U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FISCAL YEAR 2011 REGIONAL CATASTROPHIC PREPAREDNESS GRANT PROGRAM GUIDANCE AND APPLICATION KIT SECTION I – APPLICATION AND REVIEW INFORMATION MAY 2011 Title of Opportunity: Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) Regional Funding Opportunity Number: Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program Opportunity Number Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) – Region I DHS-11-GPD-111-001-01 Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) – Region II DHS-11-GPD-111-002-01 Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) – Region III DHS-11-GPD-111-003-01 Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) – Region V DHS-11-GPD-111-005-01 Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) – Region VI DHS-11-GPD-111-006-01 Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) – Region IX DHS-11-GPD-111-009-01 Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) – Region X DHS-11-GPD-111-010-01 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 97.111 Federal Agency Name: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Announcement Type: Initial Dates: Completed applications must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT, June 20, 2011. Additional Overview Information: • Reformatted RCPGP Guidance Kit. Due to continued stakeholder feedback and recommendations, GPD has reformatted its FY 2011 RCPGP Guidance and Application Kit. The Kit is now structured into two separate documents, referred to as Section I and Section II. While both are important documents for grantees to study and thoroughly familiarize themselves with, Section I is intended to help grantees during the application phase of the RCPGP; whereas, Section II is intended to help grantees in understanding the rules and regulations associated with administering federally-funded grant awards. • Program Priorities. In FY 2011, RCPGP will focus on demonstrating the progress made by the original 10 RCPGP sites and identifying remaining gaps. Grantees are expected to implement the Whole Community Philosophy, which ensures the engagement of the entire community in the planning process, in all RCPGP efforts. Additionally, grantees are encouraged to focus on improving catastrophic plans already under development through the use of a “meta-scenario” that draws from the largest planning factors contained within the hazards previously identified by the site as the basis for their planning efforts. • Enhanced Data Collection. As part of the DHS Performance Management Initiatives, including the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) Report, FEMA will enhance data collection processes and tools to assess the use and impact of FY 2011 RCPGP grant funds. Grantees will not be asked to provide additional data, but may be required to modify existing data reporting processes to collect more useful performance information. CONTENTS Contents ......................................................................................................................... 3 Part I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION ......................................................... 4 Part II. AWARD INFORMATION .................................................................................... 9 A. Funding Guidelines ............................................................................... 10 Part III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION .......................................................................... 15 A. Eligible Applicants ................................................................................. 15 B. Governance ............................................................................................ 15 Part IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION ...................................... 17 A. Address to Request Application Package ........................................... 17 B. Content and Form of Application ......................................................... 17 C. Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) Compliance ............ 20 D. Submission Dates and Times ............................................................... 21 Part V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION ........................................................ 22 A. Review Criteria ....................................................................................... 22 B. Review and Selection Process ............................................................. 22 C. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates .................................... 23 D. Intergovernmental Review .................................................................... 23 Part VI. Other INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 24 A. Post-Award Requirements .................................................................... 24 B. Resources .............................................................................................. 27 C. Site Descriptions ................................................................................... 28 PART I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION The regional interdependencies of effective prevention, protection, response, and recovery activities require a cohesive regional approach to catastrophic planning. Homeland security is highly distributed, depending on State and local governments, non profits, and the private sector to all work collectively to address potential threats. The FY 2011 Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP), authorized by the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Care, Katrina Recovery and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-28) and the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-10), builds on several initiatives to address this challenge, including Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (CPG 101). RCPGP is an important part of the Administration’s larger, coordinated effort to strengthen planning and homeland security preparedness. RCPGP implements objectives addressed in a series of post-9/11 legislation, strategies, plans, and Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPD). Participants in previous RCPGP grant cycles have begun to develop the foundational ways and means that will result in truly inter-jurisdictional, regional, catastrophic planning. During the first three years of RCPGP, FEMA’s National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) funded over $121 million in projects from 10 sites, which focused on a variety of capabilities, threats, and hazards. Initially, sites focused their projects by using the scenarios that addressed the primary threats facing their region. The scenarios selected by sites collectively spanned all 15 National Planning Scenarios identified in the National Preparedness Guidelines, 1 with the most common scenarios selected being Bombing Using Improvised Explosive Devises, Aerosol Anthrax, Major Earthquake, and Pandemic Influenza.2 At the end of the first three grant cycles, the 10 original RCPGP sites will have developed new regionally-coordinated plans focused on the scenarios deemed most appropriate for their region and prepared for the implementation of those plans by addressing the need to train, exercise, and evaluate/improve the plans to meet the needs of the region. 1 National Preparedness Guidelines , http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/npg.pdf 2 Common scenario threat measure based on 50 percent (50%) or more sites selecting the scenario in the Hazard Analysis/Risk Assessment section of the FY 2008 Investment Justification In FY 2011, RCPGP will focus on demonstrating the progress made by the original 10 RCPGP sites and identifying remaining gaps. Grantees are expected to implement the Whole Community Philosophy, which ensures the engagement of the entire community in the planning process, in all RCPGP efforts. Additionally, grantees are encouraged to focus on improving catastrophic plans already under development through the use of a “meta-scenario” that draws from the largest planning factors contained within the hazards previously identified by the site as the basis for their planning efforts. The purpose of this package is to provide: (1) an overview of RCPGP; and (2) the formal grant guidance and application materials needed to apply for funding under the program. The package outlines FEMA management requirements for a successful application. It also reflects changes called for in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53) (hereafter “9/11 Act”). Program Fundamentals The following three fundamentals set the foundation for RCPGP objectives and deliverables and need to be addressed when identifying projects and developing the RCPGP grant application. 1. Fix Shortcomings in Existing Plans. Activities within this program must address shortcomings in existing plans to address regional catastrophic planning issues. During this program year shortcomings should be those identified through the exercise and evaluation of deliverables from prior funding cycles. 2. Build Regional Planning Process and Planning Communities. Grantees are expected to continue to build and maintain the simplest achievable processes, networks, and community that can successfully accomplish planning, preparedness, data exchange, and operational resource and asset management within the RCPGP site and among regional planning partners. Grantees must ensure that these processes, networks, and communities are fully integrated with other established planning efforts, such as Area Maritime Security Plans (AMSPs) for port areas and Citizen Corps Councils for community preparedness. 3. Link Operational and Capabilities-Based Planning for Resource Allocation. Grantees should focus on collaborative planning that organizes actions among the RCPGP site and includes participating governments, and non-governmental entities, including the private sector, to accomplish operational objectives, achieve unity of effort, and employ specific capabilities within a given time and space. Planning activities within this program should identify capability requirements (shortfalls) among grantees that establish requirements for resource allocation. These requirements should consider the needs of all grantees, including those of host communities or States that would expect to receive and provide support for evacuees from a catastrophically affected Urban Area. Capabilities-based planning, as described in the National Preparedness Guidelines3 and mandated for DHS grant programs by Title VI of the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-295) (hereafter “PKEMRA”),4 provides a common reference system to develop requirement statements. 3 National Preparedness Guidelines, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/npg.pdf 4 Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ295.109.pdf Capability requirements should be defined, documented, analyzed, adjusted, and approved. The resulting capabilities requirements will then serve as the basis for resource allocation requests and as inputs to all preparedness programs, activities, and services (e.g., training and exercises). Since requirements generally exceed available resources, risk must be identified and assessed, analytic decisions made, and control measures instituted and documented. The outcome of these efforts will contribute to synchronization with Federal strategic and operational level planning and plans, formalization of roles and responsibilities in the event of a catastrophe through mutual aid, and development of the comprehensive assessment system and State Preparedness Reports required by PKEMRA. Required Funding Objectives Over the course of the first three RCPGP grant cycles, the original 10 RCPGP sites developed projects focused on enhancing their regional preparedness for catastrophic incidents. In FY 2008 and FY 2009, the sites focused on the development of new regionally-coordinated plans based on the scenarios deemed most likely for their region, as well as the development of regional planning processes and planning communities. In FY 2010, each site focused on preparing for the implementation of those plans and processes by addressing training, exercising, and evaluation needs to ensure the plans meet the needs of their region. In FY 2011, funding objectives for the original 10 RCPGP sites are as follows: • Demonstrate the site’s progress since FY 2008 • Identify remaining gaps by exercising and reporting on the components developed/enhanced through RCPGP efforts • Identify a sustainment approach for the maintenance of RCPGP products through separate funding sources • Implement the Whole Community Philosophy to ensure engagement of the entire community in the planning process, retrofitting existing plans as necessary Funds provided to the original 10 RCPGP sites should be used to develop and implement exercises to evaluate the regional catastrophic plans and capabilities developed in the first three grant cycles. Grantees are expected to conduct functional exercises, as well as at least one full scale exercise, and to develop a report summarizing their progress and the ability of the plans to address regional catastrophic needs. Sites are also expected to evaluate their findings and develop corrective action plans as needed. Grantees are also expected to implement the Whole Community Philosophy in all RCPGP planning efforts. The Whole Community Philosophy approach seeks to improve the Nation’s preparedness for catastrophic events by promoting continuous collaboration with all members of the community. This concept is consistent with, and expands upon, existing emergency preparedness and response systems and doctrine such as the National Response Framework (NRF) and National Incident Management System (NIMS). The Whole Community Philosophy promotes the shift from a “government-centric” approach to a community-based approach of self-aid/self-help and identifying a series of core capabilities that are essential and indispensable to the success of response to and recovery from a catastrophic incident. This concept views the public as an asset and encourages collaboration with new partners that can contribute atypical solutions to deal with the risks their community faces. Communities are encouraged to think outside of the box in terms of resources and concepts of operations, understanding that regulatory waivers, alternative standards of care, and policy changes may be necessary. Required Deliverables Each of the original 10 RCPGP sites are required to develop the following deliverables as part of the FY 2011 grant cycle: • Full scale exercise for at least one component developed/enhanced through RCPGP efforts • Functional or tabletop exercises for the remaining components developed/enhanced through RCPGP efforts • Report summarizing all RCPGP – related progress throughout the life of the grant • Corrective Action Plan based on gaps identified through the exercises performed • Sustainment plan that outlines the approach for the continual maintenance of RCPGP products through other funding sources • Report detailing how RCPGP efforts have linked the planning, operations, equipment, training, and exercise aspects of other FEMA Preparedness Grant Programs (e.g., the Homeland Security Grant Program [HSGP], the Urban Area Security Initiative [UASI], the Emergency Management Performance Grant [EMPG]) and other Federal Grant Programs (e.g., the United States Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] and the United States Department of Agriculture [USDA]) Note: All plans developed through RCPGP efforts must be evaluated in at least one exercise. Recommended Funding Priority Grantees are encouraged to develop plans and capabilities that enable the jurisdiction to both save and sustain lives, and stabilize the site and the situation within 72 hours of a catastrophic incident. To accomplish this, the FY 2011 RCPGP promotes the use of a “meta-scenario” – a composite scenario comprised of the planning factors from a number of different hazards to establish a worst-case scenario. This scenario, as adapted from the site’s threat/hazard identification and risk assessment, may serve as a guide for catastrophic planning efforts. This approach promotes planning and preparing for a catastrophe where extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, and disruption overwhelm traditional, and well established, response and recovery plans and procedures. The use of a meta-scenario to guide planning efforts and the identification of core capabilities may help jurisdictions identify gaps in current planning efforts. FEMA will provide guidance to grantees post-award on the development and use of a meta-scenario. Recommended Deliverables Recommended deliverables associated with this priority include the following: • A meta-scenario to aid in assessing current catastrophic planning efforts • Plans and appendices that will enable the site to both save and sustain lives, and stabilize the situation within 72 hours of a catastrophic incident • A playbook identifying the first 10 to 20 tasks that will need to be completed during a catastrophic event with pre-scripted materials as appropriate • New or updated regional mutual aid compacts Post-Award Submission Requirements Grantees are expected to coordinate with the FEMA Region to identify appropriate deliverables for FY 2011 RCPGP. Grantees must submit the following documents to the FEMA Region and FEMA NPD HQ for review post-award (see Section I, Part VI.B for requirements). These documents must be reviewed and approved by the FEMA Region and FEMA NPD HQ prior to drawdown of funds: • Project Narrative that clearly describes the planned deliverables • Detailed project plans for each project that clearly account for all program deliverables PART II. AWARD INFORMATION Authorizing Statutes The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-10) authorized the FY 2011 RCPGP. Period of Performance The period of performance of this grant is 36 months. Extensions to the period of performance will be considered only through formal requests to FEMA with specific and compelling justifications as to why an extension is required. For more information on grant extensions, see Section II, Part I.A. Available Funding In FY 2011, the total amount of funds distributed under this grant program will be $14,101,736. The FY 2011 RCPGP funds will be allocated based on the multi-jurisdictional planning requirements of RCPGP sites. FY 2011 RCPGP Grant Award Allocations One non-competitive award will be made to each of the existing Regional Catastrophic Planning Teams and associated sites, as specified in Table 1, provided their application meets the minimum standards specified for FY 2011. Each of the existing Regional Catastrophic Planning Teams and associated sites that participated in previous RCPGP grant cycles will be allocated $1,281,976. In FY 2011 up to 20 percent (20%) of a site’s award may be retained by the State Administrative Agency (SAA) for the sole and express purpose of more fully implementing or integrating the site’s approved project plans throughout the State, or with neighboring States. This sum is separate from the five percent (5%) Management and Administration (M&A), and no new M&A costs may be incurred through this additional retention. States will work with the site POCs and FEMA Region to achieve consensus on the State projects in support of RCPGP. State projects may only be considered if they are proven to be logical extensions of site projects, and all expenditures must comply with FY 2011 funding restrictions. Table 1: FY 2011 RCPGP Allocations RCPGP Site FY 2011 Allocation Bay Area (to include 11 counties and 23 principal cities spanning central western CA) $1,281,976 Boston Area (to include 17 counties and 17 principal cities spanning most of eastern MA, southern NH, and all of RI) $1,281,976 Chicago Area (to include 16 counties and 15 principal cities spanning northeastern IL, northwestern IN, and southeastern WI) $1,281,976 Houston Area (to include 13 counties and six principal cities in eastern, TX as defined for the FY 2008 grant cycle) $1,281,976 Los Angeles / Long Beach Area (to include five counties and 38 principal cities spanning southwestern CA) $1,281,976 National Capital Region (to include 26 counties and 16 principal cities spanning Washington, D.C., northern VA, central and southern MD, eastern WV, and representatives from DE and PA) $1,281,976 New York City / Northern New Jersey Area (to include 30 counties and 21 principal cities that span eastern CT, northern NJ, southeastern NY and northeastern PA) $2,563,9525 Honolulu Area (to include the four counties of HI, including the principal city of Honolulu) $1,281,976 Norfolk Area (to include 15 counties and nine principal cities, as defined for the FY 2008 grant cycle, spanning central eastern and southeastern VA as well as northeastern NC) $1,281,976 Seattle Area (to include eight counties and 12 principal cities spanning central WA) $1,281,976 5 Two sites elected to combine financials to form one Regional Catastrophic Planning Team. New York City and Jersey City/Newark are expected to continue to work together as the New York/Northern New Jersey Area RCPGP Site to carry out the program goals and objectives Cost Match The FY 2011 RCPGP has a 75 percent (75%) Federal and 25 percent (25%) grantee cost share cash- or in-kind match requirement. The non-federal contribution may be cash or in-kind as defined under 44 CFR 13.24. Please refer to Section II, Part I.E for additional match guidance to include match definitions, basic guidelines, and governing provisions. A. Funding Guidelines DHS grant funds may only be used for the purpose set forth in the grant, and must be consistent with the statutory authority for the award. Grant funds may not be used for matching funds for other Federal grants/cooperative agreements, lobbying, or intervention in Federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings. In addition, Federal funds may not be used to sue the Federal government or any other government entity. Pre-award costs are allowable only with the written consent of DHS and if they are included in the award agreement. Federal employees are prohibited from serving in any capacity (paid or unpaid) on any proposal submitted under this program. Federal employees may not receive funds under this award. The following pages outline general allowable and unallowable RCPGP Program costs guidance. 1. Management and Administration (M&A) Costs Guidance A maximum of up to 5 percent (5%) of RCPGP funds awarded may be retained by the State, and any funds retained are to be used solely for management and administrative purposes associated with the RCPGP award. States may pass through a portion of the State M&A allocation to local subgrantees to support local management and administration activities; the overall M&A amount may not equal more than 5 percent (5%) of RCPGP funds. Applicants must justify their M&A expenses in the Project Narrative. M&A activities may include the following: • Hiring of full- or part-time staff or contractors/consultants to assist with the management of the respective grant program, application requirements, compliance with reporting and data collection requirements • Development of operating plans for information collection and processing necessary to respond to FEMA data calls • Overtime and backfill costs • Travel • Meeting related expenses • Authorized office equipment • Recurring expenses such as those associated with cell phones and faxes during the period of performance of the grant program • Leasing or renting of space for newly hired personnel during the period of performance of the grant program 2. Allowable Costs The following pages outline allowable costs for RCPGP. A more detailed list of allowable costs can be found in Section I, Part VI.A. Planning RCPGP funds may be used for planning efforts to address catastrophic events, including developing support tools that enable catastrophic planning and developing contingency agreements/emergency contracts that address logistics and prepositioning of commodities related to plans developing with RCPGP funds. These efforts must enable the prioritization of needs, building of capabilities, updating of preparedness strategies, allocation of resources, and delivery of preparedness programs across disciplines (e.g., law enforcement, fire, emergency medical service (EMS), public health, behavioral health, public works, agriculture, information technology, community planning, housing, and economic development) and levels of government. Working through Citizen Corps Councils, all jurisdictions are encouraged to include non-governmental entities and the general public in planning and associated training and exercises.prepositioning of commodities related to plans developing with RCPGP funds. These efforts must enable the prioritization of needs, building of capabilities, updating of preparedness strategies, allocation of resources, and delivery of preparedness programs across disciplines (e.g., law enforcement, fire, emergency medical service (EMS), public health, behavioral health, public works, agriculture, information technology, community planning, housing, and economic development) and levels of government. Working through Citizen Corps Councils, all jurisdictions are encouraged to include non-governmental entities and the general public in planning and associated training and exercises.prepositioning of commodities related to plans developing with RCPGP funds. These efforts must enable the prioritization of needs, building of capabilities, updating of preparedness strategies, allocation of resources, and delivery of preparedness programs across disciplines (e.g., law enforcement, fire, emergency medical service (EMS), public health, behavioral health, public works, agriculture, information technology, community planning, housing, and economic development) and levels of government. Working through Citizen Corps Councils, all jurisdictions are encouraged to include non-governmental entities and the general public in planning and associated training and exercises.prepositioning of commodities related to plans developing with RCPGP funds. These efforts must enable the prioritization of needs, building of capabilities, updating of preparedness strategies, allocation of resources, and delivery of preparedness programs across disciplines (e.g., law enforcement, fire, emergency medical service (EMS), public health, behavioral health, public works, agriculture, information technology, community planning, housing, and economic development) and levels of government. Working through Citizen Corps Councils, all jurisdictions are encouraged to include non-governmental entities and the general public in planning and associated training and exercises.prepositioning of commodities related to plans developing with RCPGP funds. These efforts must enable the prioritization of needs, building of capabilities, updating of preparedness strategies, allocation of resources, and delivery of preparedness programs across disciplines (e.g., law enforcement, fire, emergency medical service (EMS), public health, behavioral health, public works, agriculture, information technology, community planning, housing, and economic development) and levels of government. Working through Citizen Corps Councils, all jurisdictions are encouraged to include non-governmental entities and the general public in planning and associated training and exercises. 6 Non-governmental entities include the private sector and private non-profit, faith-based, community, volunteer and other non-governmental organizations Planning activities may include the following: • Public Education and Outreach • Development of materials in alternate formats and languages • Develop and implement homeland security support programs and adopt ongoing DHS National Initiatives • Develop and enhance plans and protocols • Develop or conduct assessments • Establish, enhance, or evaluate Citizen Corps related volunteer programs • Hiring of full-time, part-time, or contract planners or consultants to assist with planning activities (not for the purpose of hiring public safety personnel fulfilling traditional public safety duties) • Conferences to facilitate planning activities • Materials required to conduct planning activities • Travel/per diem related to planning activities • Overtime and backfill costs for planners (IAW operational Cost Guidance) • Validation of RCPGP plans developed in FY 2008, FY 2009, and FY 2010 grant cycles including tabletop exercises • Training costs specifically related to plans • Project management software and project management software training expenses • Other project areas with prior approval from FEMA Personnel Hiring, overtime, and backfill expenses are allowable under this grant only to perform programmatic activities deemed allowable under this guidance. Supplanting, however, is not allowed. Grantees may hire staff only for program management functions, not operational duties. Section I, Part VI.A for allowable hiring expenditures. RCPGP funds may not be used to support the hiring of sworn public safety officers for the purposes of fulfilling traditional public safety duties or to supplant traditional public safety positions and responsibilities. The following are definitions for the terms as used in this grant guidance: • Hiring – State and local entities may use grant funding to cover the salary of newly hired personnel who are exclusively undertaking allowable FEMA program activities as specified in this guidance. This may not include new personnel who are hired to fulfill any non-FEMA program activities under any circumstances. Hiring will always result in a net increase of FTEs. Alternatively, grantees may contract services for planning purposes. • Overtime – These expenses are limited to the additional costs which result from personnel working over and above 40 hours of weekly work time as a direct result of their performance of FEMA – approved activities specified in this guidance. Overtime associated with any other activity is not eligible. • Backfill-related Overtime – Also called “Overtime as Backfill,” these expenses are limited to overtime costs which result from personnel who are working overtime (as identified above) to perform the duties of other personnel who are temporarily assigned to FEMA – approved activities outside their core responsibilities. Backfill-related overtime only includes the difference between the overtime rate paid and what would have otherwise been paid to the backfilling employee for regular time. Under no circumstances should the entire amount of backfill overtime expense be charged to an award. Neither overtime nor backfill expenses are the result of an increase of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) employees. • Supplanting – defined as replacing a current State and/or local budgeted position with one or more full – time employees contracted or supported in whole or in part with Federal funds. Supplanting is prohibited with grant funds. Training To support the implementation of plans developed through RCPGP, appropriate training of relevant personnel is an allowable expense for the FY 2011 grant cycle. All efforts should be made to utilize available FEMA training programs before contracted training is obtained. This opportunity may not be considered in lieu of DHS Competitive Training Grants for purposes of developing new training courses; however, the development of reasonable and appropriate training opportunities for emergency management and colleges and universities is encouraged. Training plans must be approved prior to implementation. Training activities may include the following: • Overtime and backfill for emergency preparedness and response personnel attending FEMA-sponsored and approved training classes • Overtime and backfill expenses for part-time and volunteer emergency response personnel participating in FEMA training • Training workshops and conferences (e.g., counterterrorism workshops) • Activities to achieve training inclusive of people with disabilities • Full- or part-time staff or contractors/consultants • Travel • Supplies • Tuition for higher education • Other training costs with prior approval from FEMA Exercises Functional and full scale exercises to validate plans developed through RCPGP are allowable expenses. Additionally, in order to bolster inter-State planning FEMA strongly encourages participation and observation by appropriate officials from neighboring States, and invitational travel to tabletops is therefore allowable. Exercises are to be conducted as part of a formal Evaluation Plan, which must be approved prior to implementation. Exercise activities may include the following: • Design, Develop, Conduct, and Evaluate an Exercise • Exercise planning workshop • Full- or part-time staff or contractors/consultants • Overtime and backfill costs, including expenses for part-time and volunteer emergency response personnel participating in FEMA exercises • Implementation of HSEEP • Activities to achieve exercises inclusive of people with disabilities • Travel • Supplies • Other exercise costs with prior approval from FEMA PART III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION A. Eligible Applicants The existing Regional Catastrophic Planning Teams and associated sites, as specified in Table 1 in Section I, Part II, are eligible to apply for FY 2011 RCPGP funds. B. Governance National Incident Management System (NIMS) Implementation In accordance with HSPD-5, Management of Domestic Incidents, the adoption of the NIMS is a requirement to receive Federal preparedness assistance, through grants, contracts, and other activities. The NIMS provides a consistent nationwide template to enable all levels of government, Tribal nations, nongovernmental organizations including voluntary organizations, and private sector partners to work together to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity. Federal FY 2010 NIMS implementation must be considered prior to allocation of any Federal preparedness awards in FY 2011. Since FY 2007, the National Integration Center (NIC) has advised State, Tribal nation, and local governments to self assess their respective progress relating to NIMS implementation objectives in the NIMS Compliance Assistance Support Tool (NIMSCAST).http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/ImplementationGuidanceStakeholders.shtm#item2. 7 The list of objectives against which progress and achievement are assessed and reported can be found at 7 As defined in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296), the term "State" means "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States" 6 U.S.C. 101 (14) All State, Tribal nation, and local government grantees should update their respective NIMSCAST assessments and, if necessary, submit a Corrective Action Plan via NIMSCAST for FY 2010. Corrective Action Plans are only required if a jurisdiction fails to meet one of the NIMS implementation activities. Comprehensive information concerning NIMS implementation for States, Tribal nations, local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector is available through the NIC at FEMA’s NIMS Resource Center at www.fema.gov/nims. State, Tribal, and local governments should continue to implement NIMS training guidance (course curricula and instructor qualifications) contained in the Five-Year NIMS Training Plan, released in February 2008 and any successor guidance released by FEMA. [Note: Coursework and training developed and/or delivered by National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) meet the course and instructor requirements of the Five-Year NIMS Training Plan]. NIMS training guidance is available on FEMA’s NIMS Resource Center at The primary grantee/administrator of FY 2011 RCPGP award funds is responsible for determining if sub-awardees have demonstrated sufficient progress in NIMS implementation to disburse awards. State Preparedness Report Submittal Section 652(c) of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-295), 6 U.S.C. §752(c), requires any State that receives Federal preparedness assistance to submit a State Preparedness Report to FEMA. States submitted the most recent State Preparedness Report in May of 2010, which meets this requirement to receive funding under the FY 2011 RCPGP. PART IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION A. Address to Request Application Package FEMA makes all funding opportunities available on the Internet at http://www.grants.gov. If you experience difficulties accessing information or have any questions please call the http://www.grants.gov customer support hotline at (800) 518-4726. Application forms and instructions are available at http://www.grants.gov. To access these materials, go to http://www.grants.gov, select “Apply for Grants,” and then select “Download Application Package.” Enter the CFDA and/or the funding opportunity number located on the cover of this announcement. Select “Download Application Package,” and then follow the prompts to download the application package. To download the instructions, go to “Download Application Package” and select “Instructions.” B. Content and Form of Application 1. Application via Grants.gov. All applicants must file their applications using the Administration’s common electronic “storefront” – http://www.grants.gov. Eligible grantees must apply for funding through this portal, accessible on the Internet at http://www.grants.gov. The application must be started and submitted using Grants.gov after Central Contractor Registration (CCR) is confirmed. The on-line application includes the following required form: • Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance When applicants apply through http://www.grants.gov, the Standard Form 424 in the initial Grants.gov application will need to be submitted. The Standard Form 424 will be retrieved by ND Grants and the system will automatically populate the relevant data fields in the application. Because FEMA will need to conduct an initial review of the application prior to the submission deadline of June 20, 2011, grantees are encouraged to initiate and complete the Standard Form 424 submission within Grants.gov by no later than June 13, 2011. Upon the completion of the initial review, FEMA will determine whether an application should proceed further and the applicant will be notified to complete their submission by fulfilling additional application requirements (e.g., budget, Investment Justification, Work Plan, etc.) listed below by no later than June 20, 2011. The application must be completed and final submission made through the ND Grants system located at https://portal.fema.gov. If you need assistance registering for the ND Grants system, please contact FEMA’s Enterprise Service Desk at (888) 457-3362. Applicants are encouraged to begin their ND Grants registration at the time of solicitation to ensure they have adequate time to start and complete their application submission. The ND Grants system includes the following required forms and submissions: • Standard Form 424A, Budget Information (Non-construction) • Standard Form 424B, Standard Assurances (Non-construction) • Standard Form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (if the grantee has engaged or intends to engage in lobbying activities) • Grants.gov (GG) Lobbying Form, Certification Regarding Lobbying • FEMA Form 20-16C, Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements • Updated RCPT Membership List • Overview Narrative The program title listed in the CFDA is “Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program.” The CFDA number is 97.111. 2. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. The applicant must provide a DUNS number with their application. This number is a required field within www.grants.gov and for CCR. Organizations should verify that they have a DUNS number, or take the steps necessary to obtain one, as soon as possible. Applicants can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line at (866) 705-5711. 3. Valid CCR. The application process also involves an updated and current registration by the applicant, which must be confirmed at http://www.ccr.gov. 4. Updated RCPT Membership List. All applicants must submit an updated RCPT Membership List as part of the FY 2011 RCPGP application. RCPTs must include, at a minimum, either direct or indirect representation from all jurisdictions that comprise the defined RCPGP site. Direct representation refers to the inclusion of government personnel from the associated jurisdiction, whereas indirect representation refers to the inclusion of representatives from outside of the jurisdiction that have been granted the authority to represent the jurisdiction. Indirect representation must be clearly delineated in the RCPT Membership List. Additionally, the following table lists required and recommended SME representation to be included on the RCPT.to be included on the RCPT.to be included on the RCPT. 8 A jurisdictional or SME representative may fulfill more than one capacity/ requirement 9 Indirect representation must be clearly delineated Table 2: RCPT Required and Recommended Representation RCPT SME Representation Required RCPT Representation • Representatives from appropriate State and local agencies and organizations • Tribal and regional representatives • Critical Infrastructure owners and operators • Representatives from contiguous jurisdictions • Mutual aid partners • Local Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) representatives • Private sector representatives • Citizen Corps Council representatives • Local and State Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency representatives • Disability advocacy and service representatives Recommended RCPT Representation • Fire representatives • Hazmat representatives • Medical representatives • Environmental representatives • Law enforcement representatives • Public Health representative • Voluntary organizations active in disasters • Other representatives, as appropriate All jurisdictions that fall within the RCPGP Site, as listed in Section I, Part VI.D, must be accounted for in the RCPT Membership List. The Membership List must include, at a minimum, the information listed below for each member and be submitted Use the following file naming convention: FY 2011 RCPGP RCPT Membership List • Name • Jurisdiction(s) represented9 • Agency and/or Organization represented 5. Overview Narrative. As part of the FY 2011 RCPGP application process, applicants must develop an Overview Narrative that identifies baseline information for the RCPGP site. Applicants must ensure the Overview Narrative is consistent with all applicable requirements outlined in this Guidance and Application Kit. Guidelines have been developed that outline the required content and organization of the Overview Narrative to ensure all applicants address the key data requirements. Each Overview Narrative must: • Be submitted in Microsoft Word (*.doc) or Adobe PDF format (*.pdf) Use the following file naming convention: FY 2011 RCPGP Overview Narrative - .doc or .pdf • Adhere to and include the section headings and data requirements outlined below I. Applicant Information A. RCPGP site Name B. Designated SAA C. SAA Contact Information D. List of all States included in the RCPGP site footprint II. Baseline Information A. Overview of key demographic and threat information for the RCPGP site B. Summary of current catastrophic incident planning efforts within RCPGP site C. Description of current capabilities III. Project Overview Information A. Overview of projects that may be included as part of the effort B. Indication of intent for State to retain up to 20% of the award for the purpose of integrating RCPGP activities with State-level planning initiatives as well as those of neighboring States (if applicable) C. Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) Compliance FEMA is legally required to consider the potential impacts of all grant-funded projects on environmental resources and historic properties. For RCPGP and other preparedness grant programs, this is accomplished via FEMA’s EHP Review. Grantees must comply with all applicable EHP laws, regulations, and Executive Orders (EOs) in order to draw down their FY 2011 RCPGP grant funds. Any project with the potential to impact natural resources or historic properties cannot be initiated until FEMA has completed the required FEMA EHP review. Grantees that implement projects prior to receiving EHP approval from FEMA risk de-obligation of funds. Not all projects require a FEMA EHP review. For example, the following activities would not require a FEMA EHP review: planning and development of policies or processes; management, administrative or personnel actions; classroom-based training; table top exercises; and, acquisition of mobile and portable equipment (not involving installation). However, any proposed project funded through RCPGP that involves the installation of equipment, exercises not specifically excluded from a FEMA EHP review per the GPD Programmatic Environmental Assessment and Information Bulletin (IB) 345, or ground-disturbing activities must undergo a FEMA EHP review. Upon receiving a grant award, grantees must complete the FEMA EHP Screening Form (FEMA Form 024-0-01/OMB Number 1660-0115) and submit it, with all supporting documentation, to the GPD EHP team at GPDEHPInfo@fema.gov for review. Refer to IBs 329, 345, and 356 (located at http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/bulletins/index.shtm) and Section II, Part I.B.5.5.6 for further details on EHP requirements. D. Submission Dates and Times All submissions will be received by no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT, June 20, 2011. Late applications will neither be considered nor reviewed. Only applications started through http://www.grants.gov and completed through the ND Grants system located at https://portal.fema.gov will be accepted. PART V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION A. Review Criteria To determine grant awards, the Preparedness Analysts (PA) and Federal Preparedness Coordinators (FPC) will review each Grant Application Package for completeness and quality. The PAs and FPCs will complete a checklist for each Grant Application Package to ensure the submitted package meets all required criteria. Grant Application Packages must meet all required criteria in order for the applicant to receive funding. To be considered complete, the Grant Application Package must include all of the following required documents, uploaded to http://www.grants.gov as separate files using the naming convention FY 2011 RCPGP – .doc or .pdf. • Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance • Standard Form 424A, Budget Information • Standard Form 424B, Assurances • Lobbying Form – Certification Regarding Lobbying (this form must be completed by all grant applicants) • Standard Form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (if the grantee has engaged or intends to engage in lobbying activities) • Certificate Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters • Certificate Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements • Updated RCPT Membership List • Overview Narrative Each Grant Application Package must meet all minimum requirements, outlined below, in order to obtain funding. • All required documents, specified above, must be submitted by the deadline • Overview Narrative must address all data requirements specified in Section I, Part IV.B.4 • Grant Application Package must comply with all guidelines and restrictions outlined in this Guidance and Application Kit B. Review and Selection Process The FY 2011 RCPGP Grant Application Review will be conducted by the PAs and FPCs using a requirements checklist. Each PA and FPC is responsible for evaluating the Grant Application Package(s) from his/ her applicable site(s). Evaluation of the FY 2011 Grant Application Packages will be based upon their completeness and quality. Funds will not be made available for obligation, expenditure, or drawdown until the applicant’s budget and budget narrative have been approved by FEMA. The applicant must provide a detailed budget for the funds requested. The detailed budget must be submitted with the grant application as a file attachment within http://www.grants.gov. The budget must be complete, reasonable, and cost-effective in relation to the proposed project. The budget should provide the basis of computation of all project-related costs, any appropriate narrative, and a detailed justification of M&A costs. C. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates FEMA will evaluate, act on applications, and make awards on or before September 30, 2011. D. Intergovernmental Review Executive Order 12372 requires applicants from State and local units of government or other organizations providing services within a State to submit a copy of the application to the State Single Point of Contact (SPOC), if one exists, and if this program has been selected for review by the State. Applicants must contact their State SPOC to determine if the program has been selected for State review. Executive Order 12372 can be referenced at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12372.html. The names and addresses of the SPOCs are listed on OMB’s home page available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc. PART VI. OTHER INFORMATION A. Post-Award Requirements Grantees are required to submit the following documents after award; each of these documents must be reviewed and approved by both the FEMA Region and FEMA NPD HQ prior to drawdown of funds. Specific requirements for each document are included in the following sections. • Project Narrative • Detailed Project Plan Project Narrative Grantees are required to develop deliverables that enable the jurisdiction to address the specified program objectives. Grantees must identify appropriate deliverables in coordination with the FEMA Region (see Section I, Part I for a list of required and recommended deliverables). The Project Narrative is a method for grantees to demonstrate the planned use of their funds and describe specific funding and implementation approaches over the 36 month grant period of performance that will help enhance and sustain capabilities and achieve outcomes aligned with the National Preparedness Guidelines, their respective State/Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy, and their State Preparedness Report. The Project Narrative should provide specific information on what planning activities will be implemented, what outcomes will be achieved, how the program will be managed, and how the activities will be coordinated with relevant State and local authorities. Allowable costs should focus on planning activities in support of this initiative’s objectives. Funding could be used for hiring and training planners, establishing and maintaining a program management structure, identifying and managing projects, conducting research necessary to inform the planning process, and developing plans that bridge mechanisms/documents, protocols and procedures. In FY 2011 up to twenty percent (20%) of a site’s award may be retained by the SAA for the purpose of integrating RCPGP activities with State-level planning initiatives as well as those of neighboring States. As pertains to the site, a Project Narrative with full project details and project management must be provided by the SAA for the project that the State intends to extend. Project Narrative Requirements Each Project Narrative must: • Be submitted in Microsoft Word (*.doc) or Adobe PDF format (*.pdf) • Use the following file naming convention: FY 2011 RCPGP Project Narrative - .doc or .pdf • Adhere to and include the section headings and data requirements outlined below I. Applicant Information A. RCPGP site Name B. Designated SAA C. SAA Contact Information D. List of all States included in the RCPGP site footprint E. Description of desired end-state (i.e., what capabilities the jurisdiction intends to have at the end of the 36 month grant cycle) II. Whole Community Philosophy A. Explanation of how the site intends to implement the Whole Community Philosophy and ensure engagement of all appropriate members of the community in planning efforts III. Exercise Plans A. Initial plan for full-scale exercise for at least one component developed/enhanced through RCPGP efforts. The plan must: • Clearly identify the component(s) addressed • Include high-level milestones • Include an overview of how the exercise will be coordinated with relevant Federal, State, local, Tribal, and private sector entities • Describe how the effort (development and implementation of the exercise) will be managed B. Initial plan for functional or tabletop exercises for all remaining components developed/enhanced through RCPGP efforts; The plan must: • Clearly identify the component(s) addressed • Include high-level milestones • Include an overview of how the exercise will be coordinated with relevant Federal, State, local, Tribal, and private sector entities • Describe how the effort (development and implementation of the exercise) will be managed IV. Project Details (Repeat for each project if applicable) A. Project information for the four remaining required deliverables listed in Part I of this Guidance and Application Kit (i.e., final report, corrective action plan, sustainment plan, and linkages report) and any additional deliverables; The project details must: • Provide an overview of the approach for each deliverable • Include high-level milestones for each deliverable • Describe how development of each deliverable will be managed V. Estimated Costs A. Cost summary, indicating the estimated costs for each deliverable and exercise B. Explanation of how the 25 percent cost share requirement will be met C. Justification of M&A expenses For those States retaining funds under RCPGP, a separate narrative must be included that meets all requirements specified above, including full project details and project management. Additionally, the State’s submittal must include a statement of concurrence that the RCPT supports the intended use. Project Plans Each RCPGP site is expected to practice effective project management in order to plan and execute projects successfully within the period of performance. Grantees are required to submit a detailed project plan for each project to supplement the Project Narrative. The initial project plan is expected to be a best estimate of the tasks and time required to complete the proposed projects. It must include all major milestones and tasks, and must account for all project and program deliverables. It is understood that task specifics and dates may change and evolve over time. Project Plan Requirements RCPGP grantees must create a project plan for each proposed project. Grantees are encouraged to use project management software, which can track separate funding streams while incorporating project plans from multiple grant cycles, promoting streamlined project management; however, use of the software package is not required. While the plan’s format is flexible, each project plan must include all information outlined below and use the following file naming convention: FY 2011 RCPGP - Project Plan • Project Name, as indicated in the Project Narrative submittal • Project Start Date & End Dates that are within the grant’s 36 month period of performance • Project Milestones, deliverables, and tasks that represent significant events in the project and which can be used to effectively track the project’s progress, including the following: o All project deliverables and their sub-tasks o All program deliverables (specified in Section I, Part I of this Guidance and Application Kit) and their sub-tasks • Percent Complete for each milestone, deliverable, and task • Start and End Dates for each milestone, deliverable, and task The following content is highly recommended, but not required. • Dependencies for each milestone, deliverable and task (Other project plan items that are directly linked to the item [e.g., a task must be completed before another task may begin]) • Work (labor) hours required to complete each milestone, deliverable, and task • Duration (business days) required to complete each milestone, deliverable, and task • Resources (personnel) required to complete each milestone, deliverable, and task The project plan(s) must account for all program deliverables specified in Section I, Part I of this Guidance and Application Kit. All program deliverables and their sub-tasks must be clearly labeled in the project plan. B. Resources The following resources have been identified as potentially helpful to sites during the implementation existing RCPGP projects, as well as planning for creation of FY 2011 projects. • Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 – http://www.fema.gov/prepared/plan.shtm • FEMA Library – http://www.fema.gov/library/index.jsp • Guidance on Planning for Integration of Functional Needs Support Services in General Population Shelters – http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/odic/fnss_guidance.pdf • Mitigation Planning Guidance – http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/planning_resources.shtm#1 • National Response Framework – http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/ • National Scenarios – https://www.llis.dhs.gov/index.do • National Strategy for Homeland Security – http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland/nshs/2007/index.html • NIMS – http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/index.shtm • National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) – http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/editorial_0827.shtm • Target Capabilities List – https://www.llis.dhs.gov/index.do C. Site Descriptions Bay Area Counties Included Principal Cities Included California • Alameda County • Contra Costa County • Marin County • Napa County • San Benito County • San Francisco County • San Mateo County • Santa Clara County • Santa Cruz County • Solano County • Sonoma County • Berkeley • Cupertino • Fairfield • Fremont • Hayward • Milpitas • Mountain View • Napa • Oakland • Palo Alto • Petaluma • Pleasanton • Redwood City • San Francisco • San Jose • San Leandro • San Mateo • San Rafael • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Santa Rosa • South San Francisco • Sunnyvale Boston Area Counties Included Principal Cities Included Massachusetts • Bristol County • Essex County • Middlesex County • Norfolk County • Plymouth County • Suffolk County • Worcester County • Boston • Cambridge • Fall River • Framingham • New Bedford • Newton • Peabody • Quincy • Waltham • Worcester New Hampshire • Belknap County • Hillsborough County • Merrimack County • Rockingham County • Strafford County • Concord • Laconia • Manchester • Nashua Rhode Island • Bristol County • Kent County • Providence County • Newport County • Washington County • Cranston • Providence • Warwick Chicago Area Counties Included Principal Cities Included Illinois • Cook County • DeKalb County • DuPage County • Grundy County • Kankakee County • Kane County • Kendall County • Lake County • McHenry County • Will County • Arlington Heights • Bradley • Chicago • Des Plaines • Elgin • Evanston • Hoffman Estates • Joliet • Kankakee • Naperville • Schaumburg • Skokie Indiana • Jasper County • Lake County • LaPorte County • Newton County • Porter County • Gary • La Porte • Michigan City Wisconsin • Kenosha County Honolulu Area Counties Included Principal Cities Included Hawaii • Hawaii • Kauai • Maui • Oahu • Honolulu Houston Area Counties Included Principal Cities Included Texas • Austin County • Brazoria County • Chambers County • Colorado County • Fort Bend County • Galveston County • Harris County • Liberty County • Matagorda County • Montgomery County • Waller County • Walker County • Wharton County • Bay City • Baytown • Galveston • Houston • Huntsville • Sugar Land Los Angeles / Long Beach Area Counties Included Principal Cities Included California • Los Angeles County • Orange County • Riverside County • San Bernardino County • Ventura County • Anaheim • Arcadia • Burbank • Camarillo • Carson • Cerritos • Chino • Colton • Compton • Costa Mesa • Fountain Valley • Fullerton • Gardena • Glendale • Hemet • Irvine • Los Angeles • Long Beach • Montebello • Monterey Park • Newport Beach • Ontario • Orange • Oxnard • Paramount • Pasadena • Pomona • Redlands • Riverside • San Bernardino • San Buenaventura (Ventura) • Santa Ana • Santa Monica • Victorville • Temecula • Thousand Oaks • Torrance • Tustin National Capital Region Counties Included Principal Cities Included Delaware District of Columbia • Washington, DC Maryland • Anne Arundel County • Baltimore County • Calvert County • Carroll County • Charles County • Frederick County • Harford County • Howard County • Montgomery County • Prince George’s County • Queen Anne’s County • St. Mary’s County • Baltimore • Bethesda • Frederick • Gaithersburg • Lexington Park • Rockville • Towson Pennsylvania Virginia • Arlington County • Clarke County • Culpepper County • Fairfax County • Fauquier County • Frederick County • Fredericksburg City • Loudoun County • Prince William County • Spotsylvania County • Stafford County • Warren County • Arlington • Alexandria • Culpepper • Fairfax • Falls Church • Manassas • Manassas Park • Reston • Winchester West Virginia • Hampshire County • Jefferson County New York / Northern New Jersey Area Counties Included Principal Cities Included Connecticut • Fairfield County • Litchfield County • New Haven County • Bridgeport • Danbury • Milford City • New Haven • Norwalk • Stamford • Stratford • Torrington • White Plains New Jersey • Bergen County • Essex County • Hudson County • Hunterdon County • Mercer County • Middlesex County • Monmouth County • Morris County • Ocean County • Passaic County • Somerset County • Sussex County • Union County • Edison • Ewing • Newark • Trenton • Union • Wayne New York • Bronx County • Dutchess County • Kings County • Nassau County • New York County • Orange County • Putnam County • Queens County • Richmond County • Rockland County • Suffolk County • Ulster County • Westchester County • Arlington • Kingston • Middletown • New York • Newburgh • Poughkeepsie Pennsylvania • Pike County Norfolk Area Counties Included Principal Cities Included North Carolina • Currituck County • Dare County Virginia • Accomack County • Gloucester County • Isle of Wight County • James City County • Lancaster County • Mathews County • Middlesex County • Northampton County • Northumberland County • Richmond County • Surry County • Westmoreland County • York County • Chesapeake • Hampton • Newport News • Norfolk • Portsmouth City • Poquoson City • Suffolk City • Virginia Beach • Williamsburg Seattle Area Counties Included Principal Cities Included Tribal • Suquamish Tribe Washington • Island County • King County • Kitsap County • Mason County • Pierce County • Skagit County • Snohomish County • Thurston County • Bellevue • Bremerton • Everett • Kent • Mount Vernon • Oak Harbor • Olympia • Renton • Seattle • Shelton • Silverdale • Tacoma