**FY 2006 Urban Areas Security Initiative**

**Frequently Asked Questions**

**Q1: In some cases, the column labeled "Geographic Area Captured in the
Data Count" lists multiple cities.  Does each of those cities need to be
part of the defined Urban Area?**

A: Yes, in cases where multiple cities are listed in that column, those
cities represent the minimum area that must be included in the defined
Urban Area.

 

**Q2: Do those cities listed in the column labeled "Geographic Area
Captured in the Data Count" have to be represented on the UAWG?**

A: Yes, those cities---along with any other jurisdictions included in
the final Urban Area definition---must have either [direct]{.underline}
or [indirect]{.underline} representation on the UAWG.  However, it is up
to the State and Urban Area to determine the specifics of how that
representation will be implemented and how the UAWG will be structured.
The State and Urban Area must reach consensus on the representation and
structure of the UAWG. If consensus cannot be reached within the time
period allotted for the State to submit its application, the SAA must
make the UAWG representation and structure determination. If consensus
cannot be reached within that time period and the Urban Area crosses
State boundaries, the SAA to whom funding has been awarded must make the
UAWG representation and structure determination.

 

**Q3: In those cases where multiple cities were combined for the data
count, do additional cities or counties that are part of the 10-mile
buffer also have to be included in the Urban Area definition?**

A: No, the cities included in the 10-mile buffer are not a
[required]{.underline} part of the Urban Area definition.  However,
States and Urban Areas are [encouraged]{.underline} to also include
additional areas that are part of the 10-mile buffer area, counties
within which the cities reside, contiguous jurisdictions, and mutual aid
partners, as appropriate. The 10-mile buffer was used strictly for the
data count.

 

**Q4: In other cases, only one city is listed in the column labeled
"Geographic Area Captured in the Data Count." Does that mean that an
existing Urban Area should change its definition to reflect just that
one city?**

A: No, in cases where only one city is listed, the existing Urban Area
should continue to rely on the previously identified core city, core
county(ies), and the existing definition of the Urban Area.

 

**Q5: Do Urban Area definitions have to conform to the 10-mile buffer
used in the data count?**

A: No, the 10-mile buffer was used strictly for the data count. States
and candidate Urban Areas should coordinate on establishing or refining
the Urban Area definition, as appropriate.

 

**Q6: What if several previously separate Urban Areas are combined into
one Urban Area in FY 2006? Do the core cities from previous fiscal years
automatically retain their core city status?**

A: There is no requirement for core cities from previous fiscal years to
retain their core city status; the "core city/core county" construct is
not applicable to the FY 2006 UASI program.

 

**Q7: What are considered the "core cities" in FY 2006 UASI?**

A: The "core city/core county" construct from the FY 2003-FY 2005 UASI
program is not applicable to the FY 2006 UASI program. However, what has
been previously considered the "core city" is now most similar to the
Candidate Urban Area column.

 

**Q8: Are "core counties" still included in the guidance?**

A: No, "core counties" are not referenced in the FY 2006 UASI guidance.
However, regarding the cities in the geographic area and their
representation on the UAWG, a county can represent the city in that
county or be an equal member, as determined by the State in coordination
with the Urban Area.

**Q9: What does an asterisk next to the name of a Candidate Urban Area
in the table indicate?**

A: Urban Areas marked with an asterisk are candidate Urban Areas that
did not fall within the top 35 Urban Areas in the risk analysis. They
are eligible for sustainment funding for one additional grant cycle in
FY 2006. Urban Areas that are not identified as eligible through the
risk analysis for two consecutive years will no longer be eligible for
UASI funding.

**Q10: How was the 10-mile buffer used in the data count process?**

A: First, all cities with a population greater than 100,000 and any city
with reported threat data during the past year were identified. Second,
cities on this list with shared city boundaries were combined into a
single entity for data count purposes. Third, a 10-mile buffer was then
drawn from the border of that city or combined entity to establish the
geographical area in which data was evaluated.

**Q11: Do the new Urban Areas receive an extension?**

A: No, at this time all applications are due March 2, 2006.

**Q12: Where did the data for the analysis come from?**

A: The asset and geographic data came from multiple sources, including
the National Asset Database and proprietary databases; Federal agencies
provided much of the census data, volume of cargo through ports, and
several of the assets and their attributes (i.e. National Inventory of
Dams, National Highway Database, etc.).

**Q13: What is the vintage of the data used in the analysis?**

A: In all cases, the most current version of data available was used.

**Q14: Was data from the states or local communities used in the
analysis?**

A: Yes, data on suspicious incident reporting provided by states or
local communities to DHS was included, along with infrastructure data
provided for inclusion in the National Asset Database.

**Q15: Why was a population threshold employed in the final analysis?**

A: The stated intent of the UASI program is to provide financial
assistance, training, exercise and other technical support to our
Nation's most at-risk urban centers, focusing on protecting life in
mitigating that risk. Based on feedback from program constituents, DHS
has lowered the population threshold to 200,000 from 225,000, and
further has applied that threshold to the combined population for
candidate areas. This approach has allowed DHS to be more inclusive,
broadening the pool of potential candidates considered in the
eligibility analysis, while still preserving the program's core focus.

**Q16: In some cases, jurisdictions within a candidate area do not share
a land border. How were these candidate Urban Areas identified?**

A: In some cases, neighboring cities do not share a land border, but are
separated by a shared body of water (e.g., bay, inlet, river). In these
cases, DHS applied a "water rule", wherein cities that have a population
greater than 100,000 or any reported threat data during the past fiscal
year and that are separated by a shared body of water were combined into
a single candidate Urban Area. A 10-mile buffer was then drawn from the
border of that city or combined entity to establish the geographical
area in which data was evaluated.

**Q17: Was natural disaster risk included in the data count?**

A: Natural disaster risk was not factored into the risk analysis for the
FY 2006 UASI program. The statutory intent of the program from its
inception has been focused on enhancing capabilities to address CBRNE,
agriculture, and cyber terrorism incidents. However, drawing on lessons
learned from the past hurricane season and concerns over the risk of a
pandemic flu outbreak, the range of activities allowed in FY 2006 as
part of UASI program implementation has been expanded to include
catastrophic events, provided that these activities also build
capabilities that relate to terrorism. This broadened scope of program
implementation activities recognizes and supports ongoing preparedness
initiatives addressing such issues as pandemic influenza and the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita that are of critical national
importance, and recognizes the regional and national impacts that such
events can have.

**Q18: When evaluating asset-based risk, what specific factors were
considered in threat, vulnerability and consequence?**

A: [Consequence]{.underline} is derived from four parameters: human
health, economic, strategic national mission, and
psychological/symbolic. [Vulnerability]{.underline} considers how
vulnerable a type of asset is to an attack and is based on an
established vulnerability scale derived from government and private
sector expert opinions. [Threat]{.underline} is based on the intent and
the capability of an adversary to undertake an attack against a
particular type of asset, modified by two factors: 1) "Chatter factor"
based on communication intercepts, and 2) "Attractiveness factor"
incorporating the type of consequences the attack would cause and the
degree to which the results of the attack align with known adversary
objectives.

**Q19: When evaluating geographically-based risk, what specific factors
were considered in threat, vulnerability and consequence?**

A: [Consequence]{.underline} is derived from four parameters: human
health, economic, strategic national mission, and psychological/symbolic
impacts. [Vulnerability]{.underline} accounts for factors such as the
number of visitors through international ports of entry, special events,
and WIPP routes. [Threat]{.underline} combines factors such as
Intelligence Community reporting, law enforcement and private sector
suspicious incident reporting, numbers of visitors from countries of
interest, and numbers of terrorism investigations.

**Q20: What additional rules were built into the risk calculations in FY
2006?**

A: The FY 2006 formula included three additional principles to
facilitate the underlying calculations in the analysis process:
inheritance, weighting, and normalization.

> *[Inheritance:]{.underline}* Fundamentally, inheritance means that
> when one grant candidate (e.g., a port) lies within the footprint of
> another type of grant candidate (e.g., an Urban Area), the risk
> attributable to the first candidate is inherited by the second. Thus,
> the risk attributable to the port would be inherited by the Urban
> Area. Likewise, the risk attributable to the Urban Area would be
> inherited by the State. This ensured consistency of approach and
> analysis among the different grant candidates (e.g., ports vs. Urban
> Areas vs. States).
>
> *[Weighting:]{.underline}* Weighting is essentially a policy-driven
> decision that allows DHS to emphasize or de-emphasize certain data
> sets. For example, the application of weighting factors allows the
> formula to place greater emphasis on the consequences to human health
> following an attack rather than those that impact national symbols.
>
> *[Normalization:]{.underline}* Normalization allows the formula to
> consider values that are measured in different units (i.e., human
> casualties, dollars, national mission, and national psyche) and group
> them into a single consequence sum.

**Q21: What specific recommendations on the risk methodology from the
stakeholder group were included?**

A: The stakeholder recommendations included the following points, all of
which were factored into the FY 2006 methodology:

-   Applying a more strategic approach to incorporating threat
    information to include intent and capability as additional factors
    in the formula.

-   Revising the data count process to ensure flexibility in the formula
    to reflect regional and local differences.

-   Assigning relative values to higher priority cases as a subset of
    overall data on cases opened through law enforcement activity.

-   Attributing field office case data at a level of detail that allows
    the information to map to eligible candidates.

-   Including additional data on Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
    routes, major seaports, and ports of entry.

-   Including data on transient populations (e.g., tourists, business
    visitors, and commuters).

-   Eliminating mutual aid as a variable in the allocation formula but
    considering it instead through review of the Investment
    Justifications and implementation of the program overall.