Department of Homeland Security

1. Department of Homeland Security Port Security Grant Program Technologies for Critical Incident Preparedness Conference Chicago, IL October 30,2008

2. Overview of FEMA Grant Programs • FEMA is responsible for managing a number of grant programs • Homeland Security Grant Programs (HSGP) • State Homeland Security Program • Urban Areas Security Initiative Program • Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program • Metropolitan Medical Response System • Citizen Corps Program • Critical Infrastructure Security Programs (CISP) • Buffer Zone Protection Program • Intercity Bus Security Grant Program • Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) • Transit Security Grant Program • Trucking Security Program

3. Critical Infrastructure Security Programs (CISP) • CISP supports specific activities to protect critical infrastructure, such as ports, mass transit, highways, and rail transportation • DHS continues to work with regional transit agencies, port authorities, and the owners and operators of critical infrastructure to align their infrastructure protection efforts with national-level critical infrastructure protection priorities and to reinforce activities funded through other homeland security grant programs and federal agencies • CISP grants fund a range of preparedness activities, including strengthening infrastructure against explosive attacks, preparedness planning, equipment purchase, training, exercises, and security management and administration costs • As in prior years, GPD will collaborate with TSA and USCG on the administration and oversight of transportation programs

4. Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) • The purpose of the FY 2009 PSGP is to create a sustainable, risk-based effort to protect critical port infrastructure from terrorism, particularly attacks using explosives and non-conventional threats that could cause major disruption to commerce • Program management relies on close coordination between FEMA, the United States Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

5. PSGP Priorities • Enhancing Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) MDA is the critical enabler that allows leaders at all levels to make effective decisions and act early against threats to the security of the Nation’s seaports. In support of the National Strategy for Maritime Security, port areas should seek to enhance their MDA through projects that address knowledge capabilities within the maritime domain. This could include access control/standardized credentialing, command and control, communications, and enhanced intelligence sharing and analysis. • Enhancing Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) prevention, protection, response and recovery capabilities Port areas should seek to enhance their capabilities to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from terrorist attacks employing IEDs, WMDs and other non-conventional weapons. Of particular concern in the port environment are attacks that employ IEDs delivered via small craft (similar to the attack on the USS Cole), by underwater swimmers (such as underwater mines) or on ferries (both passenger and vehicle).

6. PSGP Priorities • Training and Exercises Port areas should first seek to ensure that appropriate capabilities exist among staff and managers, and then regularly test these capabilities through emergency drills and exercises. Emergency drills and exercises (such as those in the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Port Security Exercise Training Program) test operational protocols that would be implemented in the event of a terrorist attack. The efforts include live situational exercises involving various threat and disaster scenarios, table-top exercises, and methods for implementing lessons learned. • Efforts supporting implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) The TWIC is a congressionally mandated security program through which DHS will conduct appropriate background investigations and issue biometrically enabled and secure identification cards for individuals requiring unescorted access to U.S. port facilities. Regulations outlining the initial phase of this program (card issuance) were issued by TSA in cooperation with the Coast Guard in 72 Federal Register 3492 (January 25, 2007).

7. Ferry System Priorities • Development and enhancement of capabilities to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from terrorist attacks employing improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) • Mitigation of other high consequence risks identified through individual ferry system risk assessments • Use of canine teams at the embarkation and exit points of a system, as well as during passage • Innovative utilization of mobile technology for prevention and detection of explosives or other threats and hazards

8. Ferry System Priorities • Development and enhancement of physical and perimeter security capabilities to deny access around maintenance facilities, dry docks, and piers • Development of emergency preparedness and response capabilities in the event of a ferry being used as a weapon to inflict damage on critical infrastructure • Development and enhancement of training and awareness among ferry operators and employees • Public awareness training

9. PSGP Funded Technology Initiatives • Interoperable Communications Products – Ability to Connect Multiple Radio Bands, Cellular, iDEN (Nextel), Land-Line Communications • 700Mhz and 800Mhz Communications • Mobile Command Centers with Helicopter Downlinks • Data Analysis Software for Fusion/Intelligence Centers • Enhanced Side Scan Sonar Arrays • 5-Port Consortium in Louisiana Utilizing a Floating Barge as a Mobile Command Center and Training Platform • Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Initiative with TSA

10. Proposed Changes for FY 2009 • Expanded Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Priority Priority expanded to include enhancing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and other non-conventional weapons capabilities • Revised Cost Sharing Requirement Cost sharing requirement can be met by a cash or an in-kind match (excluding construction activities for which the non-Federal share must be a cash match) • Construction Some types of construction and renovation projects allowable for funding • Explosive Detection Canine Team Operational Packages (OPacks) OPacks available for funding to eligible Group I and Group II port areas and ferry systems

11. Eligibility • The SAFE Port Act states that all entities covered by an AMSP may submit an application for consideration of funding • Congress has specifically directed DHS to apply these funds to the highest risk ports • In support of this, 147 critical ports representing approximately 95 percent of the foreign waterborne commerce of the United States, have been identified and ranked within 3 groups • Based upon USCG recommendations, these ports are aggregated into 91 discreet port funding areas • All Other Port Areas not located within Groups I-III and covered by an AMSP are also eligible to apply • Under a fifth group, eligible ferry systems may also apply for funding

12. Eligibility • Entities specifically encouraged to apply: • Owners or operators of federally regulated terminals, facilities, U.S. inspected passenger vessels or ferries as defined in the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) and Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 101, 104, 105, and 106 • Port authorities or other State and local agencies that are required to provide security services to eligible Ferry System applicants (MTSA regulated facilities) pursuant to an AMSP or a Facility or Vessel Security Plan • Consortia composed of local river organizations, ports and terminal associations, and other local stakeholder groups representing federally regulated ports, terminals, U.S. inspected passenger vessels or ferries that are required to provide security services to federally regulated facilities in accordance with an AMSP or a Facility or Vessel Security Plan • Group I and II Fiduciary Agents (including newly identified Group II port areas who choose to begin the FA process) • Eligible ferry systems

13. Available Funding • Each Group I and Group II port area has been designated a specific amount of money based upon the FY 2009 risk analysis • Group III, All Other Port Areas and Ferry Systems compete for the funding identified in their corresponding Group

14. Port Wide Risk Management • During 2009, DHS will continue its effort to encourage and help coordinate port security planning efforts, such as the Area Maritime Security Plans (AMSP), with complementary initiatives underway at the State and Urban Area levels • Implementing the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) Risk Management Strategy is a fundamental shift of the PSGP: Old Focus New Focus Port-Wide Risk Management approach that compliments urban area and state efforts Security of individual facilities security within ports

15. Port Wide Risk Management • Program will build on successes of previous years by continuing to encourage port-wide partnerships, regional management of risk, and business continuity • Group I and Group II port areas are in the process of developing Port-Wide Risk Management/Mitigation and Business Continuity/Resumption of Trade plansthat address the gaps in authorities, capabilities, capacities, competencies, and partnerships in these ports and identify their prioritized projects for the next five years • FY 2009 PSGP will continue to fund those projects identified in the plan • This strategy will focus the security needs of port stakeholders and will provide ports with investment justifications for Federal dollars • Adoption of a deliberate risk management planning process, consistent with that employed in the UASI and State programs, is also a key focus of the SAFE Port Act (Public Law 109-347) 

16. Port Wide Risk Management Deliverables Draft Plan Final Plan Investment Justifications Concept of Operations • Due within 30 calendar days of award • Federal comments provided within 14 days after receipt of CONOPS • Due 180 calendar days after CONOPS approval • Federal comments provided within 21 days after receipt of draft • Due 90 days after comments received on draft plan • Reviewed and approved by the PSGP Executive Steering Committee • Due 30 days after Final Plan approval • Reviewed and approved by AMSC and PSGP Executive Steering Committee

17. Port Wide Risk Management Deliverables • Concept of Operations (CONOPS) • 2 pages in length • 2 part focus • 1. Risk Management/Mitigation • 2. Business Operations/Resumption of Trade • Primary elements: • Roles and responsibilities of key subcommittee members • Relationship of FA and AMSC • How plan will be developed (in house/contract support) • Timeline for developing and implementing plan

18. Port Wide Risk Management Deliverables • The Plan • Complements Area Maritime Security Plans, not meant to replace them • Provides a 5-year investment strategy and establishes a forward-looking risk management approach for non-federal segments of the port community • Identifies port wide gaps in security, authorities, capabilities, capacities, competences and partnerships across the security continuum of awareness, prevention, protection, response and recovery • Port specific risk based upon MSRAM results and Area Maritime Security preparedness activities • Links to other Federal plans (National Strategy for Maritime Security, National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Maritime Incident Response Plan) • No more than 20% of the total award amount may be used in the development of the Plan (no non-federal cost share requirement for this portion)

19. Port Wide Risk Management Deliverables • Investment Justifications (IJs) • i.e. Projects (based on Final Plan) • Not required from the FA until Final Plan has been approved • Remaining funds will used to implement prioritized projects that provide the greatest risk reduction benefit for the port area as a whole, and which support the developed plan • Non-federal cost share requirement is 25% percent of the total project cost. Because the FA represents and serves on behalf of the AMSC, a public sector entity, the public cost share requirement (25%) is applicable

20. Fiduciary Agent Requirement • For the past two rounds of funding, each Group I and Group II port area was required to select a single entity to act as the Fiduciary Agent (FA) for that port area • The FA serves as the principal point of contact with FEMA for application, management and administration of the PSGP award • Responsible for ensuring that all sub-recipients are compliant with the terms and conditions of the award • Not the sole decision maker as to the use of these funds, works in conjunction with the Captain of the Port (COTP) and AMSC

21. QuestionsAlexander R. Mrazik Jr.Section ChiefPort Security Grant Program202-786-9732alexander.mrazik@dhs.gov