Preserving roadways at predetermined condition levels will require the careful use of established pavement preservation techniques. Materials, methods and specifications for new construction, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of roads have been highly developed by years of peer-reviewed research and discussion by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), the American Society for the Testing of Materials (ASTM), and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Unfortunately, the same is not true for pavement preservation techniques, which seriously lag behind the demand for such knowledge. The use of pavement preservation techniques varies throughout the United States. In some cases, techniques that were applied for years are no longer used because of poor performance caused by inadequate design, materials, specifications, construction, performance criteria, or quality control and quality assurance. Developing national protocols for pavement preservation and publishing them as AASHTO standards would improve overall quality and treatment performance. But developing such standards will take time. Meanwhile many state, county and local highway agencies are building experience and developing knowledge in design, materials, specifications, and performance criteria in the area of preservation. Exchanging this information is invaluable to highway agencies.

1. Assist states in developing sound pavement investment programs to gain infrastructure and operational efficiencies and also satisfy the new reporting requirements of GASB 34. 2. Develop a partnership in the southeastern region to share experiences with pavement preservation treatments. Information exchange would include treatment design, construction practices, performance measures, specifications, as well as research needs. 3. An annual workshop meeting would hi-light common successes, problems, identify research needs, assemble best practices, and allow for a general transfer of knowledge. A regional exchange of thinking and expertise would solve common issues among the states much more effectively. The success of the partnership depends on its ability to create a forum where states may meet as a group.

The National Center for Pavement Preservation (NCPP) would be retained collectively by the 13 states above to provide expert assistance in the principle tasks listed below: 1. Facilitate a multi-day annual workshop for discussion and exchange of information and knowledge about each state's pavement preservation program. 2. Provide a forum to identify and showcase technology of mutual interest. 3. Establish and maintain a web site that would display meeting reports, state guidelines, specifications, and allow users to post help questions. 4. Administer funds for formal training presentations during the annual workshop. 5. Manage support of the consortium through the NCPP at Michigan State University.

This would be a three-year project with likely renewal. Additional meetings, besides the annual workshop and task groups, would be possible. The proposed budget would cover the cost of meeting arrangements, state travel, and a meeting report. Each state would provide funding of $15,000 for a three-year level of effort. Partners will be AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV.