Effective Cooperation Among Airports and Local and Regional Emergency Management Agencies for Disaster Preparedness and Response (2014)

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.

10 Sixty-seven (67) airports completed the initial surveys. Table 3 illustrates the geographical distribution of respond- ing airports, which represent 33 states in all regions of the United States except Hawaii and Alaska, as well as two provinces in Canada. Thirty-five (35) local or regional EM agencies in 22 states across all regions of the United States except Hawaii and Alaska also responded. Table 4 shows the distribution of the respondents among the nine FAA regions. Figure 3 shows the states that are in each FAA region. Figure 4 illustrates the type of EM position by NPIAS category of respondent. As with all results in this study, it is important to remember that the airports in all NPIAS cate- gories except CS were selected in the expectation that they had good working relationships with their local and regional EM agency partners. This pre-selection most likely indi- cates that the results shown in Figure 4 are skewed towards having some sort of dedicated EM position on the airport staff. Interesting patterns emerged from the initial analysis. Large and medium-hub airports (LH and MH) are more likely to have a full-time emergency manager. Small hubs are considerably less likely, perhaps because they are more sen- sitive to pressure from airlines regarding rates and charges and the related need to justify positions (Bonnie Wilson, per- sonal communication, Sep. 6, 2013). The large number of full-time emergency managers at reliever and GA airports is accounted for by the inclusion of six very busy airports (e.g., Morristown Municipal Airport) in the sample. The close relationship between GA airports and their local part- ners documented in Smith (2012a) probably also explains the “None” responses reported for R, CS, NH-P, and perhaps SH. Clearly, a combination of financial constraints and local trust influences actual practice. MODE OF COORDINATION WITH OUTSIDE RESPONDERS The airport survey asked respondents to identify the airport’s main point of contact for coordinating with local agencies. As can be seen in Table 5, nearly half (48%) the airports reported that an emergency manager or emergency opera- tions center (EOC) coordinates one-to-one with the various outside response partners; almost the same number (46%) use a local EM agency to coordinate on behalf of the airport. In some cases, the outside coordinating agency is the local fire department, especially when the ARFF station for the airport belongs to the local fire department rather than to the airport itself. Considering whether to have a full-time emergency man- ager or someone with EM as a major collateral duty (20%– 50% of full time) is related to the choice of coordination mode, as airports with a full-time emergency manager have a strong tendency to handle their own multi-agency coordination. Airports with part-time emergency manag- ers or no dedicated emergency manager position tend to use a local or regional EM agency for coordination. As seen in Table 5 and Figure 3, larger airports are more likely to have full-time emergency managers. A large airport is also more likely to have an extensive, highly capable EOC of its own. These two factors most likely account for the tendency for such airports to coordinate one-to-one with outside agencies rather than employing an independent agency for coordination. The eight airports that indicated “Other” for this question apparently have not experienced formal coordination. Most likely, they coordinate directly with outside agencies, but this cannot be tested with the data gathered in this study. The mode of collaboration is sometimes conditioned by state law or statewide mutual aid arrangements. An example of this occurs in California, where the Standardized EM Sys- tem (SEMS) was created pursuant to the California Emer- gency Services Act. SEMS prescribes the general shape of collaboration among public agencies in the state, including cities, counties, airports, and independent public agencies. A few other states have similar arrangements, and about half have statewide mutual aid compacts or pools for emergency response (Smith 2012a; Smith and Kenville 2013). SATISFACTION WITH THE RELATIONSHIP Both surveys asked the respondents to rate their satisfaction with the relationship between the local EM agency and the airport: 1. Highly unsatisfactory 2. Somewhat unsatisfactory 3. Uneven 4. Somewhat satisfactory chapter three SURVEY RESPONSES

11 5. Highly satisfactory 6. No opinion. Figures 5 and 6 display the distribution of responses for airports and EM agencies, respectively. Both groups are highly satisfied with their relationships, but airports report a higher level of satisfaction than do EM agencies (81% vs. 68%). However, this difference nearly disappears if the responses “highly satisfactory” and “somewhat satisfactory” were con- joined, which would produce a 93% satisfaction for airports and 91% satisfaction for EM agencies. The similarity of opin- ions is striking. State or Province Responding Airports Responding EM Agencies State or Province Responding Airports Responding EM Agencies Alabama 1 0 New Hampshire 1 0 Arizona 4 2 New Jersey 1 1 California 8 4 New Mexico 1 1 Colorado 2 2 Ohio 3 2 Florida 3 2 Oregon 2 0 Georgia 1 1 Pennsylvania 1 1 Idaho 2 1 South Dakota 1 0 Illinois 1 0 Tennessee 2 1 Louisiana 2 1 Texas 8 4 Massachusetts 3 2 Utah 1 0 Michigan 2 0 Virginia 2 2 Minnesota 4 2 Washington 1 1 Missouri 2 1 West Virginia 1 0 Mississippi 1 0 Wyoming 1 0 North Carolina 1 0 Alberta 1 1 North Dakota 1 1 Ontario 1 1 Nebraska 1 1 Total 67 35 Source: J.F. Smith. TABLE 3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY RESPONSES Airports EM Agencies Alaskan 0 0 Central 3 2 Eastern 5 3 Great Lakes 12 6 New England 4 2 Northwest Mountain 9 5 Southern 11 4 Southwest 11 6 Western-Pacific 12 5 Non-FAA (Canada) 2 2 Total 67 35 Source: J.F. Smith. TABLE 4 FAA REGIONS OF SURVEY RESPONSES FIGURE 3 FAA regions (source: www.globalair.com).

12 (Source: Survey data). FIGURE 4 Type of airport emergency management position by NPIAS category. Coordination Mode Type of EM Position Airport EM or EOC coordinates 1:1 with outside agencies Airport uses local or regional EM agency to coordinate Other Full-time Airport EM 16 5 1 EM as Major Collateral Duty 2 6 0 EM as Minor Collateral Duty 8 10 0 No Dedicated Position 5 11 3 Total 31 32 4 Source: J.F. Smith. TABLE 5 DEDICATED AIRPORT EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT POSITIONS AND COORDINATION MODES

13 FIGURE 5 Airport satisfaction with relationship (source: J. F. Smith). FIGURE 6 Emergency management agency with relationship (source: J. F. Smith). The data summarized in Figures 4 and 5 strongly suggest that the intention of selecting airports that have productive working relationships was achieved, making it more likely that the strategies and approaches revealed in the closed-ended and open-ended questions in the surveys do indeed work to build and sustain solid relationships. PRACTICES, TOOLS, METHODS, AND POLICIES ACTUALLY USED The surveys asked the airports and EM agencies if they used 27 specific practices, tools, methods, or policies to promote good working relationships. The same list of 27 practices was used in both surveys. The surveys also asked respon- dents to list any other practices that they have used. Table 6 illustrates the responses of the airports and of their EM part- ners. The percentages for airports are based on all 67 airport responses; the percentages for EM agencies are based on the 35 emergency agency responses. Examination of the raw data indicated no reason to exclude airports for which there was no EM response. Percentages were used to put both sets of responses on the same basis. The practices are listed in descending order of reported use by the airports. The airport and EM agency responses are similar as would be expected from the intense effort to professionalize the theory and practices of EM in the past 30 years (Britton 1999; Drabek 2007). The general promulgation of NIMS in 2003 and its explicit extension to airports in 2009 have intensified the sharing of professional approaches between airports and EM agencies. Here, too, the similarity of responses can also be expected based on the judgment that the partners have excellent working relationships. There are, however, some significant differences in the responses of airports and EM agencies. In Table 6, practices for which reported use rates differ by 10% or more are indi- cated by the shaded box in the “Difference” column. For example, the greater emphasis placed by EM agencies on joint drilling reflects their reliance on drills to prepare for rare events, whereas airports are bound by FAA regulations that require regularly scheduled drills and exercises. Simi- larly, the lower reported use of triennial exercises by the EM agencies may reflect the long time between such drills and the effect drill scenarios have on which EM agencies partici- pate in them. EM agencies also appear to be less interested than airports in having a dedicated liaison person from the airport. Similarly, EM agencies are less interested in hav- ing an airport representative present (actually or virtually) in the EOC. According to the survey responses, airports are clearly fur- ther along in utilizing peer review for plans and programs than the EM agencies airports designated as their most important, frequent, or illustrative partners. EM agencies are far more interested in periodic evaluations of the effectiveness of the rela- tionship. This may be the result of airports viewing operations as their primary mission, whereas EM agencies overwhelm- ingly focus on relationships, coordination, and communication. Of particular interest are the differences related to EM positions at airports. Far more EM agencies want dedicated airport emergency managers than do airports themselves.

14 Practice, Tool, Method, or Policy Airports % EM Agencies % Difference Tabletop exercises 78 72 –6 Joint drilling 69 88 +19 Functional exercises including full-scale exercises 67 75 +8 Joint planning 66 63 –3 Regular meetings with partners 64 59 –5 ICS training 57 56 –1 NIMS training 55 53 –2 EM agency observing airport exercises 55 50 –5 EM agency participation in triennial exercises 55 34 –21 Airport has designated liaison person to EM agency 51 34 –17 Physical or virtual presence in each other’s EOC 48 38 –10 Airport-specific training for EM agency personnel 46 44 –2 Airport observes EM agency exercises 42 44 +2 Airport participates in regional emergency or disaster coordination effort 39 47 +8 EM agency-specific training for airport personnel 36 44 +8 EM agency has designated liaison person to airport 29 28 –1 Peer review of plans by other airport or EM agency 22 19 –3 Peer review of programs by other airport or EM agency 22 3 –19 Airport has dedicated EM position on airport staff 19 53 +34 Airport and EM agency periodically evaluate effectiveness of relationship 19 44 +25 Joint participation at outside functional training provided by state, university, or federal agency 19 25 +6 Airport has EM assigned as major collateral duty to mid-level or senior manager 18 28 +10 Formal EM accountability system to mayor, board, or other sponsor or owner of airport 15 0 –15 Airport knows FEMA regional representative and has written procedure for contacting FEMA 13 22 +9 Airport knows EMAC procedure and contacts 13 19 +6 Peer review of training by other airport or EM agency 12 3 –9 Airport has EM assigned as major collateral duty to lower level manager 3 0 –3 Source: J.F. Smith. TABLE 6 PRACTICES, TOOLS, METHODS, AND POLICIES ACTUALLY USED BASED ON CLOSED-ENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS This may reflect a desire for an easier way to connect through shared professional knowledge, or it may reflect the effects of recent budgetary constraints on EM agencies that cause those agencies to seek help from the airports. The EM agencies are even more emphatic than airports that the airport emergency managers be mid-level or senior executives. Lastly, 15% of airports reported having a formal accountability system to report on EM issues to the mayor, board, or other sponsor or owner of the airport; none of the 35 EM agencies reported having any formal accountability system. In addition to data on the 27 listed practices, airports reported 23 other practices in the closed-end portion of the survey. EM agencies reported five such practices, all of which were also on the airports’ lists. Similar responses were aggregated when it did not result in loss of meaning. Table 7 summarizes the data from the open-ended question. Although the percentages of airports that reported each of the practices in Table 7 are as low or lower than all but one of the practices in Table 6, greater weight can reasonably be given to them, since the airport manager responding to the survey took the extra time and effort to type in an answer to the open-ended question. The column for EM agencies is probably meaningless, as the percentages are very low; 3% indicates that only one agency mentioned the practice. However, since the airports in this study were chosen in expectation of outstanding rela- tionships with their EM partners, it is reasonable to conclude that these practices work and are mutually beneficial even if the EM agencies did not report them. A final observation is that Table 7 includes a number of personal and philosophical traits, which were not directly addressed among the 27 practices included in the surveys. RECOMMENDED PRACTICES VERSUS ACTUAL PRACTICES The surveys asked which of the 27 practices the airport recommended to promote good relationships and which they actually used. Figure 7 shows the results aggregated for all 67 airports and for each of the seven NPIAS categories.

15 Practice, Tool, Method, or Policy Airports % EM Agencies % Constantly update information about capabilities and resources 12 3 Regularly communicate and share information 12 0 Build and maintain personal relationships 12 0 Have a seat on the local emergency planning board 9 3 Work face-to-face 9 0 Have airport take leadership in outreach 7 0 Respect each other’s professional skills and knowledge 7 0 Have airport personnel volunteer with the community EM agency 6 0 Clearly outline roles and responsibilities 6 0 Maintain copies of each other’s plans and procedures 4 0 Focus on shared missions and mutual benefits 4 0 Conduct airport familiarization tours 4 0 Focus on finding solutions, not just on problems 3 3 Do not rely totally on formal or structural aspects of relationships 3 0 Review each other’s plans 3 0 Include EM agencies in AEP preparation 3 0 Educate local EM agencies about airport-to-airport mutual aid including EMAC procedures 1 3 Have substance in agendas for joint meetings 1 3 Foster community partnership 1 0 View each other as stakeholders 1 0 Use each other as exercise evaluators 1 0 Be honest and open about strengths and weaknesses of organizations 1 0 Involve EM agencies in operations as full partners 1 0 Source: J.F. Smith. TABLE 7 PRACTICES, TOOLS, METHODS, AND POLICIES ACTUALLY USED BASED ON OPEN-ENDED SURVEY QUESTION (other measures not listed in survey) The most important insight that can be gleaned from Figure 7 is that airports generally practice what they preach. According to the survey, the average airport practices 77% of the measures it recommends. The range across the seven NPIAS categories is 72% to 87%. The pattern among the Part 139 airports roughly fits the size of their budgets and staffs—the larger the airport, the more practices it appears to use. The surprisingly high values for reliever and GA airports appear to come from the six very active airports included in the survey for those two categories. REVENUE DIVERSION AS AN ISSUE Of the 67 airports, five responded that concern over the issue of revenue diversion had at some time influenced decisions within the framework of collaboration with EM agency partners. Follow-up conversations with the six airports revealed a spectrum of level of anxiety over revenue diversion and a concomitant range of resolutions. The positions and actions of Denver International Airport (DEN) and Jackson–Evers FIGURE 7 Recommended and actual practices by airports (source: J. F. Smith).

16 substantiated by historical records of costs incurred. If costs are allocated off airport in support of other entities, this may have an impact on those determinations. Certain materials and or equipment may be declared surplus (no monetary value) and provided to another location accordingly. Mississippi has a specific statute allowing government entities to sell surplus for nominal sums to other government entities. We rou- tinely provide surplus vehicles, telecommunications/computers, and other equipment to small and rural entities within Mississippi under this provision. It is important to note that this procedure does not apply to out of state entities. Airports can ‘buy’ fire fighters, trucks, engines, and EMT/ EMS personnel if they can prove they are required to meet the ARFF index for the facility as established by 14 CFR Part 139. The same applies for sworn police officers to support TSA requirements for arrest authority at checkpoints as required under 49 CFR 1542. If this arrangement was between two air- ports, the receiving airport would be required to pay for such services at the market value/direct cost incurred. This type of buy-what-you-need program is routinely undertaken by small airports for both emergency response (ARFF and or emergency medical services) as well as for more routine non-emergency situations such as general law enforcement support by contract- ing for services with the local, county or municipal agencies (Bonnie Wilson, personal communication, Sep. 9, 2013). As for the issue of revenue diversion, nearly all airports appear to help their neighbors when there is clear need and then deal with the fallout, if any, after the fact. However, short of an extreme emergency, no airport will compromise its ARFF Index and ability to fulfill its aviation mission by sending per- sonnel and equipment off airport. Should an airport’s ARFF Index be violated, the airport would normally consult with the FAA regional office and issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). SUMMARY OF COMMON THEMES FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS When the data in Tables 6 and 7 are viewed together, the most salient point that emerges is the development and maintenance of positive personal relationships between the organizations. Candor and mutual respect are essential to developing the degree of trust necessary to help an airport-EM agency rela- tionship work smoothly. The next most important practices are regular meetings and steady communication. Meetings that have clear agen- das and broad stakeholder representation were reported as being more effective, as were those that focus on seeking solutions, not just stating problems. Effective communica- tion was described as including updating information about each other’s needs, capabilities, and resources, as shown in the example in Appendix C. The case examples further sug- gested a recurring agenda item concerning joint examination of the effectiveness of the relationship would be beneficial. Mutual awareness and understanding are critically impor- tant. In an effective partnership, the airport takes the initia- tive to provide education on the special features, needs, and requirements of airport operations; and the EM agency simi- International Airport (JAN) illustrate the opposite ends of this spectrum. (Note that both airports consulted with their own legal counsel; DEN also consulted with the FAA North- west Mountain Regional Office before acting.) Several times, Denver Airport examined the issue and decided that sending assistance off-site was acceptable as long as it did not interfere with the airport’s ARFF Index (i.e., having the right amount of the right sort of equipment and staff to deal with aircraft emergencies). Here are two examples of incidents where DEN provided aid: This summer, there were significant forest fires in Colorado. Because of the firefighting operations, the small Pagosa Springs airport that normally handles very few operations each day had constant traffic. They needed to provide ARFF protection that they didn’t have. The State OEM through Denver OEM asked for help with ARFF. When initially asked, there were some indi- viduals concerned about revenue diversion. Our Manager of Aviation and Airport Legal team both supported the effort, and we sent a truck and crew for about 2 full weeks. During the fire in Colorado Springs last year, we were asked for fire trucks to support protection of structures at the edge of Colorado Springs. Again, some people were adamant that pro- viding that non-airport support could be revenue diversion. The Manager of Aviation was ready to direct the airport to send the support if needed, but the need was filled faster through other municipalities. The argument for sending the resource was that we rely on mutual aid to come help us regularly and it should work in both directions when we can provide the support with- out reducing the airport below our required capabilities (Stephen Lee, personal communication, Sep. 6, 2013). One other example that we had was for the Columbine school shooting response. We sent officers, explosive detection K-9s, and light plants. I have yet to hear anyone threaten us with a complaint for sending those types of resources off airport for a real emergency. I can see where the decision could go either way. Our EM partners are all aware of the issue ahead of time, so they are ready to receive a “no” when they make a request. But they know we are part of the community and will do our best. When we make the decision to send help, we understand that we could be stuck with the penalty. However, we believe it is the right thing to do and we have our arguments ready. When we look at the amount of mutual aid we receive from off airport, it exceeds the amount we give (Stephen Lee, personal communica- tion, Sep. 9, 2013). In contrast, while Jackson–Evers Airport faced similar issues, it decided to adhere to a narrower interpretation, based on its history of dealing with regional disasters: Revenue diversion becomes an issue when airports are asked to participate in multiparty response programs which require them to expend funds/equipment/supplies/personnel at other airports or in support of unrelated governmental entities or in regional partnerships with emergency response agencies if such expen- ditures do not directly support the air operations at the airport where the revenue was initially generated. In general, airports are required to be self-supporting and must offer leases and services at assessed fair market value and to ensure that rates and charges applied to aviation operations are

17 In addition to regular meetings, one formal or structural practice in promoting good relationships is the airport’s participation in regional emergency or disaster coordina- tion efforts, such as a county emergency operations board or an Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) board. Another formal practice is to have a designated liaison to the EM at the airport agency, and vice versa. A third such mea- sure is the presence of an airport representative in the EM agency’s EOC. One way to visualize common themes is to use tag clouds to show what words were used most frequently in responses. The actual practices of airports and of EM agencies were entered in separate word cloud analyses using Tag Crowd software. The words “airport” and “agency” were suppressed. Figures 8 and 9 show the results. It is unsurprising that the two tag cloud patterns are very similar. Both the airports and the EM agencies included (in descending order of frequency) “exercises,” “training,” “em,” “joint,” and “refresher” in their responses. The largest difference appears with “designated,” which may reflect the much more highly regulated nature of airports and the con- sequent greater attention to written designation of persons to perform specific functions. The tag cloud results should not, however, be over-interpreted, as they are easily influenced by the frequency of the words used in the questions on the surveys. larly educates the airport about its capabilities, especially for communication and coordination in complex emergencies and disasters. At its most effective, a partnership requires extreme clarity of roles and responsibilities, as well as hon- esty about the strengths and weaknesses of organizations. Airport tours and EOC tours and demonstrations can help build solid foundations for understanding. Joint drilling and exercising are currently the dominant practices, reflecting the regulatory requirements on airports and the traditional emphasis of EM agencies. Tabletop exer- cises were the most favored activity because they are rela- tively inexpensive to execute, highly efficient within time requirements, and can be easily and quickly designed to respond to specific needs or identified gaps in capabilities or preparedness. A beneficial addition to drilling and exercising is having the EM agency and the airport observe each other’s exercises or even serve as observers or evaluators. A constellation of training-related themes stand out in the data. Specifically, these include joint training, ICS training, NIMS training, airport-specific training for emergency agency personnel, and emergency agency-specific training for airport personnel. Joint planning is viewed as essential for productive relationships. Mutual review of each other’s emergency plans is helpful, as is maintaining current plans on site for each other. One effective practice is for an airport to involve its EM partner or partners in the development of its AEP. FIGURE 8 Tag cloud of airport practices. FIGURE 9 Tag cloud of emergency management agency practices.