Managing Aerial Firefighting Activities on Airports (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.

8 IntroductIon For airport operators and the communities that support aerial wildland fire suppression operations, there are two broad cat- egories where the airport aids, assists, or provides services to the aerial firefighting agencies. In the first category, the air- port “hosts” a full-time fire suppression agency on a perma- nent basis, and the two entities enter into a formal agreement. In this scenario, the airport is the landlord and the agency is the tenant or leaseholder. Generally, the agreements are between the airport and a federal agency such as the USFS or BLM; however, it is not uncommon that the tenant is a state entity such as CAL FIRE (the California Department of For- estry and Fire Protection), a local agency, or regional entity with firefighting responsibilities. In the second scenario, a fire agency will mobilize for a specific event and establish a temporary base at an airport with no permanent support facilities. Depending on the physical location of the fire, the “airport fire base” size can vary from aerial firefighting sup- port (aircraft and retardant mixing) to support for firefighting crews and fire management teams. The mission of the USFS is “to sustain the health, diver- sity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grass- lands to meet the needs of present and future generation” (USFS—About Us—Mission 2008). Within the USFS is a working group called Forest Service Aviation with the mis- sion to support the ground firefighter through a variety of means including safe delivery of smokejumpers, rappellers, air attack, firefighter and cargo transport, surveillance, aerial reconnaissance and fire intelligence gathering, and aerial delivery of fire retardant and water (USFS—Fire & Aviation Management 2010). Permanent aerIal FIreFIghtIng Bases Permanent aerial firefighting bases on airports have devel- oped over time and generally are located in areas where there are significant histories of wildland fires. Some bases are co- located with USFS regional offices, such as the Forest Ser- vice Region One offices in downtown Missoula, Montana, and the Aerial Fire Depot, Region One Fire Cache, Inter- agency Fire Science Laboratory, Northern Region Training Center, and smokejumper base located adjacent (and con- nected by a taxiway) to the Missoula International Airport. Other airports support aerial wildland firefighting suppres- sion operations but also have a very specific mission, such as the training center for rappellers at on the Grant County Regional Airport in John Day, Oregon. Still others, such as Redding Airport in Redding, California, Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport in Broomfield, Colorado, and the base at Roberts Field in Redmond, Oregon, host a variety of state and USFS facilities and activities year-round including air tanker operations. seasonal aerIal FIreFIghtIng suPPort Bases Seasonal aerial firefight support bases have no permanent facilities located on or adjacent to the airport. These air- ports, for the purposes of aerial wildland firefighting oper- ations, are used when the responding firefighting agency determines that the airport’s use is beneficial to the sup- pression effort. NIFC maintains a list of airports and airport contact infor- mation for seasonal airports. The majority of seasonal airports support helitanker and single-engine air tankers operations; however, some other fixed-wing operations, such as fire sur- veillance, photography, cargo haul, and personnel transport, can also be accommodated. When seasonal airports are used for aerial wildland fire- fighting, the first few hours and days of the attack are critical to the success of the operation. The responding firefighting agencies are capable of quickly establishing a self-contained base; however, they generally will require assistance from the airport operator. In the first 24 to 48 hours, agencies will often need, and the airport operators may be called on to assist or provide, some or all of the following: • Office or workspace (hangar, trailer, or other “dry” space) • Electrical power (both 110 and 220 volt) • Restroom facilities • Crew staging and briefing areas • Telephone/facsimile/Internet/multi-media services • Vehicle parking area • Ramp access. Shortly after the airport fire base is activated, additional support equipment and materials will arrive and may include chapter three aIrPorts’ role In aerIal FIreFIghtIng

9 trailers, generators, water tanks/pools, retardant mixing plants, air traffic control units, and, of course, aircraft. As the temporary base is developed, the agency will need to coordi- nate with the airport operator for: • Ramp/flight line access, badging, and access media • Ramp area for operations – Aircraft parking – Aircraft maintenance (including portable lighting for night maintenance operations) – Aircraft fueling • Fuel and fuel storage area • Airfield security • Parking for vehicles • Temporary air traffic control tower (ATCT) site • Commercial power/utilities • Restroom facilities/portable toilets • Potable water • Water for firefighting operations • Dust control • Trash service/dumpsters • Aircraft operating areas/ramps/maintenance areas • Crew areas • Phone service and emergency contact information • Catering • Jettison procedures/drills. As the campaign proceeds, routines are established and operations generally settle down. communIty Issues and ImPacts All but one of the airport operators interviewed saw aerial wildland firefighting activities and the presence of a perma- nent or temporary base as significant to the financial health of the airport and the surrounding community. Several air- ports indicated a desire to expand firefighting operations on site. Airports without permanent bases were actively lobbying local agencies to establish full-time facilities. According to airport operators, local communities often saw substantial increases in revenue to hotel and restau- rant services and ancillary services sectors such as grocery and convenience stores, restaurants and bars, and laundry facilities. Direct and indirect financial impacts were not quantitatively known; however, airport operators estimated that from 3% to 8% of the local economy is generated by government activities directly related to wildland firefight- ing suppression activities. The primary source of cost recovery for the airports came in the form of fuel flowage and landing fees (more on this in chapter five). Additional income generators for the airport were rental cars, commercial flights by firefighting agencies, ground/property rental, and fuel sales by the airport and/or the airport’s fixed-based operators (FBOs). grant assurances and aeronautIcal actIvItIes Most public airports used by the various firefighting agencies have been developed, at least in part, by federal grants-in-aid from the FAA. As recipients of FAA grants-in-aid, airports enter into agreements with the agency and agree to abide by certain rules, commonly referred to as grant assurances or more formally known as airport sponsors assurances. These assurances are requirements attached to the grants-in-aid and are legally binding on the airport operator, or more specifi- cally the governmental entity that accepts the grant—that is, the sponsor. Currently, there are 39 assurances; a copy of the current assurances is available on the FAA website at http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/ [accessed August 3, 2011]. Of the 39 assurances, the primary assurances that become active in the context of aerial wildland firefighting are Assur- ance 22—Economic Nondiscrimination, Assurance 24—Fee and Rental Structure, and Assurance 27—Use by Govern- ment Aircraft. These assurances are reproduced here: [Assurance] 22. Economic Nondiscrimination. a. It will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including commer- cial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport. b. In any agreement, contract, lease, or other arrangement under which a right or privilege at the airport is granted to any person, firm, or corporation to conduct or to engage in any aeronauti- cal activity for furnishing services to the public at the airport, the sponsor will insert and enforce provisions requiring the contractor to (1) furnish said services on a reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, basis to all users thereof, and (2) charge reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, prices for each unit or service, provided that the con- tractor may be allowed to make reasonable and nondis- criminatory discounts, rebates, or other similar types of price reductions to volume purchasers. c. Each fixed-based operator at the airport shall be subject to the same rates, fees, rentals, and other charges as are uniformly applicable to all other fixed-based operators making the same or similar uses of such airport and utilizing the same or similar facilities. d. Each air carrier using such airport shall have the right to service itself or to use any fixed-based operator that is authorized or per- mitted by the airport to serve any air carrier at such airport. e. Each air carrier using such airport (whether as a tenant, non ten- ant, or subtenant of another air carrier tenant) shall be subject to such nondiscriminatory and substantially comparable rules, regulations, conditions, rates, fees, rentals, and other charges with respect to facilities directly and substantially related to providing air transportation as are applicable to all such air car- riers which make similar use of such airport and utilize similar facilities, subject to reasonable classifications such as tenants or non tenants and signatory carriers and non signatory carriers. Classification or status as tenant or signatory shall not be unrea- sonably withheld by any airport provided an air carrier assumes obligations substantially similar to those already imposed on air carriers in such classification or status.

10 f. It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the airport from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own employees (including, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and fueling) that it may choose to perform. g. In the event the sponsor itself exercises any of the rights and privileges referred to in this assurance, the services involved will be provided on the same conditions as would apply to the furnishing of such services by commercial aeronautical service providers authorized by the sponsor under these provisions. h. The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport. i. The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind, or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public. . . . [Assurance] 24. Fee and Rental Structure. It will maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances existing at the particular airport, taking into account such factors as the volume of traffic and economy of collection. No part of the Federal share of an airport development, airport plan- ning or noise compatibility project for which a grant is made under Title 49, United States Code, the Airport and Airway Improve- ment Act of 1982, the Federal Airport Act, or the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 shall be included in the rate basis in establishing fees, rates, and charges for users of that airport. . . . [Assurance] 27. Use by Government Aircraft. It will make avail- able all of the facilities of the airport developed with Federal finan- cial assistance and all those usable for landing and takeoff of aircraft to the United States for use by Government aircraft in common with other aircraft at all times without charge, except, if the use by Government aircraft is substantial, charge may be made for a rea- sonable share, proportional to such use, for the cost of operating and maintaining the facilities used. Unless otherwise determined by the Secretary, or otherwise agreed to by the sponsor and the using agency, substantial use of an airport by Government aircraft will be considered to exist when operations of such aircraft are in excess of those which, in the opinion of the Secretary, would unduly interfere with use of the landing areas by other authorized aircraft, or during any calendar month that a. Five (5) or more Government aircraft are regularly based at the airport or on land adjacent thereto; or b. The total number of movements (counting each landing as a movement) of Government aircraft is 300 or more, or the gross accumulative weight of Government aircraft using the airport (the total movement of Government aircraft multiplied by gross weights of such aircraft) is in excess of five million pounds [FAA, Grant Assurances (Obligations) 2011]. Assurance 22 was the most discussed topic during inter- views with both airport and aircraft operators. From the airport operators’ perspective, it raised three issues: techni- cal compliance with the requirement to allow carrier self- fueling; the safety of fueling operations (discussed in more detail in the next section); and the economic tipping point of providing a level playing field between the self-fueler and the FBO, while providing revenue for the operation of the airport (see Airport Sponsor Assurance 24—Fee and Rental Structure). For aircraft operators, especially of rotary-wing aircraft, the issue was entirely economic. The cost of fuel was iden- tified as a major operational cost that could be reduced by self-fueling. While the aircraft operators appeared to under- stand the “philosophical” concept of a fuel flowage fee, they did not understand why they should pay it if they were self- fueling. Assurance 24 discussions with several of the airport operators revealed a real concern on the part of the airports and agencies as to how the “self-sustaining” element might affect future lease negotiations. Historically, aerial firefight- ing suppression agencies such as the USFS and BLM have entered into long-term agreements with airport operators that by today’s standards would be viewed as very favorable. Many of those agreements and successor agreements were crafted more than 50 years ago and factored in the value (i.e., potential economic development) that an agency brought not only to the airport but to the surrounding community. Now, as the airport sponsors and fire suppression agencies are fac- ing the expiration of these contracts, there is concern on both sides of the negotiating table about the terms of successor agreements. Given the FAA’s requirements on airports to “maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible” (FAA Order 5190.6B, FAA Airport Compliance Manual 2009) and the FAA’s Policy Regarding the Estab- lishment of Airport Rates and Charges (http://www.faa.gov/ airports/airport_compliance/), airports are concerned about future negotiations, as are the firefighting agencies. For airport operators, one of the important sentences in Assurance 27 is the one that allows the airport operator and the agency to agree on reasonable fees for the use of the airport. mInImum standards and rules and regulatIons Minimum standards and rules and regulations go hand-in- hand and can hardly be discussed separately. Although not required by the FAA, minimum standards and rules and regulations documents are highly encouraged; while not approved by the FAA, the agency reviews them for “appro- priateness” on request (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190-7, Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities 2009). Historically, as relates to the subject of this study, airports have had frequent and often difficult confrontations with aeronautical users over the issue of self-fueling on the airfield and the payment of fuel flowage or other use fees. During the interviews, airport operators reported the self- fueling and fuel flowage fee issues had been for the most part

11 resolved, at least with airports that had solid rules and regu- lations documents. Those operators that had addressed the issues of self-fueling and payment of fuel flowage fees (and other fees) by self-fuelers had generally resolved the once significant headaches associated with these issues. Although getting agreement on the rules and regulations surround- ing these issues was challenging, once they were legally adopted by the airports, self-fuelers, users, and FBOs all had acceded. Those airport operators interviewed without strong rules and regulations, or without any, were continuing to experience challenges on these matters. Although airport rules and regulations are customized to match the conditions at any particular facility, examples can be found on some airport websites, such as Boise Airport in Idaho, http://www.cityofboise.org/Departments/Airport/ AboutBoiseAirport/index.aspx [accessed August 3, 2011]. The FAA has developed several guidance documents on the subject that can be found on the FAA website. • FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190-7, Minimum Stan- dards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities, http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_ circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/ documentNumber/150_5190-7 [accessed January 17, 2012]. • Order 5190.6B FAA Airport Compliance Manual http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/ orders/ [January 17, 2012].