1. AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security & Emergency Management Summary of 2010 State DOT Security/Emergency Management Survey Results Final Contractor’s Report May 2011

2. Study Requested By: AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security & Emergency Management Study Prepared By: Joe Crossett, High Street Consulting Group Under Contract NCHRP 20-59 (29) Acknowledgments This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and was conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-59(29). The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 20-59 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security and Emergency Management. The work was guided by a task group that included Chief Joseph C. Bober, Mr. John M. Contestabile, Mr. David S. Ekern, Mr. Randall H. Iwasaki, Mr. Mark Krentz, Mr. Herby Gerard Lissade, Ms. Eileen M. Phifer, Mr. Bryan D. Smith, Mr. Jeffrey L. Western, Mr. Robert A. Younie, Mr. Steven L. Ernst, Mr. Ernesto L. Acosta, Mr. William Brownlow, Mr. Mark S. Bush, Ms. Georgia M. “Gia” Harrigan, Mr. Vincent P. Pearce, LTC Gregory A. Pickell, Mr. Charles Sikoff, Ms. Joedy W. Cambridge, Ms. Sheila Rimal Duwadi, Mr. Dan Ferezan, Ms. Laurel J. “Laurie” Radow, and Mr. Chuck Runyon (chair). The project was managed by Stephan. A. Parker, CRP Senior Program Officer. The report was prepared by Joe Crossett of High Street Consulting, LLC. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. This report has not been reviewed or accepted by the Transportation Research Board's Executive Committee or the Governing Board of the National Research Council.

3. Responding DOTs Alabama California Florida Idaho Iowa Kansas Maryland Michigan Mississippi Missouri Nevada North Dakota Ohio Pennsylvania Tennessee Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin 2

4. Response Rate Comparison 2007 Survey 2010 Survey 3

5. Top All-Hazards Security Priorities (Each respondent asked to list up three priorities; chart shows share of respondents that mentioned the most commonly cited priorities) 4 *Author developed categories to summarize DOTs’ individual responses

6. Background of DOT Leader for Emergency Management/Security Issues 5

7. Agency-wide ‘All Hazards’ Emergency Management Plan Plan in Place or Underway: Mass Transit Integrated into Plan: 6 2010 2007 Year Emergency Management Plan last exercised: 2009/10 (average of 12 responses)

8. Coord. with Nat. Incident Mgmt. Sys. Coordinated with regional plans Coordinated with statewide plans Coordinated with local govt. plans Coordination of Emergency Management Plans 7

9. Awareness about National Incident Management System Compliance Assistance Support Tool 8

10. Infrastructure Security Plan 9 Year Infrastructure Security Plan last exercised: 2008 (average of 3 responses)

11. Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP Plan) 10 Year COOP last exercised: 2009 (average of 14 responses)

12. Frequency of Collaboration with Neighbor States 11

13. Internal Radio Communications Interoperability Capabilities 12

14. Training Priorities (Share of respondents who indicated “ more training needed” in key focus areas) 13

15. Primary Training Delivery Method 14

16. Completion of Incident Command System Training 15

17. Completion of ICS Training by Staff Type 16

18. Preferred Capacity Building Approaches (Number of respondents that report they are “ very likely to use ” general capacity building mechanisms described below) 17

19. Awareness about Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) 18