US 64 Alignment Study and Engineering Scoping Report: Arizona Border to Shiprock CN 5101170 Inside Cover and Signatures US 64 Alignment Study Arizona Border to Shiprock NMDOT PN/C

US 64 Alignment Study Arizona Border to Shiprock

Phase IA/B Engineering Scoping Report San Juan County, New Mexico Project/Control No. 5101170 Prepared by: In Association with:

Ecosphere Environmental Services, Inc. Maser Consulting, P.A. Statistical Research, Inc. T2 Utility Engineers Wood E&I Solutions, Inc. April 15, 2020

US64AlignmentStudyandEngineeringScopingReport:ArizonaBordertoShiprock CN 5101170 Inside Cover and Signatures

US 64 Alignment Study Arizona Border to Shiprock

NMDOT PN/CN 5101170

San Juan County, New Mexico

Phase IA/B Engineering Scoping Report

Concurrence:

Dana Garcia, P.E. Date NMDOT NRD Project Development Engineer

Paul Brasher, P.E. Date NMDOT District Five Engineer

Lawrence Lopez, P.E. Date NMDOT North Region Design Manager

David Quintana, P.E. Date NMDOT Chief Engineer

DRAFT REPORT Electronic Submittal April 15, 2020

US 64 Alignment Study and Engineering Scoping Report: Arizona Border to Shiprock CN 5101170 Table of Contents

Page | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTSDescription Page Chapter 1 Introduction Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1

Corridor Limits ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

Purpose of Scoping Report .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

Project Setting .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1

Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

Report Organization .................................................................................................................................................................... 1-4

Chapter 2 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

Public and Stakeholder Involvement ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1

Outreach Activities ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

How Stakeholder Input will be Used ........................................................................................................................................ 2-2

Summary of Stakeholder Issues and Concerns ....................................................................................................................... 2-2

Chapter 3 Existing Conditions Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-1

Roadway Conditions ................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1

Posted Speeds .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1

Typical Section ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-1

Roadway Alignment ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-1

Profile Grade ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3-2

Intersections ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3-2

Roadside Barriers .................................................................................................................................................................... 3-4

Pavement Condition ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-4

Major Structures .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3-5

Bridge #5865 at Shoe Game Wash ......................................................................................................................................... 3-5

Sufficiency Rating .................................................................................................................................................. 3‐6

Appraisal Rating .................................................................................................................................................... 3‐6

Condition Rating ................................................................................................................................................... 3‐6

Inventory and Operating Ratings .......................................................................................................................... 3‐7

Existing Bridge #5864 Red Wash ........................................................................................................................................... 3-7

Description Page Chapter 3 Existing Conditions (continued)

Sufficiency Rating ................................................................................................................................................. 3‐8

Appraisal Rating .................................................................................................................................................... 3‐8

Condition Rating ................................................................................................................................................... 3‐8

Inventory and Operating Ratings .......................................................................................................................... 3‐9

Existing Bridge #5863 Shiprock Wash .................................................................................................................................. 3-9

Sufficiency Rating ............................................................................................................................................... 3‐10

Appraisal Rating .................................................................................................................................................. 3‐10

Condition Rating ................................................................................................................................................. 3‐10

Inventory and Operating Ratings ........................................................................................................................ 3‐11

Existing Bridge #5862 Rattlesnake Wash ........................................................................................................................... 3-11

Sufficiency Rating ............................................................................................................................................... 3‐12

Appraisal Rating .................................................................................................................................................. 3‐12

Condition Rating ................................................................................................................................................. 3‐12

Inventory and Operating Ratings ........................................................................................................................ 3‐13

Drainage ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-13

Culvert Crossings and Turnouts .......................................................................................................................................... 3-13

Major Structures .................................................................................................................................................................... 3-14

Geotechnical Conditions ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-14

Geologic and Geotechnical Site Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 3-15

Geologic Setting .................................................................................................................................................. 3‐15

Geotechnical Profile ........................................................................................................................................... 3‐15

Soil Moisture & Surface and Groundwater Conditions ...................................................................................... 3‐15

Rockfall Hazard ................................................................................................................................................... 3‐15

Soil Corrosivity Testing ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-15

Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Considerations Along the Highway Alignment .......................................... 3-15

Aggregate Sources ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-17

Erosion, Deposition, and Flooding Concerns .................................................................................................................... 3-17

Seismic Design ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-17

Bridge Foundations ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-17

Utilities ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 3-17


Page | 2

TABLE OF CONTENTSDescription Page Chapter 3 Existing Conditions (continued) Traffic Data and Operations ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-17

Traffic Count Data ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-17

Peak‐Hour Volumes ............................................................................................................................................ 3‐17

Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................ 3‐18

Vehicle Classifications ......................................................................................................................................... 3‐18

Travel Speeds ...................................................................................................................................................... 3‐18

Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-19

Two‐Lane Rural Highway Operational Analysis .................................................................................................. 3‐19

Unsignalized Intersections Operational Analysis ................................................................................................ 3‐20

Reported Crash History ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-20

Crash Data ........................................................................................................................................................... 3‐20

Crash Patterns ..................................................................................................................................................... 3‐21

Potential Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................... 3‐21

Right-of-Way and Property Ownership ................................................................................................................................. 3-21

Environmental Resources ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-24

General Environmental Setting .......................................................................................................................................... 3-24

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-24

Waters of the U.S and Groundwater .................................................................................................................................. 3-24

Floodplains ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-24

Wetlands ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-25

Farmlands ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3-25

Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................................................................. 3-25

Vegetation and Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................... 3-25

Endangered Species and Critical Habitat .......................................................................................................................... 3-25

Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-25

Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-27

Noise ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 3-27

Communities and Industry .................................................................................................................................................. 3-27

Demographics and Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................................ 3-27

Description Page Chapter 4 Proposed Conditions Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1

Design Criteria for Roadway Improvements ........................................................................................................................... 4-1

Context Sensitive Design Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1

Side Slope Rate Application .................................................................................................................................. 4‐1

Design-Year Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................................................................. 4-2

Annual Growth Rate Calculation ........................................................................................................................................... 4-2

Design-Year (2040) Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................................................... 4-2

Traffic Operations .................................................................................................................................................................... 4-2

Two‐Lane Rural Highway Operational Analysis .................................................................................................... 4‐3

Unsignalized Intersections Operational Analysis .................................................................................................. 4‐3

Speed Change Lanes ................................................................................................................................................................ 4-3

Truck Climbing Lanes ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-3

Description of the No Build Alternative ................................................................................................................................... 4-4

Description of Proposed Roadway Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 4-4

Build Alternative 1 - Roadway ............................................................................................................................................... 4-4

Build Alternative 2 - Roadway ............................................................................................................................................... 4-4

Proposed Improvements Applicable to both Roadway Build Alternatives .................................................................... 4-4

Typical Sections ‐ Rural ......................................................................................................................................... 4‐4

Typical Section ‐ Beclabito .................................................................................................................................... 4‐4

Typical Section – Turn Lanes ................................................................................................................................. 4‐6

Horizontal Geometry ............................................................................................................................................ 4‐6

Vertical Alignment ................................................................................................................................................ 4‐6

Pavement Sections ............................................................................................................................................... 4‐7

Access Management ............................................................................................................................................. 4‐7

Lighting for Conflict Areas .................................................................................................................................... 4‐7

Proposed Drainage Improvements ........................................................................................................................................... 4-8

Cross Drainage Culverts .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-8

Roadway Drainage and Roadside ditches ............................................................................................................................ 4-8

Turnout Structures .................................................................................................................................................................. 4-8

Drainage at Major Structures ................................................................................................................................................ 4-8

Shoe Game Wash .................................................................................................................................................. 4‐8


Page | 3

TABLE OF CONTENTSDescription Page Chapter 4 Proposed Conditions (continued)

Red Wash ............................................................................................................................................................ 4‐12

Shiprock Wash .................................................................................................................................................... 4‐12

Rattlesnake Wash ............................................................................................................................................... 4‐12

Proposed Improvements to Major Structures ...................................................................................................................... 4-12

Red Wash – Bridge #5864 ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-13

Shiprock Wash – Bridge #5863 ............................................................................................................................................ 4-13

Rattlesnake Wash – Bridge #5862 ....................................................................................................................................... 4-14

Shoe Game Wash – Bridge #5865 ........................................................................................................................................ 4-15

Maintenance of Traffic ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-15

Comparative Evaluation of Roadway and Drainage Alternatives ...................................................................................... 4-17

Evaluation Metrics ................................................................................................................................................................ 4-17

Proposed Improvements to Advance to Phase IC and Phase ID ......................................................................................... 4-17

Roadway Approach ............................................................................................................................................................... 4-18

Beclabito Area ..................................................................................................................................................... 4‐18

Drainage Improvements ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-18

Major Structures ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-19

Right-of-Way Strategy ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-19

Chapter 5 Priority Plan Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5-1

Potential Priority Implementation Plan .................................................................................................................................. 5-1

Phase 1: Red Wash Bridge (#5864) ........................................................................................................................................ 5-1

Phase 2: Shiprock Wash (#5863) and Rattlesnake Wash (#5862) Bridges ....................................................................... 5-1

Phase 3: Shoe Game Wash CBC (#5865) and Beclabito ...................................................................................................... 5-1

Phases 4 through 8: Various Highway Segments ............................................................................................................... 5-1

Estimates of Probable Costs ....................................................................................................................................................... 5-1

Next Steps for Project Development ........................................................................................................................................ 5-4

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Utility Mapping Plans, CN 5101170 Appendix B Phase IA/B Conceptual Design Plans, CN 5101170


Page | 4

LIST OF TABLESDescription Page Table 3-1: Posted Speed Limits .................................................................................................................................................. 3-1

Table 3-2: Existing Horizontal Curves along US 64, MP 0 to MP 20.8 .................................................................................. 3-2

Table 3-3: As-Built Documented Vertical Curves Deficient for Stopping or Passing Sight Distance ............................. 3-3

Table 3-3: As-Built Documented Vertical Curves Deficient for Stopping or Passing Sight Distance (continued) ....... 3-4

Table 3-4: Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Road Intersections with US 64 .......................................................................... 3-4

Table 3-5: Private Access Locations with NMDOT Driveway Permits ................................................................................. 3-4

Table 3-6: Existing Bridge #5865 Properties ............................................................................................................................ 3-5

Table 3-7: Existing Bridge #5865 Sufficiency Ratings ............................................................................................................ 3-6

Table 3-8: Existing Bridge #5865 Appraisal Ratings ............................................................................................................... 3-6

Table 3-9: Existing Bridge #5864 Properties ............................................................................................................................ 3-8

Table 3-10: Existing Bridge #5864 Sufficiency Ratings .......................................................................................................... 3-8

Table 3-11: Existing Bridge #5864 Appraisal Ratings ............................................................................................................. 3-8

Table 3-12: Existing Bridge #5864 Condition Ratings ............................................................................................................ 3-8

Table 3-13: Existing Bridge #5863 Properties ........................................................................................................................ 3-10

Table 3-14: Existing Bridge #5863 Sufficiency Ratings ........................................................................................................ 3-10

Table 3-15: Existing Bridge #5863 Appraisal Ratings ........................................................................................................... 3-10

Table 3-16: Existing Bridge #5863Condition Ratings ........................................................................................................... 3-10

Table 3-17: Existing Bridge #5862 Properties ........................................................................................................................ 3-12

Table 3-18: Existing Bridge #5862 Sufficiency Ratings ........................................................................................................ 3-12

Table 3-19: Existing Bridge #5862 Appraisal Ratings ........................................................................................................... 3-12

Table 3-20: Existing Bridge #5862 Condition Ratings .......................................................................................................... 3-12

Table 3-21: Severely Corroded CMP Culverts ........................................................................................................................ 3-14

Table 3-22: Culvert Scour ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-14

Table 3-23: Existing (2019) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................... 3-18

Table 3-24: Existing (2019) AWDT Volumes on US 64 .......................................................................................................... 3-18

Table 3-25: Existing (2019) ADT Volumes and Relative Percentages ................................................................................ 3-18

Table 3-26: Prior Year Average Daily Traffic Volumes for US 64 from MP 0.0 to MP 20.8 ............................................. 3-18

Table 3-27: Existing (2019) Vehicle Classification Percentages ......................................................................................... 3-18

Table 3-28: Existing (2019) Speed Data .................................................................................................................................. 3-19

Table 3-29: NMDOT SAMM LOS Design Requirements ........................................................................................................ 3-19

Table 3-30: Unsignalized Intersection Critical Movement LOS and Delay ....................................................................... 3-20

Table 3-31: Number of Crashes by Segment (2013-2018) .................................................................................................... 3-20

Table 3-32: Roadway Segment Crash Rates (cr/100 MVMT) .............................................................................................. 3-20

Table 3-33: Roadway Segment Summary of Crashes (2013-2018) ...................................................................................... 3-22

Table 3-34: Top Contributing Factors (2013-2018) ............................................................................................................... 3-22

Description Page Table 3-35: Potential Safety Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................ 3-21

Table 3-36: Cultural Resources Site Eligibility ....................................................................................................................... 3-24

Table 3-37: Noxious Weeds Observed ..................................................................................................................................... 3-25

Table 3-38: Demographics for the Study Area, San Juan County, and New Mexico ........................................................ 3-26

Table 4-1 Design Criteria for Roadway Improvements .......................................................................................................... 4-1

Table 4-2: Slopes by Depth from Surfacing Taper Edge ......................................................................................................... 4-1

Table 4-3: Design Year (2040) Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................. 4-2

Table 4-4: Design Year (2040) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................... 4-2

Table 4-5: NMDOT SAMM LOS Design Requirements ............................................................................................................. 4-2

Table 4-6: US 64 Two-Lane Highway Operational Analysis ................................................................................................... 4-3

Table 4-7: Unsignalized Intersection Critical Movement LOS and Delay ............................................................................ 4-3

Table 4-8: Need for Separate Turn Lanes ................................................................................................................................. 4-3

Table 4-9: Build Alternative 1 Roadside Barrier and Retaining Wall Lengths .................................................................... 4-4

Table 4-10: Build Alternative 2 Roadside Barrier and Retaining Wall Lengths .................................................................. 4-4

Table 4-11: Horizontal Alignment Design Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 4-6

Table 4-12: Proposed Vertical Crest Curve Corrections for Stopping Sight Distance ....................................................... 4-6

Table 4-13: Proposed Vertical Crest Curve Corrections for Passing Sight Distance ......................................................... 4-6

Table 4-14: Passing Zone Opportunities ................................................................................................................................... 4-7

Table 4-15: Pavement Distress Areas for Reconstruction ...................................................................................................... 4-7

Table 4-16: Locations of Bus Stops and Pull-Off Areas ........................................................................................................... 4-7

Table 4-18: Drainage Turnout Structures................................................................................................................................. 4-8

Table 4-17: Proposed Crossing Culvert Improvements .......................................................................................................... 4-9

Table 4-17: Proposed Crossing Culvert Improvements (continued) .................................................................................. 4-10

Table 4-17: Proposed Crossing Culvert Improvements (continued) .................................................................................. 4-11

Table 4-18: Comparative Evaluation of Roadway Alternatives 1 and 2 ............................................................................. 4-19

Table 5-1: Costs by Priority Phase for the Proposed Alternative to Advance to Phase IC and Phase ID ........................ 5-3


Page | 5

LIST OF EXHIBITSDescription Page

Exhibit 1-1: Vicinity Map and US 64 Corridor Limits ............................................................................................................ 1-2

Exhibit 1-2: Project Map for CN 5101170, US 64 MP 0 to MP 20.8 ........................................................................................ 1-3

Exhibit 3-1: Existing Typical Sections ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1

Exhibit 3-2: Bridge #5865 Shoe Game Wash Plan View ......................................................................................................... 3-6

Exhibit 3-3: Bridge #5864 Red Wash Plan View ...................................................................................................................... 3-7

Exhibit 3-4: Existing Bridge #5864 Transverse Section ......................................................................................................... 3-8

Exhibit 3-5: Bridge #5863 Shiprock Wash Plan View ............................................................................................................. 3-9

Exhibit 3-6: Existing Bridge #5862 Location .......................................................................................................................... 3-11

Exhibit 3-7: Existing Bridge #5862 Transverse Section ....................................................................................................... 3-12

Exhibit 3-8: Corrosive Soil Sample Locations and High Corrosive Zones ......................................................................... 3-16

Exhibit 3-9: Two-Lane Highway LOS Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 3-19

Exhibit 3-10: Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) LOS Criteria ................................................................................................. 3-19

Exhibit 3-11: Crashes per Hour along US 64 from MP 0.0 to MP 20.8 (2013-2018) .......................................................... 3-21

Exhibit 3-12: Existing Land Status Map .................................................................................................................................. 3-23

Exhibit 4-1: Historic AADT Volumes for US 64 west of Shiprock ......................................................................................... 4-2

Exhibit 4-2: Two-Lane Highway LOS Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 4-3

Exhibit 4-3: Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) LOS Criteria ..................................................................................................... 4-3

Exhibit 4-4: Typical Sections for Rural Highway Segments .................................................................................................. 4-5

Exhibit 4-5: Shoulder Widths on Rural Two-Lane Highways ............................................................................................... 4-5

Exhibit 4-6: Typical Section for Beclabito ............................................................................................................................... 4-5

Exhibit 4-7: Typical Sections for Speed Change Lanes .......................................................................................................... 4-6

Exhibit 4-8: Proposed Pavement Sections ............................................................................................................................... 4-7

Exhibit 4-9: Proposed Typical Roadway Configuration Across Bridges ............................................................................ 4-12

Exhibit 4-10: Proposed 5-Span Bridge Conceptual Profile for Red Wash Bridge ............................................................ 4-13

Exhibit 4-11: Proposed Typical Girder Cross Sections for Red Wash Bridge ................................................................... 4-13

Exhibit 4-12: Proposed Plan View of Red Wash Bridge ....................................................................................................... 4-13

Exhibit 4-13: Proposed 3-Span Bridge Conceptual Profile for Shiprock Wash Bridge ................................................... 4-14

Exhibit 4-14: Proposed Typical Girder Cross Section for Shiprock Wash Bridge ............................................................ 4-14

Exhibit 4-15: Proposed Plan View of Shiprock Wash Bridge .............................................................................................. 4-14

Exhibit 4-16: Proposed Single-Span Bridge Conceptual Profile for Rattlesnake Wash Bridge ..................................... 4-15

Description Page

Exhibit 4-17: Proposed Typical Girder Cross Section for Rattlesnake Wash Bridge ....................................................... 4-15

Exhibit 4-18: Proposed Plan View of Rattlesnake Wash Bridge .......................................................................................... 4-15

Exhibit 4-19: Proposed Section View of the Shoe Game Wash CBC Replacement ........................................................... 4-16

Exhibit 4-20: Maintenance of Traffic (Typical) ..................................................................................................................... 4-17

Exhibit 4-21: Maintenance of Traffic with Offset Centerline of Construction ................................................................. 4-17

Exhibit 5-1: Suggested Priority Implementation Plan ........................................................................................................... 5-2

US 64 Alignment Study and Engineering Scoping Report: Arizona Border to Shiprock CN 5101170 Chapter 1 – Introduction

Page |1‐1

INTRODUCTION This Engineering Scoping Report summarizes and documents the investigations, analyses and findings for the US 64 Phase IA/B alignment study efforts for PN/CN 5101170. The lead agency is the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) and the Navajo Nation is a key project stakeholder. Because federal funding will be used, the project is being conducted in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). In addition, coordination was undertaken with other federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or responsibility for lands and resources within the project area.

Corridor Limits A vicinity map for this project is provided as Exhibit 1-1. The logical termini for the US 64 study corridor west of Shiprock extends from US 160 at Teec Nos Pos, Arizona (AZ), to the US 491 intersection in Shiprock. The NMDOT has several projects underway for this segment of US 64 as follows:

CN 5101170, US 64 (AZ border to Shiprock), Milepost (MP) 0.0 to MP 20.8: The subject of this report, illustrated in Exhibit 1-2, this project is a study to identify corridor deficiencies, identify prioritized smaller construction projects within the study limits, and identify any right-of-way easement needs from the Navajo Nation.

CN 5100821, US 64 (Education Corridor), MP 20.6 to MP 22.0: The purpose of this project is to improve safety conditions along US 64 for both pedestrians and vehicles. The Shiprock High School, Elementary School, Performing Arts Center, and the Dine College are located within these limits.

CN 5101010, US 64/US 491 Intersections: A corridor study will be developed to identify a preferred alternative for the two US 64 and US 491 intersections both west and east of the San Juan River Bridge crossing and improve the corridor and bridge crossing between both intersections. The improvements needed to the segment of US 64 west of US 491 will be included in the corridor study.

PURPOSE OF SCOPING REPORT The primary purpose of this Engineering Scoping Report is to document the process used to identify the preferred improvement approach to addressing the project needs while minimizing impacts to cultural and natural resources within the US 64 corridor and Navajo Nation lands. The engineering scoping process serves to: (1) identify and evaluate the specific problems and conditions within the project area that may require improvements to the existing highway; (2) identify and evaluate improvement options; and, (3) identify the preferred improvement approach including a priority implementation plan.

The Phase IA/B efforts and report were developed per the NMDOT Location Study Procedures (LSP) — the NMDOT’s process for project development from the planning phase through environmental documentation and preliminary design. The LSP process is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1966 (as amended), FHWA’s Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR 771), and federal statewide planning regulations (23 CFR 450, Subpart B).

This report also documents the activities used to inform and involve the public in decisions. US 64 is a vital link in the region connecting Shiprock and US 491 to Arizona, the rest of the Navajo Nation, and the Four Corners region. The activities and efforts used to involve and engage the public and agencies for this alignment study are discussed in Chapter 2 of this report.

PROJECT SETTING US 64 begins in northeast Arizona just southwest of the Four Corners in Teec Nos Pos and continues east across northern New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, and terminating in Nags Head, North Carolina. Within New Mexico, US 64 begins at the Arizona border near Beclabito and passes through the communities of Shiprock, Farmington, Chama, Taos, Raton, and Clayton before exiting the state. East of Shiprock, US 64 is on the National Highway System while west of Shiprock it is classified as a rural minor arterial.

Proposed improvements for this project, CN 5101170, involve the rural, two-lane highway segment of US 64 from MP 0.0 at the Arizona state line to the west side of Shiprock at MP 20.8 (total length of 20.8 miles). The highway passes through the community of Beclabito, and crosses four major structures at Shoe Game Wash, Red Wash, Shiprock Wash, and Rattlesnake Wash.

The existing highway consists of two 12-foot travel lanes with shoulders of varying width. The posted speed limit is 55 mph with a reduced posted speed of 45 mph from milepost 3.0 to milepost 3.7 in Beclabito and starting at milepost 20.6 at the easterly limits of the project entering Shiprock. No climbing lanes or passing lanes exist within the project limits. No state highways or county roads intersect with US 64 within the project area but there are several local Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) road intersections. These roads provide access to the Navajo Nation lands in the proximity of the project.

The entire project corridor is located within the Navajo Nation. The Nation has a population of roughly 350,000 as of 2016, with roughly one third living in New Mexico. Beclabito and Shiprock are the two communities that exist within the project limits.

Beclabito is a census-designated place on the Navajo Nation with a population of approximately 317 residents. The Beclabito Chapter House is located here and serves Navajo Nation residents in the area. It is also part of the Trails of the Ancients Byway, a New Mexico Scenic Byway to prehistoric archaeological and geological sites of northwestern New Mexico. The main formations in the area include the Beclabito Dome with its colorful red rocks of Entrada Sandstone and the Carrizo Mountains.

Shiprock is a census-designated place on the Navajo Nation with a population of approximately 8,156 residents that lies at the intersection of US 64 and US 491. The Shiprock Chapter House is located here and serves Navajo Nation residents in the area. It is a key road junction for truck traffic and tourists, and is named after the nearby Shiprock rock formation.

Outside the communities, the lands along US 64 are primarily rural with rock formations and natural features. Primary users of US 64 include residents and commuters from the surrounding rural area, service providers for the Navajo Nation, and tourists visiting the Four Corners, Mesa Verde, Shiprock and the Grand Canyon. Heavy commercial vehicle travel is considered low along this segment of US 64 as trucks primarily use US 491 north and south of Shiprock.

PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the proposed improvements to US 64 from the AZ border to Shiprock is to rehabilitate and improve the highway to current design standards. A context sensitive design approach is proposed for flexibility in meeting current highway design guidelines. That is, improvements are proposed to be designed within current standards and guidelines but balanced to avoid and/or minimize impacts to adjacent cultural and natural resources on Navajo Nation lands. The intent is to preserve the rural setting in its natural environment to the extent practical.


Page |1‐2

Exhibit 1-1: Vicinity Map and US 64 Corridor Limits


Page |1‐3

Exhibit 1-2: Project Map for CN 5101170, US 64 MP 0 to MP 20.8


Page |1‐4

The need for improving this highway is based on addressing physical deficiencies and improving access. With the proposed improvements, safety will be enhanced throughout the corridor. The needs of US 64 from the AZ border to Shiprock are summarized below:

Physical Deficiencies

- Shoulder Width: The existing shoulder width is inconsistent generally varying between two and four feet. Shoulder widths across bridges are minimal with substandard clearance to bridge railings.

- Pavement Structure: In addition to pavement surface deterioration, segments of the highway exhibit undulations due to subgrade failure which will require reconstruction.

- Vertical Curves: There are ninety-one (91) vertical curves along the project corridor and seven (7) crest vertical curves that do not provide adequate stopping sight distance for the project design speed and require correction/flattening.

- Passing Sight Distance: There are six (6) crest vertical curves that require correction to provide adequate passing sight distance to accommodate passing zones.

- Superelevation: To minimize impacts, the proposed design approach is to keep the existing horizontal alignment of the highway. There are several horizontal curves where the superelevation rate needs to be corrected to maintain the current alignment.

- Drainage: There are over 100 culvert crossings within the project limits. Common issues include corrosion of the culvert pipes due to age and corrosive soils, lack of erosion protection, lack of outlet protection for scour, and lack of culvert end treatments.

- Roadside Treatments: NMDOT is transitioning to roadside safety hardware that is compliant with the AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH), 2016. The roadside barriers along US 64 are not MASH compliant. In addition, shoulder rumble strips are currently not provided and would provide enhanced safety conditions for the highway.

- Bridge Reconstruction: There are four major structures within the project limits. Per bridge inspection reports and field observations, all four need to be reconstructed. Other issues to address include scour at piers, along abutments and on the downstream side, and the need for MASH-compliant bridge railings.

Access Improvements

- Intersection Turn Lanes: Left-turn and right-turn speed change lanes are proposed at key intersections based on stakeholder input and the existing and design-year traffic volumes.

- Bus Stops: Bus stop improvements along the roadside should be considered based on stakeholder input.

- Pull-outs: There are several pull-out areas along the highway with open frontage and/or unmanaged access where formal improvement should be considered to improve driver expectation and access design.

- Beclabito Speed Management: Travel speeds through the community are higher than desired based on stakeholder input. Travel speeds near MP 1.5 west of Beclabito, where the posted speed limit is 55 mph, were observed to exceed the posted speed with an 85th percentile speed of 75 mph eastbound and 69 mph westbound.

- Lighting: Lighting may be needed to improve nighttime visibility at specific conflict points along the highway such as at key intersections.

REPORT ORGANIZATION The remainder of this report summarizes the key elements of the data, analysis, and decision process used to identify and evaluate potential alternatives to improve US 64 and to select a preferred alternative. The report is organized as follows:

Chapter 2 discusses the activities used to inform and involve project stakeholders such as the Navajo Nation, other stakeholder agencies, local communities, and the public. This chapter also provides a summary of comments and input from stakeholders, as well as how stakeholder input has been used by the study.

Chapter 3 summarizes the existing conditions within the corridor including:

o The engineering features and physical conditions of the existing highway including roadway typical sections, horizontal and vertical alignment data, drainage, major structures, posted speeds, access, utilities, geotechnical, and other pertinent data and conditions

o Traffic, speed, and crash data

o Right-of-way and land ownership

o Environmental, biological, and cultural resources within the study area

Chapter 4 summarizes the proposed improvements. Analysis findings specific to performance, cost, right-of-way needs, utility impacts, drainage, constructability, access, and impacts on the natural, cultural, and human environment are provided.

Chapter 5 describes the preferred alternative and a potential prioritized implementation phasing plan.

US 64 Alignment Study and Engineering Scoping Report: Arizona Border to Shiprock CN 5101170 Chapter 2 – Public Involvement and Agency Coordination

Page |2‐1

INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes the public involvement and agency coordination efforts being performed during Phase IA/B for the US 64 Alignment Study (CN 5101170). The process for public outreach is being guided by the NMDOT LSP and the project-specific Context Sensitive Solutions Public Involvement Plan (CSSPIP), which includes an initial list of probable stakeholders and identifies the anticipated activities to involve and engage stakeholders.

For this project, the primary stakeholders include the Navajo Nation; federal, tribal, and state resources agencies; community residents; and other users of the highway. Input from these groups and others will be used to identify issues of interest and concern and to develop, evaluate, and refine project alternatives. The list of stakeholders and engagement methods will be updated as the study progresses and more is learned about the issues and desires of the public.

PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT A project stakeholder list is being developed to identify relevant and important issues of interest and concern so that project alternatives could be developed, evaluated, and refined. County assessor parcel data for residents and businesses along the corridor is not available to develop a mailing list. However, working through the Navajo Chapter Houses will be instrumental in engaging with the surrounding community. The following stakeholders have been identified by researching the community governments and agencies having jurisdiction within the study limits. Community residents, businesses, resource agencies, local jurisdictions, highway users, and others having an interest in the highway and project will be informed of the study and invited to public meetings. Contact will be via a combination of email, USPS mail, radio, meeting advertisements, and social media platforms.

Community Navajo Nation chapters and residents within and adjacent to the study corridor Freight and other trucking companies

Elected Officials

New Mexico House Representative D. Wonda Johnson, District 5 Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez

Municipal Entities

San Juan County, State, and Tribal Emergency Management Services (Police, Fire Department, and Hospitals)

Navajo Tribal Utility Authority

Central Consolidated School District (Shiprock High School, Career Prep High School, Eva B. Stokely Elementary School, and Beclabito Day School, which is overseen by the Bureau of Indian Education)

Dine College (South Campus) and Philip Thomas Performing Arts Center

Agency Stakeholders Coordination with stakeholder agencies conducted to date has consisted of letters and email notifications, telephone discussions, and one-on-one meetings. The agencies with potential interest in the project and notified of the project by initial scoping letter include:

Navajo Nation, Beclabito Chapter House Navajo Nation, Teec Nos Pos Chapter House Navajo Nation, Shiprock Chapter House Navajo Nation, Gadiiahi Chapter House Navajo Nation Department of Transportation (NNDOT) Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife Navajo Nation Heritage and Historic Preservation Department Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency Navajo Nation Land Department Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office New Mexico Environment Department Arizona Department of Transportation

The NMDOT will work with NNDOT to set up recurring quarterly coordination meetings between the NMDOT and Navajo Nation entities. The purpose of these meetings will be to provide updates on NMDOT projects affecting the Navajo Nation.

OUTREACH ACTIVITIES As of March 2020, due to the Corona Virus (COVID-19), in-person meetings will not be feasible for the Phase IA/B study efforts. Meetings will seek to utilize audio or audio-video options. While emergency precautions are being implemented, methods for informing the public in-person are not feasible. FHWA approves using alternative measures for achieving public input due diligence. During the study phase, the project team will hold one public involvement meeting.

The structure and content of the public meeting, which will be reviewed and approved by the NMDOT, would be a virtual meeting platform scaled to the context of the local community and the project purpose and need. Accessibility and use of technologies, such as basic home-internet, high speed broadband, and cellular device connection, are not widespread on the Navajo Nation. Considering these circumstances, a virtual town hall public meeting is proposed using Access Live, which combines the use of active phone (landline and mobile) participation in tandem with live audio-video internet streaming. The meeting style mimics a radio show and is facilitated similar to in-person meetings with a moderator, combined verbal/Power Point presentation, and a Question-and-Answer interaction between the development team and participating public.

In addition, the ability to comment following the meeting will be offered on the NMDOT website for 30 days following the virtual meeting. The meeting would be recorded for subsequent posting on the NMDOT’s website for those unable to attend the meeting but interested in being informed and offering input within the 30-day comment period.

Based on input received at the November 22, 2019 NMDOT/Navajo Nation quarterly coordination meeting, the most effective methods to notify the community of public meetings are using the Chapter House marquee signs, portable message board signs, radio announcements, and notifying the individual chapters. A CSSPIP has been prepared for the project and has been amended to reflect modification of public engagement strategies in response to the Corona Virus precautions. This document is included in the electronic project materials.

US 64 Alignment Study and Engineering Scoping Report: Arizona Border to Shiprock CN 5101170 Chapter 2 – Public Involvement and Agency Coordination

Page |2‐2

A project logo was developed to distinguish the materials developed for this project, CN 5101170, from other NMDOT US 64 projects currently under development in San Juan County. The logo “Restore 64” is in the upper right of the header in this document.

HOW STAKEHOLDER INPUT WILL BE USED Stakeholder input will be a guiding factor for various elements of the project design and will be used a metric for developing and evaluating alternatives. Stakeholder input will be especially pertinent for the following project considerations:

Designation of highway and drainage right-of-way and use of Navajo Nation lands to construct and provide the needed improvements.

Identification of the intersections where left and right-turn lanes may be needed.

Locations where bus stop pull-outs should be designated and/or improved.

Locations where overhead lighting may be needed, including the power source and maintenance agreements.

Identification of traffic calming measures to reduce travel speeds through Beclabito.

Bridge aesthetic treatments.

SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER ISSUES AND CONCERNS Throughout the project development process, stakeholder issues and concerns will be compiled and documented as part of the administrative record. A Public Meeting Summary will be prepared following the first series of public meetings and 30-day comment period. A comprehensive summary of the key issues and concerns brought forth by the public will be attached to the final Phase IA/B Engineering Scoping Report for this project. Comments received during initial stakeholder coordination are summarized below.

Beclabito Chapter Concerns for US 64, MP 0 to 20.5; May 4, 2018:

1. Milepost 2 to Milepost 3.8 - Speeding and not obeying the posted signs, Reduce to a safety corridor from MP 2 to MP 14.

2. Turn Off Lane - There is a need for the westbound lane from Sinclair Convenience Store to NHA Housing.

3. Turn Off Lane - On the westbound lane, we need a turnoff before cemetery turnoff for cemetery access to Sinclair Convenience Store.

4. Turn Off Lanes - (bus) westbound uphill before N5113/Road 9040 on north and south side of Hwy 64.

5. Residential entry off HWY 64 to north between cemetery turnoff and store.

6. Bridges - widen and/or repair gaps.

7. Bus turnoff lanes for Milepost 0 at the Stateline NM side.

Gadiiahi Chapter Meeting Items; June 7, 2018:

1. HWY 64 / N57 Intersection

2. HWY 64 / N57-1 Intersection

3. Bus pull out/stations

4. Right-of-way

5. Cemetery

6. Building Complex

Additional comments regarding bus stop locations and other pull-out areas along US 64 were received by the study team from the Beclabito Chapter on December 13, 2019.

US 64 Alignment Study and Engineering Scoping Report: Arizona Border to Shiprock CN 5101170 Chapter 3 – Existing Conditions

Page |3‐1

INTRODUCTION This chapter documents the existing engineering and environmental conditions within the project limits. The discussion includes the existing roadway, geotechnical, bridge, drainage, right-of-way, utility, traffic, safety, land use, environmental, cultural and biological resources, and socioeconomic conditions that will influence the need for improvements and the identification and evaluation of project alternatives. Because separate reports were prepared for drainage, geotechnical, cultural resources and biology, information contained in this chapter summarizes existing conditions for these topics. Refer to the separate reports for detailed information which are included with the electronic project materials.

ROADWAY CONDITIONS The existing roadway conditions described below are based on analysis of the surveying and mapping provided by NMDOT, supplemental mobile LiDAR of the roadway surface developed by our team, review of available right-of-way (ROW) maps obtained from the NMDOT Records Bureau, and field surveys. The NMDOT Records Bureau did not have any roadway as-built plans for this segment of US 64, and provided as-built plans for two of four bridges in the project corridor. Our investigations of the project site and record documents reveal the following findings.

Posted Speeds Posted speed limits in the corridor vary from 45 mph to 55 mph. The community area of Beclabito and the easterly limits of the project entering Shiprock have the 45-mph speed limit. The posted speed limit in Arizona for eastbound US 64 is 65 mph. Table 3-1 below shows the posted speed limits and applicable locations. A 15-mph School Speed Zone with solar-powered flashing beacons also exists in Beclabito. Table 3-1: Posted Speed Limits

Posted Speed Limit Location Milepost Length

55 mph BOP to Beclabito MP 0.0 – MP 3.0 3.0 miles 45 mph In Beclabito MP 3.0 – MP 3.7 0.7 miles 55 mph Beclabito to Shiprock Outskirts MP 3.7 – MP 20.6 16.9 miles 45 mph Shiprock Outskirts to EOP MP 20.6 – MP 20.8 0.2 miles

Typical Section Existing typical sections for the US 64 roadway and each major structure are shown in Exhibit 3-1. The typical section consists of a 12-foot lane and variable shoulder widths for each travel direction. Surfacing tapers are inconsistent throughout the corridor. On bridges, considering the two-foot shy distance to railings, shoulder widths are minimal across the major structures.

Roadway Alignment The existing alignment of the roadway is generally straight with long tangents and relatively few curves given the length of the project. Based on available records there are ten horizontal curves within the project limits. By first setting the centerline of construction and then analyzing the horizontal curves, not all meet current engineering criteria when compared to a 60-mph design speed. Table 3-2 provides a summary of the horizontal curves in the project area, relevant geometric properties, design and posted speeds, and whether the curves meet current engineering criteria.

Exhibit 3-1: Existing Typical Sections


Page |3‐2

Table 3-2: Existing Horizontal Curves along US 64, MP 0 to MP 20.8

Curve No.

Mile Post (MP)

As‐Built Degree of Curve

As‐Built Radius (ft.)

As‐Built Average Se Rate

Required Se Rate (1)

Minimum Radius (ft.) (1)

Proposed Design Speed (mph)

Posted Speed (mph) Notes Meets Criteria for

Design Speed

H1 0.24 1˚00' 5,729.58 1.52% 2.80% 5,440 60 55 No H2 1.86 1˚30' 3,819.72 1.80% 3.80% 3,650 60 55 No

H3 2.96 2˚30' 2,314.69 3.92% 4.00% 2,300 50 45

Curve on westerly outskirts of Beclabito; existing eastbound US 64 speed limit reduction sign from 55 mph to 45 mph is placed within the curve. Consider relocating the speed limit change sign westerly to a location in advance of the curve.

Yes (2)

H4 4.76 2˚00' 2,975.52 2.60% 4.40% 2,920 60 55 No H5 7.57 1˚00' 5,729.58 1.65% 2.80% 5,440 60 55 No H6 7.90 1˚30' 3,819.72 0.80% 3.80% 3,650 60 55 No H7 9.28 1˚15' 4,499.31 1.30% 3.40% 4,250 60 55 No H8 9.60 1˚30' 4,007.90 1.80% 3.60% 3,940 60 55 No H9 16.07 1˚00' 5,729.58 2.65% 2.80% 5,440 60 55 No H10 19.99 1˚00' 5,729.58 2.30% 2.80% 5,440 60 55 No

(1) From AASHTO Green Book, 7th Edition, 2018, Table 3‐9, for emax = 6% (2) The existing horizontal curve meets a 50‐mph design speed. If the speed limit reduction sign is not relocated, the superelevation of the curve should be increased to 5.2% to meet a 60‐mph design speed.

Profile Grade The existing roadway profile has ninety-one (91) vertical curves throughout the corridor. On the western portion of the corridor from the beginning of project (BOP) to the limits of the Red Wash valley, the highway profile is variable with grades approaching and exceeding 7% in several areas. On the easterly portion, from the Red Wash valley to the end of project (EOP), grades are generally flatter and typically 4% or less, with isolated areas approaching or exceeding 5%.

Data provided by NMDOT Surveying and Mapping was used to evaluate the existing profile and determine where vertical curves may be deficient for the a 60-mph design speed. All vertical curves were analyzed for stopping sight distance, and the crest vertical curves were analyzed for passing sight distance. Analysis of the data reveals twenty (20) vertical curves do not meet stopping sight distance criteria, while thirty-three (33) crest vertical curves do not meet passing sight distance criteria for the proposed design speed. The following guidelines were used for this assessment:

1. From AASHTO Green Book, 7th Edition, 2018, Table 3-36 and 3-37 for stopping sight distance on crest and sag curves.

2. From AASHTO Green Book, 7th Edition, 2018, Table 3-35 for passing sight distance on crest curves.

The roadway is currently signed and marked “No Passing” on some of the vertical curves that do not meet stopping sight distance and/or passing sight distance criteria. There are, however, existing vertical curves that do not meet stopping sight distance and/or passing sight distance criteria that are currently in areas where passing is allowed.

The existing US 64 roadway has passing opportunities for approximately 69% of the corridor in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Table 3-3 below shows the relevant analysis data for the as-built documented vertical curves that are deficient for either stopping or passing sight distance criteria. Recommended changes to the “No Passing” zones in the project corridor to correct existing deficiencies are discussed in Chapter 4.

Intersections Existing intersections in the corridor include six (6) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) roads. In total, there are approximately seventy-seven (77) access points within the project limits, with the majority being Tribal Roads and private entrances. All the BIA side road approaches to US 64 are stop-sign controlled; there are no signalized intersections within the project limits. Only one (1) intersection has auxiliary lanes for turning traffic. Table 3-4 lists the BIA intersections within the project limits and identifies if auxiliary turning lanes are present.

Research into the driveway permit status for the private entrances on the corridor indicates that there are only five (5) permitted entrances out of the more than seventy-one (71) total private entrances in the project area. Table 3-5 lists the private accesses currently permitted by NMDOT District 5.


Page |3‐3

Table 3-3: As-Built Documented Vertical Curves Deficient for Stopping or Passing Sight Distance

Curve No. PVI Sta. Mile Post

(MP) Curve Type

As‐Built Length (ft)

As‐Built K Value

Proposed Design

Speed (mph)

Posted Speed (mph)

Required Stopping Sight Distance (ft)

Required K Value for

Stopping Sight Distance

Required Passing Sight Distance (ft)

Required K Value for Passing Sight Distance (ft)

Meets Criteria for Design Speed

(Stopping Sight Dist.)

Meets Criteria for Design Speed (Passing

Sight Dist.)

V2 1025+75.00 0.49 Crest 800 214 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V4 1059+25.00 1.12 Crest 1250 166 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V9 1129+25.00 2.45 Sag 550 97 60 55 570 136 1000 357 NO N/A V10 1137+50.00 2.60 Crest 600 208 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V13 1164+50.00 3.12 Crest 600 164 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V14 1175+00.00 3.31 Crest 300 173 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V16 1196+50.00 3.72 Crest 900 273 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V17 1207+50.00 3.93 Sag 650 126 60 55 570 136 1000 357 NO N/A V19 1234+00.00 4.43 Crest 700 189 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V20 1244+25.00 4.63 Sag 350 99 60 55 570 136 1000 357 NO N/A V24 1318+00.00 6.02 Crest 500 308 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V25 1344+25.00 6.52 Crest 950 179 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V30 1392+75.00 7.44 Crest 500 104 60 55 570 151 1000 357 NO NO V31 1402+00.00 7.61 Sag 600 108 60 55 570 136 1000 357 NO N/A V32 1412+25.00 7.81 Sag 700 90 60 55 570 136 1000 357 NO N/A V33 1421+00.00 7.97 Crest 700 184 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V34 1429+25.00 8.13 Crest 350 109 60 55 570 151 1000 357 NO NO V36 1443+25.00 8.39 Crest 500 132 60 55 570 151 1000 357 NO NO V39 1463+75.00 8.78 Crest 450 122 60 55 570 151 1000 357 NO NO V41 1475+75.00 9.01 Crest 200 270 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V42 1482+25.00 9.13 Sag 400 126 60 55 570 136 1000 357 NO N/A V43 1493+75.00 9.35 Crest 500 198 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V44 1501+50.00 9.50 Sag 700 126 60 55 570 136 1000 357 NO N/A V45 1514+25.00 9.74 Crest 750 105 60 55 570 151 1000 357 NO NO V47 1528+75.00 10.01 Crest 250 208 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V49 1546+50.00 10.35 Crest 450 99 60 55 570 151 1000 357 NO NO V51 1565+00.00 10.70 Crest 200 222 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V54 1589+75.00 11.17 Crest 900 188 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V55 1603+75.00 11.43 Sag 400 111 60 55 570 136 1000 357 NO N/A V57 1621+50.00 11.77 Crest 500 200 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V58 1627+75.00 11.89 Sag 400 111 60 55 570 136 1000 357 NO N/A V59 1635+00.00 12.03 Crest 400 195 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V61 1651+75.00 12.34 Crest 600 207 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V62 1662+00.00 12.54 Sag 500 93 60 55 570 136 1000 357 NO N/A V65 1693+50.00 13.13 Crest 850 283 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO


Page |3‐4

Table 3-3: As-Built Documented Vertical Curves Deficient for Stopping or Passing Sight Distance (continued)

Curve No. PVI Sta. Mile Post

(MP) Curve Type

As‐Built Length (ft)

As‐Built K Value

Proposed Design

Speed (mph)

Posted Speed (mph)

Required Stopping Sight Distance (ft)

Required K Value for

Stopping Sight Distance

Required Passing Sight Distance (ft)

Required K Value for Passing Sight Distance (ft)

Meets Criteria for Design Speed

(Stopping Sight Dist.)

Meets Criteria for Design Speed (Passing

Sight Dist.)

V68 1733+00.00 13.88 Crest 500 303 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V69 1743+00.00 14.07 Sag 600 74 60 55 570 136 1000 357 NO N/A V70 1754+00.00 14.28 Crest 750 136 60 55 570 151 1000 357 NO NO V75 1861+25.00 16.31 Crest 500 342 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V78 1929+75.00 17.61 Crest 600 321 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V79 1948+50.00 17.96 Sag 350 117 60 55 570 136 1000 357 NO N/A V80 1962+25.00 18.22 Crest 800 333 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V82 1980+00.00 18.56 Crest 500 192 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V88 2051+50.00 19.91 Crest 500 175 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO V89 2065+75.00 20.18 Sag 700 101 60 55 570 136 1000 357 NO N/A V90 2080+00.00 20.45 Crest 350 167 60 55 570 151 1000 357 YES NO

Table 3-4: Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Road Intersections with US 64

Mile Post Side of US 64 Route No. Auxiliary Lanes

2.31 North BIA 5112/RD 9057 EB and WB Turn Lanes 3.11 North BIA 5027/TR 1754/RD 9060 None 5.63 North BIA 5038/TR 1702/RD 9071 None 6.41 North BIA 5113/RD 9040 None 17.15 South BIA 571/RD 9090 None 17.87 North BIA 57 None

Table 3-5: Private Access Locations with NMDOT Driveway Permits

Mile Post Side of US 64 Permit Holder Permit No. Date of Permit

4.200 South Larry Bidtah, Sr. 22 4/2/1997 11.083 South Melvin Lee 68 7/5/2006 19.000 South Wilfred Frazier 57 5/31/1996 19.200 South Cheryl McClure 43 8/17/2007 19.708 North Agnes Sherman 56 10/30/2009

Roadside Barriers There is approximately five miles of existing roadside barrier along US 64 within the project limits. An inventory of existing roadside barriers indicates the following:

Eastbound US 64: 12,100 feet of guardrail; 582 feet of concrete wall barrier

Westbound US 64: 13,397 feet of guardrail; 584 feet of concrete wall barrier

State DOT’s are in the process of transitioning to roadside safety hardware that is compliant with the AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH), 2016. This should not be an issue for this project because all roadside features will be updated as part of the proposed improvements described in Chapter 4.

Pavement Condition A memo dated August 8, 2019, was prepared by Wood documenting the pavement cores obtained for westbound US 64 as part of this project. The memo is included with the electronic project materials. The existing roadway is generally in fair to poor condition with surface and subgrade issues existing throughout the project. Most of the distress noted in the roadway appears to be pavement fatigue and subgrade failure. The main issues that will need to be addressed through geotechnical services in the design phase will be remediation of the swelling or collapsing soil, developing rehabilitation strategies for portions of the roadway that will be rehabilitated, development of construction techniques in poor subgrade areas, and finding suitable borrow locations for roadway subgrade.

Asphalt pavement core thicknesses in the roadway were observed to be between 2.75 and 6.5 inches. Asphalt pavement core thicknesses on the shoulders were observed to be between 2 and 4 inches. The bottom 2 inches of the 4-inch core retrieved at MP 8 was harder than the upper layer and appear to be treated with cement. Further, the measurements taken indicate that the base course is between 2.75 and 6.00 inches along the corridor.

Pavement rutting exists between MP 8 and MP 10, which was confirmed using the NMDOT’s pavement distress iVision viewer. The undulations in the existing pavement suggests that there may be deeper issues within the subgrade at these locations, which will be investigated in more detail during Phase ID of this project.


Page |3‐5

MAJOR STRUCTURES The 20.8-mile section of US 64 has four designated major structures/bridges (i.e., over 20-feet long) which require an existing conditions assessment; three bridges and one multi-barrel box culvert. Existing drainage conditions at the major structures are discussed under the Drainage section later in this chapter. The existing conditions assessment was accomplished by:

Review of existing record drawings for two of the structures, Bridge No. 5862 and Bridge No. 5864. Field survey & laser scan of all the structures. Site visit by WSP, BHI, & NMDOT Bridge personnel on July 30, 2019. The latest available bridge inspection reports as found in the electronic project materials.

The inspection reports as provided by NMDOT include various ratings as defined by FHWA. Bridges are required to be inspected regularly. With each inspection report, a series of ratings is provided based on the bridge conditions observed during the inspection. These inspection reports include an overall Sufficiency Rating, Health Index, Appraisal Rating, Condition Rating, and Inventory and Operating Ratings. These ratings are summarized as follows:

Sufficiency Rating Vehicular bridges are inspected, rated and assigned a Sufficiency Rating. The Sufficiency Rating is indicative of a bridge’s sufficiency to remain in service. The Sufficiency Rating may be used to define the eligibility for federal funding available for a bridge; in general, the lower the rating, the higher the priority. A bridge has historically had to have a Sufficiency Rating of 80 or less to qualify for federal funds for rehabilitation and a rating of 50 or less for replacement funds. Although the Sufficiency Rating is no longer used as extensively by the FHWA, it is still considered a good indicator of overall condition of a structure because it considers many factors when being computed.

Sufficiency Ratings are determined using the Sufficiency Rating Formula. This formula is defined in the U.S. Department of Transportation’s report titled “Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges.” The numeric value is a percentage in which one-hundred percent (100%) represents an entirely sufficient bridge and zero (0%) percent represents a totally insufficient bridge. The Sufficiency Rating Formula utilizes the following four components in descending order of importance to calculate the overall Sufficiency Rating for a bridge:

Structural Adequacy and Safety Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence Essentiality for Public Use Special Reductions

Health Index

The health index is the remaining health of the bridge in percent from 0% to 100%. For example, if the health index is 50%, the bridge is worth 50% of its original worth. The health index uses the National Bridge Elements (NBE) which are all of the different elements in a bridge inspection (bridge deck, concrete abutment, wearing surface, bearing pads, etc.). The quantity in each Condition State (CS1 = Good thru CS4 = Serious) are used in the health index calculation.

Appraisal Rating Appraisal Ratings are used to evaluate the level of service a bridge provides in relation to the highway system of which it is a part. The structure is compared to a new one built to current standards for by type and function of road. Appraisal Ratings are assigned, where applicable, for structural evaluation, deck geometry, waterway adequacy, approach alignment, underclearances, and scour. Appraisal Rating values range from zero to nine. A rating of zero is used for bridges that are closed. A rating of two indicates that the bridge is far below the current standards and should have a high priority for replacement. A rating of nine indicates that the bridge is superior to present desirable criteria. Ratings 5 or less have a negative impact on overall Sufficiency Rating.

The Structural Evaluation Appraisal Rating is determined using the Condition Rating of the substructure and superstructure. Horizontal and vertical underclearances are evaluated for sufficiency for current traffic loads and rated accordingly. The Deck Geometry Rating is determined using the current ADT and/or the number of lanes on the roadway.

Condition Rating Condition Ratings are used to describe the existing, in-place major structure as compared to the as-built condition. Three elements characterize the overall existing physical condition of a bridge: the Condition Ratings of the deck, superstructure, and substructure components of the bridge. A culvert rating is assigned to a concrete box culvert.

The Condition Rating is one of several values used to calculate the overall Sufficiency Rating. The Condition Rating is a numerical value ranging from zero to nine with a zero representing a failed condition and a nine representing an excellent condition. The rating is determined by the bridge inspector based on field observations during the inspection. The Condition Ratings of the superstructure and substructure have a much greater influence on the overall Sufficiency Rating than the Condition Rating of the deck. The maximum allowable percentage contributed to the Sufficiency Rating is 55%. However, ratings of 5 or lower begin to negatively affect that percentage. For a bridge, the Condition Rating only considers the lower of the deck rating, super-structure rating, and the substructure rating.

Inventory and Operating Ratings The inventory rating of a bridge reflects the safe load carrying capacity of the bridge for normal service conditions. The operating rating of a bridge is a measurement of the maximum permissible load of a bridge for occasional use. The structural adequacy and safety factor consider the Condition Rating and the inventory rating.

Bridge #5865 at Shoe Game Wash Bridge No. 5865 is located at the New Mexico/Arizona state line as shown in Exhibit 3-2. Built in 1956, this is a 5 barrel, 10’ (span) x 8’ (height) concrete box culvert (CBC). The CBC is 32 feet wide with two lanes on US 64 over Shoe Game Wash, as such the minimum vertical clearance is not applicable to the roadway conditions report. The average daily traffic (ADT) was measured in 2019 to be 2,500 vehicles per day. Detailed information for the bridge is presented in Table 3-6. Additionally, the most recent NMDOT Bridge Inspection Report for Bridge No. 5865 is in the electronic project materials.

Table 3-6: Existing Bridge #5865 Properties


Page |3‐6

Exhibit 3-2: Bridge #5865 Shoe Game Wash Plan View

Sufficiency Rating The Sufficiency Rating and Health Index for the Shoe Game Wash CBC are summarized in Table 3-7. The following is noted:

The overall bridge system is equal to present minimum criteria and can qualify for federal funds for rehabilitation.

The geometry of the approach alignment equals desirable criteria.

The detour length required if the bridge is closed is an unreasonable distance for the traffic volume.

The bridge rail, rail transition, and approach rail meet standard. However, the approach rail ends are substandard.

Table 3-7: Existing Bridge #5865 Sufficiency Ratings

Bridge ‐ 5865 Sufficiency Ratings

Sufficiency Rating

Health Index

Deficiency Status

Bridge Railing, including Approach and Transition

Approach Rail Ends

80.0 81.32 Not‐Deficient Meets Standard Substandard

Appraisal Rating The Appraisal Ratings are shown in Table 3-8. The structural evaluation rating of 6 indicates the structure is equal to the present minimum criteria. The rating of 8 for waterway adequacy indicates that the bridge deck is above roadway approaches, and that there is a slight chance of overtopping roadway approaches. The approach roadway alignment rating of 8 is equal to present desirable criteria. The scour rating of 8 indicates the foundations are stable for assessed or calculated scour conditions. As the applicable appraisal ratings are all 6 or higher, they do not negatively affect the Sufficiency Rating.

Table 3-8: Existing Bridge #5865 Appraisal Ratings

Condition Rating The condition of bridge elements for the Shoe Game Wash CBC is described below. The structure has overall Culvert Condition and Channel/Channel Protection ratings of 6. This indicates the overall structure condition meets minimum present criteria.


Page |3‐7

Reinforced Concrete Culvert (Box) Bridge No. 5865 has diagonal, longitudinal, and transverse cracks on the top slab with isolated areas of moderate scaling and light efflorescence near barrel outlets. Anchor bolts protrude through the top slab at the outlet and inlet with small spalls and light efflorescence at these locations. The barrel walls have vertical, diagonal, and horizontal cracks; as well as vertical cracks that transition to transverse cracks along the top slab. Isolated spalling is present in multiple areas; exposed rebar is present in two locations with some advanced section loss.

Barrel ends have steel armor protection at the inlet with moderate debris build up, the condition of the bottom slab is largely unknown due to silt and rock build up.

Wingwalls The wingwalls have isolated delamination, some map-like cracking, some isolated spalling, patches of exposed rebar, and transverse, horizontal, vertical, and diagonal cracking. Vegetation growth is present at the south wingwalls.

Parapets The inlet parapet has minor scaling with exposed aggregate and the outlet parapet has heavy scaling over one barrel. Vertical, horizontal, and map-like cracking is present; the outlet parapet has isolated areas with snap-tie hole patching.

Aprons The apron is covered with rock dirt rock build up and is therefore largely unobservable; where observable the apron has minor scaling, longitudinal and transverse cracking, and an isolated spall along an edge.

Guardrail The guardrail is thrie-beam with transitions to W-beam at the approaches. The timber is moderately dry and weathered with minor to moderate splits and checks. There is heavy damage at the westbound approach end unit and there is minor damage throughout.

Inventory and Operating Ratings The structure satisfies requirements and does not require load restriction posting. The structure has an inventory load rating of HS19.8 and an operating load rating of HS33.7.

Existing Bridge #5864 Red Wash Bridge No. 5864 is located 14.2 miles west of Junction US 491 as shown in Exhibit 3-3. Built in 1960, this is a continuous, six-span bridge supported with six steel girders and concrete caps on steel H-pile columns. The superstructure has an out-to-out width of 34.12 feet with two lanes being carried over the Red Wash. The average daily traffic (ADT) on US 64 west of this bridge was 2,500 vehicles in 2019. Detailed information for the bridge is presented in Table 3-9, and the transverse section for the bridge is shown in Exhibit 3-4. Additionally, the most recent NMDOT Bridge Inspection Report for Bridge No. 5864 is presented in the electronic project materials.

Exhibit 3-3: Bridge #5864 Red Wash Plan View

Inlet Debris, Silt & Rock Build Up

Bottom Slab Anchor Bolts and Delamination


Page |3‐8


Exhibit 3-4: Existing Bridge #5864 Transverse Section

Sufficiency Rating

The Sufficiency Rating and Health Index for this bridge are shown in Table 3-10. The Sufficiency Rating of 56.9 indicates the following:

The overall bridge system is in fair condition and can qualify for federal funds for rehabilitation.

The superstructure is in satisfactory condition.

The substructure is in satisfactory condition.

The geometry of the roadway on the bridge is adequate.


The bridge rail, rail transition, and approach rail ends are substandard. However, the approach rail meets standards.



Sufficiency Rating

Health Index

Deficiency Status

Bridge Railing, including Approach Rail Ends and Transition Approach Rail

56.9 77.34 Not‐Deficient Substandard Meets Standards

Appraisal Rating The Deck Geometry Rating of 4 meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is. The remaining appraisal ratings are 6 or higher and do not negatively affect the Sufficiency Rating. The Appraisal Ratings are shown in Table 3-11.


Bridge ‐ 5864 Appraisal Ratings

Structure Evaluation Deck Geometry Waterway

Adequacy Approach Alignment Underclearances Scour

6 4 6 8 N/A 6

Condition Rating The Condition Ratings are described in the following sections and are shown below in Table 3-12. The condition of various bridge elements is further discussed in the following sections. The bridge inspection reports, field observations, and pictures were used to determine element conditions.

Table 3-12: Existing Bridge #5864 Condition Ratings

Bridge ‐ 5864 Condition Ratings

Deck Superstructure Substructure Channel/ Channel Protection

5 6 6 5

Structural Condition The structure has an overall structural Condition Rating of 5, which indicates that the overall structural condition meets minimum present criteria.

Joints Bridge No. 5864 has several issues with the existing expansion joints. Because the bridge deck is not continuous over the pier caps, major leaks are being observed. The asphalt topping has cracked and spalled at the joints which

Bridge No. Year Built

5864 1960

StructureLength

Lanes On Lanes Under

(ft) No. Spans Span 1 Span 2 Span 3 Span 4 Span 5 Span 6

261.2 2 0 6 43'‐0" 43'‐0" 43'‐0" 43'‐0" 43'‐0" 43'‐0"

Width (Curb to Curb)

Width (Out to Out)

(ft) (ft) Deck TypeWearing Surface

30.18 34.12Concrete Cast‐in‐Place

Bituminous

Bridge ‐ 5864 Properties

Feature Intersected

Facility Carried

Mile Post (mi)

Structure Type

County

San Juan

Span

(deg)30

Deck

14.2 MI W of JCT US‐491 US‐64 7.64

Skew

Red Wash

Location

Steel Stringer/Girder

PierCap Type

Concrete Cap, Steel H‐Pile Piers

Substructure

Concrete Stub Abutments Driven Piles

AbutmentType

FoundationType

Superstructure


Page |3‐9

has caused damage to the entire bridge system at these locations. Water ponds at the expansion joints due to the loss of asphalt material and seeps through onto the girder, bearings, pier caps, and columns.

Deck and Bridger Barrier Rail The deck is cast-in-place concrete with an asphalt overlay which makes the top of deck condition unknown. There are large spalls, efflorescence, and delamination at the underside of the deck overhangs and at the expansion joints. The deck edges have large spalls at several barrier post locations throughout the bridge due to traffic damage.

Bridge barrier railing is substandard and not in use anymore. The photo to the right shows several rails disconnected from the deck system rendering them inoperative. Temporary concrete wall barrier has been placed in front of the bridge barrier railing because of the extreme condition.

Pier and Abutment Caps Both abutment caps have vertical and horizontal cracks. The abutment 1 backwall has diagonal cracks and water stained throughout with efflorescence and rust stains. There is minor undermining at abutment 1. Abutment 2 has efflorescence, aggregate loss, and delamination.

The pier caps are in poor condition. Most have delamination, concrete cracking, and spalling. Water stains are apparent throughout all pier caps. Pier 5 has heavily exposed rebar up to 1 foot. Pier cap conditions further indicate expansion joint failure.

The steel H-piles all have rust towards the bottom with section loss on several. There is significant debris buildup on several of the piers. There is damage to one upstream pile which seems to have been caused by floating debris. Pile cross bracing has paint system failure, rust, and section loss towards the bottom as well.

Bearings All bearings have paint system failure which has allowed heavy rusting resulting in minor section loss. The steel movable bearings are complex systems in which one girder rests on the pier cap with the connecting girder resting on top of it.

Girder Traffic Damage Steel girders are in good condition with moderate rusting and paint system failure at bearings. The steel diaphragms have moderate rusting and minor section loss at the joint locations.

Inventory and Operating Ratings The structure satisfies requirements and does not require load restriction posting. The structure has an inventory load rating of HS16.5 and an operating load rating of HS27.6.

Existing Bridge #5863 Shiprock Wash Bridge No. 5863 is located 7.9 miles west of Junction US 491 as shown in Exhibit 3-5. Built in 1956, this is a continuous, three-span bridge with five steel girders. The superstructure has an out-to-out width of 34.12 feet with two lanes being carried over US 64. The average daily traffic (ADT) on US 64 east of this bridge was approximately 2,500 vehicles per day in 2019. Detailed information for the bridge is presented in Table 3-13. Additionally, the most recent NMDOT Bridge Inspection Report for Bridge No. 5863 is presented in the electronic project materials.

Exhibit 3-5: Bridge #5863 Shiprock Wash Plan View

Connection Failure at Bridge Barrier Rail

Existing Bridge #5864 Piers

Movable Bearing


Page |3‐10


Sufficiency Rating The Sufficiency Rating and Health Index for this bridge are shown in Table 3-14. The Sufficiency Rating of 74.2 indicates the following:

The overall bridge system is in satisfactory condition and can qualify for federal funds for rehabilitation.

The superstructure and substructure is in good condition with some minor problems. The Condition Rating of 7 does not negatively affect the Sufficiency Rating.

The geometry of the roadway on is adequate.



The channel protecting is in fair condition, however a Condition Rating of 5 negatively affects the Sufficiency Rating.



Sufficiency Rating

Health Index

Deficiency Status

Bridge Railing, including Approach Rail Ends and

Transition Approach Rail

74.2 84.10 Not ‐ Deficient Substandard Meets Standards Appraisal Rating The Deck Geometry Rating of 4 meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is. The approach roadway alignment and structural rating of 7 indicates it meets present day standards. The waterway adequacy is equal to

present day criteria. The underclearance rating is N/A which does not negatively affect the Sufficiency Rating. The Appraisal Ratings are shown in Table 3-15.



Structure Evaluation

Deck Geometry

Waterway Adequacy

Approach Alignment Underclearances Scour

7 4 8 7 N/A Unknown Condition Rating The Condition Ratings are described in the following sections and are shown below in Table 3-16. The condition of various bridge elements is further discussed in the following sections. The bridge inspection reports were used to determine element conditions.




6 7 7 5 Structural Condition The structure has an overall structural Condition Rating of 6. This value is the lowest of the ratings obtained from the deck, super-structure and sub-structure ratings and indicates that the overall structural condition is above the minimum present-day criteria.

Joints The joint seals are unobservable because the asphalt covers the entire bridge deck. However, they are known to be leaking due to the rust on the backwalls of the abutments. There is also a slight buildup of debris that seems to be entering through the failing seals.

Deck The deck is continuous over the superstructure with joints at the ends. The asphalt topping has cracking throughout the span of the bridge. At the joints, there is cracking and delamination.

Pier and Abutment Caps All pier and abutment caps have longitudinal, horizontal, vertical and map cracking. The abutment caps’ cracks are up to 0.02” wide and the pier cracks are up to 0.06” wide. The pier columns have vertical cracks up to 0.06” wide and horizontal cracks up to 0.04” wide.

The abutments have light spalling. The backwalls have vertical and horizontal cracks up to 0.02” wide.

Bridge No. Year Built

5863 1956

StructureLength


(ft) No. Spans

212.9 2 0 3


Width (Out to Out)


32.15 34.12Concrete Cast‐in‐Place

Bituminous


Feature Intersected

Facility Carried

Mile Post (mi)

Structure Type

County

San Juan

Span

(deg)0

Deck

7.9 MI W of JCT US‐491 US‐64 14.01

Skew

Steel Continuous Stringer/Girder

PierCap Type

Concrete Cap, Concrete Piers

Substructure

Concrete Stub Abutments Unknown

AbutmentType

FoundationType

Superstructure

Shiprock Wash

Location

Span 364'‐0"

Span 281'‐0"

Span 164'‐0"


Page |3‐11

Bearings There are twenty (20) steel bearings, all of which have freckled rust and paint loss. Moveable rocker bearings at abutments have been in the same position since the previous inspection report indicating they are frozen and not functioning correctly.

The steel fixed bearings at the piers have light paint flaking and rust freckling but seem to be functioning as intended and are in moderate condition.

Girder Damage The girders have light to moderate paint loss with moderate rusting at the bottom flange. The rusting has not caused any section loss throughout any of the girders. There is also rusting at the connections on most girders, including rusting of the connection plates and rivets.

Channel/Channel Protection A Condition Rating of 5 indicates that the channel protection is being eroded and the control devices have damage. The channel/channel protection rating of 5 means that there is a reduction of 10%.

Inventory and Operating Ratings The structure satisfies requirements and does not require load restriction posting. The structure has an inventory load rating of HS18.7 and an operating load rating of HS30.

Existing Bridge #5862 Rattlesnake Wash Bridge No. 5862 is located 1.6 miles west of Junction US 491 as shown in Exhibit 3-6. Built in 1951 and reconstructed in 1960, this is a simply supported, two-span bridge with twelve (12) pre-stressed AASHTO BI-36 Box girders in each span (24 total). The superstructure has an out-to-out width of 37.4 feet with two lanes being carried over US-64. The existing bridge carries the roadway over the Rattlesnake Wash and therefore the minimum vertical clearance is not applicable to the roadway conditions report. The average daily traffic (ADT) on US 64 east of this bridge was 5,400 vehicles per day in 2019. Detailed information for the bridge is presented in Table 3-17, and the transverse section for the bridge is shown in Exhibit 3-7. Additionally, the most recent NMDOT Bridge Inspection Report for Bridge No. 5862 is presented in the electronic project materials.

Exhibit 3-6: Existing Bridge #5862 Location

Rusting of Bottom Flange of Exterior Girder

Frozen Rocker Bearing


Page |3‐12


Exhibit 3-7: Existing Bridge #5862 Transverse Section Sufficiency Rating Bridge No. 5862 is inspected every 24 months and was last inspected on September 4, 2019. The Sufficiency Rating and Health Index for this bridge are shown in Table 3-18. The Sufficiency rating of 76 indicates the following:

The overall bridge system is in satisfactory condition and can qualify for federal funds for rehabilitation.

The superstructure is in satisfactory condition.

The substructure is in satisfactory condition.

The geometry of the roadway on and below the bridge is adequate.





Sufficiency Rating

Health Index

Deficiency Status

Bridge Railing, including Approach Rail Ends and Transition Approach Rail

76.0 87.18 Not‐Deficient Substandard Meets Standards

Appraisal Rating The Deck Geometry Rating of 4 is considered “barely tolerable” and will negatively affect the bridge Sufficiency Rating. The underclearance rating of N/A does not negatively affect the Sufficiency Rating. The approach roadway alignment rating of 8 is equal to present desirable criteria and does not negatively affect the Sufficiency Rating. A structural evaluation rating of 6 indicates the structure is equal to the present minimum criteria. The scour rating of 3 indicates that the level of scour is basically intolerable and requires high priority of corrective action. As such, the bridge is scour critical and the bridge foundations determined to be unstable for calculated scour conditions. The Appraisal Ratings are shown in Table 3-19.



Structure Evaluation Deck Geometry Waterway

Adequacy Approach Alignment Underclearances Scour

6 4 7 8 N/A 3

Condition Rating The Condition Ratings are shown below in Table 3-20. The condition of various bridge elements is further discussed in the following sections. The bridge inspection reports were used to determine element conditions.




6 6 6 6

Bridge No. Year BuiltMile Post

(mi)

5862 1951 20.300

StructureLength


(ft)

97.1 2 0


Width (Out to Out)


FoundationType

34.45 37.4Concrete Precast Panel

Bituminous

Stub Abutments & Steel H‐

Piles

Superstructure

(deg)0

Deck

2 46'‐0" 46'‐0"

Structure Type

Precast Concrete Box Beam

PierCap Type

Concrete Cap

Substructure

Concrete Stub Abutments

AbutmentType


Feature Intersected

No. Spans

Span

Facility Carried

County

San Juan 1.6 MI W of JCT US 491 US‐64

Skew

Rattlesnake Wash

Location

Span 1 Span 2


Page |3‐13

Structural Condition The structure has an overall structural Condition Rating of 6. This indicates that the overall structural condition is satisfactory but may show some minor deterioration.

Joints Bridge No. 5862 has several issues with the existing joints. The joints are beneath the bituminous topping so the visual damage cannot be inspected. However, there is evidence of leaking due to rust and water stains on the abutments and pier cap. It appears that the joint leaks have created deterioration issues in other elements of the bridge such as the pier and abutments.

Deck & Bridge Barrier Rail The deck consists of the top of the adjacent box girders with a cover of asphalt. The asphalt is in an overall fair condition with minor spalls up to 10”x 8” for a total of 3 square feet and delamination of 3’-0”x 6” for a total of 3 square feet. The deck has an issue with the drains getting plugged which may lead to the joints leaking & other drainage problems.

There is spalling at the connections between the railing and the deck.

Pier and Abutment Caps Abutment 1 is the location where heavy scour is occurring to the point where the underside of the abutment is visible. The abutments are 2.83’ wide and the erosion is 5’ long x 7” high x 2.67’ wide under the abutment. Three of the seven driven steel piles are exposed up to 7”. This is not due to water in the channel but possibly by water runoff from the top of the bridge.

Abutment 2 has moderate erosion. Both abutment caps and the pier cap have map cracking.

The pier cap has signs of deterioration which includes heavy water stains and spalling. Steel H-piles have minor section loss and moderate surface rusting. Horizontal bracing also has surface rusting.

Girders There are several girders in span 1 with moderate to heavy water stains at the connecting joints. There are also heavy water stains in span 2 between several girders, and rust stains in isolated areas of the water stains indicating the water is penetrating the box beam concrete and rusting the reinforcement and pre-stressing strands. There are longitudinal cracks ranging from 0.01” to 0.02” on several girders in both spans resulting in up to 334 feet of affected girder length.

Inventory and Operating Ratings The structure has an inventory load rating of HS28.5 and an operating load rating of HS47.5.

DRAINAGE

A draft of the Draft Final Drainage Report was prepared and is included in the electronic project materials. This section summarizes existing drainage conditions for US 64; the hydrological and hydraulics analyses can be found in the drainage report. For the most part, the drainage basins for existing structures within the project area lie to the south of US 64. Runoff flows in a northerly direction to the US 64 roadway alignment and after crossing the roadway, permeates or eventually reaches the San Juan River to the north. Given the terrain of the project area, the fill heights over the culverts range from minimum cover to over twenty feet.

Culvert Crossings and Turnouts In August 2019, field inspections of the drainage conditions for the US 64 corridor were performed. A total of 105 cross drainage culverts, along with 16 turnout culverts, were identified within the project limits. One of these crossings, Drainage Structure 2 (DS-2; Bridge 5865) at milepost 0.07 is a multi-barrel 5 - 10' x 8' concrete box culvert (CBC), and it carries Shoe Game Wash under US 64. Eighty-three (83) of the crossing culverts are round, corrugated metal pipes (CMPs), single or multiple barrels, ranging in size between 18" diameter to 72" diameter; ten (10) of the crossing culverts are reinforced concrete pipes (RCPs), single or multiple barrels, ranging in size between 24" diameter to 60" diameter; ten (10) of the crossings are corrugated metal pipe arches (CMPA), single or multiple barrels, ranging in size between 28" span x 20" rise to 12.5' span x 8.5' rise multi-plates structure. In addition to the DS-2 referenced above, another CBC (1-8' span x 8' rise) exists on this project.

End treatments are not installed at the ends of the existing culverts; standard headwalls and wingwalls do exist at the ends of the CBCs. Most the CMP culverts are in poor condition and show signs of corrosion. Several of the existing culverts are severely corroded to a point that holes in the culverts were observed during the field inspection. Refer to Table 3-21 for the locations of these severely corroded CMP culverts.

Sedimentation issues were also identified. Approximately thirty (30) culverts had significant sediment built up around the inlet and/or outlet. These crossings usually had trenches dug on one or both sides of the culvert to allow water to flow. In addition to sedimentation, erosion issues were also identified, typically at the culvert outlet where large scour holes and head-cuts were present. Approximately thirty-four (34) culverts were found to have scour at the inlet and/or outlet. In some areas, the scour holes were causing the roadway embankment above the culvert to sluff off. Crossings with scour issues are shown in Table 3-22.

Vegetation, mainly composed of tumble weeds and sage brush, was also encountered at some of the crossings, which may be restricting their ability to convey flows. The embankment slopes and culvert depths create accessibility issues making maintenance of these areas difficult. For a summary of the field notes and the existing structures inventory, refer to the drainage report in the electronic project materials.

The NMDOT Highway Maintenance Supervisor, Michael Mayo, who oversees maintenance operations in the area, was contacted to identify if there are any notable drainage issues in the US 64 corridor. Mr. Mayo did not express any concerns related to roadway overtopping or other drainage issues within the project area.

Girder Joints Leaking

Spalling at Bridge Railings

Abutment Scour


Page |3‐14

Table 3-21: Severely Corroded CMP Culverts

Struct. No. MP STATION SIZE Severe

Corrosion DS‐35 8.46 1447+31.56 1‐24" X 54.07' CMP Yes DS‐36 8.58 1453+73.46 1‐24" X 56.15' CMP Yes DS‐70 14.30 1757+48.51 1‐24" X 62.26' CMP Yes DS‐71 14.33 1759+02.22 1‐36" X 62.26' CMP Yes DS‐72 14.36 1760+82.72 1‐24" X 76.60' CMP Yes DS‐76 15.08 1798+13.61 1‐24" X 51.82' CMP Yes DS‐94 18.72 1993+36.04 1‐24" X 73.83' CMP Yes DS‐97 19.12 2014+66.95 2‐36" X 93.05' CMP's Yes DS‐98 19.16 2016+94.74 1‐24" X 98.70' CMP Yes DS‐100 19.31 2025+02.01 1‐36" X 62.38' CMP Yes DS‐104 20.31 2073+27.47 1‐24" X 46.66' CMP Yes

Table 3-22: Culvert Scour

Struct. No. MP STATION SIZE Scour @

Outlet

DS‐5 0.63 1033+57.23 1‐24" X 100.81' CMC Yes DS‐7 0.96 1051+33.96 1‐24" X 116.63' CMC Yes DS‐11 2.06 1109+27.76 1‐54" X 82.70' CMC Yes DS‐12 2.13 1113+11.41 1‐24" X 76.41' CMC Yes DS‐14 2.46 1130+43.2 1‐24" X 57.77' CMC Yes DS‐16 2.72 1144+42.73 1‐24" X 63.06' CMC Yes DS‐17 2.84 1150+75.2 1‐72" X 72.75' CMC Yes DS‐21 3.89 1206+85.5 1‐30" X 115.63' CMC Yes

DS‐22 4.12 1219+14.42 1‐24" X 86.59' CMC Yes DS‐23 4.34 1230+76.19 1‐24" X 80.25' CMC Yes DS‐29 6.73 1355+93.8 1‐36" X 94.97' CMC Yes DS‐33 8.23 1434+87. 1‐24" X 101.35' CMC Yes DS‐35 8.46 1447+31.56 1‐24" X 54.07' CMC Yes DS‐37 8.63 1456+15.77 1‐24" X 64.87' CMC Yes DS‐39 8.89 1470+30.52 1‐24" X 55.49' CMC Yes DS‐40 9.11 1481+58.05 1‐42" X 84.43' CMC Yes DS‐41 9.29 1491+22.39 1‐36" X 71.09' CPC Yes DS‐44 9.73 1514+45.12 1‐36" X 63.36' CPC Yes DS‐56 11.72 1619+12.17 1‐24" X 60.42' CMC Yes DS‐57 11.91 1629+09.23 1‐24" X 56.03' CMC Yes DS‐62 12.55 1663+21.66 1‐24" X 78.56' CMC Yes DS‐63 12.80 1676+63.83 1‐36" X 70.30' CMC Yes DS‐65 12.94 1684+29.55 1‐32"Hx48"W X 56.11' CMC Yes

Table 3-22: Culvert Scour (continued)

Struct. No. MP STATION SIZE Scour @

Outlet

DS‐66 13.31 1703+49.37 1‐28"Hx44"W X 56.03' CMC Yes DS‐67 13.51 1714+23.67 1‐48" X 88.87' CMC Yes DS‐68 13.72 1726+86.81 1‐36" X 80.69' CMC Yes DS‐70 14.30 1757+48.51 1‐24" X 62.26' CMC Yes DS‐72 14.36 1760+82.72 1‐24" X 76.60' CMC Yes DS‐73 14.43 1764+27.67 1‐24" X 70.77' CMC Yes DS‐74 14.48 1766+86.23 3‐58"Hx78"W" X 62.44 CMC's Yes DS‐92 18.22 1970+66.13 1‐48" X 58.63' CMC Yes DS‐95 18.75 1995+25.79 3‐36" X 100.49 CMC's Yes DS‐99 19.26 2022+19.27 1‐36" X80.51' CMC Yes DS‐102 19.88 2050+64.65 1‐36" X 62.38' CMC Yes

Major Structures The existing drainage conditions at the four major structures along the US 64 from MP 0.0 to 20.8 were analyzed and are summarized below. Preliminary scour analyses and qualitative assessments of bridge scour conditions are provided in the draft of the Draft Final Drainage Report included in the electronic project materials.

Bridge 5865 (CBC), Shoe Game Wash: Existing bridge 5865 is a concrete box culvert (CBC) allowing flow from Shoe Game Wash to pass below US 64 at MP 0.07. Scour is occurring downstream of the existing CBC concrete apron, which appears to be caused by a head-cut migrating upstream. It appears that the CBC is impacted by and passes large boulders and cobbles.

Bridge 5864, Red Wash: Existing bridge 5864 spans Red Wash on US 64 at MP 7.69. The main channel appears to be relatively stable.

Bridge 5863, Shiprock Wash: Existing bridge 5863 spans Shiprock Wash on US 64 at MP 14.0. The main channel appears to be relative stable downstream of the bridge but is widening and migrating laterally upstream. It may also be degrading vertically.

Bridge 5862, Rattlesnake Wash: Existing bridge 5862 spans Rattlesnake Wash on US 64 at MP 20.25. The bridge is skewed to the main channel alignment which has caused some scour to occur at the foundation elements. Other than this, the main channel appears to be relatively stable.

GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS A Geotechnical Scoping Report was prepared by Wood, dated 12/16/2019, which can be found in the electronic project materials. The purpose of the Geotechnical Scoping Report is to characterize the existing geology along the project corridor, assess any issues to the alignment associated with the identified geology conditions, and provide recommendations for future geotechnical scope and services in the preliminary and final design stages of the project to address the geological issues.

The proposed US 64 construction is feasible from a geotechnical aspect. The project site is underlain by soft sedimentary bedrock consisting of shale and sandstone, and unconsolidated clay, silt, sand and gravel. None of


Page |3‐15

these materials is expected to present excavation problems, and only normal earthmoving equipment should be required. There is no evidence of previous blasting at the site.

Expansive soils and expansive bedrock are probably responsible for the rough and undulating pavement surface noted along several segments of the highway. These areas will require additional investigation, as well as special design and construction.

The following summarizes key findings of the geotechnical conditions within the project area.

Geologic and Geotechnical Site Conditions Geologic Setting The project site is located within the San Juan Basin. The San Juan Basin is a fault bounded, structural basin, about 100 miles across, on the southeastern margin of the Colorado Plateau. The basin was formed 75 to 40 million years ago during the Laramide Orogeny and is regionally divided by tectonic structural features. The project area lies within the Four Corners Platform portion of the basin, a northeast trending sub-basin or bench in which the strata gently slope before diving steeply into the Central Basin portion of the San Juan Basin. The Four Corners Platform is bounded by the Hogback Monocline on the east, and various small mountain ranges formed by intrusive complexes on the west.

Most of the project area is underlain by relatively flat-lying rock strata with little structural deformation, except for:

A gentle, low amplitude north-south-trending anticline, the Rattlesnake Anticline, the axis of which crosses the road at about MP 15.5; and,

An eroded dome, the Beclabito Dome, the northeastern portion of which is traversed by US 64 near the Beclabito Chapter of the Navajo Nation.

Strata along the northeast portion of the dome near MP 4.6 dip to the northeast at approximately 12 degrees. A northeast-trending, high angle fault is mapped as crossing the highway near MP 4.1 but is difficult to distinguish in the field without investigation beyond the highway right-of-way. The downthrown block of the fault is to the southeast.

The geology in this area consists of Cenozoic deposits, Cretaceous bedrock, Mancos Shale, Dakota Sandstone, and Triassic and Jurassic Bedrock.

Geotechnical Profile Most of the project route appears to have a relatively thin veneer of soil above bedrock. Soil profiles and mapping units are presented in custom soil survey reports generated by the USDA National Resource Conservation Service Online Web Soil Survey URL in Appendix A. Mapped geologic formation contacts appear consistent with field observations of erosional debris and outcrops exposed by erosion and roadcuts in the project area.

Soil Moisture & Surface and Groundwater Conditions Unsaturated soil conditions should occur throughout most of the highway alignment. Exceptions will occur locally following heavy precipitation, snowmelt, runoff, and in topographically-low areas following precipitation or runoff. Shallow saturated to nearly-saturated conditions should be expected in seasonally-inundated topographically-low areas, and in some arroyos.

Surface water within several hundred feet of the alignment appears restricted to tributaries, ephemeral streams, arroyos, and other small, probably ephemeral, bodies of water.

Ephemeral streams issuing from the adjacent mountain areas and other catchment areas, supported by storms and runoff, can contribute significant volumes of flow to the numerous arroyos as well as broad areas where sheet flow conditions occur. Such flows have caused damage to storm-water conveyances and other structures, and result in extensive erosion and deposition. Debris flows should also be expected. Flood control measures will be required in many areas.

The water table should be deep enough that it will not directly affect construction activities or the longevity of the highway over most of the alignment. In desert regions such as this, the water table tends to be deep, relative to its humid region counterparts. Within the project area, shallow ground water may be encountered near bodies of surface water, such as sewer ponds and in topographically-low areas, especially those subject to runoff accumulation or prolonged periods of inundation. Shallow ground water may be encountered in some arroyos due to subsurface flow, especially during and following the “wet” season.

Rockfall Hazard Rock fall hazards along the project route appear to be very minor. The route does not traverse along the base of any tall mesas, buttes or volcanic necks. Most roadcuts along the project route are through hills composed of shale material that weathers in a fissile manner. There are only a few places where the route passes through road cuts composed of cliff forming rocks where blocky rock fragments might break off from the outcrop.

Soil Corrosivity Testing Presence of salts such as sodium and calcium sulfate in soils and rocks along the alignment, where underlain by the Mancos Formation, could cause corrosion problems for steel and concrete structures. Soil sampling was conducted at specified locations along the roadway corridor as depicted in Exhibit 3-8. Key findings include:

Some of the electrical resistivities were in the severely corrosive category with as-received moisture while other areas within the road corridor had mild corrosivity.

Soil pH values ranged between 7.5 and 8.3. This range is neutral to mildly alkaline. These values do not particularly increase soil corrosivity.

The soluble salt content was very high in the samples with high resistivities. Sulfate salts were the predominant constituents. High concentrations of sulfate, as was measured in the soil samples, can react with components in concrete to cause degradation and reduced strength in a mechanism known as sulfate attack.

Chloride concentrations were found to be medium to high, consistent with the high resistivities. High chlorides concentrations as measured in these samples, can react with reinforcement and metallic pipes to cause degradation.

Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Considerations Along the Highway Alignment Geologic materials along the US 64 alignment consist dominantly of clay, silt, sand and gravel deposits, ranging from unconsolidated to cemented, or lithified to form shale or sandstone. Most of the proposed construction will encounter weak sedimentary rocks or unconsolidated deposits or soils.

The eastern two thirds of the project route is underlain by relatively flat lying strata of the Mancos Shale, which is split into an upper and lower member by the Gallup Sandstone south of the San Juan River and along the project route. The lower unit of the Mancos is highly weathered into a broad canyon between MP 6.6 and MP 9.6, in the vicinity of Red Wash, and forms steep slopes and badlands below its more resistant, sandy, cliff forming layers from MP 9.6 to MP 9.8.


Page |3‐16

Exhibit 3-8: Corrosive Soil Sample Locations and High Corrosive Zones


Page |3‐17

The upper unit of the Mancos, east of outcrops of the Gallup Sandstone, is relatively impervious and forms flat and rolling terrain. It contains a substantial amount of soluble salts; mostly sodium sulfate, that forms white efflorescent blooms in low areas after runoff. Moderate swelling and shrinkage of exposed soils was observed at multiple intervals along the project route. In general, these materials should not present serious problems for highway construction. Care should be exercised in evaluating the engineering characteristics of fill and cut surfaces, especially their shrink – swell potential. Without treatment or replacement with quality engineered fill, expansive soils can destroy pavement sections and create a rough, unsafe road surface. Normal construction equipment should be able to excavate all sedimentary materials. Although unlikely, heavy ripping, may be required for some resistant sandstone deposits.

Aggregate Sources Local Gallup and Four Corners area aggregate suppliers use aggregates consisting of quartzite, limestone, granite or basalt. They maintain pits near Farmington, Shiprock, Thoreau and McCarthy. Other sources could possibly be developed elsewhere.

Fill material from Contractor-provided sources required for roadway embankment fill, fill at the bridge abutments, subexcavation replacement, or other work shall be approved by the NMDOT prior to construction.

Erosion, Deposition, and Flooding Concerns Intensive rainfall in local drainage basins often results in flash floods, debris flows and sheet-flow floods. These are especially common during the late summer “monsoon season.” Flood debris along the roadway and in drainage channels indicates that sheet flows have occurred within the project alignment.

Uncontrolled floods are capable of eroding pavement sections and road shoulder areas, as well as depositing thick layers of debris that may render roads dangerous or impassible until repairs are completed. The debris also tend to plug culverts and other drainages, reducing their effectiveness during subsequent events. Control of flood waters, debris flows and related erosion is a continuing problem for most desert highways, including the existing US 64, that must be addressed in the design and construction of the new highway.

Seismic Design The US 64 alignment is within Seismic Zone 1, as described by the International Building Code (2018), indicating the potential for minor damage and low, horizontal, site accelerations (0.075g). Thus, seismic effects should be minimal in most areas. Possible exceptions may include rock or debris falls and run out from adjacent highlands, and the potential for liquefaction. Liquefaction generally requires loose, poorly-graded, silt or fine sand, that is saturated within about 80 feet of the ground surface, and an earthquake with a magnitude, M > 5. The combination of such site conditions is considered rare along the alignment, but, they may occur locally.

Bridge Foundations There are four designated bridges crossing various drainage channels located along the existing alignment. It is expected that the span bridges will be founded on driven piles or drilled shafts bearing on relatively shallow bedrock. Future geotechnical work in the bridge locations will include site investigations for new foundations, scour analysis, drainage design, and corrosion protection.

Geotechnical borings at the four major structures were performed by the NMDOT Geotechnical Exploration Unit. Standard penetration tests (SPT) will be conducted by Wood E&I at the three span bridge locations. The target depths of probing are established as 100 feet below existing ground surface, but the borings will be 50 feet at the Shoe Game Wash concrete box culvert. Note that additional borings may be needed at DS-13 (US 64 MP 2.4). The

existing structure may be considered a bridge and if replaced, the proposed replacement structure would be considered a bridge due to its length.

UTILITIES Subsurface utility engineering (SUE) for this project was performed by T2 Engineers (formerly Cardno), and included all utilities within and adjacent to the US 64 corridor. The utility plan sheets are included in Appendix A. Utility owners within the US 64 corridor include the following:

Frontier Communications Navajo Tribal Utility Authority Electric (NTUAE) Navajo Tribal Utility Authority Fiber Systems (NTUAF) Navajo Tribal Utility Authority Water (NTUAW) Questar Southern Trails Gas Pipeline

Existing utilities parallel and cross US 64 for much of the corridor. The SUE quality level D (QL D) investigations identified several utility lines with unknown owners. There are 41 utility crossings of US 64; the number and type of crossings are:

Frontier – 3 crossings (plus 3 unknown fiber crossings) NTUAE – 24 crossings (plus 1 unknown overhead electric crossing) NTUAW – 8 crossings (plus 1 unknown waterline crossing) Questar – 1 crossing

For final design, it may be prudent to obtain SUE QL A test holes for the water line and gas line crossings to ensure they are deep and can be avoided during construction. The electric and fiber-optic lines are overhead.

TRAFFIC DATA AND OPERATIONS Traffic Count Data Existing traffic counts were conducted on Tuesday, July 16, 2019 and Wednesday July 17, 2019 including 48-hour coverage counts at two locations and intersection turn movement counts at seven intersections. Traffic volumes, classifications and speeds were obtained from coverage counts at milepost (MP) 1.5 west of Beclabito and at MP 20.0 on the western fringe of Shiprock. Intersection turning movement counts were obtained to measure representative demand at access points along the corridor and to verify if separate speed-change lanes should be considered as part of the proposed improvements. The traffic data collected for this project is provided as part of the electronic project materials.

Peak-Hour Volumes The peak hour traffic volume counts along the corridor were balanced throughout the network and the balanced volumes are summarized in Table 3-23. The volumes are highest on the eastern end of the corridor, closest to Shiprock. The seasonal factors available for the study corridor were collected at MP 21.2, which is just east of the study segment and more heavily influenced by school traffic patterns than the study corridor. Additionally, the seasonal factors available would have lowered the volumes along the corridor. To be conservative, the volumes collected were not adjusted by the available seasonal factors.


Page |3‐18

Table 3-23: Existing (2019) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes

Location Along US 64

Volume by Approach and Movement (vehicles per hour) Peak Hour

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right

MP 1.5 (Coverage Count)

AM 146 70 PM 117 161

BIA 5027/TR 1754/ AM ‐ 146 ‐ 1 70 1 ‐ ‐ 4 4 ‐ ‐ RD 9060 PM 2 115 ‐ 5 161 1 ‐ ‐ 4 2 ‐ ‐ RD 9064 AM 25 128 1 ‐ 67 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ 5 PM 11 107 3 10 138 6 10 3 23 4 ‐ 19 BIA 5038/TR 1702/ AM ‐ 130 ‐ ‐ 67 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ RD 9071 PM 1 133 ‐ ‐ 152 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 BIA 5113/RD 9040 AM ‐ 132 ‐ ‐ 64 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ 4 PM 3 128 2 ‐ 152 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ BIA 571/RD 9090 AM ‐ 135 2 6 68 ‐ ‐ ‐ 18 ‐ ‐ ‐ PM ‐ 130 ‐ 11 157 ‐ 1 ‐ 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ BIA 57 AM 5 148 ‐ ‐ 72 13 ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 ‐ 2 PM 1 144 ‐ ‐ 167 21 ‐ ‐ ‐ 47 ‐ 1 RD 9140 AM ‐ 173 ‐ 2 85 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ PM ‐ 191 ‐ 4 188 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ MP 20.0 (Coverage Count)

AM 179 87 PM 198 192

Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes The Average Weekday Traffic (AWDT) volumes in vehicles per day (vpd) from the 48-hour coverage counts performed for this project are summarized in Table 3-24.

Table 3-24: Existing (2019) AWDT Volumes on US 64

Location Eastbound Westbound Total MP 1.5 1,250 vpd 1,250 vpd 2,500 vpd MP 20.0 1,900 vpd 1,900 vpd 3,800 vpd

A permanent automatic traffic recording (ATR) station also exists on US 64 at MP 21.2. An existing average daily traffic (ADT) estimate of 5,400 vpd was made for this location based on available data. A summary of the existing ADT volumes for US 64 and the percentages relative to the ATR location are provided in Table 3-25. The relative percentages were calculated to estimate prior year ADT volumes that are not available for the west (MP 1.5) and east (MP 20.0) segments of the project limits, which are needed for calculating crash rates for six years as discussed in the safety analysis section of this report.

Table 3-25: Existing (2019) ADT Volumes and Relative Percentages

Location ADT (veh/day)

% of ATR Count at MP 21.2

MP 1.5 2,500 46%

MP 20.0 3,800 70%

MP 21.2 5,400 100%

The ratios between the ADTs collected in July 2019 (MP 1.5 and MP 20) and the prior year ADTs available from the permanent count station (MP 21.2) were used to calculate ADT’s for the prior six years. Table 3-26 summarizes the prior year ADT volumes for the project corridor.

Table 3-26: Prior Year Average Daily Traffic Volumes for US 64 from MP 0.0 to MP 20.8

Location (Mile Post)

Average Daily Traffic Volumes (veh/day)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Average

MP 0‐17 2,420 2,370 2,490 2,550 2,490 2,400 2,450 2,450 MP 17‐20.8 3,720 3,650 3,830 3,930 3,830 3,700 3,770 3,770

Vehicle Classifications Vehicle classification percentages are summarized in Table 3-27. Vehicles were collected based on the thirteen (13) FHWA classifications. The non-passenger vehicle percentage is low at three percent (3%).

Table 3-27: Existing (2019) Vehicle Classification Percentages

Location Classification: Cars/Motorcycles RV's/SU Trucks Light Trucks Heavy Trucks

Classes 1‐4 Class 5 Classes 6‐8 Classes 9‐12

MP 1.5 Eastbound 96.6% 0.7% 0.8% 1.9% Westbound 96.1% 0.5% 1.0% 2.4%

MP 20 Eastbound 97.5% 0.4% 0.7% 1.4% Westbound 97.2% 0.4% 0.7% 1.7%

Total 96.9% 0.5% 0.8% 1.8%

There were no bicyclists recorded during the data collection in July 2019. There were a few pedestrians observed in Beclabito at RD 9060 and RD 9064.

Travel Speeds A summary of travel speed statistics from the coverage counts is shown in Table 3-28. The posted speed limit is 55 MPH at both count locations; however, the posted speed is 65 MPH in Arizona which may influence eastbound traffic’s travel speeds entering New Mexico. This is supported by the data as the highest average and 85th percentile speeds were recorded eastbound at MP 1.5.


Page |3‐19

Table 3-28: Existing (2019) Speed Data

Location Measurement Eastbound Speed (MPH)

Westbound Speed (MPH)

MP 1.5 Average 66.2 61.5

10 MPH Pace 60.0‐69.9 55.1‐65.0 85th % 74.8 68.6

MP 20.0 Average 59.4 57.8

10 MPH Pace 55.1‐65.0 55.1‐65.0 85th % 68.4 65.8

Average speeds and the 10 MPH Pace are consistent with rural highway speeds with limited enforcement. The 85th-percentile speeds are well above the posted speed limit. Of note, Section 2B.13 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states that, “When a speed limit within a speed zone is posted, it should be within 5 MPH of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.” This should be considered with the geometric design of US 64.

Traffic Operations The Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM) was used to analyze the capacity of the two-lane highway and the unsignalized intersections along the study corridor. The traffic operations along the study corridor were analyzed for existing (2019) conditions and the future (2040) No Build and Build conditions. The roadway characteristics that changed between the existing/No Build scenario and the Build scenario were that the passing zones were shortened to meet standards and the shoulder widths increased to six feet throughout the project limits.

The NMDOT’s State Access Management Manual (SAMM) specifies the level of service (LOS) design criteria for rural two-lane highways and for unsignalized intersections in rural areas. These criteria are outlined in Table 15.C-1 and section 13.H in the SAMM and are summarized below in Table 3-29.

Table 3-29: NMDOT SAMM LOS Design Requirements

Roadway Characteristics NMDOT SAMM LOS Design Requirements Rural, Two‐Lane Highway LOS C or Better Rural, Unsignalized Intersection LOS D or Better for all Movements

The key inputs that affect the performance of the two-lane highway and unsignalized intersections using the HCM Methodology are listed as follows:

Two-Lane Highway: Passing zone length Lane width Grade Speed Limit Shoulder Width Access Point Density Horizontal Curve Radius Directional/Opposing Volumes Truck Percentages

Unsignalized Intersections: Peak Hour Factor Right-turn Channelization Turning movement counts Truck Percentage Left-Turn Storage Pedestrians

The HCM LOS criteria for a two-lane highway and unsignalized intersections are shown in Exhibit 3-9 and Exhibit 3-10. This roadway is classified as a Class I highway, due to its status as a major link in the National Highway System and as a facility primarily focused on serving long-distance trips. As such, the LOS criteria for two-lane highway segments is based on the average speed (ATS) and the Percent Time Spent Following (PTSF). The PTSF is the percent of time vehicles must travel in a platoon due to an inability to pass. It represents the freedom to maneuver and convenience of travel. The LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections is based on seconds of delay incurred while the vehicles wait to make their turn.

The results of the operational analyses are summarized below. The full analysis output reports are provided as part of the electronic project materials.

Exhibit 3-9: Two-Lane Highway LOS Criteria

Source: Exhibit 15‐3 from the HCM, 6th Edition

Exhibit 3-10: Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) LOS Criteria


Two-Lane Rural Highway Operational Analysis The NMDOT’s SAMM specifies LOS C or better for rural two-lane highways. The two-lane highway analysis indicates that the entire study segment of US 64 operates LOS A under existing conditions, thus meeting the SAMM’s design criteria.


Page |3‐20

Unsignalized Intersections Operational Analysis The NMDOT’s SAMM specifies that unsignalized intersections along rural two-lane highways are to be designed for all movements to operate at a LOS D or better. Table 3-30 shows the critical movement level of service at each of the unsignalized intersections along the study corridor. All intersections operate at an overall LOS A with all movements operating at LOS B or better, thus meeting the SAMM’s design criteria.

Table 3-30: Unsignalized Intersection Critical Movement LOS and Delay

Intersection with US 64 LOS and Delay by Year and Peak Hour

2019 AM 2019 PM

BIA 5027/TR 1754/RD 9060 B (10.6 s) B (10.6 s) RD 9064 A (9.5 s) A (10.2 s) BIA 5038/TR 1702/RD 9071 B (10.1s) A (9.1 s) BIA 5113/RD 9040 A (9.4 s) B (10.9 s) BIA 571/RD 9090 A (9.2 s) A (9.2 s) BIA 57 B (10.3 s) B (11.6s) RD 9140 A (9.3 s) A (9.5 s)

REPORTED CRASH HISTORY Existing safety conditions along US 64 from the Arizona State line at mile post (MP) 0.0 to MP 20.8 were evaluated based on six years of summarized crash data. Crash data from 2013 to 2018 was provided by the NMDOT and the Navajo Nation. An analysis of the severity, crash classifications, and top contributing factors was performed. It should be noted that the crash analysis is based on reported/documented collisions.

Crash Data The number of crashes by year and segment are shown in Table 3-31. The crash data was broken out into eight (8) segments based on changes in geometry and posted speed limits along the corridor. Segments 2 and 8 both have 45 MPH posted speed limits and segments 3 and 4 are defined by Arroyo Canyon. Segment 5-7 have similar roadway characteristics, but were broken into three segments to have a length similar to other segments.

The crashes show that while some of the segments had a significant number of crashes in individual years, there were other years in most of those segments where no crashes occurred. These results show the dispersion of crash occurrence/variability. Segment 7 was the only segment that had recorded crashes during all six years of analyzed data. Segment 7 had a higher number of turning movement counts than any of the other segments and a high access density compared to the rest of the corridor.

Table 3-32 summarizes the roadway segment crash rates along the corridor. The average roadway segment crash rate in New Mexico was 155 crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (cr/100 MVMT) per the 2017 New Mexico Traffic Crash Annual Report. The San Juan County crash rate was 94.7 cr/100 MVMT in the same report. The only segment with crashes that occurred each of the six-years analyzed (segment 7) had a six-year average crash rate below both the state and county average. Five of the segments had rates that exceeded both the state and county rate averages in individual years: two segments (segments 1 and 8) have six-year average crash rates above the county average; and, one (segment 2) had a six-year average crash rate above both the state and county average crash rates.

Table 3-31: Number of Crashes by Segment (2013-2018)

Segment Number of Reported Crashes by Year Corridor

Length (mi) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

1: MP 0 to 3.0 (55 MPH) 5 0 1 1 3 4 14 3.0 2: MP 3.0 to 3.7 (45 MPH in Beclabito) 1 1 0 2 2 0 6 0.7 3: MP 3.7 to 6.4 (Beclabito to Arroyo Canyon) 2 3 2 0 0 2 9 2.7 4: MP 6.4 to 9.9 (Arroyo Canyon) 0 0 0 3 0 2 5 3.5 5: MP 9.9 to 13.4 (Flat/Straight Roadway) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.5 6: MP 13.4 to 16.9 (Flat/Straight Roadway) 2 2 0 1 2 2 9 3.5 7: MP 16.9 to 20.5 (Flat/Straight Roadway) 3 2 2 4 7 4 22 3.6 8: MP 20.5 to 20.8 (45 MPH near Shiprock) 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.3

Total 16 8 5 11 14 14 68 20.8

Table 3-32: Roadway Segment Crash Rates (cr/100 MVMT)

Segment 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2013‐2018

1: MP 0 to 3.0 (55 MPH) 188.7 0 36.7 35.8 110.0 152.2 104.2 2: MP 3.0 to 3.7 (45 MPH in Beclabito) 161.7 165.1 0 307.0 314.4 0 191.4 3: MP 3.7 to 6.4 (Beclabito to Arroyo Canyon) 83.9 128.4 81.5 0 0 84.6 74.4 4: MP 6.4 to 9.9 (Arroyo Canyon) 0 0 0 92.1 0 65.2 31.9 5: MP 9.9 to 13.4 (Flat/Straight Roadway) 32.3 0 0 0.0 0 0 6.4 6: MP 13.4 to 16.9 (Flat/Straight Roadway) 64.7 66.1 0 30.7 62.9 65.2 57.4 7: MP 16.9 to 20.5 (Flat/Straight Roadway) 61.4 41.7 39.7 77.5 139.1 82.3 88.7 8: MP 20.5 to 20.8 (45 MPH near Shiprock) 491.0 0 0 0 0 0 96.7

Entire Study Corridor: MP 0 to 20.8 67.7 33.8 21.1 46.5 59.2 59.2 57.5

Segment 2 is the 45 MPH segment of US 64 that runs through Beclabito. The access point density is higher in this segment than in the other segments along the corridor. There is also more economic activity here than along other segments.

The time-of-day when crashes occurred was also analyzed. The crashes that occurred during each hour are shown in Exhibit 3-11. The 6 PM hour had the highest number of crashes. The other peak crash hours are randomly dispersed throughout the day with several mid-day and late-night/early-morning crashes. Forty-two percent (42%) of the crashes occurred under “Dark-not lighted” or “Dawn” lighting conditions despite the much lower traffic volumes during those hours. All ten animal crashes and the one pedestrian crash occurred in dark or dawn lighting conditions. Ten of the twenty-seven injury crashes and one of the three fatal crashes also occurred in dark lighting conditions.


Page |3‐21

Exhibit 3-11: Crashes per Hour along US 64 from MP 0.0 to MP 20.8 (2013-2018)

Crash Patterns A summary of the crashes along the study corridor is shown in Table 3-33 and a breakdown of Top Contributing Factors is provided in Table 3-34 (both tables on page 3-22).

Segments 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 had injury rates above 50%. Segments 6 and 7 had fatalities with one occurring in segment 6 and three occurring in segment 7. Segment 2 has the highest crash rate along the corridor, but was the only segment with no injury or fatal crashes during the study period.

Four fatalities occurred during the six-year period analyzed. Two involved rollovers, one a pedestrian, and one a bicyclist. Two of the crashes were attributed to drug/alcohol usage (the pedestrian crash and one of the rollover crashes). The other rollover crash was attributed to driving too fast for conditions and the bicyclist crash was attributed to driver inattention. The weather was clear during all crashes and only the pedestrian crash did not occur in the daylight (the lighting condition was recorded as “other,” but the crash occurred at 7:23 PM in October, so it was dark). Additionally, two of the fatalities occurred in 2015 and the other two occurred in 2017. Wider shoulders (providing additional space for bicyclists and pedestrians as well as more recovery time for vehicles), rumble strips, and more reflective pavement markings may help mitigate contributing factors that led to these fatal crashes.

Of the animal crashes shown, six of the crashes involved horses. However, of those six crashes, four occurred in 2014 and two in 2018 with no horse-related crashes the other four years.

Overall, driver inattention was the highest contributing factor (24% of crashes). Rumble strips and new pavement markings may help mitigate driver inattention as a contributing factor. The second highest contributing factor was alcohol/drug involvement. Segments 6 and 7 had alcohol/drug involvement as the highest contributing factor.

Potential Mitigation Measures Table 3-35 summarizes potential mitigation measures to address the contributing factors to crashes along the project corridor.

Table 3-35: Potential Safety Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure Benefits Edge Line Rumble Strips Alerts drivers to lane departure ; mitigates driver inattention

Center Line Rumble Strips Alerts drivers to lane departures; mitigates driver inattention; Most beneficial in segments with limited sight distance

6-foot Shoulders Space for recovery; more room for pedestrian/bicyclists; more room to detect animals entering the roadway

Reflective Pavement Markings/RPMs Easier to remain in the correct lane when the markings are clearer/reflective (for dark conditions)

Additional Advance Speed Reduction Signing (W3-5)

Drivers would be less likely to miss notifications of speed limit changes

Horizontal and Vertical Curve Warning Signs Alerts drivers to conditions in areas with limited sight distance

RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The US 64 highway corridor for CN 5101170 is designated by fencing that approximately defines the existing ROW as 150 feet from the Arizona Border to MP 11.2 and 100 feet from MP 11.2 to Shiprock. This has been confirmed by executed record documents between the Navajo Nation and the NMDOT accepted on July 31, 1978, and by ROW mapping provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; BIA N1(2)3 and N1(6)2 map sets. Land ownership within the project limits is Navajo Nation trust lands. Near the US 64 corridor, it is expected that the lands are 100% held in trust with no specified allotments. See Exhibit 3-12 for an existing land status map prepared by NMDOT. The existing ROW is shown on the conceptual design layouts developed for this project, discussed in Chapter 4.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Co

unt o

f Crashes

Time of Day (hour)


Page |3‐22

Table 3-33: Roadway Segment Summary of Crashes (2013-2018)

Roadway Segment Total Crash Count

Severity Classification

Fatal Injury PDO Other Vehicle Rollover Animal Missing

Data Other

1: MP 0 to 3.0 (55 MPH) 14 ‐ 10 (71%) 4 (29%) 3 (21%) 2 (14%) 3 (21%) 1 (8%) 5 (36%)

2: MP 3.0 to 3.7 (45 MPH in Beclabito) 6 ‐ ‐ 6 (100%) 1 (16%) ‐ 2 (34%) 1 (16%) 2 (34%)

3: MP 3.7 to 6.4 (Beclabito to Arroyo) 9 ‐ 4 (44%) 5 (56%) 1 (11%) ‐ 4 (45%) 1 (11%) 3 (33%)

4: MP 6.4 to 9.9 (Arroyo Canyon) 5 ‐ 2 (40%) 3 (60%) 3 (60%) ‐ 1 (20%) 1 (20%)

5: MP 9.9 to 13.4 (Flat/Straight Roadway) 1 ‐ 1 (100%) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 (100%) ‐

6: MP 13.4 to 16.9 (Flat/Straight Roadway) 9 1 (11%) 6 (67%) 2 (22%) 1 (11%) 5 (56%) ‐ 1 (11%) 2 (22%)

7: MP 16.9 to 20.5 (Flat/Straight Roadway) 22 3 (14%) 12 (55%) 7 (32%) 6 (27%) 4 (19%) 2 (9%) 2 (9%) 8 (36%)

8: MP 20.5 to 20.8 (45 MPH) 2 ‐ 2 (100%) ‐ 2 (100%) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

TOTALS 68 4 (6%) 37 (54%) 27 (40%) 17 (25%) 11 (16%) 12 (18%) 7 (10%) 21 (31%)

Table 3-34: Top Contributing Factors (2013-2018)

Roadway Segment

Total Crash Count

Driv

er

Inattention

Alcoho

l/Drug

Involved

Excessive

Speed

Failed to Yield

Right o

f Way

Follo

wing too

Closely

Non

e

Anim

al on

Road

Other Veh

icle

Defect

Drove

Left o

f Ce

nter

Other – No

Driv

er Error

Other

Improp

er

Driv

ing

1: MP 0 to 3.0 (55 MPH) 14 6 (43%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) ‐ ‐ 3 (21%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) ‐ ‐

2: MP 3.0 to 3.7 (45 MPH in Beclabito) 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 (33%) ‐ ‐ 2 (33%) 1 (17%) ‐ 1 (17%) ‐

3: MP 3.7 to 6.4 (Beclabito to Arroyo) 9 1 (11%) ‐ 2 (22%) ‐ 1 (11%) 2 (22%) 1 (11%) 1 (11%) ‐ 1 (11%) ‐

4: MP 6.4 to 9.9 (Arroyo Canyon) 5 2 (40%) ‐ 1 (20%) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 (40%) ‐

5: MP 9.9 to 13.4 (Flat/Straight Roadway) 1 1 (100%) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

6: MP 13.4 to 16.9 (Flat/Straight Roadway) 9 2 (22%) 3 (34%) 1 (11%) ‐ ‐ 1 (11%) ‐ ‐ 2 (22%)

7: MP 16.9 to 20.5 (Flat/Straight Roadway) 22 4 (18%) 8 (36%) 2 (9%) 4 (18%) 3 (14%) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 (5%) ‐

8: MP 20.5 to 20.8 (45 MPH) 2 ‐ ‐ 1 (50%) ‐ 1 (50%) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

TOTALS 68 16 (24%) 12 (18%) 8 (12%) 6 (9%) 5 (7%) 5 (7%) 4 (6%) 4 (6%) 3 (4%) 3 (4%) 2 (3%)


Page |3‐23

Exhibit 3-12: Existing Land Status Map


Page |3‐24

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Existing environmental conditions within the project area were assessed with the primary objective to identify conditions that warrant consideration as alternatives are being developed and evaluated. Environmental resources reviewed include cultural resources, waters of the U.S. and wetlands, floodplains, farmlands, geology and soils, vegetation and wildlife, endangered species and critical habitat, hazardous materials, air quality, and noise. The findings described here are based on a review of available data records and databases and supplemented with a preliminary cultural and natural resources field surveys.

This section identifies the environmental constraints of the corridor and discusses those topics that are germane to the project. The need for additional investigations is discussed for each topic below.

General Environmental Setting The US 64 corridor is primarily situated within the U.S Environmental Protection Agency Level IV San Juan/Chaco Tablelands and Mesas ecoregion, which is part of the larger Arizona/New Mexico Plateau region. This ecoregion is generally characterized by plateaus, hogback ridges, valleys, and canyons. Vegetation is comprised of mixed desert scrub, semi-desert shrub-steppe, and semi-desert grasslands with scattered junipers – one-seed, Utah, or Rocky Mountain species – and native grasses commonly present. It contains the upper reaches of the Rio Puerco, which is prone to severe erosion due to geology, topography, and human disturbances. Elevations typically range from 4,800 to 7,785 feet above mean sea level. (Griffith et al. 2006).

At the eastern termini near Shiprock (MP 20), the ecoregion transitions to Shale Deserts and Sedimentary Basins habitat of the larger Colorado Plateau, which tend to be lower elevation than the Arizona/New Mexico Plateau and lacking in grassland habitats (Griffith et al. 2006).

Cultural Resources Cultural resources are afforded protection under various federal and state laws and generally refer to archaeological sites, historic buildings, or other objects that represent human activity.

Review of the data available from the Archaeological Records Management Section (ARMS) of the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division (HPD) indicates one previously recorded archaeological site may be within the project area, but the quality of the locational information is uncertain. Generally, the area has been subject to few reported cultural resource surveys. In preparation for the current project, a cultural resource inventory was performed and eight sites were recorded, including the previously discovered one noted above. These sites include four prehistoric occupations, three historic sites, and one multicomponent site which includes both prehistoric and historic use of the same location.

Official agency determinations of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) have not yet been made, though the sites have been evaluated for their eligibility (Table 3-36). A draft cultural resources investigation report is being drafted to support NMDOT’s Section 106 consultation.

In addition to the archaeological sites, four traditional cultural properties have been documented in the study area. Access to three of these – two clay/mineral gathering areas and a ceremonial gathering area – would not be restricted by proposed improvements. The fourth traditional cultural property is a mature juniper tree which serves as a “giving tree” that locals use to anonymously provide or receive gifts for those in need. Further consultation with Navajo Nation Heritage and Historic Preservation Department about this tree will be necessary because of its location at the Red Wash Bridge which requires reconstruction on an offset alignment north of the existing bridge.

Table 3-36: Cultural Resources Site Eligibility

Site Number NRHP‐Eligibility Recommendations

NM‐H‐15‐28 Not Eligible NM‐I‐9‐28 Undetermined

LA 139187, NM‐H‐14‐59 Not Eligible NM‐H‐16‐32 Not Eligible NM‐H‐16‐31 Not Eligible NM‐I‐9‐29 Eligible, Criterion D NM‐I‐9‐31 Not Eligible NM‐I‐9‐30 Not Eligible

Sites determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register will qualify for protection under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act which precludes the substantial use of these properties for transportation purposes unless there are demonstrably no feasible and prudent alternatives and all possible planning to minimize harm to the properties has been completed. The process for identifying the scale and nature of the possible use will be undertaken by FHWA/NMDOT.

Waters of the U.S and Groundwater Per the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) database, eighteen (18) drainages have been mapped in the project corridor and considered a potential Water of the United States regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under the Clean Water Act. Additionally, there are five named drainages depicted on U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps: Shoe Game Wash, Beclabito Wash, Red Wash, Shiprock Wash, and Rattlesnake Wash. There are numerous erosion features that do not connect to a Water of the U.S. and do not display a definable bed and bank [Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)].

Many segments of the highway are elevated 15 to 20 feet or more above the surrounding terrain. In these segments, some drainages would be considered potentially jurisdictional based on the drainage channels and patterns outside the ROW and NHD mapping; however, these ephemeral drainages are filled within the ROW by the roadbed, embankment, and drainage structure. Of the NHD mapped drainages and other drainages observed during the biological surveys, there are fourteen (14) potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S.

Preliminary engineering will further inform the potential impacts (permanent and temporary) to potentially jurisdictional waters. Construction or disturbance (permanent or temporary) within the OHWM of the potentially jurisdictional waterways will require coordination with the USACE and potentially a permit depending on the impacts and fill quantities. Only the USACE has the regulatory authority to determine those waters that may be considered a Waters of the US. A Biological Evaluation is being prepared that summarizes the potentially jurisdictional waters in the corridor.

Floodplains Since the study corridor is located on Navajo Nation lands, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) are not available. However, based on FEMA floodplain mapping of similar ephemeral drainages east of Shiprock it can be anticipated that the large ephemeral drainages in the project corridor would be classified as Zone A, or subject to inundation by the one-percent-annual-chance-flood event but without defined floodway and base-flood elevations. The remainder of the corridor would likely be designated as


Page |3‐25

“undetermined flood hazard” area. Although floodplains will need to be addressed, the build alternatives are being designed to not adversely affect the function of any floodplains or support incompatible development.

Wetlands A search of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) indicates that there are eighteen (18) riverine drainages within the study corridor. An initial biological investigation of the area concludes that there are no wetlands within the corridor.

Farmlands The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maintains the Web Soils Survey database which provides information on farmlands in the U.S. A search of the NRCS database indicates that approximately 4.4% of the soils present in the project area are designated as farmland of statewide importance. Special considerations may be required for prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, however, none of the soils within or adjacent to the study corridor are being used for agricultural production. A scoping letter has been sent to the NRCS State Soil Conservationist for input regarding potential farmland soils concerns within the corridor.

Geology and Soils The project area lies within the San Juan Basin, a structural depression spanning the Four Corners Region of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. This landform encompasses Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary sedimentary rocks derived from continental, marginal marine, and marine environments (Craigg, 2001).

Per the NRCS database, a total of thirty-three (33) soil units are mapped in the project area. The soils primarily consist of colluvium and alluvial/eolian deposits overlaying residuum weathered from shales and sandstones.

Vegetation and Wildlife Most of the project area is within the IV San Juan/Chaco Tablelands and Mesas ecoregion, with vegetative cover dominated by mixed desert scrub, semi-desert shrub-steppe, and semi-desert grasslands (Griffith, et al. 2006). The dominant vegetation observed during the biological evaluation was characteristic of these ecoregions.

The US 64 corridor is primarily situated within the U.S Environmental Protection Agency Level IV San Juan/Chaco Tablelands and Mesas ecoregion, which is part of the larger Arizona/New Mexico Plateau region. This ecoregion is generally characterized by plateaus, hogback ridges, valleys, and canyons.

Vegetative communities within the ecoregion include mixed desert scrub, semi-desert shrub-steppe, and semi-desert grassland. Vegetation within the project ROW is generally disturbed by roadside vehicle activity, mowing, as well as litter, and is comprised of alkali sacaton, needle and thread grass, galleta, Indian ricegrass, shadscale, broom snakeweed, and fourwing saltbush with pockets of piñon, juniper, sagebrush, and sideoats grama at the higher elevations.

The project area has the potential to provide foraging habitat for nesting birds, raptors and owls, and small-to-medium-sized mammals such as jack rabbit and coyote. Evidence of wildlife was observed throughout the corridor during the biological investigation. Barn swallow nests were observed in two culverts/bridges. Evidence of bat roosting was noted underneath the Shiprock Wash bridge at MP 14. Burrow complexes used by kangaroo rats were scattered throughout the project area. Larger burrows, potentially used by Gunnison’s prairie dogs, were also observed. A Biological Evaluation is being prepared that summarizes the vegetation and wildlife detections.

Noxious weeds have been identified at various locations throughout the project area, with significant clustering toward the west end. Table 3-37 outlines the noxious weeds observed and their respective classification with the state and BIA/Navajo Nation.

Table 3-37: Noxious Weeds Observed

Weed Species New Mexico Weed Class Navajo Nation Weed Class

Tamarisk (Saltcedar) C A

Musk thistle C A

Chicory B ‐

Cocklebur B ‐

Russian knapweed B B

Halogeton B B

Cheatgrass C C

Field brome ‐ C

Jointed goatgrass C C

Kochia ‐ C

Field bindweed ‐ C

Puncturevine ‐ C

Endangered Species and Critical Habitat There is no habitat designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as critical habitat for any federally listed species within the study corridor. The closest designated critical habitat is for Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker, approximately one mile north of the eastern termini and confined to the San Juan River. Rattlesnake Wash drains to the San Juan River.

A total of forty-two (42) federal, state, or Navajo Nation threatened or endangered species are identified by USFWS, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and/or Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife as having the potential to occur within San Juan County. There is potential habitat for the following special status species within the San Juan/Chaco Tablelands and Mesas and Shale Deserts and Sedimentary Basins ecoregions: Mesa Verde cactus, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, gray vireo, golden eagle, mountain plover, Southwestern willow flycatcher, and kit fox. There are no known distribution areas for federal or state listed and Navajo special status species in the project corridor, although a single gray vireo was heard calling during the biological survey. An initial biological survey of the corridor was performed to evaluate the potential suitable habitat for special status species within the project area. If potential impacts to protected species are identified, consultation with the appropriate Navajo Nation entities and the USFWS will be needed.

Hazardous Materials A preliminary investigation using the EPA EnviroMapper database shows no locations within 200 feet of the project corridor currently reporting hazardous waste to the EPA. There are no Superfund sites located within the project area or vicinity. Additional hazardous material investigations will be handled by NMDOT Environmental Geology Bureau as needed.


Page |3‐26

Air Quality San Juan County is classified by EPA as being in attainment of the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. The Air Quality Bureau of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) performs ambient air quality monitoring in the project area. In recent years, monitoring conducted in San Juan County by the Air Quality Bureau has recorded levels of ozone that have come close to, but not yet exceeded, the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. The Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency participates in the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force, a local consortium focused on improving air quality in the area. Air quality is not expected to be a concern for the project and additional investigations are not anticipated.

Noise Land use along the US 64 corridor includes undeveloped lands, grazing, and sparse commercial and residential developments. The most noise-sensitive activities include vehicular and truck traffic along US 64. The predominant vehicle type is standard-sized personal vehicles, with a low percentage of medium and large trucks in the vehicle mix along this segment of US 64.

According to the FHWA Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidance (FHWA-HEP-10-025), any significant modifications to the existing US 64 alignment could qualify the project as a Type I for significant alignment deviations, which would require analysis and abatement of noise levels in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772 – Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. Therefore, if noise impacts may occur, mitigation needs, if any, would to be analyzed during the Phase IC environmental documentation. It is not anticipated to be an issue as the project advances.

Communities and Industry US 64 is a critical west-east regional transportation corridor providing connectivity to local communities, schools, businesses, and recreational opportunities in the Four Corners Region, as well as connectivity to freight corridors that connect the region beyond the state border. The communities of Beclabito, Shiprock, and Teec Nos Pos are the primary residential centers within the corridor. Community facilities with nearby connection to or potential to be affected by the study include several schools, four Navajo Nation Chapter Houses, emergency services providers, and local businesses. It is important to note that the community of Beclabito has a bus stop located on US 64, and there are other bus stops located along the project corridor.

Land use within this corridor primarily consists of livestock grazing and sparse residential and business development. Land ownership in the corridor is Navajo Nation trust lands. There are no major employment centers within or surrounding the study area. However, there are several employment centers within the Shiprock community to the east, outside of the project area (CN 5101170).

Demographics and Environmental Justice Data from the US Census Bureau were reviewed to characterize economic and demographic information about the community. As shown in the Table 3-38, the Beclabito and Shiprock communities as well as San Juan County have a higher percentage of Native Americans and individuals speaking other languages (i.e., Diné) when compared to the statewide average. Additionally, median household incomes are lower near the project when compared to the state and county averages. Environmental justice is not anticipated to be a major issue for the project, although it would be considered when evaluating the need for additional ROW. Overall, the demographics indicate that minorities and low-income families would not be disproportionately affected by proposed project activities.

Table 3-38: Demographics for the Study Area, San Juan County, and New Mexico

Characteristics Beclabito Shiprock San Juan County

New Mexico

Population

Total Population 324 8,295 128,221 2,084,828 Median Age 38.3 28.8 34.6 Percent under 18 24.6% 32.7% 27.5% Percent over 64 10.1% 8.0% 13.1%

Percentage of Population Growth

2010 to 2017 % Change +3.8% ‐7.5% +0.5% +3.5%

Race and Ethnicity (Percent)*

White 1.9% 1.5% 54.9% 74.2% Native American 96.5% 96.2% 37.2% 9.5% Black 0.3% 0.1% 0.6% 2.0% Asian 0% 0.2% 0.4% 1.4% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0% 0% 0.1% Other Race 0% 0.1% 4.3% 9.5% Two or more races 1.3% 1.9% 2.4% 3.3% Hispanic Ethnicity 0% 1.6% 18.4% 48.2%

Income

Percent Low‐Income 17.9% 31.6% 20.8% 20.6% Per Capita Income 15,295 14,755 22,665 25,257

Language Spoken at Home (percent)

English 26.9% 41.6% 68.4% 65% Spanish 0% 1.1% 9.9% 27.7% Other Indo‐European Languages 1.6% 0.5% 0.3% 1.2% Asian and Pacific Islander Languages 0% 1.0% 0.3% 1.0% Other Languages 71.5% 55.9% 21.0% 5.2%

Access to Internet

Households with a computer (percent) 38.9% 53.6% 74.6% 81.7% Households with broadband internet (percent) 17.8% 29.7% 58.4% 69.9%

Source: 2017 American Community Survey (US Census Bureau) 2017 * Data may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Note: Hispanic population can be of any race.

US 64 Alignment Study and Engineering Scoping Report: Arizona Border to Shiprock CN 5101170 Chapter 4 – Proposed Conditions

Page |4‐1

INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the proposed improvements for roadway, drainage and major structures; documents the evaluation of the proposed improvements; and, identifies the preferred alternative to advance to Phase IC environmental documentation and processing and Phase ID preliminary design. The proposed improvements were developed to satisfy the purpose and need of this project and recognize the importance of US 64 to the Navajo Nation and the unique impacts and needs associated with coordinating with them, especially in the areas of environmental sensitivity and right-of-way acquisitions.

DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The geometric design criteria used for the development of the proposed roadway improvements are summarized in Table 4-1. The criteria satisfy the requirements of the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Green Book (2018), the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (2011), and the NMDOT State Access Management Manual (SAMM) (2001).

US 64 from the Arizona border to Shiprock is a rural two-lane highway with rolling terrain. The predominant posted speed is 55 mph in the rural areas, with a 45-mph zone in Beclabito. The proposed design speeds are 5 mph above the posted speeds (i.e., 60 mph rural, 50 mph Beclabito).

Context Sensitive Design Approach The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate and improve US 64 to current design standards. A context sensitive design approach is proposed for flexibility in meeting current highway design guidelines. That is, proposed improvements will be designed within current standards and guidelines but will be balanced to minimize and/or avoid impacts to adjacent cultural and natural resources on Navajo Nation lands.

As discussed in this chapter, the improvement alternatives were developed considering the existing right-of-way limits, roadside slope conditions and topography, and the need for roadside barriers and retaining walls to tie embankment slopes in. The intent is to preserve the rural setting in its natural environment to the extent practical which means the need for retaining walls and/or roadside barriers to stay within existing right-of-way will be compared to tying embankment slopes in beyond existing right-of-way fencing using flatter slopes, as applicable.

Side Slope Rate Application An example of flexibility in highway design involves the application of foreslope rates along the road sides relative to the clear zone requirements. Table 4-2 provides a comparison of the slope rate by depth from the edge of the surfacing taper. The depths are proposed to be reduced by two to three feet for this project to tighten up the roadside slope tie-ins and reduce the footprint of the proposed improvements. In addition, for the westerly portion of the project with wider right-of-way, 6:1 surfacing tapers are proposed, while in the easterly portion of the project with a narrower right-of-way corridor, 4:1 surfacing tapers are proposed.

Table 4-2: Slopes by Depth from Surfacing Taper Edge

Slope Rate

NMDOT Conventional Depths

US 64 Project Proposed Depths

6:1 4:1 3:1

0 to 5 feet 5 feet ‐ 10 feet

> 10 feet

0 to 3 feet 3 feet ‐ 7 feet

> 7 feet

Table 4-1 Design Criteria for Roadway Improvements


Page |4‐2

DESIGN-YEAR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The following summarizes the traffic evaluation completed for design-year (2040) conditions including traffic projections, traffic operations analyses, speed-change lane analysis, and truck climbing lane analysis.

Annual Growth Rate Calculation Daily traffic volumes from 2004 to 2018 were used to estimate an annual growth rate for US 64 west of Shiprock. Exhibit 4-1 shows a best-fit historical average annual growth rate of 0.5% for US 64. To estimate design-year 2040 volumes for this project, a conservative annual growth rate of 1.0% was used.

Exhibit 4-1: Historic AADT Volumes for US 64 west of Shiprock

Source: Permanent count station at MP 21.2.

Design-Year (2040) Traffic Volumes Based on applying a 1.0% annual growth rate to existing volumes, the resulting design year (2040) traffic volumes are summarized below in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4. The milepost ranges for the US 64 segment volumes were established based on the intersection turn movement counts which showed an increase in vehicular traffic near MP 17.0. Therefore, the daily volumes collected at MP 1.5 were applied to MP 0.0 to 17.0, and the daily volumes collected at MP 20.0 were applied to MP 17.0 to 20.8.

Table 4-3: Design Year (2040) Daily Traffic Volumes

Location 2019 ADT (vpd)

2040 ADT (vpd)

MP 0.0 to 17.0 2,500 3,100 MP 17.0 to 20.8 3,800 4,700

Traffic Operations The Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM), was used to analyze the capacity of the two-lane highway and the unsignalized intersections along the study corridor. The traffic operations along the study corridor were analyzed for the future (2040) No Build and Build conditions. The roadway characteristics that changed between

Table 4-4: Design Year (2040) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes

Location Along US 64

Volume by Approach and Movement (vehicles per hour) Peak Hour

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right

MP 1.5 (Coverage Count)

AM 180 90 PM 150 200

BIA 5027/TR 1754/ AM ‐ 180 ‐ 5 90 5 ‐ ‐ 5 5 ‐ ‐ RD 9060 PM 5 150 ‐ 10 200 5 ‐ ‐ 5 5 ‐ ‐ RD 9064 AM 35 160 5 ‐ 90 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ 10 PM 15 140 5 15 180 10 15 5 30 5 ‐ 25 BIA 5038/TR 1702/ AM ‐ 170 ‐ ‐ 90 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ RD 9071 PM 5 170 ‐ ‐ 190 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 BIA 5113/RD 9040 AM ‐ 170 ‐ ‐ 80 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 ‐ 5 PM 5 160 5 ‐ 190 10 ‐ ‐ 10 5 ‐ ‐ BIA 571/RD 9090 AM ‐ 170 5 10 90 ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 ‐ ‐ ‐ PM ‐ 170 ‐ 15 200 ‐ 5 ‐ 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ BIA 57 AM 10 190 ‐ ‐ 90 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 35 ‐ 5 PM 5 180 ‐ ‐ 210 30 ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 ‐ 5 RD 9140 AM ‐ 220 ‐ 5 110 ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ PM ‐ 240 ‐ 5 240 ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ MP 20.0 (Coverage Count)

AM 230 110 PM 250 240

the existing/No Build scenario and the Build scenario were that the passing zones were shortened to meet standards and the shoulder widths increased to six feet throughout the project limits.

The NMDOT’s State Access Management Manual (SAMM) specifies the level of service (LOS) design criteria for rural two-lane highways and for unsignalized intersections in rural areas. These criteria are outlined in Table 15.C-1 and section 13.H in the SAMM and are summarized below in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5: NMDOT SAMM LOS Design Requirements

Roadway Characteristics NMDOT SAMM LOS Design Requirements Rural, Two‐Lane Highway LOS C or Better Rural, Unsignalized Intersection LOS D or Better for all Movements

The HCM LOS criteria for a two-lane highway and unsignalized intersections are shown in Exhibit 4-2 and Exhibit 4-3. This roadway is classified as a Class I highway, due to its function as a major link in the Four Corners area highway network and as a facility primarily focused on serving long-distance trips. As such, the LOS criteria for two-lane highway segments is based on the average speed (ATS) and the Percent Time Spent Following (PTSF). The PTSF is the percent of time vehicles must travel in a platoon due to an inability to pass. It represents the freedom to maneuver and convenience of travel. The LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections is based on seconds of delay incurred while the vehicles wait to make their turn.

Annual Growth of 0.5%

4600470048004900500051005200530054005500

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

AADT

Year


Page |4‐3

Exhibit 4-2: Two-Lane Highway LOS Criteria


Exhibit 4-3: Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) LOS Criteria


The results of the analyses are summarized below. The full analysis output reports are provided as part of the electronic project materials.

Two-Lane Rural Highway Operational Analysis The NMDOT’s SAMM specifies LOS C or better for rural two-lane highways. Table 4-6 shows that the study segment of US 64 operates LOS A under design-year No Build and Build conditions, thus meeting the SAMM’s design criteria.

Table 4-6: US 64 Two-Lane Highway Operational Analysis

Scenario Eastbound Westbound

AM PM AM PM

No Build ‐ 2040 A A A A Build ‐ 2040 A A A A

Unsignalized Intersections Operational Analysis The NMDOT’s SAMM specifies that unsignalized intersections along rural two-lane highways are to be designed for all movements to operate at a LOS D or better. Table 4-7 shows the critical movement level of service at each of the major unsignalized intersections along the study corridor. All intersections operate at an overall LOS A with all movements operating at LOS B or better, thus meeting the SAMM’s design criteria.

Table 4-7: Unsignalized Intersection Critical Movement LOS and Delay

Intersection with US 64 LOS and Delay by Year and Peak Hour

2040 AM 2040 PM

BIA 5027/TR 1754/RD 9060 B (11.5 s) B (11.6 s) RD 9064 B (10.1 s) B (11.1 s) BIA 5038/TR 1702/RD 9071 B (10.8 s) A (9.4 s) BIA 5113/RD 9040 A (9.9 s) B (11.8 s) BIA 571/RD 9090 A (9.5 s) A (9.9 s) BIA 57 B (11.0 s) B (13.0 s) RD 9140 A (9.6 s) A (9.9 s)

Speed Change Lanes The NMDOT’s SAMM specifies in Chapter 17 that for rural two-lane highways with posted speed limits between 45-55 mph, if 16 vehicles per hour (vph) or more make a left-turn or 26 vph or more make a right-turn, a separate turn lane is warranted regardless of the through traffic volume. For turning volumes less than these, the SAMM specifies the minimum through lane volume that would need to correspond to the left-turn or right-turn volume.

Of the seven intersections along the corridor that were analyzed, one or more turn lanes are required at each of them. Table 4-8 summarizes the year (i.e., 2019 or 2040) when separate turn lanes are expected to be warranted. The speed change lanes at the intersection at BIA 5112/Road 9057 will be kept.

Table 4-8: Need for Separate Turn Lanes

Intersection with US 64 Year Turn Lane Warranted

EB Left EB Right WB Left WB Right BIA 5027/TR 1754/RD 9060 2040 ‐ 2019 ‐ RD 9064 2019 ‐ 2019 ‐ BIA 5038/TR 1702/RD 9071 2040 ‐ ‐ ‐ BIA 5113/RD 9040 2040 ‐ ‐ 2040 BIA 571/RD 9090 ‐ ‐ 2019 ‐ BIA 57 2040 ‐ ‐ 2019 RD 9140 ‐ ‐ 2040 ‐

Note: Assessment based on NMDOT SAMM Tables 17.B‐3 & 17.B‐5

Truck Climbing Lanes Truck climbing lanes are not warranted per the guidelines in section 3.4.3 of AASHTO’s 7th edition of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2018 (Green Book). The low volume of trucks and passenger cars along the roadway did not meet the required 200 vph and 20 trucks per hour. Additionally, a high level of performance (LOS A) was shown for the two-lane highway segments, so the LOS E/F criteria was not met.


Page |4‐4

DESCRIPTION OF THE NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative consists of the existing US 64 highway and all appurtenances. The No Build Alternative includes continued maintenance of the highway including pavement, bridge structures, drainage structures, pavement markings, signs, and other basic roadway elements. Improvements beyond normal maintenance are not included in the No Build condition.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES Two roadway alternatives were developed to rehabilitate and update the design standard of the two-lane highway. The traffic analysis of design-year conditions shows that a two-lane highway provides the desired performance level per the SAMM. Climbing lanes are not needed based on the traffic volumes and truck percentages, and passing lanes are also not required for this 20-mile highway segment because the proposed conditions provide approximately 60% passing opportunities. There are many similarities between the two roadway alternatives which are discussed following a description of each alternative. The proposed drainage and major structure improvements are discussed later in this chapter.

Build Alternative 1 - Roadway Build Alternative 1 minimizes right-of-way impacts throughout the corridor by using guardrail/barrier, steeper but allowable (3:1) side slopes for clear zone requirements, and retaining walls where needed to stay within the existing right-of-way. The conceptual design layout of Build Alternative 1 is provided in Appendix B, and was developed using the design criteria shown in Table 4-1. A minimum five-foot (5’) buffer between the limits of the work and the existing right-of-way fence was used to allow the contractor room to construct the improvements.

Build Alternative 1 maintains existing access points, with a few exceptions, and provides speed change lanes at intersections where warranted. Two access drives are proposed to be closed; a driveway on the south side of US 64 at approximate STA 1176+00, and a driveway just west of Shiprock Wash at STA 1739+60. Access management is discussed in more detail later in this section.

The roadside barrier and retaining wall lengths for Build Alternative 1 are summarized in Table 4-9. These values can be compared to Table 4-10 for Build Alternative 2 to see the difference between the alternatives.

Table 4-9: Build Alternative 1 Roadside Barrier and Retaining Wall Lengths

Side of US 64 Roadside Barrier (feet)

Concrete Wall Barrier (feet)

Retaining Walls (feet)

Retaining Walls (sq. ft.)

North Side 15,425.0 9,526 5,300 35,700 South Side 13,812.5 9,520 5,425 28,263

Totals 29,237.5 19,046 10,725 63,963

Build Alternative 2 - Roadway Build Alternative 2 attempts to preserve the natural environment to the extent practical by allowing embankment tie-ins to occur outside existing right-of-way where needed. This approach reduces the need for retaining walls and roadside barriers thus reducing the man-made improvements in this alternative. The conceptual design layout of Build Alternative 2 is provided in Appendix B. A 4:1 slope rate was used to the required clear zone extents, instead of the 3:1 rate used for Build Alternative 1 from Table 4-2.

Build Alternative 2 realigns Road 9060/Tribal Road 1754 on the south side of US 64 with Road 9060/BIA 5027 on the north side (at STA 1165+86), and provides speed change lanes at intersections where warranted. Two access drives are proposed to be closed; a driveway on the south side of US 64 at approximate STA 1176+00, and a driveway just west of Shiprock Wash at STA 1739+60. Access management is discussed in more detail later in this section.

Table 4-10: Build Alternative 2 Roadside Barrier and Retaining Wall Lengths

Side of US 64 Roadside Barrier (feet)

Concrete Wall Barrier (feet)

Retaining Walls (feet)

Retaining Walls (sq. ft.)

North Side 6,037.5 4,220 4,500 32,250 South Side 7,087.5 4,226 2,375 12,775

Totals 13,125.0 8,446 6,875 45,025

Proposed Improvements Applicable to both Roadway Build Alternatives The design approach to rehabilitate and upgrade the design standard of the rural two-lane highway is consistent for the two roadway build alternatives. These consistent elements are discussed below and include:

Typical Sections Pavement Sections and Pavement Distress Areas Horizontal Alignment including Superelevation Corrections Vertical Alignment including Vertical Curve Corrections and Passing Zone Opportunities Access Management (Bus Stops and Pull-out areas) Lighting

Typical Sections - Rural The proposed typical sections for the rural highway segments are shown in Exhibit 4-4. The proposed roadway driving lanes are 12-feet wide and the roadway shoulders 6-feet wide. For the westerly portion of the project with the 150-foot right-of-way, 6:1 surfacing tapers are proposed. For the easterly portion of the project with the 100-foot right-of-way, 4:1 surfacing tapers are proposed.

Mainline US 64 shoulder widths were set at six (6) feet by NMDOT for consistency throughout the corridor to enhance the safety by providing additional width for disabled vehicles and non-motorized users of the facility, while reducing the right-of-way and environmental impacts of the proposed improvements. A six-foot shoulder is the baseline for the evaluation of the safety performance of shoulder widths as illustrated in Exhibit 4-5 and is an appropriate width for this project. Adjacent to right-turn deceleration lanes, full shoulder width is not required; two (2) foot outside shoulders are proposed to augment the 12-foot turn lane.

For the major structure crossings, the shoulders are widened to eight feet to provide an additional 2-feet of shy distance to the bridge railing. The typical section for major structures is provided later in this chapter.

Typical Section - Beclabito In Beclabito, based on concerns regarding speeds and safety in this area of the project, a three-lane section with a continuous Two-Way-Left-Turn-Lane (TWLTL) is proposed to access the turnouts on both sides of the roadway (see Exhibit 4-6). Raised median islands are proposed in the transition taper areas on both sides of Beclabito to aid traffic calming entering the community. Radar speed boards are proposed to complement the raised medians. The established reduced School Speed Zone would also be retained.


Page |4‐5

Exhibit 4-4: Typical Sections for Rural Highway Segments

Exhibit 4-5: Shoulder Widths on Rural Two-Lane Highways

Exhibit 4-6: Typical Section for Beclabito


Page |4‐6

Typical Section – Turn Lanes Exhibit 4-7 illustrates the typical sections for speed change lanes. A 16-foot median is proposed to provide a 4-foot buffer between the 12-foot left-turn lane and the opposing driving lane.

Exhibit 4-7: Typical Sections for Speed Change Lanes

Horizontal Geometry The existing horizontal alignment was reviewed to determine if the horizontal curves satisfy the design criteria for this project (see Table 4-11). The existing radii of the horizontal curves satisfy the minimum requirements however the existing superelevation rates were found to be substandard except for one curve. Curve H3 is located just west of Beclabito where a lower design speed applies, but will require that the reduced speed zone is moved in advance of the curve. Curve H5 is shown as deficient but is also proposed for reconstruction as part of the Red Wash Bridge reconstruction. New horizontal curves introduced where US 64 is proposed to be realigned for bridge reconstruction will be designed to current standards. Table 4-11: Horizontal Alignment Design Evaluation

Curve No.

PC Mile Post

PT Mile Post

PC Station

PT Station

Exist. Radius (ft.)

Min. Req. Radius (ft.)

Existing Super‐

elevation Rate (%)

Design Super‐

elevation Rate (%)

Reconstruct?

H1 0.29 0.32 1015+31.15 1016+70.37 5,729.58 5440 1.52 2.8 YES H2 1.79 1.94 1094+76.14 1102+28.72 3,819.72 3650 1.80 3.8 YES H3 2.82 3.14 1149+12.36 1165+85.87 2,314.69 2300 3.92 4.0 NO H4 4.69 4.88 1247+42.03 1257+71.53 2,975.52 2920 2.60 4.4 YES H5 7.52 7.64 1397+10.20 1403+55.85 5,729.58 5440 1.65 2.8 YES H6 7.77 8.05 1410+34.91 1425+22.47 3,819.72 3650 0.80 3.8 YES H7 9.12 9.47 1481+62.12 1500+19.50 4,499.31 4250 1.30 3.4 YES H8 9.47 9.75 1500+19.50 1514+72.90 4,007.90 3940 1.80 3.6 YES H9 15.98 16.25 1843+63.12 1858+02.24 5,729.58 5440 2.65 2.8 YES H10 19.75 20.21 2042+59.13 2067+06.86 5,729.58 5440 2.30 2.8 YES

Vertical Alignment The ninety-one vertical curves along the project corridor were evaluated to determine the requirements to improve the vertical alignment to current standards. This involved assessment of stopping and passing sight distance per the 2018 AASHTO Green Book.

As shown in Table 4-12, seven (7) vertical crest curve corrections are proposed for stopping sight distance (SSD), which would correct all vertical crest curves in the project corridor to meet the SSD design criteria. The amount of cut for each curve correction can be used to assess the level of geotechnical field exploration activities needed at each location to address the risk of encountering challenging subsurface conditions.

Sag vertical curves identified as substandard for stopping sight distance are not proposed for reconstruction because the corrections would require extensive fill leading to retaining walls or work outside NMDOT right-of-way and there was no pattern of crashes associated with sag vertical curves identified in the review of the crash history for the study corridor.

Table 4-12: Proposed Vertical Crest Curve Corrections for Stopping Sight Distance

Curve No.

Mile Post (MP)

PVI Station

Existing Curve Length (ft.)

Existing Curve K Value

Proposed Curve Length (ft.)

Proposed Curve K Value

Amount of Cut for Curve

Correction (ft.) V30 7.9 1392+75.00 500 113 750 156 ‐1.6 V34 8.1 1429+25.00 350 109 500 156 ‐0.9 V36 8.3 1443+25.00 500 132 600 158 ‐0.5 V39 8.7 1463+75.00 450 122 600 162 ‐1.0 V45 9.6 1514+25.00 750 105 1100 154 ‐3.2 V49 10.3 1546+50.00 450 99 700 154 ‐1.7 V70 14.2 1754+00.00 750 136 850 155 ‐1.3

As shown in Table 4-13, a total of six (6) vertical crest curve corrections are proposed for passing sight distance (PSD), based on the curves that can be corrected in an economical manner. The amount of cut for each curve correction can be used to assess the level of geotechnical field exploration activities needed at each location to address the risk of encountering challenging subsurface conditions.

Table 4-13: Proposed Vertical Crest Curve Corrections for Passing Sight Distance

Curve No.

Mile Post

PVI Station

Existing Curve

Length (ft.)

Existing Curve K Value

Proposed Curve

Length (ft.)

Proposed Curve K Value

Amount of Cut for Curve Correction (ft.)

V24 6.0 1318+00.00 500 308 600 369 ‐0.6 V47 10.0 1528+75.00' 250 208 450 375 ‐0.4 V51 10.7 1565+00.00' 200 222 350 389 ‐0.1 V65 13.1 1693+50.00' 850 283 1100 366 ‐0.6 V68 13.9 1733+00.00' 500 303 600 364 ‐0.4 V75 16.3 1861+25.00' 500 342 550 376 ‐0.4


Page |4‐7

Passing Zone Opportunities Based on our assessment of the overall passing opportunities in the project corridor using the design criteria and with the vertical crest curves corrected as proposed, both eastbound and westbound US 64 will have approximately 12 miles of passing opportunities in the 20.8-mile corridor. Table 4-14 shows a summary of the results based on a minimum passing zone length of 800 feet for a 55-mph posted speed (2018 AASHTO Green Book Table 3-5).

Table 4-14: Passing Zone Opportunities

Direction of Travel

Proposed Passing Length

(ft.)

Proposed Passing Length

(miles)

Proposed Passing % of Total Length

Reduction in Length from Existing (ft.)

Reduction in Length from

Existing (miles)

Eastbound 62,880 11.91 60% 10,000 1.89 Westbound 65,105 12.33 62% 7,875 1.49

Pavement Sections The proposed pavement sections in Exhibit 4-8 consist of an in-place recycling (e.g., process/place/compact) and stabilization approach for most of the corridor with full pavement reconstruction at locations where the roadway will be built on new alignment or where existing pavement distresses indicate the need for reconstruction. Table 4-15 summarizes the locations where pavement distress exists. The NMDOT will provide final pavement recommendations, including the need for geotechnical pavement distress field investigations, as part of Phase ID preliminary engineering.

Exhibit 4-8: Proposed Pavement Sections

Table 4-15: Pavement Distress Areas for Reconstruction

Mile Post Notes

From To 0.00 0.15 Pavement Patch 0.20 0.35 Pavement Patch 1.10 1.25 Rutting 1.25 1.40 Pavement Patch 1.40 1.45 Rutting 6.05 6.55 Rutting 7.00 7.10 Pavement Patch 7.20 7.30 Pavement Patch 7.40 7.55 Pavement Patch 7.75 8.60 Rutting 8.65 8.80 Pavement Patch 9.15 9.25 Pavement Patch 9.25 9.45 Rutting 9.45 9.55 Pavement Patch 9.85 9.95 Rutting 9.95 10.00 Pavement Patch 10.10 10.65 Rutting 12.00 12.15 Rutting 13.05 14.10 Rutting

Access Management The locations of existing pull-off areas and bus stops as well as locations of proposed bus stop locations by request of the Navajo Nation are shown in Table 4-16. The turnouts and/or frontage areas are proposed to be improved with this project. The listing will be finalized based on feedback from the Navajo Nation obtained through the public outreach and agency coordination efforts. Table 4-16: Locations of Bus Stops and Pull-Off Areas

Station Station Mile Post Direction Notes 1000+20.00 1002+00.00 0.02 WB Rest Area/Pull‐Off Area 1008+43.72 1010+23.72 0.18 EB and WB Bus Stop (WB proposed) 1164+79.01 1165+90.92 3.13 EB Bus Stop 1166+11.94 1167+11.94 3.16 WB Bus Stop 1175+02.20 1176+02.20 3.32 WB Bus Stop (proposed) 1208+63.77 1210+93.77 3.97 EB Rest Area/Pull‐Off Area 1267+00.00 1273+00.00 5.11 EB Rest Area/Pull‐Off Area 1336+77.46 1339+44.79 6.40 WB Bus Stop (proposed) 1554+29.58 1556+09.58 10.52 EB Bus Stop 1584+00.00 1588+00.00 11.10 WB Rest Area/Pull‐Off Area 1585+77.33 1587+57.33 11.11 EB Bus Stop (proposed) 1906+00.00 1909+00.00 17.19 WB Bus Stop

Lighting for Conflict Areas Locations where overhead lighting should be considered such as intersections and bus stops will be identified based on input from NMDOT and the Navajo Nation and will be included in the final scoping report.


Page |4‐8

PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS A separate drainage report was prepared which is included in the electronic project materials. The following provides a summary of the proposed drainage improvements that would be incorporated into either roadway build alternative.

Cross Drainage Culverts Nineteen (19) of the existing 104 crossing culverts within the project are hydraulically inadequate and do not meet the drainage design criteria for existing culverts. A complete listing of proposed crossing culvert improvements is provided in Table 4-17 on pages 4-9 through 4-11. Although many of the culverts are hydraulically adequate and could be “extended as required,” because of their poor condition, it is proposed to replace the corrugated metal pipes with the same size pipe. Most of the existing crossing culverts on this project were installed in the 1950s, over 60 plus years ago, and have served their design lives. In addition, field inspection results revealed that many of the metal pipes on this project are corroded to the extent that holes in the culverts were observed.

Soil sampling/testing was performed on the channel bed at the upstream ends of several culverts to evaluate the corrosivity of the soils for this project. In addition, NMDOT may perform video inspection of several the existing culverts to verify the condition of the existing metal pipes. The soil sampling/testing results will be used in conjunction with the NMDOT Standard Specifications for culverts corrosion resistance (CR) numbers to specify the required pipe material options for pipes proposed for replacement. This will occur during the Phase ID preliminary design phase of this project.

For existing pipes to remain and those that will be replaced, standard NMDOT end treatments are proposed. The end treatments would consist of concrete blankets when the end of culvert is located within the roadway clear zone. Safety bars would be added for the larger diameter structures. When the end of the culvert pipe is outside the clear zone, end sections would be installed.

For this draft report, it is proposed that culverts with a burial depth of 8 feet or less, measured from the invert of the culvert to the surface of the road at the centerline of the survey, will be replaced with new pipes by trenching methods. Crossings that are buried deeper than 8 feet, which involves twenty-two (22) of the crossings, could either be lined or a new replacement structure could be installed by bore and jack procedures. Shoring or stacked trench boxes are not proposed for replacement of deep culvert pipes due to maintenance of traffic requirements during construction.

To evaluate the right-of-way needs for the proposed crossing culverts, preliminary structure placement sheets were developed. For the 34 crossings that were found to have scour at their outlet ends, the profile of the proposed structure was steepened so that the invert of the culvert at its outlet end would match the flowline of the downstream channel. In addition, conceptual erosion pad lengths were assumed so construction maintenance easement (CME) limits could be established. For the deeper crossings that would be either lined or use the bore and jack operations, a 40-foot long entrance pit and 20-foot long exit pit along the length of the culvert was used to set the CME limits to define the expected right-of-way impacts.

Roadway Drainage and Roadside ditches Sheet flow from the highway pavement and surfacing tapers will follow existing drainage patterns with runoff flowing into adjacent ditches or adjacent land. The capacity of the proposed roadside ditches was conceptually evaluated to ensure the drainage design criteria are met. The proposed roadway typical section consists of a triangular ditch with a minimum depth of 1 foot, 6:1 slope on the highway side and a variable 4:1 to 2:1 slope on the embankment side. Most of the off-site drainage basins flow directly to the crossing culverts and do not reach the

roadside ditches. Preliminary analysis reveals that the ditches as proposed for this project would be adequate. The need for ditch lining will be further investigated for the final report.

Turnout Structures Turnout culverts were analyzed in conjunction with the roadside ditch analysis and are summarized in Table 4-18. With the proposed widening, it is expected that all turnout structures will be replaced. Inlet control is proposed for the turnout culverts.

Table 4-18: Drainage Turnout Structures

Structure No.

Mile Post Station Size

TODS‐1 0.46 1025+21.98 1‐24" X 26.61' CMP

TODS‐2 2.05 1108+60.19 1‐24" X 24.15' CMP

TODS‐3 2.33 1123+53.30 1‐24" X 69.72' CMP TODS‐4 3.29 1174+64.12 1‐24" X 74.07 CMP TODS‐5 3.41 1181+16.1 1‐24" X 39.55' CMP TODS‐6 3.41 1181+22.6 1‐24" X 42.54' CMP TODS‐7 3.46 1183+61.03 1‐24" X 39.93' CMP TODS‐8 3.65 1193+50.57 1‐24" X 70.35' CMP TODS‐9 5.63 1298+53.96 1‐24" X 36.52' CMP TODS‐10 6.43 1339+89.05 1‐24" X 25.11' CMP TODS‐11 17.10 1907+03.68 1‐18" X 57.17' CMP TODS‐12 17.81 1944+77.12 1‐24" X 59.51' CMP TODS‐13 19.67 2043+98.77 1‐24" X 27.31' CMP TODS‐14 19.70 2045+50.59 1‐24" X 18.68' CMP TODS‐15 20.13 2068+04.94 1‐24" X 23.72' CMP TODS‐16 20.33 2078+92.01 1‐24" X 39.71' CMP

Drainage at Major Structures Proposed drainage improvements at the four existing major structures in the study area were prepared to support planning and project scoping during Phase IA/B. Proposed improvements and associated drainage considerations at each major structure are summarized below.

Shoe Game Wash - Bridge #5865 Two options are being considered for Shoe Game Wash (SGW) to accommodate the proposed roadway widening and address existing downstream scour:

SGW Option 1 – Extension of the existing structure (or replacement with similarly sized structure at or near existing elevations) and construction of downstream energy dissipater.

SGW Option 2 – Construction of lowered 4 - 6’(R) x 10’ (S) CBC to reduce the need for downstream scour mitigation.


Page |4‐9

Table 4-17: Proposed Crossing Culvert Improvements

Structure Number

Mile Post STATION Existing

Structure Skew Drainage Area (ac.)

Bulked Q 50

Bulked Q 100 Proposed

Structure

Prop. HW 50

Prop. HW 100

(cfs) (cfs) (ft.) (ft.) DS‐1 0.01 1001+67 1‐24" X 59.89' CMP 17˚ LF 0.7 1 1 Extend as required 0.5 0.5 DS‐3 0.34 1018+93 1‐24" X 86.50' CMP 39˚ RF 22.1 48 57 Replace with 2‐36" 2.4 2.8 DS‐4 0.56 1030+44 1‐24" X 64.52' CMP 13˚ LF 7.7 16 20 Replace with 1‐30" 2.6 3.3 DS‐5 0.63 1033+57 1‐24" X 100.81' CMP 4˚ RF 49.8 29 38 Replace with 2‐30" 2.1 2.5 DS‐6 0.84 1045+04 1‐24" X 56.02' CMP 20˚ RF 51.2 18 24 Extend as required 1.3 1.5 DS‐7 0.96 1051+34 1‐24" X 116.63' CMP 17˚ RF 36.9 30 39 Replace with 1‐30" 2.6 3.0 DS‐8 1.25 1066+72 1‐24" X 124.53' CMP Normal 14.0 25 30 Replace with 1‐30" 2.6 2.9 DS‐9 1.42 1075+48 1‐30" X 139.51' CMP 15˚ LF 44.4 44 55 Replace with 1‐36" 2.3 2.7 DS‐10 1.68 1089+14 1‐24" X 59.73' CMP Normal 2.5 1 2 Extend as required 0.5 0.7 DS‐11 2.06 1109+28 1‐54" X 82.70' CMP 36˚ LF 249.9 142 178 Replace with 1‐60" 3.8 4.4 DS‐12 2.13 1113+11 1‐24" X 76.41' CMP 15˚ LF 3.5 3 4 Extend as required 0.9 1.1

DS‐13 2.40 1127+26 2‐12.5'W X 8.5'W X 102.48' MULTI‐PLATES 25˚ LF 3013.0 1502 1868 Replace with 2‐12'x8' CBC

(will be a Major Structure) 6.3 7.3

DS‐14 2.46 1130+43 1‐24" X 57.77' CMP Normal 13.1 22 27 Replace with 2‐24" 2.0 2.3 DS‐15 2.64 1140+60 1‐24" X 66.83' CMP Normal 2.7 3 4 Extend as required 0.9 1.1 DS‐16 2.72 1144+43 1‐24" X 63.06' CMP Normal 23.1 29 36 Replace with 2‐30" 2.0 2.2 DS‐17 2.84 1150+75 1‐72" X 72.75' CMP Normal 465.8 260 323 Replace with 1‐8'x6' CBC 5.3 6.2 DS‐18 2.98 1158+14 1‐24" X 66.79' CMP Normal 20.8 13 16 Extend as required 1.9 2.1 DS‐19 3.26 1172+99 1‐24" X 60.02' CMP Normal 7.2 6 7 Extend as required 1.4 1.5 DS‐20 3.58 1189+79 1‐24" X 60' CMP Normal 15.7 6 8 Extend as required 1.3 1.5 DS‐21A 3.75 1199+68 1‐24" X 74.67' CMP Normal 6.7 5 7 Extend as required 1.3 1.5 DS‐21B 3.89 1206+86 1‐36" X 115.63' CMP Normal 39.2 25 31 Extend as required 2.6 3.0 DS‐22 4.12 1219+14 1‐24" X 86.59' CMP Normal 4.4 4 6 Extend as required 1.1 1.4 DS‐23 4.34 1230+76 1‐24" X 80.25' CMP Normal 12.9 12 15 Extend as required 2.1 2.5 DS‐24 4.62 1245+25 1‐24" X 60.63' CMP Normal 1.5 2 2 Extend as required 0.8 0.8 DS‐25 4.75 1252+03 1‐24" X 62.18' CMP Normal 3.1 1 2 Extend as required 0.5 0.7 DS‐26 5.00 1265+04 1‐24" X 58.11' CMP Normal 4.3 3 4 Extend as required 0.9 1.1 DS‐27 5.26 1279+18 1‐24" X 60.87' CMP Normal 4.2 3 4 Extend as required 1.0 1.1 DS‐28 5.79 1306+02 1‐24" X 85.43' CMP Normal 2.2 1 1 Extend as required 0.6 0.6 DS‐29 6.73 1355+94 1‐36" X 94.97' CMP 5˚ RF 90.6 31 40 Extend as required 2.9 3.6 DS‐30 7.22 1381+78 1‐36" X 86.30' CPC 30˚ LF 18.9 24 29 Extend as required 2.4 2.7 DS‐31 7.31 1386+52 1‐36" X 77.72' CPC Normal 14.4 24 29 Extend as required 2.5 2.8 DS‐32 7.77 1410+73 1‐36" X 89.78' CMP 23˚ LF 2.2 3 3 Extend as required 0.8 0.8 DS‐33 8.23 1434+87 1‐24" X 101.35' CMP Normal 9.7 19 22 Replace with 1‐30" 2.4 2.7 DS‐34 8.43 1445+41 1‐24" X 54.45' CMP Normal 2.0 5 6 Extend as required 1.2 1.3 DS‐35 8.46 1447+32 1‐24" X 54.07' CMP Normal 2.6 5 6 Extend as required 1.2 1.4 DS‐36 8.58 1453+73 1‐24" X 56.15' CMP Normal 3.4 7 9 Extend as required 1.5 1.7 DS‐37 8.63 1456+16 1‐24" X 64.87' CMP Normal 12.5 16 20 Extend as required 2.6 3.4


Page |4‐10

Table 4-17: Proposed Crossing Culvert Improvements (continued)

Structure Number



Bulked Q 50

Bulked Q 100

Proposed Structure

Prop. HW 50

Prop. HW 100

DS‐38 8.84 1467+30 1‐24" X 61.40' CPC Normal 4.5 5 6 Extend as required 1.2 1.3 DS‐39 8.89 1470+31 1‐24" X 55.49' CMP Normal 15.3 23 27 Replace with 2‐30" 1.8 2.0 DS‐40 9.11 1481+58 1‐30" X 84.43' CMP 40˚ RF 71.4 61 75 Replace with 2‐30" 2.8 3.3 DS‐41 9.29 1491+22 1‐36" X 71.09' CPC 5˚ RF 22.4 18 22 Extend as required 2.1 2.3 DS‐42 9.48 1501+35 1‐8'W X 8'H X 108.97' CBC Normal 298.0 249 297 Extend as required 4.8 5.4 DS‐43 9.62 1508+41 1‐36" X 116.88' CMP 7˚ RF 10.8 6 8 Extend as required 1.3 1.5 DS‐44 9.73 1514+45 1‐36" X 63.36' CPC 12˚ RF 26.2 29 34 Extend as required 2.7 3.1 DS‐45 9.91 1523+72 1‐48" X 87.93' CPC Normal 35.4 45 53 Extend as required 3.2 3.5 DS‐46 10.04 1530+72 1‐24" X 63.65' CPC Normal 4.0 4 5 Extend as required 1.1 1.2 DS‐47 10.08 1532+93 2‐60" X 69.87' CPC 3˚ RF 274.4 168 201 Extend as required 4.0 4.4 DS‐48 10.15 1536+20 1‐24" CPC Normal 2.7 4 5 Extend as required 1.2 1.3 DS‐49 10.18 1537+96 1‐24" X 56.37' CPC Normal 6.3 7 9 Extend as required 1.4 1.8 DS‐50 10.79 1569+48 1‐24" X 61.76' CMP 7˚ RF 35.2 16 20 Extend as required 2.6 3.3 DS‐51 11.01 1581+49 1‐24" X 61.76' CMP 3˚ RF 14.8 5 6 Extend as required 1.2 1.3 DS‐52 11.15 1588+46 1‐24" X 60.62' CMP Normal 4.8 2 2 Extend as required 0.7 0.7 DS‐53 11.29 1595+98 1‐24" X 54.04' CMP Normal 9.8 3 3 Extend as required 0.9 0.9 DS‐54 11.46 1605+29 1‐42" X 29" X 62.25' CMPA Normal 33.0 10 13 Extend as required 1.2 1.4 DS‐55 11.48 1606+21 1‐42" X 29" X 58.25' CMPA Normal 22.2 6 7 Extend as required 0.9 1.0 DS‐56 11.72 1619+12 1‐24" X 60.42' CMP Normal 27.2 13 16 Extend as required 2.1 2.6 DS‐57 11.91 1629+09 1‐24" X 56.03' CMP Normal 20.8 11 14 Extend as required 1.9 2.3 DS‐58 11.93 1630+40 1‐24" X 64.54' CMP Normal 8.9 4 5 Extend as required 1.1 1.2 DS‐59 11.97 1632+55 1‐30" X 60.36' CMP Normal 8.6 5 6 Extend as required 1.1 1.2 DS‐60 12.10 1639+11 1‐24" X 58.09' CMP 3˚ LF 9.5 5 6 Extend as required 1.2 1.3 DS‐61 12.52 1662+01 1‐15' X 97.58' CMP Normal 1428.2 634 759 Extend as required 7.8 8.6 DS‐62 12.55 1663+22 1‐24" X 78.56' CMP 9˚ LF 7.5 5 6 Extend as required 1.4 1.5 DS‐63 12.80 1676+64 1‐36" X 70.30' CMP 26˚ LF 55.8 23 29 Extend as required 2.3 2.7 DS‐64 12.89 1681+33 1‐24" X 74.22' CMP Normal 34.8 14 19 Extend as required 2.2 3.1 DS‐65 12.94 1684+30 1‐49" X 33" X 56.11' CMPA Normal 28.7 14 17 Extend as required 1.4 1.6 DS‐66 13.31 1703+49 1‐42" X 29" X 56.03' CMPA 2˚ LF 14.8 18 21 Extend as required 1.7 1.9 DS‐67 13.51 1714+24 1‐48" X 88.87' CMP 3˚ RF 18.6 19 22 Extend as required 1.9 2.0 DS‐68 13.72 1726+87 1‐36" X 80.69' CMP 24˚ LF 15.3 8 10 Extend as required 1.3 1.5 DS‐69 13.77 1729+39 1‐36" X 54.40' CMP Normal 1.2 2 3 Extend as required 0.6 0.8 DS‐70 14.30 1757+49 1‐24" X 62.26' CMP Normal 2.2 2 3 Extend as required 0.8 1.0 DS‐71 14.33 1759+02 1‐36" X 62.26' CMP Normal 8.0 6 8 Extend as required 1.1 1.3 DS‐72 14.36 1760+83 1‐24" X 76.60' CMP Normal 4.9 4 5 Extend as required 1.1 1.2 DS‐73 14.43 1764+28 1‐24" X 70.77' CMP Normal 8.0 7 9 Extend as required 1.5 1.7 DS‐74 14.48 1766+86 3‐77" X 52" X 62.44 CMPA's Normal 20.0 16 19 Extend as required 0.7 0.8 DS‐75 14.57 1771+21 3‐64" X 43" X 57.13' CMPA's Normal 447.9 138 176 Extend as required 2.5 2.9


Page |4‐11

Table 4-17: Proposed Crossing Culvert Improvements (continued)

Structure Number



Bulked Q 50

Bulked Q 100

Proposed Structure

Prop. HW 50

Prop. HW 100

DS‐76 15.08 1798+14 1‐18" X 51.82' CMP 2˚ RF 7.2 7 8 Replace with 1‐24" 1.5 1.7 DS‐77 15.14 1801+00 1‐18" X 56.49' CMP 3˚ RF 3.4 4 5 Replace with 1‐24" 1.1 1.2 DS‐78 15.22 1805+36 3‐57" X 38" X 71.24' CMPA's 29˚ RF 147.7 32 43 Extend as required 1.1 1.4 DS‐79 15.53 1822+48 1‐36" X 65.60' CMP 3˚ RF 1.1 1 1 Extend as required 0.5 0.5 DS‐80 15.56 1823+94 3‐57" X 38" X 66.13' CMPA's 9˚ RF 126.1 25 34 Extend as required 1.0 1.2 DS‐81 15.68 1830+30 1‐24" X 62.04' CMP 4˚ RF 9.6 6 8 Extend as required 1.3 1.5 DS‐82 15.90 1842+09 2‐28" X 20" X 50.13' CMPA's 11˚ RF 34.6 11 15 Extend as required 1.1 1.3 DS‐83 16.08 1851+22 1‐60" X 72.32' CMP 3˚ RF 364.2 30 43 Extend as required 2.2 2.7 DS‐84 16.23 1859+20 1‐24" X 53.89' CMP Normal 30.5 7 9 Extend as required 1.4 1.6 DS‐85 16.52 1876+48 1‐24" X 55.75' CMP Normal 29.2 4 6 Extend as required 1.0 1.3 DS‐86 16.65 1883+48 1‐24" X 55.83' CMP Normal 52.8 7 11 Extend as required 1.4 1.9 DS‐87 17.05 1904+48 1‐18" X 51.87' CMP Normal 164.7 14 21 Replace with 1‐30" 1.9 2.5 DS‐88 17.16 1910+49 1‐24" X 55.83' CMP 2˚ LF 93.4 8 12 Extend as required 1.5 2.0 DS‐89 17.81 1948+90 1‐54" X 86.43' CMP 27˚ LF 1053.2 141 183 Replace with 1‐66" 6.8 9.5 DS‐90 17.95 1956+09 1‐24" X 54.27' CMP 3˚ RF 9.4 6 7 Extend as required 1.4 1.5 DS‐91 17.98 1957+84 1‐24" X 72.12' CMP 4˚ RF 13.7 8 10 Extend as required 1.5 1.8 DS‐92 18.22 1970+66 1‐42" X 58.63' CMP 4˚ RF 30.7 19 24 Extend as required 2.0 2.3 DS‐93 18.36 1977+99 1‐36" X 66.38' CMP Normal 6.4 4 5 Extend as required 0.9 1.0 DS‐94 18.72 1993+36 1‐24" X 73.83' CMP 23˚ LF 165.2 37 48 Replace with 1‐42" 2.9 3.4 DS‐95 18.75 1995+26 3‐36" X 100.49 CMP's 22˚ LF 323.5 63 81 Extend as required 2.3 2.6 DS‐96 18.97 2006+89 1‐48" X 82.06' CMP Normal 23.5 17 20 Extend as required 2.0 2.1 DS‐97 19.12 2014+67 2‐36" X 93.05' CMP's 5˚ LF 26.7 19 23 Extend as required 1.6 1.7 DS‐98 19.16 2016+95 1‐24" X 98.70' CMP Normal 3.8 5 5 Extend as required 1.2 1.2 DS‐99 19.26 2022+19 1‐30" X80.51' CMP 41˚ LF 10.9 10 12 Extend as required 1.6 1.7 DS‐100 19.31 2025+02 1‐36" X 62.38' CMP Normal 7.9 10 11 Extend as required 1.5 1.6 DS‐101 19.56 2037+91 2‐36" X 129.00' CMP's 27˚ LF 248.6 95 117 Extend as required 4.1 6.0 DS‐102 19.88 2050+65 1‐36" X 62.38' CMP Normal 14.0 15 18 Extend as required 1.9 2.1 DS‐103 20.18 2066+78 1‐24" X 49.75' CMP Normal 1.0 1 1 Extend as required 0.5 0.5 DS‐104 20.31 2073+27 1‐24" X 46.66' CMP 17˚ RF 1.7 1 1 Extend as required 0.5 0.5


Page |4‐12

Based on data and analyses available at Phase IA/B, both options meet NMDOT design criteria and can be designed to accommodate the existing downstream scour. The main difference for scoping purposes is that SGW Option 1 will require permanent improvements outside current NMDOT right-of-way to construct a stilling basin that is necessary to protect an extended CBC. If either option is selected, further analysis should be conducted during future phases to determine the cause of the downstream channel headcut or if the wash profile has stabilized. That further analysis should inform the refinement of downstream scour countermeasures. Given the unknowns about the cause of downstream channel headcutting, gabions (baskets and/or mattresses) should be considered for construction of downstream scour countermeasures due to their ability to conform to minor local scour without failure.

Red Wash - Bridge #5864 Drainage improvements associated with the proposed replacement bridge offset north (downstream) of the existing bridge consist primarily of NMDOT Class A riprap on the west abutment slope to protect it from abutment scour. Piers for the new bridge are intended to be designed with deep foundations to accommodate contraction scour and pier scour. Therefore, no local pier scour countermeasures will be required.

The west abutment protection toe down depth (25-feet total) utilized for estimating the footprint of NMDOT Class A riprap for scoping purposes is based on preliminary scour analyses (500-year contraction scour plus 100-year left (west) abutment scour). The depth of scour countermeasure toe down is subject to refinement based on more detailed scour analyses of the proposed bridge during preliminary design and coordination with NMDOT. The height and limits of Class A riprap on the roadway embankment is based on water surface elevations and velocity data obtained from the existing conditions SRH-2D hydraulic models prepared for this study.

Similarly, the recommended bridge pier skew (30 degrees) was determined to be approximately parallel to the 50-, 100-, and 500-year flow direction through the main conveyance area of the wash, based on velocity vector data calculated with the existing condition SRH-2D model. The proposed bridge embankment will represent only a minor encroachment into the west overbank downstream of the existing embankment, so use of the existing condition SRH-2D model for scoping purposes is a reasonable representation of proposed conditions.

Shiprock Wash - Bridge #5863 Drainage improvements associated with the proposed replacement bridge partially offset to the north (downstream) of the existing bridge consist primarily of NMDOT Class A riprap on both abutment slopes (east and west) to protect against abutment scour. Piers for the new bridge are intended to be designed with deep foundations to accommodate contraction scour and pier scour. Therefore, no local pier scour countermeasures will be required.

The abutment protection toe down depth (20-feet total) utilized for estimating the footprint of NMDOT Class A riprap for scoping purposes is based on preliminary scour analyses (500-year contraction scour plus 100-year abutment scour, 15-feet for those two components combined, plus an additional 5-feet to account for the existing wash main channel depth). Incorporating the existing channel depth into the preliminary total design scour depth used for abutment protection layout (i.e. contraction and abutment scour is being applied below the channel thalweg) is based on field observations of active lateral migration and recognition that channel lateral migration is likely to continue to occur. The depth of scour countermeasure toe down is subject to refinement based on more detailed scour analyses of the proposed bridge during preliminary design and coordination with NMDOT. The height and limits of Class A riprap on the roadway embankment is based on water surface elevations and velocity data obtained from the existing conditions SRH-2D hydraulic models prepared for this study. The proposed bridge embankment will represent only a minor encroachment into the east and west overbanks downstream of the

existing embankment, so use of the existing condition SRH-2D model for scoping purposes is a reasonable representation of proposed conditions.

Rattlesnake Wash - Bridge #5862 Two options were considered to replace the existing bridge at Rattlesnake Wash (RW):

RW Option 1 - Replace with 4 - 14’ x 14’ CBC RW Option 2 - Replace with a new Single Span Bridge

Both RW Options would satisfy NMDOT hydraulic design criteria.

Conceptual RW Option 1 drainage recommendations prepared for scoping purposes includes CBC inlet and outlet wingwalls and a downstream Class A riprap mat to mitigate potential downstream scour. A non-standard wingwall design would be needed to make the northeast wingwall parallel to the skew of the CBC to avoid the near vertical channel wall. A 15-degree CBC skew would align the structure to the natural channel alignment, primarily to minimize adverse downstream erosion/scour by outleting CBC flows parallel to the channel. The proposed CBC with NMDOT standard box sizes (14-foot maximum rise), headwalls, and wingwalls requires improvements outside of existing NMDOT right-of-way.

For RW Option 2, abutment scour protection should be considered using Class A riprap, as proposed for Red Wash and Shiprock Wash. Preliminary estimates of construction cost provided in the Bridge Type Selection report account for this potential abutment scour protection.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO MAJOR STRUCTURES Separate Bridge Type Selection (BTS) reports were prepared for the four existing major structures within the project limits. The BTS reports, including the alternatives analyses, are provided in the electronic project materials. The following summarizes salient information regarding the proposed approach to improving each bridge. The typical roadway configuration across the bridges is shown in Exhibit 4-9. Note that the 8-foot shoulder includes the 2-foot shy distance to the bridge barrier/railing. All bridge railings will be MASH-2016 compliant. Refer to the separate BTS reports for details.

Exhibit 4-9: Proposed Typical Roadway Configuration Across Bridges


Page |4‐13

Red Wash – Bridge #5864 The existing US 64 Red Wash Bridge is a 6-span steel girder bridge founded on steel bearing piles spanning a total of 262’-0”. The structure has a current sufficiency rating of 56.9 and a health index of 77.34. The existing bridge has major deterioration located at the expansion joints that include the steel bearings and steel girders. The bridge barrier rails have significant deterioration which include anchor bolt debonding. It is proposed that the existing bridge be removed and replaced. Full replacement will also allow for adequate vertical under clearances to be provided for required free board water surface elevations at the 50-year storm event. The current structure does not meet those freeboard requirements.

The Bridge Type Selection (BTS) report provides detailed information on the bridge options investigated and on the selected bridge type. The 5-span design alternatives that were considered include a continuous steel rolled girder option, a pre-stressed concrete girder option, a solid slab girder option, and a press-brake steel tub option.

The alternative that scored highest in the NMDOT decision matrix were both the AASHTO Type 36 and the rolled steel girder (W36). Both girder types are cheaper than the solid slab girder. Therefore, it was determined that the either the steel girder or precast girder are appropriate options at this location in a five-span configuration. The steel girder option would be continuous, and the precast girder option would be continuous for live load. The final decision will be made via input from the NMDOT District and Bridge Bureau for their preference. See Exhibit 4-10 and Exhibit 4-11 for proposed profile and girder cross section views, respectively.

The proposed roadway on the bridge will be 2 - 12’-0” lanes, 8’-0” shoulders on each side, and 1’-6” bridge barrier rails, for an overall width of 43’-0.” The proposed skew, to meet waterway flow direction is 30 degrees. The five-span configuration was required to provide minimum two-foot freeboard requirements for the 50-year design flow. Even with the five spans and shallow girders, the roadway will require a vertical adjustment of around 1’-8” upward to meet clearance requirements. If the decision to minimize the profile grade elevation increase is determined to be more vital, then the press-brake steel tub girder option may be more appropriate for this bridge. Retaining walls will be required on the north side of the roadway approaches to the new bridge to keep roadway fills within existing right-of-way.

The proposed bridge, no matter which girder type is selected, is proposed to be offset to the north approximately 5’-0” feet from edge of deck to edge of deck, as shown in Exhibit 4-12. The distance from the centerline of existing to the centerline of proposed is 44’-0” which would require a 260’-0” bridge to span end-to-end.

Exhibit 4-10: Proposed 5-Span Bridge Conceptual Profile for Red Wash Bridge

Exhibit 4-11: Proposed Typical Girder Cross Sections for Red Wash Bridge An offset to the north matches the original alignment of the highway and is preferred from both horizontal and vertical alignment perspectives. The terrain/topography poses more engineering and constructability challenges for an offset alignment to the south of the existing bridge. A shoe-fly alternative to reconstruct the bridge in its current alignment may be viable but would not be cost effective. A Navajo traditional cultural property (TCP), a “giving tree,” exists on the northwest side of the bridge at the edge of the existing pavement. Consultation with the Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer will determine if an offset to the north impacting the TCP is a viable option for the NMDOT.

Exhibit 4-12: Proposed Plan View of Red Wash Bridge


Page |4‐14

Shiprock Wash – Bridge #5863 The existing US 64 Shiprock Wash Bridge is a 3-span rolled steel girder bridge supported on five plate girders spanning a total of 208 feet. The structure has a current sufficiency rating of 74.2 and a health index of 84.10. As-builts are not available for this bridge, therefore, the substructure elements are not known. This eliminates the possibility of widening the superstructure and substructure. Without knowing the exact types, dimensions, and area of reinforcement of the substructure, widening could exacerbate existing issues, including scour. Due to the issues with the current steel bearings, deterioration of the safety features and the lack of as-built drawings, it is proposed that the existing bridge be removed and replaced.

The Bridge Type Selection (BTS) report provides detailed information on the bridge options investigated and on the selected bridge type. The final design alternatives considered were a 3-span continuous steel plate girder bridge, and a 3-span continuous for live load pre-stressed concrete AASHTO Type 54 girder structure.

The alternative that scored highest in the NMDOT decision matrix was the pre-stressed AASHTO Type 54 concrete girder structure. The construction feasibility and economics were rated higher for this option.

Therefore, it is proposed that the Shiprock Wash bridge be a three-span pre-stressed concrete girder bridge continuous for live load. The girder size most appropriate for this bridge is an AASHTO Type 54. Total span length of the structure will be 230’-0” end-to-end. The outermost spans will be 70’ with the center span at 90’. This will allow the piers to not be founded in the low flow channel. The proposed bridge would have an overall width of 43’- 0” which would accommodate 2 - 12’-0” lanes and 8’-0” shoulders. See Exhibit 4-13 and Exhibit 4-14 for proposed profile and girder cross section views, respectively.

Exhibit 4-13: Proposed 3-Span Bridge Conceptual Profile for Shiprock Wash Bridge

Exhibit 4-14: Proposed Typical Girder Cross Section for Shiprock Wash Bridge

The new bridge plan will be north of the existing bridge plan as shown in Exhibit 4-15. Offsetting the proposed alignment to the north of the existing alignment minimizes the earthwork needed east of the bridge. Also, offsetting the bridge north is ideal for the hydraulic requirements of the Shiprock Wash channel. Due to the grade differences between the channel and the roadway, a temporary detour is not feasible and phased construction is needed to maintain traffic through construction. Traffic will remain on both lanes of the existing roadway while a portion of the new structure is built north of the existing alignment, then traffic will be shifted as a single lane to the north onto the new structure, the existing bridge demolished, and the new bridge completed. Retaining walls will be required on the north side of the roadway approaches to the new bridge to keep roadway fills within existing right-of-way.

Exhibit 4-15: Proposed Plan View of Shiprock Wash Bridge


Page |4‐15

Rattlesnake Wash – Bridge #5862 The existing US 64 Rattlesnake Wash Bridge is a two-span voided box girder bridge founded on steel bearing piles. The structure has a current sufficiency rating of 76.0 and a health index of 87.18. The overall existing bridge is 98’-4” long. The existing bridge has major deterioration located at the expansion joints, the joints between girders, and at the bridge barrier rails. The adjacent box-beam girder bridges have given NMDOT and other states problems once they have reached advanced deterioration. If not rehabbed and/or replaced, some of these girders can have sudden failures. The skewed channel alignment has caused excessive scour to occur at the east abutment, which now has additional gabion protection in place. Due to damage to the structure and the scour potential to the foundation elements, it is proposed that the existing bridge be removed and replaced.

The Bridge Type Selection (BTS) report documents in detail the process used to reach the selected bridge type. The design alternatives considered were a pre-stressed concrete AASHTO Type 63 girder, a steel plate girder option, and a 4-Barrel 14’x14’ concrete box culvert (CBC). These design alternatives provide solutions to the issues that have accumulated at Rattlesnake Wash.

The alternative that scored slightly higher in the NMDOT decision matrix was the pre-stressed concrete girder. The CBC was anticipated to have potential impact on right-of-way needs and raised the surface water elevation by 2.5 feet upstream for the design flood.

Therefore, it was determined that the most appropriate option was that the existing Rattlesnake Wash bridge be removed and replaced with a single-span pre-stressed concrete AASHTO Type 63/Type V girder bridge, skewed at 15 degrees to the roadway. The proposed structure would span 110’-0” and would require nominal bank protection efforts in the channel. The existing roadway horizontal and vertical alignments will also be maintained with this selection. The proposed profile and girder cross section views are shown in Exhibit 4-16 and Exhibit 4-17, respectively.

Exhibit 4-16: Proposed Single-Span Bridge Conceptual Profile for Rattlesnake Wash Bridge

Exhibit 4-17: Proposed Typical Girder Cross Section for Rattlesnake Wash Bridge

The new bridge is proposed to be constructed in place of the existing bridge as shown in Exhibit 4-18. The proposed bridge structure would be built in a phased construction sequence. The traffic would be detoured to the south of the existing roadway while the existing bridge is demolished. The new bridge would then be constructed along the existing alignment. Building the proposed bridge in phases may require the bridge to be inspected twice per FHWA's proposed Recording and Coding Guide for Bridge Inspections. The bridge would have to be inspected once the first phase is constructed and again after the bridge is entirely built. Both of these inspections would occur prior to the bridge or phase being opened to traffic.

Exhibit 4-18: Proposed Plan View of Rattlesnake Wash Bridge


Page |4‐16

Shoe Game Wash – Bridge #5865 A new concrete box culvert is proposed to replace the existing structure carrying US 64 over Shoe Game Wash. Alternatives were evaluated based on their ability to satisfy the project purpose and need, functional requirements, construction cost, user delay cost, right-of-way impacts, utility impacts, future maintenance, construction feasibility, and aesthetics. Several alternatives were evaluated, including rehabilitation with widening and replacement with a new CBC.

The proposed improvement alternative is a 4 barrel 6’ x 10’ CBC, with a structure length (perpendicular to the roadway alignment) of 81.5 feet, and a structure width (parallel to the roadway alignment) of 42.75 feet. The existing structure would be removed entirely, and a new CBC would be constructed on the same alignment.

The flowline of the proposed CBC would be set approximately 6 feet below the flowline of the existing structure to mitigate the scour seen at the existing outlet apron. Lowering the CBC would eliminate the need for the stilling basin required for the rehabilitation and extension alternative that was considered and eliminated. See Exhibit 4-19 for a section view of the proposed Shoe Game Wash CBC.

An inlet flume would be required to bring the flowline down to the proposed CBC. This flume could also be used to funnel the channel in to the CBC if the proposed CBC were constructed with a shorter total span than existing. The proposed design will require approximately 8 feet of earth fill on top of the structure.

The proposed inlet flume is expected to fit within the existing right-of-way, and while there is an existing overhead electric line on the inlet side, there are no utility poles in the area that would be constructed. The equipment needed for this construction is not expected to result in a utility conflict.

During construction, one lane of traffic would be maintained on the existing structure, some portion of the existing structure would be demolished, and a portion of the proposed adjacent CBC would be constructed. Traffic would be moved on to the new structure and the rest of the existing structure would be removed to allow for construction of the second half of the proposed CBC.

This alternative would require multiple construction phases to ultimately use the same alignment, some temporary roadway would be required, and the structure may need to be constructed longer than is required by design, to allow for traffic maintenance during construction. As noted for the Rattlesnake Wash bridge, building the proposed CBC in phases may require it to be inspected twice per FHWA's proposed Recording and Coding Guide for Bridge Inspections.

Drainage Structure #13 (DS-13) The existing drainage crossing at MP 2.40 consists of two 12.5' wide X 8.5' high multi-plate culverts. It is proposed to replace this crossing with a two-barrel concrete box culvert (i.e., 2-12'x8' CBC) which will result in a major structure at this location. Details for this major structure crossing will be developed in subsequent phases of this project.

Exhibit 4-19: Proposed Section View of the Shoe Game Wash CBC Replacement

MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC The maintenance of traffic during construction will utilize several approaches. Traffic will need to be reduced to one lane with work zones no longer than two miles for flagging operations or use of temporary traffic signals (signals typically for bridge reconstruction only). For the areas where the in-place pavement materials will be recycled, Exhibit 4-20 shows the proposed typical detour approach. Where the proposed centerline of construction is offset from the existing roadway centerline locations, Exhibit 4-21 depicts the proposed approach of widening to one side first and ultimately removing a portion of the existing shoulder structure.

In areas where full pavement reconstruction is proposed, such as where deep drainage structures are proposed for replacement or bridge staging necessitates, temporary detour alignments within the US 64 corridor may be used as applicable.


Page |4‐17

Exhibit 4-20: Maintenance of Traffic (Typical)

Exhibit 4-21: Maintenance of Traffic with Offset Centerline of Construction


Page |4‐18

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES This section provides a comparative evaluation of the proposed roadway alternatives, which incorporate the drainage improvements associated with each alternative. Refer to the individual Bridge Type Selection study reports for the detailed evaluation performed for the four bridges within the project limits.

As described earlier in this chapter, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 have many improvements in common as listed below. The proposed improvements are the same for the alternatives so they are not included in the comparative evaluation of the roadway alternatives.

Typical sections consisting of 12-foot lanes and continuous 6-foot shoulders Pavement sections and pavement reconstruction areas Horizontal alignment including superelevation corrections Vertical alignment including vertical curve corrections and passing zone opportunities Locations of bus stops and pull-out areas Lighting at key locations

In addition, the constructability and maintenance of traffic approach are expected to be similar for both roadway alternatives as well as the anticipated community/business impacts relative to how access is provided to US 64.

Similarly, many of the environmental impacts are common between the proposed roadway and drainage structure Build Alternatives. Based on the results of the initial biological survey, there are fourteen (14) potentially jurisdiction waters of the U.S. within the project corridor, including the named drainages: Shoe Game Wash, Beclabito Wash, Red Wash, Shiprock Wash, and Rattlesnake Wash. Each of the proposed roadway and drainage structure Build Alternatives would have some degree of impact, permanent and/or temporary, on potential waters of the U.S. regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act. No wetlands would be impacted. Although more detailed engineering is necessary to determine impact quantities, it is anticipated that the project would qualify for coverage under Nationwide Permit 14. Adhering to general and regional permit conditions would minimize impacts.

An archaeological site (NM-I-9-29) located between milepost 2 and 3 is recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The site is bisected by the US 64 roadway though the notable diagnostic artifacts are outside or at the existing right-of-way fence. While a limited testing program would be necessary to conclusively identify buried cultural deposits, it is highly likely that the previous construction episodes of US 64 have degraded any such deposits to the extent that the current project cannot have further negative impacts to the qualities which make this site eligible for listing in the NRHP.

Another archaeological site (NM-I-9-28) located between milepost 0 and 1 is recommended undetermined for listing in the NRHP. Though this site is within the existing right-of-way, the proposed slope limits of the project will not intrude upon it. Thus, while a limited testing program would aid in the evaluation of NM-I-9-28, temporary fencing during construction would prevent adverse effects to this site.

Four traditional cultural properties (TCPs) have been documented in the project vicinity. Access to three of these – two clay/mineral gathering areas and a ceremonial gathering area – should not be restricted by the project. The juniper tree located at the Red Wash Bridge, which serves as a “giving tree” for locals, is in close proximity to the highway on the northwest side of the bridge. Consultation will occur with the Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer to determine if impacts to this TCP are allowable and, if unavoidable, what type of mitigation measures will be required.

Noxious weeds have been identified at various locations throughout the project area, with significant clustering toward the west end. The contractor will need to follow best management practices to minimize the likelihood of these species being spread by construction activities.

Evaluation Metrics The evaluation metrics used for the comparative evaluation of the roadway and drainage alternatives are described as follows, and the evaluation is shown in Table 4-18.

Purpose and Need: Does the alternative satisfy the purpose and need for the project?

Context Sensitivity: A qualitative assessment of the context sensitivity of the proposed alternatives.

Major Engineering Item Quantities: The engineering items that differ for the two alternatives are retaining walls, earthwork, borrow, and roadside barriers. Other engineering elements are essentially the same as indicated above. Quantities for these four items are provided in the table.

Right-of-way: The amount of right-of-way in acres needed to implement the alternatives including additional permanent area, construction maintenance easements, and temporary construction permits.

Overall Project Cost: The overall capital costs in 2019 dollars of the proposed improvements including construction, a 20% contingency, a 6% design allowance, and New Mexico gross receipts tax for San Juan County.

Maintenance Costs: This is a qualitative metric to capture long-term maintenance costs for the highway under the two alternatives. The relative comparison is based on man-made aspects of the improvements that will require maintenance such as guardrails and retaining walls.

Safety: Safety enhancements are expected with the proposed improvements to update US 64 to current standards. Because both alternatives would enhance the safety of the corridor, this metric provides a relative comparison of the nominal safety features of the alternatives. Nominal safety refers to the design standard of the facility such as the amount of roadside barrier needed and the slope rates used for the clear zone and embankment tie-ins. Other proposed improvements like the continuous 6-foot shoulders, lighting at spot locations, intersection turn lanes, and drainage culvert end treatments are essentially the same for both alternatives.

Stakeholder Input: An overall assessment of which design approach appears to be more acceptable to the affected public, namely the Navajo Nation.

Environmental Impacts: The affected area of each alternative was evaluated to determine where impacts to environmental and cultural resources would occur. The affected area includes those within the anticipated slope limits of the work, plus an adjacent 25-foot wide buffer to account for impacts from construction and maintenance activities. The amount of environmentally sensitive area and cultural resource sites impacted by the affected area of the project was used to determine the relative impacts of each alternative; Roadway Alternative 1 will have marginally smaller impacts due to a smaller footprint.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADVANCE TO PHASE IC AND PHASE ID Build Alternative 2 is proposed to be advanced to Phase IC and Phase ID primarily because it would result in a more context-sensitive improved highway and has lower anticipated capital and maintenance costs. This will depend on the viability of changing the highway right-of-way for this segment of US 64, which will require BIA and Navajo Nation concurrence. The key features of the proposed improvement alternative are described below. Refer to Appendix B for the Alternative 2 conceptual design plans.


Page |4‐19

Table 4-18: Comparative Evaluation of Roadway Alternatives 1 and 2

Evaluation Measure Build Alternative 1 Build Alternative 2

Purpose and Need Satisfies Satisfies

Context Sensitivity Good Better

Quantities of Major Items

Retaining Walls 10,725 feet 6,875 feet

Earthwork 123,000 yd3 141,000 yd3

Borrow 36,000 yd3 86,000 yd3

Roadside Barriers 48,284 feet 21,571 feet

Type of Right‐of‐Way Impact Acres Acres

Temporary Construction Permit (TCP) 2.47 2.19 Construction Maintenance Easement (CME) 1.29 3.31

Permanent ROW Needed for Highway 4.49 16.22

Overall Project Cost $66,505,000 $62,481,000

Relative Maintenance Costs Higher due to more man‐

made elements Lower due to less man‐made

elements

Relative Nominal Safety More roadside obstacles,

steeper side slopes Fewer roadside obstacles,

flatter side slopes

Stakeholder Input TBD TBD

Environmental Impacts Will impact known

resources, smaller footprint Will impact known

resources, larger footprint

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Roadway Approach The proposed roadway consists of two 12-foot driving lanes and 6-foot shoulders. Roadway sideslopes would be tied in with embankment instead of walls and barriers and the embankments would be revegetated with native seed mixes. Other key aspects of the proposed roadway improvement approach include:

New pavement surface through a combination of in-place paving operations, such as process-place-compact, and pavement reconstruction areas

Superelevation corrections to improve the horizontal alignment drivability

Vertical curve corrections to meet stopping and passing sight distance

Additional left and right-turn speed-change lanes at key intersections as shown in the concept design plans

Improved bus stops and pull-out areas

MASH-compliant roadside barriers

Edge line rumble strips with consideration of intermittent centerline rumble strips

It is proposed to investigate the superelevation corrections in more detail in preliminary design to determine if the segments identified for reconstruction could be improved through alternate paving operations.

Beclabito Area The proposed improvements to US 64 through the Beclabito area include:

A three-lane section to provide left-turn access to multiple driveways along with right-turn lanes and bus stop auxiliary lanes.

Raised medians at entry points to provide a positive channelization feature to inform motorists that they are entering a community area.

Realignment of Road 9060/1754 to align with Road 9060/BIA 5027 north of US 64, which is on the west side of Beclabito.

The existing radar speed feedback boards would be kept, possibly relocated consistent with the proposed improvements.

The designated School Speed Zone would be kept, but the limits of the reduced 15-mph speed zone are long at one-half mile which may result in poor compliance. (to be discussed further)

Provide overhead lighting at key locations such as the marked crosswalk and intersections.

Drainage Improvements Nineteen (19) of the existing 104 crossing culverts within the project are hydraulically inadequate and do not meet the drainage design criteria for existing culverts. Although many of the culverts are hydraulically adequate and could be “extended as required,” because of their poor condition, it is proposed to replace the corrugated metal pipes with the same size pipe.

Soil sampling/testing results will be used in conjunction with the NMDOT Standard Specifications for culverts corrosion resistance (CR) numbers to specify the required pipe material options for pipes proposed for replacement. This will occur during the Phase ID preliminary design phase of this project.

For existing pipes to remain and those that will be replaced, standard NMDOT end treatments are proposed. The end treatments would consist of concrete blankets when the end of culvert is located within the roadway clear zone. Safety bars would be added for the larger diameter structures. When the end of the culvert pipe is outside the clear zone, end sections would be installed.

It is proposed that culverts with a burial depth of 8 feet or less will be replaced with new pipes by trenching methods. Crossings that are buried deeper than 8 feet, which involves twenty-two (22) of the crossings, could either be lined or a new replacement structure could be installed by bore and jack procedures. Shoring or stacked trench boxes are not proposed for replacement of deep culvert pipes due to maintenance of traffic requirements during construction.

Sheet flow from the highway pavement and surfacing tapers will follow existing drainage patterns with runoff flowing into adjacent ditches or adjacent land. The proposed roadway typical section consists of a triangular ditch with a minimum depth of 1 foot, 6:1 slope on the highway side and a variable 4:1 to 2:1 slope on the embankment side. The need for ditch lining will be further investigated for the final drainage report. It is expected that all turnout structures will be replaced. Inlet control is proposed for the turnout culverts.


Page |4‐20

The proposed drainage improvements at the major structures include:

Shoe Game Wash (Bridge #5865) - A lowered CBC would reduce the need for downstream scour mitigation. Further analysis should be conducted during future phases to determine the cause of the downstream channel headcut or if the wash profile has stabilized. That further analysis should inform the refinement of downstream scour countermeasures. Given the unknowns about the cause of downstream channel headcutting, gabions (baskets and/or mattresses) should be considered for construction of downstream scour countermeasures due to their ability to conform to minor local scour without failure.

Red Wash (Bridge #5864) – Drainage improvements associated with the proposed replacement bridge offset north (downstream) of the existing bridge consist primarily of NMDOT Class A riprap on the west abutment slope to protect it from abutment scour. Piers for the new bridge are intended to be designed with deep foundations to accommodate contraction scour and pier scour. Therefore, no local pier scour countermeasures will be required. A west abutment protection toe down depth of 25-feet was utilized for estimating the footprint of NMDOT Class A riprap for scoping purposes.

Shiprock Wash (Bridge #5863) - Drainage improvements associated with the proposed replacement bridge offset north (downstream) of the existing bridge consist primarily of NMDOT Class A riprap on the west abutment slope to protect it from abutment scour. Piers for the new bridge are intended to be designed with deep foundations to accommodate contraction scour and pier scour. Therefore, no local pier scour countermeasures will be required. An abutment protection toe down depth of 20-feet was utilized for estimating the footprint of NMDOT Class A riprap for scoping purposes.

Rattlesnake Wash (Bridge #5862) - Abutment scour protection should be considered using Class A riprap, as proposed for Red Wash and Shiprock Wash.

Major Structures Per the BTS reports, the following improvements are proposed for the four bridges within the project limits:

Shoe Game Wash (Bridge #5865) - The proposed improvement alternative is a 4 barrel 6’ x 10’ CBC, with a structure length of 81.5 feet, and a structure width of 42.75 feet. The existing structure would be removed entirely and a new CBC would be constructed on the same alignment. The flowline of the proposed CBC would be set approximately 6 feet below the flowline of the existing structure to mitigate the scour at the outlet apron.

Red Wash (Bridge #5864) – A five-span bridge with either rolled steel girders (W36) or pre-stressed concrete AASHTO Type 36 girders. The final decision will be made via input from the NMDOT District and Bridge Bureau for their preference. The proposed bridge, no matter which girder type, is offset to the north approximately 5’-0” feet from edge of deck to edge of deck. The distance from the centerline of the existing to the centerline of proposed is 44’-0” which would require a 260’-0” bridge to span end-to-end. An offset to the north matches the original alignment of the highway and is preferred from both horizontal and vertical alignment perspectives. The terrain/topography would be more challenging for an offset alignment to the south of the existing bridge. A shoe-fly alternative to reconstruct the bridge in its current alignment would not be cost effective. Consultation with the Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer will determine if an offset to the north impacting the “giving tree” TCP is a viable option for the NMDOT.

The proposed bridge would have an overall width of 43’-0.” The proposed skew, to meet waterway flow direction is 30 degrees. The five-span configuration was required to provided minimum two-foot freeboard requirements for the 50-year design flow. Even with the five spans and shallow girders, the roadway will require a vertical adjustment of around 1’-8” upward to meet clearance requirements. Retaining walls will be required on the north side of the roadway approaches to the new bridge to keep roadway fills within existing right-of-way.

Shiprock Wash (Bridge #5863) - A three-span pre-stressed concrete AASHTO Type 54 girder bridge is proposed. Total span length of the structure will be 230’-0” end-to-end. The outermost spans will be 70’ with the center span at 90’. This will allow the piers to not be founded in the low flow channel. The proposed bridge would have an overall width of 43’-0.” The proposed bridge will be partially offset north of the existing bridge. Offsetting the proposed alignment to the north of the existing alignment minimizes the earthwork needed east of the bridge and is ideal for the hydraulic requirements of the Shiprock Wash channel.

Rattlesnake Wash (Bridge #5862) - A single-span pre-stressed concrete AASHTO Type 63 girder bridge, skewed at 15 degrees to the roadway, is proposed. The proposed structure would span 110’-0” and would require nominal bank protection efforts in the channel. The existing roadway horizontal and vertical alignments will be maintained. The proposed bridge would have an overall width of 43’-0.”

Right-of-Way Strategy The proposed alternative would require additional right-of-way as discussed above. Permanent right-of-way impacts could be reduced if the minimum highway rights-of-way were established based on what is needed by NMDOT to maintain their facilities while specifying in the land agreement with the Navajo Nation/BIA that it would be allowable for embankment slope tie-ins to be permanently constructed beyond that needed for maintenance. If the roadside slopes can be natural ground and do not require maintenance, NMDOT would not need the full widths and permanent right-of-way designated by fencing could be reduced.

As the project moves forward, NMDOT will collaborate with the Navajo Nation and the BIA to determine the approach and requirements to addressing the right-of-way needs of this project. This should occur as soon as possible so that the first project phase can be constructed as programmed in the STIP, as discussed in Chapter 5.

US 64 Alignment Study and Engineering Scoping Report: Arizona Border to Shiprock CN 5101170 Chapter 5 – Priority Plan

Page |5‐1

INTRODUCTION This Engineering Scoping Report summarizes and documents the investigations, analyses, and findings for the US 64 Phase IA/B alignment study efforts for CN 5101170. The purpose of this Engineering Scoping Report is to document the process used to identify the proposed improvement approach to address the project needs while minimizing impacts to cultural and natural resources within the US 64 corridor and Navajo Nation lands. Proposed improvements involve the rural, two-lane highway segment of US 64 from MP 0.0 at the Arizona border to the west side of Shiprock at MP 20.8 (total length of 20.8 miles). The highway passes through the community of Beclabito, and crosses four major structures at Shoe Game Wash, Red Wash, Shiprock Wash, and Rattlesnake Wash.

This chapter provides a potential priority implementation plan based on the proposed alternative to advance to Phase IC and ID from Chapter 4, and summarizes the next steps for project development. This information will enable NMDOT to program near-term improvements in the STIP and to plan for long-term needs. The proposed improvements will require a substantial capital investment and are expected to be implemented in phases over time. There are multiple approaches that could be used to phase and prioritize the identified improvements. One possible phasing and implementation plan is provided below.

POTENTIAL PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN A potential priority implementation plan reflecting different construction phases was developed based on the following objectives:

Provide fundable phases in the range of $5 to $10 million throughout the corridor to facilitate programming of the identified improvements (phases can be combined depending on funding);

Address the critical needs earlier – the facilities in the worst condition of deterioration and/or requiring the most costs for maintenance;

Consider traffic volumes and the crash experience of the corridor – higher volumes and crash exposure closer to Shiprock;

Package similar work types into phases to maximize the efficiency of the contractor’s mobilized resources on the project site to obtain the best overall value; and,

Coordinate phasing in the corridor with adjacent NMDOT US 64 and NM 491 projects in the Shiprock area to the extent possible and as needed.

The recommended phasing approach is shown in Exhibit 5-1, including planning-level estimated costs for each phase. A total of eight (8) phases were identified and prioritized. The costs reflect estimated delivery costs for each phase (project) including design and construction costs and New Mexico gross receipts tax, but do not include right-of-way costs. A description of each phase is provided below:

Phase 1: Red Wash Bridge (#5864) This phase consists of construction of a new Red Wash Bridge, including the roadway approaches to the bridge, from MP 7.3 to MP 8.1. The estimated construction cost for this phase is $7,447,000 with a final design estimate of $447,000.

The Red Wash Bridge was deemed an essential element of this initial phase due to its current bridge sufficiency rating of 56.9 and scour critical rating. In addition, it has deteriorated to a state where NMDOT maintenance costs are of concern.

Right-of-way impacts are expected to construct this phase due to the realignment of US 64 at the Red Wash bridge. The ROW impacts are currently shown in the concept design plans as permanent, but CME/TCP’s may also apply.

Phase 2: Shiprock Wash (#5863) and Rattlesnake Wash (#5862) Bridges This phase consists of the Shiprock Wash Bridge (MP 13.9 to MP 14.3) and Rattlesnake Wash Bridge (MP 20.0 to MP 20.8), along with the roadway approach work to each bridge. The Rattlesnake Wash Bridge portion includes work to the end of project (EOP) limits in Shiprock. The estimated construction cost for this phase is $8,152,000 with a final design estimate of $489,000.

Both the Shiprock Wash and Rattlesnake Wash bridges have deteriorated to a state where NMDOT maintenance costs are of concern. In addition, the Rattlesnake Wash Bridge is scour critical and traffic volumes are highest near Shiprock. The packaging of these two bridges together allows for a phase consisting of similar work types, leading to the overall most cost-effective approach.

Shiprock Wash bridge may require permanent ROW or a CME. The concept design plans currently show this as proposed permanent ROW. Rattlesnake Wash bridge will require a TCP for a proposed temporary detour along the south side of the existing bridge for reconstruction in the same alignment.

Phase 3: Shoe Game Wash CBC (#5865), Beclabito Wash CBC, and Beclabito Phase 3 consists of US 64 roadway work from the Arizona border (MP 0.0) through Beclabito (MP 3.8) including the Shoe Game Wash CBC and a new proposed CBC major structure at Beclabito Wash. The estimated construction cost for this phase is $10,266,000 with a final design estimate of $617,000.

This phase accommodates an upgrade of US 64 and access management improvements in the Beclabito area. This phase includes the highway segments with the highest crash rates in the project corridor, and stakeholder input from the Beclabito Chapter indicates a need for further improvements to supplement what NMDOT has implemented. Adding the roadway work, the Shoe Game Wash CBC and the Beclabito Wash CBC provides the most cost-effective manner to complete this work at this location of the corridor and completes the upgrade of US 64 from the beginning of project (BOP) at the Arizona border through Beclabito in its entirety.

Acquisition of right-of-way in the form of CMEs or TCPs would be required for this phase.

Phases 4 through 8: Various Highway Segments Phases 4 through 8 consist of US 64 roadway work packages starting near Shiprock at the westerly limits of the Rattlesnake Wash Bridge work completed in Phase 2 and continuing westerly. This approach addresses the highest traffic and crash volume areas the earliest, while providing fundable phases.

All the remaining work consists of similar roadway work so this phasing approach provides NMDOT with funding flexibility to package phases together for even greater cost efficiencies, should additional funding opportunities be presented. The estimated costs for Phases 4 through 8 are:

Phase 4 (MP 16.4 to MP 20.0): Construction $8,376,000; Final Design Estimate $503,000 Phase 5 (MP 14.3 to MP 16.4): Construction $4,298,000; Final Design Estimate $258,000 Phase 6 (MP 11.4 to MP 13.9): Construction $5,347,000; Final Design Estimate $321,000 Phase 7 (MP 8.1 to MP 11.4): Construction $7,847,000; Final Design Estimate $471,000 Phase 8 (MP 3.8 to MP 7.3): Construction $7,209,000; Final Design Estimate $433,000

Acquisition of right-of-way would be required for these phases.

ESTIMATES OF PROBABLE COSTS A summary of the estimates of probable costs for each of the phasing options is provided in Table 5-1. Additional detail is included in the electronic project materials. The cost estimates are based on 2019 dollars and do not include inflation.


Page |5‐2

Exhibit 5-1: Suggested Priority Implementation Plan


Page |5‐3

Table 5-1: Costs by Priority Phase for the Proposed Alternative to Advance to Phase IC and Phase ID

TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION SHOEGAME SEGMENT 2 BECLABITO SEGMENT 4 RED WASH SEGMENT 6 SEGMENT 7 SHIPROCK SEGMENT 9 SEGMENT 10 RATTLESNAKE

MP 0.0 ‐ MP 0.3 MP 0.3 ‐ MP 1.9 MP 1.9 ‐ MP 3.8 MP 3.8 ‐ MP 7.3 MP 7.3 ‐ MP 8.1 MP 8.1 ‐ MP 11.4 MP 11.4 ‐ MP 13.9 MP 13.9 ‐ MP 14.3 MP 14.3 ‐ MP 16.4 MP 16.4 ‐ MP 20.0 MP 20.0 ‐ MP 20.8

ROADWAY $417,000 $2,406,000 $2,657,000 $5,035,000 $1,615,000 $4,841,000 $3,610,000 $758,000 $2,962,000 $5,328,000 $1,236,000 BRIDGES AND RETAINING WALLS $915,000 $132,000 $500,000 $308,000 $3,914,000 $795,000 $135,000 $2,780,000 $0 $693,000 $1,040,000 CONSTRUCTION SIGNING $130,000 $148,000 $151,000 $137,000 $137,000 $170,000 $160,000 $132,000 $154,000 $175,000 $137,000 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING $123,000 $217,000 $231,000 $157,000 $157,000 $330,000 $276,000 $133,000 $245,000 $354,000 $158,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (WITHOUT GRT) $1,585,000 $2,903,000 $3,539,000 $5,637,000 $5,823,000 $6,136,000 $4,181,000 $3,803,000 $3,361,000 $6,550,000 $2,571,000

20% CONSTRUCTION AUGMENTATION & CONTINGENCY (INCLUDES POTENTIAL DETOUR COSTS FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DRAINAGE CHANNELS)

$317,000 $580,600 $707,800 $1,127,400 $1,164,600 $1,227,200 $836,200 $760,600 $672,200 $1,310,000 $514,200

SUBTOTAL (WITHOUT GRT) $1,902,000 $3,483,600 $4,246,800 $6,764,400 $6,987,600 $7,363,200 $5,017,200 $4,563,600 $4,033,200 $7,860,000 $3,085,200

SAN JUAN COUNTY TAXES (GRT) @ 6.5625% $124,819 $228,611 $278,696 $443,914 $458,561 $483,210 $329,254 $299,486 $264,679 $515,813 $202,466 SUBTOTAL (WITH GRT) $2,026,819 $3,712,211 $4,525,496 $7,208,314 $7,446,161 $7,846,410 $5,346,454 $4,863,086 $4,297,879 $8,375,813 $3,287,666 SUBTOTAL ‐ USE $2,027,000 $3,713,000 $4,526,000 $7,209,000 $7,447,000 $7,847,000 $5,347,000 $4,864,000 $4,298,000 $8,376,000 $3,288,000 6.0% DESIGN ENGINEERING $122,000 $223,000 $272,000 $433,000 $447,000 $471,000 $321,000 $292,000 $258,000 $503,000 $197,000

Grouped Segments Construction $10,266,000 $8,152,000

Grouped Segments Design $617,000 $489,000 (see Exhibit 5‐1) Priority 3 Priority 8 Priority 1 Priority 7 Priority 6 Priority 2 Priority 5 Priority 4 Priority 2

US 64 HIGHWAY SEGMENT SEGMENT 1 SEGMENT 2 SEGMENT 3 SEGMENT 4 SEGMENT 5 SEGMENT 6 SEGMENT 7 SEGMENT 8 SEGMENT 9 SEGMENT 10 SEGMENT 11

SHOEGAME BECLABITO RED WASH SHIPROCK RATTLESNAKE PROJECT TOTALS $2,149,000 $3,936,000 $4,798,000 $7,642,000 $7,894,000 $8,318,000 $5,668,000 $5,156,000 $4,556,000 $8,879,000 $3,485,000 CORRIDOR TOTAL $62,481,000

Grouped Segments Totals Priority 3: $10,883,000 Priority 2: $8,641,000

Total Construction $58,942,000 Total Design $3,539,000

Overall Total Project $62,481,000


Page |5‐4

NEXT STEPS FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Based on the engineering and environmental investigations as documented herein, NMDOT will select a preferred improvement alternative to advance to Phase IC environmental documentation and Phase ID preliminary design. The preferred alternative will address the entire limits of CN 5101170 from the Arizona Border to Shiprock. NMDOT will coordinate with the Navajo Nation regarding proposed modifications to the US 64 ROW boundaries.

Following preliminary design, NMDOT intends to advance the highest priority project to Phase II final design and construction. There is currently $7 million programmed in the STIP for the first Phase 1 construction project (CN 5101171), and $6 million programmed for a Phase 2 construction project (CN 5101172).

The biological and cultural resource reports for the initial field survey of the ROW will be finalized. NMDOT will coordinate with the Navajo Nation regarding cultural resource sites and TCPs within the ROW to determine avoidance and/or mitigation needs.

As the study advances, additional areas outside the ROW may be identified as part of the project footprint. These areas would require additional environmental field investigations and analysis to assess potential impacts. Any additional analyses or associated agency coordination would be included in the NEPA document.

As discussed in Chapter 2, NMDOT will conduct public outreach activities to solicit input regarding the existing conditions and preliminary alternatives during Phase IA/B. Stakeholder and public input will further inform the development of alternatives. Ongoing stakeholder coordination will continue.

For NEPA compliance, it is assumed the project can be certified with a Categorical Exclusion.

US 64 Alignment Study and Engineering Scoping Report: Arizona Border to Shiprock CN 5101170 Appendices

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A UTILITY MAPPING PLANS, CN 5101170 APPENDIX B PHASE IA/B CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLANS, CN 5101170


APPENDIX A UTILITY MAPPING PLANS, CN 5101170

4

3

21

NO. DESCRIPTION DATE BY

REVISIONS (OR CHANGE NOTICES)

OF TRANSPORTATIONNEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT

PROJECT CONTROL NUMBER: CN 5101170

SHEET NO. 00 -NEW MEXICO PROJECT NO. 5101170CARDNODESIGNED BY: DRAWING SCALE:1" = 100' 4510:52 AM

KEVIN ENDRESEN6-Aug-19

J:\PROJECT\NM08400200 US 64\CAD\UTILITIES\NM08400200-SUE-SUR-UTIL.DWGDrawing File:

UTILITY MAPPING PLANSSAN JUAN COUNTY

US-64, MP 0 to MP 20.8

23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

ASCE 38-QLC/QLD UTILITY MAPPING PLANSDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

CN 5101170

CS E

H

ATEA

E T

FEW

XIO

1912

E

T SE

OM

E

SAN JUAN COUNTY

RE C I ND

TE

SL

OH AT

N

CT UOGR

F

SILVERCITY

EL PASO

82

180

SOCORRO

6

SANTA ROSA

TUCUMCARI

4

SANTA FE

ALAMOS

54

ROSWELL

CARLSBAD

LAS VEGAS

LORDSBURG

62

31

550

491

26

JAL

90

78457

84

LOS

84

129

MOSQUERO

509

96

TIERRAAMARILLA

AZTEC64

12

45

- INDICATES DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS

A R

I Z

O N

A

T E X

A S

M E X I C O

O K

.

80

82

LOVINGTON

14

41

41

36

53

TRES

CROWNPOINT

AMBROSIALAKE

MATEO

MORIARTY

CORNERS

ESTANCIAFENCE LAKE

CUBA ESPANOLA

602

ABBOT

BUEYEROS

ENCINO

BERNARDO

BELEN

MOUNTAINAIR

ANTONIO

RODEO

ANTHONY

MELROSE

TATUM

HOBBS

38

456

406

469

39

337

209 469

268

267

SAN JUAN

McKINLEY

CIBOLA

MORA

COLFAX

HARDING

SAN MIGUELSANTA

FE

GUADALUPE QUAY

ROOSEVELT

OTERO

SIERRA

ANA

CATRON

LUNA

SANDOVAL550

70

55

599

12

11

CONSEQUENCESTRUTH OR

ALAMOGORDO

13

128

82

83

CLOVIS

37

CARRIZOZO

20

84

39

84285

4

LOS

CLAYTON

70

TAOS

ALBUQUERQUE

LASCRUCES

285

62

84

RATON

EUNICE176

18

PORTALES

FORT SUMNER60

60 42

LUNAS

54

104

65

10276

68

84285

660

T E X A S

C O L O R A D O

RESERVE

40GALLUP

3

64SHIPROCK

FARMINGTON BLOOMFIELD

DULCECHAMA

PIEDRAS

PUEBLO BONITO

SAN

GRANTS CLINES

605

126

522EAGLENEST

SPRINGER

MORA

CONCHAS DAMLOGAN

VAUGHN

RAGLAND

QUEMADO

SAN

CAPITAN

HONDO

RUIDOSO

TULAROSACABALLO

BAYARD

ROADFORKS

COLUMBUS

DEMING

DORA

ARTESIA

518

402

102

536

55

47

209

114114

206

380

185

28

152

RIO ARRIBA

TAOSUNION

CURRY

DeBACA

CHAVES

LEA

EDDY

LINCOLN

DONA

SOCORRO

GRANT

HIDALGO

TORRANCE

BERNALILLO

VALENCIA

371

550

64

491

371

40

180

180

180

1010 10

10

25

25

180

180

7082

285

285

38070

70

54

54

285

6060

380

40

40

60

25

104

56

87

87

64

64

64

550

64

84

64

285

25

SAN JUAN (US-64, MP 0 to MP 20.8)

US-64, MP 0 to MP 20.8

4

3

21








UTILITY MAPPING PLANS

UNDERGROUND UTILITY INVESTIGATION AND DEPICTIONS CERTIFICATION

THE ENGINEER'S SEAL HEREON CERTIFIES THAT SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATAWAS COLLECTED AND DEPICTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH QUALITY LEVEL D ASDEFINED BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (ASCE 38).

NO GEOPHYSICAL TECHNOLOGIES WERE USED IN THIS INVESTIGATION PERPROJECT SCOPING DOCUMENTS. CARDNO COMPLETED A VISUAL FIELDINVESTIGATION OF SURVEY MAPPED STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES ONLY.

SAN JUAN COUNTYUS-64, MP 0 to MP 20.8

23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1 THE UTILITIES DEPICTED WERE INVESTIGATED BY CARDNO, INC. PER THE SPECIFICATIONS DETAILED BELOW. ALL OTHER PLANINFORMATION, NOTABLY THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION, WAS PROVIDED BY OTHERS AND CARDNO, INC. DISCLAIMS RESPONSIBILITYFOR ITS ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS. ALL FIELD SURVEY OF INVESTIGATED UTILITIES WERE PROVIDED BY NMDOT IN FEBRUARY2019 AND CARDNO DISCLAIMS RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS.

2. NO GEOPHYSICAL TECHNOLOGIES WERE USED IN THIS INVESTIGATION PER PROJECT SCOPING DOCUMENTS. CARDNO COMPLETED AVISUAL FIELD INVESTIGATION OF SURVEY MAPPED STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES ONLY. UTILITIES DEPICTED ARE BASED ON RECORDINFORMATION, SURVEY DATA, AND VISUAL VERIFICATION AT QUALITY LEVEL “D”.

3. UTILITY LOCATIONS ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR DESIGN AND PLANNING PURPOSES AND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSAFETY PURPOSES. CALL NEW MEXICO ONE CALL SYSTEM (800) 321-ALERT FOR UTILITY LOCATION MARK-OUTS 48 HOURS PRIOR TOANY EXCAVATION WORK.

4. RELIANCE UPON THIS DATA FOR RISK MANAGEMENT PURPOSES DURING BIDDING DOES NOT RELIEVE THE EXCAVATOR OR UTILITYOWNER FROM FOLLOWING ALL APPLICABLE UTILITY DAMAGE PREVENTION STATUTES, POLICIES, AND/OR PROCEDURES DURINGEXCAVATION.

5. VISUAL INVESTIGATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES WAS COMPLETED ON 07/22/2019. CARDNO DISCLAIMS RESPONSIBILITY FOR NEWINSTALLATIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES AFTER THIS DATE.

6. UTILITY SIZE AND TYPE ARE DETERMINED THROUGH AVAILABLE UTILITY OWNER INFORMATION OR VISIBLE INFORMATION; UTILITIESLABELED AS UNKNOWN HAVE NO CORRELATED RECORDS OR VISIBLE APPURTENANCES TO DETERMINE FUNCTION OR TYPE. IFINFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR UNKNOWN UTILITIES, A QUALITY LEVEL "A" TESTHOLE SHOULD BE COMPLETED.

7. ALL STORM DRAIN IS DEPICTED AT QUALITY LEVEL “D”. INVERT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY NMDOT. CARDNO VERIFIED THEEXISTENCE OF STRUCTURES, BUT CLAIMS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE HORIZONTAL ANDVERTICAL DATA SHOWN.

8. MAPPING OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES WAS CONDUCTED BY NMDOT. CARDNO FIELD VERIFIED THE HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF OVERHEADUTILITIES. POLE LOCATIONS WERE NOT SURVEYED BY CARDNO, AS SUCH; ALL OVERHEAD UTILITIES ARE DEPICTED AT QUALITYLEVEL “D”. IF POLE LOCATIONS ARE REQUIRED, ADDITIONAL SURVEY IS RECOMMENDED.

9. WATER, GAS, AND TELEPHONE RECORDS PROVIDED BY UTILITY OWNERS ARE INCOMPLETE. MAPPING OF THESE UTILITIES WEREDEPICTED BASED ON FIELD OBSERVATION AND FROM THOSE RECORDS THAT WERE PROVIDED ONLY AND AS SUCH, MAPPED ATQUALITY LEVEL “D”. NO GEOPHYSICAL TECHNOLOGIES WERE USED ON THIS PROJECT TO VERIFY THE HORIZONTAL LOCATION OFUTILITIES. IF FOUND TO BE IN CONFLICT, ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION IS RECOMMENDED.

10. UTILITY STRUCTURES WERE SURVEYED BY NMDOT. CARDNO VISUALLY VERIFIED STRUCTURE LOCATIONS, BUT DISCLAIMSRESPONSIBILITY OF THE ACCURACY OF HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL INFORMATION REPORTED.

11. ALL INVERT INFORMATION WAS COLLECTED BY NMDOT. CARDNO VISUALLY VERIFIED PIPE SIZES AND MATERIAL, BUT DISCLAIMSRESPONSIBILITY OF THE ACCURACY OF HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DATA REPORTED FOR THE INVERTS.

12. PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE IS RECOMMENDED IN SELECTING LOCATIONS FOR QUALITY LEVEL A DATA FOR SPECIFIC DESIGNDECISIONS.

13. THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR THE USE OF CARDNO'S CLIENT AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED OR RELIED UPON BYTHIRD PARTIES EXCEPT AS AGREED BY CARDNO AND ITS CLIENT OR AS REQUIRED BY LAW.

14. SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING IS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (ASCE.)IDENTIFYING AND MAPPING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IS A RESULT OF GATHERING EVIDENCE FROM VARIOUS SOURCES. CARDNOCANNOT GUARANTEE THAT ALL UTILITIES HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED AND DEPICTED. ADDITIONALLY, EXACT UTILITY LOCATIONS ARENOT GUARANTEED UNLESS VISUALLY EXPOSED AND SURVEYED, AND THEN ONLY AT THOSE SPECIFIC EXPOSED LOCATIONS. CARDNOWARRANTS ONLY THAT THE SERVICES PROVIDED MEET THE PREVAILING STANDARD OF CARE.

15. UTILITIES UNDER 12" IN DIAMETER, AS INDICATED ON RECORDS, ARE DEPICTED AS A SINGLE LINE. UTILITIES 12" IN DIAMETER ORLARGER, AS INDICATED ON RECORDS, ARE DEPICTED AT THEIR WIDTH CENTERED OVER THE QUALITY LEVEL NOTED RESULTS.THEREFORE, ANY UTILITY EDGES SHOWN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC DEPICTION ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED RELIABLE FORDESIGN. IF EXACT EDGES OF A UTILITY ARE NEEDED, A QLA TESTHOLE WILL BE REQUIRED.

GENERAL NOTES

{OBTAINED FROM ASCE PUBLICATION Cl/ASCE STANDARD 38)

· QUALITY LEVEL "D"INFORMATION DERIVED FROM EXISTING RECORDS AND/OR ORAL RECOLLECTIONS.

UTILITY QUALITY LEVELS

UTILITY CONTACT INFORMATIONOWNER UTILITY CONTACT ADDRESS TELEPHONE EMAIL

NTUA WATER WATER MOSES SYESSLITH P.O. BOX 1749,SHIPROCK, NM 87420

928-729-5721Ext 3283

[email protected]

NTUA WASTEWATER(NONE ON THIS PROJECT) SEWER MOSES SYESSLITH P.O. BOX 1749,

SHIPROCK, NM 87420928-729-5721

Ext 3283 [email protected]

QUESTAR SOUTHERNTRAILS PIPELINE

NATURAL GAS-HPTRANSMISSION JERRY MARTIN FARMINGTON, NM 505-320-6526 [email protected]

NTUA GAS(NONE ON THIS PROJECT)

NATURAL GASDISTRIBUTION LAVON YAZZIE ST. MICHAEL'S, AZ 928-729-5721 [email protected]

FRONTIERCOMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE SHAWN MITCHELL HWY 264,

ST. MICHAEL'S, AZ 86511 928-871-3800 [email protected]

NTUA FIBER SYSTEMS FIBER LYDIA LEE NAVAJO RJOUTE 12,FT. DEFIANCE, AZ 86504

928-729-5721Ext 6591

[email protected]

NTUA ELECTRIC, NEWMEXICO

DISTRIBUTION &TRANSMISSION CORNELIUS CARL SHIPROCK, NM 1-800-528-5011

Ext [email protected]

NTUA ELECTRIC, ARIZONA DISTRIBUTION &TRANSMISSION RANDY SAGG RED MESA, AZ 928-429-7003 [email protected]

4

3

21









UNDERGROUND UTILITY INVESTIGATION AND DEPICTIONSCERTIFICATION

THE ENGINEER'S SEAL HEREON CERTIFIES THATSUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA WAS COLLECTED AND DEPICTEDIN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR ACHIEVED “QUALITYLEVELS” AS DEFINED IN THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVILENGINEER'S DOCUMENT ASCE 38-02, “STANDARD GUIDELINEFOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTINGSUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA.”


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEXICO

8/6/2019

SHEET 45-03

SHEET 45-04

SHEET 45-05

SHEET 45-06

SHEET 45-07

SHEET 45-08

SHEE

T 45

-09

SHEE

T 45

-10

SHEE

T 45

-11

SHEE

T 45

-12

SHEE

T 45

-13

SHEE

T 45

-14

SHEE

T 45

-15

SHEE

T 45

-16

SHEE

T 45

-17

SHEE

T 45

-18

SHEE

T 45

-19

SHEE

T 45

-20

SHEE

T 45

-21

SHEE

T 45

-22

SHEE

T 45

-23

SHEE

T 45

-24

SHEE

T 45

-25

SHEE

T 45

-26

SHEE

T 45

-27

SHEE

T 45

-28

SHEE

T 45

-29

SHEE

T 45

-30

SHEE

T 45

-31

SHEE

T 45

-32

SHEE

T 45

-33

SHEE

T 45

-34

SHEE

T 45

-35

SHEE

T 45

-36

SHEE

T 45

-37

SHEE

T 45

-38

SHEE

T 45

-39

SHEE

T 45

-40

SHEE

T 45

-41

SHEE

T 45

-42

SHEE

T 45

-43

SHEE

T 45

-44

MP

#19 M

P #20

MP

#18

MP

#17

MP #1

MP #2

MP

#3

MP

#4

MP

#5

MP

#6

MP

#7

MP

#8

MP

#9

MP

#10

MP

#11

MP

#12

MP

#13

MP

#16

MP

#15

MP

#14

N.T.S.

strm

ugg

oht

ABBREVIATIONSFRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS FRNT

NAVAJO TRIBAL UTILITYAUTHORITY ELECTRIC NTUAE

NAVAJO TRIBAL UTILITYAUTHORITY FIBER STSTEMS NTUAF

NAVAJO TRIBAL UTILITYAUTHORITY WATER NTUAW

QUESTAR SOUTHERN TRAILSPIPELINE QSTP

CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CMP

ugtl

ohfo

POWER POLE

TELEPHONE PEDESTAL

CABLE PEDESTAL

ELECTRICAL BOX

MILE POST MARKER

SIGN - MULTIPOST

SIGN - SINGLE POST

WATER LINE

GAS LINE

STORM DRAIN LINE

TELEPHONE LINE

OVERHEAD TELEPHONE LINE

OVERHEAD FIBER OPTIC LINE

OVERHEAD CABLE LINE

OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE

w

ASCE 38-QLC/QLD UTILITY MAPPING LEGEND

ohtv

TV

E

T

LIMITS OF ASCE 38 INVESTIGATION

ohe

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X

XXX

X X

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY

FENCE LINE &LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION


RIGHT-OF-WAY

UNK-10'Wx8'H24"CONC BOX-QLD

1013

+00

1012

+00

1011

+00

1010

+00

1009

+00

1008

+00

1007

+00

1006

+00

1005

+00

1004

+00

1003

+00

1002

+00

1001

+00

1000

+00

999+

00

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe UNK-QLD UNK-QLD

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X XX X X X X X X

ohe

o

he

NTU

AE-Q

LD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

UNK-18"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

PT

Sta

101

5+42

.60

PC

Sta

101

3+88

.64

1026

+00

1025

+00

1024

+00

1023

+00

1022

+00

1021

+00

1020

+00

1019

+00

1018

+00

1017

+00

1016

+00

1015

+00

1014

+00

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe

UNK-QLD

UNK-QLD

BE

GIN

PR

OJE

CT

LIM

ITS

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-04

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


X X X X X X X X X X X X

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

1039

+00

1038

+00

1037

+00

1036

+00

1035

+00

1034

+00

1033

+00

1032

+00

1031

+00

1030

+00

1029

+00

1028

+00

1027

+00

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe

UNK-QLD

UNK-QLD



UNK-24"CMP-QLD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


1052

+00

1051

+00

1050

+00

1049

+00

1048

+00

1047

+00

1046

+00

1045

+00

1044

+00

1043

+00

1042

+00

1041

+00

1040

+00

ohe ohe ohe ohe UNK-QLD

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-03

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-05

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'



RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

1065

+00

1064

+00

1063

+00

1062

+00

1061

+00

1060

+00

1059

+00

1058

+00

1057

+00

1056

+00

1055

+00

1054

+00

1053

+00



strm

UNK-24"CMP-QLD UNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

1079

+00

1078

+00

1077

+00

1076

+00

1075

+00

1074

+00

1073

+00

1072

+00

1071

+00

1070

+00

1069

+00

1068

+00

1067

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-04

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-06

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'



ohe

o

he

NTU

AE-Q

LD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY

UNK-12"STL-QLD

1092

+00

1091

+00

1090

+00

1089

+00

1088

+00

1087

+00

1086

+00

1085

+00

1084

+00

1083

+00

1082

+00

1081

+00

1080

+00

XX

X X X X X XX

XX

XX

XX X X X X

XX

X


RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY

PT

Sta

110

2+36

.06

PC

Sta

109

4+67

.80 11

06+0

0

1105

+00

1104

+00

1103

+00

1102

+00

1101

+00

1100

+00

1099

+00

1098

+00

1097

+00

1096

+00

1095

+00

1094

+00

1093

+00

1092

+00

ohe UNK-Q

LD

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-05

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-07

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


X X X X X X X X X X

ohe

o

he

oht

oht

wNTU

AE-Q

LD

FRN

T-Q

LD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

UNK-48"CMP-QLD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAW-4"PVC-QLD

1118

+00

1117

+00

1116

+00

1115

+00

1114

+00

1113

+00

1112

+00

1111

+00

1110

+00

1109

+00

1108

+00

1107

+00

1106

+00

X X X X X X X

X

X X X

X X X X X X X

X

XX X

UNK-24"CMP-QLDUNK-96"or120"CMP-QLDUNABLE TO ACCESS TOMEASURE ACCURATELY

UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


UNK-24"CMP-QLD

1131

+00

1130

+00

1129

+00

1128

+00

1127

+00

1126

+00

1125

+00

1124

+00

1123

+00

1122

+00

1121

+00

1120

+00

1119

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-06

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-08

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'



UNK-24"CMP-QLD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY

1145

+00

1144

+00

1143

+00

1142

+00

1141

+00

1140

+00

1139

+00

1138

+00

1137

+00

1136

+00

1135

+00

1134

+00

1133

+00

X

XX X

XX X

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

X

X XX

X

X

X

ohe

ohe

ohe

oht

oht

oht

NTUA

E-QL

D

FRNT

-QLD

ugtl

UNK-60"CMP-QLD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

UNK-QLDPC

Sta

114

9+13

.76

1159

+00

1158

+00

1157

+00

1156

+00

1155

+00

1154

+00

1153

+00

1152

+00

1151

+00

1150

+00

1149

+00

1148

+00

1147

+00

1146

+00

1145

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-07

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TCH

LIN

ESE

E A

BOV

E

MA

TCH

LIN

E

SEE

SHEE

T 45

-09

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'

TV

TVE

X

X

XX

X X XX

XX

X

X

XX

X X XX

XX

XX

w

ugtl

ugtlugtl

ugtl ugtl ugtlugtl

ugtlugtl UNK-QLDFENCE LINE &

LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION

RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY

NTUAW-6"PVC-QLD

UNK-QLD PT

Sta

116

5+86

.85

1172

+00

1171

+00

1170

+00

1169

+00

1168

+00

1167

+00

1166

+00

1165

+00

1164

+00

1163

+00

1162

+00

1161

+00

1160

+00

1159

+00

1158

+00

ohe ohe

UN

K-QLD

UNK-QLD

T TV TV

SS

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

w

ugtl ugtl ugtl ugtlugtl ugtl ugtl

ohe oht

ugtl ugtl

UNK-18"CMP-QLD

UNK-18"CMP-QLD

UNK-18"CMP-QLD

UNK-18"CMP-QLD

UNK-QLD UNK-QLD

UNK-QLD

UNK-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAW-4"PVC-QLDUNK-24"CMP-QLD

UNK-QLD

1184

+00

1183

+00

1182

+00

1181

+00

1180

+00

1179

+00

1178

+00

1177

+00

1176

+00

1175

+00

1174

+00

1173

+00

1172

+00

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe UNK-QLD

UNK-QLD

MA

TCH

LIN

ESE

E SH

EET

45-0

8

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-10

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


X X X X X X X X X XUNK-24"CMP-QLD UNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


1197

+00

1196

+00

1195

+00

1194

+00

1193

+00

1192

+00

1191

+00

1190

+00

1189

+00

1188

+00

1187

+00

1186

+00

1185

+00


X X X X X X X X X X X XUNK-24"CMP-QLD UNK-36"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


1211

+00

1210

+00

1209

+00

1208

+00

1207

+00

1206

+00

1205

+00

1204

+00

1203

+00

1202

+00

1201

+00

1200

+00

1199

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-09

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-11

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


X X X X X X X X X X X XUNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


1224

+00

1223

+00

1222

+00

1221

+00

1220

+00

1219

+00

1218

+00

1217

+00

1216

+00

1215

+00

1214

+00

1213

+00

1212

+00

X X X X X X


XXXX ohe

o

he

NTU

AE-Q

LD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


1237

+00

1236

+00

1235

+00

1234

+00

1233

+00

1232

+00

1231

+00

1230

+00

1229

+00

1228

+00

1227

+00

1226

+00

1225

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-10

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-12

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


XXXXXXXXXXX

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

PC

Sta

124

7+46

.85

1251

+00

1250

+00

1249

+00

1248

+00

1247

+00

1246

+00

1245

+00

1244

+00

1243

+00

1242

+00

1241

+00

1240

+00

1239

+00

1238

+00

X

XX X X X X X X X X

XX

XX

XXXXXX

X

UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


PT

Sta

125

7+77

.15 12

63+0

0

1262

+00

1261

+00

1260

+00

1259

+00

1258

+00

1257

+00

1256

+00

1255

+00

1254

+00

1253

+00

1252

+00

1251

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-11

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TCH

LIN

ESE

E A

BOV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-13

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'

X X X X X XX X X X X


ohe

NTU

AE-QLD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


1277

+00

1276

+00

1275

+00

1274

+00

1273

+00

1272

+00

1271

+00

1270

+00

1269

+00

1268

+00

1267

+00

1266

+00

1265

+00

ohe ohe ohe ohe UNK-QLD

X X X X


X X X X X X X

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

ohtv ohtv ohtv ohtv ohtvUNK-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

1290

+00

1289

+00

1288

+00

1287

+00

1286

+00

1285

+00

1284

+00

1283

+00

1282

+00

1281

+00

1280

+00

1279

+00

1278

+00

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe UNK-QLD

UNK-QLD

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-12

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-14

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'



w

ohtv

ohtv

ohtv ohtv ohtv ohtv ohtv ohtv ohtv ohtv ohtv

ohtv

UNK-QLD

UNK-QLD

UN

K-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAW-4"PVC-QLD UNK-24"CMP-QLD

1303

+00

1302

+00

1301

+00

1300

+00

1299

+00

1298

+00

1297

+00

1296

+00

1295

+00

1294

+00

1293

+00

1292

+00

1291

+00

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe

ohe

ohe

UNK-QLD

UNK-QLDUNK-QLD

UNK-QLD



ohtv ohtv ohtv ohtvUNK-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


UNK-24"CMP-QLD

1316

+00

1315

+00

1314

+00

1313

+00

1312

+00

1311

+00

1310

+00

1309

+00

1308

+00

1307

+00

1306

+00

1305

+00

1304

+00


UNK-QLD

UNK-QLD

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-13

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-15

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'



RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAYFENCE LINE &


1329

+00

1328

+00

1327

+00

1326

+00

1325

+00

1324

+00

1323

+00

1322

+00

1321

+00

1320

+00

1319

+00

1318

+00

1317

+00


UNK-QLD

UNK-QLD

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X

ohe

N

TUAE

-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


UNK-24"CMP-QLD

1343

+00

1342

+00

1341

+00

1340

+00

1339

+00

1338

+00

1337

+00

1336

+00

1335

+00

1334

+00

1333

+00

1332

+00

1331

+00

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe UNK-QLDUNK-QLD

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-14

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-16

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'

X XX XX XX X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X XUNK-36"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

1356

+00

1355

+00

1354

+00

1353

+00

1352

+00

1351

+00

1350

+00

1349

+00

1348

+00

1347

+00

1346

+00

1345

+00

1344

+00

X

X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


1369

+00

1368

+00

1367

+00

1366

+00

1365

+00

1364

+00

1363

+00

1362

+00

1361

+00

1360

+00

1359

+00

1358

+00

1357

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-15

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-17

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


X X X X X X X X X X XUNK-36"RCP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

1382

+00

1381

+00

1380

+00

1379

+00

1378

+00

1377

+00

1376

+00

1375

+00

1374

+00

1373

+00

1372

+00

1371

+00

1370

+00



ohe

o

he

NTU

AE-Q

LD

UNK-36"RCP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

PC

Sta

139

4+09

.75

1395

+00

1394

+00

1393

+00

1392

+00

1391

+00

1390

+00

1389

+00

1388

+00

1387

+00

1386

+00

1385

+00

1384

+00

1383

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-16

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-18

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'

XX

XX X X X X

X

X X X X X X XX X

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


UNK-12"CMP-QLD

UNK-12"CMP-QLD

PT

Sta

140

5+91

.06

1409

+00

1408

+00

1407

+00

1406

+00

1405

+00

1404

+00

1403

+00

1402

+00

1401

+00

1400

+00

1399

+00

1398

+00

1397

+00

XX

XX X X X X

XX

X

X

XX

XX

X X X XX

XX

X

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


PC S

ta 1

410+

17.1

4

1422

+00

1421

+00

1420

+00

1419

+00

1418

+00

1417

+00

1416

+00

1415

+00

1414

+00

1413

+00

1412

+00

1411

+00

1410

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-17

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TCH

LIN

E

SEE

ABO

VE

MA

TCH

LIN

ESE

E SH

EET

45-1

9

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'



UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


PT

Sta

142

5+34

.31

1435

+00

1434

+00

1433

+00

1432

+00

1431

+00

1430

+00

1429

+00

1428

+00

1427

+00

1426

+00

1425

+00

1424

+00

1423

+00



UNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


UNK-24"CMP-QLD

1448

+00

1447

+00

1446

+00

1445

+00

1444

+00

1443

+00

1442

+00

1441

+00

1440

+00

1439

+00

1438

+00

1437

+00

1436

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-18

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-20

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'

X X X X X


X X X X X X

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAYFENCE LINE &LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION


RIGHT-OF-WAY

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

1461

+00

1460

+00

1459

+00

1458

+00

1457

+00

1456

+00

1455

+00

1454

+00

1453

+00

1452

+00

1451

+00

1450

+00

1449

+00



UNK-24"RCP-QLDUNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY




1475

+00

1474

+00

1473

+00

1472

+00

1471

+00

1470

+00

1469

+00

1468

+00

1467

+00

1466

+00

1465

+00

1464

+00

1463

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-19

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-21

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'

X X X X X X X X XX

XX

X X X X X X X X X XX

UNK-36"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


PC

Sta

148

1+63

.64

1488

+00

1487

+00

1486

+00

1485

+00

1484

+00

1483

+00

1482

+00

1481

+00

1480

+00

1479

+00

1478

+00

1477

+00

1476

+00

1475

+00

XX

X X X X X X XX

XX

XX X X X X X X X X

XUNK-36"RCP-QLD

UNK-8' BOXCULVERT-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

PR

C S

ta 1

500+

20.4

8

1501

+00

1500

+00

1499

+00

1498

+00

1497

+00

1496

+00

1495

+00

1494

+00

1493

+00

1492

+00

1491

+00

1490

+00

1489

+00

1488

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-20

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TCH

LIN

ESE

E A

BOV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-22

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEXICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'

X

XX

XX X X X X X

X

X

X

XX

X X XX

XX

XX

UNK-36"CMP-QLD

UNK-36"RCP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


PT S

ta 1

514+

73.0

9

1514

+00

1513

+00

1512

+00

1511

+00

1510

+00

1509

+00

1508

+00

1507

+00

1506

+00

1505

+00

1504

+00

1503

+00

1502

+00


X X X X

X X X X X X

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe NTUAE-QLD

UNK-36"RCP-QLD UNK-36"RCP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

NTUAE-QLD

1527

+00

1526

+00

1525

+00

1524

+00

1523

+00

1522

+00

1521

+00

1520

+00

1519

+00

1518

+00

1517

+00

1516

+00

1515

+00

OVERHEAD ELECTRICCONTINUES NORTHWEST.NO RECORDS AVAILABLETO VERIFY ALIGNMENT.

MA

TCH

LIN

E

SEE

SHEE

T 45

-21

MA

TCH

LIN

ESE

E BE

LOW

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-23

4

3

21





SHEET NO. 22 -NEW MEXICO PROJECT NO. 5101170CARDNODESIGNED BY: DRAWING SCALE:1" = 100' 452:40 PM






1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'




UNK-24"RCP-QLD UNK-48"RCP-QLD UNK-24"RCP-QLD UNK-24"RCP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

NTUAE-QLD

1541

+00

1540

+00

1539

+00

1538

+00

1537

+00

1536

+00

1535

+00

1534

+00

1533

+00

1532

+00

1531

+00

1530

+00

1529

+00





RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY

NTUAE-QLD

1554

+00

1553

+00

1552

+00

1551

+00

1550

+00

1549

+00

1548

+00

1547

+00

1546

+00

1545

+00

1544

+00

1543

+00

1542

+00

w

UNK-QLD

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-22

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-24

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'





RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1567

+00

1566

+00

1565

+00

1564

+00

1563

+00

1562

+00

1561

+00

1560

+00

1559

+00

1558

+00

1557

+00

1556

+00

1555

+00




UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1580

+00

1579

+00

1578

+00

1577

+00

1576

+00

1575

+00

1574

+00

1573

+00

1572

+00

1571

+00

1570

+00

1569

+00

1568

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-23

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-25

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


X X X X X X X X X X


ohe

ohe

N

TUAE

-QLD

NTUAE-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD

1593

+00

1592

+00

1591

+00

1590

+00

1589

+00

1588

+00

1587

+00

1586

+00

1585

+00

1584

+00

1583

+00

1582

+00

1581

+00

X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

XX X


UNK-24"CMP-QLD

UNK-36"CMP-QLD

UNK-36"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAYFENCE LINE &LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION

NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1607

+00

1606

+00

1605

+00

1604

+00

1603

+00

1602

+00

1601

+00

1600

+00

1599

+00

1598

+00

1597

+00

1596

+00

1595

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-24

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-26

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'




UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1620

+00

1619

+00

1618

+00

1617

+00

1616

+00

1615

+00

1614

+00

1613

+00

1612

+00

1611

+00

1610

+00

1609

+00

1608

+00




UNK-24"CMP-QLD

UNK-36"CMP-QLD

UNK-36"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1633

+00

1632

+00

1631

+00

1630

+00

1629

+00

1628

+00

1627

+00

1626

+00

1625

+00

1624

+00

1623

+00

1622

+00

1621

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-25

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-27

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'




UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY



NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1646

+00

1645

+00

1644

+00

1643

+00

1642

+00

1641

+00

1640

+00

1639

+00

1638

+00

1637

+00

1636

+00

1635

+00

1634

+00





RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1659

+00

1658

+00

1657

+00

1656

+00

1655

+00

1654

+00

1653

+00

1652

+00

1651

+00

1650

+00

1649

+00

1648

+00

1647

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-26

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-28

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'

XX X X X X X X X X



UNK-24"CMP-QLD

UNK-UNK/CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1673

+00

1672

+00

1671

+00

1670

+00

1669

+00

1668

+00

1667

+00

1666

+00

1665

+00

1664

+00

1663

+00

1662

+00

1661

+00


X X X X X X X X X X


UNK-36"CMP-QLD UNK-36"CMP-QLD UNK-36"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1686

+00

1685

+00

1684

+00

1683

+00

1682

+00

1681

+00

1680

+00

1679

+00

1678

+00

1677

+00

1676

+00

1675

+00

1674

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-27

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-29

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


X X X X X X X X X X


ohe

o

he

NTU

AE-Q

LD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1699

+00

1698

+00

1697

+00

1696

+00

1695

+00

1694

+00

1693

+00

1692

+00

1691

+00

1690

+00

1689

+00

1688

+00

1687

+00


X X X X X X X X X X


UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1712

+00

1711

+00

1710

+00

1709

+00

1708

+00

1707

+00

1706

+00

1705

+00

1704

+00

1703

+00

1702

+00

1701

+00

1700

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-28

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-30

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'




UNK-36"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1725

+00

1724

+00

1723

+00

1722

+00

1721

+00

1720

+00

1719

+00

1718

+00

1717

+00

1716

+00

1715

+00

1714

+00

1713

+00




ohe

o

he

NTU

AE-Q

LD



RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1739

+00

1738

+00

1737

+00

1736

+00

1735

+00

1734

+00

1733

+00

1732

+00

1731

+00

1730

+00

1729

+00

1728

+00

1727

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-29

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-31

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


XX X X X X X X X X X

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe NTUAE-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


UNK-15"CMP-QLD

UNK-15"CMP-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

1752

+00

1751

+00

1750

+00

1749

+00

1748

+00

1747

+00

1746

+00

1745

+00

1744

+00

1743

+00

1742

+00

1741

+00

1740

+00

V

V

X X X X X X X X X X



ugg

QSTP-12"UNKN-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

UNK-24"CMP-QLD


UNK-36"CMP-QLD

NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1765

+00

1764

+00

1763

+00

1762

+00

1761

+00

1760

+00

1759

+00

1758

+00

1757

+00

1756

+00

1755

+00

1754

+00

1753

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-30

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-32

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'



ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe NTUAE-QLDNTUAE-QLD

UNK-60"CMP-QLD

UNK-48"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


1778

+00

1777

+00

1776

+00

1775

+00

1774

+00

1773

+00

1772

+00

1771

+00

1770

+00

1769

+00

1768

+00

1767

+00

1766

+00



ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe NTUAE-QLDNTUAE-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


1791

+00

1790

+00

1789

+00

1788

+00

1787

+00

1786

+00

1785

+00

1784

+00

1783

+00

1782

+00

1781

+00

1780

+00

1779

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-31

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-33

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


X X X X X X X X X X

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe NTUAE-QLDNTUAE-QLD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


UNK-36"CMP-QLD

1804

+00

1803

+00

1802

+00

1801

+00

1800

+00

1799

+00

1798

+00

1797

+00

1796

+00

1795

+00

1794

+00

1793

+00




UNK-48"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD

1818

+00

1817

+00

1816

+00

1815

+00

1814

+00

1813

+00

1812

+00

1811

+00

1810

+00

1809

+00

1808

+00

1807

+00

1806

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-32

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-34

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'




UNK-48"CMP-QLD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


UNK-36"CMP-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

1831

+00

1830

+00

1829

+00

1828

+00

1827

+00

1826

+00

1825

+00

1824

+00

1823

+00

1822

+00

1821

+00

1820

+00

1819

+00




UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY

NTUAE-QLD

PC

Sta

184

2+82

.39

1844

+00

1843

+00

1842

+00

1841

+00

1840

+00

1839

+00

1838

+00

1837

+00

1836

+00

1835

+00

1834

+00

1833

+00

1832

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-33

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-35

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'

XX

X X X X X XX

XX

X

XX

XX X X

XX

XXX


ohe NTUAE-QLD

UNK-60"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY

NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

1857

+00

1856

+00

1855

+00

1854

+00

1853

+00

1852

+00

1851

+00

1850

+00

1849

+00

1848

+00

1847

+00

1846

+00

1845

+00


XXXXXXXXXXX


UNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAY

NTUAE-QLD

PT

Sta

185

8+58

.88

1871

+00

1870

+00

1869

+00

1868

+00

1867

+00

1866

+00

1865

+00

1864

+00

1863

+00

1862

+00

1861

+00

1860

+00

1859

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-34

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-36

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


XXXXXXXXXXX


UNK-24"CMP-QLD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD

1884

+00

1883

+00

1882

+00

1881

+00

1880

+00

1879

+00

1878

+00

1877

+00

1876

+00

1875

+00

1874

+00

1873

+00

1872

+00


XXXXXXXXXXXX


RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD

1897

+00

1896

+00

1895

+00

1894

+00

1893

+00

1892

+00

1891

+00

1890

+00

1889

+00

1888

+00

1887

+00

1886

+00

1885

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-35

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-37

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


XXXXXXXXXXX

ohe

ohe

oht oht oht

oht

oht

ohe ohe ohe

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe

NTU

AE-Q

LD

FRNT-QLD

FRN

T-Q

LD

NTUAE-QLD

NTUAE-QLD


UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD

1910

+00

1909

+00

1908

+00

1907

+00

1906

+00

1905

+00

1904

+00

1903

+00

1902

+00

1901

+00

1900

+00

1899

+00

1898

+00


XXXXXXXXXXX

oht oht oht oht oht oht oht oht ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe


RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY

FRNT-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

FRNT-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

1923

+00

1922

+00

1921

+00

1920

+00

1919

+00

1918

+00

1917

+00

1916

+00

1915

+00

1914

+00

1913

+00

1912

+00

1911

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-36

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-38

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'

X X X X X X X X X X

XXX XXX

X X X X

ohe

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe oht oht oht oht oht oht ohe ohe ohe

w

NTUAE-QLD

FRNT-QLDNTUAE-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY

NTUAW-4"PVC-QLD

FRNT-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

1937

+00

1936

+00

1935

+00

1934

+00

1933

+00

1932

+00

1931

+00

1930

+00

1929

+00

1928

+00

1927

+00

1926

+00

1925

+00

1924

+00

X X X X X X X X X X


ohe

ohe ohe ohe ohfo ohfo ohfo

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe

NTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

NTU

AE-QLD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

UNK-48"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD

1950

+00

1949

+00

1948

+00

1947

+00

1946

+00

1945

+00

1944

+00

1943

+00

1942

+00

1941

+00

1940

+00

1939

+00

1938

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-37

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-39

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo

ohe

w

NTU

AE-Q

LD

NTU

AE-Q

LD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAW-16"PVC-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

1963

+00

1962

+00

1961

+00

1960

+00

1959

+00

1958

+00

1957

+00

1956

+00

1955

+00

1954

+00

1953

+00

1952

+00

1951

+00


X X X X X X X X X X

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohe ohfo NTUAE-QLDNTUAF-QLD

UNK-48"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

1976

+00

1975

+00

1974

+00

1973

+00

1972

+00

1971

+00

1970

+00

1969

+00

1968

+00

1967

+00

1966

+00

1965

+00

1964

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-38

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-40

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'



ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfoNTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLDUNK-36"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

1989

+00

1988

+00

1987

+00

1986

+00

1985

+00

1984

+00

1983

+00

1982

+00

1981

+00

1980

+00

1979

+00

1978

+00

1977

+00

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo

NTU

AE-Q

LD



RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

2003

+00

2002

+00

2001

+00

2000

+00

1999

+00

1998

+00

1997

+00

1996

+00

1995

+00

1994

+00

1993

+00

1992

+00

1991

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-39

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-41

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


X X X X X X X X X X

ohe ohe ohfo ohfo ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo

NTU

AE-Q

LD

UNK-48"CMP-QLD

UNK-36"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAYNTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLDNTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

2016

+00

2015

+00

2014

+00

2013

+00

2012

+00

2011

+00

2010

+00

2009

+00

2008

+00

2007

+00

2006

+00

2005

+00

2004

+00


X X X X X X X X X X

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo

NTU

AE-Q

LD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD UNK-36"CMP-QLD UNK-36"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAYNTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

2029

+00

2028

+00

2027

+00

2026

+00

2025

+00

2024

+00

2023

+00

2022

+00

2021

+00

2020

+00

2019

+00

2018

+00

2017

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-40

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-42

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


XXXXXX

X X X X

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo

w

NTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLDNTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

NTU

AE-Q

LD

strm

strm

UNK-36"CMP-QLD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAW-6"PVC-QLD

PC

Sta

204

2+53

.43

2042

+00

2041

+00

2040

+00

2039

+00

2038

+00

2037

+00

2036

+00

2035

+00

2034

+00

2033

+00

2032

+00

2031

+00

2030

+00

X

XX

XXXXXXX

X

XX

XXXXXXX

X

ohe

ohe

ohe

ohe

ohe

ohfo

ohfo

ohfo

ohfo

ohfo

ohe

ohe

ohe

ohe

ohe

ohe

ohfoohfo

w

NTUAE-QLDNTUAF-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

NTU

AE-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

UNK-24"CMP-QLD



RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


NTUAW-2"PVC-QLD

PC

Sta

204

2+53

.43

2055

+00

2054

+00

2053

+00

2052

+00

2051

+00

2050

+00

2049

+00

2048

+00

2047

+00

2046

+00

2045

+00

2044

+00

2043

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-41

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-43

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEXICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'

XXX

X

XXX

XX

X X X XX

XX

XX

XXXX

ohe ohe


RIGHT-OF-WAY

RIGHT-OF-WAY


UNK-24"CMP-QLD

UNK-30"CMP-QLD

PT

Sta

206

7+08

.31

2069

+00

2068

+00

2067

+00

2066

+00

2065

+00

2064

+00

2063

+00

2062

+00

2061

+00

2060

+00

2059

+00

2058

+00

2057

+00

X X X X X X X X X

XXXXXXXXX

ohe ohe

ohe ohe

ohe ohe

ohe ohe

ohe ohe

ohfoohfo

ohfoohfo

ohfoohfo

ohfoohfo

ohfo ohfo

NTU

AE-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

NTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

UNK-UNK/CMP-QLDUNK-24"CMP-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY



RIGHT-OF-WAYUNK-12"CMP-QLD

UNK-12"CMP-QLD

2082

+00

2081

+00

2080

+00

2079

+00

2078

+00

2077

+00

2076

+00

2075

+00

2074

+00

2073

+00

2072

+00

2071

+00

2070

+00

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-42

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-44

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'

X X X

XXX

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe

ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo

NTUAE-QLD

NTUAF-QLD

ohfo

ohfo

ohfo ohfo ohfo

ohe ohe ohe ohe


NTUAE-QLD

UNK-QLD

UNK-QLD

RIGHT-OF-WAY


RIGHT-OF-WAY

FENCE LINE &LIMITS OF LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION

2095

+00

2094

+00

2093

+00

2092

+00

2091

+00

2090

+00

2089

+00

2088

+00

2087

+00

2086

+00

2085

+00

2084

+00

2083

+00

2106

+00

2105

+00

2104

+00

2103

+00

2102

+00

2101

+00

2100

+00

2099

+00

2098

+00

2097

+00

2096

+00

ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo ohfo

ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe ohe

UNK-QLD UNK-QLD

NTUAE-QLD NTUAE-QLD

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

SH

EE

T 4

5-43

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

H L

INE

SEE

AB

OV

E

EN

D P

RO

JEC

TL

IMIT

S

4

3

21











1"=100'0 100' 200'


23234

RO

BERT E. RA MSEY

PR

OFESSIONA L ENGIN

EER

NE

W MEX ICO

8/6/2019

1"=100'0 100' 200'


APPENDIX B PHASE IA/B CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLANS, CN 5101170

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

CN - 5101170

C

S

E

H

AT

E

A

E

T

F

EW

X

I

O

1912

E

T

S

E

O

M

E

SAN JUAN COUNTY

PHASE IA/B CONCEPT PLANS

R

E

C

I

N

D

T

E

S

L

O

H

A

T

N

C

T

U

O

G

R

F

N

O

M

I

R

A

A

N

I

T

N

M

E

A

P

T

F

T

R

T

R

A

S

F

E

C

T

S

A

T

E

D

U

E

T

R

ED

O

P

S

O

OI

A

N

T

4:24 PM

JIMENEZ, RICHARD

16-Dec-19

J:\33779 NMDOT US 64 MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8\04 ENGINEERING - PCN5101170\PLANS\1_SHEETS\51011701COVER.DWGDrawing File:

N.M.P. CN 5101170

US 64 MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8

SILVER

CITY

EL PASO

82

180

SOCORRO

6

SANTA ROSA

TUCUMCARI

4

SANTA FE

ALAMOS

54

ROSWELL

CARLSBAD

LAS VEGAS

LORDSBURG

62

31

550

491

26

JAL

90

78

457

84

LOS

84

129

MOSQUERO

509

96

TIERRA

AMARILLA

AZTEC

64

1

2

4

5

- INDICATES DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS

A R

I Z

O N

AT E

X A

S

M E X I C O

O K

.

80

82

LOVINGTON

14

41

41

36

53

TRES

CROWNPOINT

AMBROSIA

LAKE

MATEO

MORIARTY

CORNERS

ESTANCIA

FENCE LAKE

CUBA

ESPANOLA

602

ABBOT

BUEYEROS

ENCINO

BERNARDO

BELEN

MOUNTAINAIR

ANTONIO

RODEO

ANTHONY

MELROSE

TATUM

HOBBS

38

456

406

469

39

337

209

469

268

267

SAN JUAN

McKINLEY

CIBOLA

MORA

COLFAX

HARDING

SAN MIGUELSANTA

FE

GUADALUPE QUAY

ROOSEVELT

OTERO

SIERRA

ANA

CATRON

LUNA

SANDOVAL550

70

55

599

12

11

CONSEQUENCES

TRUTH OR

ALAMOGORDO

13

128

82

83

CLOVIS

37

CARRIZOZO

20

84

39

84

285

4

LOS

CLAYTON

70

TAOS

ALBUQUERQUE

LAS

CRUCES

285

62

84

RATON

EUNICE

176

18

PORTALES

FORT SUMNER

60

60

42

LUNAS

54

104

65

102

76

68

84

285

6

60

T E X A S

C O L O R A D O

RESERVE

40

GALLUP

3

64

SHIPROCK

FARMINGTONBLOOMFIELD

DULCE

CHAMA

PIEDRAS

PUEBLO BONITO

SAN

GRANTS

CLINES

605

126

522

EAGLE

NEST

SPRINGER

MORA

CONCHAS DAM

LOGAN

VAUGHN

RAGLAND

QUEMADO

SAN

CAPITAN

HONDO

RUIDOSO

TULAROSA

CABALLO

BAYARD

ROAD

FORKS

COLUMBUS

DEMING

DORA

ARTESIA

518

402

102

536

55

47

209

114

114

206

380

185

28

152

RIO ARRIBA

TAOSUNION

CURRY

DeBACA

CHAVES

LEA

EDDY

LINCOLN

DONA

SOCORRO

GRANT

HIDALGO

TORRANCE

BERNALILLO

VALENCIA

371

550

64

491

371

40

180

180

180

10

10

10

10

25

25

180

180

70

82

285

285

380

70

70

54

54

285

60

60

380

40

40

60

25

104

56

87

87

64

64

64

550

64

84

64

285

25

SHEET NO. 1 - 1

US 64 CORRIDOR - MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8

4

3

2

1



PROJECT CONTROL NUMBER:

NEW MEXICO PROJECT NO.DESIGNED BY:

4:51 PM

SUTLIFF, ANDREW C.

14-Apr-20

J:\33779 NMDOT US 64 MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8\04 ENGINEERING - PCN5101170\PLANS\1_SHEETS\51011701_VICINITY MAP.DWGDrawing File:

5101170

5101170WSP USA

SHEET NO. -

DRAWING SCALE:

OF TRANSPORTATION

NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT

US 64 - PHASE IB

MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8

P

R

E

L

I

M

I

N

A

R

Y

N

O

T

F

O

R

C

O

N

S

T

R

U

C

T

I

O

N

N.T.S.

1

VICINITY MAP

N

1

VICINITY MAP

2

BEGINING OF PROJECT 5101170STA 1000+00.00

US 64 M.P. 0.000

END OF PROJECT 5101170STA 2100+00.00

US 64 M.P. 20.833

THIS PROJECT BEGINS IN SECTION 27, T31N, R21WTHIS PROJECT ENDS IN SECTION 35, T30N, R18W

LENGTH OF PROJECT20.833 MILES

BRIDGE NO. 5864STA 1406+48.41

BRIDGE NO. 5863STA 1743+18.58

BRIDGE NO. 5862STA 2070+51.36

BRIDGE NO. 5865STA 1004+81.56

BRIDGE NO. XXXXSTA 1127+25.46

4

3

2

1





3:04 PM

GONZALES, MARCOS F.

13-Dec-19

J:\33779 NMDOT US 64 MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8\04 ENGINEERING - PCN5101170\PLANS\1_SHEETS\51011701IS01.DWGDrawing File:

5101170

5101170WSP USA

SHEET NO. -

DRAWING SCALE:

OF TRANSPORTATION


US 64 - PHASE IB

MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8

P

R

E

L

I

M

I

N

A

R

Y

N

O

T

F

O

R

C

O

N

S

T

R

U

C

T

I

O

N

N.T.S.

1

INDEX OF SHEETS

3

12'

VARIES

2' TO 4' 12'

VARIES

2' TO 4'

WB DRIVING LANE

EB DRIVING LANE

EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION ASTA. 1000+00.00 TO STA. 2100+00.00

VARIES

1.5%-2%

VARIES

1.5%-2%

EXISTING

PAVEMENTEXISTING PAVEMENT SECTION

EXISTING ASPHALT

PAVEMENT VARIES 2.75" TO 9.25"

EXISTING BASE COURSE

VARIES 2.75" TO 10.75"

SHLD.

SHLD.

12'

VARIES

2' TO 4' 12'

VARIES

2' TO 4'

WB DRIVING LANEEB DRIVING LANE

SHLD.

EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION BMAJOR STRUCTURES

STA. 1004+54.63 TO STA. 1005+08.49

STA. 1405+19.43 TO STA. 1407+77.38

STA. 1742+13.99 TO STA. 1744+23.16

STA. 2070+03.39 TO STA. 2070+99.33

2% 2%

EXIST

R.O.W.

RIGHT-OF-WAY VARIES 100' TO 150'

EXIST

R.O.W.

EXIST

R.O.W.

RIGHT-OF-WAY VARIES 100' TO 150'

EXIST

R.O.W.

SHLD.

VARIES 50' TO 75' VARIES 50' TO 75'

C

L

SURVEY


C

L

SURVEY

VARIES0'-3'

VARIES0'-3'

CONST.C

L

CONST.C

L

NOTE: SEE EXISTING

PAVEMENT DATA ON SHEET

2-4 FOR MORE INFORMATION.

4

3

2

1





1:55 PM

GONZALES, MARCOS F.

14-Apr-20

J:\33779 NMDOT US 64 MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8\04 ENGINEERING - PCN5101170\PLANS\2_SHEETS\51011702TS01.DWGDrawing File:

5101170

5101170WSP USA

SHEET NO. -

DRAWING SCALE:

OF TRANSPORTATION


US 64 - PHASE IB

MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8

P

R

E

L

I

M

I

N

A

R

Y

N

O

T

F

O

R

C

O

N

S

T

R

U

C

T

I

O

N

N.T.S.

12

EXISTING

TYPICAL SECTIONS

2' 12'

12'

FLUSH

MEDIAN

8' 12' 8'WB DRIVING LANE EB DRIVING LANESHLD.

2% 2%

VARIES 100' TO 150' RIGHT-OF-WAY

CL CONST.

SHLD.

PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION NO. 3(ALTERNATIVE 1 AND ALTERNATIVE 2)

MAJOR STRUCTURES

STA. 1004+54.63 TO STA. 1005+08.49

STA. 1405+19.43 TO STA. 1407+77.38

STA. 1742+13.99 TO STA. 1744+23.16

STA. 2070+03.39 TO STA. 2070+99.33

C

L

SURVEY

VARIES0'-3'


PGL

EXIST

R.O.W.

CONST.C

L

4' 12'

2%2%

PGL

DRIVING LANEDRIVING LANE

12' 12'

LEFT TURN LANE

EB/WB RIGHT

TURN LANE

SHLD.

LEFT TURN LANE DETAIL RIGHT TURN LANE DETAIL

EXIST

R.O.W.

CONST.C

6'

SHLD.EB DRIVING LANE

WB DRIVING LANE

6' 12'

2%

L

SHLD.

12'

2%

PGL

50' 50'

PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2(ALTERNATIVE 1 AND ALTERNATIVE 2)STA. 1599+49.71 TO STA. 2100+00.00

EXIST

R.O.W.

VARIES0'-3'

EXIST

R.O.W.

C

L

100' RIGHT-OF-WAY

SURVEY

CONST.C

L

12' 12'

2%2%

6'

SHLD.

PGL

EB DRIVING LANEWB DRIVING LANE

6'

SHLD.

75'75' 150' RIGHT-OF-WAY

EXIST

R.O.W.

EXIST

R.O.W.


C

L

SURVEY

VARIES0'-3'

4

:

1

T

Y

P

.

6

:

1

T

Y

P

.

4

:

1

T

Y

P

.

6

:

1

T

Y

P

.

CONST.C

L

12' 12'

2%2%

6'

SHLD.

PGL

EB DRIVING LANEWB DRIVING LANE

6'

SHLD.

75'75' 150' RIGHT-OF-WAY

EXIST

R.O.W.

EXIST

R.O.W.


C

L

SURVEY

VARIES0'-3'

6

:

1

T

Y

P

.6

:

1

T

Y

P

.

16'

TWO-WAY-LEFT-TURN LANE

4

3

2

1





4:28 PM

JIMENEZ, RICHARD

16-Dec-19


5101170

5101170WSP USA

SHEET NO. -

DRAWING SCALE:

OF TRANSPORTATION


US 64 - PHASE IB

MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8

P

R

E

L

I

M

I

N

A

R

Y

N

O

T

F

O

R

C

O

N

S

T

R

U

C

T

I

O

N

N.T.S.

22

PROPOSED

TYPICAL SECTIONS

CUT SLOPE SELECTIONFILL-SLOPE SELECTION*

SURFACING TAPER DETAIL (6:1)

**

SURF.TAPER 6'

6

:

1

6

:1

SURF.TAPER

6

:1

*

*

6.25'

6

:

1

T

Y

P

.

2.84' 3.41'

1.42' 1.42'2%

ED

GE

O

F

SH

OU

LD

ER

SHOULDER 2'

MIN.

2'TYP.

BARRIER

1

0

:1

O

R

F

L

A

T

T

E

R

SHY

BARRIER PLACEMENT DETAIL

*

6" BASE COURSE2.5" HMA2.5" HMA

3.98'

4

:

1

T

Y

P

.

1.81' 2.17'

2%

2.5" HMA

6"

10" OGFCLIMIT

CENTER OFSTRIPE

RUMBLE STRIP

SURFACING TAPER DETAIL (4:1)

0.90' 0.90'

6" BASE COURSE2.5" HMA

OGFC DETAIL

SHOULDER

OGFC

NOTE: THE PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION DETAILS APPLY TOBOTH ALTERNATIVE 1 AND ALTERNATIVE 2.

6:1 SURFACE TAPERS APPLY

TO AREAS WITHIN 150' R.O.W.

STA.1000+00.00 TO STA. 1599+49.71

4:1 SURFACE TAPERS APPLY

TO AREAS WITHIN 100' R.O.W.

STA.1599+49.71 TO STA. 2100+00.00

(ALTERNATIVE 1)

6:1 0' TO 3'

4:1 3' TO 7'

3:1 OVER 7'

NOTE:

SEE SHEET 2-5 FOR ALTERNATIVE 1

SLOPE EXCEPTION DETAILS

(ALTERNATIVE 1)

6:1 0' TO 3'

4:1 3' TO 7'

3:1 OVER 7'

NOTE:

SEE SHEET 2-5 FOR ALTERNATIVE 1

SLOPE EXCEPTION DETAILS

PROPOSED PAVEMENT SECTION NO. 2

FULL RECONSTRUCTION

6" BASE

COURSE

SUBGRADE

PREP.

2.5" HMA

2.5" HMA

PROPOSED PAVEMENT SECTION NO. 1

IN-PLACE RECYCLINGAND STABILIZATION

6" IN-PLACE

RECYCLING

(PPC)

2.5" HMA

2.5" HMA

EXISTING ASPHALT

4" (AVERAGE)

EXISTING BASE COURSE

5" (AVERAGE)

PROFILE GRADE DETAIL

PROFILE GRADE(TOP OF HMA SP-IV)5/8" OGFC

TOP OF EXIST. PAVEMENT

C

5" HMA 6" IN-PLACERECYCLING

(PPC)BOTTOM OF EXIST. PAVEMENT

CONST.L

4

3

2

1





3:56 PM

GONZALES, MARCOS F.

13-Dec-19


5101170

5101170WSP USA

SHEET NO. -

DRAWING SCALE:

OF TRANSPORTATION


US 64 - PHASE IB

MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8

P

R

E

L

I

M

I

N

A

R

Y

N

O

T

F

O

R

C

O

N

S

T

R

U

C

T

I

O

N

N.T.S.

32

PROPOSED

TYPICAL SECTION DETAILS

4

3

2

1





3:09 PM

GONZALES, MARCOS F.

13-Dec-19


5101170

5101170WSP USA

SHEET NO. -

DRAWING SCALE:

OF TRANSPORTATION


US 64 - PHASE IB

MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8

P

R

E

L

I

M

I

N

A

R

Y

N

O

T

F

O

R

C

O

N

S

T

R

U

C

T

I

O

N

N.T.S.

42

EXISTING

PAVEMENT DATA

4

:

1

3

:

1

36' CLEAR ZONE FROM EDGE OF LANE

PROPOSED GRADE4

:

1

TYPICAL SLOPE SELECTION - FILL CONDITION

18' TYP.

EXISTING GROUND

6

:

1

6'

TYPICAL SLOPE SELECTION - CUT CONDITION

PROPOSED GRADE

30' TYP.

3

:

1

5.75'

24' CLEAR ZONE FROM EDGE OF LANE

EXISTING GROUND

EXIST

R.O.W.

SURF.TAPER

5'

PROPOSED GRADE

V

A

R

I

E

S

3

:

1

T

O

2

:

1

EXISTING GROUND

TYPICAL SLOPE EXCEPTION - FILL CONDITIONSEE TABLE ON SHEET 2-7 FOR EXCEPTIONS

SURF.TAPER

EXIST

R.O.W.

EXISTING GROUND

5'

V

A

R

I

E

S

3

:

1

T

O

2

:

1

6

:

1

6'

TYPICAL SLOPE EXCEPTION - CUT CONDITIONSEE TABLE ON SHEET 2-7 FOR EXCEPTIONS

PROPOSED GRADE

ALTERNATIVE 1 SLOPE EXCEPTION DETAILS

ALTERNATIVE 2 SLOPE SELECTION DETAILS

SEE SHEET 2-3 FORSURFACING TAPER DETAILS

SEE SHEET 2-3 FORSURFACING TAPER DETAILS

4

3

2

1





3:58 PM

GONZALES, MARCOS F.

13-Dec-19

J:\33779 NMDOT US 64 MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8\04 ENGINEERING - PCN5101170\PLANS\2_SHEETS\51011702MSD01.DWGDrawing File:

5101170

5101170WSP USA

SHEET NO. -

DRAWING SCALE:

OF TRANSPORTATION


US 64 - PHASE IB

MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8

P

R

E

L

I

M

I

N

A

R

Y

N

O

T

F

O

R

C

O

N

S

T

R

U

C

T

I

O

N

N.T.S.

2

PROPOSED SLOPE DETAILS

5

SURF.TAPER

EXIST

R.O.W.

EXIST

R.O.W.

SURF.TAPER

10'

PROJECTED GRADEWITHOUT WALL

2

:

1

EXISTING GROUND

HT.

VA

RIE

S

HT.

VA

RIE

S


EXISTING GROUND

2

:

1

18' TYP.

CONSTRUCTIONSLOPE

5' MIN.

CONSTRUCTIONSLOPE

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL - FILL CONDITION PROPOSED RETAINING WALL - CUT CONDITION

RETAINING WALL - SEE NMDOT STD.DWG. 511-81OR MSE WALL

SURF.TAPER

EXIST

R.O.W.

42"


EXISTING GROUND

18' TYP.

CONSTRUCTIONSLOPE

PROPOSED MODIFIED CONCRETE WALL BARRIER - CUT CONDITION

MODIFIED CONCRETE WALLBARRIER

SHLD.

EXIST

R.O.W.

EXISTING GROUND

PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER - CUT CONDITION

CONCRETE SLOPEDCURB AND GUTTER

2%

PROJECTED GRADEWITH DITCH ANDSTANDARD SLOPESELECTION

8' MIN.

2

:

1

NOTE: THE PROPOSED SLOPE MEASURES APPLY TOALTERNATIVE 1 AND ALTERNATIVE 2.

RETAINING WALL - SEE NMDOT STD.DWG. 511-81

4

3

2

1





12:13 PM

GONZALES, MARCOS F.

14-Apr-20


5101170

5101170WSP USA

SHEET NO. -

DRAWING SCALE:

OF TRANSPORTATION


US 64 - PHASE IB

MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8

P

R

E

L

I

M

I

N

A

R

Y

N

O

T

F

O

R

C

O

N

S

T

R

U

C

T

I

O

N

N.T.S.

2

PROPOSED SLOPE MEASURES

6

4

3

2

1





2:21 PM

GONZALES, MARCOS F.

14-Apr-20


5101170

5101170WSP USA

SHEET NO. -

DRAWING SCALE:

OF TRANSPORTATION


US 64 - PHASE IB

MP 0.0 TO MP 20.8

P

R

E

L

I

M

I

N

A

R

Y

N

O

T

F

O

R

C

O

N

S

T

R

U

C

T

I

O

N

N.T.S.

72

PROPOSED SLOPE

MEASURES DATA

Documents

US 64 Alignment Study and Engineering Scoping Report: Arizona Border to Shiprock CN 5101170 Inside Cover and Signatures US 64 Alignment Study Arizona Border to Shiprock NMDOT PN/C