**TSGP Workshop Summary**

**November, 2009**

**[Opening Remarks]{.underline}**

**TSA:** Welcome. Thank you for attending the Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09)
TSGP workshop. As we move through the presentation today, remember that
this is a workshop and that it is meant to be interactive so please feel
free to interrupt and ask any questions that you may have. Remember that
you have a very captive audience here today. We want to ensure that we
are providing you with the information that you need and that all of
your questions are answered. In addition, do not feel like you have to
rush to take copious notes. We will have the slide presentation and any
questions and answers from these workshops posted on our website.

We have been holding workshops across the country to inform you about
the program and assist you with the application process. One thing that
we heard at the After Action Conferences (ACC) was that we needed to
give you more opportunities to attend the workshops and conferences and
one of the best ways to do that is by offering more locations. So we are
glad to see you here today and hope that you will come out of this
workshop with a better understanding of the program, of what you can
expect and of what we are expecting of you.

[**Summary of the FY08 TSGP Program**]{.underline}

First, we will provide a quick summary of the FY08 program and then
discuss FY09. In FY07, the introduction of the TSGP supplemental funding
shifted the program focus toward training and operational activities. In
FY08, we experienced an increase in funding of over \$117M over the FY07
levels, including the supplemental. As a result, more funding was
available for capital projects and the way that TSGP funding was awarded
ended up close to an equal split between operational and capital
projects. We had introduced OPacks as an eligible expense for Tier I
agencies in FY07, and continued that forward into FY08 and FY09. In
FY08, we introduced the Project Effectiveness Groups. Last year, there
were 4 groups, but the list has been expanded in FY09 to 5 groups, which
we will get into more detail about in the following sections.

**[Overview of the FY09 TSGP Changes]{.underline}**

**Key Changes.** One of the big changes for FY09 is the expansion of the
project effectiveness groupings. We saw a noticeable decrease in the
number of operational requests as a percentage of total funding in FY08
and as many of our security partners said at the ACC, many agencies have
already accomplished a lot of the fundamental activities that have been
prioritized and emphasized for the last several years. We believe that
this trend is at least partially due to agencies being responsive and
applying for operational priorities and reaching the saturation point,
and there is a natural shifting of the program toward capital projects.
We also believe that this shift is more directly in-line with what
Congress intended when they wrote the 9/11 Act, which sets a cap for
program funding of operational expenses. Per the 9/11 Act, operational
expenses are on a sliding scale. For FY08, the cap was 50-percent; for
FY09, the number dropped to 30-percent nation-wide across the program.

There are two additional key changes. These two key changes are a result
of the FY09 Appropriations Bill that was signed on September 30, 2008.

First, grants will be awarded directly to the transit agencies; State
Administrative Agencies (SAAs) will no longer be the grant recipients.
In the past, all of the grant funding went to the SAA and they
sub-granted to the transit agencies. The SAA was also responsible for
the administration and reporting of the grants. In FY09, those
requirements are now the responsibilities of the transit agencies. In
addition, transit agencies must submit their own applications via
grants.gov by the application deadline of January 13, 2009.

The second key change is the removal of the cost share requirement. The
removal of the cost share is also retroactive to FY 2008. We have issued
an Information Bulletin (IB) #298 that outlines options available to the
transit agencies in dealing with this retroactive elimination.

In addition, there are also changes that have been made, such as to the
Investment Justification (IJ), that we will step through now.

**Funding.** Overall for FY09, the funding appropriation is the same as
it was in FY08 with \$400 million appropriated for Transportation
security grants, including mass transit, passenger rail, and freight
rail. Within the \$400 million, \$25 million is earmarked for Amtrak and
\$15 million is allocated to freight rail. Although ridership increased
overall for the transit agencies, your agency risk scores did not change
because ridership went up across the nation and resulted in a zero
net-effect.

**Security Plans.** You must have a vulnerability assessment and
security plan that have been developed or updated within the last three
years to be eligible to apply for the grant. If you have had a
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Baseline Assessment for
Security Enhancement (BASE) program security assessment performed by TSA
Transportation Security Inspectors -- Surface (STSIs) within the last
three years, it counts as a security plan. Also a security assessment
conducted for the Department of Transportation/Federal Transit
Administration (DOT/FTA) counts it if it was conducted within the last
three years. If your security plan is not current or is about to hit the
three-year mark, it would be a good idea to apply for funding to update
your plan.

As with the FY08 process, agencies that do not have a security plan can
only apply for grant funds to develop one.

You do not have to submit a copy of the vulnerability assessment or
security plan with your application. You do however need to submit a
certification that you have a current vulnerability assessment and
security plan. This certification statement is provided in the guidance.
While we recommend that all transit agencies have their designated
security providers review the security plan and sign the certification
form before it is submitted with your application, this is not a
requirement. In FY08, it was a requirement that the primary security
provider approve the security plans and IJs. For FY09, it is a
recommendation that the security provider *should* review these
documents, but does not have approval authority.

**Investment Justification.** The IJ has been streamlined for FY09. We
tried to remove the duplicative questions and focus on those that are
most relevant and most effective for soliciting information related to
the evaluation criteria that we are using. Eight questions were removed
and/or consolidated. The implication is that you must make sure to
answer each question thoroughly as the IJ is the main source of
information for the National Review Panel (NRP) which will be reviewing
and evaluating your projects.

**Eligibility.** The eligible transit agencies, as listed in the FY09
grant guidance are the only allowable grantees. This year, several
agencies were added to the eligibility list. These additions were made
as a result of the DHS policy decision to base program eligibility not
only on the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) list, but on the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) ridership top 100 list.

**Funding Allocations.** Like FY08, the FY09 funding allocations are
targets and are consistent with the allocations set last year. In
addition, funds can still move between the TSGP and the Freight Rail
Security Grant Program (FRSGP) and among TSGP Tiers and regions if
available funding exists. Thus, we encourage you to apply in excess of
your target allocations in the event that more money becomes available.

**Scoring Methodology.** Any discussions today of the scoring
methodology are more applicable to Tier II agencies as several of the
scoring criteria are negotiated through the Tier I RTSWG Cooperative
Agreement process. Furthermore, Tier I agencies have a draft IB
circulating among them to solicit their feedback on the scoring and
decision-making processes they wish to choose for their region using the
applicable scoring criteria discussed here.

The scoring methodology is slightly refined in FY09. Overall, there are
some slight changes in the methodology for scoring risk, though it is
basically the same as last year. The risk mitigation score, the score
that the NRP evaluates, was previously called the quality score. As we
searched for a more appropriate term than quality for these factors, we
decided to use the term risk mitigation score to account for the
compilation of the following four factors: cost-effectiveness;
feasibility; timelines; and sustainability. We also added a regional
collaboration score and match score to the scoring equation. Some Tier
II regions have good regional collaboration and have asked for credit
for it and fundamentally, scoring is based on department priorities as
well. While a match is not required, DHS feels that it demonstrates
commitment and sustainability and therefore it should be acknowledged in
the scoring process.

**Project Effectiveness.** We added a fifth group to the Project
Effectiveness Groupings: Other Mitigation Activities. Other Mitigation
Activities includes Interoperable Communications; Evacuation Plans; and
Anti-terrorism security enhancement measures for low-density stations.
Something unique to FY09 is that no project types are specifically
prohibited. In the FY08 TSGP Grant Guidance, we identified specific
project types that would not be considered for funding. This year
nothing is specifically prohibited. However, any project that you want
to have funded through the program must still fit into one of the five
Project Effectiveness Groups. What is different this year it that we are
giving you the opportunity to justify to us how and why your project
fits into one of those groups rather than limiting project types to
those listed in the guidance.

Tier I regions can discuss and justify the project effectiveness
grouping for their projects at the RTSWGs. That same dialogue regarding
the project groupings however cannot occur among Tier II agencies and
regions. Therefore, it is imperative that Tier II agencies include the
relevant project information in their IJ to justify the project
effectiveness grouping.

**Federal Cost Share Requirements.** There are no federal cost share
requirements for the FY09 grant cycle. This year, Congress mandated that
there will not be any cost share requirements for transit agencies under
the transit security grant program (TSGP). Additionally, Congress
retroactively removed the cost share requirement for FY08. IB #298 that
details this information is available on our website. The IB lays out
your options for what to do with your FY08 projects. You have two
options. You can either keep the match in or take it out. If you choose
to remove the match, you must revise your budget and IJ and reduce the
project scope or scale back your project. If you keep the match in, you
will be subject to all of the auditing requirements that go along with
it. Agencies have until December 1, 2008 to notify their SAA of which
option they are choosing and what projects are affected. FEMA has not
established a deadline for when revised FY08 project IJs and budget must
be submitted though the sooner you submit your revised projects, the
sooner they can be processed and the sooner the funds can be disbursed.

**Regional Transit Security Working Groups (RTSWGs).** For Tier I
agencies, we tried to keep RTSWG model as close as possible to what has
worked in the past though we placed some additional stipulations on the
groups composition. The most notable change is that TSA will no longer
be the mandatory co-chair. Instead, we are recommending that the regions
invite the SAA to be the co-chair with FEMA and TSA as ex-officio
members. This change is partially due to our desire to keep the SAA
involved in the process and our desire to be responsive to the feedback
that we have received from the regions. A draft IB is currently
circulating among Tier I regions to solicit further comments on these
proposed structural changes for the RTSWGs. We ask that you please
submit any comments regarding the draft IB and these proposed changes
through email via TSA Grants at <TSAGrants@tsa.dhs.gov>.

The participation of freight rail owners and operators in the RTSWG is
also recommended for the additional security value that they may add to
the group, especially since transit agencies and freight rail operators
often share the same infrastructure. We suggest that Tier I regions
invite them to become a member of the RTSWG and notify them of the next
scheduled meeting. Please note however, that neither the SAAs nor the
freight rail operators are under any obligation to participate as they
are not recipients of FY09 TSGP funds and therefore, they are not bound
by the same grant requirements. Likewise, as long as the invitations are
extended, current RTSWG members will not be held accountable if the SAAs
or freight rail operators do not participate in the RTSWG.

**TSGP Tier I and Tier II Timelines.** The timelines for Tier I and Tier
II are more condensed this year than they have been in the past with the
removal of the SAA as the direct grantee. Applicants have 45 days
following the release of the guidance to submit their applications. DHS
then has 60 days following the application submission deadline to
announce the awards. These timelines are Congressionally mandated in the
Appropriations bill and cannot be changed. However, this year the
mandated timelines were interpreted as business days rather than
calendar days. In essence, this has extended the timelines and allows
you a few additional weeks to apply.

We will announce how much you will receive as a transit agency by April
10, 2009. That is also the date that FEMA will begin their part of the
process. Once your project is approved and has cleared the Environmental
and Historical Preservation (EHP) and budget review process, you will
receive a clearance memo (formerly the Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN))
for each review. The two clearance memos signify that the grant money
has been released and that you can now begin drawing down funds.

Note that FY09 has more stringent review requirements than the previous
years in that FEMA is requiring that all project budgets be submitted
using the OMB-approved Detailed Budget worksheet that is available in
the guidance. Fillable templates of the IJ and detailed budget worksheet
are also available on our website at
[www.tsa.gov/grants](http://www.tsa.gov/grants). Again, the detailed
budget worksheet must be used or FEMA will not approve the budget. You
must also use the categories that are listed on the worksheet when you
are completing your budget; the worksheet cannot be modified or changed
in any manner. If a budget category does not apply to your project,
please mark it as "Not Applicable" or "N/A".

**TSGP Target Allocations.** Of the \$388.6 million appropriated to the
transportation security grants, \$25 million is earmarked for Amtrak and
\$15 million is allocated for the FRSGP. A total of \$312 million is
available for Tier I awards and \$36.6 million is available for Tier II
awards. Again, the regional funding allocations are just targets and you
are encouraged to apply for funding above your allocation.

**[FY09 TSGP Funding Priorities]{.underline}**

TSGP funding priorities continue to focus on prevention and protection
activities including visible, unpredictable deterrence, underwater
tunnel hardening and training, drills/exercises, and public awareness
campaigns. In FY09, we are also expanding more into other priorities
like response. Regional collaboration remains a department priority
though we understand that some regions have more opportunities for
collaboration than others.

Project effectiveness was determined based on its ability to elevate
security on a system-wide level. There are now five eligible project
groupings based on their risk-reduction effectiveness and no project
types are specifically excluded. However, projects will not be funded if
they do not align with the five project effectiveness groupings or our
security values.

Projects must emphasize transit security and fall within in one of the
five project effectiveness groups to be eligible. You must justify how
and why your project fits into one of those groups. We recommend that
you think of the security value of the groupings when you plan your
projects. We do expect you to complete your higher priority projects
first and if you are not, we want to know why.

**FY09 Project Effectiveness Groups.** Project effectiveness group one
is similar to what it was in FY08 though this year there is a 30-percent
cap on operational activities. Given this limitation imposed by the 9/11
Act, we may not be able to fund all of your requests for these
activities.

Project effectiveness group two includes multi-user high-density key
infrastructure protection activities. By multi-user, we mean multimodal
infrastructure in that, more than one agency or transit system uses the
same infrastructure. For these project types, provide us with the
details on which agencies share the bridges, tracks, stations or other
infrastructure. High-density is relative to your agency and you must
justify why the infrastructure is considered either low-density or
high-density based on ridership levels.

Project effectiveness group three includes single-user high density key
infrastructure protection activities. Do keep in mind that these
projects should still involve high-density infrastructure the difference
however, is that only your agency uses this infrastructure.

Project effectiveness group four is the same as last year and includes
key operating asset protection activities such as the hardening of
control centers and the installation of fencing, lighting, and access
controls at facilities such as yards and maintenance facilities.

Project effectiveness group five is new for FY09 and includes
interoperable communications, evacuation plans and anti-terrorism
security enhancements measures for low-density stations. Last year,
low-density stations were not eligible for funding. Regardless of the
project type, all projects must be transit-related and emphasize
security and anti-terrorism protection to be eligible for TSGP funding.
Evacuation plans that address natural disasters or city-wide events, for
example, will not be funded.

**[Scoring Methodology]{.underline}**

The overall scoring methodology is:

(Agency Risk Group Score x Project Effectiveness Group Score) + Risk
Mitigation Score + Regional Collaboration + Match

The first component of the scoring equation is agency risk group score.
Risk group scores range from six through one and are a function of the
individual agency's risk and the region's risk. The second component is
the project effectiveness group score. These scores are on a scale of
five through one and indicated the project's effectiveness for reducing
risk. These first two components are multiplicative.

The other three components of the scoring methodology are additive and
are most applicable to the Tier II review process. These three
components are risk mitigation score, regional collaboration score and
agency cost match. Last year, risk mitigation was termed the quality
score but because the term quality carried many misnomers, we renamed it
the risk mitigation score. Risk mitigation scores are based on four
project components: cost effectiveness, feasibility, timelines, and
sustainability:

-   Cost effectiveness does not mean that an expensive project equals a
    bad project. We understand that some activities like those that
    involve laying fiber optic cable are expensive.

-   We evaluate feasibility in relation to how a project is designed and
    how it will be implemented. If you request funding to install
    cameras, for example but do not intend to monitor them, it is not
    feasible that those cameras will increase security or have
    anti-terrorism value without a monitoring component included.
    Likewise, basic training courses must be completed before requests
    for follow-on training will be considered feasible.

-   For the project timelines, we are looking for evidence that you have
    thought through all of the steps necessary to complete the project
    within the period of performance. We are looking for realistic
    timelines. While we appreciate aggressiveness, faster is not always
    better.

-   For sustainability, we want to know that you will be able to
    continue to support the activity beyond the period of performance.
    For projects that involve equipment procurement, this will involve
    demonstrating that you are able to continue with the maintenance,
    operations and wear and tear on the equipment after the grant
    funding has ended.

-   Regional collaboration and cost match are the two final components
    of the scoring equation. Each may afford you a small bump in the
    project score if regional collaboration is above and beyond the
    expected levels and you include a substantive cost or in-kind match
    in relation to your project (e.g., a \$1 cash match will not give
    you the scoring bump).

The NRP will evaluate each project based on the four components of the
risk mitigation score. They may also award additional points for
regional collaboration and the presence of a match. The maximum risk
mitigation score that any project can receive is eight. The regional
collaboration and cost match components can add an additional maximum
score of two (1.5 maximum for regional collaboration, and 0.5 maximum
for match) for a total of ten and equate to 50-percent of your total
project score.

See slides 25 through 28 of the FY09 TSGP Workshop PowerPoint slide
presentation, which is available on our website at:
<http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/grants/programs/tsgp_tieri/2009/conferences_workshops.shtm>
(Tier I) or
<http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/grants/programs/tsgp_tierii/2009/conferences_workshops.shtm>
(Tier II) for some scoring examples.

**[Investment Justification Working Session]{.underline}**

The FY09 IJ Writing Guide is available on our website at
<http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/grants/programs/tsgp_tieri/2009/guidance_application.shtm>
(Tier I) and
<http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/grants/programs/tsgp_tierii/2009/guidance_application.shtm>
(Tier II) and should be referenced for this section of the presentation
though a brief summary of the working session follows.

**TSA/MT:** We have provided instructions on the naming conventions for
the IJs and budgets on page 17 of the grant guidance. Please use these
as they help when you are uploading projects to grants.gov and the
documents need to be located or searched for if they are lost.

**Investment Heading.** The Investment Heading section of the IJ asks
for the basic project information. If the project is scalable or has
multiple phases provide that information here. Tell us what phase you
are on and how many total phases there are until project completion. If
the project is a regional project also note that here. If the project is
a multi-agency project, include the names of all agencies involved in
the project. Note that one agency from that group of agencies should be
designated as the lead agency and mostly the lead agency's information
should be provided in this section. Include only the amount of funds
that you are requesting from the federal government in the investment
amount. The amount listed as the investment amount should equal the
amount requested in your budget.

**I. Background**. The background section only needs to be completed
once for all of your IJs. You do not need to redo this section for each
IJ, simply copy and paste it into each IJ. If you are using the
background portion from an IJ from a previous year, however make sure
that the information is up-to-date and correct. The point of contact
(POC) is the single authorizing official for your agency. In this
section, we are asking for the person we should contact if you were to
get an award. The POC listed here must have the authority to bind your
agency to the grant agreement (i.e. signatory authority) as this will be
the person whose name appears on the grant award.

Describe your operating system and include the following information:

-   Infrastructure. Provide details on any critical infrastructure that
    you have. Be sure to identify your most critical
    multi-user/multi-mode stations and/or underwater/underground tunnels
    and explain why they are critical to your agency (i.e. station has
    highest thru put).

-   Ridership data. Include the most up-to-date and accurate data that
    you have available and the timeframe for which the data is
    applicable. Data as reported to the FTA National Transit Database
    (NTD) can be submitted if that is the most current you have.

-   Number of Passenger miles. Indicate the number of passenger miles
    within your system and the timeframe for which this number is
    relevant.

-   Number of vehicles. Provide the number of revenue service vehicles
    broken down by mode and type. This information is often necessary
    before we can evaluate technology projects appropriately.

-   Types of service and other important features. Supply any system and
    infrastructure information and other details that are important for
    putting your project and overall system into context.

-   System map. Insert or attach a map of your system if it adds value
    to your IJ.

-   Geographical borders of the system and the cities and counties
    served. Provide a narrative of the parameters or borders of your
    system.

-   Other sources of funding being leveraged for security enhancements.
    Provide an overview of all federal monies that are being used to
    enhance security for your system. Include previous TSGP funds and
    discuss what projects are being funded and their current stage of
    implementation.

Discuss the capabilities that are currently in place and the
capabilities that are needed. Only provide responses on the bulleted
efforts/capabilities that are applicable to your agency. Do not make up
responses on infrastructure that does not apply to your agency. Include
information about the technology that you currently have, the training
programs you have implemented, and any other current activities and
projects that are ongoing along with the details so that you provide us
with a clear understanding of the capabilities that currently exist.
Then discuss the gaps or agency security enhancement needs that
currently exist within your system.

**II. Strategic and Program Priorities.** This is one of the most
important sections of the IJ. The project abstract is the detailed
project description. This section serves as the scope of work for your
project and therefore, should include all of the detailed information on
the project. Explain the facts surrounding your project, the type of
project it is, what your investment needs are, any purchases that you
propose to make and their intended purpose. Also, state how the project
will address your agency's security plan and regional strategies. Note
that any details provided here must match the details provided in the
detailed budget.

**III. Impact.** Provide basic information on how the project will
decrease or mitigate risk for your agency or region. Describe your
current situation and explain the gaps/needs and how the project will
address these.

**IV. Funding and Implementation Plan.** This is the summary budget
chart for the project. It is [not]{.underline} the detailed budget.
Items listed on the left are allowable cost categories, which differ
from the cost categories on OMB detailed budget worksheet. Project costs
do not have to fit into all of these categories. If you are not clear on
budget category, pick the most appropriate one. Project costs must be
reasonable. Use the project abstract section to explain these costs and
how they were derived.

Discuss the total lifespan of the project and its sustainability. The
total lifespan does not mean the period of performance of the grant.
Instead, this section is asking you to describe the lifespan of the
technology or total useful life of the technology given reasonable
maintenance and operations. For training projects, discuss your plans
for refresher training or tell us about future trainings if you are
using the train-the- trainer approach.

Make sure the project timeline is reasonable and within the grant period
of performance. We recommend that you provide estimates of time for the
project milestones, such as in terms of months rather than specifics
dates. No milestone should extend beyond the period of performance and
if some activities will occur concurrently that should be noted here.

**[Application Guidance]{.underline}**

**FEMA:** The TSGP has changed over the years through six different
transitions. Previously, we had the SAA as a fall back for questions but
the bottom line is that it is now up to individual agencies to take
charge and apply through grants.gov and handle all administration and
management of the grants. The TSGP guidance is available on both the TSA
website ([www.tsa.gov/grants](http://www.tsa.gov/grants)) and the FEMA
website ([www.fema.gov/grants](http://www.fema.gov/grants) ). The
application deadline is January 13, 2009 and all standard forms,
assurances, certifications and IJs and budgets must be submitted via
grants.gov by 11:59PM EST on this date. Tier I agencies have until
February 13, 2009 to submit their final IJs and budgets via the Secure
Portal however, all Tier I agencies must still submit their draft IJs,
budgets, standard forms, certifications, and assurances via grants.gov
on January 13^th^ to be eligible for funding this year. All agencies
must be registered with grants.gov to apply and that can take several
weeks so start the registration process early.

There are still eight regions in Tier I and certain law enforcement
providers are eligible sub-grantees. Certain ferry systems in Tier I
regions may apply for TSGP funds as well. With the expansion of the
program, this year the overall list of eligible regions and entities has
increased to 51 regions and 128 transit agencies. Therefore, several
brand new Tier I and Tier II agencies have been added to the program,
which increases the competitiveness of the program.

One important change has occurred for Tier I in reference to their
operational activities. Beginning in FY09, Tier I agencies must submit a
5-year Security Capital and Operational Sustainment Plan of how they
will implement capital projects that will reduce operational activities
over the next few years, and/or demonstrate how the agency will sustain
the operational investments after grant funding has been expended. This
is a new development for FY09 and for the program and it was a
requirement of FEMA's negotiations on the guidance. At this time, we do
not have a template or any additional information on what needs to be
included in the plan. We notify you once more information is available.
Note that this requirement is relevant only to Tier I agencies
requesting OPacks.

Overall, the minimum project amounts are the same as last year:

-   There is no minimum project amount required for Fast Track Training.

-   The minimum amount that may be requested for projects focused on
    non-fast track training, exercises, public awareness, and planning
    is \$50,000.

-   The minimum amount that may be requested for all other projects is
    \$250,000.

These are the minimum amounts that you may request for federal dollars.
If the total project costs are below the minimum project amount, your
application will not move forward in the review and evaluation process.
Use the DHS Authorized Equipment List (AEL) that is available via the
FEMA website as your primary resource for determining what is and is not
allowable under the grant.

Agencies are allowed to take up to 3-percent for Management and
Administration (M&A). M&A funds should be used to cover costs associated
with the administration and support of the grant. For example, it may be
used to buy office equipment and to pay for expenses associated with
traveling to grant workshops and conferences. Note that you must request
M&A in your project budgets upfront; you will not be eligible to receive
it later in the process. Any requests for M&A should be included in the
budget category "Other" on the OMB detailed budget worksheet.

As noted before, there is a 30-percent limit on operational expenses
across the program nation-wide. This limit is enforced at the
program-level, and not at the agency or region-level.

After the January 13^th^ deadline, FEMA receives all submitted
applications and reviews all project IJs, budgets, standard forms, etc.
to ensure a complete application package has been submitted. Next, all
eligible applications are sent to TSA, who coordinates the NRP process.
The NRP will then review and score all eligible Tier II applications.
Awards will be announced by the Secretary of DHS on April 10, 2009.

Following the award announcements, FEMA sends out award letters to those
agencies that have been awarded grants and begins the post-award EHP and
budget review of the approved projects. There are several steps in the
review process. While the FY08 post-award review process is not yet
complete, we expect the FY09 process to move quicker. There are several
things that you can do to help expedite the EHP and budget review
process. First, use the OMB-approved detailed budget worksheet when you
are developing and itemizing your project budgets. This form is required
throughout all grant programs by FEMA and FEMA will not approve your
budget unless it is submitted on this form. Second, when you are
considering and drafting your IJs be mindful of the EHP review and the
type of project you are proposing. If the project involves construction,
installation or the breaking of ground, the project will require a more
thorough EHP review. Providing more details up front in the IJ on the
extent and scope of your project can assist FEMA in its evaluation of
the potential environmental impact of your project and help alleviate
delays and requests for further information.

In addition, if your project is scalable or able to be implemented in
reasonable phases, separate the project into phases or components so
that phases or components of your project can be reviewed by FEMA
separately. This can enable some aspects of projects to pass through the
EHP and budget review process quicker and prevent the entire project
from being delayed. We also recommend that you include photos or other
visuals so that we can judge the potential impact from the visuals that
you provide. IB #271 provides general guidance to grantees on the EHP
requirements for grant funded projects involving communication towers,
physical security enhancements, new construction, renovation, and
modifications to buildings and structures that are 50 years old or
older. A Statement of Work (SOW), as outlined in IB #271 is required by
FEMA prior to the initiation of these projects. IB #271 is available for
you to download at
<http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/ehp-applicant-help.shtm>.

**[Questions and Answers]{.underline}**

The questions and answers are available at the following website:
[www.tsa.gov/grants](http://www.tsa.gov/grants).

**[Closing Remarks]{.underline}**

We thank you all again for coming and for participating in today's
workshop. The summary of today's workshop along with all questions and
answers will be posted on the TSA website, which is accessible at
[www.tsa.gov/grants](http://www.tsa.gov/grants). Please check our
website frequently as we will be posting any updates as they become
available.

We are also conducting weekly conference calls throughout the
application period and invite you to participate in those as well. These
conference calls occur each Wednesday at 1PM EST. The call in number is
1-888-323-4702 and the passcode is "Wednesday". Any questions and
answers posed on the conference calls will also be posted on our
website.

As always, submit any additional questions that you may have via email
to <TSAGRANTS@tsa.dhs.gov> and carbon copy <askcsid@dhs.gov>. We will
then compose a formal response to all questions and again, posted these
questions and answers on our website for the benefit of the community.