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.

12 IntroductIon Explaining the detailed management of a major wildland fire is significantly beyond the scope of this study, but this chapter provides an overview of and insight into the complexity of the systems that are mobilized when a major wildland firefighting effort is initiated. Understanding the mechanisms, the major players, and their interaction is helpful to airport operators who will inevitably become involved in the firefight. At the center of the federal effort is the NIFC in Boise. Within the NIFC is the NICC, which is the “focal point for coordinating the mobilization of resources for wildland fire and other incidents throughout the United States” (NICC 2011). Wildfire suppression is built on a three-tiered system of support— the local area, one of the 11 geographic areas, and finally, the national level. When a fire is reported, the local agency and its fire- fighting partners respond. If the fire continues to grow, the agency can ask for help from its geographic area. When a geographic area has exhausted all its resources, it can turn to NICC at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) for help in locating what is needed, from air tankers to radios to firefighting crews to incident manage- ment teams (NICC 2011). Assisting in the efforts of the federal agencies and part of the NIFC is the National Multi-Agency Coordination Group (NMAC). The NMAC is comprised of representatives from the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Emergency Management Administration [sic], and the National Association of State Foresters. The NMAC group at NIFC pri- oritizes and allocates resources. The NMAC group at NIFC prioritizes and allocates resources when there are critical shortages of national resources such as smokejumpers, air tankers, or Type 1 Incident Management Teams (NICC 2011). IncIdent ManageMent The federal government is constantly changing and modifying how it responds to major incidents; the attack on the World Trade Center, the response to Hurricane Katrina, and other significant events have brought about significant changes in how the federal government responds to incidents, including wildland fires. A thorough review of the process and history of the development of incident management is beyond the scope of this study; however, understanding how the federal government becomes involved in wildland fires, what its role is, and how it interacts with state, tribal, local, and other fed- eral entitled can be useful to airport operators. On February 28, 2003, the DHS released Presidential Directive 5, Management of Domestic Incidents [a full text copy of that directive is available at http://www.dhs.gov/ xabout/laws/gc_1214592333605.shtm#1 (accessed Janu- ary 17, 2012)]. One of the many provisions of Directive 5 was the creation of the National Incident Management Sys- tem (NIMS) and the requirement that political jurisdictions adopt and train staff in NIMS requirements. 20. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2005, Federal departments and agencies shall make adoption of the NIMS a requirement, to the extent permitted by law, for providing Federal prepared- ness assistance through grants, contracts, or other activities. The Secretary shall develop standards and guidelines for determin- ing whether a State or local entity has adopted the NIMS (DHS, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5, 2011). In addition to the NIMS standard, DHS and FEMA have developed a significant body of documents on emergency management practices; one of those documents is called the Overview: ESF and Support Annexes Coordinating Federal Assistance In Support of the National Response Framework, January, 2008 [the document is available on line at http:// www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/index.htm (accessed August 5, 2011)]. The information of value to airport operators is found on pages 19 and 20 where FEMA describes the activities and actions of the various federal agencies and how they relate to each other (FEMA—NRF Resource Center 2011). eMergency Support FunctIon Federal Level At the federal level, the management of wildland fire is iden- tified as Emergency Support Function (ESF) #4, commonly called “the firefighting annex.” This is the document where the USFS is designated the primary coordinating agency (except in Alaska where BLM is the designee) for federal wildland firefighting suppression responses. As stated in Emergency Support Function Annex #4: National support is accomplished through the National Inter- agency Coordination Center (NICC) located at the National Inter- agency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise, ID. All support provided by chapter four FIre ManageMent teaM roLeS

13 the NICC will be coordinated with the National Response Coor- dination Center (NRCC). Coordination with and support of State and local fire sup- pression organizations is accomplished through the State Forester, State Fire Marshal, State emergency management agency, or other appropriate State agency and/or tribal fire suppression organiza- tions operating under the Incident Command System (ICS) element of the NIMS Command and Management component (FEMA— Emergency Support Function # 4—Firefighting Annex 2008). State Level Each state commonly has designated a lead agency for coor- dination of matters related to emergency planning and specifi- cally for matters directly related to wildland fire operations. Because each state deals with these matters as it sees fit, air- port operators commonly are familiar with the agency in their state government that is the designated lead for matters related to wildland fire. A good place to gain information on these matters is the website hosted by the NASF [http://www.state foresters.org/about_nasf (accessed February 17, 2012)], where the association maintains a pull-down menu of members and contact information. Local Level Emergency planning for wildland fires on the local level, as on the state level, will vary depending on the structure of local government. In most instances, airport operators are involved with their local emergency planning authority/agency. FederaL reSponSe to WILdLand FIreS As stated earlier, the USFS is the agency with prime respon- sibility (BLM in Alaska) for fires on federal lands and may be involved in fire management on non-federal lands through one of two mechanisms, interagency agreements or a presiden- tial declaration under the Stafford Act. In these cases, where resources of a state are not sufficient to meet the situation, the governor may request federal assistance. IncIdent ManageMent teaMS One of the first wildfire respondents an airport operator might meet is the senior representative of an incident manage- ment team (IMT); commonly this person is called the inci- dent commander (IC). In the early stages of a wildland fire response, the IC will likely be from a Type IV or V IMT (see definitions in the following paragraph). As the wildland fire response is increased (assuming the fire grows), ICs will change, and handoffs between IMTs and ICs will occur. Gen- erally, transitions and incident management changes occur as shown in Figure 3 (FEMA–USFA, About Incident Manage- ment Teams, 2011). Within the NIMS protocols, there are five levels (types) of IMTs, any and all of whom could be involved in an aerial wildland firefighting event. In general, IMTs are identified according to their ability to handle the varying complexities of wildland fires. The definitions that follow are taken from the USFA Incident Management Team Training Program Overview (USFA Incident Management Team Training Program Overview 2004). In August 2003, USFA convened a Focus Group of stakehold- ers and experts from across the country to best determine the means to develop all-hazards IMTs across the country. In the wildland fire community, the USFS and the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) recognize five “Types,” or levels, of IMTs; the Focus Group agreed to stay with this model for the all-hazards emergency response community. The IMT types, including certifying level and basic make-up, as recommended by the Focus Group are: Type 5: Local Village and Township Level—consist of emergency response providers from a small to medium sized municipality or a group of smaller jurisdictions who are part of a mutual aid agreement. It is envisioned that Type 5 IMTs would be developed in, but not limited to, areas serviced by smaller volunteer or combination departments that, individually, may not have adequate resources but jointly could support an IMT. It would, in most cases, respond and operate within the jurisdic- tional boundaries of those communities that are signatories to the agreement. The responsibility for certifying the readiness of this IMT shall reside with the local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) or their designee. Type 4: City, County, or Fire District Level—consist of emer- gency response personnel from a larger and generally more popu- lated area, typically within a single jurisdiction. This level IMT may be developed within larger city or county departments or fire districts. The membership will involve personnel from emergency response and public safety agencies or organizations within the jurisdiction. This team would primarily respond and operate within the city, county, or fire district having jurisdiction. The responsibility for certifying the readiness of this IMT rests with the county or regional authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) or their designee. FIGURE 3 Incident management changes over time (FEMA–USFA, About Incident Management Teams 2011).

14 Type 3: State or Metropolitan Area Level—consist of person- nel from different departments, organizations, or agencies within a state or metropolitan region who have trained together to func- tion as a team. The teams are intended to support incident man- agement at incidents that extend beyond one operational period. Type 3 IMTs will respond and operate throughout the State or large portions of the State, depending upon State-specific laws, policies, and regulations. The responsibility of certifying the readiness of this IMT rests with the State or with a regional Council of Government or their designee. Type 2: National and State Level—consist of federally or state certified personnel; have less staffing and experience than Type 1 IMTs; and are typically used on smaller scale national or state incident. Type 2 IMTs are currently in existence, and operate through the U.S. Forest Service. Type 1: National and State Level—consist of federally or state certified personnel; are the most robust IMTs with the most experi- ence; are fully equipped and self-contained. Type 1 IMTs are now in existence, and operate through the U.S. Forest Service. u.S. FIre SIze cLaSSeS Another useful metric that helps airport operators understand and be prepared to become involved in an aerial wildland firefighting support effort is the size of the fire. The USFS has developed the following class structure to describe fire sizes in terms of acreages; as fires grow, the likelihood of federal assistance/intervention grows. • Class A—one-fourth acre or less • Class B—more than one-fourth acre, but less than 10 acres • Class C—10 acres or more, but less than 100 acres • Class D—100 acres or more, but less than 300 acres • Class E—300 acres or more, but less than 1,000 acres • Class F—1,000 acres or more, but less than 5,000 acres • Class G—5,000 acres or more (NWCG, Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology 2011). aIrport SIzeS The airport operator’s role is to safely operate the airport for the benefit of all users. That having been established, it is important to recognize the limits of what an airport operator can be expected to do for tenants and their operational needs. The limitations fall into two broad areas: safety and prefer- ential treatment. Safety decisions are often challenging and vary widely depending on the nature of the airport. For instance, closing a taxiway to accommodate additional firefighting aircraft parking at a controlled airport might be safer than clos- ing a taxiway at an uncontrolled airport without taxiway lights. Experienced airport operators suggest putting such judgment calls to “sleep test”; if your decision on a safety call is one that keeps you awake at night, then do not do it. It is important to remember that during aerial firefighting operations, things are not “normal,” and irregular opera- tions are times when safety margins should be increased, not decreased. The second issue is preferential treatment for aerial fire- fighters who might be given use of the airport that others would not be granted. The test here is, “Would I allow this operation if there were not a fire?” For instance, would an airport operator allow “this person” to drive on the flight line for parts or meal delivery? Would aircraft that exceeded the known weight bearing of a surface be allowed to land? Should fuel be delivered from a fuel jobber’s semi directly into a nurse truck on the ramp? These and similar operational matters must be considered and decided.