44 C.F.R. § 206.201 defines a facility as “any publicly or privately owned building, works, system or equipment, built or manufactured, or an improved and maintained natural feature.” Louisiana’s coastal barrier islands, as a whole, do not qualify as a “system” because they were not “built or manufactured.” The PA Guide states that maintenance must have been done on a regular schedule and to standards to ensure that the improvement performed as designed. BA-30 is not a “facility” because the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the barrier island was maintained. 44 C.F.R. § 206.226(a) limits PA funding where there is another Federal authority to restore facilities.

Severe storm surge from Hurricane Isaac during the incident period August 26 to September 10, 2012 caused damage to sand fencing, a beach and dunes, as well as vegetative plantings that were part of BA-30. FEMA prepared Project Worksheet 1573 to document the repair work, finding sand fencing repairs eligible and the remainder of the work ineligible due to a lack of a regular maintenance plan and the work being the responsibility of another federal agency. On first appeal, the Applicant argued that: (1) the work is eligible because there is no other agency with specific authority to repair the damages in question; (2) FEMA’s denial of eligibility on the basis of purported legal authority of another federal agency is contrary to statute, regulation, and policy; (3) BA-30 is an eligible nonstructural project for shoreline stabilization designed to mimic, enhance, or restore natural stabilization systems per 44 C.F.R. § 206.345; and (4) BA-30 is an eligible facility because it does not require routine maintenance or FEMA should recognize inspection reports as sufficient to establish pre-disaster condition. The FEMA Region VI Regional Administrator determined that the work was not under the specific authority of another federal agency, but denied the first appeal finding that the natural features of BA-30 were not maintained and thus failed to meet the regulatory requirements to be considered an improved beach. On second appeal, the Applicant argues that FEMA’s denial is erroneous because BA-30 is an eligible “facility.”

Stafford Act §§ 102(9)(C), 312(a) 705(c). 16 U.S.C. §§ 3502(6)-(7), 3951-3956. 43 U.S.C. § 1356a 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.201(c), (j), 206.226(a), (j), 206.340, 206.343(a). PA Guide, at 22. FEMA Recovery Policy FP-205-081-2, Stafford Act Section 705, Disaster Grant Closeout Procedures (Mar. 31, 2016). FEMA Second Appeal Analysis, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Isles Dernieres Restoration Projects, FEMA-1437-DR-LA (Jan. 25, 2005) FEMA Second Appeal Analysis, Ventura County, FEMA-1577-DR-CA (July 7, 2009)