Continuity of Operations Planning for Small Airports (2016)

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.

xi 223 APPENDIX R SAMPLE 12—AIRPORT INITIAL RESPONSE ACTIONS USED BY WATSONVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 224 APPENDIX S SAMPLE 13—SAMPLE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES USED BY LAKELAND LINDER REGIONAL AIRPORT 225 APPENDIX T BASIC TEMPLATE FOR INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF GENERAL AVIATION, SMALL HUB, AND NON-HUB AIRPORT BUSINESS CONTINUITY PLAN/CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLAN 234 APPENDIX U CHECKLIST FOR BUSINESS CONTINUITY PLANNING/CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLANNING DEVELOPMENT FOR GENERAL AVIATION, SMALL HUB, AND NON-HUB AIRPORT Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

xii

SUMMARY CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLANNING FOR SMALL AIRPORTS Airports are valuable assets. Individuals, companies, and surrounding communities depend on them to provide transportation resources, support employment, and generate significant economic impacts. However, each airport has the potential for encountering dis- ruptions in staffing, processes, facilities and equipment, or technology. Lack of prepared- ness for such disruptions will undoubtedly have negative effects on business efficiencies and revenues. Airport owners/operators are responsible for proactively planning to reduce or eliminate disruptive effects. It should never be a question of “If a disruption occurs, how will our airport respond?” It should be a matter of “When a disruption occurs, our airport is prepared to handle it!” Business continuity planning is the process of developing a plan to ensure essential operational and business functions in the face of a disruption caused by an emergency, incident, or event. The plan should cover actions to take during the disruptive event as well as priorities and methods for recovering essential processes, functions, and resources after the disruption. The purpose of this study was to compile information about current conti- nuity planning practices at airports of different types and sizes and determine how these practices can be effectively applied to smaller airports to maintain resilient operational and business capacity during a disruption, regardless of the cause. The study is explicitly not about emergency response but addresses business continuity planning for both emergency and nonemergency disruptions. For the purposes of this study, “smaller airports” are small hub, non-hub primary, com- mercial service, reliever, and general aviation airports. Recognizing that smaller airports do not always possess the resources of larger airports, the study cites aspects of larger airports’ plans and planning processes that smaller airports can use to create a useful and practical initial plan. The study examined continuity of operations planning and business continuity planning at airports. The former addresses how to recover and restore normal airport operations after a disruption, while the latter is typically used to describe business continuity in the public sector, including interactions with outside agencies. Most airports are public entities and may be required by their governance structures to engage in conti- nuity of operations planning; they can also benefit from developing site-specific business continuity planning practices. Through a literature review, surveys, interviews, and case examples, the study assesses the motivation for continuity planning, as well as types of plans and the state of the prac- tice. Benefits, barriers, and costs of developing and maintaining business continuity plans (BCPs) and continuity of operations plans (COOPs) are also included. Through the use of case examples, the study examines barriers to successful BCPs and describes practices to overcome those barriers. Survey responses from 54 airports, interviews, and case studies of nine airports provided practical information regarding how different kinds of airports are handling continuity planning. This report identifies a variety of resources that smaller airports can use to develop uncomplicated, inexpensive, and practical BCPs and COOPs. With such plans, airport

2 owners/operators will be better prepared to handle operational disruptions, thus enabling efficient airport business continuity and positive tenant and community relations. On the basis of an analysis of the data obtained through the survey and the nine case study interviews, the report draws the following 11 conclusions: 1. A successful BCP reflects the unique needs of an airport. 2. Small airports benefit from having operational recovery plans such as BCPs and COOPs. These may be formal or informal; however, a formal written plan or inten- tional integration of continuity practices into airport functional plans appears to have greater benefits. Small airports can benefit from a simple BCP that is not expensive to implement. 3. The benefits of written plans include increased preparedness, improved recovery and response, reduced liability, improved insurance rating, decreased downtime, bet- ter relationships with tenants, and improved perception of the airport and how it is managed. 4. The BCP may be separate from the COOP or integrated with it. BCPs deal primarily with business continuity, while COOPs typically focus on operational issues. 5. A relatively small number of airports of all categories, including small airports, have adopted formal, written BCPs. 6. Typically, airports operate in a culture of safety, with the primary focus on prevent- ing, preparing for, mitigating, and recovering from aeronautical emergencies. This approach to operational recovery—typically based on National Incident Management System (NIMS) principles—can be expanded to include recovery of airport business functions. 7. Recognizing that continuity practices are valuable to the business and operations of the airport, small airports are interested in having tools that streamline recovery plan- ning. Appendices T and U provide a template and checklist, respectively, and Appen- dices G through S provide samples and tools that can be adapted for a specific airport. 8. Small airports can benefit by leveraging recovery tools used by their local govern- ments, sponsors, and other stakeholders. Building relationships—both internal and external—is integral to developing effective BCPs/COOPs. 9. Small airports that are contemplating the development of continuity plans or practices can benefit from examining the practices other airports have implemented. 10. BCPs and COOPs are living documents; they must be flexible, scalable, revisable, and exercised. 11. As part of the BCP/COOP development and maintenance process, airports expect to interact more extensively with tenants and outside agencies, both for coordination and to access resources. Further research is not necessary because this synthesis simply describes the applica- tion of existing practices to small airports. Specifically, the synthesis uses case examples to extract directly applicable tools as described in ACRP Report 93: Operational and Business Continuity Planning for Prolonged Airport Disruptions.

3 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Airports face a broad range of potential disruptions, from major natural disasters to smaller interruptions in staffing, pro- cesses, plant and equipment, or technology. Problems may include staff shortages, payroll glitches, Internet/power outages, labor strikes, and disruptions in supplies or funding, to name a few. Through business and operations continuity planning, an airport seeks to position itself to answer the question “What do we recover first, and how?” Waiting to address these issues until a storm knocks out power and blocks supply routes, disrupting the airport’s ability to provide fuel, could have a devastat- ing impact on airport revenues and service capabilities. Many individuals, businesses, and communities rely on small airport operations to maintain their own employment and revenues. Negative effects on these businesses and the traveling public can have a significant impact on the airport. Airport owners/operators are responsible for continuity planning to minimize or eliminate disruptive effects; they need a formal, systematic process in place to activate plans, systems, resources, and people to effectively handle the disruption and efficiently bring the airport back to normalcy. Continuity planning is not only a responsible airport strategic process but can also lead to key benefits, including these: • Increased preparedness • Improved recovery and response • Reduced liability • Decreased downtime • Better relationships with tenants • Improved coordination with emergency response organizations • Improved public perception of facility management. Some airports have no continuity plan, while others have actively engaged in business continuity planning and continuity of operations planning. The motivation for developing these plans is typically a combination of external mandates, negative experiences from disruptions, and the need to enhance risk management. Smaller airports that are interested in developing or enhancing their continuity planning can benefit from the lessons learned at other airports. In interviews, personnel from airports that already have business continuity plans (BCPs) and conti- nuity of operations plans (COOPs) suggest that smaller airports reach out to those that have completed the process and not be afraid to ask colleagues how they are handling such planning. They also recommended keeping the plans simple at first; for example, developing checklists for potential disruptions. The plans will continue to develop with time and experience. This strategy will help keep initial costs low and make it easier for staff to implement the plans. This synthesis examines effective ways for an airport to accomplish this process. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to compile information about current continuity planning practices at airports of different types and sizes and determine how these practices can be effectively applied to smaller airports to maintain resilient operational and business capacity during a disruption, regardless of cause. Airport business continuity was examined with the intent of introducing useful practices to smaller airports. For the purpose of this study, smaller airports were considered to be small hub, non-hub primary, commercial service, reliever, and general aviation airports.

4 CONTINUITY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Although emergency situations are certainly disruptive to the operation of an airport, this report is not about emergency response. Emergency management and business continuity both require recovery actions; however, airport emergencies typi- cally require hazard-specific responses that may be part of an airport emergency plan (AEP). Continuity planning deals with business and operations recovery after any airport disruption, including disruptions to routine airport business functions and processes for the overall management and support of the airport. “BCP/COOP is about incident agnostic recovery” (S. Corzine, personal communication, June 17, 2015). Airport business continuity practices focus not on why a system or function is down but on the resources needed to restore that system or func- tion. For example, if the airport computer system is down, planners must determine the answer to two questions: “How do we operate while the system is down?” and “How do we restore the system?” This will require an evaluation of the resources needed to temporarily maintain the function and those needed to restore the system. STUDY METHODOLOGY Selection of Airports The research team identified 70 airports to survey, based on team members’ professional experience and familiarity with the airports’ histories over the past decade with regard to disruptions or continuity planning efforts. The team selected various airport sizes and category types in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), and choices were finalized in consultation with the panel of experts guiding this project. The collection of data and the results presented can be categorized as descriptive statistics summarizing the responses of a relatively small and select convenience sampling. Literature Review Available literature was reviewed on topics associated with continuity planning at airports or with disruptions that required such planning. The research team searched in both the open web (Google and Google Scholar) and the deep web (TRB data- base, ProQuest, and EBSCO). The peer-reviewed literature in the field of airport business or operations continuity planning is severely limited, owing to the sensitive nature of the information involved and the scarcity of such practices. The following related ACRP research and synthesis reports were important resources for this study: ACRP Report 93, ACRP Report 112, ACRP Report 65, and ACRP Synthesis 60. FIGURE 1 Location of airports responding to survey.

5 Survey and Analysis of Responses The analysis of survey responses led to numerous insights regarding the need for, state of, and nature of business continu- ity planning and continuity of operations planning at various types of airports. Of the 70 airports contacted, 54 completed the survey, five declined to participate, and the rest did not respond before the deadline. Thus, there was an 84% response rate. The surveys were completed by airports of all types and sizes, located all over the United States (Table 1, Figure 1, and Appendix A). Case Examples and Interviews The research team conducted follow-up interviews with personnel from nine airports who were willing to be interviewed or whose responses indicated unique contexts and practices, even if they did not have formal plans. Three airports did not have continuity plans: Duluth International Airport (DLH), Lakeland Linder Regional Airport (LAL), and Watsonville Municipal Airport (WVI). Five airports did have BCPs/COOPs: Ft. Lauderdale Executive Airport (FXE), Ohio State University Airport (OSU), Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport (MSP), and Minden- Tahoe Airport (MEV). One airport, Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport (SAV), intentionally incorporated business and operations continuity practices into functional plans and was thus included with the airports that have BCPs/COOPs. These case studies illustrate the different motivations and approaches to continuity planning, and the nature of continuity planning without formal BCPs or COOPs. The interviews and analysis of survey responses can provide smaller airports with insights and tools to help them develop or enhance their continuity planning. Results Using the analysis of survey responses, the interview reports, and sample worksheets, templates, and plans, the research team compiled information on the state of the practice of continuity planning, alternative approaches, and effective practices. This study offers the information to help smaller airports establish a BCP and a COOP. The appendices contain templates, check- lists, and sample plans to assist in this endeavor.