Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"

12/15/2014 1

E P A S E T 2 0 1 4

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

The American Radio Relay League, Inc, Eastern Pennsylvania Section, Post Office Box 9, Media, Pennsylvania 19063, www.epa-arrl.org Robert B Famiglio K3RF, Section Manager ●Robert Wiseman WB3W, Section Emergency Coordinator R Scott Walker N3SW, Section Traffic Manager ● Joseph A Ames W3JY, EPASET Manager PUBLICATION DATE: December 17, 2014

12/15/2014 2

12/15/2014 3

ARRL EPA SECTION

OFFICIAL BULLETIN

QST QST QST

15 DEC 2 01 4

The ARRL Simulated Emergency Test is a nationwide exercise in emergency communications,

administered by ARRL Emergency Coordinators and Net Managers. Both ARES and the National

Traffic System (NTS) are involved. The SET weekend gives communicators the oppor tunity to focus

on the emergency communications capability within their community while interacting with NTS

nets.

The ARRL has three general purposes in sponsor ing SET,

To find out the strengths and weaknesses of ARES and NTS, the Radio Amateur Civil

Emergency Service (RACES) and other groups in providing emergency communications.

To provide a public demonstration -- to served agencies such as Red Cross, Emergency

Management and through the news media -- of the value to the public that Amateur Radio

provides, par ticular ly in t ime of need.

To help radio amateurs gain exper ience in communications using standard procedures and

a var iety of modes under simulated- emergency conditions.

An impor tant post-SET activity is a cr it ique session to discuss the test results. All ARES (and

RACES) members should be invited to review good points and weaknesses apparent in the dr ill.

This repor t is the summary of all cr it iques, observations and recommendations collected from

the EPA Section’s 201 4 SET, which we call “EPASET”. Contr ibutors include Section leaders from

ARES, NTS and the Section M anager ’s office, as well as individual operators.

Much effor t was expended to tabulate and analyze the basic statistics and try to understand

what it all means. W e hope you will find this final repor t useful to your own emergency

communications preparat ions and we cer tainly hope it will form the basis of successful, future

SETs and encourage dissemination of this repor t, its observations, and recommendations, to all

Amateurs with an interest in emergency communications.

This Final Repor t is author ized for general distr ibution.

Robert Wiseman Scott Walker Robert B Famiglio Rober t W iseman W B3 W R Scott W alker N3 SW Rober t B. Famiglio K3RF

Section Emergency Coordinator Section Traffic Manager EPA Section M anager

NNNN / EX

12/15/2014 4

12/15/2014 5

Table of Contents Foreword ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

I. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Background ................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Results ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

II. Lessons Learned.................................................................................................................................................................... 10 III. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 IV. Planning and Promotion ................................................................................................................................................... 12

Plan Development ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Publicity Campaign .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Assessment and Analysis Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 13

V. C3I Assessment ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Command .................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Control ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Communication ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Interoperability .......................................................................................................................................................................... 15

VI. SWOT Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Strengths.................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Weaknesses ............................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Opportunities ............................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Threats ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Summary of SWOT Observations ............................................................................................................................................... 19

Strengths .............................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Weaknesses .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Opportunities........................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Threats .................................................................................................................................................................................. 19

APPENDIX 1: Statistics ..................................................................................................................................................................... 20 APPENDIX 2: Bucks County ARES Report ........................................................................................................................................ 21

Activation Summary................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Summary of Local Communications Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 21 Highlights of Success .................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Suggestions for Improvement ................................................................................................................................................... 21 Action Points .............................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Net reports ................................................................................................................................................................................ 22

APPENDIX 3: Luzerne County ARES Report ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Strengths .............................................................................................................................................................................. 25 Weaknesses .......................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Opportunities........................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Threats .................................................................................................................................................................................. 27

APPENDIX 4: Pike County ARES/RACES Report ............................................................................................................................... 28 APPENDIX 5: Communications Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 29 APPENDIX 6: EPA Emergency Coordinators .................................................................................................................................... 30 APPENDIX 8: Participation .............................................................................................................................................................. 31 APPENDIX 9: Coverage Map............................................................................................................................................................ 32 APPENDIX 10: Promotional Material .............................................................................................................................................. 32

12/15/2014 6

Table of Figures Table 1: Revision History ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Manpower and Equipment Deployed ............................................................................................................................... 14 Table 3: Net Control Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 4: Traffic Count (QSP) ............................................................................................................................................................ 15 Table 5: Counties and ARES units represented ............................................................................................................................... 15 Table 6: Section Net (EPAEPTN) ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 7: BCARES SET Announcement .............................................................................................................................................. 23 Table 8: Summary of ARES Net ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 9: Summary of Data Sent ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 10: EPA Emergency Coordinators (2014) .............................................................................................................................. 30 Table 11: EPA District Emergency Coordinators ............................................................................................................................. 31

12/15/2014 7

Table 1: Revision History

Revision Editor Date Status

1 .0 J. Ames 11 / 08 / 2014 Init ial Draft

2 .0 J. Ames 11 / 12 / 2014 Draft

3 .0 J. Ames 11 / 16 / 2014 Draft

4 .0 J. Ames 11 / 30 / 2014 Draft

5 .0 J. Ames 12 / 01 / 2014 Draft

6 .0 J. Ames 12 / 06 / 2014 Draft

7 .0 J. Ames 12 / 09 / 2014 Draft

8 .0 J. Ames 12 / 11 / 2014 Draft

9 .0 J. Ames 12 / 11 / 2014 Draft

10 .0 J. Ames 12 / 15 / 2014 FINAL DRAFT

FINAL R. W iseman 12 / 16 / 2014 Approved

FINAL S. W alker 12 / 16 / 2014 Approved

FINAL R. Famiglio 12 / 16 / 2014 Approved

FINAL R. Famiglio 12 / 17 / 2014 Released

“Final Report of EPASET 2014” is published by the Eastern Pennsylvania Sect ion (“EPA”) of the Amer ican Radio Relay

League, Inc. Edited by J. Ames W 3JY, Assistant Sect ion Manager . Permission to copy or quote will be granted on wr itten

request and must be credited to “EPA Sect ion of the ARRL” or to individual contr ibutors as attr ibuted.

ARRL Eastern Pennsylvania Sect ion

Post Office Box 9

Media, Pennsylvania 19063

http:/ / www.epa-ar r l.org

© 2014 all r ights reserved.

12/15/2014 8

12/15/2014 9

Foreword This is the final report on the EPA Section’s 2014 SET effort, known as EPASET. Sponsored by the

EPA Emergency Phone and Traffic Net, its goal was fairly simple: prove that ARES and NTS could

work together using our venerable Section net as the communications medium. And did we! ARES

operators in their dozens joined the net and stepped up as liaisons, relay stations, and even

alternate net control stations, directing some seventy QNI and forty-one QSP over three net

sessions. It was very gratifying – and very challenging. We thought a half dozen operators would

show up and, just days earlier, dramatically scaled back our effort to avoid the disappointment of a

“no show” SET.

As recently as the 1990s, ARES and NTS operators, and quite a few ordinary hams, used the

EPAEPTN as our unofficial “official watering hole”. Of course, we had a lot more person-to-person

Radiogram traffic back then. The almost perfect cross membership allowed ARES FM nets to serve

as local delivery nets for NTS, building camaraderie and a sense of belonging to a larger

organization. The Section Communications Manager and other Section appointees were common

fixtures on the net. There was a closer relationship between ARRL members and the League;

everyone knew everyone. It was small town America holding its town meeting on 3917.

We hope EPASET will be the first step towards renewing those familiar relationships. Certainly the

quantitative results prove the viability of wide-area HF comms just as the demonstrated enthusiasm

proves it fills a genuine human need. Emergency communications is sine qua non for Amateur

Radio and, as EPASET 2014 made clear, there is an important role to be played by organized HF nets

even in the age of the Internet.

VY 73 DE

Joe Ames W3JY

EPASET Manager / EPAEPTN Net Manager

15 December 2014

Malvern, Pennsylvania USA FN20fa

12/15/2014 10

I. Executive Summary

Background Sponsored by the EPA Emergency Phone and Traffic Net (EPAEPTN), an abbreviated, four-hour EPA

Section SET was held on Saturday, October 4, 2014. As it had been a number of years since the last

section-wide SET, expectations were modest and an aggressive publicity campaign was launched.

The SET’s strategic objectives were to

Reintroduce the idea of a Section-wide SET using HF to coordinate operations;

Introduce ARES operators to their colleagues of the NTS;

Measure Section leadership’s practical ability to marshal amateur radio resources on

short notice;

Gauge the section’s enthusiasm for a more ambitious SET in 2015.

As such, operations and communications plans were devised to emphasize administrative traffic to

and from county and section officials. Our focus was on bread-and-butter information including

available manpower, actual mustered manpower, reaction times, and generally the ability to

manage the information reporting functions crucial to an actual deployment. The plans were

explicitly administrative with little reference or dependence on a specific scenario or technological

solution, except to require “RF Only” communications during the SET itself. (See, “EPASET2014 –

Operations Plan FINAL”.)

Results By these criteria, EPASET 2014 was an unqualified success. Participation was enthusiastic, nearly

overwhelming HF operations. By the end of on-air activity, forty-five unique stations participated;

two HF nets and an NTSD packet node counted seventy QNI; sixty-seven formal radiograms were

QSP; nineteen Pennsylvania counties were represented; and six ARES units participated formally.

Overall, operations were a credit to the amateur service. Stations performed well under

challenging propagation conditions and were agile and responsive to the commands of net control.

Operators previously unknown to NTS volunteered as watch and relay stations performing

admirably. Several ARES units took the opportunity to integrate their existing SET plans to the

EPASET, their after-action reports included as appendices.

II. Lessons Learned 1. EPASET PLANNING: Splitting the Section net into two separate sessions (resource and

traffic) on different bands allowed operations to continue with good order and should be

considered for all emergency plans. However, despite the overload, several very qualified

NTS operators were not employed effectively. EPASET planning envisioned bidirectional

cyclical traffic flow between Section and Counties, which did not happen, depriving local

12/15/2014 11

operators of the experience. Separate liaison roles for incoming and outbound traffic were

needed.

2. MANPOWER: There is considerable interest in cooperative, Section-wide communication

and we had more operators than existing structures could use effectively. EPA has available

some very high quality HF operators and their stations, many of which were previously

unknown to NTS. These operators were enthusiastic and responded well to NCS commands.

EPASET participation suggests many potential leadership recruits from across Eastern

Pennsylvania. These are motivated and capable hams and would be formidable if organized

at the section level.

3. DISTRICT ORGANIZATION: There was no District-level ARES participation, although in

fairness this was expected due to the short lead time and stretched manpower available. It

did highlight the need for such nets as vital to managing high volumes of traffic, much of

which would be inappropriate for the Section level net.

4. DIGITAL MODES: Digital modes were grossly underutilized. Although the NTSD 3RN MBO

was made available, ARES operators did not use it. Whether this resulted from operator

preference, training and equipment deficiencies, or simply the abandonment of Packet in

favor of soundcard modes was not researched. We know many ARES units maintain a

robust Winlink2000 capability even as NBEMS is increasingly popular, although incompatible

with NTSD circuits.

5. FIELD ORGANIZATION TRAINING: It was apparent that ARES and NTS training regimes are

diverging from each other, although operators were quick learners of HF traffic handling

skills, e.g., VOX operations, standard ITU phonetics, and the more rapid “tempo” of

seasoned brass pounders. We noted how quickly these techniques were learned following

the example of the NTS cadre.

III. Recommendations I. EPASET PLANNING: Continue with an EPASET in 2015, building on this year’s

accomplishments. An EPASET planning committee should be formed that addresses the

District level liaison situation and encourages more ARES units to be involved. Devise and

run smaller scale integration exercises, each building in complexity to prepare for the full

SET.

II. MANPOWER: This year’s participants should be recognized for contributing to the public

service mission of the ARRL and encouraged to affiliate with NTS and ARES. The several “A1

Operators” should be approached for leadership roles.

III. DISTRICT ORGANIZATION: District ARES organization must be developed and incorporated

into the Section Emergency Plan. This must include formal linkages to NTS infrastructure.

District level net capability must be established and communicated even if only “on paper”.

IV. DIGITAL MODES: Use of digital modes is a substantial portion of the EPA Communication

Plan and a separate EPA Digital Communications Plan describes the recommended

technology and technique. Winlink 2000 is recommended as the interface to existing NTSD

12/15/2014 12

operations and the Section should encourage the maintenance of the Winlink infrastructure

and the re-establishment of the larger Packet network. Finally, a functional but “plug and

play” interface between NTSD and NBEMS should be devised.

V. TRAINING: Cross-train ARES personnel with established NTS procedures and the benefit of

the formal Radiogram for messages facing multimodal interoperability requirements. NTS

Methods, Practices and Guidelines should be applicable.

IV. Planning and Promotion

Plan Development The early consideration of EPASET took place in 2013 with general discussions aimed at

reintegrating ARES and NTS organizations. Traditionally, the SET served this purpose but EPA had

not sponsored one in several years. It was judged that the time was ripe to try again. Detailed

planning began in earnest last summer when the Section Manager, Section Traffic Manager, and

Section Emergency Coordinator agreed the EPAEPTN should sponsor the SET. By August, rough

drafts were created for the operations plan after a review of plans from neighboring sections. The

plan came together in September as the scope narrowed to a proof of concept exercise,

demonstrating our Section’s ability to muster operators and handle administrative traffic in a “unity

of command” environment with standard procedures. It was decided as a matter of practical

scope, we would focus on building awareness in preparation for an all-out effort in 2015.

In the end, a comprehensive plan was delivered. It included a “Grid Down/RF-Only”

communications scenario, EPASET objectives, performance criteria, a detailed comms plan,

recommended message format, specific reporting requirements with suggested timeline, and a

suite of minute-by-minute “participant scripts” with actions and deliverables clearly specified, in

sequence, to guide participants through the SET.

The plan made no attempt to direct local ARES units and was concerned only with interoperability

and administration.

Publicity Campaign A formal publicity campaign was kicked off on September 11, 2014 following several weeks of

informal discussions and preparatory conversations.

On-air bulletins were read on consecutive sessions of the EPAEPTN and the weekly Pennsylvania

Eastern Area RACES Net. A bulk mailing of 3x5” postcards was made to all current EPA Field

Organization appointees, followed up by email versions sent at regular intervals. The official ARRL

EPA email distribution list was used to make a general announcement to some 3,000 League

12/15/2014 13

members. The epa-arrl.org website blog was used to post updates and distribute current copies of

the plan as it became available.1 Two cross-referenced announcements were made on the Atlantic

Division Forums with links back to the EPA section website. Finally, printed color flyers were

distributed to participants of PEMA’s ACS conference at the Seven Springs Mountain Resort in

Somerset, Pennsylvania.

Assessment and Analysis Methodology C3I Interpretation is an executive interpretation of our performance and was expected for use by

all After Action Reports, to analyze and summarize Section performance quantitatively and

qualitatively in each dimension. Our goal was to think of EPA Section as an integrated system, to be

judged by overall performance in terms of inputs, outputs, constraints and our ability to manage

them to meet our communications and information objectives. Bear in mind this SET was an

introduction to the C3I concept and our primary interest was to establish a baseline for measuring

improvement over the coming years.

Command: Was mustering effective and efficient? Was the chain of command clear and

effective? Were leadership or personality problems encountered? How did they respond to

changed circumstances?

Control: Did your team stay on task and accomplish its mission? Did it demonstrate agility

and flexibility when given new instructions?

Communications: Did your team understand its job and duties? Did it ask appropriate

questions if not? Were requests received and fulfilled in a timely manner? Were you

informed of your team’s status at all times?

Interoperability: Were you teams able to work together effectively? Did they understand

each other’s language and operating style? Did confusion or cooperation result? Did you

note improvements over the course of the SET?

Unfortunately, we were not able to collect enough raw data this year to answer most questions

adequately. We did gain insight, reflected in the observations and recommendations that follow.

The SWOT Model is a handy method of assessing complex systems using salient impressions

filtered through the lens of experience: professional judgment is the thing.

Strengths: which skills and capabilities stand out as well done and reliably so?

Examples: technical savvy, esprit du corps, agile thinking, favorable reputation with served

agencies, or anything the team does especially well.

Weaknesses: which skills and capabilities stand out as defective or unreliable?

Examples: inflexibility, morale problems, training deficiency, equipment maintenance

1 At its peak, the EPASET pages enjoyed several hundred unique visitors each.

12/15/2014 14

Opportunities: based on demonstrated performance, what new jobs or tasks could be

undertaken in a future deployment?

Examples: leadership candidates, favorable impressions, advanced training

Threats: based on demonstrated performance, what risks do you see in the near-term

future?

Examples: served agency confidence, ineffective station quality, threats to core mission

V. C3I Assessment

Command The Section net logged forty-five QNS (unique stations participating), representing nineteen

Pennsylvania counties and six ARES units over a four-hour on-air SET timeframe.

While we collected some data regarding the estimated market value of the equipment deployed,

we received only a negligible response. Even so, an estimate of forty-five HF stations worth $1,500

each means the EPA Section fielded $67,500 worth of equipment to the Section net alone. No

doubt the actual per-station asset value is higher than estimated and this figure does not include

VHF/UHF equipment used in County operations.

Table 2: Manpower and Equipment Deployed

Deployed Resources Duration Manpower (QNG) Manhours (est) Equipment value (est)

~4 ½ hrs 45 180 $ 67,500

Control EPASET QNI was a very respectable seventy over two HF nets with NCS, relay/liaison and watch

functions performed according to NTS standards. Net discipline was maintained and traffic flowed.

There was also a Packet network available and partially used and Section officials established a 2m

simplex net as a coordinating mechanism.

Table 3: Net Control Resources

Sessions (QND)

Resource Traffic Admin Packet

3917kHz 7225kHz 145.520MHz 145.010MHz

Participation (QNS)

Resource Traffic both nets single net only Packet QNI TOTAL QNI* Unique QNS

27 41 24 44 2 70 45

Operational Participation

NTS Ops Mustered (QNI) NCS Ops (QNG) Relief Ops

6 3 3

12/15/2014 15

Watch Stations ARES (QSX) Liaison Stations ARES (QNB) TOTAL OPS

2 4 12

* Total does not equal Unique due to Resource net QSY and repeated QNI.

Communication Sixty-seven Radiogram messages were relayed during EPASET and sixty-seven messages were

delivered to the appropriate role-players. It is important to specify most messages would not

qualify as delivered according to standard NTS protocols. However, all messages were accepted for

delivery on behalf of participating SET representatives, so from the point-of-view of EPASET, this

counts a success. Traditional packet radio stands out as the go-to choice for heavy volumes of

traffic. Although only two stations were fully compliant with RF-only digital paths, a remarkable

27% of traffic was carried via Packet.

Even so, the popular image of a ham and a code key (or hand mic) is persistent for good reason: of

the approximately fifty non-NTS stations participating, all were able to join the net, receive and

implement orders, and quite a few were successful in transmitting and receiving written message

traffic accurately and with acceptable speed.

Table 4: Traffic Count (QSP)

Traffic by Net (QSP)

Packet Resource Traffic TOTAL

18 31 18 67

Statistics Transmission rate Fone Digital

17 / hour 73% 27%

Interoperability Nineteen Pennsylvania counties were represented including six formal ARES units. Additionally a

station from Maryland checked in as did a mobile station from VE3-land. As noticed in our analysis

of Communication, all counties and ARES units were able to join the net and operate according to

standard protocol. Stations were agile when asked to QSY and volunteers emerged when the call

went out for additional liaison and watch stations. Although divergent, current ARES practices

remain sufficiently aligned with NTS practices to interoperate without serious difficulty. Where

training diverged, it was noted that ARES operators were quick to adapt.

Table 5: Counties and ARES units represented

Counties Represented (QNW)

Pennsylvania Maryland Canada

19 1 1 (mobile)

ARES Participation Units Represented Units Reporting

6 6

12/15/2014 16

VI. SWOT Analysis

Strengths Our Section’s willingness to participate and its high level of HF proficiency stand out as the two

greatest strengths of EPASET 2014. Several operators displayed A1 Operator skills and all were able

to transfer ARES repeater skills to HF with a pleasantly short learning curve. The NTS cadre set the

example for net members to follow.

OBSERVATION 1: Significant HF participation with many high quality operators

With seventy total check-ins, forty-five unique operators, twenty counties, six ARES/RACES units

and even a Canadian mobile station participating in three nets, two on HF and a third on 2m packet,

EPASET 2014 exceeded all expectations by an order of magnitude.

We were pleased by the high quality of participating HF stations. Because the turn-out vastly

exceeded expectations, the net itself was in danger of overload. Without exceptions, EPASET

participants were agile operators, adapting themselves to changing conditions with only the

simplest of instructions.

Assessment: The publicity campaign was a success and tapped existing demand for an

organized Section effort. Several stations stood out as natural leaders that could be very

helpful to ongoing ARES/NTS integration efforts.

OBSERVATION 2: Section personnel were self-organized and net discipline was quickly achieved

Part of the operating savvy displayed was the ability of participants to self-organize into a

disciplined net. Several participants volunteered for relay and watch duty, shuttling between nets,

coordinating traffic flow and relaying messages. When the net moved from 80m to 40m, we lost

only a few stations and those due to antenna limitations. 80m continued to operate in a watch

mode but was quickly exploited as an all-purpose QSY for traffic off the main net frequency.

Assessment: Many high quality operators need only be asked to participate. This reserve is

the very talent pool envisioned by the FCC preamble to the Amateur Radio service.

OBSERVATION 3: New operators jumped in without hesitation

Even relatively inexperienced HF operators, whose net experience is mainly repeater-based, quickly

adapted the net’s rhythms. Several stations passed their first Radiogram traffic and their skill levels

observably increased during the test.

Assessment: As above, many operators are waiting only to be invited to contribute. They

bring talent and enthusiasm that would be put to good use in an organized effort.

12/15/2014 17

Weaknesses Three major weaknesses were evident: the lack of functioning District nets and the failure to use

Packet in a meaningful way, which combined caused an overload of the HF net. The addition of a

40m net helped compensate but this is a likely scenario and should be mitigated through planning.

OBSERVATION 4: Overwhelmed by HF turnout – need more structure and supervision

Despite very talented NTS operators, we were unable to scale net operations to handle all the

check-ins. While we did split operations into, effectively Resource and Traffic nets, NTS resources

were clearly underutilized and a third HF net could have been established.

Assessment: this is a planning matter that must consider an Administrative net to be fully

staffed and managed, as well as the Resource and Traffic nets.

OBSERVATION 5: Cyclical admin traffic was irregular and not managed

EPASET principals took on operational roles that interfered with their intended EPASET roles,

depriving ARES members of valuable practice with incoming traffic “from higher echelon”. This was

a break-down of the cyclical structure as planned and diminished the information flow.

Assessment: NTS management must anticipate overwhelming interest during an event.

There are existing NTS methods, practices and guidelines for efficiently managing

spontaneous volunteers and all NCS operators should know and practice them regularly.

OBSERVATION 6: No District level ARES participation

There are no established District ARES nets at the present time while most of the HF participation

could well have been diverted there with superior results.

Assessment: District nets are essential and would have off-loaded most of the Section net

traffic and greatly aided the processing of volunteers and metropolitan-area operations.

OBSERVATION 7: Packet node grossly underutilized

Many individual operators maintain packet capability, especially via Winlink2000 and Airmail, but

there are few effective nodes to link the Section.

The W3JY/NTSD 3RN MBO at Chester County was operative during the SET but only one station, a

Pennsylvania Navy MARS leader, took advantage of Packet which performed flawlessly.

It is noted that several stations were eager to use the FLDIGI/NBEMS software recently favored by

ARES units. Unfortunately, FLDIGI is not interoperable with NTSD or Winlink2000 infrastructure as

it was developed as a standalone solution. We hope the various development teams can integrate

these capabilities in the future.

12/15/2014 18

Assessment: EPA Section should encourage packet operations, especially by Winlink

operators already familiar with the technology required. Also, a functional “plug and play”

NBEMS interface to NTSD should be encouraged for development.

OBSERVATION 8: Insufficient liaison stations at all levels

Liaison stations at all levels were lacking.

Assessment: More ORS must be recruited and deployed according to predetermined Section

Emergency Communications planning.

Opportunities OBSERVATION 9: Participation Enthusiasm

Many HF ops participated that were previously unknown to NTS. Operators were enthusiastic and

appreciated the whole Section drill opportunity

Assessment: Participation greatly exceeded our expectations, despite short-notice and a

fairly hefty time requirement on a pleasant fall day. This indicates a large, underserved

need for Section emcomm initiative.

OBSERVATION 10: Leadership recruitment

Several ARES units tell us they want to participate next year in a more formal, integrated way

Assessment: These operators would be natural members of a steering committee or focus-

group to guide and plan future Section emergency planning.

OBSERVATION 11: District nets were keenly missed

District nets would off-load much of the spectrum and management burden from HF and allow it to

function in its intended role when activated for ARES duty. The absence of working Distract ARES

nets was keenly felt.

Assessment: District ARES nets were keenly missed and seem an easy but valuable goal for

the immediate future. Many ARES units have experimented with 10m and 6m SSB nets

while others have deployed NVIS techniques for local-area 160/80/40m communication. It

seems obvious that these efforts could be used in SET planning.

Threats OBSERVATION 12: Dissimilar ARES protocols, even between ARES units, hinder interoperability

ARES and NTS procedures have diverged since the end of the ARPSC in the 1980s. This has created

interoperation difficulty in standard operating protocols and procedures such as QNI techniques,

Message format (i.e., the false “Radiogram vs ICS-213” debate) and traffic relay skills (e.g., SSB

break-in, HF “ears”, prowords, phonetics)

12/15/2014 19

Assessment: NTS and ARES training is very similar but diverging without high-level

guidance. Many new hams are not trained in HF ops and not all repeater techniques are

effective on HF.

OBSERVATION 13: Dissimilar ARES technologies hinder NTS interoperability

VHF/UHF and HF operations require separate skill sets and equipment. In the digital realm, NBEMS

is not interoperable with NTSD or Winlink 2000, both of which depend on packet radio technology

especially the SCS Pactor mode for HF BBS and radio-email transport.

Assessment: Many ARES operators wanted to use the NBEMS as popularized by Dave Kleber

KB3FXI. NBEMS is not compatible with NTSD infrastructure which is packet-based using

Pactor. There is also an under appreciation of the Radiogram for low-bandwidth voice and

HF data networks that must interoperate over several potential modes. Winlink 2000 was

little used despite its RF-Only capability.

Summary of SWOT Observations

Strengths

1. Significant HF participation with many high quality operators

2. Section personnel were self-organized and net discipline was quickly achieved

3. New operators jumped in without hesitation

Weaknesses

4. Overwhelmed by HF turnout – need more structure and supervision

5. Cyclical admin traffic was irregular and not managed

6. No District level ARES participation

7. Packet node grossly underutilized

8. Insufficient liaison stations at all levels

Opportunities

9. Participation Enthusiasm

10. Leadership recruitment

11. District nets were keenly missed

Threats

12. Dissimilar ARES protocols, even between ARES units, hinder interoperability

13. Dissimilar ARES technologies hinder NTS interoperability

12/15/2014 20

APPENDIX 1: Statistics Table 6: Section Net (EPAEPTN)

Deployed Resources Duration Manpower (QNG) Manhours (est) Equipment value (est)

~4 ½ hrs 45 180 $ 67,500

Sessions (QND)

Resource Traffic Admin Packet

3917kHz 7225kHz 145.520MHz 145.010MHz

Participation (QNS)

Resource Traffic both nets single net only Packet QNI TOTAL QNI Unique QNS*

27 41 24 44 2 70 45

Operational Participation * ARES personnel

NTS Ops Mustered (QNI) NCS Ops (QNG) Relief Ops Watch Stations* (QSX) Liaison Stations* (QNB) TOTAL OPS

6 3 3 2 4 12

Traffic by Net (QSP)

Packet Resource Traffic TOTAL

18 31 18 67

Statistics Transmission rate Fone Digital

17 / hour 73% 27%

Counties Represented (QNW) Pennsylvania Maryland Canada

19 1 1 (mobile)

ARES Participation Units Represented Units Reporting

6 6

AAR Bucks Co ARES Luzerne Co ARES Lycoming Co ACS Pike County ARES (no HF participation)

Appx. 2 Appx. 3 -- Appx. 4

* Total does not equal Unique due to Resource net QSY and repeated QNI.

12/15/2014 21

APPENDIX 2: Bucks County ARES Report Submitted by Michael Sabal KB3GJT Bucks County EC

EPA Simulated Emergency Test Saturday, 4 October 2014

Preliminary After Action Report

Activation Summary It has been more than a decade since the East PA section conducted a full SET. Joe Ames, W3JY,

organized a scenario which would have all counties within the EPA section coordinate within the

ARRL Field Organization at the appropriate hierarchical level. The exercise was preplanned to begin

at 1pm EDT. Activation was done via scheduled on-air net frequencies (3917kc, 7227kc regionally,

and 147.09MHz locally).

Summary of Local Communications Objectives

Collect hourly rollcalls.

Transmit rollcall reports to the district net, or to the section net if no district net is available.

Submit all on-air reports via NTS Radiogram format.

Use relay stations to pass radiograms from local net to section emergency coordinator.

Evaluate use of portable field-deployed repeaters.

Evaluate communications reliability from known shelter sites.

Highlights of Success

On short notice, over a holiday weekend, 19 members committed to participating in this exercise.

Approximately 30% of our members demonstrated HF capability into the section net.

Several members were willing to act as relay stations with no prior warning.

Site tests were generally successful, especially in upper Bucks.

We had one checkin from Mercer county, NJ.

Suggestions for Improvement

Too many Bucks County stations were checking into the section net directly. For this exercise, it didn't present an issue; but in a real emergency, this would cause unnecessary congestion.

Bucks County ARES needs more practice with the NTS radiogram format over voice modes.

There was no DEC representation for this exercise. There were no county to county communications that I could tell within District 1.

Too many of our stations checked in, but were not reachable even a few moments later. This is also a regular gripe on our weekly nets.

12/15/2014 22

EC home station (KB3GJT) needs improvements: 80m can transmit, but could not receive the section net, 40m received well, but could not transmit.

The RF Hill ARC which handles NTS traffic for Bucks County was a no show for this exercise.

Too much emphasis is placed on established infrastructure for handling digital traffic. NTS Radiogram reports can be transmitted cleanly over NBEMS on an ad-hoc basis. Setting up an NBEMS station is very simple with just audio coupling. I recommend the section net include an NTS station capable of operating in this mode. As a side note, fldigi does not currently support PACTOR or packet modes.

Action Points

Practice transmitting radiogram messages over voice nets.

Establish a bi-weekly or monthly district net to improve district 1 coordination.

Net reports

Rollcall net 1pm 147.09 K3DN/R KB3GJT as NCS. o 15 stations checking in, 2 checked in and out, 13 available for deployment.

o 1 message passed to section net from KB3GJT via W3GAD.

Rollcall net 2pm 147.09 K3DN/R KB3GJT as NCS o 15 stations checking in including 4 new stations, 13 stations deployed, 4 stations from

1pm net did not return for the 2pm net.

o NY3J reports successful test of repeater down scenario at W3SK/R, including digital

traffic passed.

o WA3QVU reported a minor incident with a local police officer at the W3SK/R site which

was quickly resolved.

o NX3S reported successful tests of communications from 2 upper Bucks shelter sites.

o 1 message passed to section net from KB3GJT via KE3LA.

Rollcall net 3pm 147.09 K3DN/R KB3GJT as NCS o 11 stations checked in. Several stations not reporting back had advised net control prior

to leaving.

o Bucks County closed SET operations at 1515 EDT.

o WE3L reported his second check-in was using a Radio-Tone cross band repeater

controller - Wouxun HT in home at 223Mhz to Wouxun HT in vehicle to Radio-Tone to

Yaesu FT 1900 to net.

o Operational summary: 19 stations, 45 hours total.

o 1 message passed to section net from KB3GJT via K3KH

12/15/2014 23

Table 7: BCARES SET Announcement

GENERAL MESSAGE

(ICS-213)

TO: Local Bucks Co Hams POSITION: Amateur Radio

FROM: Ron NY3J POSITION: NCS

SUBJ: 2014 ARRL Simulated Emergency TEST DATE: 2014-10-04 TIME: 1400L

MESSAGE:

THIS IS A TEST.....THIS IS ONLY A TEST

This is NY3J net control station for the 2014 ARRL Simulated Emergency Test

for the Eastern Pennsylvania Section and is simulated exercise designed

to test Amateur Radio communications. This is a drill. This is a drill.

This is a drill.

Hirricane Mogana has caused flooding conditions in Philadelphia and the

surrounding area. Major roads and side roads in the Lower Bucks area has

been washed out. Power is out in the Lower Southampton area including the

site where the Penn Wireless repeater is located. Because of the power

outage and backup power failure the repeater is down. Amateurs with mobile

radio setup are operating at the repeater site with mobile radios connected

to the 2 meter antenna at the site and are able to relay emergency communications

from surrounding area.

Utility companies have declared a catastrophe and are calling in crews

from as far away as Idaho and Arizona but they are four days distant. Commercial

radio towers are mostly damaged or even collapsed. A handful of local AM

stations remain on the air with hurricane resistant sterba curtains and

a few kilowatts, running on emergency power.

Philadelphia’s broadcast communication nexus in Roxborough is gone, reduced

to debris damming the Schuylkill River at Manayunk, flooding the Schuylkill

Expressway and nearby railroads including SEPTA and Amtrak.

Local fire and ambulance companies reverted to VHF-low equipment. Police

remain on Open Sky using the handful of surviving repeaters, as well as

towers in Lancaster County with fringe coverage. 911 centers are operational

but coverage is spotty and intermittent, communities with “Text to 911”

are the only ones with good access. First responders are often enough victims

and manpower is limited.

Weather conditions here in Lower Southampton is now scattered rain showers

with temperatures around 32 degrees.

Amateur radio operators are requested to listen to this frequency for more

information and to relay any emergency traffic they may have.

This is NY3J net control station for the 2014 ARRL Simulated Emergency Test

for the Eastern Pennsylvania Section and is simulated exercise designed

to test Amateur Radio communications. This is a drill. This is a drill.

This is a drill.

SIGNATURE: Ron NY3J POSITION: NCS

REPLY:

DATE: TIME: SIGNATURE/POSITION:

/

12/15/2014 24

APPENDIX 3: Luzerne County ARES Report Submitted by W.T. Jones WN3LIF, Luzerne County EC

Summary At 1230 WN3LIF, Luzerne County ARES Emergency Coordinator (EC), and KC3DBG reported to the

Luzerne County Emergency Operations Center under the guidelines to “self activate” if there was no

District Emergency Coordinator. The EC briefed KC3DBG on his role as the County VHF Net Control.

(Note: KC3DBG is a relatively new licensee and was eager to do something useful for the SET.) A

script was prepared and assignments based on the EPASET scenario for District 3 were listed. These

assignments had been prepared before the start of the SET.

At 1300 KC3DBG opened the ARES County Net on 146.61 and announced the purpose of the

simulated activation along with the scenario. After cautioning all to use the phrase “This is a drill”

the net was opened to check-ins. The requested check-in data was availability and equipment

status. This was repeated several times.

The first check-in was K3ZK who is a visually impaired Amateur Radio Operator. At the direction of

the EC, KC3DBG assigned K3ZK as the county “resource collector.” K3ZK was detailed to visit all

other county repeaters to announce the ARES activation and request that operators report to the

ARES County Frequency to check-in with the NCS.

As the County Net was developing the EC checked in to the EPA HF nets. The 80 meter net was

usable but the 40 meter net provided better reliability for passing traffic. The initial muster message

was sent at 1315 for relay to the Section Emergency Coordinator.

The “status” messages were sent throughout the SET. The “status” messages were formatted in the

same order as the information listed on page 21 of the EPASET guidelines. This was done for brevity

and to reduce air time. There were 3 of these messages sent.

After the Initial Status Message was sent the Luzerne County EMA Coordinator was contacted and

notified of the activation and based on prior arrangement he read a message to the EC for

broadcast to the Luzerne County ARES group thanking them for their efforts. Following that

notification the EC then notified the Lehman Township Police Chief who simulated being the county

police liaison. Following that message radio contact was made with a representative of the Luzerne

County Back Mountain EMA who was simulating the shelter coordination.

(Note: The Lehman Township Police Chief is an Amateur Radio Operator, WA3YZD, and the Back

Mountain EMA Representative is also an Amateur Radio Operator, W3COM. Both played their roles

as the agency representatives and not as Luzerne County ARES members.)

12/15/2014 25

The County Net continued to take check-ins during the entire duration of the SET. Those stations

that listed themselves as being available were given simulated assignments which included:

2 Shelter Communications

EOC Staff augmentation

National Guard HQ Communications

Pennsylvania State Police Communications

These were all simulated and the operators took the assignments, generated 1 message back to the

EOC, and either closed at the end of the assignment or listed themselves as available for another

assignment. The operator who was listed as the National Guard HQ communications actually moved

his mobile HF/VHF station to the parking lot of the National Guard Armory and sent his message

from that location.

During the SET contact was established to Schuylkill County's ARES group (N3RZI) on VHF.

The Luzerne County ARES Net was closed at 1530 hours as the expectations of the EPASET goals

were met or exceeded as far as Luzerne County was concerned.

Table 8: Summary of ARES Net

QNN W3LUZ

QND/QNF 1303 / 1530

QNI 25

QTC (Tactical not included here) 6

QSP 1 Table 9: Summary of Data Sent

Total Manpower Available 25

Manpower Deployed 14

Assets Deployed 14 VHF/UHF 5 HF mobile

Assets Value ~ $5500

ARES Net Traffic 32 (VHF) 3 (HF)

Analysis

Strengths

The overall results were favorable. The major outcome of the SET was the discovery of resources

within the County that literally “came out of the woodwork” during the drill. For example, two

relatively quiet members checked into the net and listed their capabilities which included contacts

with Air Force MARS and a complete satellite ground station that could be deployed for amateur

radio usage.

12/15/2014 26

One of the best points was the use of “new” operators in positions of leadership such as net

control. This was a good time to let the new operators have a go and see how they performed

under simulated stress. Stress inoculation is a prime training tool in any position that requires the

person to remain calm, think quickly, and retain control. This drill used 2 new operators in those

positions so that their performance could be judged while still having trained and seasoned

operators standing by to help if needed. The EC is very proud to report that help wasn't needed

other than some minor coaching at the beginning. The new operators followed the examples set by

the regular NCS station on the Luzerne County ARES Net and rose to the occasion. The only “crutch”

was a scripted net preamble and requirements list. The new NCS stations assigned operators to

duties as they checked in and kept track of them through the net.

The other point was proving to a visually impaired operator that he was in fact a valuable asset to

Luzerne County ARES. It is necessary to be inclusive of operators with physical impairments and use

them in positions where the impairments do not prevent them from performing a service.

The EPASET was well publicized previous to the actual date. This lead to what the EC considers a

larger than normal turnout. There would have been more QNIs listed but many of them were from

counties other than Luzerne. The EC instructed the net controls to thank them for the check-in but

do not list them for our reports.

Net Discipline was excellent on the VHF net. All stations followed protocols and listed their status

and availability in a manner that was typical of a good operator. (EC Note: where are all these

people during our training nets?) The stations assigned to a task reacted in a simulated manner,

were creative in their response, and provided input the SET that was not expected. For example, a

station assigned to a shelter reported that the shelter manager was affected by the storm and Red

Cross needed to get a replacement for him quickly. The response was simulated that a shelter

manager was on the way.

Contact with the served agencies was minimal but the Luzerne County EMA Director was extremely

supportive of the EPASET effort. Mr. Steve Bekanich has been a great supporter of Amateur Radio

and his allowing the use of the County EOC for the EPASET is just a small example of his support.

All the radio equipment used at Luzerne County was county owned. The Amateur Radio Staff just

had to turn it on and go.

Weaknesses

The EPASET was well publicized but if there was an actual emergency there is a concern that

activation of the ARES assets might be a problem. This has been an ongoing issue for many years

even before the current EC took the position. The EPASET scenario dictated that telephone

coverage had diminished to unusable which is a real possibility. The current county approved

method of alerting is the Alert PA system but that relies on Internet availability. This is a weakness

12/15/2014 27

in the ARES organization. A discussion with the ARES staff will be held and suggestions for

something that is reliable taken.

There is a lack of trained HF message handlers in our ARES organization. This is a universal problem

but it was very apparent at the County EOC where the EC had to send the traffic on the HF nets.

There is currently a cadre of digital operators in the county that could handle traffic digitally but

there is no real outlet for digital traffic. The digital outlets listed in the EPASET guide are essentially

useless for Luzerne County. The EC highly recommends that an HF digital net on the order of the

Western PA model be considered. If there is such a net it isn't well publicized.

The original EPASET scenario would have exhausted the Luzerne County ARES resources in short

order. It is necessary for Luzerne County ARES to augment its human resources and arrange for

mutual aid agreements with neighboring counties. That will be rather hard to accomplish since

Luzerne County seemed to be the only District 3 county participating.

Opportunities

There are numerous opportunities for Assistant ECs in Luzerne County. The problem is to define

exactly what they should be doing. At the current time the only Assistant EC will be departing for his

winter home in Florida. There is a definite need for recruiting here.

Improvement in traffic handling and training. All the stations who sent messages were highly

complimentary regarding the voice message training of the Luzerne County ARES net. This needs to

be expanded and enticements for completing the training needs to be considered.

Transportation needs of some of the operators was an inhibiting factor. Operators were willing but

not able to truly say they were available because of a lack of transportation. This needs to be

reviewed and a plan worked out on how to best use these operators. In the event of an activation

involving EMA that would be handled through the County Transportation System but for ARES it is a

weakness. At best count there were 5 operators who were willing but lacked transportation.

While a “Ham in a Day” session is not something that the EC entertains as being a good idea there is

sufficient need to begin building a cadre of ARES operators by developing new Hams. This will be

considered after the first of the year.

Threats

No actual threats to our ARES operation is identifiable. The support of Luzerne County EMA is very

strong. The interface with area Police Departments is good and growing. It would be a good idea to

begin to cultivate contacts with the local Red Cross chapter but the current resource level prevents

that at this time.

12/15/2014 28

APPENDIX 4: Pike County ARES/RACES Report Submitted by Herb Wreden N2EPA, President PARG

The PikeAresRaces Group (PARG, Matamoras) went along timewise with the SET which Eastern Pa. scheduled;

there were events in New Jersey, and principally for PARG, contact on VHF, and HF radio was made with the

Sussex County Amateur Radio Club, at the Sussex County EOC.

While PARG was able to easily talk to Orange County, New York operators, we did not achieve contact on HF

radio, because of New York State SET activities….This circumstance would not occur in an emergency situation,

as we and they, elsewhere, would use various radio modes such as digital, to achieve contact.

PARG operated three (3) stations, one in the Matamoras EOC, our back-up communications facility. This was

done because of the official activity at the Pike County EOC, rte 739, where we otherwise would have

operated from. We also operated from the Matamoras FD radio room, and a location just outside the FD so as

to test a hasty antenna set-up using the structures metal roof…HF radio worked very well from there (contact

with New Hampshire).

PARG deems the activity today as successful, and a great learning opportunity. .it is felt that our immediate

need is repetitions of this type of event. We have the Sussex County Amateur Radio Club to work with, and a

group forming to support the EOC in Wayne County. We also have plans to provide Pike county- wide radio

coverage, with the possibilities of extension to more EOC’s in New Jersey and one in Wayne County, for which

some equipment will be needed…more on this subject separately. All plans for radio contacts were achieved,

with the exception of HF radio contact with Orange County, New York, as mentioned. We will repeat the

exercise as a special PARG test, and will accomplish mobile (car or truck) contacts on VHF, UHF, and HF, and

our VHF net control will be very tight.

We had three operators working with us from their home locations, as we would in a no-deployment

situation, and they as well as our Pike County EC took notes as the event unfolded with the other three

stations…we decided to simply attach their notes to this cover summary.. it may explain better the PARG’s

participation which gave us five operating stations in the county, and one in New Jersey..all participants could

deploy, if needed for a 24 hour period, at least. Any questions or comments will be answered quickly through

the EC, Mr. Jim Seeber, and/or Mr. Tom Olver.

12/15/2014 29

APPENDIX 5: Communications Plan FORM EPA-205

Incident Name Date/Time Prepared Operational Period

EPASET2014 14-Sep-14 4-Oct-14 to 5-Oct-14

Designator Name Function Assignment Freq MHz (Center/Dial)

Mode Remarks

Alfa HF Command Traffic

Daytime 3.917 LSB EPA interoperability channel

Bravo HF Alt Command Traffic Daytime Alt 7.227 LSB Alternate channel

Charlie Digital Traffic Relay 24 hrs 3591.9 / 3590.4 3593.9 / 3592.4 7100.4 / 7098.9 7102.4 / 7100.9 10140.9 / 10139.4 10142.9 / 10141.4 14097.9 / 14096.4 14112.4 / 14110.9

PACTOR 1,2,3 NTSD 3RN MBO W3JY

Compatible with:

Airmail

Outpost PMM

FLDIGI packet mode

Paclink

RMS (contact Sysop)

Delta Packet Traffic Relay 24 hrs 145.010 1200b packet NTSD 3RN MBO W3JY

Compatible with:

Airmail

Outpost PMM

FLDIGI packet mode

Paclink

Echo “2-7-0” Dist 1 tactical 24hrs 147.270+ 77.0 FM N3KZ interoperability channel

Foxtrot TBD Dist 2 tactical

Golf TBD Dist 3 tactical

Hotel TBD Dist 4 tactical

India TBD Dist 5 tactical

Prepared by Signature Date Prepared

J. Ames Sept 29 2014

Approved by Signature Date Approved

B. Famiglio Oct 3 2014

12/15/2014 30

APPENDIX 6: EPA Emergency Coordinators Table 10: EPA Emergency Coordinators (2014)

County CD Code

ARES District

Emergency Coordinator Call Sign Email Telephone

Adams 01 5 Donald Schmitt K3DCS [email protected] 717-334-3265

Berks 06 2 Don Boulanger WA1ELA [email protected] 610-670-5709 610-655-7011

Bradford 08 4

Bucks 09 1 Michael Sabal KB3GJT [email protected] 215-259-2000 267-992-3685

Carbon 13 2 Brian Eckert W3SG [email protected] 610-554-4727 610-377-2624

Chester 15 1 Joseph Vilardo K3JV [email protected] 610-304-4376 610-429-1297

Columbia 19 4 Randall Kishbaugh N3JPV [email protected] 570-759-2306 570-441-1896

Cumberland 21 5 James Musselman K3KS [email protected] 717-795-0832 717-919-4214

Dauphin 22 5 Marty Gutekunst KB3BAA [email protected] 717-652-3702

Delaware 23 1 Robert Wilson W3BIG [email protected] 610-586-7860

Juniata 34 5 Thomas Miller KB3CVO [email protected] 717-514-7638 717-789-4090

Lackawana 35 3 --

Lancaster 36 5 Ronald Small WB2OOB [email protected] 717-481-8589

Lebanon 38 5 Bill Daub W3BFD [email protected] 717-821-0560

Lehigh 39 2 Jeffery Kelly N3MFT [email protected] 610-841-8350 610-972-1043

Luzerne 40 3 Walter T. Jones WN3LIF [email protected] 570-561-5500

Lycoming 41 4 Robert Brown KB3IPZ [email protected] 570-772-9036

Monroe 45 2 Jerry Truax N3SEI [email protected] 570-688-8877 570-620-9080

Montgomery 46 1 Charles Pisttilli N3FKR [email protected] 215-572-5330 215-872-1019

Montour 47 4 John Mc Cann W3GY [email protected] 717-275-0577

Northampton 48 2 Alfred Wiemann W3CE [email protected] 610-262-6977

Northumberland 49 4 Tim Galvin K3TEG [email protected] 570-495-0982

Perry 50 5 Thomas Miller KB3CVO [email protected] 717-514-7638 717-789-4090

Philadelphia 51 1 Roger Jordan W4RFJ [email protected] 610-532-7895

Pike 52 3 James Seeber KW3U [email protected] 973-827-5900 973-796-4374

Schuylkill 54 2 Robert McClintock N3RZI [email protected] 570-449-0565 570-449-0565

Snyder 55 4 Roger Dietz N3CVQ [email protected] 570-473-8352 570-539-0074

Sullivan 57 4 --

Susquehanna 58 3 --

Tioga 59 4 Michael Wilson NM3O [email protected] 717-724-5178 570-439-3192

Union 60 4 George Foust N3RFS [email protected] 570-966-4054 570-768-6531

Wayne 64 3 Edward Mattice WS3I [email protected] 570-352-5394

Wyoming 66 3 Nicholas Shyshuk N3GTH [email protected] 570-945-3893

York 67 5 Sandy Goodman N3ECF [email protected] 717-697-2353 717-576-8763

12/15/2014 31

Table 11: EPA District Emergency Coordinators ARES District District Emergency Coordinator Call Sign Email Telephone

1 Richard Stewart K3ITH [email protected] 610-666-0674

Roger Jordan, Ass’t DEC W4RFJ [email protected] 610-532-7895

2 Bob Wiseman, Acting DEC WB3W [email protected] 610-799-4957

3

4 Andrew Shecktor N3OMA [email protected] 570-752-2434

Travis Best, Ass’t DEC W3TMB [email protected] 570-398-1165

5 Daniel Sullivan KO1D [email protected] 717-440-0641

Phil Theis, Ass’t DEC K3TUF [email protected] 717-721-6262

APPENDIX 8: Participation ARRL EPA Section would like to thank the following participating Amateurs for their dedication to

public service communication through ARES and the NTS:

AF4NC K3BHX K3BVQ K3ITH K3KH K3MD K3RF K3TEG K3WJL KB3AC KB3BAA KB3LR KB3YQM KB3YRC KC3BLF

KC8HFH KD3OA KE3LA KJ3P KK3F KS3Z KW3U N3AS N3HBT N3JOW N3JPV N3OGD N3RAY N3RZI N3XGT

NC3U NT3Y NX3L VE3HOH/W3 W3DI W3GAD W3IWJ W3JY W3TAC W3TWV W4RFJ WA3JZN WA3LWR WN3LIF

12/15/2014 32

APPENDIX 9: Coverage Map

APPENDIX 10: Promotional Material