Kayenta Township 2012 multimodal transportation study

              KAYENTA TOWNSHIP MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
9 JUNE 2011
Page 0 of 15
Kayenta Township
2012 Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
28 June 2012
Prepared By:
ADOT MPD Task Assignment 23‐11(c) / Contract # T08‐49‐U0001
Kayenta Township
2012 Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Prepared for: Kayenta Township
ADOT-MPD Task Assignment 23-11(C)
Contract # T08-49-U0001
28 June 2012
Prepared by:
Monument Valley
Close
July 6, 2012
Don Jackson, Town Engineer
The Kayenta Township
P.O. Box 1490
Kayenta, AZ 86033
Subject: 2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Draft Final Report Compatibility with Kayenta Comprehensive Plan
Dear Don:
The purpose of this letter is to establish compatibility between the aforementioned study and the Kayenta
Comprehensive Plan completed in 2011 and adopted by the Kayenta Township, Navajo Nation. I am
writing this letter both as a Kayenta Township General Plan and Zoning Ordinance consultant and as a
member of the 2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study Technical Advisory Committee.
Representatives from ADOT and from the EPS Group, Inc, the consultant team working on this study,
were engaged in the Kayenta Comprehensive Plan process from its inception. Their involvement included
attendance to an initial kick-off meeting, Community Conversations and the week-long Design Charrette
as well as ongoing communications. Don Sneed with ADOT and Paul Basha with the EPS Group were
acting members of the Kayenta Comprehensive Plan Stakeholders Team. Don Sneed joined The
Planning Center and Arrowhead Engineering during an initial walkabout of Kayenta Township and a tour
of its road network at early stages of the Kayenta Comprehensive Plan planning process. Paul Basha and
Elijah Williams with the EPS group attended the Comprehensive Plan Design Charrette. In addition, as
the Town Engineer, you provided excellent lines of communication for both project teams.
Prior to finalizing the Comprehensive Plan, conceptual drawings were submitted to the EPS Group and
ADOT for review and comment and revised in accordance with their comments. As a result of this
ongoing collaboration, both teams worked closely. In addition, both teams were cognizant of the need for
such collaboration in order to ensure Kayenta Township’s long-range success.
After reviewing the Kayenta Township 2012 Multimodal Transportation Study Draft Final Report provided
by Paul Basha during our last TAC meeting, the result of this collaboration is obvious. Most public
involvement comments provided during this process are consistent with those provided during the
Comprehensive Plan. The study furthers the policy direction of several elements of the Comprehensive
Plan by prioritizing transportation-related improvements and by listing additional recommended studies as
part of its prioritized Implementation Plan. The Multimodal Transportation Study is a major step towards
Comprehensive Plan implementation.
It was a pleasure to serve Kayenta Township as a member of the TAC for this project and a pleasure to
work with you, Don Sneed, Paul Basha and Elijah Williams during the duration of both projects. We enjoy
working as a team with our clients. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. We
hope to continue to assist Kayenta Township in becoming a sustainable destination.
Sincerely,
THE PLANNING CENTER
Maria Masque
Principal
CC: Don Sneed, ADOT; Paul Basha, EPS Group; Elijah Williams, EPS Group.
i
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
ADOT-MPD Task Assignment 23-11(C)
Contract # T08-49-U0001
Table of Contents
STUDY BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction and Objective ............................................................................................................................... 1
Project Management Team and Technical Advisory Committee ......................................................................1
Location ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ 5
Current Population and Demographic Conditions ............................................................................................ 5
Current Roadways ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Recent Roadway Improvements ....................................................................................................................... 9
Current Traffic Volume ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Historic Traffic Collisions ............................................................................................................................... 17
Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Current Transit Services ................................................................................................................................ 24
Current Non-Motorized Transportation Services ............................................................................................ 28
Current Environmental Conditions .................................................................................................................. 28
A. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 28
B. Environmental Justice ......................................................................................................................... 28
C. Topography and Soils ......................................................................................................................... 33
D. Visual Resources ............................................................................................................................... 33
E. Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 33
F. Noise Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 34
G. Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 34
H. Floodplains ......................................................................................................................................... 35
I. Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................... 35
J. National Parks, Recreation Areas, Wilderness Areas, and Other Special Status Lands .................... 39
K. Section 4(f) Properties (parks, recreation areas, refuges) .................................................................. 39
L. Cultural Resources/Section 4(f) Properties ......................................................................................... 41
Stakeholder Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 44
Future Population and Demographic Conditions ............................................................................................ 45
Future Land Use ............................................................................................................................................ 45
Future Transit Services .................................................................................................................................. 54
Future Non-Motorized Transportation Services .............................................................................................. 59
Future Environmental Conditions ................................................................................................................... 60
20-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN ....................................................................................................................... 63
Recommended Transportation Improvement Projects ................................................................................... 63
Project Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 66
Implementation Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 70
Public Involvement ......................................................................................................................................... 74
Functional Classification ................................................................................................................................ 75
Access Management ..................................................................................................................................... 77
Transportation Funding Sources .................................................................................................................... 81
ii
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
ADOT-MPD Task Assignment 23-11(C)
Contract # T08-49-U0001
List of Figures
Figure 1: Navajo Nation Agencies ........................................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2: Western Agency – Kayenta Chapter ..................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study Boundary ............................................................ 5
Figure 4: Traffic Signal Locations ......................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5: Existing Roadway Type and Surface Proportion ................................................................................... 8
Figure 6: Unpaved Roadway ............................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 7: Traffic Measurement Locations ............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 8: Current Daily Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................. 11
Figure 9: Current Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................... 12
Figure 10: Current Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... 13
Figure 11: Current Average Speeds ................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 12: Current 85th Percentile Speeds ......................................................................................................... 15
Figure 13: Current Vehicle Classification Percentages ...................................................................................... 16
Figure 14: Collisions per Year ............................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 15: 1999 to 2010 Manner of Collision ...................................................................................................... 18
Figure 16: 1999 to 2010 Collision Cause ............................................................................................................ 19
Figure 17: 1999 to 2010 Collision Time .............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 18: 1999 to 2010 Collision Location ........................................................................................................ 21
Figure 19: Kayenta Township Existing Generalized Land Uses ......................................................................... 22
Figure 20: Kayenta Township Existing Generalized Land Use Proportions ....................................................... 23
Figure 21: Current Kayenta Transit Services Schedule ...................................................................................... 24
Figure 22: Hypothetical Transit Route ................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 23: Latent Transit Demand – Graphical Methodology ............................................................................. 27
Figure 24: Kayenta Township Census Tract ....................................................................................................... 30
Figure 25: Kayenta Township Future Generalized Land Uses ........................................................................... 47
Figure 26: Kayenta Township Future Generalized Land Use Proportions ......................................................... 48
Figure 27: Kayenta Township Future Primary Street System ............................................................................. 49
Figure 28: Traffic Analysis Zones ....................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 29: Comprehensive General Plan Build-out Estimated Future Daily Traffic Volumes ............................. 51
Figure 30: Comprehensive General Plan Build-out Estimated Future Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 52
Figure 31: Comprehensive General Plan Build-out Estimated Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................. 53
Figure 32: Future Potential Transit Route ........................................................................................................... 54
Figure 33: Future Transit Demand – Graphical Methodology ............................................................................. 57
Figure 34: Typical Mini-bus – External View ....................................................................................................... 58
Figure 35: Typical Mini-bus – Internal View ........................................................................................................ 59
Figure 36: Recommended Improvement Project Locations ................................................................................ 73
Figure 37: Existing Intersection Spacing Improvement Locations ...................................................................... 79
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Project Management Team .................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2: Technical Advisory Committee ............................................................................................................... 2
Table 3: Recent Notable Street Improvement Projects ........................................................................................ 9
Table 4: Road Segment Daily Factors ................................................................................................................ 10
Table 5: US-160 / US-163 Intersection Daily Factors ......................................................................................... 10
Table 6: Annual Collision Data – Navajo DOT and ADOT .................................................................................. 17
Table 7: Current Anticipated Transit User Populations ....................................................................................... 25
Table 8: Existing Transit Demand Service Factors ............................................................................................. 26
Table 9: Existing Latent Transit Demand ............................................................................................................ 26
Table 10: Transit Demand – Graphic Methodology ............................................................................................ 27
Table 11: 2010 Census Racial and Ethnic Demographics ................................................................................. 32
Table 12: 2010 Census Disadvantaged Populations .......................................................................................... 32
Table 13: USFWS Listed Species in Navajo County and Occurrence Potential ................................................ 36
Table 14: Cultural Resources Within the Kayenta Multimodal Transportation Study Area ................................. 42
Table 15: Traditional Cultural Properties Within the Kayenta Multimodal Transportation Study Area ................ 43
Table 16: Generalized Land Use Categories ...................................................................................................... 46
Table 17: Potential Transit Route Schedule ....................................................................................................... 55
Table 18: Future Predicted Transit User Populations ......................................................................................... 56
Table 19: Future Predicted Transit Demand Service Factors ............................................................................. 56
Table 20: Future Predicted Transit Demand ....................................................................................................... 56
Table 21: Transit Demand – Graphic Methodology ............................................................................................ 58
Table 22: Recommended Improvement Evaluation Matrix – Equestrian, Multi-use, and Transit ....................... 67
Table 23: Recommended Improvement Evaluation Matrix – Residential Neighborhoods, Other, BIA Roads, and
Navajo Nation Roads ................................................................................................................................. 68
Table 24: Recommended Improvement Evaluation Matrix – US-163 and US-160 ............................................ 69
Table 25: Prioritized Recommended Improvement Projects .............................................................................. 71
Table 26: Prioritized Recommended Improvement Projects .............................................................................. 72
List of Appendices
Kayenta Township Documents ............................................................................................................................ A
Navajo Nation Ordinance .................................................................................................... A.1
Kayenta Township Resolution ............................................................................................. A.2
Weekday Traffic Count Adjustment Calculations ................................................................................................. B
Road Segment Approach and Departure Traffic Counts .................................................... B.1
US-160 / US-163 Intersection Approach and Departure Traffic Counts.............................. B.2
Traffic Speed Data .............................................................................................................................................. C
Environmental References ................................................................................................................................. D
Public Involvement Summary Report – Phase 1 ................................................................................................. E
Public Involvement Summary Report – Phase 2 .................................................................................................. F
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 1 of 91
STUDY BACKGROUND
Introduction and Objective
The Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study was funded through the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) Program. The Kayenta Township study
addresses a broad range of local and regional planning issues related to roadway, transit, and non-motorized
transportation modes. This report contains planning level recommendations for improvements over 5-, 10-, and
20-year periods, and a long range transportation plan incorporating both roadway and multimodal needs of the
Township area.
The Kayenta Township exists as part of the Kayenta Township Pilot Project (KTPP). This is a unique status
within the Navajo Nation that grants Kayenta greater autonomy in the planning and development of future
economic and infrastructure growth policies. This unique status enhances the need and usefulness for
Comprehensive General Planning and analysis studies.
There have been two recent studies completed regarding future transportation in Kayenta Township. The
Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan, completed in 2009, addressed a broad range of transportation
issues related to all areas within the Navajo Nation, including Kayenta. A Draft Kayenta Township
Comprehensive General Plan was also completed in 2011 which addressed future planning issues, including
general transportation elements.
This study will build upon previous reports and aid in Kayenta’s system performance and preservation; mobility
and access for people and goods; environment and quality of life; community planning and coordination;
mobility and economic competiveness; tourism; recreation; safety; accessibility; and resource conservation.
The Kayenta Multimodal Transportation Study has also been accomplished in cooperation and collaboration
with the Kayenta Township Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Ordinance planning process with the
assistance of the firms of Arrowhead Engineering and The Planning Center.
Project Management Team and Technical Advisory Committee
A Project Management Team (PMT) oversaw the monthly activities of the study process and worked to ensure
that scope of work tasks were accomplished. The PMT consisted of the individuals listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Project Management Team
Kayenta Township
Don Jackson, Kayenta Township, Town Engineer
Gabriel Yazzie, Kayenta Township, Development Services Director
Philbert Tso, Kayenta Township, Building Official
Martha Bailey, Kayenta Township, Executive Assistant
Geneva Luna, Kayenta Township, Administrative Assistant
Arizona Department of Transportation
Don Sneed, ADOT, MPD, Tribal Planning and Coordination, Senior Planner
Rodney Wigman, ADOT, CCP, Holbrook District Community Relations Officer
EPS Group (Technical Consultant)
Darrell Truitt, PE, EPS Group, Project Principal
Elijah Williams, PE, EPS Group, Project Manager
Paul Basha, PE, PTOE, EPS Group, Senior Traffic Engineer
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 2 of 91
Intrinsic (Public Involvement Consultant)
Dexter Albert, Intrinsic (Project Manager)
Jason Hurd, Intrinsic (Project Coordinator)
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was also established to closely coordinate, advise, and review the
Study. The TAC consisted of the individuals listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Technical Advisory Committee
Kayenta Township
Don Jackson, Township Engineer
Andre Cordero, Township Manager
Gabriel Yazzie, Development Services Director
Philbert Tso, Building Official
Kayenta Township General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consultants
Merwin Yellowhair, P.E., Principal Engineer, Arrowhead Engineering, Inc.
Maria Masque, Principal Planner, The Planning Center
Kayenta Chapter
Stanley Clitso, Chapter President (or his representative)
Navajo County
Leo Sheppard, Engineering Transportation Liaison
Navajo Division of Transportation
Paulson Chaco, Director (or his representative)
Darryl Bradley, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer
Navajo Transit System
Lee Bigwater, Department Manager
BIA Western Navajo Agency
Roland Becenti, P.E. Supervisory Highway Engineer
Henry Begay, Highway Engineer
Northern Arizona Council of Governments
Chris Fetzer, Planning Director
Arizona Department of Transportation
Don Sneed, Senior Planner, Multimodal Planning Division
Rodney Wigman, Holbrook District Community Relations Officer
Lynn Johnson, District Engineer, Holbrook District Office (or his representative)
Ondrea Barber, Environmental Planning Group
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Adhir Kackar, USEPA Office of Sustainable Communities
Ryan Bouma, AECOM Consultant
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 3 of 91
Location
Kayenta Township is located within the Kayenta Chapter, the Tuba City (Western) Agency, and the Navajo
Nation. It is the only municipally structured government within the Navajo Nation and is regarded as a political
sub-division of the Nation that operates under the management of a five-member Board of Commissioners.
Kayenta Township is also within Navajo County in the State of Arizona. The Navajo Nation granted township
status to Kayenta on 26 January 1996. Kayenta township Home Rule was established by the Kayenta
Township Commission on 9 May 2005. Appendix A.1 provides a copy of the Navajo Nation Ordinance and
Appendix A.2 provides a copy of the Kayenta Township resolution.
The Navajo Nation consists of five agencies as indicated in Figure 1. Agencies are similar to states in the
United States political jurisdiction. They are an intermediary form of government between the Navajo Nation
and the Chapters. The Western Agency office is located in Tuba City. The Western Agency extends into the
state of Utah, the Shiprock Agency extends into the states of Utah and New Mexico, and the Eastern Agency
extends into the state of New Mexico.
Figure 1: Navajo Nation Agencies
Navajo Nation Agencies
SHIPROCK AGENCY
(NORTHERN)
EASTERN AGENCY
TUBA CITY AGENCY
(WESTERN)
CHINLE AGENCY
(CENTRAL)
FORT DEFIANCE AGENCY
(SOUTHERN)
HOPI
KAYENTA
N.T.S.
N
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 4 of 91
Within the five agencies are 110 chapters
– 16 of which are in the Western Agency.
Chapters are partially analogous to the
typical United States political jurisdiction
of counties or parishes. Each Chapter
elects officers and adheres to
conventional parliamentary procedures.
Figure 2 depicts the chapters within the
Western Agency and indicates Kayenta
Chapter.
In accordance with the Navajo Nation
Local Governance Act of 27 April 1998,
Chapter government can authorize by
resolution, consistent with Navajo law and
subject to local rules and regulations, the
issuance of leases, contracts with the
Navajo Nation and other Chapters, the
appropriation and reallocation of funds,
the establishment of administrative
procedures, the levying of local taxes, the
development and amendment of land use
plans, the acquisition of property by
eminent domain, the acquisition and
administration of capital improvement
project funds, the issuance of community
bonds, and the enactment of zoning and
regulatory ordinances. [Adapted from:
Navajo Nation Government, Fourth
Edition, Office of Navajo Government
Development, Window Rock, Navajo
Nation.]
Figure 2: Western Agency – Kayenta Chapter
N.T.S.
N
KAYENTA
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 5 of 91
CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITIONS
Current Population and Demographic Conditions
According to the 2010 United States Census, Kayenta Township had a total population of 5,189 persons with
1,602 housing units. Of these persons, 92% were American Indian, 4.5% were white, 2.5% self-identified as
two or more races, and 1% were other. Approximately 47% of the population resided in owner-occupied
homes, and 53% resided in rented homes. Approximately 39% of the Kayenta Township population is under 18
years old, 22% are between 18 and 35, 19% are between 35 and 50, 15% are between 50 and 65, and 5% are
over 65 years old.
Current Roadways
As indicated in Figure 3, Kayenta Township is served primarily by US-160 and US-163.
Figure 3: Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study Boundary
Multimodal
Transportation
Study Boundary
Study Boundary
TOWNSHIP
BOUNDARY
N.T.S.
N
163
160
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 6 of 91
Two primary Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) routes also exist within the Kayenta Township borders – Route
6485 serves northwest Kayenta Township and continues west to a diversion dam and then south to intersect
with US-160 approximately 8.8 miles west of US-163. BIA Route 591 extends south from the US-163 / US-160
intersection approximately 16.7 miles to the community of Chilchinbeto.
US-160 is the primary east-west route in the Navajo Nation. This route extends from SR-89, west of Tuba City,
to the New Mexico state line – a distance of approximately 160 miles. US-160 serves as the primary access to
Kayenta from the south, southwest, and southeast. This roadway also currently serves local Kayenta Township
businesses in the immediate vicinity of the US-163 / US-160 intersection. In the future, it is also anticipated to
provide local access to Kayenta Township properties on all four corners of the US-163 / US-160 intersection.
Currently US-160 consists of one-through travel-lane-per-direction with left-turn lanes at intersections and
major accesses, and right-turn lanes at some intersections. US-160 has a posted speed limit of 45 miles-per-hour
east and west within approximately one-quarter mile of US-163. The posted speed limit increases on US-
160 to 55 miles-per-hour approximately one-quarter mile west of US-163 and to 65 miles-per-hour
approximately one-half mile east of US-163 within Kayenta Township limits. US-160 is currently constructed on
the north portion of the corridor alignment right-of-way. This location enables US-160 to be readily expanded to
a divided four-lane facility without disrupting existing traffic, with the current lanes becoming the westbound
two-lanes at the completion of the new eastbound lanes. The only traffic signal on US-160 in Kayenta
Township and its vicinity is at the US-163 and US-160 intersection.
US-163 is the primary street in Kayenta Township. This route extends from its intersection with US-160
through Kayenta Township to Monument Valley and to the Utah state line – a distance of approximately 23
miles. US-163 is posted at 40 miles-per-hour through Kayenta Township, except in the vicinity of the school
where it is posted at 35 miles-per-hour.
US-163 also serves as the main street of the Township. Reflecting its purpose as both a through state route
and a local township street, US-163 consists of two-through-lanes-per-direction with a center-two-way-left-turn
lane. This configuration accommodates both through traffic and local access.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 7 of 91
Figure 4: Traffic Signal Locations
In addition to the
signalized intersection of
US-163 and US-160,
there are two other
signalized intersections
on US-163 within
Kayenta Township.
The intersection of US-
163 and the Kayenta
Unified School District
complex access is
signalized. This access
serves Kayenta
Elementary School,
Kayenta Middle School,
and Monument Valley
High School. The
intersection of US-163
and BIA-6485 is
signalized. The signal
locations are depicted in
Figure 4.
160
163
Traffic Signal
Locations
N.T.S.
N
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 8 of 91
While US-163 and US-160 are
the primary access roads in
Kayenta Township and its
vicinity, these two roadways are
a relatively small portion of the
total roadways within Kayenta
Township. Figure 5 illustrates
the relative mileage of the four
paved roadway types and
unpaved roadway in Kayenta
Township. US-163 and US-160
are approximately 7% and 8%
respectively of the roadway
miles within Kayenta Township.
The largest roadway type is
roads other than state and BIA
routes representing 48% of the
total street miles. Approximately
34% of the road miles in Kayenta
Township are unpaved.
Figure 5: Existing Roadway Type and Surface Proportion
Figure 6: Unpaved Roadway
Figure 6 depicts an
existing roadway in the
residential area northwest
of the intersection of US-
163 and BIA-6485.
Unpaved Roadway
Other paved
48%
Unpaved
34%
US‐160
8%
US‐163
7% BIA Routes
3%
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 9 of 91
Recent Roadway Improvements
In the past 20 years, four notable roadway improvement projects have occurred on US-160 and US-163 as
indicated in Table 3.
Table 3: Recent Notable Street Improvement Projects
PROJECT AS-BUILT PLAN DATE
US-160: Length of Kayenta: Pavement Resurfacing 2009
US-163: Laguna Wash Pedestrian Bridge (New Construction) 2006
US-163: US-160 to 2 miles north: Lighting 2003
US-160: Length of Kayenta: Pavement Resurfacing 1992
Current Traffic Volume
Current traffic volume,
speed, and classification
data for US-160 and US-163
was collected in January
2012 by the ADOT
Multimodal Planning Division
as indicated in Figure 7.
Complete data were obtained
at three locations on US-163
and two locations on US-160.
Volume only data were
obtained at the four
approaches and departures
of the US-163 and US-160
intersection.
Figure 7: Traffic Measurement Locations
Due to inclement weather conditions, traffic counts were not collected on portions of Monday and Tuesday.
Therefore, the average of Sunday and Wednesday was used to estimate the missing hourly traffic volumes for
Monday and Tuesday. Daily traffic factors were developed based on the daily road segment and US-160 / US-
163 intersection traffic volumes for all seven days of the week. Table 4 provides the calculated road segment
daily traffic factors and Table 5 provides the calculated US-160 / US-163 intersection daily traffic factors.
Traffic
Measurement
Locations
160
163
N.T.S.
N
Directional Volume, Speed, and Classification
Directional Volume Only
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 10 of 91
Table 4: Road Segment Daily Factors
These data indicate atypical traffic patterns. Typically Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday are the days most
representative of the week. For the Kayenta Township road segments; Monday, Tuesday, and Saturday are
the most representative days. The highest volume days within Kayenta are Wednesday and Friday, with
Sunday the lowest volume day.
Table 5: US-160 / US-163 Intersection Daily Factors
These data also indicate atypical traffic patterns. For the road segments immediately adjacent to the primary
intersection of US-163 and US-160; Thursday is the most representative day. Wednesday is the highest
volume day and Sunday is the lowest volume day.
Figure 8 provides the current daily traffic volumes. Figure 9 and Figure 10 provide the current morning and
evening peak hour traffic volumes, respectively. The morning peak hour generally occurred from 11:45 AM to
12:45 PM, and the evening peak hour generally occurred from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM. Appendix B provides the
detailed count data. Appendix B.1 provides the road segment approach and departure traffic volumes, and
Appendix B.2 provides the US-160 and US-163 intersection approach and departure traffic volumes.
ALL COUNT LOCATIONS
TOTAL VOLUME DAILY FACTOR
SUNDAY 16,855 1.49
MONDAY 25,369 0.99
TUESDAY 24,791 1.01
WEDNESDAY 28,485 0.88
THURSDAY 26,564 0.94
FRIDAY 28,299 0.89
SATURDAY 25,133 1.00
AVERAGE 25,071
ALL COUNT LOCATIONS
TOTAL VOLUME DAILY FACTOR
SUNDAY 17,696 1.40
MONDAY 23,450 1.06
TUESDAY 23,924 1.03
WEDNESDAY 31,714 0.78
THURSDAY 24,995 0.99
FRIDAY 27,667 0.89
SATURDAY 23,771 1.04
AVERAGE 24,745
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 11 of 91
Figure 8: Current Daily Traffic Volumes
Current Daily
Traffic
Volumes
160
163
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 12 of 91
Figure 9: Current Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Current
Morning Peak
Hour Traffic
Volumes
160
163
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 13 of 91
Figure 10: Current Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Current
Evening Peak
Hour Traffic
Volumes
160
163
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 14 of 91
Figure 11 provides the current average speeds and Figure 12 provides the current 85th percentile speeds.
Appendix C provides the detailed speed data. The 85th percentile speed is a useful measure of traffic data
often used in roadway design s and speed limit determination. This statistic represents the speed at which 85%
of the vehicles are traveling at or below. It also is the speed at which 15% of the vehicles are traveling above.
Figure 11: Current Average Speeds
Current Average
Speeds
AVERAGE SPEEDS
160
163
N.T.S.
N
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 15 of 91
Figure 12: Current 85th Percentile Speeds
Current 85th
Percentile Speeds
85TH PERCENTILE SPEEDS
160
163
N.T.S.
N
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 16 of 91
Figure 13 provides the current vehicle classifications by percentage of cars, personal trucks, and the
combined delivery vans, busses, and large trucks. The percentage of the combined large vehicles was
observed to increase on US-163 in the northbound direction. This is mostly caused by regional truck traffic
performing right-in-right-out turning movements.
Figure 13: Current Vehicle Classification Percentages
Current Vehicle
Classification
Percentages
WEEKLY VEHICLE
CLASSIFICATION
160
N.T.S.
N
163
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 17 of 91
Historic Traffic Collisions
Table 6: Annual Collision Data – Navajo DOT and ADOT
Two data collision data sources were obtained for
this study – the Navajo Division of Transportation
(Navajo DOT) and the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT). These data sources are
intended to be identical or at a minimum, similar.
However, the data from the two sources is not
consistent. Table 6 provides a
comparison of the annual data from the two
sources. From the 11 years of data, Navajo DOT
has approximately 25% more collision reports than
ADOT with the annual percentage varying from
31% fewer collision reports to 45% more collision
reports.
The Navajo DOT data provides limited collision
information from 1999 to 2006. It provides complete
collision information for the years 2007 to 2010.
The ADOT data provides complete information from
1999 to 2010. The ADOT data includes the
category of “Manner of Collision”, while the Navajo
DOT data includes the category of “Collision
Cause”.
Recognizing that the Navajo DOT data includes a larger number of collisions, its data is provided in Figure 14.
The ADOT data category of Manner of Collision is provided in Figure 15. The Navajo DOT data category of
Collision Cause is provided in Figure 16.
Figure 14: Collisions per Year
Source: Navajo Division of Transportation
Crashes
Year NDOT ADOT Difference
1999 44 31 ‐13 ‐30%
2000 52 43 ‐9 ‐17%
2001 58 33 ‐25 ‐43%
2002 28 18 ‐10 ‐36%
2003 32 28 ‐4 ‐13%
2004 47 36 ‐11 ‐23%
2005 42 23 ‐19 ‐45%
2006 27 22 ‐5 ‐19%
2007 13 17 4 31%
2008 15 15 0 0%
2009 27 22 ‐5 ‐19%
2010 35 28 ‐7 ‐20%
TOTAL 420 316 ‐104 ‐25%
0
15
30
45
60
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 18 of 91
The year-to-year total collision history indicates relatively typical fluctuation without discernible patterns. The
maximum number of collisions (58) per year occurred in 2001 and the minimum number of 13 occurred in
2007.
Figure 15: 1999 to 2010 Manner of Collision
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation
The largest manners of collisions in 11 years were single-vehicle collisions at 30% and rear-end collisions at
28%. Typically, these types of collisions are related to travel speeds. Single-vehicle collisions are often caused
by excessive speeds, and rear-end collisions often result from large speed differential. Typically angle and left-turn
collisions can be resolved through roadway analysis and design – these respectively represent 6% and
5% of total collisions in 12 years.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Single
Vehicle
Rear End Other Sideswipe
Same
Direction
Left Turn Angle
(Other
Than Left
Turn)
Head On Sideswipe
Opposite
Direction
Rear To
Side
Unknown
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 19 of 91
Figure 16: 1999 to 2010 Collision Cause
Source: Navajo Division of Transportation
The three largest portions of collision cause were alcohol at 22%, driver inattention at 17%, and mechanical
defects at 10% – representing approximately one-half of the total collisions in the most recent 12 years. These
collisions types are difficult to prevent through roadway analysis and design.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 20 of 91
Figure 17: 1999 to 2010 Collision Time
Source: Navajo Division of Transportation
Generally the collisions in Kayenta Township occur during daylight hours – approximately 74% of the total
collisions in 12 years occurred between 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM.
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
20:00 to 21:59
22:00 to 23:59
0:00 to 1:59
2:00 to 3:59
4:00 to 5:59
6:00 to 7:59
8:00 to 9:59
10:00 to 11:59
12:00 to 13:59
14:00 to 15:59
16:00 to 17:59
18:00 to 19:59
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 21 of 91
Figure 18 identifies the approximate location of the collisions in Kayenta according to the Navajo Division of
Transportation records. Collisions at major intersections are indicated with a cross symbol. Collisions between
major intersections are indicated with an oval symbol. The largest percentage of intersection collisions
occurred at the US-160 and US-163 intersection and on US-160 at an unsignalized intersection approximately
one-half mile north of US-160. The largest percentage of collisions between major intersections occurred on
US-163 in the one-half mile segment north of US-160 and the three-quarter mile segment south of ADOT
Road.
Figure 18: 1999 to 2010 Collision Location
Source: Navajo Division of Transportation
1999 to 2010
CSotlulidsiyo Bno Luoncdaatiroyn 163
N.T.S.
N
160
4%
6%
2%
1%
9%
2%
17%
9%
9%
2%
5%
4%
5%
11%
9%
2%
4%
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 22 of 91
Existing Land Use
Figure 19 indicates the existing land uses in the Kayenta planning area – an area approximately 8% larger
than the Township boundaries. This 6.44 square mile area is the area considered in the current Kayenta
Township Comprehensive General Plan.
Figure 19: Kayenta Township Existing Generalized Land Uses
Kayenta Township
Existing Generalized
Land Uses
TOWNSHIP BOUNDARY
GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INSTITUTIONAL
VACANT
685
333
352
2,752
1.07
0.52
0.55
4.30
AREA ACRES SQUARE MILES
160
163
TOTAL 4,122 6.44
N.T.S.
N
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 23 of 91
Figure 20 indicates the relative proportion of the current land use in Kayenta. Approximately two-thirds of the
planning area is currently vacant.
Figure 20: Kayenta Township Existing Generalized Land Use Proportions
Residential
17%
Institutional
8%
Commercial
Vacant 8%
67%
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 24 of 91
Current Transit Services
Currently, Kayenta Township is
served by the Navajo Transit
System (NTS). Figure 21
provides the current schedule
for service. It indicates that two
transit stops exist in Kayenta
Township, one at the Police
Department and one at the
Mustang Store. Buses pick up
and drop off passengers at
both locations in the morning
and in the evening.
It is appropriate to estimate
latent transit demand for the
Kayenta Township Study Area
– that is, the number of people
who would utilize greater
transit service if it were
available. The typical
procedure is provided in the
Transit Cooperative Research
Program (TCRP) Report 3,
Workbook for Estimating
Demand for Rural Passenger
Transportation. This workbook
provides a methodology for
estimating transit demand for
rural systems, using population
data for the year service is
proposed to be implemented
and assumptions of service
area size and route lengths.
Figure 21: Current Kayenta Transit Services Schedule
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 25 of 91
The TCRP workbook contains two
methodologies: one for estimating future
demand for expansion of an existing
system and one for estimating future
demand for a new system. As the
purpose of this task is to identify
potential demand for local transit service
as well as the service currently provided
by the NTS, the methodology for a new
system was utilized. This approach
requires that a hypothetical system be
developed for analysis purposes only.
For Kayenta, the hypothetical system
used was a loop circulator following a
route consisting of the proposed
Comprehensive General Plan’s New
Loop Road and the segment of US-163
that completes the loop, as depicted in
Figure 22.
Figure 22: Hypothetical Transit Route
The hypothetical system would operate as a deviated fixed route circulator, completing 12 trips per day,
Monday through Friday, for a total of 60 trips-per-week. As the proposed loop is approximately six miles in
length, this service would equate to 360 miles-per-week, or 18,270 miles-per-year.
In addition to developing a hypothetical system, the methodology requires that a service area be defined to
calculate vehicle-miles-per-square-mile, an important metric for modeling purposes. The Study Area includes
only 6.44 square-miles, while the Census Designated Place (CDP) comprises 13.2 square-miles. To be
consistent with the Census data, the CDP area of 13.2 square-miles was used as the service area. The service
of 18,270 miles-per-year divided by 13.2 square-miles yields 1,418 vehicle-miles-per-square-mile.
The TCRP estimations were developed based on specific population groups within the service area. These
population groups are typically referred to as transit-dependent populations, and statistically are the most likely
to use transit if available. The groups include (as defined by the Census); persons aged 65 or over, persons
aged 16 to 64 with mobility limitations, and persons aged 64 or under residing in households with incomes
below the poverty level. Table 7 indicates the total current populations for each group in the service area.
Table 7: Current Anticipated Transit User Populations
POPULATION GROUP POPULATION
Persons aged 65 or over ..................................................................................................... 253
Persons aged 16 to 64 with mobility limitations .................................................................. 629
Persons aged 64 or under in households with incomes below poverty level ................... 1,768
Hypothetical
Transit Route
N.T.S.
N
160
163
New Loop Road
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 26 of 91
The transit service of 1,418 vehicle miles-per-square-mile (vmpsm) is entered into a formula provided in
the TCRP workbook to create a service factor for each population group. These formulae rely on given
factors which are related to the vehicle miles per square mile. Table 8 indicates the calculation of the
service factors necessary for calculating the transit demand estimate.
Table 8: Existing Transit Demand Service Factors
TCRP #1 TCRP #2 SERVICE FACTOR
POPULATION GROUP VMPSM (multiplied) (added) (per million)
Persons 65 or over .............................. 1,418 ............. 2.682 ....................... 376 ............ 0.00417956
Persons with mobility limitations .......... 1,418 ............... 1.57 .................... 1,010 ............ 0.00323655
Persons with low income ..................... 1,418 ............... 2.45 ....................... 525 ............ 0.00399959
These derived service factors, based on the frequency of service and size of the service area, are part of
the final calculations to estimate transit demand. Table 9 provides the estimated transit demand by
population group and total. This methodology estimates a total yearly demand (all trips made during one
year) for the Kayenta Service Area of 12,201 trips, an average of approximately 39 trips-per-day
(assuming 312 days of service).
Table 9: Existing Latent Transit Demand
TCRP SERVICE ANNUAL
POPULATION GROUP FACTOR POPULATION FACTOR DEMAND
Persons 65 or over ........................... 1,200 .................. 253 ............... 0.00417956 .............. 1,269
Persons with mobility limitations ....... 1,200 .................. 629 ............... 0.00323655 .............. 2,444
Persons with low income .................. 1,200 ............... 1,768 ............... 0.00399959 .............. 8,488
TOTAL 12,201
The TCRP workbook includes an alternative method for estimating transit demand. This alternative
method provides a secondary demand estimate that can be compared against the first. This alternative
method is based on pre-calculated trip rate curves created from research and analysis of other rural
transit programs. The chart compares vehicle-miles-per-square-mile (derived as described above) against
annual-trips-per-person. The trip rates for the Kayenta service based on 1,418 vehicle-miles-per-square-mile
for each population group are overlaid on the TCRP workbook chart as depicted in Figure 23.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 27 of 91
Figure 23: Latent Transit Demand – Graphical Methodology
The estimated trip rates from Figure 23 are used to estimate the demand for each population group as
indicated in Table 10.
Table 10: Transit Demand – Graphic Methodology
TRIP ANNUAL
POPULATION GROUP POPULATION RATE DEMAND
Persons 65 or over ........................................... 253 ................................. 4.22 ..................... 1,068
Persons with mobility limitations ....................... 629 ................................. 3.54 ..................... 2,227
Persons with low income ............................... 1,768 ................................. 3.25 ..................... 5,746
TOTAL 8,941
The total estimated demand with this alternative graphic method is 8,941 annual trips, or approximately 29 trips
per day (assuming 312 service days). Therefore, the existing latent transit demand is approximately 9,000 to
12,000 annual trips or 30 to 40 daily trips.
Latent Transit
Demand –
Graphical
Methodology
4.22
3.54
3.25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
ANNUAL TRIPS PER PERSON
ANNUAL VEHICLE-MILES PER SQUARE-MILE
OVER 65 YEARS OLD MOBILITY LIMITED BELOW POVERTY KAYENTA TOWNSHIP
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 28 of 91
Current Non-Motorized Transportation Services
There are approximately 13.2 miles or 69,500 linear feet of sidewalk in Kayenta Township. Of this total: 23,000
linear feet is immediately adjacent to US-163; 2,200 linear feet is immediately adjacent to US-160; 33,000
linear feet is within subdivisions; 7,500 linear feet is within the school properties; and 3,500 linear feet is
adjacent to US-163 north of the township limits.
There are no bicycle lanes or paths in Kayenta Township. There are also no designated equestrian trails in the
Township.
Current Environmental Conditions
A. Introduction
Coordination with federal, tribal, and local agencies was conducted to obtain information about the
environmental resources in the study area. Specific information was also obtained to define the existing social,
economic, and environmental characteristics of the study area and to assist the study team in identifying
particular constraints to be considered in the development and preliminary analyses of transportation
alternatives.
Based on a review of the study area, there is no prime or unique farmland, sole source aquifer, wetlands,
designated critical habitat, or wild and scenic rivers present in the study area. These resources are not
addressed further in this document. The following sections summarize the current information and identify the
level of concern or sensitivity for each environmental issue.
B. Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes ensure that individuals are not excluded from
participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, and disability. Executive Order
12898 directs that federal programs, policies, and activities do not have disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
Data from the 2010 U.S. Decennial Census (2010 Census) were recently released and were used, where
possible, to provide the most current information on the presence of protected populations. However, due to
changes in the format of the Decennial Census, the 2010 Census did not collect the same information
collected during the 2000 U.S. Decennial Census (2000 Census). Therefore, multiple sources of data were
needed to fill in the gaps. The most recent data available were used for each population category of interest,
as follows:
 Summary File 1 of the 2010 Census1 was used to obtain information on the presence of racial
and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and female heads of household (Census Bureau 2010).
 The 2005–2009 American Community Survey2 (ACS) was used to obtain information on the
presence of persons living below the poverty level (Census Bureau 2009).
1 Summary File 1 is the only 2010 Census data set at the census tract level released at the time of this analysis. The 2010 Census is a
nearly complete survey of the entire U.S. population but did not collect information on persons living below the poverty level or
disabled persons.
2 The ACS is sent every year by the U.S. Census Bureau to a subset of the U.S. population and is intended to monitor social and
economic trends. Data from the ACS are only available at the census tract level as a 5-year collective estimate. The latest 5-year
ACS data set at the time of this analysis was 2005–2009. The ACS is used in this document to supplement the Decennial Census by
providing information about persons living below the poverty level.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 29 of 91
 Summary File 3 of the 2000 Census3 was used to obtain information on the presence of
disabled persons (Census Bureau 2000).
Data used in this environmental justice analysis were obtained for the one census tract (CT 9425) that covers
the study area (Figure 24). Socioeconomic data for Navajo County and the State of Arizona were used as
comparison populations as indicated in Table 11 and Table 12.
For the purpose of this analysis, the term “moderately higher” means that the percentage of a population of
interest in any one census tract is higher than the comparison population but comparable (i.e., not enough
difference to be distinguished as a protected population). When the percentage of a population of interest is
comparable to that of the comparison population and does not represent a majority of the population in that
census tract, it is not defined as a protected population.
For the purpose of this analysis, the term “meaningfully higher” indicates that the percentage of a population of
interest in any one census tract is notably higher than the comparison population. When the percentage of a
population of interest is notably higher than the comparison population for that tract and/or it represents a
majority of the population, that tract is considered a protected population.
Total Minority (2010 Census data)
For this environmental justice review, a racial or ethnic minority population is an aggregate composed of the
following categories: Black/African-American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander, Other Races, Two or More Races, and Hispanic.
Data from the 2010 Census indicate that minority populations are present in CT 9425 (95.5%) and the
percentage of total minority populations is meaningfully higher than the corresponding percentages for Navajo
County (56.1%) and the State of Arizona (42.2%). The percentage of minorities in CT 9425 also represents a
majority of the population in the tract. For this review, this tract is considered a protected population, warranting
further environmental justice analysis, during the design of potential projects, to determine if proposed
improvements create a disproportionately high or adverse human health and environmental impact on minority
populations.
3 The most current information on disabled populations is the 2000 Census. This information is not available at the census tract level
with the current 2005–2009 ACS. The ACS collects information on disabled populations but, due to a 2008 change in methodology,
this information is not yet available for the 5-year data set.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 30 of 91
Figure 24: Kayenta Township Census Tract
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 31 of 91
Age 60 and Older (2010 Census data)
Elderly residents are defined as age 60 and older. Data from the 2010 Census indicate that elderly residents
are present in the selected tracts. However, the percentage of elderly residents in CT 9425 (8.6%) is less than
the corresponding percentages for Navajo County (19.0%) and the State of Arizona (19.3%) and does not
represent a majority of the population in this tract. Therefore, this population does not warrant further
environmental justice analysis.
Female Head of Household (2010 Census data)
Female head of household is defined as a household with children younger than 18 and no husband present.
Data from the 2010 Census indicate that these households occur in CT 9425. However, the percentage of
households with a female head of house in CT 9425 (16.5%) is comparable to the corresponding percentages
for Navajo County (8.8%) and the State of Arizona (7.1%) and does not represent a majority of the population
in this tract. Therefore, this population does not warrant further environmental justice analysis.
Below Poverty Level (ACS data)
Data from the ACS indicate that individuals living below the poverty level reside in CT 9425. The percentage of
persons living below the poverty level in CT 9425 (26.9%) is comparable to the corresponding percentages for
Navajo County (24.6%) and the State of Arizona (14.7%) and does not constitute a majority of the population in
this tract. Therefore, this population does not warrant further environmental justice analysis.
Disabled (2000 Census data)
Data from the 2000 Census indicate that persons with disabilities reside in CT 9425. The percentage of
persons with disabilities that reside in CT 9425 (15.5%) is less than the corresponding percentages for Navajo
County (22.4%) and the State of Arizona (19.3%) and does not represent a majority of the population in this
tract. Therefore, this population does not warrant further environmental justice analysis.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 32 of 91
Table 11: 2010 Census Racial and Ethnic Demographics
Area Total
Population
White African
American
Native
American Asian Pacific
Islander Other Race Two or More
Races Hispanica
# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
CT 9425 5,281 239 4.5 13 0.2 4,873 92.3 4 0.1 1 0.02 16 0.3 131 2.5 102 1.9
Navajo
County 107,449 47,181 43.9 938 0.9 46,611 43.4 580 0.5 75 0.1 3,625 3.4 2,648 2.5 11,571 10.8
State of
Arizona 6,392,017 3,695,647 57.8 259,008 4.1 296,529 4.6 176,695 2.8 12,648 0.2 761,716 11.9 218,300 3.4 1,895,149 29.6
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Census 2010, Summary File 1.
# = Number, % =%age, CT = Census Tract.
a “Hispanic” refers to ethnicity and is derived from the total population, not as a separate race; i.e., it is calculated differently from the other columns in this table.
Table 12: 2010 Census Disadvantaged Populations
Area Total
Populationa
Total
Minority*a
Ages 60
and Oldera
Total
Population
for Whom
Disabled Is
Determinedb
Disabledb
Total
Population
for Whom
Poverty Is
Determinedc
Below
Poverty
Levelc Householdsa
Female
Head
of
Householda
# % # % # % # % # %
CT 9425 5,281 5,042 95.5 452 8.6 4,516 700 15.5 4,710 1,267 26.9 1,402 232 16.5
Navajo
County 107,449 60,268 56.1 20,426 19.0 87,171 19,514 22.4 108,369 26,686 24.6 35,658 3,154 8.8
State of
Arizona 6,392,017 2,696,370 42.2 1,232,791 19.3 4,667,187 902,252 19.3 6,204,965 914,040 14.7 2,380,990 169,397 7.1
Sources: aU.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Census 2010, Summary File 1
bU.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Census 2000, Summary File 3
cU.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. American Community Survey, 2005–2009
# = Number, % =%age, CT = Census Tract.
Orange shading indicates%ages notably higher than comparison areas’%ages.
* “Total Minority” is composed of all people who consider themselves Non-White racially plus those who consider themselves White Hispanic
.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 33 of 91
C. Topography and Soils
The study area lies on the Colorado Plateau between approximately 5,600 to 5,800 feet elevation4. The area
can generally be characterized as flat to rolling with plateaus and mesas rising in the distance. Soils in the area
are of the Fruitland-Camborthids-Torrifluvents Association. These are shallow to deep, moderately coarse to
moderately fine-textured, well-drained soils found on nearly level to hilly upland plains. The plains are broken
by occasional steep-sided drainages and scattered buttes. The soils are formed in thick to thin wind and water-laid
mantle of alluvium weathered from sandstone and shale (Hendricks 1985). Component soils of this
Association, found within the Kayenta area, include soils of the Berryhill family, Cauncelor-Moclom-Hawaikuh,
Denzar-Sheppard-Lithic Torriorthents complex, Gotho-Aneth family complex, Rock outcrop-Needle-Lithic
Torriorthents complex, Sanfeco-Sheppard complex, Sheppard-Massadona-Monue, Sheppard-Typic Haplargids
complex, Urban land-Gotho-Tewa complex, and Urban land-Nakai Complex ((USDA-SCS 1988).
D. Visual Resources
The visual setting of the study area is dominated by the developed community of Kayenta and undeveloped flat
to rolling terrain. Vegetation in the study area consists of sage scrub and grasses with pinyon-juniper scattered
throughout the higher elevations. Along the drainages, vegetation density tends to be higher.
The existing foreground and midground views consist of a flat to rolling sage scrub landscape, which includes
the developed township of Kayenta and undeveloped lands. A series of transportation corridors intersect the
study area, including the primary roadways of US-160, US-163, BIA-6485, and BIA-591; and secondary paved
and unpaved roadways. Commercial development, traffic signals, and street lighting are primarily concentrated
along the US-160 and US-163 corridors, with residential development and schools found on secondary
roadways. The Kayenta Airport is in the southern study area limits.
Background views are dominated by distant mountain peaks and mesas, which encircle the township of
Kayenta. To the northeast, dominant background views include Monument Valley, with its numerous mesa and
sandstone towers, and the volcanic outcrop of El Capitan Peak. Background views to the north include the
“Five Toes” sandstone hills of the Kayenta formation, with the volcanic Church Rock visible east of the study
area. Black Mesa dominates the background views to the southwest, and the red canyon walls of Skeleton
Mesa make up the background views to the west.
As the transportation study progresses and transportation improvements are identified, sensitivity to the local
visual character and the surrounding scenic vistas should be considered. A visual impact assessment would
need to address the anticipated change to visual character associated with the development of transportation
improvements.
E. Air Quality
The Clean Air Act of 1970 and associated amendments in 1977 and 1990 established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants. These pollutants, referred to as the “Criteria Pollutants,” include
carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. Primary and secondary
standards for NAAQS were established for most of the criteria pollutants. The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to designate those areas that have not met the
NAAQS as non-attainment and to classify them according to their degree of severity. Non-attainment and/or
maintenance areas for one or more criteria pollutants are in nine of 14 counties in Arizona.
The Kayenta Township study area lies well outside the boundaries of the non-attainment and maintenance
areas for all criteria pollutants in Arizona and is in an area that complies with all NAAQS.
4 Elevations in this document are referenced to mean sea level.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 34 of 91
Improvements to the existing transportation network could affect air quality at individual receptors through a
shift in traffic patterns. Adding capacity to existing facilities or constructing new roadways could reduce traffic
congestion, thereby reducing air pollutant emissions. The development of other modes of transportation (e.g.,
transit, bicycle, pedestrian) could also reduce emissions by reducing the number of personal vehicles on the
road system.
A temporary increase in air pollutant emissions would be expected during construction of transportation
improvements due to equipment operation and the slower traffic speeds associated with a construction zone.
However, this would be a localized condition that would cease when construction is complete.
F. Noise Impacts
Noise, defined as undesirable sound, is federally regulated by the Noise Control Act of 1972. This act
established a national policy to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes
health and welfare. The act gives the EPA the authority to prepare guidelines for acceptable ambient noise
levels. It also requires that federal agencies having jurisdiction over any property or facility or engaging in any
activity that results or may result in the emission of noise to comply with federal, state, interstate, and local
requirements respecting control and abatement of environmental noise.
The proposed study area includes the Township of Kayenta. A preliminary review of the study area has
identified several sensitive receptors, including residential units, schools, hotels/inns, a public library, and
churches. Several of these sensitive receptors are within 1,000 feet of primary roads, such as US-160, US-
163, BIA-6485, and BIA-591.
A qualitative or quantitative noise analysis would need to be conducted for the proposed transportation
improvements to determine the nature and extent of noise impacts.
G. Water Quality
Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 with a primary objective to restore and maintain the integrity of
the nation’s waters (33 U.S. Code 1251–1387). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act established a program to
regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of the United States (Waters). Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act grants states and certain tribes (including the Navajo Nation) the authority to issue
certifications that water quality standards will not be violated by proposed excavation activities. Within the
Navajo Nation, an Individual Section 401 certification is required for any action regulated under Section 404.
A preliminary evaluation for the presence of potential jurisdictional Waters was conducted in the study area
through a review of U.S. Geological Survey topographical maps and aerial photos. Approximately five “blue
line” drainages cross or border the study area. “Blue line” drainages on these topographic maps typically
exhibit the characteristics of jurisdictional Waters as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
The Kayenta Township Floodplain Management Study (FPMS), prepared by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDA-SCS 1988), identified several smaller drainages with significant
peak flows that cross the study area. These smaller drainages are tributaries of four of the blue line drainages,
which flow north or northeast directly into Laguna Creek, the largest of the blue line drainages in the study
area. Laguna Creek flows east along the northern border of the study area, eventually flowing into Chinle
Creek outside of the study area. Chinle Creek is a tributary of the Colorado River.
A jurisdictional determination of Waters would need to be conducted once transportation improvements have
been determined. In addition to Section 404 permits from the Corps, individual water quality certifications under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act would be required from the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection
Agency.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 35 of 91
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the National and State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
programs. These permit programs are intended to maintain water quality by regulating discharges of pollutants
into surface waters, including sediment and pollutants that can be generated during ground-disturbance
activities and transported by stormwater runoff. Control measures to reduce soil erosion while containing and
minimizing the release of construction pollutants are typically summarized in a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan. On the Navajo Nation, any construction that would disturb one or more acres would require a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The NPDES permit would be obtained from
the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency.
H. Floodplains
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)–issued flood maps are not available for the study area.
FEMA has designated the entire area “Zone D,” or an area with no special flood hazards. Zone D refers to
“areas with possible but undetermined flood hazards” where no flood hazard analysis has been conducted
(FEMA 2011). However, the Kayenta Township FPMS and the corresponding Flood Hazard Area Map indicate
the presence of several floodplains throughout the study area. These floodplains cross the study area,
including US-160 and US-163, from southwest to northeast. Based on the FPMS, the 100-year floodplain in the
study area inundates about 960 acres. Floodplain impacts would need to be addressed as part of the
transportation improvements evaluation.
I. Biological Resources
Biological Community
The project is between approximately 5,600 to 5,800 feet elevation in rolling to mountainous terrain. The plant
community is big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)–dominated sage scrub with other elements of Great Basin
desertscrub (Turner and Brown 1994). Twoneedle pinyon (Pinus edulis)–juniper (Juniperus spp.)–dominated
woodland representative of Great Basin conifer woodland (Turner and Brown 1994) dominates the higher
elevations. Common plants in these communities include oneseed juniper (Juniperus monosperma), Utah
juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), shadscale saltbush (Atriplex
confertifolia), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria [Chrysothamnus] nauseosa), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia
sarothrae), plains pricklypear (Opuntia polyacantha), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), red brome
(Bromus rubens), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and squirreltail (Elymus elymoides).
Threatened and Endangered Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species
for Navajo County (USFWS 2011) was reviewed by EcoPlan Associates, Inc. to determine which species may
occur in the study area.
Species included on the USFWS list for Navajo County but excluded from further evaluation are addressed in
Table 13. This project will have no effect on the species listed and evaluated in the table.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 36 of 91
Table 13: USFWS Listed Species in Navajo County and Occurrence Potential
Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Apache (Arizona)
trout
Oncorhynchus
gilae apache
T Streams and rivers generally above
6,000 feet elevation with adequate
stream flow and shading;
temperatures below 77°F; and
substrate composed of boulders,
rocks, gravel, and some sand and silt.
Elevation: >5,000 feet.
No suitable cold mountain streams with
many low-gradient meadow reaches occur
in the study area. The nearest known
populations occur in the White Mountains,
approximately 190 miles south of the
study area.
Black-footed ferret
Mustela nigripes
E Grassland plains. Generally found in
association with prairie dog colonies.
Elevation: <10,500 feet.
No suitable habitat lies in the project area.
There are historic records for the species
on the topographic quadrangle on which
the study lies, but the species has since
been extirpated from former habitat in
Arizona, including the project area. Ferrets
have been reintroduced to the Aubrey
Valley in Coconino County, approximately
150 miles southwest of the project area,
but the population has not expanded its
range to include the project area.
California condor
Gymnogyps
californianus
E High desert canyons and plateaus
Elevation: varies
Habitat within the study limits is marginal
for the California condor. Large cliffs are
present in close vicinity to the study area.
The California condor is a rare species,
but it has been reintroduced as an
experimental/non-essential population at
the Vermilion Cliffs, approximately 80
miles west of the study area. Habitat more
suitable for the species is available near
the reintroduction site. However, since the
condor is prone to travel long distances
from nesting sites, the species could
occasionally be present in the vicinity
while foraging.
Chiricahua leopard
frog
Lithobates
chiricahuensis
T Streams, rivers, backwaters, ponds,
and stock tanks mostly free from
introduced fish, crayfish, and
bullfrogs.
Elevation: 3,300 to 8,900 feet.
No suitable habitat for the species lies in
the study area. The nearest record of
occurrence for the species lies along the
southern Mogollon Plateau, well south of
the Little Colorado River in southern
Coconino and Navajo counties.
Little Colorado
spinedace
Lepidomeda vittata
T Moderate to small streams; found in
pools and riffles with water flowing
over fine gravel and silt substrate.
Elevation: 4,000 to 8,000 feet.
No potentially suitable perennial streams
are in the study limits. The species is not
known from drainages north of the Little
Colorado River. The nearest records of
occurrence lie along the Little Colorado
River and tributaries south of the river,
approximately 135 miles south of the
study area.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 37 of 91
Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Loach minnow
Tiaroga cobitis
T Benthic species of small to large
perennial streams with shallow water
over cobble and gravel. Recurrent
flooding and natural hydrograph
important.
Elevation: <8,000 feet.
The species is not reported from Navajo
County and occurs only in the Gila River
drainage of south-central Arizona. The
nearest populations occur in the upper
San Francisco River, approximately
210 miles southeast of the study area.
Mexican gray wolf
Canis lupus baileyi
E Chaparral, woodland, and forested
areas. This species may cross desert
areas.
Elevation: 4,000 to 12,000 feet.
The study area lies approximately
180 miles north of the normal range of
Arizona’s reintroduced population in the
White Mountains. However, wide-ranging
individuals occasionally wander outside of
the normal range and may pass through
the study area. However, such individuals
would be expected to avoid the noise and
activity associated with the US-160 and
US-163 roadways.
Mexican spotted
owl
Strix occidentalis
lucida
T Mixed conifer or pine forest with multi-layered
foliage structure in steep
canyons or on high mesas.
Elevation: 4,100 to 9,000 feet.
No suitable canyon or dense forests with
multilayered foliage structure in the study
limits. Spotted owls have been reported
from near the study area on Black Mesa.
Habitat suitability increases and a nesting
population is reported from the highest
elevations of Black Mesa extending to
within approximately 10 miles west
southwest of the project. However, it is
unlikely that these birds would occur in the
project area.
Navajo sedge
Carex specuicola
T Silty soils at shady seeps and springs.
Elevation: 5,700 to 6,000 feet.
No suitable silty soils at shady seeps and
springs occur in the study area. There are
records for this species from Tsegi
Canyon approximately 20 miles west of
the project area.
Northern Mexican
gartersnake
Thamnophis eques
megalops
C Cienegas and stock tanks. Large-river
riparian woodlands and forests,
streamside gallery forests.
Elevation: 130 to 8,500 feet.
Formerly widely distributed along and
mostly south of the Mogollon Rim, and in
southern Arizona. Recent population
declines and local extirpations have
restricted the species to fragmented
populations in the middle/upper Verde
River drainage, middle and lower Tonto
Creek, the Cienega Creek drainage, and
several isolated wetland areas in
southeastern Arizona. The nearest historic
locality record likely supporting an extant
population lies approximately 130 miles
south, near the towns of Pinetop and
Lakeside.
Peebles Navajo
cactus
Pediocactus
peeblesianus var.
peeblesianus
E Gravely soils of the Shinarump
conglomerate of the Chinle
Formation.
Elevation: 5,400 to 5,600 feet.
No suitable gravely soils of the Shinarump
conglomerate of the Chinle Formation
occur in the study area. Soils in the area
are of the Fruitland-Camborthids-
Torrifluvents Association. The nearest
populations lie near Holbrook,
approximately 150 miles south of the
study area.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 38 of 91
Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Roundtail chub
Gila robusta
C Cool to warm waters of rivers and
streams; often occupy the deepest
pools and eddies of large streams.
Elevation: 1,000 to 7,500 feet.
No potentially suitable perennial stream is
in the study limits. The species is not
known from drainages north of the Little
Colorado River. The nearest records of
occurrence lie along East Clear Creek
south of the Little Colorado River,
approximately 135 miles south of the
study area.
Southwestern
willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii
extimus
E Cottonwood/willow and tamarisk
vegetation communities along rivers
and streams.
Elevation: <8,500 feet.
There are records of occurrence for the
species on the topographic quadrangle on
which the study lies, likely from along
Laguna Creek or another area of suitable
habitat along a perennial stream in the
vicinity. Individuals would not be expected
to occur in the study area.
Yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus
americanus
C Large blocks of riparian woodlands
(cottonwood, willow, or tamarisk
galleries).
Elevation: <6,500 feet.
No suitable large blocks of cottonwood,
willow, or tamarisk riparian gallery
woodlands occur in the study area. The
species has not been reported from
Navajo County. The nearest known
seasonal record for the species lies along
the Rio Puerco, approximately 150 miles
southeast of the study area.
C = Candidate, E = Endangered, T = Threatened (USFWS 2011)
In addition to the endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species listed above, the Navajo Nation
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s natural heritage program also identifies those species that are on the Navajo
Nation Endangered Species List (NESL). A response from the Navajo Nation, dated December 14, 2011, has
identified the following Navajo Nation species of concern:
Common Name Scientific Name Status
American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum NESL–Group 4
Black footed ferret Mustela nigripes NESL–Group 2
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis NESL–Group 3
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos NESL–Group 3
Kit fox Vulpes macrotis NESL–Group 4
Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida NESL–Group 3
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus NESL–Group 3
Northern leopard frog
Northern saw-whet owl
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Parish’s alkali grass
Lithobetes pipiens
Aegolius acadicus
Empidonax traillii extimus
Puccinellia parishii
NESL–Group 2
NESL–Group 4
NESL–Group 2
NESL–Group 4
NESL–Group 1 species are species that no longer occur in the Navajo Nation. NESL–Group 2 and 3 species
are those species considered to be “endangered,” and whose prospects of survival or recruitment within the
Navajo Nation are in jeopardy or are likely within the foreseeable future to become so. NESL–Group 4 species
are species for which the Navajo Nation does not currently have sufficient information to support their being
listed in Group 2 or Group 3.
The study area is largely urbanized with few areas of undisturbed natural habitats. It is possible that some of
the more mobile species (e.g., Golden Eagle, Ferruginous hawk, and Peregrine falcon) that may forage over a
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 39 of 91
large area may over-fly Kayenta Township; however, nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities would be
extremely limited. Other species, notably the Kit Fox, Mountain plover, Northern leopard frog, and Northern
saw-whet owl require habitat conditions which may be present regionally. These habitats are unlikely to occur
in the largely urbanized Kayenta Township. Parish’s alkali grass would not be expected within the study area,
because, wetlands do not occur within or adjacent to the Kayenta Township.
Riparian and Aquatic Habitats
Riparian and aquatic habitats are sensitive to the extent that they harbor a variety of species, and many such
habitats are protected by federal regulation, including the Clean Water Act. No aquatic habitats are known in
the study area. However, the xeroriparian habitat along the ephemeral washes in the study area, particularly
Laguna Creek, would be expected to support an increase in vegetation density and species composition.
To minimize the potential for indirect effects on riparian habitats and aquatic habitats of the Colorado River
downstream of the study area, consideration would need to be given to the proper design of temporary and
permanent erosion control measures at any crossings of washes in the study area.
J. National Parks, Recreation Areas, Wilderness Areas, and Other Special Status Lands
No national parks, recreation areas, designated wilderness areas, or other special status lands or Waters are
present in the study area or vicinity. Monument Valley, a 30,000-acre Navajo Tribal Park, is on US-163 along
the Arizona–Utah border. It is approximately 22 miles from the Township of Kayenta and would not be affected
by any transportation improvements within the Township.
K. Section 4(f) Properties (parks, recreation areas, refuges)
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 states that the Federal Highway
Administration “…may approve a transportation program or project…requiring the use of publicly owned land of
a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of
an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials
having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if…there is no prudent and feasible alternative to
using that land; and…the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park,
recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use” (49 U.S.C. 303[c]).
Parks and recreation areas must be open to the public and owned by a public entity. They can be leased to
others for a public use from a government agency or can be owned by a private entity with an easement
granted to a government entity for use in perpetuity for a park or recreation area open for public use. The
resource must have legal interests held by a government entity to be considered a Section 4(f) resource.
To be considered a Section 4(f) resource, a wildlife and waterfowl refuge must have a legal interest held by a
governmental agency, with the primary use being that of a refuge. It does not need to be designated as a
“refuge,” but if that is its use and the land is government-owned, leased from the government to another party
for “refuge” use, or privately owned with an easement given to a government for refuge use, it is a Section 4(f)
resource.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 40 of 91
A “use” of a Section 4(f) resource, as defined in 23 CFR § 771.135(p), occurs (1) when land is
permanently incorporated into a transportation facility, (2) when there is a temporary occupancy of land
that is adverse in terms of the statute’s preservationist purposes, or (3) when there is a constructive use
of the land. A constructive use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when the transportation project does
not incorporate land from resources but the project’s proximity impacts are so severe that the protected
activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially
impaired. For example, a constructive use can occur when:
 the project noise level increase, attributable to the project, substantially interferes with the
use and enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility of a resource protected by Section 4(f);
 the proximity of the proposed project substantially impairs aesthetic features or attributes of
a resource protected by Section 4(f), where such features or attributes are considered
important contributing elements to the value of the resource; and/or
 the project results in a restriction on access, which substantially diminishes the utility of a
significant publicly owned park, recreation area, or historic site.
Because the Kayenta Township may use federal transportation funds for future transportation
improvements, the presence of Section 4(f) resources were evaluated. The Kayenta Township
Comprehensive General Plan (Kayenta 2011) lists several recreational properties in the study area,
which may be considered Section 4(f) resources:
 The Kayenta Elementary School Playground, in the north portion of the study area just north of
US-163
 The Bureau of Indian Affairs outdoor field, in the north portion of the study area just north of US-
163
 The Kayenta Middle School ball fields, in the central portion of the study area just south of US-
163
 The Kayenta Intermediate School playground, in the central portion of the study area just south
of US-163
 The Kayenta Unified School District Natatorium, in the central portion of the study area just
south of US-163
 The Mountain Valley High School football and ball fields, in the central portion of the study area
just south of US-163
 The Mountain Valley High School ropes course, in the central portion of the study area just
south of US-163
 Boys and Girls Club Township recreation park, in the central portion of the study area just south
of US-163
 The Navajo Housing Authority Recreation Center, in the south portion of the study area just east
of US-163
 A pedestrian path, which connects Mountain Valley High School to the Navajo Housing
Authority Recreation Center, US-163, and adjacent residential areas
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 41 of 91
L. Cultural Resources/Section 4(f) Properties
Cultural resources are properties that reflect the heritage of local communities, states, and nations. Properties
judged to be significant and to retain sufficient integrity to convey that significance are termed “historic
properties” and are afforded certain protection in accordance with state and federal legislation. The National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, defines historic properties as sites, buildings,
structures, districts (including landscapes) and objects included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National
Register of Historic Places, as well as the artifacts, records, and remains related to such properties. Section
106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their undertakings on historic
properties.
To be considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, a property must meet at least
one of the following criteria:
A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history
B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that
represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represents
a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction
D: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 CFR
Part 60.4)
Eligible properties may include traditional cultural properties (TCPs). An eligible property may include
contributing and non-contributing elements. In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, federal agencies are
responsible for making eligibility determinations—in this case, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
assisted by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). Those agencies must, in turn, consult with the Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
(THPO) and request concurrence with their determinations. Eligibility recommendations have been offered by
recorders regarding the cultural resources identified in the records search area, but no record of consultation
was obtained. Therefore, those properties are identified as “recommended” eligible or not eligible. Background
research was conducted at the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department (NNHPD) on November 29–
30, 2011.
Cultural Resources Within the Records Search Area
The inventory includes all cultural resources (Table 14) and TCPs (Table 15) identified within the Kayenta
Multimodal Transportation Study Area. Cultural resource inventories conducted to date have covered
approximately 65 percent of the study area.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 42 of 91
Table 14: Cultural Resources Within the Kayenta Multimodal Transportation Study Area
No. Designation/Name Description Reference Eligibility
1 AZ J-22-4
(NNHPD)
Historic (1960) Navajo
Activity Center
Werito 1987a Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
2 AZ J-22-5
(NNHPD)
Navajo (post-1970) sweat
lodge
Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D*;
protected under AIRFA
3 AZ J-22-9
(NNHPD)
Historic Navajo (post-1970)
single-dwelling
Werito 1987c Recommended eligible,
Criterion D*
4 AZ J-22-10
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric artifact scatter Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
5 AZ J-22-12
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric and historic
artifact scatter
Werito 1987a Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
6 AZ J-22-13
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric artifact scatter Werito 1987a Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
7 AZ J-22-14
(NNHPD
Navajo (post-1960) rodeo
grounds
Werito 1987a Recommended eligible,
Criterion D*
8 AZ J-22-16
(NNHPD)
Historic (post-1967) Navajo
corral and trash scatter
Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D*
9 AZ J-22-17
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric artifact scatter Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
10 AZ J-22-18
(NNHPD)
Prehisotirc artifact
scatter/camp
Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
11 AZ J-22-19
(NNHPD)
Historic tourist center Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
12 AZ J-22-20
(NNHPD)
Historic (1973-1979) café Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D*
13 AZ J-22-21
(NNHPD)
Historic Navajo camp Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
14 AZ J-22-22
(NNHPD)
Historic Navajo camp
(post-1970)
Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D*
15 AZ J-22-23
(NNHPD)
Historic (post-1950) Navajo
multi-dwelling permanent
camp
Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D;
protected under AIRFA
16 AZ J-22-24
(NNHPD)
Abandoned BIA Classroom
building
Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
17 AZ J-22-25
(NNHPD)
Historic Livestock Pen
(1940s)
Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
18 AZ J-22-26
(NNHPD)
Historic Trading Post Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
19 AZ J-22-27
(NNHPD)
Historic (post-1950) café Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
20 AZ J-22-28
(NNHPD)
Weatherill Memorial
(graves)
Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
21 AZ J-22-29
(NNHPD)
Historic Navajo homesite Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
22 AZ J-22-39
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric artifact scatter NNHPD files Not evaluated
23 AZ J-22-41
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric artifact scatter NNHPD files Not evaluated
24 AZ J-22-47
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric artifact scatter NNHPD files Not evaluated
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 43 of 91
No. Designation/Name Description Reference Eligibility
25 AZ J-22-50
(NNHPD)
Anasazi camp site Werito 1991 Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
26 AZ J-22-66
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric artifact scatter Gilbert 1996 Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
27 AZ J-22-106
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric artifact scatter Neal 2005 Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
28 AZ J-23-1
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric artifact scatter NNHPD files Not evaluated
29 AZ J-23-4
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric artifact scatter NNHPD files Not evaluated
30 AZ J-23-5
(NNHPD)
Historic Navajo sweat lodge Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D*;
protected under AIRFA
31 AZ J-23-6
(NNHPD)
Historic Navajo single-dwelling
permanent camp
Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D*;
protected under AIRFA
32 AZ J-23-7
(NNHPD)
Historic Navajo single-dwelling
permanent camp
Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D*;
protected under AIRFA
33 AZ J-22-8
(NNHPD)
Historic Navajo multi-dwelling
permanent camp
Werito 1987b Recommended eligible,
Criterion D*;
protected under AIRFA
34 AZ J-23-31
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric special activity
area/artifact scatter
Todea 2000 Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
35 AZ J-23-33
(NNHPD)
Historic (post-1930) Navajo
petroglyphs
Stone and
Wright 1999
Recommended not eligible
36 AZ J-23-34
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric artifact scatter Stone and
Wright 1999
Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
37 AZ J-23-103
(NNHPD)
Prehistoric artifact scatter Begay 2004 Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
38 AZ D:8:4 (ASM) Historic Navajo
(abandoned) sweat lodge
Jeffers, Jr.
1983
Recommended eligible,
Criterion D
Satisfies all criteria for NRHP consideration except the 50-year age test. AIRFA stands for the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
Table 15: Traditional Cultural Properties Within the Kayenta Multimodal Transportation Study Area
No. Designation/Name Description Reference
1 Chezhin Ii’hal Lava Rock/Black Knob NNHPD files
2 To Daneeshzhee’ Water Rills NNHPD files
Appendix D provides a list of the environmental reference sources used for the environmental discussion.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 44 of 91
Stakeholder Interviews
For the purposes of this transportation study, interviews were conducted with many potential stakeholders.
These interviews provided data regarding perceived existing and future transportation-related issues,
problems, or concerns from the stakeholder point of view. An extensive and varied stakeholder contact list was
generated and includes:
 Kayenta Township Commissioners
 Kayenta Chapter officials
 Neighboring Chapter officials (Shonto, Olijato, Dennehetso, Chilchinbeto)
 Kayenta Unified School District
 Other local schools
 Kayenta Township public services (i.e. law enforcement, post office, health services, etc.)
 Local businesses
 Navajo Nation public works divisions
 Navajo Nation public services
 Other potentially interested parties
Each stakeholder was contacted by either telephone or e-mail. A total of 42 stakeholders were contacted, of
these 11 participated in the full interview. Those that participated in the full interview were asked to respond to
each of the following questions, where applicable.
1. How often each day do you drive between locations in Kayenta Township?
2. How often each day do you walk between locations in Kayenta Township?
3. Would you walk more if there were more sidewalks or trails in Kayenta Township?
4. Do you think other people would walk more if there were more sidewalks or trails in Kayenta Township?
5. Do you have children that walk to school? If so, how many children? From where?
6. Would you use a bus system between locations in Kayenta Township?
7. Do you think other people would use a bus system in Kayenta Township?
8. How often do you ride a bicycle between locations in Kayenta Township?
9. How often do you see others riding bicycles between locations Kayenta Township?
10. Do you think there should be bicycle paths adjacent to streets in Kayenta Township?
11. Do you think there should be bicycle lanes in the streets in Kayenta Township?
12. Would you use bicycle paths or lanes in Kayenta Township if they existed?
13. Do you think other people would use bicycle paths or lanes in Kayenta Township if they existed?
14. How often do you ride a horse between locations in Kayenta Township?
15. How often do you see others riding horses between locations Kayenta Township?
16. Do you think there should be horse trails between locations in Kayenta Township?
17. Do you think there should be hitching posts and other horse facilities at businesses in Kayenta
Township?
18. What are the most difficult transportation safety issues in Kayenta Township?
19. Where are the most difficult transportation safety issues in Kayenta Township?
20. What are the most common hazards encountered during daylight hours? Nighttime hours?
21. What are the most immediate transportation issues in Kayenta Township?
22. What improvements to the transportation system in Kayenta Township would you like to see?
23. For business owners, do you have any thoughts on how this study can help promote your business?
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 45 of 91
The following summarizes the responses to the observational or personal travel routine questions:
 Almost every respondent reported daily driving within Kayenta
 Approximately one-half of respondents reported daily or frequent walking within
Kayenta, and almost all respondents favored more sidewalks or trails
 Of the respondents who had school-age children, most reported that their children
rode the school bus to and from school
 Most respondents used a bicycle never or only occasionally, and were generally
divided on whether or not bicycle lanes or paths would be a good idea
 Almost every respondent reported never to seldom using a horse within Kayenta, and
most respondents did not favor equestrian amenities within Kayenta
The following summarizes the interview responses to questions of specific transportation-related issues.
 Almost every respondent considered the high incidence of potholes and poor road
maintenance (particularly on access roads off of US-163 and US-160) among the
more immediate and prevalent transportation concerns
 A majority of the respondents indicated school zones as requiring immediate attention
with regards to safety (i.e. improved bus routes, fluorescent school signing, better
pedestrian accommodations, etc.)
 Several respondents reported concerns about the high incidence of “Driving Under the
Influence”, speeding, livestock crossing traveled ways, lighting and security, and
slow local enforcement reaction times
 One of the local business owners suggested the installation of lighted billboards along
US-160 as a method of promoting business, as current billboards are not lit
Future Population and Demographic Conditions
Future population projections were excluded from the Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
process. The Comprehensive General Plan envisions dramatic changes to all land use categories thereby
increasing both residential and employment opportunities. Therefore future population can only be generalized.
The existing population of 5,189 persons is on approximately 685 acres is a ratio of 7.575 persons per acre.
The residential area of the Comprehensive General Plan is 1,338 acres. Utilizing the current ratio, the
population at build-out of the Comprehensive General Plan would be approximately 10,000 people.
Future Land Use
The current Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Ordinance was prepared by the firms of Arrowhead
Engineering and The Planning Center. This plan considers the 6.44 square mile area which was utilized by a
2008 Kayenta Market Study and as illustrated in Figure 19 of this report. This is the anticipated ultimate 2030
Township boundary and extends outside of the current Kayenta Township boundary. This Market Study also
defined the recommended land uses.
It should be noted that this planning area is significantly less than the Bureau of the Census considers as the
“Census Designated Place” for Kayenta. The Census area is 13.2 square miles which includes lands with
grazing permits and other purposes outside the current and anticipated developed Kayenta community.
Additionally the area included in the Comprehensive General Plan includes portions of Kayenta Chapter
beyond the Kayenta Township boundary. For planning purposes, these contiguous areas will impact the
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 46 of 91
Kayenta Township transportation system regardless of jurisdiction.
The specific land uses in the Comprehensive General Plan were generalized into five categories for purposes
of future transportation planning. The comprehensive land use categories and their corresponding generalized
land use categories are provided in Table 16. The correspondence was determined based upon trip generation
characteristics rather than land use characteristics. For example medical services are often categorized as
institutional land uses, however, their trip generation characteristics are more similar to employment.
Table 16: Generalized Land Use Categories
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN CATEGORY GENERALIZED CATEGORY
Low Density Residential .............................................................. Residential
Medium Density Residential ........................................................ Residential
High Density Residential ............................................................. Residential
Kayenta Township Core .............................................................. Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial .......................................................... Commercial
Highway Oriented Corridor .......................................................... Commercial
Technology and Innovation ......................................................... Employment
Industrial ...................................................................................... Employment
Employment ................................................................................ Employment
Medical Service ........................................................................... Employment
Kayenta Airport ............................................................................ Employment
Hospitality and Entertainment ..................................................... Employment
Corridor Development ................................................................. Employment
Transit Oriented Development .................................................... Employment
Regional Recreation, Parks, and Open Space ............................ Recreational
Resort / Golf Club ........................................................................ Recreational
Agricultural / Equestrian Oriented ............................................... Recreational
Kayenta Cemetery ....................................................................... Recreational
Civic / Institutional / Public Facilities ............................................ Institutional
Figure 25 provides these five land use categories within the Kayenta Township boundary. Indicated in this
diagram is a new circulator street. This street is proposed in the Comprehensive General Plan and is intended
to serve currently undeveloped portions of Kayenta Township with both private vehicle and transit facilities.
Figure 26 provides the relative proportions of the generalized land use categories.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 47 of 91
Figure 25: Kayenta Township Future Generalized Land Uses
Kayenta
Township
Future
Generalized
Land Uses
160
163
EMPLOYMENT
INSTITUTIONAL
RECREATIONAL
COMMERCIAL
1,150
611
581
441
1.07
0.95
0.91
0.69
AREA ACRES SQUARE MILES
TOTAL 4,122 6.44
TOWNSHIP BOUNDARY
GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY
RESIDENTIAL 1,338 2.09
N.T.S.
N
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 48 of 91
Figure 26: Kayenta Township Future Generalized Land Use Proportions
The Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Plan provides a 94% increase in residential property, 74% increase
in institutional property, and a 32% increase in commercial property.
Residential
32%
Employment
28%
Institutional
15%
Recreational
14%
Commercial
11%
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 49 of 91
Figure 27 indicates the primary street system for Kayenta Township.
Figure 27: Kayenta Township Future Primary Street System
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) are theoretically boundaries used to group land use parcels to aid in the
assignment of traffic volumes. A unique number was generated for each of the homogeneous land use parcel.
Figure 28 provides the TAZ numbers for all future land use parcels. Figure 29 provides the estimated future
build-out daily traffic volumes. Figure 30 and Figure 31 provide the estimated future build-out morning and
evening peak hour traffic volumes, respectively. These traffic volumes correspond to the planned land uses
indicated in the Comprehensive General Plan. There is not a horizon year associated with these traffic
volumes.
Kayenta
Township
Future
Primary Street
System
N.T.S.
N
160
163
New Loop Road
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 50 of 91
Figure 28: Traffic Analysis Zones
Future Land
Use
160
163
1
18
2
3
6
7
8
9 10
12 13
14
15
16 17
19
21
EMPLOYMENT
INSTITUTIONAL
RECREATIONAL
COMMERCIAL
1,150
611
581
441
1.07
0.95
0.91
0.69
AREA ACRES SQUARE MILES
TOTAL 4,122 6.44
TOWNSHIP BOUNDARY
GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY
5 11
20
22
RESIDENTIAL 1,338 2.09
4
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 51 of 91
Figure 29: Comprehensive General Plan Build-out Estimated Future Daily Traffic Volumes
Comprehensiv
e Plan Build‐out
Estimated
Future Daily
Traffic
Volumes
160
163
4,800
4,400
3,800
4,000
3,000
3,300
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 52 of 91
Figure 30: Comprehensive General Plan Build-out Estimated Future Morning Peak Hour Traffic
Volumes
Comprehensiv
e Plan Build‐out
Estimated
Future
Morning Peak
Hour Traffic
Volumes
160
163
530
160
250
380
110
350
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 53 of 91
Figure 31: Comprehensive General Plan Build-out Estimated Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Comprehensiv
e Plan Build‐out
Estimated
Future
Evening Peak
Hour Traffic
Volumes
160
163
220
520
450
570
370
240
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 54 of 91
Future Transit Services
In the Existing Conditions section of this Working Paper, a hypothetical transit route was developed for the
transit demand estimating procedure. This six-mile route consisted of a circulator following a loop route
consisting of the proposed New Loop Road and the segment of US-163 that completes the loop as indicated in
Figure 22. For future transit service, a modified and expanded circulator route, as indicated in Figure 32, was
analyzed. This potential route includes service to the Kayenta Airport and to a planned resort southwest of the
US-160 and US-163 intersection. This modified circulator route would be approximately 7.6 miles in length and
would be completed in less than an hour. The system could operate as either fixed route or deviated fixed
route.
Figure 32: Future Potential Transit Route
Future Potential Transit Route
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 55 of 91
The proposed schedule for the transit route is provided in Table 17. The elapsed time between stops provides
“dwell” time for loading and unloading at each stop. The schedule would operate Monday through Friday, or 60
trips per week.
Table 17: Potential Transit Route Schedule
Future transit demand in the Kayenta Study area was estimated using the TCRP Report 3, Workbook for
Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger Transportation, similar to the process utilized for a hypothetical
current system in the Current Transit Services of this report.
The potential future system would operate as a circulator route, completing 12 trips-per-day, Monday through
Friday, for a total of 60 trips-per-week. As the proposed loop is approximately 7.6 miles in length, this service
would equate to 456 miles-per-week, or 23,712 miles-per-year.
In addition to developing a hypothetical system, the methodology requires that a service area be defined to
calculate vehicle-miles-per-square-mile, an important metric for modeling purposes. The Study Area includes
only 6.44 square-miles, while the Census Designated Place (CDP) comprises 13.2 square-miles. To be
TIME
STOP LOCATIONS MILES (minutes) MORNING TRIPS
Township Hall 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM
Airport 1.10 0:06 7:06 AM 8:06 AM 9:06 AM 10:06 AM 11:06 AM 12:06 PM
Planned Resort 1.00 0:05 7:11 AM 8:11 AM 9:11 AM 10:11 AM 11:11 AM 12:11 PM
Rodeo Grounds 0.67 0:04 7:15 AM 8:15 AM 9:15 AM 10:15 AM 11:15 AM 12:15 PM
Hospital 0.33 0:03 7:18 AM 8:18 AM 9:18 AM 10:18 AM 11:18 AM 12:18 PM
Urban Core 3.50 0:15 7:33 AM 8:33 AM 9:33 AM 10:33 AM 11:33 AM 12:33 PM
Township Hall 1.00 0:05 7:38 AM 8:38 AM 9:38 AM 10:38 AM 11:38 AM 12:38 PM
TOTAL 7.60 0:38
TIME
STOP LOCATIONS MILES (minutes) AFTERNOON TRIPS
Township Hall 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
Airport 1.10 0:06 1:06 PM 2:06 PM 3:06 PM 4:06 PM 5:06 PM 6:06 PM
Planned Resort 1.00 0:05 1:11 PM 2:11 PM 3:11 PM 4:11 PM 5:11 PM 6:11 PM
Rodeo Grounds 0.67 0:04 1:15 PM 2:15 PM 3:15 PM 4:15 PM 5:15 PM 6:15 PM
Hospital 0.33 0:03 1:18 PM 2:18 PM 3:18 PM 4:18 PM 5:18 PM 6:18 PM
Urban Core 3.50 0:15 1:33 PM 2:33 PM 3:33 PM 4:33 PM 5:33 PM 6:33 PM
Township Hall 1.00 0:05 1:38 PM 2:38 PM 3:38 PM 4:38 PM 5:38 PM 6:38 PM
TOTAL 7.60 0:38
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 56 of 91
consistent with the Census data, the CDP area of 13.2 square-miles was used as the service area. The service
of 23,712 miles-per-year divided by 13.2 square-miles yields 1,796 vehicle-miles-per-square-mile.
The TCRP estimations were developed based on specific population groups of persons aged 65 or over,
persons aged 16 to 64 with mobility limitations, and persons aged 64 or under residing in households with
incomes below the poverty level. The projected future build-out population of the Kayenta Township study area
of 10,000 was separated into transit user groups in the same ratios as the current Census indicates. Table 18
indicates the estimated future transit user populations at time of general plan build-out for each group in the
service area.
Table 18: Future Predicted Transit User Populations
POPULATION GROUP POPULATION
Persons aged 65 or over ..................................................................................................... 480
Persons aged 16 to 64 with mobility limitations ............................................................... 1,192
Persons aged 64 or under in households with incomes below poverty level ................... 3,349
The transit service of 1,796 vehicle miles-per-square-mile is entered into a formula provided in the TCRP
workbook to create a service factor for each population group. These formulae rely on given factors which
are related to the vehicle miles per square mile. Table 19 indicates the calculation of the service factors
necessary for calculating the transit demand estimate.
Table 19: Future Predicted Transit Demand Service Factors
TCRP #1 TCRP #2 SERVICE FACTOR
POPULATION GROUP VMPSM (multiplied) (added) (per million)
Persons 65 or over .............................. 1,796 ............. 2.682 ....................... 376 ............ 0.00519385
Persons with mobility limitations .......... 1,796 ............... 1.57 .................... 1,010 ............ 0.00383029
Persons with low income ..................... 1,796 ............... 2.45 ....................... 525 ............ 0.00492609
These derived service factors, based on the frequency of service and size of the service area, are part of
the final calculations to estimate transit demand. Table 20 provides the estimated transit demand by
population group and total. This methodology estimates a total yearly demand (all trips made during one
year) for the Kayenta Service Area of 28,264 trips, an average of approximately 39 trips-per-day
(assuming 260 days of service).
Table 20: Future Predicted Transit Demand
TCRP SERVICE ANNUAL
POPULATION GROUP FACTOR POPULATION FACTOR DEMAND
Persons 65 or over ........................... 1,200 .................. 480 ............... 0.00519385 .............. 2,992
Persons with mobility limitations ....... 1,200 ............... 1,192 ............... 0.00383029 .............. 5,477
Persons with low income .................. 1,200 ............... 3,349 ............... 0.00492609 ............ 19,795
TOTAL 28,264
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 57 of 91
This methodology estimates a total annual demand (all trips made during a year period) for the Kayenta
Service Area of 28,264 trips, an average of approximately 109 trips per day (assuming 260 days of service).
The TCRP workbook alternative graphical method for estimating transit demand was also utilized for a
secondary future predicted transit demand estimate for comparison purposes. This alternative method is
based on pre-calculated trip rate curves created from research and analysis of other rural transit
programs. Utilizing a predicted service of 1,976 vehicle-miles-per-square-mile determines the transit
demand for each population group is determined as depicted in Figure 33.
Figure 33: Future Transit Demand – Graphical Methodology
The estimated trip rates from Figure 33 are used to estimate the demand for each population group as
indicated in Table 21.
Future Transit
Demand –
Graphical
Methodology
5.01
4.06
3.84
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
ANNUAL TRIPS PER PERSON
ANNUAL VEHICLE-MILES PER SQUARE-MILE
OVER 65 YEARS OLD MOBILITY LIMITED BELOW POVERTY KAYENTA TOWNSHIP
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 58 of 91
Table 21: Transit Demand – Graphic Methodology
TRIP ANNUAL
POPULATION GROUP POPULATION RATE DEMAND
Persons 65 or over ........................................... 480 ................................. 5.01 ..................... 2,405
Persons with mobility limitations .................... 1,192 ................................. 4.06 ..................... 4,840
Persons with low income ............................... 3,349 ................................. 3.84 ................... 12,860
TOTAL 20,105
The total estimated demand with this alternative graphic method is 20,105 annual trips, or approximately 77
trips per day (assuming 260 service days). Therefore, the predicted future transit demand is approximately
20,000 to 28,000 annual trips or 80 to 110 daily trips.
Utilizing 12 daily trips, this equates to an average of 6.7 to 9.2 riders per trip. A standard van might
accommodate ridership. A 16-passenger mini-bus with two wheelchair seats would better prepare the
operation for peak loads. Mini-buses are also easier to board and disembark, enabling the driver to remain
seated rather than having to open passenger doors to assist riders at each stop. The mini-buses would also
have more room for luggage storage. Figure 34 and Figure 35 depict external and internal views of a typical
vehicle.
Figure 34: Typical Mini-bus – External View
Source: Thor Industries Commercial Bus Division
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 59 of 91
Figure 35: Typical Mini-bus – Internal View
Source: Arizona Bus Sales
Future Non-Motorized Transportation Services
Sidewalks are desired adjacent to all paved streets in Kayenta Township. Bicycle trails would be appropriate
adjacent to US-163, US-160, BIA-6485, BIA-591, and the proposed loop road. Bicycle routes would be
applicable as appropriate on all other streets, including N-106. Equestrian trails would be beneficial adjacent to
US-163, US-160, the proposed recreational area parallel and north of the airport, and the proposed
recreational area perpendicular to the north loop road extending from the airport to the northern Township
boundary. It is anticipated that these bicycle and equestrian facilities will connect with similar facilities in
Kayenta Chapter, outside of Kayenta Township.
Currently, a sidewalk exists west of and adjacent to US-163 at the bridge over Laguna Wash. This sidewalk
includes a curved fence. The fence is not high enough to permit equestrian use. The curved fence should be
raised to accommodate equestrians. An additional bridge with a curved fence should be provided east of and
adjacent to US-163. Either these bridges should provide separate bicycle and equestrian facilities or separate
bicycle and equestrian bridges should be constructed.
A “Safe Routes to School” study has been desired by Kayenta Township for several years. Township residents
and officials have expressed their desire to have improved school-age pedestrian crossing of US-163 in the
vicinity of the three schools. ADOT representatives have indicated that signalized crossings would be too close
to the existing signal serving the schools. Recognizing the relatively unusual combination of unfamiliar drivers
in through vehicles on an otherwise uninterrupted state highway in a small isolated community with three
immediately adjacent schools, a crosswalk in relatively close proximity to the traffic signal might be
appropriate. This type of traffic control would be inappropriate in a typical urban, suburban, or large town
environment; but may have application in Kayenta. A comprehensive “Safe Routes to School” study would
examine the need for improved school-age pedestrian crossings, and if the need exists, to determine potential
locations for the crossings. The study would examine the concerns of signals in close proximity and determine
if an exception is justified for the particular conditions on US-163 in Kayenta Township. The study would also
determine if non-signalized improvements would be beneficial or necessary.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 60 of 91
A “Safe Routes to School” study should be completed to investigate potential improvements to US-163 that
would provide safer crossing for students entering and exiting the Kayenta Elementary School, the Kayenta
Middle School, and the Monument Valley High School. Options to be considered should include: pedestrian
traffic signals, High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) signals, solar-powered timed and activated school
zone speed limit signs, school warning signs, and other traffic control options.
North and east of the school property, a resort with a recreational theme is anticipated in the Comprehensive
General Plan. This resort should include both bicycle and equestrian facilities which connect to similar facilities
throughout Kayenta Township.
Southeast of the US-160 and US-163 intersection, is the Kayenta Rodeo Grounds. Equestrian facilities should
connect to this property. The signalized intersection should include pushbuttons at heights suitable for
individuals on horseback.
Future Environmental Conditions
For this study, future environmental conditions would be related to proposed transportation improvements,
including the proposed loop road; potential population growth; and development in the Kayenta Township,
including a proposed resort and new development in areas that are currently undeveloped. A summary of
future environmental conditions follows.
Environmental Justice
Data from the 2010 Census indicate that minority populations are present in CT 9425 (95.5 percent) and the
percentage of total minority populations is meaningfully higher than the corresponding percentages for Navajo
County and the State of Arizona. This tract is considered a protected population. As transportation
improvements are developed, further environmental justice analysis may be warranted to determine if
proposed improvements create a disproportionately high or adverse human health and environmental impact
on minority populations, and to identify any mitigation measures to address significant and adverse
environmental effects on this protected population.
Transportation improvements to the township would be expected to improve operational efficiency, reduce
traffic congestion, and improve access for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Topography and Soils
New development, changes in land use, and construction of new transportation structures would modify
existing landforms and convert land uses, such as agriculture, to commercial or residential use. Sensitivity to
topography (steep or unstable slopes) and soil conditions (low strength soils or highly erodible soils) would
need to be considered during the design of proposed transportation improvements to minimize excavation,
minimize erosion, and prevent structure failures.
Visual Resources
Ongoing development in the Kayenta Township, changes in land use, and construction of proposed
transportation improvements would detract from the surrounding natural setting and increase the urban
character of the visual environment.
As the transportation study progresses and transportation improvements are identified, sensitivity to the local
visual character and the surrounding scenic vistas should be considered. A visual impact assessment would
need to address the anticipated change to visual character associated with the development of transportation
improvements.
2012 Kayenta Township Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report
Page 61 of 91
Air Quality
Population growth in the area could increase traffic levels, thereby increasing the level of air pollutants emitted
from vehicles. Improvements to the existing transportation network could affect air quality at individual
receptors in the study area through a shift in traffic patterns. However, adding capacity to existing facilities or
constructing new roadways, such as the new proposed loop road, could reduce traffic congestion, thereby
reducing air pollutant emissions. The development of other modes of transportation (e.g., transit, bicycle,
pedestrian) could also reduce emissions by reducing the number of personal vehicles on the road system.
A temporary increase in air pollutant emissions would be expected during construction of transportation
improvements due to equipment operation and the slower traffic speeds associated with a construction zone.
However, this would be a localized condition that would cease when construction is complete.
Noise Impacts
Sensitive receptors are located in the study area. Several of these sensitive receptors are within 1,000 feet of
primary roads. As population growth continues in the Kayenta Township, noise levels in the study would be
expected to increase due to increased traffic. Construction of a proposed loop road may divert some traffic
noise away from sensitive receptors along US-160, US-163, BIA-6485, and BIA-591. A qualitative or
quantitative noise analysis would need to be conducted for the proposed transportation improvements to
determine the nature and extent of noise impacts.
Temporary noise impacts would be experienced during construction of proposed transportation improveme