grant county asset management plan

GRANT COUNTY ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

December 2018

Grant County Staff Daniel Arrey, Planning & Community Development, GIS Specialist

Mischa Larisch, Planning & Community Development Manager

Earl Moore, Roads Department Manager

Charlene Webb, County Manager

Bohannan Huston, Inc. Denise, Aten, AICP

Melanie Bishop

Roy Gibson, PE

Curtis Sanders

Aaron Sussman, AICP

Jeanette Walther, PE, PTOE

Grant County Commission Gabriel Ramos – District 1

Brett Kasten – District 2

Alicia Edwards – District 3

Billy Billings – District 4

Harry Browne – District 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

Purpose and Benefits of Asset Management Planning ............................................... 1

Overview of Grant County Roads ................................................................................... 1

Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 2

Goals and Recommended Action Items ....................................................................... 3

Relationship to Kan Manual ............................................................................................. 4

Inventory of Assets ............................................................................................................. 5

II. Roadways ............................................................................................................................... 6

Roadway Network ............................................................................................................. 6

Transportation Planning .................................................................................................... 6

Critical Roads Assessment ................................................................................................ 9

a. Tier Definitions ................................................................................................................. 9

b. Evaluation Process ......................................................................................................... 9

c. Smoothing Process ....................................................................................................... 11

d. Scoring ........................................................................................................................... 12

Other Transportation Assets ............................................................................................ 18

a. Sidewalks ....................................................................................................................... 18

b. Signage ......................................................................................................................... 19

c. Culverts .......................................................................................................................... 19

d. Guardrails ...................................................................................................................... 19

e. Cattle Guards ............................................................................................................... 20

f. Bridges ........................................................................................................................... 23

g. Road Department Equipment ................................................................................... 24

Wastewater Assets ........................................................................................................... 27

Other Considerations ...................................................................................................... 29

a. Connection to Other Planning Documents ............................................................. 29

III. Roadway Conditions & Maintenance Techniques ........................................................ 31

Current Maintenance Programs ................................................................................... 31

Paved Roads .................................................................................................................... 31

a. Pavement Conditions Defintions ............................................................................... 31

b. Lifespan and the Benefits of Pavement Maintenance .......................................... 32

c. Types of Pavement Deterioration .............................................................................. 33

d. Maintenance and Rehabilitation Techniques and Definitions .............................. 35

Unsurfaced Roads ........................................................................................................... 36

a. Gravel Road Definitions and Conditions .................................................................. 36

b. Dirt Road Definitions and Conditions ........................................................................ 38

c. Types of Deterioration along Unsurfaced Roads .................................................... 39

d. Maintenance along Unsurfaced Roads ................................................................... 40

e. Drainage ....................................................................................................................... 41

IV. Roadway Conditions: LOS, Maintenance Programs, & Life-Cycle Costs ................ 43

Current Roadway Conditions ........................................................................................ 43

LOS Targets ....................................................................................................................... 45

Paved Roads .................................................................................................................... 46

a. Paved Road Life-Cycle Costs and Maintenance Programs ................................. 46

b. Cost to Improve and Maintain Paved Roads .......................................................... 48

c. Cost of Improving Paved Roads to Desired Conditions ......................................... 49

d. Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure ....................................................................... 50

Unsurfaced Roads ........................................................................................................... 51

a. Gravel Roads ................................................................................................................ 51

b. Dirt Roads ...................................................................................................................... 53

Summary Maintenance Costs ....................................................................................... 55

V. Financial Analysis ................................................................................................................. 56

Current Resources ........................................................................................................... 56

Current Projects ............................................................................................................... 57

a. Tyrone Sidewalk Improvements ................................................................................. 57

b. North Hurley Road – Phase II ...................................................................................... 57

c. Rosedale Road – Phase II Construction .................................................................... 57

d. Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan ................................................................. 57

Revenue Options ............................................................................................................. 58

a. Local Revenue Sources .............................................................................................. 58

b. State and Federal Funding Sources .......................................................................... 59

FIGURES Figure 1 | Grant County Asset Management Plan Components and Workflow ................ 2

Figure 2 | Grant County Roadway System and Functional Classification........................... 7

Figure 3 | Grant County-Owned Roads ................................................................................... 8

Figure 4 | Priority Tier Results ..................................................................................................... 14

Figure 5 | Priority Tier Results (Northeast Grant County) ....................................................... 15

Figure 6 | Priority Tier Results (Northwest Grant County) ...................................................... 16

Figure 7 | Priority Tier Results (North Central Grant County) ................................................ 17

Figure 8 | Sidewalks in Tyrone Townsite ................................................................................... 19

Figure 9 | Culvert Locations in Grant County ........................................................................ 21

Figure 10 | Guard Rail and Cattle Guard Locations in Grant County ............................... 22

Figure 11 | North Hurley Lift Station .......................................................................................... 28

Figure 12 | Typical Roadway Section Life Cycle ................................................................... 33

Figure 13 | Example of Raveling .............................................................................................. 33

Figure 14 | Example of Alligator Cracks.................................................................................. 34

Figure 15 | Example of Rutting ................................................................................................. 34

Figure 16 | Road Mileage by Surface Type............................................................................ 44

Figure 17 | Section of North Hurley Road in Need of Improvements ................................. 50

Figure 18 | Improved Section of North Hurley Road ............................................................. 50

Figure 19 | Geronimo Road – Gravel Road in Fair Condition .............................................. 51

TABLES

Table 1 | Grant County Road Miles by Surface Type ............................................................. 6

Table 2 | Mileage and Scoring by Tier .................................................................................... 12

Table 3 | Evaluation Criteria Scoring ....................................................................................... 13

Table 4 | Sidewalk Inventory .................................................................................................... 18

Table 5 | National Bridge Inventory – Grant County-Maintained Bridges ......................... 23

Table 6 | Grant County Road Department Vehicles ............................................................ 24

Table 7 | North Hurley Lift Station Parts, Costs, and Risk of Failure ...................................... 28

Table 8 | Pavement Condition Descriptions .......................................................................... 32

Table 9 | Gravel Roadway Condition Descriptions .............................................................. 37

Table 10 | Dirt Roadway Condition Descriptions .................................................................. 38

Table 11 | Maintenance Activities by Season ....................................................................... 41

Table 12 | Drainage Techniques for Gravel and Dirt Roads ................................................ 42

Table 13 | Total Road Miles by Priority Tier .............................................................................. 43

Table 14 | Total Road Miles by Surface Type and Condition .............................................. 44

Table 15 | Share of Road Miles by Surface Type and Condition ........................................ 45

Table 16 | LOS Targets by Tier and Surface Type................................................................... 45

Table 17 | Recommended Maintenance Activities by Desired LOS – Paved Roads ...... 46

Table 18 | Estimated Annualized Maintenance Costs per Mile by LOS – Paved Roads . 48

Table 19 | Estimated Costs to Improve Roadways per Mile by Tier – Paved Roads ........ 48

Table 20 | Total Cost to Improve Based on Current Condition/ Tier and Target Condition

....................................................................................................................................................... 49

Table 21 | Recommended Maintenance Activities by Desired LOS – Gravel Roads ...... 51

Table 22 | Estimated Annualized Maintenance Costs per Mile by LOS - Gravel Roads.. 53

Table 23 | Recommended Maintenance Activities by Desired LOS – Dirt Roads ............ 53

Table 24 | Estimated Annualized Maintenance Costs per Mile by LOS - Dirt Roads ........ 54

Table 25 | Summary Maintenance Costs for Grant County Roads .................................... 55

Table 26 | Grant County Roads Department Budget (2017) .............................................. 56

Table 27 | Grant County Roads Department Revenue Sources (2017) ............................. 56

Table 28 | Grant County Roadway Projects .......................................................................... 58

APPENDICES Appendix 1 | Grant County Road Inventory and Condition .............................................. 63

Grant County Asset Management Plan|1

I. INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND BENEFITS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Like many communities in New Mexico, Grant County faces the challenge of managing

growing maintenance and capital demands with finite resources. It is therefore critical

that public expenditures are made in a manner that is as efficient and effective as

possible. The purpose of the Grant County Asset Management Plan is to promote

objective decision-making for maintenance and capital improvement efforts. Through

its consideration of the resources necessary to maintain infrastructure in desired

conditions, this document and accompanying tools are intended to assist Grant

County staff and policymakers in sound decision-making with respect to maintenance

and long-term capital and infrastructure planning.

The primary focus of the Grant County Asset Management Plan is County-owned

transportation infrastructure. Water/wastewater utilities are offered by regional

providers, with the exception of one lift station located at North Hurley. The Plan

specifically evaluates the condition, lifespan, and future costs associated with County-

owned roadways. The analysis contained in the Plan reveals critical roadway assets

and develops level of service (LOS) standards and maintenance schedules. These

efforts will inform local spending and ensure that County roadways are maintained to a

standard that meets the needs and expectations of Grant County residents. Other key

County assets, including building facilities and the airport, are addressed through other

plans and documents.

The Asset Management Plan also demonstrates the level of financial resources required

to maintain Grant County roads in good working order. While developing financial

resources to meet these needs is likely to be an ongoing challenge, through the

identification of County needs and priorities the Asset Management Plan can also

support state and federal funding applications.

OVERVIEW OF GRANT COUNTY ROADS

Grant County owns and maintains a network of 688 miles of paved, gravel, and dirt

roads. These roads are generally located in rural areas and within unincorporated

communities and complement the network of roads owned and maintained by

NMDOT and local jurisdictions. Nearly all Grant County-owned and maintained roads

were constructed pre-1970, with the exception of some gravel roads which were

constructed as new subdivisions emerged.

Grant County Roads Department conducts routine maintenance on an ongoing basis

and performs roadway rehabilitation efforts as needs arise and as funding permits.

Through the development of the Grant County Asset Management Plan, the Road

Department conducted an evaluation of conditions on all County-owned roads and

agrees to pursue systematic maintenance and improvement efforts to Grant County

roads.


METHODOLOGY

The first step in the development of the Asset Management Plan was to develop an up-

to-date inventory of roads that are owned and maintained by Grant County. A

comprehensive geodatabase that Grant County can update over time was created as

a result of the asset management planning process. The inventory now includes

updated information on road surface type.

Once the network was properly defined, a critical roads assessment was undertaken to

determine the uses, functions, and vulnerabilities of the roadway system, and ultimately

to determine which roadway assets serve the most critical overall needs. Various

considerations were applied in the determination of critical roads in Grant County,

including the role and function of the roadway, access to population and employment,

and risks of extreme events, such as flooding and wildfires. More information on the

critical roads assessment can be found in section II.

As a result of the Grant County Asset Management Plan, all roadways have been

assigned a tier level related to their overall criticality.

• Tier 1 = high criticality

• Tier 2 = moderate criticality

• Tier 3 = low criticality

The Asset Management Plan also establishes LOS, or the desired conditions for Grant

County roads by tier and surface type. The desired LOS are linked to the criticality of the

roadway and are supported by maintenance programs that outline the steps required

to maintain Grant County roads to those desired conditions. LOS and desired roadway

conditions are described in section III. Maintenance programs to achieve desired LOS

are provided in section IV. The current condition of Grant County roads is identified in

Appendix 1.

Finally, the Asset Management Plan contains financial analysis to understand the

magnitude of costs required to meet desired LOS for Grant County roadways. See

section V for further discussion.

Figure 1 | Grant County Asset Management Plan Components and Workflow

Financial Analysis / Recommendations

Maintenance Plan to Meet LOS

Contract Existing versus Desired

Conditions

Define Critical Road Tiers

Set Levels of Service (LOS) by Road Type

Evaluate Existing Conditions


GOALS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS

The following goals and recommended action items are intended to guide Grant

County toward the efficient use of County resources and effective management of

roadway infrastructure. They are supported by the critical roads analysis, maintenance

programs, and other components of the Asset Management Plan. The recommended

action items reflect best practices in roadway management and infrastructure

planning, though these items may require additional resources to implement.

Support efficient allocation of Grant County resources

• Support clear decision-making and utilize County resources as efficiently as

possible

• Implement maintenance programs to improve resource allocation

• Convert paved Tier 3 roads to gravel surfaces that are more economical to

maintain

Maintain Grant County roads at desired LOS

• Implement the maintenance programs in the Asset Management Plan

• Perform regular removal of debris on roadways

• Develop schedule for the application of medium and long-term improvements

on Grant County roadways

Improve overall condition of Grant County roads

• Consider upgrade of Tier 1 and 2 facilities that are dirt to gravel or paved

surfaces

• Improve drainage infrastructure based on priority locations (i.e. flood risk roads)

identified in the Asset Management Plan to reduce the rates of overtopping or

flood incidents

• Pursue grants and other funding opportunities to support road improvements

• Ensure signage is compliant with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

• Consider needs of other roadway users during road improvements, including

provision of shoulders for bicycling on roads identified in the Silver City Bicycle

Plan or other planning efforts

Utilize data collection to improve decision-making

• Create a pavement conditions data inventory and conduct annual or biannual

data collection

• Partner with the Southwest Rural Transportation Planning Organization on a traffic

counts data collection program for critical Grant County roads

• Conduct regular windshield surveys on critical Grant County roads to identify

roadway improvement needs and drainage issues as early as possible


Integrate Asset Management Plan with other planning efforts

• Document the connection between critical roads and potential hazards as part

of the update to the Hazard Mitigation Plan

• Leverage Asset Management Plan for grant funding opportunities

Conduct regular updates to the Grant County Asset Management Plan

• Create process for revising the tier of Grant County roads, including special

considerations such as a particularly critical land use.

• As part of updates, review the critical roads inventory and update priority tiers to

reflect changing land use patterns and transportation conditions

RELATIONSHIP TO KAN MANUAL

The Grant County Asset Management Plan follows the structure and format of the A.M.

Kan Manual, which guides jurisdictions in the identification of critical assets and

determination of the financial obligations required to maintain the jurisdiction’s assets in

acceptable conditions. The Asset Management Plan ultimately contrasts the expected

Grant County revenue against the costs required to meet expectations for

infrastructure quality. Though the primary focus of the Grant County Asset Management

Plan is the County’s transportation infrastructure. The lone County-owned wastewater

asset, the North Hurley Lift Station, is also inventoried and maintenance obligations are

identified.

To aid with the planning of future capital improvement programs and to guide

maintenance expenditures, the Asset Management Plan goes beyond the

expectations of the Kan Manual to include a comprehensive criticality analysis in which

roadways are assigned a priority tier. The tiers – based on mobility, access to critical

destinations, emergency response needs, and other factors – are supported by LOS

designations that identifies the conditions to which each roadway should be

maintained. With assets inventoried and desired roadway conditions identified, the

asset management planning effort also moves beyond the Kan Manual by creating

robust maintenance programs by surface type and roadway priority level. As a result,

the maintenance costs required to preserve the desired LOS can be ascertained.

Finally, the Grant County Asset Management Plan results in a geospatial inventory of all

County-owned roadways and that can be easily updated over time by County staff as

conditions change.


Finally, current funding sources for County assets are identified. This analysis helps

determine if those funds meet the expected expenditures determined to be necessary

to continue supporting the County’s assets. Discrepancies in available versus desired

funding are highlighted, and recommendations for additional financial support are

provided.

INVENTORY OF ASSETS

The Grant County Asset Management Plan focuses on the condition and maintenance

activities for County-owned roadways. Other key County assets, including building

facilities and the airport, are addressed through other plans and documents. The

County’s sole wastewater facility, along with sidewalks and signage considerations, are

discussed below.

Kan Manual Steps Applied in Grant County Asset Management Plan

1. Asset Inventory – Location and conditions of County-owned assets

2. LOS – Desired conditions to which assets should be maintained

3. Critical Assets Determination – Assign priority levels to County assets

4. Life-Cycle Costs – Determination of value of assets and costs required to

maintain/replace assets over time

5. Funding Analysis – Identify capital expenditures and expected revenue


II. ROADWAYS

ROADWAY NETWORK

The Grant County roadway system is comprised of approximately 687.8 miles of roads.

Nearly all County-owned roads are two-lane facilities that provide local access,

including access to agricultural areas. The vast majority of roads - approximately 563.5

miles or 82% - are dirt, with paved and gravel roads comprising the remainder of the

network. The majority of the 26.9 miles of gravel roads are located in residential

subdivisions. There are 97.4 total miles of paved roads in Grant County. About half of

the paved surfaces feature chip seal over an unsurfaced road; the other half of paved

surfaces were constructed as true paved roads with base course. Maintenance

activities typically consist of chip seal coating. Some roads feature segments that are

paved in some sections and unpaved in others.

Table 1 | Grant County Road Miles by Surface Type

Surface Miles Share

Paved 97.42 14%

Gravel 26.88 4%

Dirt 563.47 82%

Total 687.77 100%

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Transportation planning for the region is generally conducted through the Southwest

Rural Transportation Planning Organization (SWRTPO), which serves as a forum for

regional planning issues and helps generate recommendations for multimodal

transportation investments. SWRTPO also administers the Regional Transportation

Improvement Program Recommendations (RTIPR), a list of desired transportation

projects that are submitted to NMDOT for potential funding and inclusion in the

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. See the Grant County Comprehensive

Plan (2017) and the SWRTPO Long Range Regional Transportation Pan for additional

information.

The Grant County Asset Management Plan, which considers maintenance activities

and infrastructure improvements to the County roadway system, can be considered

complementary to the regional transportation planning activities undertaken by

SWRTPO, and as a source for potential projects to be submitted as part of the RTIPR.


Figure 2 | Grant County Roadway System and Functional Classification


Figure 3 | Grant County-Owned Roads


CRITICAL ROADS ASSESSMENT

To determine how to organize maintenance activities and which roads may be

considered for improvements, the Asset Management Plan contains a critical roads

assessment that assigns a tier level to each roadway, based on a range of criteria. This

section defines the tiers to which Grant County roads are assigned and the

methodology for determining the most critical assets. The criticality assessment took

place prior to evaluating roadway conditions.

To support the roadways tiers, the Asset Management Plan also identifies the LOS, or the

condition to which Grant County roads should be maintained. Section III and IV define

the LOS and the maintenance programs for roads by tier level and surface type. A

complete list of Grant County roads by tier can be found in Appendix A.

A. TIER DEFINITIONS

Tier 1

Tier 1 roadways serve a critical function in the Grant County transportation system, and

provide high levels of access to populated areas, employment sites, recreational areas,

and other destinations. A Tier 1 designation also indicates that the roadway may require

additional maintenance activity due to its vulnerability to flooding. These facilities

should be maintained frequently and preserved to a higher standard than other

County roadways.

Tier 2

Tier 2 roadways provide some level of connections across the County and access to

local sites and destinations. A medium LOS should be provided on Tier 2 roadways.

Tier 3

Tier 3 roadways may provide access to specific sites or parcels but do not play a critical

role in the Grant County transportation system. These facilities should be maintained at

a basic level.

B. EVALUATION PROCESS

The criteria used in the criticality analysis are listed below, as well as explanations for

how each are evaluated. The criteria reflect the role and potential benefits provided

by each roadway, including the types of users that the roadway serves. The following

considerations are addressed through the evaluation criteria:

• Vulnerability to natural threats and extreme events (e.g. flooding, wildfire)

• Role of the roadway (e.g. functional classification, county-wide connectivity)

• Roadway users (e.g. emergency services, school buses, bicyclists)

• Access to major destinations (e.g. employment sites, recreational sites)

• Socioeconomic conditions (e.g. population, land use)


The criteria are based on a combination of publicly-available datasets and the input of

Grant County staff. Roadway segments are evaluated based on whether they adhere

to the definitions or thresholds associated with each criterion, with points awarded

depending on proximity or characteristics of the roadway. A score is calculated for

each segment of Grant County-owned roadways and a priority tier level is applied.

Roadways with the highest tier level generally serve multiple uses and generate points

from a range of criteria.

Natural Threats and Extreme Events

• Flooding Risks: Roads that may be impacted by flooding events, based on a

combination of FEMA 100-year floodplain data and Grant County staff input.

• Wildfire Risks: Roads that may be impacted by wildfire including National Forest

lands and other areas identified by Grant County staff.

• Wildland Urban Interface: Roads that intersect with interface and intermix areas,

as identified by the University of Wisconsin SILVIS Lab

(http://silvis.forest.wisc.edu/data/wui-change/). Intermix and interface areas are

defined as locations where human development mingles with the natural

landscape. These locations, generally within and on the edges of urbanized areas

are particularly vulnerable to forest fires. Wildland-urban interface is

complementary to the Fire Risks criterion.

• Flooding and Fire: Combined Risk Bonus: Roads that are at risk to both flooding

and wildfire. This criterion assesses locations that are particularly vulnerable to

extreme events by identifying roads that roads receive a score for both the

flooding and fire criteria.

Access

• Forest Areas: Roads that provide access to National Forest land and other outdoor

recreational areas, as identified by Grant County staff.

• Bridges: Roads that are within a one-mile approach to bridges identified on the

National Bridge Inventory (NBI).

• Fire Stations: All roads within a 0.5-mile radius of volunteer fire stations.

• Airport: Roads that provide access to the Grant County Airport.

• Mines: Roads that provide access to mine entrances, as identified by Grant

County staff.

• Bicycle and Recreation: Roads with existing bicycle facilities and roads that

provide access to recreational areas, including: Continental Divide Bicycle Trail,

Great Divide Bicycle Route, US 180 Bicycle Route, Silver City Kampground of

America (KOA), the Grapevine Campground, and City of Rocks State Park.

Roadway Function

• Functional Classification: Roads that are classified as Minor Collector, Major

Collector, or Minor Arterial. The statewide functional classification system is

maintained by the New Mexico Department of Transportation.


• Bus Routes: Roads that serve as school bus routes, as identified by Grant County

staff.

• Connectivity: Roads that provide connections across Grant County and access to

residential areas. To evaluate connectivity, an analysis was conducted on a

subset of roads totaling four miles or longer across the county, and roads totaling

two miles or longer within the Silver City/Santa Clara/Hurley/Bayard area. The

analysis on this subset of roads considered potential destinations and redundancy

of the roadway network. Roads are assigned a “medium” or “high” connectivity

designation based on providing access to local roads and long-distance network

linkages. Other roads that do not provide local access or long-distance

connections receive a “low” connectivity score.

Land Use

• Transect Districts: Points are awarded to roads segments depending on the

transect district in which the roadway is located. Transect districts include Urban,

Village, Natural, Transitional, and Rural, as designated in the Grant County

Comprehensive Plan. Roads that serve Urban, Village, and Transitional districts

receive maximum points in this criterion as they serve more populated areas and

locations with greater economic activity than Rural and Natural transect districts.

• Extraterritorial Zone (ETZ): Roads that are located within the Silver City

Extraterritorial Zone (ETZ).

Socioeconomic

• Employment Sites: Roads that are located within a one-mile radius of employment

sites. Data used for this criterion was obtained from the US Census Bureau’s

OnTheMap web tool.

• Population: Roads that pass through and/or intersect with census blocks that have

a high-population density. Data used for this criterion was obtained from the 2010

Census.

C. SMOOTHING PROCESS

After the scores for each roadway segment were calculated, final priority tier

designations of roadways were refined through a smoothing process. The smoothing

process is designed to ensure that tier designations are applied in a consistent manner

along adjacent road segments. Consistency of the final priority tier designations is

important to create clarity for the maintenance programs and reconstruction

schedules.


Table 2 | Mileage and Scoring by Tier

Paved Gravel Dirt Total Share

Tier 1 37.11 3.66 57.47 98.24 14%

Tier 2 58.35 14.35 304.25 376.95 55%

Tier 3 1.97 8.88 201.74 212.59 31%

Total 97.42 26.88 563.47 687.78 100%

D. SCORING

The priority tier designations are defined as 1 being the highest tier and 3 being the

lowest tier. Tier 1 includes 14% of the total roadway segments, tier 2 includes 53%, and

tier 3 includes 33%.


Table 3 | Evaluation Criteria Scoring

Criteria Score

Natural Threats

Flooding 1 = potential for flooding danger

Wildfire 1 = potential for fire danger

Wildland Urban Interface 1 = interface

2 = intermix

Flooding and Fire – Combined Risk 1 = increased potential for flooding and fire danger

Access

Bridges 1 = presence of bridge

Fire Stations 1 = access to fire station

Airport 2 = access to aiport

Mines 1 = access to mine entrance

Bicycle and Recreation 1 = serves recreational bicycle activity

Roadway Function

Functional Classification

1 = minor collector

2 = major collector

3 = minor arterial

Bus Routes 1 = bus route designation

Connectivity 1 = medium connectivity

2 = high connectivity

Forest Areas (outdoor recreation) 1 = access to forest áreas

Land Use

Transect Districts 1 = natural/ rural

2 = transitional/ village

Extraterritorial Zone (ETZ) 1 = located within ETZ

Socioeconomic Conditions

Employment 1 = access to employment sites

Population Density

1 = low density population

2 = medium density population

3 = high density population


Figure 4 | Priority Tier Results


Figure 5 | Priority Tier Results (Northeast Grant County)


Figure 6 | Priority Tier Results (Northwest Grant County)


Figure 7 | Priority Tier Results (North Central Grant County)


OTHER TRANSPORTATION ASSETS

A. SIDEWALKS

The only sidewalks in unincorporated areas of Grant County are located in the Tyrone

townsite, where a total of 7.7 miles of sidewalks serve the residential development.

Sidewalk improvements and ADA compliance have been a priority for Grant County,

with design efforts completed as of summer 2018. Sidewalk improvements were

completed in 2016 along the north side of Copper Drive from Malachite Avenue to the

concrete box culvert just east of Torbenite Drive. Further improvements include curb

and gutter and wheelchair curb ramps that meet ADA requirements where possible, as

well as widening of sidewalks to provide adequate passing opportunities.

The existing sidewalks require little annual maintenance. Depending on the desired

conditions and plans for future sidewalk projects, a long-term sidewalk maintenance

schedule may be considered. Such a maintenance schedule will allow Grant County to

maintain safe conditions and extend the life of sidewalks. Grant County could also

consider installing sidewalks when roadways are resurfaced.

Table 4 | Sidewalk Inventory

Miles of sidewalk 7.7

Number of curb ramps 80


Figure 8 | Sidewalks in Tyrone Townsite

B. SIGNAGE

Signs along Grant County roads are replaced on an as-needed basis. All signage

should be brought into compliance with MUTCD standards as part of roadway

reconstruction efforts and other major improvements.

Grant County could pursue a signage inventory in Village and Transitional transect

districts, the locations with the greatest residential and commercial activity, to prioritize

replacement and upgrade activities.

C. CULVERTS

There are 1,598 culverts that are maintained by the Grant County Road Department

(see Figure 9). Each of these locations were catalogued in GIS for the Grant County

Asset Management Plan.

Most culverts are corrugated metal/aluminum and are maintained in good condition.

Culverts are cleaned following monsoon rainfall events and replaced on an as-needed

basis. All work on culverts is performed by the Grant County Road Department staff.

D. GUARDRAILS

There are 128 guard rails located along Grant County owned and maintained roads


Asset Management Plan. Guard rails are replaced on an infrequent and as-needed

basis. There is no dedicated funding source for guardrails; all maintenance and

replacement costs are paid for as part of the capital budget for the Road Department.


E. CATTLE GUARDS

There are 362 cattle guards located along Grant County owned and maintained roads


Asset Management Plan.

Guard rails are replaced on an infrequent and as-needed basis. Cattle guards are

typically installed by the property owner, though are located on the public right-of-way.

Maintenance and repairs are performed annually on a rotating basis by Road

Department staff. Replacements for cattle guards occur as needed, including new

metal features and concrete. There is no dedicated funding source for guardrails; all

replacement costs are paid for as part of the capital budget for the Road Department.


Figure 9 | Culvert Locations in Grant County


Figure 10 | Guard Rail and Cattle Guard Locations in Grant County


F. BRIDGES

There are 21 bridges that are maintained by the Grant County Roads Department that

are located on the National Bridge Inventory. All bridges are subject to inspection by

the NMDOT every two years. Of the bridges maintained by Grant County, 17 (81%) are

considered “not deficient” and in good working order.

Maintenance is conducted by the Grant County Roads Department on an as-needed

basis. Major bridge repairs are funded either through the County GO Bond program or

through funding from NMDOT. The bridge along the Tyrone Mine Access Road (structure

number 7309) is under design and scheduled for replacement as the bridge is not rated

for the types of vehicles that currently utilize the facility. The bridge replacement will be

paid for utilizing NMDOT Local Government Road Funds.

Table 5 | National Bridge Inventory – Grant County-Maintained Bridges

Structure

Number

NBI

Route

Year

Built

Road/Water

Feature Location Status

1315 6400 1922 Cameron

Creek

.05 Miles E of N

Bayard St

Structurally

Deficient

1894 17330 1908 Cold Spring

Canyon

1.6 Miles NE of JCT

NM-61

Functionally

Obsolete

6215 17000 1960 US 180 39.03 Miles N of I-

10/DEMING Not Deficient

7168 4843 1964 San Vicente

Creek

0.04 Miles W of JCT

NM-90 Not Deficient

7309 4844 1972 San Vicente

Arroyo

42.7 Miles E of US-

70/NM-90 Not Deficient

7479 17013 1974 Mimbres River 0.01 Miles E NM-61

@MP-19.67 Not Deficient

7556 5850 1953 Pinos Altos

Creek

0.12 Miles E of JCT

NM-90 Not Deficient

7620 17000 1948 Silva Creek 0.25 Miles W of JCT

NM-90 Not Deficient

8002 17005 1948 San Vicente

Arroyo

5.8 Miles S of US-180

@ 131.

Functionally

Obsolete

8003 17001 1927 San Vicente

Arroyo

5.8 Miles W US-180

@MP-131.3

Functionally

Obsolete

8334 5835 1977 Pinos Alto

Creek 0.2 Miles S of US-180 Not Deficient

8365 17019 1981 Rio Mimbres 0.6 Miles E of JCT NM-

61 Not Deficient

8421 17007 1982 Hanover Creek 0.4 Miles E of JCT NM-

356 Not Deficient

8501 17071 1983 Duck Creek 0.35 Miles E US-180 @

MP79.0 Not Deficient


Structure

Number

NBI

Route

Year

Built

Road/Water

Feature Location Status

8649 17000 1988 San Vicente

Arroyo

3.2 Miles NE

NM90/BRKN-ARROW Not Deficient

8676 3069 1986 Sapillo Creek 0.1 Miles E

NM35/LAKE ROBERT Not Deficient

8677 17011 1986 Gila River 21.7 Miles N JCT US-

70/NM-464 Not Deficient

8772 17068 1942 Griggs Canyon 0.06 Miles S of JCT

NM-35 Not Deficient

8778 17009 1990 Hanover Creek 0.6 Miles NE JCT NM-

356/152 Not Deficient

9440 17009 2008 Mimbres River 0.55 Miles E NM-35 @

MP-5.2 Not Deficient

9579 17132 2011 Unnamed

Waterway

1.0 Miles NE NM-61 @

MP 19.67 Not Deficient

G. ROAD DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT

An inventory of vehicles owned and maintained by the Grant County Road

Department is contained in Table 6. Vehicles are utilized for roadway survey and

maintenance purposes and are replaced on an as-needed basis. Blading equipment is

replaced every five years. Additional equipment for maintenance efforts is rented on

rare occasions on an as-needed basis (i.e. less than once per year).

Equipment for snow removal is owned by Grant County, and snowplow activities take

place on an as-needed basis. The priority level for roadway clearance during a winter

storm event is dictated by the priority tier level, with Tier 1 facilities being the first facilities

to be plowed. Among Tier 2 facilities, paved roads are to be plowed first

Table 6 | Grant County Road Department Vehicles

ID

Number Year Model

Vehicle

Identification

Number

Condition Replacement

Cost

4 2010 CASE TRACTOR

MOWER ZAJL01962 Good $80.000

6 2012 FORD EXPLORER 4X4 1FM5K8B86DGB

94043 Poor $22,098

7-A 1982 INTERNATIONAL TRUCK 1HTAA17BXCHB

13254 Poor $20,000

8 1988 CHEVY TRUCK 4X4 Poor $22,098

9 1991 FORD TRUCK F350 4X4 2FDKF38G9NCB

08024 Poor $32,576

10 2015 FORD TRUCK F150 4X4 1FTMF1E80GKD3

4452 Good $22,098


ID

Number Year Model

Vehicle

Identification

Number


Cost

11 2009 FORD EXPEDITION 4X4 1FMFU16599EA7

8196 Poor $22,098

12 2006 DODGE DAKOTA

TRUCK 4X4

1D7HW22N86S5

96446 Fair $22,098

16 1999 JOHN DEERE BROCE

BROOM RJ-350 89417 Poor $71,051

18 2013 FORD TRUCK F250 4X4 1FT7W2B62EEA6

0608 Fair $25,160

21 2014 CATERPILLAR LOADER

938K

CAT0938KHWL01

888 Good $227,900

23 2000 FORD RANGER TRUCK

4X4

1FTZR15XDYPB47

916 Poor $22,098

24 2016 CHIP SPREADER ETWYRE-

ZZ16E7039 Good $317,024

25 1990 PETERBILT WATER

TRUCK

1XPCDR9X29608

8 Fair $85,000

27 2011 CATERPILLAR ROLLER

PS150

CATPS150HFPS0

1218 Good $148,609

28 2007 FORD TRUCK F350 4X4 1FDWF37RX8EC8

8795 Fair $32,576

29 2011 FORD CREWCAB F350

4X4

1FT8W3BTXBEB76

232 Fair $32,576

31 2005 DODGE DAKOTA

TRUCK 4X4

1D7HW42N45S2

62557 Fair $22,098

32 2005 FORD RANGER TRUCK 1FTYR10D85PA6

7879 Poor $22,098

34 1998 KALYN/SIEBERT TRAILER 41FKE5330W100

0810 Fair $79,947


7882 Poor $22,098


7881 Poor $22,098

37 2009 FORD RANGER TRUCK 1FTKR1AD1APA0

2743 Poor $22,098

40 2006 ASPHALT ZIPPER

AZ480S 48S00164 Fair $150,000

41 1972 FRUEHAUF DUMP

TRAILER FWN181801 Poor $50,000

43 1998 CATERPILLAR ROLLER

224G 3AL00868 Poor $58,853

47 2009 CATERPILLAR

BACKHOE E420E

0420EPPRA0129

5 Good $96,629


ID

Number Year Model

Vehicle

Identification

Number


Cost

50 1998 VOLVO DUMP TRUCK

W664

4VHJCAF2WN86

4221 Poor $86,972


W664

4VHJCAF2WN86

4223 Poor $86,972


W664

4VHJCAF4WN86

4222 Poor $86,972

53 1998 VOLVO AUTOCAR

TRUCK64F

4VGSDAPG6WN

519000 Poor $130,000

67 2007 FORD TRUCK

SUPERDUTY 4X4

1FTDW14V77KB4

5446 Poor $25,160

68 2007 FORD TRUCK

SUPERDUTY 4X4

1FTDW14V97KB4

5447 Poor $25,160

70 BELLY DUMP Fair $45,000

90 2017 CATERPILLAR GRADER

140-3

CAT0140-3-

N9D00855 Good $234,963


140-3

CAT0140-3-

N9D00796 Good $234,963


140-3

CAT0140-3-

N9D00856 Good $234,963


140-3

CAT0140-3-

N9D00884 Good $234,963


140-3

CAT0140-3-

N9D00887 Good $234,963


140-3

CAT0140-3-

N9D00897 Good $234,963

138 1992 FORD TRUCK F350 2FDJF37H2NCA7

4788 Poor $32,576

142 1993 TRAILER 16X6 UTILITY 83002389 Fair $10,000

145 1993 FORD TRUCK F250 4X4 2FTHF26MOPCA

85271 Poor $25,160

148 1994 CATERPILLAR

BACKHOE426B 5YJ01106 Poor $96,629

149 1994 JOHN DEERE LOADER

624G

DW624GB54381

9 Fair $227,900

158 1992 CHEVY TRUCK 3500 1GBJC34JONE1

68283 Poor $32,576


WASTEWATER ASSETS

Grant County provides wastewater services for 105 residences. The lone wastewater

asset that is owned by Grant County is the North Hurley Lift Station. The lift station and

wastewater connections were installed in 2014 after Grant County agreed to assume

responsibility for wastewater disposal for residences in the unincorporated community

of North Hurley that were previously on septic systems.

The lift station and residential connections were funded through a $339,000 USDA loan

that Grant County must repay in over a 20-year period. The annual debt payment for

this loan is $13,880, which covers the cost of construction. However, Grant County is also

responsible for maintenance, replacement parts, lubricating agents, as well as any

upgrades. As a condition of the loan, Grant County must maintain a contingency fund

to address those costs. The annual operating cost for Grant County for wastewater

services, including maintenance and annual payments to the City of Bayard, is

$80,830.

Grant County pays an annual fee of $24,000 to the City of Bayard Wastewater

Treatment Plant for disposal of the wastewater generated in North Hurley. While the fees

collected from North Hurley residences are sufficient to cover the payment to the

Bayard Wastewater Treatment Plant, fee do not cover the full costs of the loan,

maintenance, water sampling, or lubricants. Other costs are covered through the Grant

County general fund.

A total of 98 residences were connected to public utilities as a result of the USDA loan

and the installation of the lift station and wastewater connections. For residences that

were not connected to public utilities, Grant County assumed responsibility of individual

septic tank systems. A monthly user fee of $10 is charged to the 7 residences that rely on

individual septic systems.

North Hurley Lift Station Financial Analysis (2017)

• Total loan amount = $339,000

• Total users fees collected from residences = $30,250¹

• Annual fee to the City of Bayard = $24,000

• Annual payment for the USDA loan = $13,880

• Total cost to Grant County for wastewater systems = $94,710

Notes:

1 Residences that are connected to public utilities are charged $36.26 per month. Fees for

residences on septic is $10.00 per month.


Table 7 | North Hurley Lift Station Parts, Costs, and Risk of Failure

Costs and Assets Annual

Cost

Annual Probability of

Failure

Consequence

of Failure

Lift Station

Replacement $13,880 Low High

Repairs, Inspections $19,415 Medium Medium

Lift Station Operations $19,415 Low High

Lubricants (Greazilla) $18,000 Low Medium

Fees to Bayard $24,000 N/A N/A

Figure 11 | North Hurley Lift Station


OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

A. CONNECTION TO OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS

The following list of relevant planning documents are included to ensure a

comprehensive review of County-wide expectations and planning initiatives for

improvements to all infrastructure assets.

Grant County Comprehensive Plan

The Grant County Comprehensive Plan provides an understanding of the long-term

challenges facing the most populous county in southwest New Mexico, including

demographic trends, economic development opportunities, natural resource

management challenges, benefits associated with regional coordination, and the best

ways to leverage the presence of a university and major tourism destinations. While the

Comprehensive Plan is a policy document that documents the function and

characteristics of Grant County resources and programs, the Asset Management Plan

provides specific guidance on roadway maintenance activities and roadway

management techniques.

The Comprehensive Plan is integrated into the critical roads assessment through the use

of transect districts as a criterion. The Asset Management Plan also supports many of

the general policy recommendations related to the Grant County transportation

system. Both documents may be referenced, where appropriate, in the support of

Grant County funding applications.

ADA Transition Plan

The Grant County Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan is intended to

ensure that Grant County residents receive full access to public programs, services, and

activities. Specifically, the ADA Transition Plan contains inventories of County programs

and structures and identifies how Grant County will address non-compliance. In

addition to improvements to County facilities, the ADA Transition Plan identifies ADA

sidewalk improvements in the Tyrone Township. For discussion on sidewalk infrastructure

in Tyrone, see sections II.4 and V.2.

Hazard Mitigation Plan

The purpose of the Grant County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is to ensure local

stakeholders and policymakers are prepared to address natural and man-made

hazards. In particular, the plan identifies hazards and their probability of taking

place, as well as who will be impacted and the strategies that Grant County

can employ to respond to those hazards. Hazards that are identified in the Hazard

Mitigation Plan include drought, high heat, wildfires, and flooding. Wildfires and forest

fire risks are noteworthy in that both may impact transportation infrastructure and limit

access. Wildfire and forest fire risks are integrated into the critical roads assessment of

the Asset Management Plan.


Flood Risks

As part of the critical roads assessment, the Grant County Asset Management Plan

identifies roadways at risk of flooding, as well as road segments that intersect with

designated floodplains. These roadways should be subject to special consideration for

frequency of maintenance and inspections for roadways and bridges. More in-depth

analysis could be pursued by referencing the following data sources:

• National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) maps surface water and drainage networks

across the US. This dataset is important as there may be streams that may not have

been mapped as a floodplain that cross Grant County roads.

• Watershed boundary dataset (WBD) provides the aerial extent of surface water

drainage and is an indicator of upstream drainage areas.

• National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) is a database maintained by the Federal

Emergency Management Agency that contains current flood mapping

information.

• National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is a Federal Highway Administration-maintained

database of all bridges with roads passing above or below them. Bridges over at-

risk locations should be evaluated at regular intervals as water flow can affect the

structural integrity of the bridge.


III. ROADWAY CONDITIONS & MAINTENANCE TECHNIQUES

This section defines the current maintenance programs employed by the Grant County

Roads Department, the various conditions, or Level of Service (LOS), to which Grant

County roads could be maintained, the issues experienced along Grant County roads,

and defines best practice maintenance techniques. The frequency with which these

techniques should be applied to ensure roads are maintained to the desired conditions

(i.e. LOS), along with the costs to do so, are described in section IV.

CURRENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS

Due to limited resources, primary maintenance activities on unsurfaced roads include

blading on a twice-yearly basis. Blading is performed by the Grant County Roads

Department. Other improvements to unsurfaced roads are conducted on a case-by-

case basis as resources and time permits. Windshield surveys are also performed on an

informal basis.

Chip seal treatments are applied to paved roads approximately once every five years

for primary roads and once every seven years for secondary roads. The cost of chip

seal treatments, per the Grant County Roads Department, is about $30,000 per mile,

plus employee salaries and benefits. The cost of a seal coat or chip seal if performed by

a contractor is about $40,000 per mile.

PAVED ROADS

A. PAVEMENT CONDITIONS DEFINTIONS

Typical characteristics for good, fair, and basic conditions of paved roadways are

provided in Table 8. These terms reflect average conditions over time and the level of

deterioration or wear and tear that is acceptable. It is important to note that the

conditions observed on a roadway at a particular point in time may not correspond to

the desired LOS. Immediately after maintenance techniques - such as patching or a

seal coat - are applied, a road that is programmed to be maintained in Fair condition

may be in good condition for the short-term. However, roads where Grant County

aspires for Fair condition on average over time may be subject to regular maintenance

at somewhat less frequent intervals.

Table 8 also provides the maintenance treatments that should be applied to Grant

County roads to ensure the desired LOS is achieved. The descriptions below are

supported by section IV, which identifies the techniques, frequency, and cost-per-mile

required to maintain roads to a particular LOS over time.

Definitions and maintenance techniques for paved roads are adapted from Pavement

Maintenance Management for Roads and Streets Using the PAVER System (US Army

Corps of Engineers, July 1990).


Table 8 | Pavement Condition Descriptions

Condition /

LOS Description Maintenance Techniques

Good

Slight raveling and loss of

fines. Longitudinal cracks

less than 1/2” wide or

sealed cracks of any size

spaced 10’ or greater. First

sign of block cracking.

Slight to moderate flushing

or polishing. Existing

patching in good

condition.

Seal coats and crack sealing, including

slurry seal and chip seal, are

recommended to maintain pavement in

good condition. Seal coats help to seal in

the asphalt binder before it evaporates.

Crack sealing prevents water from

entering the cracks. Water that enters

pavement causes the fines in the base to

wash out and leads to wider cracks as the

base fails, and eventually to potholes. Any

isolated areas of failure should be

patched.

Fair

Severe surface raveling.

Raveling around cracks.

Longitudinal cracking in

wheel path. Block

cracking over more than

50% of the surface. Existing

patching in Fair condition.

Slight rutting ½” deep or

less.

Pavements in Fair condition can receive a

mill and overlay if the pavement is at least

3 inches thick. Patching is required with

the mill and overlay for the areas of failure

because the milling machine will further

break up those areas. Medium term

maintenance should consist of crack

sealing.

Basic

Severe block cracking.

Alligator cracking. Rutting

over 1/2” deep. Potholes

or patching in poor

condition.

Pavements in Basic condition must be

reconstructed if the County desires to

maintain them as a paved road. It would

not be cost effective to patch all the

areas of failure.

B. LIFESPAN AND THE BENEFITS OF PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE

Figure 12 shows a typical pavement deterioration curve when no maintenance is done.

This curve is based on a scatter plot of data collected by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. Once pavement begins to

deteriorate, it fails rapidly. If the pavement is maintained while it is still in good condition,

then the life can be extended without major construction. The typical design life of a

new pavement is 20 years. This can be extended to 30 years or longer with regular

maintenance. For this reason, it is important to pursue regular pavement preservation

and road improvement.


Figure 12 | Typical Roadway Section Life Cycle

C. TYPES OF PAVEMENT DETERIORATION

Raveling is a wearing away of the pavement surface caused by the loss of asphalt

binder and dislodged aggregate particles. This distress indicates that the asphalt binder

has hardened or that a poor-quality mix was used.

Figure 13 | Example of Raveling

As pavement ages, the asphalt binder evaporates. Longitudinal and transverse

cracking occurs due to this hardening of the asphalt surface and the daily temperature

cycling. Block cracking begins as the cracks join and begin to form blocks. Blocks may

vary in size from 1’ x 1’ to 10’ x 10’. Block cracking normally occurs over a large area

although it may not occur in the wheel path where traffic kneads the pavement.

Source: USACERL Technical Report M-90/05


Alligator cracking is a structural distress caused by repeated traffic loading. Cracking

begins at the bottom of the asphalt surface and propagates to the surface as a series

of parallel cracks which appear in the wheel path. These cracks eventually connect

forming many sided, sharp-angles pieces with a pattern resembling the skin of an

alligator. Potholes form when these pieces become loose and pop out.

Figure 14 | Example of Alligator Cracks

Rutting is a permanent deformation of any of the pavement layers or the subgrade. It

can be caused by consolidation as when a heavy load sits in one place or by lateral

movement of the materials due to traffic loads.

Figure 15 | Example of Rutting


D. MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION TECHNIQUES AND DEFINITIONS

Crack sealing consists of preparing and cleaning cracks and joints in the existing

roadway surface and sealing these cracks with hot-poured sealant. This material must

be compatible with the proposed seal coat product. Cracks that measure greater than

¼ inch should receive this treatment. Crack sealant should not exceed 1 inch in depth.

Deeper cracks can be filled with sand to a point approximately ½ to ⅜ inch below the

adjacent pavement surface, with crack sealer applied over the top.

Seal Coats consist of a spray on binder with or without aggregate. There are various

types of seal coats which are described below:

1. Slurry seals are a mixture of asphalt emulsion, graded aggregates, mineral filler,

water and other additives. The mixture is made and placed on a continuous

basis using a travel paver (Slurry Surfacing Machine). The life expectancy of a

slurry seal is 5 to 7 years. Slurry seal should be placed on a clean surface

including removal of thermoplastic pavement marking. Utility inlets should be

covered with heavy paper or roofing felt prior to the installation. Temperature

should be 50 degrees and rising and humidity should be 60% or less; a slight

breeze is advantageous. Material will cure in 1 to 3 hours depending on the

weather conditions. Traffic should not drive on the surface until it has cured.

2. Various commercial seal coat products are available including spray on

emulsions and cutbacks. These types of materials should be installed per the

manufacturer’s recommendations. These products are sprayed on in a single

coat. Prior to installation, surface must be clean and dry. Cracks should be

sealed, and any potholes should be repaired. These products should not be over

applied since seal coats depend on the existing roughness of the roadway to

maintain traction. Material will dry in 1 to 3 hours depending on the weather

conditions. Traffic should not drive on the surface until it has cured. Sand can be

sprinkled on top of a seal coat to reduce cure time and improve traction. The life

of the commercial products is typically 3 – 5 years.

3. Chip sealing is the application of a bituminous binder immediately followed by

the application of an aggregate. The aggregate is then embedded into the

binder using pneumatic-tired rollers. Chip seals must be swept to remove excess

stone to prevent vehicle damage. Multiple layers may be placed. Chip seals

have an added benefit in providing additional skid resistance. Traffic should not

dive on a chip seal for 1 to 3 hours following installation. The life of a chip seal is

typically 5 – 7 years.

Patching includes saw cutting to obtain a rectangular area, removal and disposal of

the failed material, subgrade preparation, untreated base course, and tack oil

application. Asphalt concrete should be placed in 2”- 3” lifts of type SP-IV. Patching is

best carried out during clear, moderate weather. However, emergency repairs may

require patching to be performed during poor winter weather conditions. In these


instances, the durability of the patch is likely to be poor and the patch should be

considered temporary. It is advisable to plan for a more semi-permanent repair of these

areas when moderate weather conditions prevail. Patching should be performed on an

as-needed basis as part of the regular maintenance activities of the Grant County

Roads Department.

Milling and Overlay consists of milling 2” to 3” of the existing road to remove the worst of

the weathered asphalt concrete and then placing the overlay. At least 1-½” of the

existing roadway thickness must remain after the milling. Milling can be done to the

entire roadway or just the travel lanes. The overlay can be of equal or greater thickness

than the milling.

Reconstruction refers to removing and replacing the existing pavement. The proposed

thickness of the asphalt concrete and base course layers is dependent on the amount

of traffic, percentage of heavy vehicles, and soil type. Grant County could develop

standard pavement typical sections to be used for each tier designation, given certain

assumptions about the traffic and soil. However, project specific typical sections should

be developed when the assumed criteria are not met.

UNSURFACED ROADS

A. GRAVEL ROAD DEFINITIONS AND CONDITIONS

A gravel road is any road that has been treated with an aggregate base or recycled

aggregate base. The conditions that may be found along gravel roads in Grant County

(i.e. good, fair, and basic), are defined in Table 9, along with the maintenance

treatments that should be applied to Grant County roads to ensure the desired

conditions, or LOS, are achieved. The descriptions below are supported by section IV,

which identifies the techniques, frequency, and cost-per-mile required to maintain

roads to a particular LOS over time.

Definitions and maintenance techniques for gravel roads are adapted from Rating

Unsurfaced Roads: A Field Manual for Measuring Maintenance Problems (US Army

Corps of Engineers, September 1988).


Table 9 | Gravel Roadway Condition Descriptions

Condition

/ LOS Description Maintenance Techniques

Good

Road has a four to six percent crown.

Aggregate is evenly distributed across

roadway surface with a depth of 4” to

6”. Aggregate is well compacted with

few fines and dust generated by

traffic is minimal. Roadway contains

minimal or few isolated areas of

washboard, rutting and potholing.

Drainage is positively conveyed in

roadside ditches and no washout

areas are observed.

Blading on a quarterly basis.

Reshaping and isolated repairs

once or twice per year, and as

needed. Regular windshield

surveys to observe roadway

conditions. Regraveling and

reconstruction over the

medium and long-term.

Fair

Roadway has a positive crown section

for a majority of the roadway section.

Aggregate is compacted but signs of

fines and aggregate separation are

evident on roadway surface and dust

generated by traffic is at a moderate

level. Potholes, Washboard, and

Rutting are evident on the roadway

but are isolated to small areas.

Blading on a semi-annual basis.


once per year, and as needed.

Occasional windshield surveys

to observe roadway conditions.

Regraveling and reconstruction

over the and long-term.

Basic

Road cross slope is removed or

inverted for more than 50% or the

roadway. Granular material has

separated from the fines (loose

aggregate) and a high level of dust is

generated by traffic. Washboard,

potholes and ruts are visible and

require a reduction in traveling speed

is required to maintain driver comfort

and safety, roadside ditches need

reestablishment or are non-existent.

Blading on a semi-annual or

yearly basis. Isolated repairs

where possible.


B. DIRT ROAD DEFINITIONS AND CONDITIONS

An unsurfaced road is any road that does not have Portland cement, asphalt concrete,

aggregate base, or any other type of surface treatment. Table 10 defines the features

of good, fair, and basic condition dirt roads. The table also contains descriptions of

basic drainage techniques that should be incorporated into the roadway design.

Table 10 | Dirt Roadway Condition Descriptions

Condition

/ LOS Description Maintenance Techniques

Good

Road has a four to six percent crown.

Aggregate is well compacted with few

fines and dust generated by traffic is

minimal. Roadway contains minimal or

few isolated areas of washboard,

rutting and potholing. Drainage is

positively conveyed in roadside

ditches and no washout areas are

observed.

Blading on a quarterly basis.


once or twice per year, and as

needed. Regular windshield

surveys to observe roadway

conditions. Reconstruction

over the medium and long-

term.

Fair

Roadway has a positive crown section

for a majority of the roadway section.

Aggregate is compacted but signs of

fines and aggregate separation are

evident on roadway surface and dust

generated by traffic is at a moderate

level. Potholes, Washboard, and

Rutting are evident on the roadway

but are isolated to small areas.

Blading on a semi-annual

basis. Reshaping and isolated

repairs once per year, and as

needed. Occasional

windshield surveys to observe

roadway conditions.

Reconstruction over the and

long-term.

Basic

Road cross slope is removed or

inverted for more than 50% or the

roadway. Granular material has

separated from the fines (loose

aggregate) and a high level of dust is

generated by traffic. Washboard,

potholes and ruts are visible and

require a reduction in traveling speed

is required to maintain driver comfort

and safety, roadside ditches need

reestablishment or are non-existent.

Blading on a semi-annual or

yearly basis. Isolated repairs

where possible.


Definitions and maintenance techniques for dirt roads are adapted from Rating

Unsurfaced Roads: A Field Manual for Measuring Maintenance Problems (US Army

Corps of Engineers, September 1988).

C. TYPES OF DETERIORATION ALONG UNSURFACED ROADS

Improper cross sections are the result of the road surface not being properly shaped or

maintained to carry water to the ditches. This condition is evidenced by water ponding

on the road surface, water draining or running along the road surface, lack of crown on

the road, or road surface erosion.

Corrugation, more commonly referred to as wash boarding is a series of closely spaced

ridges and valleys or ripples that occur at regular intervals. The ridges are

perpendicular to the traffic directions. This type of distress is usually caused by traffic

action and loose aggregate. These ridges usually form on grades or curves, in areas of

acceleration or deceleration, or in areas in which the road is soft or potholed.

Wash boarding on an aggregate surface is a common distress under traffic loading

and provides an uncomfortable ride and can be a safety hazard. Slight to moderate

(1-3 in.) wash boarding can normally be corrected by routine grading. Heavy Wash

boarding maybe an indication of the need for additional gravel.

Potholes may develop as an isolated defect. These require spot-patching or

maintenance from a safety standpoint. Extensive (i.e. over 25 percent of the area) and

deep (i.e. over 4 in.) potholes are an indication of lack of strength and need more

major rehabilitation and the addition of gravel. Potholes trap water and can speed

surface deterioration if routine maintenance is not provided.

Minor rutting (i.e. less than 1 in.) in the wheel path may be simply indication of a heavy

traffic volume. Routing grading and maintain good surface drainage can remedy this

defect. Deeper rutting (i.e. over 3 in.) may indicate lack of gravel thickness or

subgrade support. This defect is very serious and usually indicated that a major

reconstruction is required.

Dust from traffic is also a common occurrence on a gravel road. The gradation of the

gravel, weather conditions, and traffic volumes will determine the extent and severity of

dust. Since heavy dust conditions remove necessary finds from the roadway this defect

can be an indicator of future maintenance problems. Thick dust that obscures traffic

can create an obvious safety concern.

Loose large aggregate on the gravel surface is the product of dust conditions and the

resulting loss of fine aggregates. Under traffic, this loose aggregate can tend to collect

between wheel paths and along the side of the road, creating a driving hazard and

affecting drainage. Minor amounts of loose aggregate can often be remixed by

routine grading. Large accumulations (i.e. over 4 in.) of loose aggregate can impede

drainage and indicate a loss of strength of the remaining gravel layer.


D. MAINTENANCE ALONG UNSURFACED ROADS

The maintenance techniques and best practices listed below are suggested

management practices and are not an inclusive list of mandated items. Rather, they

are suggested management practices that can be included in regularly scheduled

maintenance procedures. Maintenance procedures and frequencies will vary by

roadway due to traffic volume, soil conditions, use by heavy vehicles, and many other

variables, though general rules of thumb for frequency by tier are provided in section

IV.

The most important maintenance procedure will be observation of dirt and gravel

Roads. Due to the semi-rigid state of many roads and the highly variable climate of

New Mexico, roadway conditions will vary greatly after storm events. Grant County

Roads Department staff should be consulted on maintenance methodology and

implementation as these individuals have the best working knowledge of the roadway

and existing field conditions.

Maintenance Techniques

The following maintenance techniques, with the exception of regraveling, may be

applied to gravel and dirt roads. The frequency with which they should be applied is

discussed in the section IV.

Blading removes surface defects and provides minor crown restoration by performing

surface smoothing and dragging. Blading is limited to the driving surface and shoulders,

going only deep enough to remove defects such as ruts, washboards, and potholes.

Blading is typically performed on no more than 20% of the length of road at any one

opportunity.

Reshaping improves drainage, recovers material for the foreslope or ditch, blends

surface gravel (for gravel roads only), restores crown, removes surface defects, and

corrects defects in the road’s cross-section. Reshaping is more intensive than blading

and address roadway issues to a depth greater than surface defects. Reshaping is

typically performed on no more than 20% of the length of road at any one opportunity.

Regraveling restores the structural capacity, improves the quality of surfacing gravel,

and replaces lost gravel. Typically, regraveling is undertaken along numerous segments

of a roadway and a total of 20% of the entire section length. Regraveling does not

include the preparatory work of reshaping the road before placement of additional

gravel (this work would be classified as reshaping), or dust suppression or soil

stabilization efforts.

Isolated repairs include spot gravel, patching, and soft spot repairs to correct isolated

defects in a roadway. This category may include all activities normally classified as

routine blading, reshaping, regraveling, dust suppression, or soil stabilization, as well as


other repairs with a total cost of less than $50,000 per mile per repair event and

performed on less than 20% of the roadway.

Reconstruction corrects major structural or functional flaws by performing major repairs,

realignment, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. Reconstruction is above and beyond

that described for other activities, with surface and structural roadway repairs costing

more than $50,000 per mile per event excluding work that falls into one of the other

maintenance tasks, and repairs that do not fall into any other category but that take

place on 20% or more of the section length.

Maintenance Schedule

Maintenance efforts for gravel and dirt roads may be performed on a rotating basis,

with different techniques applied depending on the time of year. A best practice

schedule for maintenance efforts is provided below:

Table 11 | Maintenance Activities by Season

Season Activity

Spring Restore crown early in the spring; repair potholes, rutting, and

washboarding

Summer

Replace surface materials, maintenance grading restoring proper

superelevations on curves, cut vegetations, maintain roadside ditches

and low water crossings

Fall Perform final blading before winter

Winter Suspend blading operations and conduct snow removal and

maintenance on an as-needed basis

Source: Local Roads Maintenance Workers’ Manual, Center for Transportation Research and Education, 06

E. DRAINAGE

Drainage improvements can be achieved on both dirt and gravel roads, though the

use of gravel ensures that roadways are more resilient to extreme rainfall events and

are more likely to be usable at all times of the year. The purpose of drainage

techniques is to restore and manage water flow and to prevent scour, erosion, and

piping. The scope of improvements may include shoulders, foreslopes, ditches,

backslopes, and culverts. Table 12 contains basic drainage features that could be

utilized to improve the condition of Grant County roads.

Properly installed and maintained drainage systems preserve and protect existing

roadway systems. Drainage issues typically occur when ditches and culverts are not

maintained to adequately direct or carry runoff. Poor drainage is evident when ditches

become silted in or overgrown with vegetation, ditches that have not been properly


shaped or maintained, water running across or down the road, and in areas where

ditches have eroded sections of the roadway.

Table 12 | Drainage Techniques for Gravel and Dirt Roads

Techniques Description

Cross Slope

Ensure cross slope of the road is at least 2% to improve

surface runoff. Cross slope improvements should be

combined with roadside drainage ditches.

Road Surface

Improvements

Improve roadway surfaces to improve lifespan of roads and

ensure roads remain passable following rainfall events.

Some tribal agencies use magnesium chloride to transform

dirt roads into hard surfaces to improve drainage.

For non-cultural roads, improving road surfaces from dirt to

gravel or paved can improve drainage and ensure the

road is passable following rainfall events

Culverts

Infrastructure that permits that passage of water

underneath roads at natural water crossings. Culverts

should be designed to meet anticipated water flow and

runoff needs.

Roadside

Drainage

Canals

Open ditches on one or both sides of the roadway that

prevent accumulation of water on the roadway surface,

intercept water before it reaches the roadway, and drain

water from underneath the roadway

Source: Local Roads Maintenance Workers’ Manual, Center for Transportation Research and Education, 06


IV. ROADWAY CONDITIONS: LOS, MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS, & LIFE-CYCLE

COSTS

This section provides a summary of roadway conditions along Grant County roads and

provides recommended actions specific to each surface type for maintaining roads at

the desired conditions, or LOS. For dirt and gravel roads, ensuring conditions meet the

desired LOS requires basic annual maintenance (gravel roads also require modest

improvements over time), while paved roads require more substantial measures in the

medium and long-term. For paved roads additional information is provided on the

investments required to improve roads from their current state to the desired LOS.

By linking LOS targets and maintenance programs, Grant County can also ascertain the

lifecycle costs of owning and maintaining roads of different priority tiers and surface

types over time. These life-cycle cost estimates allow for Grant County to determine

both annual and long-term maintenance requirements and to plan ahead for major

capital improvements and roadway reconstruction projects. For both paved and

unpaved roadways, the Grant County Asset Management Plan identifies the frequency

with which roadway reconstruction efforts should be pursued and the additional years

of service made possible through maintenance procedures. Costs for major

reconstruction and more intensive maintenance efforts have been annualized to assist

with the development of Grant County budgets and the Infrastructure Capital

Improvement Plan.

CURRENT ROADWAY CONDITIONS

Table 13 provides the road mileage by priority tier by road surface type. The table

indicates that the majority of roads owned and maintained by Grant County are

classified as tier 2 facilities with a moderate level of criticality. The vast majority of Grant

County roads – 563.5 miles or about 82% of the total road network – are dirt roads (see

Figure 16).

Table 13 | Total Road Miles by Priority Tier

Tier Paved Gravel Dirt Total Share

Tier 1 37.11 3.66 57.47 98.24 14%

Tier 2 58.35 14.35 304.25 376.95 55%

Tier 3 1.97 8.88 201.74 212.59 31%

Total 97.43 26.89 563.46 687.78 100%


Figure 16 | Road Mileage by Surface Type

Table 14 and 15 provide the current conditions of Grant County roads by surface type.

Roadway conditions information was gathered by the Grant County Road Department

in summer 2018 as part of data collection efforts for the Asset Management Plan.

The data indicates that the majority of dirt roads are in basic condition, including 75% of

Tier 1 dirt roads. All gravel roads are rated in fair conditions. A majority of paved roads

are rated in fair conditions, with only a small share of Tier 1 and Tier 2 paved roads rated

in good condition.

See Appendix A for a complete list of Grant County roads, including tier levels, surface

type, surface conditions, current maintenance efforts, and expected life span.

Table 14 | Total Road Miles by Surface Type and Condition

Road Type Tier Good Fair Basic Total

Dirt

Tier 1 0 14.23 43.24 57.47

Tier 2 0 36.76 267.49 304.25

Tier 3 0 49.57 152.18 201.74

Gravel

Tier 1 0 3.66 0 3.66

Tier 2 0 14.35 0 14.35

Tier 3 0 8.88 0 8.88

Asphalt

Tier 1 3.52 25.23 8.35 37.11

Tier 2 6.28 31.93 20.14 58.35

Tier 3 1.97 0 0 1.97

14%4%

82%

Paved

Gravel

Dirt


Table 15 | Share of Road Miles by Surface Type and Condition

Road Type Tier Good Fair Basic Total

Dirt

Tier 1 0% 25% 75% 100%

Tier 2 0% 12% 88% 100%

Tier 3 0% 25% 75% 100%

Gravel

Tier 1 0% 100% 0% 100%

Tier 2 0% 100% 0% 100%

Tier 3 0% 100% 0% 100%

Asphalt

Tier 1 9% 68% 23% 100%

Tier 2 11% 55% 35% 100%

Tier 3 100% 0% 0% 100%

LOS TARGETS

Assigning LOS targets by road type and priority tier allows Grant County to determine

the resources required to maintain roads at desired conditions. Table 16 indicates the

desired roadway conditions, or LOS, by tier and surface conditions. The maintenance

programs outlined later in this section identify the specific actions and associated costs

with those LOS targets.

These maintenance programs are built upon the premise that higher priority roads (i.e.

Tier 1 and Tier 2 facilities) should be maintained to a higher standard or LOS. The level of

effort required to maintain roads in good or fair condition varies depending on the

surface type, with paved surfaces requiring the most expensive maintenance program.

In general, similar maintenance techniques are applied for Tier 1 and Tier 2 roads,

though these techniques should be applied more frequently on Tier 1 facilities.

Maintenance for gravel roads also requires additional materials relative to dirt roads.

Table 16 provides the LOS targets by surface type for Grant County roads. Grant

County may need to adjust the LOS targets depending on available budget and staff

resources. The Asset Management Plan is supported by a spreadsheet tool that allows

Grant County to interactively assess the costs of maintaining roads at differing LOS and

to adjust the underlying assumptions regarding the frequency of maintenance efforts.

Table 16 | LOS Targets by Tier and Surface Type

Surface Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Paved 50% Good / 50% Fair Fair Fair

Gravel 50% Good / 50% Fair Fair Basic

Dirt Fair 50% Fair / 50% Basic Basic


PAVED ROADS

A. PAVED ROAD LIFE-CYCLE COSTS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS

Recommended actions to maintain paved roads in good and fair condition

respectively are provided in Table 17. The frequency with which these activities should

take place and the estimated cost per mile are also provided. Applying these best

management techniques can reduce the frequency with which more costly

reconstruction activities need to be performed, with the lifespan of a paved roadway

extended from 20 to 30-40 years depending on the facility.

Table 17 | Recommended Maintenance Activities by Desired LOS – Paved Roads

Target

LOS

Recommended

Action

Average Cost

per Mile

Frequency

(years)

Annual

Cost

Good

Patching (0.5%) $3,520 1 $3,520

Seal Coat & Crack

Seal / Chip Seal $40,000 5 $8,000

Reconstruction - Tier 1 $800,000 30 $40,000


Fair

Patching (1%) $10,560 1 $10,560

Seal Coat & Crack

Seal / Chip Seal $40,000 7 $5,714



There are several items to note with respect to the recommended maintenance

activities and the estimated annual costs. Most roadways will only require isolated

patching each year. Other activities will require larger expenditures at less frequent

intervals. Annualized costs therefore reflect the resources that would be required each

year on average, rather than an accurate individual year estimate for an individual

roadway. Other notes and considerations include:

• Guidance is not provided for maintaining roads in Basic condition, as a Basic LOS

on a paved road would routinely result in poor travel conditions. Rather than

maintain paved roads to a limited standard, low priority paved roads should be

converted into unsurfaced facilities to reduce maintenance costs and improve

roadway conditions.


• The average costs per mile outlined in Table 17 reflect recently-observed bid

prices. The materials and installation costs may be reduced by 25% if performed

by the Grant County Roads Department. For example, using County staff, the

typical cost to apply a chip seal or a seal coat and crack seal is approximately

$30,000 per mile, plus employee salaries and benefits, compared to a bid price of

$40,000 per mile for full contract costs. Because the decision to perform

maintenance and improvement efforts utilizing County staff resources is a policy

choice that could change, the costs to contract out the work are provided in the

Asset Management Plan with the caveat that costs may need to be adjusted if

performed by the Roads Department.

• Two sets of reconstruction costs are provided to reflect the difference in asphalt

concrete (AC) and base course thicknesses for Tier 1 and Tier 2 roads.

Reconstruction of a Tier 1 facility generally includes 6” of asphalt concrete over an

8” base. Reconstruction of a Tier 2 facility generally includes 3” of asphalt concrete

over a 6” base.

• Patching is estimated as the average percent of the overall roadway that requires

patching per year over a 20-year period. It is assumed that a pavement section

that starts in fair condition will need twice as much patching as a pavement that

starts in good condition. Patching should be pursued annually until a

reconstruction is complete. For the purposes of estimating life-cycle costs, it is also

assumed that patching does not begin for a pavement in good condition until the

10th year following reconstruction.

• It is not cost effective to patch a pavement that is currently in Poor condition.

Patching is estimated at $100 per square yard.

Maintenance activities, and their associated annual costs, can be aggregated into two

sub-categories:

• Annual maintenance refers to the ongoing roadway treatments that are to be

applied to each road segment each year, per the maintenance programs

identified in the Asset Management Plan. For paved roads, the primary annual

maintenance activity is patching.

• Medium/long-term maintenance refers to the activities that are not undertaken

for each road on an annual basis, but should be performed on some Grant County

roads each year on a rotating basis. For paved roads, medium/long-term

maintenance activities include seal coating and reconstruction.

Using the estimated costs shown in Table 17 above, the total annual cost per mile to

maintain pavement at different LOS can be ascertained (see Table 18).

Given that there are 97.4 miles of paved roads in Grant County, the estimated annual

maintenance costs to meet the LOS targets (50% of Tier 1 roads in good condition and

50% in fair condition; 100% of Tier 2 roads in fair condition) is $767,606 per year. To meet

the medium/long-term maintenance and rehabilitation requirements for Grant County

roads requires an average of $2,093,291 per year.


B. COST TO IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN PAVED ROADS

An assumption in the paved roads maintenance program is that all roads are in

good or fair condition to begin with. For roads in basic condition to be improved to

good condition may require substantial additional costs. Improvements to paved roads

are an important consideration for Grant County as it is far less expensive to rehabilitate

roads while they are still in Fair condition.

Table 18 | Estimated Annualized Maintenance Costs per Mile by LOS – Paved Roads

LOS Target Annual

Maintenance

Medium/Long-

Term

Maintenance

Total Annual Cost

per Mile

Good – Tier 1 $3,520 $34,667 $38,187

Good – Tier 2 $3,520 $23,000 $26,520

Fair – Tier 1 $10,560 $25,714 $36,274

Fair – Tier 2 $10,560 $16,964 $27,524

As shown in Table 19, the cost to improve roadways also depends on the tier level. The

base course and AC of roads generally varies depending on anticipated traffic

volume, percentage of heavy vehicles, and soil type; in general Tier 1 roads will support

greater activity than Tier 2 roads and require thicker pavement sections. The

approximate average cost to bring Tier 1 and Tier 2 roads that are currently in Fair

condition into good condition is $250,000 per mile, and the cost to bring roads currently

in basic condition into good condition ranges from $450,000-800,000, depending on the

tier.

Table 19 | Estimated Costs to Improve Roadways per Mile by Tier – Paved Roads

Current Condition

and Road Tier Desired Condition

Repair

Recommendations

Average Cost

per Mile

Fair - Tier 1 Good Patch, Mill & Overlay $250,000

Fair - Tier 2 Good Patch, Mill & Overlay $250,000

Basic - Tier 1 Good Reconstruction – Tier 1 $800,000

Basic - Tier 2 Good Reconstruction – Tier 2 $450,000


C. COST OF IMPROVING PAVED ROADS TO DESIRED CONDITIONS

Table 20 indicates the costs associated with improving paved roads across Grant

County to desired levels, based on the LOS targets provided in Table 18. It is important

that the terms “fair” and “good” refer to average conditions over time; following

reconstruction, all roads are in good condition. Also note that reconstruction activities

result in roads being returned to good condition.

To meet the LOS targets for pavement, half of Tier 1 and Tier 2 roadway miles should be

improved to good condition. Table 20 contrasts current conditions against target LOS.

Based on the current and desired conditions, the following improvements are

necessary:

• To meet Tier 1 targets: 6.7 miles of fair condition roads should be improved, and

8.35 miles of basic condition roads should be improved.

• To meet Tier 2 targets: 2.76 miles of fair condition roads should be improved, and

20.19 miles of basic condition roads should be improved.

The total cost of meeting target LOS for paved roads is $18,130,500.

Table 20 | Total Cost to Improve Based on Current Condition/ Tier and Target Condition

Current

Condition

and Road Tier

Target

Condition

Average Cost

per Mile Miles Total Cost

Fair - Tier 1 Good $250,000 6.7 $1,675,000

Fair - Tier 2 Good $250,000 2.76 $690,000

Basic - Tier 1 Good $800,000 8.35 $6,680,000

Basic - Tier 2 Good $450,000 20.19 $9,085,500

Recommendation: Convert Paved Tier 3 Roads to Alternative Surface

Though the lone Tier 3 paved road is rated in good condition, it is recommended

that Tier 3 paved roads be converted to gravel roads once they fall below a Fair LOS

by processing, placing, and compacting the existing asphalt and base course

material. The cost of this conversion is about $50,000 per mile. Refer to the

maintenance section for gravel roads for additional guidance.


Figure 17 | Section of North Hurley Road in Need of Improvements

Figure 18 | Improved Section of North Hurley Road

D. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE

Roadway reconstruction or upgrades from a dirt or gravel road to a paved facility

offers an opportunity to provide dedicated infrastructure for other roadway users,

including pedestrians and bicyclists. Such improvements are discretionary and are not

built into the cost estimates provided in the Asset Management Plan.

To meet the growing demand for bicycle travel, dedicated bikeway infrastructure in

the form of bike lanes in village and small town/urban areas and shoulders in rural areas

may be provided. Shoulders for bicycling may not be necessary on low volume roads or

routes where the speed limit is 25 MPH or below. Shoulders for bicycle use should be at

least 4’ in width. To add 4’ shoulders on either side of a paved roads adds

approximately 33 percent to the cost of the road, assuming 24’ roadway width and not

including any right-of-way acquisition.


Sidewalks are most appropriate in Village transect districts, as defined in the Grant

County Comprehensive Plan, as well as commercial areas and activity centers. To

provide quality facilities and to meet ADA/PROWAG standards, sidewalks should be 5’

in width. The cost to provide sidewalks with curb and gutter is approximately $335,000

per mile for each side of the road.

UNSURFACED ROADS

A. GRAVEL ROADS

Gravel roads offer a greater drainage benefits than dirt roads as they are more likely to

be drivable following extreme weather events, though these facilities do require

additional maintenance activities over time. Table 21 provides recommended activities

to maintain gravel roads in Good, Fair, or Basic conditions, along with an estimated cost

per mile for each maintenance technique. The suggested maintenance frequency is a

function of the target LOS of the roadway.

Figure 19 | Geronimo Road – Gravel Road in Fair Condition

Table 21 | Recommended Maintenance Activities by Desired LOS – Gravel Roads

Target LOS Recommended

Action

Average

Cost per Mile

Frequency

(years) Annual Cost

Good

Blading $1,500-3,000 Quarterly $9,000

Reshaping &

Isolated Repairs $5,000 Twice per year $10,000

Regravel $62,500 5 $6,250

Reconstruction $125,000 10 $12,500

Fair Blading $1,500-3,000 Twice per year $4,500



Action

Average

Cost per Mile

Frequency

(years) Annual Cost

Reshaping &

Isolated Repairs $5,000 1 $5,000

Regravel $25,000 5 $3,750


Basic Blading $1,500-3,000 2 $4,500

* Costs based on DOT and local contractor bids for similar work in 2017-2018

Maintenance activities for gravel roads, and their associated annual costs, can be

aggregated into two sub-categories:



identified in the Asset Management Plan. For gravel roads, the primary annual

maintenance activities are blading, reshaping, and isolated repairs.



roads each year on a rotating basis. For gravel roads, medium/long-term

maintenance activities include regraveling and reconstruction. It is important to

note that for the annualized cost estimates, regraveling is only assumed to take

place in years in which reconstruction is not performed. For example, on a road to

be maintained in good condition, regraveling should take place in years 5 and 15,

with reconstruction to occur in years 10 and 20. For fair condition roads,

regraveling should take place in years 5, 10, and 15, with reconstruction in year 20.

Given that there are 26.9 miles of gravel roads in Grant County, the estimated annual

maintenance costs to meet the LOS targets (50% of Tier 1 roads in good condition and

50% in fair condition; 100% of Tier 2 roads in fair condition) is $228,410 per year.

To meet the medium/long-term maintenance and rehabilitation requirements for gravel

roads in Grant County requires an average of $196,083 per year.

Recommendation: Convert Gravel Tier 3 Roads to Dirt Roads

It is recommended that Tier 3 gravel roads be converted to Fair condition dirt roads.

Refer to the maintenance section for dirt roads for additional guidance.


Table 22 | Estimated Annualized Maintenance Costs per Mile by LOS - Gravel Roads

LOS Target Annual

Maintenance

Medium/Long-

Term

Maintenance

Total Annual

Cost per Mile

Total Cost (all

Miles)

Good $19,000 $18,750 $37,750 $1,000,938

Fair $9,500 $10,000 $19,500 $517,041

Basic $4,500 $0 $4,500 $119,317

B. DIRT ROADS

Among the three road types described in the Asset Management Plan, dirt roads are

the least expensive to maintain, though these facilities do not provide the resiliency or

drainage benefits associated with paved and gravel roads. Table 23 provides

recommended activities to maintain dirt roads in Good, Fair, or Basic conditions, along

with an estimated cost per mile for each maintenance technique. The suggested

maintenance frequency is a function of the target LOS of the roadway.

Table 23 | Recommended Maintenance Activities by Desired LOS – Dirt Roads


Action

Average Cost

per Mile

Frequency

(years) Annual Cost

Good

Blading $1,500-3,000 Quarterly $9,000

Reshaping &

Isolated Repairs $5,000 Twice per year $10,000


Fair

Blading $1,500-3,000 Twice per year $4,500

Reshaping &

Isolated Repairs $5,000 1 $5,000


Basic Blading $1,500-3,000 2 $4,500

Maintenance activities for gravel roads, and their associated annual costs, can be

aggregated into two sub-categories:




identified in the Asset Management Plan. For gravel roads, the primary annual

maintenance activities are blading, reshaping, and isolated repairs.



roads each year on a rotating basis. For gravel roads, medium/long-term

maintenance activities include reconstruction. It is assumed that no long-term

maintenance is performed on Basic condition roads, except on an as-needed

basis.

Given that there are 574.9 miles of dirt roads in Grant County, the estimated annual

maintenance costs to meet the LOS targets (100% of Tier 1 roads in fair condition;

50% of Tier 2 roads in fair condition and 50% in basic condition; 100% of Tier 3 roads

in fair condition) is $3,583,545 per year.

To meet the medium/long-term maintenance and rehabilitation requirements for dirt

roads in Grant County requires an average of $230,555 per year.

Table 24 | Estimated Annualized Maintenance Costs per Mile by LOS - Dirt Roads

LOS Target Annual

Maintenance

Medium/Long

-Term

Maintenance

Total Annual

Cost per Mile

Total Cost (all

Miles)

Good $19,000 $2,200 $21,200 $12,188,124

Fair $9,500 $1,100 $10,600 $6,094,062

Basic $4,500 $0 $4,500 $2,587,102


SUMMARY MAINTENANCE COSTS

Table 25 provides the total annual and medium/long-term costs for maintaining Grant

County roads at target LOS. The annual maintenance total refers to the recurring

operational costs while medium/long-term costs can be understood as non-recurring

costs.

Table 25 | Summary Maintenance Costs for Grant County Roads

Surface Maintenance Type Total

Paved Annual Maintenance $767,606

Average Annual Medium/Long-term $2,093,291

Gravel Annual Maintenance $228,410

Average Annual Medium/Long-term $196,083

Dirt Annual Maintenance $3,583,545

Average Annual Medium/Long-term $230,555

Annual Maintenance (all surfaces) $4,579,562

Medium/Long-Term (all surfaces) $2,519,928

Total Maintenance $7,099,490


V. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

This section contains annual revenue by funding source and identifies potential sources

of revenue to help Grant County meet roadway maintenance and capital

improvement needs. The financial analysis considered in this section can be contrasted

against the funding required to maintain roads at the desired LOS.

CURRENT RESOURCES

The 2017 budget for the Grant County Roads Department is $1.7 million, about half of

which supports employee salaries while the other half supports capital expenditures,

including equipment and materials required for maintenance and road improvements.

The primary source of funding is the Grant County general fund, which provided

$996,690 in 2017. An additional $335,800 was provided from the State of New Mexico

Local Government Road Fund, while the remaining funds are derived from a

combination of gas tax, motor vehicle fees, and payments from the Forest Service for

roadway maintenance.

Maintenance activities are performed primarily by Grant County staff. A primary source

of funding for major improvements is the Colonias Infrastructure Fund, which provides

funding for infrastructure projects in designated Colonias through a competitive grant

process. Several ongoing Grant County projects were partially or wholly funded through

the Colonias Infrastructure Fund. See section V.2 for additional information on projects

being implemented through this funding source.

Table 26 | Grant County Roads Department Budget (2017)

Item Budget

Salaries $846,296

Capital $849,089

Total Budget $1,695,385

Table 27 | Grant County Roads Department Revenue Sources (2017)

Source Revenue

General Fund $996,690

LGRF $335,800

Other $362,895

Total Revenue $1,695,385


At present, the resources available for roadway maintenance and improvements are

not sufficient to meet the LOS targets. As a result, many long-term maintenance efforts

are delayed or are not completed.

Grant County intends to use the maintenance needs and LOS targets identified in this

this plan for long-term planning purposes, including budgetary decisions. The plan will

also establish a baseline for comparison and allow Grant County to establish and refine

LOS targets over time.

CURRENT PROJECTS

A. TYRONE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS

In 2015, Grant County received $110,000 in Colonias funding to support the design of

sidewalk improvements in the community of Tyrone and to bring the infrastructure into

ADA compliance. Initial sidewalk improvements were completed in 2016 along the

north side of Copper Drive from Malachite Avenue to the concrete box culvert just east

of Torbenite Drive. The remaining elements of the project would install 3,230 feet of curb

and gutter and provide 3,300 total feet of sidewalk improvements. Estimated

construction costs total $920,000, though funding still needs to be identified.

B. NORTH HURLEY ROAD – PHASE II

North Hurley Road has been a focus of improvements for several years. Grant County

received a Colonias grant of $299,970 in 2014 to support the design component of

improvements along North Hurley Road, along with $629,970 in Colonias funding in 2015

to support Phase I construction. An additional $1.4 million (see Table 28) is required to

complete Phase II improvements with implementation targeted for 2019 and 2020;

however, funding still needs to be identified.

C. ROSEDALE ROAD – PHASE II CONSTRUCTION

After completing Phase I of construction along Rosedale Road with a Colonias grant of

$692,133 in 2014, Grant County received an additional $1,062,000 for Phase II

construction in 2018. However, the grant does not cover the full cost of construction,

and additional funding or a modified scope may be required to complete the project.

D. INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

The Grant County Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan (ICIP) is updated annually

and includes projects related to roadways, facilities, the Grant County airport, and

other Grant County assets and capital needs. Table 28 identifies the roadway projects

included in the 2019-2023 CIP. The CIP includes line items related to annual funding

allotments from the State of New Mexico through the County Arterials Program and the

School Bus Route Program.


Table 28 | Grant County Roadway Projects

Project Title Funded to

Date 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Total

Project

Cost

Amount

Not Yet

Funded

Widen School

Bus Routes $0 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 $1,150,000 $1,150,000

County

Arterial

Improvements

$0 $240,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $1,740,000 $1,740,000

North Hurley

Drainage and

Flood

Prevention

Project

$990,608 $700,000 $700,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,390,608 $1,400,000

Total $990,608 $1,170,000 $1,430,000 $730,000 $730,000 $230,000 $5,280,608 $4,290,000

REVENUE OPTIONS

Additional resources may be required to reduce the gap between funding availability

and the resources required to maintain County roads at the desired LOS. Although road

improvements would be beneficial, given current resource levels, it may not make

sense to make some investments, such as upgrades of chip seal roads to full paved

roads, unless LGRF funding or additional local resources become available to conduct

proper maintenance. Below are several options for generating additional revenue for

improving and maintaining Grant County roads.

A. LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES

Gross Receipts Taxes

Gross receipts taxes (GRT) are applied to the total gross revenue of a company or firm,

regardless of the source of the income, and are collected by both the State and local

jurisdictions. GRT is determined based on the total amount of money or value of other

consideration received from the following activities:

• Selling property in New Mexico

• Leasing or licensing property employed in New Mexico

• Granting a right to use a franchise employed in New Mexico

• Performing services in New Mexico

• Selling research and development services performed outside New Mexico, the

product of which is initially used in New Mexico

The total gross receipts tax is paid to the state, of which the state keeps 5.125% (as of

2018) and distributes the remaining portion to municipalities and counties. In Grant

County, the total GRT is currently 6.5625%. Gross receipts tax revenues are directed to

the Grant County general fund and support a range of County services, including the

Grant County Roads Department.


Counties have the ability to impose a county

gross receipts tax with a maximum tax of seven-

sixteenths of one percent (.4375%). This tax

applies to all taxpayers within the county. The tax

can be implemented by adoption of three

separate ordinances in tax rate increments of

one-eighth of one percent (.125%) and one

ordinance of one-sixteenth of one percent

(.0625%). Although no election is required when

adopting the first one-eighth, third one-eighth

increment or the one-sixteenth increment of

county gross receipts tax, voters may petition for

an election to approve or disapprove the

ordinance imposing these increments of the tax. All action necessary to adopt an

ordinance, including the completion of a petition period, must be completed three

months prior to the proposed effective date. Detailed steps for adoption of the gross

receipts tax can be obtained through the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue

Department.

General Obligation Bonds

General obligation bonds are voter-approved bonds voted that provide funding for

capital projects such as libraries, roads, healthcare facilities, and other municipal

services. At the county level, general obligation bonds may be issued by the Board of

County Commissioners (BOCC). Two restrictions apply to general obligation bonds:

• The maximum amount a county may issue in general obligation bonds is four

percent of the assessed value of the taxable property in the county (NM Const.

Art. IX, §13 and §4-49-7 NMSA).

• No bonds can be issued or sold if four years have elapsed from the date on

which the first proceedings for the bond election began (§6-15-9 NMSA).

Issuance of these bonds and other public securities, such as notes, and certificates of

indebtedness require that the BOCC approve a resolution authorizing the issuance and

that the notice of adoption be published in a local newspaper (§6-15-4 NMSA).

Refunding of these bonds also requires a resolution from the BOCC (§6-15-12 NMSA).

B. STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES

In addition to the local funding generated through general obligation bonds, property

taxes, and gross receipts taxes to support transportation infrastructure improvements,

there are a range of transportation funding options available from the state and

federal governments.

Funding for individual transportation projects has historically been allocated on a case-

by-case basis through capital outlays. The State may also issue transportation bonds for

major capital improvements, such as the Governor Richardson Investment Program

Recommendation

Grant County could create a

bond program to bring paved

roads into good condition and

perform needed reconstruction

and improvements on gravel

and dirt roads. At that point, the

best practices maintenance

programs outlined in this

document can most effectively

be put into place.


(GRIP). However, both sources are subject to budgetary constraints and political and

policy choices and are not available to Grant County on a predictable basis.

NMDOT Local Government Road Fund

The NMDOT Local Government Road Fund provides transportation funding for counties

and municipalities across New Mexico through four separate programs: The County

Arterial Program, the Cooperative Agreement Program, the Municipal Arterials

Program, and the School Bus Routes Program. Funds are generated through the State

Highway Trust Fund. Grant County received a total of $335,800 in total funding from the

Local Government Road Fund in 2017.

County Arterial Program

The County Arterial Program (CAP) distributes money to each county based on a

formula using lane miles of roads. Each county decides how to utilize its share of funds,

and CAP is an important source of funds for the Grant County ICIP. The formula is based

on total lane miles rather than miles by functional class. Funds may be utilized for

project development, construction, reconstruction, improvement, maintenance, repair,

and right of way and material acquisition. Grant County is able to prioritize which

facilities to address using CAP funding.

Cooperative Agreement Program

The Cooperative Agreement Program allocates money to fund various district-

prioritized projects for counties, municipalities, school districts, and other entities. As of

2017, 42% of the Local Government Road Fund is allocated to the Cooperative

Agreement Program, with:

• 33% for agreements with counties

• 49% for agreements with municipalities

• 14% for agreements with school districts

• 4% for agreements with other entities

Colonias Infrastructure Fund

The Colonias Infrastructure Act, administered by the New Mexico Finance Authority,

was created to ensure adequate infrastructure in Colonias communities, including

water and wastewater facilities, flood and drainage control, street projects, solid waste,

and housing. Colonias Infrastructure Fund awards are determined by the Colonias

Infrastructure Board, which evaluates proposals based on need, community impact,

urgent need and project readiness. Successful applications demonstrate how a project

will provide concrete public health, safety, and economic welfare benefits to Colonias

residents. Grant County has utilized Colonias funding recently for road construction,

drainage improvements, and installing ADA-compliant sidewalks. Since 2012, 28

projects worth more than $13 million have been awarded to communities across Grant

County.


State Transportation Improvement Program

The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is the short-range implementation

plan for projects that are programmed utilizing the allocation of federal funds to the

New Mexico Department of Transportation. Many of the funding sources programmed

in the STIP are dedicated for NMDOT-owned and maintained facilities. While funding

that is specifically for regional and state-wide roads do not directly impact county-

owned roads, these investments benefit the County as a whole. Grant County should

look to coordinate with NMDOT on projects that have regional impacts and provide

benefits to Grant County residents through improved mobility and access to sites in

unincorporated areas. A second set of funds are programmed by NMDOT but may be

utilized for roads maintained by local jurisdictions. A final set of funds, including the

Transportation Alternatives Program and Recreational Trails Program, are distributed

through competitive statewide selection processes.

To qualify to be part of the STIP roads must be

classified as a major collector or an arterial. They

must also be of regional significance and serve

the overall transportation and network needs of

the region.

Regional Transportation Improvement

Program Recommendations

The Southwest Rural Transportation Planning

Organization, housed within the Southwest New

Mexico Council of Governments, provides a

forum where agencies across the region,

including Grant County, can submit their priority

projects for federal funding. Agencies can also

advocate for the improvements along NMDOT-

owned and maintained facilities that would be

of benefit to Grant County residents. Projects of

high regional priority are included in the Regional

Transportation Improvement Program

Recommendations (RTIPR) and submitted to the

NMDOT for possible inclusion in the Statewide

Transportation Improvement Program. Ultimate

decision-making rests with the NMDOT, though

inclusion in the RTIPR is a critical step in pursuing

federal funding.

Transportation Alternatives Program

The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) is a

federal reimbursement program administered by

NMDOT that provides funding for non-motorized

TAP and RTP Funding

Considerations

TAP and RTP funds are allocated

through competitive statewide

processes every two years.

Project selection is based on

benefits related to seven scoring

factors. Eligible entities must

demonstrate how the project or

program improve economic

development efforts and safety

issues, promote accessibility and

mobility, environmental

conservation, and efficient

system management and

preservation, and present

supporting planning

documentation. The sponsoring

entities must also match 14.56%

of the total project cost.

See the NMDOT Active

Transportation and Recreational

Programs Guide for additional

information on funding eligibility

and the NMDO evaluation

process.


transportation-related programs and projects. Relevant projects include pedestrian and

bicycle facilities, safe routes to school – related infrastructure improvements, and

programs that support the use of alternative modes of travel. Projects that are

consistent with goals or objectives of a local Comprehensive Plan weighted more

heavily in the NMDOT evaluation process.

Recreational Trails Program

The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is a federal reimbursement program administered

by NMDOT that provides funding to develop and maintain trail-related facilities.

Relevant trail uses that can be awarded funds include hiking, bicycling, equestrian use,

and motorized driving.

The program funded an estimated $1,356,910 for FY 2018 and FY 2019 each year for

recreational trails across the state. The RTP divides funding opportunities into three

categories: 30% for non-motorized trail-related projects, 30% for motorized trail-related

projects, and 40% for diverse trail-related projects.

Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Transportation Grant

Program

BUILD Discretionary Grants are a competitive grant program administered by the US

Department of Transportation (USDOT) that may be particularly well-suited to Grant

County. The program replaces the pre-existing Transportation Investment Generating

Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program which began in 2009. As with TIGER, BUILD

transportation grants are for “investments in surface transportation infrastructure and

are to be awarded on a competitive basis for projects that will have a significant local

or regional impact,” according to the USDOT. BUILD funding can go to support roads,

bridges, transit, rail, ports, or intermodal transportation, with funding totaling $1.5 billion

for FY2018, individual awards capped at $25 million, and no more than $150 million

awarded to a single state.

Differing from TIGER, the criteria for BUILD grants now includes “Non-Federal Revenue for

Transportation Infrastructure Investment.” USDOT defines new revenue as “revenue that

is not included in current and projected funding levels and results from specific actions

taken to increase transportation infrastructure investment.” Eligible sources of new

revenue include asset recycling, tolling, tax-increment financing, or sales or gas tax

increases. It is important to note that the proceeds of new general obligation bonds are

not considered new revenue unless an applicant raises or commits to raising new

revenue to repay the general obligation bonds.

The USDOT plans to award a greater share of BUILD transportation funding to projects

located in rural areas that align with the BUILD criteria than to those in urban areas; in

FY1018, at least 30 percent of BUILD funds must be awarded to projects located in rural

areas. Rural applicants can highlight their needs in response to several of the evaluation

criteria, including the need to deploy rural broadband as part of an eligible

transportation project. As with TIGER, BUILD grants can cover up to 100 percent of the

costs of a project located in a rural area, with a minimum grant of $1 million.


Appendix 1 | Grant County Road Inventory and Condition

Route

Number Road Name Suffix Surface Tier

Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

6-19 1ST ST Dirt 2 0.289 Basic Blading 2x per

year 20 years 5-10 years 6-20

2-11 1ST DUCK CREEK

CROSSING Dirt 2 0.572 Basic

Blading 2x per


6-20 2ND ST Dirt 2 0.269 Basic Blading 2x per


6-21 3RD ST Dirt 2 0.217 Basic Blading 2x per


6-23 5TH ST Dirt 2 0.210 Basic Blading 2x per


6-11 ACCESS ROAD TO

GAGE RD Dirt 3 9.125 Basic

Blading 2x per


3-27 ACCESS TO FIERRO RD Dirt 3 0.025 Basic Blading 2x per


3-33 ACKLIN HILL RD Asphalt 2 1.076 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 3-33

1-210 ACORN DR Gravel 2 0.318 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-210

1-133 ADAMS LN Dirt 1 0.249 Basic Blading 2x per


4-19 AGAVE ST Dirt 2 0.179 Basic Blading 2x per


2-22 AGNEW RD Dirt 3 0.641 Basic Blading 2x per


1-163 AGUA BLANCA Asphalt 2 0.185 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-164

1-217a AIRPORT RD Asphalt 1 1.422 Basic Patching, as

needed 30 years 5-10 years 1-217a

1-217b AIRPORT RD Asphalt 2 0.527 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-217b

2-36 AIRPORT MESA RD Asphalt 2 0.883 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 2-37

1-191 ALECO WAY Asphalt 2 0.088 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-192

3-50 ALICE SALAIZ RD Dirt 2 0.318 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 3-50

3-51 ALLEN PL Dirt 2 0.056 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 3-51

3-67 ALLIE CANYON RD Dirt 2 0.264 Basic Blading 2x per


3-90 ALLISON RD Dirt 3 0.127 Basic Blading 2x per


1-114 ALPINE CR Asphalt 2 0.098 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-115

3-34 ANCHETA RD Dirt 3 0.427 Basic Blading 2x per


4-29 ANDERSON RD Dirt 3 3.039 Basic Blading 2x per


1-221 ANGUS DR Gravel 2 0.097 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-221

1-196 ANTELOPE RUN Asphalt 2 0.232 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-196

1-11 APACHE ST Asphalt 2 0.655 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-11

1-60 APACHE CIR Asphalt 2 0.054 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-60

2-15a ARENA RD Dirt 2 0.971 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 2-15a


Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

2-15b ARENA RD Asphalt 2 0.615 Fair Patching, as

needed 41 years

15-20

years 2-15b

1-135 ARENAS VALLEY RD Asphalt 1 2.567 Basic Patching, as

needed 30 years 5-10 years 1-136

6-3 ARMIJO RD Gravel 2 1.631 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 6-4

1-59 ARROWHEAD RD Asphalt 2 0.777 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-60

1-45a ARTCHER RD Dirt 1 0.247 Basic Blading 2x per

year 20 years 5-10 years 1-45a

1-45b ARTCHER RD Dirt 2 0.375 Basic Blading 2x per

year 20 years 5-10 years 1-45b

2-47 ATHEY RD Dirt 3 1.238 Basic Blading 2x per


6-24 AVENUE A Dirt 2 0.533 Basic Blading 2x per


6-25 AVENUE B Dirt 2 0.507 Basic Blading 2x per


6-26 AVENUE C Dirt 2 0.177 Basic Blading 2x per


1-52 AVERY RANCH RD Dirt 3 1.505 Basic Blading 2x per


1-31 AZURITE CT Asphalt 1 0.066 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-31

1-205 BABBLING BROOK RD Gravel 3 0.350 Fair Blading 2x per

year 10 years 5 years 1-205

2-49 BALD KNOLL RD Dirt 3 9.060 Basic Blading 2x per


1-38 BALD MOUNTAIN

RANCH RD Dirt 1 1.679 Basic

Blading 2x per


1-43 BANDONI DR Dirt 2 0.558 Basic Blading 2x per


2-30 BARKA RD Dirt 2 1.003 Basic Blading 2x per


5-13a BAYS RD Dirt 2 0.380 Basic Blading 2x per


5-13b BAYS RD Dirt 3 0.046 Basic Blading 2x per


3-66 BEAR CANYON LAKE RD Dirt 2 0.650 Basic Blading 2x per


1-93a BEAR CREEK RD Dirt 1 1.131 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-93a

2-33a BEAR CREEK RD Dirt 2 0.522 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 2-33a

1-93b BEAR CREEK RD Asphalt 1 0.161 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-93b

2-33b BEAR CREEK RD Asphalt 2 0.515 Fair Patching, as

needed 42 years

15-20

years 2-33b

2-34 BEAR CREEK HEIGHTS Dirt 2 0.164 Basic Blading 2x per


1-51a BEAR MOUNTAIN RD Dirt 1 1.043 Basic Blading 2x per


1-51b BEAR MOUNTAIN RD Dirt 2 11.055 Basic Blading 2x per


1-51c BEAR MOUNTAIN RD Dirt 3 3.124 Basic Blading 2x per

year 10 years 3-5 years 1-51c

1-50 BEAR MT GUEST

RANCH RD Dirt 2 0.589 Basic

Blading 2x per


3-4 BECERRA RD Dirt 2 0.176 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 3-5


Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

1-119 BELL ST Asphalt 1 0.223 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-120

2-56 BEN ORMAND RD Dirt 3 1.690 Fair Blading 2x per


2-40a BENNETT RD Dirt 2 1.069 Basic Blading 2x per


2-40b BENNETT RD Dirt 3 1.119 Basic Blading 2x per


6-7 BERTHA MOORE RD Dirt 3 3.670 Basic Blading 2x per


1-80 BIG BEND RD Asphalt 2 0.450 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-81

2-52a BILL EVANS RD Asphalt 1 3.055 Good Patching, as

needed 30 years

20-25

years 2-52a

2-52b BILL EVANS RD Asphalt 3 1.967 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 2-52b

4-26 BIRD NEST RD Dirt 3 0.459 Basic Blading 2x per


5-19 BITTER CREEK RD Dirt 3 3.647 Basic Blading 2x per


2-46 BLACK MOUNTAIN RD Dirt 2 6.257 Basic Blading 2x per


1-56 BLACKHAWK PL Asphalt 2 0.152 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-57

2-5 BLUE RICE RD Dirt 3 0.733 Fair Blading 2x per


1-4 BONITA AVE Asphalt 2 0.609 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-4

1-65 BONNEY TRL Asphalt 2 0.084 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-65

1-32 BORNITE CT Asphalt 1 0.393 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-32

2-19 BOX CANYON RD Dirt 2 3.189 Basic Blading 2x per


3-73 BOX ELDER ST Dirt 2 0.080 Basic Blading 2x per


1-218 BRANDING IRON TRL Gravel 2 0.449 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-218

1-170 BRIARWOOD LN Asphalt 2 0.630 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-170

1-9 BROKEN ARROW DR Asphalt 1 2.151 Basic Patching, as


1-12 BROKEN BOW ST Dirt 2 0.318 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-12

4-35 BROWN RANCH RD Dirt 3 11.416 Basic Blading 2x per


5-12 BRUSHY MOUNTAIN RD Dirt 1 15.171 Basic Blading 2x per


5-2 BURCHER PLACE RD Dirt 3 1.705 Basic Blading 2x per


1-107 BURKE LP Dirt 2 1.013 Basic Blading 2x per


1-147 BURNHAM ST Dirt 2 0.080 Basic Blading 2x per


2-62 BURNT STUMP Dirt 3 0.255 Basic Blading 2x per


4-5 BURRO MT.

HOMESTEAD RD Dirt 3 0.559 Basic

Blading 2x per


1-20 BYPASS RD Asphalt 1 1.868 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-21


Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

3-46 C ST Dirt 2 0.032 Basic Blading 2x per


1-126 CABALLERO DR Dirt 2 0.016 Basic Blading 2x per


3-48 CALLECITA DEL ORO Asphalt 2 0.544 Fair Patching, as

needed 43 years

15-20

years 3-49

1-197 CAMINO DE VIENTO Gravel 3 4.593 Fair Blading 2x per


5-21a CARLISLE RD Dirt 2 3.624 Basic Blading 2x per


5-21b CARLISLE RD Dirt 3 9.874 Basic Blading 2x per


1-125a CASA LOMA RD Dirt 2 0.431 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-125a

1-125b CASA LOMA RD Asphalt 2 0.440 Fair Patching, as

needed 44 years

15-20

years 1-125b

2-63 CATFISH LN Dirt 3 0.211 Fair Blading 2x per


4-15 C-BAR RANCH RD Dirt 2 2.996 Basic Blading 2x per


2-35 CEMETERY LN Asphalt 2 0.505 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 2-36

3-1 CERRO ST Dirt 2 0.115 Basic Blading 2x per


2-26 CHACON RD Dirt 2 0.178 Basic Blading 2x per


1-33 CHALCOCITE ST Asphalt 1 0.484 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-33

1-29 CHALCOPYRITE CT Asphalt 1 0.366 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-29

3-57 CHAPARRAL DR Dirt 1 0.437 Basic Blading 2x per


1-219 CHARLOIS DR Gravel 2 0.057 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-219

1-139 CHERRY ST Dirt 2 0.127 Basic Blading 2x per


3-68 CHESTNUT ST Dirt 2 0.153 Basic Blading 2x per


1-192 CHIMBORRAZA Asphalt 2 0.110 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-193

4-10 CHISOLM TRL Dirt 2 0.194 Basic Blading 2x per


3-3 CHIVAS RD Dirt 2 0.078 Basic Blading 2x per


2-13 CHRISTIAN CENTER RD Dirt 2 0.716 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 2-14

1-27 CHRYSOCOLLA AVE Asphalt 1 0.149 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-28

2-58 CIENEGA DR Dirt 3 1.276 Basic Blading 2x per


3-96 CISCO RD Gravel 2 0.468 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 3-97

2-27 CLARK RD Dirt 2 0.259 Basic Blading 2x per


2-12 CLAY JOE LN Dirt 1 0.235 Basic Blading 2x per


1-84 CLEAVELAND MINE RD Dirt 2 0.313 Basic Blading 2x per


3-6 COBO RD Dirt 2 0.044 Basic Blading 2x per



Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

1-62 COCHISE CIR Asphalt 2 0.137 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-63

6-4 COFFEY CIR Gravel 2 0.247 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 6-5

1-47a COLEMAN DR Dirt 1 0.282 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-47a

1-47b COLEMAN DR Asphalt 1 0.392 Fair Patching, as

needed 31 years

10-15

years 1-47b

4-18 COLORADAS ST Dirt 2 0.185 Basic Blading 2x per


4-30 CONNER RD Dirt 3 3.445 Basic Blading 2x per


1-120 COOK ST Asphalt 2 0.146 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-120

1-24 COPPER DR Asphalt 1 0.853 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-24

1-169 COPPER RIDGE DR Asphalt 2 0.445 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-169

1-209 CORTO DR Dirt 2 0.314 Basic Blading 2x per


1-40b COTTAGE SAN RD Dirt 1 0.580 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-40b

1-40a COTTAGE SAN RD Asphalt 1 2.798 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-40a

3-69 COTTONWOOD DR Dirt 2 0.083 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 3-70

1-69 COTTONWOOD RD Asphalt 2 1.646 Fair Patching, as

needed 45 years

15-20

years 1-69

1-158 COTTONWOOD ST Asphalt 2 0.164 Fair Patching, as

needed 46 years

15-20

years 1-158

1-193 COUNTRY RD Gravel 1 1.699 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

15-20

years 1-193

1-7 COUNTRY CLUB DR Asphalt 2 0.462 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-7

1-37 COVELLITE DR Asphalt 1 0.163 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-37

3-71 CREEK RD Dirt 2 0.127 Basic Blading 2x per


1-142 CRUM RD Dirt 3 0.767 Basic Blading 2x per


1-153 CRUMBLEY RD Dirt 2 1.921 Basic Blading 2x per


6-2 CULLUM DR Gravel 2 0.694 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 6-3

1-34 CUPRITE ST Asphalt 1 0.531 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-35

3-45 D ST Dirt 2 0.128 Basic Blading 2x per


1-200 DARLING BELL RD Dirt 3 1.674 Basic Blading 2x per


2-23 DAVID HOOKER RD Dirt 3 0.098 Basic Blading 2x per


3-78 DE LA O RD Dirt 3 0.916 Basic Blading 2x per


1-78 DEER TRAIL RD Asphalt 2 0.399 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-78

1-162 DELANCEY RD Dirt 3 0.427 Basic Blading 2x per


1-112 DELK DR Asphalt 2 0.627 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-112


Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

2-43 DICKERSON RD Dirt 2 0.487 Basic Blading 2x per


2-41 DINWIDDIE RD Dirt 3 0.302 Basic Blading 2x per


3-41 DOMINGUEZ ST Dirt 2 0.032 Basic Blading 2x per


2-21 DONALD HOOKER RD Dirt 3 0.805 Basic Blading 2x per


2-10 DUCK CREEK RD Dirt 1 3.299 Basic Blading 2x per


3-86 DWYER LN Dirt 2 0.264 Basic Blading 2x per


3-42 E ST Dirt 2 0.109 Basic Blading 2x per


1-67 E TIMMER WAY Asphalt 2 0.059 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-67

1-64 EDDIE WARD WAY Asphalt 2 0.263 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-64

3-49 EL OTRO LADO RD Dirt 2 0.171 Basic Blading 2x per


1-136 ELIAS RD Dirt 2 1.016 Basic Blading 2x per


3-93 ELK TRL Dirt 3 0.490 Fair Blading 2x per


1-42 EMERALD DR Dirt 2 0.358 Basic Blading 2x per


3-24 EMITERIO ESCOBAR RD Dirt 3 0.197 Basic Blading 2x per


1-138 ENCINA ST Dirt 2 0.063 Basic Blading 2x per


1-131 ESCOBEDO LN Asphalt 1 0.465 Good Patching, as

needed 30 years

20-25

years 1-131

1-102 ETHEL LN Dirt 1 0.281 Basic Blading 2x per


1-187 EVEREST POINT RD Asphalt 2 0.092 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-187

3-37 F ST Dirt 2 0.081 Basic Blading 2x per


4-25 F BAR RANCH RD Dirt 3 0.942 Basic Blading 2x per


1-1 FAIRWAY DR Asphalt 2 1.414 Fair Patching, as

needed 47 years

15-20

years 1-2

4-8 FARGO TRL Dirt 2 0.493 Basic Blading 2x per


2-61 FAST DRAW Dirt 2 0.729 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 2-62

1-182 FAWN TRL Asphalt 2 0.199 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-182

1-183 FAWN CRT Asphalt 2 0.155 Fair Patching, as

needed 48 years

15-20

years 1-183

3-87 FAYWOOD

CEMETARY RD Dirt 2 0.302 Basic

Blading 2x per


3-5b FIERRO RD Asphalt 1 1.481 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 3-5b

3-5a FIERRO RD Asphalt 2 3.522 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 3-5a

3-16 FIERRO CEMETARY Dirt 3 0.462 Basic Blading 2x per


3-15 FIERRO SCHOOL BUS

T.A. RD Dirt 3 0.029 Basic

Blading 2x per



Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

1-115 FIR ST Asphalt 2 0.099 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-115

1-206 FLEMING TANK RD Gravel 2 1.499 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-206

1-129 FLURRY LN Dirt 1 1.011 Basic Blading 2x per


3-75 FOREST DR Dirt 2 0.293 Basic Blading 2x per


4-6 FOREST RIDGE RD Dirt 2 2.844 Basic Blading 2x per


1-151 FORT BAYARD RD Asphalt 1 0.599 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-151

1-152 FORT BAYARD

NURSERY RD Dirt 3 3.287 Basic

Blading 2x per


1-186 FOTI'S RD Asphalt 2 0.099 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-186

6-22 FOURTH ST Dirt 2 0.218 Basic Blading 2x per


4-7 FRANK MCCAULEY RD Dirt 2 0.807 Basic Blading 2x per


1-143 FRANKS RD Dirt 2 0.539 Basic Blading 2x per


6-6 FROST RD Dirt 2 7.383 Basic Blading 2x per


6-13 GAGE RD Dirt 2 12.173 Basic Blading 2x per


3-35a GALAZ ST Dirt 2 0.382 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 3-35a

3-35b GALAZ ST Asphalt 2 1.387 Fair Patching, as

needed 49 years

15-20

years 3-35b

4-33 GAME DEPARTMENT RD Dirt 2 4.789 Basic Blading 2x per


3-29 GEORGETOWN RD Dirt 2 8.651 Basic Blading 2x per


1-161 GERONIMO ST Asphalt 2 0.159 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-161

1-63 GIDEON TRUESDELL LN Asphalt 2 0.191 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-63

5-10 GOATS PASS RD Dirt 2 1.699 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 5-10

5-11 GOATS PASS

CORRALS RD Dirt 3 0.270 Basic

Blading 2x per


2-17 GOBLE RD Dirt 2 0.255 Basic Blading 2x per


4-12 GOLD GULCH RD Dirt 2 6.159 Basic Blading 2x per


1-97 GOLDEN ST Dirt 2 0.143 Basic Blading 2x per


5-22 GOLDKING IMPERIAL

MINE RD Dirt 3 1.350 Basic

Blading 2x per


1-17 GRAND MESA ST Asphalt 2 0.092 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-17

1-57 GRANDVIEW RD Asphalt 2 1.459 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-57

1-145 GREEN VALLEY DR Dirt 3 0.210 Basic Blading 2x per


1-108 GRENFELL DR Dirt 2 0.333 Basic Blading 2x per


1-167 GROUND HOG MINE RD Dirt 2 0.242 Basic Blading 2x per



Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

3-58 GROUSE LN Dirt 1 0.123 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 3-59

1-204 GULCH RD Gravel 2 0.899 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-205

2-32 GUTIERREZ (GILA) RD Dirt 2 0.177 Basic Blading 2x per


3-8 GUTIERREZ

(HANOVER) RD Dirt 2 0.063 Fair

Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 3-8

3-65 HAMILTON RD Dirt 3 0.751 Fair Blading 2x per


3-28 HANOVER CEMETERY RD Dirt 2 0.150 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 3-28

3-23 HANOVER CREEK RD Dirt 2 1.195 Basic Blading 2x per


5-18 HARDEN CIENEGA RD Dirt 3 3.681 Basic Blading 2x per


4-31 HARPER RD Dirt 3 0.264 Fair Blading 2x per


4-9 HARRY MCCAULEY RD Dirt 3 0.908 Basic Blading 2x per


5-5 HAWKINS RANCH RD Dirt 3 0.586 Basic Blading 2x per


4-23 HAYSTACK CANYON RD Dirt 2 0.204 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 4-24

1-171 HELEN LYNCH PL Asphalt 2 0.081 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-171

1-220 HEREFORD DR Gravel 2 0.080 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-220

7-1 HERMOSA ST Dirt 2 0.184 Basic Blading 2x per


2-18 HICKLE Dirt 2 0.379 Basic Blading 2x per


1-79 HIDE AWAY LN Asphalt 1 0.111 Basic Patching, as


1-81 HIGH LONESOME RD Dirt 2 0.260 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-81

3-20 HILARIO CHAVEZ RD Dirt 2 0.169 Basic Blading 2x per


1-157 HILL ST Asphalt 2 0.106 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-157

1-189 HIMALAYA WAT Asphalt 2 0.040 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-189

1-194 HITCHIN POST RIDGE Gravel 2 0.936 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-194

1-75 HOLLY LN Asphalt 2 0.112 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-75

1-121 HOOD ST Asphalt 2 0.149 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-121

2-20 HOOKER LOOP Dirt 2 7.790 Basic Blading 2x per


2-8 HORSE LAKE RD Dirt 2 1.770 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 2-8

1-160 HORSESHOE DR Asphalt 2 0.976 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-161

3-81a HOT SPRINGS RD Dirt 2 1.612 Basic Blading 2x per


3-81b HOT SPRINGS

CANYON RD Dirt 3 0.276 Basic

Blading 2x per


6-15 HUGES RANCH RD Dirt 3 7.141 Basic Blading 2x per



Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

3-59 HUMMINGBIRD LN Dirt 2 0.709 Basic Blading 2x per


5-3 H-Y RD Dirt 1 4.812 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 5-4

3-18a IGLESIA ST Dirt 2 0.204 Basic Blading 2x per


3-18b IGLESIA ST Asphalt 2 0.226 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 3-18b

1-49 IRON DR Dirt 2 0.115 Basic Blading 2x per


2-44 IRON BRIDGE RD Asphalt 2 0.431 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 2-45

1-74 IRON WOOD LN Asphalt 2 0.092 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-75

4-13 JACKS PEAK RD Dirt 3 0.993 Basic Blading 2x per


1-44 JADE DR Dirt 1 0.121 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-45

3-91 JOHN DEERE DR Dirt 3 0.249 Fair Blading 2x per


5-6 JOHN HENRY RANCH RD Dirt 3 0.704 Basic Blading 2x per


6-9 JOHNNIE

MCDONALD RD Dirt 3 5.846 Fair

Blading 2x per


1-111 JOHNSON RD Asphalt 2 0.713 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-112

5-15 JOHNSON BULL

FARM RD Dirt 3 0.178 Fair

Blading 2x per


5-9 JOHNSON RANCH RD Dirt 3 3.187 Fair Blading 2x per


6-12 JONES RANCH RD Dirt 3 2.761 Basic Blading 2x per


1-178 JOSEPH BLANE RD Dirt 3 1.344 Basic Blading 2x per


1-61 KACHINA CIR Asphalt 2 0.102 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-61

5-8 KARTCHNER RD Dirt 3 0.442 Fair Blading 2x per


1-177 KILAMANJARO CT Asphalt 2 0.141 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-177

1-202 KING PETER Dirt 3 0.216 Basic Blading 2x per


1-127b KIRKLAND RD Dirt 1 0.539 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-127b

1-127a KIRKLAND RD Asphalt 1 1.543 Basic Patching, as


3-95 KNEELING NUN RD Gravel 3 0.658 Fair Blading 2x per


6-31 KRISTINE LN Gravel 2 0.480 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 6-32

3-47 LAGUNA DEL OSO Asphalt 2 0.841 Fair Patching, as

needed 50 years

15-20

years 3-47

3-32 LAMP BRIGHT RD Dirt 2 1.236 Basic Blading 2x per


1-3 LANCE DR Asphalt 2 0.645 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-3

1-154 LARIAT RD Dirt 2 1.022 Basic Blading 2x per


1-124 LASSEN ST Dirt 2 0.285 Basic Blading 2x per



Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

2-28 LC LANCE LN Dirt 2 0.209 Basic Blading 2x per


2-37 LEEVILLE RD Dirt 2 0.567 Basic Blading 2x per


2-2 LITTLE DRY CREEK RD Dirt 3 2.099 Basic Blading 2x per


6-18 LITTLE HATCHETT

MOUNTAIN RD Dirt 2 14.888 Basic

Blading 2x per


1-53b LITTLE WALNUT RD Dirt 1 1.610 Basic Blading 2x per


1-53c LITTLE WALNUT RD Dirt 2 1.951 Basic Blading 2x per


1-53a LITTLE WALNUT RD Asphalt 1 2.954 Fair Patching, as

needed 32 years

10-15

years 1-53a

1-212 LOMA VERDE DR Gravel 1 0.868 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

15-20

years 1-212

1-21 LOMITA DR Dirt 2 0.232 Basic Blading 2x per


2-60 LOOKOUT POINT RD Dirt 3 0.229 Basic Blading 2x per


3-21 LUERA RD Dirt 2 0.306 Basic Blading 2x per


3-26 LUIS CASTILLO LP Dirt 2 0.171 Basic Blading 2x per


3-13 LUIS ESCOBAR RD Dirt 2 0.027 Basic Blading 2x per


3-9 LUPE RIVERA RD Dirt 2 0.078 Basic Blading 2x per


1-181 LYNX LN Asphalt 2 0.462 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-181

1-106 MAHOGANY DR Dirt 1 0.680 Basic Blading 2x per


1-156b MAIN ST Dirt 2 0.192 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-156b

1-156a MAIN ST Asphalt 2 0.847 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-156a

3-22 MAJALCA/BORUNDA RD Dirt 2 0.278 Basic Blading 2x per


1-26 MALACHITE AVE Asphalt 1 0.522 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-27

4-22b MANGAS VALLEY RD Dirt 2 4.974 Basic Blading 2x per


4-22a MANGAS VALLEY RD Asphalt 2 7.083 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 4-22a

6-30 MARGUERITE Gravel 2 0.297 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 6-31

3-63 MARIANO GRIJALVA RD Dirt 2 0.098 Basic Blading 2x per


1-203 MARKET ST Asphalt 2 0.370 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-204

4-36 MARTIN CAMP RD Dirt 3 1.011 Basic Blading 2x per


1-128 MATHERS RD Dirt 1 0.237 Basic Blading 2x per


2-45a MCCAULEY RD Dirt 2 2.725 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 2-45a

2-45b MCCAULEY RD Dirt 3 4.980 Fair Blading 2x per

year 10 years 5 years 2-45b

1-123 MCKINLEY ST Asphalt 2 0.193 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-123


Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

1-23 MCKINNEY RD Gravel 1 1.092 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

15-20

years 1-23

3-92 MEADOW LN Dirt 3 0.367 Fair Blading 2x per


1-36 MELANCONITE AVE Asphalt 1 0.059 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-37

2-16 MESA RD Dirt 2 0.990 Basic Blading 2x per


1-144 MESA TRL Dirt 3 1.206 Basic Blading 2x per


1-199 MESITA CIR Gravel 2 0.210 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-199

6-28 MICHELLE LN Gravel 2 0.433 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 6-29

4-16 MILL CANYON RD Dirt 3 7.353 Basic Blading 2x per


3-56 MIMBRES CACTUS DR Dirt 1 0.339 Basic Blading 2x per


3-60 MIMBRES DOVE LN Dirt 1 0.330 Basic Blading 2x per


3-61 MIMBRES QUAIL LN Dirt 1 0.332 Basic Blading 2x per


3-54 MIMBRES YUCCA DR Dirt 1 0.234 Basic Blading 2x per


3-94 MINERS LEGEND Gravel 2 0.230 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 3-94

1-19 MOBILE RDRD Asphalt 2 0.417 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-20

3-62 MOCKINGBIRD LN Dirt 1 0.385 Basic Blading 2x per


1-146 MONTE ST Dirt 2 0.132 Basic Blading 2x per


1-164 MONTE VISTA ST Asphalt 2 0.134 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-164

3-12 MONTOYA RD Dirt 2 0.070 Basic Blading 2x per


2-3 MOON RANCH RD Dirt 3 5.908 Fair Blading 2x per


6-16 MOORE RANCH RD Dirt 3 3.559 Basic Blading 2x per


1-134 MORALES RD Dirt 1 0.503 Basic Blading 2x per


2-65 MORGAN LN Dirt 3 0.585 Basic Blading 2x per


1-188 MOUNT OLYMPUS RD Asphalt 2 0.373 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-189

2-64 MOUNT VISTA Dirt 2 0.576 Basic Blading 2x per


1-18a MOUNTAIN VIEW RD Dirt 2 0.649 Basic Blading 2x per


1-18b MOUNTAIN VIEW RD Asphalt 2 0.421 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-18b

1-72 MOUNTAIN VIEW LN Asphalt 2 0.042 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-73

3-70 MULBERRY DR Dirt 2 0.340 Basic Blading 2x per


1-175 MUM ST Asphalt 2 0.094 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-175

1-155 N HURLEY RD Asphalt 2 2.085 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-155


Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

2-53 NEWBY RD Dirt 3 6.445 Basic Blading 2x per


1-176 NIKIS RD Asphalt 2 0.826 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-177

2-6 NINE-SIXTEEN RD Dirt 2 6.545 Basic Blading 2x per


3-36 NOONDAY CANYON RD Dirt 3 3.509 Basic Blading 2x per


2-51 NORRIS RD Dirt 3 4.397 Basic Blading 2x per


1-165 NORTH HURLEY

OVERPASS RD Asphalt 2 0.640 Fair

Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-165

1-15 NORTH PHEASANT DR Asphalt 2 0.085 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-15

1-98 NORTON ST Dirt 2 0.230 Basic Blading 2x per


1-39 OAKWOOD AVE Asphalt 2 0.667 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-39

3-55 OCOTILLO DR Dirt 1 0.674 Basic Blading 2x per


1-55 OLD LITTLE WALNUT RD Dirt 1 0.417 Basic Blading 2x per


1-213 OLD RANCH RD Gravel 2 1.254 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-213

4-4 OLD TYRONE

TOWNSITE RD Dirt 3 2.121 Fair

Blading 2x per


3-83 OLIVER RANCH RD Dirt 3 0.540 Fair Blading 2x per


3-84 OLIVER RENTAL RD Dirt 3 0.098 Fair Blading 2x per


1-180 OLYMPUS ST Asphalt 2 0.179 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-180

1-41 OPAL DR Dirt 2 0.123 Basic Blading 2x per


3-72 ORCHARD DR Dirt 2 0.229 Basic Blading 2x per


3-89b ORTIZ RD Dirt 2 0.838 Basic Blading 2x per


3-89a ORTIZ RD Asphalt 2 0.012 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 3-89a

6-29 OTIS LN Gravel 2 0.164 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 6-30

4-11 OUTLAW TRL Dirt 2 0.203 Basic Blading 2x per


1-85 OWENS RD Dirt 2 0.637 Basic Blading 2x per


1-87 OWL HOOT TRL Dirt 2 0.750 Basic Blading 2x per


1-214 PACKSADDLE RD Gravel 3 0.218 Fair Blading 2x per


1-137 PAISANO ST Asphalt 2 0.146 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-137

1-174 PALO VERDE DR Asphalt 2 0.281 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-174

1-140 PALOMA ST Dirt 2 0.086 Basic Blading 2x per


4-32 PATTON RD Dirt 2 3.707 Basic Blading 2x per


1-118 PETERSON DR Asphalt 1 1.072 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-118


Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

1-14 PHEASANT DR Asphalt 2 0.444 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-14

1-179 PIKE ST Asphalt 1 0.135 Basic Patching, as


1-109 PINON ST Dirt 1 0.768 Basic Blading 2x per


1-76 PINON RD Asphalt 2 0.116 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-76

1-94 PLACER ST Dirt 2 0.184 Basic Blading 2x per


3-44 PONCE ST Dirt 2 0.077 Basic Blading 2x per


3-97 PONCHO RD Gravel 3 0.918 Fair Blading 2x per


1-110 PONDEROSA ST Asphalt 2 0.313 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-111

4-20 PONY EXPRESS AVE Dirt 2 0.146 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 4-21

1-159 POP MORRISON ST Asphalt 2 0.048 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-160

6-10 PREVOST RD Dirt 3 0.413 Basic Blading 2x per


2-59 PROSPECT PL Dirt 3 0.060 Basic Blading 2x per


1-201 QUEEN LILIAN Dirt 3 0.576 Basic Blading 2x per


1-141 RACE TRACK RD Dirt 1 3.662 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-141

5-17 RADAR STATION RD Dirt 3 3.341 Basic Blading 2x per


1-91 RADIO TOWER RD Dirt 2 3.508 Basic Blading 2x per


1-184 RAILROAD DR Dirt 1 0.512 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-184

3-14 RAILROAD "Y

"JUNCTION RD Dirt 3 0.128 Fair

Blading 2x per


1-117 RAINIER ST Dirt 2 0.263 Basic Blading 2x per


1-92 RANGER ST Dirt 2 0.258 Basic Blading 2x per


3-25 RAY CASTILLO RD Dirt 3 0.105 Basic Blading 2x per


4-24b REDROCK RD Dirt 2 20.319 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 4-24b

4-24a REDROCK RD Asphalt 2 2.788 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 4-24a

2-39 REESE RD Dirt 2 0.164 Basic Blading 2x per


2-31 RICE RD Dirt 2 0.195 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 2-31

2-42 RICHARD DINWIDDIE RD Dirt 3 0.323 Fair Blading 2x per


1-2b RIDGE RD Dirt 1 9.315 Basic Blading 2x per


1-2a RIDGE RD Asphalt 1 2.491 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-2a

2-29 RIVER RD Dirt 1 1.288 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 2-30

4-27 ROAD CANYON RD Dirt 3 1.174 Basic Blading 2x per



Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

1-73 ROAD RUNNER LN Asphalt 2 0.043 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-74

4-34 ROBERT MARTIN RD Dirt 3 0.151 Fair Blading 2x per


1-122 ROBSON ST Asphalt 2 0.213 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-122

1-99 ROCK ST Dirt 2 0.138 Basic Blading 2x per


1-104 RODEO RD Dirt 1 0.685 Basic Blading 2x per


2-7 ROLAND RAY RICE RD Dirt 3 2.385 Fair Blading 2x per


1-101 ROSEDALE RD Asphalt 1 3.669 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-101

1-70 ROSEWOOD CIR Asphalt 2 0.145 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-70

3-11 ROY RD Dirt 2 0.066 Basic Blading 2x per


3-77b ROYAL JOHN MINE RD Dirt 2 8.194 Basic Blading 2x per


3-77c ROYAL JOHN MINE RD Dirt 3 3.132 Basic Blading 2x per


3-77a ROYAL JOHN MINE RD Asphalt 2 0.767 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 3-77a

2-57 RT DR Dirt 2 0.279 Basic Blading 2x per


1-208 RUN Gravel 3 0.692 Fair Blading 2x per


1-216 RUNNING IRON

RIDGE Gravel 3 1.168 Fair

Blading 2x per


2-1 SACATON RD Dirt 2 25.115 Basic Blading 2x per


4-21 SADDLE ROCK

CANYON RD Dirt 2 0.982 Fair

Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 4-22

3-53 SAGE DR Dirt 1 0.504 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 3-53

3-17 SAN ANTONIO

CHURCH RD Dirt 3 0.120 Basic

Blading 2x per


3-39 SAN FRANCISCO ST Asphalt 2 0.848 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 3-39

3-43 SAN JOSE ST Dirt 2 0.213 Basic Blading 2x per


3-76 SAN JUAN CEMETERY RD Dirt 3 0.199 Basic Blading 2x per


3-40 SAN LORENZO ST Dirt 2 0.102 Basic Blading 2x per


3-38 SAN YSIDRO ST Dirt 2 0.148 Basic Blading 2x per


1-48 SANITARIUM RD Dirt 2 0.046 Basic Blading 2x per


1-166b SANTA RITA MINE RD Asphalt 1 0.422 Basic Patching, as

needed 30 years 5-10 years 1-166b

1-166a SANTA RITA MINE RD Asphalt 2 1.633 Basic Patching, as


1-172 SCHIFF TRL Asphalt 2 0.274 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-173

6-8a SEPAR RD Dirt 1 1.949 Basic Blading 2x per


6-8b SEPAR RD Dirt 2 29.682 Basic Blading 2x per



Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

1-68 SHADOW MOUNTAIN RD Asphalt 2 0.344 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-68

1-46 SHALE DR Dirt 2 0.188 Basic Blading 2x per


1-116 SHASTA ST Dirt 1 0.333 Basic Blading 2x per


2-25 SHELLEY RD Dirt 3 0.395 Fair Blading 2x per


4-28 SHERMAN HARPER RD Dirt 3 1.719 Fair Blading 2x per


2-14 SHIELDS CANYON RD Dirt 2 0.470 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 2-15

3-31 SHINGLE CANYON RD Dirt 3 1.945 Basic Blading 2x per


6-27 SHIPPING PENS RD Dirt 3 2.818 Fair Blading 2x per


4-3 SILBY RD Dirt 3 0.269 Fair Blading 2x per


3-80 SILVER CREEK RD Dirt 3 5.423 Basic Blading 2x per


1-195 SILVER SPUR Gravel 2 0.104 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-195

1-90 SIX SHOOTER DR Asphalt 2 0.254 Fair Patching, as

needed 51 years

15-20

years 1-90

1-16 SKY VIEW DR Asphalt 2 0.401 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-16

6-17 SOUTH WELLS RD Dirt 3 4.883 Good Blading 2x per


6-17 SOUTHWELLS RD Dirt 3 1.508 Basic Blading 2x per


1-8 SPEAR DR Asphalt 2 0.446 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-8

1-95 SPRING ST Dirt 2 0.251 Basic Blading 2x per


1-103 SPRING CREEK RD Dirt 1 0.792 Basic Blading 2x per


1-88 SPUR DR Dirt 2 0.224 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-88

2-38 STAILEY RD Dirt 2 0.383 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 2-38

2-9 STEPHANS RD Dirt 2 0.406 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 2-9

1-173 SULLY CIR Asphalt 2 0.059 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-174

5-20 SUMMIT PEAK RD Dirt 3 3.614 Basic Blading 2x per


1-130 SUNSET TRL Dirt 1 0.282 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-130

1-86 SWAN ST Asphalt 1 3.677 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-86

1-113 SYCAMORE ST Asphalt 2 0.413 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-113

3-2 T & M RD Dirt 2 0.261 Basic Blading 2x per


1-6b TABOR AVE Dirt 2 0.187 Basic Blading 2x per


1-6a TABOR AVE Asphalt 2 0.689 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-6a

1-168 TANGLEWOOD CIR Asphalt 2 0.156 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-169


Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

6-14 TAYLOR RD Dirt 2 0.973 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 6-15

3-82 TAYLOR ALLISON RD Dirt 3 0.602 Fair Blading 2x per


3-79 TAYLOR GRAHAM RD Dirt 3 0.268 Fair Blading 2x per


3-88 TAYLOR MOUNTAIN RD Dirt 3 2.061 Basic Blading 2x per


5-16 TAYLOR RANCH RD Dirt 3 0.918 Fair Blading 2x per


1-35 TENORITE CT Asphalt 1 0.057 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-36

3-74 TIMBER ST Dirt 2 0.089 Basic Blading 2x per


2-48 TOM MCCAULEY RD Dirt 3 0.260 Fair Blading 2x per


1-13 TOMAHAWK RD Dirt 2 0.291 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-14

3-64 TONY GRIJALVA RD Dirt 2 0.116 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 3-65

1-28 TORBERNITE DR Asphalt 1 0.117 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-28

1-10 TRAILING HEART DR Asphalt 2 0.728 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-10

2-24 TURKEY CREEK RD Dirt 2 9.890 Basic Blading 2x per


1-25 TURQUOISE DR Asphalt 1 0.088 Fair Patching, as

needed 30 years

10-15

years 1-25

1-83 TURRIETTS RD Dirt 2 0.095 Basic Blading 2x per


4-1 TYRONE MINE RD Asphalt 2 0.455 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 4-2

6-1 TYRONE RIDGE

ACCESS RD Dirt 2 8.701 Basic

Blading 2x per


4-2 TYRONE-TOMPSON RD Dirt 2 14.780 Basic Blading 2x per


4-17 UT DR Dirt 2 0.351 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 4-17

3-85 VALENTINE

DOMINQUEZ RD Dirt 3 0.241 Fair

Blading 2x per


1-54 VALLEY DR Dirt 2 0.995 Basic Blading 2x per


1-211 VENTANA DR Gravel 2 0.259 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-211

1-198 VENTANA DE SIERRA Gravel 2 0.796 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-198

1-190 VESUVIUS WAY Asphalt 2 0.526 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-190

1-5 VICENTE PL Asphalt 2 0.191 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-5

1-82 VILLAGE RD Dirt 1 0.396 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-82

1-66 W TIMMER WAY Asphalt 2 0.114 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-66

2-50 WALK BRIDGE

ACCESS RD Dirt 3 0.786 Fair

Blading 2x per


4-14 WALKING X RANCH RD Dirt 3 0.506 Basic Blading 2x per


1-89 WENDY RD Asphalt 2 1.406 Fair Patching, as

needed 40 years

15-20

years 1-89


Route


Length

(Mi)

Current

Condition

Current

Maintenance

Life

Expectancy

Remaining

Life

Route

Number

1-22 WESTERN DR Asphalt 2 0.697 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-22

1-132 WHISKEY CREEK

AIRPORT RD Asphalt 2 0.639 Basic

Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-132

1-71 WHISPERING HILLS RD Asphalt 2 0.575 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-71

6-5 WHITEWATER RD Dirt 2 19.068 Basic Blading 2x per


1-185 WILMOT RD Asphalt 2 0.066 Good Patching, as

needed 40 years

25-30

years 1-185

1-207 WIND CANYON RD Gravel 2 2.746 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 1-207

3-30 WINDMILL PASTURE RD Dirt 3 1.478 Basic Blading 2x per


7-2 WINDMILL RIDGE Gravel 3 0.280 Fair Blading 2x per


5-7 Y6 RD Dirt 3 5.365 Fair Blading 2x per


3-10 YOUNG RD Dirt 2 0.141 Fair Blading 2x per

year 20 years

10-15

years 3-11

1-149 YUCCA POD LN Dirt 2 0.121 Basic Blading 2x per


1-150 YUCCA STALK LN Dirt 2 0.180 Basic Blading 2x per


1-148 YUCCA VALLEY DR Dirt 2 0.512 Basic Blading 2x per


1-58 ZIA CIR Asphalt 2 0.097 Basic Patching, as

needed 40 years

10-15

years 1-58

3-7 ZINC HILL RD Dirt 2 0.091 Basic Blading 2x per
