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.

18 The two study surveys gathered detailed data on practices, policies, and tools actually used by airports and their EM partners, as well as qualitative assessments of the strengths and benefits of the relationships. Case examples developed through open-ended questions posed during conference call interviews provided both nuance and historical depth in interpreting the dynamics between airports and their EM agency partners. As shown in Table 2, airports in four NPIAS categories were selected for the case studies: • Large hub—Boston Logan International Airport (BOS) • Medium hub—John Wayne Airport (SNA) • Small hub—Boise International Airport (BOI) • Commercial service—Western Nebraska Regional Air- port (BFF). In addition, four distinct types of EM partners were included in the case examples: • State EM agency—Massachusetts EM Agency (MEMA) • Law enforcement—Orange County Sheriff’s Depart- ment (OCSD) • Fire department—Boise Fire Department (BFD) • Regional EM agency—Nebraska Region 22 EM (REG 22) Lastly, in two cases (BOI and SNA), airports manage their own coordination one-to-one, while in the other two cases (BOS and BFF), airports rely on EM agency partners to handle coordination. BOISE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BOI) BOI is a small hub airport that relies on its primary local EM agency for multi-agency coordination. BOI’s emergency manager has a major collateral duty, representing 20%–50% of one full-time employee. BOI is a municipal department of the city of Boise, as is the Boise Fire Department (BFD), its primary local EM partner. BFD provides ARFF services to BOI. The interview for this case example was conducted on September 3, 2013 with airport Deputy Director of Opera- tions Sarah Demer and Boise Fire Department Division Chief of Special Operations Paul Roberts. History of Relationship Historically, BOI and BFD did not get along; they were almost adversarial. There was very little interaction beyond the bare minimum required for ARFF functions. The perceived causes were poor interpersonal relationship skills, undervaluation of teamwork, and the creation of bureaucratic “silos.” Now, however, following the retirement and replace- ments of the fire chief and senior managers at the airport, the relationship is markedly improved. The new leaders share a vision based on the importance of leadership by example and teamwork—a major paradigm shift in the partnership. Today, both departments seek cooperation and account- ability, building on mutual knowledge and strengthening respect through training and cooperation. Tangible divi- dends and mutual understanding have resulted, as exempli- fied here: • There had been conflicts over open/closed runways after an aircraft incident that resulted from two rep- resentatives of separate agencies calling the control tower. This has been resolved by assigning the airport operations department the responsibility to make any call regarding runway status and writing that des- ignation into airport and fire department plans and procedures. • Updating the AEP in response to FAA Advisory Cir- cular 150/5200-31C in 2009–2010 allowed reexamina- tion of the relationship. BOI made BFD a full partner in the effort along with other stakeholders. The process reinforced awareness of the importance of clarifying responsibilities and reviewing AEP roles. The fire department participates in the weekly airport operations meeting. This meeting is the major formal venue for communication within the relationship, but many infor- mal channels are also used, ensuring a beneficial flow of communication and information. The city of Boise has an Incident Management Team (IMT) led by the BFD. The airport Deputy Director of Oper- ations is a full member. For most incidents at the airport, the IMT serves as IC, with strong input from airport operations; for major incidents, the IMT becomes a Unified Command that will include airport operations if an aircraft or the airport is involved. Since the changes in leadership, the relationship has contin- ued to improve. The positive results of BOI’s triennial recertifi- cation exercise in May 2013 demonstrate the effectiveness of chapter four cASE EXAMPLES

19 Advice on Fixing a Damaged Relationship • Recognize the problem. Lack of collegiality is a clear symptom of a need for change. • Convert a negative domino effect into a positive dom- ino effect. Let one success lead to another. • Be honest. • Talk. • Start building relationships. Question: If you wanted a quantitative metric of the success of your relationship, what could you imagine it being? After noting the difficulty and possible inappropriateness of quantifying relationships, Demory and Roberts suggested three potential metrics: 1. Numeric measurement of trends within the fire depart- ment related to the necessity of drafting firemen for service in ARFF. Before the change in leadership and the subsequent improvement in the relationship, fire- men were mostly drafted for ARFF duty. Now, most ARFF slots are filled by volunteers. This measure can be quantified, but it probably only applies when the ARFF station belongs to an outside agency and is con- tracted to the airport, as is the case in Boise. 2. After-exercise reviews. While the magnitude of prob- lems revealed is a qualitative measure of the effective- ness of the relationship, the number of action items to follow up the exercise is a potential quantitative metric. 3. How well do we do when we respond to real incidents? Most people are able to “measure” the answer to this ques- tion with statements such as “very well,” “not so well,” etc. Even though this measure is purely subjective and qualitative, it is the most salient for both BOI and BFD. Actual Reported Practices Table 8 summarizes actual practices reported in the surveys by BOI and BFD. There is a notable degree of consonance between their actual practices, which is to be expected given the closeness of the relationship. Since the BFD provides multi-agency coordination for the airport, it is natural that the airport sends a representative to the city’s EOC, which is run by the fire department. JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT (SNA) SNA is a medium hub airport, a department of Orange County, California, with a full-time emergency manager who is part of the airport’s operations department. The airport depends on its primary local EM partner, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, for multi-agency coordination. SNA also sends teams to learn from incidents at other airports. Most recently, a team went to San Francisco Inter- the BOI-BFD effort, as was the handling of a gear-up landing in August 2013. To sustain and nurture the relationship, the Airport Emer- gency Operations Team was created, which meets quarterly. The regular participants are the airport, fire department, and police department, but representatives of other departments and agencies often attend even when they have no items on the agenda, just to maintain contact. Each meeting has a formal agenda but also includes time for informal discussion. There is a focus on defining and finding solutions for actual or foresee- able problems. Goals for Each Side of Relationship The airport’s goals for the relationship are: 1. Safety of passengers, employees, and community 2. Joint planning based on dialogue 3. Clarity of mission 4. Mutuality of relationship. The fire department’s goals for the relationship are: 1. Safety of passengers, employees, and community 2. Open and honest communications 3. Regular communications 4. Focus on teamwork 5. Keeping agencies in perspective (clarity of roles, how roles fit together). Advice on Starting and Sustaining a Good Relationship • Exchange education on missions, procedures, roles, and responsibilities. Boise calls these “ARFF 101” and “Ops 101.” Reciprocal visits between airport operational and ARFF personnel are highly effective. The goal is to get everyone on a first-name basis: The resulting trust and familiarity pays off greatly in emergency situations, as it did during incidents such as the gear-up landing incident in August 2013. • Remember and execute the goals listed in the previous section. • Obtain support from senior leadership all around. • Build mutual respect. • Identify who experts are and establish access to them. • Maintain good communications. Keep the dialogue open. • Celebrate variety of experience. • Be sensitive to local culture and build on what is already there. • Be willing to drop old bad habits and move forward. • Learn from new incidents: Learn together, grow together. • Remember that some improvement leads to more improvement. • Perform comprehensive, timely after-action reviews that involve senior management.

20 TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF CASE EXAMPLE ACTUAL PRACTICES Practice Airports Emergency Management Agencies BFF BOI BOS SNA BFD MEMA OCSD REG 22 Regular meetings X X X X X X Joint planning X X X X X Joint drilling and exercising X X X X X X Physical or virtual presence in each other’s EOC X X X X X Airport-specific training for EM agency personnel X X X X X X X EM-specific training for airport personnel X X X X X X NIMS training and refresher training X X X X X X X ICS training and refresher training X X X X X X X X EM agency participation in Part 139 triennial (recertification) exercises X X X X X Table top exercises X X X X X X X X Functional exercises including full-scale exercises X X X X X X X X Peer review of programs by other airport or EM agency X X X X Peer review of plans by other airport or EM agency X X X Peer review of training by other airport or EM agency X X X Airport observing EM agency exercises X X X X X EM agency observing airport exercises X X X X X Airport having designated liaison person to EM agency X X X X X EM agency having designated liaison person to airport X X X X X Airport having dedicated emergency manager (full-time or major collateral duty of middle-level or senior manager) X X X X X X X Joint participation in outside state, university, or federal agency X X X X training Airport participates in regional emergency or disaster coordination effort X Airport and EM agency periodically evaluate effectiveness of relationships X X Formal EM accountability system to mayor, board, or other sponsor or owner X X Airport knows EMAC procedure and has written procedure for contacting EMAC X X X X Airport knows FEMA regional representative and has written procedure for contacting FEMA X X Source: J.F. Smith.

21 • Focus on collaboration. • Be willing to reach out and grow the network. • Engage senior management and get senior manage- ment/leadership support. • Create and use a strong structural (formal) relation- ship such as OCEMO and the Emergency Manage- ment Council. SNA is an active voting member of both groups, and the OCSD manages both groups. • Communicate. • Share information. The notification system and intercon- nection of notification systems are critically important to sustaining the relationship and its information flows. • Make NIMS and ICS implementation as seamless as possible. SNA and OCSD have long used SEMS, which is analogous to NIMS. Advice on Fixing a Damaged Relationship • Reopen lines of communication. • Be humble. • Focus on building personal relationships. • Recognize the problem. • Focus on finding solutions. Question: If you wanted a quantitative metric of the success of your relationship, what could you imagine it being? As in the Boise case example, the John Wayne–Orange County interviewees questioned the suitability of quantitative metrics for evaluating relationships. Furthermore, Ellis et al. agreed that all the mandates obscure the ability to construct usable metrics. This is probably truer for a highly regulated organi- zation, such as an airport, than for an EM agency, even when it is a law enforcement agency. The operational, safety, emer- gency, and security regulations to which an airport is subject essentially force all or nothing compliance. The consensus of Ellis et al. was that it is much better to focus on following recommended guidelines for developing relationships. Actual Reported Practices Table 8 summarizes the actual practices reported in the sur- veys by SNA and OCSD. The sheriff’s department reports using more practices, which is to be expected as it provides the larger share of the coordinative function, especially in multi-agency situations. MASSPORT—BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BOS) The Massachusetts Port Authority operates three airports: Logan, a large hub airport; Hanscom Field (BED), a very busy general aviation airport; and Worchester Regional Air- port (OHR), which was another busy GA airport at the time of the study and has since resumed scheduled commercial national Airport (SFO) to learn from the July 2013 crash of an Asiana Airlines that killed three passengers. After making observations at SFO, SNA began a comprehensive review and revision of its emergency plans and procedures. In this effort, SNA is working with its EM partners, including the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. The interview for this case example was conducted by on September 5, 2013, with Airport Emergency Manager Jim Ellis, Orange County Emergency Manager Victoria Osborn, and Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) Airport Operations Division Administrative Officer Charles Volkel. History of Relationship Going back to 1980, there were walls around individual jurisdictions. Since then, California automatic mutual aid has steadily improved the situation. Orange County EM Orga- nization (OCEMO) grew out of SEMS. All agencies meet monthly, and strong relationships are growing stronger. SNA joined the county EM council in 2012. Goals for Each Side of Relationship The airport’s goals for the relationship are: 1. Engagement 2. Mutual awareness of developments 3. Information sharing with stakeholders (SNA provides daily reports to county and state) 4. Building and sustaining personal relationships 5. Keeping a bridge between EM and operations. The sheriff’s department’s goals for the relationship are: 1. Coordination in planning 2. Sustained communication 3. Collaboration in all phases of EM: preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation 4. Realistic threat assessment as the basis for planning and action 5. Resource identification and allocation 6. Coordination of mutual aid 7. Joint exercises and training that are realistic and pro- ductive. Advice on Starting and Sustaining a Good Relationship • Consider the negative effects of a lack of a good relationship. • Get to know each other. • Acquaint each other with capabilities and needs. • Be willing to invest effort to sustain relationships. • Be willing to listen and ask questions. • Be humble.

22 Goals for Each Side of the Relationship The airport’s goals for the relationship are: 1. Safety of passengers, employees, tenants, and com- munity 2. A good match of roles, resources, and responsibilities 3. Mutual awareness and education of roles, responsi- bilities, capabilities, and needs. BOS calls its outreach “Airport 101,” which sounds very much like BOI’s “Ops 101.” 4. Robust relationships. The EM agency’s goals for the relationship are not avail- able, as MEMA did not participate in the teleconference. Advice on Starting and Sustaining a Good Relationship • Establish and maintain mutual awareness; for exam- ple, “Airport 101” and “Emergency Management Agency 101.” • Involve stakeholders, treating them as full partners and taking them seriously. Work hard at being inclusive. • Put everything into full regional context, especially the economic context. • Share information. • Develop and maintain connectivity. • Exercise savvy: Use every training, drilling, and exercis- ing opportunity to test and improve the entire team’s abil- ity and to reinforce the relationships, a tabletop exercise to test new quarantine and health arrangements and pro- cedures when CDC closed the Quarantine Office at BOS and put BOS under the quarantine office at JFK Inter- national Airport. • Use the power of invitations. Keep the airport and the relationship in the forefront of all partners’ minds. • Have a full-time emergency manager on the airport staff. Massport views this position as essential and believes it should be at the corporate level. • Plan jointly. • Use special events to practice cooperation and collabo- ration and to test plan integration. • Be proactive. • Use partners’ capabilities. • Focus on intelligence, maintaining the strongest possi- ble vertical and horizontal flows of information within the allowable scope of security restrictions. • Optimize interoperability. • Identify and use liaison persons in both directions in relationships. • Involve senior leadership in exercises, since top-down influence is powerful in shaping organizational behav- ior (Kenville and Smith 2013). Advice on Fixing a Damaged Relationship • The airport should take the initiative. • Conduct airfield tours. passenger flights. Logan’s EM is provided by a full-time emergency manager in Massport, which owns and operates the airport. Massport coordinates one-to-one with its various EM partners and does not depend on an outside agency for coordination except as noted in this case example. The interview for this case example was conducted on August 29, 2013, with Massport ARFF Chief Robert Dona- hue and Massport Emergency Manager Shayleen Schutz. History of Relationship Massport at Logan International Airport has an extraordi- narily effective relationship with its EM partners. This rela- tionship was previously documented (Smith 2010c), but has notable features worth repeating here. The centerpiece of the partnership at BOS is the daily morning operational briefing, which includes the heads of all airport departments and the heads of all the other stakeholders at the airport—local agen- cies, state agencies, federal agencies, airlines, and conces- sionaires. Mutual aid partners frequently attend to observe. The Mayor’s Office of Emergency Preparedness, MEMA, and the Boston Department of Public Health often partici- pate. The meeting is typically very short, with a fixed agenda that allows each unit to describe and discuss special condi- tions and events. It is a powerful means of sharing infor- mation, and it nurtures strong organizational and personal relationships. A second notable practice at BOS is an aggressive approach to drills and exercises so that the fullest possible array of emergency partners is involved in the planning, execution, and after-action review. Another method is Mass- port’s practice of inviting in peer reviewers for programs and plans and of sending Massport “go teams” to learn les- sons first hand from incidents at other airports. After the July 2013 crash at SFO, BOS sent a go team comprised of senior managers from operations, EM, ARFF, and the airport police (Massachusetts State Police). Based on the team’s observa- tions at the incident and response at SFO, Massport did an exhaustive review of its own emergency plans and proce- dures. BOS and Massport keep themselves on the cutting edge of airport EM through these and other practices. In the case example interview, Massport’s Schutz said that her primary duty was to identify the action items from actual responses, drills, and exercises, and to pursue resolution of those action actions. In developing and sustaining its relationships with EM partners, Massport has an advantage in being itself a state agency. By statute, the MEMA director is a member of the Massport board. Moreover, that person also heads the state homeland security department, giving Massport and BOS yet another productive tie. Massport and BOS are strongly linked into and active in the state and federal coordination centers for homeland security intelligence.

23 Goals for Each Side of Relationship The airport’s goals for the relationship are: 1. Safety 2. Community service 3. Information sharing 4. Strong personal relationships. Region 22’s goals for the relationship are: 1. Safety 2. Efficiency 3. Collaboration 4. Strong personal relationships 5. Effective preparedness through training, drilling, and exercising. Advice on Starting and Sustaining a Good Relationship • Build friendships. • Interact. • Take a true interest in each other’s agency and lives. • Educate each other. • Respect each other. • Maintain mutuality of goals. • Focus on interoperability. Advice on Fixing a Damaged Relationship • Care about fixing broken relationships. • Hold a nonjudgmental stakeholder meeting to identify problems and begin finding solutions. Question: If you wanted a quantitative metric of the success of your relationship, what could you imagine it being? Aguallo and Bretthauer suggested two metrics for judging the health of an airport-EM agency relationship: 1. The ability to utilize NIMS in normal operations, drills and exercises, and emergencies. This is basically a yes/no measure but could conceivably be converted into some sort of numeric grade. This proposed met- ric is similar to the Boise interviewees’ suggestion of using the number of action items identified in an after- exercise review as a metric. 2. The proportion or percentage of appropriate respond- ers that show up for an exercise (also similar to a Boise suggestion). Actual Reported Practices Table 8 summarizes the actual practices reported in the surveys by BFF and Region 22. The amount of difference in the two columns is the greatest of any of the four case examples, but this is probably not significant given the extraordinary degree of cooperation and interdependence evident in this partnership. • Perform outreach to agencies and other stakeholders. • Be persistent. • Develop case studies and share them. This is one of the methods used by Massport’s go teams. • Do not be afraid to change. Question: If you wanted a quantitative metric of the success of your relationship, what could you imagine it being? Donahue and Schutz suggested two metrics to apply to the relationships: 1. Are the goals and objectives of exercises met? For this type of assessment to work, exercises must be very carefully devised with clearly stated goals and objectives. 2. The percentage of agencies that embrace the proactive, collaborative philosophy. This might be very hard to measure, or it might be as simple as determining what percentage of senior managers who are invited to an exercise actually show up. Actual Reported Practices Table 8 summarizes the actual practices reported in the sur- veys by BOS and MEMA. There is a good degree of conso- nance between their actual practices, particularly in the areas of joint planning, training, drilling, and exercising. BOS is familiar with Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) procedures from its volunteer work through the Southeast Airports Disaster Operations Group, or SEADOG, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. WESTERN NEBRASKA REGIONAL AIRPORT (BFF) BFF is a commercial service airport that does not have a dedi- cated EM position. However, the airport manager and director of operations coordinate with the airport’s EM partners one- to-one and do not rely on its primary local EM agency for multi-agency coordination. BFF’s primary EM agency partner is the Nebraska Region 22 Emergency Management Agency. Therefore, among the four case studies, BFF is the only one that identified a regional agency as its primary partner. The telephone interview for this case example was con- ducted on August 26, 2013, with Airport Director of Opera- tions Raul Aguallo and Nebraska Region 22 EM Director Jerry Bretthauer. History of Relationship The relationship between BFF and Nebraska EM Region 22 is very strong and has been since at least 2005, when the current partnership of Aguallo and Bretthauer began. The small size of the community enhances personal relationships and provides opportunities for both formal and informal interactions.

24 1. Numeric measurement of trends within the fire depart- ment concerning the necessity of drafting firemen for service in ARFF as opposed to depending on volunteers 2. Determining whether the goals and objectives of exer- cises have been met 3. The number of action items to follow up the exercise 4. How well agencies perform when responding to real incidents 5. The percentage of agencies that embrace the proactive, collaborative philosophy 6. The ability to utilize NIMS in normal operations, drills and exercises, and emergencies. This is basically a yes/no measure but could conceivably be converted into some sort of numeric grade. 7. The proportion or percentage of appropriate respond- ers that show up for an exercise. Actual Reported Practices Table 8 summarizes the actual practices reported by all four case example airports and their EM agency partners. A key point is that all four partnerships focus most strongly on activ- ities required by regulations, at least by regulations applying to the airports. There is also a suggestion that peer reviews are an emerging trend among airports, with the process seemingly more advanced among airports than among EM agencies. The most pertinent information in the case studies deals with the roles of leadership, structural approaches to rela- tionship building, communication, and personal traits. These aspects from the case studies will be given the heaviest weight in identifying effective methods for developing and sustain- ing airport-EM agency relationships. One theme that runs through all four case studies, as well as the comments by Denver’s Lee on revenue diversion, is that airports will try to do the right thing to help their partners even when statutory or regulatory authority is absent or unclear. This is an example of apparent authority (Winmark 2013). Apparent authority, as applied to an emergency situation, means that one or more of the responding parties act within their capabilities or historical actions but without explicit authorization. This use of apparent authority will depend on how reasonable the senior managers and beneficiaries of the action are (Stephan Parker, personal communication, Oct. 15, 2013). SUMMARY OF THE cASE EXAMPLES The most striking impression made by the four case studies was the depth of commitment and enthusiasm the informants have for their EM roles and responsibilities and for the rela- tionships they have forged with their partners. History of Relationship In all four case examples, the partnerships now have sound relationships based on mutual respect, mutual understanding, friendship, frequent communication, and full use of both for- mal (e.g., regular meetings) and informal collaborative tools. Goals for Each Side of Relationship The goals of the airports and their EM partners largely overlap. Advice on Starting and Sustaining a Good Relationship The interviewees in all four case examples agreed that the same measures will both build and sustain good relationships. They all focused on friendships, frequent interactions, not wasting one another’s time, educating each other, mutual respect, clar- ity of goals, clear communications, and joint planning, training, drilling, and exercising. Advice on Fixing a Damaged Relationship Two main points concerning repairing damaged relation- ships stood out in the case examples. First, the focus cannot be solely on identifying problems but also on finding and implementing solutions to the problems. The second may be to examine personnel characteristics and behavior, mak- ing changes when necessary. A variation of this is to take advantage of retirements or general reorganizations to make changes in EM personnel and roles. Question: If you wanted a quantitative metric of the success of your relationship, what could you imagine it being? The case example interviewees suggested a wide range of potential metrics for measuring the effectiveness or success of their partnerships. These included: