1 MnDOT County Roadway Safety Plans Review Meeting #1 - ATP 2 June 25, 2012

Agenda Introductions Data Overview State & ATP Level County level Safety Emphasis Areas Safety Strategies Workshop Logistics Date, location Sample agenda, invitation, invite list Safety Strategies 2 6/25/2012

Project Approach – Phase III 3 Crash Analysis Select Safety Emphasis Areas Identify Short List of Critical Strategies Identify Safety Projects Safety Workshop Develop Comprehensive List of Safety Strategies Project Programming Project Development Implementation Evaluation Refinement & Update SHSP Safety Plan April 2012July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 Oct 2012 January 2013 Sept 2012 Review Mtg w/ Counties Kick-off Video Meeting Nov 2012 June /25/2012

4 Legend 10/yr (50 total) - Severe crashes on any jurisdiction 4/yr (20 total) - Severe crashes on CSAH/CR MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe = K (fatal) + A (life-changing injury) ATP 2 Severe Crash Numbers 3/yr (17) 2/yr (10) 5/yr (26) 2/yr (11) 14/yr (73) 6/yr (32) 8/yr (42) 4/yr (20) 1/yr (8) 1/yr (4) 4/yr (21) 1/yr (8) 15/yr (76) 6/yr (31) 1/yr (5) 1/yr (4) 3/yr (16) 1/yr (4) 2/yr (14) 2/yr (11) 1/yr (3) 6/25/2012

ATP 2 – Safety Emphasis Areas 5 DPS Crash Data Records, 2006 to 2010 Top 5 Emphasis Areas by Jurisdiction Note: Numbers are not additive, as one crash may involve a young driver at an intersection. The numbers represent severe crashes (Fatal and A-type Injury crashes) 6/25/2012

Greater Minnesota Crash Data Overview 5 Year Crashes 156,182 4,902 5 Year Crashes 156,182 4,902 State System 70,808 – 45% 2,000 – 41% State System 70,808 – 45% 2,000 – 41% CSAH/CR 36,716 – 24% 1,963 – 40% CSAH/CR 36,716 – 24% 1,963 – 40% Rural 22,630 – 62% 1,626 – 83% Rural 22,630 – 62% 1,626 – 83% Urban 14,086 – 38% 337 – 17% Urban 14,086 – 38% 337 – 17% All Way Stop 445 – 6% 5 – 3% All Way Stop 445 – 6% 5 – 3% Run off Road 7,891 – 67% 675 – 65% Run off Road 7,891 – 67% 675 – 65% On Curve 3,222 – 40% 339 – 50% On Curve 3,222 – 40% 339 – 50% Example All – % Severe – % Example All – % Severe – % Right Angle – 1,268 (47%), 37 (86%) “Other” – 252 (9%), 9 (21%) Left Turn – 268 (10%), 4 (9%) Rear End – 333 (12%), 3 (7%) Right Angle – 1,268 (47%), 37 (86%) “Other” – 252 (9%), 9 (21%) Left Turn – 268 (10%), 4 (9%) Rear End – 333 (12%), 3 (7%) Thru-Stop 2,697 – 37% 65 – 45% Thru-Stop 2,697 – 37% 65 – 45% Right Angle – 633 (27%), 15 (47%) Rear End – 799 (35%), 5 (16%) Left Turn – 375 (16%), 5 (16%) Head On – 100 (4%), 4 (13%) Right Angle – 633 (27%), 15 (47%) Rear End – 799 (35%), 5 (16%) Left Turn – 375 (16%), 5 (16%) Head On – 100 (4%), 4 (13%) Signalized 2,308 – 31% 32 – 22% Signalized 2,308 – 31% 32 – 22% Inters-Related 5,487 – 29% 463 – 30% Inters-Related 5,487 – 29% 463 – 30% Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). City, Twnshp, Other 48,658 – 31% 939 – 19% City, Twnshp, Other 48,658 – 31% 939 – 19% Inters-Related 7,332 – 52% 145 – 43% Inters-Related 7,332 – 52% 145 – 43% Not Inters-Related 5,177 – 37% 175 – 52% Not Inters-Related 5,177 – 37% 175 – 52% Run Off Road – 1,202 (23%), 69 (39%) Head On – 366 (7%), 27 (15%) “Other” – 540 (10%), 25 (14%) Rear End – 1,336 (26%), 17 (10%) Run Off Road – 1,202 (23%), 69 (39%) Head On – 366 (7%), 27 (15%) “Other” – 540 (10%), 25 (14%) Rear End – 1,336 (26%), 17 (10%) Animal 4,009 – 18% 60 – 4% Animal 4,009 – 18% 60 – 4% Not Inters-Related 11,849 – 64% 1,042 –66% Not Inters-Related 11,849 – 64% 1,042 –66% Head On, SS Opp. 751 – 6% 132 – 13% Head On, SS Opp. 751 – 6% 132 – 13% On Curve 247 – 33% 46 – 35% On Curve 247 – 33% 46 – 35% Unknown/Other 1,577 – 11% 17 – 5% Unknown/Other 1,577 – 11% 17 – 5% Unknown/Other 1,276 – 7% 61 – 4% Unknown/Other 1,276 – 7% 61 – 4% Other/Unknown 1,881 – 26% 43 – 30% Other/Unknown 1,881 – 26% 43 – 30% Right Angle – 849 (34%), 122 (56%) “Other” – 464 (18%), 33 (15%) Run Off Road – 342 (14%), 21 (10%) Left Turn – 184 (7%), 10 (5%) Right Angle – 849 (34%), 122 (56%) “Other” – 464 (18%), 33 (15%) Run Off Road – 342 (14%), 21 (10%) Left Turn – 184 (7%), 10 (5%) Thru-Stop 2,511 – 46% 216 – 47% Thru-Stop 2,511 – 46% 216 – 47% Run Off Road – 999 (38%), 95 (42%) Right Angle – 268 (10%), 39 (17%) “Other” – 303 (12%), 29 (13%) Head On – 112 (4%), 21 (9%) Run Off Road – 999 (38%), 95 (42%) Right Angle – 268 (10%), 39 (17%) “Other” – 303 (12%), 29 (13%) Head On – 112 (4%), 21 (9%) Other/Unknown 2,600 – 47% 228 – 49% Other/Unknown 2,600 – 47% 228 – 49% Not Animal 18,616 – 82% 1,566 – 96% Not Animal 18,616 – 82% 1,566 – 96% All Way Stop 164 – 3% 15 – 3% All Way Stop 164 – 3% 15 – 3% Signalized 209 – 4% 4 – 1% Signalized 209 – 4% 4 – 1% -ATP’s 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 – NO Metro 6 6/25/2012

ATP 2 Crash Data Overview 7 Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). 5 Year Crashes ATP 2 7, Year Crashes ATP 2 7, State System 3,761 – 53% 128 – 43% State System 3,761 – 53% 128 – 43% CSAH/CR 1,571 – 22% 136 – 46% CSAH/CR 1,571 – 22% 136 – 46% Rural 1,245 – 79% 127 – 93% Rural 1,245 – 79% 127 – 93% Urban 326 – 21% 9 – 7% Urban 326 – 21% 9 – 7% All Way Stop 2 – 2% 0 – 0% All Way Stop 2 – 2% 0 – 0% Run off Road 414 – 64% 45 – 62% Run off Road 414 – 64% 45 – 62% On Curve 134 – 32% 18 – 40% On Curve 134 – 32% 18 – 40% Example All – % Severe – % Example All – % Severe – % Right Angle – 36 (47%), 1 (50%) “Other” – 9 (12%), 1 (50%) Rear End – 7 (9%), 0 (0%) Left Turn – 6 (8%), 0 (0%) Right Angle – 36 (47%), 1 (50%) “Other” – 9 (12%), 1 (50%) Rear End – 7 (9%), 0 (0%) Left Turn – 6 (8%), 0 (0%) Thru-Stop 76 – 59% 2 – 100% Thru-Stop 76 – 59% 2 – 100% Rear End – 12 (28%), 0 (0%) Right Angle – 9 (21%), 0 (0%) Run Off Road – 8 (19%), 0 (0%) Left Turn – 4 (9%), 0 (0%) Rear End – 12 (28%), 0 (0%) Right Angle – 9 (21%), 0 (0%) Run Off Road – 8 (19%), 0 (0%) Left Turn – 4 (9%), 0 (0%) Signalized 8 – 6% 0 – 0% Signalized 8 – 6% 0 – 0% Inters-Related 292 – 27% 38 – 31% Inters-Related 292 – 27% 38 – 31% City, Twnshp, Other 1,740 – 25% 31 – 11% City, Twnshp, Other 1,740 – 25% 31 – 11% Inters-Related 129 – 40% 2 – 25% Inters-Related 129 – 40% 2 – 25% Not Inters-Related 117 – 36% 5 – 62% Not Inters-Related 117 – 36% 5 – 62% Run Off Road – 34 (29%), 3 (60%) Rear End – 29 (25%), 1 (20%) SS Opp. – 7 (6%), 1 (20%) Right Angle – 11 (9%), 0 (0%) Run Off Road – 34 (29%), 3 (60%) Rear End – 29 (25%), 1 (20%) SS Opp. – 7 (6%), 1 (20%) Right Angle – 11 (9%), 0 (0%) Animal 181 – 15% 6 – 5% Animal 181 – 15% 6 – 5% Not Inters-Related 644 – 61% 73 – 60% Not Inters-Related 644 – 61% 73 – 60% Head On, SS Opp 45 – 7% 11 – 15% Head On, SS Opp 45 – 7% 11 – 15% On Curve 11 – 24% 3 – 27% On Curve 11 – 24% 3 – 27% Unknown/Other 78 – 24% 1 – 13% Unknown/Other 78 – 24% 1 – 13% Unknown/Other 128 – 12% 10 – 8% Unknown/Other 128 – 12% 10 – 8% Other/Unknown 43 – 33% 0 – 0% Other/Unknown 43 – 33% 0 – 0% Right Angle – 43 (30%), 15 (56%) “Other” – 37 (26%), 8 (30%) Rear End – 16 (11%), 1 (4%) Right Angle – 43 (30%), 15 (56%) “Other” – 37 (26%), 8 (30%) Rear End – 16 (11%), 1 (4%) Thru-Stop 141 – 48% 27 – 71% Thru-Stop 141 – 48% 27 – 71% Run Off Road – 46 (33%), 5 (45%) Head On/SS Opp – 9 (6%), 2 (18%) Right Angle – 9 (6%), 2 (18%) Rear End – 20 (14%), 0 (0%) Run Off Road – 46 (33%), 5 (45%) Head On/SS Opp – 9 (6%), 2 (18%) Right Angle – 9 (6%), 2 (18%) Rear End – 20 (14%), 0 (0%) Other/Unknown 141 – 48% 11 – 29% Other/Unknown 141 – 48% 11 – 29% Not Animal 1,064 – 85% 121 – 95% Not Animal 1,064 – 85% 121 – 95% All Way Stop 4 – 1% 0 – 0% All Way Stop 4 – 1% 0 – 0% Signalized 6 – 2% 0 – 0% Signalized 6 – 2% 0 – 0% Ped/Bike 2 – 1% 1 – 12% Ped/Bike 2 – 1% 1 – 12% Non Ped/Bike 324 – 99% 8 – 88% Non Ped/Bike 324 – 99% 8 – 88% 6/25/2012

Data Gathering Thank you for responding to Ann’s request for information. 8 ATP 2 Received Feedback on Segments and Intersections Beltrami Clearwater Hubbard Kittson Lake of the Woods Marshall Norman Pennington Polk Red Lake Information as of 6/13/2012 6/25/2012

Workshop Schedule 9 ATP 2 Workshops CountyCounty EngineerConsultantJuly 16July 26July 31 Group 2A RoseauBrian KetringCH2MHill X MnDOT/Pennington County Offices th Ave. NE Thief River Falls, MN KittsonKelly BengtsonCH2MHill MarshallLon AuneSRF PenningtonMichael FlaagenCH2MHill Group 2B NormanMilton AlmSRF U of M Crookston – Youngquist Hall (Lunch in Brown Hall) X PolkRich SandersSRF Red LakeCourtney KlevenCH2MHill Group 2C BeltramiBruce HasbargenCH2MHill Northwest Technical College (218) Grant Ave SE Bemidji, MN X ClearwaterDan SauveCH2MHill HubbardDavid OlsonawskiSRF Lk of the WoodsTim EricksonSRF Coordinator 6/25/2012

Safety Workshop Objective: Multidisciplinary discussion of a short list of safety strategies (Note: there is no discussion of specific locations.) Agenda 8:30 – Coffee and Registration 9AM – Introductions Presentations – Law Enforcement and/or Local Safety Advocates Background Information/Desired Outcomes Breakout Sessions – Prioritize Strategies 12PM – 1PM - Lunch Report Back/Final Presentation 2:45 – 3PM - Wrap-up 10 6/25/2012

Safety Workshop – County Assignments June Group Coordinator - Secure Location and Caterer people $12/person (“all in” including delivery, tax and tip) Send invites (examples have been provided) July Group Coordinator - Confirm final headcount (10 days prior to workshop) Group Coordinator - Carla Stueve (SRF) Confirm Audio-visual availability for the workshop 11 6/25/2012

12 Safety Workshop Sample List of Attendees: Law Enforcement State patrol, sheriffs and police chiefs EMS Providers Ambulance, first responders and emergency room staff Politicians County board members, city council members, state representatives Local Agency Staff County engineers, city engineers, county health representatives Tribal Representatives Safe Communities Folks Judges and Attorneys Advocacy Groups MADD, AARP, Bicycle, Safe Routes to School MnDOT Staff 6/25/2012

Safety Strategies Overview NCHRP Report 500 A series of guides to assist state and local agencies in reducing injuries and fatalities in targeted emphasis areas The guides correspond to the emphasis areas outlined in the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Each guide includes a brief introduction, a general description of the problem, the strategies/ countermeasures to address the problem, and a model implementation process. 13 6/25/2012

EMS Strategies Screening - Initial Strategies 14 Enforcement Strategies Education Strategies Intersections 30 Strategies Engineering Strategies Workshop’s Critical Strategies AASHTO’s SHSP, NCHRP Report 500 Implementation Guidelines, and input from Safety Partners. The strategies will be screened using: - Crash data, - Effectiveness, - Cost, and - Input from Safety Workshop. The selected Critical Strategies should have the greatest potential to significantly reduce the number of traffic fatalities in your County. Seat Belts 3 Strategies Young Drivers 2 Strategies Alcohol/Drug 9 Strategies Road Departure 8 Strategies 6/25/2012

List of Road Departure Strategies 15 ObjectivesStrategies Relative Cost to Implement and Operate Effectiveness Typical Timeframe for Implementation 15.1 A -- Keep vehicles from encroaching on the roadside 15.1 A1 -- Provide enhanced shoulder or delineation and marking for sharp curves LowTried / ProvenShort 15.1 A2 -- Provide enhanced pavement markings (Embedded Wet Reflective Markings) LowTriedShort 15.1 A3 -- Provide skid-resistance pavement surfacesModerateProvenMedium 15.1 A4 -- Apply shoulder treatments -- Eliminate shoulder drop-offs, Shoulder wedge, Widen and/or pave shoulders Low Experimental/ Proven Medium 15.1 B -- Minimize the likelihood of crashing into an object or overturning if the vehicle travels off the shoulder 15.1 B1 -- Design safer slopes and ditches to prevent rollovers ModerateProvenMedium 15.1 B2 -- Remove/relocate objects in hazardous locationsModerate to HighProvenMedium 15.1 C -- Reduce the severity of the crash 15.1 C1 -- Review design of roadside hardwareModerate to HighTriedMedium 15.1 C2 -- Upgrade design and application of barrier and attenuation systems Moderate to HighTriedMedium Source: NCHRP 500 Series CostTimeframe Low (<$10,000/mile)Short (<1 year) Moderate ($10,000-$100,000/mile)Medium (1-2 years) High (>$100,000/mile)Long (>2 years) 6/25/2012

Example – Typical Run-Off Road Strategies 16 6/25/2012

List of Unsignalized Intersection Strategies 17 ObjectivesStrategies Relative Cost to Implement and Operate Effectiveness Typical Timeframe for Implementation 17.1 A -- Reduce the frequency and severity of intersection conflicts through geometric design improvements 17.1 A1 -- Restrict or eliminate turning maneuvers by providing channelization or closing median openings LowTriedShort 17.1 A2 -- Realign intersection approaches to reduce or eliminate intersection skew HighProvenMedium 17.1 B -- Improve sight distance at unsignalized intersections 17.1 B1 -- Clear sight triangle on stop- or yield-controlled approaches to intersections and/or medians of divided highways LowTriedShort 17.1 B2 -- Change horizontal and/or vertical alignment of approaches to provide more sight distance HighTriedLong 17.1 B3 -- Eliminate parking that restricts sight distanceLowTriedShort 17.1 C -- Improve availability of gaps in traffic and assist drivers in judging gap sizes at unsignalized intersections 17.1 C1 -- Provide an automated real-time system to inform drivers of suitability of available gaps for making turning and crossing maneuvers ModerateExperimentalMedium 17.1 D -- Improve driver awareness of intersections as viewed from the intersection approach 17.1 D1 -- Improve visibility of intersections by providing enhanced signing and delineation LowTriedShort 17.1 D2 -- Improve visibility of intersections by providing lightingModerate to HighProvenMedium 17.1 D3 -- Install splitter islands on the minor-road approach to an intersection ModerateTriedMedium 17.1 D4 -- Provide a stop bar (or provide a wider stop bar) on minor-road approaches LowTriedShort 17.1 D5 -- Install larger regulatory and warning signs at intersectionsLowTriedShort 17.1 D6 -- Provide pavement markings with supplementary messages, such as STOP AHEAD LowTriedShort 17.1 D7 -- Install flashing beacons at stop-controlled intersectionsLowTriedShort **17.1 D8 -- Add Dynamic Warning SignsModerateTriedShort 17.1 E -- Choose appropriate intersection traffic control to minimize crash frequency and severity 17.1 E1 -- Provide all-way stop control at appropriate intersectionsLowProvenShort 17.1 E2 -- Provide roundabouts at appropriate locationsHighProvenLong 17.1 F -- Improve driver compliance with traffic control devices and traffic laws at intersections 17.1 F1 -- Provide targeted enforcement to reduce stop sign violationsModerateTriedShort 17.1 F2 -- Provide targeted public information and education on safety problems at specific intersections LowTriedShort 17.1 G -- Enforce posted speeds on specific intersection approaches 17.1 G1 -- Provide targeted speed enforcementModerateProvenShort 17.1 G2 -- Post appropriate speed limit on intersection approachesLowTriedShort 6/25/2012

Example – Typical Intersection Strategies 18 Included Strategies: Change Intersection Type ImproveSightDistance Enhanced Signing and Delineation StreetLighting DynamicWarningSigns Indirect Turns 6/25/2012

List of Young Driver Strategies 19 ObjectivesStrategiesEffectiveness*Programs and Tactics*Impact 1.1B Publicize, enforce, and adjudicate laws pertaining to young drivers 1B -- Publicize and conduct a high visibility enforcement GDL restrictions, underage drinking and driving and seatbelt laws Proven Publicizing is best done through community events for the local media and a public education campaign in the community about the enforcement. High visibility enforcement is when multiple jurisdictions and/or multiple squads are out at the same time patrolling in brightly colored vests and signage about the enforcement. High 1.1C Assist parents in managing their teens' driving 1C.1-- Engage parents through outreach programs designed to educate parents about driving tips for their teens, facilitate parental supervision and management of young drivers, encourage selection of safety vehicles for young drivers. Tried Medium 6/25/2012

List of Unbelted Vehicle Occupant Strategies 20 ObjectivesStrategiesEffectiveness*Programs and Tactics*Impact 8.1 A- Maximize use of occupant restraints by all vehicle occupants *8.1 A1- Conduct highly publicized enforcement campaigns to maximize restraint use. Specifically, night time belt enforcement saturation. Proven Publicizing is best done through community events for the local media and a public education campaign in the community about the enforcement. High visibility enforcement is when multiple jurisdictions and/or multiple squads are out at the same time patrolling in brightly colored vests and signage about the enforcement. Methods for night time enforcement include having multi-agency and multiple squad cars in well lit areas where slow moving vehicles are passing and conducting for a limited time slot. High 8.1 B- Insure that restraints, especially child and infant restraints, are properly used 8.1 B2- Conduct high-profile “child restraint inspection” events at multiple community locations. Proven Low 8.1 B3- Train advocates to check for proper child restraint use. Tried Low Strategies from the NCHRP 500 * denotes revisions by MN Office of Traffic Safety 6/25/2012

List of Impaired Driving Strategies 21 ObjectivesStrategiesEffectiveness*Programs and Tactics*Impact *5.1 A-Eliminate Drinking and Driving 5.1 A2-Require Responsible Beverage Service Policies for Alcohol Servers and Retailers Proven Advocate for Server Training and strong management support Medium 5.1 A4-Employ Screening and Brief Interventions Tried These do not need to be in health care settings. A screening and brief intervention could be very effective after a DWI arrest (traumatic event) Medium *5.1 A5- Support Community Programs for Alternative Transportation Tried Safe Cab is a partnership between beer distributors, bar owners and community program in Isanti County. Medium 5.1 B-Enforce DWI Laws *5.1 B1-Conduct Regular Well-Publicized DWI Saturations Proven A Saturation is a multi-agency, multi-squad car enforcement effort. These agencies and cars enforce the same community or roadway with the number of squad cars proportionate to the community size. High *5.1 B3-Conduct education and awareness campaign of the targeted enforcement of Zero Tolerance Laws for Drivers Under Age 21 Proven Publicizing is best done through community events for the local media and a public education campaign in the community about the enforcement. High visibility enforcement is when multiple jurisdictions and/or multiple squads are out at the same time patrolling in brightly colored vests and signage about the enforcement. Low 5.1 C-Prosecute, Impose Sanctions on, and Treat DWI Offenders 5.1 C1-Suspend Driver's License Administratively Upon Arrest Proven Minnesota revokes driving privileges 7 days after alcohol test failure of 0.08 or above or test refusal. High 5.1 C3—Eliminate Diversion Programs and Plea Bargains Tried High 5.1 D—Control High-BAC and Repeat Offenders 5.1 D2—Require Ignition Interlocks as a Condition for License Reinstatement ProvenGovernor proposed legislation in Jan 2010.High 5.1 D3—Monitor Convicted DWI Offenders Closely ProvenDWI courts or Intensive Supervision ProgramsLow Strategies from the NCHRP 500 * denotes revisions by MN Office of Traffic Safety 6/25/2012

22 InfrastructurePhase IPhase IIPhase III Install Shoulder Treatments (Rumble Strips, Pavement Marking, Pave Shoulders, etc) Enhanced Shoulder or Delineation on Curves Street Lights Red Light Confirmation Light95-48 Enhanced Signing and Marking-2331 Driver BehaviorPhase IPhase IIPhase III Seat Belt Enforcement Campaigns GDL Enforcement Campaigns Conduct DWI Saturations Distracted and Drowsy Driving Enforcement Campaigns Speed Enforcement Campaigns Increase motorcycle helmet usage-2630 Voting Results Phase I, II & III - Workshops 6/25/2012

Project Development Process - Example 23 Target Crash Types Workshop Strategy Voting Results Suggested Projects Road Departure Crashes $65M worth of projects in Phases I through III including: 2' Shoulder Pave+RS+Safety Wedge Rumble Strip Rumble StripE 6-inch Edge Lines Ground In Wet-Reflective Markings Highest voting results was for Installing Shoulder Treatments (Rumble Strips, Pavement Marking, Pave Shoulders, etc) 6/25/2012

Segment Project Summary 24 ATP 2' Shoulder Pave+RS+Safety Wedge Rumble Strip Rumble StripE 6-inch Edge Lines Ground In Wet- Reflective Markings Total Project Value ATP $5,746,340 ATP $16,106,107 ATP $10,008,015 ATP $10,196,428 ATP $15,006,897 ATP $8,014,553 Total8871,4083, ,636$65,078,340 6/25/2012

What’s Next Counties Continue assembling information about previous deployment of safety strategies; shoulder rumblestrips, 6” edgelines, street lights, chevrons, etc. Review, Edit/Concur with Emphasis Areas, Target Crash Types and Safety Strategies Secure Location for Workshops Secure Caterer Finalize Invitation and Invite List Decide/Secure Local Safety Advocate – Presenter Workshops Group 2A – July 16 th - Roseau, Kittson, Marshall, Pennington Group 2B – July 26 th – Norman, Polk, Red Lake Group 2C – July 31 st – Beltrami, Clearwater, Hubbard, Lake of the Woods 25 6/25/2012

More Information Mn/DOT State Aid website Otter Tail County Safety Plan Contact Information Howard Preston, CH2M HILL, , Nikki Farrington, CH2M HILL, , Mike Marti, SRF Consulting Group, , Carla Stueve, SRF Consulting Group, , Renae Kuehl, SRF Consulting Group, , Ann Johnson, P.E. Services, , 26 Questions? 6/25/2012