2009 Navajo Nation long range transportation plan

              ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Navajo Division of Transportation wishes to acknowledge and recognize the following people for their
support, contributions, or participation in the 2009 Navajo Long Range Comprehensive Transportation
Plan development.
Transportation and Community Development Committee:
Sampson Begay, Chairperson Willie Begay Leslie Dele David B. Rico
Johnny Naize, Vice-Chair Omer Begay Lorenzo Bedonie Jerry Bodie
Advisor: Gerri Harrison
Northern Navajo Agency Roads Committee:
Lena Clark, Chairperson John Billie Robert C. Begay Herman Farley
Stanley Hardy, Vice-Chair Lucinda Bennalley
Western Navajo Agency Roads Committee:
Katerine Benally, Chairperson Chester Claw Evelyn Acothley Ernest Goatson
Larry Goodman, Vice-Chair Lorenzo Isaac Jr. Freida Maloney Rosita Kelly
Harry Wagoner Stanley Clitso
Eastern Navajo Agency Roads Committee:
David Lee, Chairperson Thomas Barbone Tony Padilla Frank Willeto
Anthony Begay, Vice-Chair Mark Begay Pauline McCauley Annabelle Pino
Chinle Agency Roads Committee:
Leonard Pete, Chairperson Aaron Yazzie Samuel Yazzie Katherine Arthur
Percey Deal, Vice-Chair David Kedelty
Fort Defiance Agency Roads Committee:
Raymond Berchman, Chair Mel Begay Roscoe Smith Roger Paul
Andrew Simpson, Vice-Chair Bennie Hanley, Sr. Willis Nez Christine Wallace
BIA - Navajo Region Division of Transportation:
Ervin Bekis Regional Road Engineer
Harold Riley Assistant Regional Road Engineer
Joan Greiser Road Maintenance Engineer
Corwyn Henry Structural Engineer
2009 LRTP Technical Advisory Committee Members:
Andrew Bertelsen, Coconino County
Ben Bennett, Behavioral Health Services
Charley Joe, Shiprock Chapter
Chris Fetzer, Northern Arizona Council of Governments
Dave Keck, San Juan County
Ferrin Crosby, Apache County
Harold Riley, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Homero Vela, Navajo County
Jarvis Williams, Kayenta Township
John Harper, Arizona Department of Transportation
John McElroy, New Mexico Department of Transportation
Joyce Nez, Chinle Chapter
Lee Bigwater, Navajo Transit System
Lynn Johnson, Arizona Department of Transportation
Monte Aldridge, Utah Department of Transportation
Robert Kuipers, Regional Planning Organization - Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments
Calvin Castillo, NRODOT- Fort Defiance Agency
Robert Montoya, NRODOT- Northern Navajo Agency
Dineh Benally, NRODOT- Eastern Navajo Agency
The following individuals or organizations:
Trib Choudhary, Division of Economic Development
John Largo, Division of Economic Development
Verginia Yazzie, Navajo Tourism Development
Phefelia Johnson, Navajo Nation Gaming Enterprise
Martin Begay, Navajo Parks and Recreation
Bradley Nesemeier, Minerals Department
Robert L. Kirk, Water Management, Water Resources Department
Jason Long, Water Management, Water Resources Department
Government Development Office, Navajo Nation Legislative Branch
Kayenta Township
Federal Aviation Administration
Arizona Department of Transportation
New Mexico Department of Transportation
Utah Department of Transportation
Navajo Area Indian Health Service Program Planning and Evaluation
Winslow Indian Health Care Center, Incorporated
Alamo Navajo Health Center
Navajo Housing Authority
Navajo Division of Transportation:
Tom Platero Larry Joe Arlando Teller Joe Salt
Riley Wilson Margie Begay Valcita Thompson Yolanda Woody
Lemont Yazzie Vanessa Taho Leanne Roy Darlene Jenkins
Jonah Begay Velma Bitsitty Theran Tallsalt David Warren
Stephen Calvin Patricia White David Silversmith Emerson Tracey
Funding Agency:
ADOT – Small Area Transportation Study Program
Principal Editors:
Don Sneed, ADOT
Misty Dayzie, ADOT
Harold Riley, NRO-DOT
Dan Marum, Wilson & Company
Principal Authors:
Salisa Norstog, Navajo DOT
Don Sneed, ADOT
Susan Anderson, Wilson & Company
Jim Townsend, Wilson & Company
Jeff Swan, Woodson Engineering
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... I-1
A. PLAN INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. I-1
B. PLAN GOALS............................................................................................................................... I-1
C. FEDERAL FUNDING OF INDIAN RESERVATION ROAD SYSTEM........................................... I-3
D. SAFETEA-LU REVIEW ................................................................................................................. I-3
E. ROAD CONSTRUCTION FUNDS................................................................................................. I-4
F. NAVAJO NATION’S CONCERNS................................................................................................. I-6
G. LRTP PLANNING PROCESS ..................................................................................................... I-10
H. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................... I-11
CHAPTER II -NAVAJO NATION PROFILE ................................................................ II-1
A. NAVAJO NATION GOVERNMENT.............................................................................................. II-1
B. LAND BASE................................................................................................................................. II-1
C. POPULATION.............................................................................................................................. II-3
D. NAVAJO NATION ECONOMY..................................................................................................... II-4
E. LAND USE................................................................................................................................... II-5
F. MODES OF TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................ II-7
CHAPTER III - NAVAJO NATION INDIAN RESERVATION ROAD SYSTEM......... III-1
A. NAVAJO NATION IRR SYSTEM................................................................................................. III-1
B. NAVAJO-BIA ROADS ................................................................................................................. III-3
C. TRIBAL ROADS .......................................................................................................................... III-9
D. STATE ROADS ......................................................................................................................... III-10
E. COUNTY ROADS...................................................................................................................... III-11
F. OTHER BIA PROGRAM ROADS.............................................................................................. III-12
G. OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY ROADS ...................................................................................... III-13
H. OTHER ROADS ........................................................................................................................ III-13
CHAPTER IV - NAVAJO-BIA ROADS TRAFFIC DEMAND...................................... IV-1
A. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME ................................................................................................... IV-1
B. TRAFFIC DEMAND FORECAST ................................................................................................ IV-1
C. TRAVEL PATTERNS .................................................................................................................. IV-2
CHAPTER V -TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT...................................... V-1
A. PLANNING METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................... V-1
B. NAVAJO-BIA ROAD ISSUES AND NEEDS ................................................................................ V-4
NEED 1: Highway Geometric Design Deficiencies ..................................................................... V-4
NEED 2: Network Connectivity Needs ....................................................................................... V-6
NEED 3: Pavement Deficiencies............................................................................................... V-11
NEED 4: Safety ......................................................................................................................... V-11
NEED 5: Chapter House Access Needs ................................................................................... V-25
NEED 6: Growth Center Street Needs...................................................................................... V-27
NEED 7: Community Economic Development Transportation Needs ...................................... V-28
NEED 8: Scenic Byways, Tourism & Recreation Needs........................................................... V-45
NEED 9: Multimodal Transportation Needs .............................................................................. V-49
NEED 10: Other Transportation Needs..................................................................................... V-53
NEED 11: Cultural Environmental Considerations:................................................................... V-56
C. TOTAL NEEDS.......................................................................................................................... V-61
CHAPTER VI -Conclusions and Recommendations for Navajo-BIA Mobility
Improvements ........................................................................................................... VI-1
A. Improvement Types and Mileage ................................................................................................VI-1
B. Improvement Cost ....................................................................................................................... VI-3
C. Implementation Plan.................................................................................................................... VI-3
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
D. Safety Improvements................................................................................................................... VI-5
1. Safety Improvement Program ........................................................................................ VI-5
2. Open Range Policy......................................................................................................... VI-6
3. Vendors in the ROW....................................................................................................... VI-6
4. Access Management......................................................................................................VI-6
5. Navajo Nation Access Management .............................................................................. VI-6
6. BIA Access Management ............................................................................................... VI-7
7. Arizona Access Management......................................................................................... VI-7
8. New Mexico Access Management ................................................................................. VI-7
9. Utah Access Management ............................................................................................. VI-8
10. Access Management Strategies..................................................................................... VI-8
11. Signing Program.............................................................................................................VI-9
12. Striping Program...........................................................................................................VI-10
E. Transit....................................................................................................................................... VI-10
F. Master Planning........................................................................................................................ VI-10
G. DOT Coordination..................................................................................................................... VI-11
H. Title VI and Environmental Justice Implications ........................................................................ VI-12
I. Overall Study Recommendations and Implications...................................................................VI-13
J. Year 2009-2048 Navajo Nation Long Range Construction Priority Schedule........................... VI-17
CHAPTER VII -GROWTH CENTER MOBILITY........................................................ VII-1
A. Population Projection.................................................................................................................. VII-1
B. Development Trends .................................................................................................................. VII-1
C. Transportation Issues ................................................................................................................. VII-1
D. Planning Methodology................................................................................................................ VII-2
E. Growth Center Mobility Improvements ....................................................................................... VII-3
CHAPTER VIII -NAVAJO NATION AIRPORT NEEDS............................................ VIII-1
A. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... VIII-1
B. EXISTING AIRPORTS AND INVENTORY................................................................................ VIII-1
C. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................... VIII-7
D. LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND PLANS ........................................................... VIII-9
CHAPTER IX -NAVAJO BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ..................................... IX-1
A. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................... IX-1
B. FUNDING ................................................................................................................................... IX-1
C. BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ............................................................................................. IX-1
CHAPTER X -NAVAJO-BIA ROADS MAINTENANCE .............................................. X-1
A. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................... X-1
B. BIA NAVAJO ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM...................................................................... X-1
C. FUNDING .................................................................................................................................... X-1
D. NAVAJO ROAD MAINTENANCE NEEDS................................................................................... X-2
E. MAINTENANCE FUNDING NEEDS AND ESTIMATE................................................................. X-5
F. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS ................................................................................................. X-7
G. NAVAJO DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM .......................................................... X-7
CHAPTER XI -STATE HIGHWAY NEEDS................................................................. XI-1
A. STATE ROAD MILEAGE............................................................................................................. XI-1
1. Class 1 Roads: .................................................................................................................... XI-1
2. Class 2 Roads in Arizona: ...................................................................................................XI-1
3. Class 2 Roads in New Mexico:............................................................................................ XI-1
4. Class 2 Roads in Utah: ........................................................................................................ XI-2
B. STATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS .................................................................................... XI-2
C. Arizona State Highways .............................................................................................................. XI-2
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
1. I-40:..................................................................................................................................... XI-2
2. US 89: ................................................................................................................................. XI-2
3. US 89A:............................................................................................................................... XI-4
4. US 160: ............................................................................................................................... XI-4
5. US 163: ............................................................................................................................... XI-5
6. US 191: ............................................................................................................................... XI-5
7. AZ 61: ................................................................................................................................. XI-6
8. AZ 64: ................................................................................................................................. XI-7
9. AZ 77: ................................................................................................................................. XI-7
10. AZ 87: ................................................................................................................................. XI-7
11. AZ 98: ................................................................................................................................. XI-8
12. AZ 99: ................................................................................................................................. XI-8
13. AZ 264: ............................................................................................................................... XI-8
14. AZ 564: ............................................................................................................................... XI-9
D. New Mexico State Highways..................................................................................................... XI-10
1. I-40:................................................................................................................................... XI-10
2. US 64: ............................................................................................................................... XI-11
3. US 491: .............................................................................................................................. XI-11
4. US 550: .............................................................................................................................. XI-12
5. NM 57: ............................................................................................................................... XI-13
6. NM 118: ............................................................................................................................. XI-13
7. NM 122: ............................................................................................................................. XI-13
8. NM 134: ............................................................................................................................. XI-14
9. NM 169: ............................................................................................................................. XI-14
10. NM 197: ............................................................................................................................. XI-14
11. NM 264: ............................................................................................................................. XI-15
12. NM 371: ............................................................................................................................. XI-15
13. NM 400: ............................................................................................................................. XI-16
14. NM 509: ............................................................................................................................. XI-16
15. NM 566: ............................................................................................................................. XI-16
16. NM 597: ............................................................................................................................. XI-17
17. NM 602: ............................................................................................................................. XI-17
E. Utah State Highways ................................................................................................................. XI-18
1. UT 162: .............................................................................................................................. XI-18
2. UT 163: .............................................................................................................................. XI-18
3. UT 262: .............................................................................................................................. XI-19
CHAPTER XII -COUNTY ROAD NEEDS.................................................................. XII-1
A. COUNTY ROAD MILEAGE........................................................................................................XII-1
B. COUNTY ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS................................................................................ XII-3
CHAPTER XIII - TRIBAL ROAD NEEDS................................................................. XIII-1
A. TRIBAL ROAD MILEAGE..........................................................................................................XIII-1
B. TRIBAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ................................................................................. XIII-3
Appendix A – Returned Survey Questionnaires
Appendix B – Access Management Samples
Appendix C – Transportation Needs by Route
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
List of Tables
Table I-1. Summary of FY 2008 IRR Funding ............................................................................................ I-5
Table I-2. Federal Lands Highway Program – Funding Authorizations Table, FYs 2005-2009
(in Millions).................................................................................................................................... I-5
Table I-3. Nationwide IRR Inventory Total Mileage.................................................................................... I-7
Table I-4. Total IRR Inventory Roadway Mileage By Region..................................................................... I-7
Table I-5. TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU – IRR Construction Allocations in Million Dollars ........................... I-8
Table II-1. Land Area and Population by Agency..................................................................................... II-2
Table II-2. Population Projection by Agency ............................................................................................ II-4
Table II-3. Navajo Nation Employment Comparison by Sector................................................................ II-4
Table II-4. Navajo Nation's Employment by Industry ............................................................................... II-5
Table III-1. Overall Navajo Nation IRR System (in miles) ....................................................................... III-3
Table III-2. Navajo-BIA Roads by Functional Classification (in miles) .................................................... III-4
Table III-3. Navajo-BIA Roads by Surface Type (in miles)...................................................................... III-8
Table III-4. Tribal Roads (in miles) .......................................................................................................... III-9
Table III-5. State Roads (in miles) ......................................................................................................... III-10
Table III-6. County Roads (in miles)...................................................................................................... III-11
Table III-7. Other BIA Programs Roads (in miles)................................................................................. III-12
Table III-8. Other Federal Agency Roads (in miles).............................................................................. III-13
Table V-1. Geometric Design Standards.................................................................................................. V-4
Table V-2. Miles of Navajo-BIA Roads with Geometric Deficiencies/Total NEED 1 ................................ V-5
Table V-3a. Navajo-BIA Roads’ Surface Type By Class...........................................................................V-6
Table V-3. Unpaved Navajo-BIA Class 2 Road Segments with 20-Year ADT > 250 Meeting 81
IAM Requirements to Be Paved ................................................................................................V-10
Table V-4. Proposed Navajo-BIA Class 2 Roads...................................................................................V-10
Table V-5. Total Class 2 Road Needs.................................................................................................... V-10
Table V-6. Pavement Rating Standards................................................................................................. V-11
Table V-7. Miles of Navajo-BIA Roads with Pavement Deficiencies...................................................... V-11
Table V-8. Crash Rating System............................................................................................................ V-14
Table V-9. Road Sections with High Crash Rates.................................................................................. V-15
Table V-10. Road Intersections with High Number of Crashes.............................................................. V-15
Table V-11. Locations of Frequent Crashes at Development Access....................................................V-18
Table V-12 Major Fatal Crashes............................................................................................................. V-20
Table V-13. Potential Sidewalk and Pedestrian Crossing Needs .......................................................... V-21
Table V-14. Total Safety Needs ............................................................................................................. V-23
Table V-15. BIA Class 4 Roads Providing Access to Chapter Houses.................................................. V-25
Table V-16. Growth Centers' Existing Streets, Lighting, and Signalization............................................ V-27
Table V-17. Growth Centers' Proposed Improvements and Needs on Navajo-BIA Roads ................... V-28
Table V-18. Growth Centers' Proposed Improvements and Needs on State Highways........................ V-28
Table V-19. Health Care Visits ............................................................................................................... V-30
Table V-20. Proposed NAIS and Contract Health Care Facilities .......................................................... V-30
Table V-21. Transportation Needs for Proposed NAIS Facilities ........................................................... V-30
Table V-22 Proposed Tribal Health Facilities ......................................................................................... V-31
Table V-23. Proposed Housing and Related Transportation Needs by Chapters ................................. V-31
Table V-24 Enrollment Demographics – SY 2006-07 ............................................................................. V-32
Table V-25 Proposed Schools and Headstart Projects........................................................................... V-32
Table V-26 Navajo Nation Economic Development Priorities ................................................................. V-35
Table V-27 Other Economic Development Projects................................................................................V-36
Table V-28. 2009 Capital Improvement Program...................................................................................V-40
Table V-29. Scenic Byway Related Transportation Needs .................................................................... V-45
Table V-30. Park Access Needs with Project Priority............................................................................ V-47
Table V-31. Chapters’ Planned Park and Recreation Projects ............................................................... V-49
Table V-32. Total Scenic Byways, Tourism, and Recreation Transportation Needs .............................. V-49
Table V-33. Airport Road Construction Needs....................................................................................... V-50
Table V-34. Navajo Transit Recommendations...................................................................................... V-51
Table V-35. Navajo Transit Long Range Plan Recommendation ........................................................... V-51
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
Table V-36. Total Mulitmodal Transportation Needs...............................................................................V-53
Table V-37 Transportation Needs to Meet I-40 Emergency Detour Use ................................................ V-56
Table V-38 Total Other Transportation Needs ........................................................................................ V-56
Table V-39. Total Transportation Needs/Findings................................................................................... V-64
Table VI-1 Navajo-BIA Roads’ Long Range Road Improvement Needs in Miles .................................... VI-2
Table VI-2 Navajo-BIA Road Improvement Cost (in $millions) ............................................................... VI-3
Table VI-3 Long Range Transportation Planning Priority........................................................................VI-5
Table VI-4 2007 Racial Demographics.................................................................................................. VI-12
Table VI-5 2007 Socioeconomic Demographics ...................................................................................VI-12
Table VI-6 Overall Long Range Transportation Improvement Needs and Impacts .............................. VI-14
Table VII-1. Growth Center Population Projections for Years 2000-2030............................................... VII-1
Table VIII-1. Existing Navajo Nation Primary Airport Inventory............................................................. VIII-4
Table VIII-2. Existing Navajo Nation Secondary Airport Inventory........................................................ VIII-6
Table VIII-3. Existing Airports within the geographic area not owned or operated by Navajo
Nation ....................................................................................................................................... VIII-7
Table VIII-4. Navajo Nation Airport Based Aircraft and Annual Operation Forecast............................. VIII-9
Table VIII-5. Proposed 20-Year Improvement Plan for Primary Airports ............................................ VIII-10
Table VIII-6. Proposed 20-Year Improvement Plan for Secondary Airports ....................................... VIII-13
Table VIII-7. Total Estimated 20-Year Airport Improvement Costs ..................................................... VIII-13
Table IX-1. Navajo Bridges Needing Replacement................................................................................. IX-2
Table IX-2. Navajo Bridges Needing Rehabilitation ................................................................................ IX-3
Table IX-3. Total Funding Needs for Navajo Bridge Improvements........................................................ IX-3
Table X-1. Level of Service ...................................................................................................................... X-3
Table X-2. BIA and County Road Maintenance Data...............................................................................X-6
Table X-3. Navajo Region Road Deferred Maintenance Program FY 2008 ...........................................X-6
Table X-4. Mileage of Roads Maintained Under Interagency Agreements............................................... X-7
Table XI-1. State Roads (in miles)............................................................................................................ XI-1
Table XII-1. County Roads by Surface Type (in miles) .......................................................................... XII-2
Table XII-2. Miles of County Roads with Geometric Design Deficiencies/Total 1,620.4 miles .............. XII-3
Table XII-3. Cost to improve County Roads with Geometric Design Deficiencies.................................. XII-3
Table XIII-1. Tribal Roads by Surface Type (in miles)........................................................................... XIII-2
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
List of Figures
Figure I-1. IRR Funding .............................................................................................................................. I-8
Figure I-2. Navajo Nation LRTP Planning Process .................................................................................. I-10
Figure II-1. Navajo Nation Land Base ...................................................................................................... II-2
Figure II-2. Navajo Nation Land Use ........................................................................................................ II-6
Figure III-1. Navajo Nation IRR System ................................................................................................... III-1
Figure III-2. Navajo-BIA Roads................................................................................................................ III-3
Figure III-3. Navajo-BIA Roads by Functional Classification................................................................... III-4
Figure III-4. Navajo-BIA Roads by Surface Type .................................................................................... III-8
Figure III-5. Tribal Roads......................................................................................................................... III-9
Figure III-6. State Roads ....................................................................................................................... III-10
Figure III-7. County Roads .................................................................................................................... III-11
Figure III-8. Other BIA Program Roads ................................................................................................. III-12
Figure III-9. Other Federal Agency Roads ............................................................................................ III-13
Figure IV-1. Navajo-BIA Roads Traffic Volume....................................................................................... IV-1
Figure IV-2: Transportation Modal Split................................................................................................... IV-2
Figure V-1 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan Questionnaire Summary ...........................................V-2
Figure V-2. Planning / Needs Assessment Process................................................................................. V-3
Figure V-3. 1999-2007 Crashes by Road Ownership ............................................................................ V-12
Figure V-4. 1999-2007 Crashes by Agency ........................................................................................... V-12
Figure V-5. 1999-2007 Crashes by Cause............................................................................................. V-13
Figure V-6. 1999-2007 Crashes by Location.......................................................................................... V-14
Figure V-7. 1999-2007 Fatal Crashes .................................................................................................... V-20
Figure X-1 2008 Allocations ...................................................................................................................... X-3
Figure X-2 2007 Allocations ...................................................................................................................... X-3
Figure XII-1. County Road Mileage by County....................................................................................... XII-1
Figure XII-2. County Road Mileage by Surface Type............................................................................. XII-2
Figure XII-3. County Road Mileage by Class ......................................................................................... XII-2
Figure XII-4. 1999-2007 County Road Crashes by Cause..................................................................... XII-4
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
List of Maps
Map I-1. Navajo Nation Transportation Plan Area...................................................................................... I-2
Map III 1. Navajo IRR Road System........................................................................................................ III-2
Map III 2. Navajo-BIA Roads by Functional Classification ...................................................................... III-5
Map III 3. Navajo-BIA Roads by Surface Type........................................................................................ III-7
Map V-1. Navajo-BIA System: Class 2 and 4 Roads ..............................................................................V-7
Map V-2. Navajo-BIA System: Paved Class 2 and 4 Roads.................................................................... V-8
Map V-3. Navajo-BIA System: Unpaved Class 2 and 4 Roads with Existing ADT > 250 ........................ V-9
Map V-4. Safety Corridors ....................................................................................................................... V-16
Map V-5. Crashes at Intersections .......................................................................................................... V-17
Map V-6. Animal Involved Crashes ......................................................................................................... V-19
Map V-7. Fatal Crash Locations............................................................................................................. V-22
Map V-8. Crashes Involving Road Defect ............................................................................................... V-24
Map V-9. Chapter House Access Needs................................................................................................. V-26
Map V-10. Health Facilities..................................................................................................................... V-29
Map V-11. Proposed Schools and Headstart Programs ......................................................................... V-33
Map V-12. Economic Development Projects.......................................................................................... V-38
Map V-13. Navajo Nation Energy Development Plan ............................................................................. V-39
Map V-14. 2009 Capital Improvement Program......................................................................................V-44
Map V-15. Navajo Nation Scenic Byways ............................................................................................... V-46
Map V-16. Navajo Nation Proposed Parks and Recreation Projects Table V-31. Chapters’
Planned Park and Recreation Projects ................................................................................................... V-48
Map V-17. I-40 Closure Plan ................................................................................................................... V-55
Map V-18. Navajo Nation Aggregate Resources ....................................................................................V-60
Map V-19. Navajo Nation Water Resources - Well Locations................................................................. V-63
Map VII-1. Tuba City Mobility Improvements .......................................................................................... VII-5
Map VII-2. Shiprock Mobility Improvements............................................................................................ VII-9
Map VII-3. Chinle Mobility Improvements............................................................................................. VII-11
Map VII-4. Kayenta Mobility Improvements........................................................................................... VII-13
Map VII-5. Fort Defiance Mobility Improvements ..................................................................................VII-15
Map VII-6. Window Rock/St. Michaels Mobility Improvements ............................................................. VII-17
Map VII-7. Crownpoint Mobility Improvements...................................................................................... VII-19
Map VIII-1. Existing Navajo Nation Airports ........................................................................................... VIII-2
Map VIII-2. Proposed Primary and Secondary Airports ...................................................................... VIII-12
Map IX-1. Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Needs....................................................................... IX-4
2009 LRTP 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan
AASHTO American Association of State Highway Officials
ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ARC Agency Roads Committee
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
BIA-NRODOT Bureau of Indian Affairs - Navajo Regional Office - Division of Transportation
BLKM Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
CE Construction Engineering
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHR Community Health Representative
CTC Cost to Construct
DOE United States Department of Energy
DOI Department of the Interior
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FLIP Federal Lands Highway Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HTF Highway Trust Fund
HUD Housing and Urban Development
IRA Indian Reorganization Act
IRR Indian Reservation Roads
IRRCC Indian Reservation Roads Coordination Committee
ITEA Indian Tribal Economic Alliance
LGA Local Governance Act
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan
MMS Maintenance Management System
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MW Megawatts
NAIHS Navajo Area Indian Health Service
Navajo DOT Navajo Division of Transportation
NHA Navajo Housing Authority
NIIP Navajo Irrigation Industry Project
ACRONYMS
ACRONYMS
NMSHTD New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department
NPS United States National Park Service
NRRI Navajo Region Road Inventory
NTP Navajo Transmission Project
NTS Navajo Transit Service
PE Preliminary Engineering
PMS Pavement Management System
RIFDS Road Inventory Field Data Module
RNDF Relative Needs Distribution Formula
ROW Right-Of-Way
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
TCDC Transportation and Community Development Committee
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TTAM Tribal Transportation Allocation Methodology
TTIP Tribal Transportation Improvement Program
UDOT Utah Department of Transportation
USFS United States Forestry Service
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VPD Vehicles Per Day
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
1
2009 Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Background
The 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan is a twenty-year comprehensive plan developed
and updated by the Navajo Division of Transportation (Navajo DOT) in a five-year cycle. The 2009 LRTP
identifies the Nation’s multi-modal transportation needs over the next 20 years and develops strategies to
meet them. The plan provides long range planning policies and implementation strategies for the Navajo
Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program improvements. It is based on a comprehensive analysis of all
pertinent factors and issues affecting the Navajo Nation’s existing and future transportation needs.
The 2009 LRTP follows the planning process (Figure 0-1) which includes examination of tribal and IRR
program policies and transportation issues; socioeconomic data and development plans; all modes of
transportation data (roads, bridges, airports, transit and rails (including road inventory data for future traffic
volume and transportation improvement needs according to highway design guidelines and pavement
management requirements); and crash data analysis for safety needs. The review process includes public
involvement at public hearings and final approval by the tribal transportation committees.
Figure 0-1. Navajo Nation LRTP Planning Process
•Highway Bill & IRR Funding
•Socio-economic Trends
Public Hearings
IRR Needs & Recommendations:
•BIA Roads
•Tribal Roads
•State Roads
•County Roads
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PLANNING PROCESS
•Econ & Community Plans
•Chapter Land Use Plans
•Healthcare Service Plans
•Housing Plans
Step 1. Compile/Update Planning Information
Step 3. Transportation Needs Assessment
Step 4. Needs & Recommendations
Step 2. Update Navajo IRR System
Step 5. Review & Finalize Plan
Step 6. Final TCDC Approval
•Navajo IRR Update & Maps
*BIA*Tribal*State*County*
Step 7. Submit LRTP to NRO
•ADT/Traffic
Demand Analysis
•Road Design
•Development Needs Deficiency Needs
•Future Land Use Plans
•Safety
Analysis
Transportation Issues:
•Funding Issues
•Policy Issues
•Other issues
Intermodal:
•Airports
•Bridges
•Transit
•Rails
•Safety Plans
•Bike Plans
•Pedestrian Pln
LRTP Policies:
•Goals
•Financial Plan
•Strategies/Priority
Criteria
Public
Hearings
Final Plan
ARC & TCDC
Review
TCDC Approval
Other Plans:
•Airports
•Bridges
•Transit
•Rails
•Growth Centers
•Environmental
Justice
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
2
Public Involvement Process: The Long Range Transportation Plan update included a Technical
Advisory Committee made up of representatives from throughout Navajo Nation. The project team held
four (4) public meetings, located in Chinle, Tuba City, Window Rock and Shiprock. Additionally, a survey
was conducted to understand if any outlying concerns were not being addressed. Figure 0-2 is a
summary of the 143 survey responses.
Figure 0-2. Navajo Nation LRTP Survey Summary
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
3
Navajo IRR Mileage: The overall Navajo IRR system consists of 12,631.5 miles of public roads (2008
Navajo Region Road Inventory – Figure 0-3): Navajo-BIA roads (6,147.9 miles); tribal roads (2,895.7
miles); state roads (1,595.5 miles); county roads (1,907.5 miles); other BIA programs’ roads (46.9 miles);
other federal agency roads (37.2 miles), and others roads (0.8 miles).
Figure 0-3. Navajo Nation IRR System
Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory
B. Transportation Needs Assessment
Available data including the 2008 road inventory, 1999-2007 crash data, chapter land use plans and
planned development projected were used to identify overall transportation needs in relation to tribal and
IRR planning and highway design guidelines to meet transportation needs in the following areas:
Highway Geometric Design Deficiencies
Network Connectivity Needs
Pavement Deficiencies
Safety
Chapter House Access Needs
Growth Centers Mobility Needs
Community and Economic Development Transportation Needs
Scenic Byways, Tourism and Recreation
Multimodal Transportation Needs
Other Transportation Needs
Cultural Environmental Considerations
C. Navajo-BIA Road Transportation Needs
Of the total 6,147.9 miles Navajo-BIA Roads, 5,995.4 miles needs improvements such as surface upgrade
and/or widening. 1,313.8 miles of paved roads need pavement reconstruction and rehabilitation. When
these roads have been improved, the transportation needs mentioned above (B) will be addressed. Table
VI-1 below shows the recommended road improvement needs of the Navajo-BIA Roads by class.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
4
Table 0-1 Navajo-BIA Roads’ Long Range Road Improvement Needs in Miles
ADS CLASS FADT
Miles of
Roads
Needing
Only Surface
Imp
Miles of
Roads
Needing
Only
Roadway
Widening
Miles of Roads
Needing Surface
Imp & Roadway
Widening Sub-Total
2003 LRTP
Total By
Class
2009 LRTP
Total By
Class
1 N/A 0.9 0.1 0.3 1.3
2 N/A 2.0 0.8 0.0 2.8
3
1-Major
Arterial
N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 4.1
4 5.9 13.8 54.0 73.7
5 8.7 184.0 397.1 589.8
6
>=400
5.3 11.5 2.7 19.5
7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8 0.0 24.3 23.0 47.3
9
2-Rural
Minor
Arterial
<400
0.0 0.0 24.3 24.3
917.7 754.6
10 >250 17.5 15.0 138.2 170.7
10 50-250 1.8 5.2 365.8 372.8
11 >250 38.6 136.9 988.7 1164.2
11 50-250 33.7 82.0 1668.6 1784.3
11 <50 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1
12 >250 1.9 0.0 76.6 78.5
12
4-Rural
Major
Collector
50-250 0.0 0.0 185.4 185.4
4468.1 3757.0
13 >400 0.1 5.5 43.1 48.7
13 50-400 125.3 6.6 18.1 150.0
14 >400 2.9 28.5 72.0 103.4
14 50-400 68.5 14.7 806.2 889.4
15 >400 0.0 0.0 8.4 8.4
15
5-Rural
Local
50-400 0.0 0.0 202.2 202.2
0 1402.1
16
6-City Min
Arterial N/A 0.0 0.9 2.6 3.5 0.0 3.5
17
7-City
Collector N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
18 3-City Local N/A 8.8 23.5 1.8 34.1 61.5 34.1
Grand Total: 5447.3 5955.4
To improve 5,955.4 miles of the Navajo-BIA road system to meet the design standards will cost $6.5 billion
(Table VI-2). To address pavement deficiencies of 1,341.4 miles of paved Navajo-BIA roads alone
(Chapter 5 Need 3) will cost $1.4 billion. However, when roads are upgraded to meet the design
standards, pavement conditions will also be addressed. To address the overall Navajo-BIA road system
deficiencies, the Navajo Nation will need approximately $7.0 billion. This figure is seven times the current
20-year funding level of the Navajo IRR Program, which has been about $1 billion or $50 million per year.
Table VI-1 summarizes and compares improvement costs between 2009 to 2003 improvement needs of
the Navajo-BIA roads. The drastic increase from 2003 cost is partly due to the nearly double in
construction cost in recent years caused by fuel cost increase.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
5
Table 0-2 Navajo-BIA Road Improvement Cost (in $millions)
ADS CLASS FADT
Miles of
Roads
Needing
Only
Surface
Imp
Miles of
Roads
Needing
Only
Roadway
Widening
Miles of Roads
Needing
Surface Imp &
Roadway
Widening Sub-Total
2003 LRTP
Total By Class
2009 LRTP
Total By Class
1 N/A $1,621.18 $97.55 $287.98 $2,006.71
2 N/A $3,602.63 $1,017.41 $0.00 $4,620.04
3
1-Major
Arterial N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $6,626.75
4 $3,962.52 $6,578.34 $46,971.29 $57,512.16
5 $17,184.79 $143,682.36 $613,970.89 $774,838.04
6 >=400 $7,080.76 $3,064.10 $3,367.38 $13,512.23
7 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
8 $0.00 $17,256.06 $18,497.88 $35,753.95
9
2-Rural
Minor
Arterial <400 $0.00 $0.00 $28,738.92 $28,738.92 $705,236.00 $910,355.29
10 >250 $20,997.81 $17,213.29 $153,547.83 $191,758.94
10 50-250 $1,655.74 $3,156.54 $336,300.83 $341,113.11
11 >250 $17,436.49 $108,964.78 $1,169,256.91 $1,295,658.18
11 50-250 $26,248.70 $71,139.17 $2,036,678.17 $2,134,066.04
11 <50 $0.00 $236.23 $0.00 $236.23
12 >250 $650.75 $0.00 $61,130.04 $61,780.79
12
4-Rural
Major
Collector 50-250 $0.00 $0.00 $125,286.15 $125,286.15 $3,481,606.00 $4,149,899.44
13 >400 $90.84 $3,879.43 $31,595.85 $35,566.11
13 50-400 $66,262.56 $1,552.15 $10,592.06 $78,406.76
14 >400 $6,021.29 $19,050.97 $82,582.36 $107,654.62
14 50-400 $70,716.81 $6,796.71 $933,346.86 $1,010,860.37
15 >400 $0.00 $0.00 $9,184.22 $9,184.22
15
5-Rural
Local 50-400 $0.00 $0.00 $154,644.98 $154,644.98 $ 0 $1,396,317.06
16
6-City
Minor Art N/A $0.00 $423.78 $1,534.00 $1,957.78 $ 0 $1,957.78
17
7-City
Collector N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0
18
3-City
Local N/A $13,675.30 $12,962.03 $1,062.00 $27,699.33 $31,535.00 $27,699.33
Grand Total: $4,218,377.00 $6,492,855.65
Implementation Strategies: To address the Navajo Nation’s long range transportation needs,
transportation decision-makers need to set and follow the long and short range road improvement goals
and objectives, funding strategies and priorities.
Long Range Goals and Objectives
To upgrade roads to meet design standards and management system requirements to correct deficiencies
as well as to improve overall network connectivity, travel mobility and accessibility.
 To improve travel safety and reduce accidents on the Navajo-BIA roads.
 To meet existing and future transportation needs in order to promote community and economic
vitality.
Funding Strategies
Seek to increase the Navajo IRR funding level through lobbying. Under the Federal Lands Highway
Program (FLHP), IRR Program funding needs are factored by population and development growth
(through ADT) unlike other FLHP programs, (e.g., Park roads and Parkways, Public Lands Highway
Discretionary, Forest Highway and Refuge Roads). These other FLHP roads do not carry the high levels of
daily traffic that wear out roads at greater rate: their road miles and traffic volumes are relatively constant.
Legislative formula should be established to allocate funds among FLHP programs based on actual needs,
instead of each program’s relative share.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
6
 Seek funding from the IRR Nationwide Bridge Priority Program to help meet the Navajo IRR bridge
improvement needs.
 Seek other funding sources such as the Indian Highway Safety Program ($1.1 million annually),
federal Hazard Elimination Program ($550 million annually), which funds safety improvements on
highways administered by the State and the BIA.
 Seek other funding sources such as Public Land Highway Discretionary Funds for Navajo scenic
byways projects and/or State Transportation Enhancement Fund for bicycle and pedestrian paths.
 Seek state/federal share of funding for improvement of Navajo-BIA routes to be used as detours
during I-40 emergency closures.
 Use the Navajo Nation Fuel Excise Tax to supplement the IRR funds.
 Fund projects according to project/need priority.
 Taxing: Currently, Kayenta is the only primary growth center with a self imposed sales tax of 2.5
percent. It is recommended that the primary and secondary growth center communities work with
the Division of Economic Development to identify and implement self funding mechanisms to aid in
enhancing infrastructure investment, ultimately improving economic development opportunities for
those that wish to invest within Navajo Nation.
Project Prioritization Criteria
When funding is insufficient, project prioritization is a crucial implementation strategy to help meet long
range mobility goals. The Long Range Transportation Plan recommends projects that address the long
range transportation needs as described in Table 0-4 be given ratings from high to low priority accordingly.
Table 0-3 Long Range Transportation Planning Priority
Points assigned Project Type
Immediate, core transportation needs and issues raised by local chapters,
tribal programs, school, healthcare providers, housing programs, intermodal
needs as well as BIA engineers.
School bus routes
NHA housing streets and access roads
Class 1 & 2 road improvement needs
Class 3 & 6 roads-pavement deficiencies
Safety improvements, sidewalks
Class 1,2 & 4 roads-pavement deficiencies
Economic and community development access needs
5-High Priority Projects
Bridge projects
Transportation needs and issues that are recommended for action after the
high priority needs have been met and if funds are available.
Growth center proposed streets
Class 4 & 5 roads-improvement upgrade
3-Moderate Priority Projects
Scenic byways and park access
Important transportation issues and needs to be implemented last. If IRR
funds are limited, should be funded from outside resources.
Bicycle routes
1-Low Priority Projects
Other transportation needs
0 Not a 20-year need nor listed on the LRTP
D. Plan Recommendations
To improve travel safety on the Navajo IRR, the Navajo Nation needs to review or consider developing
policies and programs in the following areas:
 Safety Improvement Program - An annual Safety Improvement Program should be established
to develop a systematic approach for crash mitigation based on reported crash data. The crash
data, coupled with the IRR Roadway Inventory database will provide the data necessary to
understand the high crash location areas throughout the Navajo Nation transportation system.
 Open Range Policy - The Open Range Policy adopted by the Navajo Nation and State of Arizona
needs to be re-evaluated to improve safety to prevent animals on roadways and reduce animal
related crashes on the Navajo Nation.
 Venders in the ROW - Statistics show there are crashes related to vendors within highway ROW
selling crafts, foods, etc. As a government, the Navajo decision makers need to partner with the
States to jointly establish policy, legislation and enforcement guidelines to make the road safer
while still providing a means for local artists and supporting the needed tourism.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
7
 Access Management - A successful Access Management strategy for Navajo Nation should be
developed to fully protect the transportation infrastructure investments made on the system.
 Signing Program - An annual signing program should be established to enhance on-road and
roadside safety. The annual signing program would include all signs to regulate, warn or guide
motorists and should include new signs as well as signs that need to be replaced due to damage
or wear/reflectivity.
 Striping Program - An annual striping program should be established to enhance on-road and
roadside safety. The striping program would first focus on the highest traveled roadways to
ensure that roadway stripes can be seen to help drivers navigate in daytime, nighttime and
adverse weather conditions.
 Transit - The demand for Navajo Transit Service (NTS) exceeds the capacity and some market
areas are not served. Some growth centers do not have localized service and it is highly
recommended that a 20-year Transit Plan be developed to identify:
o Expanded Service Needs
o Local Service Needs
o Regional Service Needs
o Park-n-Ride Locations
 Master Planning - Each Primary and Secondary Growth Center should develop a Community
Plan that develops a 20-year plan that examines future land use, multi-modal transportation
needs, infrastructure needs, environmental considerations and unique characteristics to the
community.
 DOT Coordination - Common reoccurring coordination between the Navajo Division of
Transportation and the state DOTs should occur, either in the form of semi-annual or quarterly
meetings to ensure that the needs of the various Divisions within Navajo Nation and the state
DOTs have a common understanding of needs, priorities and processes. Additionally, crash data
coordination and data standardization between Navajo DOT and the State DOTs should occur so
safety and highway related data could be shared.
E. Bridge Improvements
There are 178 bridges on the Navajo-BIA roads. Of these 58 bridges were identified for deficiencies,
including 33 bridges needing replacement ($15.5M) and 25 bridges needing rehabilitation ($4.4M). The
anticipated total funding needs for bridge design and improvements is $23.8M.
F. Airports
To increase aviation service coverage and maximize FAA funding, develop all eight primary airports and
construct a new primary airport in Ramah Chapter to expand service coverage to this satellite Navajo
community. To upgrade all primary airports to meet Airplane Design Group II, Approach Category B
standards and increase capacity to meet future operation forecasts.
G. Maintenance
According to the BIA-NRODOT the $5.9 million FY 2008 road maintenance fund was allocated to all
agencies. While in FY 2007 $6.5 million was spent on routine maintenance, bridge maintenance, snow
and ice control, emergency maintenance, and program management. The shortfall in maintenance is an
issue that will degrade the roadways at a quicker pace.
H. State Highways
State roads are an important part of the Navajo IRR system. They are the main arterials connecting
Navajo Nation population centers to the Four Corners Area’s regional road networks, off-reservation towns
and major airports. They are part of the interstate, national (U.S.) and state highway systems. Most state
routes on the Navajo Reservation are rural two-lane highways except in urbanized areas where they are
four-lane with high traffic volume. Table XI-1 summarizes the state road mileage.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
8
Table 0-4. State Roads (in miles)
Agency
Arizona State
Highways
New Mexico State
Highways
Utah State
Highways Agency Total
New Lands 89.3 0.0 0.0 89.3
Northern 70.2 113.8 41.7 225.7
Western 503.5 25.9 529.4
Eastern 0.0 413.2 0.0 413.2
Chinle 60.8 0.0 0.0 60.8
Ft. Defiance 213.3 48.6 0.0 261.9
NIIP 0.0 15.2 0.0 15.2
State Total 937.1 590.8 67.6 1,595.5
Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory
Arizona, New Mexico and Utah State Departments of Transportation have classified these state roads
according to their own functional classification systems. However, under the IRR regulations, these state
highways meet the IRR functional classification for: Class 1, Major Arterial Roads, providing an integrated
network between large population centers and having average daily traffic of 10,000 vehicles per day with
more than two lanes of traffic; and Class 2, Rural Minor Arterial Roads, providing an integrated network
between large population centers and having average daily traffic less than 10,000 vehicles per day, may
link smaller towns and communities to major resort areas and generally provide for at least in-county or
inter-state service and are spaced at intervals consistent with population density.
Arizona State Road Needs: Of the total 937.1 miles of Arizona State Highways on the Navajo Nation, the
plan identifies transportation improvement needs on 69.2 miles of roadway within 5 years, and an
additional 98.4 miles of improvements within 10 years.
New Mexico State Road Needs: Of the total 590.8 miles of New Mexico State Highways on the Navajo
Nation, the plan identifies transportation improvement needs on 117.3 miles of highway within 5 years, and
49.1 miles of additional highway improvements within 10 years.
Utah State Road Needs: Of the total 67.6 miles of Utah State Highways on the Navajo Nation, the plan
identifies transportation improvement needs on 9.3 miles of highway within 5 years and 40 miles of
highway within 10 years.
I. County Road Transportation Needs
There are a total 1,907.5 miles of County roads within Navajo Nation and 1,620.4 miles of County roads
need surface improvement and roadway widening to safety meet the geometric design guidelines/IRR
adequate standards. The total cost to bring County Roads to the Geometric Design Standards is $1.4
billion.
J. Tribal Road Transportation Needs
There are a total 2,895.7 miles of Tribal Roads within Navajo Nation, and 2,831.0 miles need
improvements. Additionally, 53.3 miles of Class 3 Tribal Roads need improvements based on the BIA
pavement rating standards. This equates to approximately $2.9M in tribal road related needs.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
I-1
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
A. PLAN INTRODUCTION
The 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan (2009 LRTP) is a twenty-year comprehensive
plan developed and updated by the Navajo Division of Transportation (Navajo DOT) in a five-year cycle.
The study area includes the boundary limits of the Navajo Reservation and tribal ranch areas as situated
within the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Map 1-1 depicts the Transportation Plan study area.
The 2009 LRTP identifies the Nation’s multi-modal transportation needs over the next 20 years and
develops an implementation plan for improvements. The plan provides long range planning policies and
implementation guidelines for Navajo Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program improvements. It is based
on a comprehensive analysis of all pertinent factors and issues affecting the Navajo Nation’s existing and
future transportation needs.
The LRTP is an important component in obtaining Federal funding for roadway improvements through the
IRR Program. The Navajo IRR Program is administered jointly by the Bureau of Indian Affairs – Division
of Transportation and the Federal Lands Highways Program (FLHP) of the Federal Highway
Administration. The BIA Navajo Regional Office – Division of Transportation (BIA-NRODOT) administers
Navajo Region of the IRR Program construction and maintenance. To qualify for the funding, each Indian
Reservation must establish an approved long range transportation plan and Tribal Transportation
Improvement Program (TTIP) which is a 3- to 5-year road and bridge construction priority schedule. The
Navajo Nation will use this 2009 LRTP to satisfy the long range transportation plan requirement, and will
utilize the findings and recommendations of the LRTP to define a 3-5 year road and bridge construction of
the Navajo Nation Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The purpose of this plan, as required by federal agency regulations, is to identify transportation
improvement needs for funding of those Navajo Nation long range transportation improvements. This
LRTP is also intended to be a transportation planning tool for the Transportation and Community
Development Committee (TCDC) of the Navajo Nation Council and the Agency Roads Committees
(ARC). It further provides recommendations for long range improvements for Navajo-BIA, State, and
County roads, bridge, airport as well as transit improvements. The recommendations of the LRTP will
provide guidance to the Navajo Nation, Navajo DOT, the State Departments of Transportation, Chapter
communities within the Reservation, and private interests when considering future development plans.
B. PLAN GOALS
The Navajo Nation LRTP is the Navajo Nation’s vision of future transportation construction to fulfill and
meet the Nation’s long term transportation needs. The planning process and methodology used in this
plan includes examination of tribal and IRR program goals and objectives, highway design criteria, and
transportation issues to identify future needs.
Transportation Goals:
 To provide a comprehensive transportation system that encompasses all modes of transportation,
including rail, bus, and air.
 To provide safe and efficient transportation network to and within the Navajo Reservation.
 To improve overall road and bridge conditions to achieve a reduction in the number and severity of
traffic accidents.
 To develop the necessary multimodal transportation system to foster and support economic
development and increase employment opportunities.
 To provide a high level of connectivity between Growth Centers including Shiprock, Tuba City, Chinle,
Fort Defiance, Window Rock, Crownpoint, and Kayenta.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
"J
"J
"J
"J
"J
"J
"J
Utah
Arizona
Colorado
New Mexico
Alamo
Leupp
Pinon
Navajo
Dilkon
Shonto
Ganado
Tohatchi
Tohajiilee
Many Farms
Nahata Dziil
Tsaile/Wheatfields
Chinle
Kayenta
Shiprock
Tuba City
Window Rock Crownpoint
Fort Defiance
Page
Grants
Gallup
Winslow
Holbrook
Flagstaff
Farmington
±
0 5 10 20 30 40
Miles
Legend
"J Border Town
") Primary Growth Center
!( Secondary Growth Center
Interstate 40
US and State Highways
NIIP
New Lands
AGENCY
Chinle
Eastern
Fort Defiance
Northern
Western
Navajo Nation Ranches, Hopi Land
Map I-1
NAVAJO NATION
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
I-3
C. FEDERAL FUNDING OF INDIAN RESERVATION ROAD SYSTEM
The IRR program was established to provide for construction of public roads and bridges under Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) administration. Its funding is authorized under the Federal Lands Highway Program
(FLHP) and through the Bureau of Indian Affairs-Division of Transportation. The 1948 and subsequent
memorandum of agreements between the BIA and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) established
their joint responsibilities for the IRR program.
The purpose of the IRR program is to provide safe and adequate transportation facilities including public
road access to and within Indian reservations, Indian trust land, or Native American communities. Indian
Reservation Roads by definition include BIA, state, county, and other local government public roads.
In 1998, a funding distribution formula was developed for the IRR Program under the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Originally, tribal allocations were distributed according to the
Relative Needs Distribution Formula (RNDF). In July 2004, a new distribution formula and updated IRR
regulations, referred to as the Tribal Transportation Allocation Methodology (TTAM), as documented in
the IRR Program final regulation, 25 CFR Part 170. The TTAM uses an inventory of IRR facilities as the
major factor in determining the funding amounts that each Tribe receives. The updated regulation
removed growth limitations in the inventory and initiated significant incentives for Tribes to add all eligible
tribal, State, and county routes to the inventory with somewhat negative impacts to the larger land based
tribes.
Using the TTAM allocation formula, the IRR funds are distributed to twelve (12) BIA regional offices. The
IRR Program funds can be used for any type of Title 23 transportation project providing access to or
located within Federal or Indian reservations, Indian trust land, restricted Indian land, and Alaska native
villages, and may be used for the State Local matching share for apportioned Federal-aid Highway
Funds. Title 23, United State Code provides statutory requirements for IRR and other federal funded
highway programs. Congress has been appropriating funds for IRR through highway appropriations. The
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
authorized IRR funding for FY2005-2009.
As a condition for the continuance of IRR funds and in accordance with 23 USC 116, the BIA Regional
Offices and Tribes are responsible for road maintenance of BIA and tribal roads respectively using
Department of the Interior (DOI) funds appropriated annually under DOI Appropriation Acts, tribal funds,
and up to 25% of IRR construction funds authorized under SAFETEA_LU.
The current SAFETEA-LU highway authorization contains a statute that directs the Secretary of
Transportation, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, to complete a comprehensive national
inventory review of transportation facilities eligible under the IRR Program. Each year, the inventory may
be updated by tribes to reflect the transportation needs, which are ranked against the relative needs of
other tribes.
D. SAFETEA-LU REVIEW
P.L. 109-50, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU), was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 10, 2005, increasing IRR
funding to nearly $2 billion for FY2005-2009. However, it makes some changes to the FLHP, which
substantially affects the IRR program and its funding level, as described below.
IRR Program Activities
IRR funding for a highway, road, bridge, parkway, or transit facility project or activities on an Indian
reservation may be carried out, in accordance with the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act, to a requesting Indian tribal government or consortium (two or more tribes) that has
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
I-4
satisfactorily demonstrated financial stability and financial management to the Secretary. Funding
provided is to include any amount that would have been withheld for IRR Program administrative costs.
National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory
In order to identify the tribal transportation system and determine relative transportation needs among the
tribes, the Secretary is required to complete a comprehensive national inventory of transportation facilities
that are eligible for assistance under the IRR program within 2 years of enactment with a report to
Congress due within 90 days after the inventory is completed.
Nationwide Priority Program
Separate contract authority (replaces the previous set-aside) for 2005-2009 is provided for carrying out
planning, design, engineering, preconstruction, construction, and inspection of projects to replace
deficient IRR bridges. The Indian Reservation Road Bridge Program (IRRBP) was amended by
establishing new policies and provisions. It authorizes $14 million of IRRBP funds per year for the
replacement or rehabilitation of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete IRR bridges. In accordance
with these changes, the FHWA, with input and recommendations from the BIA and the Indian Reservation
Roads Coordinating Committee (IRRCC), is proposing funding distribution procedures for BIA owned and
non-BIA owned IRR bridge projects. The proposed changes allow funding for preliminary engineering
(PE), construction engineering (CE), and construction for the replacement or rehabilitation of structurally
deficient or functionally obsolete IRR bridges.
IRR Road & Bridge Maintenance
Up to 25% of a tribe's IRR construction funding may now be used for the purpose of road and bridge
maintenance, although BIA will retain primary responsibility for IRR maintenance programs through DOI
appropriations.
Tribal-State-BIA Road Maintenance Agreements
An Indian tribe may enter into a road maintenance agreement with a State and/or BIA to assume the
responsibilities of the respective DOT for roads in and providing access to Indian reservations. Annual
report to Congress is required beginning in 2005 (prepared and submitted by the Secretary) identifying
tribes and States that have entered into these agreements, miles assumed, and funds transferred.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Tribal Government Affairs
A new position in DOT is established to plan, coordinate, and implement DOT programs serving Indian
tribes.
Tribal Transit Grant Program
In SAFETEA-LU, Congress created a new Tribal Transit Grant Program, by reserving funds from the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rural transit program, called Section 5311 Rural Public
Transportation program to make federal transit grant funds directly available to Tribal governments. The
available grant funding started at $8 million in FY 2006 and increases in steps to $15 million in FY 2009.
E. ROAD CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
The Navajo IRR Program’s primary source of funding is the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), an interest-bearing
account funded by federal gasoline taxes, cross-country trucking levies, and other sources. IRR
funds are primarily distributed for construction and improvement of IRR roads, bridges, and other eligible
transportation facilities.
1. IRR Funds
SAFETEA-LU authorized a total of $1.93 billion for the IRR Program or 40% increase: $300M, $330M,
$370M, $410M, and $450M for fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 respectively. Table I-1
shows the FY2008 annual IRR appropriation and take-downs. Table I-2 summarizes the FLHP fund
program.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
I-5
Table I-1. Summary of FY 2008 IRR Funding
Tribal Transportation Allocation Methodolgy Up to $275M Over $275M Total
Authorized Funding Amounts 275,000,000 135,000,000 410,000,000
Less Rescission 0 0 0
Subtotal 275,000,000 135,000,000 410,000,000
Less FHWA takedown per Approps Bill 0 0 0
Subtotal 275,000,000 135,000,000 410,000,000
Less Lake Tahoe Funding 1,375,000 675,000 2,050,000
Subtotal 273,625,000 134,325,000 407,950,000
Less for Obligation Limitation (7.9%) 21,616,375 10,611,675 32,228,050
Subtotal 252,008,625 123,713,325 375,721,950
Less Bridge Inspections 670,732 329,268 1,000,000
BIA PM&O/PRAE 16,432,927 8,067,073 24,500,000
FLH-HQ (Inventory, Travel, S&O, and Safety) 1,006,098 493,902 1,500,000
Subtotal 233,898,868 114,823,082 348,721,950
LessTribal Transportation Planning (2%) 5,040,173 2,474,267 7,514,440
Subtotal 228,858,695 112,348,815 341,207,510
Available for RNDF Distribution @ 95% 217,415,762 @ 75% 84,261,611 301,677,373
Available for High Priority Project @ 5% 11,442,935 @ 12.5% 14,043,602 25,486,537
Available for Population Adjustment Factor @ 12.5% 14,043,602 14,043,602
Available for Tribal Transportation Planning 5,040,173 2,474,267 7,514,440
Total Funds Available for Distribution 348,721,952
Source: Navajo DOT
Table I-2. Federal Lands Highway Program – Funding Authorizations Table, FYs 2005-2009 (in
Millions)
Funded Program 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total
B.1 Emergency Relief - Federal Roads Funding levels determined as needed
B.2 Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) 300 330 370 410 450 1,860.0
B.3a IRR Maintenance Up to 25% of funding in B.2
B.4 IRR Bridge 14 14 14 14 14 70.0
B.5 Park Roads & Parkways 180 195 210 225 240 1,050.0
B.6 Public Lands Highways 260 280 280 290 300 1,410.0
B.7 Refuge Roads 29 29 29 29 29 145.0
* BIA Maintenance and IRR Bridge authorizations are estimates.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
I-6
2. Funding Distribution Formula
As a result of the mandated TEA-21 negotiated rulemaking process, the 25 CFR Part 170 Indian
Reservation Roads Program regulations set forth the Tribal Transportation Allocation Methodology
(TTAM) to allocate IRR Program funds. After appropriate statutory and regulatory set-asides, as well as
other takedowns, the remaining funds are allocated as shown in the chart below.
F. NAVAJO NATION’S CONCERNS
1. Road Inventory Issue
TEA-21 of 1998 mandated a rewriting of the 25 CFR Part 170. The new rule implemented in November
2004 included all IRR roads (state, county, BIA, etc) in the distribution formula.
The new 25 CFR Part 170 allows roads other than BIA to be computed in the IRR funding distribution
formula that permits tribes and regions to inventory and include roads under the ownerships of State and
County. This creates a disproportionate and drastic increase in the national IRR inventory mileage total
(See Table I-3 and Table I-4). Regions with high amounts of County and State roads and few BIA roads
are allocated higher amounts of funding for their BIA/tribal roads due to this change in the inventory and
formula.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
I-7
Table I-3. Nationwide IRR Inventory Total Mileage
Year of
Inventory
BIA
Roads
Mileage
Tribal
Roads
Mileage
State
Roads
Mileage
County
Roads
Mileage
Other
Agency
Mileage
Approved Total
IRR Mileage
1994 25,700* 25,600* 51,300
2005 27,518 2,851 9,049 22,324 1,037 62,779
2006 28,882 4,287 13,164 34,345 4,646 85,324
2007 29,878 9,659 13,676 43,077 5,393 101,683
* These categories were combined in 1994.
Notes: 1994 and 2004 Additional Mileages were rounded to the nearest mile.
Source: FHWA, IRR Program Comprehensive Inventory Report, January 2008.
Table I-4. Total IRR Inventory Roadway Mileage By Region
Region 2005 2006 2007
Great Plains 7,925 12,562 14,343
Southern Plains 2,144 2,217 3,220
Rocky Mountain 3,414 6,575 8,129
Alaska 3,172 7,478 12,722
Midwest 10,173 13,596 14,009
Eastern Oklahoma 2,657 7,628 11,288
Western 7,216 7,218 7,587
Pacific 795 1,272 1,489
Southwest 4,652 5,517 6,117
Navajo 9,753 9,810 10,076
Northwest 9,547 9,983 10,762
Eastern 1,331 1,468 1,931
Total 62,779 85,324 101,683
Source: FHWA, IRR Program Comprehensive Inventory Report, January 2008.
2. Decreased IRR Funding for Navajo Nation
This new TTAM method of computing IRR funding has created a dramatic shift in IRR funding distribution
among the BIA regions from funding of past years. Now large tribes with high BIA and Tribal road mileage
get less percentage of the available funding, while some small tribes and regions with much less BIA road
mileage, but with added mileage of state and county roads to their system, get substantial increases.
Table I-5 illustrates this redistribution of funds in recent years. Navajo Region’s funding reduced from an
average of 26% during TEA-21 share to 17%share during SAFETEA-LU as shown on Figure I-1 below.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
I-8
Figure I-1. IRR Funding
Table I-5. TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU – IRR Construction Allocations in Million Dollars
TEA-21 SAFETEA-LU
Region FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY 2007 FY 2008
In
$million %
In
$million %
In
$million % In $million % In $million %
Great Plains
$20.225 10.3% $22.243 9.2% $28.115 12.0% $19.600 7.1% $24.500 8.1%
South Plains
$9.455 4.8% $8.847 3.7% $10.331 4.4% $8.800 3.2% $10.100 3.3%
Rocky Mtn
$13.940 7.1% $25.197 10.4% $16.850 7.2% $23.300 8.4% $22.800 7.6%
Alaska
$23.569 12.0% $17.997 7.4% $27.099 11.5% $31.300 11.3% $39.400 13.1%
Midwest
$9.859 5.0% $9.931 4.1% $11.340 4.8% $40.200 14.5% $44.400 14.7%
E Oklahoma
$20.213 10.3% $20.059 8.3% $17.303 7.4% $40.600 14.6% $43.700 14.5%
Western
$9.455 4.8% $30.369 12.6% $9.894 4.2% $19.600 7.1% $19.200 6.4%
Pacific
$5.257 2.7% $6.229 2.6% $8.303 3.5% $6.400 2.3% $5.700 1.9%
Southwest
$13.485 6.8% $14.184 5.9% $21.231 9.0% $16.800 6.1% $13.200 4.4%
Navajo
$64.493 32.7% $67.528 27.9% $57.320 24.4% $47.400 17.1% $52.200 17.3%
Northwest
$3.368 1.7% $14.482 6.0% $14.273 6.1% $17.400 6.3% $20.200 6.7%
Eastern
$3.811 1.9% $4.745 2.0% $12.754 5.4% $5.900 2.1% $6.300 2.1%
Total $197.132 100% $241.811 100% $234.812 100% $277.300 100% $301.700 100%
Source: Navajo Regional Office Division of Transportation.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
I-9
Figure I-1 shows while total IRR funding increased 40% during SAFETEA-LU, Navajo Region’s funding
decreased. This may derive from not only the change in the inventory to include the State and County
roads but also from the 25% set aside (12.5% to High Priority Projects and 12.5% for Population
Adjustment Factor) making only 75% of the total IRR program fund available for road construction. This
also means that 75% of remaining IRR funds for road construction is not enough and 25% set-aside is too
much, indicating the TTAM or formula needs to be changed. This in turn has caused an enormous
backlog of transportation need for Navajo due to the funding share dropping while the needs continue to
grow.
3. Obligation Limitation & Funding Impacts
The obligation limitation is a congressional contract authority reduction on available IRR funds,
approximately 7%-15% of each annual appropriation. Prior to TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU, the FLHP,
including the IRR, were exempt from this annual deduction. A comparison of the IRR program funding
levels to those of State highways funding, indicates that the entire IRR Program is funded less than the
smallest state DOT program, even though the mileage of all BIA roads equals the mileage of a
comparable state road system. The obligation limitation even further reduces the actual funding available
for the IRR road construction, and, thus transportation needs of tribal roads can not be fully funded.
4. Navajo Nation Objectives
On June 19, 2008, the TCDC of the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution to approve the Navajo
Nation Position on the Indian Reservation Roads Program Funding Distribution and Recommendations to
the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Addressing the Concerns in 25 CFR 170, Appendix C to Subpart
C.
This document states that the Navajo Nation participated in the IRR TEA-21 Negotiated rulemaking
process in good faith to develop a fair and equitable funding distribution formula. The Navajo Nation
consented to adding a provision to implement a new “Highest Priority Projects Program” along with the
“Population Adjustment Factor” to address smaller tribe’s transportation needs.
While working with the new regulation, the Navajo Nation realizes that some provisions were modified
and the final rule is not as intended. The IRR inventories of other tribes are being inflated with road
mileage that are owned by others, i.e. county and state roads, which are eligible to receive separate
funding. This is occurring due to 25 CFR 170, Appendix C to Subpart C, Question 10.
The Navajo Nation believes the IRR program is to serve members of Indian tribes residing on
Reservations. Therefore, the federal IRR funds appropriated for road construction should be primarily
used for roads within the reservations. County and state roads are facilities under the jurisdiction of those
respective governmental agencies. Thus, the Navajo Nation agrees that 25 CFR 170, Appendix C to
Subpart C, Question 10 needs to be re-written to clarify and make a distinction between which roads
generate 100% funding in the formula and which roads should be factored in at a lower percentage.
The current funding formula favors roads owned by others, with higher traffic volumes, which are eligible
for other federal funds. Use of a “Sliding Scale Rates of Federal-Aid Participation in Public Lands State
for Projects on the Interstate System” application does not treat all tribes equally because the rates
fluctuate from state to state.
The Navajo Nation believes that in order to be fair and keep within the intent of the Rulemaking, the
county/township and urban roads that were grandfathered into the official inventory at the start of the new
regulation be counted at 100% until the end of Fiscal Year 2009, where they may then be counted at a
modified non Federal sliding scale. All state, other federal, and interstate roads would be set to 0% Cost
to Construct (CTC) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
I-10
The Navajo Nation will not support changes to the relative need formula that will negatively influence the
additional tribal roads that will be included during the inventory update for this year and in later years.
G. LRTP PLANNING PROCESS
The long range transportation planning scope is comprehensive. It includes examination of tribal and IRR
program goals, objectives and transportation issues; compilation of information (socioeconomic data and
development plans); analyses of all modes of transportation data (roads, bridges, airports, transit and
rails); evaluation of road inventory data for future transportation according to highway design guidelines
and pavement management requirements; and crash data analysis for safety needs. The review process
includes public involvement at public hearings and final approval by the tribal transportation committees.
Figure I-2 below illustrates the LRTP process and explains the rational of this 2009 LRTP contents and
organization.
Figure I-2. Navajo Nation LRTP Planning Process
•Highway Bill & IRR Funding
•Socio-economic Trends
Public Hearings
IRR Needs & Recommendations:
•BIA Roads
•Tribal Roads
•State Roads
•County Roads
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PLANNING PROCESS
•Econ & Community Dev Plans
•Chapter Land Use Plans
•Healthcare Service Plans
•Housing Plans
Step 1. Compile/Update Planning Information
Step 3. Transportation Needs Assessment
Step 4. Needs & Recommendations
Step 2. Update Navajo IRR System
Step 5. Review & Finalize Plan
Step 6. Final TCDC Approval
•Navajo Inventory Update Data
*BIA*Tribal*State*County*
Step 7. Submit LRTP to NRO
•ADT/Traffic
Demand Analysis
•Road Design
•Development Needs Deficiency Needs
•Future Land Use Plans
•Safety
Analysis
Transportation Issues:
•Funding Issues
•Policy Issues
•Other issues
Intermodal:
•Airports
•Bridges
•Transit
•Rails
•Safety Needs
•Bike Path Needs
•Pedestrian Needs
LRTP Policies:
•Goals
•Financial Plan
•Strategies/Priority
Criteria
Public
Hearings
Final Plan
ARC & TCDC
Review
TCDC Approval
Intermodal needs:
•Airports
•Bridges
•Transit
•Rails
•Growth Centers
•Environmental
Justice
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
I-11
H. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The 2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan is organized into twelve chapters as follows:
 Chapter 1 documents the process for obtaining Federal funding through the IRR Program and the
historical and projected funding levels for the Navajo Nation.
 Chapter 2 provides a profile of the Navajo Nation to better understand the transportation needs of the
general population. This profile provides summaries of the various socioeconomic features of the
reservation, including population and employment forecasts, land uses, travel behaviors and
demands.
 Chapter 3 summarizes the IRR inventory for all roadways serving the Navajo Nation Reservation.
The inventory classifies the roadways into various jurisdictions, namely: Navajo-BIA, Tribal, State,
County, and other agency roads. Characteristics of these roadways are provided, as well as
supporting graphics to identify their locations.
 Chapter 4 discusses existing and future travel demands on the Navajo IRR roadway system. Primary
travel patterns and origins/destinations are presented.
 Chapter 5 comprises the entire transportation needs assessment for the Navajo Nation.
Transportation Needs are categorized into 11 focus areas: geometric design deficiencies, Class 2
Road needs, pavement deficiencies, safety concerns, Chapter House access needs, Growth Center
Street needs, community and economic development transportation needs, scenic byways and
tourism, intermodal transportation, other transportation needs, and cultural and environmental
considerations. The information in Chapter 5 captures the recommendations of the later chapters of
the study.
 Chapter 6 presents the conclusions and recommendations for the Navajo-BIA roads. Within this
chapter, the long range transportation plan is outlined, along with the improvement plan and funding
strategies to prioritize projects. The long range construction priority strategy is established.
 Chapter 7 presents the unique transportation needs of each Growth Center within the reservation.
Development trends are reviewed and the specific transportation issues for each community are
discussed.
 Chapter 8 outlines the Navajo Nation airport needs. Strategies for developing a master airport plan
are identified.
 Chapter 9 summarizes the bridge improvement and maintenance needs.
 Chapter 10 summarizes the Navajo-BIA road maintenance needs. General information on the Navajo
Road maintenance programs and its funding source are presented.
 Chapter 11 identifies the improvements needed along each major State highway that runs through
the Navajo Nation.
 Chapter 12 identifies the improvements needed along County roads serving the reservation.
 Chapter 13 identifies the improvements needed along Tribal roads serving the reservation.
 Appendix A shows returned survey questionnaires.
 Appendix B shows access management samples.
 Appendix C shows transportation needs by route.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
II-1
CHAPTER II - NAVAJO NATION PROFILE
This chapter provides background information of the Navajo Nation government, socioeconomic and
transportation characteristics that underline its transportation needs, funding formula, and decision
making,
A. NAVAJO NATION GOVERNMENT
The first Navajo Tribal Council was established in 1923, but it was not until 1938 that the first election
took place and an elected Tribal Chairman headed the Navajo Nation government. The Title II
Amendments passed in December 1989 established the present three-branch government of Executive,
Legislative, and Judicial Branches.
The Executive Branch is headed by the President of the Navajo Nation and the Vice President. The
Legislative Branch consists of the Speaker of the Council and the Navajo Nation Council comprised of 88
elected council delegates representing 110 chapters, consisting of the smallest recognized administrative
units in the communities. The Judicial Branch includes the Chief Justice and the Navajo Nation courts.
Elections for the President of the Navajo Nation and the Council Delegates are held every four years in
November. Elections for the local Chapters are held on the offsetting four-year term. Window Rock,
Arizona is the capital of the Navajo Nation where the tribal governmental headquarter is located.
The Navajo Nation is not an Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) tribe. Instead of a BIA-approved constitution,
the Navajo Tribal Codes govern Navajo Nation operations. The 1989 Title II Amendment gives the
oversight of all tribal government programs to twelve standing committees of the Navajo Nation Council.
One of the standing committees, the TCDC has oversight authority on all transportation development on
the Navajo Nation. Five ARCs identify agency-level transportation needs and recommend agency
construction priorities to TCDC. Each ARC is appointed by their respective Agency Council.
B. LAND BASE
The Navajo Nation Reservation is comprised of a complex mix of trust, allotted, railroad, fee, and private
lands. Also present is an overlap of state, county, tribal, and federal jurisdictional boundaries. Varying
jurisdictional methods for calculating, recording, and coding geographic information, combined with the
complexity of land ownership, make it hard to find accurate land acreage for the reservation. The data
and figures presented in this report are based on the available data provided by the Navajo Land
Department Title Section, BIA, states, counties, and other sources..
The Navajo Nation has the largest land base reservation in the United States. It encompasses
approximately 26,600 sq. miles or 17.0 million acres (68% in Arizona, 25% in New Mexico and 7% in
Utah).1 The reservation also falls under ten counties: Apache, Coconino, and Navajo in AZ; Bernalillo,
Cibola, McKinley, San Juan, Sandoval, and Socorro in NM; and San Juan in UT. Average density is 6.8
persons per square mile. The Navajo reservation also includes three Navajo satellite communities in
Alamo, Tohajiilee, and Ramah that are located in western and central New Mexico. The reservation land
is also organized into five agencies, 23 districts and 110 chapters.
The majority of the Navajo Reservation land, approximately 83%, is comprised of Navajo Tribal Trust
land, while the rest includes Tribal Fee land, Individual Navajo Allotment, State land, U.S. Forestry land,
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lease land, and other government tracts such as Executive
Orders, Public Land Orders, and school tracts. Most of the tribal fee lands, allotments, and BLM leases
are in the Eastern Navajo Agency in New Mexico; these areas are referred to as the Checkerboard area.
Figure II-1 shows the distribution of the Navajo Nation land base.
1 Division of Economic Development Website 2008, Navajo Nation Land Area
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
II-2
Figure II-1. Navajo Nation Land Base
The five Navajo agencies are Shiprock/Northern Navajo, Western Navajo, Eastern Navajo, Chinle and
Fort Defiance Agencies. The New Lands (Nahat’a’ Dziil) Chapter, which was acquired pursuant to the
1974 Navajo-Hopi Relocation Act and Navajo Irrigation Industry Project (NIIP), which is the commercial
agricultural area designated for tribal agri-industry development are considered additional agencies by the
BIA -NRODOT for the IRR program management purpose. Ramah is a satellite community that does not
have acreage but is counted in the Census. Table II-1 shows the relative population and acreage within
each agency.
Table II-1. Land Area and Population by Agency
Agency 2000 Population Land Acreage
Shiprock/Northern Navajo 30,981 2,641,395
Western Navajo 38,260 5,549,025
Eastern Navajo 33,841 3,341,125
Chinle 28,491 1,883,269
Ft. Defiance 45,761 3,157,550
New Lands 1,452 345,032
NIIP 0 110,630
Ramah 1676
Total 180,462 17,028,026
Sources: Census 2000 Data Land Department-Title Section 03/31/98
Notes: Each Agency’s acreage is based on the geographical polygon area from the Agency shapefile.
The Navajo IRR Program funds construction and improvement of the Navajo-BIA roads and other
transportation infrastructure within the Navajo Reservation for each of these agencies, with the exception
of the Ramah area. This area receives separate funding for its administration and programs from the
BIA-Southwest Regional Office.
The lands covered by the Navajo IRR Program include the newly acquired lands/ranches. These lands
are acquired from the Navajo-Hopi dispute and are located within the Western agency. Roads on these
newly acquired lands/ranches are being inventoried and will be added to the IRR system.
Road development on U.S. Forestry lands receive funding from the FLHP under separate categories.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
II-3
C. POPULATION
According to the 2000 Census, the Navajo Nation is the largest Indian tribe in the United States with an
estimated nationwide population of 269,202. The 2000 Census population on the Navajo Reservation was
180,462, which represents an annual population growth of 1.96% from the 1990 Census population of
148,658. Of the 180,462 total reservation population, 175,228 (96.4%) were Navajos, with the remaining
population comprised of other Indian tribes and races.
The FHWA considers a community of 5,000 or greater a small urban area.2 Of the 110 chapters of the
Navajo Nation, Shiprock, Tuba City, Chinle, Ft. Defiance, Window Rock/St. Michaels and Kayenta
communities had populations greater than 5,000 in 2000, qualifying them as small urban areas.
1. Socioeconomic Characteristics
The following provides a discussion of various socioeconomic attributes of the Navajo Nation. The
figures are based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s official estimates from its 2007 American Community
Survey produced for the Navajo Nation Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land in Arizona, New
Mexico, and Utah.
Households and Families
In 2007 there were 41,645 households on the Navajo Nation Reservation with an average household size
of 3.9 people, and a total of 31,398 families with an average of 4.7 persons per family.
Geographical Mobility
The majority (96%) of the people lived in the same residence. The rest had recently moved from
elsewhere.
Education
The total school enrollment was 52,272 in 2007. Of this, 39,772 were elementary and high school
enrollment, 4,833 were preschool and kindergarten enrollment and 7,667 were college and graduate
school enrollment. Of those people 25 years of age and older, 64% had, at a minimum, graduated from
high school and 9% had a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Income
The Navajo Nation’s median household income was $25,456, or approximately half of the U.S. household
median income of $50,740. The Navajo Nation’s per capita income was $10,441, or less than half of the
U.S. per capita income of $26,688.
Labor Force and Employment
53,458 or 44.3% of people 16 years of age and over were in the labor force. Of the total labor force,
46,246 were employed in civilian labor force and 135 were employed in the Armed Forces. Approximately
14% were unemployed twice the U.S. unemployment rate. However, the 2005-2006 Comprehensive
Economic Development Strategy by the Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development reports higher
unemployment rate of 48.5% in 2005.
Poverty
In 2007, 36.8% of the population, and 30.8% of all families, lived below the poverty level.
Travel to Work
A Navajo family has an average of 1.98 cars per household.3 Of those individuals commuting to work,
76.6% drove to work alone, 11.9% carpooled, 0.6% used public transportation, 0.1% walked and 2.1%
used other means. Mean travel time to work was 34.5 minutes.
2 FHWA Highway Functional Classification - Concepts, Criteria and Procedures
3 2001 Navajo DOT origin-destination survey
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
II-4
2. Future Population
Based on the 1990 and 2000 Census data, the Navajo Reservation’s population grew at 1.82% annually
from 1990 to 2000 (Table II-2). If the same growth rate continues, the Navajo Nation Reservation’s
population in 2030 is estimated to increase to 310,012 people.
Table II-2. Population Projection by Agency
Agency 2000 2010 2020 2030
Shiprock Agency 30,981 37,104 44,438 53,222
Western Agency 38,260 45,822 54,879 65,726
Eastern Agency 33,841 40,530 48,541 58,135
Chinle Agency 28,491 34,122 40,867 48,944
Ft. Defiance Agency 45,761 54,806 65,638 78,612
New Lands 1,452 1,739 2,083 2,494
Ramah 1,676 2,007 2,404 2,879
Reservation Total 180,462 216,131 258,850 310,012
D. NAVAJO NATION ECONOMY
The economy of the Navajo Nation depends primarily on employment in private and public sectors and in
basic industries. Comparing 2000 and 2007 Census data on economic characteristics for the Navajo
Nation (Table II-3), employment increased 7,781 jobs or 20.2%. Private sector jobs increased 25%
between 2000 and 2007. This private sector accounts for the largest employment sector, at 54.4% of the
total employment. Government employees represent the next largest portion of the total employment, at
42.6%. Compared to the Census 2000 data, 52.2% were in private sector and 44.3% were in
government, indicating a slight increase in private sector. In 2007, the number of self-employed individual
represents the only decrease in employment type.
Table II-3. Navajo Nation Employment Comparison by Sector
Employment Sector 2000 2007 Difference Percent
Private Sector 20,063 25,166 5,103 25%
Government 17,042 19,722 2,680 16%
Self-employed 1,294 1,251 -43 -3%
Unpaid family workers 66 107 41 62%
Total 38,465 46,246 7,781 20%
Table II-4 provides additional breakdown of employment type for both 2000 and 2007. As indicated in this
table, 739 jobs were lost in wholesale trade, information, transportation, warehousing and utilities and
professional, scientific and management while 16,301 jobs were gained in most sectors.
In the public sector, employment by schools and Indian public health services was the largest portion of
any industry, accounting for nearly 16,000 employees. The Navajo Nation government also employed
about 6,500 people. Cuts in government funding made public sector jobs gained only moderate.
In the private sector, significant employment increases were documented in the finance, insurance, real
estate sector (110%); 76% in agriculture, forestry, mining; and 51% in retail trade. Lease extension of the
Pittsburgh and Midway Mine, oil and gas related business expansion and bringing businesses to
industrial parks and the Karigan Estate development were probably the major contribution to the
employment increase.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
II-5
Table II-4. Navajo Nation's Employment by Industry
Industries/Economic Sectors
Number of
Employees
2000
Number of
Employees
2007
% Increase
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, mining 1,501 2,641 75.9%
Construction 4,759 5,683 19.4%
Manufacturing 1,702 1,897 11.5%
Wholesale Trade 448 294 -34.4%
Retail Trade 3,201 4,830 50.9%
Transportation, warehousing, utilities 2,312 1,919 -17.0%
Information 321 257 -19.9%
Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, leasing 785 1,653 110.6%
Professional. scientific, management, administrative, waste
management services
1,071 943 -12.0%
Educational, health, social services 13,705 15,977 16.6%
Arts, entertainment, recreation, hotel, and food services 3,280 3,961 20.8%
Other services (except public administration) 1,313 1,509 14.9%
Public administration 4,067 4,682 15.1%
Total 38,465 46,246 20.2%
Source: Census 2000 and 2007 American Community Survey.
The Navajo Nation’s economy in 2007 seemed to fare better than in 2000. Per capita income increased
to $10,441 in 2007 from $8,536 from Census 2000, unemployment rate was down (this is not the case in
the 2005 report by Division Economic Development), and the number of people living below the poverty
level reduced to 36.8% in 2007 from 42.9% in 2000. However, the Navajo Nation’s economy,
employment, and income were well below the U.S. national average, and comparable to that of a
developing country.
The gasoline price reduction in 2008 drastically reduced the Navajo Nation’s revenue from oil, resulting in
a proposed 15.6% government budget cut for 2010, and, if the trend continues, this may result in future
budget cuts. The U.S. recession that started in 2008 has badly reduced the tribal and employee’s 401K
investments. The Navajo Nation’s public sector is tied to government funding while the private sector
depends on demand in energy and natural resources production and people’s purchasing power. The
U.S. recession impacts the Navajo Nation in both fronts.
The Navajo Nation, however, has some major economic development projects, such as the Fire Rock
Casino, which opened in 2009, and the Desert Rock Power Plant planned to be opened in 2010. The
Federal Stimulus Recovery Act may provide additional business developments at major center growth
areas such as Shiprock, Tuba City, and Window Rock, that may help create more jobs and revenue. The
Obama administration’s economic stimulus plan for infrastructure, expansion of healthcare to all children,
and Indian healthcare programs and education may help lessen the severity of the impact of the U.S.
economic recession on the Navajo Nation.
E. LAND USE
1. Reservation-Wide Land Use
The majority of Navajo Reservation land is used for grazing. The reservation’s high desert characteristics,
scarcity of water, dry climate and currently inaccessible natural resources become inhibitive development
factors. As summarized in Figure II-2, of the Navajo Nation’s total 17.0 million acres, approximately 10
million acres are open grazing lands. 3-4 million acres are designated forest lands (Defiance Plateaus
and Chuska Mountain) and wild lands. Only small areas are used for dry farming, and irrigation projects
(NIIP in Shiprock Agency). Some lands are leased for oil and gas development and coal mining at Black
Mesa areas and in the eastern part of the reservation. Very small areas are non-agricultural such as
community, business and residential uses.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
II-6
Figure II-2. Navajo Nation Land Use
Settlement Patterns
The traditional lifestyle of sheep herding provided a stable living in the past, and still provides Navajo
families a good supplemental income at present. As a result, Navajos live sparsely across the Navajo
Reservation with an average density of 6.8 people per square mile. Population and land are divided into
110 chapters. Each chapter has its own government, which provides services located at a chapter
house. A chapter house also serves as a community center. Higher densities of housing, community,
and economic development are found in population centers, as dictated by development cost and tribal
development policies.
2. Land Use Plans and Practices
Primary Growth Centers
The Navajo Nation has designated six communities as Primary Growth Centers for economic
development: Shiprock, Kayenta, Chinle, Crownpoint, Fort Defiance and Window Rock-St. Michaels.
They are also the Navajo Nation’s major population centers. Plans for these communities are to promote
local retail business development, in an effort to capture dollars that Navajos normally spend outside the
reservation on basic supplies and services. Another goal is to attract major industry/manufacturing to the
reservation using availability of ample labor, land and tax incentives. The Navajo Nation is to implement
these goals by making land available through land withdrawals, small business loans, and promotion of
tourism and industrial sites.
Secondary Growth Centers and Navajo Satellite Communities
Ganado, Navajo, Many Farms, Pinon, Tsaile/Wheatfields, Nahata Dziil, Tohatchi, Dilkon, Leupp, and
Shonto are designated as Secondary Growth Centers in Arizona. In New Mexico, Alamo, Tohajiilee, and
Ramah are designated as satellite communities. Each of these areas is secondary in population and
employment needing planned economic development.
The Local Governance Act (LGA) of 1998 allows chapters to approve land withdrawal, business and
homesite leases, and to implement and expedite development plans. However, prior to exercising such
authority and implementing any development projects, chapters have to develop a land use plan. There
are 72 chapters that have completed and received certification of their land use plans. These land use
plans, however, emphasize only housing development sites for the chapters. Recent LGA requirements
include general land use, thoroughfare and open space plans as well.
All six Primary Growth Centers have developed their land use plans. Of the Secondary Growth Centers,
only Many Farms, Pinon, Nahata Dziil, Tohatchi, Leupp, and Shonto have completed their land use plans.
For Navajo satellite communities, only Ramah has its land use plan.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
II-7
F. MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
Although roads have been the primary mode of transportation on the Navajo Nation, other transportation
modes such as air, rail, and public transit have also increased in importance to the Navajo public. At
present, access to tribal primary airports, regional railway and transit stations are in place. Access needs
for future facilities are identified and discussed in Chapter V, Transportation Needs. Below is background
on modes of transportation other than private vehicles in use on the Navajo Nation.
1. Air Transportation
There are approximately 32 airfields on the Navajo Reservation and the Checkerboard area. Of these,
four are privately owned. Of the 28 public airfields, eight are Navajo Nation Primary Airports: Shiprock,
Kayenta, Tuba City, Crownpoint, Chinle, Window Rock, Ganado, and Oljatoh Airports. They are small
airports with single paved runways, except for Ganado which has an unpaved runway. All except
Ganado Airport are currently in use. The remaining 20 airfields are Navajo Nation Secondary Airports.
All have dirt runways with no supporting facilities and are mostly inactive or in poor condition. All Navajo
Nation airports are open to the public.
Of the Navajo Nation Primary Airports, only Window Rock Airport has a small terminal. The Navajo Nation
Air Transportation Services under the Division of General Services operates from the Window Rock
Airport providing charter services primarily for the Navajo Nation Government. Eagle Air, a private
company, also provides air transportation services and is based in Window Rock, Chinle and Kayenta
Airports.
The Navajo Nation Primary Airports are used primarily for medical emergencies and secondarily for tribal
government business. However, business and tourist use of Navajo Nation airports is increasing,
especially at Kayenta and Chinle Airports. The Navajo Department of Transportation (Navajo DOT) is
responsible for maintaining and overseeing development of Navajo Nation airports. Chapter VIII provides
more information on each airport and overall improvement needs.
Adjacent Regional Airports and Air Transports:
Gallup, Flagstaff, Page and Farmington are the closest cities with regional airports having commercial
airlines servicing to major destinations.
2. Public Transportation
Navajo Transit
The Navajo Transit System (NTS) provides public transportation services on the Navajo Reservation,
serving 57 of 110 chapters. NTS operates intercity bus service on seven fixed routes linking Navajo
growth centers and adjacent border towns. The Tuba City-Window Rock, Toyei-Window Rock, Kayenta-
Ft. Defiance, Crownpoint-Ft. Defiance, and Farmington-Window Rock routes operate one round trip per
day Monday to Friday. Window Rock-Fort Defiance and Tsaile-Gallup routes are core service routes
operating four and two round trips each weekday, respectively. In January 2009, the Flagstaff to Tuba
City Route was started; this is a one hour trip that will run four times per day. In May 2009, the Kayenta
to Tuba City route began to provide a one-hour, one-way trip. NTS connects with Hopi Transit System,
Greyhound Busline, Amtrak Passenger Train, Gallup Transit Express, Red Apple Transit, and Flagstaff
Mountain Line. NTS has several connections with Navajo Senior Centers along the routes
Most NTS fixed routes operate along state highways. NTS fixed route ridership has increased over the
years. Ridership was 65,513 in 2008 and it is expected to increase by 20% in FY 2009, due to the $1.00
per day ride fee that was established in November 2008 and will remain in place until November 2010.
Fixed route customers are classified as 51% general, 22% elderly, 20% commuters and disabled, youth
and students making up the rest. NTS buses pick up riders at designated stops, but no NTS stations have
been constructed. NTS charters provide transportation for groups, organizations and private tours on and
off the Navajo Nation twelve months a year. NTS charter service includes transportation to Arizona State
University, University of New Mexico, Haskell University, and other colleges.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
II-8
Other Public Transit Services
Other tribal and private services that provide public transportation to Navajos on the reservation are as
follows: Community Health Representative (CHR), a Navajo Nation agency providing emergency medical
transportation upon request; a transport program run by Navajo Aging Services Department; Toyei
Industries; the Horticulture Independent Living Program; St. Michael Special Education; and Safe-Ride
Services, a private operation for non-emergency medical transport. The Navajo Nation Headstart
Program provides bus service to transport about 800-900 pre-school children and transports teachers for
home-study programs. Transport routes depend on customer/client residence location and intended
destinations.
School districts, including BIA and contract schools and church schools on the reservation, usually
provide bus services using government/school district buses. These buses run on fixed routes. A main
concern regarding transportation needs is the road condition of school bus routes. The safety and
welfare of the children is the main concern.
Adjacent Regional Bus Services
Regional bus services such as Greyhound have no routes going through the Navajo Reservation. The
nearest Greyhound stations are in Holbrook, Flagstaff, and Winslow, Arizona and Gallup and Farmington,
New Mexico. Currently the NTS bus stops at the Greyhound station in Gallup.
3. Railroads and Train Services
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad, a transcontinental railway that connects Los Angeles
to Chicago, crosses northern Arizona and New Mexico. The BNSF rail line generally runs east-west just
south of the Navajo Reservation boundary except in Arizona through the Nahata Dziil (New Lands)
Chapter area, and in New Mexico through the Church Rock Chapter and checkerboard area in the
Eastern Navajo Agency, where the BNSF line runs on the reservation.
The Black Mesa and Lake Powell (BLKM) Railroad operates within the western potion of the Navajo
Reservation for the sole purpose of transporting coal from a strip mine at Black Mesa to the Salt River
Project Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona. The generating station provides power to three
southwestern states.
Passenger Rail Service
Passenger rail service is provided by Amtrak on the BNSF Railroad line. Amtrak stations closest to the
Navajo Nation are in Gallup, New Mexico and in Winslow and Flagstaff, Arizona. Flagstaff had the
highest passenger stop/boardings of 39,723 in 2008, while Winslow had 4,767 and Gallup had 12,517. In
comparison and based on information in the 2003 LRTP, Flagstaff had the highest passenger
stop/boardings of 54,200 in 1993 of 109,700 total passengers boarding in Arizona At the time that figure
was anticipated to reach 172,000 by the year 2015, a 57% increase.
Freight Rail Service
Freight service on the BNSF Railroad also stops in Gallup, Winslow and Flagstaff. In 2005,
approximately 135,000,000 tons of freight moved by rail in Arizona.4 This compares to 175,000,000 tons
in 1993 which at that time was estimated to increase to 275,000,000 tons by 2015. This includes material
shipped in crates and containers and bulk materials such as coal, copper ore, and liquids.
The 78-mile BLKM Railroad was constructed in 1972 it is isolated and not connected with any other
railroad; and it and hauls 8.4 million tons of coal annually.5 There is a tribal plan to build rail freight
access at New Lands for economic development. However, the project is only conceptual. Information on
proposed railroad needs is referenced in Chapter 5, NEED 9-Railroads.
4 2009 Arizona Multimodal Freight Analysis Study, page 27.
5 2007 Arizona Railroad Inventory and Assessment, page 46.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
III-1
CHAPTER III - NAVAJO NATION INDIAN
RESERVATION ROAD SYSTEM
A. NAVAJO NATION IRR SYSTEM
An IRR System is defined as a road network serving an Indian reservation, comprised of public road
systems located within, or providing access to it. Navajo IRR roads are funded and administered by
various government highway programs. According to the 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory (NRRI)
database, the Navajo IRR system consists overall of 12,631.5 miles of public roads that can be
subdivided by right-of-way ownership or program administration as follows: Navajo-BIA roads (6,147.9
miles); tribal roads (2,895.7 miles); state roads (1,595.5 miles); county roads (1,907.5 miles); other BIA
programs’ roads (46.9 miles); other federal agency roads (37.2 miles), and others roads (0.8 miles).
Navajo-BIA, state and county roads are the main road systems serving the Navajo Reservation. Figure
III-1 shows the percentage and mileage division of the overall Navajo IRR roads by ownership/program
administration. Map III-1 shows the overall Navajo IRR road system. Table III-1 shows
ownership/program administration and mileage division by administrative agency.
Figure III-1. Navajo Nation IRR System
Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
III-3
Table III-1. Overall Navajo Nation IRR System (in miles)
Agency BIA (1)
Tribal
(2)
State
(3)
County
(5)
Other BIA
(6)
Other Fed
(7)
Others
(8)
Agency
Total
New Lands (00) 86.7 0.0 89.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.0
Northern (32) 1,209.8 558.3 225.7 276.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 2,272.4
Western (33) 1,446.0 731.5 529.4 242.1 23.3 2.0 0.8 2,975.1
Eastern (34) 666.0 197.3 413.2 795.2 0.0 16.3 0.0 2,088.0
Chinle (35) 1,028.0 372.6 60.8 306.9 11.3 18.8 0.0 1,798.4
Ft. Defiance (36) 1,405.0 1,036.0 261.9 264.9 9.7 0.1 0.0 2,977.6
NIIP (48) 306.4 0.0 15.2 22.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 344.0
Total 6,147.9 2,895.7 1,595.5 1,907.5 46.9 37.2 0.8 12,631.5
Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory
B. NAVAJO-BIA ROADS
1. Navajo Nation Bureau of Indian Affairs Roads
Navajo Nation BIA Road System consists of existing and proposed public roads within the Navajo
Reservation that meet the IRR definition and for which the BIA Navajo Regional Office Division of
Transportation (BIA-NRODOT) has or plans to obtain a legal right-of-way. The Navajo-BIA road system
or Navajo Routes include arterial roads, streets and other local public roads either linking to the state
highway network or providing access to local Navajo communities.
The Navajo-BIA road system, totaling 6,147.9 miles, is the largest component of the Navajo IRR systems.
The Navajo-BIA road system is subdivided into seven agencies for administrative and inventory
purposes: Shiprock/Northern, Western, Eastern, Chinle, Ft. Defiance, NIIP, and New Lands Agencies.
Figure III-2 shows the Navajo-BIA road system mileage in these agencies.
Figure III-2. Navajo-BIA Roads
Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
III-4
2. Navajo-BIA Roads by Functional Classification
The Navajo-BIA roads are classified by their functional classification (Map III-2). Figure III-3 provides
road mileage and percentage division by functional classification of the Navajo-BIA road system. Table
III-2 summarizes the road mileage and percentage division by function classification of Navajo-BIA road
system.
Figure III-3. Navajo-BIA Roads by Functional Classification
Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory
Table III-2. Navajo-BIA Roads by Functional Classification (in miles)
Agency Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6
Agency
Total
New Lands 0.0 0.2 17.0 68.3 1.2 0.0 86.7
Northern 0.0 95.0 12.5 783.0 318.4 0.9 1,209.8
Western 1.0 102.4 17.9 804.7 520.0 0.0 1,446.0
Eastern 0.0 111.9 6.8 271.7 273.0 2.6 666.0
Chinle 1.1 234.0 3.4 717.5 72.0 0.0 1,028.0
Ft. Defiance 2.0 242.0 0.5 990.4 170.1 0.0 1,405.0
NIIP 0.0 30.5 0.0 191.8 84.1 0.0 306.4
Class Total 4.1 816.0 58.1 3,827.4 1,438.8 3.5 6,147.9
Source: 2008 Navajo Region Road Inventory
The following provides a description of the various roadway classifications, as defined in the DOI-BIA IRR
Coding Guide, October 2004
Class 1 – Major Arterial Roads: The Navajo-BIA Class 1 roads are major arterial roads providing an
integrated network with characteristics for serving traffic between large population centers, generally
without stub connections and having average daily traffic volumes of 10,000 vehicles per day or more
with more that two lanes of traffic. Class 1 roads constitute 4.1 miles or only 0.07% of the total Navajo-
BIA system.
2009 Navajo Nation Long Range Transportation Plan
III-6
Class 2 – Rural Minor Arterial Roads: The Navajo-BIA Class 2 roads are rural minor arterial roads
providing an integrated network having characteristics for serving traffic between large population
centers, generally without stub connections. These roads typically link smaller towns and communities to
major resort areas that attract travel over long distances and generally provide for relatively high overall
travel speeds with minimum interference to through traffic movement. Class 2 roads generally provide for
at least inter-county or interstate service and are spaced at intervals consistent with population density.
This class of road will have less than 10,000 vehicles per day. Class 2 roads constitute 816.0 miles or
13% of the entire Navajo-BIA system.
Class 3 – Streets: Street type roads are located within communities serving residential and other urban
areas. These are streets at Navajo Growth Center communities, Navajo Housing Authority housing
streets, etc. Class 3 streets amount to 58.1 miles or 1.0% of the total Navajo-BIA system.
Class 4 – Rural Collector Roads: The Navajo-BIA Class 4 roads are rural major collector roads that
serve as a collector to rural local roads. The Navajo-BIA Class 4 roads make up most of the Navajo-BIA
system, 3,827.4 miles or 62%.
Class 5 – Rural Local Roads: These roads are rural local roads that may be either section line or stub
type roads, which make connections within the grid of the IRR system. This class of road may serve
areas around villages, into farming areas, to schools, tourist attractions, or various small enterprises. This
class also includes roads and motorized trails for administration of forests, grazing, mining, oil, recreation,
or other use purposes. Class 5 roads amount to 1,438.8 miles of the total Navajo-BIA system, or 24%.
Class 6 – City Minor Arterial Roads: These roads consist of minor arterial streets that are located
within communities and serve as access to major arterials. Class 6 roads amount to 3.5 mile or only
0.06% of the total Navajo-BIA system.
Class 7 – City Collector Streets: These are streets located within communities and serve as collectors
to the city local streets. The Navajo Nation currently has none of this road class.
Classes 8-10 – These are classification for non-road and other intermodal transportation facilities. The
Navajo Nation has yet to inventory these.
Class 11 – This is a classification to indicate an overlapping or previously inventoried road section (s) and
is used to indicate that it is not to be used for accumulating needs data. This class is used for reporting
and identification only.
3. Navajo-BIA Roads by Surface Type
The majority of Navajo-BIA roads are unpaved (Map III-3). Out of 6,147.9 miles total Navajo-BIA roads,
only 1,494.4 miles (24%) are paved, 105.7 miles (2%) are gravel, 4,203.0 miles (68%) are earth, 291.7
miles (5%) are primitive roads, and 8.5 miles (0.1%) are proposed roads. Figure III-4 shows percentages
of the Navajo-BIA road system by surface type. Table III-3 shows mileages of the Navajo-BIA road
system by surface type and agency.
"J
"J
"J
"J
"J
"J
"J
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Utah
Arizona
Colorado
Page New Mexico
Grants
Gallup
Winslow
Holbrook
Flagstaff
Farmington
Alamo
Leupp
Pinon
Navajo
Dilkon
Shonto
Ganado
Tohatchi
Tohajiilee
Many Farms
Nahata Dziil
Tsaile/Wheatfields
Chinle
Kayenta
Shiprock
Tuba City
Crownpoint
Window Rock
Fort Defiance
±
0 5 10 20 30 40