321 responsetomotiontoexcludejohnkrewson kmart combine
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
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 ______________________________________________________________________________
OMNIBUS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE THE
OPINIONS OF JOHN R. KREWSON FILED BY THE KROGER CO., E&A SOUTHEAST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND FULTON IMPROVEMENTS, LLC
______________________________________________________________________________
May It Please The Court:
Plaintiff, Kmart Corporation, submits this Memorandum in Support of its Omnibus
Response to the Motions to Exclude the Opinions of John R. Krewson filed by Defendants, The
Kroger Co., E&A Southeast Limited Partnership, and Fulton Improvements, LLC (collectively
“Defendants”). Defendants take a “shotgun approach” in seeking to exclude the opinions and
anticipated trial testimony of Kmart’s professional engineer and hydrologist, Mr. Krewson, by
each filing separate motions in limine. Defendants had previously filed a joint opposition to the
Motion for Leave to Amend and Supplement Mr. Krewson’s expert report filed by Kmart,1 but
now take an opportunity to file their own motions and devote over seventy-five pages in
memoranda to that cause. Because many of the arguments made by the Defendants in support of
their motions are duplicative, Kmart files this Omnibus Opposition and asks this Court to deny
the Defendants’ motions for the following non-exclusive reasons as more fully demonstrated
1 See Defendants’ Response to Motion for Leave to File an Amended Expert Report of John R. Krewson, Rec. Doc. 187.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 36 PageID #: 5967
2
below:
Mr. Krewson, who is a professional engineer with over thirty-five years of experience, is qualified to give opinions in this case. Indeed, Defendants do not challenge Mr. Krewson’s qualifications.
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Qore, Inc.,2 this Court found that it “is no position to hold that experts can never make mistakes. When a mistake is discovered and fixed it advances the cause of justice.” Mr. Krewson has already discovered and fixed his mistake as to the inconsistent flow values in his modeling. By fixing his inadvertent mistake as to the inconsistent flow values, Mr. Krewson’s Amended Flooding Evaluation submitted on October 11, 2013, in accordance with this Court’s Order, is reliable.
Mr. Krewson’s Amended Flooding Evaluation accurately and reliably depicts the impact of the Kroger building on the flooding at Kmart’s Corinth store. By adding other obstructions to Mr. Krewson’s modeling, the rise of the water level would increase, not decrease at Kmart’s store.
Defendants must sustain their own burden in establishing any comparative
negligence. Defendants should not be allowed to exclude Mr. Krewson’s testimony because they failed to submit any evidence or testimony in support of their own affirmative defense.
Defendants’ arguments as to Mr. Krewson’s testimony regarding standard “free-
boarding measures” does not affect the admissibility of his testimony.
This Court should either exclude or not give any weight to the affidavit of James N. Monohan, which is attached to E&A Southeast Limited Partnership’s and Fulton Improvement’s motions. Mr. Monohan’s affidavit does not meet the basic requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and contain improper legal conclusions.
Mr. Krewson’s findings and conclusions are not contrary to law.
Mr. Krewson’s statements in his report are based on his thirty-five years of
experience as to the customs, standards, and practices in the industry. Mr. Krewson has not offered any impermissible legal conclusions.
Mr. Krewson’s anticipated testimony about the availability of flood-proofing measures that could have been adopted by Fulton Improvements should not be excluded.
2 See 2009 WL 224908 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 28, 2009) (Mills, J.) (emphasis added).
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 2 of 36 PageID #: 5968
3
I. Background
On May 2, 2010, Kmart Store #4833 in Corinth, Mississippi was heavily damaged by
nearly two feet of high velocity flood water. As part of its negligence claims asserted in its
Complaint, Kmart alleges that the actions and/or omissions of Kroger, Kansas City Southern
Railway Company, E&A Southeast Limited Partnership, and Fulton Improvements caused or
contributed to its damages, which include damage to merchandise, furniture, fixtures and
equipment, building repair, other miscellaneous property damage, extra expense, and lost
profits.3 In addition to its negligence claims, Kmart alleges contractual claims against Fulton
Improvements by failing to keep the leased premises in a safe, dry, and tenantable condition and
in good order and repair as required under Section 15(a) of the lease between Kmart and Fulton
Improvements.4
A. Mr. Krewson’s qualifications and experience.
To help support its claims in this action, Kmart retained John R. Krewson as an expert in
professional civil engineering and hydrology. Mr. Krewson obtained a bachelor’s of science
degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.5 Mr. Krewson is a
registered professional engineer with over thirty-five years of experience in planning, project
management, engineering design, and loss evaluation.6 Mr. Krewson has worked in both the
public and private sector.7 Mr. Krewson has prepared the designs and provided construction
3 See Kmart’s Complaint ¶¶ 23-62. 4 See id. ¶¶ 59-62. 5 See Declaration of John R. Krewson, attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response to the Motion to Exclude the Opinion of John R. Krewson filed by the Kroger Co., E&E Southeast Limited Partnership, and Fulton Improvements, LLC (“Omnibus Response”)as Exhibit 1 ¶ 2. 6 See id. ¶ 3. 7 Id.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 3 of 36 PageID #: 5969
4
management for over one thousand engineering projects, including comprehensive high schools,
middle and elementary schools, hospital additions, churches, multifamily and single family
residential developments, and commercial and industrial projects.8 Mr. Krewson is licensed and
registered as a professional engineer in the States of Georgia and Florida.9
Mr. Krewson has extensive training and work-related experience in site draining and
hydrology. Mr. Krewson has civil engineering design and construction experience in grading,
storm drainage, detention and hydrology, streets and highways, parking lots, sanitary sewers,
water systems, dam and reservoir designs, and erosion control.10 He has structural design and
construction experience utilizing steel, concrete, and wood for both single and multi-level
structures, including pre-engineered buildings, foundations, slabs, and retaining walls.11 Mr.
Krewson has extensive working experience with hydrology related software, programs, and
tools, including: AutoCAD Land Desk Top, AutoCAD Civil3D, and Hydraflow engineering
design software, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC-1, HEC-2 HEC-RAS, Check-RAS
software, and RISA3D structural design software.12 Mr. Krewson also has extensive field
experience in construction and land surveying.13
In addition to his extensive work-related experience, Mr. Krewson also has served as a
litigation consultant. Mr. Krewson has served as an expert witness and has provided engineering
reports on both structural and civil engineering loss evaluation, including structural collapse,
8 Id. ¶ 4. 9 Id. ¶ 5. 10 Id. ¶ 6. 11 Id. ¶ 7. 12 Id. ¶ 8. 13 Id. ¶ 9.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 4 of 36 PageID #: 5970
5
wind damage, water intrusion, site work design projects, and flood evaluations at all levels up to
and including major river systems.
B. Mr. Krewson inspected the store and site only days after the May 2, 2010 flood event.
Just days after the May 2, 2010 flood event, Mr. Krewson was contacted by Kmart to
perform a flooding evaluation at its department store in Corinth, Mississippi.14 Mr. Krewson
arrived at Kmart’s Corinth store on approximately May 6, 2010.15 When he arrived in Corinth,
Mr. Krewson initially met with certain store staff, the store manager, and a long-time employee
who had witnesses the flood event just days before.16 Mr. Krewson interviewed and spoke with
them about the flood event on May 2, 2010.17
After speaking with people who witnessed the flood, Mr. Krewson then inspected the
Fulton Shopping Center site by working outward from the store and determining how water was
controlled from the store, how the storm drainage in the parking area worked, and where it
flowed.18 Mr. Krewson evaluated the draining all around the Fulton Shopping Center site and
then worked outward towards Elam Creek, which is a nearby stream.19 Mr. Krewson then
walked Elam Creek downstream to the Kansas City Southern Railway trestle at Milepost #328
then down to Highway 72, and then walked upstream on Elam Creek.20
After inspecting the Fulton Shopping Center area and walking near Elam Creek, Mr.
Krewson then met with Mr. David Huwe, who was the floodplain administrator for the City of
14 See Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of John R. Krewson, attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 2 at 25:10-17. 15 Id. at 25:3-9. 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. at 26:13-25. 19 Id. 20 Id.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 5 of 36 PageID #: 5971
6
Corinth.21 Mr. Krewson testified that Mr. Huwe told him that he was surprised about a 2005
LOMR obtained by E&A and that “he was pretty amazed” as to the language in the 2005 LOMR
regarding an “inadvertent placement of the store in the floodplain.”22
On May 8, 2010, Mr. Krewson returned to Kmart’s Corinth store. Mr. Krewson then
inspected the conditions around Elam Creek more closely and again inspected Kansas City
Southern Railway’s trestle at Milepost #328. Mr. Krewson also revisited the overall site to
evaluate the draining conditions.
Kmart and Mr. Krewson then retained Scott Engineering to perform an as-built survey of
the Kmart and Kroger stores and the area surrounding the Fulton Shopping Center. Mr. Krewson
used the information obtained from the surveying in his modeling. Scott Engineering also
surveyed several cross-sections of Elam Creek and the area surrounding Elam Creek, which were
also used by Mr. Krewson in his modeling. The purpose of the survey was to evaluate the
overall surface elevations and ground conditions of the area surrounding the Fulton Shopping
Center around the time of the May 2, 2010 flooding event.
C. Mr. Krewson’s modeling and findings.
1. Mr. Krewson’s original report.
In preparation of his original report, Mr. Krewson had prepared HEC-RAS models for
the Kmart and Kroger sites using as-built survey data and the water flows for the area listed in
FEMA 2009 Flood Insurance Study, which was issued only one year before the May 2010 flood
event.23 Mr. Krewson prepared three runs to determine the impact of the Kroger store on the
flooding at Kmart’s store in Corinth during the May 2, 2010 flood event. The first run was an
21 Id. at 27:21-28:18. 22 Id. 23 See John R. Krewson’s original Flooding Evaluation dated Sept. 20, 2012, attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 3.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 6 of 36 PageID #: 5972
7
idealized model that assumed a fully maintained channel with no obstructions or encroachments
in the floodway.24 In the second run, the Kroger store was added to the floodway and a rise in
the flood of approximately one foot was found to occur.25 In the third run, to determine the
impact of encroachments, obstructions, and overgrown banks, Mr. Krewson ran an idealized
model that assumed a fully maintained channel with no obstructions or encroachments in the
floodway, which resulted in a two-foot drop in the flood elevation at the Kmart site below the
elevations found with the Kroger encroachment in the floodway.26
One factor that Mr. Krewson put into the HEC-RAS models was the peak discharge of
Elam Creek.27 Mr. Krewson used the peak discharge of Elam Creek as 3,702 cubic feet per
second (cfs) in his first and third HEC-RAS run data.28 The second HEC-RAS run data, which
showed the impact of the Kroger store on the flooding at Kmart, Mr. Krewson used the peak
discharge figure of 5,202 cfs.29 The inconsistency in the peak discharge used in the first and
third runs and the peak discharge used in the second run led Mr. Krewson to conclude in his
original report that the presence of the Kroger store caused a one-foot rise in the flooding at
Kmart’s store during the May 2, 2010 flood.30 The peak discharge of 5,202 cfs should have been
used in all three HEC-RAS runs.
24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Id. at 5-6. 27 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 2, Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of John R. Krewson at 116:12-15. 28 Id. at 117:3-5; see also Exhibit 1, Declaration of John R. Krewson ¶¶ 15, 17. 29 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 2, Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of John. R. Krewson at 117:3-5. 30 Id. at 116:18-117:18.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 7 of 36 PageID #: 5973
8
2. Mr. Krewson’s Amended Flooding Evaluation
After being made aware of the mistake as to the flow capacity at his deposition on May
22, 2013, Mr. Krewson then re-ran his models to address the error and prepared an Amended
Flooding Evaluation.31 Mr. Krewson found that, with the presence of the Kroger building only,
there was a 1.1-foot rise in the flood compared to the benchmark model.32 With the presence of
the Kmart building only, there was a rise of 1.0 feet relative to the benchmark model.33 With the
Kmart and Kroger buildings combined, there was a rise of 0.9 feet relative to the benchmark
model.34 Thus when Mr. Krewson used the corrected figures, he found that the presence of the
Kroger store caused no significant difference in the rise of the flood at Kmart’s store.35
But Mr. Krewson recognized in his Amended Flooding Evaluation that a review of the
flow and velocity data from the model show that the addition of the Kroger building reduced the
overbank width of flow at the building by 209 feet and increased the average velocity of the flow
of the water at the Kmart building.36 These conditions increased the exposure of the Kmart
building to flow water.37
In other words, without the presence of the Kroger building, the exterior of the Kmart
store would only have been exposed to 1.0 foot of standing water; flowing water from the
overbank would only have barely approached the Kmart store. (Water at the edge of a waterway
often is more stationary, while the water closer to the center of the channel is flowing.) The
31 See John R. Krewson’s Amended Flooding Evaluation (Jul. 23, 2013), attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 4. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Id.; see also Declaration of John R. Krewson, Rec. Doc. 176-1 at ¶12. 37 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 4, John R. Krewson’s Amended Flooding Evaluation (Jul. 23, 2013) at 9.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 8 of 36 PageID #: 5974
9
addition of the Kroger building caused the Kmart store to become exposed to the rapidly flowing
water, even though the water level did not rise signifcantly.38 Mr. Krewson states that it was
reported that rapidly flowing water carrying debris along the back of the Kmart building
resulted in damage to the rear door and that this was the cause of the water intruding into the
Kmart building.39 This model corroborates eyewitness testimony that debris was pushed through
the Kmart doors during the flood by flowing water.
3. Kmart sought leave to amend Mr. Krewson’s findings.
In light of the inadvertent mistake contained in his initial flooding evaluation, Kmart
sought leave to submit Mr. Krewson’s amended report. The Case Management Order required
that Kmart provide its expert designations by April 8, 2013.40 The deadline was extended by this
court to April 22, 2013. As a courtesy to the defendants, Kmart provided Mr. Krewson’s initial
report to all parties on October 4, 2012, which was seven months before Kmart’s expert deadline.
On April 12, 2013, Kmart produced to defendants in response to discovery requests the HEC-
RAS data used by Mr. Krewson to prepare his Initial Report. Defendants deposed Mr. Krewson
on May 22, 2013. Kmart agreed to two extensions of the defendants’ expert reports, which were
ultimately sent to Kmart on June 28, 2013.
On July 25, 2013, Kmart filed its Motion for Leave to file the amended report of Mr.
Krewson after Defendants objected to the submission of an amended report.41 A hearing was
held in front of Magistrate Judge Sanders on August 15, 2013. On August 21, 2013, Magistrate
Judge Sanders issued a ruling denying Kmart’s motion.42
38 Id. 39 Id. 40 See Rec. Doc. 60. 41 See Rec. Doc. 176. 42 See Rec. Doc. 213.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 9 of 36 PageID #: 5975
10
On September 27, 2013, this Court ruled that it would consider an amendment of
mathematical errors only for Mr. Krewson’s hydrology report.43 In preparing his amended report
in response to the Court’s order, which was submitted on October 11, 2013,44 Mr. Krewson
revised the HEC-RAS flow data and the flow data discrepancy that appeared in his original
report which was corrected from 3,702 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 5,202 cfs.45 Additionally,
the Manning N values contained in Mr. Krewson’s original 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, 2010.46 Mr. Krewson’s proposed
amended report pertains to re-calculated runs using the same scenarios described in his original
report dated September 20, 2013 and in his original modeling. The proposed amended report
does not use the scenarios described in the first amended report dated July 23, 2013 and in that
re-run modeling. The court has not yet issued an order regarding Mr. Krewson’s Second
Amended Report.
On September 20, 2013, Kansas City Southern Railway filed its Motion to Exclude
Testimony of Mr. Krewson.47 Kmart opposed Kansas City Southern Railway’s motion on
October 18, 2013.48 On October 2, 2013, Fulton Improvements filed its Motion to Exclude the
Opinions of Kmart’s expert, Mr. Krewson.49 On October 8, 2013, Kroger filed its Motion to
Exclude Testimony of Mr. Krewson.50 E&A Southeast Limited Partnership then filed its Motion
43 See Rec. Doc. 243. 44 See John R. Krewson’s second Amended Flooding Evaluation (Oct. 11, 2013), attached as Exhibit 5 at 8-9. 45 See Rec. Doc. 271. 46 Id. 47 See Rec. Docs. 240-41. 48 See Rec. Doc. 277. 49 See Rec. Doc. 247. 50 See Rec. Doc. 260.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 10 of 36 PageID #: 5976
11
to Exclude Mr. Krewson’s testimony on the same day.51 In total, there are four motions
currently pending to exclude Mr. Krewson’s testimony. Kmart submits this Omnibus Opposition
to the second through fourth motions filed by Kroger, E&A Southeast Limited Partnership, and
Fulton Improvements.
II. Law and Argument
A. Defendants do not challenge Mr. Krewson’s qualifications.
As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute that Mr. Krewson is qualified to offer his
opinions and testimony in this case. Mr. Krewson has over thirty-five years of experience as a
professional engineer. Mr. Krewson has prepared the designs and provided construction
management for over one thousand engineering projects in both the public and private sector.
Mr. Krewson is very familiar with the computer programs and software to run hydrology models.
He has also offered consulting related services and expert related testimony as to flooding
evaluations at all levels up to and including major river systems. Defendants do not challenge
Mr. Krewson’s qualifications in their oppositions, but instead mostly scrutinize an inadvertent
error made by him that he has already corrected.
B. Mr. Krewson corrected the flow rates used in his original report so his opinions are not unreliable.
Indeed, Defendants devote a significant portion of their briefs asserting that Mr.
Krewson’s testimony should be excluded on the grounds that the data relied upon by him was
flawed.52 Specifically, Defendants seek to exclude Mr. Krewson’s anticipated testimony on the
51 See Rec. Doc. 266. 52 See, e.g., Fulton Improvement’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 3-5, 12-14, Rec. Doc. 247; E&A Southeast Limited Partnership’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 3-4, 6-8, Rec. Doc. 266; see also Kroger’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 5-10, 16-17, Rec. Doc. 260.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 11 of 36 PageID #: 5977
12
grounds that he used inconsistent flow rates in two of the three models contained in his original
report. For example, E&A argues that “Krewson used an incorrect flow value that was
disproportionately larger than the flow value used on the other runs.”53 Fulton Improvements
argues that “Krewson’s opinion that the Presence of the Kroger Caused or Contributed to K-
Mart’s Damages is Inadmissible Because His Opinion is Unreliable As It Was Based On
Erroneous Date.”54 Kroger argues that “Krewson’s Mistake Renders His Testimony as to the
Kroger Store Inadmissible.”55
While Mr. Krewson’s original modeling contained an inadvertent mistake by using
inconsistent flow rates of 3,702 cfs and 5,202 cfs, he has corrected that mistake and has
submitted an Amended Flooding Evaluation in accordance with this Court’s order dated
September 27, 2013.56 Mr. Krewson notes in his Amended Flooding Evaluation dated October
11, 2013 that “A review of the flow and velocity data from the model show that the addition of
the Kroger to the Kmart building reduced the overbank width of flow at the building by 209 feet
and increased the average velocity of flow at the building by 16 percent.”57 Mr. Krewson also
opines that “[p]rior to the addition of the Kroger building the Kmart building was essentially
outside the active overbank flow of water.”58 Additionally, Mr. Krewson concludes that “[w]hen
the Kroger building was added, the overbank flood overlapped the combined building by 129
53 See E&A’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 5-7, Rec. Doc. 266. 54 See Fulton Improvement’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 12-14, Rec. Doc. 247. 55 See Kroger’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 16, Rec. Doc. 260. 56 See Kmart’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Report of John R. Krewson Pursuant to Court Order, Rec. Doc. 271. 57 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 5, John R. Krewson’s second Amended Flooding Evaluation (Oct. 11, 2013) at 8-9. 58 Id. at 9.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 12 of 36 PageID #: 5978
13
feet, increasing the exposure of the building to flowing water.”59 Mr. Krewson’s opinions are
entirely consistent with eyewitness testimony that rapidly flowing water carrying debris along
the back of the Kmart building resulted in damage to the rear door and that this was the cause of
the water intruding into the Kmart building.
Defendants should not “cast stones” as to Mr. Krewson’s mathematical correction of the
inconsistent flow rates that appeared in his first flooding evaluation. Defendants’ professional
engineering and hydrology expert, James Monohan, testified at his deposition that “I personally
don’t know what the correct flow rate is because I haven’t done any modeling.”60 Unlike,
Mr. Krewson, who is more experienced than Mr. Monahan, Mr. Monohan did not do any
modeling as he simply provided “commentary” to Mr. Krewson’s report.61 Additionally, without
any actual support, Kroger avers in its Memorandum in Support that 5,202 cubic feet per second
is the 500-year flood rate, not the 100-year flood rate.62 While Kroger references Page 9 of the
National Flood Insurance Study of 2009 in support of its assertion, that page does not contain the
flow rates for Elam Creek. Additionally, Kroger’s empty assertion is contrary to its own expert
who testified that “I personally don’t know what the correct flow rate is.”63 Kroger’s attempt
to now supplement its own expert’s omissions by misquoting a National Flood Insurance Study
is hypocritical considering the position that it took regarding Kmart’s attempt to supplement Mr.
Krewson’s report within the discovery deadline.
59 Id. 60 See Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of James N. Monohan, attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 6 at 78:10-79:11. 61 See id. at 36:4-11, 43:7-12. 62 See Kroger’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 5-6, Rec. Doc. 260. 63 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 6, Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of James N. Monohan at 78:10-79:11.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 13 of 36 PageID #: 5979
14
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Qore, Inc.,64 a decision rendered by this Court, Chief Judge
Mills found, “This Court is no position to hold that experts can never make mistakes.
When a mistake is discovered and fixed it advances the cause of justice.”65 In Qore, the
plaintiff’s expert initially included the value of a fuel island canopy and store tank in his
appraisal report and later removed them.66 The defendant argued that this error, along with other
alleged problems associated with the plaintiff’s expert’s report, rendered the expert’s testimony
unreliable and inadmissible.67 While this Court acknowledged those problems and found that the
defendant’s counsel would certainly “illuminate these for the jury,”68 this Court found that the
problems do not rise to the level to prevent the expert from testifying.
Here, Kmart has corrected the inconsistent flow rates used by Mr. Krewson in his original
report. While Kmart submitted an amended report of Mr. Krewson after the plaintiff’s discovery
deadline, the amended report was submitted in accordance with Rules 26(a)(2) and (e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 26(a)(2) provides that each party must supplement its
expert disclosures when required under Rule 26(e). Rule 26(e) provides that:
For an expert whose report must be disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), the party’s duty to supplement extends both to information included in the report and to information given during the expert’s deposition. Any additions or changes to this information must be disclosed by the time the party’s pre-trial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are due.
Here, pre-trial disclosures are not due until approximately one week before the pre-trial
conference, which is scheduled to take place on February 3, 2014.69 Regardless, Kmart
64 See 2009 WL 224908 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 28, 2009) (Mills, J.) (emphasis added). 65 Id. at *4. 66 Id. 67 Id. 68 Id. 69 See Notice of Final Pre-Trial Conference, Rec. Doc. 63.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 14 of 36 PageID #: 5980
15
submitted Mr. Krewson’s amended flooding evaluation promptly after the mistake was
discovered.
C. Defendants must sustain their burden on any argument as to comparative negligence — not Kmart.
Additionally, Kroger, E&A Southeast Limited Partnership, and Fulton Improvements
(albeit very little) all assert that Mr. Krewson’s testimony should be excluded because he failed
to model all the physical features in the floodplain area. Specifically, Defendants argue that Mr.
Krewson’s anticipated testimony as to the presence of the Kroger building should be excluded
because he failed to account for other encroachments or buildings in the floodplain. E&A
Southeast Limited Partnership cites, for example, a portion of Mr. Krewson’s deposition
testimony in which there is a discussion about other buildings that are located within the
floodway depicted on the 2009 FEMA Flood Firm Panel.70 Additionally, Kroger asserts that Mr.
Krewson “Failed to Account for Other Possible Causes of Damage to the Kmart Store on May 2,
2010.”71 Yet Defendants’ arguments are misguided, misplaced, and confuse the legal burden as
to their affirmative defenses.
1. Mr. Krewson modeled the impact of the Kroger building on the adjacent Kmart store. By adding other nearby buildings to his modeling, the water level in the models would only increase.
As a preliminary matter, Defendants confuse the burden of proof on allocation of fault
between joint tortfeasors or comparative negligence. Defendants assume that Kmart maintains
the burden of proof as to their own affirmative defense of comparative negligence. Based on that
flawed assumption, Defendants then argue that Mr. Krewson’s testimony should be excluded
70 See E&A Southeast Limited Partnership’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 7-8, Rec. Doc. 266 71 See Kroger’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 17-20, Rec. Doc. 260.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 15 of 36 PageID #: 5981
16
because he allegedly failed to model all the physical features in the floodplain. Yet Defendants’
arguments are both flawed legally and misguided as to Mr. Krewson’s modeling of the impact of
the Kroger building.
Mississippi is a pure comparative negligence state.72 Under the comparative negligence
doctrine, negligence is measured in terms of percentage, and any damage allowed shall be
diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence or fault assigned to the plaintiff or other
third-party.73 Under Mississippi Code § 85-5-7, which provides for the allocation of fault
amount of joint tortfeasors, fault means:
an act or omission of a person which is a proximate cause of injury or death to another person or persons, damages to property, tangible or intangible, or economic injury, including but not limited to negligence, malpractice, strict liability, absolute liability or failure to warn.
In Redecop v. Gerber,74 this Court found, “Because comparative negligence is an affirmative
defense, the defendant has the burden to prove the applicability of that defense.”75 There, this
Court found that the defendant did not submit sufficient proof regarding comparative negligence
at trial.
Aside from confusing the legal burden, Defendants ignore that Mr. Krewson modeled the
impact of only the Kroger building on the flooding at Kmart store. If Mr. Krewson were to add
other physical features, like nearby buildings, then the rise of the water level or the displacement
of water at Kmart’s Corinth store in the modeling would be greater, not less as Defendants’
erroneously infer as part of their argument.76 Consequently, Mr. Krewson’s findings and
conclusions accurately depict the impact of the Kroger building on the flooding at Kmart’s
72 See Coho Resources, Inc. v. Chapman, 913 So. 2d 899 (Miss. 2005). 73 Id. 74 See No. 04-62, 2007 WL 120716 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 11, 2007) (Pepper, J.) 75 See id. at *2. 76 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 1, Declaration of John R. Krewson ¶22.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 16 of 36 PageID #: 5982
17
Corinth store. By adding other physical features, Mr. Krewson’s model would become less
objective, and possibly even skewed against the Defendants. In that regard, Mr. Krewson’s
modeling was consistent with the modeling done by Kansas City Southern Railway’s expert, Mr.
Blake Mendrop, who also did not model other buildings in the floodway.
While E&A Southeast Limited Partnership and Fulton Improvements do not cite any
decisions in support of their argument to exclude Mr. Krewson’s anticipated testimony on these
grounds, Kroger devotes nearly two and one-half pages to string citations to support its
argument.77 Because these citations are only string-cited, they are not helpful inasmuch as they
are oblique statements of law, which are necessarily taken out of context. Regardless, none of
these cases precludes Mr. Krewson from testifying because his modeling accomplished what he
sought out to do, which was to determine the impact of the Kroger building on the flooding at the
adjacent Kmart store.
There are many ways in which Defendants could have adequately supported their
affirmative defenses in this case. Obviously, Defendants could have retained an expert to testify
about whether any other obstructions in the floodway or floodplain would have increased the
height of the flood waters at Kmart’s Corinth’s store. Again, Mr. Krewson isolated the effect of
the size and presence of the Kroger building in his modeling, whereas Defendants’ expert in
hydrology did not perform any modeling. Alternatively, Defendants could have submitted
written discovery to Kmart on this issue or asked Mr. Krewson at his deposition to determine
whether such a calculation could be performed (which could be done). Additionally, some
courts will allow a party to submit mathematical calculations in advance of trial to an opposing
party’s expert so that the expert is not forced to crunch the numbers in response to a series of 77 See Kroger’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 17-19, Rec. Doc. 260.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 17 of 36 PageID #: 5983
18
questions while being cross-examined. Because Defendants elected not to proceed with any of
these alternatives, they should not be rewarded by excluding Mr. Krewson from testifying at
trial.
2. Kroger’s arguments as to Mr. Krewson’s testimony regarding standard free-boarding measures does not affect the admissibility of his testimony.
Additionally, Kroger argues that Mr. Krewson’s testimony should be excluded on the
grounds that he failed to consider whether the flooding of Kmart’s Corinth store resulted from its
own conduct, which is another facet of comparative negligence that must be proven by
Defendants — not Kmart.78 Specifically, Kroger cites a portion of Mr. Krewson’s report in
which he discusses standard “free-boarding” measures, which are measures, like waterproofing
or caulking, designed to help mitigate flood damages in areas of concern.79 Kroger asserts that
Mr. Krewson’s opinions and conclusions as to standard free-boarding measures undermine his
opinions and conclusions as to the cause of the flood damage.80 While these arguments by
Kroger are factually misguided and incorrect, they do not affect the admissibility of Mr.
Krewson’s testimony.
As a preliminary matter, Kroger’s arguments as to standard free-boarding measures, and
whether Kmart approved the plans and specifications prepared by the landlord for its building,
do not affect the admissibility of any testimony by Mr. Krewson. “Once a witness is qualified to
give expert testimony, it is within the province of the trier of fact to give weight and credibility
to the testimony.”81 Assuming arguendo that Kroger had any factual support for its arguments,
78 See Kroger’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 20-23, Rec. Doc. 260. 79 See id. at 20. 80 Id. 81 See Ladner v. Forest Gen. Hosp., 2013 WL 3776695 (S.D. Miss. Jul. 18, 2013) (Starrett, J.).
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 18 of 36 PageID #: 5984
19
which Kmart strongly denies, its arguments would still not affect the admissibility of Mr.
Krewson’s anticipated testimony and findings.
Regardless, Kroger’s arguments are factually misguided. As to the specifications of the
Kmart building, Kroger does not offer any evidence that Kmart approved of the design and
specifications related to its building with the understanding that the adjacent Kroger building was
located in a floodway. Indeed, the original plans and drawings as to the entire site development
for the Fulton Shopping Center show that Kmart was led to believe by the landlord that the
floodway was located well to the east of the future actual location of the Kroger building.82 This
is the engineering and design map that Kmart relied upon in approving the location of its
building. Robert Eley, a professional engineer retained by Defendants as an expert witness,
testified that the original drawings and plans are inconsistent with FEMA’s depiction of the
floodway:
Q. Okay. You agree with me that the Prime Engineering drawing C2, which we’ve labeled as Exhibit 3, is inconsistent with the depiction of the boundaries of the floodway in what we’ve labeled as Exhibit 4, which is the FIRM, flood insurance rate map, effective date of September 17, 2010:
A. I do agree with that. Q. So those two things are just inconsistent. Right? A. That is exactly right.83 As such, Kmart was led to believe that the Fulton Shopping Center site was not located in a
nearby floodway, which would lessen the need for any free-boarding measures to be taken by the
landlord.
82 See PRIME Engineering Original Conditions Plan, attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 7. The red “x” denotes approximately where the Kroger building is located today. See also Exhibit 1, Declaration of John R. Krewson at ¶ 20. 83 See Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of Robert Eley, attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 8 at 72:1-10.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 19 of 36 PageID #: 5985
20
Similarly, as to the location and specifications of the adjoining Kroger building, the pre-
existing conditions map show that the location of the floodway well to the east of where it is
depicted on the FEMA Firm Panel. Again, Kmart was led to believe that the adjoining Kroger
building was not located in a floodway as depicted on the pre-existing conditions map.
Nonetheless, Kroger does not offer any evidence that its building is located in the exact location
as to where it is generally depicted on Exhibit “B” to Kmart’s lease.
Additionally, as provided above, Kroger has the burden of establishing that Kmart is
somehow at fault for the flooding at its Corinth store. Mr. Krewson, who is an expert witness for
Kmart, is not offering any opinions or conclusions on behalf of Kroger or any of the other
Defendants. While Kroger or the other Defendants may cross-examine Mr. Krewson at trial
regarding these facts, they do not affect the admissibility of his testimony.
D. This Court should not give any weight to the affidavit of James N. Monohan or any arguments made by Defendants using Mr. Monohan’s affidavit.
Additionally, Fulton Improvements and E&A Southeast Limited Partnership rely heavily
on the affidavit of James N. Monahan to support their motions in limine. For example, Fulton
Improvements relies on Mr. Monohan’s affidavit to support its argument addressed above as to
the reliability of Mr. Krewson’s findings because he did not model other nearby buildings.84
Additionally, E&A Southeast Limited Partnership relies on Mr. Monohan’s affidavit to support
its argument that Mr. Krewson “did not attempt to model the actual event” by supposedly not
replicating the peak flood flow.85 Additionally, in his affidavit, Mr. Monohan attests that “Mr.
Krewson’s opinion is not reliable from an engineering standpoint and cannot be relied upon to
84 See Fulton Improvements’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 14, Rec. Doc. 247. 85 See E&A Southeast Limited Partnership’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 8-10, Rec. Doc. 266.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 20 of 36 PageID #: 5986
21
isolate and examine potential causal factors.”86 Neither Mr. Monohan’s affidavit nor any of the
arguments made by Defendants using Mr. Monohan’s affidavit should be given any weight by
this Court.
To be admissible, Mr. Monohan’s affidavit must first meet the requirements under Rule
702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 702 provides, “If scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a
fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or
education, may testify thereto in the form of opinion or otherwise.” The trial court is responsible
for ensuring that the proposed expert testimony is supported by “good grounds.” Additionally,
the party offering the witness as an expert bears the burden of demonstrating that the proffered
expert opinions are based upon accepted methodology and reliable data.87 Additionally, an
affidavit must contain information that would allow the court to conclude that the averments are
made on personal knowledge.88
Mr. Monohan’s affidavit does not meet those basic requirements. Mr. Monohan does not
provide sufficient information to qualify him as a witness or support any of the opinions
contained in his affidavit. Rather, Mr. Monohan simply attests that he is a licensed professional
engineer and certified flood plain manager.89 Additionally, Mr. Monahan avers that “I am over
18 years old and am qualified to testify as to the matters contained herein.”90 Mr. Monohan’s
conclusory statements contained in the opening of his affidavit are not sufficient to qualify him
to as an expert. As provided above, the trial court is responsible for acting as the “gatekeeper” to
86 See Affidavit of James N. Monohan ¶ 3, Rec. Doc. 265-8. 87 See Moore v. Ashland Chem., Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir. 1998). 88 See Thomas v. Atmos Energy Corp., 223 Fed. Appx. 369 (5th Cir. 2007). 89 See Affidavit of James N. Monohan (unnumbered paragraph), Rec. Doc. 265-8. 90 Id. (emphasis added).
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 21 of 36 PageID #: 5987
22
ensure that the proffered testimony is supported on “good grounds.” Mr. Monohan, on the other
hand, is not the “gatekeeper,” so his self-serving conclusory statements are insufficient to meet
the pre-requisites under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
While Mr. Monohan’s affidavit could be ignored or excluded by the Court on those
grounds alone, the affidavit also should not be given any weight because it contains legal
conclusions. The trial court is supposed to act as the “gatekeeper” — not Mr. Monohan. Yet
Mr. Monohan attempts to usurp the Court’s role by attesting that “Mr. Krewson’s opinion is not
reliable from an engineering standpoint and cannot be relied upon to isolate and examine
potential causal factors.”91 In Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Deatherage,92 this Court
found that portions of an expert’s affidavit, in which he attempted to instruct the court on the law
of preemption, should be stricken because an expert witness is not permitted to testify as to legal
conclusions. Similarly, Mr. Monohan’s affidavit should be stricken or ignored by this Court, as
well as the arguments made by Defendants based on his affidavit, because, in addition to
usurping the Court’s role as “gatekeeper,” he attempts to instruct this Court as to the reliability of
Mr. Krewson’s report.
Additionally, in his affidavit, Mr. Monohan pays lip service to the supposed correct flow
capacity for Elam Creek and the actual conditions that he says should have been modeled, even
though he never performed any modeling and admitted that he does not know the correct flow
capacity for Elam Creek. In his affidavit, Mr. Monohan scrutinizes the flow capacity used by
Mr. Krewson and criticizes Mr. Krewson for not using actual physical conditions in his HEC-
RAS modeling. Yet, Mr. Monohan testified at his deposition that “No, I don’t know which one
is the right one. I don’t know which one best matches what actually happened during the 91 Id. at 3. 92 See No. 3:95, 1997 WL 33384269 (N.D. Miss. May 21, 1997) (Biggers, J.).
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 22 of 36 PageID #: 5988
23
flood event of May 2nd, 2010.”93
While accusing Mr. Krewson of using an incorrect flow rate and not modeling actual
conditions, Mr. Monohan did not even bother to find out which flow rate is correct and failed to
model any conditions. In fact, in his expert report, he took a stab and chose the incorrect number,
simply assuming that the higher flow rate of 5,702 cubic feet per second used in the initial Run 2
was incorrect and was the reason for the higher flood levels found by Mr. Krewson.
Additionally, while Defendants chastise Mr. Krewson as to his modeling, Mr. Monohan testified
that “I personally don’t know what the correct flow rate is because I haven’t done any
modeling.”94 Consequently, Defendants’ unwarranted attacks on Mr. Krewson and the opinions
contained in his report are hypocritical at best.
D. Mr. Krewson’s opinions are not contrary to law and are not founded on assumptions and speculation.
Additionally, Kroger and E&A Southeast Limited Partnership argue that Mr. Krewson’s
opinions should be excluded as either being contrary to law or as being founded on assumptions
and speculation. For example, Kroger asserts that Mr. Krewson’s report is “replete with
statements that the Kroger store is in a floodway.”95 Additionally, E&A Southeast Limited
Partnership asserts that Mr. Krewson incorrectly assumed that the construction of the adjoining
Kroger building did not comply with the federal regulations and that Mr. Krewson “incorrectly
assumed that the Kroger building was still located within the floodway.”96 Additionally, Kroger
and E&A vaguely assert that Mr. Krewson did not use the actual conditions in preparing his
93 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 6, Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of James D. Monohan at 78:10-79:11 (emphasis added). 94 Id. 95 See Kroger’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude John R. Krewson at 26, Rec. Doc. 260. 96 See E&A Southeast Limited Partnership’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude John R. Krewson at 10-13, Rec. Doc. 266.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 23 of 36 PageID #: 5989
24
modeling.
Mr. Krewson’s findings and conclusions are consistent with the applicable law, including
both federal and state law as to floodways and floodplains. For example, the Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance for the City of Corinth provides that “The flood hazards of City of Corinth
are subject to period inundation which results in loss of life and property.” Additionally, the
Ordinance provides that:
These flood losses are caused by the cumulative effect of obstructions in floodplains causing increases in flood heights and velocities, and by the occupancy in flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to floods or hazards to other lands which are inadequately elevated, flood-proofed, or otherwise unprotected from flood damages.97 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.”98 In his Amended Flooding Evaluation,
Mr. Krewson concludes that the presence of the Kroger store reduced the flooding width
resulting increased velocities as anticipated by FEMA, increasing the flooding and impact on the
Kmart store.99 As both the federal and state laws governing floodplains anticipated,
encroachments such as the Kroger building in the floodplain could increase the height or
velocities of flood waters.
While Mr. Krewson’s findings and conclusions are consistent with both federal and state
law, Defendants want to simply disregard the 1981 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (“FIRM”)
97 See Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Corinth 00006), attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 9 (emphasis added). 98 See 2009 Flood Insurance Study for Alcorn County, Mississippi at 8, attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 10 (emphasis added). 99 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 5, John R. Krewson’s second Amended Flooding Evaluation (Oct. 11, 2013) at 9.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 24 of 36 PageID #: 5990
25
that existed at the time of the construction of the Fulton Shopping Center around 1992. As
provided above, the original site development plans prepared by PRIME Engineer, a company
retained by the landlord, showed the floodway boundary far to the east of where the Kroger
building currently lies, whereas a portion of the Kroger building as-built would have been
located within the floodway on the 1981 FEMA Firm. Indeed, Defendants have gone as far as
saying that the 1981 FEMA FIRM is wrong, whereas the original construction drawings for the
development of the Fulton Shopping Center that depicted the floodway are correct. Mr. Eley, a
professional engineer retained by Defendants, testified in his deposition that the FEMA FIRM is
wrong, but that the original site development plans by PRIME Engineering are correct, even
though FEMA’s study was supported by a hydrologic report whereas the original site
development plans were not supported by any scientific evidence.100 Consequently, Defendants’
attempt to exclude Mr. Krewson’s testimony as being “contrary to law” is hypocritical at best
considering their own expert’s testimony.
Notably, Mr. Krewson’s testimony as to the construction of a portion of the Kroger
building in a FEMA floodway is consistent with the scientific-based 1981 FEMA FIRM (which
was in effect at the time the building’s construction), whereas the Defendants’ proposed expert’s
findings are not. But the apparent inconsistencies between the 1983 FEMA Firm and the original
site development plans are not the only twisted facts. Indeed, E&A Southeast Limited
Partnership requested a letter of map amendment (LOMA), but received a letter of map revision
(LOMR). As to the considerations listed in the LOMR obtained by E&A Southeast Limited
100 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 8, Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of Robert Eley at 72:11-73:20 (emphasis added).
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 25 of 36 PageID #: 5991
26
Partnership, the LOMR provides “INADVERTENT INCLUSION IN FLOODWAY.”101 Mr.
Krewson testified that, just days after the May 2010 flooding event, he had a conversation with
Mr. Huwe, who is the flood administrator for the City of Corinth, and both commented how they
had never seen language like that in a LOMR.102
Additionally, Mr. Monohan, who was retained by Defendants, also testified that the
language in the LOMR as to the “INADVERTENT INCLUSION IN FLOODWAY” was
peculiar. Mr. Monohan testified that “Prior to this particular instance of it, I had not” seen a
similar description as to the reason behind the LOMR.103 For these reasons, Mr. Krewson’s
testimony about the location of the floodway at the time of the original construction of the
Kroger building in 1992, and his commentary about the LOMR, are not contrary to law and, in
fact, consistent with portions of Defendants’ own expert’s testimony.
Additionally, unlike Mr. Monohan and Defendants, Kmart spent several thousand dollars
for a land surveyor, Scott Engineering. Scott Engineering actually surveyed the shopping center
site and surrounding area, including Elam Creek, to find the elevation of the land. Additionally,
Scott Engineering obtained several cross-section of the shopping center and Elam Creek, which
Mr. Krewson used in his modeling. Neither Mr. Monohan nor Mr. Eley, who is Defendants’
other expert, actually surveyed the land, so they cannot genuinely suggest that Mr. Krewson did
not use actual conditions, like elevations. Additionally, as provided above, Mr. Krewson used
the flow-capacity of 5,202 cfs because that flow capacity is the rate for a 100 year flood, which
the rainfall data suggest was approximate to the event on May 2, 2010. While Defendants may
101 See Exhibit “A” attached to Kroger’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson, Rec. Doc. 259-1. 102 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 2, Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of John R. Krewson at 27:21-28:18. 103 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 6, Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of James D. Monohan at 27:3-15 (emphasis added).
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 26 of 36 PageID #: 5992
27
argue that the May 2, 2010 flood exceed a 100 year flood event, that argument is left for the jury
to decide, and should not be the basis to exclude Mr. Krewson’s testimony.
E. Mr. Krewson’s opinions do not constitute impermissible legal conclusions.
Kroger also seeks to exclude certain statements made in Mr. Krewson’s report as
impermissible legal conclusions.104 Particularly, Kroger seeks to exclude certain commentary by
Mr. Krewson in his report that are based on his thirty-five years of his experience, including: (1)
standard free-boarding measures used in the construction of buildings in flood prone areas;105 (2)
who creates the floodway boundaries and who enforces the restrictions related to those
boundaries;106 (3) the difference between floodways and floodplains;107 (4) standard customs and
practices behind the issuance of LOMR’s and LOMA’s.108 Yet none of the comments made in
Mr. Krewson’s report tell the trier of fact what decision to reach, which is the standard governing
whether an opinion constitutes a legal conclusion.
Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that “testimony in the form of an
opinion or inference otherwise inadmissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate
issue to be decided by the trier of fact,” but an expert is not permitted to tell the trier of fact, what
decision should be reached.109 The 1972 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 704 clarifies that
this rule does not permit any opinion on the ultimate issue to be rendered. As the Advisory
104 See Kroger’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 26-29, Rec. Doc. 260. 105 Id. at 28. 106 Id. 107 Id. 108 Id. 109 See Fed. R. Evid. 704(a).
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 27 of 36 PageID #: 5993
28
Committee Notes indicate, the provisions of Rules 403, 701, and 702 “afford ample assurances
against the admission of opinions which would merely tell the jury what result to reach.”110
None of the commentary contained in Mr. Krewson’s report instructs the jury as to what
decision to reach. Comparatively, Kroger’s accounting expert seeks to testify as to the
“reasonableness” of Kmart’s period of restoration following the May 2010 flood, which is
squarely an issue to be decided by the jury.111 Rather, the portions of Mr. Krewson’s report cited
by Kroger in its memorandum all relate to Mr. Krewson’s thirty-five years of experience as a
professional engineer and hydrologist. This anticipated testimony by Mr. Krewson squarely fits
within the customs, standards, and practices of a professional engineer and hydrologist, which
are readily admissible at trial.
F. Mr. Krewson’s anticipated testimony and opinions regarding flood proofing measures that could have been taken by Fulton Improvements should not be excluded.
Finally, Fulton Improvements argues that Mr. Krewson’s anticipated testimony regarding
the absence of any flood-proofing measures by Fulton Improvements (and examples of available
flood-proofing measures) before the May 2010 flood event should be excluded.112 Particularly,
Mr. Krewson states in each of his reports that:
Despite the location of the building in a large and documented floodplain and floodway no actions such as caulking and waterproofing the exterior walls, or construction of a protective membrane around the building were done to protect the building.113
110 Id. 111 See Kmart’s Motion and Memorandum in Support to Exclude the Testimony of Robert H. Alexander, Rec. Docs. 255-56. 112 See Fulton Improvements Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 14-25, Rec. Doc. 247. 113 See, e.g., Kmart’s Omnibus Response. Exhibits 3-5, original Flooding Evaluation (Sept. 20, 2012), amended Flooding Evaluation (Jul. 23, 2013), amended Flooding Evaluation (Oct. 11, 2013).
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 28 of 36 PageID #: 5994
29
Kroger and E&A do not assert the same arguments as Fulton Improvements —
presumably because Fulton Improvements is obligated under the lease to keep the premises in a
“safe, dry, and tenantable condition,” whereas the other defendants do not have any lease
agreement with Kmart.114 Mr. Krewson’s anticipated testimony about the absence of any flood-
proofing measures at Kmart’s Corinth store and the availability of such measures should be
admissible and not stricken by this Court.
1. Mr. Krewson’s anticipated testimony is not unreliable or conclusory.
As a preliminary mater, Fulton Improvements asserts that Mr. Krewson’s opinions as to
the absence of any flood-proofing measures on the Kmart building are unreliable or
conclusory.115 In his report, Mr. Krewson found that the Kmart building did not have any flood-
proofing measures.116 Mr. Krewson also offered illustrations of certain flood-proofing measures
that were not present on the Kmart building, such as caulking and waterproofing of the exterior
walls or construction of a protective membrane around the building.117 This illustrative list was
not intended to exhaustive. Indeed, Fulton Improvements questioned Mr. Krewson at his
deposition as to other available flood-proofing measures, and Mr. Krewson, in addition to the
examples contained in his expert report, mentioned the availability of flood-proof exterior doors
that are attached to a building or other structure.118 The purpose of the flood-proof door is to
prevent the exterior doors from being broached by floodwaters, which is what happened in this
114 See Lease, attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 11. 115 See Fulton Improvements Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 14-17, Rec. Doc. 247. 116 See, e.g., Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibits 3-5, original Flooding Evaluation (Sept. 20, 2012), amended Flooding Evaluation (Jul. 23, 2013), amended Flooding Evaluation (Oct. 11, 2013). 117 Id. 118 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 2, Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of John R. Krewson at 119:23-122:7.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 29 of 36 PageID #: 5995
30
case.119
Fulton Improvements’ argument that Mr. Krewson’s report is insufficient or incomplete
because he allegedly fails to explain the “how and why” of certain flood-proofing measures that
did not exist at Kmart’s Corinth store is illogical.120 As provided more fully below, it is
undisputed that Fulton Improvements did not incorporate any flood-proofing measures into its
building leased by Kmart in Corinth. Mr. Krewson personally inspected the building and its
plans and could not find any such measures, which is consistent with the testimony of Fulton
Improvement’s corporate representative. As such, there is no “how and why” as to the absence
of any flood-proofing measures because they simply did not exist.
Additionally, Mr. Krewson should also be allowed to testify that, had certain flood-
proofing measure been implemented, the store would not have flooded or the water levels inside
the store would have been much more manageable as they had been in the past when the exterior
doors did not break despite flooding around the building. In his Amended Flooding Evaluation
dated October 11, 2013, Mr. Krewson concludes:
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 occurred as such a depth that normal preventative actions by the store’s staff at the time of the event would have been able to protect the store from damage.121 While Mr. Krewson is more than qualified to testify as an expert regarding the
availability of flood-proofing products, like flood-poof exterior doors and their intended purpose,
119 Id. 120 See Fulton Improvements’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude John R. Krewson’s Testimony at 15-17, 21-22. 121 See, e.g., Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibits 3-5, original Flooding Evaluation (Sept. 20, 2012), amended Flooding Evaluation (Jul. 23, 2013), amended Flooding Evaluation (Oct. 11, 2013).
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 30 of 36 PageID #: 5996
31
expert testimony is not needed in this area. Indeed, “The general rule in Mississippi is that expert
testimony is not required where the facts surrounding the alleged negligence are easily
comprehensible to a jury.”122 Here, the exterior roll-up door at Kmart was damaged by the high
velocity floodwaters on May 2, 2010, which allowed flood water to flow throughout the store as
shown by the attached photograph.123 Mr. Krewson can testify about the availability of flood-
proofing products, like flood-proof doors and the intent behind the doors to prevent rushing
water from breaching the most vulnerable area of a building, i.e., the exterior door. That is what
happened in this case, and those facts are easily comprehensible to any jury.
Further, Fulton Improvements’ reliance on this Court’s decision in Williams v. Daimler
Chrysler Corp.124 is misplaced. There, the plaintiffs submitted an expert report one-page in
length,125 whereas Mr. Krewson’s reports exceeds ten pages (not including exhibits) and contains
a well documented background as to the location of the Kmart and Kroger’s stores, the
construction of those stores, and the drainage patterns. Additionally, in response to the
defendant’s motion to exclude testimony, the plaintiff in Daimler Chrysler failed to address any
of the arguments made by the defendant. Indeed, this Court recognized multiple times in its
opinion in that case that the plaintiff’s responses “to the motions to exclude the plaintiff’s experts
are almost completely devoid of any authorities or analysis. The responses proffer mere
conclusory statements.” 126 The Court found that the “plaintiff’s response is clearly inadequate to
sustain the plaintiff’s burden in demonstrating that Van Sweden’s testimony will be reliable
122 See Travelers Cas. & Surety Co., v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 542 F.3d 475, 491 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 807 So. 2d 382 (Miss. 2002). 123 See photograph taken on May 2, 2010 of water flowing through Kmart’s Corinth store, attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 12. 124 See No. 06-188, 2008 WL 4449558 (N.D. Miss. Jul. 22, 2008) (Pepper, J.). 125 Id. at *4. 126 Id. at *5.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 31 of 36 PageID #: 5997
32
pursuant to Rule 702.”127 The Court found that the “failure was not harmless and clearly
prejudiced the defendants”128 and that the report should be stricken pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Comparatively, Mr. Krewson’s report is more complete and thorough than the expert
report of Mr. Eley, who was retained by Fulton Improvements. Mr. Eley’s expert report is only
four pages, but the first page merely lists the documents that he relied upon and the fourth page
is almost entirely a signature page.129 Additionally, Mr. Eley concludes on the third page of his
report that “no amount of caulking, waterproofing or protective membrane would have prevented
water from entering the Kmart building during a flood event.”130 Mr. Eley testified that the basis
for his opinion was “thirty-five years of experience” and “an engineering degree.”131
While Kmart denies that Mr. Krewson’s findings are unreliable and/or conclusory as
asserted by Fulton Improvements, any omission by Mr. Krewson is harmless under Rule 37(c)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Kmart submitted the expert report of Mr. Krewson to
Defendants over seven months before the plaintiff’s deadline. Defendants deposed Mr. Krewson
for nearly seven hours, which included a lengthy discussion regarding flood-proofing measures.
Fulton Improvements has designated two experts, Mr. Eley and Mr. Monohan, to testify
regarding flood-proofing measures. In its Initial Disclosures exchanged on or about September
21, 2012, Kmart identified Mr. Krewson as a potential witness to testify as to “his opinions of the
acts or omissions of the Defendants that increased the flood elevations at the subject area.”132
Additionally, Mr. Krewson has also been identified as a fact witness as to flood prevention
127 Id. *6. 128 Id. at *5. 129 See Expert Report of Robert B. Eley, attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 13. 130 Id. 131 See Exhibit 8, Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of Robert E. Eley at 96:10-19. 132 See Kmart’s Initial Disclosures (Sept. 21, 2012), attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 13.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 32 of 36 PageID #: 5998
33
measures.133 Further, Kmart has also identified one of its employees, Todd Lemmert, to testify
regarding “possible flood prevention measures that could have been taken by Kmart’s landlord to
protect the Kmart building from flood damage.”134 Additionally, Kroger and E&A Southeast
Limited Partnership have not objected to this portion of Mr. Krewson’s testimony. For these
reasons, there is no harm in allowing Mr. Krewson to testify regarding these matters, and Fulton
Improvements has not shown otherwise.
2. Mr. Krewson’s anticipated testimony is not inconsistent with Fulton Improvements’ failure to take any measures whatsoever to prevent flooding at its development.
Additionally, Fulton Improvements devotes nearly four pages of its memorandum
arguing that “Mr. Krewson’s Opinion Does Not Take Into Account Documents Generated by
Kmart at the Time of the Flooding.”135 By relying on certain e-mails and other internal
documents produced by Kmart, Fulton Improvements argues that Kmart ignores the facts of this
case as to the spontaneous nature of the flooding that occurred on May 2, 2010.136
Yet Fulton Improvements’s arguments assume that the examples of flood-proofing
measures offered by Mr. Krewson would not have already been in place. In other words, Mr.
Krewson’s anticipated testimony about the availability of flood-proofing measures assumes that
these measures would have been in place long before the May 2010 flood event, not quickly
assembled as suggested by Fulton Improvements. Fulton Improvements’s corporate
representative, Donna Earnhart, admitted, however, that it failed to take any flood-proofing or
133 See Kmart’s Supplemental Responses to Kroger’s First Set of Interrogatories (Answer to Interrogatory No. 2), attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 14. 134 Id. 135 See Fulton Improvements’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony at 17-21, Rec. Doc. 247. 136 Id.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 33 of 36 PageID #: 5999
34
safeguard measures whatsoever as to Kmart’s Corinth store prior to the May 2010 flood.137
Contrary to Fulton Improvements’ arguments, Mr. Krewson did not ignore any “known
facts.”138 Indeed, Mr. Krewson’s anticipated testimony and opinion that “no actions” were taken
by Fulton Improvements is consistent with the testimony of Fulton Improvements’s corporate
representative, Ms. Earnhart. These actions, like a flood-proof door, caulking, waterproofing the
exterior walls, etc., should have been in place long before the May 2010 flood event, but Fulton
Improvements failed to take any action.
3. Mr. Krewson’s testimony regarding the absence of either flood-proof exterior doors and/or caulking and water-proofing is admissible.
Fulton Improvements again argues that Mr. Krewson’s opinions as to the availability of
certain flood-proofing measures, like a flood-proof door or caulking and water-proofing, should
be inadmissible as being incomplete.139 As provided above, Mr. Krewson should be allowed to
testify regarding the availability of flood-proof doors as a preventative measure because it is
another example of the types of measures that were absent from Kmart’s Corinth store.
Additionally, the availability of those types of measures is something that is easily
comprehensible to a jury without the need for expert testimony. Thus Mr. Krewson should be
allowed to testify regarding the availability of these measures regardless of whether any of his
opinions or conclusions are stricken by this Court. Nevertheless, it also falls within his expertise
to opine whether their measure would have prevented the flow and velocity of waters from
entering the store. Kmart has also identified one of its employees, Mr. Todd Lemmert, who can
137 See Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of Fulton Improvement’s Corporate Representative, attached to Kmart’s Omnibus Response as Exhibit 14 at 125:25-127:10. 138 See Fulton Improvements’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 20, Rec. Doc. 247. 139 Id. at 22-24.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 34 of 36 PageID #: 6000
35
discuss such measures that have been used at other Kmart stores.140
Additionally, Fulton Improvements argues that Mr. Krewson finding that the Kmart
building did not have any caulking or waterproofing should be excluded because Mr. Krewson
could not recall the materials used in the construction of the building at the time of his
deposition.141 Yet Fulton Improvements ignores that Mr. Krewson testified from his memory but
that he would “have to check it.”142 Fulton Improvements’s reliance on this Court’s decision in
Daimler Chrysler143 is misplaced because the expert in that decision did not actually inspect the
automobile in question, whereas Mr. Krewson inspected the Kmart store and its surrounding just
days after the May 2010 flood. Conversely, Fulton Improvements’s expert, Mr. Eley, who is
offering opinions as to the effect of flood-proofing measures, did not visit the site at any time in
connection with forming his opinions.144
4. Mr. Krewson’s anticipated testimony regarding blow-up protective membranes is also admissible.
Finally, Fulton Improvements argues that Mr. Krewson’s anticipated testimony regarding
a blow-up protective membrane should also be excluded.145 As provided above, Mr. Krewson
listed a blow-up protective membrane as an example of a flood-protective measure that Fulton
Improvements failed to incorporate into the building. Like the other flood-proofing measures, a
140 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 14, Kmart’s Supplemental Responses to Kroger’s First Set of Interrogatories (Answer to Interrogatory No. 2). 141 See Fulton Improvements Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 22-24, Rec. Doc. 247. 142 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 2, Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of John R. Krewson at 119:7-13. 143 See 2008 WL 4449558 at *4 (“It is undisputed that Dr. Smith never inspected the actual vehicle, its air bag, or any exemplars of an air bag in reaching his opinions.”) 144 See Kmart’s Omnibus Response, Exhibit 8, Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of Robert B. Eley at 26:19-27:3, 108:6-13. 145 See Fulton Improvements’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of John R. Krewson at 24-25, Rec. Doc. 247.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 35 of 36 PageID #: 6001
36
blow-up membrane is something well planned and orchestrated, so Defendants’ argument as to
the spontaneous nature of the May 2010 flood event is inapposite. While Mr. Krewson did not
actually “test” a blow-up membrane at the Corinth store, he should be allowed to testify
regarding the intended use of those types of membranes and devices at other buildings.
III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing reasons, Kmart asks this Court to deny the motions in limine to
exclude Mr. Krewson’s testimony filed by Kroger, Fulton Improvements, and E&A Southeast
Limited Partnership.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ryan O. Luminais
____________________________________ JAMES M. GARNER (La. Bar. No. 19589) JOHN T. BALHOFF, II (La. Bar. No. 24288) RYAN O. LUMINAIS (Miss. Bar. No. 101871) SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, Twenty-eighth Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: (504) 299-2100 Facsimile: (504) 299-2300 ATTORNEYS FOR KMART CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been served on all known counsel of record with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send-email notification to all known counsel of record, this 30th day of October, 2013. /s/ Ryan O. Luminais _________________________________________ RYAN O. LUMINAIS
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321 Filed: 11/11/13 36 of 36 PageID #: 6002
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
DECLARATION OF JOHN R. KREWSON
STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF COBB
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, John R. Krewson, state the following:
1. My name is John R. Krewson.
2. I obtained a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the University
of Tennessee at Knoxville in 1971.
3. I am a registered professional engineer with thirty-five years of experience in the
public and private sector in planning, project management, engineering design, and
loss evaluation.
4. I have prepared the designs and provided construction management for over one
thousand engineering projects, including comprehensive high schools, middle and
elementary schools, hospital additions, churches, multifamily and single family
residential developments, and commercial and industrial projects.
5. I am licensed as a professional engineer in the States of Georgia (PE# 10228) and
Florida (PE#68675).
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-1 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 5 PageID #: 6003
6. I have civil engineering design and construction experience in grading, storm
drainage, detention and hydrology, street and highways, parking lots, sanitary
sewers, water systems, dam and reservoir designs, and erosion control.
7. I have structural design and construction experience utilizing steel, concrete, and
wood for both single and multi-level structures, including pre-engineered buildings,
foundations, slabs, and retaining walls.
8. I have extensive experience with hydrology related software and programs, including
AutoCad Land Desk Top, AutoCAD Civil 3D, and Hydraflow engineering design
software; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC-1, HEC-2, HEC-RAS, Check-RAS
software; and RISA3D structural design software.
9. I am also experienced in the fields of constructions and land surveying.
10. I have been retained by Kmart Corporation to act as a expert witness in this case as
to the cause and/or contributing factors of the flood and/or water damage to the
Kmart Store #4883 located at 118 Highway 72 West, Corinth, Mississippi.
11. My original expert report in this matter was submitted to counsel for Kmart on or
around September 20, 2012. My understanding is that it was then submitted to
counsel for the defendants on or around October 4, 2012.
12. Additionally, on April 2013, I submitted the HEC-RAS data that I used to prepare
my original report to Kmart’s counsel in responding to a written discovery request
from one of the defendants.
13. On May 22, 2013, I was deposed by counsel for the defendants in Jackson,
Mississippi.
2
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-1 Filed: 11/11/13 2 of 5 PageID #: 6004
14. During that deposition, I discovered for the first time that my report and findings
contained a mistake that affected the finding and conclusions contained within my
original report dated September 20, 2012.
15. Specifically, my second HEC-RAS run data, which showed the impact of the Kroger
building on the flooding at the Kmart building, incorrectly compared two peak
discharges.
16. This led me to mistakenly originally conclude that the presence of the Kroger
building caused a one foot rise in the flooding at Kmart’s store on May 2, 2010.
17. In re-running the models for my latest Amended Flooding Evaluation dated October
11, 2013, I corrected the flow-rate of Elam Creek from 3,702 cubic feet per second
to 5,202 cubic feet per second, which is the correct flow-rate to use in the modeling
because it accounts for the convergence between Elam Creek and Turner Creek.
18. Additionally, in my latest Amended Flooding Evaluation dated October 11, 2013, the
Manning N values contained in my original Flooding Evaluation dated September
20, 2012 were corrected to reflect the conditions of the channel of Elam Creek and
the flooding depths occurring at the time of the loss to Kmart’s store in Corinth,
Mississippi on May 2, 2010.
19. In my latest Amended Flooding Evaluation dated October 11, 2013, I made the
following conclusions:
(a) The draining basin upstream from the Kmart site received rainfall that
appears to approximate the 1-percent annual chance rainfall event (100 year
storm). Using the FEMA 1-percent annual chance (100 year) flow data, and
3
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-1 Filed: 11/11/13 3 of 5 PageID #: 6005
using a model with an overgrown channel similar to that existing at the time
of the flood, flooding in Elam Creek exceeds the FEMA 1-percent annual
chance (100 year flood) elevation and approaches the actual depths of
flooding at the building reported. The presence of the Kroger store increased
the impact and depth of flooding during the flood event of May 2, 2010 and
caused damage to Kmart.
(b) The presence of the Kroger in the FEMA floodway reduced the flooding
width resulting in increased velocities as anticipated by FEMA, increasing
the depth of flooding and impact on the Kmart store in Corinth, Mississippi.
(c) The lack of maintenance of the creek channel, coupled with obstructions and
debris in the channel increased the depth of flooding and caused increased
damage to the Kmart during the flood event of May 2, 2010.
(d) Filling in the low area behind the Kmart and Kroger stores reduced the flood
storage volume and likely increased the depth of flooding damage to Kmart.
(e) Despite the location of the building in a large and documented floodplain and
floodway, no actions such as caulking and waterproofing the exterior walls,
or construction of a protective membrane around the building were done to
protect the building.
(f) In my opinion, had the creek channel been maintained, had building
construction in FEMA’s regulatory floodway been restricted, had the area
behind the Kroger and Kmart stores not been filled, and had the building
been protected by waterpoofing, the Kmart store would not have flooded, or
4
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-1 Filed: 11/11/13 4 of 5 PageID #: 6006
had flooding occurred, it would have occurred at such a depth that normal
preventative actions by the store’s staff at the time of the event would not
have been able to protect the store from damage.
20. Additionally, I was asked to mark an “x” at the approximate location of where the
Kroger building would appear on the Prime Engineering Survey, which is attached
as Exhibit 7 to Kmart’s Omnibus Opposition. While that survey was done prior to
the construction of the Kroger building, the location of the building as it exist today
would be located approximately where the “x” appears on the survey.
21. The location of the floodway as it appears on the Prime Engineering Survey, which
is attached as Exhibit 7 to Kmart’s Omnibus Opposition, and as it appears the prior
FEMA FIRM Panels for Corinth, Missisisippi are inconsistent.
22. Additionally, if asked to model the other buildings or structures that appear in the
floodway, my opinion would be that the rise in the water level at the Kmart store in
Corinth, Mississippi would increase, not decrease, but I have not done that modeling
yet.
23. I declare under penalty of law that the foregoing is true and correct.
____________________________________JOHN R. KREWSON
5
__________________ _________________________ _______
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-1 Filed: 11/11/13 5 of 5 PageID #: 6007
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-2 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 12 PageID #: 6008
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-2 Filed: 11/11/13 2 of 12 PageID #: 6009
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-2 Filed: 11/11/13 3 of 12 PageID #: 6010
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-2 Filed: 11/11/13 4 of 12 PageID #: 6011
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-2 Filed: 11/11/13 5 of 12 PageID #: 6012
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-2 Filed: 11/11/13 6 of 12 PageID #: 6013
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-2 Filed: 11/11/13 7 of 12 PageID #: 6014
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-2 Filed: 11/11/13 8 of 12 PageID #: 6015
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-2 Filed: 11/11/13 9 of 12 PageID #: 6016
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-2 Filed: 11/11/13 10 of 12 PageID #: 6017
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-2 Filed: 11/11/13 11 of 12 PageID #: 6018
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-2 Filed: 11/11/13 12 of 12 PageID #: 6019
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 23 PageID #: 6020
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 2 of 23 PageID #: 6021
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 3 of 23 PageID #: 6022
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 4 of 23 PageID #: 6023
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 5 of 23 PageID #: 6024
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 6 of 23 PageID #: 6025
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 7 of 23 PageID #: 6026
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 8 of 23 PageID #: 6027
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 9 of 23 PageID #: 6028
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 10 of 23 PageID #: 6029
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 11 of 23 PageID #: 6030
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 12 of 23 PageID #: 6031
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 13 of 23 PageID #: 6032
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 14 of 23 PageID #: 6033
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 15 of 23 PageID #: 6034
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 16 of 23 PageID #: 6035
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 17 of 23 PageID #: 6036
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 18 of 23 PageID #: 6037
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 19 of 23 PageID #: 6038
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 20 of 23 PageID #: 6039
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 21 of 23 PageID #: 6040
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 22 of 23 PageID #: 6041
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-3 Filed: 11/11/13 23 of 23 PageID #: 6042
Amended Flooding Evaluation
Kmart # 4883 118 Highway 72 West Corinth, Mississippi 38834 Prepared For: Mr. John T. Balhoff, II Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C.
909 Poydras Street, Twenty-eighth Floor 0112 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
EFI Global Job No: 98340-08794
July 23, 2013
Prepared By:
EFI Global, Inc. 3039 Premiere Parkway Suite 700 Duluth, GA 30097
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 25 PageID #: 6043
3039 Premiere Parkway
Suite 700
Duluth, GA 30097
Tel: 770-925-9600
Tel: 800-245-9601
Fax: 770-925-9649
www.efiglobal.com
July 23, 2013 Mr. John T. Balhoff, II Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, Twenty-eighth Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Re: Amended Flooding Evaluation Kmart # 4883 118 Highway 72 West Corinth, Mississippi 38834 EFI Global JN: 98340-08794 Dear Mr. Balhoff: Please find our amended report related to the flooding of Kmart store # 4883 at 118 Highway 72 West, in Corinth, Mississippi. This report re-calculates the HEC-RAS results shown in the original report of September 20, 2012. The HEC-RAS results used in the September 20, 2012 report were based on an inadvertent flow data discrepancy in the HEC-RAS model. The revised HEC-RAS model herein is expanded to review additional flooding scenarios at the site. This amendment also discusses and utilizes information concerning the Kmart Store # 4883 site that was not available for review at the time the September 20, 2012 report was submitted. The additional information includes the original construction plans for the site, debris at the railroad bridge, and the LOMR, LOMA, and Elevation Certificates approved at the site. For the purposes of this report, the front of Kmart store # 4883, hereinafter also referred to as Kmart, will be the side of the store facing the intersection of Highway 72 West and South Fulton Drive. Directions right and left will be based on a viewer facing Kmart from this intersection. Using this convention, the right side of the store faces South Fulton Drive, the left side of the store faces Highway 72 West, and the rear of the store faces State Street.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 2 of 25 PageID #: 6044
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
Background: The Kmart store is a large retail store located in a shopping center at the corner of Highway 72 West and South Fulton Drive in Corinth, Mississippi (Figure 1). The building housing the Kmart store has slab on grade, open plan, warehouse type construction with at-grade parking abutting the store on the front. Paved driveways are on the left side and rear of the store. The building housing Kmart also houses a Kroger Grocery store as a continuation of the building to the right of the Kmart. Both the Kmart and the Kroger stores were constructed in 1992 as a part of the overall development of the retail center. The two stores have the same floor elevation and share parking. The overall Kmart-Kroger retail center is a 16.29 acre tract located in a low area adjacent to Elam Creek, a large creek to the right of South Fulton Drive flowing north to south towards Highway 72 West. Parking for the Kmart and Kroger stores is at grade. Storm water runoff from the parking lot in front of the stores is collected in drop inlets and carried across South Fulton Drive in an underground pipe system to an existing detention facility located to the right of the site between South Fulton Drive and Elam Creek. Grades on the site are flat. Roof drainage for the Kmart and Kroger stores is provided by gutters and downspouts on the rear of the store buildings. The downspouts discharge onto splash blocks at grade with the asphalt pavements behind the stores. Runoff from pavement behind the stores drains away from the stores across the paving to the rear curb. The runoff is collected and discharged by several flumes through the curb into an existing ditch draining left to right parallel to the curb behind the buildings. Flow in the ditch is collected, along with runoff from the large grassed area behind the site, into a headwall for a 60 inch outfall storm drain. The 60 inch headwall is located approximately between the Kroger and the Kmart stores, behind the rear curb of the parking lot behind the stores. The 60 inch outfall pipe runs from the headwall back towards the building to a drop inlet in the pavement behind the Kroger store. From this inlet, the pipe runs to the right behind the Kroger store through a series of drop inlets and then across South Fulton Drive. The location of the outfall headwall for the 60 inch pipe once it crosses South Fulton Drive could not be determined. Based on the location of the existing buildings to the right of South Fulton Drive and an inspection of Elam Creek in the area, it is believed the pipe turns and runs parallel to South Fulton Drive toward Highway 72 West and eventually discharges into the existing detention facility noted above.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 3 of 25 PageID #: 6045
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
Flooding Event: According to weather records on WeatherWarehouse.com, rain began falling in the Corinth area during the late evening of May 1, and the early morning of May 2, 2010. By 5:00 a.m., the records for Corinth show that 5.68 inches of rain had fallen. As the morning progressed, water began rising rapidly around the Kmart. According to the store manager, Mr. Matt Hausmann, water was building up and flowing along the rear of the building, putting stress on the rear doors of the store. Eventually, landscape timbers stored on site struck the doors with enough force to break open the doors, lodge in the opening, and allow water to flood into the store. The quantity of water overwhelmed the staff’s ability to control it. According to Mr. Hausmann, the water in the parking lot around the building was measured at a depth of 22 inches by City of Corinth employees. Photographs taken in the Kmart store show a water depth of approximately 1.5 feet. Mr. Hausmann stated that there was a similar depth of water in both the Kmart and the Kroger store. The water caused considerable damage to the buildings and the inventory of the both the Kmart and Kroger stores. The flooding in 2010 is very similar to flooding events that occurred on October 13, 2001 and November 18, 2001 as outlined in a report prepared by the engineering firm of Reaves Sweeney Marcom of Memphis, Tenn. Weather Data: The records for the area found on WeatherWarehouse.com show a rainfall event occurring overnight and during the morning of May 2, 2010 for the northern Mississippi and western Tennessee areas. Although hourly records for the area were not available, a review of the daily recording times and the pattern of rainfall distribution on area weather stations show that between 6 and 13 inches of rainfall fell during the period prior to 8:00 a.m., with the higher rainfall events occurring north of Corinth with Corinth being approximately on the southern extent of the heavy rainfall. Weather stations 10 or more miles south of Corinth and the Kmart site show relatively light rainfall accumulation, with the amount of rainfall recorded increasing with distance north of Corinth. Because Elam Creek, the creek that flooded the site, heads up approximately 6 miles north of the site and flows south to the site, the pattern of increased rainfall amounts north of the site increased the flooding impact on the Kmart site. Based on NOAA Technical Paper 40 for the Corinth area, the 24 hour 100 year rainfall event is 7.6 inches. Based on the weather records, it appears that the storm of May 2, 2010 may have approached the 100 year rainfall amount.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 4 of 25 PageID #: 6046
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
FEMA Flooding Data: The current FEMA Firm Panel for the site, panel 28003C0067 (Figure 3), shows that the majority of the site area, including all of the Kmart and the Kroger building, is located in the designated flood limits of Elam Creek. Elam Creek is large tributary creek having an upstream drainage area of over 6 square miles draining to the site of the Kmart building. At the store site, the creek has a large, well developed flood zone designated on the FIRM panel as an AE zone. AE zones are studied zones having established base flood elevations. The Firm Panel also shows an area along both banks of the creek that is designated as the regulatory floodway for the creek. According to the FIRM panel, approximately one half of the Kroger store is located in both the floodplain and also in the area FEMA has designated as being the regulatory floodway. The Kmart store is located in the floodplain only. According to a Letter of Map Revision issued for the site in 2005, the 100 year flood elevation for the building is 432.4. An Elevation Certificate for the site prepared on November 11, 2001 places the finished floor elevation of the building at 433.0, 0.6 feet above the elevation of the FEMA 100 year flood elevation. Based on an as-built survey prepared for the site as a part of this report, the exterior grades along the perimeter of the building vary from 431.8 and 432.2, meaning the lowest adjacent grades around the building are below the flood elevation. A review of the FEMA historic FIRM records determined that the flood elevation of Elam Creek is unchanged on the current FIRM from the 100 year flood elevations at the time of construction of the building. Typically, standard design and permitting practice require building floor elevations in flood prone areas, especially in designated flood areas to be at least 3.0 feet above the 100 year flooding elevation. In the case of the Kmart and the Kroger, this would place the floor elevations at 435.4, 2.4 feet higher than the actual floor elevation. Had the building been constructed with a floor elevation of 435.4, flooding would not have occurred during the storm of 2010. The review of the elevation of the building relative to the flood elevation would typically have been the responsibility of the City of Corinth building authorities. The location of the Kroger in the floodway is a concern. As noted, approximately one half of the Kroger was built in the floodway for Elam Creek. A review of aerial photography and the current FIRM for the site shows that a number of other buildings were also built in the floodway. According to records I have examined, the floodway shown on current FIRM is unchanged from the floodway shown on the prior FIRM panel, prior to the construction of the building. FEMA’s 2009 Flood Insurance Study for Alcorn County and Incorporated Areas, states:
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 5 of 25 PageID #: 6047
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
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 6 of 25 PageID #: 6048
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
elevation and location of the floodplain, and the location of the floodway to be substantially different from the floodplain and floodway shown on the FEMA FIRM panel for the area at the time. The floodway on the plans is shown south of Fulton Drive. The floodplain elevation on the plan sheet is approximately 430.8 which is 1.6 feet below the FEMA FIRM flood elevation shown on 1981 FIRM in force at the time. The derivation of the floodplain and floodway data shown on the plans is unknown. Although the Kroger and other structures along Elam Creek were constructed in the floodway without restriction, a review of FEMA’s records found that a “Letter of Map Revision” or LOMR was issued by FEMA in November 18, 2005, removing the Kroger property from the floodway due to “Inadvertent Inclusion in the Floodway 1”. The records do not indicate how the LOMR originated, or what studies, review or public notice was given prior to issuance. FEMA regulations require a flood study be done to determine the impact of the encroachment on flood elevations and velocities. The studies are submitted to FEMA for review and approval. No record was found of such a study. Issuance also requires that other affected property owners along the creek be notified, and public notice be made. No record of this was found. Once the studies and public notice are complete, the local governing and review agency responsible for flood management and oversight makes a final review of the LOMR and recommends approval. No record of this was found. Prior to the issuance of the FEMA’s Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) in 2005, other prior efforts had been made regarding the location of the buildings in the floodplain and floodway. Also in 2005, a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) was issued for the site. An Elevation Certificate was issued by FEMA in 2001. Note: The issuance of the LOMR, LOMA, and Elevation Certificate would have no impact on the physical presence of the buildings in the floodway or floodplain, or on the potential for flooding in any given flood event. These instruments would serve to reduce the cost of flood insurance for the buildings. The buildings are still shown in the floodplain and the floodway on the 2010 FEMA FIRM map for the site. Along with the placement of the Kroger and other structures in the regulatory floodway, several other conditions that would increase the flood elevations on the site were noted along the creek and in the floodplain at the time of the initial inspection:
Southeast of the Kmart near Highway 72, at the point where Kansas Southern Railroad’s north-south railroad line crosses Elam Creek on a timber bridge, a considerable debris field was noted upstream of the bridge. The debris blocked approximately the lower quarter of the bridge opening. Mr. David Huwe, the Director of Community Development and Planning for the City of Corinth stated during an interview in his office that the railroad had a poor
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 7 of 25 PageID #: 6049
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
record of maintenance and that the debris at the railroad bridge had been an ongoing problem for some time prior to the flood event. A picture of the flooded railroad bridge not available at the time of our initial report shows the bridge to be completely underwater. In the picture, there is no debris field floating upstream of the bridge. For the debris found behind the bridge at the time of our inspection to have resulted from debris floating downstream during the storm, there would have be a considerable amount of floating debris trapped behind the bridge when the water level dropped. The lack of a floating debris field in the picture indicates that the debris found behind the bridge after the flood were present prior to the flooding. Since they did not rise and float off during the flood, they apparently were present for a long enough time to become embedded behind the bridge. Pictures taken during our initial investigation (Figure19 thru 21) show a debris field upstream of the ridge on the floor of the creek. It was noted during the field survey done in August, 2010, approximately 3 months after the initial inspection, that the debris field had been removed. It is not known who cleaned up the debris. Pictures taken April 28, 2011 by others show another, larger debris field upstream of the bridge.
A bridge for an abandoned railroad spur crossing Elam Creek remains in place with narrowly spaced abutments obstructing the creek channel.
The creek channel was badly overgrown with vegetation and poorly maintained. Near the spur railroad bridge noted above, utility and sanitary sewer pipes crossing the channel were apparently abandoned in place, obstructing the channel.
The approximately 4.5 acre grassed field immediately behind the Kmart and Kroger building was originally a number of feet lower in elevation. According to Mr. Huwe with the City of Corinth, the city filled the area over time with excess earth material from various projects around the city. Evidence that dumping of excess fill was still underway was found at the time of the initial inspection of the area (Figure 10). Filling the area reduced the flood storage and flood protection for the Kmart and Kroger building.
The report on the 2001 flooding by Reaves Sweeney Marcom noted above discussed the Elam Creek channel blockage, overgrown channel, and the railroad crossing and utility line impacts on the flooding.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 8 of 25 PageID #: 6050
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.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 9 of 25 PageID #: 6051
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
During the flooding of 2010, water levels above the FEMA 100 year flood level were reported in the building. To test the potential impact of the overgrown banks along Elam Creek channel, a third HEC-RAS profile was run based on channel properties for high flows and a poorly maintained channel found in the documentation for the HEC-RAS model. This model reported water levels at the building comparable to the water levels found at the building during the 2010 flood indicating water levels at the site could occur at the 100 year flow level. Given the impact of the other building obstructions located in the floodway and floodplain that are not included in the model, it appears that the actual flow at the site was likely less than the 100 year event. The results the high flow-poorly maintained condition was compared to the result from the second profile which assumed a moderately well maintained channel without obstruction. The comparison of the two models found that for the Kmart-Kroger building, the poorly maintained channel resulted in a 1.4 feet rise when compared to the depth at the site with a maintained channel. When the water level from the third profile was compared to the benchmark profile, the flow was 2.3 feet higher than the benchmark which is also in line with reported events. Conclusions:
1. The drainage basin upstream from the Kmart site received rainfall that appears to approximate the 1-percent-annual-chance rainfall event (100 year storm). Using the FEMA 1-percent-annual-chance (100 year) flow data, and using a model with an overgrown channel similar to that existing at the time of the flood, flooding in Elam Creek exceeds the FEMA 1-percent-annual-chance (100 year flood) elevation and approaches the actual depths of flooding at the building reported. The presence of the Kroger store as well as other buildings in the floodway increased the impact and depth of flooding during the flood event of May 2, 2010 and caused damage to Kmart.
2. The lack of maintenance of the creek channel, coupled with obstructions and debris in the channel increased the depth of flooding and caused increased damage to the Kmart during the flood event of May 2, 2010.
3. Filling in the low area behind the Kmart and Kroger stores reduced the flood storage volume and likely increased the depth of flooding damage to Kmart.
4. Despite the location of the building in a large and documented floodplain and floodway with a documented history of recent damaging past floods, no actions such as caulking and waterproofing the exterior walls, or construction of a protective membrane around the building were done to protect the building.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 10 of 25 PageID #: 6052
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
It is our belief that: had the creek channel been maintained, had building construction in FEMA’s regulatory floodway been restricted, had the area behind the Kroger and Kmart stores not been filled, and had the building been protected by waterproofing, the Kmart store would not have flooded, or had flooding occurred, it would have been occurred at such a depth that normal preventive actions by the store’s staff at the time of the event would have been able to protect the store from damage. Qualifications Our services have been performed using that degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of EFI Global’s profession. If any additional information is encountered which relates to this evaluation, EFI Global reserves the right to review our conclusions and opinions accordingly. In some cases, additional studies may be warranted to fully evaluate concerns noted.
Any verbal statements made before, during, or after the course of the investigation
were made as a courtesy only and are not considered a part of this report.
Closing EFI Global, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide consulting services to you in this matter. Please contact us should any questions arise concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, EFI Global, Inc.
John R. Krewson Engineering Consultant
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 11 of 25 PageID #: 6053
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
John R. Krewson, PE
FIGURE 1 - OVERALL SITE
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 12 of 25 PageID #: 6054
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
FIGURE 2 – CLOSE AERIAL VIEW OF SITE
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 13 of 25 PageID #: 6055
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
FIGURE 3 – FEMA FIRM PANEL OF THE SITE Panel No.2803C0067C
Effective Date: Sept. 17, 2010
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 14 of 25 PageID #: 6056
Partridge Residence EFI No.: 98340-09777 April 25, 2011
FIGURE 4 FRONT VIEW OF KMART AND
KROGER
FIGURE 5 LEFT SIDE OF THE KMART
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 15 of 25 PageID #: 6057
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
FIGURE 6 VIEW ALONG THE FRONT OF KMART LOOKING FROM THE LEFT SIDE
FIGURE 7
VIEW ALONG THE REAR OF KMART LOOKING FROM
THE LEFT SIDE
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 16 of 25 PageID #: 6058
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
FIGURE 8 LEFT SIDE OF KMART LOOKING FROM THE REAR CORNER WITH TYPICAL DROP INLET IN
FOREGROUND
FIGURE 9 TYPICAL DOWN DRAIN ON REAR OF
BUILDING
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 17 of 25 PageID #: 6059
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
FIGURE 10 CURB CUT IN REAR PARKING CURB NEAR LEFT SIDE OF KMART WITH
DITCH BEYOND
FIGURE 11
FLUME THROUGH CURB BEHIND
KMART
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 18 of 25 PageID #: 6060
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 12 DITCH BEHIND
KMART
FIGURE 13 GRASSED FIELD IN AREA THAT WAS FILLED IN BEHIND THE SITE WITH NEW FILL IN THE
BACKGROUND
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 19 of 25 PageID #: 6061
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
FIGURE 14 INLET TO 60 INCH PIPE COLLECTING WATER FROM THE DITCH BEHIND THE
SITE
FIGURE 15
VIEW OF THE FIELD BEIND THE SITE NEAR THE RIGHT CORNER OF
KROGER
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 20 of 25 PageID #: 6062
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
FIGURE 16 PILE OF FILL MATERIAL IN THE FIELD BEHIND THE SITE WITH KMART AND KROGER IN THE
BACKGROUND
FIGURE 17 RIGHT SIDE OF THE KROGER LOOKING BACK TOWARD HIGHWAY 72
WEST
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 21 of 25 PageID #: 6063
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
FIGURE 18 FLOODING DEBRIS IN THE FENCE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD RUNNING BESIDE
KROGER
FIGURE 19 LOOKING UPSTREAM AT DEBRIS FIELD AT RAILROAD BRIDGE SOUTHEAST OF
THE SITE
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 22 of 25 PageID #: 6064
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
FIGURE 20 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM AT DEBRIS FIELD AT RAILROAD
BRIDGE
FIGURE 21 DEBRIS FIELD AT RAILROAD
BRIDGE
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 23 of 25 PageID #: 6065
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 22 ABANDONED UTILITY LINES OBSTRUCTING ELAM CREEK WITH SPUR RAILROAD BRIDGE OBSTRUCTION AND OVERGROWN
CHANNEL
FIGURE 23
OVERGROWN AND UNMAINTAINED CREEK
CHANNEL
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 24 of 25 PageID #: 6066
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 July 23, 2013
FIGURE 24 TREE AND OVERGROWN AND UNMAINTAINED CREEK CHANNEL AT
BRIDGE
FIGURE 25 OVERGROWN SPUR RAILROAD BRIDGE WITH UTILITY OBSTRUCTIONS IN
BACKGROUND
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-4 Filed: 11/11/13 25 of 25 PageID #: 6067
Amended Flooding Evaluation
Kmart # 4883 118 Highway 72 West Corinth, Mississippi 38834 Prepared For: Mr. John T. Balhoff, II Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C.
909 Poydras Street, Twenty-eighth Floor 0112 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
EFI Global Job No: 98340-08794
October 11, 2013
Prepared By:
EFI Global, Inc. 3039 Premiere Parkway Suite 700 Duluth, GA 30097
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 24 PageID #: 6068
3039 Premiere Parkway
Suite 700
Duluth, GA 30097
Tel: 770-925-9600
Tel: 800-245-9601
Fax: 770-925-9649
www.efiglobal.com
October 11, 2013 Mr. John T. Balhoff, II Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, Twenty-eighth Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Re: Amended Flooding Evaluation Kmart # 4883 118 Highway 72 West Corinth, Mississippi 38834 EFI Global JN: 98340-08794 Dear Mr. Balhoff: Please find our amended report related to the flooding of Kmart store # 4883 at 118 Highway 72 West, in Corinth, Mississippi. This report re-calculates the HEC-RAS results shown in the original report of September 20, 2012. The HEC-RAS results used in the September 20, 2012 report were based on an inadvertent flow data discrepancy in the HEC-RAS model. For the purposes of this report, the front of Kmart store # 4883, hereinafter also referred to as Kmart, will be the side of the store facing the intersection of Highway 72 West and South Fulton Drive. Directions right and left will be based on a viewer facing Kmart from this intersection. Using this convention, the right side of the store faces South Fulton Drive, the left side of the store faces Highway 72 West, and the rear of the store faces State Street. Background: The Kmart store is a large retail store located in a shopping center at the corner of Highway 72 West and South Fulton Drive in Corinth, Mississippi (Figure 1). The building housing the Kmart store has slab on grade, open plan, warehouse type construction with at-grade parking abutting the store on the front. Paved driveways
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 2 of 24 PageID #: 6069
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
are on the left side and rear of the store. The building housing Kmart also houses a Kroger Grocery store as a continuation of the building to the right of the Kmart. Both the Kmart and the Kroger stores were constructed in 1992 as a part of the overall development of the retail center. The two stores have the same floor elevation and share parking. The overall Kmart-Kroger retail center is a 16.29 acre tract located in a low area adjacent to Elam Creek, a large creek to the right of South Fulton Drive flowing north to south towards Highway 72 West. Parking for the Kmart and Kroger stores is at grade. Storm water runoff from the parking lot in front of the stores is collected in drop inlets and carried across South Fulton Drive in an underground pipe system to an existing detention facility located to the right of the site between South Fulton Drive and Elam Creek. Grades on the site are flat. Roof drainage for the Kmart and Kroger stores is provided by gutters and downspouts on the rear of the store buildings. The downspouts discharge onto splash blocks at grade with the asphalt pavements behind the stores. Runoff from pavement behind the stores drains away from the stores across the paving to the rear curb. The runoff is collected and discharged by several flumes through the curb into an existing ditch draining left to right parallel to the curb behind the buildings. Flow in the ditch is collected, along with runoff from the large grassed area behind the site, into a headwall for a 60 inch outfall storm drain. The 60 inch headwall is located approximately between the Kroger and the Kmart stores, behind the rear curb of the parking lot behind the stores. The 60 inch outfall pipe runs from the headwall back towards the building to a drop inlet in the pavement behind the Kroger store. From this inlet, the pipe runs to the right behind the Kroger store through a series of drop inlets and then across South Fulton Drive. The location of the outfall headwall for the 60 inch pipe once it crosses South Fulton Drive could not be determined. Based on the location of the existing buildings to the right of South Fulton Drive and an inspection of Elam Creek in the area, it is believed the pipe turns and runs parallel to South Fulton Drive toward Highway 72 West and eventually discharges into the existing detention facility noted above. Flooding Event: According to weather records on WeatherWarehouse.com, rain began falling in the Corinth area during the late evening of May 1, and the early morning of May 2, 2010. By 5:00 a.m., the records for Corinth show that 5.68 inches of rain had fallen. As the morning progressed, water began rising rapidly around the Kmart. According to the store manager, Mr. Matt Hausmann, water was building up and flowing along the rear of the building, putting stress on the rear doors of the store. Eventually, landscape timbers stored on site struck the doors with enough force to break open the doors,
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 3 of 24 PageID #: 6070
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
lodge in the opening, and allow water to flood into the store. The quantity of water overwhelmed the staff’s ability to control it. According to Mr. Hausmann, the water in the parking lot around the building was measured at a depth of 22 inches by City of Corinth employees. Mr. Hausmann stated that there was a similar depth of water in both the Kmart and the Kroger store. The water caused considerable damage to the buildings and the inventory of the both the Kmart and Kroger stores. Weather Data: The records for the area found on WeatherWarehouse.com show a rainfall event occurring overnight and during the morning of May 2, 2010 for the northern Mississippi and western Tennessee areas. Although hourly records for the area were not available, a review of the daily recording times and the pattern of rainfall distribution on area weather stations show that between 6 and 13 inches of rainfall fell during the period prior to 8:00 a.m., with the higher rainfall events occurring north of Corinth with Corinth being approximately on the southern extent of the heavy rainfall. Weather stations 10 or more miles south of Corinth and the Kmart site show relatively light rainfall accumulation, with the amount of rainfall recorded increasing with distance north of Corinth. Because Elam Creek, the creek that flooded the site, heads up approximately 6 miles north of the site and flows south to the site, the pattern of increased rainfall amounts north of the site increased the flooding impact on the Kmart site. Based on NOAA Technical Paper 40 for the Corinth area, the 24 hour 100 year rainfall event is 7.6 inches. Based on the weather records, it appears that the storm of May 2, 2010 may have approached the 100 year rainfall amount. FEMA Flooding Data: The current FEMA Firm Panel for the site, panel 28003C0067 (Figure 3), shows that the majority of the site area, including all of the Kmart and the Kroger building, is located in the designated flood limits of Elam Creek. Elam Creek is large tributary creek having an upstream drainage area of over 6 square miles draining to the site of the Kmart building. At the store site, the creek has a large, well developed flood zone designated on the FIRM panel as an AE zone. AE zones are studied zones having established base flood elevations. The Firm Panel also shows an area along both banks of the creek that is designated as the regulatory floodway for the creek. According to the FIRM panel, approximately one half of the Kroger store is located in both the floodplain and also in the area FEMA has designated as being the regulatory floodway. The Kmart store is located in the floodplain only. According to a Letter of Map Revision issued for the site in 2005, the 100 year flood elevation for the building is 432.4. An Elevation Certificate for the site prepared on
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 4 of 24 PageID #: 6071
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
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 5 of 24 PageID #: 6072
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
the “Floodway” on their maps. It is the responsibility of the cities and counties that issue building permits to enforce the restriction and make sure that the floodway is not blocked. The difference between the areas on the FEMA maps called the “Floodway” and the areas called the “Floodplain” is that nothing can be built in the “Floodway”, while careful construction is allowed in the “Floodplain” areas. The Kmart store is built entirely in the “Floodplain.” Approximately one half of the Kroger store is built in the “Floodway”, obstructing the flow of floodwater down the creek. The construction of the Kroger and other structures in the known floodway of Elam Creek increases the flood heights and potential for flooding, as well as for increased velocities, both of the factors involved in the flooding of the Kmart store. It is not known what regularity review was in place at the time the Kroger and other buildings were constructed in the floodway, but as the above quote from the Flood Insurance Study states, it is the responsibility of the local governing authority to control and prevent construction in the floodway. According to the August 30, 2010 volume of the “Federal Register”, Corinth, Mississippi, and Alcorn County, Mississippi were among the jurisdictions subject to suspension of community eligibility under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for non-compliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. A review of the “Existing Conditions Plan” sheet C-2 dated 03/09/1992 from the original construction plans for the site prepared by Prime Engineering found the elevation and location of the floodplain, and the location of the floodway to be substantially different from the floodplain and floodway shown on the FEMA FIRM panel for the area at the time. The floodway on the plans is shown south of Fulton Drive. The floodplain elevation on the plan sheet is approximately 430.8 which is 1.6 feet below the FEMA FIRM flood elevation shown on 1981 FIRM in force at the time. The derivation of the floodplain and floodway data shown on the plans is unknown. Although the Kroger and other structures along Elam Creek were constructed in the floodway without restriction, a review of FEMA’s records found that a “Letter of Map Revision” or LOMR was issued by FEMA in November 18, 2005, removing the Kroger property from the floodway due to “Inadvertent Inclusion in the Floodway 1”. The records do not indicate how the LOMR originated, or what studies, review or public notice was given prior to issuance. FEMA regulations require a flood study be done to determine the impact of the encroachment on flood elevations and velocities. The studies are submitted to FEMA for review and approval. No record was found of such a study. Issuance also requires that other affected property owners along the creek be notified, and public notice be made. No record of this was found. Once the studies and public notice are complete, the local governing and review agency
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 6 of 24 PageID #: 6073
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
responsible for flood management and oversight makes a final review of the LOMR and recommends approval. No record of this was found. Prior to the issuance of the FEMA’s Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) in 2005, other prior efforts had been made regarding the location of the buildings in the floodplain and floodway. Also in 2005, a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) was issued for the site. An Elevation Certificate was issued by FEMA in 2001. Note: The issuance of the LOMR, LOMA, and Elevation Certificate would have no impact on the physical presence of the buildings in the floodway or floodplain, or on the potential for flooding in any given flood event. These instruments would serve to reduce the cost of flood insurance for the buildings. The buildings are still shown in the floodplain and the floodway on the 2010 FEMA FIRM map for the site. Along with the placement of the Kroger and other structures in the regulatory floodway, several other conditions that would increase the flood elevations on the site were noted along the creek and in the floodplain at the time of the initial inspection:
Southeast of the Kmart near Highway 72, at the point where Kansas Southern Railroad’s north-south railroad line crosses Elam Creek on a timber bridge, a considerable debris field was noted upstream of the bridge. The debris blocked approximately the lower quarter of the bridge opening. Mr. David Huwe, the Director of Community Development and Planning for the City of Corinth stated during an interview in his office that the railroad had a poor record of maintenance and that the debris at the railroad bridge had been an ongoing problem for some time prior to the flood event. Pictures taken during our initial investigation (Figure19 thru 21) show a debris field upstream of the ridge on the floor of the creek. It was noted during the field survey done in August, 2010, approximately 3 months after the initial inspection, that the debris field had been removed. It is not known who cleaned up the debris. Pictures taken April 28, 2011 by others show another, larger debris field upstream of the bridge.
A bridge for an abandoned railroad spur crossing Elam Creek remains in place with narrowly spaced abutments obstructing the creek channel.
The creek channel was badly overgrown with vegetation and poorly maintained. Near the spur railroad bridge noted above, utility and sanitary sewer pipes crossing the channel were apparently abandoned in place, obstructing the channel.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 7 of 24 PageID #: 6074
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.
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 8 of 24 PageID #: 6075
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
A review of the flow and velocity data from the model found that the addition of the Kroger to the Kmart building reduced the overbank width of flow at the building by 193 feet and increased the average velocity of flow at the building by 16 percent. Prior to the addition of the Kroger building the Kmart building was essentially outside the active overbank flow of water. When the Kroger building was added, the overbank flow overlapped the combined building by 129 feet, increasing the exposure of the building to flowing water. Flowing water carrying debris along the back of the Kmart building that damaged the rear door was reported as the cause of the water intruding into the Kmart building on the date of loss. During the flooding of 2010, water levels above the FEMA 100 year flood level were reported in the building. This model reported water levels at the building comparable to the water levels found at the building during the 2010 flood indicating water levels at the site during the flood could occur at the 100 year flow level. Given the impact of the other building obstructions located in the floodway and floodplain that are not included in the model, it appears that the actual flow at the site was likely less than the 100 flooding year event. Conclusions:
1. The drainage basin upstream from the Kmart site received rainfall that appears to approximate the 1-percent-annual-chance rainfall event (100 year storm). Using the FEMA 1-percent-annual-chance (100 year) flow data, and using a model with an overgrown channel similar to that existing at the time of the flood, flooding in Elam Creek exceeds the FEMA 1-percent-annual-chance (100 year flood) elevation and approaches the actual depths of flooding at the building reported. The presence of the Kroger store increased the impact and depth of flooding during the flood event of May 2, 2010 and caused damage to Kmart.
2. The presence of the Kroger in the FEMA floodway reduced the flooding width resulting increased velocities as anticipated by FEMA, increasing the depth of flooding and the impact on the Kmart store.
3. The lack of maintenance of the creek channel, coupled with obstructions and debris in the channel increased the depth of flooding and caused increased damage to the Kmart during the flood event of May 2, 2010.
4. Filling in the low area behind the Kmart and Kroger stores reduced the flood storage volume and likely increased the depth of flooding damage to Kmart.
5. Despite the location of the building in a large and documented floodplain and floodway no actions such as caulking and waterproofing the exterior walls, or
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 9 of 24 PageID #: 6076
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
construction of a protective membrane around the building were done to protect the building.
It is our belief that: had the creek channel been maintained, had building construction in FEMA’s regulatory floodway been restricted, had the area behind the Kroger and Kmart stores not been filled, and had the building been protected by waterproofing, the Kmart store would not have flooded, or had flooding occurred, it would have been occurred at such a depth that normal preventive actions by the store’s staff at the time of the event would have been able to protect the store from damage. Qualifications Our services have been performed using that degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of EFI Global’s profession. If any additional information is encountered which relates to this evaluation, EFI Global reserves the right to review our conclusions and opinions accordingly. In some cases, additional studies may be warranted to fully evaluate concerns noted.
Any verbal statements made before, during, or after the course of the investigation
were made as a courtesy only and are not considered a part of this report.
Closing EFI Global, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide consulting services to you in this matter. Please contact us should any questions arise concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, EFI Global, Inc.
John R. Krewson Engineering Consultant
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 10 of 24 PageID #: 6077
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
FIGURE 1 - OVERALL SITE
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 11 of 24 PageID #: 6078
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
FIGURE 2 – CLOSE AERIAL VIEW OF SITE
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 12 of 24 PageID #: 6079
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
FIGURE 3 – FEMA FIRM PANEL OF THE SITE Panel No.2803C0067C
Effective Date: Sept. 17, 2010
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 13 of 24 PageID #: 6080
Partridge Residence EFI No.: 98340-09777 April 25, 2011
FIGURE 4 FRONT VIEW OF KMART AND
KROGER
FIGURE 5 LEFT SIDE OF THE KMART
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 14 of 24 PageID #: 6081
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
FIGURE 6 VIEW ALONG THE FRONT OF KMART LOOKING FROM THE LEFT SIDE
FIGURE 7
VIEW ALONG THE REAR OF KMART LOOKING FROM
THE LEFT SIDE
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 15 of 24 PageID #: 6082
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
FIGURE 8 LEFT SIDE OF KMART LOOKING FROM THE REAR CORNER WITH TYPICAL DROP INLET IN
FOREGROUND
FIGURE 9 TYPICAL DOWN DRAIN ON REAR OF
BUILDING
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 16 of 24 PageID #: 6083
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
FIGURE 10 CURB CUT IN REAR PARKING CURB NEAR LEFT SIDE OF KMART WITH
DITCH BEYOND
FIGURE 11
FLUME THROUGH CURB BEHIND
KMART
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 17 of 24 PageID #: 6084
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 12 DITCH BEHIND
KMART
FIGURE 13 GRASSED FIELD IN AREA THAT WAS FILLED IN BEHIND THE SITE WITH NEW FILL IN THE
BACKGROUND
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 18 of 24 PageID #: 6085
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
FIGURE 14 INLET TO 60 INCH PIPE COLLECTING WATER FROM THE DITCH BEHIND THE
SITE
FIGURE 15
VIEW OF THE FIELD BEIND THE SITE NEAR THE RIGHT CORNER OF
KROGER
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 19 of 24 PageID #: 6086
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
FIGURE 16 PILE OF FILL MATERIAL IN THE FIELD BEHIND THE SITE WITH KMART AND KROGER IN THE
BACKGROUND
FIGURE 17 RIGHT SIDE OF THE KROGER LOOKING BACK TOWARD HIGHWAY 72
WEST
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 20 of 24 PageID #: 6087
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
FIGURE 18 FLOODING DEBRIS IN THE FENCE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD RUNNING BESIDE
KROGER
FIGURE 19 LOOKING UPSTREAM AT DEBRIS FIELD AT RAILROAD BRIDGE SOUTHEAST OF
THE SITE
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 21 of 24 PageID #: 6088
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
FIGURE 20 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM AT DEBRIS FIELD AT RAILROAD
BRIDGE
FIGURE 21 DEBRIS FIELD AT RAILROAD
BRIDGE
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 22 of 24 PageID #: 6089
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 22 ABANDONED UTILITY LINES OBSTRUCTING ELAM CREEK WITH SPUR RAILROAD BRIDGE OBSTRUCTION AND OVERGROWN
CHANNEL
FIGURE 23
OVERGROWN AND UNMAINTAINED CREEK
CHANNEL
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 23 of 24 PageID #: 6090
Kmart # 4883 Amended EFI No.: 98340-08794 October 11, 2013
FIGURE 24 TREE AND OVERGROWN AND UNMAINTAINED CREEK CHANNEL AT
BRIDGE
FIGURE 25 OVERGROWN SPUR RAILROAD BRIDGE WITH UTILITY OBSTRUCTIONS IN
BACKGROUND
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-5 Filed: 11/11/13 24 of 24 PageID #: 6091
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-6 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 5 PageID #: 6092
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-6 Filed: 11/11/13 2 of 5 PageID #: 6093
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-6 Filed: 11/11/13 3 of 5 PageID #: 6094
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-6 Filed: 11/11/13 4 of 5 PageID #: 6095
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-6 Filed: 11/11/13 5 of 5 PageID #: 6096
X
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-7 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 1 PageID #: 6097
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-8 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 8 PageID #: 6098
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-8 Filed: 11/11/13 2 of 8 PageID #: 6099
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-8 Filed: 11/11/13 3 of 8 PageID #: 6100
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-8 Filed: 11/11/13 4 of 8 PageID #: 6101
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-8 Filed: 11/11/13 5 of 8 PageID #: 6102
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-8 Filed: 11/11/13 6 of 8 PageID #: 6103
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-8 Filed: 11/11/13 7 of 8 PageID #: 6104
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-8 Filed: 11/11/13 8 of 8 PageID #: 6105
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 19 PageID #: 6106
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 2 of 19 PageID #: 6107
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 3 of 19 PageID #: 6108
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 4 of 19 PageID #: 6109
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 5 of 19 PageID #: 6110
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 6 of 19 PageID #: 6111
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 7 of 19 PageID #: 6112
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 8 of 19 PageID #: 6113
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 9 of 19 PageID #: 6114
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 10 of 19 PageID #: 6115
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 11 of 19 PageID #: 6116
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 12 of 19 PageID #: 6117
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 13 of 19 PageID #: 6118
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 14 of 19 PageID #: 6119
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 15 of 19 PageID #: 6120
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 16 of 19 PageID #: 6121
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 17 of 19 PageID #: 6122
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 18 of 19 PageID #: 6123
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-9 Filed: 11/11/13 19 of 19 PageID #: 6124
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 32 PageID #: 6125
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 2 of 32 PageID #: 6126
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 3 of 32 PageID #: 6127
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 4 of 32 PageID #: 6128
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 5 of 32 PageID #: 6129
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 6 of 32 PageID #: 6130
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 7 of 32 PageID #: 6131
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 8 of 32 PageID #: 6132
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 9 of 32 PageID #: 6133
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 10 of 32 PageID #: 6134
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 11 of 32 PageID #: 6135
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 12 of 32 PageID #: 6136
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 13 of 32 PageID #: 6137
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 14 of 32 PageID #: 6138
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 15 of 32 PageID #: 6139
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 16 of 32 PageID #: 6140
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 17 of 32 PageID #: 6141
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 18 of 32 PageID #: 6142
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 19 of 32 PageID #: 6143
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 20 of 32 PageID #: 6144
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 21 of 32 PageID #: 6145
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 22 of 32 PageID #: 6146
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 23 of 32 PageID #: 6147
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 24 of 32 PageID #: 6148
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 25 of 32 PageID #: 6149
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 26 of 32 PageID #: 6150
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 27 of 32 PageID #: 6151
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 28 of 32 PageID #: 6152
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 29 of 32 PageID #: 6153
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 30 of 32 PageID #: 6154
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 31 of 32 PageID #: 6155
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-10 Filed: 11/11/13 32 of 32 PageID #: 6156
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 36 PageID #: 6157
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 2 of 36 PageID #: 6158
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 3 of 36 PageID #: 6159
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 4 of 36 PageID #: 6160
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 5 of 36 PageID #: 6161
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 6 of 36 PageID #: 6162
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 7 of 36 PageID #: 6163
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 8 of 36 PageID #: 6164
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 9 of 36 PageID #: 6165
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 10 of 36 PageID #: 6166
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 11 of 36 PageID #: 6167
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 12 of 36 PageID #: 6168
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 13 of 36 PageID #: 6169
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 14 of 36 PageID #: 6170
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 15 of 36 PageID #: 6171
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 16 of 36 PageID #: 6172
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 17 of 36 PageID #: 6173
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 18 of 36 PageID #: 6174
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 19 of 36 PageID #: 6175
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 20 of 36 PageID #: 6176
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 21 of 36 PageID #: 6177
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 22 of 36 PageID #: 6178
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 23 of 36 PageID #: 6179
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 24 of 36 PageID #: 6180
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 25 of 36 PageID #: 6181
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 26 of 36 PageID #: 6182
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 27 of 36 PageID #: 6183
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 28 of 36 PageID #: 6184
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 29 of 36 PageID #: 6185
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 30 of 36 PageID #: 6186
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 31 of 36 PageID #: 6187
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 32 of 36 PageID #: 6188
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 33 of 36 PageID #: 6189
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 34 of 36 PageID #: 6190
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 35 of 36 PageID #: 6191
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-11 Filed: 11/11/13 36 of 36 PageID #: 6192
<T>1,7<END1>1<END2>16<END3>(738,54)<E4>22</E4>0<E5>0<E6>54<E7>11<E8>3/7/2013 12:00:00 AM17:31:09.6393685<E9></T>
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-12 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 1 PageID #: 6193
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-13 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 4 PageID #: 6194
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-13 Filed: 11/11/13 2 of 4 PageID #: 6195
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-13 Filed: 11/11/13 3 of 4 PageID #: 6196
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-13 Filed: 11/11/13 4 of 4 PageID #: 6197
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-14 Filed: 11/11/13 1 of 5 PageID #: 6198
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-14 Filed: 11/11/13 2 of 5 PageID #: 6199
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-14 Filed: 11/11/13 3 of 5 PageID #: 6200
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-14 Filed: 11/11/13 4 of 5 PageID #: 6201
Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 321-14 Filed: 11/11/13 5 of 5 PageID #: 6202