Model Mutual Aid Agreements for Airports (2013)

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.

19 INTRODUCTION Five case examples are included in this synthesis report. The case example airports were chosen to show different approaches to mutual aid agreements. They were chosen on the basis of their governance, size, presence of mutual aid agreements, presence of written mutual aid agreements, and presence of unwritten or verbal agreements. One airport with an interlocal agreement is included, as are airports from states with statewide mutual aid arrangements. Tables 8 through 12 summarize the character- istics of the airports in the five case examples. Essential ques- tions addressed in the analysis of the case examples are how the decision between written and verbal agreements was made, what innovations are possible in agreements, and the nature of multi-lateral and all-hazard agreements. CASE EXAMPLE 1: MOSTLY VERBAL AGREEMENTS—STATE-OWNED NON-HUB AIRPORTS IN ALASKA The state of Alaska governs five primary non-hub airfields, Gustavus (GST), Petersburg (PSG), Sitka (SIT), Wrangell (WRG), and Yakutat (YAK) Because of Alaska’s remoteness, there is a deeply embedded cultural tenet of helping others, and this influences the situation of these five airports with regards to mutual aid agreements (Paul Khera, personal communication, Oct. 19, 2012). The need for assistance is usually obvious, but written agreements are not always needed, because the state of Alaska and its agencies are among the biggest first responders. Mutual aid is a living practice in Alaska (see Table 8). Sitka Airport is the largest of the five primary non-hub air- ports in this case example, but its mutual aid profile is typical of all five—and reflects a current trend toward replacing writ- ten agreements with verbal ones. Sitka has written agreements with the local fire department and with local law enforcement, but also has a number of unwritten agreements. Alaska airports enter into verbal agreements with local fire departments, local law enforcement, the National Park Service, the TSA, the Alaska Department of Homeland Secu- rity and Emergency Services, the U.S. Coast Guard, and local search and rescue units. Verbal agreements reflect the unique characteristics of airports and their communities; for exam- ple, the city and borough of Sitka is a major cruise ship desti- nation, so Sitka Airport entered into a verbal agreement with a private passenger ship touring company. Such agreements illustrate how airports can enter into mutual aid agreements with private corporations or for-profit organizations. In the words of Paul Khera of the Alaska DOT (personal communication, June 6, 2012): Almost all our agreements are unwritten. When the few written agreements we have expire, they will turn into unwritten agree- ments. Written agreements run into legal/liability issues that interfere with the overall mission to protect lives and property. Written agreements also run into legal issues of training records inspection of other entities. Entities consider training records as personnel records and are off limits to most. An exception to written agreements is when there is compensation involved. We do have written agreements with some fire and police depart- ments that we pay to provide safety and security services. Because some of the Alaska DOT agreements with local fire and police departments involve payment for services, tech- nically speaking, they are considered contracts as opposed to mutual aid agreements. In general, airports demonstrate two different attitudes towards mutual aid: (1) Cooperation brings benefits that make it worthwhile solving the legal issues; or (2) legal and liability issues are too difficult to resolve in time to carry out emergency actions. Reason 2 is why such issues need to be resolved in advance before there is an emergency. Southeast Alaska airports clearly are moving into the second camp. Determining which position is more valid would involve an analysis of the local context in which the airport operates. The five non-hub primary airports in this case example must meet the same FAR Part 139 certification requirements as all U.S. commercial service airports, meaning both table- top exercises and triennial exercises involving first responders are necessary. Sitka Airport reported that its mutual aid agreements were beneficial to both the airport and the community. The Alaska airports do not have written evaluation procedures or metrics. CASE EXAMPLE 2: ONLY VERBAL AGREEMENTS— METROPOLITAN AIRPORT COMMISSION (MAC) RELIEVER AIRPORTS IN MINNESOTA Like the Alaska airports, the reliever airports belonging to the Minneapolis–St. Paul MAC—including Anoka County– Blaine Airports (ANE) and Minneapolis’ Crystal Airport chapter four CASE EXAMPLES OF SELECTED AIRPORTS

20 (MIC)—avoid entering into written mutual aid agreements (see Table 9). MAC expands on this approach by avoiding any direct verbal agreements, with emphasis on the word “direct.” Using ANE as an example, Gary Schmidt, the man- ager of reliever airports for MAC (personal communication, June 20, 2012) observes: The airport is owned and operated by a public corporation created by the State Legislature. Although we have all the powers of a municipality, we do not have our own police and fire departments [for the case example reliever airports]. Emergency services are provided by the overlying jurisdiction [in this case the City of Blaine (for ANE)] through a written agreement. The City of Blaine does have mutual aid agree- ments with other jurisdictions, but the airport is not part of those agreements. In other words, MAC reliever airports can receive the ben- efits of mutual aid agreements without entering into them on their own. The overlying jurisdiction’s provision of police and fire services is regulated by the contract between MAC and the municipality, since the reliever airports are not bound by FAR Part 139. In the survey, MAC indicated that it found mutual aid agreements to be beneficial, although neither ANE nor Crystal Airport has any direct agreements. The airports reported that their verbal or indirect mutual aid agreements were beneficial to both the airport and the community even though MAC has no mutual aid agreements at the two reliever airports in this study. CASE EXAMPLE 3: SPECIALIZED MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENTS— CITY OF CHICAGO AVIATION DEPARTMENT The city of Chicago operates two major commercial service airports, Midway Airport (MDW) and O’Hare International Airport (ORD). MDW has four written mutual aid agreements and no verbal agreements. ORD also has four written agree- ments, as well as a number of verbal mutual aid agreements with cargo companies and airlines that allow use of their build- ings as shelters in the case of severe storms or lightning. Both MDW and ORD have written agreements for assistance from the city of Chicago’s Public Works Department, and both air- ports are deeply engaged in regional (“ Chicagoland”) or state- wide mutual aid pacts. In Illinois, these multilateral agreements tend to pertain to a single category of aid such as fire, law enforcement, or emergency communications (see Table 10). The two Chicago airports exercise all of their mutual aid agreements, both written and verbal, every year. Although the Chicago Aviation Department does not have a mutual aid-specific evaluation program, it evaluates the performance of their mutual aid agreements in annual and triennial exer- cises as part of the after-action review using FAA criteria for recertification. TABLE 8 CASE EXAMPLE AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS ALASKA STATE-OWNED NON-HUB AIRPORT Characteristic Value Governance State NPIAS category Primary non-hub (GST, PSG, SIT, WRG, and YAK) Enplanements (2011) 10,575 (GST) 18,318 (PSG) 65,193 (SIT) 11,674 (WRG) 10,517 (YAK) Written mutual aid agreements 0–2 (GST, PSG, SIT, WRG, and YAK) Unwritten mutual aid agreements Yes—See narrative (GST, PSG, SIT, WRG, and YAK) Regional/interlocal agreements Yes (GST, PSG, SIT, WRG, and YAK) Statewide mutual aid compact Yes Source: Survey results. TABLE 9 CASE EXAMPLE AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS MAC RELIEVER AIRPORTS ANOKA COUNTY— BLAINE (ANE) AND CRYSTAL (MIC) IN MINNESOTA Characteristic Value Governance State authority NPIAS Category Reliever Enplanements (2011) N/A Written Mutual Aid Agreements 0 Unwritten Mutual Aid Agreements 0 direct—See narrative Regional/Interlocal Agreements No Statewide Mutual Aid Compact No Source: Survey results. N/A = not available. TABLE 10 CASE EXAMPLE AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS CITY OF CHICAGO (IL) AVIATION DEPARTMENT [MIDWAY (MDW) AND O’HARE (ORD)] Characteristic Value Governance City NPIAS category Medium hub (MDW) Large hub (ORD) Enplanements (2011) 9,134,576 (MDW) 31,892,301 (ORD) Written mutual aid agreements 4 (MDW) 4 (ORD) Unwritten mutual aid agreements 0 (MDW) Yes (ORD)—See narrative Regional/interlocal agreements Yes Statewide mutual aid compact Several specialized mutual aid plans Source: Survey results.

21 The airport reported that its mutual aid agreements were beneficial to both the airport and the community. CASE EXAMPLE 4: FULL ARRAY OF ALL TYPES OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS—SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC) has the most extensive array of mutual aid agreements of any of the 32 responding airports in this study—13 written and three ver- bal agreements covering the entire spectrum described in chapter three: one-on-one, multilateral/interlocal, regional, and statewide. Its written agreements are for fire, law enforcement, emergency medical services, hospital, Ameri- can Red Cross, Air National Guard, local emergency man- agement agency, TSA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the local health department, and the Utah DOT. The other two agreements are multilateral/interlocal and multi-hazard (see Table 11). The verbal agreements are with the Emergency Hospi- tal Management Committee, the local police automatic aid agreement, and oil refinery fire and security forces. Appen- dix E reproduces SLC’s 2012 interlocal agreement (Sam- ple 7), American Red Cross 2010 agreement (Sample 8), and Utah Air National Guard K9 agreement (Sample 9). The last agreement is particularly interesting as it provides for a spe- cial resource belonging to the airport (K-9 dogs) to be used on behalf of the Air National Guard. SLC does not have evaluation standards or metrics. As part of its Part 139 recertification exercise, it exercised the fire and hospital pre-notification mutual aid plans as well as the Great Salt Lake Operational Preplan. In addition, SLC exercised its participation in the WesTern Airports Disaster Operations Group (WESTDOG), which is outside the scope of this study. SLC’s mutual aid plans and agreements are marked by great comprehensiveness and outstanding flexibility. They are all firmly rooted in NIMS/ICS principles and procedures. The airport reported that its mutual aid agreements were beneficial to both the airport and the community. CASE EXAMPLE 5: MUTUAL AGREEMENTS IN A STATEWIDE MUTUAL AID PROGRAM—HAMMOND NORTHSHORE REGIONAL AIRPORT Hammond Northshore Regional Airport (HDC) has one writ- ten mutual aid agreement with the state of Louisiana, specifi- cally, the Louisiana Air National Guard (see Sample 10 in Appendix E). HDC also has two verbal agreements with the fire and police departments of the city of Hammond, which owns the airport (see Table 12). HDC has a pre-defined role in the Louisiana (2008) Medical Institutions Evacuation Plan, but that plan is not technically a mutual aid plan. HDC evaluates the agreements regularly, although without written evaluation procedures. The airport reported that its mutual aid agreements were beneficial to both the airport and the community. SUMMARY OF CASE EXAMPLES The five case examples were chosen to include examples of airports that favor written agreements, airports that favor ver- bal agreements, that are actively engaged in regional or multi- jurisdictional agreements, and that are parts of statewide mutual aid. They were not chosen to give proportional representation of the NPIAS categories, but to illustrate major styles and trends among airport mutual aid agreements. Smith (2012b) found that GA airports generally had close working relationships with the communities that own them. Hammond Northshore exemplifies this. However, the other four case examples also indicated close working relationships between airports and their communities as evinced by their mutual aid agreements. The case examples show that the devel- opment of an airport’s mutual aid arrangements depends heav- ily on the context and complexity of the airport’s operations and location. What is evident in all five case examples is that mutual ben- efit and mutual need are the primary factors driving the devel- opment of such arrangements. Every airport in the five case examples, despite large differences in airport locations and characteristics, answered “Yes” to the question, “Are mutual aid agreements beneficial to both the airport and the community?” Characteristic Value Governance City NPIAS Category Large hub Enplanements (2011) 9,701,756 Written Mutual Aid Agreements 13 Unwritten Mutual Aid Agreements 3 Regional/Interlocal Agreements Yes Statewide Mutual Aid Compact Utah StatewideMutual Aid Pact Source: Survey results. TABLE 11 CASE EXAMPLE AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS SALT LAKE CITY (UT) INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SLC) Characteristic Value Governance City NPIAS Category GA Enplanements (2011) N/A Written Mutual Aid Agreements 1 Unwritten Mutual Aid Agreements 2 Regional/Interlocal Agreements No Statewide Mutual Aid Compact See narrative Source: Survey results. GA = general aviation; N/A = not available. TABLE 12 CASE EXAMPLE AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS HAMMOND (LA) NORTHSHORE REGIONAL AIRPORT (HDC)