FEMA GRANT PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE FY 2013 Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) Funding Opportunity...
-
Upload
randell-chambers -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of FEMA GRANT PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE FY 2013 Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) Funding Opportunity...
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: [email protected] 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
[email protected] 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 [email protected]
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 [email protected] 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 [email protected]
Duane Davis Section Chief East [email protected]
Cynthia Simmons-Steele Section Chief West [email protected]
Rene Phillips Program Analyst [email protected]
Alex Berberian Program Analyst [email protected]
Jackie Jackson Program Analyst [email protected]
Jeff Hall Program Analyst [email protected]
Kevin Groves Program Analyst [email protected]
Khori Torrence Program Analyst [email protected]
Mel Vanterpool Program Analyst [email protected]
Omid Amiri Program Analyst [email protected]
Resources
31
Contact Information
Resources
Questions Regarding: Contact Information
Grants.gov(800) 518-4726www.grants.gov
ND Grants(800) 865-4076
Application process; financial-related; pre- and post-award administration; technical assistance; PARS
(866) [email protected]
Specific grant programs(800) 368-6498
DUNS number (866) 705-5711
SAM Registration http://www.sam.gov
EHP Submissions and Compliance [email protected]
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 [email protected], 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