Airport-to-Airport Mutual Aid Programs (2012)

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.

4Municipal and private utilities and public works departments have, for several decades, depended on mutual aid during times of emergency and large-scale disasters. What originally started with informal “handshake” agreements between local governments has evolved into very large, well-organized mutual aid programs that have proven their worth in response to large- scale disasters such as hurricanes, tornados, wild fires, floods, and winter storms. In the wake of disaster, consumers and citizens expect their electric power, water, and wastewater to be restored quickly and debris to be removed from streets and highways as fast as possible. Without estab- lished mutual aid programs, individual utilities and public works entities would not be able to field all the equipment and skilled supervisors and workers necessary to get services restored in a timely manner. Airports provide an indispensable service to travelers and businesses. Whether it is a commer- cial airport or a strictly general aviation (GA) one, the local community is deeply affected when the servicing airport is shut down during a disaster. Travelers are forced to make other arrange- ments, and the local economy may suffer. Getting the airport operational is a high priority, but if the airport has sustained extensive equipment damage and the airport’s personnel cannot get to work, significant recovery delays may ensue. An airport operator may be limited by the avail- ability of resources from the local municipality or nearby airports if the disaster is widespread. However, if the airport operator is part of a consortium of other airports—near and distant— and prearranged mutual aid agreements are in place, the ability to get the airport operating again in a timely fashion is significantly increased. ACRP Report 73: Airport-to-Airport Mutual Aid Programs (Guidebook) was written to help air- port operators and managers establish and sustain multi-airport mutual aid programs at the state, regional, and/or national level. Whether the airport is large or small, municipal or privately owned, a solid mutual aid program will benefit all. Some airports have traditionally relied on the state airport operator associations or similar entities for informal mutual aid, but a well-organized mutual aid program promotes the four phases of an emergency management program: mitigation, prepared- ness, response, and recovery. These four phases are the basis of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Airports regularly perform emergency exercises and are familiar with working with their local community mutual aid organizations in responding to airport emergencies. However, when it comes to community-wide disasters (e.g., hurricanes and earthquakes) that adversely affect airport operations, airports may not be the first priority in the deployment of mutual aid assets. The general concept is that outside aid cannot be expected to reach communities sooner than 72 hours after a disaster, yet airports that have been damaged may urgently need to be restored to become operational again, enable the arrival of outside aid, and enable the evacuation of affected populations. Introduction

Introduction 5 This Guidebook is built upon research and interviews conducted with more than 100 repre- sentatives of airport management, aviation associations, state emergency management offices, state aviation offices, non-aviation entities, and federal agencies. The research looked at existing regional airport-to-airport mutual aid groups and well-established utility and public works mutual aid organizations. From the best practices and lessons learned, this Guidebook explains how to establish a mutual aid program, develop an organizational structure, and contend with liability and reimbursement issues through sustaining an airport-to-airport mutual aid program. Airports are excellent resources for other airports during disasters in that they have the exact type of assets and knowledgeable human resources to assist in the unique operating requirements of airport systems. Two grassroots organizations have been created to provide these resources: the Southeast Airports Disaster Operations Group (SEADOG) and the Western Airports Disaster Operations Group (WESTDOG), known collectively as the disaster operations groups (DOGs). The DOGs serve as a mechanism to assist affected airports and to coordinate with airports seek- ing to provide assistance, much in the same way that utility companies provide for each other. Since 2004, these organizations have shown their capability to deliver aid effectively and much more quickly than the 72-hour planning threshold for general aid. Airports are interested in participating in such groups, but financial, legal, and logistical hurdles have made them hesitant to make formal commitments. With other industries having resolved or worked within these constraints, further research is needed to help airports develop and implement airport-to-airport mutual aid programs. In response to these issues, research into airport-to-airport mutual aid programs was con- ducted under ACRP Project 04-10, which resulted in the development of this Guidebook. Goals of the Project Guidebook An airport-to-airport mutual aid program guidebook should • Be useful to airports in developing and implementing airport-to-airport mutual aid programs; • Include the benefits to an airport from participating in an airport-to-airport mutual aid program; • Present lessons learned from existing airport-to-airport mutual aid programs and non- aviation mutual aid programs; • Present best management practices for developing and implementing airport-to-airport mutual aid programs; • Recommend organizational structures for airport-to-airport mutual aid programs; • Define roles and responsibilities within airport-to-airport mutual aid programs; • Present best practices to obtain an Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) mission number; • Specify procedures and forms required to obtain timely reimbursement under different circumstances; • Propose communication protocols; • Provide guidance on how airport operators can best plan to work with a mutual aid group during the planning, assessment, response, and recovery phases as a recipient of mutual aid and as a provider; • Give specific guidance on how airport operators can best coordinate airport-to-airport mutual aid program activities with federal and state agencies relating to an event;

6 Airport-to-Airport Mutual Aid Programs • Propose strategies for promoting and initiating this concept regionally and nationally; • Provide tools to evaluate needs at the recipient airport; • Propose tools or procedures to conduct a post-event feedback mechanism for the responding mutual aid programs; • Identify considerations for airports receiving assistance from an airport-to-airport mutual aid program, including identification and/or credentialing; • Propose a process that mutual aid programs can follow to ensure continuity and readiness between events; • Provide a sample mutual aid agreement that can be used for intrastate agreements; and • Give a glossary of relevant acronyms. Study Methods Three primary methods were used to develop the Guidebook: a literature review; interviews with airports, state aviation offices, state emergency management agencies, and state airport operators associations; and four case studies. Interviews The list of desired interviews was devised to include commercial airports of all types and sizes from all regions of the country. Every airport that sent aid through SEADOG or directly in response to the hurricanes in 2005 was included, as were representative airports from WESTDOG. In addition, airports in the regions of the country that do not have an existing airport-to-airport mutual aid program and airports in the WESTDOG region that did not join WESTDOG were included in order to provide data on why an airport might have chosen not to join an airport-to-airport mutual aid program. The airports that participated in interviews are listed in Table 1 by National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) category and region. Case Studies Four case studies were completed to probe and extend ideas found during the literature review and interviews. Case Study 1—SEADOG and WESTDOG The first case study examined the history, structure, functions, communications systems, administrative procedures, and lessons learned of the two existing regional airport-to-airport mutual aid programs. Case Study 2—Colorado Aviation Recovery Support Team (CARST) The second case study addressed the history, structure, training requirements, functions, com- munications systems, administrative procedures, and lessons learned of the only existing intra- state airport-to-airport mutual aid program. Case Study 3—Miami-Centered Mutual Aid Programs The third case study examined one-on-one mutual aid arrangements in non-disaster cases, indirect support provided by Miami International Airport to the Haiti earthquake response in 2010, and whether a sister airports program (a world-wide program of Airports Council International (ACI) that pairs airports in different countries primarily for purposes of marketing and route development) could support an international airport-to-airport mutual aid program. The case study’s workshop focused on the relationships among all parties during the repair and

Introduction 7 reopening of an airport—Port-au-Prince—following a disaster that affected a region and also directly affected the airport. Not only did the case study workshop look at such relationships and the staging of aid, it also examined roles that some stakeholders might someday play in regional, national, and international airport-to-airport mutual aid programs. Case Study 4—Utilities and Public Works Mutual Aid Programs The fourth case study looked at non-airport mutual aid programs in the fields of utilities and public works. The primary focus was on public works in communities in New Hampshire. a See Appendix O for titles of airports designated in Table 1 with three-letter airport codes. b Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. c Houston Airport System airports. Southeast West Midw est Ne w England Mid-Atlantic Other Large Hub ATL a DCA b DFW IAD b IAH c MCO LAS PHX SAN DTW MSP BOS JF K PHL YYC Medium Hub HO U c JAX MEM MSY PBI SAT ABQ PDX RNO MCI Small Hub CHS GPT PNS SAV COS FAT SGF MHT Non-Hub Primary AGS BPT BQK LCH MLB MOB SUN General Av iation APA Table 1. Airports on the interview list.