FY 2009 Port Security Grant Program Outreach

1. FY 2009 Port Security Grant Program Outreach Coast Guard HeadquartersDomestic Port Security EvaluationDivision(CG-5142)Assessment, Integration, and Risk Management Directorate

2. CGHQ Domestic Port Security Evaluation Division (CG-5142)

3. Outline of Presentation • History, Outreach and Current Priorities • Risk, Port Area Groupings, Funding • Fiduciary Agent/Port Wide Risk Mitigation/Management Plans • FY09 Options Group I/II, III/All Other Ports • Admin/Review Process • Good Practices • Dates/POCs

4. Why does PSGP Exist? • Majority of US infrastructure owned by state, local, and private sector • Part of larger strategy of supporting homeland security (HLS) preparedness • Implements objectives addressed in laws, national strategies, and plans • To quote National Strategy for HLS, a strategic objective is to deter terrorist threat by decreasing likelihood of success of a terrorist attack on critical infrastructure

5. History of PSGP • Important to emphasize: FEMA administers programs, USCG provides SME • Program initiated FY02 by MARAD, original goal for CG was MTSA compliance, gates/guns/gadgets • FY2003: Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) port security grant program coordinated with TSA, • FY2005: DHS legacy office of State and Local Government Coordination & Preparedness (SLGCP) coordinated, focused on underwater, small craft, and vehicle borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) detection capabilities for ferries • FY 2006: administered thru DHS Grants and Training; laid foundation for port-wide risk management vice focus on individual port entities • FY 2007: SAFE PORT Act expanded pool of eligible applicants to include all entities covered under an Area Maritime Security Plan (AMSP) • FY 2007 Supplement (FY07A): August 2007; introduced concept of Fiduciary Agent (FA) as single entity to apply for funding on behalf of Group I/II ports; any projects funded had to support a Port-Wide Risk Mitigation Plan (PWRMP) • FY 2008: gave Group I/II ports option to continue with round 7A FA or “opt out” and compete with Group III ports

6. Outreach--- FY09 Guidance Development • Consulted with American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) • Coast Guard Area Maritime Security Committees • Fiduciary Agents

7. 09 Investment Strategy and Priorities • Overall Investment Strategy: -Risk-based funding -Regional security cooperation (emphasis on port wide risk management plan started FY07 supplemental) • FY09 PSGP Priorities: -Enhancing Maritime Domain Awareness -Enhancing IED and WMD prevention, protection, response, recovery capabilities -Training and Exercises -Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) implementation efforts

8. Ferry Priorities • IED and VBIED prevention, protection, response, and recovery • Mitigation of other risks • Use of canines • Mobile technology for explosives/other threats detection • Perimeter security capabilities • Emergency response capabilities if ferry used as weapon against infrastructure • Training for ferry operators • Public awareness training

9. FY 2009 Key Changes from 08 • Expand Improvised Explosive Device (IED) priority to include enhancing WMD prevention/response capabilities (DNDO info included)-p.6, 64 • Fiduciary Agent guidance updated-p. 11, 17-19 • Cost-sharing requirements updates-p. 16-17 • Allowable Construction-p. 42-43 • Explosive Detection Canine Team Operational Packages (OPACKS)-p. 44-45

10. How Port Area Groups are Determined • Port Consequence List (PCL) • FEMA adds a series of economic “factors” for specific target vulnerabilities and consequence from both “open sources” and Coast Guard MSRAM data • Results in a ranked risk listing • Risk of individual ports then aggregated by geographic region, individual ports who share risk • The resulting list is the basis for Group I, II, III and All Other Ports as determined by DHS Leadership

11. FY09 FEMA’s PSGP RISK FORMULA Total Port Risk Threat (20%) (HITRAC) Vulnerability & Consequence (80%) x Economic Index National Infrastructure Index Population Index + + + National Security Index

12. Significant Changes to Port Risk Formula • FEMA formula changes annually -Oil terminals moved from National Security Index to Economic Index as petroleum deliveries -National Security Index now includes military personnel as opposed to military base counts -Change in volume or type of cargo -Annual validated MSRAM data

13. FY09 Port Area Groupings • 91 named port areas: - 7 Group I, 48 Group II, 36 Group III • Reference pgs 14-16 of FY09 PSGP guidance • Groups represent 95% total international waterborne commerce in U.S. • Ports aggregated by common waterways, shared risk

14. Risk drives Groupings • Changes to port groups • Continued regionalization of planning Allows for development of 8 (new Group II port areas) Port Wide Risk Mitigation/Management Plans • 47% of Risk represented in Group I • 93.5% of aggregate risk allocated in Groups I & II • 8 port areas new to Group II • 21 port areas new to Group III All Other Ports (AOP) can receive funding from their geographically proximate higher Group if projects have regional impact across entire port area, but can’t receive funding from both higher group and AOP allocation

15. Comparison of FY08, FY09 PSGP Funding Levels

16. A Refresher: The Fiduciary Agent • The FA can be a member of the AMSC, non-profit, or entity approved in conjunction with the Federal Maritime Security Coordinator (FMSC), and approved by FEMA • FA coordinates development of a Port Wide Risk Mitigation/Management Plan -ensures future applications “buy-down risk” per the plan -Use up to 20% of funds to develop plan -Retain 3% for management/administrative costs • FA is responsible to AMSC and other plan stakeholders for utilizing grant funds as directed by committee, not sole decision maker -Acts as principal POC w/FEMA for application, management, financial reporting -Remaining funds expended to implement plan’s findings and supporting projects during timeframe (up to 36 months)

17. A Refresher: Port Wide Risk Mitigation/Management Plans • Plan should develop strategy and framework -for investing in vulnerability reductions -resiliency enhancements • Establishes a prioritized 5-year planning cycle • Request funding through future grant applications • Structure deliverables so not redundant

18. FY09 Group I/II Options • For 09, Group I and II port areas that were also Group I or II during FY08 will have option to: • Continue with current FA; or • Select a new FA for FY 09 projects. • Ports newly identified within Group II (previously Group III, all other ports), can either select to use the FA process, or opt out and compete w/ Group III/all other ports • Must certify their intention to opt out to FEMA and CGHQ (CG-5142)

19. FY09 Group III/All Other Ports • Group III and All Other Ports submit investment justifications, budgets, all other requirements per previous FY09 guidelines. Individual port entities must comply w/all FEMA programmatic requirements

20. Investment Justifications, Budgets, MOAs, etc • Reference pages 24-36 of guidance • Also FEMA promulgated PSGP Plan Implementation Guidance for Fiduciary Agents

21. Allowable Costs for FY09 • OPACKs -In FY09, introduction of OPACKs-Explosive Detection Canine Team Operational Packages—only authorized for Groups I, II and ferries -Newly obtained canine and handler

22. Allowable Costs for FY09 (con’t) • Construction -FY09: Allowable Construction Costs: 1. Maritime Domain Awareness Fusion Centers 2. Maritime Security Operations Centers 3. Port Security Operations Centers 4. Port Security Emergency Communications Centers 5. Any building enhancing access control to port area

23. FY 2009 PSGP Matching Funds • Public Sector - 25% of total project costs (CASH or IN-KIND) -25% applies to regionalized projects submitted by FA in that the FA represents Area Maritime Security Committee, a public entity -Private Sector - 50% of the total project costs for each project. (CASH or IN-KIND) -Consortia representing federally regulated entities: 25% CASH or IN-KIND -Construction must be a 25% cash-match for public, 50% cash match for private • Exception: No match – projects costing $25,000.00 or less. National and/or regional corporations submitting 11 or more projects throughout their system must meet the 50% match for projects 11, 12, etc.

24. FY 2009 PSGP Field Review Process Group I/II • Three steps: -Initial Screening (Grants Program Directorate) -Field Review (FMSC, AMSC, MARAD) -National Review (National Review Panel) FEMA conducts initial screening of all projects -Group I and II ports using an FA, the FA in conjunction with other field reviewers will ensure projects are in compliance with respective Port Wide Risk Mitigation/Management Plans -FY07 supplemental/FY08 PSG projects awaiting approval, groups I and II, Investment Justifications submitted per approved Risk Mitigation/Management Plan

25. FY 2009 PSGP Field Review Process Group III, All Other Ports • Group III, All Other Ports, and ports new to Group II from III and opting out of FA process will have each application scored for compliance with the four core grant program criteria listed in FY08 PSGP Guidelines • FMSCs assign a total score compilation; with all proposals received from each port being ranked from highest to lowest in terms of their priority and contributions to risk reduction and cost effectiveness. Recommendations for full/partial funding, together with candid comments as to applicant’s ability to manage the project. • FMSCs are to make specific notation if other entities within the port region have similar capabilities and the need for or lack of redundancy. • All applications will undergo a final review by the National Review Panel (NRP)

26. Harris County Ship Channel Security District(HCSCSD)—Good Practices • Public – Private partnership • Improve security in Houston ship channel area • System-wide security approach • List of projects created to improve security in Houston ship channel • HCSCSD is mechanism to allow for county, facilities and others to fund local share of port security grants • Also provides mechanism to fund operating expenses of security projects • HCSCSD also provides mechanism to implement ship channel security plan

27. FY 2009 PSGP IMPORTANT DATES

28. FY 2009 PSGP • REFERENCES/POCs FY2009 Port Security Grant Program Guidelines. • FEMA POC list (next slide) • CAPT John Marks John.J.Marks@uscg.mil • Mr. Randall Barr Randall.C.Barr@uscg.mil

29. Port Security Grant Program State Assignments VA 12 HI 8 Kathleen Steinle Kathleen.Steinle@dhs.gov Venita Lane Venita.Lane@dhs.gov Duane Davis Duane.Davis@dhs.gov Jackie Jackson Jacqueline.Jackson1@dhs.gov Alex Berberian Alexander.Berberian@dhs.gov AK 16 WA 26 I ME 15 X VT MT N/A ND N/A NH 5 I MN 13 OR 10 VIII II WI 10 MA 19 NY 20 ID N/A SD N/A MI 10 RI 10 WY N/A CT 13 V PA 31 IA N/A NJ 11 NE N/A III NV N/A OH 8 VII IN 8 IL 7 IX DE 9 UT N/A NY/NJ 47 WV WV 4 CO N/A MD 8 KS N/A MO 7 CA 46 KY 12 CT/NY 9 NC 14 TN 10 IL/IN 1 AZ N/A OK 4 IV SC 12 AR 2 NM N/A GA 13 VI AL 11 MS 12 TX 90 LA 66 Guam: 2 Northern Mariana Islands: 2 American Samoa: DC: Puerto Rico: 7 FL 39 Virgin Island: 5 Tier I Port Area

30. Way Forward • Read FY09 Guidance for more details • If required--Identify a Fiduciary Agent if required to do so • If required--Develop a Port Wide Risk Mitigation/Management Plan and/or optional Business Continuity/Resumption of Trade plan • Submit applications, investment justifications, budgets, and other required documents to FEMA • Work with FEMA during all phases of grant application process • Direction in which Grants are headed: allocating grant money based on extent to which applications support 37 DHS Target Capabilities, capabilities tied back to National Preparedness Guidelines • Ensure FMSC/AMSC collaboration to ensure MSRAM data accurate!

31. Questions?

32. BACKUP SLIDES

33. FY 2009 MSRAM Updates • MSRAM=Maritime Security Risk Analysis Model • Used by COTPs, AMSCs to assess risk to port infrastructure, facilities, vessels, etc • DHS formula: Risk = Threat x Vulnerability x Consequence • Updates: -Increased risk profile scope with more target classes (emphasis on barges/vessels) -More confidence in Secondary Economic consequences -Updated threat input from USCG Intelligence Coordination Center (ICC) -Higher risk threshold/cutoff point for meaningful risk -Assessment and review training for PortSecurity Specialists-Districts, Sectors, Areas, update analysis tools (i.e. blast calculator)

34. MSRAM Scenario ElementsComprehensive targets classes & attack modes • Risk = Threat * Consequence * Vulnerability MSRAM Design is Based on Terrorist Attack Modes against Types of Targets DATA Scenario Target/ Asset Attack Mode Attack Modes address the full range of DHS Attack Modes (WMD)

35. HIGH Bridge - Boat Bomb High Capacity Ferry Terminal- Car/Truck Bomb Ferry 150 -1000 – Boat Bomb High Capacity Ferry – Boat Bomb National Icon – Boat Bomb Petroleum Refinery – Car/Truck Bomb LPG Tanker - Boat Bomb Cruise Ship - Car/Truck Bomb Nuclear Power Plant – Car/Truck Bomb Cruise Ship – Attack By Hijacked Vessel LPG Tanker – Stand-Off Weapon LOW Bridge – Attack By Hijacked Vessel MSRAM creates a Risk-Based Risk-Informed Security Profile Cruise Terminal – Car/Truck Bomb High Capacity Ferry - Car/Truck Bomb Oil Tanker – Boat Bomb LIKELIHOOD (Threat * Vulnerability) Cruise Ship - Boat Bomb CDC Facility – Car/Truck Bomb Low High CONSEQUENCE

36. MSRAM change case supports Risk Mitigation Decision Strategies

37. MSRAM HELP DESK – MSRAMHelp@uscg.mil MSRAM References/POCs • LCDR Brady Downs 202-372-1173 • LT Dave Dixon 202-372-1176 • LT Tyana Thayer 202-372-1178 • LT Eric Taquechel 202-372-1185 • Mr. Gerald DelRosario 202-372-2609 HOMEMPORT Customer Service - HomeportHelp@osc.uscg.mil

38. PRND Equipment and Costs • DHS SVSS recommends and Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) supports a layered defense strategy that could include hand-held or back-pack radiation detectors, Radio-Isotope Identifying Devices (RIID), boat/vehicle mounted systems, and permanently installed detection systems. • Current hand-held device average costs are $1-3K per unit • RIID average costs are between $10-25K • Back-pack type device average costs are between $15-$30K • Vehicle and boat mounted device costs are not as well defined, as these are not as commonly used as other devices. Well-tested systems are not yet commercially available. • Boat and vehicle mounted systems are larger, more sophisticated devices with increased capabilities, and cost significantly more then human portable detection systems. • Additional Information on preventative rad/nuc detection (PRND) equipment can be found at www.rkb.us.

39. Terrorist Indicator Handbook • 5142 awaiting funding for Terrorist Indicator Handbook -Distributed during last year’s outreach -Overall goal: a guide to help security managers identify locations and activities around their facilities that might be indicators of terrorist activity.