339 rebuttaltoresponsestomotiontofileamendedreportjohnrkrewson kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 1 of 22 PageID #: 6451

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION KMART CORPORATION, Plaintiff CIV. ACT. NO. 1:11-CV-103-GHD-DAS versus THE KROGER CO., et al.

Defendants REBUTTAL TO RESPONSES TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED REPORT OF JOHN R. KREWSON PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER Plaintiff, Kmart Corporation, respectfully submits this Rebuttal to the Responses to its Motion for Leave to File Amended Report of John R. Krewson Pursuant to Court Order filed by The Kroger Co., E&A Southeast Limited Partnership, Fulton Improvements, LLC, and Kansas City Southern Railway Company (collectively “Defendants”).1 On September 27, 2013, this Court ruled that it would consider an amendment of mathematical errors only to Mr. Krewson’s hydrology report. In preparing the proposed amended report dated October 11, 2013 (“Amended Report”), Mr. Krewson revised the inconsistent HEC-RAS flow data that appeared in his Initial Flooding Evaluation of September 20, 2012 (“Initial Report”) by correcting the flow rate capacity from 3,702 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 5,202 cfs. Additionally, the Manning N values contained in Mr. Krewson’s Initial Report were also corrected to reflect the conditions of the channel of Elam Creek and the flooding depths occurring at the time of the loss to Kmart’s store in Corinth, Mississippi on May 2, 2010.

1

Kroger, E&A, and Fulton filed a Joint Response (Rec. Doc. 305). KCSR filed a Joinder to the Joint Response of Kroger, E&A, and Fulton (Rec. Doc. 306).

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 2 of 22 PageID #: 6452

Mr. Krewson’s proposed Amended Report pertains to re-calculated runs using the same scenarios described in his Initial Report and in his original modeling. The Amended Report does not use the scenarios described in the first amended report dated July 23, 2013 and in those re-run models.

Mr. Krewson’s proposed Amended Report complies with this Court’s September 27, 2013 Order directing Kmart to submit an amendment of the mathematical errors contained in Mr. Krewson’s Initial Report. Moreover, Kmart has shown good cause why it should be permitted to submit the Amended Report. Accordingly, Kmart should be granted leave to file the proposed Amended Report.

I.

Background A.

Mr. Krewson’s Initial Flooding Evaluation dated September 20, 2012.

At Mr. Krewson’s deposition on May 22, 2013, it was discovered for the first time by Kmart and Mr. Krewson that the models relied on by Mr. Krewson in his Initial Report contained a mistake that affected the conclusions in his report. In preparation of his Initial Report, Mr. Krewson prepared HEC-RAS models for the Kmart and Kroger sites using as-built survey data and the water flows for the area listed in Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 2009 Flood Insurance Study for Alcorn Coutny, which was issued only one year before the May 2010 flood event.2 Mr. Krewson prepared three runs to determine the impact of the Kroger store on the flooding at Kmart’s store in Corinth during the May 2, 2010 flood event. The first run was an idealized model that assumed a fully maintained channel with no obstructions or encroachments in the floodway.3 In the second run, the

2

See John R. Krewson’s Initial Flooding Evaluation (Sept. 20, 2012), attached as Exhibit “A”.

3

Id. at 6.

2

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 3 of 22 PageID #: 6453

Kroger store was added to the floodway and a rise in the flood of approximately one foot was found to occur.4 In the third run, to determine the impact of encroachments, obstructions, and overgrown banks, Mr. Krewson ran an idealized model that assumed a fully maintained channel with no obstructions or encroachments in the floodway, which resulted in a two-foot drop in the flood elevation at the Kmart site below the elevations found with the Kroger encroachment in the floodway.5 One factor that Mr. Krewson put into the HEC-RAS models was the peak discharge of Elam Creek for the 100-year flood event.6 Mr. Krewson used the peak discharge of Elam Creek as 3,702 cfs in his first and third HEC-RAS run data.7 In the second HEC-RAS run data, which showed the impact of the Kroger store on the flooding at Kmart, Mr. Krewson used the peak discharge figure of 5,202 cfs, which represents the peak discharge at the intersection of Elam Creek and Turner Creek for the 100-year flood event.8 The inconsistency in the peak discharge used in the first and third runs and the peak discharge used in the second run led Mr. Krewson to incorrectly conclude in his Initial Report that the presence of the Kroger store caused a one-foot rise in the flooding at Kmart’s store during the May 2, 2010 flood.9 The peak discharge of 5,202 cfs should have been used in all three

4

Id.

5

Id. at 6-7.

6

See Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of John R. Krewson, attached as Exhibit “B,” at 116:12-

7

Id. at 117:3-5; see also Declaration of John R. Krewson, attached as Exhibit “C,” at ¶ 15.

15.

8 See Ex. B, Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of John. R. Krewson at 116:12-24; see also Ex. C, Declaration of John R. Krewson, ¶ 15.

9

Id. at 116:18-117:18.

3

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 4 of 22 PageID #: 6454

HEC-RAS runs because it accounts for the convergence between Elam Creek and Turner Creek.10 B.

Mr. Krewson’s Amended Flooding Evaluation dated July 23, 2013.

After being made aware of the mistake as to the flow capacity at his deposition on May 22, 2013, Mr. Krewson re-ran his models to address the error and prepared an Amended Flooding Evaluation dated July 23, 2013.11 Mr. Krewson found that, with the presence of the Kroger building only, there was a 1.1-foot rise in the flood compared to the benchmark model.12 With the presence of the Kmart building only, there was a rise of 1.0 feet relative to the benchmark model.13 With the Kmart and Kroger buildings combined, there was a rise of 0.9 feet relative to the benchmark model.14 Thus when Mr. Krewson used the corrected figures, he found that the presence of the Kroger store caused no significant difference in the rise of the flood at Kmart’s store.15 But Mr. Krewson recognized in his July 23, 2013 Amended Flooding Evaluation that a review of the flow and velocity data from the model show that the addition of the Kroger building reduced the overbank width of flow at the building and increased the average velocity of the flow of the water at the Kmart building.16 These conditions increased the exposure of the Kmart building

10

See Ex. C, Declaration of John R. Krewson at ¶ 17.

11

See John R. Krewson’s Amended Flooding Evaluation (Jul. 23, 2013), attached as Exhibit “D.”

12

Id. at 9.

13

Id.

14

Id.

15

Id.

16

Id.

4

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 5 of 22 PageID #: 6455

to flow water.17 In other words, without the presence of the Kroger building, the exterior of the Kmart store would only have been exposed to 1.0 foot of standing water; flowing water from the overbank would only have barely approached the Kmart store. (Water at the edge of a waterway often is more stationary, while the water closer to the center of the channel is flowing.) The addition of the Kroger building caused the Kmart store to become exposed to the rapidly flowing water, even though the water level did not rise signifcantly.18 Mr. Krewson states that it was reported that rapidly flowing water carrying debris along the back of the Kmart building resulted in damage to the rear door and that this was the cause of the water intruding into the Kmart building.19 This model corroborates eyewitness testimony that debris was pushed through the Kmart doors during the flood by flowing water.

In light of the inadvertent mistake contained in his Initial Report, Kmart sought leave to submit Mr. Krewson’s amended report. On July 25, 2013, Kmart filed its Motion for Leave to file the amended report of Mr. Krewson after Defendants objected to the submission of an amended report.20 A hearing was held in front of Magistrate Judge Sanders on August 15, 2013. On August 21, 2013, Magistrate Judge Sanders issued a ruling denying Kmart’s motion.21 On September 4,

17

Id.

18

Id.

19

Id.

20

See Rec. Doc. 176.

21

See Rec. Doc. 213.

5

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 6 of 22 PageID #: 6456

2013, Kmart filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Ruling.22 C.

Mr. Krewson’s Amended Flooding Evaluation dated October 11, 2013.

On September 27, 2013, after considering Kmart’s Objections, this Court ruled that it would consider an amendment of mathematical errors only for Mr. Krewson’s hydrology report.23 In preparing the proposed Amended Report in response to the Court’s Order, which was submitted on October 11, 2013,24 Mr. Krewson revised the HEC-RAS flow data and the flow data discrepancy that appeared in his Initial Report which was corrected from 3,702 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 5,202 cfs.25 Additionally, the Manning N values contained in Mr. Krewson’s Initial Report were also corrected to reflect the conditions of the channel of Elam Creek and the flooding depths occurring at the time of the loss to Kmart’s store in Corinth, Mississippi on May 2, 2010.26 Mr. Krewson’s proposed Amended Report pertains to re-calculated runs using the same scenarios described in his Initial Report dated September 20, 2013 and in his original modeling. The proposed Amended Report does not use the scenarios described in the first amended report dated July 23, 2013 and in that re-run modeling.

Mr. Krewson concludes in his proposed Amended Report that “A review of the flow and velocity data from the model show that the addition of the Kroger to the Kmart building reduced the overbank width of flow at the building by 193 feet and increased the average velocity of flow at the 22

See Rec. Doc. 227.

23

See Rec. Doc. 243.

24

See John R. Krewson’s second Amended Flooding Evaluation (Oct. 11, 2013), attached as Exhibit

25

Id. at 8; see also Ex. C, Declaration of John R. Krewson at ¶ 17.

26

Id.; see also Ex. C, Declaration of John R. Krewson at ¶ 18.

“E.”

6

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 7 of 22 PageID #: 6457

building by 16 percent.”27 Mr. Krewson also opines that “[p]rior to the addition of the Kroger building the Kmart building was essentially outside the active overbank flow of water.”28 Additionally, Mr. Krewson concludes that “[w]hen the Kroger building was added, the overbank flood overlapped the combined building by 129 feet, increasing the exposure of the building to flowing water.”29 Mr. Krewson’s opinions are entirely consistent with eyewitness testimony that rapidly flowing water carrying debris along the back of the Kmart building resulted in damage to the rear door and that this was the cause of the water intruding into the Kmart building.

II.

Law and Argument A.

Oral argument is not necessary.

Kmart does not agree with Defendants that oral argument on the instant motion is necessary.

The parties have engaged in extensive motion practice and participated in oral argument on this issue. After considering the arguments made by the parties regarding whether Kmart should be granted leave to file an amended report in light of the errors in Mr. Krewson’s Initial Report, this Court issued its September 27, 2013 Order that explicitly requested that Kmart submit a correction of the mathematical errors in Mr. Krewson’s Initial Report for this Court’s consideration. Thus the only issue remaining before this Court is whether Mr. Krewson’s Amended Report, which corrects the mathematical errors contained in his Initial Report, should be allowed. Kmart believes that its motion for leave can be decided on the briefs and without the necessity of oral argument.

27

See Ex. E, John R. Krewson’s second Amended Flooding Evaluation (Oct. 11, 2013) at 8-9.

28

Id. at 9.

29

Id.

7

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 8 of 22 PageID #: 6458

B.

Mr. Krewson’s October 11, 2013 Amended Report corrects the mathematical errors in his Initial Report in compliance with this Court’s September 27, 2013 Order.

1.

Mr. Krewson’s Amended Report corrects the flood flow rates as contemplated by this Court’s Order.

Inexplicably, Defendants suggest that Mr. Krewson’s correction of the flood flow rates in the Amended Report is not a mathematical correction as required by this Court’s Order. But the Court’s Order contemplates exactly that — a correction of the flood flow rates used by Mr. Krewson in his Initial Report. Kmart and Mr. Krewson discovered at his deposition that Mr. Krewson used inconsistent flow rates in his HEC-RAS runs for his Initial Report. Following that discovery, Kmart filed for leave to correct the error and amend Mr. Krewson’s report. The parties then engaged in extensive motion practice regarding the inconsistency as to the flood flow rates and whether Mr. Krewson should be permitted to correct that mistake and issue an amended report. Kmart believes that this Court, through its Order, expected that Kmart would correct the flood flow rates in the HEC-RAS models, which Kmart has done. Defendants can offer no other possible interpretation of this Court’s Order.

2.

Mr. Krewson’s use of inconsistent flow rates in his Initial Report was in error and was not a purposeful decision on the part of Mr. Krewson.

Kmart vehemently denies Defendants’ unfounded allegation that the inconsistency in the flood flow rates in the Initial Report was not a mistake on the part of Mr. Krewson. Neither Kmart nor Mr. Krewson became aware of the error until it was pointed out to Mr. Krewson by Defendants at Mr. Krewson’s deposition.30 The outrageous claim by Defendants that Mr. Krewson purposefully made an error in his HEC-RAS runs is both appalling and baseless.

30

See Ex. C, Declaration of John R. Krewson, at ¶14.

8

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 9 of 22 PageID #: 6459

When Mr. Krewson prepared the HEC-RAS models for the Initial Report, he prepared different flow files.31 In one flow file, he used 3,702 cfs as the flow rate.32 However, after independently checking the validity of the flow rate, he discovered that it was incorrect because the subject drainage area was larger than what was represented by the 3,702 cfs flow rate.33 He kept the separate steady flow spreadsheet containing the 3,702 cfs data in the overall model for use in the event the flow rate in Elam Creek, independent of the additional flow of Turner Creek, proved useful at some point in evaluating the site.34 According to Mr. Krewson, it is not unusual to maintain a number of different values and configurations in the HEC-RAS models.35 Indeed, the ability to model and compare alternate flow and geometric regimes is one of the strengths of the HEC-RAS program.36 After discovering that the 3,702 flow rate value was incorrect, he created another flow file using 5,202 cfs as the flow rate value.37 He performed independent calculations to confirm that 5,202 cfs flow value was the correct value to represent the site.38 When he ran the models, however, he inadvertently failed to change the 3,702 cfs flow rate value for each of the three runs to the 5,202

31

See id. at Âś19.

32

Id.

33

Id.

34

Id.

35

Id.

36

Id.

37

See id. at Âś20.

38

Id.

9

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 10 of 22 PageID #: 6460

cfs flow rate value.39 The use of inconsistent flow rates in the initial runs was in error and was not a conscious decision on Mr. Krewson’s part.40 Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are totally without merit and inconsistent with the arguments that they previously made to oppose Kmart’s motion for leave and to exclude Mr. Krewson from testifying as an expert witness.

3.

Mr. Krewson had to adjust the Manning N values for the Amended Report when he corrected the flood flow rates to maintain the reliability of the model.

Defendants take issue with Mr. Krewson’s adjustment of the Manning N values and argue that this adjustment is not a mathematical correction and that Kmart’s motion for leave should, therefore, be denied. But Mr. Krewson’s adjustment of the Manning N values became necessary when he corrected the flow rates for the three HEC-RAS runs to ensure that the model was reliable.

Defendants’ argument ignores that when running HEC-RAS models, if one value is changed, other values might also need to change to maintain the validity of the model.

When Mr. Krewson prepared the HEC-RAS models using the incorrect 3,702 cfs flow rate value, he used a Manning N value of 0.025 to represent a well-maintained Elam Creek Channel and a Manning N value of 0.04 to represent an overgrown Elam Creek channel.41 These Manning N values were selected based on the incorrect 3,702 cfs flow rate value.42 With the 3,702 flow rate value, these Manning N values allowed Mr. Krewson to calibrate the model and provided a flooding

39

Id.

40

Id.

41

See id. at ¶22.

42

Id.

10

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 11 of 22 PageID #: 6461

depth comparable to the 100-year flood in the FEMA’s 2009 Flood Insurance Study.43 He selected the Manning N values to be able to compare the effect of an overgrown Elam Creek channel and the effect of a well-maintained Elam Creek channel on the flooding at Kmart’s store.44 When Mr. Krewson corrected the flow rate values to 5,202 cfs for the Amended Report, the Manning N values that were used for the initial report ceased to be representative because they were developed to correlate with the lower flow rate of 3,702 cfs.45 Thus, he had to re-calibrate the model by adjusting the Manning N values based on the higher flow rate value of 5,202 cfs.46 He used a Manning N value of 0.04 to represent a well-maintained Elam Creek channel and a Manning N value of 0.14 to represent an overgrown Elam Creek channel.47 These Manning N values allowed him to calibrate the model and provided a flooding depth comparable to the 100-year flood in the FEMA’s 2009 Flood Insurance Study based on the higher flow rate value.48 The adjustment of the Manning N values were part of the corrections to the flood flow rates.

Mr. Krewson had to revise the values to correlate with the higher flow rate of 5,202 cfs to present a representative HEC-RAS model. The corrections to the flood flow rates and Manning N values comply with this Court’s Order requesting an amendment to the mathematical errors in Mr. Krewson’s Initial Report and Kmart’s motion for leave should therefore be granted.

43

Id.

44

Id.

45

See id. at ¶23.

46

Id.

47

Id.

48

Id.

11

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 12 of 22 PageID #: 6462

4.

The conclusions in Mr. Krewson’s Amended Report verify Kmart’s allegations against Defendants with respect to the Kroger store.

The Defendants argue that Kmart is using the Court’s Order as a way to author a new report and draw new conclusions. But Kmart merely followed this Court’s directive to “submit to the Court a proposed amendment of only mathematical errors in Krewson’s report.”49 In accordance with this Court’s Order, Mr. Krewson corrected the flow rate to 5,202 cfs and re-calculated the HEC-RAS runs using the same scenarios described in his Initial Report. When Mr. Krewson revised the flood flow rates, the results of the HEC-RAS models were, naturally, different from the results in the initial evaluation. After correcting the flow rate and calibrating the model by adjusting the Manning N values to reflect the higher flow rate, Mr. Krewson concluded that “a review of the flow and velocity data from the model show that the addition of the Kroger to the Kmart building reduced the overbank width of flow at the building by 193 feet and increased the average velocity of flow at the building by 16 percent.”50 Mr. Krewson’s conclusions do not, however, present a new claim against Defendants.

Indeed, from the outset of this litigation, Kmart has alleged that the location of the Kroger store “altered the water flow from standing water to a rushing, forceful water flow.”51 Mr. Krewson began amending his report to determine, using corrected figures, whether the Kroger store contributed to the flooding at the Kmart store. In the process, Mr. Krewson confirmed by reviewing the flow and velocity data from his models that the Kroger store reduced the overbank width of flow and

49

See Rec. Doc. 243.

50

See Ex. E, John R. Krewson’s second Amended Flooding Evaluation (Oct. 11, 2013) at 8-9.

51

See Rec. Doc. 1 at ¶ 16.

12

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 13 of 22 PageID #: 6463

increased the average velocity of the flow of the water at Kmart’s building, which increased the exposure of the Kmart building to flow water.52 The addition of the Kroger building caused the Kmart store to become exposed to the rapidly flowing water.53 The conclusions in Mr. Krewson’s Amended Report, therefore, do not constitute a new theory of causation or a new claim by Kmart, but merely correct data input and output, which also corroborates eyewitness testimony and the allegations already contained in Kmart’s Complaint.

Indeed, Mr. Krewson’s findings and conclusions are consistent with the applicable law, including both federal and state law as to floodways and floodplains. For example, the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance for the City of Corinth provides that “The flood hazards of City of Corinth are subject to period inundation which results in loss of life and property.” Additionally, the Ordinance provides that: These flood losses are caused by the cumulative effect of obstructions in floodplains causing increases in flood heights and velocities, and by the occupancy in flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to floods or hazards to other lands which are inadequately elevated, flood-proofed, or otherwise unprotected from flood damages.54 Additionally, Section 4.1 of the FEMA 2009 Flood Insurance Study for Alcorn County, Mississippi provides that “Encroachments on floodplains, such as structures and fill, reduces the flood carrying capacity, increases the flood heights and velocities and increases flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself.”55 In the proposed Amended Report, Mr. Krewson concludes

52

See Ex. E, John R. Krewson’s second Amended Flooding Evaluation (Oct. 11, 2013) at 8-9.

53

Id.

54

See Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Corinth 00006), attached as Exhibit “F.”

55

See 2009 Flood Insurance Study for Alcorn County, Mississippi at 8, attached as Exhibit “G.”

13

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 14 of 22 PageID #: 6464

that the presence of the Kroger store reduced the flooding width resulting increased velocities as anticipated by FEMA, increasing the flooding and impact on the Kmart store.56 As both the federal and state laws governing floodplains anticipated, encroachments such as the Kroger building in the floodplain could increase the height or velocities of flood waters.

It should be of no surprise to Defendants that when Mr. Krewson corrected the flood flow rates, the results and conclusions of his evaluation changed. But these new conclusions do not present new claims or allegations against Defendants. Rather, the proposed Amended Report confirms Kmart’s claims that the location of the Kroger store contributed to the flooding at Kmart’s store. Kmart has complied with this Court’s Order and should be granted leave to file the proposed Amended Report of Mr. Krewson.

C.

Mr. Krewson’s October 11, 2013 Amended Report is timely.

Defendants argue that Mr. Krewson’s report is untimely even though this Court issued an order directing Kmart to submit a revision of Mr. Krewson’s report that corrected the mathematical errors in his Initial Report. The parties have already fully briefed the issue of whether or not Mr. Krewson should be permitted to correct the errors in his Initial Report. After reviewing the briefs, this Court issued an order stating that it would consider an amendment of Mr. Krewson’s Initial Report and asked that Kmart provide that amendment by October 11, 2013. Kmart filed the instant motion for leave with Mr. Krewson’s report correcting the mathematical errors in his Initial Report on October 11, 2013. Defendants, therefore, cannot argue that the Amended Report is untimely because Kmart complied with this Court’s order and timely submitted the Amended Report on October 11, 2013.

56

See Ex. D, John R. Krewson’s second Amended Flooding Evaluation (Oct. 11, 2013) at 9.

14

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 15 of 22 PageID #: 6465

Moreover, while Kmart submitted the Amended Report of Mr. Krewson after the plaintiff’s discovery deadline, the Amended Report was submitted in accordance with this Court’s Order and with Rules 26(a)(2) and (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 26(a)(2) provides that each party must supplement its expert disclosures when required under Rule 26(e). Rule 26(e) provides that: For an expert whose report must be disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), the party’s duty to supplement extends both to information included in the report and to information given during the expert’s deposition. Any additions or changes to this information must be disclosed by the time the party’s pre-trial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are due.

Here, pre-trial disclosures are not due until approximately one week before the pre-trial conference, which is scheduled to take place on February 3, 2014.57 Thus, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and this Court’s Order, Kmart has timely filed the Amended Report of Mr. Krewson.

D.

Kmart has shown good cause for allowing the amendment of Mr. Krewson’s Initial Report.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) allows a scheduling order to be modified for good cause. To determine good cause, courts look at: (1) the explanation for the failure to meet the deadline; (2) the importance of the testimony; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the testimony; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.58 Kmart has shown good cause why Kmart should be permitted to amend Mr. Krewson’s report.

Kmart has adequately explained the reason for its failure to meet the expert designation deadline. Neither Kmart nor Mr. Krewson learned of the error in Mr. Krewson’s Initial Report until

57

See Notice of Final Pre-Trial Conference, Rec. Doc. 63.

58

Reliance Ins. Co. v. La. Land & Exploration Co., 110 F. 3d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 1997).

15

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 16 of 22 PageID #: 6466

Mr. Krewson’s deposition, by which time Kmart’s expert deadline had already expired. The peak discharge figure used in each of the three runs was merely one of numerous variables contained in HEC-RAS run spreadsheets. Moreover, the results of the initial HEC-RAS runs did not raise any suspicion regarding the accuracy of the runs because the finding that the Kroger store caused a onefoot rise in the flood level was consistent with FEMA’s determination that the Kroger store was in a floodway, which lent credibility to Mr. Krewson’s findings. Thus, there was no need for Mr. Krewson to re-examine or re-calculate his data between the time his report was voluntarily disclosed and the time he was deposed. Upon learning of the error at his deposition, Mr. Krewson immediately set to addressing the error and correcting his models to amend the Initial Report.

Kmart has also shown that an amendment to the Initial Report is vitally important to Kmart’s case. As recognized by Magistrate Judge Sanders, the error in the Initial Report was “serious and substantial”59 and “substantially undermines” Mr. Krewson’s report.60 Further, the magistrate judge found that the “error meant the difference between a reasoned theory of liability and no viable theory of liability relating to the alleged intrusion of the Kroger building into the floodway.”61 If Kmart is not permitted leave to file the proposed Amended Report, Kmart will be forced to rely on an inconsistent report even though the proposed Amended Report supports Kmart’s claim that the Kroger store’s presence in the floodway contributed to Kmart’s damages. Kmart should not be bound to provide incorrect data to the jury and should not be precluded from providing correct data to the jury when the error has been discovered and corrected months in advance of trial. The United

59

See Rec. Doc. 213, Order Denying Motion at 4.

60

Id. at 1.

61

Id. at 5.

16

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 17 of 22 PageID #: 6467

States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that “[t]he goal of grand jury proceedings, of criminal trials, and of civil trials is to resolve a dispute by gathering the facts and arriving at the truth.”62 Further, “virtually every judicial inquiry begins with the goal of developing the facts. The basis of justice is the truth and our system frowns upon impediments to ascertaining the truth.”63 Therefore, the importance of the Amended Report to Kmart’s prosecution of the case requires that Kmart be granted leave to file the report.

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Qore, Inc.,64 a decision rendered by this Court, Chief Judge Mills found, “This Court is no position to hold that experts can never make mistakes. When a mistake is discovered and fixed it advances the cause of justice.”65 In Qore, the plaintiff’s expert initially included the value of a fuel island canopy and store tank in his appraisal report and later removed them.66 The defendant argued that this error, along with other alleged problems associated with the plaintiff’s expert’s report, rendered the expert’s testimony unreliable and inadmissible.67 While this Court acknowledged those problems and found that the defendant’s counsel would certainly “illuminate these for the jury,”68 this Court found that the problems do not rise to the level

62

Johnston v. Harris County Flood Control Dist., 869 F.2d 1565, 1578 (5th Cir. 1989).

63

In re Dinnan, 661 F.2d 426, 427 (5th Cir. 1981).

64

See 2009 WL 224908 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 28, 2009) (Mills, J.) (emphasis added).

65

Id. at *4.

66

Id.

67

Id.

68

Id. 17

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 18 of 22 PageID #: 6468

to prevent the expert from testifying. Here, Mr. Krewson’s Amended Report advances the cause of justice.

Kmart has shown that the Defendants would not be seriously prejudiced if Kmart is allowed to amend the Initial Report. The Amended Report does not assert any new theory of causation against any defendant. Rather, Mr. Krewson’s Amended Report corrects a mathematical error in his HEC-RAS runs. Once Mr. Krewson input the corrected figures, the output changed, such as water depth and velocity of water. The theory that the Defendants’ presence in the floodway and failure to mitigate that presence, however, has not changed. Further, Kmart is not seeking to amend the report simply because Mr. Krewson’s deposition did not go well, as suggested by the Defendants.

The deposition revealed a mathematical error that, once brought to his attention, Mr. Krewson set out to correct. The Amended Report merely confirms what has been Kmart’s theory of causation all along — that the presence of the Kroger store in the floodway contributed to the flood damage at Kmart’s store.

Moreover, Defendants’ experts would have to re-run their models regardless of whether Kmart is permitted to amend Mr. Krewson’s report because their reports also rely on incorrect figures. Thus, the conclusions in those reports are unreliable. Notably, Defendants’ experts, though they criticize Mr. Krewson’s model, do not themselves know the correct peak discharge figure to apply to determine the potential impact of the Kroger store. Mr. James Monohan, the hydrological expert hired by Fulton, Kroger, and E&A, testified that he did not know the correct peak discharge flow rate because he did not perform any modeling: Q:

And you say that the 100-year flow rate, 5202 cubic feet per second is inflated. Right?

18

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 19 of 22 PageID #: 6469

A:

I believe I did say that.

Q:

Okay. And you say that on page 6?

A:

Okay. Yes.

Q:

But that’s not correct. Right?

A:

Well, it’s inflated above the 100-year flood value for the other two runs.

Q:

Well, but it’s not correct that 5202 cubic feet per second is an inflated 100-year flow rate. Right?

A:

I have to ask you to restate that. I’m sorry.

Q:

5202 cubic feet per second is the correct flow rate for the 100-year storm at Elam Creek, where the Kmart-Kroger site, near the Kmart-Kroger site. Right?

A:

No. That’s not my position at all.

Q:

That’s not your position?

A:

No.

Q:

You disagree with Blake Mendrop of Kansas City Southern Railway Company?

Q:

Okay. Mr. Mendrop testified yesterday and also said in his report that 4900 cubic feet per second is the correct flow rate for that area.

Do you disagree with Mr. Mendrop?

A:

I don’t agree or disagree. I don’t know. I personally don’t know what the correct flow rate is because I haven’t done any modeling.

Q:

So you’re criticizing Mr. Krewson for using inconsistent flow rates, but you, yourself, don’t know which flow rate is the right one?

A:

No, I don’t know which one is the right one. I don’t know which one best matches what actually happened during the flood event of

19

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 20 of 22 PageID #: 6470

May 2nd, 2010.69 Importantly, none of the experts hired by the remaining defendants actually performed any modeling to determine the impact of the Kroger store on the flooding at the Kmart store. Mr. Monohan admitted as much in his deposition.70 Although KCSR’s expert, Blake Mendrop, performed modeling to determine the impact of a debris field under the KCSR bridge on flooding at Kmart, he did not model the impact of the Kroger store. Defendants make much hay about the amount of time spent by Mr. Krewson to prepare the Amended Report, but ignore that the amount of time largely included Mr. Krewson’s work in performing model runs to correctly measure the impact of the Kroger store on the flooding at the Kmart store. It will not take the Defendants’ experts near the amount of time it took Mr. Krewson to prepare the models because the Defendants’ experts have not, and likely will not, perform any of their own modeling with relation to the impact of the Kroger store.

Additionally, there is no reason that the Defendants would have to seek out, hire, and pay new experts as a result of Mr. Krewson’s Amended Report. As Defendants have already designated hydrological experts in this matter, the case of Reliance v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co.71 cited

by Defendants is distinguishable. Unlike the defendants in Reliance, the defendants here have retained experts.72 There is no need for the Defendants to incur costs to retain new experts. The Defendants’ designated experts are already fully aware of the issues in this matter and of the errors

69

See Excerpts to Deposition of James Monohan, attached as Exhibit “H,” at 77:19 - 79:10.

70

See id.

71

110 F. 3d 253 (5th Cir. 1997).

72

Id.

20

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 21 of 22 PageID #: 6471

in Mr. Krewson’s Initial Report. It will not take the designated experts near the amount of time it might take new experts to review and respond to Mr. Krewson’s Amended Report.

Kmart also does not believe that the Defendants should incur significant costs to respond to Mr. Krewson’s report. Several of the Defendants have retained experts jointly and are presumably splitting the costs of those experts. Further, in an effort to reduce costs, Kmart has offered to permit the defendants to depose Mr. Krewson at a location convenient to the Defendants and at Kmart’s expense. Kmart is willing to schedule Mr. Krewson’s deposition at the same time the depositions for the Defendants’ engineering experts are scheduled to minimize the costs associated with those depositions. Defendants, therefore, would not be seriously prejudiced if Kmart were allowed to amend Mr. Krewson’s report.

Finally, this Court acknowledged in its September 27, 2013 Order that if Kmart is granted leave to file the Amended Report of Mr. Krewson, it may become necessary to continue pre-trial and trial deadlines. Trial is scheduled to commence on February 24, 2014. The West v. Drury case cited

by Defendants for the proposition that while a continuance might cure the situation, when there is no compelling explanation for the failure to timely file the report and there is potential for prejudice, a continuance should not be granted is distinguishable.73 In Drury, the court held that the plaintiff provided “no compelling reason as to why he failed to provide these opinions before the plaintiff’s expert deadline” and declined to allow the plaintiff to supplement its expert’s testimony.74 Here, Kmart has provided a compelling explanation for the failure to timely file the Amended Report and has shown that the Defendants would not be seriously prejudiced if the Amended Report is allowed.

73

2008 WL 5169682, *3 (N.D. Miss. 12/9/08).

74

Id. at *3.

21

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 22 of 22 PageID #: 6472

A continuance would cure any potential prejudice and should be granted if the parties are otherwise unable to meet the case deadlines.

III.

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Kmart respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion for

Leave to File the Amended Report of John R. Krewson pursuant to this Court’s September 27, 2013 order.

This the 18th day of November, 2013.

/s/ Ryan O. Luminais ____________________________________ JAMES M. GARNER (La. Bar. No. 19589) JOHN T. BALHOFF, II (La. Bar. No. 24288) RYAN O. LUMINAIS (Miss. Bar. No. 101871) SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, Twenty-eighth Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: (504) 299-2100 Facsimile: (504) 299-2300 ATTORNEYS FOR KMART CORPORATION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been served on all known counsel of record with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send-email notification to all known counsel of record, this 18th day of November, 2013.

/s/ Ryan O. Luminais _________________________________________ RYAN O. LUMINAIS

22

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 1 of 23 PageID #: 6473

EXHIBIT

A

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 2 of 23 PageID #: 6474

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 3 of 23 PageID #: 6475

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 4 of 23 PageID #: 6476

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 5 of 23 PageID #: 6477

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 6 of 23 PageID #: 6478

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 7 of 23 PageID #: 6479

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 8 of 23 PageID #: 6480

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 9 of 23 PageID #: 6481

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 10 of 23 PageID #: 6482

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 11 of 23 PageID #: 6483

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 12 of 23 PageID #: 6484

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 13 of 23 PageID #: 6485

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 14 of 23 PageID #: 6486

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 15 of 23 PageID #: 6487

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 16 of 23 PageID #: 6488

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 17 of 23 PageID #: 6489

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 18 of 23 PageID #: 6490

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 19 of 23 PageID #: 6491

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 20 of 23 PageID #: 6492

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 21 of 23 PageID #: 6493

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 22 of 23 PageID #: 6494

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-1 Filed: 11/18/13 23 of 23 PageID #: 6495

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-2 Filed: 11/18/13 1 of 4 PageID #: 6496

EXHIBIT

B

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-2 Filed: 11/18/13 2 of 4 PageID #: 6497

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-2 Filed: 11/18/13 3 of 4 PageID #: 6498

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-2 Filed: 11/18/13 4 of 4 PageID #: 6499

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-3 Filed: 11/18/13 1 of 7 PageID #: 6500

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION KMART CORPORATION, Plaintiff CIV. ACT. NO. 1:11-CV-103-GHD-DAS versus THE KROGER CO., et al.

Defendants DECLARATION OF JOHN R. KREWSON STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF COBB In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, John R. Krewson, state the following: 1.

My name is John R. Krewson.

2.

I obtained a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville in 1971.

3.

I am a registered professional engineer with thirty-five years of experience in the public and private sector in planning, project management, engineering design, and loss evaluation.

4.

I have prepared the designs and provided construction management for over one thousand engineering projects, including comprehensive high schools, middle and elementary schools, hospital additions, churches, multifamily and single family residential developments, and commercial and industrial projects.

5.

I am licensed as a professional engineer in the States of Georgia (PE# 10228) and Florida (PE#68675).

EXHIBIT

C

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-3 Filed: 11/18/13 2 of 7 PageID #: 6501

6.

I have civil engineering design and construction experience in grading, storm drainage, detention and hydrology, street and highways, parking lots, sanitary sewers, water systems, dam and reservoir designs, and erosion control.

7.

I have structural design and construction experience utilizing steel, concrete, and wood for both single and multi-level structures, including pre-engineered buildings, foundations, slabs, and retaining walls.

8.

I have extensive experience with hydrology related software and programs, including AutoCad Land Desk Top, AutoCAD Civil 3D, and Hydraflow engineering design software; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC-1, HEC-2, HEC-RAS, Check-RAS software; and RISA3D structural design software.

9.

I am also experienced in the fields of constructions and land surveying.

10.

I have been retained by Kmart Corporation to act as a expert witness in this case as to the cause and/or contributing factors of the flood and/or water damage to the Kmart Store #4883 located at 118 Highway 72 West, Corinth, Mississippi.

11.

My original expert report in this matter was submitted to counsel for Kmart on or around September 20, 2012. My understanding is that it was then submitted to counsel for the defendants on or around October 4, 2012.

12.

Additionally, on April 2013, I submitted the HEC-RAS data that I used to prepare my original report to Kmart’s counsel in responding to a written discovery request from one of the defendants.

13.

On May 22, 2013, I was deposed by counsel for the defendants in Jackson, Mississippi.

2

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-3 Filed: 11/18/13 3 of 7 PageID #: 6502

14.

During that deposition, I discovered for the first time that my report and findings contained a mistake that affected the finding and conclusions contained within my original report dated September 20, 2012.

15.

Specifically, my HEC-RAS run data, which showed the impact of the Kroger building on the flooding at the Kmart building, incorrectly compared two peak discharges. In my first and third HEC-RAS run data, I incorrectly used the peak discharge of 3,702 cubic feet per second (cfs). This figure represents the peak discharge of Elam Creek for the 100-year flood event as contained in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 2009 Flood Insurance Study for Alcorn County.

In my second HEC-RAS run data, I used the correct peak discharge figure of 5,202 cfs, which represents the peak discharge at the intersection of Elam Creek and Turner Creek for the 100-year flood event according to FEMA’s 2009 Flood Insurance Study for Alcorn County.

16.

This led me to mistakenly originally conclude that the presence of the Kroger building caused a one foot rise in the flooding at Kmart’s store on May 2, 2010.

17.

In re-running the models for my latest Amended Flooding Evaluation dated October 11, 2013, I corrected the flow-rate of Elam Creek from 3,702 cubic feet per second to 5,202 cubic feet per second, which is the correct flow-rate to use in the modeling because it accounts for the convergence between Elam Creek and Turner Creek.

18.

Additionally, in my latest Amended Flooding Evaluation dated October 11, 2013, the Manning’s N values contained in my original Flooding Evaluation dated September 20, 2012 were corrected to reflect the conditions of the channel of Elam Creek and 3

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-3 Filed: 11/18/13 4 of 7 PageID #: 6503

the flooding depths occurring at the time of the loss to Kmart’s store in Corinth, Mississippi on May 2, 2010.

19.

When I prepared the HEC-RAS models for my original expert report, I prepared different flow files. In one flow file, I used 3,702 cfs as the flow rate. However, after independently checking the validity of the flow rate, I discovered that it was incorrect because the subject drainage area was larger than what was represented by the 3,702 cfs flow rate. I kept the separate steady flow spreadsheet containing the 3,702 cfs data in the overall model for use in the event the flow rate in Elam Creek, independent of the additional flow of Turner Creek, proved useful at some point in evaluating the site. It is not unusual to maintain a number of different values and configurations in the HEC-RAS models. The ability to model and compare alternate flow and geometric regimes is one of the strengths of the HEC-RAS program.

20.

After discovering that the 3,702 flow rate value was incorrect, I created another flow file using 5,202 cfs as the flow rate value. I performed independent calculations to confirm that 5,202 cfs flow value was the correct value to represent the site.

21.

When I ran the models, however, I inadvertently failed to change the 3,702 cfs flow rate value for each of the three runs to the 5,202 cfs flow rate value. The use of inconsistent flow rates in the initial runs was in error and was not a conscious decision on my part.

22.

When I prepared the HEC-RAS models using the incorrect 3,702 cfs flow rate value, I used a Manning N value of 0.025 to represent a well-maintained Elam Creek Channel and a Manning N value of 0.04 to represent an overgrown Elam Creek 4

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-3 Filed: 11/18/13 5 of 7 PageID #: 6504

channel. These Manning N values were selected based on the incorrect 3,702 cfs flow rate value. With the 3,702 flow rate value, these Manning N values allowed me to calibrate the model and provided a flooding depth comparable to the 100-year flood in the Federal Emergency Management’s Agency 2009 Flood Insurance Study.

I selected the Manning N values to be able to compare the effect of an overgrown Elam Creek channel and the effect of a well-maintained Elam Creek channel on the flooding at Kmart’s store.

23.

When I corrected the flow rate values to 5,202 cfs for the amended report, the Manning N values that were used for the initial report ceased to be representative because they were developed to correlate with the lower flow rate of 3,702 cfs. Thus, I had to re-calibrate the model by adjusting the Manning N values based on the higher flow rate value of 5,202 cfs. I used a Manning N value of 0.04 to represent a wellmaintained Elam Creek channel and o Manning N value of 0.14 to represent an overgrown Elam Creek channel. These Manning N values allowed me to calibrate the model and provided a flooding depth comparable to the 100-year flood in the Federal Emergency Management’s Agency 2009 Flood Insurance Study based on the higher flow rate value.

24.

In my latest Amended Flooding Evaluation dated October 11, 2013, I made the following conclusions: (a)

The draining basin upstream from the Kmart site received rainfall that appears to approximate the 1-percent annual chance rainfall event (100 year storm). Using the FEMA 1-percent annual chance (100 year) flow data, and 5

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-3 Filed: 11/18/13 6 of 7 PageID #: 6505

using a model with an overgrown channel similar to that existing at the time of the flood, flooding in Elam Creek exceeds the FEMA 1-percent annual chance (100 year flood) elevation and approaches the actual depths of flooding at the building reported. The presence of the Kroger store increased the impact and depth of flooding during the flood event of May 2, 2010 and caused damage to Kmart. (b)

The presence of the Kroger in the FEMA floodway reduced the flooding width resulting in increased velocities as anticipated by FEMA, increasing the depth of flooding and impact on the Kmart store in Corinth, Mississippi.

(c)

The lack of maintenance of the creek channel, coupled with obstructions and debris in the channel increased the depth of flooding and caused increased damage to the Kmart during the flood event of May 2, 2010.

(d)

Filling in the low area behind the Kmart and Kroger stores reduced the flood storage volume and likely increased the depth of flooding damage to Kmart.

(e)

Despite the location of the building in a large and documented floodplain and floodway, no actions such as caulking and waterproofing the exterior walls, or construction of a protective membrane around the building were done to protect the building.

(f)

In my opinion, had the creek channel been maintained, had building construction in FEMA’s regulatory floodway been restricted, had the area behind the Kroger and Kmart stores not been filled, and had the building been protected by waterpoofing, the Kmart store would not have flooded, or had 6

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-3 Filed: 11/18/13 7 of 7 PageID #: 6506

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 1 of 25 PageID #: 6507

Amended Flooding Evaluation

Kmart # 4883 118 Highway 72 West Corinth, Mississippi 38834

Prepared For:

0112

Mr. John T. Balhoff, II Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, Twenty-eighth Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

EFI Global Job No: 98340-08794

July 23, 2013

Prepared By: EFI Global, Inc. 3039 Premiere Parkway Suite 700 Duluth, GA 30097

EXHIBIT

D

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 2 of 25 PageID #: 6508

3039 Premiere Parkway Suite 700 Duluth, GA 30097 Tel: 770-925-9600 Tel: 800-245-9601 Fax: 770-925-9649 www.efiglobal.com

July 23, 2013 Mr. John T. Balhoff, II Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, Twenty-eighth Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

Re:

Amended Flooding Evaluation Kmart # 4883 118 Highway 72 West Corinth, Mississippi 38834 EFI Global JN: 98340-08794

Dear Mr. Balhoff: Please find our amended report related to the flooding of Kmart store # 4883 at 118 Highway 72 West, in Corinth, Mississippi. This report re-calculates the HEC-RAS results shown in the original report of September 20, 2012. The HEC-RAS results used in the September 20, 2012 report were based on an inadvertent flow data discrepancy in the HEC-RAS model. The revised HEC-RAS model herein is expanded to review additional flooding scenarios at the site.

This amendment also discusses and utilizes information concerning the Kmart Store # 4883 site that was not available for review at the time the September 20, 2012 report was submitted. The additional information includes the original construction plans for the site, debris at the railroad bridge, and the LOMR, LOMA, and Elevation Certificates approved at the site.

For the purposes of this report, the front of Kmart store # 4883, hereinafter also referred to as Kmart, will be the side of the store facing the intersection of Highway 72 West and South Fulton Drive. Directions right and left will be based on a viewer facing Kmart from this intersection. Using this convention, the right side of the store faces South Fulton Drive, the left side of the store faces Highway 72 West, and the rear of the store faces State Street.

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 3 of 25 PageID #: 6509

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

Background: The Kmart store is a large retail store located in a shopping center at the corner of Highway 72 West and South Fulton Drive in Corinth, Mississippi (Figure 1). The building housing the Kmart store has slab on grade, open plan, warehouse type construction with at-grade parking abutting the store on the front. Paved driveways are on the left side and rear of the store. The building housing Kmart also houses a Kroger Grocery store as a continuation of the building to the right of the Kmart. Both the Kmart and the Kroger stores were constructed in 1992 as a part of the overall development of the retail center. The two stores have the same floor elevation and share parking.

The overall Kmart-Kroger retail center is a 16.29 acre tract located in a low area adjacent to Elam Creek, a large creek to the right of South Fulton Drive flowing north to south towards Highway 72 West. Parking for the Kmart and Kroger stores is at grade. Storm water runoff from the parking lot in front of the stores is collected in drop inlets and carried across South Fulton Drive in an underground pipe system to an existing detention facility located to the right of the site between South Fulton Drive and Elam Creek. Grades on the site are flat.

Roof drainage for the Kmart and Kroger stores is provided by gutters and downspouts on the rear of the store buildings. The downspouts discharge onto splash blocks at grade with the asphalt pavements behind the stores. Runoff from pavement behind the stores drains away from the stores across the paving to the rear curb. The runoff is collected and discharged by several flumes through the curb into an existing ditch draining left to right parallel to the curb behind the buildings.

Flow in the ditch is collected, along with runoff from the large grassed area behind the site, into a headwall for a 60 inch outfall storm drain.

The 60 inch headwall is located approximately between the Kroger and the Kmart stores, behind the rear curb of the parking lot behind the stores. The 60 inch outfall pipe runs from the headwall back towards the building to a drop inlet in the pavement behind the Kroger store. From this inlet, the pipe runs to the right behind the Kroger store through a series of drop inlets and then across South Fulton Drive. The location of the outfall headwall for the 60 inch pipe once it crosses South Fulton Drive could not be determined. Based on the location of the existing buildings to the right of South Fulton Drive and an inspection of Elam Creek in the area, it is believed the pipe turns and runs parallel to South Fulton Drive toward Highway 72 West and eventually discharges into the existing detention facility noted above.

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 4 of 25 PageID #: 6510

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

Flooding Event: According to weather records on WeatherWarehouse.com, rain began falling in the Corinth area during the late evening of May 1, and the early morning of May 2, 2010.

By 5:00 a.m., the records for Corinth show that 5.68 inches of rain had fallen. As the morning progressed, water began rising rapidly around the Kmart. According to the store manager, Mr. Matt Hausmann, water was building up and flowing along the rear of the building, putting stress on the rear doors of the store. Eventually, landscape timbers stored on site struck the doors with enough force to break open the doors, lodge in the opening, and allow water to flood into the store. The quantity of water overwhelmed the staff’s ability to control it. According to Mr. Hausmann, the water in the parking lot around the building was measured at a depth of 22 inches by City of Corinth employees. Photographs taken in the Kmart store show a water depth of approximately 1.5 feet. Mr. Hausmann stated that there was a similar depth of water in both the Kmart and the Kroger store. The water caused considerable damage to the buildings and the inventory of the both the Kmart and Kroger stores.

The flooding in 2010 is very similar to flooding events that occurred on October 13, 2001 and November 18, 2001 as outlined in a report prepared by the engineering firm of Reaves Sweeney Marcom of Memphis, Tenn.

Weather Data: The records for the area found on WeatherWarehouse.com show a rainfall event occurring overnight and during the morning of May 2, 2010 for the northern Mississippi and western Tennessee areas. Although hourly records for the area were not available, a review of the daily recording times and the pattern of rainfall distribution on area weather stations show that between 6 and 13 inches of rainfall fell during the period prior to 8:00 a.m., with the higher rainfall events occurring north of Corinth with Corinth being approximately on the southern extent of the heavy rainfall. Weather stations 10 or more miles south of Corinth and the Kmart site show relatively light rainfall accumulation, with the amount of rainfall recorded increasing with distance north of Corinth.

Because Elam Creek, the creek that flooded the site, heads up approximately 6 miles north of the site and flows south to the site, the pattern of increased rainfall amounts north of the site increased the flooding impact on the Kmart site. Based on NOAA Technical Paper 40 for the Corinth area, the 24 hour 100 year rainfall event is 7.6 inches. Based on the weather records, it appears that the storm of May 2, 2010 may have approached the 100 year rainfall amount.

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 5 of 25 PageID #: 6511

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

FEMA Flooding Data: The current FEMA Firm Panel for the site, panel 28003C0067 (Figure 3), shows that the majority of the site area, including all of the Kmart and the Kroger building, is located in the designated flood limits of Elam Creek. Elam Creek is large tributary creek having an upstream drainage area of over 6 square miles draining to the site of the Kmart building. At the store site, the creek has a large, well developed flood zone designated on the FIRM panel as an AE zone. AE zones are studied zones having established base flood elevations. The Firm Panel also shows an area along both banks of the creek that is designated as the regulatory floodway for the creek.

According to the FIRM panel, approximately one half of the Kroger store is located in both the floodplain and also in the area FEMA has designated as being the regulatory floodway. The Kmart store is located in the floodplain only.

According to a Letter of Map Revision issued for the site in 2005, the 100 year flood elevation for the building is 432.4. An Elevation Certificate for the site prepared on November 11, 2001 places the finished floor elevation of the building at 433.0, 0.6 feet above the elevation of the FEMA 100 year flood elevation. Based on an as-built survey prepared for the site as a part of this report, the exterior grades along the perimeter of the building vary from 431.8 and 432.2, meaning the lowest adjacent grades around the building are below the flood elevation. A review of the FEMA historic FIRM records determined that the flood elevation of Elam Creek is unchanged on the current FIRM from the 100 year flood elevations at the time of construction of the building. Typically, standard design and permitting practice require building floor elevations in flood prone areas, especially in designated flood areas to be at least 3.0 feet above the 100 year flooding elevation. In the case of the Kmart and the Kroger, this would place the floor elevations at 435.4, 2.4 feet higher than the actual floor elevation. Had the building been constructed with a floor elevation of 435.4, flooding would not have occurred during the storm of 2010. The review of the elevation of the building relative to the flood elevation would typically have been the responsibility of the City of Corinth building authorities.

The location of the Kroger in the floodway is a concern. As noted, approximately one half of the Kroger was built in the floodway for Elam Creek. A review of aerial photography and the current FIRM for the site shows that a number of other buildings were also built in the floodway. According to records I have examined, the floodway shown on current FIRM is unchanged from the floodway shown on the prior FIRM panel, prior to the construction of the building. FEMA’s 2009 Flood Insurance Study for Alcorn County and Incorporated Areas, states:

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 6 of 25 PageID #: 6512

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

“Encroachment on floodplains, such as structures and fill, reduces the flood carrying capacity, increases the flood heights and velocities, and increases flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of floodplain management involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain development against the resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the NFIP, a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in this aspect of floodplain management. Under this concept, the area of the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain is divided into a floodway and a floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1percent-annual-chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. Minimum Federal standards limit such increases to 1.0 foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. The floodways in this study are presented to local agencies as minimum standards that can be adopted directly or can be used as a basis for additional floodway studies.”

Simply put, floodwaters must have an open, unobstructed flowing pathway along a creek. If earth fill or buildings or other structures are built in the flow pathway floodwaters rise and move faster and cause greater damage. When FEMA prepares their maps, they calculate what a reasonable flow pathway should be and show it as the “Floodway” on their maps. It is the responsibility of the cities and counties that issue building permits to enforce the restriction and make sure that the floodway is not blocked.

The difference between the areas on the FEMA maps called the “Floodway” and the areas called the “Floodplain” is that nothing can be built in the “Floodway”, while careful construction is allowed in the “Floodplain” areas. The Kmart store is built entirely in the “Floodplain.” Approximately one half of the Kroger store is built in the “Floodway”, obstructing the flow of floodwater down the creek.

The construction of the Kroger and other structures in the known floodway of Elam Creek increases the flood heights and potential for flooding, as well as for increased velocities, both of the factors involved in the flooding of the Kmart store. It is not known what regularity review was in place at the time the Kroger and other buildings were constructed in the floodway, but as the above quote from the Flood Insurance Study states, it is the responsibility of the local governing authority to control and prevent construction in the floodway. According to the August 30, 2010 volume of the “Federal Register”, Corinth, Mississippi, and Alcorn County, Mississippi were among the jurisdictions subject to suspension of community eligibility under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for non-compliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program.

A review of the “Existing Conditions Plan” sheet C-2 dated 03/09/1992 from the original construction plans for the site prepared by Prime Engineering found the

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 7 of 25 PageID #: 6513

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

elevation and location of the floodplain, and the location of the floodway to be substantially different from the floodplain and floodway shown on the FEMA FIRM panel for the area at the time. The floodway on the plans is shown south of Fulton Drive. The floodplain elevation on the plan sheet is approximately 430.8 which is 1.6 feet below the FEMA FIRM flood elevation shown on 1981 FIRM in force at the time.

The derivation of the floodplain and floodway data shown on the plans is unknown.

Although the Kroger and other structures along Elam Creek were constructed in the floodway without restriction, a review of FEMA’s records found that a “Letter of Map Revision” or LOMR was issued by FEMA in November 18, 2005, removing the Kroger property from the floodway due to “Inadvertent Inclusion in the Floodway 1”.

The records do not indicate how the LOMR originated, or what studies, review or public notice was given prior to issuance. FEMA regulations require a flood study be done to determine the impact of the encroachment on flood elevations and velocities.

The studies are submitted to FEMA for review and approval. No record was found of such a study. Issuance also requires that other affected property owners along the creek be notified, and public notice be made. No record of this was found. Once the studies and public notice are complete, the local governing and review agency responsible for flood management and oversight makes a final review of the LOMR and recommends approval. No record of this was found.

Prior to the issuance of the FEMA’s Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) in 2005, other prior efforts had been made regarding the location of the buildings in the floodplain and floodway. Also in 2005, a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) was issued for the site. An Elevation Certificate was issued by FEMA in 2001.

Note: The issuance of the LOMR, LOMA, and Elevation Certificate would have no impact on the physical presence of the buildings in the floodway or floodplain, or on the potential for flooding in any given flood event. These instruments would serve to reduce the cost of flood insurance for the buildings. The buildings are still shown in the floodplain and the floodway on the 2010 FEMA FIRM map for the site.

Along with the placement of the Kroger and other structures in the regulatory floodway, several other conditions that would increase the flood elevations on the site were noted along the creek and in the floodplain at the time of the initial inspection: 

Southeast of the Kmart near Highway 72, at the point where Kansas Southern Railroad’s north-south railroad line crosses Elam Creek on a timber bridge, a considerable debris field was noted upstream of the bridge. The debris blocked approximately the lower quarter of the bridge opening. Mr. David Huwe, the Director of Community Development and Planning for the City of Corinth stated during an interview in his office that the railroad had a poor

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 8 of 25 PageID #: 6514

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

record of maintenance and that the debris at the railroad bridge had been an ongoing problem for some time prior to the flood event.

A picture of the flooded railroad bridge not available at the time of our initial report shows the bridge to be completely underwater. In the picture, there is no debris field floating upstream of the bridge. For the debris found behind the bridge at the time of our inspection to have resulted from debris floating downstream during the storm, there would have be a considerable amount of floating debris trapped behind the bridge when the water level dropped. The lack of a floating debris field in the picture indicates that the debris found behind the bridge after the flood were present prior to the flooding. Since they did not rise and float off during the flood, they apparently were present for a long enough time to become embedded behind the bridge.

Pictures taken during our initial investigation (Figure19 thru 21) show a debris field upstream of the ridge on the floor of the creek. It was noted during the field survey done in August, 2010, approximately 3 months after the initial inspection, that the debris field had been removed. It is not known who cleaned up the debris. Pictures taken April 28, 2011 by others show another, larger debris field upstream of the bridge. 

A bridge for an abandoned railroad spur crossing Elam Creek remains in place with narrowly spaced abutments obstructing the creek channel.



The creek channel was badly overgrown with vegetation and poorly maintained. Near the spur railroad bridge noted above, utility and sanitary sewer pipes crossing the channel were apparently abandoned in place, obstructing the channel.



The approximately 4.5 acre grassed field immediately behind the Kmart and Kroger building was originally a number of feet lower in elevation. According to Mr. Huwe with the City of Corinth, the city filled the area over time with excess earth material from various projects around the city. Evidence that dumping of excess fill was still underway was found at the time of the initial inspection of the area (Figure 10). Filling the area reduced the flood storage and flood protection for the Kmart and Kroger building.

The report on the 2001 flooding by Reaves Sweeney Marcom noted above discussed the Elam Creek channel blockage, overgrown channel, and the railroad crossing and utility line impacts on the flooding.

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 9 of 25 PageID #: 6515

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

HEC-RAS Flood Studies: To determine the impact of the Kroger encroachment and general conditions of the flood hazard at the time of the May 2, 2010 flood, we prepared a preliminary HECRAS evaluation for the site using as-built survey data and the flows for the area listed in FEMA’s 2009 Flood Insurance Study. As noted there was a discrepancy in this preliminary initial report. Conflicting flow data was used in preparing the model. This conflict resulted in a conclusion in the report that placement of the Kroger store in the floodway caused a rise in the flood of 1.0 feet. The original study also compared the overgrown existing Elam creek channel with a theoretical well maintained channel and concluded that there would be a 2.0 foot drop in the water surface if the creek channel were well maintained.

For this amendment, the HEC-RAS flow data was revised and the flow data discrepancy was corrected. A new HEC-RAS model was prepared. In this new model three profiles were run. The initial profile was for the site assuming the Kmart and Kroger building were never built and the grades were at the surveyed elevation at the exterior of the building. This profile was used as a benchmark model. A second profile was run based on an unobstructed floodway with a channel having only light brush and weeds. This profile produced 100 year flood elevations on the site comparable with those shown in the 2009 Flood Insurance Study, and on the FEMA FIRM panel. The second profile was run with the Kroger building only, the Kmart building alone, and the combined Kmart- Kroger building.

The model of the second profile with only the Kroger building determined that a rise of 1.10 feet occurred relative to the benchmark, slightly higher than the rise predicted

by FEMA’s floodway calculation. The model of the Kmart building found a rise of 1.0 feet relative to the benchmark. The model of the Kmart-Kroger building also found a rise of 0.9 relative to the benchmark.

Although the above calculations appear to indicate that the addition of the Kroger building to the Kmart building had no impact on the Kmart building, a review of the flow and velocity data from the model found that the addition of the Kroger to the Kmart building reduced the overbank width of flow at the building by 209 feet and increased the average velocity of flow at the building by 20 percent. Prior to the addition of the Kroger building the Kmart building was essentially outside the active overbank flow of water. When the Kroger building was added, the overbank flow overlapped the combined building by 114 feet, increasing the exposure of the building to flowing water. Rapidly flowing water carrying debris along the back of the Kmart building that damaged the rear door was reported as the cause of the water intruding into the Kmart building on the date of loss.

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 10 of 25 PageID #: 6516

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

During the flooding of 2010, water levels above the FEMA 100 year flood level were reported in the building. To test the potential impact of the overgrown banks along Elam Creek channel, a third HEC-RAS profile was run based on channel properties for high flows and a poorly maintained channel found in the documentation for the HEC-RAS model. This model reported water levels at the building comparable to the water levels found at the building during the 2010 flood indicating water levels at the site could occur at the 100 year flow level. Given the impact of the other building obstructions located in the floodway and floodplain that are not included in the model, it appears that the actual flow at the site was likely less than the 100 year event.

The results the high flow-poorly maintained condition was compared to the result from the second profile which assumed a moderately well maintained channel without obstruction. The comparison of the two models found that for the Kmart-Kroger building, the poorly maintained channel resulted in a 1.4 feet rise when compared to the depth at the site with a maintained channel. When the water level from the third profile was compared to the benchmark profile, the flow was 2.3 feet higher than the benchmark which is also in line with reported events.

Conclusions: 1. The drainage basin upstream from the Kmart site received rainfall that appears to approximate the 1-percent-annual-chance rainfall event (100 year storm). Using the FEMA 1-percent-annual-chance (100 year) flow data, and using a model with an overgrown channel similar to that existing at the time of the flood, flooding in Elam Creek exceeds the FEMA 1-percent-annual-chance (100 year flood) elevation and approaches the actual depths of flooding at the building reported. The presence of the Kroger store as well as other buildings in the floodway increased the impact and depth of flooding during the flood event of May 2, 2010 and caused damage to Kmart.

2. The lack of maintenance of the creek channel, coupled with obstructions and debris in the channel increased the depth of flooding and caused increased damage to the Kmart during the flood event of May 2, 2010.

3. Filling in the low area behind the Kmart and Kroger stores reduced the flood storage volume and likely increased the depth of flooding damage to Kmart.

4. Despite the location of the building in a large and documented floodplain and floodway with a documented history of recent damaging past floods, no actions such as caulking and waterproofing the exterior walls, or construction of a protective membrane around the building were done to protect the building.

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 11 of 25 PageID #: 6517

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

It is our belief that: had the creek channel been maintained, had building construction in FEMA’s regulatory floodway been restricted, had the area behind the Kroger and Kmart stores not been filled, and had the building been protected by waterproofing, the Kmart store would not have flooded, or had flooding occurred, it would have been occurred at such a depth that normal preventive actions by the store’s staff at the time of the event would have been able to protect the store from damage.

Qualifications Our services have been performed using that degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of EFI Global’s profession.

If any additional information is encountered which relates to this evaluation, EFI Global reserves the right to review our conclusions and opinions accordingly. In some cases, additional studies may be warranted to fully evaluate concerns noted.

Any verbal statements made before, during, or after the course of the investigation were made as a courtesy only and are not considered a part of this report.

Closing EFI Global, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide consulting services to you in this matter. Please contact us should any questions arise concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance.

Sincerely, EFI Global, Inc.

John R. Krewson Engineering Consultant

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 12 of 25 PageID #: 6518

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

John R. Krewson, PE

FIGURE 1 - OVERALL SITE

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 13 of 25 PageID #: 6519

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

FIGURE 2 – CLOSE AERIAL VIEW OF SITE

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 14 of 25 PageID #: 6520

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

FIGURE 3 – FEMA FIRM PANEL OF THE SITE Panel No.2803C0067C Effective Date: Sept. 17, 2010

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 15 of 25 PageID #: 6521 Partridge Residence EFI No.: 98340-09777 April 25, 2011

FIGURE 4 FRONT VIEW OF KMART AND KROGER

FIGURE 5 LEFT SIDE OF THE KMART

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 16 of 25 PageID #: 6522 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

FIGURE 6 VIEW ALONG THE FRONT OF KMART LOOKING FROM THE LEFT SIDE

FIGURE 7 VIEW ALONG THE REAR OF KMART LOOKING FROM THE LEFT SIDE

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 17 of 25 PageID #: 6523 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

FIGURE 8 LEFT SIDE OF KMART LOOKING FROM THE REAR CORNER WITH TYPICAL DROP INLET IN FOREGROUND

FIGURE 9 TYPICAL DOWN DRAIN ON REAR OF BUILDING

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 18 of 25 PageID #: 6524 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

FIGURE 10 CURB CUT IN REAR PARKING CURB NEAR LEFT SIDE OF KMART WITH DITCH BEYOND

FIGURE 11 FLUME THROUGH CURB BEHIND KMART

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 19 of 25 PageID #: 6525 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

FIGURE 5 12 DITCH BEHIND KMART

FIGURE 13 GRASSED FIELD IN AREA THAT WAS FILLED IN BEHIND THE SITE WITH NEW FILL IN THE BACKGROUND

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 20 of 25 PageID #: 6526 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

FIGURE 14 INLET TO 60 INCH PIPE COLLECTING WATER FROM THE DITCH BEHIND THE SITE

FIGURE 15 VIEW OF THE FIELD BEIND THE SITE NEAR THE RIGHT CORNER OF KROGER

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 21 of 25 PageID #: 6527 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

FIGURE 16 PILE OF FILL MATERIAL IN THE FIELD BEHIND THE SITE WITH KMART AND KROGER IN THE BACKGROUND

FIGURE 17 RIGHT SIDE OF THE KROGER LOOKING BACK TOWARD HIGHWAY 72 WEST

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 22 of 25 PageID #: 6528 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

FIGURE 18 FLOODING DEBRIS IN THE FENCE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD RUNNING BESIDE KROGER

FIGURE 19 LOOKING UPSTREAM AT DEBRIS FIELD AT RAILROAD BRIDGE SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 23 of 25 PageID #: 6529 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

FIGURE 20 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM AT DEBRIS FIELD AT RAILROAD BRIDGE

FIGURE 21 DEBRIS FIELD AT RAILROAD BRIDGE

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 24 of 25 PageID #: 6530 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

FIGURE 5 22 ABANDONED UTILITY LINES OBSTRUCTING ELAM CREEK WITH SPUR RAILROAD BRIDGE OBSTRUCTION AND OVERGROWN CHANNEL

FIGURE 23 OVERGROWN AND UNMAINTAINED CREEK CHANNEL

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-4 Filed: 11/18/13 25 of 25 PageID #: 6531 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013

FIGURE 24 TREE AND OVERGROWN AND UNMAINTAINED CREEK CHANNEL AT BRIDGE

FIGURE 25 OVERGROWN SPUR RAILROAD BRIDGE WITH UTILITY OBSTRUCTIONS IN BACKGROUND

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 1 of 24 PageID #: 6532

Amended Flooding Evaluation

Kmart # 4883 118 Highway 72 West Corinth, Mississippi 38834

Prepared For:

0112

Mr. John T. Balhoff, II Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, Twenty-eighth Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

EFI Global Job No: 98340-08794

October 11, 2013

Prepared By: EFI Global, Inc. 3039 Premiere Parkway Suite 700 Duluth, GA 30097

EXHIBIT

E

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 2 of 24 PageID #: 6533

3039 Premiere Parkway Suite 700 Duluth, GA 30097 Tel: 770-925-9600 Tel: 800-245-9601 Fax: 770-925-9649 www.efiglobal.com

October 11, 2013 Mr. John T. Balhoff, II Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, Twenty-eighth Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

Re:

Amended Flooding Evaluation Kmart # 4883 118 Highway 72 West Corinth, Mississippi 38834 EFI Global JN: 98340-08794

Dear Mr. Balhoff: Please find our amended report related to the flooding of Kmart store # 4883 at 118 Highway 72 West, in Corinth, Mississippi. This report re-calculates the HEC-RAS results shown in the original report of September 20, 2012. The HEC-RAS results used in the September 20, 2012 report were based on an inadvertent flow data discrepancy in the HEC-RAS model.

For the purposes of this report, the front of Kmart store # 4883, hereinafter also referred to as Kmart, will be the side of the store facing the intersection of Highway 72 West and South Fulton Drive. Directions right and left will be based on a viewer facing Kmart from this intersection. Using this convention, the right side of the store faces South Fulton Drive, the left side of the store faces Highway 72 West, and the rear of the store faces State Street.

Background: The Kmart store is a large retail store located in a shopping center at the corner of Highway 72 West and South Fulton Drive in Corinth, Mississippi (Figure 1). The building housing the Kmart store has slab on grade, open plan, warehouse type construction with at-grade parking abutting the store on the front. Paved driveways

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 3 of 24 PageID #: 6534

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

are on the left side and rear of the store. The building housing Kmart also houses a Kroger Grocery store as a continuation of the building to the right of the Kmart. Both the Kmart and the Kroger stores were constructed in 1992 as a part of the overall development of the retail center. The two stores have the same floor elevation and share parking.

The overall Kmart-Kroger retail center is a 16.29 acre tract located in a low area adjacent to Elam Creek, a large creek to the right of South Fulton Drive flowing north to south towards Highway 72 West. Parking for the Kmart and Kroger stores is at grade. Storm water runoff from the parking lot in front of the stores is collected in drop inlets and carried across South Fulton Drive in an underground pipe system to an existing detention facility located to the right of the site between South Fulton Drive and Elam Creek. Grades on the site are flat.

Roof drainage for the Kmart and Kroger stores is provided by gutters and downspouts on the rear of the store buildings. The downspouts discharge onto splash blocks at grade with the asphalt pavements behind the stores. Runoff from pavement behind the stores drains away from the stores across the paving to the rear curb. The runoff is collected and discharged by several flumes through the curb into an existing ditch draining left to right parallel to the curb behind the buildings.

Flow in the ditch is collected, along with runoff from the large grassed area behind the site, into a headwall for a 60 inch outfall storm drain.

The 60 inch headwall is located approximately between the Kroger and the Kmart stores, behind the rear curb of the parking lot behind the stores. The 60 inch outfall pipe runs from the headwall back towards the building to a drop inlet in the pavement behind the Kroger store. From this inlet, the pipe runs to the right behind the Kroger store through a series of drop inlets and then across South Fulton Drive. The location of the outfall headwall for the 60 inch pipe once it crosses South Fulton Drive could not be determined. Based on the location of the existing buildings to the right of South Fulton Drive and an inspection of Elam Creek in the area, it is believed the pipe turns and runs parallel to South Fulton Drive toward Highway 72 West and eventually discharges into the existing detention facility noted above.

Flooding Event: According to weather records on WeatherWarehouse.com, rain began falling in the Corinth area during the late evening of May 1, and the early morning of May 2, 2010.

By 5:00 a.m., the records for Corinth show that 5.68 inches of rain had fallen. As the morning progressed, water began rising rapidly around the Kmart. According to the store manager, Mr. Matt Hausmann, water was building up and flowing along the rear of the building, putting stress on the rear doors of the store. Eventually, landscape timbers stored on site struck the doors with enough force to break open the doors,

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 4 of 24 PageID #: 6535

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

lodge in the opening, and allow water to flood into the store. The quantity of water overwhelmed the staff’s ability to control it. According to Mr. Hausmann, the water in the parking lot around the building was measured at a depth of 22 inches by City of Corinth employees. Mr. Hausmann stated that there was a similar depth of water in both the Kmart and the Kroger store. The water caused considerable damage to the buildings and the inventory of the both the Kmart and Kroger stores.

Weather Data: The records for the area found on WeatherWarehouse.com show a rainfall event occurring overnight and during the morning of May 2, 2010 for the northern Mississippi and western Tennessee areas. Although hourly records for the area were not available, a review of the daily recording times and the pattern of rainfall distribution on area weather stations show that between 6 and 13 inches of rainfall fell during the period prior to 8:00 a.m., with the higher rainfall events occurring north of Corinth with Corinth being approximately on the southern extent of the heavy rainfall. Weather stations 10 or more miles south of Corinth and the Kmart site show relatively light rainfall accumulation, with the amount of rainfall recorded increasing with distance north of Corinth.

Because Elam Creek, the creek that flooded the site, heads up approximately 6 miles north of the site and flows south to the site, the pattern of increased rainfall amounts north of the site increased the flooding impact on the Kmart site. Based on NOAA Technical Paper 40 for the Corinth area, the 24 hour 100 year rainfall event is 7.6 inches. Based on the weather records, it appears that the storm of May 2, 2010 may have approached the 100 year rainfall amount.

FEMA Flooding Data: The current FEMA Firm Panel for the site, panel 28003C0067 (Figure 3), shows that the majority of the site area, including all of the Kmart and the Kroger building, is located in the designated flood limits of Elam Creek. Elam Creek is large tributary creek having an upstream drainage area of over 6 square miles draining to the site of the Kmart building. At the store site, the creek has a large, well developed flood zone designated on the FIRM panel as an AE zone. AE zones are studied zones having established base flood elevations. The Firm Panel also shows an area along both banks of the creek that is designated as the regulatory floodway for the creek.

According to the FIRM panel, approximately one half of the Kroger store is located in both the floodplain and also in the area FEMA has designated as being the regulatory floodway. The Kmart store is located in the floodplain only.

According to a Letter of Map Revision issued for the site in 2005, the 100 year flood elevation for the building is 432.4. An Elevation Certificate for the site prepared on

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 5 of 24 PageID #: 6536

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

November 11, 2001 places the finished floor elevation of the building at 433.0, 0.6 feet above the elevation of the FEMA 100 year flood elevation. Based on an as-built survey prepared for the site as a part of this report, the exterior grades along the perimeter of the building vary from 431.8 and 432.2, meaning the lowest adjacent grades around the building are below the flood elevation. A review of the FEMA historic FIRM records determined that the flood elevation of Elam Creek is unchanged on the current FIRM from the 100 year flood elevations at the time of construction of the building. Typically, standard design and permitting practice require building floor elevations in flood prone areas, especially in designated flood areas to be at least 3.0 feet above the 100 year flooding elevation. In the case of the Kmart and the Kroger, this would place the floor elevations at 435.4, 2.4 feet higher than the actual floor elevation. Had the building been constructed with a floor elevation of 435.4, flooding would not have occurred during the storm of 2010. The review of the elevation of the building relative to the flood elevation would typically have been the responsibility of the City of Corinth building authorities.

The location of the Kroger in the floodway is a concern. As noted, approximately one half of the Kroger was built in the floodway for Elam Creek. A review of aerial photography and the current FIRM for the site shows that a number of other buildings were also built in the floodway. According to records I have examined, the floodway shown on current FIRM is unchanged from the floodway shown on the prior FIRM panel, prior to the construction of the building. FEMA’s 2009 Flood Insurance Study for Alcorn County and Incorporated Areas, states: “Encroachment on floodplains, such as structures and fill, reduces the flood carrying capacity, increases the flood heights and velocities, and increases flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of floodplain management involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain development against the resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the NFIP, a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in this aspect of floodplain management. Under this concept, the area of the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain is divided into a floodway and a floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1percent-annual-chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. Minimum Federal standards limit such increases to 1.0 foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. The floodways in this study are presented to local agencies as minimum standards that can be adopted directly or can be used as a basis for additional floodway studies.”

Simply put, floodwaters must have an open, unobstructed flowing pathway along a creek. If earth fill or buildings or other structures are built in the flow pathway floodwaters rise and move faster and cause greater damage. When FEMA prepares their maps, they calculate what a reasonable flow pathway should be and show it as

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 6 of 24 PageID #: 6537

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

the “Floodway” on their maps. It is the responsibility of the cities and counties that issue building permits to enforce the restriction and make sure that the floodway is not blocked.

The difference between the areas on the FEMA maps called the “Floodway” and the areas called the “Floodplain” is that nothing can be built in the “Floodway”, while careful construction is allowed in the “Floodplain” areas. The Kmart store is built entirely in the “Floodplain.” Approximately one half of the Kroger store is built in the “Floodway”, obstructing the flow of floodwater down the creek.

The construction of the Kroger and other structures in the known floodway of Elam Creek increases the flood heights and potential for flooding, as well as for increased velocities, both of the factors involved in the flooding of the Kmart store. It is not known what regularity review was in place at the time the Kroger and other buildings were constructed in the floodway, but as the above quote from the Flood Insurance Study states, it is the responsibility of the local governing authority to control and prevent construction in the floodway. According to the August 30, 2010 volume of the “Federal Register”, Corinth, Mississippi, and Alcorn County, Mississippi were among the jurisdictions subject to suspension of community eligibility under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for non-compliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program.

A review of the “Existing Conditions Plan” sheet C-2 dated 03/09/1992 from the original construction plans for the site prepared by Prime Engineering found the elevation and location of the floodplain, and the location of the floodway to be substantially different from the floodplain and floodway shown on the FEMA FIRM panel for the area at the time. The floodway on the plans is shown south of Fulton Drive. The floodplain elevation on the plan sheet is approximately 430.8 which is 1.6 feet below the FEMA FIRM flood elevation shown on 1981 FIRM in force at the time.

The derivation of the floodplain and floodway data shown on the plans is unknown.

Although the Kroger and other structures along Elam Creek were constructed in the floodway without restriction, a review of FEMA’s records found that a “Letter of Map Revision” or LOMR was issued by FEMA in November 18, 2005, removing the Kroger property from the floodway due to “Inadvertent Inclusion in the Floodway 1”.

The records do not indicate how the LOMR originated, or what studies, review or public notice was given prior to issuance. FEMA regulations require a flood study be done to determine the impact of the encroachment on flood elevations and velocities.

The studies are submitted to FEMA for review and approval. No record was found of such a study. Issuance also requires that other affected property owners along the creek be notified, and public notice be made. No record of this was found. Once the studies and public notice are complete, the local governing and review agency

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 7 of 24 PageID #: 6538

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

responsible for flood management and oversight makes a final review of the LOMR and recommends approval. No record of this was found.

Prior to the issuance of the FEMA’s Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) in 2005, other prior efforts had been made regarding the location of the buildings in the floodplain and floodway. Also in 2005, a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) was issued for the site. An Elevation Certificate was issued by FEMA in 2001.

Note: The issuance of the LOMR, LOMA, and Elevation Certificate would have no impact on the physical presence of the buildings in the floodway or floodplain, or on the potential for flooding in any given flood event. These instruments would serve to reduce the cost of flood insurance for the buildings. The buildings are still shown in the floodplain and the floodway on the 2010 FEMA FIRM map for the site.

Along with the placement of the Kroger and other structures in the regulatory floodway, several other conditions that would increase the flood elevations on the site were noted along the creek and in the floodplain at the time of the initial inspection: 

Southeast of the Kmart near Highway 72, at the point where Kansas Southern Railroad’s north-south railroad line crosses Elam Creek on a timber bridge, a considerable debris field was noted upstream of the bridge. The debris blocked approximately the lower quarter of the bridge opening. Mr. David Huwe, the Director of Community Development and Planning for the City of Corinth stated during an interview in his office that the railroad had a poor record of maintenance and that the debris at the railroad bridge had been an ongoing problem for some time prior to the flood event.

Pictures taken during our initial investigation (Figure19 thru 21) show a debris field upstream of the ridge on the floor of the creek. It was noted during the field survey done in August, 2010, approximately 3 months after the initial inspection, that the debris field had been removed. It is not known who cleaned up the debris. Pictures taken April 28, 2011 by others show another, larger debris field upstream of the bridge.



A bridge for an abandoned railroad spur crossing Elam Creek remains in place with narrowly spaced abutments obstructing the creek channel.



The creek channel was badly overgrown with vegetation and poorly maintained. Near the spur railroad bridge noted above, utility and sanitary sewer pipes crossing the channel were apparently abandoned in place, obstructing the channel.

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 8 of 24 PageID #: 6539

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013



The approximately 4.5 acre grassed field immediately behind the Kmart and Kroger building was originally a number of feet lower in elevation. According to Mr. Huwe with the City of Corinth, the city filled the area over time with excess earth material from various projects around the city. Evidence that dumping of excess fill was still underway was found at the time of the initial inspection of the area (Figure 10). Filling the area reduced the flood storage and flood protection for the Kmart and Kroger building.

HEC-RAS Flood Studies: To determine the impact of the Kroger encroachment and general conditions of the flood hazard at the time of the May 2, 2010 flood, a preliminary HEC-RAS evaluation was prepared for the site using as-built survey data and the flows for the area listed in FEMA’s 2009 Flood Insurance Study. As noted there was a discrepancy in this preliminary initial report. Two conflicting flow data values were used in preparing the model. This conflict resulted in a conclusion in the report that placement of the Kroger store in the floodway caused a rise in the flood of 1.0 feet. The original study also compared the overgrown existing Elam creek channel with a theoretical well maintained channel and concluded that there would be a 2.0 foot drop in the water surface if the creek channel were well maintained. This report revises those values.

For this amendment, the HEC-RAS flow data was revised and the flow data discrepancy was corrected from 3702 cfs to 5202 cfs. The Manning’s N values were also corrected to reflect the conditions of the channel and the flooding depths occurring at the time of the loss. This amended report pertains to re-calculated runs using the same scenarios described in the original results dated September 20th, 2012 and in the original modeling. This amended report does not use the scenarios described in the amended report dated July 23, 2013 and does not use the HECRAS model used in that report.

Three models were run. The first model was run with the Kmart building alone. The second model was the combined Kmart- Kroger building. In these models, the N values were set based on the overgrown channel as it existed at the time of loss.

The results of these models found that the addition of the Kroger store to the site resulted in two inch rise in the flood elevation compared to the flood elevation for the Kmart only site with no Kroger. The models showed water levels at the store site that were approximately comparable to the water levels reported at the time of the flood.

A third model was run based on an unobstructed floodway with no Kroger and a channel having only light brush and grasses as would be appropriate for a properly maintained channel. This profile produced 100 year flood elevations on the site comparable with those shown in the 2009 Flood Insurance Study, and on the FEMA FIRM panel.

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 9 of 24 PageID #: 6540

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

A review of the flow and velocity data from the model found that the addition of the Kroger to the Kmart building reduced the overbank width of flow at the building by 193 feet and increased the average velocity of flow at the building by 16 percent.

Prior to the addition of the Kroger building the Kmart building was essentially outside the active overbank flow of water. When the Kroger building was added, the overbank flow overlapped the combined building by 129 feet, increasing the exposure of the building to flowing water. Flowing water carrying debris along the back of the Kmart building that damaged the rear door was reported as the cause of the water intruding into the Kmart building on the date of loss.

During the flooding of 2010, water levels above the FEMA 100 year flood level were reported in the building. This model reported water levels at the building comparable to the water levels found at the building during the 2010 flood indicating water levels at the site during the flood could occur at the 100 year flow level. Given the impact of the other building obstructions located in the floodway and floodplain that are not included in the model, it appears that the actual flow at the site was likely less than the 100 flooding year event.

Conclusions: 1. The drainage basin upstream from the Kmart site received rainfall that appears to approximate the 1-percent-annual-chance rainfall event (100 year storm). Using the FEMA 1-percent-annual-chance (100 year) flow data, and using a model with an overgrown channel similar to that existing at the time of the flood, flooding in Elam Creek exceeds the FEMA 1-percent-annual-chance (100 year flood) elevation and approaches the actual depths of flooding at the building reported. The presence of the Kroger store increased the impact and depth of flooding during the flood event of May 2, 2010 and caused damage to Kmart.

2. The presence of the Kroger in the FEMA floodway reduced the flooding width resulting increased velocities as anticipated by FEMA, increasing the depth of flooding and the impact on the Kmart store.

3. The lack of maintenance of the creek channel, coupled with obstructions and debris in the channel increased the depth of flooding and caused increased damage to the Kmart during the flood event of May 2, 2010.

4. Filling in the low area behind the Kmart and Kroger stores reduced the flood storage volume and likely increased the depth of flooding damage to Kmart.

5. Despite the location of the building in a large and documented floodplain and floodway no actions such as caulking and waterproofing the exterior walls, or

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 10 of 24 PageID #: 6541

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

construction of a protective membrane around the building were done to protect the building.

It is our belief that: had the creek channel been maintained, had building construction in FEMA’s regulatory floodway been restricted, had the area behind the Kroger and Kmart stores not been filled, and had the building been protected by waterproofing, the Kmart store would not have flooded, or had flooding occurred, it would have been occurred at such a depth that normal preventive actions by the store’s staff at the time of the event would have been able to protect the store from damage.

Qualifications Our services have been performed using that degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of EFI Global’s profession.

If any additional information is encountered which relates to this evaluation, EFI Global reserves the right to review our conclusions and opinions accordingly. In some cases, additional studies may be warranted to fully evaluate concerns noted.

Any verbal statements made before, during, or after the course of the investigation were made as a courtesy only and are not considered a part of this report.

Closing EFI Global, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide consulting services to you in this matter. Please contact us should any questions arise concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance.

Sincerely, EFI Global, Inc.

John R. Krewson Engineering Consultant

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 11 of 24 PageID #: 6542

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

FIGURE 1 - OVERALL SITE

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 12 of 24 PageID #: 6543

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

FIGURE 2 – CLOSE AERIAL VIEW OF SITE

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 13 of 24 PageID #: 6544

Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

FIGURE 3 – FEMA FIRM PANEL OF THE SITE Panel No.2803C0067C Effective Date: Sept. 17, 2010

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 14 of 24 PageID #: 6545 Partridge Residence EFI No.: 98340-09777 April 25, 2011

FIGURE 4 FRONT VIEW OF KMART AND KROGER

FIGURE 5 LEFT SIDE OF THE KMART

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 15 of 24 PageID #: 6546 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

FIGURE 6 VIEW ALONG THE FRONT OF KMART LOOKING FROM THE LEFT SIDE

FIGURE 7 VIEW ALONG THE REAR OF KMART LOOKING FROM THE LEFT SIDE

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 16 of 24 PageID #: 6547 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

FIGURE 8 LEFT SIDE OF KMART LOOKING FROM THE REAR CORNER WITH TYPICAL DROP INLET IN FOREGROUND

FIGURE 9 TYPICAL DOWN DRAIN ON REAR OF BUILDING

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 17 of 24 PageID #: 6548 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

FIGURE 10 CURB CUT IN REAR PARKING CURB NEAR LEFT SIDE OF KMART WITH DITCH BEYOND

FIGURE 11 FLUME THROUGH CURB BEHIND KMART

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 18 of 24 PageID #: 6549 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

FIGURE 5 12 DITCH BEHIND KMART

FIGURE 13 GRASSED FIELD IN AREA THAT WAS FILLED IN BEHIND THE SITE WITH NEW FILL IN THE BACKGROUND

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 19 of 24 PageID #: 6550 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

FIGURE 14 INLET TO 60 INCH PIPE COLLECTING WATER FROM THE DITCH BEHIND THE SITE

FIGURE 15 VIEW OF THE FIELD BEIND THE SITE NEAR THE RIGHT CORNER OF KROGER

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 20 of 24 PageID #: 6551 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

FIGURE 16 PILE OF FILL MATERIAL IN THE FIELD BEHIND THE SITE WITH KMART AND KROGER IN THE BACKGROUND

FIGURE 17 RIGHT SIDE OF THE KROGER LOOKING BACK TOWARD HIGHWAY 72 WEST

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 21 of 24 PageID #: 6552 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

FIGURE 18 FLOODING DEBRIS IN THE FENCE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD RUNNING BESIDE KROGER

FIGURE 19 LOOKING UPSTREAM AT DEBRIS FIELD AT RAILROAD BRIDGE SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 22 of 24 PageID #: 6553 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

FIGURE 20 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM AT DEBRIS FIELD AT RAILROAD BRIDGE

FIGURE 21 DEBRIS FIELD AT RAILROAD BRIDGE

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 23 of 24 PageID #: 6554 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

FIGURE 5 22 ABANDONED UTILITY LINES OBSTRUCTING ELAM CREEK WITH SPUR RAILROAD BRIDGE OBSTRUCTION AND OVERGROWN CHANNEL

FIGURE 23 OVERGROWN AND UNMAINTAINED CREEK CHANNEL

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-5 Filed: 11/18/13 24 of 24 PageID #: 6555 Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013

FIGURE 24 TREE AND OVERGROWN AND UNMAINTAINED CREEK CHANNEL AT BRIDGE

FIGURE 25 OVERGROWN SPUR RAILROAD BRIDGE WITH UTILITY OBSTRUCTIONS IN BACKGROUND

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 1 of 19 PageID #: 6556

EXHIBIT

F

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 2 of 19 PageID #: 6557

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 3 of 19 PageID #: 6558

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 4 of 19 PageID #: 6559

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 5 of 19 PageID #: 6560

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 6 of 19 PageID #: 6561

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 7 of 19 PageID #: 6562

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 8 of 19 PageID #: 6563

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 9 of 19 PageID #: 6564

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 10 of 19 PageID #: 6565

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 11 of 19 PageID #: 6566

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 12 of 19 PageID #: 6567

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 13 of 19 PageID #: 6568

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 14 of 19 PageID #: 6569

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 15 of 19 PageID #: 6570

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 16 of 19 PageID #: 6571

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 17 of 19 PageID #: 6572

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 18 of 19 PageID #: 6573

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-6 Filed: 11/18/13 19 of 19 PageID #: 6574

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 1 of 35 PageID #: 6575

ALCORN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AND INCORPORATED AREAS Community Name ALCORN COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) CORINTH, CITY OF FARMINGTON, TOWN OF GLEN, TOWN OF KOSSUTH, VILLAGE OF RIENZI, TOWN OF

ALCORN COUNTY

Community Number 280267 280002 280170 280137 280062 280322

PRELIMINARY JUL 17 2009 EFFECTIVE: Month Day, 2008

Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 28003CV000A

EXHIBIT

G

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 2 of 35 PageID #: 6576

NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data.

Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for the community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone

New Zone

A1 through A30 V1 through V30 B C

AE VE X X

This preliminary revised Flood Insurance Study contains profiles presented at a reduced scale to minimize reproduction costs. All profiles will be included and printed at full scale in the final published report.

Part or all of this Flood Insurance Study may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this Flood Insurance Study may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the Flood Insurance Study. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current Flood Insurance Study components.

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 3 of 35 PageID #: 6577

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 1.2 1.3

2.0

AREA STUDIED .................................................................................................................................................2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

3.0

Scope of Study ........................................................................................................................................2 Community Description ..........................................................................................................................3 Principal Flood Problems ........................................................................................................................4 Flood Protection Measures......................................................................................................................4

ENGINEERING METHODS .............................................................................................................................4 3.1 3.2 3.3

4.0

Purpose of Study .....................................................................................................................................1 Authority and Acknowledgments............................................................................................................1 Coordination ...........................................................................................................................................2

Hydrologic Analyses ...............................................................................................................................4 Hydraulic Analyses .................................................................................................................................6 Vertical Datum ........................................................................................................................................7

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS ......................................................................................7 4.1 4.2

Floodplain Boundaries ............................................................................................................................8 Floodways ...............................................................................................................................................8

5.0

INSURANCE APPLICATION ........................................................................................................................17

6.0

FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ................................................................................................................17

7.0

OTHER STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................19

8.0

LOCATION OF DATA ....................................................................................................................................19

9.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ........................................................................................................19

i

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 4 of 35 PageID #: 6578

TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued FIGURES Figure 1. Floodway Schematic ................................................................................................................. 9 TABLES Table 1: Summary of Discharges…………………………………………………………………….……….5 Table 2: Floodway Data Table……………………………………………………………………………….10 Table 3: Community Map History……………………………………………………………………...…….18 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Flood Profiles Panels Panels Panels Panels Panels

Bridge Creek Cane Creek Elam Creek Phillips Creek Turner Creek

Exhibit 2 – Flood Insurance Rate Map Index (published separately) Flood Insurance Rate Map (published separately)

ii

01P – 03P 04P – 05P 06P 07P 08P – 10P

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 5 of 35 PageID #: 6579

FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY ALCORN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AND INCORPORATED AREAS

1.0

INTRODUCTION 1.1

Purpose of Study This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) revises and updates information on the existence and severity of flood hazards in the geographic area of Alcorn County, Mississippi, including the City of Corinth, the Town of Farmington, the Town of Glen, the Village of Kossuth, and the Town of Rienzi, as well as the unincorporated areas of Alcorn County (referred to collectively herein as Alcorn County), and aids in the administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This study has developed flood-risk data for various areas of the community that will be used to establish actuarial flood insurance rates and to assist the community in its efforts to promote sound floodplain management. Minimum floodplain management requirements for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations at 44 CFR, 60.3.

In some states or communities, floodplain management criteria or regulations may exist that are more restrictive or comprehensive than the minimum Federal requirements. In such cases, the more restrictive criteria take precedence and the State (or other jurisdictional agency) will be able to explain them.

1.2

Authority and Acknowledgments The sources of authority for this FIS report are the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The sources of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that have been performed for each jurisdiction included in this countywide FIS have been compiled from previous FIS reports and are described below.

Alcorn County: (Unincorporated Areas)

The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the January 17, 1991 FIS report were prepared by SpencerEngineers, Inc. for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under Contract No. EMW-87-C-2458. This study was completed in September 1988 (Reference 1).

Cornth, City of

The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the September 16, 1980 FIS report were prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the Federal Insurance Administration, under Inter-Agency Agreement No. (IAA)-H-16-75, Project Order No. 21, and Interagency Agreement No. (IAA)-H-7-76, Project Order No. 1. This work was completed in February 1978 (Reference 2).

The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for this study were performed by the State of Mississippi for FEMA, under Contract No. EMA-2006-CA-5617. This study was completed in April 2009. Floodplain boundaries for approximate study streams were 1

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 6 of 35 PageID #: 6580

delineated based on 10 and 30 meter Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) from the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

Base map information shown on this Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was provided in digital format by Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and Mississippi Emergency Management Agency (MEMA).

The coordinate system used for the production of DFIRM is Mississippi State Plane East (FIPS 2301), reference to the North American Datum of 1983 and the GRS80. Distance units were measured in United States (U.S.) feet.

1.3

Coordination An initial Consultation Coordination Officer’s (CCO) meeting is held with representatives of the communities, FEMA, and the study contractors to explain the nature and purpose of the FIS, and to identify the streams to be studied by detailed methods. A final CCO meeting is held with representatives of the communities, FEMA, and the study contractors to review the results of the study The dates of the initial and final CCO meetings held for the communities within the boundaries of Winston County are shown below.

Community Name City of Corinth Alcorn County (Unincorporated Areas)

Initial CCO Date

Final CCO Date

April 1975

March 12, 1980

October 17, 1986

February 21, 1990

For this countywide FIS, an initial Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) meeting was held on January 10, 2007, and attended by representatives of FEMA, MDEQ, MEMA, Alcorn County, the City of Corinth, and the study contractor, Watershed Concepts. A final meeting, the Preliminary DFIRM Community Coordination (PDCC), was held on Month DD, YEAR to review the results of this study.

2.0

AREA STUDIED 2.1

Scope of Study This FIS covers the geographic area of Alcorn County, Mississippi, including the incorporated communities listed in Section 1.1. The areas studied by detailed methods were selected with priority given to all known flood hazards and areas of projected development or proposed construction.

Two types of analysis were used to develop this FIS report: redelineation of streams that had been previously studied with detailed methods, and approximate methods analysis.

Floodplain boundaries of streams that had been previously studied by detailed methods were redelineated based on more detailed and up-to-date topographic mapping for this FIS report. Enhanced approximate analyses were used to study those areas having a low development potential or minimal flood hazards. The scope and methods of study for each stream were proposed to, and agreed upon, by FEMA and Alcorn County.

2

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 7 of 35 PageID #: 6581

2.2

Community Description Alcorn County is located in northeastern along the Tennessee state line and about 15 miles west of the Alabama state line. It is bordered by Hardemen, McNairy, and Hardin Counties, Tennessee, on the north; Tishomingo County Mississippi, on the east; Prentiss County, Mississippi, on the south, and Tippah County, Mississippi on the west. The county has a total land area of 401 square miles and an estimated 2006 population of 35,589 (Reference 3). The City of Corinth is the county seat. The county’s major thoroughfares are US Highways 45 and 72, state highways 2, 350, 356, and 367.

Economically, Alcorn County is in transition from agricultural to industrial dominance.

Many of the areas available for future growth are in or near the floodplains.

Major drainage for Alcorn County is provided by the Tuscumbia River Canal, the Hatchie River, and tributaries to the Tennessee River. The majority of the county is drained by the Tuscumbia River Canal before joining the Hatchie River in Tennessee. The Hatchie River drains the extreme western part of the county. The extreme eastern side of the county is drained by tributaries to the Tennessee River (Reference 1).

This county has a relatively low relief. Geological evidence shows that the land seems to have emerged relatively late from below sea level, presenting a fairly smooth surface of unconsolidated material. Upon exposure to the elements, the land was incised to form a pattern of valleys rimmed at comparatively uniform elevations. This developed into the long, narrow fern-like drainage pattern typical of this area. The numerous short tributaries flowing into a long, main stream result in a longer time of concentration. This accounts for the more casual runoff of extended duration (Reference 2).

Most of the soil covering the area of study appears to be made up of residual breakdown from the Demopolis Chalk, one of the older layers of the cretaceous group near the lower contact of deposits of the Mississippi Embayment, which was previously an arm of what is now known as the Gulf of Mexico. The cretaceous formations are supported by some of the Mississippian (upper rocks) of the Paleozoic. The developing meander belts have cut laterally into the stratum where it has progressively carved occasional steep valley sides.

Bridge Creek, on the other hand, has cut through the chalk in its reach from a little north of Shiloh Road to near US Highway 72. It has also scoured out a broad plain in the Coffee Sand, the aquifer which supplies well water to the community, leaving a rugged, bluff-like terrain in the more resistant chalk stratum to the south and east of the crescent swing of the valley (Reference 2).

Bridge Creek rises just north of the Tennessee state line and flows southward along the eastern edge of the City of Corinth before turning west along the southern edge of the city to its confluence with the Tuscumbia River Canal. Within the study segment, Bridge Creek has a broad alluvial valley with a slope between 5-7 feet per mile. Turner Creek rises in the hills northeast of the City of Corinth and flows southward to its confluence with Elam Creek which flows southward to Bridge Creek. Turner Creek has a slope of about 46 feet per mile at its upper reach, and 23 feet per mile though the town of Corinth. Cane Creek rises in Tennessee and flows southward to its confluence with the Tuscumbia River Canal west of the City of Corinth. Cane Creek has a broad alluvial valley with a slope of about 8 feet per mile. Elam and Phillips Creeks follow a 10-11 foot per mile slope (Reference 2).

Summers may be described as long and hot and winters are short and mild. The average annual temperature in Alcorn County is 68 degrees Fahrenheit (Reference 4). The average 3

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 8 of 35 PageID #: 6582

annual rainfall is 53.1 inches (Reference 5). Generally, winter rains are of several days duration and cover large areas from frontal type storms. Summer rains are usually thunderstorms with high intensities over small areas.

2.3

Principal Flood Problems The history of flooding in Alcorn County indicates that flooding may occur during any season of the year. The majority of floods occur during winter and spring. Runoff from rainfall is the principal cause of flooding. Due to the relatively small size of the drainage basins, flash floods can occur from local high intensity thunderstorms.

2.4

Flood Protection Measures Flood protection measures are not known to exist within the study area.

3.0

ENGINEERING METHODS For the flooding sources studied by detailed methods in the community, standard hydrologic and hydraulic study methods were used to determine the flood hazard data required for this study.

Flood events of a magnitude that are expected to be equaled or exceeded once on the average during any l0-, 50-, l00-, or 500-year period (recurrence interval) have been selected as having special significance for floodplain management and for flood insurance rates. These events, commonly termed the l0-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year floods, have a l0-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent-annual-chance, respectively, of being equaled or exceeded during any year. Although the recurrence interval represents the long-term average period between floods of a specific magnitude, rare floods could occur at short intervals or even within the same year. The risk of experiencing a rare flood increases when periods greater than 1 year are considered. For example, the risk of having a flood that equals or exceeds the 1-percent-annual-chance flood in any 50-year period is approximately 40 percent (4 in 10); for any 90 year period, the risk increases to approximately 60 percent (6 in 10).

The analyses reported herein reflect flooding potentials based on conditions existing in the community at the time of completion of this study. Maps and flood elevations will be amended periodically to reflect future changes.

3.1

Hydrologic Analyses Hydrologic analyses were carried out to establish the peak discharge-frequency relationships for each flooding source studied by detail methods affecting the community.

Pre-Countywide Analysis Since there are no stream gages on any of the streams under study, peak discharges for floods of the 10, 2, 1, and 0.2-percent annual chance recurrence intervals were established using the region regression equation (Reference 6). Discharges for Bridge Creek and portions of Turner Creek were developed synthetically using unit hydrographs and rainfallfrequency values from the National Weather Service Technical Paper No. 40 (Reference 5). Unit hydrographs were developed using Snyder’s method with coefficients taken from previous studies of basins with similar characteristics. Discharges were developed previously for these streams for a flood plain information report published by the Memphis District in 1972. However, to better define the change in discharge with the change in drainage area, the basin was divided into smaller sub-areas and discharges were computed for each of the sub-areas. Discharges for the 0.2-percent chance flood for all streams were determined by straight line extrapolation of a log-probability graph of flood discharges computed for frequencies of up to 100 years (Reference 2).

4

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 9 of 35 PageID #: 6583

This Countywide Study For this countywide study, discharges for the 1-percent-annual-chance recurrence interval were calculated for stream reaches studied by approximate methods using regression equations for rural areas in Mississippi found in USGS Fact Sheet 008-01 (Reference 7).

Peak discharge-drainage area relationships for the streams studied by detailed methods are shown in Table 1, “Summary of Discharges”.

Table 1. Summary of Discharges PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs) FLOODING SOURCE AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE AREA (Square miles)

10% Annual Chance

2% Annual Chance

1% Annual Chance

0.2% Annual Chance

BRIDGE CREK At US Highway 45

32.85

5,070

7,085

8,010

10,100

At Fulton Drive

27.94

4,580

6,370

7,210

9,000

At the confluence of Elam Creek

16.32

3,850

5,380

6,080

7,800

At the Railroad

8.80

3,158

4,410

4,987

6,300

At the Railroad

4.80

1,946

2,676

3,063

3,900

At US Highway 72

9.50

2,800

4,400

5,250

7,300

About 3,300 feet upstream of Smithbridge Road

6.94

2,240

3,520

4,170

5,700

6.09

2,355

3,235

3,702

4,700

At mouth

5.53

2,500

3,400

3,900

4,900

At Cross Section F

4.44

1,945

2,688

3,060

3,900

At mouth

2.34

950

1,300

1,500

1,920

2,150 feet downstream of US Highway 45

1.58

868

1,239

1,394

1,780

Just downstream of US Highway 45

0.75

430

620

730

960

CANE CREEK

ELAM CREEK At US Highway 45 PHILLIPS CREEK

TURNER CREEK

5

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 10 of 35 PageID #: 6584

3.2

Hydraulic Analyses Analyses of the hydraulic characteristics of flooding from the sources studied were carried out to provide estimates of the elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals.

Users should be aware that flood elevations shown on the FIRMs represent rounded wholefoot elevations and may not exactly reflect the elevations shown on the Flood Profiles or in the Floodway Data Tables in the FIS report. Flood elevations shown on the FIRM are primarily intended for flood insurance rating purposes. For construction and/or floodplain management purposes, users are cautioned to use the flood elevation data presented in this FIS in conjunction with the data shown on the FIRM. Pre-Countywide Analysis Cross-section data for the water-surface profile analyses were obtained from field surveys.

All bridges and culverts were surveyed to obtain elevation data and structural geometry.

Locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analyses are shown on the Flood Profiles and on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the HEC-2 water-surface profile computer program (Reference 8). Starting watersurface elevations for Bridge Creek and Cane Creek were determined by the slope-area method. Channel and overbank roughness coefficients (Manning’s “n”) used in the hydraulic computations were chosen by engineering judgment and were based on field observations of the stream and floodplain areas. Manning’s “n” values for channels ranged from 0.04 to 0.06 and for overbank areas ranged from 0.08 to 0.15 (Reference 1).

This Countywide Study For this countywide study, water-surface profiles were computed through the use of the USACE HEC-RAS version 3.1.2 computer program (Reference 9). Water surface profiles were produced for the 1-percent-annual-chance storms for approximate studies.

The approximate study methodology used the computer program WISE as a preprocessor to HEC-RAS. WISE combined geo-referenced data from the terrain model and miscellaneous shapefiles (such as streams and cross sections). Tools within WISE allowed the engineer to verify that the cross-section data was acceptable. The WISE program was used to generate the input data file for HEC-RAS. Then HEC-RAS was used to determine the flood elevation at each cross section of the modeled stream. No floodway was calculated for streams studied by approximate methods.

Locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analyses are shown on the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1). For stream segments for which a floodway was computed (Section 4.2), selected cross-section locations are also shown on the FIRM. Flood profiles were drawn showing the computed water-surface elevations for floods of the selected recurrence intervals. In cases where the 2%- and 1%-annual chance elevations are close together, due to limitations of the profile scale, only the 1%-annual chance profile has been shown.

The hydraulic analyses for this study were based on unobstructed flow. The flood elevations shown on the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1) are thus considered valid only if hydraulic structures remain unobstructed, operate properly, and do not fail.

6

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 11 of 35 PageID #: 6585

3.3

Vertical Datum All FIS reports and FIRMs are referenced to a specific vertical datum. The vertical datum provides a starting point against which flood, ground, and structure elevations can be referenced and compared. Until recently, the standard vertical datum used for newly created or revised FIS reports and FIRMs was the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD). With the completion of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD), many FIS reports and FIRMs are now prepared using NAVD as the referenced vertical datum.

Flood elevations shown in this FIS report and on the FIRM are referenced to the NAVD. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations referenced to the same vertical datum. Some of the data used in this revision were taken from the prior effective FIS reports and FIRMs and adjusted to NAVD88. The datum conversion factor from NGVD29 to NAVD88 in Alcorn County is +0.05 feet.

For additional information regarding conversion between the NGVD and NAVD, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at www.ngs.noaa.gov, or contact the National Geodetic Survey at the following address: NGS Information Services NOAA, N/NGS12 National Geodetic Survey SSMC-3, #9202 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282 (301) 713-3242 Temporary vertical monuments are often established during the preparation of a flood hazard analysis for the purpose of establishing local vertical control. Although these monuments are not shown on the FIRM, they may be found in the Technical Support Data Notebook associated with FIS report and FIRM for this community. Interested individuals may contact FEMA to access these data.

To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for benchmarks shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of the NGS at (301) 713-3242, or visit their website at www.ngs.noaa.gov.

4.0

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS The NFIP encourages State and local governments to adopt sound floodplain management programs. To assist in this endeavor, each FIS report provides 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain data, which may include a combination of the following: 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood elevations; delineations of 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplains; and 1-percentannual-chance floodway. This information is presented on the FIRM and in many components of the FIS report, including Flood Profiles, Floodway Data tables, and Summary of Stillwater Elevation tables. Users should reference the data presented in the FIS report as well as additional information that may be available at the local community map repository before making flood elevation and/or floodplain boundary determinations.

7

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 12 of 35 PageID #: 6586

4.1

Floodplain Boundaries To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 1-percent-annualchance flood has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for floodplain management purposes. The 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood is employed to indicate additional areas of flood risk in the county. For each stream studied in detail, the 1- and 0.2-percent-annualchance floodplain boundaries have been delineated using the flood elevations determined at each cross section. Between cross sections, the boundaries were interpolated based on topographic maps at a scale of 1:24000 with contour intervals of 10 and 20 feet (Reference 10).

The 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries are shown on the FIRM (Exhibit 2). On this map, the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of the areas of special flood hazards (Zones A, AE) and 0.2-percent-annualchance floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of areas of moderate flood hazards (Zone X). In cases where the 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries are close together, only the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary has been shown. Small areas within the floodplain boundaries may lie above the flood elevations but cannot be shown due to limitations of the map scale and/or lack of detailed topographic data.

For the streams studied by approximate methods, only the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries are shown on the FIRM. For this revision, the floodplain boundaries were delineated based on topographic data provided by the USGS.

4.2

Floodways Encroachment on floodplains, such as structures and fill, reduces the flood carrying capacity, increases the flood heights and velocities, and increases flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of floodplain management involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain development against the resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the NFIP, a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in this aspect of floodplain management. Under this concept, the area of the 1-percentannual-chance floodplain is divided into a floodway and a floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1-percent-annual-chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. Minimum Federal standards limit such increases to 1.0 foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. The floodways in this study are presented to local agencies as minimum standards that can be adopted directly or that can be used as a basis for additional floodway studies.

The floodways presented in this study were computed for certain stream segments on the basis of equal conveyance reduction from each side of the floodplain. Floodway widths were computed at cross sections. Between cross sections, the floodway boundaries were interpolated. The results of the floodway computations are tabulated for selected cross sections in Table 3, “Floodway Data.� The computed floodways are shown on the FIRM (Exhibit 2). In cases where the floodway and 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries are either close together or collinear, only the floodway boundary is shown.

No floodways were computed for streams studied by enhanced approximate and approximate methods. Along streams where floodways have not been computed, the community must ensure that the cumulative effect of development in the floodplains will 8

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 13 of 35 PageID #: 6587

not cause more than a 1.0-foot increase in the base flood elevations at any point within the county.

The area between the floodway and the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe encompasses the portion of the floodplain that could be completely obstructed without increasing the water-surface elevation (WSEL) of the flood more than 1.0 foot at any point. Typical relationships between the floodway and the floodway fringe and their significance to floodplain development are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Floodway Schematic

9

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 14 of 35 PageID #: 6588

FLOODING SOURCE

CROSS SECTION

BASE FLOOD WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD 88)

FLOODWAY

DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA (SQUARE FEET)

4,382 5,755 7,075 11,088 13,358 13,675 14,890 17,688 18,322 19,008 20,011 22,123 24,446 26,030 31,258 32,630 33,845 38,544

1,296 462 1,513 1,273 1,050 850 891 464 148 900 905 696 240 725 50 560 535 400

7,734 1,554 10,593 6,115 3,900 4,437 4,260 2,065 1,407 5,045 4,646 2,746 1,360 3,529 604 3,557 3,370 1,813

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY

WITHOUT FLOODWAY

WITH FLOODWAY

INCREASE

1.0 5.2 0.8 1.3 1.8 1.6 1.7 3.5 5.1 1.2 1.3 2.2 4.5 1.7 8.3 1.4 1.5 1.7

405.7 406.9 408.8 410.7 413.1 414.3 415.0 418.4 419.4 420.3 420.7 422.1 426.1 427.6 436.5 438.0 440.2 443.8

405.7 406.9 408.8 410.7 413.1 414.3 415.0 418.4 419.4 420.3 420.7 422.1 426.1 427.6 436.5 438.0 440.2 443.8

406.7 407.8 409.7 411.7 414.1 415.0 415.9 419.0 420.0 420.8 421.4 422.8 426.5 428.2 436.5 438.5 440.3 444.7

1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.9

BRIDGE CREEK A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R 1

Feet above confluence with Tuscumbia River FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

TABLE 2

FLOODWAY DATA ALCORN COUNTY, MS AND INCORPORATED AREAS

BRIDGE CREEK

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 15 of 35 PageID #: 6589

FLOODING SOURCE

CROSS SECTION

BASE FLOOD WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD 88)

FLOODWAY

DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA (SQUARE FEET)

40,075 44,563 48,682

400 300 255

1,692 4,150 1,131

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY

WITHOUT FLOODWAY

WITH FLOODWAY

INCREASE

1.8 0.7 2.7

447.0 455.0 460.8

447.0 455.0 460.8

447.6 455.1 461.7

0.6 0.1 0.9

BRIDGE CREEK (continued) S T U

1

Feet above confluence with Tuscumbia River FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

TABLE 2

FLOODWAY DATA ALCORN COUNTY, MS AND INCORPORATED AREAS

BRIDGE CREEK

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 16 of 35 PageID #: 6590

FLOODING SOURCE

CROSS SECTION

BASE FLOOD WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD 88)

FLOODWAY

DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA (SQUARE FEET)

4,500 7,900 8,717 9,900 12,000 15,400 16,900 17,700 18,400

317 269 75 906 7,696 293 548 480 652

2,050 1,114 907 4,347 2,767 1,256 2,424 696 1,320

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY

WITHOUT FLOODWAY

WITH FLOODWAY

INCREASE

2.6 4.7 5.8 1.2 1.5 3.3 1.7 6.0 3.2

404.3 408.3 411.9 413.6 416.0 422.7 425.4 426.8 429.1

404.3 408.3 411.9 413.6 416.0 422.7 425.4 426.8 429.1

404.7 409.2 412.4 414.1 417.0 423.7 426.3 427.4 429.7

0.4 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.6

CANE CREEK A B C D E F G H I

1

Feet above mouth FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

TABLE 2

FLOODWAY DATA ALCORN COUNTY, MS AND INCORPORATED AREAS

CANE CREEK

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 17 of 35 PageID #: 6591

FLOODING SOURCE

CROSS SECTION

BASE FLOOD WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD 88)

FLOODWAY

DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA (SQUARE FEET)

0.71 0.96 1.12 1.27 1.36 1.43 1.46 1.65 1.67 1.77 1.85 1.91 2.14 2.25 2.28 2.38 2.44 2.53

305 505 675 210 233 300 937 600 600 600 730 535 590 310 75 400 430 280

1,189 2,850 3,238 1,206 1,096 1,622 4,099 1,902 2,301 2,967 1,839 2,042 2,931 1,389 625 2,088 2,492 1,650

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY

WITHOUT FLOODWAY

WITH FLOODWAY

INCREASE

4.1 1.7 1.5 4.1 4.5 3.0 1.2 2.6 2.1 1.7 2.7 2.4 1.3 2.7 5.9 1.8 1.5 2.2

423.1 425.7 426.6 427.4 428.7 429.4 430.1 430.3 430.9 431.7 432.2 433.4 434.9 435.4 437.4 438.4 438.5 438.7

423.1 425.7 426.6 427.4 428.7 429.4 430.1 430.3 430.9 431.7 432.2 433.4 434.9 435.4 437.4 438.4 438.5 438.7

424.1 426.7 427.5 428.3 429.6 430.0 430.6 431.0 431.8 432.5 432.9 433.4 435.8 436.3 438.0 438.9 439.0 439.4

1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7

ELAM CREEK A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R 1

Miles above confluence with Bridge Creek FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

TABLE 2

FLOODWAY DATA ALCORN COUNTY, MS AND INCORPORATED AREAS

ELAM CREEK

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 18 of 35 PageID #: 6592

FLOODING SOURCE

CROSS SECTION

BASE FLOOD WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD 88)

FLOODWAY

DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA (SQUARE FEET)

2.76 3.04 3.07 3.10 3.23

630 500 500 600 1,200

3,251 1,949 1,993 2,983 3,170

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY

WITHOUT FLOODWAY

WITH FLOODWAY

INCREASE

1.1 1.9 1.9 1.2 1.2

439.5 440.5 442.4 442.5 442.9

439.5 440.5 442.4 442.5 442.9

440.5 441.5 442.6 442.7 443.3

1.0 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.4

ELAM CREEK (continued) S T U V W

1

Miles above confluence with Bridge Creek FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

TABLE 2

FLOODWAY DATA ALCORN COUNTY, MS AND INCORPORATED AREAS

ELAM CREEK

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 19 of 35 PageID #: 6593

FLOODING SOURCE

CROSS SECTION

BASE FLOOD WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD 88)

FLOODWAY

DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA (SQUARE FEET)

0.47 0.62 0.65 0.82 0.94 1.12 1.24 1.46 1.59 1.83 2.07 2.24 2.32 2.88

80 300 390 90 200 240 290 380 50 490 400 350 290 570

658 1,772 2,354 742 1,307 1,467 1,656 2,151 478 2,652 1,998 1,224 1,323 2,245

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY

WITHOUT FLOODWAY

WITH FLOODWAY

INCREASE

5.9 2.2 1.7 5.3 3.0 2.7 2.4 1.8 8.2 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.3 1.4

430.4 433.0 433.5 435.3 437.3 437.7 439.2 440.2 441.5 443.5 445.2 446.0 449.2 453.3

430.4 433.0 433.5 435.3 437.3 437.7 439.2 440.2 441.5 443.5 445.2 446.0 449.2 453.3

431.0 433.8 434.1 436.3 437.5 438.5 439.6 441.0 442.3 444.2 445.5 446.7 449.2 453.8

0.6 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.5

PHILLIPS CREEK A B C D E F G H I J K L M N

1

Miles above confluence with Bridge Creek FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

TABLE 2

FLOODWAY DATA ALCORN COUNTY, MS AND INCORPORATED AREAS

PHILLIPS CREEK

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 20 of 35 PageID #: 6594

FLOODING SOURCE

CROSS SECTION

BASE FLOOD WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD 88)

FLOODWAY

DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA (SQUARE FEET)

1,003 2,957 4,171 4,541 7,286 8,976 9,451 9,979 10,243 11,194 12,091 12,778

930 165 100 30 335 146 164 98 27 29 21 139

4,442 333 376 252 2,105 498 460 332 258 198 141 368

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY

WITHOUT FLOODWAY

WITH FLOODWAY

INCREASE

0.3 4.5 4.0 5.9 0.7 2.8 3.0 2.2 2.8 3.7 5.2 2.0

434.9 435.2 442.7 444.5 455.3 457.1 459.3 460.6 460.8 463.0 470.4 472.2

434.9 435.2 442.7 444.5 455.3 457.1 459.3 460.6 460.8 463.0 470.4 472.2

435.6 435.8 443.5 445.2 455.3 458.0 460.1 461.4 461.7 463.8 470.4 473.0

0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.8

TURNER CREEK A B C D E F G H I J K L

1

Feet above confluence with Elam Creek FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

TABLE 2

FLOODWAY DATA ALCORN COUNTY, MS AND INCORPORATED AREAS

TURNER CREEK

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 21 of 35 PageID #: 6595

5.0

INSURANCE APPLICATION For flood insurance rating purposes, flood insurance zone designations are assigned to a community based on the results of the engineering analyses. These zones are as follows: Zone A Zone A is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplains that are determined in the FIS report by approximate methods. Because detailed hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no base (1-percent-annual-chance) flood elevations (BFEs) or depths are shown within this zone.

Zone AE Zone AE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplains that are determined in the FIS report by detailed methods. Whole-foot BFEs derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone.

Zone X Zone X is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas outside the 0.2-percent-annualchance floodplain, areas within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, areas of 1-percentannual-chance flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile (sq. mi.), and areas protected from the base flood by levees. No BFEs or depths are shown within this zone.

6.0

FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP The FIRM is designed for flood insurance and floodplain management applications.

For flood insurance applications, the map designates flood insurance rate zones as described in Section 5.0 and, in the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplains that were studied by detailed methods, shows selected whole-foot BFEs or average depths. Insurance agents use zones and BFEs in conjunction with information on structures and their contents to assign premium rates for flood insurance policies.

For floodplain management applications, the map shows by tints, screens, and symbols, the 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplains, floodways, and the locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analyses and floodway computations.

The countywide FIRM presents flooding information for the entire geographic area of Alcorn County, Mississippi. Previously, FIRMs were prepared for each incorporated community and the unincorporated areas of the county identified as flood-prone. This countywide FIRM also includes flood-hazard information that was presented separately on Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFMs), where applicable. Historical data relating to the maps prepared for each community are presented in Table 3, “Community Map History.�

17

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 22 of 35 PageID #: 6596

7.0

OTHER STUDIES FIS reports have been published or are currently in progress for Prentiss, Tippah, and Toshimingo Counties, Mississippi; and Hardemen, McNairy, and Hardin Counties, Tennessee. The Alcorn County study is in agreement with these studies.

Information pertaining to revised and unrevised flood hazards for each jurisdiction within Alcorn County has been compiled into this FIS. Therefore, this FIS supersedes all previously printed FIS reports, FIRMs, and\or FBFMs for all the incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within Alcorn County, and should be considered authoritative for the purposes of the NFIP.

8.0

LOCATION OF DATA Information concerning the pertinent data used in the preparation of this study can be obtained by contacting FEMA Region IV, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division, Koger Center – Rutgers Building, 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road, Atlanta, Georgia, 30341.

9.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 1. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, Alcorn County (Unincorporated Areas), Mississippi, Washington, D.C., January 17, 1991.

2. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, City of Corinth, Mississippi, Washington, D.C., September 16, 1980.

3. U.S. Census 2000, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28/28003.html accessed February 2009.

4. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Services, Climatological Data for Mississippi, Asheville, North Carolina.

5. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Weather Service, Technical Paper No. 40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, Washington, DC, January 1963.

6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Flood Frequency of Mississippi Streams, Mississippi State Highway Department RD-76-014, B.E. Colson, J.W. Hudson, 1976.

7. U.S Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Flood Characteristics of Mississippi Streams, Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4037, Jackson, Mississippi, 1991.

8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles, Generalized Computer Program, Davis, California, April 1984.

9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC-RAS River Analysis System, Version 3.1.2, Davis, California, April 2004.

10. U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Maps, Scale 1:24000, Contour Intervals 10 Feet and 20 feet: Corinth, Mississippi-Tennessee, 1982, Kendrick, Mississippi-Tennessee, 1950, photo-revised, 1969.

19

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 23 of 35 PageID #: 6597

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 24 of 35 PageID #: 6598

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 25 of 35 PageID #: 6599

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 26 of 35 PageID #: 6600

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 27 of 35 PageID #: 6601

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 28 of 35 PageID #: 6602

1.01 in

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 29 of 35 PageID #: 6603

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 30 of 35 PageID #: 6604

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 31 of 35 PageID #: 6605

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 32 of 35 PageID #: 6606

Alcorn County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 33 of 35 PageID #: 6607 People Business Geography Newsroom Subjects A to Z Search@Census

State & County QuickFacts

●

Select a State

●

USA QuickFacts

●

What's New

●

FAQ Mississippi counties - selection map

Select a county

Go

Mississippi cities - place search

Select a city

More Mississippi data sets

Go

Alcorn County, Mississippi Further information People QuickFacts

Population, 2008 estimate Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 Population estimates base (April 1) 2000

Want more? Browse data sets for Alcorn County Alcorn County

Mississippi

35,673

2,938,618

3.2%

3.3%

34,558

2,844,666

Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2007

6.7%

7.5%

Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2007

23.8%

26.3%

Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2007

15.7%

12.5%

Female persons, percent, 2007

51.3%

51.6%

White persons, percent, 2007 (a)

87.6%

60.7%

Black persons, percent, 2007 (a)

11.3%

37.2%

American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2007 (a)

0.1%

0.5%

Asian persons, percent, 2007 (a)

0.2%

0.8%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2007 (a)

0.1%

Z

Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2007

0.6%

0.8%

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2007 (b)

2.0%

2.1%

White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2007

85.8%

58.9%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over

63.7%

58.5%

Foreign born persons, percent, 2000

1.0%

1.4%

Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000

2.6%

3.6%

High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000

68.1%

72.9%

Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000

11.7%

16.9%

8,240

607,570

20.8

24.6

16,434

1,254,908

Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 Housing units, 2007 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28/28003.html (1 of 3) [7/15/2009 1:57:09 PM]

Alcorn County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Homeownership rate, 2000

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 34 of 35 PageID #: 6608

73.5%

Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000

72.3%

10.4%

13.3%

$62,100

$71,400

14,224

1,046,434

2.39

2.63

Median household income, 2007

$34,807

$36,424

Per capita money income, 1999

$15,418

$15,853

Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 Households, 2000 Persons per household, 2000

Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 Business QuickFacts

17.7% Alcorn County

20.7% Mississippi

849

60,5901

12,510

940,6091

Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2006

-9.8%

-1.7%1

Nonemployer establishments, 2006

2,396

175,064

Total number of firms, 2002

2,813

187,602

Black-owned firms, percent, 2002

Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 Private nonfarm employment, 2006

3.8%

13.3%

American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002

F

0.4%

Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002

F

1.6%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002

F

0.1%

Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002

F

0.7%

21.0%

25.1%

Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000)

694,837

38,276,054

Wholesale trade sales, 2002 ($1000)

287,506

19,215,751

Retail sales, 2002 ($1000)

488,150

25,017,531

Retail sales per capita, 2002

$14,025

$8,724

32,078

5,486,105

2

16,832

250,684

30,615,9611

Women-owned firms, percent, 2002

Accommodation and foodservices sales, 2002 ($1000) Building permits, 2007 Federal spending, 2007 ($1000) Geography QuickFacts

Alcorn County

Mississippi

Land area, 2000 (square miles)

399.89

46,906.96

Persons per square mile, 2000

86.4

60.6

FIPS Code

003

28

Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area 1: Includes data not distributed by county.

Download these tables - delimited | Download these tables - Excel | Download the full data set (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.

D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information F: Fewer than 100 firms FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data NA: Not available S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28/28003.html (2 of 3) [7/15/2009 1:57:09 PM]

Corinth, MS Micro Area

Alcorn County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-7 Filed: 11/18/13 35 of 35 PageID #: 6609

X: Not applicable Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown What do you think of QuickFacts?

Source U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report Last Revised: Friday, 10-Jul-2009 13:33:59 EDT

Privacy Policy 2010 Census Data Tools Information Quality Product Catalog Contact Us Home

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28/28003.html (3 of 3) [7/15/2009 1:57:09 PM]

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-8 Filed: 11/18/13 1 of 5 PageID #: 6610

EXHIBIT

H

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-8 Filed: 11/18/13 2 of 5 PageID #: 6611

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-8 Filed: 11/18/13 3 of 5 PageID #: 6612

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-8 Filed: 11/18/13 4 of 5 PageID #: 6613

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339-8 Filed: 11/18/13 5 of 5 PageID #: 6614