1 REGIONAL COOPERATION, COORDINATION, AND COMMUNICATION AMONG AIRPORTS DURING DISASTERS James Fielding Smith1 American Public University System 1 385 Sam Reed Rd NW, Floyd, VA 24091, [email protected]. 2 REGIONAL COOPERATION, COORDINATION, AND COMMUNICATION AMONG AIRPORTS DURING DISASTERS Abstract Intensive workshops in South Florida (December 15, 2008), New England (May 7, 2009), and Minnesota (June 12, 2009) explored how regional cooperation, coordination, and communication among airports can promote preparedness and continuity of operations during disasters and catastrophes of all types. Previous site visits and on-site interviews at 20 U.S. airports ranging from the smallest commercial airports to major international airports provided background information to build the workshops, where representatives of airports, airlines, local responders, state agencies, and federal agencies gathered to discuss needs, opportunities, gaps, and barriers to increasing regional cooperation, coordination, and communication. The South Florida workshop led to the creation of a multimedia presentation on the Southeast Airport Disaster Operations Group (SEADOG) and Western Airport Disaster Operations Group (WESTDOG) which was used to open the New England and Minnesota workshops by presenting a functioning, organized model of regional cooperation. Analysis of the interview results and workshop discussions, clarified through review and correction by study participants, led to a number of recommendations. Starting with the consensus that increasing regional cooperation, coordination, and communication among airports and between regional groups of airports and other responding or regulatory agencies are highly desirable goals, it was found that different regions of the country employ different methods, but none are fully optimized. Interstate mutual aid among airports (SEADOG and WESTDOG, for example) has different issues than intrastate arrangements; the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) among the states gives liability and reimbursement cover for interstate efforts, but intrastate arrangements may need new state legislation or expansion of scope of existing state programs. New England’s airports have extensive cooperation in place and seem interested in a New England Airport Disaster Operations Group 3 (NEWDOG?); similarly, the Minnesota airports and Kansas City International Airport support a renewed effort to establish a Midwest Airport Disaster Operations Group (MADDOG?). In Florida, the Florida Emergency Management Agency already provides strong coordination among counties and local agencies, including airports. In New England, the primary interest is interstate, not intrastate. A yet- unformed national umbrella organization (AIRDOG?) could coordinate assistance requests and volunteer responses among the regional DOGs; it could also serve as EMAC's aviation coordination function. Within Minnesota, considerable interest exists in an intrastate mutual aid system among airports, perhaps based on the Minnesota Council of Airports and an extended application of existing Minnesota state statutes. Of particular interest in the workshops were comments by federal agencies regarding evolving policies to cooperate with airports, airlines, and local agencies in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery involving airports. TSA, FAA, CDC, and the National Guard contributed significantly to the workshops. On June 19, 2009, the FAA issued Advisory Circular 150/2300-31C revising airport emergency plans to require full implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and much enhanced two-way relationships with communities and their emergency response agencies, opening a strong opportunity to expand regional airport cooperation and airport(s)-community preparedness. 4 REGIONAL COOPERATION, COORDINATION, AND COMMUNICATION AMONG AIRPORTS DURING DISASTERS Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 6 A. Purpose and goals of research ........................................................................................................ 7 The study will summarize winning strategies and suggest new solutions or further research to further cooperation, coordination, and communication among airports, and between airports and other agencies, during disasters. ...................................................................................................................... 8 B. Problem statement ......................................................................................................................... 8 C. Hypotheses ..................................................................................................................................... 8 1. Hypothesis .................................................................................................................................. 8 2. Research hypotheses .................................................................................................................. 9 D. Assumptions.................................................................................................................................... 9 E. Limitations of study....................................................................................................................... 10 II. Previous research .............................................................................................................................. 10 A. Regional airport cooperation for passenger operations ............................................................... 11 B. 2007 .............................................................................................................................................. 11 C. ACRP.............................................................................................................................................. 12 D. 2008 .............................................................................................................................................. 12 III. Materials and methods ................................................................................................................. 14 A. Research design ............................................................................................................................ 14 B. Selection of study regions and airports ......................................................................................... 14 C. Development of regional contact and invitation lists ................................................................... 15 D. Use of web sites ............................................................................................................................ 16 E. Development of the SEADOG/WESTDOG PowerPoint .................................................................. 16 F. Site visits and interviews ............................................................................................................... 17 1. South Florida ............................................................................................................................. 17 2. New England ............................................................................................................................. 18 3. Minnesota ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4. Louisiana ................................................................................................................................... 18 G. Workshops .................................................................................................................................... 19 1. South Florida ............................................................................................................................. 19 2. New England ............................................................................................................................. 20 5 3. Minnesota ................................................................................................................................. 20 H. Draft report development ............................................................................................................. 21 I. Iterative review process ................................................................................................................ 21 IV. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 22 A. South Florida ................................................................................................................................. 22 B. New England ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. C. Minnesota ..................................................................................................................................... 34 D. Louisiana ..................................................................................................................................... 347 V. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 388 VI. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................