Converting Paved Roads to Unpaved (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

41 Variation was comparable for total unpaved centerline miles maintained and annual estimated budget for road maintenance. Q3: Have You or Your Agency/Organization Converted Paved Roads to Unpaved Roads? Of 139 total respondents, 48 indicated that they and/or their agency had converted a paved road to an unpaved road (with an additional 12 road conversions reported by these respondents in Q10), for a total of 60 road conversions reported by survey respondents. An additional nine respondents indicated that they were considering a conversion, whereas 82 responded that they had not converted a paved road to an unpaved surface. Figure B2 shows the 16 states in the United States in which road conversions from paved to unpaved have occurred, as indicated by survey responses. Q4 & Q11: Centerline Miles of Road Converted Of the 48 respondents who indicated they or their agency had converted a paved road to an unpaved road, 46 provided data on the number of centerline miles converted. This value ranged from 0.2 to 42 mi, indicating wide variation in the implementation of the practice. Question 11 asked if respon- dents would like to provide information on a second road conversion. Of the 12 respondents who indicated they would, 11 provided data about the number of centerline miles of road converted. Values provided ranged from 0.5 to 30 mi, with a majority (seven of 11) of the responses indicating 10 mi or less. Responses garnered in the survey indicated that just over 550 (556.4) total miles of paved roadway had been converted to an unpaved surface. The number of centerline miles for the nine respondents who indicated they were considering converting a roadway varied from 0.2 to 10 mi, although more than half of these respondents (five) did not indicate a value. Q5 & Q12: Average Daily Traffic Questions 5 and 12 asked respondents to provide the average daily traffic (ADT) on the road converted from paved to gravel. Of the 66 respondents who provided data for this question, including those who had converted a road (n = 48 individual responses, n = 58 identified converted roads) and were con- sidering a conversion (n = 8), the majority indicated an ADT of between 21 and 100 vehicles per day. The highest pro- portion (22 of 66 respondents) indicated an ADT of 51 to SURVEY SUMMARY A survey was disseminated through the online survey tool SurveyGizmo during the months of February and March 2015. The purpose of the survey was to gather information regarding the practice of converting paved roads to unpaved from road maintenance practitioners at state, provincial, and local trans- portation agencies. A total of 139 responses were received. The number of survey responses varies for each question and is reported for each question. Information detailing the responses to the survey is provided in the following sections. Q1: Agency Type Respondents were asked to provide contact information includ- ing agency affiliation. A total of 133 responses were received for this question. Survey respondents indicated they were most commonly associated with county or road district agen- cies, followed by municipal (village, town, township, or city) agencies, with state and provincial, federal land agencies (U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Department of Defense), university, and Local Technical Assistance Pro- gram (LTAP) centers sparsely represented (Figure B1). Other survey responses were from an engineering consultant, for- est sector research and development firm, a dust control/road stabilization distributor, and from the Office of Federal Lands Highway (FHWA). A total of 139 responses were gathered from 21 states in the United States and the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. Of the 21 states, South Dakota had the most responses with 27, followed by Iowa (25), North Dakota and Minnesota (15), New York and Nebraska (10), Kansas (five), Montana (six), California (five), Texas and Oklahoma (three), Alabama and Oregon (two), and Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Utah, and Vermont with a response of one each. The three Canadian provinces each had one response. Q2: Agency Jurisdiction Size Agency jurisdiction size varied greatly across the respondents. Those responding from LTAP centers, universities, and the research/consulting sector indicated a jurisdiction size of 0 mi2 and 0 mi of roadway. The area of agency jurisdiction for those responding from maintenance agencies varied from a munici- pal agency with 0.5 mi2 to an agency servicing the entirety of a state consisting of 87,000 mi2. Similarly, centerline miles of roadway maintained varied from 2.5 to 16,600 mi (Table B1). APPENDIX B Summary of Survey Results

42 100 vehicles, followed closely by an ADT of 21 to 50 vehi- cles (16 of 66 respondents). Other respondents indicated ADT values ranging from 100 to 1,000 vehicles, as shown in Figure B3. At the extreme ends of the spectrum, two respon- dents indicated an ADT of less than 20 vehicles and only one respondent indicated an ADT of 500 to 1,000 vehicles. Q6 & Q13: Original Pavement Type, Condition (Good, Poor, etc.) A total of 56 respondents provided information for these ques- tions, including those who had converted a road, were consider- ing a conversion, or provided data on a second road conversion. A total of 35 respondents indicated that asphalt concrete was the original pavement type on 40 different roads. The majority (28 of 40) of respondents rated the condition of the original asphalt concrete pavement as “poor.” A condition of “fair” FIGURE B1 Agency type represented in the survey responses (n = 133). TABLE B1 RESPONDING STATES/PROVINCES, AGENCIES, TOTAL NUMBER OF UNPAVED CENTERLINE MILES MAINTAINED, AND ANNUAL ESTIMATED ROADWAY BUDGET (n = 139) State or Province Agency/Organization Total Unpaved Centerline Miles/Kilometers Maintained Annual Estimated Roadway Budget Agencies that have NOT converted paved roads to unpaved Alberta Rocky View County 1,500 km $11,000,000 California Napa County Public Works 12 $7,000,000 Colorado FHWA, Office of Federal Lands Highway — — Georgia City of Oakwood 0 $250,000 Idaho Bonner County Road & Bridge 400 $8,000,000 Iowa Clayton County 900 $5,000,000 Iowa Bremer County Highway Department 590 $5,000,000 Iowa Cedar County 810 $6,000,000 Iowa Pottawattamie County Secondary Roads 1,269 $12,000,000 Iowa Cherokee County 787 $3,000,000 Iowa Hamilton County 717 $5,670,000 Iowa Union County 600 $4,326,628 Iowa Adams County 621 $2,800,000 Iowa Black Hawk County 522 $7,000,000 Iowa Buchanan County 763 $6,000,000 Iowa Cerro Gordo County 700 $7,000,000 Iowa Ida County 601 $3,400,000 Iowa Pocahontas County Engineer’s Office 814 $4,645,660 Iowa Keokuk County 922 $4,389,395 Iowa Wayne County 721 $2,700,000 Iowa O’Brien County 802 $5,000,000 Iowa Mahaska County Secondary Roads 842.585 $5,660,000 Municipal (village, town, township, city) (15) County or Road District (105) State or Province (6) Federal Lands (USFS, USF&W, NPS, BLM, DOD) (4) University (1) LTAP Centers (2)

43 TABLE B1 (continued) (continued on next page) Montana LVR Consultants LLC — — Montana Yellowstone County 1,100 $9,000,000 Montana Blaine County 1,190 — Montana Sheridan County 1,150 $2,700,000 Nebraska York County 979 $4,000,000 Nebraska Lincoln Public Works—Engineering Services — — Nebraska City of Lincoln — — Nebraska Nebraska Department of Roads — — Nebraska Howard County Roads 863 $2,200,000 Nebraska City of Ogallala 11.02 $3,066,000 New York Allegany County Department of Public Works 0 $16,500,000 New York Tioga County 0 $1,200,000 New York Yates County 0 $4,075,500 New York Rockland County Highway Department 0 $11,000,000 New York Wyoming County Highway 0 $9,257,000 New York Herkimer County 0 $17,000,000 New York Genesee County 0 $6,200,000 New York Wayne County Public Works 2 $8,000,000 New York Westchester County 0 — New York Oneida County Department of Public Works 0 $8,000,000 North Dakota North Dakota Department of Transportation — — North Dakota Dunn County Highway Department 880 $80,000,000 North Dakota McKenzie County 800 $90,000,000 North Dakota Pembina County 7 1672400 State or Province Agency/Organization Total Unpaved Centerline Miles/Kilometers Maintained Annual Estimated Roadway Budget North Dakota Pierce County 1,071 $838,562 North Dakota Grand Forks County 262 $10,500,000 Louisiana Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 71 — Minnesota Minnesota Department of Transportation 0 — Minnesota Big Stone County 250 $3,500,000 Minnesota Wright County Highway Department 0 $9,000,000 Minnesota Nobles County 150 $5,300,000 Minnesota Hubbard County 205.82 $7,900,000 Minnesota Lac qui Parle County Highway Department 300 $2,800,000 Minnesota Beltrami County 345 $5,000,000 Minnesota Rock County Highway Department 109 $3,000,000 Kansas Franklin County 794 $5,107,023 Kansas Scotwood Industries Inc. N/A N/A

44 TABLE B1 (continued) South Dakota Walworth County 728 $1,600,000 South Dakota Beadle County 352 $3,400,000 South Dakota City of Aberdeen 1 plus alleys $1,000,000 South Dakota Moody County Highway Department 122 $1,700,000 South Dakota Gregory County 530 $2,300,000 South Dakota Codington County Highway Department 180 $4,100,000 South Dakota City of Mitchell 3 $2,000,000 South Dakota Sanborn County 239 $1,627,930 South Dakota Minnehaha County 2 $13,000,000 South Dakota City of Onida 2 $221,176 South Dakota Custer County 396 $2,820,637 South Dakota South Dakota Department of Transportation 82 $220,000,000 South Dakota City of Watertown 29.1 $1,150,000 Texas Lone Star LTAP Center/Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service — — Agencies that are CONSIDERING converting a paved road to unpaved California United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 3,500 — California Tehama County 263 $4,500,000 Iowa Winneshiek County 804 $7,500,000 Iowa Woodbury County 1,008 $14,000,000 Kansas Reno County 0 $2,500,000 Minnesota Norman County Highway Department 395.1 $6,000,000 State or Province Agency/Organization Total Unpaved Centerline Miles/Kilometers Maintained Annual Estimated Roadway Budget Minnesota Dodge County Highway Department 36 $6,000,000 South Dakota Potter County Highway 570 $1,542,000 South Dakota City of Alcester 1.44 miles — Agencies that HAVE CONVERTED a paved road to unpaved Alabama Butler County Commission 250 $4,000,000 Alabama Franklin County 200 $2,300,000 Oklahoma Texas County 940 $5,500,000 Oklahoma Tulsa County 10 $7,100,000 Quebec FPInnovations — — South Dakota City of Miller 4.6 $290,678 South Dakota Union County Public Works Department 58 $4,000,000 South Dakota City of Hosmer 0 $16,934 North Dakota Oliver County 280 $250,000 North Dakota Nelson County Highway Department 351 $1,700,000 North Dakota Williams County Highway Department 850 $100,000,000 California Yolo County Planning, Public Works, and Environmental Services 200 $3,500,000

45 TABLE B1 (continued) (continued on next page) Michigan Montcalm County Road Commission 845 $6,500,000 Minnesota Clearwater County Highway Department 142 $1,049 Minnesota Freeborn County 228 $10,000,000 Minnesota Jackson County 150 $8,000,000 Minnesota St. Louis County 1,500 $35,000,000 Minnesota Mahnomen County 144 $2,756,000 Montana Lake County Roads Department — $2,000,000 Montana Musselshell County Road Department 624 $56,600 Nebraska Sheridan County 1,140 $2,200,000 Nebraska Gosper County 629.25 $1,410,429 Nebraska Phelps County 805 $2,300,000 Nebraska Arthur County 200 $400,000 North Dakota Stutsman County Highway Department 1,868 $1,500,000 North Dakota North Dakota State University—Upper Great PlainsTransportation Institute 250 $6,000,000 North Dakota Ramsey County 146.5 $3,500,000 North Dakota Wells County 1,300 — State or Province Agency/Organization Total Unpaved Centerline Miles/Kilometers Maintained Annual Estimated Roadway Budget North Dakota Bowman County 141 $7,000,000 North Dakota McIntosh County 920 $500,000 Ohio Coshocton County Engineer 180 $4,000,000 Oklahoma Sequoyah County 250 $580,000 Ontario Town of Bracebridge 77 $2,900,000 Oregon United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2,300 $571,000 Oregon United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service — — South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program 300 $2,000,000 South Dakota Yankton County Highway Department 253 $3,800,000 Iowa Washington County 740.4 $5,500,000 Iowa Linn County 850 $15,000,000 Iowa Jefferson County Road Department 617 $3,700,000 Iowa Buena Vista County Secondary Roads 750 $6,800,000 Iowa Louisa County Roads 447 $3,900,000 Iowa Decatur County 616 $3,000,000 Kansas Stafford County 42 $2,200,000 Kansas Montgomery County Public Works 800 $5,114,480 California Lake County Public Works 175 $5,000,000 South Dakota McCook County 125 $2,603,149 South Dakota Miner County Highway Department 225 $1,968,000

46 was indicated by four of the 40 responses. A total of eight responses were spread across “good” (three), “N/A” (three), and “asphalt” (two) conditions. An original pavement type of surface treatment (e.g., chip seal) was indicated by 34 respondents on 36 roads. Again, a majority (24 of 36) responded that the condition of the sur- face was “poor,” and two responses indicated that the condi- tion was very bad/poor. Nine respondents indicated that the surface treatment was “chip seal,” with two of those responses providing “sand sealed cold-mix asphalt roads” or “double shot chip seal.” Three responses indicated the condition of the surface treatment was “good,” whereas only one response each was received for “fair” and no condition provided. Twelve respondents indicated the original pavement type was a combination of pavement types and materials on 14 roads. Only one respondent defined the pavement combi- nation as “asphalt over concrete.” Six respondents indicated “poor” condition, two indicated “fair” condition, one indicated States with known converted roads Unknown if states have converted roads FIGURE B2 States where road conversions from paved to unpaved have occurred (gray), based on survey responses (n = 16 states). TABLE B1 (continued) South Dakota Day County Highway Department 355 $2,500,000 South Dakota Edmunds County 258 $2,570,457 South Dakota Deuel County 100 $2,200,000 South Dakota Brown County Highway Department 180 $9,000,000 South Dakota Kingsbury County 152 $2,400,000 Texas Texas Department of Transportation 0 $40,000,000 Texas Texas Department of Transportation 0 $29,500,000 (contracted maintenance) Utah Tooele County Road Department 750 $3,200,000 Vermont City of Montpelier 3.4 $2,100,000 State or Province Agency/Organization Total Unpaved Centerline Miles/Kilometers Maintained Annual Estimated Roadway Budget

47 “good” condition, and one respondent provided a varying con- dition of “good to poor.” Three respondents provided “N/A” or “none” as a response. A total of six respondents provided “none” or “n/a” as a response to an original pavement type of portland cement concrete. One additional respondent indicated a condition of “fair.” A pavement type of “other” was specified by eight of the respondents. Responses ranged from the type of road (sand/chip seal for four of the descriptions) to reasons why the road was or might be converted, such as budget con- straints and road base issues. These descriptions are provided in Table B2. Q7 & Q14: Finished Surface Type of the Unpaved Road A total of 48 respondents provided information on 57 of the 60 different roads regarding the finished surface of the converted road. A majority of the roads were untreated (36 of 57), followed closely by 14 reported instances of road surface stabilization (incorporated into part of the surface layer), and dust suppressant applications (surface only) on four roads, as shown in Figure B4. Only three respondents selected an asphalt emulsion. Additional comments for this question reflected different techniques used in the conversion process, stabilization pro- cedures, and efforts conducted to suppress dust. These com- ments are presented in Table B3. Q8 & Q15: Reasons for Converting from Paved to Unpaved The overwhelming response received from 57 respondents was that the cost of maintaining the road was the most significant reason (54 of 57) for converting a paved road to an unpaved road (Figure B5). Safety concerns fol- lowed closely behind (27 of 57 respondents), and one-third of respondents (19 of 57) indicated that public complaints were also a factor. A total of 16 respondents indicated that all three factors were reasons for converting a paved road to an unpaved surface. State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Iowa Woodbury County Seal coat placed for residential subdivisions lining a road. Seal coat is in poor condition and failing. Kansas Reno County Sand sealed roads are getting rough, we keep them sealed, and pothole patched and some crack sealing. They are at the end of their life cycle. Looking to reduce the total miles by 100–150. County Roads converted to un-paved would be reclassified and the maintenance transferred to the respective townships as local roads. Minnesota Clearwater CountyHighway Department 1 mile of a narrow gravel road was paved with bituminous surfacing for dust control due to a detour for an adjacent project. The pavement was under-designed but still lasted 10 years. It became unserviceable. Minnesota Freeborn County Subgrade is a peat bog with a flowing artesian spring. Minnesota Dodge CountyHighway Department This is a 3 mile road we are currently not patching. We are reclaiming it to gravel slowly as it deteriorates. Montana Musselshell CountyRoad Department Millings were laid out over gravel and not chip sealed. Nebraska Arthur County Complete rehab would have been needed. Utah Tooele County RoadDepartment Cold mix asphalt with a chip seal. TABLE B2 COMMENTS RECEIVED ABOUT ORIGINAL PAVEMENT TYPE AND CONDITION FIGURE B3 Average daily traffic (ADT) values for roads converted from paved to unpaved surface (n = 66). <20 (2) 21–50 (16) 51–100 (22) 100–150 (7) 150–200 (7) 200–300 (4) 300–500(7) 500–1000 (1)

48 Additional information regarding the reason(s) for con- verting roads was received from 14 respondents. Comments provided from these respondents are presented in Table B4 and vary from deteriorated condition of the road surface to prohibitive costs to changes in traffic (both increases and decreases). One comment received from Montpelier, Ver- mont, indicated that the road was converted at the request of area residents. Two comments indicated that environmental conditions—freeze/thaw and high water table—contributed to the conversion. Q9 & Q16: Additional Comments on the Road Conversion from Paved to Unpaved Described in the Previous Questions? An additional 15 comments were received from the 57 respon- dents who indicated they had converted or considered con- verting a road. These comments are presented in Table B5 and provide further insight into the conversion. Respondents commented on public reaction, the reason for the conversion, changes in traffic patterns, and the actual conversion process. Q10: Would You Like to Provide Information on Another Road Conversion from Paved to Unpaved, or Another Road Being Considered for Conversion? Of the 139 responses received, 12 additional road conver- sions were reported, for a total of 60 total road conversions reported in the survey. The 12 respondents provided the information that was summarized in the previous questions. However, one of the 12 affirmative respondents did not pro- vide any further information beyond Q10. No responses were received for questions 17 through 23 requesting data on a third road conversion. Untreated (36) Road Surface Stabilization (14) Dust Suppressant (4) Asphalt Emulsion (3) FIGURE B4 Finished surface type for unpaved road (n = 57). State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Alabama Franklin County Our unpaved roads primarily consist of a red clay/gravel mixture. When we unpaved a road we generally haul a thin layer of crushed limestone “crusher run.” California Yolo County Planning, Public Works, and Environmental Services Enzyme California Lake County Public Works Full depth reclamation (FDR) using Perma-zyme. Iowa Washington County Have not converted the road yet. It is an asphalt road that is in poor shape and one we are considering because of the cost to maintain/fix and the lower traffic volume. In addition, this road parallels a state road by approximately 0.5 mile for the entire length. Iowa Jefferson County RoadDepartment Also apply surface dust suppressant. Minnesota Freeborn County Class 2 limestone over Class 5 aggregate base with magnesium chloride stabilization. Nebraska Arthur County Added aggregate to pulverized asphalt. South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program Road was simply recycled, reshaped, re-compacted and a chip seal was placed on the surface. Texas Texas Department ofTransportation Crews applied an HFRS-2 emulsion on unsurfaced roadway for dust control. Vermont City of Montpelier Recycled asphalt/concrete/crushed gravel mix. TABLE B3 COMMENTS RECEIVED ABOUT “OTHER” FOR UNPAVED ROAD

49 16 27 19 54 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Cost, Complaints, and Safety (All Three) Safety Concerns Public Complaints Cost of Maintaining the Road FIGURE B5 Reasons cited for converting roads from paved to unpaved (57 responses were received, for which multiple options could be selected). TABLE B4 ADDITIONAL REASONS PROVIDED FOR CONVERTING A PAVED ROAD TO UNPAVED State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Alabama Franklin County All of the above are reasons for converting paved roads to unpaved roads. Iowa Linn County Change in traffic count and use. Iowa Buena Vista CountySecondary Roads Change in usage. Iowa Winneshiek County Road is shared with a city and city did not want to pay to repave the roadway. Kansas Reno County These roads are rural roads that carry predominately local traffic. As the county wants to maintain a high quality county road rural secondary system, we expect local roads to be maintained at a local quality. Expecting the traffic counts to reduce after they are unpaved and increase on the remaining paved roads. Minnesota Clearwater CountyHighway Department Would have overlaid the road, but it would have become too narrow. It was already too narrow. I considered converting another road one time, but did the math and a thin overlay was cheaper if the road held up for 10 years. It has been 15 years and road is still ok. Money ahead on that one. Montana Musselshell CountyRoad Department Condition beyond repair. Montana Musselshell CountyRoad Department Chip sealing is very expensive; we just do not have the funds to allow chip sealing to be done when necessary for smaller/shorter roads. Timing is always a problem when laying out millings. Nebraska Gosper County Road was damaged due to heavy rains and it cost too much to put back to asphalt. Nebraska Arthur County No Federal funds for rehab. North Dakota Stutsman CountyHighway Department All of the above are reasons for converting paved roads to unpaved roads. South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program Traffic volume did not justify re-constructing the pavement in a life- cycle cost analysis. South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program Cost of total reconstruction back to a pavement was prohibitive, but an asphalt surface needed to be placed once again. A seal was adequate. South Dakota Yankton CountyHighway Department Roadway surface faced heaving when coming out of the freeze/thaw cycle. South Dakota Edmunds County Due to the heavy truck traffic, the road fell apart. Costs were way too high to keep to a chip seal. South Dakota City of Alcester Road is soft/spongy. Vermont City of Montpelier One road by resident group request.

50 Q24: Were Documents, Guidelines, and/or Decision Tools Available to Make the Decision and Carry Out the Procedure of Converting from a Paved Road to an Unpaved Road? A total of 57 responses were received for this question with 12 respondents indicating that supplemental material was used in their decision making and/or conversion process. Conversely, 45 respondents did not use any supplemental materials. Q25a: If Yes, Please List the Documents and Resources Used and Upload if Possible. A total of 13 respondents provided information for this ques- tion, with one response originating from a respondent who indicated “No” to Q24. Responses are provided in Table B6. Notably, only one of the documents referenced, the Minne- sota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Decision Tree for Unpaving Roads, deals directly with the issue of converting paved to unpaved roads. Other tools used to make the decision to convert roads from paved to unpaved include traffic counts, geographic information system (GIS) or more basic tools that are used to prioritize route maintenance, the AASHTO Guide- lines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (the Green Book), and local citizen input. Q25b: If No, How Was Your Decision Made? Of the 43 additional comments received, 24 indicated that cost, economics, or budget constraints were a driving factor State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Alabama Franklin County The lack of revenue is the primary cause for the conversion and any other issues are the effects of the lack of funding. We would obviously prefer to keep these roads patched, but simply do not have the revenue to continue. Iowa Linn County Old primary road transferred to county with very little traffic with new primary relocation taking all traffic with it. Iowa Linn County Traffic count dropped to below our trigger of 200 vehicles per day to maintain seal coat surface Iowa Decatur County We have only converted chip seal roads back to gravel. Kansas Reno County 1,265 sq miles; 1 mile grid road system; of that we have 6-mile county paved road system. Can’t afford to provide this level of service for only 60,000 population. Kansas Montgomery CountyPublic Works The roads converted back to gravel were done in the 1980s. Minnesota Jackson County Importance of road was diminished with reconstruction of other roads serving the community. Minnesota Dodge CountyHighway Department This road is low traffic and parallels a paved road 1 mile away. It is too narrow to reasonably maintain as a paved surface. Montana Lake County Roads Department Reconstructed road received double-shot chip seal. Sand/gravel and concrete business contributed to premature failure of chip seal. Surface was ground and replaced for maintenance. Cost prohibitive to pave at this time. Nebraska Arthur County Road surface was ground and left in place as aggregate surface. North Dakota McIntosh County The road was full of potholes; we had it milled up and simply bladed it. Later we added some gravel. Mostly all public comment was positive. Oklahoma Sequoyah County We put 1½ crusher run over top of the chip/seal. South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program Public initially objected, but was happy after getting a good gravel surfaced road to drive on. South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program Public was happy and didn’t know it wasn’t repaved. South Dakota Yankton CountyHighway Department Roadway had drainage tile to alleviate groundwater from infiltrating roadbed. South Dakota McCook County Budget will not sustain the current number of asphalt miles into the future. South Dakota McCook County These 17 miles are planned to be reverted back to gravel when they reach the end of the useful life as an asphalt surface. South Dakota City of Alcester Conversion has not taken place at the time of this survey. TABLE B5 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE ROAD CONVERSION FROM PAVED TO UNPAVED

51 in the decision to unpave the road. Decisions to move for- ward with unpaving were often made by engineers, county commissioners, and/or road superintendents. Agencies relied on research materials and anecdotal data from other road main- tenance practitioners for information, with one respondent citing “trial and error” as a method for conversion. Further comments are included below in Table B7. Q26: Who Performed the Conversion from Paved to Unpaved Surface? A total of 56 responses were received for this question, with 24 responses indicating that the conversion was per- formed with agency personnel and equipment. Seventeen respondents indicated that the work was performed by a com- bination of agency and contractor personnel and equipment, whereas 10 respondents indicated that a contractor performed the work (Figure B6). A further five respondents selected the “other” option and provided further details. Three of the five “other” respondents indicated that they had yet to perform a conversion but were considering it. Another one hired a contractor by the hour, one utilized agency personnel with a rented reclaiming machine, and lastly, one agency responded with “deterioration.” Q27: Who or What Ultimately Makes the Decision Whether to Convert to Unpaved Roadways in Your Jurisdiction? A total of 54 responses were collected for this question, from respondents whose agencies had performed or were consid- ering a conversion. Of those 54 responses, 26 indicated that the County Commission was ultimately responsible for mak- ing the final decision regarding converting a paved road to unpaved. A county or supervisory board was indicated as being involved by 12 respondents. Often county boards and commissions worked on the advice and recommen- dation of an engineer (county, district, forest, staff, etc.) State or Province Agency/Organization Description of Documents Alabama Franklin County We have a very robust GIS system that we incorporate into our asset management system, “CarteGraph,” and pavement management system, “GeoTrans.” We rely on these tools to model our road system so that we can prioritize and make informed decisions. Algorithms within the software take into account factors such as surface condition, base condition, traffic volumes, number of residents, segment classification, repair costs, etc. California Yolo County Planning, Public Works, and Environmental Services Citizen complaints and constant maintenance. Iowa Linn County We use traffic count from traffic survey conducted by Iowa DOT every 4 years to set our seal coat surface policy. If road drops below 200 vehicles per day on our farm-to-market grid, we stop seal coating. Iowa Decatur County AASHTO Green Book, Very Low Volume Roads—used to establish finished section. Did not handle process of reclaiming. Kansas Reno County No. 11, yes but not many 2004 S. Dakota Study. I did not unpave any roads. I am interested in doing some. Minnesota Norman CountyHighway Department MnDOT Decision Tree for Unpaving Roads Minnesota Mahnomen County State Aid Operation 8820. North Dakota Ramsey County We held public meetings explaining that it would be cost prohibitive to keep maintaining the amount of asphalt roads we had in our system. At the same time we were asking the voters to add 10 mills to road maintenance to maintain the remaining asphalt roads and the voters voted to assess the extra 10 mills. North Dakota Wells County I did not work for the county then. South Dakota McCook County Traffic counts, road core information, and a basic grid designing a plan to have all residents within four miles of an asphalt road. South Dakota Brown County Highway Department General Internet research and industry reps. South Dakota Kingsbury County ADT study was done...Also a cost analysis on maintenance Vermont City of Montpelier Resident notice of city council meeting agenda–public hearing and Mill Rd follow-up survey. TABLE B6 DOCUMENTS USED IN THE CONVERSION PROCESS

52 TABLE B7 COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING HOW THE DECISION TO UNPAVE THE ROAD WAS MADE State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Alabama Butler CountyCommission This was the only cost-effective option. California Tehama County Condition, average daily traffic (ADT), area served, cost to maintain. California Lake County Public Works Due to budget constraints the road budget could no longer afford to patch this road, but did not have the budget to reconstruct. California United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Past experience and discussions with other road managers. Iowa Buena Vista CountySecondary Roads Approved by Board. Iowa Louisa County Roads Chip seal on road was in poor condition. Iowa Decatur County Discussion with other engineers, trial and error on what methodsprovided the best-finished surface. Iowa Jefferson County RoadDepartment Experiences of others with same predicament. Iowa Washington County It was a decision based on the economics to maintain the current condition of the road. Iowa Winneshiek County Road was left to deteriorate on its own. Iowa Woodbury County The residents are not willing to pay for a new seal coat application and are split on contributing to pay for paving, even with county assistance on cost. Kansas Montgomery CountyPublic Works Commissioners. Kansas Stafford County Verbal recommendation from the Supervisor. Michigan Montcalm County RoadCommission Looked at cost history, accident reports, and future funding levels. Minnesota St. Louis County Average daily traffic (ADT) was too low to warrant bituminous surface. Decided on Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) with stabilized base to increase strength below. Minnesota Jackson County By involving/educating County Board and City Council of why reverting road was necessary. Minnesota Mahnomen County Cost analysis Minnesota Freeborn County Necessity Minnesota Dodge CountyHighway Department Not enough traffic to justify the needed money. Montana Lake County Roads Department The cost to place 3 in. of asphalt pavement is $150,000, while the cost to grind and maintain the road as gravel is $1,500. Nebraska Arthur County Common sense and lack of funds. Nebraska Sheridan County Cost factor of oil versus gravel. Nebraska Phelps County Maintenance costs to upgrade pavement versus cost to change roadback to gravel/dirt surface. North Dakota North Dakota State University–Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute Cost analysis North Dakota Stutsman CountyHighway Department Decision made by former highway superintendent. We assume that the decision was made on the basis of repair costs. North Dakota Bowman County There were too many failures in the road to do anything else. North Dakota McIntosh County We didn’t have much choice; the road was in terrible shape. Ohio Coshocton CountyEngineer Engineering judgment and economics. Oklahoma Sequoyah County It had gotten to the point that it was costing too much to patch it, so we just covered up the chip/seal, thus leaving the base and not disturbing it. Ontario Town of Bracebridge Budget limitations. Investigation to determine if low traffic volume roads, with surface treatment in very bad condition, could be converted back to gravel at an affordable cost.

53 FIGURE B6 Entities responsible for performing the conversion work (n = 56). With agency personnel and equipment (24) Combination of agency and contractor personnel and equipment (17) By contract (10) Other (5) (15 of 54 respondents) or Highway Superintendent/ Manager (13 of 54 respondents). Other respondents noted financial motivation (6 of 54) and safety (2 of 54). All of the responses received are presented in Table B8 and summarized in Figure B7. Q28: What Materials Were Used? A total of 54 respondents provided information for this ques- tion. A majority of respondents (46 of 54) indicated that the old road surfacing was recycled into the unpaved road (Figure B8). Additionally, 34 respondents indicated that new gravel was trucked in to supplement the existing materials. Nearly one-quarter (13 of 54) responded that a chemical stabi- lizer or dust suppressant was used, and only two respondents indicated that the old road surface was removed and disposed of offsite. Over half the respondents (28 of 54) reported using TABLE B7 (continued) Oregon United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service It was made on the fact we could no longer afford to repair the Bituminous Surface Treatment Chip Seal and could not leave it in an unsafe condition. Oregon United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Safety concerns and couldn’t afford to maintain as a paved road. South Dakota City of Alcester Asphalt is broken up and only partially covering the road. South Dakota Miner County Highway Department Cost and complaints. South Dakota Potter County Highway Cost of rehabilitating and repaving. South Dakota Deuel County Explained to board the cost and showed the damage from springbreakups. Was an easy decision when traffic counts were so low. South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program In-house knowledge of existing base depth and quality, recycling, base reconstruction, priming and seal coating. South Dakota Day County HighwayDepartment Past and future costs to maintain as asphalt. South Dakota Yankton CountyHighway Department Roadway was crumbling and we decided to mill the road up to provide a safe means of travel to the public, we then covered the milled up asphalt with approximately 6 inches of gravel and treated the surface with an aggregate base stabilizer. South Dakota Edmunds County The condition of the road. Texas Texas Department ofTransportation District and Department Decision. State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Texas Texas Department ofTransportation Using expertise from research centers along with experience of staff engineers. Utah Tooele County RoadDepartment We have had a pavement inventory since 1988 we have a limited number of dollars to do road work with. We subscribe to the theory that you do your best roads first. When we were faced with a budget shortfall in 2012 and 2013, Tooele County prioritized our road funding. Faust Road, which had a low average daily traffic (ADT) and low remaining service life, became a candidate for turning it back to a gravel surface. There were two reasons: the main reason was for safety. The cars were traveling at 55 mph or faster and encountering potholes in the road. Estimated cost to reclaim the road was cheaper than rebuilding it.

54 TABLE B8 COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING WHO OR WHAT ULTIMATELY DECIDES TO UNPAVE A ROADWAY State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Alabama Butler CountyCommission County Engineer. Alabama Franklin County I make the decision (county engineer). However, I always inform the County Commission and move forward with their support. The decision is made based on the roadway condition index “RCI” for a segment and the cost for repair relative to the traffic count and number of residents. We also consider the functional classification of the segment (Dead-End, Through Road, Minor Collector, Major Collector, etc.); a cost/benefit analysis of sorts. California United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Road manager makes the decision based on road condition, cost, and safety concerns. California Yolo County Planning, Public Works, and Environmental Services Engineering staff. California Lake County Public Works The road commissioner makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. California Tehama County It would be a Board of Supervisors action at the recommendation ofthe Department of Public Works. Iowa Washington County The Board of Supervisors Iowa Linn County County Engineer with Board of Supervisor approval. Iowa Buena Vista CountySecondary Roads Board of Supervisors Iowa Winneshiek County Pavement maintenance was stopped by the County. Iowa Decatur County Board of Supervisors, with recommendations by County Engineer. Iowa Woodbury County County engineer in consultation with the county board of supervisors. Kansas Reno County Board of County Commissioners Kansas Stafford County The County Commissioners, but we have not done converted any roads in the last 7 years. Kansas Montgomery CountyPublic Works County Commissioners Michigan Montcalm County RoadCommission Safety and yearly costs drive the decision. Minnesota Clearwater CountyHighway Department Recommendation by the County Engineer with discussion and approval by the County Board. Minnesota Freeborn County Money Minnesota Jackson County County Board and Engineer work together to make fiscally restrained decision. Minnesota St. Louis County Budget combined with average daily traffic (ADT). Minnesota Dodge CountyHighway Department County Board Minnesota Mahnomen County The County Engineer makes the recommendation and the County Board of Commissioners make the decision. Montana Lake County Roads Department County Commissioners and the Road Superintendent Montana Musselshell CountyRoad Department County Commissioners and road supervisor Nebraska Sheridan County County Commissioners and the Road Superintendent Nebraska Gosper County Board of Commissioners Nebraska Phelps County Myself (Highway Superintendent) and the Board of Commissioners Nebraska Arthur County County Board

55 TABLE B8 (continued) North Dakota Stutsman CountyHighway Department County Commission North Dakota North Dakota State University —Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute County Board North Dakota Pembina County County Commissioners North Dakota Ramsey County The County Commission made the decision when they were told how much money it would take to bring the 35 miles back to a safe drivable condition. North Dakota Wells County Commissioners North Dakota Bowman County Superintendent North Dakota McIntosh County Board of County Commissioners Ohio Coshocton CountyEngineer I do, the County Engineer Oklahoma Sequoyah County The commissioner and the road foreman Ontario Town of Bracebridge Director’s decision Oregon United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Our District Land Manager and Forest Engineer Oregon United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Engineer and District Ranger South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program Recommendation by the highway department head, the final decisions made by the County Commission. State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments South Dakota Yankton CountyHighway Department Yankton County Commission South Dakota McCook County County Commission South Dakota Potter County Highway County Commission South Dakota Miner County Highway Department Highway Superintendent and Commissioners South Dakota Day County HighwayDepartment The Day County Commissioners with the input and recommendation of the Highway Superintendent. South Dakota Edmunds County County Commission South Dakota Deuel County County Commission South Dakota Brown County Highway Department Money South Dakota Kingsbury County The County Commission and the Highway Superintendent make the decision with the help of LTAP, state officials, and consulting engineers. South Dakota City of Alcester City Council Texas Texas Department ofTransportation District Engineer Texas Texas Department ofTransportation District Engineer and Agency Administration Utah Tooele County RoadDepartment County Commissioners Vermont City of Montpelier City Council

56 two or more of the materials in the conversion process. A combination of materials comprised of recycling the road surface, trucking in new material, and chemical stabilization was reported by 11 of the respondents. Only two respondents reported using a combination of all four materials. An additional six comments were received from respon- dents and are shown in Table B9. Two comments were received from agencies considering road conversions and reflect such. Other comments discussed the specific equip- ment used, dust suppression and stabilization measures, and what types of new materials were added prior to conversion. Q29: How Long Since the Conversion from Paved to Unpaved Surface Was Done? Over one-third (19) of the 52 respondents indicated that the conversion had occurred 5 or more years ago, whereas 2 46 34 13 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Removed the old surface and disposed of it off site Recycled the old surfacing into the unpaved road Trucked in new gravel to supplement existing materials Used a chemical stabilizer or dust suppressant FIGURE B8 Materials used in the conversion process (54 responses were received, for which multiple materials could be selected). County Commission(ers) (26) County Board (12) Engineer (15) Cost/Money (6) Safety (2) Highway Superintendent (13) City Council (2) FIGURE B7 Entities and factors that ultimately result in the decision to unpave a roadway (n = 54). TABLE B9 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT MATERIALS USED IN THE CONVERSION PROCESS State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Alabama Franklin County We use a full-depth road reclaimer to recycle the old surfacing and we haul crushed aggregate limestone. The limestone is sort of a transitional surface that softens the blow of losing pavement. Kansas Reno County We did not do any—just interested in doing some. Minnesota Dodge CountyHighway Department We are doing the conversion over time as the pavement deteriorates. Oregon United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Once the asphalt was mixed into roadbed, 4 in. of gravel was placed. South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program 0.5 gal of AE200S emulsion was injected and mixed into the upper three inches of the recycled layer to strengthen the recycled base. Utah Tooele County RoadDepartment We rented an asphalt reclaimer. When we reclaimed it then we sprayed magnesium chloride on the road as a dust palliative.

57 18 responded that the conversion had been performed within the last 2 to 4 years (Figure B9). Fifteen respondents indi- cated the conversion occurred in the last 2 years. Q30: Results of Conversion to Unpaved Surface Following the conversion to an unpaved surface, an over- whelming proportion of the 52 responses to this question indicated that the road was performing well (44 responses), that the conversion had saved money for the agency (43 responses), and that there were no documented increase in vehicle crashes (35 responses) (Figure B10). Respondents provided input on the reaction from road users: 26 of those responses were negative, and 19 were posi- tive. Less maintenance than was anticipated was reported by 20 respondents compared with the five who indicated the road required more maintenance. One respondent reported that the agency spent more money as a result of the conversion, and three respondents reported that the road was not performing well. No respondents indicated that there had been a docu- mented increase in vehicle crashes. Overall, 20 of the 52 total respondents indicated that their agency planned to convert more roads to unpaved in the future. A number of additional comments were received for this question and are provided in Table B10. Respondents indi- cated that residents have mixed opinions of the road after the conversion, with some appreciating the improved driv- ing surface and others disliking the dust. Comments suggest that with time, residents become more accepting of the new surface and the higher level of maintenance that agencies are able to provide after unpaving. Some respondents indicated that if low funding levels persist, it will cause the practice of conversion to continue and be more widespread. Q31: Were Any Agency Outreach Efforts Used to Justify and Explain the Decision to Convert Paved Roads to Unpaved Roads to the Public, External Stakeholders, Legislators, etc.? Responses regarding outreach efforts were nearly even, with 27 of the 53 total respondents indicating that some form of FIGURE B9 Length of time since conversion process was completed (n = 52). 1 year or less (7) 1 to 2 years (8) 2 to 4 years (18) 5 or more years (19) FIGURE B10 Results of the conversion process (from 52 responses). 44 3 43 1 35 0 19 26 20 5 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 The road is performing well The road is not performing well Saved money for the agency Spent more money No increase in documented vehicle crashes Increase in documented vehicle crashes Positive reaction from road users Negative reaction from road users Less maintenance than anticipated More maintenance than anticipated We plan to convert more roads to unpaved

58 outreach efforts were performed, and the remaining 26 respon- dents reporting that no outreach efforts were made. Q32a: If Yes, Please Explain the Outreach Efforts Made, the Intended Audience (Public, External Stakeholders, Legislators, etc.), if it Was Successful, What Worked and What Did Not, Would You Do it Again? Of 27 responses to previous question, 26 responses were received describing the types of outreach efforts performed. Among those, 11 responded that some sort of public meet- ing (including county commission) was held during which the conversion was discussed. Meetings with stakeholders and/or residents of the road were performed by seven of the respondents. Local media, such as news reports, radio shows, newspaper articles, and press releases were utilized by four of the respondents to publicize the conversion process. Two respondents indicated that their outreach efforts consisted of letters to residents, and another two responded that cost and budgets were utilized. One respondent indicated that the county had a policy posted on its website, whereas yet another respondent indicated that “long term education of the County Board and City Council” were the only outreach efforts per- formed. Many respondents indicated a combination of efforts, such as a public hearing and a press release or letters to resi- dents coupled with a newspaper article. Twenty-four respondents provided information describing the target of outreach efforts: 17 respondents indicated that the public was their main audience. Four respondents indi- cated information was targeted at residents along the road who State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Alabama Franklin County We’ve had both negative and positive reaction from the public. Accident analysis has not been an issue because the roads we mill up are very low volume dead end roads for the most part. I don’t know of any accidents that have occurred on any roads we have converted before or after the conversion. Iowa Linn County The county citizens select travel paths and our program prescribes our dust control and paving policy. Iowa Decatur County Some in the public are happy to have a uniform surface; most are unhappy that it is not paved and dust free anymore. Kansas Reno County Interested in the results. However, again in our case we would lower the classification of the road and required the townships to maintain it. Michigan Montcalm County RoadCommission If funding levels don’t increase we will have no other choice than revert more roads to granular surfaces Minnesota Freeborn County Did not check box that we are planning to unpave more. Currently are considering several alternatives such as added revenue and lightly surfaced roads in lieu of hard surfaced roads where heavy commercial average daily traffic (HCADT) is low enough Minnesota Dodge CountyHighway Department Conversion is ongoing. Montana Lake County Roads Department We will ultimately have to pave this road due to traffic and dust concerns. The high cost of asphalt is outpacing our budget. Montana Musselshell CountyRoad Department Residents now complain about dust. Right after road was recycled they did not complain about anything. North Dakota Ramsey County Road users had a negative reaction for the first couple of years but once they got used to the gravel conditions they were positive. The roads are much safer now. North Dakota McIntosh County We may have to convert more roads to unpaved due to lack offunding. Oregon United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service We may have to convert more roads to gravel as road maintenance funds decrease South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program As we gain experience, we are more confident in doing this work. South Dakota McCook County Some areas were too rich with asphalt and required extra effort tokeep from reverting back to an asphalt state. South Dakota Brown County Highway Department Users like it. People that live along them hate it. Utah Tooele County RoadDepartment The road is performing as expected. The cost of spraying with magnesium chloride is prohibitive so there will be more dust this year. TABLE B10 COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING RESULTS OF THE CONVERSION FROM PAVED TO UNPAVED

59 were affected, one additional response each mentioned other road users, including school officials, emergency responders, the trucking industry, and area residents. Legislators, rang- ing from local to state levels, were the target audience of five respondents, and one respondent indicated that voters were the main target of outreach efforts. Twenty-five responses were received describing whether outreach efforts regarding the conversion process were successful. Seventeen “yes” responses were received. The remaining eight responses indicated mixed reviews, includ- ing comments such as “somewhat,” “so-so,” and “partially” in describing the success of outreach efforts. No negative responses were received, indicating that all outreach efforts performed by agencies were, at a minimum, suc- cessful on some level, if not entirely. The following comments were received from respon- dents describing what outreach efforts they found most effective. Providing the public with information—being transparent—was the most often mentioned tactic. The full range of comments is provided in Table B11. A total of nine responses were received explaining what outreach efforts were unsuccessful during the conversion process. Comments reflect the difficulty agencies faced in relaying technical and funding information to the public as a means of justification in addition to general public dislike of the conversion. The full range of comments is provided in Table B12. Q32b: Would You Do it this Way Again? A total of 24 responses were received, with 22 of the respon- dents indicating they would choose to perform the conver- sion outreach the same way again. Two respondents indicated they would not perform the conversion outreach efforts in the same manner. Of the 22 positive responses received, one comment highlighted the need to keep the public informed of the process and the need to convert roads to unpaved surfaces. Q33: Has There Been Any Pressure to Repave the Road? A majority of the 54 respondents (30 of 54) indicated that there had been pressure to repave the road, whereas only 24 respondents indicated an absence of pressure to repave. Additional comments received for this question are shown in Table B13. Comments range from concerns regarding dust and rock chips to satisfied residents who appreciate the higher level of maintenance and improved driving surface. Many comments mention a lack of funding with regard to repaving. Q34: Have You Developed Methods to Improve Performance of Gravel Surfacing that Makes it More Cost-Effective or the Conversion Politically Acceptable? Of the 53 total responses received, over half (28 respon- dents) indicated that they had not developed methods. Of the 25 respondents who did indicate they had developed methods for improving performance, many mentioned dust control measures, the addition of supplemental materials to the road surface, and road base stabilization as successful techniques. Other comments discussed the actual conversion process and techniques that those agencies found particularly successful. A full account of all additional comments received for this question is provided in Table B14. Q35: May We Contact You for a Follow-up Interview Regarding Your Experience Converting Paved Roads to Unpaved Roads? A total of 57 responses were received for this question, with nearly 47 respondents indicating that they would be willing to participate in a follow-up interview and 10 respondents declining. Q36: Is There Anything Else You Would Like to Share Regarding Converting Paved Roads to Unpaved Roads? Supplemental materials/documents were provided by two respondents and consisted of an Aggregate Prioritization Plan Excel Workbook and a course presentation entitled “Alterna- tives to Paving.” Additional comments were provided from respondents, including those who had considered a conver- sion, converted roads, and had not converted roads. Com- ments received varied greatly but included helpful techniques for completing a conversion, discussion of funding issues and public reaction, expression of interest in the process or disbelief that it has been done, and discussion of the future prospect for many agencies of converting additional paved roads to gravel. A few comments expressed opposition to the conversion process, whereas others stated that it was inevi- table because of the current funding environment. Table B15 includes the additional comments received.

60 State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Alabama Butler CountyCommission Local news article. Alabama Franklin County Mostly through the local media outlets. Also one-on-one meetings with residents and legislators. Flooding the media is good, but face- to-face interaction is better. California Lake County Public Works Public hearing and making the public understand the road would reopen. Iowa Washington County Talked with stakeholders about why and the need for the change of road surface. Explaining the costs to maintain the current surface compared to the new surface. Iowa Linn County Policy and general information is posted on website. Iowa Woodbury County Letters to residents. Minnesota Jackson County Long-term planning and education of County Board and City Council as to why action needed to be taken. The actual reversion took place 10+ years after the first discussion. Minnesota Dodge CountyHighway Department Capital Improvement Plan Hearing Minnesota Mahnomen County Public Hearing at County Board meeting and being able to get factual information to the public. Nebraska Gosper County Cost of asphalt and budget. Nebraska Arthur County Public hearings and explaining cost issues. North Dakota North Dakota State University—Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute Public meetings and correcting misconceptions. North Dakota Ramsey County Held public meetings and radio interviews. Explaining what our intentions were and handing out sheets of projected costs to repair the roads. Oklahoma Sequoyah County Conversations with stakeholders and transparency. Ontario Town of Bracebridge Communication, meeting with ratepayers. Oregon United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Project scoping. South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program Public meetings & informal contact with residents, along with good cost and budget data to justify decisions. South Dakota McCook County Public input meetings and keeping the public informed. South Dakota Day County HighwayDepartment Commission meeting followed by actual use. South Dakota Brown County Highway Department Let the road get so bad there is no other option and then town meetings to facilitate public discussion. South Dakota Kingsbury County Public meeting with LTAP, state officials, and consulting engineering on hand to help answer questions. Texas Texas Department ofTransportation Press Releases, getting information out. Utah Tooele County RoadDepartment Informational meeting was held and people knew what was happening. Vermont City of Montpelier Letter and public hearing. TABLE B11 COMMENTS RECEIVED ABOUT SUCCESSFUL OUTREACH EFFORTS

61 TABLE B12 COMMENTS RECEIVED ABOUT UNSUCCESSFUL OUTREACH EFFORTS State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments California Lake County Public Works Public understanding of budget constraints. Iowa Linn County Individual discussion with adjacent owners. Minnesota Mahnomen County Local residents upset, thought they were getting unfair treatment. North Dakota North Dakota State University—Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute No examples to show public. North Dakota Ramsey County Should have worked with residents living on the routes more. South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program Trying to convey some technical data not understandable to public. South Dakota McCook County Public didn’t care for the ultimate decision. Texas Texas Department ofTransportation Justifying why it was done. Utah Tooele County RoadDepartment The people did not like what was happening. TABLE B13 COMMENTS REGARDING PRESSURE TO REPAVE THE ROAD State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Alabama Franklin County In some cases we have had pressure to repave the road. In some cases the residents are happy and understand that we can provide better maintenance if the road remains unpaved. California Lake County Public Works The road was closed due to severe deterioration, once converted to dirt the road was re-opened. Iowa Linn County Owners would like to have paving without cost. We provide equity with the traffic count approach. Iowa Winneshiek County Locals that live on the road only. Kansas Stafford County We put 2 miles for road back to asphalt because of the high truck volume Kansas Montgomery CountyPublic Works Home owners were told that the road would be re-asphalted in a couple of years. Minnesota Dodge CountyHighway Department No one wants to see their road go back to gravel but they have not come up with any funds. North Dakota Stutsman CountyHighway Department High Average Daily Vehicle Counts mandated repaving. Ohio Coshocton CountyEngineer Complaints about dust and gravel road. Oklahoma Sequoyah County Some of the residents have asked when we could do it and I explained that we must let it set up and then we must find the funding to do that. Ontario Town of Bracebridge Concern about stone chips on cars. Oregon United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Use is less than 20 average daily traffic (ADT). South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program No distress and road is performing well. No one is asking for paving. South Dakota Yankton CountyHighway Department Some people want pavement and others don’t seem to mind. South Dakota Miner County Highway Department Requests from locals to repave the road at first, but not anymore. Utah Tooele County RoadDepartment There is a water ski lake with several part-time residents that use the road to access their property and they don’t like hauling expensive boats on a gravel road.

TABLE B14 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING METHODS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Alabama Franklin County Adding a thin layer of Crushed Aggregate limestone really helps. Most of these roads were chip seals before the conversion so adding the crusher run leaves a white versus red look and is more acceptable. California Yolo County Planning, Public Works, and Environmental Services Working with outside parties to aid in the proper method used to convert paved to unpaved. Iowa Linn County Using a countywide policy and sticking with the program has worked. Iowa Jefferson County RoadDepartment Dust suppressant applied. Iowa Decatur County Use of a rotary reclaimer, addition of new aggregate, “re-cutting” road section, and cleaning of ditches helps to ease the transition to a gravel surface. Kansas Reno County If we unpaved roads, it would be my recommendation that the gravel surfacing would be standardized at a level exceeding existing township roads before we transferred the maintenance to them. Kansas Stafford County Capped the road with a clay type mix, which made it smoother and more driver-friendly. Michigan Montcalm County Road Commission Timely application of Chloride (26%). Grading only on days with excess moisture. Our grading success is on days that it is raining. Mud one day, hard surface the next. Minnesota Freeborn County Created a method, let’s call it the SKORSETH METHOD, to assess all our miles of gravel surfaced roads, cored 3 pts/mile in zig-zag pattern to determine average aggregate thickness. Set targets based on average daily traffic (ADT)/presumed heavy commercial average daily traffic (HCADT) and prioritized for additional aggregate base then aggregate surfacing (class 2 & MgCl2) if average daily traffic (ADT) was less than 100. Also began working with aggregate producers on quality of aggregates and altering our spec to find a better surface versus base aggregate. Minnesota Jackson County In Jackson County we have extensive experience with Wind Farm projects stabilizing gravel roads with cement and fly ash. I see that reverting roads with some type of full depth reclamation (FDR) as a solution that can work. South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program Used a modified surface gravel specification to get a better-bound surface to reduce blade maintenance and reduced loose aggregate on surface, which brings complaints. South Dakota Yankton CountyHighway Department We treat the surface with a base stabilizer and apply a topical dust control agent. South Dakota McCook County Added clay to tighten up the surface resulting in more dust. Public preferred the dust rather than a loose surface with the asphalt/gravel blend. South Dakota Potter County Highway Proper maintenance and gravel of proper specification. South Dakota Day County HighwayDepartment Good quality surface gravel. South Dakota Deuel County The old blotter mixed with the gravel appears to help with dust and also makes a strong surface. South Dakota Brown County Highway Department Occasional dust proofing, reclamation. South Dakota Kingsbury County By use gravel stabilization and adding more gravel to the base. Alsoby proper watering and rolling of the material while being placed. Utah Tooele County RoadDepartment We would like to see what other jurisdictions are doing. Nebraska Sheridan County Bringing a better gravel to place on top. We try using more dust free material. Nebraska Arthur County Addition of crushed concrete. North Dakota Ramsey County We do apply dust suppressant in front of [residences] along the routes at a minimal cost share to the resident. North Dakota Bowman County Dust control. Oklahoma Sequoyah County Occasionally we oil the surface to hold down the dust. Ontario Town of Bracebridge Addition of magnesium chloride.

63 (continued on next page) State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Agencies that have NOT converted paved roads to unpaved Alberta Rocky View County We have converted old, oiled surfaces back to gravel over the past 3 years with positive results. This allows Rockyview to maintain these roads to a higher standard than with the oil treated surface Kansas Scotwood IndustriesInc. We deal with end users and help educate them on best practices for maintaining gravel roads and sell chlorides to complete road projects. Colorado FHWA, Office ofFederal Lands Highway While technically not an un-paving event, we did construct on Guanella Pass, Colorado, an initial unpaved section on a Forest Service access road up to an outfitter’s ranch to convey a “rustic and wilderness” feel. Then from his place on up the road into the forest we installed hot mix asphalt (HMA). This was due to a commitment in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Iowa Pottawattamie CountySecondary Roads We’ve recycled a paved road into a rolled stone base with a thin overlay. So while we didn’t exactly un-pave it, we did find a more politically tolerable solution in the middle of paving or un-paving. Iowa Hamilton County All of our paved roads are full depth hot mix asphalt (HMA) or Portland Cement (PC) Paving and it would be unrealistic to consider converting these routes to unpaved roads considering the traffic and demand for these roads. It is more conceivable to believe there will be additional miles of paving as agricultural and industrial businesses develop in the rural area. Iowa Union County We are approaching the end of the useful life of a few paved routes and the choices may be converting to gravel or bonding for reconstruction. Iowa Pocahontas CountyEngineer’s Office Conversion would only happen when a road needed rehab and there was no money. The roads that might be candidates are the ones that are not being beaten apart. Therefore, it will be a long time before they need rehab. Iowa Keokuk County I brought this idea up regarding a rural paved road, with less than 200 average daily traffic (ADT), and my Board of Supervisors were not in favor of it due to anticipated public opposition. Iowa Mahaska County Secondary Roads Our road use funds and local taxes only pay for the partial maintenance of the existing roads in the county. Required pavement maintenance and repair has been not affordable in the past several years due to lack of adequate financing to perform the tasks. Minnesota Lac qui Parle CountyHighway Department Current funding is not sustainable. Minnesota Beltrami County We have done a Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) on a deteriorated paved road and surfaced it with only a double chip seal. The road users believe this is no longer a paved road. Montana LVR Consultants LLC I have some experience with counties that have converted paved to unpaved roads. Nebraska City of Lincoln Can’t imagine why you’d want to unless the condition of the paved road is worse than a gravel road. Nebraska Howard County Roads Howard County does not have any paved county roads. All the roads maintained by the county are gravel. New York Tioga County The towns in the County may be looking at converting. New York Yates County Not going to happen here as long as I am the highway superintendent. New York Rockland CountyHighway Department Our population would not tolerate that. New York Wyoming CountyHighway While it is significantly less cost to have gravel roads vs. paved, the level of service in a climate that has freeze/thaw cycles is very poor. TABLE B15 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED

64 Oklahoma Tulsa County Once a road is paved, it is hard to get the public to accept changingit back to unpaved. Quebec FPInnovations I have not heard of any paved roads or even chip seal (thin surface treatments) that have been converted to unpaved surfaces in Canada. South Dakota Union County PublicWorks Department Negative reaction from constituents; don’t like to return to dust conditions and rock chips in windshields. South Dakota Minnehaha County We have yet to do any conversions. However, we will inevitably face this challenge in the coming years. Looking forward to the results of this survey. Agencies that are CONSIDERING converting a paved road to unpaved California Tehama County The action is being considered; however no proposal has beenbrought forward as of this date. Kansas Reno County I am very interested in this process. Minnesota Dodge County Highway Department Some of these roads should never have been paved. Agencies that HAVE CONVERTED a paved road to unpaved Iowa Decatur County We reclaim chip seals as they are not possible to maintain due to short life cycle and cost. Short of adding miles of hard pavements (portland cement or asphalt concrete), we are only left with one option. We do not have the funding to pave new miles of hard surfaced roads, even with the new fuel tax increase. Michigan Montcalm County Road Commission We have found no cure-all application. The most cost-effective process for Montcalm County is 4,000 gal per mile of 26% Chloride every 21 days. The cost for that product is $550.00 per mile. Minnesota Norman CountyHighway Department We have yet to convert any paved roads to unpaved roads, but are starting the process. Minnesota Freeborn County Mr. Skorseth has been a tremendous supporter! North Dakota North Dakota State University—Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute We are in the process in developing a web-based surface selection tool which uses all life-cycle costs to determine which surface treatments are most cost-effective for various average daily traffic (ADT) values. North Dakota McIntosh County I think it would have been wise to add the right gravel before milling and mix in a soil stabilizer, water it and roll it, but those things were not available to us. State or Province Agency/Organization Additional Comments Ontario Town of Bracebridge Proposing to add an additional 0.7 mi of converted road to the system in 2015. South Dakota South Dakota Local Transportation Assistance Program Provided a document that may be useful to others. South Dakota Day County HighwayDepartment Once completed, do not reduce the normal maintenance. Extra care to gravel depth and integrity. South Dakota Deuel County Thin blotters are easy to convert by using just a scarifier, a sheepsfoot, and water. Compaction is tight. South Dakota Kingsbury County As you may already realize, local roads that were built in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and even early 90s were not built for the traffic that is on the local road system that we are experiencing today. The base of these roads is not adequate to sustain the heavier farm equipment or the semi traffic that they use to haul grain (farm to market). Hence the blotter or emulsion treated roads are failing drastically. Utah Tooele County RoadDepartment Since 2013 Tooele County has instituted a Municipal Service Fee for the unincorporated county. The State of Utah just raised the gas tax and has given Counties the option to institute a local gas tax. Vermont City of Montpelier Importance of low traffic volume, open drainage systems, flat to moderately steep grade. TABLE B15 (continued)