Transportation Non-Disaster Grant Programs

National Homeland Security ConferenceSan Antonio, TexasJune 10, 2015

Presentation Overview

FY 2015 Transportation Non-Disaster Grant Programs Overview and Priorities

Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) Overview Financial/Budget Reviews Grant Extension Process/Summary Trends and Analysis for the Transit Security Grant Program

(TSGP) Q&A/Town Hall with Assistant Administrator Brian Kamoie

2

Preparedness Grants Division (PGD)Transportation Infrastructure Security Branch (TISB) Organization Structure

Duane DavisPort Section Chief

East

Cynthia Simmons-SteelePort Section ChiefWest/Gulf States

Bruce LourykTransit Section ChiefTSGP, FRSGP, IPR, IBSGP

Program AnalystsJeff Hall

Rene PhillipsMel VanterpoolKevin GrovesMatt Patterson

Vacant

Alex MrazikTISB Branch Chief

Program AnalystsSteve Billings – FRSGP & IPR

Tarek Khedr - TSGPLaila Ouhamou - TSGP

Tamia Minor - TSGP

Lawrence White – TSGP

Alex Berberian - TSGPSandy Thurston - IBSGP & TSGPRobert Watkins - IBSGP & TSGP

Program AnalystsKhori TorrenceKim Chatman

Jackie JacksonOmid AmiriCara Blair

Vacant

Program Support Specialist

Vacant

Program Support Specialist Vacant

Program Support Specialist Vacant 3

Grant Program Funding Summary

Program FY 2014 FY 2015 Delta ($)Delta (%)(Delta $ / FY14

Allocation)

State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) $401,346,000 $402,000,000 $654,000 0.16%

Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) $587,000,000 587,000,000 $0 0%

UASI Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) $13,000,000 13,000,000 $0 0%

Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP) $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 0%

Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) $350,100,000 $350,100,000 $0 0%

Operation Stonegarden (OPSG) $55,000,000 $55,000,000 $0 0%

Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) $100,000,000 $100,000,000 $0 0%

Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) $90,000,000 $87,000,000 $3,000,000 3.33%

Intercity Passenger Rail (IPR) $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 0%

Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP) $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 ------

Total $1,616,446,000 $1,617,100,000 $654,000 0.04%

4

Major FY 2015 Highlights

In FY 2015 all grant programs, with exception of the Emergency Management Performance Grant program, will have a 36-month period of performance. This compares to the 24-month period of performance that has been in place since FY 2012.

28 UASI jurisdictions will be funded for FY 2015 based on Congressional “expectation” that limits Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funding to 85% of the total risk. This compares to 39 UASI jurisdictions that were funded last year.

In FY 2015, the Port Security Grant Program will eliminate port groupings. All applicants will be selected for funding based on a scoring system that considers port area risk and effectiveness of the proposed investment.

Under the Port Security Grant Program both public and private entities will be required to provide the same level of match (25 percent of total project costs).

The Intercity Bus Security Grant Program is reinstated after a 3-year funding hiatus.

5

FY 2015 Grant Timeline

Final AllocationsAnnounced

Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)

Release

05/19/2015 07/23/201504/01/2015 09/30/2015

Awards processed on rolling basis through end of

fiscal year

Applications submitted to

FEMA

03/04/2015

FY 2015 Appropriation

Enacted

28 Days 65 Days48 Days

6

FY 2015 Application Statistics

Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) 508 Eligible Applications 928 Investment Justifications (IJs or Projects)

Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) 45 Eligible Applications 158 Investment Justifications

Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP) 88 Eligible Applications 148 Investment Justifications

7

FY 2015 Port Security Grant ProgramProgram Overview FY 2014 FY 2015

Purpose: Port Security Grant Program provides funds for transportation infrastructure security activities to implement Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans and facility security plans among port authorities, facility operators, and State and local government agencies required to provide port security services

Eligibility: Applicants will be selected for funding through a fully competitive review process

$100,000,000 $100,000,000

Program Highlights

Port area groupings are eliminated for FY2015.

• This approach will improve the risk-based competitive review process• Funding recommendations will be based on a scoring system that analyzes both project effectiveness and port risk

For FY 2015, no distinction will be made between public and private sector applicants for purposes of the amount of non-Federal funds a recipient must match.

Three-year period of performance will apply.

FY 2014 Information

A total of 514 applications (840 investments) were submitted to FEMA requesting over $262 million in Federal funding. Of the 840 investments reviewed 482 were funded (409 fully funded; 73 partially funded).

8

FY 2015 Port Security Grant Program Priorities

Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) IED and CBRNE prevention, protection, response, and

supporting recovery capabilities Cyber Security Capabilities Port Resilience and Recovery Capabilities Training and Exercises Equipment Associated with TWIC

9

Relative Score

Threat (30%)

Vulnerability(20%)

Consequence(50%)

Domestic & International

Terrorism

Vulnerability Index(20%)

Population Index(2%)

Attacks, Disrupted Plots,

& Threat Reporting

Known or Suspected Terrorist Presence

Ferry Passengers

Cruise Ship Passengers

Foreign Vessel Calls

Economic Index(18%)

National Infrastructure Index

(20%)

National Security Index(10%)

PopulationDomestic Cargo

VolumeNaval Presence

Naval PriorityCensus

Commuters

Visitors

x x

+

+

+

+

+

FY 2015 Port Security Grant Program Risk Formula

HAZMAT Population

HAZMAT Volume

Population

+

x

International Cargo Volume

Container Cargo Volume

International Cargo Value

Petroleum Deliveries

Maritime Infrastructure

(MSRAM)(USCG)

Military Personnel

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

10

FY 2015 Transit Security Grant ProgramProgram Overview FY 2014 FY 2015

Purpose: Transit Security Grant Program provides funding to owners and operators of transit systems to protect critical surface transportation infrastructure and the traveling public from acts of terrorism, major disasters, and other emergencies

Eligibility: Eligible transit agencies are determined based on daily unlinked passenger trips (ridership) and transit systems that serve historically eligible Urban Area Security Initiative jurisdictions

$90,000,000 $87,000,000

Program Highlights

There are no proposed changes to eligibility or program priorities.

The FY 2015 TSGP funding amount represents a 3.3% decrease compared to FY 2014. The reduction in funding is due to the $3 million carve-out for the FY 2015 Intercity Bus Security Grant Program.

Three-year period of performance will apply.

FY 2014 Information

In FY 2014, 58 applications (172 projects) were received requesting $277,285,365 in funding. Of this, 36 applications (94 projects) were funded totaling $90,000,000.

11

Relative Score

Threat (30%)

Consequence(50%)

Population Index(25%)

APTA Passenger Trips

Underground Track Miles

Domestic & International

Terrorism

Attacks, Disrupted Plots,

& Threat Reporting

Known or Suspected Terrorist Presence

FY 2015 Transit Security Grant Program Risk Formula

Rail (95%)

Bus(5%)

x xVulnerability

(20%)

Base Assessment (10%)

TTAL Count(10%)

+

National Infrastructure Index (25%)

+

Threat (30%)

Consequence(50%)

Population Index

APTA Passenger Trips

Domestic & International

Terrorism

Attacks & Disrupted Plots

Credible Intent

Known or Suspected Terrorist Presence

x xVulnerability

(20%)

Base Assessment (10%)

TTAL Count(10%)

+

+

12

13

FY 2015 Intercity Passenger Rail - Amtrak

Program Overview FY 2014 FY 2015

Purpose: The Intercity Passenger Rail Program protects critical surface transportation infrastructure and the traveling public from acts of terrorism, major disasters, and other emergencies within the Amtrak rail system.

Eligibility: The National Passenger Railroad Corporation (Amtrak) is the only entity eligible to apply for funding under the FY 2015 Intercity Passenger Rail program.

$10,000,000 $10,000,000

Program Highlights

There are no significant changes being proposed to the FY 2015 Intercity Passenger Rail program

The $10 million minimum allocation for FY2015 is consistent with last year

Three-year period of performance will apply

FY 2014 Information Five projects were reviewed and approved for FY 2014 for $10 million related to Operational Packages, Training, Asset

Hardening, Drills and Exercises, Security Planning, and Public Awareness.

13

FY 2015 Intercity Bus Security Grant Program

Program Overview FY 2014 FY 2015

Purpose: The Intercity Bus Security Grant Program creates a sustainable program for the protection of intercity bus systems and the traveling public from terrorism.

Eligibility: Private operators providing transportation using over the road buses that have completed a vulnerability assessment and developed a security plan as required by Section 1531 of the 9/11 Act (6 U.S.C. § 1181). Private operators must either provide transportation services to a defined Urban Area Security Initiative jurisdiction or operate a charter bus service using over the road buses and provide a minimum of 50 trips annually to one or more defined Urban Area Security Initiative jurisdictions.

$0 $3,000,000

Program Highlights

The FY 2015 Intercity Bus Security Grant program is allocated $3 million following a three year funding hiatus (last funded in FY 2011).

Funding will be awarded through a risk-informed competitive review process.

Three-year period of performance will apply.

14

Environmental And Historic Preservation (EHP) Review

All projects funded with FEMA assistance must undergo review and comply with EHP laws, regulations, and Executive Orders

EHP review must be completed by FEMA/GPD before project initiation, or FEMA cannot fund the project.

EHP review can take up to 12 months or more to complete depending on complexity, so consider the EHP review-time when planning your project.

15

Environmental And Historic Preservation (EHP) Review

Purpose of EHP Review is to ensure compliance - not to deny projects. Sometimes projects may be modified to minimize impacts.

Costs of environmental review (e.g., environmental consultants, archeological surveys, reports) are paid by the recipient using assistance funds, if applicable.

Recipients must provide all required EHP materials to GPD via the GPD EHP Inbox at GPDEHPinfo@fema.dhs.gov

16

Environmental And Historic Preservation (EHP) Review

Many EHP reviews are conducted by FEMA/GPD HQ staff. Some are sent to FEMA regional offices for additional review.

Many reviews are completed within weeks of receipt. Some may take several months, depending on type of project and review.

Projects that involve more in-depth reviews: new construction, communication towers, projects on/in historical buildings/districts, projects with extensive ground disturbance.

Project review begins with submission of an EHP Screening Form

17

EHP Screening Form

Clear description of the project, including project location

Labeled, ground-level photos of the project area Aerial photo(s) Includes the year built for any buildings/structures

involved in the project Describes extent (length, width, depth) of any

ground disturbance Includes any other pertinent EHP info

(Environmental analyses, FCC info, permits in-hand, etc.)

Submitted to GPDEHPinfo@fema.dhs.gov

18

EHP Resources Questions about the process: ask your FEMA Program

Analyst or send questions to GPDEHPinfo@fema.dhs.gov

EHP Screening Form and instructions: http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/90195

FEMA Policy on GPD EHP Reviews – includes info on review times for different types of projects and other useful information: http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/85376

Information Bulletin on Cost Responsibility for EHP Reviews: http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/104228

Remember! The EHP review must be completed before a project can be started! 19

Budget Review

Review budget and budget narrative to ensure costs are:

− Allowable− Allocable− Reasonable

20

Budget Review

Allowable

• Necessary and reasonable

• Conforms to the Cost Principles and grant’s Terms and Conditions

• Authorized or permitted by law or regulation

• Treated consistently as a direct or indirect cost

• Adequately documented

Allocable

• Chargeable and assignable to cost categories

• Incurred specifically for the Federal award

• Necessary to the overall operation of non-Federal entity and assignable in part to the Federal award

• Not charged to other Federal awards

Reasonable

• Does not exceed that which a prudent person would incur under the circumstances prevailing when the cost was incurred.

21

Budget Review

Ensure compliance:− For grants awarded prior to December 26, 2014

• 44 CFR• 2 CFR• OMB Circulars• Notice of Funding Opportunity

− For grants awarded after December 26, 2014• 2 CFR 200• Notice of Funding Opportunity

22

Budget Review

Personnel Fringe Benefits Travel Equipment Supplies Professional and

Consultant Services Indirect Costs

23

Grant Extensions and 3-Year Period of Performance

Grantees continue to make progress on drawing down large grant balances. From September 2012 through April 2015 (32 months) the balance of unspent grant funding decreased from $8.7 billion to $980 million (an 89% reduction).

Since August 2012, the Grant Programs Directorate has received

526 extension requests (of which 4 were withdrawn) 275 have been approved (52%), 163 have been partially denied (18%) 88 have been denied (30%)

De-obligated an estimated $717,030,819 due to denied extension requests

24

TSGP Trends

25

TSGP Application Trends Since fiscal year (FY) 2006, there has been a shift in the types of

projects both requested and funded There are several factors that could account for this shift:

Funding priorities and scoring methodology Total amount available for the TSGP Period of Performance (POP)

As the funding priorities and scoring methodology have remained relatively unchanged since FY 2008, one could infer that the main driving forces behind the trends are the total available amount and the POP

As the FY 2015 allocation is consistent with allocations from FY 2012-2014, it is interesting to see how the increase to the POP for FY 2015 affects the types of projects requested and funded

26

27

FY 2006, 36 mos.

FY 2007, 36 mos.

FY 2008, 36 mos.

FY 2009, 36 mos.

FY 2010, 36 mos.

FY 2011*, 36/48 mos.

FY 2012, 24 mos.

FY 2013, 24 mos.

FY 2014, 24 mos.

FY 2015, 36 mos.

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$138.3M

$271.2M

$381.1M $373.6M

$273.4M

$222.3M

$97.5M $93.2M $100M $100M

$159.5M

$347.1M

$415.1M$456.4M

$345.2M

$598.3M

$305.2M$289.1M $287.3M

$342.1M

Requested

Available

TSGP Allocations, Re-quests, and Periods of Performance

* FY 2011 was the first fully competitive cycle with no tiers or target allocations

TSGP Requested Projects

28

TSGP Requested Projects

292010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$243.1M

$408.2M

$154.1M $165.6M $165.9M$143.9M

$82M

$167.9M

$141.1M $114M $111.3M

$208.2M

Operational $ Requested

Capital $ Requested

TSGP Requested Projects

302010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

75%71%

52%

59% 60%

41%

25%29%

48%

41% 40%

59%

Operational % Requested

Capital % Requested

TSGP Funded Projects

31

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000

$118M

$171.4M

$271.1M$281.7M

$210M

$105.2M

$34.5M$23.4M

$39.6M

$13M

$86.4M

$85M $66.9M

$43.5M

$94.9M

$52.9M$60.5M

$50.4M

Operational $ Funded

Capital $ Funded

TSGP Funded Projects

32

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY140%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

90%

66%

76%81% 83%

53%

39%

28%

44%

10%

34%

24%19% 17%

47%

60%

72%

56%

Operational % Funded

Capital % Funded

TSGP Funded Projects

33

Contact Information

Alexander R. Mrazik Jr., Branch ChiefFEMA Grant Programs Directorate

alexander.mrazik@dhs.gov202-786-9732

Ginny Wise, Director of Grant ProgramsTSA Surface Division

Ginny.wise@tsa.dhs.gov571-227-1080

Gerald DelRosarioBranch Chief

COMDT, CG-PSA-2Office of Domestic Port Security

U.S. Coast Guard Gerald.J.DelRosario@uscg.mil

34