Interactive Training for All-Hazards Emergency Planning, Preparation, and Response for Maintenance and Operations Field Personnel (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.

CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 5 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background, 5 National Incident Management System, 6 Definitions, 6 Training and Exercises, 7 Emergency Operations Plan , 7 Other Plans and Procedural Documents, 8 Study Approach, 9 Report Organization, 9 10 CHAPTER TWO EMERGENCY TRAINING AND EXERCISE NEEDS Systems, Frameworks, Plans, and Goals Resulting from Presidential Directives, 10 NIMS Training, 13 Mutual Aid and Grants, 16 Hazards Awareness, Safety Training, and Hazard-Specific Training, 18 Traffic Incident Management Training, 21 Winter Maintenance and Operations Training, 24 Evacuation, 24 Continuity of Operations, 24 Supervisor Training, 25 Exercises, 26 32 CHAPTER THREE EMERGENCY TRAINING AND EXERCISE DELIVERY METHODS Field Crew Meetings, 33 Just-in-Time Training, 33 Interjurisdictional and Interagency Training and Exercises, 34 Joint Training, 34 Asynchronous Training, 34 Train-the-Trainer, 35 Planned Events, Incidents, and Exercises, 35 Computer-Assisted Simulations, 36 Classroom Training, 37 Online Training with Live Instructors, 38 Blended Training, 38 Exercises, 38 41 CHAPTER FOUR EMERGENCY TRAINING AND EXERCISE PRACTICES Implementation Challenges, 43 Training Needs, 44 Training Solutions, 45 Additional Findings, 51 Findings on the Use of Exercises, 53 59 CHAPTER FIVE EMERGENCY TRAINING AND EXERCISES TOOLKIT Structure of the Toolkit, 59

Key Courses and Catalogs, 61 Accessing the Guidance Documents, 62 Categories of Source Organizations, 62 Using the Source-Specific Sheets, 65 Searching Effectively Within the Toolkit, 66 67 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS Key Findings, 67 Strategies and Tools to Deliver Emergency Training and Exercises, 68 Further Research, 69 70 GLOSSARY 72 ACRONYMS 74 REFERENCES 79 BIBLIOGRAPHY 82 APPENDIX A TOOLKIT 84 APPENDIX B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 99 APPENDIX C SCREENING SURVEY RESPONSES 112 APPENDIX D CASE EXAMPLE INTERVIEW GUIDE 114 APPENDIX E LIST OF INTERVIEWEES AND CASE EXAMPLES 152 APPENDIX F WASHINGTON DOT EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN TRAINING AND EXERCISES 158 APPENDIX G ARIZONA DOT EMERGENCY PLANNING, MANAGEMENT, AND MAINTENANCE TRAINING MATRICES 162 APPENDIX H MISSOURI DOT TRAINING PLAN 168 APPENDIX I MISSOURI DOT NIMS TRAINING GUIDE Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

SUMMARY INTERACTIVE TRAINING FOR ALL-HAZARDS EMERGENCY PLANNING, PREPARATION, AND RESPONSE FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FIELD PERSONNEL The maintenance and operations (M&O) personnel of state departments of transportation (DOTs) and the field personnel of tribal and local public works agencies (PWs) are on the front lines during emergencies and disasters. Therefore, their preparedness is essential to public safety. Over the past decade, their roles in all-hazards emergencies have been expand- ing; at the same time, public expectations for a safe and secure transportation infrastructure and quick restoration of public services after emergencies and disasters have been growing. The goals of the NCHRP Synthesis 44-12 report were to identify interactive emergency training tools and sources appropriate for the M&O field personnel of state DOTs and PWs, identify obstacles to their implementation, and create a toolkit of relevant training and exercise information. The key focus for the synthesis is M&O field personnel, and the target audience is their managers. Findings were generated from information from case studies, a screening survey and follow-up communications, a literature review, and organizations such as AASHTO, the American Public Works Association (APWA), FHWA, the International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA), the Local and Tribal Technical Assistance Program (LTAP/TTAP) centers, TSA, the university transportation center (UTC) consortia, the National Associa- tion of County Engineers (NACE), and the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA). Twenty-five state DOTs and 22 PWs responded to the screening survey. Emergency training and exercise needs stem from federal, state, local, and industry requirements. They include the National Incident Management System (NIMS) training standard and state DOT emergency operations plans, which reflect the state DOTs’ roles and responsibilities in the Transportation Emergency Support Function (ESF-1) and the Public Works and Engineering Emergency Support Function (ESF-3). Federal prepared- ness grants and assistance require the adoption of NIMS. Needs are also identified through various other plans including occupational health and safety plans and procedural doc- uments, and through after-action reports from exercises and actual events. In addition, security awareness is important for transportation personnel, especially those in the field. Hazards-specific training and exercises may also be warranted on the basis of an agency’s risk assessment and by federal, state, and local safety plans and regulations. Implementation challenges identified by the screening survey, case example partici- pants, and panel members included the following: • Scheduling difficulties and conflict with work priorities • Limited budgets • Lack of qualified training staff • Personnel turnover • Limited training content • Insufficient information about available training

2 • Infrequent need for training • Lack of PC/Internet access • Distance issues. Additional challenges for state DOTs and PWs identified during the study included the lack of refresher training; need for more clarification/training on ESF and Incident Com- mand System (ICS) roles; need for exercises designed for field personnel; training for field support personnel in areas such as procurement, construction, and human resources; and training on coordination among state DOTs, PWs, law enforcement, fire, and other emer- gency response providers. State DOT exercises, full-scale exercises, and functional exer- cises, in particular, are typically organized by the state emergency management agencies (EMAs) and other agencies, and are held infrequently. Also, state DOTs and PWs may not always be viewed as equal partners in the emergency management community. Compounding these challenges for PWs are agency-to-agency variations in roles and personnel responsibilities, organizational structures, and governance. This synthesis identified the following strategies and tools to deliver cost-effective emer- gency training and exercises: • Field crew meetings: Combining emergency training with regularly scheduled train- ing or activities for field personnel makes sense, because many of their regular and emergency job functions are similar. Field crew meetings are often used to discuss issues of relevance to field personnel and are regularly scheduled meetings at the dis- trict level. These meetings provide excellent opportunities to train field personnel. • Just-in-time training (JITT): JITT is used to train field personnel on specific skills that are not needed on a continuous basis; for example, disaster reimbursement application procedures. A state DOT may provide JITT to PWs on reimbursement procedures for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance and the FHWA Emergency Relief programs once a disaster strikes. Agencies noted that on- demand online training is a useful type of JITT. • Interjurisdictional and interagency training and exercises: These are useful for prepa- ration for larger and more complex disasters and emergencies that require effective coordination among transportation agencies (state DOTs, PWs, transit agencies, toll authorities); public safety agencies; and private and nonprofit organizations. Also, the effectiveness of any assistance received through mutual aid agreements with other states will increase if the agencies have opportunities to meet, interact, train, and exer- cise together. • Joint training: Combining training topics can alleviate scheduling challenges and enhance intra-agency communications by providing field personnel from different divisions or units with an opportunity to interact. For example, courses on incident management and response are typically mandatory for many field personnel, so emer- gency training could be incorporated into incident management training. The new National Traffic Incident Management Responder Training course developed through the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) contains elements of the Incident Command System (ICS). Winter maintenance is another example. It is a typi- cally required training topic for field personnel in states that experience severe winters, so emergency training could be integrated into winter maintenance training. Although emergency training functions differ from incident management and winter mainte- nance, field personnel require these trainings; therefore, joint training on these and other topics can address scheduling difficulties. • Asynchronous training: This is self-paced training that occurs without the presence of live instructors. Asynchronous training can be interactive and maintain trainee inter- est and attention, but it requires self-discipline. Examples of asynchronous training are YouTube videos and prepackaged CDs and DVDs.

3 • Train-the-trainer (TTT): This type of training leverages training resources by train- ing one or more in-house trainers or otherwise qualified personnel who then provide the training to other personnel; for example, district trainers who train district field personnel. This strategy is especially useful to train large numbers of personnel in a relatively short time. • Planned events, incidents, and exercises: Because disasters do not happen regularly, planned events, incidents, and exercises are excellent opportunities for field person- nel to practice what they have learned. After-action reports and lessons learned for planned events, exercises, and major incidents and disasters can identify additional training needs and gaps for individual field personnel and teams, and provide useful training content and scenarios. • Classroom training: Classroom training [including closed circuit television (CCTV), video teleconferencing (VTC), and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)] is a synchro- nous training method that can provide a high-quality interactive learning environ- ment for trainees. The instructor can use various media and technology options to facilitate learning and interaction and maintain participant interest. • Online training with live instructors: Online training with live instructors (e.g., webi- nars) is a synchronous method of training. Software that facilitates the delivery of webinars—including the facilitation of student-instructor and student-student inter- action—is readily available and usually allows the sessions to be recorded so those who could not attend can view them later. • Computer simulations and virtual exercises: Computer simulations and virtual exer- cises immerse participants in realistic environments and allow real-time interaction. They can be delivered using web-based or non-web-based technologies. While they usually require some type of facilitation and scheduling, some provide simulated players and enable individual players to participate in exercise scenarios on demand. Hence, they can be both synchronous and asynchronous. Blended training combines two or more of these methods and allows agencies to select elements from various methods and adapt them to their needs and constraints. The role of supervision in the development of field personnel is important. First-line supervisors have intimate knowledge of the work being performed by field personnel. They should have not only the technical expertise to evaluate the quality of the work produced but also the ability to identify needed training and motivate their workers to take the train- ing seriously and implement it in their work. A screening survey, literature review, and case examples were performed for this synthesis.

5 tial Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8) on National Preparedness, which was released in March 2011. PPD-8 replaced the 2003 Homeland Security Presidential Directive on National Preparedness (HSPD-8) and defines the five national pre- paredness mission areas: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery. PPD-8 seeks to strengthen national security and resilience through “systematic preparation for the threats that pose the greatest risk to the security of the Nation, including acts of terrorism, cyber-attacks, pandem- ics, and catastrophic natural disasters.” PPD-8 mandated the creation of policy and planning documents including the National Preparedness Goal and the National Prepared- ness System (PPD-8 2011). The National Preparedness Goal was released in September 2011 and identified core capa- bilities for each of the five mission areas; mitigation was a new mission area that was added to the goal. The National Preparedness System includes the five National Planning Frameworks, which develop and deliver the core capabili- ties. PPD-8 also directs the monitoring and assessment of progress toward “building, sustaining, and delivering” the 31 core capabilities through an annual National Prepared- ness Report. A key component of the National Preparedness System is the National Training and Education System (NTES). NTES comprises the “policies, processes, and tools through which the requirements for homeland security training and educa- tion will drive the supply of training and education courses offered to the Whole Community” (Holtermann 2013). The function of the NTES is to identify courses for NTES fund- ing through a “risk-centric, capability-based approach” and to select the right students for those courses. Because the NTES will focus on “complex and unique programming” rather than the basic awareness training that can be delivered locally, the courses will probably not be appropriate for field personnel. Security-related training and exercise direction emanates from the 9/11 Commission Act, signed into law on August 3, 2007. The act is focused on the implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Topics addressed include homeland security and emergency management grants, national exercise program and model exercises for ICS, the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, the National Transportation Security Center of Excellence, transporta- tion security planning and information sharing, transporta- CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Maintenance and operations (M&O) field personnel of state departments of transportation (DOTs) and public works agen- cies (PWs) are often first on the scene when an emergency occurs; they have the very significant responsibility of tak- ing the appropriate actions to save lives, prevent injuries, and minimize property damage. They also play an important sup- port role to other agencies in fulfilling their responsibilities. Therefore, their preparedness is essential during emergencies. Training is not nearly as costly as the mistakes made in a crisis. (The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned 2006, p. 72) The roles of state DOTs and local PWs in all-hazards emergencies have been expanding over the past decade. Emergency response is becoming a larger part of state, tribal, and local transportation staffs’ responsibilities, from the front office to the front lines. As noted in NCHRP Report 525 Volume 16: Guide to Emergency Response Plan- ning (2010), transportation agencies “are assuming greater responsibility for large-scale evacuations in response to natural disasters . . . ” (p. 1) and “are also being asked to establish and assume new roles and systems to address no- notice evacuations and situations requiring limited mobil- ity (e.g., shelter-in-place/quarantine), such as responding to biological outbreaks, epidemics, pandemics, and the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)” (p. 1). This change is being driven by increasing numbers of emergen- cies and disasters and the increasing expectations of the public that the government will immediately respond and fix everything in the aftermath of such events. Field per- sonnel are required to work a wide variety of tasks during emergencies and other stressful situations, using different tools and equipment and frequently alongside traffic in view of and under scrutiny from the public. Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21) on Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience, released in February 2013, elevated the role of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion to co-sector-specific agency along with the Department of Homeland Security. This is likely to result in the continued expansion of the role of state DOTs and PWs in emergency preparation and response. PPD-21 is aligned with Presiden-

6 NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The National Incident Management System is a “core set of doctrine, concepts, principles, terminology, and organi- zational processes that enables effective, efficient, and col- laborative incident management” (NIMS Training Program, FEMA 2011, p. 1). The system can be used by emergency response personnel in response to any incident, large or small, as well as in any planned event. Incidents and emer- gencies larger in scope and complexity require effective coordination and benefit most from the use of NIMS. Furthermore, the adoption and implementation of NIMS is required for federal assistance as per the Homeland Secu- rity Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5). As stated in the NIMS Training Program (FEMA 2011, p. 1), “NIMS imple- mentation relies upon comprehensive NIMS training and standardized personnel qualification.” State DOTs and PWs can become vulnerable to liabil- ity issues if they do not provide the necessary emergency training to their personnel. These issues may arise even if the training is not mandated but is available and highly rec- ommended. Therefore, managers should check with their compliance units to understand the liability issues and impli- cations of their training programs. The institutionalization of these [NIMS] elements nationwide through training helps to mitigate risk by achieving greater preparedness. (NIMS Training Program, FEMA 2011, p. 1) DEFINITIONS Training and Exercises For the purposes of this synthesis, the following definitions of emergency training and exercises will be used: • Training is the delivery of new information. • Exercises provide the opportunity to practice knowl- edge, skills, and plans. Exercises are “controlled activi- ties conducted under realistic conditions” (“Security and Emergency Management—An Information Briefing,” FHWA 2009) and can be used for multiple purposes. They range from tabletop exercises to full- scale exercises. M&O Field Personnel M&O field personnel are defined in this synthesis as agency employees (not contractors) who primarily work in the field, with duties related to preservation and repair of transporta- tion infrastructure and related facilities (maintenance) and tion security enhancements, surface transportation security, public transportation security, aviation, and maritime cargo. As budgets tighten, public agencies and their employ- ees are being asked to do more with fewer resources. Bergner notes the lack of training for public works person- nel: “Though Public Works is a fundamental component of emergency management, most agencies lack even basic training on NIMS and ICS” (Bergner 2013). Another obsta- cle for PWs is their diverse organizational structures and governance. Some PW M&O field personnel are located in a single unit, such as Street Maintenance, while others are included in two or more units. Access is needed to tools and training, including exercises, to prepare field personnel to perform reliably and effectively with other partners under the National Incident Management System (NIMS), regardless of agency size or the nature of the occurrence, leading to improved preparedness for emer- gencies. An excellent training and exercise program can also help agencies recruit and retain high-quality workers (Train- ing Programs, Processes, Policies, and Practices 2007). This project identified and synthesized existing tools, training, and exercises that can be used to effectively prepare transporta- tion M&O field personnel for their roles in emergencies. FHWA includes the management of traffic incidents as part of emergency transportation operations. FHWA stresses that these routine events, which occur frequently, can help state DOT personnel prepare for larger, more complex emer- gencies. M&O field personnel are typically involved in all incidents, from minor traffic accidents to catastrophic disas- ters. As the incident complexity increases, the number of agencies that must interact increases as well. Figure 1 pres- ents the Emergency Transportation Operations Continuum, which shows the inverse relationship between event severity and likelihood of event occurrence. For instance, although traffic incidents occur on a daily basis, they are usually much less severe than wildfires, major storms, or malevolent acts such as terrorism. FIGURE 1 Emergency Transportation Operations Continuum (Traffic Incident Management Cost Management and Cost Recovery Primer, FHWA 2012).

7 to the achievement of safe and reliable traffic movement (operations). The following are the most common titles: • Equipment operator • Maintenance crew leader, foreman, supervisor, or superintendent • Roadway lighting electrician/technician • Street or highway maintenance worker/laborer • Traffic signs and marking worker/technician • Traffic signal technician/specialist • Truck driver. Other state DOT and PW support personnel who may assist in emergencies and events include these: • Administrative staff (finance, human resources, pro- curement, etc.) • Construction inspectors • Dispatchers • Maintenance personnel from other departments such as Parks or Water/Wastewater • Mechanics • Structural and environmental code inspectors • Traffic operations center technicians. Emergency Response Provider According to NCHRP Research Results Digest 385, there is no consistent definition of “first responder” among federal, state, and local agencies. In both the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act for 2006, “emergency response provider” is used to refer to those who are first to respond to disasters or emergencies (NCHRP Research Results Digest 385: The Legal Definitions of “First Responder” 2013). The formal definition in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is “Federal, State, and local governmental and nongov- ernmental emergency public safety, fire, law enforcement, emergency response, emergency medical (including hospi- tal emergency facilities) and related personnel, agencies, and authorities” (Homeland Security Act of 2002, United States Code, Title 6, Section 101, Paragraph 6). In this syn- thesis we will use “emergency response provider” to refer to state DOT and PW personnel who are the first to respond to disasters and emergencies. TRAINING AND EXERCISES Training and exercises are integral parts of emergency planning and the emergency preparedness cycle. The preparedness cycle, depicted in Figure 2, begins with the development of a plan that leads to organizing and iden- tifying personnel and equipping them with the necessary resources to achieve the core capabilities. The third step is training personnel in the plan. The importance of training on agency plans is stated in the Comprehensive Prepared- ness Guide 101, Version 2.0. The guide states that person- nel must be trained “so that they have the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform the tasks identified in the plan. Personnel should also be trained on the organization- specific procedures necessary to support those plan tasks” (CPG 101, Version 2, pp. 4–25). Personnel participate in exercises through which they can practice what they have learned and demonstrate their capabilities. Exercise evalu- ations help agencies understand the strengths and weak- nesses of the plan, demonstrate the emergency response capabilities of participants, and identify additional train- ing needs of individuals and teams. Evaluations lead to the development of improvement plans that include appropri- ate corrective actions. FIGURE 2 Preparedness Cycle (CPG 101, Version 2.0, FEMA 2010). EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN The primary emergency plan for state DOTs and PWs is the emergency operations plan (EOP). State DOTs either have a standalone EOP or are covered under an annex to a state EOP or state emergency response plan (ERP). PWs have a standalone EOP or are covered under an annex to a city or county plan. The EOP or ERP typically contains the following elements: • Operations • Resources • Training • Exercising • Post-response activities.

8 Specifically, EOPs and ERPs address who will respond and how they will be prepared to respond; when response operations will commence and how they will be conducted; how to obtain additional resources; how coordination will occur; communications plans; chain of command; organizational structures; how response operations will terminate; and, how improvements will be made. (“Security and Emergency Management—An Information Briefing,” FHWA 2009) See Appendix F for the Training and Exercises compo- nent of the Washington State DOT’s EOP and Appendix H for Missouri DOT’s Training Plan. After-action informa- tion generated from exercises and post-response activities for planned events and incidents can be used to develop an improvement plan that identifies additional training needs and to modify the plan to enhance response. The Full Emergency Response Requirements Matrix in the NCHRP Guide to Emergency Response Planning (2010) provides details for each step in each phase of the emergency response planning process: PLAN, PREPARE, RESPOND, and RECOVER. The emergency response activities for each step of the RESPOND phase include the following: Step 1: Initiate Emergency Response 1. Detect and Verify Emergencies 2. Assess Status of Transportation Infrastructure 3. Gain and Maintain Situation Awareness. Step 2: Address Emergency Needs and Requests for Support 1. Coordinate Response to the Emergency 2. Evaluate Need for Additional Assistance from Neighboring States, Jurisdictions, and/or Fed- eral Government. Step 3: Manage Evacuations, Shelter-in-Place, or Quarantine 1. Make and/or Support Decision to Evacuate, Shelter-In-Place, or Quarantine 2. Issue and/or Support Evacuation/Shelter-in- Place/Quarantine Order. Step 4: Implement Emergency Response Actions 1. Take Response Actions 2. Deploy Response Teams 3. Communicate Evacuation/Shelter-in-Place/Quar- antine Order and Incident Management Measures. Step 5: Continue Response Requirements 1. Monitor Response Efforts 2. Prepare for Next Operational Period. Step 6: Conclude Response Actions 1. Prepare for Demobilization. (Guide to Emergency Response Planning, NCHRP 2010, pp. 69–83) As incident size and complexity increase, the need for coordination on these activities with other agencies and jurisdictions increases as well. Transportation’s role can vary depending on the hazard. During the RECOVER phase, state DOTs and PWs typically need to “assess, restore, and manage the essential transportation services and infrastructure element of the affected area” (Guide to Emergency Response Planning, NCHRP 2010). Field per- sonnel would engage in activities such as debris removal and roadway repairs. OTHER PLANS AND PROCEDURAL DOCUMENTS In addition to the EOP, other plans and procedural docu- ments can require emergency training and exercises. They include the following: • Joint operational plans and regional coordination plans involve different levels of government to address a specific incident or event. • Preparedness plans develop and maintain capabilities required for prevention, protection, response, recov- ery, and mitigation. They address training through the development of a schedule to identify and meet train- ing and exercise needs, including exercise evaluations and improvement plans. • Continuity of operations (COOP) plans identify core capabilities and critical operations that need to be con- tinued during incidents. • Recovery plans ensure a coordinated, unified, and expedited recovery effort. • Prevention/protection plans are usually procedural or tactical plans focused on specific sectors, facilities, or incidents. • Mitigation plans outline activities that reduce the impact of a disaster. Both EOPs and mitigation efforts are products of hazards-based analysis. • Procedural documents contain the details of how to accomplish the goals, objectives, functions, and tasks included in the EOP or other plans. As noted in CPG 101, Version 2.0, “Plans describe the ‘what’ and (pro- cedural documents) describe the ‘how’ ” (FEMA 2010,

9 pp. 3–10). Standard operating procedures (SOPs) and standard operating guidelines (SOGs) are examples of procedural documents (FEMA 2010). In addition to the types of plans mentioned in CPG 101 version 2.0, emergency operations training and exercises for M&O field personnel must reflect the roles and responsibili- ties set forth in the following kinds of plans: • Winter weather operations plans govern winter weather operations, such as snow and ice control. • Debris management plans govern the coordina- tion and management of debris removal operations. For more information on debris management plans, refer to NCHRP Report 781: A Debris Management Handbook for State and Local DOTs and Departments of Public Works. STUDY APPROACH Surveys were distributed to all voting members of the AAS- HTO Special Committee on Transportation Security and Emergency Management, AASHTO Subcommittee on Main- tenance, APWA, and International Municipal Signal Asso- ciation (IMSA). The primary purpose of the surveys was to identify agencies for case examples. However, as other infor- mation was identified, it was incorporated into the synthesis as well. A total of 48 responses were received—from 25 state DOTs and 22 local PWs (one DOT responded twice). Case example interviews were conducted with the follow- ing agencies: • Arizona DOT (ADOT) • California DOT (Caltrans) • Iowa DOT • Missouri DOT (MoDOT) • Rhode Island DOT • Tennessee DOT (TDOT) • Texas DOT (TxDOT) • Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) • Washington State DOT (WSDOT) • Plant City, Florida • City of Keene, New Hampshire. In addition, information sources—AASHTO, APWA, FHWA, IMSA, LTAP/TTAP centers, TSA, university trans- portation center (UTC) consortia, NACE, and NEMA— were contacted by phone or e-mail, and their websites were reviewed for pertinent information. Also, relevant literature and reports were reviewed, including Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP 2013); CPG 101, Version 2 (FEMA 2010); NCHRP Report 525, Volumes 14 (2009) and 16 (2010); NCHRP 20-59(42) “A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergen- cies and Significant Events”; and NCHRP Report 525/TCRP Report 86, Volume 9, Guidelines for Transportation Emer- gency Training Exercises (2006). Using the results of the case example interviews, the screen- ing survey and follow-up calls, and the information review, emergency training and exercise sources were identified and individual course information was input into a spreadsheet toolkit. Guidance documents were also identified, incorporated into the toolkit, and referenced in the text of the synthesis. REPORT ORGANIZATION Chapter two focuses on the emergency training and exercise needs of M&O field personnel. Chapter three reviews emer- gency training and exercise delivery. Chapter four describes emergency training and exercise practices, along with chal- lenges, needs, solutions, and other findings of the case examples and screening surveys. Chapter five focuses on the toolkit and sources of emergency training and exercises. Chapter six pres- ents highlights of the findings and topics for further research. The synthesis also includes the following appendices: APPENDIX A TOOLKIT APPENDIX B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX C SCREENING SURVEY RESPONSES APPENDIX D INTERVIEW GUIDE APPENDIX E LIST OF INTERVIEWEES AND CASE EXAMPLES APPENDIX F WSDOT EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN APPENDIX G ARIZONA DOT EMERGENCY PLAN- NING, MANAGEMENT, AND MAIN- TENANCE TRAINING MATRICES APPENDIX H MISSOURI DOT TRAINING PLAN APPENDIX I MISSOURI DOT NIMS TRAINING GUIDE