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.

20 Introduction Every state exhibits examples of public- and private-sector power generation and water/ wastewater, as well as public works entities that have formed successful mutual aid programs at the local, intrastate, and/or interstate level. These well-established entities have crafted mutual aid organizational charters (a charter in this context is a written agreement that has been ratified by the members of the mutual aid program and contains at least the mission statement and organizational structure of the program), time-tested standards of operations and procedures, functional organization hierarchy, and numerous best practices and lessons learned concerning initiating, funding, operating, and sustaining mutual aid programs. Many of the intrastate mutual aid programs are granted the authority to operate under state legislation that details such matters as liability, reimbursement rates, and public-private sector cooperation. An example of this type of legislation, which is the basis for mutual aid for public works in New Hampshire, is reproduced as Appendix C to this Guidebook. During the development of this Guidebook, research was performed on the following non- aviation entities with intrastate mutual aid programs: • New Hampshire Public Works (NHPW) • Missouri Public Utility Alliance (MPUA) • Kansas Electric Cooperatives (KEC) • Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities (IAMU) Additionally, the following interstate mutual aid programs were researched: • American Public Power Association (APPA) • American Public Works Association (APWA) • American Water Works Association (AWWA) Many characteristics of the respective mutual aid programs of these seven non-aviation organi- zations, as well as best practices and lessons learned, can be directly applied to airport-to-airport mutual aid programs. The Intrastate Mutual Aid Program Committee At the intrastate level, it was observed that the mutual aid program committees were typically composed of eight to ten members, all of whom were volunteers who also functioned as depart- ment heads in their respective individual municipal utilities. Most of the committees tried to draw membership from large and small entities while promoting geographical diversity. Administrative staffing was supplied by the head organization sponsoring the mutual aid program or through a C h a p t e r 3 Non-Aviation Mutual Aid Programs

Non-aviation Mutual aid programs 21 cooperative agreement with another organization. A state emergency management agency rep- resentative and a state industry-related department director (e.g., Department of Public Works) representative were requested to act as liaisons with some of the committees. On average, each com- mittee met twice a year, either at a permanent location or at locations rotated among the committee members’ jurisdictions in an effort to share the expenses incurred in connection with the meetings and transportation to the meetings. There are several roles and responsibilities that were found to be common among all of the committees. The highest priority was promoting membership in the mutual aid program within the state. The ways in which membership was promoted are discussed later in this chapter. Other common roles of the committees include the following: • Provide training for members of the mutual aid program and organize practice exercises, • Liaise with the state emergency management agency during statewide or regional exercises, • Disseminate public information on the program, • Update resource allocation lists and general members contact lists, • Locate funding opportunities, • Resolve conflict between general members, • Develop and maintain the program’s standard operating procedures/guidelines, and • Collect and archive lessons learned. Some of the mutual aid committees played an active role during events requiring mutual aid, while other committees only participated if members making requests for mutual aid could not contact or reach a providing aid member. Those mutual aid committees playing an active role during the execution of the program became the program’s facilitators. The typical committee had three to four members who could be reached 24 hours a day, on a rotating basis, and who were ready to receive calls or e-mails from entities requesting mutual aid. The facilitator would validate the initial request, ensuring that there was no confusion with regard to what resources were being requested and the timeframe for when they were needed. The requesting entity would send a follow-up, for- mal, written request. The facilitator would then distribute the request to all the member entities of the mutual aid program and facilitate coordination between the providing entity and the request- ing entity. Once the providing entity and requesting entity agreed on the resources required, the providing entity would then typically send a formal list of resources to be dispatched. Once the coordination was finished, the committee member would return to the role of waiting to facilitate possible future requests. After the response event was finished, the committees commonly gathered information for after-action reports (AARs) and lessons learned and then disseminated them to the general membership. Interstate Mutual Aid Program Offices At the interstate level, the associations promoted mutual aid awareness and development of mutual aid programs, which are usually administered from a director’s office under the emer- gency management policy division. The director’s main focus is the promotion of intrastate mutual aid programs and understanding the procedures for state-to-state mutual aid. Directors advocate for intrastate mutual aid programs through education, by writing articles in trade jour- nals, and by maintaining a library of mutual aid reference material that can be accessed via the Internet. Some offices are also involved in facilitating mutual aid workshops. The associations’ mutual aid program directors have strong relationships with the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), which is responsible for administering the EMAC program between the states. When EMAC requests are made by the state, NEMA’s mutual aid program office has the contact information (at the state level) for possible mutual aid resources.

22 airport-to-airport Mutual aid programs The associations have a government affairs office, which interacts with the U.S. Congress and industry-related federal departments and regulatory agencies. Information gathered by the government affairs office that might affect mutual aid programs is forwarded to the mutual aid program office for dissemination among the membership. Development of the Mutual Aid Program Concept Many utility mutual aid programs came into existence after organizations suffered hardships from major natural disasters that overwhelmed their own resources. Hurricanes, floods, and large ice/ snow storms have at times caused a tremendous amount of damage to utility companies’ infrastruc- ture. Overwhelmed by the need for additional resources that could not be received—even through informal mutual aid agreements—the utility industry quickly realized, from lessons learned, that a formal mutual aid program at the state level, with backup from the national level, was sorely needed. There are numerous mature, formal mutual aid programs in place within the utilities com- munity throughout the United States. Many of these organizations have kept their historical reference on the creation of their mutual aid programs and describe what tactics they used to overcome the obstacles in starting a mutual aid program. These tactics can be helpful to airport operators when creating a local, statewide, or larger mutual aid program. The First Step Having a “how-to” manual or plan for starting, executing, and sustaining a mutual aid program solves the largest obstacle in creating a mutual aid program. For example, AWWA published a very detailed manual, Utilities Helping Utilities: An Action Plan for Mutual Aid and Assistance Networks for Water and Wastewater Utilities, which aids utilities in establishing mutual aid programs. This manual is reproduced as Appendix G to this Guidebook. The plan and accompanying checklist set forth in this manual discuss the formation of a steering committee, pre-event support, response protocols, mutual aid and assistance agreements, facilitation tools, and program maintenance. Because of the general nature of the language and concepts presented in this manual, its content is accessible to readers who are not utility professionals. Taken together, Utilities Helping Utilities and the WESTDOG manual (Appendix B to this Guidebook) provide much useful information for those seeking to develop airport-to-airport mutual aid programs. Overcoming Obstacles At the state level, many of the non-aviation entities with intrastate mutual aid programs have encountered obstacles in forming a mutual aid program and attracting membership. Program founders had to sell the idea of forming a mutual aid program to municipal leaders who were reluctant to approve the formation of a mutual aid program due to funding, liability, and reim- bursement issues. Program founders were able to sway local governments by showing the ben- efits of already established mutual aid programs in other sections of the country and defining, through state legislation and formal written agreements, procedures to resolve potential liabil- ity and reimbursement issues. The program founders also relied on state and local emergency management agencies as well as the associated state department agencies to convince state and municipal leaders to accept the new mutual aid programs. Program funding was another issue to resolve. Many of the programs were able to secure finan- cial grant assistance through their respective state emergency management agencies and received

Non-aviation Mutual aid programs 23 additional funding through related national associations and by charging membership dues. Because the committee members were volunteers, funding went toward promotional material, educational aids, website design, and supplies. Initial founders and current programs have had difficulty recruiting skeptical non-members. In addition to the previously mentioned issues associated with funding and liability, the non- member organizations were concerned that they were too small to provide aid or were so large that they would be continually asked to provide aid. Other concerns included regional cultural differences and a “go-it-alone” attitude—believing that, with help within their municipality, they could cope with a disaster. Initial founders and leaders of the mutual aid organizations used various forms of education at conferences; website and social media efforts; newspaper, journal, and video publicity; and roving teams to discuss the programs with peers and the leadership of the participating municipalities to overcome reluctant non- members’ concerns. The interstate mutual aid organizations did not have readily available information on the obstacles encountered during the formation of their mutual aid programs. These organizations did, however, indicate that the obstacles encountered by the intrastate programs were very simi- lar to those encountered in their own, interstate, effort to promote mutual aid programs in vari- ous states. The interstate mutual aid organizations used education, publicity, and workshops in an attempt to overcome membership obstacles. Standard Operating Procedures After the mutual aid organization’s charter has been approved and leadership in the mutual aid program has been established, the next major step is to develop a standard operating procedure (SOP)—sometimes called an operational plan. The SOP should establish the following in writing: • Roles, responsibilities, and functional procedures of the committee and its leadership; • Membership criteria; • Steps to create/update member resource lists; • Responsibilities of the membership before an incident, pre-activation, deployment, execution, post-deployment, and after conclusion of the incident; • Communications protocols; • Liability and reimbursement; • Conflict resolution procedures; and • Standardized forms, agreements, checklists, etc. Execution of the Mutual Aid Program The nature of the emergency or disaster dictates the urgency of the pre-activation phase of the mutual aid plan. If sufficient notice of an impending event is given (e.g., hurricanes or large-scale ice/snow events), the mutual aid committee sends out advisories to its members (as well as non-members, as appropriate) within the state to update resource lists and contact information and to prepare for mutual aid requests. During sudden disaster events, such as a widespread tornado outbreak or damaging wind event, the committee can only rely on resource and contact lists on hand. The organizations stressed that it is very important to update the contact list frequently. As damage assessments are made and members determine the need for mutual aid, the com- mon practice is for the requesting agency to first contact its municipal leadership and associ- ated emergency manager. After obtaining approval to proceed from the local government, the

24 airport-to-airport Mutual aid programs requesting agency either contacts the mutual aid committee’s point of contact (POC) or directly contacts possible response members, dependent on the program’s SOP. Several of the researched committees used a rotating system for POCs. The contact “tree” con- sisted of four to five committee members listed in such a way to ensure contact could be made. Some organizations have a telephone system that operates by automatically transferring the call to the first individual in the “tree.” If that individual does not respond, the system dials the next individual, and so on, until contact is made. The requesting member should have a detailed list of requested equipment and skill sets of per- sonnel along with a general timeframe for arrival and release of the resources. The verbal request should be followed by a standardized form containing the same information. An example of a requester’s checklist and letter can be found in Appendix D and Appendix E of this Guidebook and at the New Hampshire Public Works Mutual Aid Program’s (NHPWMAP’s) website: http:// www.t2.unh.edu/ma/. Members responding to requests should first inform their government leadership for approval purposes and then respond to the mutual aid committee’s POC or directly to the requesting member. All verbal responses should be followed up with a standardized form. A sample form can be found on the website referenced above. The responding member should appoint a supervisor to oversee the team(s) and equip- ment being sent. The requesting member should provide the following information to the responding member: the location for aid, POC information, communication protocols, and responder housing and food arrangements, which will be given to the supervisor. The supervi- sor, team(s), and equipment remain under the authority of the responding organization and can be recalled at any time by the responding organization. It is important for responding members to notify requesting members in the event that they plan to recall their personnel and equipment; they should also give the requesting member as much time as possible to find replacements. The deploying supervisor should contact the requesting member’s POC to review any details of the response operation. One of the supervisor’s most important duties is to keep track of all payroll hours, lodging and food expenses, fuel costs, equipment-use time costs, etc. The supervisor should also retain associated receipts and share the information with both the requesting and responding members’ financial offices. The supervisor should frequently be in contact with his or her respond- ing member’s leadership and provide situation reports (SITREPs). It is advisable for the requesting organization to provide a liaison to the responding team to facilitate understanding of the overall situation; duties of the responders; communications protocols; safety briefings; location of lodging, food, and sanitation facilities; and any other per- tinent information. The supervisor should relay information about any restrictions the team or equipment may be operating under. After completion of the event or upon recall, the supervisor should prepare the team and equipment and lead the redeployment effort. The decision to leave any equipment behind should be approved by the responding member’s leadership in coordination with the requesting member. The supervisor should leave a copy of all tracked expenses and corresponding paperwork with the requesting member. The supervisor should receive an outbrief that includes a performance appraisal and lessons learned. The mutual aid committee should facilitate an after-action meeting with the requesting and responding members. A written report should be compiled for a historical archive and should also be used to update the SOP. The committee commonly posts the AAR and any subsequent lessons learned on a website to be viewed by the members.

Non-aviation Mutual aid programs 25 Sustaining a Mutual Aid Program There could be periods of time when a mutual aid program is not used due to a lack of emer- gencies or disasters. The researched organizations admitted that such a lack of operational use of the mutual aid program could cause corporate memory loss due to leadership attrition, SOPs becoming outdated, and general apathy and lack of commitment to the program. State- and national-level organizations have successfully sustained their mutual aid programs through peri- odic involvement in local, state, and national exercises as well as continuing education opportu- nities. Lessons learned from previous events are incorporated into the exercises. Although a state or region may go several years between activations of its mutual aid program, lessons learned and best practices from other regions that have experienced disasters can be disseminated through a continuing education program. Conclusion Established state and national non-aviation mutual aid programs can provide references and best practices to help in creating, operating, and sustaining an airport-to-airport mutual aid program. The researched organizations were pleased to hear of the potential efforts of airports to adopt similar organizational structures and are prepared to help.