Summary Paragraph In May 2010, severe storms impacted the City of Nashville. Resulting overland floodwaters from the Cumberland and the Stones rivers submerged the grounds at the K.R. Harrington water treatment facility. FEMA initially prepared PW 5504 to reimburse the Applicant for repairs at the K.R. Harrington facility. Separate from the repair work, the Applicant also submitted a HMP. FEMA determined that the Applicant’s HMP was not eligible due to the proposal not being cost effective to the project. On first appeal the Applicant asserts that FEMA erred in determining that the HMP was not cost effective, and that it was in fact cost effective on the basis of a favorable benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 15.86. The Applicant supported this with reference to FEMA Recovery Policy RP9526.1, Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act) and asked that FEMA reconsider its determination. The FEMA Region IV Regional Administrator denied the appeal, concluding that the Applicant had both failed to follow FEMA policy in preparing the benefit cost analysis (BCA) and had not provided enough documentation to support recalculation of the BCR. With submission of the second appeal the Applicant provided detailed documentation supporting the preparation of its BCA and the resulting BCR. FEMA evaluated the documentation provided by the Applicant on second appeal and conducted a reanalysis of the BCA, finding that the Applicant’s HMP is cost effective. Authorities and Second Appeals 44 C.F.R. § 206.201(f). 44 C.F.R. § 206.226 (e). FEMA RP9526.1, Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act). Headnotes Pursuant to FEMA RP9526.1 Section VI.A.2, Section 406 hazard mitigation work must be cost effective and reasonably performed as part of the work or measure which will reduce the potential for damage to a facility from a disaster event. According to FEMA RP9526.1, Section VII.B.3, cost effectiveness may be demonstrated through an acceptable BCA methodology, and the BCA will be based on a comparison of the total project cost to the total cost of the following projected benefits: (1) damage to the facility and its damaged contents, (2) emergency protective measures required as a result of that damage, (3) temporary facilities required due to the damage, (4) loss of function, (5) casualty (loss of life and injury), and (6) cost avoidance (damages avoided in the future due to mitigation measures). The Applicant submitted documentation to support its determinations for Item (4) loss of function as well as the event recurrence interval. The documentation provided by the Applicant sufficiently demonstrated that the hazard mitigation proposal is cost effective.