callaway drive roadway improvements … · callaway drive roadway improvements preliminary...

CALLAWAY DRIVE

ROADWAY

IMPROVEMENTS

PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING

REPORT

SEPTEMBER 2014

Callaway Drive Roadway Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report

pg. 1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 5

Section I: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 7

Section II: Project Scope & Objective ........................................................................... 10

A. Study Process .................................................................................................. 10

B. Improvements to Corridor ................................................................................ 11

Section III: Agency Coordination and Public Involvement ............................................ 12

A. Public Involvement ........................................................................................... 12

B. Public Involvement Meetings Completed ......................................................... 13

1. February 20, 2014 Kick-off Meeting: ................................................................ 13

2. June 16, 2014 Community Meeting: ................................................................. 13

C. Additional Agency and Public Involvement ...................................................... 16

Section IV: Project Purpose and Need ......................................................................... 17

A. Project Purpose Statement .............................................................................. 17

B. Project Need .................................................................................................... 17

1. Physical Deficiencies ....................................................................................... 17

2. Future Traffic Demand ..................................................................................... 18

3. Safety ............................................................................................................... 19

3. System Connectivity ......................................................................................... 19

4. Access ............................................................................................................. 20

Section V: Identification of Existing Conditions & ......................................................... 21


pg. 2

Constraints .................................................................................................................... 21

A. Existing Transportation System ........................................................................ 21

1. Physical Conditions .......................................................................................... 21

B. Existing Environmental Conditions ................................................................... 22

1. Natural Resources ........................................................................................... 22

2. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 27

3. Community and Economic Resources ............................................................. 27

C. Physical ............................................................................................................ 29

1. Irrigation Ditches .............................................................................................. 29

D. Preliminary Traffic Analysis .............................................................................. 30

E. Preliminary Drainage Analysis ......................................................................... 33

Section VI: Description of Alternatives ......................................................................... 34

A. Callaway Drive Alternatives ............................................................................. 34

1. Phase I ............................................................................................................. 34

2. Phase II ............................................................................................................ 41

3. Traffic Calming Features .................................................................................. 42

Section VII: Evaluation of Alternatives .......................................................................... 45

A. Evaluation Matrix .............................................................................................. 45

B. Environmental Evaluation of Alternatives ......................................................... 48

Section VIII: Recommendations ................................................................................... 50

A. Recommended Improvements ......................................................................... 50


pg. 3

Section IX: References ................................................................................................. 52

Table of Figures

Figure ES.1. Recommended Typical Section .................................................................. 6

Figure I.1 Location Map ................................................................................................... 8

Figure I.2 Project Limits ................................................................................................... 9

Figure V.E.1. Traffic Count Locations........................................................................... 30

Table V.E.3. 2014 Un-Signalzed Intersection Capacity Analysis ................................. 31

Table V.E.4. Future Conditions Analysis ...................................................................... 32

Figure VI.1. 2–Lane Existing with Upgrade ................................................................... 36

FigureVI..2. 3–Lane Roadway with Continuous Turn Lane .......................................... 37

Figure VI.3. 3–Lane (Budget) No Curb and Gutter ....................................................... 38

Figure VI.4. 2–Lane Hybrid .......................................................................................... 39

Figure VI. 5. 4–Lane ..................................................................................................... 40

Figure VI.6. Callaway Drive Phase II ............................................................................ 41

Figure VIII.1. Recommended Alternative ...................................................................... 51

List of Tables

Table V.B.1.D. State and Federal Listed Species in Eddy County, New Mexico .......... 26

Table V.B.3.1. Demographic Characteristics ................................................................ 29

Table V.E.1. Existing Conditions .................................................................................. 31

Table V.E.2. 2014 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................... 31


pg. 4

Table V.E.4. Future Signalized Intersection Capacity .................................................. 32

Table VII.A.2. Cost ....................................................................................................... 46

Table VII.A.3. Roadway Width ..................................................................................... 46

Table VII.A.5. Width of Roadway for Pedestrian Use ................................................... 47

Table VII.A.6. Decision Matrix ...................................................................................... 48

List of Appendices

Traffic Analysis………………………….………………………………………………….…..A

Categorical Exclusion……………………………….………………………………………...B

Callaway Drive Roadway Alternatives……………..………………………………………..C

Drainage Report………………………………………………………………………………..D


pg. 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Callaway Drive in Carlsbad, New Mexico between the low water crossing at the Pecos

River and the intersection with Cherry Lane is a local collector that serves single

dwelling residential areas as well as apartment complexes and a neighborhood

elementary school; Callaway Drive is 1 of 4 river crossings within the City. This

Preliminary Engineering Report meets the guidelines set forth in the Location Study

Procedures (2000) by the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department

for alignment and corridor studies.

This Preliminary Engineering Report examined a variety of improvements along this

corridor that meet the Purpose and Need outlined in this report. These improvements

have been developed through public involvement as public input gathered through

community meetings. The recommended improvements include one-12-foot driving

lane in each direction, 4-foot shoulders in each direction, 2-foot curb and gutter in each

direction, an 11-foot continuous turn lane, a 4-foot sidewalk on the south side of the

roadway, and a multi-modal trail on the north side of the adjacent irrigation canal. This

project is recommended to be completed in 2 phases to allow for the total expense to be

divided up. Callaway Drive between Quail Hollow Run and Cherry Lane is

recommended to be completed in phase I while the lower water crossing to Quail

Hollow Run and the pedestrian trail are recommended to be completed in phase 2.

These improvements are based on Option 2 outlined in this report and are

recommended for advancement to Phase C (Categorical Exclusion) and Phase I-D

(Design).

The recommended improvement has an estimated cost of approximately $1,695,300 for

phase I. Phase II has an estimated cost of $685,000. Figure ES-1 shows the proposed

section for the recommended alternative.


pg. 6

Figure ES.1. Recommended Typical Section


pg. 7

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION

The City of Carlsbad is located in Eddy County, 37 miles south of Artesia and 169 miles

east of El Paso. Callaway Drive is a local collector that serves single dwelling

residential areas as well as apartment complexes and a neighborhood elementary

school. Callaway Drive connects to West Cherry Lane, which provides a connection to

the WIPP Relief Route. Although this would not normally provide commuter or through

traffic from Carlsbad north, it does allow local traffic from north Carlsbad an alternate

route to using Pierce Street (US 285). Callaway Drive also provides a connection for

those heading to the center of Carlsbad, as one of the four river crossings in Carlsbad.

The project limits will be from the Low Water Crossing of the Pecos River on the south-

west end to the intersection of W. Cherry Lane on the north-east end. The study limits

have been extended to logical termini, which are the intersection of Perce Street on the

Southwest end and West Cherry Lane on the Northeast end. Figure I.1 shows the

location of Callaway Drive while Figure I.2 shows the limits of this study.


pg. 8

Figure I.1 Location Map


pg. 9

Figure I.2 Project Limits


pg. 10

SECTION II: PROJECT SCOPE & OBJECTIVE

The City of Carlsbad has contracted with Molzen Corbin to determine the best

alternative for improvements for the Calloway Drive corridor. The length of the corridor

is approximately 1.17 miles from the low water crossing to the intersection of Callaway

Drive and Cherry Lane.

A. STUDY PROCESS

This study is conducted in accordance with the NMDOT Location Study Procedures,

which have been approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The

Location Study Procedures requires the study to be completed in three phases. Phase

A is the initial corridor study, which analyzes all feasible alternatives for improvement to

the corridor. These alternatives will be examined and studied based on a wide range of

engineering, environmental, socio-economic, and traffic data. The most promising

improvements will be recommended for further investigation in Phase B.

Phase B is a detailed

evaluation of the alternatives

recommended in Phase A. In

this phase, alternatives are

surveyed and mapped in

order to define horizontal and

vertical alignments.

Requirements for drainage,

roadway and intersection

geometry are determined,

while strategies to mitigate

environmental impacts, right-of-way requirements, and utility impacts, are reviewed.

Traffic projections, and construction cost estimates are also determined. A final

recommendation is made in this report as to which improvements best serve the

roadway and should be constructed. For the purposes of this report, Phase A and

Phase B have been combined.

Phase C serves as the environmental documentation for the project which either an

environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement is prepared. This

document will be prepared in compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations,

including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). After a draft document has

been prepared and made available for public review, a public hearing will be held to


pg. 11

address the public concerns and outstanding issues. The final environmental document

will be a Categorical Exclusion for the best alternative.

B. IMPROVEMENTS TO CORRIDOR

The condition of Callaway Drive has deteriorated over the years as fatigue and block

cracking appear to be evident in some areas of the pavement. The community also

feels that the current condition of Callaway Drive is unsafe due to the width of the

roadway, adjacent homes, and current traffic high travel speeds. This project should

not only meet the travel demand, but the needs of the local community as both the City

of Carlsbad and community consider safety and access high priorities along with

mitigating current roadway deficiencies. Callaway Drive should be examined to

determine which alternatives are most likely to occur and possibly phased in over the

20-year planning period of this study.


pg. 12

SECTION III: AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Agency coordination and public involvement have provided and will continue to provide

the project team with valuable input and feedback towards the development of this

corridor study. The project team has placed a high priority on gathering public input by

utilizing a wide variety of tools to generate two-way communication between agencies,

affected stakeholders, community representatives, and the project team members. This

ambitious public outreach, involving agency and community representatives, has guided

the project team in developing improvements that best serve the traveling public and

meets its needs for the project planning period.

A. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Molzen Corbin has added Bohannan Huston Inc. and Epsilon Systems Solutions Inc.

as their sub consultants for this project to be part of the established study team for this

project working together in conjunction with the City of Carlsbad to use public input and

engineering expertise to determine the best alternative.

Community meetings will be used to ensure that the information about the project is

made available to concerned stakeholders, and to afford those stakeholders an

opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. Stakeholders are people who

could potentially be positively or negatively affected by the project and can include but

are not limited to the public, users, property owners, neighborhood associations,

businesses, elected officials, non-governmental agencies, governmental agencies, and

jurisdictional agencies.

Molzen Corbin did a preliminary analysis of the corridor to determine 5 reasonable

alternatives for the corridor. These alternatives were presented to a few members of

the City of Carlsbad town council and local officials first before any public meeting. It

was then decided that the next step would be to schedule a public meeting to present

the 5 alternatives to the public and record their valuable input. This input would be used

to assist the study team as they choose the best alternative. A second meeting would

then be scheduled to present the chosen alternative to the public, before the project

moves to preliminary design. The major goals of public involvement for the Callaway

Drive Corridor Study are:

To establish the project context and identify major issues.

To identify project stakeholders

To develop a decision-making process that is sensitive to the project context,

involves stakeholders in a meaningful way, and leads to development of a


pg. 13

preferred alternative that is consistent with transportation, environmental,

cultural, community, land use, and economic contexts in the project area.

B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MEETINGS COMPLETED

The Public Involvement portion of the Corridor Study has, thus far, had three major

elements; meeting with stakeholders, CID, utility companies, and City officials, meeting

with City council and staff, and Community Meetings.

The project team has convened several community meetings, which were held as

indicated below:

1. February 20, 2014 Kick-off Meeting:

The kick-off meeting was held at the Molzen Corbin office. Members from

Bohannan Huston Inc., Epsilon Systems Solutions, the Carlsbad Irrigation

District, Excel Energy, and the City of Carlsbad were present.

The project limits and Right of Way limits were discussed. The Carlsbad

Irrigation District representatives were open to jointly sharing the Right of Way,

so long as the integrity of the historic ditch remained intact. A second item of

discussion with Excel Energy included the relocation of the overhead power line

to underground. Both of these items were factored into the evaluation of the

alternatives.

2. June 16, 2014 Community Meeting:

A public input meeting was scheduled for June 16, 2014. Members of the design

team from Molzen Corbin, Bohannan Huston, and Epsilon Systems Solutions

were present. 25 members of the public were present at the meeting including

approximately 16 members of the public with property near, or within the project

limits. The meeting was held at Riverside Elementary School at 1600 Johnson

Street in Carlsbad New Mexico from 6 PM to 7 PM. This location was chosen

due to its close proximity to the project limits.

Large posters showing the 5 alternatives in plan and profile view were placed

on the walls inside the cafeteria.

An open house allowed the public to look at the posters while members of the

design team were present to answer questions.


pg. 14

A PowerPoint presentation was presented to the public giving them an

overview of each of the 5 alternatives including cost, results of the preliminary

traffic study, and the roles of the different design team members.

The public was allowed to ask questions and receive answers after the

presentation.

The public was given different colored stickers with numbers to place on the

posters indicating their preferences (1 being their favorite and 5 being the

least favorite).

Comment sheets were passed out for the public to provide anonymous input

by filling them out and placing them in a comment box before leaving.

There were 25 community members at the meeting not including the 7 design team

members that were present. The public asked many questions pertaining to topics

such as:

Where is the R-O-W limit on the south side of Callaway Drive?

The traffic counts do not show evidence of large vehicles, while a few

property owners have indicated the presence of larger vehicles such as 18-

wheeler dirt haulers.

Will there be a speed limit change when the project is complete?

Will traffic calming features be used?

Where is the Carlsbad Irrigation District (CID) R-O-W?

Will the power lines be relocated?

Will the CID irrigation ditch be affected?

When will the design be complete and when will construction begin?

How deep will the retaining wall be adjacent to the CID ditch?

How will erosion to the south side of the ditch be mitigated?

How will school traffic be allowed during construction?

How long will construction last?

These questions were answered by the design team to the best of their knowledge.

Each question and comment was noted, so design team members could verify

answers and use these questions to address certain issues. Tentative answers to

the questions from the first community meeting are as follows:

The R-O-W limit on the south side of Callaway Drive is being matched and

could mean a few feet of driveways/ front lawns being used for sidewalk or

the roadway shoulder.


pg. 15

The traffic counts were taken in March and may not have had large vehicle

traffic at the time. Large vehicles traveling down Callaway Drive may be

present due to construction projects off of Callaway Drive.

The existing speed limits of 35mph and 25 mph are planned on remaining. If

a speed limit change is determined to affect vehicle speed concerns, then a

possible speed limit decrease could be warranted.

Traffic calming features are being considered for this project. Traffic calming

features will address the fact that drivers speed on Callaway Drive.

CID R-O-W exists for the irrigation ditch adjacent to Callaway Drive.

The power lines are planned to be relocated to accommodate a wider

roadway.

The CID ditch is planned to remain intact. A retaining wall is planned to be

constructed adjacent to the south side of the CID ditch due to a grade

difference.

The design is tentatively planned on being complete by the end of January

2015 while construction would tentatively start by the end of May 2015.

The retaining wall adjacent to the CID ditch will most likely be 3’ above

ground and 2’ below the ground level with a spread footing. These details will

be determined during the design phase.

Erosion to the south side of the CID ditch will be mitigated with the retaining

wall.

Traffic during construction will be mitigated through a traffic control plan.

Construction is estimated to last 6 months.

Comment forms were also handed out for those that wanted to make comments or ask

questions while remaining anonymous. These sheets were placed in a comment box.

The comment box contained questions and comments as follows:

“My wife and I would like to see the project extended to include wide shoulders or

bike lanes from the low water crossing to Pierce St. Bike lanes exist on the low

water crossing.”

“Phase II- no turn lane in the section where there isn’t anything to turn into (backs

of houses, walls), possible traffic calmers in areas where CID property has whole

room to edge of the ditch. 3-lane (turn lane) would likely be used as passing lane

by many folks. Police presence or CS official during active construction.”

“Windstorm, need an additional foot of easement on the south side of the

roadway and a way to get under the roadway from the north to the south.“

“Option #4-Needs 3 lanes extended to Lone Tree because houses with

driveways extend to Lone Tree. General- If traffic is routed through Mountain


pg. 16

Shadow, consider ways to slow through traffic (cars park on both sides of Mt.

Shadow).”

These comments were noted and will be given attention when a traffic control plan is

created. These comments will also be given some consideration during preliminary

design.

C. ADDITIONAL AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The public involvement process will continue throughout the location study and

environmental documentation, with several remaining planned opportunities for both

agency and public input. Epsilon Systems Solutions and Bohannan Huston will provide

support during the public involvement phase pertaining to environmental, traffic, and

drainage aspects of the project. The following continuing public involvement activities

have been planned:

Council Meeting updates-on-going

Meet with affected property owners

Community meetings

We will schedule other forums as needed.


pg. 17

SECTION IV: PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

Federal regulations require that this study address the purpose and need of this project.

The purpose conveys the broad objective, while the need includes detailed deficiencies

to be upgraded.

A. PROJECT PURPOSE STATEMENT

Section V of this report outlines in greater detail the existing operational issues and

physical conditions that further support this purpose and need statement. Based on that

information, and the overall characteristics described in this and other sections, the

purpose and need statement can be further described as follows:

The purpose of this project is to improve Callaway Drive from the North side of

the low water crossing at the Pecos River to the intersection at Cherry Lane, in

order to incorporate modifications that address safety, improve system

capacity, enhance the corridor’s local and regional connectivity, correct

current physical deficiencies, and accommodate community development.

B. PROJECT NEED

The following upgrades are specifically identified and in need of improvement:

1. Physical Deficiencies

Based on a recently conducted investigation, along with an extensive review of

previous studies and reports within the area of this project, the deficiencies listed

below will be addressed as part of this study.

a.) Shoulder and Lane Widths:

A review of the existing roadway cross section indicates that the width of the

roadway is approximately 27 feet. This indicates two 12 foot driving lanes with a

small shoulder on the north side of the roadway. There is no shoulder on the

south side of the roadway, as it is lined with residential homes. In

acknowledgement of pedestrians and future traffic volume, upgrades to shoulder

widths are needed.


pg. 18

a) Pavement Condition

There is evidence of pavement cracking and deterioration throughout the study

area including some fatigue and block cracking.

b) Corridor Lighting

With the exception of Cherry Lane, each intersection along Callaway Drive within

the project limits has a street light. Each one of the intersections with a street

light has the light post on the south side of the roadway except for the

intersections at Mt. Shadow as well as Lone Tree which contain street lights on

the north side of the roadway. Existing street lights are attached to power poles.

The power poles on the north side of the roadway will most likely be relocated to

accommodate widening of the roadway which would cause the roadway to be

poorly lit in these areas.

Street lights may be favorable for this roadway as it would create a safer

roadway due to vehicles and pedestrians being more easily seen during dark

hours.

2. Future Traffic Demand

The City of Carlsbad would like the improvements to meet the needs of traffic 20-

years into the future. Therefore, a traffic study was performed by Bohannan Huston

Inc. for this report.

Traffic counts were collected in March 2014 as part of the traffic analysis performed

by Bohannan Huston Inc (BHI). A nine hour turning movement count was performed

at both the US 285/Pierce and Cherry Drive intersections. Two locations along

Callaway Drive also had 48-hour tube counts performed. One location was north of

Westridge Drive and the other was east of Quail Hollow Run. Intersection capacity

was analyzed at US 285/W Pierce as well as at the intersection with Cherry Drive.

The location North of Westridge was observed to have 4,620 vehicles per day with

an 85th percentile speed of 46.2 mph. The location East of Quail Hollow was

observed to have 4,088 vehicles per day with an 85th percentile speed of 37.9 mph.

The only signalized intersection is US 285/W Pierce which currently operates at a

Level-of Service (LOS) B during the AM peak and A during the PM peak. This

intersection is forecasted to operate under the same LOS designations in 2030

based on a 15% growth in population.


pg. 19

The unsignalized intersection at Cherry Drive currently operates with a LOS A for

both the AM and PM peaks for the North Bound (NB), East Bound (EB), West Bound

(WB), and South Bound (SB) approaches. This intersection is forecast in 2030

based on the water master plan to operate under LOS A for three of the four

approaches during the AM and PM peaks as the NB approach to this intersection’s

forecast to operate under a LOS B. A more detailed section on the traffic conditions

is found in section V.

3. Safety

Safety improvements are needed in order to reduce the number and severity of

accidents that can occur along this segment of Callaway Drive. The residential

homes adjacent to the two-lane roadway are a major contributor to this.

Currently, the speed limit is 25 mph west of Cherry Lane and east of Crawford court.

The speed limit is 35 mph west of Crenshaw Court and is 15 mph near the

intersection of Johnson Court within the school zone during peak pedestrian hours.

According to the traffic study performed by BHI, drivers in the 85th percentile average

speeds of approximately 45 mph on Callaway Drive north of Westridge and 37 mph

east of Quail Hollow. This data supports the LOS data as there is little traffic on the

road to keep drivers from speeding however, this provides safety concerns for stake

holders with property adjacent to the roadway requiring them to back out into

oncoming traffic as drivers tend to travel at speeds greater than the posted 25 mph

speed limit.

3. System Connectivity

Callaway Drive serves single dwelling residential areas as well as apartment

complexes, a neighborhood elementary school, as well as the Country Club.

Callaway Drive connects to West Cherry Lane, which provides a connection to the

WIPP Relief Route. Although this would not normally provide commuter or through

traffic from Carlsbad north, it does allow local traffic from north Carlsbad an alternate

route to Pierce Street (US 285). Callaway Drive also provides a connection for

those heading to the center of Carlsbad, as one of the four river crossings in

Carlsbad.


pg. 20

4. Access

This approximate 1.17 mile corridor contains 12 unsignalized intersections with only

1 of those intersections requiring traffic on Callaway Drive to come to a stop. The

average distance between intersections is 515 feet.

This corridor contains 21 driveways, 19 of which require residents to back out onto

Callaway Drive. The section of Callaway Drive containing the 19 driveways that

require backing out into oncoming traffic are approximately 30 feet apart. It would

be a benefit to property owners to have more space on the shoulder of the lane for

east bound traffic, to allow for easier and safer conditions when leaving their homes.


pg. 21

SECTION V: IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS & CONSTRAINTS

A. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

1. Physical Conditions

a) Typical Section

The existing typical section has two- 12 foot lanes without curb and gutter. The

roadway is crowned at the center to allow for storm water to runoff to the

shoulder. There currently isn’t much of a shoulder, as the south side of Callaway

Drive either consists of residential driveways or natural earth. The north side of

Callaway Drive consists of natural earth between the pavement and a concrete

lined CID ditch, as well as power lines.

b) Horizontal & Vertical Alignments:

The existing horizontal and vertical alignments do not pose any specific sight

distance concerns for the design speed.

c) Pavement Condition

Callaway Drive was constructed prior to 1978. There is some fatigue and block

cracking in the pavement. The fatigue or alligator cracking can be caused by

failure of the Hot Mixed Asphalt (HMA) surface or the stabilized base under traffic

loading over time. Possible causes of fatigue cracking could be loss of subgrade

support, poor drainage, excessive loading, or a weak asphalt surface.

d) Lighting

Currently, there are street lights at each intersection along Callaway Drive with

the exception of Cherry Lane. Most of these street lights are on the south side of

the roadway with the exception of the intersections at Mt. Shadow and Lone Tree

which have street lights on the North side of the roadway. There are a total of 9

street lights within the project limits; these street lights are attached to existing

power poles.


pg. 22

e) Roadway Drainage

The roadway currently drains to the shoulders due to the crown in the roadway.

The storm water on the North side of the roadway tends to pond between the

roadway and the irrigation ditch. The storm water on the South side of the

roadway will pond in some areas, but tends to make its way to the Pecos River.

The drainage report done by Bohannan Huston can be found in Appendix D.

B. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

At the onset of this study, the existing environmental conditions within the project area

were assessed. The primary objectives of the existing conditions assessment were to

describe key features of the project area and to identify the salient conditions that

warrant consideration as alternatives to be developed and evaluated. Existing

conditions were identified on field reconnaissance and a review of existing data and

records. The existing conditions are separated into natural resources, cultural

resources, and community and economic resources. The sections below provide an

overview of the project area’s existing environment.

1. Natural Resources

Natural resources include local soils, surface and groundwater resources,

vegetative communities, and wildlife resources. These resources are protected by

a variety of federal environmental laws including the Clean Water Act, the Clean

Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other laws and regulations.

a) Soils

Soils in the project area are described as older Quaternary deposits north of the

East Canal and younger Quaternary deposits south of the channel. Both deposit

classes are comprised of alluvium and colluvium. The older Quaternary alluvium

consists of exotic and locally-derived gravels and gravelly-sands of the paleo-

Pecos River system and is thinly mantled by eolian sediment in much of the field

area. Well to poorly indurated, poorly sorted gravel with sand-granule matrix.

Clast sizes are cm-scale in diameter, subrounded to rounded, and consist of

sandy carbonates, limestones, sandstones, volcanic rock, chert, and jasper.

Smaller (< 1 cm diameter) angular clasts of jasper and carbonate are also

present. The matrix consists of subangular to rounded, fine-grained sandstone to

granules composed of quartz and chert. The deposit is crudely bedded, and, in

places, channel forms (1.6-3 ft [0.5-1m] thick) are interbedded with green-to-red

silty sandstone. Local imbrication indicates flow to the southwest. The colluvium


pg. 23

flanks the toes of hillsides of the Hackberry and Ocotillo hills, and consists of

angular to rounded clasts of locally derived carbonates, with patches of bedrock

exposed. Thickness of hillslope deposits: 0-20 feet (< 6 meters), thickness of

alluvium: 0-80 ft (23 m) (Dehler and Pederson 2002a).

The older Quaternary deposit soils are Pecos River gravel and sand, medium

upper to coarse upper with lesser granules and pebbles (1.2-2.3 in [3-6 cm] in

diameter), moderately sorted, well rounded, moderately to well cemented by

calcite. Sand fraction is mostly quartz and chert. Pebbles are composed of red,

tan, and gray quartzite, variegated cherts, gray limestone, yellow limestone,

yellow siltstone, light grey and yellow dolomite, petrified wood, light tan and gray

volcanic porphyry, bull quartz, schist; dominated by locally derived carbonates

and siliciclastics (Dehler and Pederson 2002b).

The younger Quaternary deposits consist of alluvium and colluvium in valley

floors and flanking toes of hillsides, respectively. In valley floors, fine-grained

deposits dominate, and are locally modified by eolian processes; local patches of

exotic gravels are present near Pecos River. Locally derived gravels and fine-

grained sediment mantle bedrock hillsides in patches and mimic slopes of local

bedrock: the gravels are the product of colluvial processes and the fine grained

sediments are the results of colluvial and eolian processes. Thickness of

colluvium: 0-10 feet (< 3 meters), thickness of alluvium: 0->10 feet (3 m) (Dehler

and Pederson 2002a).

The younger Quaternary deposit soils are comprised of silty clay to silt to sand,

sticky, plastic, local lithic pebbles, well sorted, subangular to subrounded, grains

composed of 70 percent quartz and 30 percent carbonate and chert. Weak soil

development in upper 4 ft (1.25 m) shows massive silty clay to clayey silt, brown,

slightly plastic, bioturbated, effervesces strongly, local organic film with granular

soil structure in upper 6 in (15 cm), gypsiferous and calcareous concretions

decreasing downward to 16 in (40 cm), prismatic structure down to 4 ft (1.25 m).

Locally weathers into badlands and exhibits piping. Sparsely to moderately

vegetated. This appears to be a common veneer on nearly all Quaternary

deposits in the project area (Dehler and Pederson 2002b).

b) Surface and Groundwater

The main surface water components in the project vicinity are the Carlsbad

Irrigation District Main, East, and Southern Main Canals. Immediately adjacent to


pg. 24

the project area, the Main Canal divides into the Southern Main Canal and the

East Canal. The East Canal generally parallels Callaway Drive to the north.

From the east abutment of Avalon Dam, the Main Canal extends generally south

along the Pecos River for about 3 miles below the dam, where it divides into the

East Canal and the Southern Main Canal. The East Canal continues for about 6

miles (9.7 km). The Southern Main Canal runs approximately 0.45 miles (725 m)

south to the Pecos River, which it crosses about 1 mile (1.6 km) northwest of

Carlsbad through a concrete aqueduct, and continues in a generally southerly

direction for about 21 miles (34 km) to its terminus at the Black River Supply

Ditch about 3 miles (4.8 km) northwest of Malaga. The design capacities of the

Main, East, and Southern Main Canals are 490, 45, and 450 cubic feet per

second (14, 1.3, and 13 cubic meters per second), respectively (USBR 2011).

In the Pecos River alluvium groundwater is found at depths of 20 to 50 ft (6 to 15

m). However, this water is not available to users because it too easily drains the

Pecos River. Furthermore, groundwater quality in the project area is relatively

poor due to high salinity levels attributed to the alluvium composition. Near

Avalon Reservoir (approximately 3 miles [5 km] north of the project area),

groundwater can generally be found between 50 to 100 ft (15 to 30 m)

(Hendrickson and Jones 1952).

c) Vegetation

The majority of the land in the vicinity of Callaway Drive is disturbed and/or

landscaped. On the north side of Callaway Drive is the Pecos Valley Pecan

Orchard. The south side of Callaway Drive is dominated by a multi-family

housing development and detached home neighborhoods. The western portion

of the project area is comprised of a golf course and native vegetation.

Described as sandy range grasslands, the native vegetation in the project area is

dominated by warm season, short and midgrasses such as black grama, bush

muhly, various dropseeds, and three-awns. Bluestems, bristlegrass, lovegrass,

and hood windmillgrass comprise some of the less common grasses in this area.

Shrubs include mesquite, shinnery oak, sand sagebrush, broom snakeweed, and

yucca. A large variety of forbs occur and production fluctuates greatly from year

to year, and season to season. Common forbs include bladderpod, dove weed,

globemallow, annual buckwheat, and sunflower.


pg. 25

d) Wildlife

The majority of the Callaway Drive project area has been subject to extensive

agricultural and residential development. Despite this, the west end of the

corridor does maintain potential habitat adjacent to the project area.

Three agencies have primary responsibility for protecting and conserving plant

and animal species within the proposed project area. The United States Fish and

Wildlife Services (USFWS), under authority of the Endangered Species Act of

1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531), as amended, has the responsibility for federally listed

species. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) has the

responsibility for state-listed wildlife species. The New Mexico Rare Plants

Technical Council (NMRPTC) has responsibility for state-listed endangered plant

species. Each agency maintains a continually updated list of species that are

classified, or are candidates for classification, as protected based on their

present status and potential threats to future survival and recruitment into viable

breeding populations. These types of status rankings represent an expression of

threat level to a given species’ survival as a whole and/or within local or discrete

populations.

USFWS lists four endangered species and four threatened species occurring in

Eddy County. NMDGF lists eight endangered species and ten threatened

species occurring in Eddy County. Table 1 provides a summary of the listed

species present in Eddy County. None of the listed animal species are expected

within the project area due to existing development, lack of habitat, and human

activities. Correspondence with NMDGF indicates that the agency “does not

anticipate significant impacts to wildlife or sensitive habitats” within the project

area. A preliminary evaluation of the project area using the USFWS Information,

Planning and Conservation (IPaC) System demonstrated that 15 threatened

endangered, or candidate wildlife and plant species have the potential to be

found in the Callaway Drive project area. The IPaC System inquiry indicated that

no critical habitat or wetlands are in the immediate project area. It should be

noted that the IPaC System should not be used for official determinations and

should only be used as a planning tool.

The New Mexico Rare Plant List identifies 27 plant species that potentially occur

in Eddy County and may occur near the project area. A biological survey report

will be prepared to document impacts to wildlife, habitat, as well as threatened

and endangered species in the project area.


pg. 26

Table V.B.1.D. State and Federal Listed Species in Eddy County, New Mexico

Common Name Scientific Name NMGF USFWS

Headwater Catfish Ictalurus lupus s SOC

Greenthroat Darter Etheostoma lepidum T SOC

Pecos Gambusia Gambusia nobilis E E

Pecos Pupfish Cyprinodon pecosensis T SOC

Gray Redhorse Moxostoma congestum E SOC

Pecos Bluntnose Shiner Notropis simus pecosensis E T

Rio Grande Shiner Notropis jemezanus s SOC

Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus E SOC

Common Black-Hawk Buteogallus anthracinus T SOC

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (eastern pop) Coccyzus americanus occidentalis s SOC

Aplomado Falcon Falco femoralis E E

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum T SOC

Arctic Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius T SOC

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus E E

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis s SOC

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia

SOC

Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida s T

Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii

C

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T T

Lesser Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus pallidicinctus s T

Baird's Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii T SOC

Black Tern Chlidonias niger

SOC

Least Tern Sternula antillarum E E

Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii T SOC

Pale Townsend's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii s SOC

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus ludovicianus

s SOC

AZ Black-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus arizonensis s SOC

Swift Fox Vulpes velox s SOC

Guadalupe Pocket Gopher Thomomys bottae guadalupensis s SOC

Pecos River Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus ripensis s SOC

Texas Hornshell Popenaias popeii E C

Pecos Springsnail Pyrgulopsis pecosensis T SOC

Ovate Vertigo Snail Vertigo ovata T SOC

Guadalupe Mountains Tiger Beetle Cicindela politula petrophila

SOC

Obsolete Viceroy Butterfly Limenitis archippus obsoleta

SOC

Source: NMGF 2014. E = Endangered; T = Threatened, s = sensitive; SOC = Species of Concern; C =

Candidate.


pg. 27

2. Cultural Resources

Cultural resources can be defined as the collective material evidence of past human

activity. In an applied sense, this includes archaeological sites, buildings, structures,

objects, features, and landscapes, generally greater than 50 years in age, with

historic and cultural value. These resources are afforded protection under various

federal and state laws.

For the purpose of the present Callaway Drive Corridor Study, a records search of

the New Mexico Cultural Resources Information System (NMCRIS) was completed

prior to the commencing a field investigation of the project area. Current listings of

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the New Mexico State Register

of Cultural Properties (NMSRCP) were also consulted to determine the presence of

any cultural properties or districts within 500 m of the project Area of Potential Effect

(APE). The results of the NMCRIS search indicated that 11 previous cultural

resource surveys have been conducted within 500 m of the current APE. This

search also identified one State Register Property and five previously recorded

archaeological sites within 500 m of the APE.

The five previously recorded archaeological sites are located well beyond the APE of

the current project. As such, these resources will not be impacted and will not be

considered further. Four elements of the National Historic Landmark, Carlsbad

Irrigation District fall within the APE for the current project. In acknowledgment of

these resources, the proposed project has been designed to avoid these resources,

and thus pose no impact.

While the proposed project is within close proximity to elements of the historic

Carlsbad Irrigation District (National Register No. 66000476, State Register No. 7), it

is anticipated that the proposed project should have no effect on any properties

listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A cultural

resources survey report will be prepared to evaluate potential impacts to cultural

resources in the project area.

3. Community and Economic Resources

Community facilities include schools, government facilities, and social services that

are used by members of a given community. The Callaway Drive project area is

predominantly residential in nature, and many community facilities are located within

one mile (1.6 km) of the road corridor. Riverside Elementary School is located

approximately 250 ft (76 m) south of Callaway Drive on Johnson Street. Lane


pg. 28

closures on Callaway Drive will be required during the construction activities, but this

is not expected to result in significant transportation impacts to and from the school.

Three public parks; Desert Willow Park, Heritage Park, and Carlsbad Spring Park,

are within one mile (1.6 km) of the Callaway Drive corridor. Riverside Country Club

is bordered by Callaway Drive to the north of west of the golf course. The main

entrance to the Country Club is near the intersection of Desert Willow Drive and

Orchard lane, approximately 0.45 miles (724 m) south of Callaway Drive. The

proposed project would not lead to access restrictions to these parks or the golf

course.

Carlsbad Medical Center is the town’s main hospital and is located immediately

south of the project area at the intersection of Pierce Street (NM Highway 285) and

Callaway Drive. The main entrances are found on Pierce Street, with two alternative

entrances on Calloway Road. Given the distance from the hospital, no access

impacts to the medical center are expected from the proposed project.

For the purposes of this study, economic resources refers to the social and

economic environment of Eddy County and Carlsbad; including growth rate, labor

force, employment, income, and other economic indicators. The region of potential

impact for socioeconomics is the area where the direct and indirect effects of

activities associated with the proposed project would occur. Analysis of social

impacts includes factors such as disproportionate impacts on particular population

groups, loss of community cohesion, changes in accessibility of facilities and

services, and displacement of people. Economic impacts include effects on business

and employment, the local tax base, and other factors such as residential

development in relation to local economic conditions.

In 2012, the average per-capita income of Carlsbad was $24,887, and Eddy County

had an average per-capita income of $27,092. Both of these were higher than the

statewide average of $23,749. The estimated median household income for

Carlsbad in 2012 was $46,309 and $47,940 for Eddy County. Both were also higher

than the median household income state average of $44,886. In addition,

approximately 12 percent of Carlsbad’s population lives below the poverty threshold.

Table 2 provides summarized data on population groups and economic status at

state, county, and Carlsbad’s levels from the 2010 Census and 2012 projections

(USCB 2014a & 2014b). Data is also provided for the area within one mile (1.6 km)

of the project corridor.


pg. 29

The land in the vicinity of the Callaway Drive corridor is predominantly residential,

but there are two main businesses in the area. The Pecos Valley Pecans Orchard

and its associated pecans processing facilities (owned by CARC, Inc.) are located

along the Callaway Drive corridor to the north. Along the southwest portion of the

corridor is the Riverside Country Club. West of the corridor is generally undisturbed

open space.

Table V.B.3.1. Demographic Characteristics

New Mexico Eddy County Carlsbad Project Area 4

Total Population 1 2,059,179 53,829 26,138 6,033

Racial and Age Characteristics

2

New Mexico Eddy County Carlsbad Project Area

White 83.2% 77.4% 77.4% 87%

Black 2.5% 1.4% 1.9% 1%

American Indian/Alaska Native 10.1% 1.5% 1.3% 0%

Asian 1.6% 0.7% 1.0% 2%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0%

Hispanic or Latino Origin 46.7% 44.1% 42.5% 23%

Other/Two or More Races 2.3% 1.9% 2.0% 3%

White Persons not Hispanic 39.8% 52.2% 53.1% 73%

Persons under 5 Years 6.9% 7.1% 7.3% 6%

Persons under 18 Years 24.7% 26.1% 25.6% 24%

Persons 65 Years and Over 13.4% 14.0% 15.6% 21%

Income Statistics 3 New Mexico Eddy County Carlsbad Project Area

Per capita Money Income (2012)

$23,749 $27,092 $24,887 $28,943

Persons per Household 2.63 2.65 2.60 2.53

Median Household Income $44,886 $47,940 $46,309 --

Persons Below Poverty Level 19.5% 13.0% 12.1% --

Sources: USCB 2014a & 2014b.

Notes:

1. Based upon 2010 U.S. Census.

2. Based upon projections for 2012.

3. Based upon 2008-2012 data.

4. Based upon 2010 U.S. Census data U.S. EPA EJView, http://epamap14.epa.gov

C. PHYSICAL

1. Irrigation Ditches

Four historic acequias were located and documented within the APE during the

current inventory. These include the Main Canal, the Southern Canal, the East

Canal, and an unnamed lateral that is a diversion from the East Canal. The Main,

Southern and East Canals are each recognized, portionsof the CID, a National

http://epamap14.epa.gov/


pg. 30

Historic Landmark listed on the NMSRCP (SR No. 7) as well as the NRHP (NR No.

66000476) under both Criteria A and C.

D. PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Tube counts were taken along Callaway Drive North of Westridge and East of Quail

Hollow Run. An intersection analysis was done at the intersections of Pierce/Callaway

and Cherry/Callaway. Figure V.E.1 shows the locations of the traffic counts. Table

V.E.1 shows the existing traffic locations.

Figure V.E.1. Traffic Count Locations


pg. 31

Table V.E.1. Existing Conditions

The existing Level of Service (LOS) is an A for all of the un-signalized intersections as

well as the PM peak at the US 285/W Pierce intersection. The AM peak at US 285/W

Pierce has a LOS B as shown in Table V.E.2.

Table V.E.2. 2014 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

Table V.E.3. 2014 Un-Signalzed Intersection Capacity Analysis


pg. 32

There were two different growth projections that were evaluated for a 20 year growth.

The first 20 year growth projection was based on a 15% overall growth after 20 years

based on the City Water Plan (WP). The second 20 year growth projection was based

on a 3.4% annual growth rate each year for 20 years resulting in the population

doubling after 20 years (GR). Evaluations with both potential growth rates were

completed with the 20 year projections associated with the growth rate being the most

conservative. Tables V.E.4 and V.E.5 show the future traffic conditions based on the 20

year growth projection.

Table V.E.4. Future Signalized Intersection Capacity

Table V.E.4. Future Conditions Analysis


pg. 33

E. PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE ANALYSIS

The drainage analysis will be added at a later time.


pg. 34

SECTION VI: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

A. CALLAWAY DRIVE ALTERNATIVES

Due to budgetary purposes, this project has been divided into two phases to divide up

the cost and allow for most of the project to get done now with phase II in the near

future.

1. Phase I

There are 5 different alternatives that would work within the 60 feet of Right of

Way for Callaway Drive. Each alternative includes a multi-modal path on the

north side of the drainage canal that is adjacent to the roadway. It is also in the

interest of the community to use traffic calming features to help reduce the

number of vehicles speeding on Callaway Drive. Each alternative is proposed

to include a retaining wall adjacent to the CID ditch to resolve a grade difference

between the ditch and existing grade adjacent to the roadway shoulder. Each

alternative will also require the relocation of the power lines either closer to the

CID ditch or to the north side of the CID ditch where the pedestrian path is

proposed to be located. Each alternative has a different phase I cost, while the

phase II cost is constant for each alternative at $685,000. Phase I includes

Callaway Drive between Quail Hollow Run and Cherry Lane.

a) Option 1 – 2 Lane Existing with Upgrade

Option 1 consists of a 40-foot wide roadway including a 12 foot driving lane, 4

foot shoulder, and 2 foot curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. This is an

enhancement of the existing roadway as the roadway would remain as a two

lane facility. This option may not need the retaining wall as there is more space

between the roadway shoulder and the CID ditch when compared to other

alternatives. The estimated phase I cost is $1,420,100. Figure VI.1 refers to this

alternative.

b) Option 2 – 3 Lane roadway with a Continuous Turn Lane

Option 2 is a 3-Lane roadway with a continuous turn lane. This option consists of

12 foot driving lanes, 4 foot shoulders, and 2 foot curb and gutter on both sides of

the roadway. Also included in this option are an 11 foot continuous turn lane and

a 4 foot sidewalk on the south side of the roadway. This option has a width of 51


pg. 35

feet. The estimated phase I cost is $1,695,300. Figure VI.2 refers to this

alternative.

c) Option 3 – 3 Lane (Budget) No Curb and Gutter

Option 3 is a cheaper version of Option 2 as it is also a 3-lane roadway but does

not include curb and gutter. This option has a width of 43 feet consisting of a 12

foot driving lane and 1 foot shoulders on each side of the roadway. Also featured

is an 11’ center turn lane. On the south side of the roadway are a 2 foot curb and

gutter and a 4 foot sidewalk. This alternative may not need a retaining wall

adjacent to the CID ditch on the north side of the roadway, as there is more room

between the roadway and the CID ditch than other alternatives. The estimated

phase I cost is $1,273,100. Figure VI.3 refers to this alternative.

d) Option 4 – 2 Lane Hybrid

The 2-lane hybrid option combines features of options 1 and 2 as the roadway

transitions between a 2 and 3-lane roadway as there is a turning lane at some

locations but is not continuous. At the 3-lane section, the roadway has a width of

51 feet just like option 2 with an 11 foot center turn lane, 12 foot driving lanes, 4

foot shoulders, 2 foot curb and gutter sections, and a 4 foot sidewalk on the

south side of the roadway. At its 2-lane section, the roadway has a width of 40

feet with 12 foot driving lanes, 4 foot shoulders, 2 foot curb and gutter sections,

and a 4 foot sidewalk only on the south side of the roadway. The estimated

phase I cost is $1,548,000. Figure VI.4 refers to this alternative.

e) Option 5 – 4 Lane

Option 5 is a 4-lane roadway consisting of four 10.5 foot driving lanes, two 1.5

foot curb and gutter sections, and a 4 foot sidewalk on the south side of the

roadway. This option has a width of 49 feet. The estimated phase I cost is

$1,768,000. Figure VI.5. refers to this alternative.


pg. 36

Figure VI.1. 2–Lane Existing with Upgrade


pg. 37

FigureVI..2. 3–Lane Roadway with Continuous Turn Lane


pg. 38

Figure VI.3. 3–Lane (Budget) No Curb and Gutter


pg. 39

Figure VI.4. 2–Lane Hybrid


pg. 40

Figure VI. 5. 4–Lane


pg. 41

2. Phase II

Phase II includes the pedestrian path and Callaway Drive between the low

water crossing and Quail Hollow Run. The pedestrian path is proposed to be a

pavement section on the north side of the CID ditch that would give pedestrians

a place to travel that is not immediately adjacent to the roadway, providing a

safer, more enjoyable means of travel. Callaway Drive between the low water

crossing and Quail Hollow Run will remain as a 2-lane facility, however it will be

upgraded with a new pavement surface and new striping and include the

capability of a future Ligon Rd./Callaway Dr. intersection just north of the low

water crossing. Figure VI.6 shows what Callaway Drive would look like

between the low water crossing and Quail Hollow Run as part of phase II.

Phase II has an estimated cost of $685,000 for each alternative.

Figure VI.6. Callaway Drive Phase II


pg. 42

3. Traffic Calming Features

Traffic calming features can be added to any one of the alternatives. Traffic calming

features are designed to slow down traffic with features that either force a vehicle to

slow down such as a speed hump, or make the driver feel constricted where they tend

to slow down on their own. The following list gives examples of traffic calming features

that could be added to one of the alternatives if desired.

a) Speed Humps

Speed Humps are rounded, raised areas within the roadway which are longer than

speed bumps. Speed humps are usually 10 to 14 feet long in the direction of travel and

3 or 4 inches high. Speed humps can help keep speeds low by making vehicles slow

down for them, but not as drastic as speed bumps. Speed humps are very effective in

slowing travel speeds, yet they could cause a rougher ride for drivers, and may cause

an increase in noise. One study shows that a 12- foot hump can cause an average

decrease of 22% in the 85th percentile speed of travel which would be a similar

decrease from 35mph to 27.4 mph (Fehr Peers).

b) Speed Tables

Speed tables are very similar to speed humps. The difference is that a speed table is a

longer hump with a flat section in the middle. Usually the flat section is constructed with

brick or other textured materials and is usually long enough for the entire car to sit on

the flat section. Speed tables have higher design speeds than speed humps, yet the

textured flat section could improve the appearance of the roadway. One study shows

that a 22-foot speed table can cause an average decrease of 18% in the 85th percentile

speed of travel which would be a similar decrease from 35mph to 28.7 mph (Fehr

Peers).


pg. 43

c) Raised Crosswalks

A raised cross walk is the same thing as a speed table with the flat portion containing

cross walk markings and signage to channelize pedestrian crossing. Raised crosswalks

improve pedestrian safety by making pedestrians more visible, and can provide positive

aesthetics, yet are effective at reducing speeds similar to speed tables.

d) Striping

Reducing the roadway width can cause a decrease in speed by approximately 3 mph

according to one study (Kahn, 2011). The reduction in roadway width, by striping can

make the driver feel constricted which tends to cause a decrease in speed. Striping as

a traffic calming feature tends to be cheaper than most other traffic calming features.

One issue with reducing roadway width is that it could be more difficult to widen the

roadway, if the narrower roadway section is ineffective in terms of decreased vehicle

speeds. If striping is determined to be ineffective as a traffic calming feature, additional

features such as speed humps may be added.


pg. 44


pg. 45

SECTION VII: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

A. EVALUATION MATRIX

A decision matrix was developed to determine the best alternative for Callaway Drive

Improvements. Each alternative was rated based on 5 different categories rated equally

including public voting, cost, width needed, future traffic capacity, and how pedestrian

friendly the alternative was.

The community meeting held on June 16 was used to determine which alternative was

a favorite among the community. At the end of the community meeting, each

community member was given stickers with numbers to put on each alternative poster

numbering in which order were their favorite options. Option 2 was the clear favorite.

An average score for each option was determined based on the public input. The lower

the score, meant the more favorable the option was. The average score out of 5 was

then multiplied by 2 and then subtracted from 10 to get a score out of 10 with a higher

number indicating a more favorable option.

Table VII.A.1. Public Voting

Another category was cost which was based on Phase I of this project, as Phase II is

the same cost for each alternative. The cheapest option was given the highest score.

A score of 10 indicated a saving of 100k or more. A score of 9 indicated that the

alternative was under budget. A score of 8 indicated an option within 50k over budget,

a 7 meant the option was less than 100k over budget, a 6 meant the option was less

than 200k over budget and a 5 meant that the option was less than 300k over budget.

The budget for this project is 1.5 million dollars that can be used towards phase I.


pg. 46

Table VII.A.2. Cost

The roadway width was also used as a deciding factor in the decision matrix. A

narrower roadway including the shoulder and sidewalk indicated a higher score, as it

used less Right-of-Way.

Table VII.A.3. Roadway Width

Future traffic capacity was considered to be a category as a roadway with a higher

vehicle capacity would last longer as population increases. All of the alternatives meet

future traffic demands based on the BHI traffic study. Therefore, this category took into

account lane capacity. More lanes meant a higher score.


pg. 47

Table VII.A.4. Future Traffic Capacity

The final category in the decision matrix was how pedestrian friendly the alternative

was. This took into account the total width of shoulder, curb and gutter, and sidewalk.

These areas are spaces that pedestrians will utilize to move through the corridor without

getting in the way of traffic. The alternative with the most room for pedestrians was

given the highest score.

Table VII.A.5. Width of Roadway for Pedestrian Use

The recommended alternative based on the decision matrix is alternative 2 which is the

3-lane roadway with a continuous turn lane. Although this option is the second most

expensive option and requires 51 feet to build; it received the most favor from the

community meeting attendees, allows for more future traffic capacity than needed, and

is considered to be the most pedestrian friendly alternative.


pg. 48

Table VII.A.6. Decision Matrix

B. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The following, has been taken from pages 38 and 39 of “A Cultural Resource Survey for

the Callaway Drive Corridor Study in Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico” prepared by

Brad Beacham, and Nate Myers.

Acequia 1, the Main Canal, overlaps with a small portion of the proposed project APE.

As proposed, the Callaway Drive improvements will avoid the Main Canal and all of

those elements contributing to the eligibility of the historic property. Therefore, subject

to consultation and comment, the proposed undertaking will have no effect on the Main

Canal. No further management consideration is warranted for this resource.

Acequia 2, the Southern Canal intersects the project alignment at one location. As

designed, the proposed Callaway Drive improvements will be conveyed over the

Southern Canal via the existing CBC structure. The proposed footprint of the roadway

improvements will be confined to the limits of the existing structure. As such, the

proposed project will avoid the Southern Canal and all of those elements contributing ot

the eligivility of this historic property. Therefore, subject to consultation and comment,

the proposed undertaking will have no effect on the Southern canal. No further

management consideration is warranted for this resource.

Acequia 3, the East Canal, parallels much of the project corridor along the north side of

Callaway Drive. As designed, the proposed project will include improvements to Quail

Hollow Run and Hays Drive at their respective intersections with Callaway Drive. Quail

Hollow Run and Hays Drive are conveyed over the Eat Canal via existing concrete slab

structures. The proposed improvements at these locations will be confined to the limits

of the existing structure, thus avoiding the East Canal and those elements contrituting ot

the eligibility of the historic property. Additionally, the proposed improvements will

include the construction of a retaining wall adjacent to the East Canal, as needed, to

resolve a grade difference between the ditch and existing grade where the roadway


pg. 49

shoulder is in close proximity to the East Canal in avoidance of impacts to the resource.

Therefore, subject to consultation and comment, the proposed undertaking will have no

adverse effect on the East Canal. No further management consideration is warranted

for this resource.

Acequia 4, an unnamed lateral intersects the project alignment at one location. Via the

East Canal, Acequia 4 is an extension of the CID system. As such, Acequia 4 is

recommended eligible for the NMSRCP and the NRHP under Criterion A, due to its

association with the historic CID. Furthermore, Acequia 4 is recommended eligible for

the NMSRCP and the NRHP under Criterion C, due to the presence of concrete and

stone masonry construction with CCC stamps, serving as an example of improvement

efforts completed between 1938 and 1939 for the CID system (Hufstetler and Johnson

1991).

As designed, the proposed roadway improvements will require the expansion of the

existing concrete slab bridge that provides conveyance of Callaway Drive across

Acequia 4. The bridge expansion will be similar in design to the existing structure,

extending above the lateral, and will require widening of the concrete slab and the

installation of spread footings to accommodate the proposed roadway design. As a

result, the proposed bridge slab will not directly impact the concrete-lined ditch. During

construction of the bridge expansion, Epsilon Systems recommends that manual

excavation be required within close proximity to Acequia 4 in avoidance of impacts to

the resource. Therefore, subject to consultation and comment, the proposed

undertaking will have no adverse effect on Acequia 4. No further management

consideration is warranted for this resource.

If the recommendations made in this report are followed, the proposed Callaway Drive

Corridor Study should have no adverse effect to any resources listed, or eligible for

listing, in the NMSRCP or NRHP. However, should cultural materials be exposed

during construction, all work should cease immediately and SHPO should be contacted.


pg. 50

SECTION VIII: RECOMMENDATIONS

Callaway Drive in Carlsbad is a local collector that serves residential homes, a local

elementary school, apartments, and provides access to the WIPP Relief Route as it is

one of the 4 river crossings within the City of Carlsbad. This report examined a variety

of alternatives to improve this corridor and meet the Purpose and Need of this project.

These improvements have been identified through two venues:

Through examination of traditional engineering and environmental factors and

data that result in the need to provide system improvements.

Through Public Involvement which involved large amounts of community

outreach to understand the needs and values of the community.

A. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

Through this study and the identification and screening of alternatives, determined the

alternative that best meets the Purpose and Need for this project is Alternative 2, a

three lane facility with a continuous turn lane between Quail Hollow Run and Cherry

Lane. This alternative utilizes a 51 foot width including two 12-foot driving lanes, one

11-foot continuous center turn lane, 2- foot curb and gutter on both sides of the

roadway, 4-foot shoulders on both sides of the roadway, and a 4-foot side walk on the

south side of the roadway.

It is recommended that this alternative utilize traffic calming features to help decrease

the speed of local drivers. The design could utilize narrower striping through the

corridor, particularly along Callaway Drive where local residents have driveways

adjacent to Callaway Drive. The narrower striping will make drivers feel constricted

which may cause them to slow down. It will also allow for less ROW to be used in that

area. Several locations can also be analyzed for medians to increase the safety

through this area. Two raised crosswalks may also be utilized along the corridor to give

pedestrians safer spots to cross the roadway where they can more easily be seen. The

raised crosswalks will also be effective in slowing down the speed of traffic.

This alternative is the second most costly with a phase I cost of $1,695,300 however, it

received the most interest from the public, exceeds future traffic capacity, and is the

most pedestrian friendly alternative. Figure VIII.1 shows the recommended typical

section for phase I.


pg. 51

Figure VIII.1. Recommended Alternative


pg. 52

SECTION IX: REFERENCES

Bohannan Huston. (2014). Callaway Drive Corridor Study Traffic Analysis. Las Cruces

City of Carlsbad. (2013). Carlsbad, New Mexico - Official City Website. Carlsbad, New

Mexico - Official City Website. Retrieved May 30, 2014, from

http://www.cityofcarlsbadnm.com/

Dehler, C.M and J.L. Pederson 2002a, “Geologic Map of the Carlsbad West

Quadrangle, Eddy County New Mexico,” New Mexico Bureau of Geology and

Mineral Resources Open-File Digital Geologic Map OF-GM 059, Santa Fe, New

Mexico, June.

Dehler, C.M 2002b, “Geologic Map of the Carlsbad East Quadrangle, Eddy County New

Mexico,” New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources Open-File

Digital Geologic Map OF-GM 060, Santa Fe, New Mexico, June.

Fehr Peers. (2014, January 1). Traffic Calming. Retrieved September 2, 2014, from

http://trafficcalming.org/

Hendrickson, G.E. and R.S. Jones 1952, “Geology of Ground-Water Resources of Eddy

County, New Mexico,” New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources,

University of New Mexico Press, Groundwater Report 3, 169 pp. plus

attachments.

Kahn, R., & Goedecke, A. (2011, September 1). Roadway Striping as a Traffic Calming

Option. Retrieved September 2, 2014.

Myers, N., & Beacham, B. (2014). A cultural Resource Survey for the Callaway Drive

Corridor Study in Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico.

New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department. Location Study

Procedures). August 2000.

NMGF 2014, “Eddy County Threatened and Endangered Species List,” New Mexico

Department of Game and Fish, Biota Information System of New Mexico website,

www.bison-m.org accessed June 19, 2014.

USCB 2014a “State & County QuickFacts – Eddy County, New Mexico,” U.S. Census

Bureau website accessed June 23, 2014,

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/35015.html .

http://www.bison-m.org/

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/35015.html


pg. 53

USCB 2014b “State & County QuickFacts – Carlsbad (city), New Mexico,” U.S. Census

Bureau website accessed June 23, 2014,

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/3512150.html .

USBR 2011, “Carlsbad Project,” U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation,

website http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Carlsbad+Project

accessed June 19, 2014.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/3512150.html

http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Carlsbad+Project

APPENDIX A

Traffic Analysis

P:\20140360\TRANS\Study\Report-Production\Report\Traffic_Analysis_Rev_2.docx

April 16, 2014 Jerry Paz, P.E. Molzen Corbin & Associates 1155 Commerce Drive Suite F Las Cruces, NM 88011 Re: Callaway Drive Corridor Study, Carlsbad, NM Traffic Analysis Dear Jerry:

This letter report documents the traffic analysis performed for the Callaway Drive Corridor Study in Carlsbad, New Mexico. STUDY PURPOSE

The purpose of the traffic study is to evaluate existing conditions and future traffic conditions. Future development levels in the area will be based on projections from the City of Carlsbad Water Master Plan report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Principal Findings

The traffic analysis performed shows that the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under existing conditions and forecast 2030 conditions.

2. Recommendations

None at this time.

BACKGROUND

A. SITE LOCATION

Callaway Drive is a 2-lane collector in northwest Carlsbad, New Mexico. It has a signalized intersection with US 285/West Pierce Street, proceeds north to cross the Pecos River, then proceeds east along the East Canal where it ends at Cherry Drive, a four-way Stop controlled intersection. Callaway Drive serves a growing area of Carlsbad anticipated to have significant growth over the next 20 years. The vicinity map is shown in Enclosure.

Mr. Jerry Paz Molzen Corbin & Associates Callaway Drive Corridor Study April 16, 2014 Page 2


ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

A. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

As mentioned, Callaway Drive is a two-lane collector. Cherry Drive is also a two-lane collector. US 285/West Pierce Street is a 4-lane primary arterial, with a speed limit of 45 MPH.

B. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Traffic counts were collected in March 2014. A nine-hour turning movement count was performed at both the US 285/Pierce and Cherry Drive intersections. Two locations along Callaway Drive also had 48-hour tube counts performed. One location was north of Westridge Drive; the other was east of Quail Hollow Run. The tube counts are summarized in the table below and are included in the Enclosure.

Location Daily Traffic

(vehicles per day) % Heavy Vehicles

85th %-ile speed (mph)

North of Westridge NB SB

4,620 0 46.2 44.4

East of Quail Hollow EB WB

4,088 0 36.7 37.9

The results show Callaway carries a little less than 5,000 vehicles per day. As will be shown below, the existing 2-lane section has sufficient capacity and acceptable traffic operations under existing conditions.

C. EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE

The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) defines Level of Service (LOS) for signalized and un-signalized intersections as follows:

Table 1 – LOS Definitions

Level of Service

Signalized (sec/veh)

Definition Un-Signalized

(sec/veh) A <10 Most vehicles do not stop. <10

B >10 and <20 Some vehicles stop. >10 and <15

C >20 and <35 Significant numbers of vehicles

stop. >15 and <25

D >35 and <55 Many vehicles stop. >25 and <35

E >55 and <80 Limit of acceptable delay. >35 and <50

F >80 Unacceptable delay. >50



The NMDOT has established LOS D as the generally acceptable level of service in urban areas and is desirable base condition for the analysis in a traffic study. LOS D will be used as the desired level of service for this study.

D. DATA SOURCES

The data used in this report consist of traffic counts described above, aerial photography and mapping from Google Earth, and information provided by the City of Carlsbad and Molzen Corbin & Associates.

PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES

The City of Carlsbad Water Master Plan was used to identify potential development in the area. Two areas near the corridor were identified: Spring Hollow with 198 dwelling units, and Callaway and Cherry, with 212 units. The ITE Trip Generation manual was used to determine the trip generation that would result from these 410 units. The daily traffic expected from these 410 units is 3,850 vehicles per day, with 297 new trips in the AM peak hour, and 375 in the PM peak hour. The trips from these developments were added to the background traffic at the US 285/West Pierce Street and Cherry intersections based on the existing traffic volume splits. The referenced Water Master Plan also projects population growth in the area to increase by 15% by 2030. Therefore all background traffic volumes, not originating or destined for these two new residential developments, were increased by 15% to account for the regional growth in traffic. Based on the population growth expected in the Water Master Plan, the above developments account for 20% of the future population growth anticipated by 2030. Adding the above development traffic to the intersections increases the traffic volume at the Callaway and US 285/West Pierce Street intersection by 20%. Traffic volume at the Callaway and Cherry intersection will increase by 50% over 2014 traffic volumes.

TRAFFIC AND IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS The following section will discuss the results of the traffic analysis.

LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

1. 2014 Existing Conditions Intersection Analysis

The intersections were analyzed using Synchro version 8. Table 2 shows the results of the 2014 existing conditions traffic analysis. The Synchro analysis summaries are included in the Enclosure.



Table 2 – 2014 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Results

2014 AM Peak 2014 PM Peak

Signalized Intersection Delay

(sec.) V/C LOS

Delay

(sec.) V/C LOS

US 285/W Pierce 10.2 0.42 B 7.5 0.33 A

* - some movements LOS E ** - some movements LOS F

The results indicate the signalized intersection of US 285/West Pierce Street operates at an acceptable level of service under existing conditions.

Table 3 – 2014 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Results


Intersection/Movement Delay v/c Queue*

(ft) LOS Delay v/c Queue*

(ft) LOS

Cherry Drive NB Approach EB Approach

WB Approach SB Approach

9.5 8

7.7 7.6

0.29 0.17 0.02 0.04

50 25 25 25

A A A A

9.4 8.1 7.7 7.7

0.26 0.18 0.2 0.08

25 25 25 25

A A A A

* - HCM 95th percentile queue rounded to next 25-foot increment

The results indicate the signalized intersection of Cherry Drive operates at an acceptable level of service under existing conditions.

2. 2030 Future Conditions Intersection Analysis

As mentioned above, to determine future year trip generation, the anticipated development in the area from the City of Carlsbad Water Plan was added to the 2014 turning movements. The movements which did not increase due to the anticipated development were increased by 15%, the anticipated increase in population by 2030 developed for the Water Master Plan.

A second, more conservative (higher traffic volume) scenario was considered. In this case, all turning movements were doubled (increased by 2 times, or 2X). This was done as a sanity check to determine if this amount of traffic increase would require improvements.



Table 4 – 2030 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Results


Signalized Intersection Delay

(sec.) V/C LOS

Delay

(sec.) V/C LOS

US 285/W Pierce – 2030 14.5 0.58 B 9.7 0.42 A

US 285/W Pierce – 2X 19.4 0.75 B 13.6 0.68 B

* - some movements LOS E ** - some movements LOS F

Table 4 indicates the signalized intersection of US 285/West Pierce Street will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service in 2030, under both the expected and conservative 2X scenario. No movement at this intersection will operate worse than LOS C in either scenario.

Table 5 – 2030 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Results


Intersection/Movement Delay v/c Queue*

(ft) LOS Delay v/c Queue*

(ft) LOS

Cherry Drive – 2030 NB Approach EB Approach


10.8 9.0 8.1 8.0

0.37 0.27 0.03 0.05

50 50 25 25

B A A A

11.9 9.4 8.4 8.5

0.45 0.28 0.04 0.12

75 50 25 25

B A A A

Cherry Drive – 2X NB Approach EB Approach


16.5 11.2 8.9 8.8

0.63 0.40 0.04 0.10

100 50 25 25

C B A A

16.2 11.8 9.1 9.5

0.60 0.44 0.04 0.20

100 75 25 25

C B A A

* - HCM 95th percentile queue rounded to next 25-foot increment

The analysis shows the intersection with Cherry Drive will also continue to operate at acceptable levels of service in the future 2030 scenarios. The analysis indicates the northbound approach will have the largest increase in delay and queue. However the delay is acceptable at LOS C.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. CONCLUSIONS

The analysis performed shows that the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service for existing and future conditions.



ENCLOSURE

Vicinity Map

Existing Traffic Counts

2014 Existing Conditions Synchro Output

City of Carlsbad Water Master Plan Growth Projections

2030 Future Conditions Synchro Output

Mike Henderson Consulting, LLC5301 Camino Sandia NEAlbuquerque, NM 87111

(505) 275-5706 File Name : US 285 & CallawaySite Code : Start Date : 3/18/2014Page No : 1

Collected by: MH11

Groups Printed- Car - Truck

EastboundCallaway DrWestbound

US 285 (Pierce)Northbound

US 285 (Pierce)Southbound

Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Exclu. Total Inclu. Total Int. Total07:00 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 9 0 29 0 61 16 0 77 2 41 0 0 43 0 149 14907:15 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 12 0 48 0 57 8 0 65 2 33 0 0 35 0 148 14807:30 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 7 0 57 0 70 28 0 98 1 46 0 0 47 0 202 20207:45 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 12 0 84 0 93 30 0 123 5 61 0 0 66 0 273 273Total 0 0 0 0 0 178 0 40 0 218 0 281 82 0 363 10 181 0 0 191 0 772 772

08:00 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 15 0 78 0 77 37 0 114 2 63 0 0 65 0 257 25708:15 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 5 0 44 0 63 43 0 106 3 60 0 0 63 0 213 21308:30 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 8 0 25 0 54 15 0 69 7 50 0 0 57 0 151 15108:45 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 17 0 42 0 64 17 0 81 3 63 0 0 66 0 189 189Total 0 0 0 0 0 144 0 45 0 189 0 258 112 0 370 15 236 0 0 251 0 810 810

09:00 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 6 0 25 0 81 26 0 107 8 69 0 0 77 0 209 20909:15 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 8 0 25 0 66 21 0 87 5 62 0 0 67 0 179 17909:30 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 9 0 27 0 81 21 0 102 3 57 0 0 60 0 189 18909:45 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 14 0 46 0 99 17 0 116 8 66 0 0 74 0 236 236Total 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 37 0 123 0 327 85 0 412 24 254 0 0 278 0 813 813

*** BREAK ***

11:00 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 10 0 30 0 91 21 0 112 6 95 0 0 101 0 243 24311:15 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 7 0 25 0 76 22 0 98 4 89 0 0 93 0 216 21611:30 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 9 0 31 0 74 21 0 95 6 91 0 0 97 0 223 22311:45 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 11 0 31 0 80 32 0 112 10 81 0 0 91 0 234 234Total 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 37 0 117 0 321 96 0 417 26 356 0 0 382 0 916 916

12:00 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 6 0 36 0 79 31 0 110 11 100 0 0 111 0 257 25712:15 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 13 0 38 0 66 32 0 98 15 78 0 0 93 0 229 22912:30 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 15 0 43 0 88 25 0 113 7 82 0 0 89 0 245 24512:45 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 7 0 39 0 97 37 0 134 12 80 0 0 92 0 265 265Total 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 41 0 156 0 330 125 0 455 45 340 0 0 385 0 996 996

13:00 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 11 0 35 0 95 37 0 132 4 66 0 0 70 0 237 23713:15 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 12 0 37 0 84 31 0 115 8 70 0 0 78 0 230 23013:30 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 8 0 37 0 91 33 0 124 9 72 0 0 81 0 242 24213:45 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 9 0 24 0 70 24 0 94 9 65 0 0 74 0 192 192Total 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 40 0 133 0 340 125 0 465 30 273 0 0 303 0 901 901

*** BREAK ***

15:00 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 9 0 68 0 66 42 0 108 11 64 0 0 75 0 251 25115:15 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 17 0 50 0 67 37 0 104 11 78 0 0 89 0 243 24315:30 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 8 0 46 0 77 32 0 109 9 83 0 0 92 0 247 24715:45 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 2 0 43 0 92 64 0 156 7 93 0 0 100 0 299 299Total 0 0 0 0 0 171 0 36 0 207 0 302 175 0 477 38 318 0 0 356 0 1040 1040



Collected by: MH11

Groups Printed- Car - Truck





17:00 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 6 0 49 0 96 55 0 151 11 95 0 0 106 0 306 30617:15 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 9 0 46 0 100 56 0 156 22 82 0 0 104 0 306 30617:30 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 7 0 42 0 73 37 0 110 13 86 0 0 99 0 251 25117:45 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 13 0 43 0 81 44 0 125 12 82 0 0 94 0 262 262Total 0 0 0 0 0 145 0 35 0 180 0 350 192 0 542 58 345 0 0 403 0 1125 1125

Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 1163 0 340 0 1503 0 2841 1149 0 3990 292 2622 0 0 2914 0 8407 8407Apprch % 0 0 0 77.4 0 22.6 0 71.2 28.8 10 90 0

Total % 0 0 0 0 13.8 0 4 17.9 0 33.8 13.7 47.5 3.5 31.2 0 34.7 0 100Car 0 0 0 0 1139 0 323 1462 0 2652 1112 3764 287 2446 0 2733 0 0 7959

% Car 0 0 0 0 0 97.9 0 95 0 97.3 0 93.3 96.8 0 94.3 98.3 93.3 0 0 93.8 0 0 94.7Truck 0 0 0 0 24 0 17 41 0 189 37 226 5 176 0 181 0 0 448

% Truck 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 0 5 0 2.7 0 6.7 3.2 0 5.7 1.7 6.7 0 0 6.2 0 0 5.3



Collected by: MH11




Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 09:45 - Peak 1 of 1Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30

07:30 0 0 0 0 50 0 7 57 0 70 28 98 1 46 0 47 20207:45 0 0 0 0 72 0 12 84 0 93 30 123 5 61 0 66 27308:00 0 0 0 0 63 0 15 78 0 77 37 114 2 63 0 65 25708:15 0 0 0 0 39 0 5 44 0 63 43 106 3 60 0 63 213

Total Volume 0 0 0 0 224 0 39 263 0 303 138 441 11 230 0 241 945% App. Total 0 0 0 85.2 0 14.8 0 68.7 31.3 4.6 95.4 0

PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .778 .000 .650 .783 .000 .815 .802 .896 .550 .913 .000 .913 .865Car 0 0 0 0 219 0 38 257 0 278 127 405 11 214 0 225 887

% Car 0 0 0 0 97.8 0 97.4 97.7 0 91.7 92.0 91.8 100 93.0 0 93.4 93.9Truck 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 6 0 25 11 36 0 16 0 16 58

% Truck 0 0 0 0 2.2 0 2.6 2.3 0 8.3 8.0 8.2 0 7.0 0 6.6 6.1

Peak Hour Analysis From 10:00 to 13:45 - Peak 1 of 1Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00

12:00 0 0 0 0 30 0 6 36 0 79 31 110 11 100 0 111 25712:15 0 0 0 0 25 0 13 38 0 66 32 98 15 78 0 93 22912:30 0 0 0 0 28 0 15 43 0 88 25 113 7 82 0 89 24512:45 0 0 0 0 32 0 7 39 0 97 37 134 12 80 0 92 265


PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .898 .000 .683 .907 .000 .851 .845 .849 .750 .850 .000 .867 .940Car 0 0 0 0 111 0 39 150 0 301 123 424 44 321 0 365 939

% Car 0 0 0 0 96.5 0 95.1 96.2 0 91.2 98.4 93.2 97.8 94.4 0 94.8 94.3Truck 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 6 0 29 2 31 1 19 0 20 57

% Truck 0 0 0 0 3.5 0 4.9 3.8 0 8.8 1.6 6.8 2.2 5.6 0 5.2 5.7


16:30 0 0 0 0 40 0 8 48 0 72 40 112 15 90 0 105 26516:45 0 0 0 0 37 0 9 46 0 92 44 136 12 85 0 97 27917:00 0 0 0 0 43 0 6 49 0 96 55 151 11 95 0 106 30617:15 0 0 0 0 37 0 9 46 0 100 56 156 22 82 0 104 306


PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .913 .000 .889 .964 .000 .900 .871 .889 .682 .926 .000 .972 .944Car 0 0 0 0 154 0 31 185 0 343 193 536 60 335 0 395 1116

% Car 0 0 0 0 98.1 0 96.9 97.9 0 95.3 99.0 96.6 100 95.2 0 95.9 96.5Truck 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 4 0 17 2 19 0 17 0 17 40

% Truck 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 3.1 2.1 0 4.7 1.0 3.4 0 4.8 0 4.1 3.5


(505) 275-5706 File Name : Callaway & CherrySite Code : Start Date : 3/18/2014Page No : 1

Collected by: MH7

Groups Printed- Car - TruckCallaway DrEastbound

Callaway DrWestbound

Cherry LnNorthbound

Cherry LnSouthbound


08:00 1 0 29 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 26 6 0 0 32 0 3 5 0 8 0 70 7008:15 2 0 25 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 19 7 0 0 26 0 7 1 0 8 0 61 6108:30 2 0 9 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 13 0 2 0 0 2 0 26 2608:45 3 0 11 0 14 1 0 0 0 1 17 13 0 0 30 0 1 0 0 1 0 46 46Total 8 0 74 0 82 1 0 0 0 1 72 29 0 0 101 0 13 6 0 19 0 203 203

09:00 2 1 12 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 13 0 6 4 0 10 0 38 3809:15 5 0 10 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 0 0 14 0 5 0 0 5 0 34 3409:30 2 0 7 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 13 3 0 0 16 0 5 3 0 8 0 33 3309:45 1 0 11 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 1 0 14 0 2 3 0 5 0 31 31Total 10 1 40 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 42 14 1 0 57 0 18 10 0 28 0 136 136

*** BREAK ***

11:00 3 0 13 0 16 0 1 0 0 1 8 5 0 0 13 0 4 2 0 6 0 36 3611:15 3 1 13 0 17 1 0 0 0 1 13 3 0 0 16 0 9 2 0 11 0 45 4511:30 1 0 9 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 12 7 0 0 19 0 3 6 0 9 0 38 3811:45 0 0 18 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 15 5 0 0 20 0 9 5 0 14 0 52 52Total 7 1 53 0 61 1 1 0 0 2 48 20 0 0 68 0 25 15 0 40 0 171 171

12:00 4 2 13 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 11 8 1 0 20 0 17 4 0 21 0 60 6012:15 4 1 19 0 24 0 0 1 0 1 11 5 0 0 16 0 5 5 0 10 0 51 5112:30 5 0 9 0 14 0 1 0 0 1 11 8 0 0 19 0 5 6 0 11 0 45 4512:45 9 0 22 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 12 9 0 0 21 0 5 6 0 11 0 63 63Total 22 3 63 0 88 0 1 1 0 2 45 30 1 0 76 0 32 21 0 53 0 219 219

13:00 4 0 24 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 11 12 0 0 23 0 6 1 0 7 0 58 5813:15 3 1 17 0 21 0 1 0 0 1 16 6 0 0 22 0 4 4 0 8 0 52 5213:30 1 0 22 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 14 8 0 0 22 0 4 6 0 10 0 55 5513:45 3 0 16 0 19 0 1 0 0 1 13 5 0 0 18 0 5 7 0 12 0 50 50Total 11 1 79 0 91 0 2 0 0 2 54 31 0 0 85 0 19 18 0 37 0 215 215

*** BREAK ***

15:00 3 0 30 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 13 7 0 0 20 0 9 10 0 19 0 72 7215:15 2 0 18 0 20 1 1 0 0 2 19 8 1 0 28 0 5 3 0 8 0 58 5815:30 3 0 15 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 22 5 0 0 27 0 7 1 0 8 0 53 5315:45 5 0 18 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 20 7 0 0 27 0 7 2 0 9 0 59 59Total 13 0 81 0 94 1 1 0 0 2 74 27 1 0 102 0 28 16 0 44 0 242 242



Collected by: MH7

Groups Printed- Car - TruckCallaway DrEastbound


Cherry LnNorthbound

Cherry LnSouthbound


17:00 3 0 36 0 39 0 0 0 3 0 26 7 0 0 33 0 15 3 2 18 5 90 9517:15 1 0 37 1 38 0 0 0 0 0 34 6 0 0 40 0 6 3 0 9 1 87 8817:30 2 1 21 0 24 1 0 0 0 1 23 2 1 0 26 0 2 1 1 3 1 54 5517:45 0 0 17 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 30 4 0 0 34 0 1 1 0 2 0 53 53Total 6 1 111 1 118 1 0 0 3 1 113 19 1 0 133 0 24 8 3 32 7 284 291

Grand Total 96 7 669 1 772 4 5 3 3 12 665 219 5 0 889 1 208 118 3 327 7 2000 2007Apprch % 12.4 0.9 86.7 33.3 41.7 25 74.8 24.6 0.6 0.3 63.6 36.1

Total % 4.8 0.3 33.5 38.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 33.2 10.9 0.2 44.5 0.1 10.4 5.9 16.4 0.3 99.7Car 92 7 635 735 4 5 3 15 636 207 5 848 1 196 114 314 0 0 1912

% Car 95.8 100 94.9 100 95.1 100 100 100 100 100 95.6 94.5 100 0 95.4 100 94.2 96.6 100 95.2 0 0 95.3Truck 4 0 34 38 0 0 0 0 29 12 0 41 0 12 4 16 0 0 95

% Truck 4.2 0 5.1 0 4.9 0 0 0 0 0 4.4 5.5 0 0 4.6 0 5.8 3.4 0 4.8 0 0 4.7



Collected by: MH7

Callaway DrEastbound


Cherry LnNorthbound

Cherry LnSouthbound

Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. TotalPeak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 09:45 - Peak 1 of 1Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30

07:30 1 0 25 26 0 0 0 0 35 5 0 40 0 4 1 5 7107:45 7 0 29 36 0 0 1 1 41 13 0 54 0 5 0 5 9608:00 1 0 29 30 0 0 0 0 26 6 0 32 0 3 5 8 7008:15 2 0 25 27 0 0 0 0 19 7 0 26 0 7 1 8 61

Total Volume 11 0 108 119 0 0 1 1 121 31 0 152 0 19 7 26 298% App. Total 9.2 0 90.8 0 0 100 79.6 20.4 0 0 73.1 26.9

PHF .393 .000 .931 .826 .000 .000 .250 .250 .738 .596 .000 .704 .000 .679 .350 .813 .776Car 10 0 83 93 0 0 1 1 106 28 0 134 0 13 6 19 247

% Car 90.9 0 76.9 78.2 0 0 100 100 87.6 90.3 0 88.2 0 68.4 85.7 73.1 82.9Truck 1 0 25 26 0 0 0 0 15 3 0 18 0 6 1 7 51

% Truck 9.1 0 23.1 21.8 0 0 0 0 12.4 9.7 0 11.8 0 31.6 14.3 26.9 17.1


12:45 9 0 22 31 0 0 0 0 12 9 0 21 0 5 6 11 6313:00 4 0 24 28 0 0 0 0 11 12 0 23 0 6 1 7 5813:15 3 1 17 21 0 1 0 1 16 6 0 22 0 4 4 8 5213:30 1 0 22 23 0 0 0 0 14 8 0 22 0 4 6 10 55

Total Volume 17 1 85 103 0 1 0 1 53 35 0 88 0 19 17 36 228% App. Total 16.5 1 82.5 0 100 0 60.2 39.8 0 0 52.8 47.2

PHF .472 .250 .885 .831 .000 .250 .000 .250 .828 .729 .000 .957 .000 .792 .708 .818 .905Car 17 1 83 101 0 1 0 1 53 30 0 83 0 17 16 33 218

% Car 100 100 97.6 98.1 0 100 0 100 100 85.7 0 94.3 0 89.5 94.1 91.7 95.6Truck 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 2 1 3 10

% Truck 0 0 2.4 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 14.3 0 5.7 0 10.5 5.9 8.3 4.4


16:30 4 0 17 21 0 0 0 0 32 4 0 36 0 6 3 9 6616:45 3 0 26 29 0 0 1 1 26 5 0 31 1 8 7 16 7717:00 3 0 36 39 0 0 0 0 26 7 0 33 0 15 3 18 9017:15 1 0 37 38 0 0 0 0 34 6 0 40 0 6 3 9 87

Total Volume 11 0 116 127 0 0 1 1 118 22 0 140 1 35 16 52 320% App. Total 8.7 0 91.3 0 0 100 84.3 15.7 0 1.9 67.3 30.8

PHF .688 .000 .784 .814 .000 .000 .250 .250 .868 .786 .000 .875 .250 .583 .571 .722 .889Car 11 0 116 127 0 0 1 1 117 22 0 139 1 35 16 52 319

% Car 100 0 100 100 0 0 100 100 99.2 100 0 99.3 100 100 100 100 99.7Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

% Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0.3

HCM 2010 AWSC Callaway Drive Study2: Cherry & Callaway Drive 2014 AM Peak

P:\20140360\TRANS\Study\Analysis\Synchro\Existing AM.syn Synchro 8 ReportEHW/BHI Page 1

IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 8.8Intersection LOS A

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBRVol, veh/h 0 11 1 108 0 1 1 1 0 121 31 1Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.92 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.92 0.70 0.70 0.70Heavy Vehicles, % 2 10 2 25 2 2 2 2 2 13 10 2Mvmt Flow 0 13 1 132 0 4 4 4 0 173 44 1Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Approach EB WB NBOpposing Approach WB EB SBOpposing Lanes 1 1 1Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EBConflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WBConflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1HCM Control Delay 8 7.7 9.5HCM LOS A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1Vol Left, % 79% 9% 33% 4%Vol Thru, % 20% 1% 33% 70%Vol Right, % 1% 90% 33% 26%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 153 120 3 27LT Vol 31 1 1 19Through Vol 1 108 1 7RT Vol 121 11 1 1Lane Flow Rate 219 146 12 33Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1Degree of Util (X) 0.278 0.17 0.015 0.041Departure Headway (Hd) 4.578 4.175 4.573 4.384Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes YesCap 774 863 786 818Service Time 2.675 2.178 2.584 2.401HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.283 0.169 0.015 0.04HCM Control Delay 9.5 8 7.7 7.6HCM Lane LOS A A A AHCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 0.6 0 0.1

HCM 2010 AWSC Callaway Drive Study2: Cherry & Callaway Drive 2014 AM Peak


IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/vehIntersection LOS

Movement SBU SBL SBT SBRVol, veh/h 0 1 19 7Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.81 0.81 0.81Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 32 14Mvmt Flow 0 1 23 9Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0

Approach SBOpposing Approach NBOpposing Lanes 1Conflicting Approach Left WBConflicting Lanes Left 1Conflicting Approach Right EBConflicting Lanes Right 1HCM Control Delay 7.6HCM LOS A

Lane

HCM 2010 AWSC Callaway Drive Study2: Cherry & Callaway Drive 2014 PM Peak

P:\20140360\TRANS\Study\Analysis\Synchro\Existing PM.syn Synchro 8 ReportEHW/BHI Page 1



Approach EB WB NBOpposing Approach WB EB SBOpposing Lanes 1 1 1Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EBConflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WBConflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1HCM Control Delay 8.1 7.7 9.4HCM LOS A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1Vol Left, % 84% 9% 33% 2%Vol Thru, % 16% 1% 33% 67%Vol Right, % 1% 91% 33% 31%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 141 128 3 52LT Vol 22 1 1 35Through Vol 1 116 1 16RT Vol 118 11 1 1Lane Flow Rate 201 156 12 64Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1Degree of Util (X) 0.259 0.182 0.015 0.078Departure Headway (Hd) 4.742 4.198 4.615 4.359Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes YesCap 761 859 778 824Service Time 2.742 2.203 2.628 2.375HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.264 0.182 0.015 0.078HCM Control Delay 9.4 8.1 7.7 7.7HCM Lane LOS A A A AHCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.7 0 0.3

HCM 2010 AWSC Callaway Drive Study2: Cherry & Callaway Drive 2014 PM Peak





Lane

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Callaway Drive Study1: Callaway Drive & Pierce 2014 AM Peak


Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 224 39 303 138 11 230Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1734 3312 1495 1770 3374Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1734 3312 1495 831 3374Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.78 0.78 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.91Adj. Flow (vph) 287 50 340 155 12 253RTOR Reduction (vph) 10 0 0 91 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 327 0 340 64 12 253Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 9% 8% 2% 7%Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NAProtected Phases 2 1 6Permitted Phases 8 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 12.3 17.6 17.6 22.6 22.6Effective Green, g (s) 12.3 17.6 17.6 22.6 22.6Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.41 0.41 0.53 0.53Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 497 1358 613 459 1777v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.00 c0.07v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.04 0.01v/c Ratio 0.66 0.25 0.10 0.03 0.14Uniform Delay, d1 13.5 8.3 7.8 5.0 5.2Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0Delay (s) 16.6 8.8 8.1 5.0 5.2Level of Service B A A A AApproach Delay (s) 16.6 8.6 5.2Approach LOS B A A

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 10.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42Actuated Cycle Length (s) 42.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.6% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Callaway Drive Study1: Callaway Drive & Pierce 2014 PM Peak


Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 157 32 360 195 60 352Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 3438 1583 1719 3539Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1745 3438 1583 780 3539Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97Adj. Flow (vph) 164 33 409 222 62 363RTOR Reduction (vph) 13 0 0 115 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 184 0 409 107 62 363Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 3% 5% 2% 5% 2%Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NAProtected Phases 2 1 6Permitted Phases 8 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 21.3 21.3 27.7 27.7Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 21.3 21.3 27.7 27.7Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.48 0.48 0.63 0.63Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 329 1664 766 542 2227v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.01 c0.10v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 0.07 0.07v/c Ratio 0.56 0.25 0.14 0.11 0.16Uniform Delay, d1 16.2 6.6 6.3 3.3 3.4Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0Delay (s) 18.3 7.0 6.7 3.4 3.4Level of Service B A A A AApproach Delay (s) 18.3 6.9 3.4Approach LOS B A A

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 7.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33Actuated Cycle Length (s) 44.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.9% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

ewrage

Text Box

15% Total over 20 years 0.70% per year

ewrage

Rectangle

ewrage

Rectangle

HCM 2010 AWSC Callaway Drive Study2: Cherry & Callaway Drive 2030 AM Peak - Water Study Developments With 15% Background

P:\20140360\TRANS\Study\Analysis\Synchro\2030 AM.syn Synchro 8 ReportEHW/BHI Page 1



Approach EB WB NBOpposing Approach WB EB SBOpposing Lanes 1 1 1Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EBConflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WBConflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1HCM Control Delay 9 8.1 10.8HCM LOS A A B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1Vol Left, % 79% 8% 33% 6%Vol Thru, % 20% 1% 33% 69%Vol Right, % 1% 91% 33% 25%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 192 183 6 32LT Vol 38 2 2 22Through Vol 2 166 2 8RT Vol 152 15 2 2Lane Flow Rate 274 223 24 40Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1Degree of Util (X) 0.371 0.27 0.032 0.052Departure Headway (Hd) 4.874 4.362 4.852 4.695Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes YesCap 738 824 736 760Service Time 2.912 2.388 2.895 2.742HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.371 0.271 0.033 0.053HCM Control Delay 10.8 9 8.1 8HCM Lane LOS B A A AHCM 95th-tile Q 1.7 1.1 0.1 0.2

HCM 2010 AWSC Callaway Drive Study2: Cherry & Callaway Drive 2030 AM Peak - Water Study Developments With 15% Background




Approach SBOpposing Approach NBOpposing Lanes 1Conflicting Approach Left WBConflicting Lanes Left 1Conflicting Approach Right EBConflicting Lanes Right 1HCM Control Delay 8HCM LOS A

Lane

HCM 2010 AWSC Callaway Drive Study2: Cherry & Callaway Drive 2X 2014 AM Peak

P:\20140360\TRANS\Study\Analysis\Synchro\2X AM.syn Synchro 8 ReportEHW/BHI Page 1

IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 13.8Intersection LOS B


Approach EB WB NBOpposing Approach WB EB SBOpposing Lanes 1 1 1Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EBConflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WBConflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1HCM Control Delay 11.2 8.9 16.5HCM LOS B A C

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1Vol Left, % 79% 9% 33% 4%Vol Thru, % 20% 1% 33% 70%Vol Right, % 1% 90% 33% 26%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 153 120 3 27LT Vol 31 1 1 19Through Vol 1 108 1 7RT Vol 121 11 1 1Lane Flow Rate 437 293 24 67Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1Degree of Util (X) 0.623 0.397 0.038 0.098Departure Headway (Hd) 5.129 4.88 5.643 5.27Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes YesCap 695 729 638 684Service Time 3.222 2.961 3.649 3.272HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.629 0.402 0.038 0.098HCM Control Delay 16.5 11.2 8.9 8.8HCM Lane LOS C B A AHCM 95th-tile Q 4.4 1.9 0.1 0.3

HCM 2010 AWSC Callaway Drive Study2: Cherry & Callaway Drive 2X 2014 AM Peak





Lane

HCM 2010 AWSC Callaway Drive Study2: Cherry & Callaway Drive 2030 PM Peak - Water Study Developments + 15% Background

P:\20140360\TRANS\Study\Analysis\Synchro\2030 PM.syn Synchro 8 ReportEHW/BHI Page 1



Approach EB WB NBOpposing Approach WB EB SBOpposing Lanes 1 1 1Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EBConflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WBConflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1HCM Control Delay 9.4 8.4 11.9HCM LOS A A B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1Vol Left, % 84% 8% 33% 3%Vol Thru, % 15% 1% 33% 67%Vol Right, % 1% 90% 33% 31%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 226 178 6 75LT Vol 35 2 2 50Through Vol 2 161 2 23RT Vol 189 15 2 2Lane Flow Rate 323 217 24 93Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1Degree of Util (X) 0.444 0.278 0.034 0.122Departure Headway (Hd) 4.954 4.606 5.117 4.727Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes YesCap 723 777 695 753Service Time 3.01 2.651 3.186 2.793HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.447 0.279 0.035 0.124HCM Control Delay 11.9 9.4 8.4 8.5HCM Lane LOS B A A AHCM 95th-tile Q 2.3 1.1 0.1 0.4

HCM 2010 AWSC Callaway Drive Study2: Cherry & Callaway Drive 2030 PM Peak - Water Study Developments + 15% Background





Lane

HCM 2010 AWSC Callaway Drive Study2: Cherry & Callaway Drive 2X 2014 PM Peak

P:\20140360\TRANS\Study\Analysis\Synchro\2X PM.syn Synchro 8 ReportEHW/BHI Page 1



Approach EB WB NBOpposing Approach WB EB SBOpposing Lanes 1 1 1Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EBConflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WBConflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1HCM Control Delay 11.8 9.1 16.2HCM LOS B A C

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1Vol Left, % 84% 9% 33% 2%Vol Thru, % 16% 1% 33% 67%Vol Right, % 1% 91% 33% 31%Sign Control Stop Stop Stop StopTraffic Vol by Lane 141 128 3 52LT Vol 22 1 1 35Through Vol 1 116 1 16RT Vol 118 11 1 1Lane Flow Rate 403 312 24 128Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1Degree of Util (X) 0.602 0.428 0.039 0.188Departure Headway (Hd) 5.383 5.059 5.784 5.274Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes YesCap 673 715 619 683Service Time 3.39 3.059 3.819 3.289HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.599 0.436 0.039 0.187HCM Control Delay 16.2 11.8 9.1 9.5HCM Lane LOS C B A AHCM 95th-tile Q 4 2.2 0.1 0.7

HCM 2010 AWSC Callaway Drive Study2: Cherry & Callaway Drive 2X 2014 PM Peak





Lane

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Callaway Drive Study1: Callaway Drive & Pierce 2030 AM Peak - Water Study Developments With 15% Background


Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 346 61 350 173 13 265Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1734 3312 1495 1770 3374Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1734 3312 1495 776 3374Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.78 0.78 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.91Adj. Flow (vph) 444 78 393 194 14 291RTOR Reduction (vph) 9 0 0 125 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 513 0 393 69 14 291Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 9% 8% 2% 7%Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NAProtected Phases 2 1 6Permitted Phases 8 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 16.1 16.1 16.1 21.1 21.1Effective Green, g (s) 16.1 16.1 16.1 21.1 21.1Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.47 0.47Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 617 1179 532 384 1575v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.00 c0.09v/s Ratio Perm c0.30 0.05 0.02v/c Ratio 0.83 0.33 0.13 0.04 0.18Uniform Delay, d1 13.3 10.6 9.8 6.7 7.0Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 9.3 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.1Delay (s) 22.6 11.4 10.3 6.7 7.1Level of Service C B B A AApproach Delay (s) 22.6 11.0 7.1Approach LOS C B A


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Callaway Drive Study1: Callaway Drive & Pierce 2X 2014 AM Peak


Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 224 39 303 138 11 230Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1734 3312 1495 1770 3374Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1734 3312 1495 404 3374Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.78 0.78 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.91Growth Factor (vph) 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200%Adj. Flow (vph) 574 100 681 310 24 505RTOR Reduction (vph) 7 0 0 212 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 667 0 681 98 24 505Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 9% 8% 2% 7%Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NAProtected Phases 2 1 6Permitted Phases 8 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 29.5 20.3 20.3 26.6 26.6Effective Green, g (s) 29.5 20.3 20.3 26.6 26.6Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.32 0.32 0.41 0.41Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 798 1048 473 216 1400v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.00 c0.15v/s Ratio Perm c0.38 0.07 0.04v/c Ratio 0.84 0.65 0.21 0.11 0.36Uniform Delay, d1 15.2 18.8 16.0 12.1 12.9Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 7.6 3.1 1.0 0.2 0.2Delay (s) 22.8 22.0 17.0 12.3 13.1Level of Service C C B B BApproach Delay (s) 22.8 20.4 13.0Approach LOS C C B


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Callaway Drive Study1: Callaway Drive & Pierce 2030 PM Peak - Water Study Developments + 15% Background


Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 216 44 420 312 96 405Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 3438 1583 1719 3539Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1745 3438 1583 698 3539Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97Adj. Flow (vph) 225 46 477 355 99 418RTOR Reduction (vph) 13 0 0 210 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 258 0 477 145 99 418Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 3% 5% 2% 5% 2%Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NAProtected Phases 2 1 6Permitted Phases 8 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 11.9 19.3 19.3 27.5 27.5Effective Green, g (s) 11.9 19.3 19.3 27.5 27.5Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.41 0.41 0.58 0.58Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 438 1399 644 495 2053v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.02 c0.12v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.09 0.10v/c Ratio 0.59 0.34 0.22 0.20 0.20Uniform Delay, d1 15.6 9.7 9.2 4.7 4.7Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.0Delay (s) 17.6 10.3 10.0 4.9 4.8Level of Service B B A A AApproach Delay (s) 17.6 10.2 4.8Approach LOS B B A

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 9.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42Actuated Cycle Length (s) 47.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.6% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Callaway Drive Study1: Callaway Drive & Pierce 2X 2014 PM Peak


Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 157 32 360 195 60 352Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 3438 1583 1719 3539Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.19 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1745 3438 1583 345 3539Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97Growth Factor (vph) 200% 200% 200% 200% 200% 200%Adj. Flow (vph) 327 67 818 443 124 726RTOR Reduction (vph) 12 0 0 291 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 382 0 818 152 124 726Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 3% 5% 2% 5% 2%Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NAProtected Phases 2 1 6Permitted Phases 8 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 14.5 17.0 17.0 26.9 26.9Effective Green, g (s) 14.5 17.0 17.0 26.9 26.9Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.34 0.34 0.54 0.54Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 512 1183 544 351 1927v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.04 c0.21v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.10 0.15v/c Ratio 0.75 0.69 0.28 0.35 0.38Uniform Delay, d1 15.8 13.9 11.8 6.8 6.4Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 5.9 3.3 1.3 0.6 0.1Delay (s) 21.6 17.3 13.0 7.4 6.6Level of Service C B B A AApproach Delay (s) 21.6 15.8 6.7Approach LOS C B A

Intersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 13.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68Actuated Cycle Length (s) 49.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.8% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group

APPENDIX B

Callaway Drive Categorical Exclusion

CITY OF CARLSBAD, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICOCATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

Project Number: Control Number: NMDOT District: Title of Proposed Project: Callaway Drive Corridor StudyLocation: The project location is located in Carlsbad, NM and would consist of two phases. Phase I would include improvements along Callaway Drive between Quail Hollow Run and West Cherry Lane. Phase II would include the multi-modal path and improvements along Callaway Drive from the north side of the low water crossing atthe Pecos River to Quail Hollow.

County: Eddy

Land Ownership: City of CarlsbadEngineer Contact and Company: Wyatt Kartchner, Molzen Corbin and Associates, 1155 Commerce Drive, Suite F, Las Cruces, NM 88011, telephone (575) 522-0049Environmental Consultant: Mark Dimsha, Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc., 2201 San Pedro NE, Suite 222, Albuquerque, NM 87110, telephone: (505) 977-4109

Federal Funding for Project? No

This document was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S. Code §4321, as amended [NEPA]) and the Federal Highway Administration Technical Advisory T6640.8 (23 Code of Federal Regulations 771.117). This checklist document follows the format of the New Mexico Department of Transportation Categorical Exclusion Checklist (Form Number A-1291, dated January 2013). The proposed project will have no significant impact on the quality of the human or natural environment, either singularly or cumulatively, provided the stipulations identified during this analysis are met. Supporting document is available at the City of Carlsbad Public Works and Utilities Department.

_________________________________8/12/14 _______________________________________Environmental Specialist Date City of Carlsbad Project Proponent Date

Project location map with aerial photography as background layer attached.

Project area photos attached.

Environmental commitments included in this project.

Callaway Drive Corridor Study City of Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico August 2014 Categorical Exclusion Checklist

1

PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED: The purpose of the proposed project is to improve Callaway Drive from the north side of the low water crossing at the Pecos River to the intersection at West Cherry Lane. The need for the proposed project is to address safety and system capacity issues of the growing community served by Callaway Drive. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project would include resurfacing the road, construction of curbs and gutters, construction of a multi-modal path, relocation of existing utility poles, and construction of a retaining wall. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING FACILITY: The existing roadway is composed of two 12-foot transportation lanes without curbs or gutters. The roadway is crowned in the center to allow storm water runoff to the shoulder. The south side of Callaway drive consists of residential driveways and unpaved earth. The north side of Callaway Drive is lined by a stretch of unpaved earth between the pavement and a concrete-lined irrigation ditch. Utility poles run along the northern side as well. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT, OBSERVED RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SURROUNDINGS: The project would be conducted within a 60-foot right-of-way owned by the City of Carlsbad. No other land owners would be affected. However, the Callaway Drive right-of-way is immediately adjacent to a concrete-lined irrigation ditch owned by the Carlsbad Irrigation District. The natural setting of the project area has been significantly altered by human activities, including transportation, agriculture, and residential development. The portion of the corridor east of the Southern Canal is completely developed. Disturbances within the project vicinity include the road grad and fill associated with Callaway Drive, extensive residential development abutting much of the length of the corridor, the Riverside Country Club Golf Course, existing utility easements, and maintained orchards and related irrigation facilities.


2

1. OTHER LAND JURISDICTIONS: Select the appropriate land management entity from the list below. The appropriate land management agency shall be contacted to address the potential impacts, alternatives, and possible mitigating measures for the proposed action. The Environmental Commitments section should reflect any mutually agreed upon stipulations or mitigations measures determined through coordination with the land management entity.

Bureau of Land Management, Field Office: U.S. Forest Service, USFS Forest and Ranger District: Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Entity: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service Bureau of Reclamation Department of Defense New Mexico State Land Office New Mexico Department of Game and Fish New Mexico State Parks Federal Aviation Administration Private Other: City of Carlsbad

2. CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS: Conduct cultural resource investigations as directed by the NMDOT Environmental Section, or the appropriate agency.

NMCRIS records check date: January 6, 2014 Cultural resource inventory conducted? No Yes Concurrence date: No concurrence to this date.

The proposed project would have no potential to affect cultural resources. The proposed project would have no effect to cultural resources. The proposed project would have no adverse effect to cultural resources. The proposed project would have an adverse effect to cultural resources.

MOA for mitigation has been developed under Section 106 of NHPA. A project-specific Programmatic Agreement has been developed under Section 106.

Special properties of concern are present. Specify: An existing bridge crossing an unnamed historic irrigation lateral would be widened by the proposed project, and a retaining wall would be constructed adjacent to a segment of the historic East Canal. No adverse effect would occur if recommended actions are followed.

Refer to the Environmental Commitments section for cultural resource treatment measures.


3

3. TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES:

The proposed project has no potential to impact Traditional Cultural Properties. Traditional Cultural Properties identified, management recommendations developed, and

coordination with land management agencies and Tribal/State Historic Preservation Officer completed. See associated Cultural Resource Survey Report Refer to the Environmental Commitments section for cultural resource treatment measures.

4. BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY:

Biological report prepared? No Yes Date: August 2014

Federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species and/or critical habitat or proposed critical habitat present within or adjacent to the project area? No Yes

The proposed project would have no effect to federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species and/or modify critical habitat or proposed critical habitat.

The proposed project may affect, is not likely to adversely affect federally threatened, endangered, or proposed species and/or adversely modify critical habitat or proposed critical habitat.

The proposed project may affect, is likely to adversely affect federally threatened, endangered, or proposed species and/or adversely modify critical habitat or proposed critical habitat.

Consultation with regulatory agencies completed (see attached correspondence). Describe consultation process:

Is the proposed project expected to impact state-listed species, tribal-listed species, or other agency species? No Yes If yes, explain:

Are there migratory bird concerns associated with the proposed project? No Yes If yes, explain:

Are there wildlife issues associated with the proposed project? No Yes If yes, explain:

Are noxious weeds, as recognized by the NM Dept. of Agriculture, present? No Yes If yes, identify noxious weed species, classification (A, B, C), and explain mitigation measures: Siberian elm and salt cedar, both Class C species, are present in the project area. Both species are widespread in the project area and the state of New Mexico as a whole. Best management practices, including washing all construction equipment, are suggested.

Are New Mexico Rare Plants present within the project area? No Yes

Is revegetation of the project area needed after construction is completed? No Yes If no, explain:

Revegetation plan developed. Date: A revegetation plan will be developed.

Additional information regarding the biological community:

Refer to the Environmental Commitments section for biological community mitigation measures.


4

5. WATER RESOURCES: Evaluate impacts to water resources within and adjacent to the project area.

Are floodplains present within the project area? No Yes If yes, explain: The western portion of the project area (length that runs north-south) is within a Zone A floodplain (FIRM No. 35015C1035D).

Is a designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area? No Yes If yes, explain:

Is an acequia or irrigation ditch present within the project area? No Yes If yes, explain:

Are Outstanding National Resource Waters or Impaired Surface Waters present within the project area? No Yes If yes, explain:

Clean Water Act (CWA) Permitting: Determine if Waters of the United States, subject to jurisdictional authority under the CWA, would be impacted by the proposed project.

Are wetlands present within the proposed project area? No Yes

Are the wetlands expected to be impacted? No Yes

Wetland determination and delineation report prepared. Date of report: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA §404 Maintenance Exemption applies to the proposed project. CWA §404 Nationwide Permit applies: Pre-construction Notification required? No Yes CWA §404 Individual Permit required from: NMED USEPA Tribal Entity:

Additional CWA permitting information:

Are there any impacts to non-jurisdictional waterway within the project area? No Yes If yes, explain:

Erosion and Sediment Control: Determine if the provisions of the NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP) issued by the EPA apply to the proposed project. Contact the NMDOT Drainage Section with questions regarding CWA §402.

The proposed project would disturb less than 1 acre of land, CGP does not apply The proposed project would disturb less than 1 acre of land, but the project area is located near a

perennial stream, therefore, a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is being developed. The proposed project would disturb more than 1 acre of land, therefore a Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan will be prepared in accordance with the CGP. Action area map is attached. Map of identified federally-listed species and/or critical habitat is attached.

Applicable Endangered Species Protection Criterion (for the 402 permit application): Are there portions of the project area that should be avoided for BMP implementation?

No Yes If yes, explain:

Refer to the Environmental Commitments section for water resources mitigation measures.


5

6. RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS: Determine if new NMDOT rights-of-way, construction maintenance easements (CME), temporary construction permits (TCP), work permits, federal land transfers, or acquisitions are necessary.

Are any of the above types of right-of-way required for the proposed project? No Yes If yes, complete the table below.

Estimated number of - Quantity Property Details Parcels affected Acres required for CME(s) Acres required for TCP(s) Acres required for work permit(s) Acres required for acquisition Acres required for federal land transfer Relocations (residential or business)

Proposed right-of-way map attached (required). Additional right-of-way information:

7. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS: Determine if the proposed project would impact air quality.

Is a Fugitive Dust Control Permit required for the proposed project? No Yes

Is the proposed project area within any of the following areas? Bernalillo County Sunland Park Anthony A non-attainment or maintenance area not listed above. If checked, explain:

If none of the four boxes above are checked, air quality conformity requirements are met.

If one of the geographic areas above is checked, complete the section below.

Is hotspot analysis required for the proposed project? No Yes

Describe the extent of project level air quality analysis that has been conducted for the proposed project and attach pertinent correspondence.

Refer to the Environmental Commitments section for air quality mitigation measures.


6

8. NOISE ANALYSIS: Determine if noise levels associated with the proposed project would impact receptors on nearby properties and determine if local noise abatement ordinances apply.

Is the proposed project considered Type 1 as defined by NMDOT’s current Design Directive for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise? No Yes

Are receptors (existing or permitted) present in the project area? No Yes

Based on consultation with NMDOT a traffic noise analysis is required. No Yes If no, explain: The project is outside NMDOT purview and is not considered a Type 1 project; therefore consultation with NMDOT is not required. If no, noise analysis is complete.

If yes, traffic noise analysis has been completed. Date of report:

Does the noise analysis identify noise impacts from the proposed project? No Yes If yes, include applicable information in Section 17 Public Involvement. If yes, have noise abatement measures been determined to be reasonable and feasible? No Yes If no, explain:

Refer to Environmental Commitments section for noise mitigation measures

9. SECTION 4(f): Section 4(f) refers to situations where transportation projects use parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.

Will the proposed project use a Section 4(f) property? No Yes (If yes, verify the level of 4(f) documentation with the NMDOT Environmental Section)

Programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation has been signed and is in the project record.

Additional Section 4(f) information:

10. LAND USE: For proposed projects that add new, or substantially modify existing, transportation infrastructure, verify whether the proposed project is compatible with urban policy and/or land use plans. For proposed projects that cross federal lands, check with the land management agency for applicable land use plan(s).

Is the proposed project consistent with land use plans or zoning? No Yes If no, explain:

11. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ANALYSIS: Determine if hazardous materials are located within or adjacent to the proposed project area.

The EPA EnviroMapper database has been consulted and no additional investigations are required. The EPA EnviroMapper database has been consulted and additional investigations are required.

Note: This project does not fall under NMDOT purview. As such, the NMDOT Environmental Geology Section was not consulted regarding hazardous materials or wastes in the project area or its immediate vicinity.


7

12. SOCIOECONOMICS: Determine potential impacts to social and economic resources resulting from the proposed project.

Would the proposed project result in an adverse impact to social or economic resources? No Yes Are relocations or displacements necessary to build the proposed project? No Yes Would the proposed project result in a permanent change in access or access control? No Yes Is the project expected to impact neighborhood continuity and/or community cohesion? No Yes If yes to any of the questions above, explain:

13. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: Refer to FHWA Order 6640.23A to review key Environmental Justice definitions and policies. U.S. Census data may be a source to determine population characteristics.

Based on the definitions provided in FHWA Order 6640.23A, are the following populations located in or adjacent to the project area?

Low income African American Hispanic or Latino Asian American American Indian or Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

Note: Population data from USEPA EJView tool.

Would the proposed project cause disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and/or low income populations? No Yes If yes, explain:

14. VISUAL RESOURCES: Determine whether the project would result in adverse impacts to visual resources, such as the landscape’s foreground and background.

Would the proposed project require major cut/fills, bridges, or large retaining walls? No Yes Would the proposed project change the vertical profile of an existing road or bridge? No Yes Is the proposed project located along a designated Scenic Byway? No Yes Would the proposed project result in an adverse impact to visual resources? No Yes

Additional visual resource information:

15. MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION: Determine whether the project would impact pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit facilities.

Is the proposed project located along a proposed or designated bicycle route? No Yes Would the proposed project impact pedestrian and/or bicycle access? No Yes Would the proposed project impact transit facilities? No Yes If yes to any question above, explain:

Is there an opportunity to improve multi-modal access with the proposed project? No Yes If yes, explain:


8

16. OTHER INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS: Determine if any other resource issues apply to the proposed project that are not addressed in the previous sections.

No other resource issues are identified and no additional coordination required. Paleontological resources (for projects on federal land only) Prime and Unique Farmland Properties protected by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act Other resource issues:

Additional resource analysis:

17. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:

Were scoping letters mailed for this project? No Yes

What type of public involvement has been provided? Select the appropriate item(s) below. Attach documentation identifying the notice of opportunity for a public meeting, date and location of the meeting, a summary of comments, and responses to substantive comments.

Public notice attached. Date published: June 1, 2014 Formal public meeting. Date: June 16, 2014 Neighborhood meeting. Date: Agency coordination and/or meeting. Date: City Council Meeting. Date: Other:

Public meeting notes attached. Summary of public and/or agency comments attached.

Additional public involvement information:

Figure 1 Callaway Drive Corridor Study Project Area

TodayMovie Night: StandpipeRoad Baptist Church,located at 1701StandpipeRoad, will host a familymovie night on Sunday, June1starting at 5p.m. All are in-vited and welcome to attendthis event. For information,call 575-725-5663.

Monday, June 2Summer day camp: Para-dise Chapel’s Summer DayCamp is scheduled for June2-5at 49Paradise RanchRoad. Lunches will beprovided and transportationleaves from the mall parkinglot each day at 8:40a.m.The camp runs from 9a.m.to noon for students ages 4to sixth grade; while it runsfrom 6:30to 8:30p.m. forstudents in seventh through12th grades. For informa-tion, call 575-885-7786.Diabetic outreach: A dia-betic outreach and educa-tion class is held the firstMonday of each month from6:30to 8p.m., sponsoredby Carlsbad Family HealthCenter 2013San Jose Blvd.The class on Monday, June2program will cover “Mind-ful Eating.” This month’sprogram will be facilitatedby Nancy Brader, For infor-mation, call 575-887-2455.Health Sense Program:Carlsbad Medical CenterSenior Circle will hold aHealth Sense program onMonday, June 2at 11:30a.m. in the Hospital PrivateDining Room. Dr. ThomasChasse, Pecos Valley Ear,Nose and Throat Surgeonwill be presenting theprogram. A light lunch willbe served. All Senior CircleMembers and those inter-ested in joining Senior Circleare invited to attend. Forinformation call 575-234-3331.NMSU Communityclasses: NMSU-Carlsbadis offering several classesin June for residents in thearea. Digital Photography,June 2, Beginning Sew-ing, June 3, Welding 101,June 3, Intro to Computers,June 4, Residential Safety& Security Workshop, June5, Conversational Spanish,June 5, Kids Experimentingwith Artistic Media, June 9,Kids Sciensational ScienceWorkshops, June 9Introto Poetry, June 9, OrganicGardening, June 11th, $39,NM Concealed Carry, June16, OSHAWorkshop, June18, Train the Trainer ActiveShooter Workshop, June21, Kids SciensationalScience Workshops, June23and Kids Camp Choirwith Concert, June 23.Prices for classes vary. Forinformation or to register,call 575-234-9268or 575-234-9247.

Tuesday, June 3Monthly meeting: TheCarlsbad Gem & MineralSociety will hold its monthlymeeting on Tuesday, June3, 2014at 7p.m. at theWestern Commerce BankCommunity Room, 3010National Parks Highway.The meeting will include ashort planning session forthe June 13to June 15Rock& Gem Show followed bycrafting of wire trees andscorpions and bead jewelryas prizes for the “Spinning-Wheel.” Bring your wire-working tools, beads, rocks,etc. Please bring tumbledrocks or other items to do-nate to the show. Childrenand guests welcome. Forinformation, call 575-885-1622.Love and Marriage Event:Kehilat Yeshua, locatedat 601N. Oak St., will hostThe Love and MarriageTour presented by HayovelMinistries on Tuesday, June3at 6p.m. Brayden andTali Waller and Aaron andVictoria Hood will sharetheir knowledge and experi-ences as they walk the pathof Biblical marriage. Forinformation, call 575-499-3083.Meet MainStreet Carls-bad: Enjoy a free snow conewhile meeting CarlsbadMainStreet from noon to 1p.m. at 124N Canyon St.Bring your ideas and sug-gestions and join in casualconversation with membersof the Carlsbad MainStreetBoard of Directors.Monthly Birthday Party:Carlsbad Medical Center

Senior Circle will be hold-ing it’s monthly birthdayparty on Wednesday June4at 1:30p.m. at the SeniorCircle Building, 2423Bonita.June Birthday’s will becelebrated, but all SeniorCircle members and theirguests are encouraged toattend. For information call575-234-3331.Spay/Neuter CertificatesAvailable: Pet spay andneuter certificates willbe available on Tuesday,June 3, at the Cat’s MeowThrift Shop, 124S. Canyon,beginning at 8a.m. A $20donation per certificateis requested. Certificateholders call the Carlsbadveterinarians of their choiceand make appointments forthe procedures. Certificatesare presented on the day ofthe procedure. In addition topreventing pregnancy, spay-ing and neutering makespets healthier and less aptto stray from home.

Sunday June 8Pancake Breakfast:Knights of Columbus ishosting a Pancake Break-fast on June 8from 8a.m.to 1p.m. at the hall, locatedon the corner of Shaw andGuadalupe. All you can eat.Prices are $4.50for adultsand $3for children.

Monday, June 9Vacation Bible School:First Baptist Church ofCarlsbad is accepting reg-istration for vacation Bibleschool, planned for 8:30a.m. to noon from June 9toJune 13. The event is opento children from Kindergar-ten through sixth grade. Forinformation, call 575-887-1158or visit fbccarlsbad.org.

Tuesday, June 10Small BusinessWork-shop: NMSU Carlsbad willhost an IRS workshop from9a.m. to 12:30p.m. onTuesday, June 10. Trainingwill be offered to becomea volunteer for the IRSand the NM Taxation and

Revenue department. Theworkshop is free. It will beheld at Room 106of theNMSU Carlsbad campus.Info: 575-885-9531.

Wednesday, June 11Small BusinessWork-shop: NMSU Carlsbad willhost a Government classfrom 9:30a.m. to noon onWednesday, June 11. Forinformation or to register,contact the Small BusinessDevelopment Center at575-885-9531.

Thursday, June 12Scrabble Fundraiser: AScrabble fundraiser to ben-efit the Carlsbad LiteracyProgram is scheduled forJune 12at the Leo SweetCenter. Registration isgoing on now - $150perteam. To register a team orto sponsor a team, call 885-1752for a registration formor visit www.carlsbadliter-acyprogram.com.TaxWorkshop: A freeseminar on basic taxes willbe offered from 10a.m. tonoon on Thursday, June 12.The class is for potentialor current small businessowners and self-employedpeople. The class will coverthe basic taxes and how tofile reports. It will be heldat Room 106of the NMSUCarlsbad campus. Forinformation or to register,contact the Small BusinessDevelopment Center at575-885-9531.

Friday, June 13Gem, Mineral Show: TheCarlsbad Gem & MineralSociety’s annual Gem andMineral Show is slated forJune 13and 14, 9a.m. to 5p.m.; and June 15, 9a.m. to3p.m., at the Living DesertZoo and Gardens StatePark. Admission to the showis free. Dealers from Arizo-na, Texas and New Mexicowill offer beads, uniquejewelry, gems, fossils, rocksand art objects. Educationaldisplays and the popularkids’ spinning wheel will befeatured.

Friday, June 20Marine Corps LeagueState Convention:MarineCorps League No. 678will host the MCL StateConvention in Carlsbad

from June 20-22. Approxi-mately 70members fromother detachments will bein attendance. The Leagueis asking for support fromthe community and localbusinesses by selling adver-tisements in the conven-tion booklet and acceptingdonations for door prizesand the silent auction. Forinformation, call 575-302-2204, or 575-885-5375.

LITTLEARGUSMeet the Current-Argusshelter pet of the day, Mag-gie Mae. Maggie Mae is aCatahoula Leopard dog/Mix. Her animal ID number is22042824.There are many moreanimals also searching forpermanent homes at theNoah’s Ark Animal shelter.Noah’s Ark is open fromnoon to 5:30p.m. Mondaythrough Friday and 11a.m. to4p.m. Saturday.

For information, call 575-885-5769or email [email protected].

PETOFTHEDAY>>MAGGIEMAE

CONTACT USThe Little Argus community calendar contains upcomingevent listings for nonprofits and other community organi-zations. To submit an item to Little Argus, send an emailto [email protected]. Be sure to include datesand contact information.

SUNDAY, JUNE 1, 2014 CARLSBAD CURRENT-ARGUS | NEWS | 5A

A Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc. 2089 Fran Drive

Las Cruces, NM 88007 Tel 575-528-8197

www.epsilonsystems.com

Systems Solutions, Inc.

June 3, 2014

Ms. Cathy Gilmore US Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 Mail Code 6EN-XP 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75202

R E : Callaway Drive Corridor Study in Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico

The City of Carlsbad (the City) is proposing improvements to Callaway Drive located on the north side of Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico. The purpose of this project is to improve Callaway Drive from the North side of the low water crossing at the Pecos River to the intersection at Cherry Lane, in order to incorporate modifications that address safety, improve system capacity, enhance the corridor's local and regional connectivity, correct current physical deficiencies, and accommodate community development. Funding for the project wi l l be provided by the City.

The roadway improvements encompass five alternatives, each of which includes a multi-modal path on the north side of the Carlsbad Irrigation District's East Canal. Alternative 1 consists of a 40 foot (ft) wide roadway including a 12 ft driving lane, 4 ft shoulder, and 2fiL^j^^band gutter on both sides of the roadway. Thisahernativt^ r r a m ^ ^ m m t m " ^ J J ^

Alternative 2 consists of a three-lane roadway inclusive of a continuous turn lane. This alternative includes 12 ft driving lanes, 4 ft shoulders, and 2 ft curb and gutters on both sides of the roadway. Additionally, this alternative includes an 11 ft continuous turn lane and a 4 ft sidewalk on the south side of the roadway. This alternative has a width of 51 feet.

Alternative 3 is a less expensive version of alternative 2, as it is a three-lane roadway but does not include curb and gutter. This alternative has a width of 43 ft consisting of a 12 ft driving lane and 1 ft shoulder on each side of the roadway. Also featured is an 11 ft turning lane. On the south side of the roadway are 2 ft curb and gutter and a 4 ft sidewalk.

Alternative 4 is a two-lane hybrid. This alternative combines features of alternatives 1 and 2 as the roadway transition between a 2 and 3 lane roadway. At its 3-lane section, the roadway has a width of 51 feet just like alternative 2 with an 11 ft turn lane, 12 ft driving lanes, 4 ft shoulders, 2 ft curb and gutter sections, and a 4 ft sidewalk on the south side of the roadway.

Alternative 5 is a 4-lane roadway consisting o f four 11 ft driving lanes, two 2 ft curb and gutter sections, and a 4 ft sidewalk on the south side o f the roadway. This alternative has a width o f 51 ft.

Adjacent land ownership is a combination o f municipal, Carlsbad Irrigation District and private land owners. A l l appropriate land owners w i l l be notified as part o f the environmental process. The environmental investigations and documentation w i l l be prepared in conformance with state and federal requirements.

The project area is located within Township 21 South, Range 26 East, Sections 25 and 26, in the City o f Carlsbad, as shown on the Carlsbad West (1985) and Carlsbad East, NM (197$) 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey quadrangles (see attached figure).

In accordance wi th environmental requirements o f 24 CFR part 58 and the National Environmental Policy Act o f 1969 (NEPA), the appropriate agencies must be consulted for their comments/review. Your comments can be as simple as checking off the appropriate box below, signing your name or placing your stamp, and mailing/faxing/emailing it back to me: 2089 Fran Drive, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88007, F A X : 505-766-9885, Email : [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

boJL AMIS rad Beacham, Project Manager Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc.

1̂ '' No significant impact anticipated

• Significant impact anticipated due to the following reasons:

Signature

" wrOTimeftaT tion Agency

Date

I i w m * I 1 104'flft I I iO* I 568200 569100 570000 570900 571800 57J700

Figure 1. Callaway Drive project location.

I632S

EPSILQfi Systems Solutions, Inc.

JUN 0 9 2̂014 kJ

Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc. 2089 Fran Drive

Las Cruces, NM 88007 Tel 575-528-8197


June 3, 2014

Mr. Kenneth K. Cunningham Assistant Chief N M Department o f Game and Fish Environmental Services Division PO Box 25112 Santa Fe, N M 87504


The City o f Carlsbad (the City) is proposing improvements to Callaway Drive located on the north side o f Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico. The purpose o f this project is to improve Callaway Drive from the North side o f the low water crossing at the Pecos River to the intersection at Cherry Lane, in order to incorporate modifications that address safety, improve system capacity, enhance the corridor's local and regional connectivity, correct current physical deficiencies, and accommodate community development. Funding for the project w i l l be provided by the City.

The roadway improvements encompass five alternatives, each of which includes a multi-modal path on the north side o f the Carlsbad Irrigation District's East Canal. Alternative 1 consists o f a 40 foot (ft) wide roadway including a 12 ft driving lane, 4 ft shoulder, and 2 ft curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. This alternative is basically an enhancement o f the existing roadway as the roadway would remain as a two lane roadway.

Alternative 2 consists o f a three-lane roadway inclusive o f a continuous turn lane. This alternative includes 12 ft driving lanes, 4 ft shoulders, and 2 ft curb and gutters on both sides o f the roadway. Additionally, this alternative includes an 11 ft continuous turn lane and a 4 ft sidewalk on the south side o f the roadway. This alternative has a width o f 51 feet.

Alternative 3 is a less expensive version o f alternative 2, as it is a three-lane roadway but does not include curb and gutter. This alternative has a width o f 43 ft consisting o f a 12 ft driving lane and 1 ft shoulder on each side o f the roadway. Also featured is an 11 ft turning lane. On the south side o f the roadway are 2 ft curb and gutter and a 4 ft sidewalk.

Alternative 4 is a two-lane hybrid. This alternative combines features o f alternatives 1 and 2 as the roadway transition between a 2 and 3 lane roadway. A t its 3-lane section, the roadway has a width o f 51 feet just like alternative 2 with an 11 ft turn lane, 12 ft driving lanes, 4 ft shoulders, 2 ft curb and gutter sections, and a 4 ft sidewalk on the south side o f the roadway.



The project area is located within Township 21 South, Range 26 East, Sections 25 and 26, in the City o f Carlsbad, as shown on the Carlsbad West (1985) and Carlsbad East, NM (1978) 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey quadrangles (see attached figure).

In accordance with environmental requirements o f 24 CFR part 58 and the National Environmental Policy Act o f 1969 (NEPA), the appropriate agencies must be consulted for their comments/review. Your comments can be as simple as checking off the appropriate box below, signing your name or placing your stamp, and mailing/faxing/emailing it back to me: 2089 Fran Drive, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88007, F A X : 505-766-9885, Email : [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Brad Beacham, Project Manager Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc.

^ No significant impact anticipated


Signature V Mr. Kenneth K . Cunningham N M Department o f Game and Fish

Title

EPSILQN Systems Solutions, Inc.

. ' ^ i CENTFR

M j H - s A 2,5,


Las Cruces, NM 88007 Tel 575-528-8197


June 3, 2014

Mr. Frank Pagano, Director Mitigation Division Federal Emergency Management Agency Region V I FRC 800 North Loop 288 Denton, T X 76209-3698


The City o f Carlsbad (the City) is proposing improvements to Callaway Drive located on the north side o f Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico. The purpose o f this project is to improve Callaway Drive from the North side o f the low water crossing at the Pecos River to the intersection at Cherry Lane, in order to incorporate modifications that address safety, improve system capacity, enhance the corridor's local and regional connectivity, correct current physical deficiencies, and accommodate community development. Funding for the project w i l l be provided by the City.

The roadway improvements encompass five alternatives, each of which includes a multi-modal path on the north side o f the Carlsbad Irrigation District's East Canal. Alternative 1 consists o f a 40 foot (ft) wide roadway including a 12 ft driving lane, 4 ft shoulder, and 2 ft curb and gutter on both sides o f the roadway. This alternative is basically an enhancement o f the existing roadway as the roadway would remain as a two lane roadway.

Alternative 2 consists o f a three-lane roadway inclusive o f a continuous turn lane. This alternative includes 12 ft driving lanes, 4 ft shoulders, and 2 ft curb and gutters on both sides o f the roadway. Additionally, this alternative includes an 11 ft continuous turn lane and a 4 ft sidewalk on the south side of the roadway. This alternative has a width o f 51 feet.

Alternative 3 is a less expensive version o f alternative 2, as it is a three-lane roadway but does not include curb and gutter. This alternative has a width o f 43 ft consisting o f a 12 ft driving lane and 1 ft shoulder on each side o f the roadway. Also featured is an 11 ft turning lane. On the south side o f the roadway are 2 ft curb and gutter and a 4 ft sidewalk.

Alternative 4 is a two-lane hybrid. This alternative combines features o f alternatives 1 and 2 as the roadway transition between a 2 and 3 lane roadway. A t its 3-lane section, the roadway has a width o f 51 feet just like alternative 2 with an 11 ft turn lane, 12 ft driving lanes, 4 ft shoulders, 2 ft curb and gutter sections, and a 4 ft sidewalk on the south side o f the roadway.



The project area is located within Township 21 South, Range 26 East, Sections 25 and 26, in the City o f Carlsbad, as shown on the Carlsbad West (1985) and Carlsbad East, A r M(1978) 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey quadrangles (see attached figure).

In accordance with environmental requirements o f 24 CFR part 58 and the National Environmental Policy Act o f 1969 (NEPA), the appropriate agencies must be consulted for their comments/review. Your comments can be as simple as checking off the appropriate box below, signing your name or placing your stamp, and mailing/faxing/emailing it back to me: 2089 Fran Drive, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88007, F A X : 505-766-9885, Email : [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,


• No significant impact anticipated


Signature Title Mr. Frank Pagano Federal Emergency Management Agency

Date

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

June 13,2014

Mr. Brad Beacham Project Manager Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc. 2089 Fran Drive Las Cruces, New Mexico 88007

Dear Mr. Beacham:

Thank you for providing the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) the opportunity to review the Callaway Drive Corridor Study in Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) authorizes the NRCS to provide review of proposed projects that have the potential to irreversibly convert farmlands to non-farmland or irreversibly converting hydric areas to non-hydric uses as the result o f programs funded by the federal government. In review of the information provided on the project, it is determined that the entire project is located in an urban or development area in an existing right o f way. The FPPA rules define farmland conversion to be "to the extent that it irreversibly converts farmland to other purposes", this project is not expected to have that effect. With this acknowledged, the proposed project w i l l not cause Prime or Unique Farmlands or hydric soil to be converted to non-agricultural or non-hydric uses, and is not subject to the Act.

I f you have any questions concerning soils information, please contact Richard Strait, State Soil Scientist, at (505) 761-4433 or email at [email protected]

cc: Rick Strait, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Albuquerque, N M

Natural Resources Conservation Service 6200 Jefferson NE, Suite 305, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109

Voice: (505) 761-4400 Fax: (505) 761-4463 An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

LAS CRUCES REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE 505 S. MAIN ST SUITE 142 LAS CRUCES, NM 88001

(575)-652-3708

June 19, 2014 Regulatory Division SUBJECT: No Permit Required – Action No. SPA-2014-00265-LCO, Callaway Drive Corridor Study in Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico Brad Beacham Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc. 2089 Fran Drive Las Cruces, NM 88007 Mr. Beacham: I am writing this letter in response to your request for a determination of Department of the Army permit requirements for the proposed Callaway Drive Corridor Study in Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico located at approximately latitude 32.451207, longitude -104.247212, in Eddy County, New Mexico. This project is to improve Callaway Drive from the North of the low water crossing as the Pecos River to the intersections at Cherry Lane, in order to incorporate modifications that address safety, improve system capacity, and enhance the corridors local and regional connectivity. We have assigned Action No. SPA-2014-00265-LCO to this project. Please reference this number in all future correspondence concerning the project. Based on the information provided, we have determined that a Department of the Army permit is not required since the site consists entirely of uplands. However, please be advised that there are potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S. located in the vicinity of the project site and it is incumbent upon you to remain informed of any changes in the Corps Regulatory Program regulations and policy as they relate to your project. If your plans change such that waters of the U.S. could be impacted by the proposed project, please contact our office for a reevaluation of permit requirements. This decision is based on an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) (attached) that there are no waters of the United States on the project site. The basis for this JD is that the project site contains entirely uplands. A copy of this JD is also available at http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/reg/JD. This approved JD is valid for five years unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date. You may accept or appeal this approved JD or provide new information in accordance with the attached Notification of Administration Appeal Options and Process

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF

http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/reg/JD

- 2 -

and Request for Appeal (NAAOP-RFA). If you elect to appeal this approved JD, you must complete Section II of the form and return it to the Army Engineer Division, South Pacific, CESPD-PDS-O, Attn: Tom Cavanaugh, Administrative Appeal Review Officer, 1455 Market Street, Room 1760, San Francisco, CA 94103-1399 within 60 days of the date of this notice. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. If you have any questions concerning our regulatory program, please contact me at 575-652-3708 or by e-mail at [email protected]. At your convenience, please complete a Customer Service Survey on-line available at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulatory_survey. Sincerely,

Justin Riggs Regulatory Manager for Southern New Mexico and West Texas

http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulatory_survey

June 3, 2014

Mr. Dale Ballard Manager Carlsbad Irrigation District 5117 Grandi Road Carlsbad, N M 88220


Las Cruces, NM 88007 Tel 575-528-8197



The City of Carlsbad (the City) is proposing improvements to Callaway Drive located on the north side of Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico. The purpose of this project is to improve Callaway Drive from the North side of the low water crossing at the Pecos River to the intersection at Cherry Lane, in order to incorporate modifications that address safety, improve system capacity, enhance the corridor's local and regional connectivity, correct current physical deficiencies, and accommodate community development. Funding for the project wil l be provided by the City.

The roadway improvements encompass five alternatives, each of which includes a multi-modal path on the north side of the Carlsbad Irrigation District's East Canal. Alternative 1 consists of a 40 foot (ft) wide roadway including a 12 ft driving lane, 4 ft shoulder, and 2 ft curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. This alternative is basically an enhancement of the existing roadway as the roadway would remain as a two lane roadway.




Alternative 5 is a 4-lane roadway consisting of four 11 ft driving lanes, two 2 ft curb and gutter sections, and a 4 ft sidewalk on the south side of the roadway. This alternative has a width of 51 ft.

Adjacent land ownership is a combination of municipal, Carlsbad Irrigation District and private land owners. Al l appropriate land owners will be notified as part of the environmental process. The environmental investigations and documentation wil l be prepared in conformance with state and federal requirements.

The project area is located within Township 21 South, Range 26 East, Sections 25 and 26, in the City of Carlsbad, as shown on the Carlsbad West (1985) and Carlsbad East, NM(\91%) 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey quadrangles (see attached figure).

In accordance with environmental requirements of 24 CFR part 58 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the appropriate agencies must be consulted for their comments/review. Your comments can be as simple as checking off the appropriate box below, signing your name or placing your stamp, and mailing/faxing/emailing it back to me: 2089 Fran Drive, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88007, FAX: 505-766-9885, Email: [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,



Significant impact anticipated due to the following reasons:

Signature Title Mr. Dale Ballard

Manager, Carlsbad Irrigation District

Date

Systems Solutions, Inc.

June 3,2014

Mr. JeffPappas, PhD N M Office of Cultural Affairs Historic Preservation Officer 407 Galisteo Street, Suite 236 Santa Fe, NM 87501


Las Cruces, NM 88007 Tel 575-528-8197


JUN -6 2014

HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION


The City of Carlsbad (the City) is proposing improvements to Callaway Drive located on the north side of Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico. The purpose of this project is to improve Callaway Drive from the North side of the low water crossing at the Pecos River to the intersection at Cherry Lane, in order to incorporate modifications that address safety, improve system capacity, enhance the corridor's local and regional connectivity, correct current physical deficiencies, and accommodate community development. Funding for the project wil l be provided by the City.

The roadway improvements encompass five alternatives, each of which includes a multi-modal path on the north side of the Carlsbad Irrigation District's East Canal. Alternative 1 consists of a 40 foot (ft) wide roadway including a 12 ft driving lane, 4 ft shoulder, and 2 ft curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. This alternative is basically an enhancement of the existing roadway as the roadway would remain as a two lane roadway.




Alternative 5 is a 4-lane roadway consisting of four 11 ft driving lanes, two 2 ft curb and gutter sections, and a 4 ft sidewalk on the south side of the roadway. This alternative has a width of 51 ft.

Adjacent land ownership is a combination of municipal, Carlsbad Irrigation District and private land owners. A l l appropriate land owners will be notified as part of the environmental process. The environmental investigations and documentation wil l be prepared in conformance with state and federal requirements.

The project area is located within Township 21 South, Range 26 East, Sections 25 and 26, in the City of Carlsbad, as shown on the Carlsbad West (1985) and Carlsbad East, A^M (1978) 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey quadrangles (see attached figure).

In accordance with environmental requirements of 24 CFR part 58 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the appropriate agencies must be consulted for their comments/review. Your comments can be as simple as checking off the appropriate box below, signing your name or placing your stamp, and mailing/faxing/emailing it back to me: 2089 Fran Drive, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88007, FAX: 505-766-9885, Email: [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,




Signature Title fV Mr. JeffPappas, PhD

N M Office of Cultural Affairs

Date

Environmental Development Section To: Brad Beacham, Epsilon Systems Solutions. Inc. From: Gary Funkhouser, Utilities Coordinator Project: City of Carlsbad Callaway Drive Corridor Study, Eddy County, New Mexico Date: June 23, 2014 Mr. Beacham: Thank you for informing the New Mexico Department of Transportation Environmental Development Section of the City of Carlsbad’s Callaway Drive Corridor Study project. As presented the project does not appear to involve NMDOT permitting or funding. Should the project funding sources change to include NMDOT or FHWA, please provide us with the environmental documentation for our review. If in the future the project will require a permit to access NMDOT right of way, please submit an environmental clearance request as part of the permit application process. Thank you, and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 505-827-5692 or [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

July 16, 2014 Epsilon System Solutions, Inc. ATTN: Brad Beacham 2089 Fran Drive Las Cruces, NM 88007 [email protected] RESPONSE BY EMAIL RE: Callaway Drive Corridor Study, Carlsbad, Eddy County, To Whom It May Concern: Your letter regarding the above named project was received by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and was sent to various for review and comment. Comments were provided by the Air Quality, Ground Water Quality and Surface Water Quality Bureaus and are as follows. Air Quality Bureau This letter contains the Air Quality Bureau’s (AQB) comments on the proposed Callaway Drive improvements, Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico. This area of Eddy County is currently in attainment/unclassifiable status for all of the New Mexico and National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project will temporarily impact air quality as a result of fugitive dust and exhaust emissions generated during construction. However, with the appropriate dust control measures in place, the increased levels should be minimal. Areas disturbed by the earthmoving activities, within and adjacent to the project area should be reclaimed to avoid long-term problems with erosion and fugitive dust. All asphalt, concrete, quarrying, crushing and screening facilities contracted in conjunction with the proposed project must have current and proper air quality permits. For more information on air quality permitting and modeling requirements, please refer to 20.2.72 NMAC. Potential emissions from the diesel generator sets should be calculated assuming continuous operation to determine whether a construction permit is required in accordance with 20.2.72.200.A.(1) NMAC.

SUSANA MARTINEZGovernor

JOHN A. SANCHEZLieutenant Governor

RYAN FLYNNCabinet SecretaryBUTCH TONGATEDeputy Secretary

State of New MexicoENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

Office of the Secretary

Harold Runnels Building 1190 Saint Francis Drive, PO Box 5469

Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469 Telephone (505) 827-2855 Fax (505) 827-2836

www.nmenv.state.nm.us

mailto:[email protected]

The project, as proposed, is not anticipated to result in nonattainment of the New Mexico or National Ambient Air Quality Standards or contribute negatively to air quality on a long-term basis.

Ground Water Quality Bureau

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Ground Water Quality Bureau (GWQB) staff reviewed the above-referenced letter as requested, focusing specifically on the potential effect to ground water resources in the area of the proposed project. The letter states that the City of Carlsbad is proposing improvements to Callaway Drive from the north side of the low water crossing at the Pecos River to the intersection at Cherry Lane. The proposed improvements will likely incorporate modifications that address safety, improve system capacity, enhance the corridor’s local and regional connectivity, correct current physical deficiencies, and accommodate community development. The project is not expected to have any adverse impacts on ground water quality in the area of the project. However, implementation of the project may involve the use of heavy equipment and asphalt products, thereby leading to a possibility of contaminant releases (e.g., fuel, asphalt, hydraulic fluid, etc.) associated with equipment malfunctions. The GWQB advises all parties involved in the project to be aware of notification requirements for accidental discharges contained in 20.6.2.1203 NMAC. Compliance with the notification and response requirements will further ensure the protection of ground water quality in the vicinity of the project. A copy of the Water Quality Control Commission Regulations, 20.6.2 NMAC, is available at http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmac/parts/title20/20.006.0002.htm. Surface Water Quality

NMED SWQB has no comment on the specific alternatives. The provided project descriptions did not state the total area proposed to be disturbed or if fill materials will be discharged in a wetland or below the ordinary high water mark of a stream. Due to the proximity of the west-southwest end of project to Pecos River all practicable erosion and turbidity control techniques need to be applied during construction. Information is provided below if the project requires discharge of dredged/fill material or discharge of storm water from construction activities into Waters of the U.S. Clean Water Act, Section 404 USACE/Section 401 Certification Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires approval from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) prior to discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.). Any person, firm, or agency (including Federal, state, tribal and local governmental agencies) planning to work in waters of the United States should first contact the USACE regarding the need to obtain a permit from the Regulatory Division. Failure to receive and implement proper permit coverage would be a violation of the Clean Water Act. More information on the §404 permitting process, including applicability of Nationwide Permits, mitigation requirements, requirements for certification for any discharges on state, private or tribal land, can be obtained from the USACE at: http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx NMED Surface Water Quality Bureau Watershed Protection Section coordinates the state's §401 certification of §404 dredged/fill material permits with the USACE. In response to the §404

http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmac/parts/title20/20.006.0002.htm

http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx

reissued nationwide permits on April 13, 2012, a Conditional §401 Certification for discharges to State of New Mexico surface water has been issued and is available at the following web site: ftp://ftp.nmenv.state.nm.us/www/swqb/WPS/401-404/NWPCertificationNotice04-13-2012.pdf. For additional information, including permitting procedures and jurisdictional water determination, contact the USACE, Albuquerque District, 4101 Jefferson Plaza NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109-343, 505-342-3262.

Clean Water Act, Section 402 NPDES Industrial Storm Water Construction General Permit (CGP) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) coverage for stormwater discharges from construction activities (such as clearing, grading, excavating, and stockpiling) that disturb (or re-disturb) one or more acres, or smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale. Prior to discharging storm water, construction operators must obtain coverage under an NPDES permit. Among other things, this permit requires that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared for the site, including support and staging areas, and that appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) be installed and maintained both during and after construction to prevent, to the extent practicable, pollutants (primarily sediment, oil & grease and construction materials from construction sites) in storm water runoff from entering waters of the U.S. This permit also requires that permanent stabilization measures (re-vegetation, paving, etc.), and permanent storm water management measures (storm water detention/retention structures, velocity dissipation devices, etc.) be implemented post construction to minimize, in the long term, pollutants in storm water runoff from entering these waters. Part 9 of the 2012 CGP includes permit conditions applicable to specific states, Indian country lands, or territories. In the State of New Mexico, except on tribal land, permittees must ensure that there is no increase in sediment yield and flow velocity from the construction site (both during and after construction) compared to pre-construction, undisturbed conditions (see Subpart 9.4.1.1 of the 2012 CGP). USEPA requires that all "operators" (see Appendix A of the 2012 CGP) obtain NPDES permit coverage by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for construction projects. Generally, this means that at least two parties will require permit coverage. The owner/developer of this construction project who has operational control over project specifications, the general contractor who has day-to-day operational control of those activities at the site, which are necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP and other permit conditions, and possibly other "operators" will require appropriate NPDES permit coverage for this project. The CGP was re-issued effective February 16, 2012. The CGP, NOI, deadlines for submitting an NOI, Fact Sheet, and Federal Register notice is available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp.cfm

I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely,

ftp://ftp.nmenv.state.nm.us/www/swqb/WPS/401-404/NWPCertificationNotice04-13-2012.pdf

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp.cfm

Morgan R. Nelson Environmental Impact Review Coordinator NMED File Number: EIR 5164

Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc.

Appendix A: Project Photography


Figure A-1. Project Overview Along Callaway Drive from the Western Project Terminus (View to North).

Figure A-2. Project Overview Along Callaway Drive, Western Portion (View to West).


Figure A-3. Project Overview Along Callaway Drive, Developed Central Portion (View to West).

Figure A-4. Project Overview Along Proposed Multi-Use Path Alignment, Eastern Portion (View to East).


Figure A-5. Project Overview Along Callaway Drive, Developed Eastern Portion (View to East).

Figure A-6. Project Overview Along Callaway Drive from Cherry Lane, Eastern Portion (View to West).

APPENDIX C

Callaway Drive Roadway Alternatives

APPENDIX D

Drainage Report

callaway drive roadway improvements … · callaway drive roadway improvements preliminary...

Documents