FEMAGRANT PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE

FY 2013 Port Security Grant Program (PSGP)Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) OutreachFEMA Grant Programs Directorate and United States Coast Guard

May 21 – June 24, 2013

Agenda

Program Overview

Funding Priorities

Application Process

Post-Award Administration

Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Compliance

Appendix

2

Program Overview

3

4

FY 2013 Transportation Grant Programs

Overview

The Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) is one of three funded grant programs within the Transportation Infrastructure Security Branch for FY 2013

PSGP provides funds for transportation infrastructure security activities to implement Area Maritime Security Plans and Facility Security Plans among port authorities, facility operators, and State and local government agencies required to provide port security services

Transportation Infrastructure Security Branch (TISB)

Port Security Grant Program

(PSGP)

Transit Security Grant Program

(TSGP)

Intercity Passenger Rail

(IPR)

Transportation Infrastructure

Security Branch

5

FY 2013 Appropriation

Authorizing Statutes– The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6)

Congress appropriated $1,511,880,033 to be distributed among all state and local preparedness grant programs at the Secretary’s discretion. This figure represents an 8.8% increase in funding from the FY 2012 appropriation

– Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, as amended (46 U.S.C. §70107)

Overview

Available Funding

Group FY 2012 FY 2013

Group I $58,500,000 $55,924,388

Group II $29,250,000 $37,282,925

Group III $4,875,000 Not Applicable

All Other Port Areas $4,875,000 Not Applicable

TOTAL $97,500,000 $93,207,313

(p. 24-25)(p. 24-25)

6

FY 2013 PSGP

Overview

The FY 2013 port program closely resembles the FY 2012 program:– Eligible applicants apply directly to FEMA without the use of a

Fiduciary Agent

– Applicants may apply for up to three projects

– Applicants will be required to provide a cost-match (50% for private entities and 25% for public entities/consortia) for submitted projects

– The period of performance for the award remains 24 months

– Operational expenses must be approved as an allowable costs

Two key changes were made for FY 2013: – Funding will be distributed between two Port Area Group

Designations rather than the traditional four groupings in prior years (Group I, Group II, Group III, and All Other Port Areas) Group I consists of 8 Port Areas Group II includes all other Port Areas not specifically identified as Group I

(legacy Group II, Group III, and All Other Port Areas)

– Cybersecurity has been added as a specific program priority

Basic Eligibility Requirements

Eligible applicants include port authorities, facility operators, and state and local government agencies required to provide port security services (p. 8)

– Applicants must be fully compliant with relevant Maritime Security Regulations (i.e., 33 CFR Parts 101-106; Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) regulations)

By law, DHS must direct PSGP funds to the nation’s highest risk ports – 145 ports, aggregated into 90 discrete port areas, are eligible to apply for funds in

two PSGP funding pools

– Applicants will compete for funding within their group without target allocations for specific port areas

FY 2013 PSGP Funding Groups

Group I $55,924,388 8 Port Areas: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, New Orleans, Delaware Bay, New York/New Jersey, Houston-Galveston, Puget Sound

Group II $37,282,925All other eligible port areas not specifically identified above, to include the 82 legacy Group II and III Port Areas and the legacy All Other Port Areas Group

7

(p. 24-25)

Funding Priorities

8

Overarching Funding Priorities

Two priorities are paramount in the overall DHS investment strategy: risk-informed funding and regional security cooperation (p.29-30)

Available port security grant dollars will focus on the highest-risk port areas– Determination is based on intelligence analysis, extensive security reviews, and

consultations with port industry partners

– Eligible port areas were identified using a compressive, empirically-grounded risk analysis model

– Risk will be evaluated using an analytical model defining risk as the product of three principal variables:

1. Threat - the likelihood of an attack occurring

2. Vulnerability - the relative exposure to an attack

3. Consequence - the expected impact of an attack

DHS places a high priority on ensuring that all PSGP applications reflect robust regional coordination and an investment strategy that institutionalizes and integrates a regional maritime security risk strategy

9

10

FY 2013 PSGP Funding Priorities

Overview

1.Enhancing Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) (p. 30)

– Port areas should seek to enhance MDA through projects that address knowledge capabilities within the maritime domain

– Projects should reflect a regionalized approach and coordinated effort among public and private sector organizations

– MDA efforts could include access control/standardized credentialing, communications, enhanced intelligence sharing and analysis, construction and/or enhancement of Interagency Operations Centers, etc.

2.Enhancing Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive (CBRNE) prevention, protection, response, and recovery capabilities (p. 31)

– Port areas should continue to enhance their capabilities to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from attacks employing IEDs, CBRNE devices, and other non-conventional weapons

– IEDs delivered via small craft, underwater swimmers, or on ferries are of particular concern

FY 2013 PSGP Funding Priorities (continued)

3. Enhancing Cybersecurity Capabilities (p. 31)

– Port Areas should seek to enhance their capability to strengthen the Nation's critical infrastructure including distributed networks, varied organizational structures and operating models, interdependent functions and systems in both the physical space and cyberspace, and governance constructs that involve multi-level authorities, responsibilities, and regulations

– Projects should reflect the unique position of critical infrastructure owners and operators in managing risks to their individual operations and assets, and determining effective strategies to make them more secure and resilient

4. Port Resilience and Recovery Capabilities (p. 31)

– Ensuring resilience to disasters is one of the core DHS missions

– PSGP funds are intended to enable continuity of operations and/or rapid recovery of the port in the event of a disaster

– Ports that have not already done so are encouraged to develop a Business Continuity/Resumption of Trade Plan

11

FY 2013 PSGP Funding Priorities (continued)

5. Training and Exercises (p. 32)

– Exercises must follow the Area Maritime Security Training Exercise Program (AMSTEP) or the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Intermodal Security Training Exercise Program (I-STEP) guidelines

6. Equipment Associated with Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Implementation (p. 32)

– Infrastructure and installation projects that support TWIC implementation will be given a higher priority than the purchase of TWIC card readers in the FY 2013 PSGP

12

Application Process

13

FY 2013 PSGP Application Process

Applying for FY 2013 PSGP funding is a two-step process:– Step 1: Applicants must submit Standard Form 424 (SF-424) to Grants.gov no later

than Monday, June 17, 2013 in order for FEMA to determine eligibility Applicants are encouraged to initiate this process as soon as possible

– Step 2: Applicants must submit the full application package via the Non Disaster (ND) Grants system no later than Monday, June 24, 2013

May 21, 2013 June 17, 2013 June 24, 2013

Application Period Opens

SF-424 Due Date

IJ Submission (All groups)

On or before September 30, 2013

Award Announcement

*Completed applications must be received via ND Grants no later than

11:59pm EST, Monday, June 24, 2013

14

ND Grants

ND Grants is a consolidated grants management system used to facilitate all aspects of grant administration throughout the grant lifecycle

– Release 1.0.2.0 supports grant application through award package creation/acceptance, administrative amendments, and performance reports

– New applicants will need to register with NDGrants prior to submitting applications

– Existing applicants should verify accessibility prior to submitting applications– ND Grants registration at https://portal.fema.gov

If you have any questions, please send an email to: ndgrants@fema.gov or contact the ND Grants Help Desk at

1-800-865-4076

15

Initiating an Application (p. 20-22)

Before submitting an application, applicants must verify their System for Award Management (SAM) registration and Dun & Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number (p. 21)

– Confirm SAM registration at http://www.sam.gov

– Request and receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the DUNS number request line at (866) 705-5711

Application forms and instructions are available at http://www.grants.gov – To access application:

Select “Apply for Grants,” then “Download a Grant Application Package” Enter CFDA number (97.056) and/or Funding Opportunity Number (DHS-13-GPD-

056-000-01) Select “Download” under Instructions and Application column and follow the prompts

to download both the application package and the instructions

16

Step 1: Submitting SF-424 in Grants.gov (p. 18)

Applications are initiated by submitting Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424), to Grants.gov at http://www.grants.gov

The SF-424 is the only form submitted using Grants.gov and must be submitted first in order to complete the rest of the application process

Complete SF-424s must be received by Grants.gov no later than 11:59pm EST, Monday, June 17, 2013

The form is electronically migrated to ND Grants and the system automatically populates the relevant data fields

All other documentation required to complete the application process will be submitted using ND Grants

– Fillable templates for supporting documents are available on Grants.gov by selecting “Find Grant Opportunities,” conducting a basic search by CFDA (97.056), selecting the correct PSGP Opportunity Title, and selecting “Full Announcement”

17

Step 2: Submitting Application Forms in ND Grants (p. 20-22)

The following required forms and submissions must be submitted via ND Grants: – Standard Forms

SF-424A, Budget Information SF-424B, Standard Assurances SF-424C, Budget Information – Construction Form SF-424D, Assurances – Construction Programs SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Lobbying Form – Certification Regarding Lobbying  Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements

– Investment Justification(s) for each individual project– Detailed Budget Worksheet(s) containing only allowable costs (different from the SF-

424A/C)– MOUs/MOAs (if applicable)– EHP Screening Forms (recommended)

All submissions must be received no later than 11:59pm EST, Monday, June 24, 2013

18

19

Investment Justifications (IJ) (p. 15-17)

The IJ template is provided in Appendix D (p. 47-49) of the FOA

IJs must demonstrate how projects address gaps and deficiencies in current programs/capabilities and provide enhancements consistent with the purpose of the PSGP program

A separate IJ is required for each proposed project– Applicants may apply for up to three projects– All IJs must be properly identified as SSI and password protected prior

to submission The passwords for these protected documents must be sent separately to

askcsid@dhs.gov prior to the application deadline

All IJs must be consistent with all applicable requirements outlined in the guidance

IJs must provide information in the following categories for each project:

1. Background 2. Strategic and Program Priorities3. Impact4. Funding and Implementation Plan

Application

20

Detailed Budget (p. 17)

The Detailed Budget Worksheet is provided in Appendix D (p. 50-53) of the Funding Opportunity Announcement– While this format is not required, it is highly recommended that

applicants use the template provided

SF 424A/C forms do not replace the Detailed Budget requirement – both the Detailed Budget AND the SF424 A/C must be submitted with the application

Budgets must be complete, reasonable, cost-effective, and provide the appropriate level of detail to clarify intent

Budgets should provide the basis of computation of all project-related costs, including Management and Administrative costs (M&A), and any appropriate narrative

Application

Post-Award Administration

21

22

Allocation Announcement & Award Notification

Final allocations are first announced by the Secretary no later then 65 days after the close of the application period– An Information Bulletin (IB) is distributed with a list of allocations

to those entities receiving awards

– The IB is sent out through AskCSID and posted to both the FEMA and HOMEPORT websites

Official awards are made on a rolling basis and grantees will receive an electronic notification on or before September 30, 2013

Grantees must officially accept their award upon notification– The electronic notification will include instructions on how to

access and accept the award in ND Grants

– Failure to accept the award in a timely manner may result in the award being permanently de-obligated

Application

23

Financial and Programmatic Reporting (p. 12-13)

Federal Financial Reports (FFR) are required quarterly in the form of an SF-425 – Must be filed online through the PARS website – Reporting periods and due dates:

October 1 through December 31, due January 30 January 1 through March 31, due April 30 April 1 through June 30, due July 30 July 1 through September 30, due October 30

Performance Progress Report (SF-PPR)– Formerly titled SAPR– Template can be accessed online at

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fap/SF-PPR_Cover%20Sheet.pdf – Submitted to ND Grants on a semi-annual basis– Reporting periods and due dates:

January 1 through June 30, due July 30 July 1 though December 31, due January 30

Post-Award

24

Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Compliance

All projects funded with Federal grant dollars must comply with EHP laws, regulations, and Executive Orders

An EHP review is an analysis of pertinent project information to determine whether a project may have the potential to impact environmental or cultural resources– Complex projects will typically require more information to reach a determination– FEMA may be required to consult with the relevant State Historic Preservation

Office (SHPO), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and others to determine impacts to sensitive resources

Projects must be EHP approved before initiation

Grantees are responsible for completing the EHP Screening Form and providing all relevant EHP materials to GPD via the GPD-EHP Mailbox at GPDEHPinfo@dhs.gov

Grant funds may be used for preparation of EHP documentation

EHP Compliance

Appendix

25

Resources

FY 2013 PSGP Funding Opportunity Announcement, FAQs, Fact Sheets, forms, templates, and other information is available at http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/psgp/

Information Bulletins available at http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/bulletins/index.shtm

GPD State Assignment Map and Program Office Contact Information

Contact Information for questions regarding Grants.gov, ND Grants, EHP, PARS, etc.

26

27

IB # Title Description

IB 329 Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Requirements for Grants

Provides guidance for those programs that will fund communication towers, physical security enhancements, new construction, renovation, and modifications to buildings or structures. Project descriptions are required to be submitted to GPD electronically via the Centralized Scheduling and Information Desk (CSID) at askcsid@dhs.gov prior to the initiation of the project.

IB 345 Grant Programs Directorate Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Augments IB 329 with information concerning the recently finalized Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) and its impact on EHP compliance requirements. Provides detailed instructions on projects that do not require further EHP documentation.

IB 359 Sensitive Security Information Guidance

Provides guidance for properly identifying, handling, and marking SSI in grant application materials. Grantees must follow these guidelines when submitting all Investment Justifications to ND Grants.

IB 293 Repair and Replacement Costs within PSGP

Rescinds replacement costs as unallowable costs within the FY 2007, FY 2007 Supplemental, and FY 2008 PSGP

IB 371 Streamlined Submission of Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) Review Packets and Narrowbanding EHP Requirements

Provides updates on measures to streamline the EHP process to include new contact information, a revised EHP screening form, responses to requests for additional information, and the required documentation for narrowbanding projects

Resources

Information Bulletins

Information Bulletins (continued)

IB # Title Description

IB 193 Cooperative Training Outreach Program (CO-OP)

Designed to decentralize first responder training and to facilitate access to the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) courses in a cost effective manner and augment the capacity of States, territories, and tribal entities to deliver State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP)/ODP courses

IB 333 Use of Standard Form (SF) 425, Federal Financial Report, in lieu of SF-269, SF-269A, SF-272, and SF-272A for Recipient Financial Reporting

SF-425, also known as the Federal Financial Report (FFR), replace the SF-269, SF-269A, SF-272, and SF-272A, currently used by Federal grant recipients to report the financial status of grant funds and cash transactions using grant funds. Beginning October 1, 2009, all Federal agencies and Federal grant recipients will be required to use the SF-425 for financial reporting.

IB 336 Maintenance Costs Using FEMA preparedness grant funds for maintenance contracts and warranties, repair and replacement costs, upgrades, and user fees is allowable.  If your program previously purchased these items with State or local funds, those funds cannot be replaced with Federal grant funding.

IB 372 Changes to Grants.gov Informs grantees of Grants.gov system’s enforcement of active Central Contractor Registration (CCR) accounts in order to submit applications. If the applicant does not have an active CCR, the application cannot be submitted.

http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/bulletins/index.shtm

28

PSGP State Assignment Map

29

30

Program Office Contact Information

Name Role Email Address

Alex Mrazik TISB Branch Chief Alexander.Mrazik@fema.dhs.gov

Duane Davis Section Chief East Duane.Davis@fema.dhs.gov

Cynthia Simmons-Steele Section Chief West Cynthia.Simmons-Steele@fema.dhs.gov

Rene Phillips Program Analyst LurrandaRene.Phillips@fema.dhs.gov

Alex Berberian Program Analyst Alexander.Berberian@fema.dhs.gov

Jackie Jackson Program Analyst Jacqueline.Jackson1@fema.dhs.gov

Jeff Hall Program Analyst Jeffrey.Hall1@fema.dhs.gov

Kevin Groves Program Analyst Kevin.Groves@fema.dhs.gov

Khori Torrence Program Analyst Khori.Torrence@fema.dhs.gov

Mel Vanterpool Program Analyst Melvin.Vanterpool@fema.gov

Omid Amiri Program Analyst Omid.Amiri@fema.gov

Resources

31

Contact Information

Resources

Questions Regarding: Contact Information

Grants.gov(800) 518-4726www.grants.gov

ND Grants(800) 865-4076

ndgrants@fema.gov

Application process; financial-related; pre- and post-award administration; technical assistance; PARS

(866) 927-5646ASK-GMD@dhs.gov

Specific grant programs(800) 368-6498

ASKCSID@dhs.gov

DUNS number (866) 705-5711

SAM Registration http://www.sam.gov

EHP Submissions and Compliance GPDEHPinfo@dhs.gov

Questions?

32

Additional EHP Resources

33

Why is EHP Review Required?

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that the Federal Government examine the proposed impacts of its actions before project implementation:

– NEPA does not mandate preservation, only informed decision-making

NEPA serves as an “umbrella regulation” and provides a process which other EHP laws and regulations can be considered

Materials prepared for state compliance may be submitted with the EHP review packet for GPD; however, state compliance activities cannot replace Federal requirements

EHP compliance requirements have always been included in the special conditions and the grant guidance kits

34

Relevant Laws and Executive Orders

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), (1969)

Biological Laws:• Endangered Species Act (ESA), 1973• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), 1934• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 1918, • Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA),

1940• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act

(FCA), 2006• Executive Order (EO) 13112 Invasive Species

(1999)

Socioeconomic Laws:• Farmland Protection Policy Act

(FPPA), 2007• EO 12898 Environmental Justice

(1994)

Historic Properties:• National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA), 1966

Water Resources Laws:• EO 11988 Floodplain Management (1977)• EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands (1977)• Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972)• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), 1968

Coastal Laws:• Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), 1982• Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 1972

Pollution Control and Debris Management:• Clean Air Act (CAA), 1970• Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA), 1976• Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCA),1990

35

36

EHP Considerations

Endangered Species

Cultural Resources– Historic Properties– Archaeological sites

Air and Water Quality

Noise

Fish, Habitat & Wildlife

Floodplains

Wetlands

Coastal Zones

Agricultural Lands

Environmental Justice

Socioeconomic Resources

Land Use

Hazardous Materials

Traffic

Geology (Topography, Soils)

EHP Compliance

Importance of Compliance

ComplianceCompliance Non-ComplianceNon-Compliance

Protection of natural and cultural resources

Improved project planning

Cost efficient

Programmatic and financial compliance

Efficient project implementation

Improved community relations

Project delays

De-obligation of funding

Negative publicity

Civil penalties

Lawsuits

37

38

FEMA EHP Resources

44 CFR Part 10 – FEMA’s NEPA Implementing Regulations

Information Bulletin # 271 (December 5, 2007) – Requirements of the EHP Review Process for Grants

Information Bulletin # 329 (September 2, 2009) – Further guidance on the GPD EHP Review Process and Introduction of the EHP Screening Form

Information Bulletin # 345 (September 9, 2010) – The GPD Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA)

Information Bulletin # 351 (January 14, 2011) – Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) Program Comment

Information Bulletin # 356 (February 17, 2011) – Revised EHP Screening Form

Information Bulletin #371 (August 31, 2011) – Streamlined Submission of Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) Review Packets and Narrowbanding EHP Requirements

EHP Compliance

39

EHP Review Packet

A complete EHP review packet will provide the necessary information to complete the EHP review

What are the required contents?– Detailed project description

What will be installed/constructed? How will work be accomplished? Where will the project take place?

– Project location: physical address or latitude/longitude– Labeled ground-level and aerial color photographs; photos must

indicate where: all equipment will be installed ground disturbance will take place (if applicable)

EHP Compliance

EHP Review Packet (Continued)

Required Contents (Continued)– Extent and depth of ground disturbance for:

New construction and/or building renovations Utility line placement Physical security enhancements (e.g., fencing, light posts) Generators – Include ground disturbance for the

– Pad for the generator– Fuel line– Electrical line– Fuel tank (Note whether the tank will be stored above or below ground)

– Communication towers New: Total height and whether the tower has guyed wires or is self supporting Existing: Current height and height following the equipment installation

– Age of the building or structure on/in/near which equipment will be installed

40

Type A Projects

Projects with no potential for adverse impacts to environmental or cultural resources

Review completed by Program Analyst

Examples of Type A Project Activities:– Management and Administration

– Planning

– Classroom-based Training

– Tabletop Exercises and Functional Exercises

– Training and Operational Exercises in Existing Facilities

– Purchase of Mobile and Portable Equipment

– Plug and play equipment (e.g, base radios and repeaters that are placed on/in existing communications racks)

41

Type B Projects

Projects with no potential for environmental and/or historic preservation impacts if certain conditions apply; resources most commonly considered include:

– Floodplains

– Wetlands

– Historic / Cultural Resources

Review completed by GPD EHP Team

Examples of Type B projects include:– Physical security enhancements

– Renovations, modifications, and upgrades to structures

42

Type C Projects

Projects that may have the potential for environmental and/or historic preservation impacts

Review completed by FEMA Regional Environmental Officer (REO)– REO may require additional information in order to consult with resource

management agencies such as: State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

– Environmental Assessments (EAs), Biological Assessments (BAs), or Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) may be required

– Public involvement may be required

43

Type C Projects (Continued)

Examples of Type C Projects include:– Communications Towers

– New Construction / Renovation

– Potential impacts to historic and/or cultural resources: Buildings over 50 years of age Projects located near National Register-listed buildings Projects located in/adjacent to National Register Historic Districts

– Projects that involve ground disturbance within the 100 year floodplain

44

EHP Review – What to Expect

Once an EHP review packet is submitted to GPDEHPinfo@dhs.gov, grantees will receive confirmation and a Case ID number, usually within 5 – 10 business days

The GPD EHP Team reviews the materials submitted and notifies the grantee if further information is required

The GPD EHP Team typically completes a review within 25 days of receipt of sufficient information

– Projects are either approved at GPD or are sent to the appropriate FEMA Region for further analysis

Grantees will be notified of the outcome of the EHP review by their Program Analyst

45

46

Tips for a Timely EHP Review

Provide a clear and detailed project description, with labeled color photos and maps

Provide the year in which any affected buildings or structures were built

Include any previous Master Plans or other completed environmental documentation

Clearly describe what work is being proposed, where it will take place, and how it will be carried out

EHP Compliance