TN NP NATR 1H11 1J16_PVT_Memo_adv.pdf

Page 1 of 5 Pages

Form FHWA-201 (Rev. 11-67)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message comment is to be retained as file material. Do not prepare carbons. Not to be used in lieu of Form FHWA-121 for informal correspondence. MINUTE-MEMO

SUBJECT: Pavement Recommendations for Project MS NP NATR 1H11, 1J16

TO MESSAGE/COMMENT FROM/DATE

R. Satasiya Project Manager

J. Johnson Highway Design Manager

This memorandum presents our pavement recommendations to support the PS&E development for Project MS NP NATR 1H11, 1J16 located in the Natchez Trace Parkway (NATR) in Lawrence and Wayne Counties, Tennessee. The purpose of the project is to preserve the pavement from Milepost 354.30 to 363.70 of the Natchez Trace Parkway (NATR) and an adjacent ramp and parking area. A Project Location Map is included in Appendix A.

The recommendations herein are based on findings from the field assessment performed by Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Pavement engineer in November 2023 along with our review of Pavement Management System (PMS), Road Inventory Program (RIP) Cycle 6 (C6) data, and Traffic Speed Deflectometer (TSD) data as part of a Pre- Scoping Report delivered in October 2023.

BACKGROUND

Project NP MS NATR 1H11, 1J16 consists of the pavement preservation of the Natchez Trace Parkway from Milepost 354.30 to 363.70 in addition to Collinwood Access Road (NATR-0172) ramp that connects to the Trace and Sweetwater Branch Parking (NATR- 1004). These routes were last rated as part of the RIP C6 data collected in September 2020.

A condition survey based on visual inspection was conducted in November 2023, of all areas within the project scope to assess the existing pavement conditions and determine the feasibility of pavement preservation treatments. The summary of the current Pavement Condition Ratings (PCRs) predicted based on the latest C6 collection and pavement conditions based on the visual condition survey conducted in November 2023 are included in Table 1. A summary of the RIP data is included in Appendix B.

Table 1: Pavement Condition Summary (From MP 354.30 to MP 363.70) Route Name PCR (2023)

Pavement Condition Survey (November 2023)

NATR-0001G 75.8 Roadway is observed to be in good to fair condition, exhibiting alligator cracking and thermal cracking on isolated areas, edge cracking, longitudinal, and transverse cracking.

NATR-0001H 71.3 Roadway is observed to be in good to fair condition, exhibiting medium severity alligator cracking on isolated areas, transverse cracking, and longitudinal cracking along the cold joints. Edge cracking is present in some areas, it will need shoulder stabilization to address the edge cracks.

NATR-0172 34.8 PCR of ramp is in poor condition but was observed to be in fair condition during field visit. It exhibits thermal cracking, block cracking with crack widths of >1/4" in some areas, and edge cracking towards the end of route.

NATR-1004 80.4 Parking area presents extensive block cracking, with crack width of >1/4" and isolated areas starting to transition to alligator cracking. Joint seal cracking present.

J. Aponte Rivera Former EFL Pavement Engineer

Through:

A. Maloche Acting Pavements Team Leader

7/23/2024

Page 2 of 5 Pages

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message

PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The Pavements Team evaluated the routes based on the visual assessment of the existing pavement conditions, HPMA predicted data, C6 RIP data, and TSD data for validation to determine routes that are candidates for preservations. Based on the RIP data and as stated at the Pre-Scoping Report, there is significant block cracking, transverse, and longitudinal cracking from approximately RIP MP 362 to RIP MP 363.5. About 27% of the project segment has been identified with longitudinal and transverse cracking leaning to medium severity, which falls under the light rehabilitation category. The TSD data also shown at the Pre-Scoping Report suggests that the parkway structure of this section has significantly deteriorated and will likely need a more significant treatment in the future, which may indicate that an overlay treatment may deteriorate faster than typical. Due to the severity of the distresses, a heavier pavement preservation treatment is warranted to extend the pavement life but won’t increase the structural capacity to address pavement condition needs.

Preservation treatments alternatives considered during the scoping and discussed with the NPS included the 3/8” (9.5mm) mix, placed at 1 3/8” thickness overlay and the Ultra-Thin Bonded Wearing Course (UTBWC). In previous preservation projects, the 1 3/8” overlay has been the preferred alternative by the Park. However, the Park has requested that EFLHD considers limiting the thickness for the overlay alternative to 1-inch. In this case, it’s our recommendation to use a thin-lift consisting of No 4-mix placed at 1-inch. Tennessee Department of Transportation (DOT) has No. 4 approved mixes.

For roads that will need a heavier preservation treatment, we recommend as an alternative to receive a SAMI (Stress Absorbing Membrane Interlayer), consisting of chip seal followed by a 1-inch overlay. Although 27% of the pavement sections require heavier preservation treatment (SAMI), these sections are sporadically distributed along the project limits, making it infeasible from a constructability and chip seal operation standpoint. Additionally, the remaining sections are technically beyond preservation, so there is a high potential for premature reflective cracking if only thin lift is placed. Therefore, Pavements would like to consider applying SAMI to the entire project.

Taper milling will be required in parking areas and ramps within 6 feet of curbs and gutters in order to maintain reveal and ensure proper drainage.

The following pavement preservation strategies are recommended as per the FP-24 Specifications, “Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects”:

Page 3 of 5 Pages

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message

Alternative 1: 1” Overlay We recommend Asphalt Concrete (AC) overlay according to the minimum requirements provided in Table 2. Taper milling will be required in parking areas and ramps within 6 feet of curbs and gutters in order to maintain reveal and ensure proper drainage.

Table 2: Pavement Recommendations for Alternative 1

Layer Minimum Thickness

(in)

Comments

AC Surface Course 1.0

Marshall Mix ACP, 4.75 mm (No. 4) Nominal Maximum Size Aggregate

(NMSA) as per Section 404, Type I-B roughness

Asphalt Tack Coat --- Tack Coat as per Section 412

Alternative 2: UTBWC We recommend the use of the UTBWC as the pavement preservation treatment choice for all routes included in this project using one of the following methods:

(a) Spray paver application (Type A) that can spray the Polymer-modified emulsion membrane (PMEM) immediately before placing the asphalt mix; or

(b) Non-tracking hot applied polymer asphalt tack coat application (type B) placed using standard paver with the non-tracking polymer asphalt tack coat material applied prior to placing the asphalt mix.

Alternative 3: Stress Absorbing Membrane Interlayer (SAMI) We recommend the use of SAMI, consisting of the application of a Chip Seal (Type 1C) on the existing pavement surface prior to placing an AC Overlay (Marshall Mix ACP, 4.75 mm (No. 4) NMSA at 1-inch depth) treatment for roads that will need a heavier preservation treatment. Adjust emulsion application rates to fill any necessary cracks prior placing the overlay.

Page 4 of 5 Pages

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message

The existing pavements may require the following repairs prior to placing the proposed preservation treatments:

• Perform a Partial Depth Patch (FDP Type 3) as necessary, in areas exhibiting fatigue cracking, settlement, and/or potholes. Such areas should be identified by the CO. Patch areas should be performed in accordance with Section 418. As Park’s request, a quantity of 7,000 square yards will be used for the entire project segment.

• Perform Crack Sealing and Filling at least a week prior to placing the Thin-lift overlay preservation treatment. Crack sealing (crack width ¼-inch to less than -inch) and filling (crack width greater than 1-inch) should be performed in accordance with Section 414. It is recommended to have as much time as possible, typically 6 to 12 months or one season per industry practice, between the crack sealing operation and a hot surface treatment application. That time will allow for the crack sealant to set into the cracks and cure under vehicular traffic. This will also prevent too much sealant under the surface treatment resulting in better performance. If crack sealing occurs prior to 6 months from the preservation treatment application, it is recommended to use a recessed configuration by applying the sealant so that it sets below the surface. This reduces the risk of the sealant melting and potentially bubbling back through the subsequent hot surface treatment applications.

Tables 3 and 4 provides the approximate quantities for crack sealing/filling for the routes specified for the alternatives.

Table 3 – Sealing Quantities for Alternatives 1 and 2

Park ID Crack Sealing and Filling (Miles)

NATR Mainline 2.35

NATR-0172 0.09

NATR-1004 0.09

Table 4 – Sealing Quantities for Alternatives 3

Park ID Crack Sealing and Filling (Miles)

NATR Mainline 0.00

NATR-0172 0.09

NATR-1004 0.09

Removal of pavement markings and wheel stops will be necessary prior to placement of the surface treatment on some routes/parking areas.

Page 5 of 5 Pages

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Project Location Map Appendix B: Cycle 6 RIP Data Appendix C: Scoping Visit Photos Appendix D: Pre-Scoping Report cc: Highway Design BC, TS BC w/ attachments

Appendix A

Project Location Map

Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

TN NP NATR 1H11, 1J16

Project Location Map 1

N a tc h e z T ra ce

Pk w y

Woodlawn

Na tch ezTracePkwy

Natc he z

T ra c e P k w y

Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

TN NP NATR 1H11, 1J16

Project Location Map 2

Appendix B

Cycle 6 RIP Data

Surface Type:

Inspection Date:

Paved Length (Miles):

Number of Lanes Lane & Width Information

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Roadway Condition Information

Longitudinal Crack Index

Distress Index Values

Route Summary Section Length (MI) Beginning Section MP

Surface Condition Rating (SCR)

Transverse Cracking Index Patching Index Rutting Index International Roughness Index (IRI)

Paved Width (ft) Lane Width (ft)

Roughness Condition Index (RCI)

Alligator Crack Index Structural Crack Index

357.82

356.82

355.82

354.82

353.82

Rte.

G

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Natchez Trace Parkway

ROUTE 0001G: CH MOTOR ROAD

2 2

354.82

355.82 356.82 357.82 1 1 0.91

9/30/2020 58.91

ASPHALT

24.3 10.5

23.4 10.6

24.5 10.5

10.4

23.4 10.5

100100100100100 9189939371

Data Collection Vehicle (DCV) Rating

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

Colors on map represent condition scores at 0.10-mile intervals. See Appendix for definitions and formulas.

Fair (61- 84) Good (85 - 94)Poor (0 - 60) Excellent (95 - 100) Not Rated

5-75

Paved Length (Miles):

Number of Lanes Lane & Width Information

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Roadway Condition Information

Longitudinal Crack Index

Distress Index Values

Route Summary Section Length (MI) Beginning Section MP

Surface Condition Rating (SCR)

Transverse Cracking Index Patching Index Rutting Index International Roughness Index (IRI)

Paved Width (ft) Lane Width (ft)

Roughness Condition Index (RCI)

Alligator Crack Index Structural Crack Index

362.73

361.73

360.73

359.73

365.73364.73 363.73

Rt e.

1H

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Natchez Trace Parkway

ROUTE 0001H: ML MOTOR ROAD

2 2

358.73

359.73 360.73 361.73 362.73 1 1 1 1

10/1/2020 50.27

ASPHALT

28.5 10.3

23.7 10.3

23.6 10.4

23.3 10.3

10.5

10.2

100100100100100100 957590929295

Data Collection Vehicle (DCV) Rating

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

Colors on map represent condition scores at 0.10-mile intervals. See Appendix for definitions and formulas.

5-76

Paved Length (Miles):

Number of Lanes Lane & Width Information

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Roadway Condition Information

Longitudinal Crack Index

Distress Index Values

Route Summary Section Length (MI) Beginning Section MP

Surface Condition Rating (SCR)

Transverse Cracking Index Patching Index Rutting Index International Roughness Index (IRI)

Paved Width (ft) Lane Width (ft)

Roughness Condition Index (RCI)

Alligator Crack Index Structural Crack Index

368.73

367.73

366.73

365.73364.73

363.73

Rte. 0001H

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Natchez Trace Parkway

ROUTE 0001H: ML MOTOR ROAD

2 2

363.73

364.73 365.73 366.73 367.73 1 1 1 1

10/1/2020 50.27

ASPHALT

28.5 10.3

23.5 10.3

23.6 10.4

23.6 10.1

23.9 10.4

24.7 10.3

100100100100100100 659593959595

Data Collection Vehicle (DCV) Rating

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

Colors on map represent condition scores at 0.10-mile intervals. See Appendix for definitions and formulas.

Fair (61- 84) Good (85 - 94)Poor (0 - 60) Excellent (95 - 100) Not Rated

5-77

36 .73

Paved Length (Miles):

Number of Lanes Lane & Width Information

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Roadway Condition Information

Longitudinal Crack Index

Distress Index Values

Route Summary Section Length (MI) Beginning Section MP

Surface Condition Rating (SCR)

Transverse Cracking Index Patching Index Rutting Index International Roughness Index (IRI)

Paved Width (ft) Lane Width (ft)

Roughness Condition Index (RCI)

Alligator Crack Index Structural Crack Index

Rt e.

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Natchez Trace Parkway

ROUTE 0172: ML COLLINWOOD ACCESS ROAD

2 2

0.13

9/21/2020 0.13

ASPHALT

22.3 10.2

22.3 10.2

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100100

Data Collection Vehicle (DCV) Rating

Route Condition Legend – Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

Colors on map represent condition scores at 0.10-mile intervals. See Appendix for definitions and formulas.

5-192

Rte. 0001H

Rte. 1004

Appendix C

Scoping Visit Photos

Project Scoping Trip Pictures – Natchez Trace Parkway Mainline (Park MP 354.3 – 357)

Project Scoping Trip Pictures – Natchez Trace Parkway Mainline (Park MP 357 – 359)

Project Scoping Trip Pictures – Natchez Trace Parkway Mainline (Park MP 359 – 362)

Project Scoping Trip Pictures – Natchez Trace Parkway Mainline (Park MP 362 – 363.7)

Project Scoping Trip Pictures – Collinwood Access Road (NATR-0172) and Sweetwater Branch Parking (NATR-1004)

Appendix D

Pre-Scoping Report

NATR 1H11, 1J16 (Park MP 354.30 to 363.70) Pre-Scoping Data October 11, 2023

NATR 1H11, 1J16 Pre-Scoping Data – Mainline Park and Road Inventory Program (RIP) Mileposts

For the Natchez Trace Parkway, the Park Physical mileposts and RIP mileposts are different. Therefore, the project limits milepost will differ. The table below shows the mileposts for the project.

Table 1. Park and RIP Mileposts

Description Park MP RIP MP Project Start 354.30 358.20 Project End 363.70 367.65

Pavement Functional and Structural Condition Construction History A Denver Service Center (DSC) Delivered Project was completed on this section in 2006, consisting of a preservation treatment with 1-inch Overlay.

Comparing Last 2 RIP Collections Mainline RIP has collected NATR in both January 2018 and September 2020. Figure 1 below shows a comparison of the 2018 collection to the 2020 collection.

Figure 1. NATR 1H11, 1J16 - RIP Data Comparing Last 2 Collections

We can see from Figure 1 that the condition in 2020 is worse compared to the 2018 condition. It looks like cracking may have started to reflect through in some locations, with the section being in fair to poor conditions (a PCR below 85 is considered Fair, and below 60 is considered Poor).

2020 RIP Collected Condition Data Taking the 2020 RIP collection data, we can then show the breakout by Surface Condition Rating (SCR) which represents the cracking/patching/rutting, as well as the Roughness Condition Index (RCI).

As shown in Figure 2, the mainline shows extensive transverse cracking and the SCR showing is below 60.

The PCR indicates a mix between fair and poor condition. There is not significant roughness.

Figure 2. NATR RIP Data - Pavement Condition Rating (PCR), Surface Condition Rating (SCR), and Roughness Condition Index (RCI)

We can further split out the Surface Condition Rating (SCR) portion of Figure 2 to show both the portion of SCR that is driven by Structural Cracking (i.e. Alligator/Longitudinal fatigue cracking) and the portion that is related to Transverse Cracking. Transverse cracking represents environmental distress whereas structural cracking is indicative of structural failure.

As shown in Figure 3, where cracking is present along the mainline, it consists of block cracking. This section consists mostly of extensive medium severity transverse and block cracking. The presence of the distresses indicates that the underlying cracking has reflected through the 1" Overlay that was placed in 2006.

Figure 3. NATR RIP Data - Data by Cracking Type

TSD Data Traffic Speed Deflectometer (TSD) data can be used to perform a structural evaluation of the pavement section to determine if it is structurally adequate. In addition, the TSD data can help identify potentially damaged areas and provide targets for further detailed inspection and testing.

The TSD vehicle (shown in figure 4) collects deflection of the pavement that can be used to back calculate the structural properties of the pavement. This deflection is shown in Figure 5 below.

The Effective Structural Number (SNeff) is calculated based on both pavement deflection testing by the TSD and pavement thickness data.

Figure 4. TSD Vehicle

Figure 5. Deflection

Max Deflection The maximum deflection along this section of the parkway is shown in Figure 6. The maximum deflection alone may not be enough to determine the quality of a pavement structure. It is important to consider deflection data in conjunction with the pavement thickness to determine if the current pavement design is adequate. This is the purpose of calculating effective Structural Number (SNeff) shown in the next section.

As these calculations are still being finalized for the NATR, maximum deflection can still provide some useful insight.

The maximum deflection for this section is relatively high when compared to the rest of the parkway. This would indicate that there is potentially weak subgrade in this area. It also may help explain the type of cracking starting to reflect through.

Figure 6. NATR 1H11 1J16 - TSD Data, Rolling Avg Window Length of 20, 0.01 Interval Data Points (2 Tenths of a Mile)

As shown in Figure 6, the deflection from MP 365.40 to MP 367.65 appears to be greater than from MP

358.20 to MP 365.40. To interpret the amount of deflection, we can compare it to the rest of the parkway.

The average deflection between MP 358.20 to MP 365.40 is 16.4 mils. This falls in the 69-percentile of deflection along the parkway.

The average deflection between MP 365.40 to MP 367.65 is 23.7 mils. This falls in the 95-percentile of deflection along the parkway.

This means that after RIP MP 365.40, the data shows that the parkway structure is in worse condition compared to the rest of the section and parkway.

The deflection statistics of the entire parkway for comparison is shown below. The relative deflection along this section would be considered High when compared to the rest of the parkway.

Table 2. Max Deflection (mils) Statistics (Entire Parkway)

Count 88636.00 Mean 13.55 std 6.43 min 0.20 50% 13.50 75% 17.30 max 281.70

Preliminary Structural Analysis Results The TSD deflection results coupled with the thickness of the Natchez Trace parkway can be used to calculate the Effective Structural Number (SNeff), which gives a good indication of the overall pavement structural condition of the existing pavement.

While these results are still being finalized, some initial results have been provided that compare the the Effective Structural Number of the pavement section to the Design Structural Number (i.e. what the Structural Number would be expected to be for the given pavement thickness if it were new). From this a Remaining Life (RL) and Design Life (DL) can be calculated. The ratio of RL to DL (RL/DL) gives an idea of where the pavement is in its life cycle.

As shown in the figure below, provided to us from Virginia Tech as part of their draft TSD analysis, this section of the parkway is mostly in Red, indicating that the remaining life (RL) is at 10% or less of the design life (DL). This tells us that the pavement structure has significantly deteriorated from it's original design.

Figure 7. NATR Remaining Life vs Design Life

Source: EFL Draft Report - NT and BRP TSD Evaluation (Virginia Tech)

Ramps and Parking Areas The side roads, ramps, and parking areas along this section are included in the attached spreadsheet.

Conclusions and Recommendations The cracking on this section falls in the medium severity category as of the 2020 RIP collection, we can see from the data that the cracking had become worse between the 2018 and 2020 RIP collections, indicating that it has already reflected through the 2006 overlay treatment that was placed.

Based on the RIP data, there is significant block cracking, transverse, and longitudinal cracking from approximately RIP MP 362 to RIP MP 363.5. The deflection from the TSD along this section of the parkway is relatively high when compared to the rest of the parkway. In this case, from RIP MP 365.40 to RIP MP

367.65 the deflection falls in the 95-percentile, meaning that comparing it with the entire Parkway only 5-percent is in worse condition than this segment.

In addition to this, the Remaining Life when compared to the Design Life is low, indicating that the pavement structure has significantly deteriorated compared to the structural condition that would have been expected when it was first constructed.

Given that cracking has reflected through during the 2020 RIP collection, it is important to verify the severity of the cracking during the scoping visit, especially on those areas where it was observed that cracking was more prominent. If most of the sections present medium severity cracking, a preservation treatment might not remedy the underlying issues of the pavement. The cracking will likely reflect through the 1.375” overlay treatment proposed relatively quickly. Recent data processed by the Pavement Management Team shows that the predicted PCR values for the mainline are between fair and poor, predominantly suggesting Heavy Rehabilitation as a treatment option.

The data from the TSD suggests that the parkway structure of this section has significantly deteriorated and will likely need a more significant treatment in the future. Therefore, the overlay may deteriorate faster than typical, and we may want to start considering a heavier treatment for the next time the parkway is treated.

As the results from the TSD analysis done by Virginia Tech are finalized we should have a better understanding of the overall structure and timing to be able to better assess the long term needs of the parkway.

Prepared by: Jennifer M. Aponte Rivera, Pavement Engineer

Reviewed by: Anthony Maloche, Pavement Management Engineer

Mainline Data

FMSS #

Access Type

Funct.

Class

Route ID Route Name

RIP MP

From

RIP MP

To

Park MP From

Park MP To

PVT Type Previous

Construction (Overlay)

2023 PCR

2023 Treatment

Category Width

Area

(SQYD)

Route Miles

67739 PUBLIC 1 NATR‐0001G CH MOTOR ROAD 357.17 358.73 353.3 354.8 ACP 2006 75.8 L3R 23.3 21324 1.56 68103 PUBLIC 1 NATR‐0001H ML MOTOR ROAD 358.73 359.43 354.8 355.5 ACP 2006 62.1 H3R 23.8 9774 0.7 68103 PUBLIC 1 NATR‐0001H ML MOTOR ROAD 359.43 361.95 355.5 358.0 ACP 2006 73.2 H3R 23.4 34595 2.52 68103 PUBLIC 1 NATR‐0001H ML MOTOR ROAD 361.95 362.65 358.0 358.7 ACP 2006 60.0 H3R 24.3 9979 0.7 68103 PUBLIC 1 NATR‐0001H ML MOTOR ROAD 362.65 363.65 358.7 359.7 ACP 2006 74.4 H3R 24 14080 1 68103 PUBLIC 1 NATR‐0001H ML MOTOR ROAD 363.65 364.75 359.7 360.8 ACP 2006 80.6 L3R 23.6 15230 1.1 68103 PUBLIC 1 NATR‐0001H ML MOTOR ROAD 364.75 366.23 360.8 362.3 ACP 2006 71.7 H3R 23.6 20491 1.48 68103 PUBLIC 1 NATR‐0001H ML MOTOR ROAD 366.23 368.17 362.3 364.2 ACP 2006 70.4 H3R 24.1 27429 1.94

Side Roads and Parking Areas

FMSS # Access Type Funct.

Class

Route ID Route Name Mainline RIP Milepost

Mainline Park Milepost*

PVT Type Previous

Construction

2023 PCR

Treatment Category

Width Area

(SQYD)

Route Miles

68104 PUBLIC 1 NATR‐0172 ML COLLINWOOD ACCESS ROAD 358.82 354.9 ACP 34.8 H3R 22.3 1,701 0.130 68119 PUBLIC 9 NATR‐1004 ML SWEETWATER BRANCH PARKING 366.99 363.0 ACP 80.4 PM 1,452 0.113

*Note - the RIP Milepost and the Mile Markers on Natchez Trace are different. The orange column represents the approximate Mile Marker locations.