Stafford Act § 406 and implementing regulations authorize funding to restore a damaged facility to its predisaster design and function. FEMA will fund reasonable upgrades required by code that apply to the type of repair or restoration required, and meet criteria pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.226(d). The burden is on the applicant to provide documented justification to substantiate claims made on appeal. The Subrecipient does not demonstrate that work beyond replacing the cover to address the eligible damage, is necessary to restore the Facility. Many of the cited provisions do not apply to the type of restoration required nor would FEMA find the application reasonable based on the record. None of the provisions require the additional work. Further, there is no evidence supporting that replacing the cover per regulations would fail, be technically-infeasible or unsafe, or otherwise impair the Facility’s serviceability or functionality. Stafford Act Section 406 hazard mitigation funding must be applied to eligible disaster-damaged elements and found cost-effective. The Subrecipient fails to substantiate with documentation that replacing/lowering the undamaged lines bears a direct relationship to the loss of pipeline cover. It declined to submit a benefit-cost analysis, which is required to substantiate cost-effective mitigation.

Stafford Act § 406. 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.223(a)(1), 206.206(a), 206.226. PA Guide, at 29, 33-34, 83, 101, 125-126. RP 9526.1, Hazard Mitigation Funding under Section 406 (Stafford Act), at 2-3. Stutsman Cty., FEMA-1981-DR-ND, at 4-5; Dep’t of Transp., FEMA-4068-DR-FL, at 5; St. Tammany Parish School Bd., FEMA-1603-DR-LA, at 5-6.