The Applicant has not demonstrated that the damage to the Applicant’s culverts is a direct result of the declared incident. Therefore, this appeal is denied. Appeal Letter Robert M. Buxton Governor's Authorized Representative, Director New Hampshire Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 33 Hazen Drive Concord, New Hampshire 03305 Michael R. Brooks Director Town of Madison Fire/Rescue 1923 Village Road Madison, New Hampshire 03849 Re: Second Appeal – Town of Madison, PA ID: 003-45060-00, FEMA-4761-DR-NH, Grants Manager Project 748123/Project Worksheet 8, Result of Declared Incident Dear Robert M. Buxton and Michael R. Brooks: This is in response to the August 12, 2025 letter from the New Hampshire Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (Recipient), which forwarded the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Town of Madison (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $89,991.00 to replace two culverts on Modoc Hill Road. As explained in the enclosed analysis, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the damage to the culverts is a direct result of the declared incident. Accordingly, I am denying this appeal. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206. Sincerely, /S/ Robert M. Pesapane Director, Public Assistance Enclosure cc: Frederick Doucette Regional Administrator FEMA Region 1 Appeal Analysis Background During December 17-21, 2023, severe winter storms impacted the state of New Hampshire, causing flooding, landslides, and mudslides. On February 27, 2024, the President declared a major disaster. The Town of Madison (Applicant) requested $89,991.00 in Public Assistance (PA) funding to repair damage to two culverts on Modoc Hill Road, which it reported occurred on December 18, 2023. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 748123 documenting the request.[1] On May 21, 2024, FEMA conducted a site inspection and prepared a site inspection report with photographs. The site inspector noted that the photographs showed a fold in the bottom and vegetative debris at the outlet of one culvert. From July 8-27, 2024, the Applicant completed work to replace the two culverts with a single culvert.[2] During project formulation, FEMA reviewed documentation from the Applicant indicating that multiple storms damaged the site both before the disaster (on May 1 and 21, 2023) and after the disaster (March 7, 2024, and April 12, 2024).[3] FEMA requested the Applicant provide information about what was damaged and repaired for each storm. In its response, the Applicant indicated that after the May 1, 2023, storm event, it completed road repairs but also identified the need to replace the two culverts. It reported that it sought contractor proposals to replace the two culverts with one larger culvert, but the replacement work was not performed at that time.[4] On January 15, 2025, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum denying the Applicant’s funding request because the Applicant did not demonstrate that the claimed damages were the direct result of the declared incident. FEMA noted that the administrative record showed that the culverts had been damaged during multiple storms, including the declared incident, and determined that the culverts’ damage pre-dated the disaster at issue. FEMA also found that the condition of the culverts was consistent with a lack of regular maintenance. First Appeal On March 12, 2025, the Applicant submitted a first appeal for $89,991.00. The Applicant provided a timeline of its attempts to procure a contractor for repair work beginning in May 2023. The Applicant asserted that procurement delays caused the culverts to remain unrepaired until they could be replaced after the April 2024 storm, and that the Applicant took other measures to protect the culverts in the meantime rather than deferring maintenance. The Applicant also asserted that the predisaster design of the twin culverts created a built-in obstruction in the middle and the replacement with one larger culvert was the least costly alternative to mitigate the increased water flow and debris conditions created by snow-melts and heavy rainstorms. Further, the Applicant asserted that any photographs taken during the site inspection would have shown damage as a result of the April 2024 storm event and therefore provide little-to-no value regarding the damages incurred in December 2023. The Applicant requests that FEMA instead rely on the photographs submitted prior to the site inspection as the best evidence that the December 2023 storm caused the damages. On March 20, 2025, the New Hampshire Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (Recipient) transmitted the Applicant’s appeal with a letter in support. On May 28, 2025, the FEMA Region 1 Regional Administrator denied the appeal. FEMA found the claimed work ineligible for PA funding because: (1) photographs show the culverts were severely rusted and in a deteriorated condition before the declared incident; (2) the Applicant did not demonstrate what repairs were necessary as a result of the December 2023 event and which were the result of the other storms; and (3) the project was not eligible for PA hazard mitigation, since the underlying permanent work was not eligible. Second Appeal The Applicant submitted a second appeal letter, received by the Recipient on July 28, 2025. The Applicant requests the denied culvert replacement costs of $89,991.00.[5] The Applicant reiterates its prior arguments. The Applicant also states that it was not aware of the physical condition of the culvert bottoms until after the April 2024 storm because the bottoms were not visible until the culverts were completely scoured by that disaster. The Applicant contends it did not repair damages caused by the April 2024 storm immediately, because it did not make financial sense at that time to make repairs that would later be demolished by replacing the culverts, and that this delay was the only reason that FEMA noticed the physical condition of the culverts during its May 2024 inspection. On August 12, 2025, the Recipient transmitted the Applicant’s appeal with its letter in support. Discussion FEMA may reimburse applicants for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of a public facility damaged or destroyed by a major disaster.[6] To be eligible for PA funding, work must be required as a result of the declared incident, and the applicant must demonstrate that damage was caused directly by the declared incident.[7] FEMA does not provide PA funding for repair of damage caused by deterioration, deferred maintenance, the applicant’s failure to take measures to protect a facility from further damage, or negligence.[8] It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that claimed damage was directly caused by the incident, and where pre-existing damage exists, to distinguish that damage from the disaster related damage.[9] When necessary to validate damage, FEMA may require the applicant to provide documentation supporting the predisaster condition of the facility (e.g., facility maintenance records, inspection/safety reports).[10] If the applicant does not provide documentation to support its claim as eligible, FEMA cannot provide PA funding for the work.[11] The applicant must provide more than statements or opinions to substantiate its claims; documentation or other evidence supporting its position must be submitted.[12] The Applicant acknowledges that multiple storms impacted and damaged the culverts, before and after the declared disaster in December 2023. In addition, the site inspection photographs indicate that the culverts had significant damage from age, deterioration, and lack of maintenance, including a fold on the bottom of one culvert. The Applicant argued that the May 2024 site inspection photographs are of limited value, because they show damage from more recent storms, and claimed that its own photographs provide the best evidence of damage from the December 2023 disaster. However, the Applicant’s photographs from prior to April 2024 do not display the bottom of the culverts, and the Applicant acknowledges that it did not know the condition of the bottom of the culverts until after the April 2024 disaster. In addition, the photographs provided by the Applicant show that the culverts were severely rusted and in a deteriorated condition due to age and lack of maintenance. While the Applicant has documented its unsuccessful attempts to procure a contractor to replace the culverts shortly prior to the declared disaster, it has provided no maintenance records or other documentation to distinguish between predisaster conditions and disaster-related damages. Accordingly, the Applicant’s request to reimburse costs of $89,991.00 incurred for work to replace two culverts with one upsized culvert is ineligible for PA funding.[13] Conclusion