Summary Paragraph In 2006, the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department’s (Applicant) Roxbury Fish Culture Station (Facility) acquired an amended discharge permit (ADP) that allowed for effluent discharge into the Third Branch of the White River for 5 years. In 2009, the Facility produced in excess of 20,000 pounds of fish, which brought it under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Vermont Water Quality Standards (VWQS). In 2011, the ADP expired and the Applicant submitted a timely renewal request, which was pending at the time of the declared event. Tropical Storm Irene severely damaged the Facility’s open pond system in late August 2012. FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 2738 for $359,035.68 for architectural and engineering design services for a replacement facility. The Applicant’s engineer determined that the more stringent CWA and VWQS discharge requirements necessitated a $4 million tank based system. The Applicant submitted a scope change request seeking reimbursement for the recommended system. FEMA, however, prepared PW 2738, Version 1, for $583,391.68 to replace the Facility with an open pond system. The Applicant appealed, asserting that the required upgrades were triggered by the declared event and also that the ADP time extension grandfathered the facility from CWA and VWQS compliance. The FEMA Region I Regional Administrator (RA) disagreed, finding: (1) no direct relationship existed between the requested upgrades and the disaster damage; (2) the threshold trigger was predisaster, when fish production increased to over 20,000 pounds annually; (3) codes and standards are building requirements for the construction of facilities; neither the VWQS nor National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) require that all restored hatcheries use a tank based system; (4) FEMA does not fund code mandated work if the code does not meet the five eligibility criteria, even though such work may be required in order to obtain a permit; and (5) the $4 million dollar cost estimate was not reasonable in relation to replacement cost back to predisaster condition. On second appeal, the Applicant reiterates its argument that the CWA and VWQS qualify as eligible codes and standards. Authorities and Second Appeals Stafford Act § 406. 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(1). 44 C.F.R. § 206.226(d). Headnotes Pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(1), for an applicant’s restoration work to be eligible for PA funding, the item of work must “be required as the result” of the disaster. The work to replace the Applicant’s Facility with a tank based system was required as a result of the Applicant’s increased fish production and downstream degradation, both of which occurred before the disaster. 44 C.F.R. § 206.226(d) establishes five criteria to determine whether work which changes the predisaster condition of a facility in accordance with a code or standard is eligible for PA funding. Since the replacement work was not triggered by the declared event, an analysis of the codes and standards is unnecessary.