public Meeting 2 Summary Appendix A Public Meeting 2 Summary Public Meeting 2 Summary Public Meeting 2 Summary Appendix B Public Meeting 2 Summary Appendix C Public Meeting 2 Summary APPENDIX C. STAKEHOLDER PHASE 1 SUMMARY REPORT Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Date: February 12 & 13, 2014 Time: 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM Location: Health, Education, and Wellness Center 488 Hualapai Way Peach Springs, Arizona Stakeholder Meetings - Round 1 Meeting 1 & 2 Summary (Combined): Environmental Agencies & Non-Tribal Government Agencies (February 12th, 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM) Attendees: See attached sign in sheet. Alex Cabillo, Shane Charley, Drake Havatone, Philip Bravo Jr, Michele Walker, Serena Nodman, Alvin Crook, Danny Powsey Sr, Philip Wisely, Kevin Davidson, Misty Klann, Rick Powers, Vamshi Yellisetty Introductions: Misty Klann asked the attendees to introduce themselves. Misty then provided a brief overview and purpose of the Study. Rick reviewed the study objectives, study process, expectations, and schedule. The meeting was then open for discussion. Stakeholder Comments:     Railroad Crossings: Overpass/underpass is needed at the Valentine railroad crossing. It could be located northeast of the current location. At a minimum, railroad crossing arms should be installed at all crossings within the reservation. The RR crossing to access the cemetery is a big safety concern, especially when there are funeral processions. Both crossings have experienced crashes and in some cases fatalities. Noise and safety is a concern at the railroad crossing along Diamond Creek Road. Access to the south side of Peach Springs is restricted when a train is stopped at the crossing for an extended period of time. Coordination with BNSF on a frequent basis is needed to address safety and noise issues along the railroad. IR 18: IR 18 needs major repairs. Complete reconstruction of some segments is preferred. Large sections of IR 18 have slope stability issues. Flooding is an issue at MP 1, 3 and 5.5. Fencing is needed on both sides along IR 18. Fencing should be to ADOT standards (taller) and not NRCS fencing standards. Wildlife signage should be considered where appropriate. Better signage is needed along the whole corridor. Elk Jump crossings should be installed along the route. Shoulders need to be improved. Better delineators and reflectors are needed on IR 18 for night travel. The pavement also needs restriping. Route 66: On Route 66, when guard rail is damaged, it should be repaired within two weeks. It seems to take months in some cases. Drainage issues on US 66 near the county line. Some flood events top the roadway. Hydroplaning occurs on US 66 near the Valentine area; roadway surface needs to be reshaped with adequate cross slope. Closures of I-40 result in traffic diverted through Peach Springs, along Route 66 resulting in increased traffic and safety concerns. Transit: Transit services are needed to Kingman and locally. Limited drivers are available for the existing medical transport service provided on an on-call basis. Sandra Irwin at the Health Center currently manages the 5310 program and funding. They have 2 vehicles from ADOT and other vehicles that are used for medical and shopping needs. The Tribe should consider hiring a full-time transit coordinator to manage and expand transit service operations to serve the tribal members. In the interim, the Tribe should identify a transit CHAMPION to push the transit related needs, funding, and grant applications. 5310 funds could be used to fund the transit manager position. If it is an operations position, a set of matching funds may be required from the Tribe. -1- Prepared By: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe    Trails: Pedestrians walking along Route 66 from the Milkweed and Buck and Doe areas towards Peach Springs is a concern. A trail system between these areas should be considered utilizing existing manmade trails as much as possible. Trail system could be modeled after the trail system in Laughlin. Standards should be developed for trails. Mountain bike trails in and around Peach Springs are needed. Healthy Heart, a local organization, is looking into bicycle routes. Equestrian trails should be developed to promote tourism. IR 6: Maintenance of IR 6 is a priority since it is the only access to the Colorado River and where the rafting tours begin. IR 6 should be considered for limited use by tourists. Last mile is a culturally sensitive area. Other: - Improvements are planned at the youth camp near the eastern boundary of the reservation. - Better signage is needed along major tribal roads. - Roundabout at the intersection of Route 66 and Diamond Creek road should be evaluated. - Concern of the short distance between the 15 mph school zone signs, they should be further apart. - Occasionally snow plowing of local roads and IR 18 is performed. - Work on Big Sandy Wash needs to be completed. Run-off from the hills causes flooding on some roads. - Not enough parking in the Peach Springs area. - Future roads planned in the Box Canyon subdivision could be added to the BIA inventory. Future parking lots could also be added to the BIA inventory. - During flooding, Truxton wash cuts off part of the community. - Cattle guard is too low on Nelson Rd at US 66. - The Hualapai Tribe's land boundary needs to be surveyed and documented. Lunch Meeting at the Senior Center (February 12th, 12:15 PM – 1:15 PM) Attendees: Approximately 32 members and 5 project team members attended the lunch meeting. Introductions: Misty provided a brief overview and purpose of the Study. Rick led a question and answer session with the attendees. Below is a summary of comments. A large size map of the study area was posted in the dining area for residents to make comments. Kevin will pick up and mail the map to Jacobs in a week or two. Stakeholder Comments:       Most attendees said that transit service from Peach Springs to Kingman was very important for them and the community to access medical, shopping, entertainment, and other services. Regional transit service to Phoenix, Flagstaff, Las Vegas, Laughlin, Tucson, and other major areas would be beneficial. Local transit would also benefit community members especially the elderly. Question: Will the cost of these services be affordable? Response: It is difficult to assess cost of service at this stage. The rates are usually affordable. For example, San Carlos Apache Tribe's rates range from $2.5 to $14 per roundtrip based on the length of the trip. Members requested the ability to have access to specific destinations using transit that don't necessarily have to be tied into Kingman's KART system. Coordination with KART could limit options. Sidewalks and lighting is needed in the local Peach Springs area. -2- Prepared By: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe     Vegetation along roadways needs to be cleared for safety especially at intersections. Stakeholders commented that IR 18/Route 66 intersection often has vegetation overgrowth causing visibility/sight distance issues. Railroad overpass has to be built in Valentine along the crossing. Intersection at the Lodge in Peach Springs in unsafe. Culverts in the proximity of existing homes should repaired and driveways need repair also. Flooding from the hills is an issue also. Meeting 3 Summary: Education and Youth Agencies (February 12th, 1:30 PM – 3:00 PM) Attendees: Pete Imus, Jean Imus, Kevin Davidson, Misty Klann, Rick Powers, Vamshi Yellisetty Introductions: Misty and Rick provided a brief overview and purpose of the Study. The meeting was then open for discussion. Stakeholder Comments:              Sidewalks in the community will encourage kids to walk to/from schools. Crosswalks at the Route 66/Diamond Creek Road intersection will improve safety for pedestrians. Railroad crossings are an issue. Overpass/underpass should be constructed at all crossings. Kids go to either Kingman or Seligman for High School. Seligman High School bus only goes up to the Caverns to pick up kids. Family members have to drop kids off at the Caverns to board the bus to school. Flooding often cuts-off parts of the community in Peach Springs. Kids from Milkweed and Buck and Doe areas use the pathways behind the homes to access school. Street name signs are needed throughout the reservation. Significant number of tribal members travel to Kingman for employment. Grand Canyon West (GCW) has buses that picks up employees from Kingman and the Lodge at Peach Springs. These buses are often full and employees arrive early at the stop to get a seat on the bus. Buses break down frequently. One member suggested paving only the mostly utilized roads. Dust and air quality is an issue on tribal roads and primarily on Buck and Doe Road. Transit service is needed from Peach Springs to Kingman Hospital. Several dialysis patients go to Kingman. 5310 funds managed by Sandra Irwin's group are utilized to transport patients to the Kingman Hospital. Meeting 4 Summary: Health Board (February 12th, 3:00 PM – 4:00 PM) Attendees: Sandra Irwin, Mary Whatorame, Doris Butler, Drake Havatone, Philip Wisely, Kevin Davidson, Misty Klann, Rick Powers, Vamshi Yellisetty Introductions: Misty and Rick provided a brief overview and purpose of the Study. The meeting was then open for discussion. -3- Prepared By: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Stakeholder Comments:                  Public transportation is needed from Peach Springs to Kingman to access stores, hospital, shopping, and other basic needs. Coordinate with Havasupai Tribe to discuss shared transit options. Regional transit coordination should include Kingman and Havasupai Tribe. Walking paths are needed in the Peach Springs area. Transit services are needed so parents can attend extracurricular activities of their children. There is a need for sidewalks in the local area, several students walk to school. Walking and bike trails would also be a benefit to the community. The Healthy Heart group is promoting exercise and trails would help. A roundabout at Route 66 and Diamond Creek Road should be evaluated to help slow down vehicles. Access to the ball fields is an issue, so most school sporting events are conducted and attended in the Kingman area. Tribal members use IR 18 - IR 17 (Youth Camp Road) to attend special events at the youth camp. This road is muddy and hard to travel especially during flooding events. The youth camp is scheduled for expansion that could result in more traffic. Lighting on Buck and Doe Road is important because it is dangerous for pedestrians to walk along the road at night. There was a night-time fatality last year. Lighting is needed on BIA Lane. Speed bumps or other means of traffic calming is needed on Buck and Doe by Music Mountain School. Cattle guard at Buck and Doe seems very slick when wet. Speed bumps are needed on Nelson Road to slow down traffic. Paving Antares Road and using that as the primary way to access GCW from Peach Springs would be a preferred option compared to Buck and Doe Road. Health Center vans accommodate 5 people and are wheel chair accessible. Dialysis patients are picked up at their houses and transported to Kingman. Service provided 3 days per week and twice per day. Non-medical users are charged $10 per roundtrip. A total of 5 vehicles are available, one new and four old vehicles. Other departments also load vehicles to the Health Center in case of emergencies. The Center sometimes provides local service also. Service to Phoenix is provided twice a week. Service to Las Vegas is provided two to three times a week. Service to Tuba City (to access specialized medical services at IHS facilities) is provided twice a month or more if needed. Sandra Irwin provided ridership summary reports to the Project Team (See Appendix E). Meeting 5 Summary: Tourism and Economic Development (February 13th, 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM) Attendees: Rory Majenty, Monty Dalton, Travissia Tapija, Isabihel Pacheco, Gerald Powsey, Skyler Tartsah, Peter Bungart, Kevin Davidson, Misty Klann, Rick Powers, Vamshi Yellisetty Introductions: Misty introduced the study and asked to participants to introduce themselves. Rick reviewed the study process and schedule. The meeting was then open for discussion. Stakeholder Comments:   IR 18 has really bad pavement conditions, no shoulders, and not enough signage Uneven road condition on Route 66 at Milepost 95 and in the vicinity of the bridge causes a severe bump. -4- Prepared By: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe             Tourist maps would benefit visitors since GPS/Online mapping systems such as Google Maps and Bing Maps are inaccurate especially with respect to driving directions. Adding information about attractions, road restrictions would be beneficial. Members expressed concern about showing all the Hualapai roads on a map. Showing only roads that are accessible to the general public is preferable to preserve cultural resources along minor roadways. At a minimum, IR 10, 11, 23, 67, 68, 3 and 15 should not be displayed on maps. Philip and Rory should work together to identify which roads should not be displayed on maps. IR 59 provides access to the sewage pond for GCW. GCW employs approximately 550 employees; 400 at Grand Canyon West; 100 at Skywalk; and 50 in Peach Springs. Grand Canyon West roads should be kept separate and not included in the inventory since they are not public roads and GCW can take on the maintenance of those roads. GCW operates two shuttle buses, each carrying 60 passengers each way daily. The service is so popular that people must arrive early to obtain a seat on the bus. If people miss the bus they also miss work for the day if they cannot find alternate transportation. Approximately 800,000 visitors come to GCW each year and this is a major economic operation for the Hualapai Tribe. Large signs on US 93 direct visitors to GCW but tourists still miss the turnoff to GCW. The GCW master plan study is also underway. Trails and bike paths are needed between Milkweed and Peach Springs. Railroad crossing at Valentine is hazardous. The crossing experiences 80 trains a day. Tribe should consult with BNSF about possibly rerouting the train tracks south of the reservation. Paving Antares Road and using that as the primary way to access GCW from Peach Springs would be a preferred option compared to Buck and Doe Road. Paving Buck and Doe Road would be extremely expensive and may not be financially feasible. This would also keep tourist traffic away from culturally sensitive roadways on the reservation. Flooding is an issue on Nelson Road by the limestone area. Meeting 6 Summary: Health and Emergency Services (February 13th, 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM) Attendees: Duane Clarke and Coby Covington representing Ronald Quasula Sr, Tricia Hunter, Kevin Davidson, Misty Klann, Rick Powers, Vamshi Yellisetty Introductions: Misty and Rick provided a brief overview and purpose of the Study. The meeting was then open for discussion. Stakeholder Comments:     Transit services are greatly needed in the community. About 17% of patients miss appointments due to the lack of transportation. Patients are refusing to be taken by ambulance to Kingman for emergency services because they do not have transportation back home. On an average, 20 patients are transferred to Kingman Hospital and about 5 of them refuse to go for treatment because of lack of transportation to get back. The Peach Springs Indian Health Center gets about 85 patients each day. The Center has 5 doctors and 6 nurses. Some patients walk to their appointments, so sidewalks would be helpful. -5- Prepared By: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe            Walking and bike paths would be beneficial. Speeding is a concern on Route 66 road through Peach Springs. Heavy train traffic can cause problems at the intersection of roads and at crossings. Overpass / underpass is needed at the railroad crossings in Peach Springs and Valentine. Emergency response to the other side of the track is delayed if the train blocks/stops at the crossing. There was a fatality on IR 18 about a year ago at MP 18. 8 of 10 crashes on IR 18 are animal related. Fencing is needed along the entire stretch of roadway. Most of the emergency calls are related to Route 66, IR 18, Buck and Doe, and IR 6 (Diamond Creek Road). Intersection improvements (left turn lanes, reduced speed signs, etc) at US 66/Hualapai Way and Route 66/Diamond Creek Road are needed. Police department was unsure how well a roundabout at Route 66/Diamond Creek Road would work in case of emergencies. They did agree that the traffic will definitely slow down. Peach Springs built a dialyses center but was unable to staff so patients must travel to Kingman for service. A new EMS/fire station is planned on Buck and Doe and at GCW. Paving Antares Road and using that as the primary way to access GCW from Peach Springs would be a preferred option compared to Buck and Doe Road. There are a lot of elk and animal related crashes on IR 18. More signage is required. IR 18 is the only roadway on the Tribe that does not require a permit to drive on the Tribal road. Meeting 7 Summary: Tribal Public Service Agencies (February 12th, 1:30 – 2:30 pm) Attendees: Michelle Zephier, Leo Watahomigie, Olin Beecher, Nuce Marshall, Stanley Dashee, Joseph T Ramo, Kevin Davidson, Misty Klann, Rick Powers, Vamshi Yellisetty Introductions: Misty introduced the study and asked to participants to introduce themselves. R Rick reviewed the study process and schedule. The meeting was then open for discussion. Stakeholder Comments:          IR 18, Route 66, Buck and Doe Road, and Antares Road are the primary roads used by tribal members. Diamond Creek Road can be maintained for the first 18 miles. The last mile is prone to flooding and hard to maintain. IR 18 needs delineators and reflectors for safe night travel. IR 18 could be a good candidate to apply for TIGER grant since that road is shared between two reservations and is the only way to access to Havasupai from Hualapai. Paving Antares Road and using that as the primary way to access GCW from Peach Springs would be a preferred option compared to Buck and Doe Road. Only minor improvements to Buck and Doe should be made. Continue blading the minor roads; no major improvements are needed. GPS/Online mapping systems often steer drivers along the wrong roads. Trails between Milkweed and Peach Springs would be beneficial. There is definitely a need for transit but the feasibility to maintain it in the future is questionable. The railroad overpass on Diamond Creek road is really needed for the community. -6- Prepared By: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe     Trucks speed along US 66. Street lighting is needed on Buck and Doe Road, road to the detention center, and other major roads the Peach Springs area. Tribal office areas would also benefit from lighting. There was mixed opinion on the use of a round-about at US 66 and Diamond Creek road. IR 18 MP 13-15 has sub grade problems and needs reconstructed. -7- Prepared By: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe SIGN IN SHEETS Prepared By: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE Prepared By: Please identify transportation issues, challenges, and needs in the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Also identify future growth areas. If necessary, please use the map on the back page to highlight areas you feel need improvement. Please submit comment forms to the project team at the end of the meeting or mail/email forms by Wednesday, February 27, 2014 to: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES Prepared By: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe STAKEHOLDER POWERPOINT PRESENTATION Prepared By: Click to edit Master title style Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Stakeholder Meetings 3/5/2014 February 12 - 13, 2014 1 Overview and Purpose Click to edit Master title style  Primary purpose of this study: • Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the multimodal transportation network within the Hualapai Indian Reservation. • Develop a three-phased Improvement Plan that promotes safety and mobility, supports economic development, and improves community livability. • Identify specific improvement strategies to address the transportation needs of the study area.  The study will: • Evaluate vehicular traffic congestion and circulation issues • Identify multimodal needs; pedestrian, bicycle, aviation, transit, and marine • Develop roadway design standards • Identify methods to preserve existing transportation infrastructure • Prepare a maintenance plan 3/5/2014 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe 2 2 STUDY AREA Click to edit Master title style 3/5/2014 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe 3 3 STUDY AREA (Continued) Click to edit Master title style 3/5/2014 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe 4 4 Study Expectations Click to edit Master title style What this study WILL do What this study WON’T do  Provide instantaneous  Identify current and future solutions to current transportation issues transportation deficiencies  Provide transportation  Recommend exact alignments recommendations and design drawings for any proposed new roads  Identify potential funding sources  Provide funding to implement  Provide the Tribe with a the recommendations phased transportation implementation plan  Conduct detailed environmental analysis 3/5/2014 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe 5 5 Study Approach and Schedule Click to edit Master title style Technical Advisory Committee Inventory Current and Future Conditions for All Travel Modes Obtain Stakeholder Input Forecast Future Conditions Identify Deficiencies and Forecast Future Needs Present to Stakeholders and Public Identify and Analyze Solutions Seek Input Recommend a Phased (Short, Mid, and Long) Improvement Plan Present to Stakeholders and Public Final Report Seek Input Hualapai Indian Tribe, ADOT, WACOG Project Milestones Project Start October 2013 Stakeholder Meeting 1 February 2014 Public Meeting 1 March/April 2014 Stakeholder Meeting 2 June 2014 3/5/2014 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Public Meeting 2 August 2014 Final Report October 2014 6 6 Socioeconomic Overview Click to edit Master title style Tribal Enrollment 2269 Population on Res. 1335 Minority 98% Elderly 6% Below Poverty 41% No Vehicle Households 16% Housing Units 422 Employment 870 3/5/2014 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe 7 7 Traffic Counts Click to edit Master title style 3/5/2014 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe 8 8 Posted Speed Vs Actual Travel Speed Click to edit Master title style 3/5/2014 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe 9 9 Key Issues Currently Identified Click to edit Master title style  Majority of roads on reservation are UNPAVED  Daily travel along unpaved roads has a significant wear and tear on vehicles and causes air quality issues  Excessive speeding and high crash rates  Lack of transit service within reservation and to regional activity centers  41% below poverty; 16% households without a vehicle  Lack of safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities  Route 66 through Peach Springs is used as an alternate route when I-40 is closed during crash related and emergency events  Access to nearest emergency medical facilities in Kingman  Traveling on tribal roads during adverse weather conditions is difficult  Drainage issues and low water crossings along several roadways can result in prohibiting road access certain communities  Grade separated crossings may be needed at railroad crossings along Diamond Creek Road (Peach Springs) and Valentine Way (Valentine). Trains pass at 15-20 minute intervals. 3/5/2014 10 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe 10 Stakeholder Questionnaire Click to edit Master title style Your Input is Needed 3/5/2014 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe 11 11 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe GAMYU ADVERTISEMENT Prepared By: Please Join Us Hualapai Indian Tribe Stakeholder Meetings Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe The Hualapai Indian Tribe in collaboration with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is developing the Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe. The plan will provide multimodal recommendations for the next 5, 10, and 20 years. Stakeholder input provides valuable insight into the Tribe’s existing transportation deficiencies and needs and recommendations for future improvements. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU Formal invitations will be emailed to stakeholders directly. Wednesday, February 12th • 9:00 – 10:30 am Environmental Agencies Thursday, February 13th • 9:00 – 10:30 am Economic Development • 10:30 am – 12:00 pm Non-Tribal Government Agencies • 10:30 am – 12:00 pm Health and Emergency Services • 1:30 – 3:00 pm Education and Youth Agencies • 1:30 – 3:00 pm Tribal Public Service Agencies Stakeholder meetings will be held at: Health, Education, and Wellness Center 488 Hualapai Way Peach Springs, AZ 86434 If you are able to attend please RSVP to: Kevin Davidson 928-769-1310 KDavidson@Hualapai-nsn.gov For More Information Contact: Philip Wisely, 928-769-2216 Kevin Davidson, 928- 769-1310 azdot.gov/planning/CurrentStudies/PARAStudies Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe RIDERSHIP SUMMARY FROM HEALTH CENTER Prepared By: APPENDIX D. STAKEHOLDER PHASE 2 SUMMARY REPORT Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Date: July 9 & 10, 2014 Time: 8:30 AM - 4:00 PM Location: Health, Education, and Wellness Center, 488 Hualapai Way, in Peach Springs, Arizona Stakeholder Meetings - Round 2 MEETING SUMMARIES PMT Work Session (July 9th, 8:30 am to 11:45 am) Attendees: Misty Klann, Rick Powers, Vamshi Yellisetty, Philip Wisely, Kevin Davidson, Richard Knott Rick and Vamshi presented the project evaluation and prioritization Criteria to the PMT. The evaluation categories include Safety, preservation/maintenance, mobility/accessibility, economic development, environmental impacts, and implementation feasibility. The evaluation and prioritization criterion was summarized by objective and performance measure with the impact rated high, medium or low. A sample project criteria and evaluation matrix was presented and discussed (see PowerPoint presentation).There was extensive discussion regarding the safety and the measurement of benefits and determination of the high, medium and low priorities. Vamshi indicated that the PMT and the TAC will need to provide input and feedback to assure these are the accurate ratings for the projects. The remainder of the improvements was presented to the PMT (see PowerPoint for details).          The PMT expressed the need for a quite zone through Peach Springs for the trains. Railroad overpass/under pass is big priority. The round-about looks like a good option but will probably be hard to get understanding and support from the community. Paving option of Antares is supported. The tribe is already planning improvements on Buck and Doe road to improve soft spots and curves. Route 18 has 19 miles of bad pavement; adjust the map on the PowerPoint. Antares Road, consider the road stabilizer option with chip seal in lieu of full AC paving. The county may not support fencing along Antares road. The Truxton Wash channel will be a challenge to bridge since it moves after flood events. Suggested that grid-tied solar lights be used for liability during power outages. PMT supported all other improvement recommendations. Lunch Meeting (February 12th, 12:00 – 1:15 pm) Elderly Center Attendees: 19 Senior Tribal Members, Misty Klann, Philip Wisely, Kevin Davidson, Rick Powers, Vamshi Yellisetty. Introductions: Misty introduced the study process and asked to participants to introduce themselves. Display boards were set up at the front of the lunch room. A project questionnaire hand was distributed and a brief overview of the potential recommendations was made by Phillip, the Senior Center director then translated the information in the native Hualapai language for the residents. -1- Prepared By: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Discussion Key Comments:     The attendees were interested in public transportation (transit) options and surprised there was not a strong demand. They were most interested in the improvements to the railroad crossing. Several comments and discussion on the noise the train whistle makes when going through town. Phillip indicated one of the recommendations is to establish a “quite zone” through town. The residents were not overly excited for the round-about alternative suggested for Diamond Creek and US 66. They did not understand this concept, but are concern about the amount of traffic that would need to pass this during I-40 re-route and is large trucks (doubles) would be able to make it through the intersection. Several of the residents completed comment sheets as summarized below:         The seniors were split on the US 66/Diamond Creek intersection slightly favoring the signal in lieu of the round-about. Pave Diamond Creek Road (10 miles). Railroad overpass is the TOP priority; there have been accidents near the railroad tracks. Overpass for cars in Valentine is needed to the cemetery. All were in favor of safety improvements including LED lighting, wildlife fencing and way finding signs. Tourist signs are needed. Need way finding by the lodge. Street lights are needed on all our roads. They were very supportive of sidewalks and pathways to be completed. Need sidewalk on Nelson Street. Sidewalks are needed on all local streets. Trails are needed for exercise purposes. Transit services are needed. Top priority is within Peach Springs, Peach Springs to GCW for work, Peach Springs to Kingman for shopping and medical, and Peach Spring to Valentine. Stakeholder Session 1 (Environmental/Cultural Departments) - July 9th, 1:15 PM to 2:30 PM Attendees: There were no participants for this stakeholder study session. Stakeholder Session 2 (Non-Tribal Government Agencies) - July 9th, 2:45 PM to 4:00 PM Attendees: Misty Klann, Rick Powers, Vamshi Yellisetty, Philip Wisely, Kevin Davidson, Kara Lavertue, Michelle Beggs, Walker & Craig Radborn - WACOG (phone) Rick and Vamshi gave a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the recommended improvement options.     ADOT was in favor of the round-about at the Diamond Creek/US 66 intersection, it would be the first one in the district. Additional right-of-way will be needed to implement this option. ADOT was opposed to painting “Historic Route 66” on the pavement, since tourists stop to take pictures causing safety concerns. ADOT noted the bridge surface repairs for US 66 are scheduled to be done soon. ADOT has completed vegetation removal and treatment along US 66. -2- Prepared By: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe       Utilization of wildlife fencing normally requires the installation of crossings to allow safe passage at culverts or other structures. ADOT Traffic section is in the process of updating the PGP to allow communities to use way finding signage. Street lighting is a big safety concern for the Peach Springs area. With the new federal funding Transportation Enhancement funds are combined and what little funds remain is very limited. Transit funding may be available but also may be limited. Show graphic of shelters with pullouts. Stakeholder Session 3 (Education, Youth, Housing, Recreation, and Other Departments) - July 10th, 9:00 AM to 10:15 AM Attendees: Misty Klann, Kevin Davidson, Rick Powers, Vamshi Yellisetty, Philbert Watahomigie (Hualapai Tribe), Ashley Pasqual & Sandy Smith from First Things First. Rick and Vamshi gave a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the recommended improvement options.         The community is in favor of sidewalks and pathways for the children. Priority is Diamond Creek Road and Hualapai Way due to high usage by school children and local community members. A path from Peach Springs to Buck and Doe is needed to connect the two communities. The group was split on the round-about option at US 66/Diamond Creek. Transit services are need, priority to get people to activities. Also need transportation from food bank to their homes. Street lighting is needed along Diamond Creek Road. Way Finding signs are needed throughout the community. Traffic calming on Diamond creek, especially near the school is needed. Need safe locations for bus stops. Pedestrian safety crossing the railroad tracks is a big need. Stakeholder Session 4 (Tourism and Economic Development; Emergency Services) - July 10th, 10:30 AM to 11:45 AM Attendees: This study session was canceled and will be rescheduled at a later date. END OF STAKEHOLDER MEETING SUMMARY -3- Prepared By: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Sign-In Sheets Prepared By: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Stakeholder Questionnaire Prepared By: Please rank the following transit service options Service Area Trip Purpose Priority (medical, work, shopping, etc.) Within Peach Springs Peach Springs - Valentine Peach Springs – Grand Canyon West Peach Springs – Kingman Your input will help us develop a better transportation improvement plan. Please review and complete each section. Feel free to utilize the last page to provide any additional comments. Kingman – Grand Canyon West Peach Springs – Phoenix Peach Springs – Las Vegas Peach Springs – Laughlin Peach Springs – Flagstaff Which of these intersection options would you like to see? (Please mark your preference) State Route 66/Diamond Creek Road Option 1 :Traffic Signal Comments: Option 2: Roundabout •New traffic signal •Restripe lanes •Crosswalks and sidewalks Advantages •No additional ROW •No learning curve for motorists •Improves safety Do you have additional comments? Disadvantages •High maintenance costs •May not reduce speeding •Loss of on-street parking •One-lane roundabout •Pedestrian refuge islands •Crosswalks and sidewalks Advantages •Forces drivers to slow down on approach •Improves safety •Provides opportunities for landscaping Disadvantages •May need additional ROW •High implementation costs •Loss of on-street parking What type of roadway safety improvements would you like to see, and where? Please submit comment forms at the end of the meeting or mail/email forms by July 25, 2014 to: Misty Klann Philip Wisely Hualapai Indian Tribe Email: pwisely@hualapai-nsn.gov Mail: P.O. Box 179; Peach Springs, AZ 86434 Arizona Department of Transportation Email: mklann@azdot.gov Mail: ADOT – Multimodal Planning Division 206 South 17th Avenue, MD 310B; Phoenix, AZ 85007 Street Lighting Wildlife Fencing Road and Wayfinding Signs • Dark skies friendly, LED lighting • Moderate maintenance costs • Restricts wildlife from entering right-of-way • Provides motorists/tourists with navigational information Top 3 Priority Locations: Top 3 Priority Locations: Top 3 Priority Locations: YOUR THOUGHTS, IDEAS, AND COMMENTS YOUR THOUGHTS, IDEAS, AND COMMENTS What type of traffic calming countermeasures would you like to see, and where? What pedestrian, bicycle, and trail facilities would you like to see? Please prioritize below. Pavement Markings Flashing Speed Sign In-Road Rumble Strips Double Chicane • Highly visible pavement markings that are also visible at night • Alerts drivers of their vehicle speed • Grooves in the roadway surface designed to alert drivers • Curved raised medians designed to slow down vehicles Diamond Bar Road State Route 66 (Valentine) State Route 66 (Peach Springs) 45 to ___mph 65 to ___mph 45 to ___mph Supai Road Other Locations Pavement Markings Flashing Speed Sign Rumble Strips Double Chicane Reduce Speed 50 to ___mph Other: What railroad crossing improvements would you like to see? Flashing Light Signal Valentine Valentine Cemetery Rd Pedestrian Bridge Diamond Creek Road Valentine Comments: Automatic Gates Valentine Valentine Cemetery Rd Railroad Overpass 1 2 3 Sidewalks or shared-use paths Diamond Creek Road Hualapai Way Nelson Road Residential Streets (Peach Springs) South of SR 66 (Peach Springs) Reason Priority Reason SR 66: To Juvenile Detention Center SR 66: Peach Springs to Buck and Doe Road Buck and Doe Road Quiet Zone Diamond Creek Road Valentine Priority 1 Diamond Creek Road (~ $3.7 million) 2 Rodeo Way to State Route 66 (~ $3.8 million) 3 Rodeo Circle to Nelson Road (~ $2.2 million) Milkweed Springs Road Valentine Other: Trails Trail Connection to Milkweed Springs Road Trail System: East of Diamond Creek Road Trail System: West of Diamond Creek Road Trail System: North of Peach Springs Other: Long Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Stakeholder Questionnaire Responses Prepared By: APPENDIX E. BIA TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION INVENTORY UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Hualapai Indian Tribe Final Report Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Summary of Proposed BIA Road System Mileage Revisions Miles Existing BIA DOT Inventory 675.0 Roads to be Added to BIA System 0 Roads to be Deleted from BIA System -23.4 Mileage Correction to BIA System 12.7 Proposed BIA Road System 664.3 Summary of Proposed Tribal Road System Mileage Revisions Miles Existing Tribal System Inventory 3.8 Roads to be Added to Tribal System 144.2 Roads to be Deleted from Tribal System -3.5 Mileage Correction to Tribal System 0.7 Proposed BIA Road System 145.2 Summary of Proposed Non-BIA Road System Mileage Revisions Miles Existing BIA DOT Inventory 15 Roads to be Added to BIA System 116.5 Roads to be Deleted from BIA System 0 Mileage Correction to Tribal System -14.1 Proposed BIA Road System 117.4 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Miles of Road by Organizational Responsibility and Surface Type H - Western H68 - Truxton Canyon H68606 - Hualapai Mileage* (mi) with CN of 0, 1, 2, or 3 Classified by Existing Surface Type Code Ownership 1 - BIA 2 - Tribe 3 - State 4 - Urban 8 - Other 7 - Other Federal 6 - Other BIA Offices 5 - County And Township Total Mileage* (mi) with CN = 4 Classified by Future Surface Type Code Proposed** (0) Earth (1) Gravel (3) < 2 inch (4) > 2 inch (5) Concrete (6) Trail (9) None (null) Earth (E) Gravel (G) Paved (P) None (null) 5.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 374.8 129.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.2 33.0 4.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.2 0.0 69.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 181.8 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 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 16.3 543.7 38.5 0.4 146.0 0.2 181.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (mi) CN 0 1 2 3 4 Bridges Count Length (ft) 664.3 145.2 70.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.6 24 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 864.0 26.0 1,521.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 926.9 50.0 2,411.0 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Miles of Road by Class and Organizational Responsibility H - Western H68 - Truxton Canyon H68606 - Hualapai Mileage* (mi) Classified According to Class Code with class 11 (overlap) excluded* Ownership 1 - BIA 2 - Tribe 3 - State 4 - Urban 8 - Other 7 - Other Federal 6 - Other BIA Offices 5 - County And Township Total Major Arterial (1) Rural Minor Arterial (2) City Local (3) Rural Major Collector (4) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural Local (5) City Minor Arterial (6) City Collector (7) 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 12.1 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.8 0.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.3 526.8 129.6 67.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.1 15.7 135.4 731.2 2.0 Total Mileage (mi) Trail (8) Other Trans Fac (9) Airstrip (10) None (null) Classes 1234 567 8 Classes 9 10 none Classes 12345 6 7 5 9 10 none 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 11.3 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 662.5 145.1 70.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 662.5 145.1 70.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.6 2.4 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 925.1 0.0 925.1 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 40 40 40 50 50 50 60 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Surface Type 5 5 5 5 3 3 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 010 015 020 022 024 025 026 027 028 030 040 042 044 050 052 054 060 070 080 090 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 Class Inventory Update 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Inventory Update TOTAL BIA SYSTEM 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Length 3.1 3.1 0.3 0.4 11.9 11.9 Constr. Need 1 0 1 1 0 4 0.8 0.8 3 3 1 1 4 4 4 4 1.4 1.4 3 3 1 1 4 0.4 0.4 3 3 1 1 4 4 0.5 0.5 3 3 1 0 4 4 4 4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 2 2 4 4 4 28.8 2.4 1.2 28.6 2.2 0 1 5 5 1 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 4 0.6 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.7 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.4 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.3 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.3 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.1 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.2 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 2.7 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 1.3 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 2 4 4 0.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 1 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 4 0.5 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.8 0.0 1 0 0 2 4 0.2 0.0 1 0 0 2 4 1.3 0.0 1 0 0 2 4 0.2 0.0 5 3 5 3 5 3 3 1 0 0 Section Name Buck and Doe Road Buck and Doe Road H900 Buck and Doe Road H901 Buck and Doe Road H902 Buck and Doe Road H232 Buck and Doe Road H903 Buck and Doe Road Buck and Doe Road H904 Buck and Doe Road Diamond Bar Road Diamond Bar Road H920 Diamond Bar Road H921 Diamond Bar Road H922 Diamond Bar Road H923 Diamond Bar Road H924 Diamond Bar Road H925 Diamond Bar Road H926 Diamond Bar Road H927 Diamond Bar Road H928 Diamond Bar Road H929 H930 Diamond Bar Road Diamond Bar Road H931 Diamond Bar Road H932 Diamond Bar Road H933 Diamond Bar Road H934 Diamond Bar Road H935 Diamond Bar Road Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Subtotal 0002 010 0002 020 0002 030 0002 040 Subtotal 0003 010 Subtotal 0004 010 Subtotal 0005 010 0005 020 0005 030 0005 040 Subtotal 0006 010 Subtotal 007 010 Subtotal 0008 010 Subtotal 0009 010 0009 020 0009 030 Subtotal 0010 010 0010 020 Subtotal 0011 010 Subtotal 0012 010 0012 020 0012 030 Subtotal 0013 010 0013 020 0013 030 0013 040 0013 050 Subtotal 0014 010 0014 020 Subtotal 0015 010 Subtotal 0002 0002 10 20 0002 Class Length 63.6 50.2 40 5 5 11 5 5 4 1.5 2.6 0.8 1.4 6.3 4 0003 10 5 0004 10 0005 0005 0005 0005 1.4 5.6 4 8.2 8.2 5 4 10 20 30 40 5 5 5 5 0006 10 0007 8.3 8.3 6.9 6.9 4 4 4 4 5 10 0008 1 1 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Surface Type 1 1 1 1 Constr. Need 1 1 Section Name 1 1 1 0 1 1 Clay Springs Ranch Road Clay Springs Ranch Road Clay Springs Ranch Road Clay Springs Ranch Road 1 1 1 1 Meriwitka Road 6.4 6.4 3 9 1 1 Jackson Tank Road 5.2 2.6 7.7 11.8 27.3 5.5 2.6 7.2 11.8 27.1 1 1 1 1 9 1 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bridge Canyon Road Bridge Canyon Road Bridge Canyon Road Bridge Canyon Road 4 17.8 17.8 17.4 17.4 1 1 1 1 Diamond Creek Road 4 4 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.4 5 5 1 1 Buck and Doe Road 10 5 4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 1 1 1 1 Milkweed Road 0009 0009 0009 10 20 30 5 5 5 4 4 4 4.0 2.0 1.8 7.8 4 2 0.7 6.7 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mudd Tank Road Mudd Tank Road Mudd Tank Road 0010 0010 10 20 5 5 4 4 11.7 20 31.7 11.4 19.8 31.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0011 10 5 4 25.4 25.4 25.3 25.3 1 1 1 1 Township Corner Road 0012 0012 0012 10 20 30 5 11 5 4 9.9 0.3 13.2 23.4 9.9 1 9 1 0 1 1 13.3 23.2 1 1 1 1 National Road National Road National Road 0013 0013 0013 0013 0013 10 10 10 10 10 5 11 5 11 5 4 4 4 4 4 6.6 0.3 4.3 0.3 4.6 16.1 6.6 0.3 4.3 0.3 9.6 21.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Manzanita Road Manzanita Road Manzanita Road Manzanita Road Manzanita Road 0014 0014 10 20 5 5 4 4 3.1 5.3 8.4 3.1 5.2 8.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dyke Tank Road Dyke Tank Road 0015 10 5 4 9.0 9.0 9.2 9.2 1 1 1 1 Oak Tank Road 4 1.6 2.6 Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval 0016 010 Subtotal 0017 010 Subtotal 0018 010 0018 020 0018 030 0018 040 0018 050 Subtotal 0019 010 0019 012 0019 014 0019 020 0019 060 0019 070 Subtotal 0020 010 Subtotal 0021 010 Subtotal 0022 010 Subtotal 0023 010 Subtotal 0024 010 Subtotal 0025 010 Subtotal 0026 010 Subtotal 0027 010 Subtotal 0028 010 0028 020 0028 020 Subtotal 0029 010 Subtotal 0030 010 Subtotal 0031 010 0031 020 Subtotal 0032 010 Subtotal 0033 010 Subtotal Class Length 6.5 6.4 6.5 6.4 Surface Type 1 1 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Constr. Need 1 1 Section Name 0016 10 5 4 Hog Tank Road 0017 10 5 4 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 1 1 1 1 Youth Camp Road 0018 0018 0018 0018 0018 10 20 30 40 50 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 21.3 21.1 5 5 1 1 0.4 0.3 5 5 1 1 18.3 40.0 18.5 39.9 5 5 1 1 Supai Road H233 Supai Road H234 Supai Road 0019 0019 0019 0019 0019 0019 10 10 10 20 60 60 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.3 0.0 2.6 0.5 0.6 1.9 7.9 2.3 0.8 2.6 0.4 0.5 1.9 8.5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Nelson Road Nelson Road Nelson Road Nelson Road Nelson Road Nelson Road 0020 10 5 4 5.5 5.5 5.1 5.1 1 1 1 1 0021 10 5 4 3.8 3.8 5.3 5.3 1 1 1 1 XI Road 0022 10 5 4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 1 1 1 1 Pine Springs Road 0023 10 5 4 9.0 9.0 9.3 9.3 1 1 1 1 Ridenour Road 0024 10 5 4 14.0 14.0 14 14.0 1 1 1 1 Turkey Tank Road 0025 10 5 4 15.3 15.3 14.8 14.8 9 9 1 1 Sink Tank Road 0026 10 5 4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 9 9 1 1 Mohawk Road 0027 10 5 4 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 1 1 1 1 Wild Horse Canyon Road 0028 0028 0028 10 20 20 5 5 11 4 4 7.6 2.9 0.1 10.6 7.4 2.8 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 10.2 9 9 9 Lower Lagoon Road Lower Lagoon Road Lower Lagoon Road 0029 10 5 4 5.7 5.7 4.7 4.7 1 1 1 1 DS Tank Road 0030 10 5 4 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 1 1 1 1 Bear Tank Road 0031 0031 10 20 5 5 4 4 4.5 2.2 6.7 2.6 3.2 5.8 1 9 1 9 1 1 1 1 Limestone Road Limestone Road 0032 10 5 4 4.8 4.8 5.1 5.1 1 1 1 1 Boston Patch Road 0033 10 5 4 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 9 9 1 1 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval 0034 010 Subtotal 0035 010 Subtotal 0036 010 Subtotal 0037 010 Subtotal 0038 010 Subtotal 0039 010 Subtotal Subtotal 0041 010 Subtotal 0042 010 0042 020 0042 030 Subtotal 0043 010 Subtotal 0044 010 Subtotal 0045 010 Subtotal 0056 010 Subtotal Subtotal 0059 010 Subtotal 0063 010 Subtotal 0064 010 Subtotal 0065 010 Subtotal 0067 010 Subtotal 0068 010 Subtotal 0069 010 Subtotal 0072 010 Subtotal 0074 010 Subtotal Class Length 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 Surface Type 9 9 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Constr. Need 1 1 0034 10 5 4 0035 10 5 4 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 9 9 1 1 0036 10 5 4 9.3 9.3 8.5 8.5 1 1 1 1 0037 10 5 4 4.9 4.9 5 5.0 9 9 1 1 0038 10 5 4 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9 9 1 1 0039 10 5 4 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 1 1 1 1 0040 10 0041 10 5 4 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.6 9 9 0042 0042 0042 10 20 30 5 5 5 4 4 4 5.2 0.8 0.9 6.9 5.1 1.4 0.6 7.1 9 9 9 0043 10 3 3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0044 10 5 4 1.4 1.4 0045 10 5 4 0056 10 5 4 0058 10 0059 10 5 4 0063 10 5 0064 10 0065 Section Name Limestone Tank Road 1 DELETE 1 1 Pipeline Road 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 1 1 1.5 1.5 9 9 1 1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 9 9 1 1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 9 9 1 1 2.3 2.3 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1 1 1 1 4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 1 1 1 1 5 4 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 1 1 1 1 10 5 4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 1 1 1 0067 10 5 4 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 9 9 1 1 0068 10 5 4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1 1 1 1 0069 10 5 4 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 9 9 1 1 0072 10 5 4 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 9 9 1 1 0074 10 5 4 5.6 5.6 5.8 5.8 1 1 1 1 4 1.1 1.1 4 1 Peach Springs Cemetery Road DELETE Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval 0075 010 Subtotal 0076 010 Subtotal 0077 010 Subtotal 0078 010 Subtotal 0082 010 Subtotal 0084 010 0084 020 0084 030 Subtotal 0089 010 Subtotal 0092 010 Subtotal 0097 010 Subtotal 0098 010 Subtotal 0099 010 Subtotal 0101 010 0101 020 0101 030 0101 040 0101 050 0101 060 0101 070 0101 080 0101 090 0101 100 0101 110 0101 120 0101 130 0101 140 0101 150 0101 160 0101 170 0101 180 0101 190 0101 200 0101 210 0101 220 0101 225 0101 230 0101 240 0101 250 0101 260 Class Length 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 Surface Type 9 9 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Constr. Need 1 1 0075 10 5 4 0076 10 5 4 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.7 9 9 1 1 0077 10 5 4 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 9 9 1 1 0078 10 5 4 3.3 3.3 2.8 2.8 9 9 1 1 0082 10 5 4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 9 9 1 1 0084 0084 0084 10 20 30 5 5 5 4 4 4 1.8 4.4 1.1 7.3 1.8 4.8 1.2 7.8 9 9 1 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0089 10 5 4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1 1 1 1 0092 10 5 4 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 9 9 1 1 0087 10 5 4 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.7 9 9 1 1 0098 10 5 4 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 1 1 1 1 0099 10 5 4 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 9 9 1 1 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 220 230 240 250 260 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 7 7 7 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 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 1 1 1 5 1 5 5 1 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 5 1 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Section Name Honaga Hill Road Honaga Hill Road Shandy Lane Shandy Lane Wahanda Way Hualapai Way Hualapai Drive Indian Way Diamond Creek Road High View Drive High View Drive Canyon View Drive Oak Drive Pine Street Tall Pine Street Eagle Street Coyote Street Blue Mountain Street Mesa View Drive Diamond Creek Circle Rodeo Way Rodeo Way Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval 0101 270 0101 280 0101 290 0101 300 0101 310 Subtotal 0103 010 0103 020 0103 030 0103 040 0103 050 0103 052 0103 054 0103 060 0103 070 0103 080 Subtotal 0104 010 0104 020 0104 030 Subtotal 1010 010 Subtotal 1020 010 Subtotal 1110 010 Subtotal 1310 010 Subtotal 1320 010 Subtotal 1330 010 1330 020 Subtotal 1340 010 Subtotal 1510 010 Subtotal 1710 010 1710 020 1710 030 Subtotal 1720 010 Subtotal 1730 010 Subtotal 1740 010 Subtotal Class 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 270 280 290 300 310 3 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0103 0103 0103 0103 0103 0103 0103 0103 0103 0103 10 20 30 40 50 50 50 60 70 80 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0104 0104 0104 10 20 30 1010 Length 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Surface Type 5 5 5 5 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Constr. Need 1 1 1 1 0.3 0.3 9.3 0.3 0.2 9.2 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.7 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.6 1 6 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 9 1 6 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 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.7 0.1 1.5 2.3 0.7 0.1 1.5 2.3 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 5 4 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.5 1 1 1 1 1020 10 5 4 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 1 1 1 1 1110 10 5 4 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.8 1 1 1 1 1310 10 5 4 8.0 8.0 9.3 9.3 9 9 1 1 1320 10 5 4 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 9 9 1 1 1330 1330 10 20 5 5 4 4 1.7 0.2 1.9 1.7 0.2 1.9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1340 10 5 4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 9 9 1 1 1510 10 5 4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 9 9 1 1 1710 1710 10 20 5 5 5 4 4 1.6 2.5 0.4 4.5 1.6 2.5 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.1 9 1 9 1720 10 5 4 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 9 9 1 1 1730 10 5 4 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 9 9 1 1 1740 10 5 4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1 1 1 1 Section Name Diamond Creek Road H940 Nelson Road Music Mountain Road Music Mountain Circle Milkweed Springs Road Manzanita Point Road Oak Tank Road Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval 1810 010 Subtotal 1820 010 1820 020 Subtotal 1830 010 Subtotal 1840 010 Subtotal 1850 010 Subtotal 1860 010 Subtotal 1870 010 Subtotal 1880 010 Subtotal 2410 010 Subtotal 2420 010 Subtotal 2430 010 Subtotal 3110 010 Subtotal 3120 010 Subtotal 3130 010 Subtotal 3140 010 Subtotal 3150 010 Subtotal 3210 010 Subtotal 3610 010 Subtotal 3620 010 Subtotal 3630 010 Subtotal 3810 010 Subtotal 5010 010 Subtotal 5020 010 Subtotal 5030 010 Subtotal Class Length 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Surface Type 3 3 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Constr. Need 1 1 1810 10 5 4 1820 1820 10 10 5 5 4 4 2.1 0.6 2.7 2.1 0.8 2.9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1830 10 5 4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 9 9 1 1 1840 10 5 4 2.3 2.3 3.4 3.4 1 1 1 1 1850 10 5 4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 9 9 1 1 1860 10 5 4 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 9 9 1 1 1870 10 5 4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1 1 1 1 1880 10 5 4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 9 9 1 1 2410 10 5 4 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 1 1 1 1 2420 10 5 4 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.1 1 1 1 1 2430 10 5 4 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1 1 1 1 3110 10 5 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1 1 1 3120 10 5 4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 9 9 1 1 3130 10 5 4 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 9 9 1 1 3140 10 5 4 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 9 9 1 1 3150 10 5 4 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 9 9 1 1 3210 10 5 4 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1 1 1 1 3610 10 5 4 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.8 9 9 1 1 3620 10 5 4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 9 9 1 1 3630 10 5 4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 9 9 1 1 3810 10 5 4 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 9 9 1 1 5010 10 5 4 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 9 9 1 1 5020 10 5 4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 9 9 1 1 5030 10 5 4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 9 9 1 1 Section Name Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval 5040 010 Subtotal Subtotal 5910 010 Subtotal 6610 010 Subtotal 6620 010 Subtotal Subtotal 8910 010 Subtotal 9210 010 Subtotal 9810 010 Subtotal 9820 010 Subtotal 9830 010 Subtotal 9840 010 Subtotal 9910 010 Subtotal Class 5 4 Length 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 Surface Type 9 9 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Constr. Need 1 1 Section Name 5040 10 5720 10 5910 10 5 4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 9 9 1 1 6610 10 5 4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 9 9 1 1 6620 10 8 8 5.0 5.0 5 5.0 0 0 4 4 Yampai Canyon Loop Trail 7010 10 5 4 4 DELETE 8910 10 5 4 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 1 9210 10 5 4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 9 9 1 1 9810 10 5 4 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 9 9 1 1 9820 10 5 4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 9 9 1 1 9830 10 5 4 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 9 9 1 1 9840 10 5 4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 9 9 1 1 9910 10 5 4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 9 9 1 1 8 15 15.0 0 5 5.0 Total BIA System 664.3 4 0 DELETE 675.0 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING 0001 015 0001 054 0001 060 0001 070 0001 080 0001 090 0001 100 0001 110 0001 120 0001 130 0001 140 0001 150 0001 160 0001 170 0001 180 0001 190 0001 200 0001 210 0001 220 0001 230 0001 240 0001 250 0001 260 0001 270 0001 280 0001 290 0001 300 0001 310 0001 320 0001 330 0001 340 0001 350 0001 360 0001 370 0001 380 0001 390 Subtotal 0002 030 0002 010 Subtotal 0003 010 Subtotal 0004 010 Subtotal 0005 010 0005 030 Subtotal 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 10 50 60 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Class Existing DOT 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 0.6 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.7 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.4 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.3 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.3 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.1 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.2 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 2.7 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 1.3 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 2 4 4 0.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 1 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 4 0.5 0.0 5 1 0 0 2 4 0.8 0.0 1 0 0 2 4 0.2 0.0 1 0 0 2 4 1.3 0.0 1 0 0 2 4 0.2 44.6 0.0 31.2 5 3 5 3 5 3 3 1 0 0 Buck and Doe Road Buck and Doe Road Diamond Bar Road Diamond Bar Road H920 Diamond Bar Road H921 Diamond Bar Road H922 Diamond Bar Road H923 Diamond Bar Road H924 Diamond Bar Road H925 Diamond Bar Road H926 Diamond Bar Road H927 Diamond Bar Road H928 Diamond Bar Road H929 H930 Diamond Bar Road Diamond Bar Road H931 Diamond Bar Road H932 Diamond Bar Road H933 Diamond Bar Road H934 Diamond Bar Road H935 Diamond Bar Road 1 1 1 0 1 1 Clay Springs Ranch Road Clay Springs Ranch Road 0002 10 11 5 0003 10 5 4 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 1 1 1 1 Meriwitka Road 0004 10 5 4 6.9 6.9 6.4 6.4 3 9 1 1 Jackson Tank Road 0005 0005 10 30 5 5 4 4 5.2 7.7 12.9 5.5 7.2 12.7 1 1 9 9 1 1 1 1 Bridge Canyon Road Bridge Canyon Road 5 1.6 1.6 Constr. Need 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Section Name Length 0.3 0.4 28.8 28.6 2.4 2.2 1.2 0 0.8 1.5 2.3 Surface Type 5 5 1 1 5 5 5 1 Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update MILEAGE CORRECTION TO THE THE BIA SYSTEM Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval 0006 010 Subtotal 007 010 Subtotal 0008 010 Subtotal 0009 030 Subtotal 0010 010 0010 020 Subtotal 0011 010 Subtotal 0012 020 0012 030 Subtotal 0013 050 Subtotal 0014 020 Subtotal 0015 010 Subtotal 0016 010 Subtotal 0018 010 0018 030 0018 050 Subtotal 0019 012 0019 020 0019 060 Subtotal 0020 010 Subtotal 0021 010 Subtotal 0022 010 Subtotal 0023 010 Subtotal 0025 010 Subtotal 0026 010 Subtotal 0028 010 0028 020 0028 020 Subtotal Class Length 17.8 17.4 17.8 17.4 Surface Type 1 1 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Inventory Update Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Constr. Need 1 1 Section Name 0006 10 5 4 Diamond Creek Road 0007 10 4 4 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.4 5 5 1 1 Buck and Doe Road 0008 10 5 4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 1 1 1 1 Milkweed Road 0009 30 5 4 1.8 1.8 0.7 0.7 1 9 1 1 Mudd Tank Road 0010 0010 10 20 5 5 4 4 11.7 20 31.7 11.4 19.8 31.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0011 10 5 4 25.4 25.4 25.3 25.3 1 1 1 1 Township Corner Road 0012 0012 20 30 11 5 4 1 1 9 0 1 1 National Road National Road 0013 10 5 0014 20 0015 0.3 13.2 13.5 13.3 13.3 4 4.6 4.6 9.6 9.6 1 1 1 1 Manzanita Road 5 4 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 1 1 1 1 Dyke Tank Road 10 5 4 9.0 9.0 9.2 9.2 1 1 1 1 Oak Tank Road 0016 10 5 4 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.4 1 1 1 1 Hog Tank Road 0018 0018 0018 10 30 50 4 4 4 4 4 4 21.3 0.4 18.3 40.0 21.1 0.3 18.5 39.9 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 Supai Road Supai Road Supai Road 0019 0019 0019 10 20 60 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.0 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.5 1.7 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Nelson Road Nelson Road Nelson Road 0020 10 5 4 5.5 5.5 5.1 5.1 1 1 1 1 0021 10 5 4 3.8 3.8 5.3 5.3 1 1 1 1 XI Road 0022 10 5 4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 1 1 1 1 Pine Springs Road 0023 10 5 4 9.0 9.0 9.3 9.3 1 1 1 1 Ridenour Road 0025 10 5 4 15.3 15.3 14.8 14.8 9 9 1 1 Sink Tank Road 0026 10 5 4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 9 9 1 1 Mohawk Road 0028 0028 0028 10 20 20 5 5 11 4 4 7.6 2.9 0.1 10.6 7.4 2.8 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 Lower Lagoon Road Lower Lagoon Road Lower Lagoon Road 10.2 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval 0029 010 Subtotal 0031 010 0031 020 Subtotal 0032 010 Subtotal 0033 010 Subtotal 0035 010 Subtotal 0036 010 Subtotal 0037 010 Subtotal 0041 010 Subtotal 0042 010 0042 020 0042 030 Subtotal 0043 010 Subtotal 0044 010 Subtotal 0059 010 Subtotal 0063 010 Subtotal 0067 010 Subtotal 0068 010 Subtotal 0074 010 Subtotal 0075 010 Subtotal 0076 010 Subtotal 0078 010 Subtotal 0082 010 Subtotal 0084 020 0084 030 Subtotal 0097 010 Subtotal 0101 010 0101 080 0101 230 0101 310 Subtotal Class Length 5.7 4.7 5.7 4.7 Surface Type 1 1 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Inventory Update Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Constr. Need 1 1 Section Name 0029 10 5 4 DS Tank Road 0031 0031 10 20 5 5 4 4 4.5 2.2 6.7 2.6 3.2 5.8 1 9 1 9 1 1 1 1 Limestone Road Limestone Road 0032 10 5 4 4.8 4.8 5.1 5.1 1 1 1 1 Boston Patch Road 0033 10 5 4 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 9 9 1 1 0035 10 5 4 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 9 9 1 1 0036 10 5 4 9.3 9.3 8.5 8.5 1 1 1 1 0037 10 5 4 4.9 4.9 5 5.0 9 9 1 1 0041 10 5 4 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.6 9 9 1 1 0042 0042 0042 10 20 30 5 5 5 4 4 4 5.2 0.8 0.9 6.9 5.1 1.4 0.6 7.1 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 0043 10 3 3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 9 9 1 1 0044 10 5 4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 9 9 1 1 0059 10 5 4 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1 1 1 1 0063 10 5 4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 1 1 1 1 0067 10 5 4 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 9 9 1 1 0068 10 5 4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1 1 1 1 0074 10 5 4 5.6 5.6 5.8 5.8 1 1 1 1 0075 10 5 4 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 9 9 1 1 0076 10 5 4 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.7 9 9 1 1 0078 10 5 4 3.3 3.3 2.8 2.8 9 9 1 1 0082 10 5 4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 9 9 1 1 0084 0084 20 30 5 5 4 4 4.4 1.1 5.5 4.8 1.2 6.0 9 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 0087 10 5 4 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.7 9 9 1 1 0101 0101 0101 0101 10 80 230 310 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.4 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.3 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Limestone Tank Road Pipeline Road Peach Springs Cemetery Road Honaga Hill Road Hualapai Drive Nelson Road Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval 0103 052 0103 054 0103 070 Subtotal 1010 010 Subtotal 1020 010 Subtotal 1110 010 Subtotal 1310 010 Subtotal 1320 010 Subtotal 1710 030 Subtotal 1820 020 Subtotal 1830 010 Subtotal 1840 010 Subtotal 1860 010 Subtotal 2410 010 Subtotal 2420 010 Subtotal 3120 010 Subtotal 3130 010 Subtotal 3140 010 Subtotal 3610 010 Subtotal 5010 010 Subtotal 5030 010 Subtotal 5910 010 Subtotal 6610 010 Subtotal 9840 010 Subtotal Class Length 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 Surface Type 6 1 1 1 1 1 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Inventory Update Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Constr. Need 1 1 1 1 1 1 0103 0103 0103 50 50 70 3 3 3 3 3 3 1010 10 5 4 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.5 1 1 1 1 1020 10 5 4 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 1 1 1 1 1110 10 5 4 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.8 1 1 1 1 1310 10 5 4 8.0 8.0 9.3 9.3 9 9 1 1 1320 10 5 4 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 9 9 1 1 0.4 0.4 0.0 5 9 Manzanita Point Road 1 1820 10 5 4 0.6 2.7 0.8 2.9 9 9 1 1 1830 10 5 4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 9 9 1 1 1840 10 5 4 2.3 2.3 3.4 3.4 1 1 1 1 1860 10 5 4 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 9 9 1 1 2410 10 5 4 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 1 1 1 1 2420 10 5 4 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.1 1 1 1 1 3120 10 5 4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 9 9 1 1 3130 10 5 4 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 9 9 1 1 3140 10 5 4 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 9 9 1 1 3610 10 5 4 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.8 9 9 1 1 5010 10 5 4 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 9 9 1 1 5030 10 5 4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 9 9 1 1 5910 10 5 4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 9 9 1 1 6610 10 5 4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 9 9 1 1 9840 10 5 4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 9 9 1 1 Mileage Correction in Tribal System Section Name 12.7 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Class Length 1.1 1.1 Surface Type 1 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update TO BE DELETED FROM THE BIA SYSTEM Constr. Need 1 Section Name 0040 10 4 0058 10 4 2.3 2.3 1 1 DELETE 5720 10 8 15.0 15.0 0 4 DELETE 7010 10 4 5.0 5.0 0 4 DELETE Total to be Deleted from BIA System 23.4 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING 0002 050 Subtotal 0017 020 0017 030 Subtotal 0033 020 Subtotal 0035 020 Subtotal 0038 020 Subtotal Subtotal 0061 010 Subtotal 0066 010 Subtotal 0079 010 Subtotal 0091 010 0091 020 Subtotal 0101 320 0101 330 0101 340 0101 350 0101 360 Subtotal 0103 090 0103 100 0103 110 Subtotal 0104 040 0104 050 Subtotal 0105 010 0105 020 Subtotal 0111 010 0111 020 Subtotal 0112 010 Subtotal 0113 010 Subtotal 0131 010 0131 020 Subtotal Class 10 0061 10 Surface Type 1 Constr. Need 1 11 5 0.1 1.0 1.1 1 1 1 1 5 1.3 1.3 1 1 5 3.0 3.0 1 1 5 0.4 0.4 1 1 4 5 4 3.5 3.5 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 5 3 1 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Length 0.6 0.6 5 0057 Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update TOTAL TRIBAL SYSTEM 2 5 1.0 1.0 1 1 5 1.4 1.4 1 1 5 5 4.2 1.0 5.3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 0.1 0.1 1 1 0.1 0.1 0.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 0.3 0.4 0.7 3 3 1 1 5 5 0.2 2.2 2.4 3 3 1 1 5 5 1.9 0.2 2.0 1 1 1 1 5 1.3 1.3 1 1 5 0.7 0.7 1 1 5 5 4.6 1.1 5.7 1 1 1 1 Section Name Youth Camp Road Youth Camp Road 2 DELETE 2 Diamond Creek Road Milkweed Road 1 H940 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING 0141 010 0141 020 Subtotal 0161 010 Subtotal 0181 010 0181 020 Subtotal 0210 010 0210 020 0210 030 Subtotal 0251 010 Subtotal 0252 010 Subtotal 0281 010 Subtotal 0290 010 Subtotal 0291 010 Subtotal 0292 010 Subtotal 0661 010 Subtotal 0662 010 Subtotal 0665 010 Subtotal 0710 010 Subtotal 0980 010 Subtotal 1201 010 Subtotal 1801 010 1801 020 Subtotal 1802 010 Subtotal 1803 010 Subtotal 1804 010 1804 020 1804 030 Subtotal 1810 030 Subtotal 1811 010 1811 020 1811 030 Subtotal 1812 010 5 5 3.2 3.0 6.2 1 1 1 1 5 2.5 2.5 1 1 5 5 6.6 7.1 13.7 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 0.2 0.1 1.3 1.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5.3 5.3 1 1 5 2.8 2.8 1 1 5 2.0 2.0 1 1 5 3.8 3.8 1 1 5 7.2 7.2 1 1 5 1.3 1.3 1 1 5 6.1 6.1 1 1 5 1.0 1.0 1 1 3 0.4 0.4 1 1 5 0.7 0.7 1 1 5 1.3 1.3 1 1 4 0.6 0.6 1 1 5 5 2.6 0.3 2.9 1 1 1 1 5 0.9 0.9 1 1 5 0.9 0.9 1 1 5 5 5 3.2 0.1 0.2 3.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.3 0.3 1 1 5 5 5 0.8 0.1 1.1 2.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 3.8 1 1 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Subtotal 1881 010 Subtotal 1901 010 1901 020 Subtotal 1902 010 1902 020 Subtotal 8000 010 Subtotal 9000 010 9000 020 9000 030 Subtotal 9002 010 9002 020 9002 030 9002 040 9002 050 9002 060 9002 070 Subtotal 9010 010 9010 020 Subtotal 9101 010 Subtotal 9103 010 9103 020 Subtotal T066 010 T066 020 Subtotal T103 010 T103 020 Subtotal T901 010 T901 020 Subtotal T902 010 T902 020 Subtotal T903 010 Subtotal T904 010 Subtotal P101 010 P101 020 P101 030 P101 040 P101 050 P101 060 P101 070 3.8 5 2.0 2.0 1 1 5 5 0.1 5.6 5.7 1 1 1 1 5 5 3.2 2.2 5.4 1 1 1 1 5 0.9 0.9 1 1 5 5 5 3.0 1.6 1.0 5.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2.2 1.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 3.5 4.3 7.8 1 1 1 1 3 1.5 1.5 1 1 Mesa View Drive 5 5 1.0 0.1 1.1 1 4 1 1 Valentine Way Valentine Way 8 8 2.5 1.2 3.7 0 0 4 4 8 8 2.5 0.7 3.1 0 0 4 4 8 8 0.7 1.9 2.6 0 0 4 4 8 8 0.5 0.5 0.9 0 0 4 4 8 0.7 0.7 0 4 8 0.3 0.3 0 4 3 4 3 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Valentine Cemetery Road Hualapai Detention Center Hualapai Tribal Court Hualapai Cultural Center Best Market and Deli Health Center Peach Springs Head Start Boys and Girls Club Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING P101 P101 P101 P101 P101 P101 P101 044 050 100 110 120 070 140 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Total Tribal System 145.2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 Hualapai Municipal Building Health Education & Wellness Center Transitional Living Center Hualapai Tribal Office US Department of Health Education Hualapai Prosecutors Office Hualapai Elderly Center 3.8 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING 0002 050 Subtotal 0017 020 0017 030 Subtotal 0033 020 Subtotal 0035 020 Subtotal 0038 020 Subtotal 0066 010 Subtotal 0079 010 Subtotal 0091 010 0091 020 Subtotal 0101 320 0101 330 0101 340 0101 350 0101 360 Subtotal 0103 090 0103 100 0103 110 Subtotal 0104 040 0104 050 Subtotal 0105 010 0105 020 Subtotal 0111 010 0111 020 Subtotal 0112 010 Subtotal 0113 010 Subtotal 0131 010 0131 020 Subtotal 0141 010 0141 020 Subtotal 0161 010 Class 5 Length 0.6 0.6 Surface Type 1 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update TO BE ADDED TO THE TRIBAL SYSTEM Constr. Need 1 11 5 0.1 1.0 1.1 1 1 1 1 5 1.3 1.3 1 1 5 3.0 3.0 1 1 5 0.4 0.4 1 1 5 1.0 1.0 1 1 5 1.4 1.4 1 1 5 5 4.2 1.0 5.3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 0.1 0.1 1 1 0.1 0.1 0.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 0.3 0.4 0.7 3 3 1 1 5 5 0.2 2.2 2.4 3 3 1 1 5 5 1.8 0.2 2.0 1 1 1 1 5 1.3 1.3 1 1 5 0.7 0.7 1 1 5 5 4.6 1.1 5.7 1 1 1 1 5 5 3.2 3.0 6.2 1 1 1 1 5 2.5 1 1 Section Name Youth Camp Road Youth Camp Road Milkweed Road H940 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Subtotal 0181 010 0181 020 Subtotal 0210 010 0210 020 0210 030 Subtotal 0251 010 Subtotal 0252 010 Subtotal 0281 010 Subtotal 0290 010 Subtotal 0291 010 Subtotal 0292 010 Subtotal 0661 010 Subtotal 0662 010 Subtotal 0665 010 Subtotal 0710 010 Subtotal 0980 010 Subtotal 1201 010 Subtotal 1801 010 1801 020 Subtotal 1802 010 Subtotal 1803 010 Subtotal 1804 010 1804 020 1804 030 Subtotal 1810 030 Subtotal 1811 010 1811 020 1811 030 Subtotal 1812 010 Subtotal 1881 010 Subtotal 1901 010 2.5 5 5 6.6 7.1 13.7 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 0.2 0.1 1.3 1.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5.3 5.3 1 1 5 2.8 2.8 1 1 5 2.0 2.0 1 1 5 3.8 3.8 1 1 5 7.2 7.2 1 1 5 1.3 1.3 1 1 5 6.1 6.1 1 1 5 1.0 1.0 1 1 3 0.4 0.4 1 1 5 0.7 0.7 1 1 5 1.3 1.3 1 1 5 0.6 0.6 1 5 5 2.6 0.3 2.9 1 1 1 1 5 0.9 0.9 1 1 5 0.9 0.9 1 1 5 5 5 3.2 0.1 0.2 3.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.3 0.3 1 1 5 5 5 0.8 0.1 1.1 2.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 3.8 3.8 1 1 5 2.0 2.0 1 1 5 0.1 1 1 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING 1901 020 Subtotal 1902 010 1902 020 Subtotal 8000 010 Subtotal 9000 010 9000 020 9000 030 Subtotal 9002 010 9002 020 9002 030 9002 040 9002 050 9002 060 9002 070 Subtotal 9010 010 9010 020 Subtotal 9101 010 Subtotal 9103 010 9103 020 Subtotal T066 010 T066 020 Subtotal T103 010 T103 020 Subtotal T901 010 T901 020 Subtotal T902 010 T902 020 Subtotal T903 010 Subtotal T904 010 Subtotal P101 010 P101 020 P101 030 P101 040 P101 050 P101 060 P101 070 P101 044 P101 050 P101 100 P101 110 5 5.6 5.7 1 1 5 5 3.2 2.2 5.4 1 1 1 1 5 0.9 0.9 1 1 5 5 5 3.0 1.6 1.0 5.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2.2 1.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 3.5 4.3 7.8 1 1 1 1 3 1.5 1.5 1 1 Mesa View Drive 5 5 1.0 0.1 1.1 1 4 1 1 Valentine Way Valentine Way 8 8 2.5 1.2 3.7 0 0 4 4 8 8 2.5 0.7 3.1 0 0 4 4 8 8 0.7 1.9 2.6 0 0 4 4 8 8 0.5 0.5 0.9 0 0 4 4 8 0.7 0.7 0 4 8 0.3 0.3 0 4 3 4 3 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Valentine Cemetery Road Hualapai Detention Center Hualapai Tribal Court Hualapai Cultural Center Best Market and Deli Health Center Peach Springs Head Start Boys and Girls Club Hualapai Municipal Building Health Education & Wellness Center Transitional Living Center Hualapai Tribal Office Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING P101 P101 P101 120 070 140 9 9 9 5 5 5 1 1 1 US Department of Health Education Hualapai Prosecutors Office Hualapai Elderly Center Total to be Added to Tribal System 144.2 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Subtotal 0057 Class 10 4 Length 3.5 3.5 Surface Type 5 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update TO BE DELETED FROM THE TRIBAL SYSTEM Constr. Need 2 Section Name 3.5 Total to be Deleted from Tribal System 0061 010 Subtotal 0061 10 Class 5 4 Mileage Correction in Tribal System Length 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 Surface Type 3 1 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Inventory Update MILEAGE CORRECTION IN THE TRIBAL SYSTEM Constr. Need 2 2 Section Name Diamond Creek Road 0.7 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING 0001 070 Subtotal 0001 70 0019 012 0019 030 0019 040 0019 050 Subtotal 0002 060 Subtotal C025 010 Subtotal C149 010 C149 020 C149 030 C149 040 Subtotal S066 010 S066 020 S066 030 S066 040 S066 050 S066 060 S066 070 S066 080 S066 090 S066 100 S066 110 S066 120 S066 130 S066 140 S066 150 S066 160 S066 170 S066 180 S066 190 S066 200 S066 210 S066 220 S066 230 S066 240 S066 250 S066 260 S066 270 S066 280 S066 290 S066 300 S066 310 S066 320 0019 0019 0019 0019 10 30 40 50 Class 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Length 0.0 14.1 0.0 14.1 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.7 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.7 Surface Type 1 3 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update TOTAL NON-BIA SYSTEM Constr. Need 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Section Name Nelson Road Nelson Road Nelson Road Nelson Road 5 7.7 7.7 1 1 Clay Springs Ranch Road 2 6.6 6.6 5 0 Pierce Ferry Road 4 4 4 4 0.8 16.4 8.9 6.3 32.3 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Antares Road Antares Road Antares Road Antares Road 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 0.7 0.5 5 5 6.9 5 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 State Route 66 State Route 66 H7758 State Route 66 H7757 State Route 66 H7756 State Route 66 H7755 State Route 66 H7754 State Route 66 State Route 66 State Route 66 State Route 66 H4238 State Route 66 H4237 State Route 66 State Route 66 State Route 66 State Route 66 H4236 State Route 66 State Route 66 H6077 State Route 66 State Route 66 State Route 66 H142 State Route 66 H4235 2.1 5 3.9 5 2.1 5 1.4 1.7 0.4 0.1 5 5 5 5 1.3 5 1.1 6.1 3.0 0.3 5 5 5 5 4.0 0.9 5 5 1.1 6.9 1.1 5 5 5 1.7 5 0 0 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval 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 0.9 5 0.7 5 1.0 5 1.6 5 0.1 1.0 5 5 5 1.6 1.4 5 5 0.2 2.8 5 5 1.4 0.4 5 5 5 4.2 5 0.1 5 2.7 5 2.0 69.1 5 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 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Existing DOT Inventory Update S066 330 S066 340 S066 350 S066 360 S066 370 S066 380 S066 390 S066 400 S066 410 S066 420 S066 430 S066 440 S066 450 S066 460 S066 470 S066 480 S066 490 S066 500 S066 510 S066 520 S066 530 S066 540 S066 550 S066 560 S066 570 S066 580 S066 590 S066 600 S066 610 Subtotal Inventory Update Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING State Route 66 H134 State Route 66 H141 State Route 66 H4234 State Route 66 H4233 State Route 66 H4232 State Route 66 H192 State Route 66 State Route 66 H4231 State Route 66 State Route 66 H4230 State Route 66 H4229 State Route 66 H738 State Route 66 H227 State Route 66 H4226 State Route 66 H4225 State Route 66 Total to be Added to Tribal System 117.4 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING 0002 060 Subtotal 0019 012 Subtotal C025 010 Subtotal C149 010 C149 020 C149 030 C149 040 Subtotal S066 010 S066 020 S066 030 S066 040 S066 050 S066 060 S066 070 S066 080 S066 090 S066 100 S066 110 S066 120 S066 130 S066 140 S066 150 S066 160 S066 170 S066 180 S066 190 S066 200 S066 210 S066 220 S066 230 S066 240 S066 250 S066 260 S066 270 S066 280 S066 290 S066 300 S066 310 S066 320 S066 330 S066 340 S066 350 S066 360 S066 370 Class 10 4 7.7 7.7 4 0.8 0.8 0.8 Surface Type 1 3 3 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Length 5 0019 Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update TO BE ADDED TO THE NON-BIA SYSTEM Constr. Need 1 1 1 Section Name Clay Springs Ranch Road Nelson Road 2 6.6 6.6 5 0 Pierce Ferry Road 4 4 4 4 0.8 16.4 8.9 6.3 32.3 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Antares Road Antares Road Antares Road Antares Road 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0.7 0.5 5 5 6.9 5 2.1 5 3.9 5 2.1 5 1.4 1.7 0.4 0.1 5 5 5 5 1.3 5 1.1 6.1 3.0 0.3 5 5 5 5 4.0 0.9 5 5 1.1 6.9 1.1 5 5 5 1.7 5 0.9 5 0.7 5 1.0 5 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 State Route 66 State Route 66 H7758 State Route 66 H7757 State Route 66 H7756 State Route 66 H7755 State Route 66 H7754 State Route 66 State Route 66 State Route 66 State Route 66 H4238 State Route 66 H4237 State Route 66 State Route 66 State Route 66 State Route 66 H4236 State Route 66 State Route 66 H6077 State Route 66 State Route 66 State Route 66 H142 State Route 66 H4235 State Route 66 H134 State Route 66 H141 State Route 66 0 0 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval S066 380 S066 390 S066 400 S066 410 S066 420 S066 430 S066 440 S066 450 S066 460 S066 470 S066 480 S066 490 S066 500 S066 510 S066 520 S066 530 S066 540 S066 550 S066 560 S066 570 S066 580 S066 590 S066 600 S066 610 Subtotal Class 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Length Surface Type 1.6 5 0.1 1.0 5 5 5 1.6 1.4 5 5 0.2 2.8 5 5 1.4 0.4 5 5 5 4.2 5 0.1 5 2.7 5 2.0 69.1 5 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING Constr. Need 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Section Name H4234 State Route 66 H4233 State Route 66 H4232 State Route 66 H192 State Route 66 State Route 66 H4231 State Route 66 State Route 66 H4230 State Route 66 H4229 State Route 66 H738 State Route 66 H227 State Route 66 H4226 State Route 66 H4225 State Route 66 Total to be Added to Tribal System 116.5 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Hualapai Indian Reservation INVENTORY COMPARISON LISTING 0001 070 Subtotal 0001 70 Class 4 Total to be Deleted from Non-BIA System Length 0.0 14.1 0.0 14.1 Surface Type 1 Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Update Existing DOT Inventory Route Section Existing DOT Inventory Update Route Section Inventory Update TO BE DELETED FROM THE NON-BIA SYSTEM Constr. Need 0 Section Name DELETE 14.1 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route 0001 Buck and Doe Road Section 022 ~ MP 15.50 Length (FT) 44 Image IMG_3982 Bridge # H900 0001 Buck and Doe Road 025 16.40 50 IMG_3986 H901 0001 Buck and Doe Road 027 17.80 33 IMG_3992 H902 0001 Buck and Doe Road 030 18.03 66 H232 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route 0001 Buck and Doe Road Section 042 ~ MP 18.75 Length (FT) 44 Image IMG_3998 Bridge # H903 0001 Buck and Doe Road 052 19.90 34 IMG_4001 H904 0001 Diamond Bar Road 080 19.8 22 H920 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route 0001 Diamond Bar Road Section 100 ~ MP 19.15 Length (FT) 20 Image Bridge # H921 0001 Diamond Bar Road 120 18.4 25 H922 0001 Diamond Bar Road 140 18 30 H923 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route 0001 Diamond Bar Road Section 160 ~ MP 17.6 Length (FT) 52 Image Bridge # H924 0001 Diamond Bar Road 180 17.3 30 H925 0001 Diamond Bar Road 200 17.15 38 H926 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route 0001 Diamond Bar Road Section 220 ~ MP 16.9 Length (FT) 30 Image Bridge # H927 0001 Diamond Bar Road 240 14.0 26 H928 0001 Diamond Bar Road 260 12.4 20 H929 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route 0001 Diamond Bar Road Section 270 ~ MP 12.4 0001 Diamond Bar Road 300 7.2 0001 Diamond Bar Road 320 8.5 Length (FT) 120 Image Bridge # H930 24 IMG_4044 H931 22 IMG_4042 H932 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route 0001 Diamond Bar Road Section 340 0001 Diamond Bar Road 360 0001 Diamond Bar Road 380 ~ MP 8.75 Length (FT) 20 Image IMG_4038 Bridge # H933 9.5 23 IMG_4037 H934 10 22 IMG_4034 H925 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route 101 Section 340 ~ MP Length (FT) 26 Image Bridge # H940 00018 Supai Road 20 36 H233 00018 Supai Road 40 33 H234 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route State Route 66 - Bridge # 4225 Section 600 ~ MP 73.09 Length (FT) 21 Image ADOT_4225 Bridge # 4225 State Route 66 - Bridge #4226 580 75.82 21 ADOT_4226 4226 State Route 66 - Bridge #4227 560 75.90 21 ADOT_4227 4227 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route State Route 66 - Bridge #738 Section 540 ~ MP 80.10 Length (FT) 351 Image ADOT_0738 Bridge # 738 State Route 66 - Bridge #4229 520 80.51 37 ADOT_4229 4229 State Route 66 - Bridge #4230 500 81.90 21 ADOT_4230 4230 State Route 66 - Bridge #4231 470 84.94 43 ADOT_4231 4231 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route State Route 66 - Bridge #192 Section 440 ~ MP 87.91 Length (FT) 115 Image ADOT_192 Bridge # 192 State Route 66 - Bridge #4232 420 88.90 49 ADOT_4232 4232 State Route 66 - Bridge #4233 400 89.00 49 ADOT_4233 4233 State Route 66 - Bridge #4234 380 90.57 43 4234 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route State Route 66 - Bridge #141 Section 360 ~ MP 91.61 Length (FT) 110 Image ADOT_0141 Bridge # 141 State Route 66 - Bridge #134 340 92.37 110 ADOT_0134 134 State Route 66 - Bridge #4235 320 93.32 32 ADOT_4235 4235 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route State Route 66 - Bridge #142 Section 300 ~ MP 95.02 Length (FT) 110 Image ADOT_0142 Bridge # 142 State Route 66 - Bridge #6077 260 104.15 21 ADOT_6077 6077 State Route 66 - Bridge #4236 230 109.02 64 ADOT_4236 4236 State Route 66 - Bridge #4237 180 119.51 32 4237 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route State Route 66 - Bridge #4238 Section 160 ~ MP 120.78 Length (FT) 32 Image ADOT_4238 Bridge # 4238 State Route 66 - Bridge #4239 110 121.27 21 ADOT_4239 4239 State Route 66 - Bridge #7754 090 124.70 64 ADOT_7754 7754 State Route 66 - Bridge #7755 090 126.60 43 7755 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Route State Route 66 - Bridge #7756 Section 070 ~ MP 130.42 Length (FT) 43 State Route 66 - Bridge #7757 050 132.49 43 State Route 66 - Bridge #7758 030 139.40 25 Image Bridge # 7756 7757 Can't obtain photo 7758 Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval Grand Canyon Skywalk an yo nN West a Rte 001 Sec 050 t i o n al 2014 AADT: 68 Par k 2035 AADT: 95 d sR 18 te I nd kR ree nd C eR d Rte S066 Sec 550 2014 AADT: 1625 ( 2035 AADT: 2275Truxton ! sR !! ( 9 ( e Rte 019 Sec 070 2014 AADT: 367 2035 AADT: 514 ! ( ( ! BN S d H ill Rd ( ! ( ! 4 ! ( Rte S066 Sec 280 2014 AADT: 1760 2035 AADT: 2464 ( ! F Ra i l ro a d Yava pai County ! ( 3 S066 Sec 490 ? !( ValentineRte « 2014 AADT: 1459 an ( ! 2035 AADT: 2043 Ki n gm Rte 018 Sec 010 2014 AADT: 135 2035 AADT: 189 Hualapai Airport Peach 11 ( ! Springs 10 ( ! 8 Di a m o Do are kto n An t St o c 5 Peach Springs Detailed Map Rte 101 Sec 100 19 ! ( Rte 101 Sec 110 2014 AADT: 524 2035 AADT: 734 Peach Springs Head Start Boys and Girls Club Hualapai Tribal Office 17 ( ! Rd ek Cre nd Dia 23 ( ! « ? ( ADOT ATR Locations ! «Rte 101 Sec 070 ? Study Roadway 2014 AADT: 559 2035 AADT: 783 Other Tribal Roadway 12 ( ! k Ci r D ia m o n d Cr ee BNSF Railroad Grand Canyon National Park Hualapai Indian Reservation 14 ( ! 13 ! ( Cultural Center Locations With Travel Speeds Rte S066 Sec 270 2014 AADT: 1996 2035 AADT: 2794 Rte 101 Sec 100 2014 AADT: 1201 2035 AADT: 1681 Rte S066 Sec 280 2014 AADT: 2275 2035 AADT: 3185 Hualapai Hualapai Lodge Seligman X 48-Hour Vehicle Classification Count ( ! Hig h V iew Dr 16 ( ! mo Peach Springs Elementary ! ( Legend 18 ! ( 2014 AADT: 348 2035 AADT: 487 « ? e " ! # * Rte 101 Sec 100 2014 AADT: 1047 2035 AADT: 1466 Coconino County d ng pri yS and C la ck Rte 001 Sec 010 2014 AADT: 115 2035 AADT: 161 Mohave County Rte C149 Sec 010 2014 AADT: 231 2035 AADT: 323 Frazier H u a l a p a i Wells!( Indian Rese r vation Bu Rte C149 Sec 040 2014 AADT: 38 2035 AADT: 53 Rou Color ado r Rte C025 Sec 010 2014 AADT: 1447 2035 AADT: 2026 7 ! ( 6 ( ! i an ! ( Grand 22 Canyon ( ! C c e F err y R d Pie r Gra _ e^ nd Rte 007 Sec 010 2014 AADT: 732 2035 AADT: 1012Grand Canyon West Airport Rte 001 Sec 060 2014 AADT: 785 21! 20 ( ( 2035 AADT: 1099 Rd ! a B nd o D ia m R iv e r NE V AR ADA IZO NA Havasupai Indian Reservation 15 ! ( Rte 101 ir o C280 o d eSec 2014RAADT: 1008 2035 AADT: 1411 County Boundary Rte 101 Sec 310 2014 AADT: 105 2035 AADT: 147 Rd Nel s on BN S F R a ilroad 0 W Tru xton 800 a sh 1,600 Feet N 0 6 Data Source: ESRI, ADOT, ALRIS, BLM, USDOT 12 Miles Note: Recommended revisions are pending final field review calculation and final BIA approval