Radio Interoperability Presentation Generic Gsa Academy

3,338 views

Published on

A general review of Radio Interoperability dating from early 2000 to 2005

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,338
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
31
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
138
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Radio Interoperability Presentation Generic Gsa Academy

    1. 1. <ul><li>Radio Interoperability </li></ul>2005 GSA Academy
    2. 2. “ Studies show that across the nation, public safety officials have trouble communicating in operational situations one-third of the time.” Rick Murphy Program Manager Public Safety Wireless Network Dept. Of Justice Radio Interoperability: Why?
    3. 3. Definition of Radio Interoperability <ul><li>Radio Interoperability is the ability for public safety providers to communicate, on demand, in real time, when needed, and as authorized. </li></ul>
    4. 4. 1989 Ramstein Air Base, NATO Air Force Demonstration Team Crash: Nearly 600 casualties, nearly 90 dead, Poor Planning & Radio Interoperability WERE Factors
    5. 5. Other disasters impacted Radio Interoperability WAS a Factor
    6. 6. Interoperable Communications System – Prerequisites <ul><li>Political Will </li></ul><ul><li>Funding </li></ul><ul><li>Spectrum Common to all Users </li></ul>
    7. 7. PROPOSED SPECTRUM What are the public safety bands from which we can attempt to obtain frequencies?
    8. 8. Standards-Based Shared Systems System-Specific Roaming Gateway (Console Patch) Mutual Aid Channels Talkaround Swap Radios Most Complete Long-Term Solution Full-featured, Wide Area Short-Term System Modification Well Known With Public Safety Agencies Simple Short-Term Solutions APCO Defined 6 Levels of Interoperability Method Fit Level Easily deployed Time-consuming
    9. 9. CURRENT LEVEL OF INTEROPERABILITY East Bay <ul><li>Alameda County </li></ul><ul><li>Fremont </li></ul><ul><li>City of Alameda </li></ul><ul><li>City of Union City </li></ul><ul><li>Newark </li></ul><ul><li>San Leandro </li></ul><ul><li>Dublin </li></ul><ul><li>Livermore / Pleasanton </li></ul><ul><li>UC Berkeley </li></ul><ul><li>EBMUD* (conventional) </li></ul><ul><li>CaLTrans </li></ul><ul><li>Oakland includes: </li></ul><ul><li>Albany </li></ul><ul><li>Piedmont </li></ul><ul><li>Emeryville </li></ul><ul><li>Port of Oakland </li></ul><ul><li>BART </li></ul><ul><li>Richmond </li></ul><ul><li>Pinole </li></ul><ul><li>Contra Costa County </li></ul><ul><li>Co Co County cities * </li></ul>Level 2, 3, 4 & 5 VHF / UHF Conventional Repeated / simulcast Level 3 & 5 800 MHz Trunked Systems <ul><li>Hayward </li></ul><ul><li>City of Berkeley </li></ul><ul><li>CHP </li></ul><ul><li>CDF </li></ul><ul><li>Coast Guard </li></ul><ul><li>FBI </li></ul>
    10. 10. Level 1: Swap Radios <ul><li>Works Via: When disaster/major event occurs, involved agencies physically exchange radios from their networks with each other upon arrival at scene. </li></ul><ul><li>Advantages: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Low cost/Simple to setup </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Works across frequency bands </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Impractical for large scale events </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Delay with setup while swap is transacted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited range </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advanced features/config. not understood by “Guest” users </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Level 2: Talkaround <ul><li>Works Via: Multiple radios talk directly to each other in conventional mode using compatible subscribers--no infrastructure link. </li></ul><ul><li>Advantage: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Low cost to setup </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simple to initiate calls </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disadvantage: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Very limited range </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No advanced features available to users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires compatible over the air interface </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires same frequency band for subscribers </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Level 3: Mutual Aid Channels <ul><li>Works Via: Multiple radios talk directly to each other using common channels in conventional mode </li></ul><ul><li>Advantage: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Added range over Level 1 since infrastructure is involved </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relatively low cost to setup </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Defacto standard </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Setting it up forces some planning by regional agencies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disadvantage: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires compatible interfaces </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires trunked and conventional modes in subscriber </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No advanced features available to users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires same frequency band for all subscribers </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Level 4: Gateways (fixed and transportable) <ul><li>SmartLink - I Switch/I Network </li></ul><ul><li>M/A-Com – Network First </li></ul><ul><li>Motorola’s Motobridge (SSRN) </li></ul><ul><li>Raytheon /JPS – ACU1000 * </li></ul><ul><li>Infinimode – Infinimux G4 Plus * </li></ul><ul><li>* When installed and configured as fixed equipment </li></ul>
    14. 14. Fixed Gateways offer: <ul><li>Provides Interoperability between non compatible communication systems </li></ul><ul><li>Provides Dispatch capability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Backup to existing dispatch consoles </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Can replay last conversation </li></ul><ul><li>Intercom between dispatchers </li></ul><ul><li>Can interface to phone systems </li></ul><ul><li>Allows connectivity between a cell phone and radio systems </li></ul>
    15. 15. Level 4: Gateway – Console Patch <ul><li>Requires 24-7 manned dispatch center </li></ul><ul><li>Users request patch via dispatcher </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamic capability – easy to set-up </li></ul>150 MHz System 800 MHz System
    16. 16. Level 4: Gateway “Interface Box” <ul><li>Hardware component that sits between two networks </li></ul><ul><li>RF or 4-wire audio links connect systems </li></ul><ul><li>Provides audio only, no system specific features </li></ul>150 MHz System 800 MHz System Gateway Unit ID Emergency Busy
    17. 17. Level 4: Deployable RF Gateways <ul><li>Examples: ACU1000 & Infinimux G4 </li></ul><ul><li>Apparatus linking two networks via RF links </li></ul><ul><li>Variety of technologies and approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Usually requires operator intervention </li></ul>800 MHz System Gateway in Vehicle … . 150 MHz System OR … . … . Field Deployed Gateway
    18. 18. Level 4: Gateway -- Interface Requires Overlapping Coverage Gateway Audio Only Audio, ID, Emergency PTT, etc. 800 MHz System B 150 MHz System A Gateway does not provide interoperability here Gateway provides interoperability here Unit ID Emergency Busy
    19. 19. Northern CA Gateway Concept - Radio East Bay RCS P25 I-80 Gateway Network City/County of Sacramento Santa Clara County San Francisco Digital Trunked Placer County VHF P25 Trunked State of California Users Conventional Mutual Aid System Departments of Justice Treasury and Defense
    20. 20. Gateway Vision For I-80 Corridor
    21. 21. Motobridge Network Overview OMC Server SIP Server Dispatch Workstation Operations Management Location Existing Console Dispatch Workstation Dispatch Only Location . . . . . . . Typical Remote Radio Location Other Remote Radio Locations Customer IP Network Remote Radio Location 1 … 8-ports/R-GU
    22. 22. Fixed Gateway - Smartlink
    23. 23. Radio Gateway Unit Interfaces LAN Equipment 4W+E&M/Tone Remote Control Serial (Enables Radio controls, Emergency Notification and Wireless Data) CEB BIM 4W+Tone Remote Control 4W Serial (RS232) Redundant LAN Trunked Conventional PSTN Consolette 1 to 8 interface Connections per RGU Cell LMR System Station RGU
    24. 24. Workstation Modules <ul><li>Enable the operator to quickly create Interoperability between the available resources </li></ul><ul><li>Consist of a Workstation Gateway unit connected to a dispatch console </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Standalone unit or existing dispatch position </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Instant Recall Recorder </li></ul>Radio Module Dispatch Module Dispatch Conference Module Existing Console LAN Equipment Redundant LAN WSGU
    25. 25. Tactical Interoperability <ul><li>Must be rapidly deployable at any time (24/7) </li></ul><ul><li>Should be fully operational within an hour of an incident occurring. </li></ul><ul><li>Requires oversight by trained Communications Unit Leaders, as defined within the NIMS, to support equipment deployment. </li></ul><ul><li>May be provided through the use of common equipment (common channels, cached radios or shared systems) or a gateway between dissimilar systems and/or radio frequency bands; </li></ul><ul><li>Should always be in support of long-term interoperability by building upon or accelerating long-term strategies and efforts. </li></ul>
    26. 26. Level 5: System Specific Roaming <ul><li>Works Via: Radios talk to each other via infrastructure or talkaround using infrastructure from same manufacturer </li></ul><ul><li>Advantage: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interoperability via the turn of a dial </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Covers large areas seamlessly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Users can contact agencies across entire coverage area </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can handle larger numbers of users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No console intervention required </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All advanced features are available to users </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disadvantage: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional planning and software required on each system </li></ul></ul>
    27. 27. Level 5: System Specific Roaming San Francisco San Francisco County of Alameda County of Alameda
    28. 28. Level 6: Standards-Based Shared Systems <ul><li>Works Via: All radios built to a standard can talk to each other via infrastructure or talkaround (P25) </li></ul><ul><li>Advantage: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interoperability via turn of a dial, real time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Links different vendor systems and subscribers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Out of the box” interoperability, simple to set up infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Next generation equipment is backwards compatible to P25 phase 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No console intervention required </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All advanced features are available to users </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disadvantage: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Most expensive solution </li></ul></ul>
    29. 29. Level 6: Standards-Based (P25) Shared Systems Zone Controller Alameda County P25 Site San Francisco P25 Site Contra Costa County P25 Site B A A
    30. 31. ANSI/TIA/EIA-102 (Project 25 or “P25”) <ul><li>Supported by: </li></ul><ul><li>National Chiefs of Police </li></ul><ul><li>National Sheriff’s Association </li></ul><ul><li>National Fire Chiefs Association </li></ul><ul><li>APCO </li></ul><ul><li>DOD, DOJ/FBI, Homeland Security </li></ul><ul><li>FCC </li></ul><ul><li>Most major LMR manufacturers </li></ul>
    31. 32. Project 25 Key Requirements <ul><li>Project 25 is Digital </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Meets FCC mandate for narrowband operation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(some non-P25 radios are also narrowband capable) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interoperability between radio systems within a common band of the spectrum; P25 does NOT afford interoperability for radios that are not on a common band </li></ul><ul><li>Compatibility with Existing Equipment </li></ul><ul><li>Range Equal to Current Analog Systems </li></ul><ul><li>Integrated Voice and Data Services </li></ul><ul><li>Forward/Backward Compatibility </li></ul><ul><li>Available 800/700/UHF/VHF </li></ul><ul><li>Conventional or Trunked Systems </li></ul>
    32. 33. P25 System Vision Packet Gate System Management Data Services Zone Comm. Servers IP Gate Internet or PDN PSTN / PBX P25 network Placer County MERA/ San Mateo County VHF UHF 800 Wideband Site Phase II Site IP Services East Bay RCS/Sacramento
    33. 34. 10 minute Break ? Up next: 6 minute video
    34. 35. Grant Megatrends 1950 9-11-2001 2003 FUTURE <ul><li>Local </li></ul><ul><li>(Decentralization) </li></ul><ul><li>In-dependence </li></ul><ul><li>Autonomy </li></ul><ul><li>Funding </li></ul><ul><li>Priorities </li></ul><ul><li>Planning </li></ul><ul><li>Regional </li></ul><ul><li>(Centralization) </li></ul><ul><li>Inter-dependence </li></ul><ul><li>Policy </li></ul><ul><li>Directives </li></ul><ul><li>Funding </li></ul><ul><li>Strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Governance </li></ul><ul><li>Organization </li></ul>New Urban Threat
    35. 36. What Has Changed in the Past 3 Years? <ul><li>Significantly more funding </li></ul><ul><li>Applications becoming more complicated </li></ul><ul><li>Creation of the Department of Homeland Security </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consolidation of Funding to Local’s </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Significantly faster funding mechanism </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transfer funds in months instead of years </li></ul></ul><ul><li>COP’s program is being phased out by the Administration </li></ul>
    36. 37. Homeland Security Grant Programs
    37. 38. What are the Funding Trends? <ul><li>State Control of Grants Vs Local Autonomy </li></ul><ul><li>Regional Projects Vs Single Jurisdiction Solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Risk Assessment Criteria Tied to Grant Dollars </li></ul><ul><li>All Hazard Planning Critical </li></ul><ul><li>Uniform Equipment Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Emergency Management Directors As Key Players </li></ul><ul><li>Regional Consensus on Program Expenditures </li></ul><ul><li>Increase in HLS funds offset decreased Justice funds </li></ul>
    38. 39. Presidential Directive HSPD-7 <ul><li>Calls for an Integrated National Plan for Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Protection within 1 year (December 17, 2004) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>State and local governments are to be consulted during this process, as are other federal agencies and the private sector </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The plan should include: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>goals, objectives, milestones and key initiatives; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>a strategy to identify, prioritize and coordinate the protection of critical infrastructure and key resources; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>a summary of the specific activities that will be necessary to define and prioritize, reduce the vulnerability of, and coordinate the protection of critical infrastructure and key resources; and </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>a summary of initiatives for sharing critical infrastructure and key resources information, and for providing critical infrastructure and key resources threat warning data, to state and local governments and the private sector </li></ul></ul></ul>
    39. 40. Presidential Directive HSPD-8 National Preparedness <ul><li>Creation of a National Domestic All -Hazard Preparedness Goal </li></ul><ul><li>This will be the &quot;Primary Mechanism&quot; for the delivery of Federal Preparedness Assistance awards to States, predicated on adoption of Statewide </li></ul><ul><li>Comprehensive All-Hazards Preparedness Strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Allocations to be based upon assessments of population, critical </li></ul><ul><li>infrastructure and other significant risk factors </li></ul><ul><li>Federal preparedness will support State and local entities efforts including planning, training, exercises, interoperability and equipment acquisition </li></ul><ul><li>On-going development and adoption of appropriate first responder equipment standards that support nationwide interoperability and other capabilities consistent with the National Preparedness Goal, including the safety and </li></ul><ul><li>health of first responders </li></ul>
    40. 41. Proposed Homeland Security Bills Eliminate Formula Grants <ul><li>HR 3266 – The Faster & Smarter Funding For First Responders Act (Rep Cox R-CA) </li></ul><ul><li>HR 3158 – Preparing America To Respond Effectively Act (Rep Turner </li></ul><ul><li>D-TX) </li></ul><ul><li>Both Bills focus on restructuring the new grant programs within DHS- </li></ul><ul><li>ODP </li></ul><ul><li>Current formula process guarantees each state & US territory receives a portion of the funds </li></ul><ul><li>Establishment of grants based on threat & vulnerability assessments, </li></ul><ul><li>and criteria such as the presence of critical infrastructure, key assets or national icons, population and other factors </li></ul><ul><li>Both bills would not affect traditional law enforcement, fire, rescue, emergency preparedness programs existing before 9/11 </li></ul><ul><li>S 1245 – allows localities to receive direct funding from the DHS and requires a single office for processing all HSD grant applications </li></ul>
    41. 42. ODP Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) <ul><li>Integrates Three Programs In A Single Application </li></ul><ul><li>State Homeland Security Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(SHSP) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1.7 Billion </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(LETPP) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>500 Million </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Citizen Corps Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(CCP) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>35 Million </li></ul></ul>
    42. 43. California - HSGP/ODP <ul><li>FY2003 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Original budget $31,595,000 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supplemental $83,479,200 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>FY2004 $133,964,000 </li></ul><ul><li>14% increase </li></ul>
    43. 44. Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) <ul><li>California Divided into 58 Operational Area’s (OA) </li></ul><ul><li>Approval Authority for each OA (“Gang of 5”) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>County Public Health Officer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>County Fire Chief </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Municipal Fire Chief </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>County Sheriff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chief of Police </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Priorities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exercises </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Training </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Planning/Administration </li></ul></ul>
    44. 45. Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) <ul><li>Distribution Breakdown </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Law Enforcement 20% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fire 20% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EMS 20% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discretionary 40% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>State Office of Emergency Services Approves Grant Award </li></ul><ul><li>Has Your Agency Applied For These Funds??? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Have you been working with your OA? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Has Your Agency Received these Funds?? </li></ul>
    45. 46. Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) <ul><li>Interoperable Communications Plan Suggested </li></ul><ul><li>When using ODP program funds in the category of Interoperable Communications Equipment to build, upgrade, enhance, or replace communications systems, grantees and sub-grantees should develop a comprehensive interoperable communications plan before procurement decisions are made </li></ul><ul><li>Plan should clearly illustrate how the proposed effort will lead to </li></ul><ul><li>enhanced public safety communications interoperability </li></ul><ul><li>Plans should be retained by the jurisdiction/agency and be available </li></ul><ul><li>for review by the SAA and ODP </li></ul><ul><li>ODP has issued Guidance for Developing Interoperable Communications Plans </li></ul>
    46. 47. Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) <ul><li>Installation costs for authorized equipment purchased through ODP </li></ul><ul><li>grants </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance contracts for authorized equipment purchased through </li></ul><ul><li>ODP grants and acquired through DHS-ODP’s Homeland Defense Equipment Reuse (HDER) Program </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) </li></ul><ul><li>Training on CBRNE and cyber security equipment by vendors or local entities </li></ul><ul><li>Shipping costs for equipment </li></ul><ul><li>Sales tax on equipment </li></ul>
    47. 48. Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention (LETP) <ul><li>California FY2004 $39,752,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Will follow a similar/same process as HSGP in California </li></ul>
    48. 49. Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention (LETPP) <ul><li>  Information Sharing to Preempt Terrorist Attacks: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>These funds will allow law enforcement communities to purchase equipment and support efficient and expeditious sharing of information and intelligence that could preempt possible terrorist attacks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Target Hardening to Reduce Vulnerability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Funds provided under this category will allow law enforcement communities to make vulnerable targets more resistant to attack or more difficult to remove or damage </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Threat Recognition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Funds provided under this category will allow law enforcement personnel to purchase equipment and conduct additional training that assists in further recognizing the potential or development of a threat </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Intervention Activities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Funds provided under this category will allow law enforcement personnel to purchase equipment and conduct activities to further enhance their capabilities to prevent domestic terrorism incidents </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interoperable Communications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Funds provided under this category will allow law enforcement personnel to purchase equipment to ensure interoperable communications between, and among, law enforcement agencies and other emergency service disciplines such as fire and emergency management </li></ul></ul>
    49. 50. <ul><li>Allowable Planning Costs </li></ul><ul><li>Development of and participation in information/ intelligence sharing groups </li></ul><ul><li>Point vulnerability analyses and assessments </li></ul><ul><li>Development and review of site security buffer zone plans </li></ul><ul><li>Soft target security planning (public gatherings) </li></ul><ul><li>Development, implementation and review of Area Maritime Security Plans for ports, waterways, and coastal areas </li></ul><ul><li>Updating and refining threat matrices </li></ul><ul><li>Conducting local or regional implementation meetings </li></ul><ul><li>Hiring of full or part-time staff or contractors/consultants to assist with intervention activities (not for the purpose of hiring public safety personnel) </li></ul><ul><li>Developing or updating local or regional communications plans </li></ul><ul><li>Development or enhancement of cyber security plans </li></ul><ul><li>Development or enhancement of cyber risk mitigation plans </li></ul><ul><li>Conducting cyber risk and vulnerability assessments </li></ul>
    50. 51. Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention (LETPP) <ul><li>Authorized equipment purchases may be made in the following categories </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal protective equipment (PPE) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Explosive device mitigation and remediation equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interoperable communications equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Physical security enhancement equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Terrorism incident prevention equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CBRNE logistical support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CBRNE incident response vehicles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CBRNE reference materials </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CBRNE response watercraft </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Intervention equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cyber security enhancement equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other authorized equipment </li></ul></ul>
    51. 52. Urban Area Security Initiative <ul><li>Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) $725 million (2004) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>$675 Million - Urban Areas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$50 Million - Metro Rail Transit Grants </li></ul></ul>
    52. 53. Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)- 2004   $7,076,396 CA Fresno, CA   $7,854,691 CA Oakland, CA City and County of Sacramento, Yolo County, City of Folsom $8,024,926 CA Sacramento, CA   $9,982,442 CA San Jose, CA   $10,345,691 CA Anaheim, CA San Diego County, Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Ocean-Side, Poway, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach and Vista $10,479,947 CA San Diego, CA Los Angeles County, Cities of Long Beach, Belleflower, Carson, Compton, Hawaiian Gardens, Lakewood, Paramount and Signal Hill $12,136,091 CA Long Beach, CA   $15,058,528 CA Santa Ana, CA City/County of San Francisco, Alameda County, Marin County, Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, and the Golden Gate Bridge District $26,481,275 CA San Francisco, CA City and County of Los Angeles, Cities of Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Culver City, El Segundo, Glendale, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Pasadena, San Fernando, Santa Monica, Torrance, Vernon and West Hollywood $28,268,504 CA Los Angeles, CA
    53. 54. Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) <ul><li>Administered by DHS’s Office for Domestic Preparedness </li></ul><ul><li>Distributed at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security </li></ul><ul><li>FY 2004 UASI allocations – 50 Urban Areas and 30 Metro Rail Systems </li></ul><ul><li>UASI Program Formula - Weighted linear combination of the following factors: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Population Density </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Presence of Critical Infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Current Threat Estimates </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Only States are eligible to apply for this funding </li></ul><ul><li>To expedite the application and award processes, no budget information and program narrative is required to apply for this grant. </li></ul><ul><li>Upon approval of the electronic grant application, the grant will be awarded to the respective state (SAA). This date will be known as the receipt of funds date </li></ul>
    54. 55. Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) <ul><li>The state's 60 day obligation period must be met within 60 days of the receipt of funds date. </li></ul><ul><li>Note: The receipt of funds date is contingent upon submission of a validated Urban Area Assessment and a validated Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Urban areas must allocate all funding in support of goals and objectives identified in their Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy and the State Homeland Security Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Mass transit authorities must also allocate according to their Transit Security and Emergency Preparedness Plan developed through this program. </li></ul><ul><li>Funding under the FY2004 UASI Program for urban areas and mass transit systems may be used in any of five categories: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Planning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Equipment Acquisitions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Training </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exercise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Management and Administrative (M&A) </li></ul></ul>
    55. 56. Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) <ul><li>Equipment purchases may be made in the following categories </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal protective equipment (PPE) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Explosive device mitigation and remediation equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CBRNE search and rescue equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interoperable communications equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Detection equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decontamination equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Physical security enhancement equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Terrorism incident prevention equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CBRNE logistical support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CBRNE incident response vehicles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Medical supplies and limited types of pharmaceuticals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CBRNE reference materials </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Agricultural terrorism prevention, response and mitigation equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CBRNE response watercraft </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CBRNE aviation equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cyber security enhancement equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Intervention equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other authorized equipment </li></ul></ul>
    56. 57. Interoperable CommunicationsTechnology for the City of Murrieta, CA, Police Department for mobile data terminals; $200,000 for the County of Contra Costa, CA, for an integrated justice information system; $250,000 for the San Bernardino, CA, Police Department for mobile data terminals; $250,000 for Sacramento County, CA, for law enforcement technologies; $300,000 for the Sacramento County, CA, Sheriff's Department for IT infrastructure upgrades including the Sheriff's Information Management System; $300,000 for the Plumas County, CA, Sheriff's Department for law enforcement technologies; $500,000 for the City of Fairfield, CA, Police CAD/RMS Dispatch and Records Project; $500,000 for the City of San Francisco, CA, to implement the Justice Information Tracking System; $750,000 for the East Valley Community Justice Center in CA; $750,000 for the Placer County, CA, Sheriff's Department for law enforcement technologies; $750,000 for San Francisco, CA, Bay Area law enforcement technology systems; $1,000,000 for the Los Angeles County, CA, Sheriff's Department for law enforcement technologies; $1,000,000 for Carlsbad, CA, for the Automated Regional Justice Information System; $1,000,000
    57. 58. Directed Appropriations <ul><li>Awarded by exception – You have to specifically ask for it! </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Need a Customer Champion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Need multiple political champions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Chiefs </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mayors </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>City Council </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Congressional Delegations </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Senator’s </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Takes dedication and time </li></ul></ul></ul>
    58. 60. System Governance & Management
    59. 63. Governance Committee Action Plan: <ul><li>Identify Participants with Letter Of Intent (LOI) </li></ul><ul><li>Draft MOU or JPA By-Laws </li></ul><ul><li>develop a Cost-Sharing Formula (predicated on a system design with projected costs from the Technical Advisory Committee) </li></ul><ul><li>Develop presentation(s) for Dept. Heads, elected officials and City Managers / CAO </li></ul><ul><li>pursue funding </li></ul>
    60. 64. Operations Committee <ul><li>Identify Operation requirements for communications </li></ul><ul><li>Develop SOPs for Tactical Interoperability Communications Plan (TICP) by Sept. 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Identify details of the Incident Command System procedures (ICS) to be used by first responders </li></ul><ul><li>Identify who the “Communications Team members” will be during events </li></ul><ul><li>Develop presentation(s) for Dept. Heads, elected officials and City Managers / CAO </li></ul><ul><li>pursue funding </li></ul><ul><li>develop and practice training protocol </li></ul>
    61. 65. Technical Advisory Committee <ul><li>Identify requirements with the OPS committee </li></ul><ul><li>Develop equipment requirements based on ICTAP/consultant recommendations (phased implementation) </li></ul><ul><li>Identify & pursue funding sources </li></ul><ul><li>*Draft RFPs / SOW for digital microwave, master site controller, P25 repeater Sites, gateway, mutual aid repeaters, P25 capable consoles, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>*Develop and Implement equipment required for TICP </li></ul><ul><li>Develop presentation(s) for Dept. Heads, elected officials and City Managers / CAO </li></ul>
    62. 66. Case Studies <ul><li>Denver / State of Colorado Gateway-Network 1 st Level 4 </li></ul><ul><li>Phoenix / Mesa P25 Trunking Level 6 </li></ul><ul><li>San Diego/ Imperial Shared Trunking Level 5 </li></ul><ul><li>San Mateo Shared Trunking Level 5 </li></ul><ul><li>Sacramento Shared Trunking Level 5 </li></ul><ul><li>EBRCS (Alameda) Gateway,P25 Trunking, “Tac-N-Stack” </li></ul><ul><li>Levels 3,4,5,6 </li></ul><ul><li>MERA (Marin County) Shared Trunking Level 5 </li></ul><ul><li>SECA (Solano County) Gateway / Mutual Aid Levels 3,4 </li></ul><ul><li>Silicon Valley (SVRIP) Gateway, Tac-N-Stack Levels 3,4 </li></ul><ul><li>Riverside & San Bernadino ? </li></ul><ul><li>LARTCS (LA County) Gateway, Mutual aid Level 3,4 </li></ul>
    63. 67. Emerging CA Regional Networks <ul><li>Placer County VHF P25 Trunked </li></ul><ul><li>Sacramento County 800 Trunked </li></ul><ul><li>Alameda / Contra Costa County 700/800 P25 Trunked </li></ul><ul><li>Solano County ( SECA) 700/800 P25 Trunked </li></ul><ul><li>City of Davis* 800 Trunked </li></ul><ul><li>BARTCS VHF/UHF/800 Trunked </li></ul><ul><li>LARTCS VHF/UHF/800 Trunked </li></ul><ul><li>San Diego / Imperial Counties 800 Trunked </li></ul><ul><li>Silicon Valley (SVRIP) VHF/UHF/800 Trunked </li></ul><ul><li>Marin County (MERA) UHF T-band </li></ul><ul><li>San Mateo County UHF T-band </li></ul><ul><li>Riverside County ? </li></ul>
    64. 68. Case Study- Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Project (SVRIP) Proof of Concept #1 & #2 Proof of Concept #5 Proof of Concept #3 and #4 E-Comm Regional Microwave System PROOF OF CONCEPT PROJECTS BayMACS and Future Radio
    65. 69. Case Studies - SVRIP
    66. 70. Case Study: SVRIP - Multiple RIIBs Statewide RIIBs Additional RIIBs
    67. 71. Related Legislation <ul><li>S1274 – Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>$400M in 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$500M in 2007 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$600M in 2008 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$800M in 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$1,000,000,000 in 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding as necessary thereafter </li></ul></ul>
    68. 72. Related Legislation <ul><li>HR3266 – Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>HR3158 – Preparing America to Respond Effectively Act of 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>? – HERO act, pertains to the 700MHz and establishes a date certain for the vacation of the TV channel spectrum </li></ul>
    69. 73. Resources (samples) <ul><li>FCC.gov / 800TA.ORG </li></ul><ul><li>dhs.gov (SAFECOM and or ICTAP) </li></ul><ul><li>apcointl.org </li></ul><ul><li>Motorola.com </li></ul><ul><li>EFJohnson.com </li></ul><ul><li>Smartlink.net </li></ul><ul><li>TYCO.com (M/A-Com) </li></ul><ul><li>Thales.com </li></ul><ul><li>Tait.com </li></ul>
    70. 74. Portions of this presentation provided, with permission by: <ul><li>Homeland Security Dept./FCC via websites </li></ul><ul><li>SmartLink Communications Inc. </li></ul><ul><li>Motorola Inc. </li></ul><ul><li>Harris Corp. </li></ul><ul><li>Raytheon / JPS </li></ul>
    71. 75. Twin Towers-Sept. 11, 2001 Radio Interoperability WAS a Factor
    72. 76. Questions? Aki Nakao Director,GSA Randy Hagar Deputy Director, GSA Communications Dept. Alameda County [email_address] (510)208-9789 John Navarette Director, General Services John Downing Communications Services Manager Fresno County [email_address] (559)456-7527

    ×