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”). On September 27, 2013, this Court ruled 1 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. Kroger, E&A, and Fulton filed a Joint Response (Rec. Doc. 305). KCSR filed a Joinder to the Joint 1 Response of Kroger, E&A, and Fulton (Rec. Doc. 306). Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 339 Filed: 11/18/13 1 of 22 PageID #: 6451
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
KMART CORPORATION,
PlaintiffCIV. ACT. NO. 1:11-CV-103-GHD-DAS
versus
THE KROGER CO., et al.
Defendants
REBUTTAL TO RESPONSES TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDEDREPORT 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”). On September 27, 2013, this Court ruled1
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.
Kroger, E&A, and Fulton filed a Joint Response (Rec. Doc. 305). KCSR filed a Joinder to the Joint1
Response of Kroger, E&A, and Fulton (Rec. Doc. 306).
B. Mr. Krewson’s October 11, 2013 Amended Report corrects the mathematicalerrors in his Initial Report in compliance with this Court’s September 27, 2013Order.
1. Mr. Krewson’s Amended Report corrects the flood flow rates ascontemplated 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 inerror 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. The outrageous claim by Defendants that Mr. Krewson purposefully30
made an error in his HEC-RAS runs is both appalling and baseless.
See Ex. C, Declaration of John R. Krewson, at ¶14.30
cfs flow rate value. The use of inconsistent flow rates in the initial runs was in error and was not39
a conscious decision on Mr. Krewson’s part. Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are totally40
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 AmendedReport when he corrected the flood flow rates to maintain the reliabilityof 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. These Manning N41
values were selected based on the incorrect 3,702 cfs flow rate value. With the 3,702 flow rate42
value, these Manning N values allowed Mr. Krewson to calibrate the model and provided a flooding
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. The addition of the Kroger building caused the52
Kmart store to become exposed to the rapidly flowing water. The conclusions in Mr. Krewson’s53
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 floodplainscausing increases in flood heights and velocities, and by the occupancy in floodhazard areas by uses vulnerable to floods or hazards to other lands which areinadequately 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.” In the proposed Amended Report, Mr. Krewson concludes55
See Ex. E, John R. Krewson’s second Amended Flooding Evaluation (Oct. 11, 2013) at 8-9.52
Id. 53
See Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Corinth 00006), attached as Exhibit “F.”54
See 2009 Flood Insurance Study for Alcorn County, Mississippi at 8, attached as Exhibit “G.”55
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 dutyto supplement extends both to information included in the report and to informationgiven during the expert’s deposition. Any additions or changes to this informationmust be disclosed by the time the party’s pre-trial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) aredue.
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. Thus, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil57
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’sInitial 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. Kmart has shown good cause why58
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
See Notice of Final Pre-Trial Conference, Rec. Doc. 63.57
Reliance Ins. Co. v. La. Land & Exploration Co., 110 F. 3d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 1997). 58
A: Well, it’s inflated above the 100-year flood value for the other tworuns.
Q: Well, but it’s not correct that 5202 cubic feet per second is aninflated 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-yearstorm at Elam Creek, where the Kmart-Kroger site, near theKmart-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 SouthernRailway Company?
Q: Okay. Mr. Mendrop testified yesterday and also said in his reportthat 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 knowwhat the correct flow rate is because I haven’t done any modeling.
Q: So you’re criticizing Mr. Krewson for using inconsistent flowrates, but you, yourself, don’t know which flow rate is the rightone?
A: No, I don’t know which one is the right one. I don’t know whichone best matches what actually happened during the flood event of
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 FloorNew Orleans, Louisiana 70112Telephone: (504) 299-2100Facsimile: (504) 299-2300ATTORNEYS 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 18 day of November, 2013.th
/s/ Ryan O. Luminais_________________________________________RYAN O. LUMINAIS
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.
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.
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.
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:
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 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 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
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
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.
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 HEC-RAS 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.
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.
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.
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
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,
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
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 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 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
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
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.
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 HEC-RAS 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.
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
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.
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 AE V1 through V30 VE B X C 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.
1.1 Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Coordination ........................................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 AREA STUDIED ................................................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Scope of Study ........................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Community Description .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Principal Flood Problems ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.4 Flood Protection Measures ...................................................................................................................... 4
7.0 OTHER STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................ 19
8.0 LOCATION OF DATA .................................................................................................................................... 19
9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 19
Table 1: Summary of Discharges…………………………………………………………………….……….5 Table 2: Floodway Data Table……………………………………………………………………………….10 Table 3: Community Map History……………………………………………………………………...…….18
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 – Flood Profiles
Bridge Creek Panels 01P – 03P Cane Creek Panels 04P – 05P Elam Creek Panels 06P Phillips Creek Panels 07P Turner Creek Panels 08P – 10P
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: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the January (Unincorporated Areas) 17, 1991 FIS report were prepared by Spencer-
Engineers, 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
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 Initial CCO Date Final CCO Date City of Corinth April 1975 March 12, 1980
Alcorn County October 17, 1986 February 21, 1990 (Unincorporated Areas)
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.
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
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 rainfall-frequency 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).
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”.
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 whole-foot 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 water-surface 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.
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-percent-annual-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.
To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 1-percent-annual-chance 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-annual-chance 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-annual-chance 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-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 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
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.
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-annual-chance floodplain, areas within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, areas of 1-percent-annual-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.”
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
Alcorn County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
People Business Geography Newsroom Subjects A to Z Search@Census
State & County QuickFacts
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28/28003.html (1 of 3) [7/15/2009 1:57:09 PM]
● Select a State ● USA QuickFacts ● What's New ● FAQ
Mississippi counties - selection map
Mississippi cities - place search
More Mississippi data sets
Alcorn County, Mississippi
Further information Want more? Browse data sets for Alcorn County
People QuickFacts Alcorn County Mississippi Population, 2008 estimate 35,673 2,938,618 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 3.2% 3.3% Population estimates base (April 1) 2000 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% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 8,240 607,570 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 20.8 24.6
Alcorn County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
Homeownership rate, 2000 73.5% 72.3% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 10.4% 13.3% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $62,100 $71,400
Households, 2000 14,224 1,046,434 Persons per household, 2000 2.39 2.63 Median household income, 2007 $34,807 $36,424 Per capita money income, 1999 $15,418 $15,853 Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 17.7% 20.7%
Business QuickFacts Alcorn County Mississippi Private nonfarm establishments, 2006 849 60,5901
Nonemployer establishments, 2006 2,396 175,064 Total number of firms, 2002 2,813 187,602 Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 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% Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 21.0% 25.1%
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 Corinth, MS Micro 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]
Alcorn County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
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]