DOCSLIB.ORG

Record of Decision (Rods)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Record of Decision (Rods) Record of Decision ICRR Johnston '{ard Sile September 20 I 0 RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION ILLINOIS CENTRAL JOHNSTON YARD SITE MEMPHIS, TN PREPARED BY: U.S. ENVIRONl\IENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANT A, GEORGIA September 2010 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 10746644 Record of Decision (eRR Johnston Yard Site Septemher 20 (0 Table of Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS and ABBREVIAnONS PART 1: THE DECLARATION ..................................................................................................... i 1.1 Site Narne and Location ....................................................................................................... i 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose ........................................................................................... i 1.3 Assessment of Site ............................................................................................................... i 1.4 Description of Selected Remedy......................................................................................... ii 1.5 Statutory Determinations .................................................................................................... ii 1.6. Data Celtification Checklist. .............................................................................................. iii 1.7. Authorizing Signature ....................................................................................................... iii PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 1 2.1 Site Name. Location. and Brief Description ........................................................................ 1 2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities ............................................................................. 1 2.2.1 Previous Investigations and CERCLA Actions .......................................................3 2.3 C01l1n1unity Participation .....................................................................................................4 2.4 Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action ....................................................... .4 2.5 Site C.haracteristics ...............................................................................................................5 2.5.1 Conceptual Site Models ...........................................................................................5 2.5.2 Site Overview ...........................................................................................................5 2.5.3 Surface and Subsurface Features .............................................................................6 2.5.4 Sarnpling Strategy ....................................................................................................8 2.5.5 Known and/or Suspected Sources of Contamination...............................................9 2.5.6 Types of Contamination and Affected Media ..........................................................9 2.5.6.1 Soil ............................................................................................................9 2.5.6.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................. 10 2.5.6.3 Sedirl1ent ................................................................................................. 11 2.5.6.4 Surface Water. ........................................................................................... 11 2.5;7 Extent of Contamination and Potential for Migration ........................................... 11 2.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Water Uses .......................................................... 12 2.7 Sun1n1ary of Site Risks ....................................................................................................... 13 2.7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment.. ..................................................... 13 2.7.1.1 Identi fication of Chemicals of Concem ..................................................... 13 2.7.1.2 Exposure Assessment.. ............................................................................... 14 2.7.1.3 Toxicity Assessment .................................................................................. 15 2.7.1.4 Risk Characterization ..............................- ................................................... 15 2.7.1.5 Unceltainties .............................................................................................. 16 2.7.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment ........................................................... :.18 2.7.2.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................. 18 2.7.2.2 Results of Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment.. ........................ 19 2.7.3 Basis for Action .....................................................................................................20 2.8 Remedial Action Objectives ..............................................................................................21 2.9 Description of Altematives ................................................................................................22 2.9.1 Description of Remedy Components .................................................. , .................. 22 Record of Decision leRR Johnston 'ianj Site September 20 I I) 2.9.2 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each Altell1ative ...................25 2.9.3 Expected Outcomes of Each Altell1ative ...............................................................25 2.10 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ...............................................................................26 2.l0.1 Overall Protection. of Human Health and the Environment.. ................................. 26 2.10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ............27 2.10.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ...........................................................27 2.10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment.. ....................... 28 2.10.5 Short-Term Effectiveness ......................................................................................29 2.10.6 Implementabil ity ....................................................................................................29 2.10.7 Cost ....................................................................................................................30 2.10.8 State/Support Agency Acceptance .........................................................................30 2.10.9 Community Acceptance .........................................................................................30 2.11 Principal Threat Wastes .....................................................................................................30 2.12 Selected Rernedy ................................................................................................................30 2.12.1 Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy .............................................30 2.12.2 Description of the Selected Remedy ......................................................................31 2.12.3 Summary of the Estimated Remedy Costs .............................................................33 2.12.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy ........................................................33 2.12.4.1 Available Use after Clean-up .........................................................33 2.12.4.2 Final Clean-up Levels ....................................................................33 2.12.4.3 Anticipated Environmental and Ecological Benefits .....................34 2.13 Statutory Determinations ...................................................................................................34 2.13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment.. .............................................. 34 2.13.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ............34 2.13.3 Cost Effectiveness ..................................................................................................34 2.13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Altell1ative Treatment (or Resource Recovery) Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable .... :......................... 35 2.13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element ..................................................35 2.13.6 Five-Year Requirements ........................................................................................35 2.14 Documentation of Significant Changes from Preferred Alternative of Proposed Plan .....36 PART 3: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY. ................................................................................36 FIGURES Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Extent of LNAP Plumes Figure 3 - Estimated Area of Historic Diesel Impacts in Soil Related to Fluvial Aquifer LNAPL TABLES Table I - Conceptual Site Model (Human Receptors) Table 2 - Groundwater Contaminants Exceeding Groundwater Water Standards Table 3 - Site Wide Summary of Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Hazards Table 4 - Classification Yard Soils Summary of Carcinogenic Risks and Non-Carcinogenic Hazards Table 5 - Cost Comparison for Alternatives Record of Decision ICRR Johnston Yard Sitl: September 20 I 0 . Table 6 - Detailed Cost Estimate of Selected Remedy Table 7 - Final Cleanup Levels Table 8 - Chemical Specific ARARs Table 9 - Summary of Action Specific ARAR Provisions Appendix A: RISK ASSESSMENT
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nonconnah's Polluted Water Likely Leaking Into Memphis Aquifer
    PRINT EDITION JUST $99 PER YEAR Covering local news, politics, and more Covering Memphis Since 1886 Channel 10 Friday nights at 7 MEMPHISDAILYNEWS.COM Wednesday, August 7, 2019 MemphisDailyNews.com Vol. 134 | No. 125 Rack–50¢/Delivery–39¢ Mid-South Transplant Foundation takes message to pews JANE ROBERTS instigating some friendly compe- to sign up at least 10 by Labor Day.” and organ availability is a justice so to speak.” Courtesy of The Daily Memphian tition between African-American At Olivet Fellowship Baptist issue for a community that suffers Probably no one has more skin The reasons are many and congregations, hoping to up the Church, the Rev. Eugene Gibson more genetic disease and gang in the game than Brown Mission- historic. African-Americans, who ante. expected 6-10 parishioners would violence than any ethnic group in ary Baptist Church on Swinnea in the Mid-South are waiting in “The GiveLife10 campaign is sign up last Sunday. “It was awe- the nation. in Southaven. Sunday, the Rev. greater numbers than any other all about encouraging churches to some,” he said. “We had 23 people “If we complain about what is Bartholomew Orr hadn’t been at group for kidneys and livers, are increase the number of registered register. I think we are doing our going on, what is our part of the the pulpit 10 minutes before he underrepresented in organ do- tissue and organ donors,” said part.” solution? One of the ways we can was taking his donor card out of nor registries. This month, Mid- Randa Lipman, manager of com- For Gibson, longtime member fix this is become a donor yourself his wallet.
    [Show full text]
  • Bradley Parker 2018 Green Camp Paper
    Bradley parker MEMPHIS STORM WATER GREEN CAMP 2018 “Water Quality Affect Upon Wildlife Populations found within Natural and Man-made Wetlands Located in the Memphis and Surrounding Areas” A ct the Wildlife WETLAND Exploration Week of June 11 - 15 SUMMER - 2018 “Does pollution and Water Quality Affect the Wildlife Populations found within both Natural, Man-made, and Channelized Wetlands found within the Memphis and Surrounding Areas?” Types of Wetlands: Natural and Man-made A wetland is one of several types of biomes found in areas having high humidity, may or may not contain large amounts of animal and plant life that is diverse and expresses characteristics adapted to the dryness and wetness of the habitats. Wetlands occur in depressed land areas called basins that are natural a result of land topography or are designed by man, created to house organisms while working as a greenway for improved human health conditions and pollution controls. Trees grow where the ground is wet part of the year and as the ground dries, new life enters and co-exist within a cycle of seasonal rainfall conditions. All wetlands are imperative for the filtration processes working to decrease toxins and chemical pollution found on both land and in water. Wetlands serve as a pollution interception, toxic residue processing and removal of waste. Wetlands are also used for recreational, aesthetics, and educational purposes and provide homes called habitats for many diverse species of organisms. The flora and fauna thrive and adapt within a wetland environment that consist by seasonal conditions produced by weather conditions of dryness and wetness and are associated with storm and rainwater runoff, drainage, pond, river, and pool overflows, man- induced water channeling, flooding and some processes associated with drainage waste collection and disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Stormwater Monitoring Plan Unincorporated Shelby County, Tennessee May 1, 2018
    2018 Stormwater Monitoring Plan Unincorporated Shelby County, Tennessee May 1, 2018 The Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) encompassed by unincorporated Shelby County, Tennessee (Tracking No. TNS075663) includes portions of four (4) distinct HUC_8 Watersheds, as shown on Figure 1. These watersheds include the following: 1. The Loosahatchie River Watershed (HUC_8 08010209) 2. the Wolf River Watershed (HUC_8 08010210) 3. the Nonconnah Creek Watershed (HUC_8 08010211), and 4. the Mississippi River Watershed (HUC_8 08010100) Figure 1 HUC_8 Watersheds Shelby County, Tennessee The land uses present in each of these watersheds are extremely diverse, including agricultural/pastures, woodlands, both low and high density residential, and commercial/industrial. In addition to the various land uses encountered within the Shelby County MS4, a large percentage of the runoff in the watersheds can be attributed to MS4’s belonging to other government entities. The Loosahatchie River Watershed receives runoff from Fayette County and Tipton County in Tennessee, Naval Support Activities Mid South, and from the municipalities of Memphis, Arlington, Lakeland, Bartlett and Millington, TN. The Wolf River Watershed receives runoff from Fayette County, TN, northern Mississippi, and from the municipalities of Memphis, Bartlett, Lakeland, Germantown, and Collierville, TN. The Nonconnah Creek Watershed receives runoff from Fayette County, TN, from Marshall and Desoto 2018 Stormwater Monitoring Plan Unincorporated Shelby County, Tennessee Counties in Mississippi, from the municipalities of Germantown, and Collierville, TN. The Mississippi River Watershed receives runoff from the eastern floodplain of the Mississippi River from the southwest corner of Shelby County, TN to the confluence of the Ohio River at Cairo, IL.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Flow in the Memphis and Fort Pillow Aquifers in the Memphis Area, Tennessee
    science for a changing world Prepared in cooperation with the CITY OF MEMPHIS, MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS AND WATER DIVISION and the TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF WATER SUPPLY Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Flow in the Memphis and Fort Pillow Aquifers in the Memphis Area, Tennessee Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4131 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photograph: Public-supply well in Shelby County, Tennessee. Photograph taken by L.B. Thomas, U.S. Geological Survey. Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Flow in the Memphis and Fort Pillow Aquifers in the Memphis Area, Tennessee By J.V. Brahana and R.E. Broshears U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4131 Prepared in cooperation with the CITY OF MEMPHIS, MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS AND WATER DIVISION and the TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF WATER SUPPLY Nashville, Tennessee 2001 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES G. GROAT, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report may be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 640 Grassmere Park, Suite 100 Federal Center Nashville, Tennessee 37211 Box 25286 Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Abstract.................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shelby County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas
    SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE AND INCORPORATED AREAS VOLUME 1 OF 3 SHELBY COUNTY Community Name Community Number ARLINGTON, TOWNSHIP OF 470262 BARTLETT, CITY OF 470175 COLLIERVILLE, TOWN OF 470263 GERMANTOWN, CITY OF 470353 LAKELAND, CITY OF 470402 MEMPHIS, CITY OF 470177 MILLINGTON, CITY OF 470178 SHELBY COUNTY 470214 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) REVISED: February 6, 2013 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 47157CV001B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS report may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS report may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. A listing of the Community Map Repositories can be found on the Index Map. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: December 2, 1994 First Revised Countywide FIS Revision Date: September 28, 2007 Second Revised Countywide FIS Revision Date: February 6, 2013 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ± Volume 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Green Infrastructure in the Mid-South Recommendations for Implementing and Financing Green Infrastructure Elements of the Mid-South Regional Greenprint Vision Plan
    Green Infrastructure in the Mid-South Recommendations for Implementing and Financing Green Infrastructure Elements of the Mid-South Regional Greenprint Vision Plan Prepared by Environmental Finance Center Network for Memphis and Shelby County Government Office of Sustainability Sustainable Communities Learning Network | June 2014 Report background This report was developed by the Environmental Finance Center Network (EFCN) through the Capacity Building for Sustainable Communities program funded by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the US Environmental Protection Agency. EFCN is a national partnership of ten public universities funded in part by EPA and specializing in the questions of how to pay for environmental compliance and improvement. As a member of the Sustainable Communities Learning Network, EFCN is providing technical assistance to recipients of grants from the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities. The report was prepared by request of the Memphis and Shelby County Government Office of Sustainability, which in 2011 was awarded a Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant to develop the Mid-South Regional Greenprint & Sustainability Plan. This Plan is designed to enhance regional livability and sustainability by establishing a unified vision for a region-wide network of green space areas, or Greenprint, which addresses long-term housing and land use, resource conservation, environmental protection, accessibility, community health and wellness, transportation alternatives, economic development, neighborhood engagement, and social equity in the Greater Memphis Area. Shelby County requested guidance from EFCN on financing and implementing the green infrastructure or low-impact development elements of the Greenprint Vision, so that the region can enhance water quality while simultaneously extending its network of trails for recreation, active transportation, public health, and other community benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Memphis Police Department Homicide Reports 1917-1936
    Memphis Police Department Homicide Reports 1917-1936 Processed by Cameron Sandlin, Lily Flores, and Max Farley 2017 Memphis and Shelby County Room Memphis Public Library and Information Center 3030 Poplar Ave Memphis, TN 38111 Memphis Police Department Homicide Reports 1917-1936 2 Memphis Police Department Homicide Reports 1917-1936 Memphis Police Department Historical Sketch The history of police activity in Memphis began in 1827 with the election of John J. Balch. Holding the title of town constable, the “one-man Police Department” also worked as a tinker and patrolled on foot an area of less than a half square mile in the young town of Memphis.1 As the river town expanded and developed a rough reputation throughout the 1830’s, the department remained small, first experiencing growth in 1840 when the force expanded to include the Night Guard, a night-shift force of watchmen. In 1848, the town of Memphis became the city of Memphis. During that same year, the elected office of City Marshal replaced the position of town constable, and the duties of the office expanded to include “duties related to sanitation, zoning, street maintenance,” in addition to policing the newly-minted city.2 In 1850, the total police force numbered 26 men, split between the Day Squad and the Night Squad, and by 1860, a police force with a structure that could be characterized as modern was in place in Memphis, with the position of Chief of Police clearly stated in city ordinances as the leader of the police force. Following the Civil War, the Memphis Police Department (MPD) expanded to manage the rapidly growing Bluff City.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load Biological Impairment Due to Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients
    FINAL REPORT June 2006 ID: 306062603 Phase 1 Total Maximum Daily Load Biological Impairment Due to Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients Nonconnah Creek North Independent Basin Marshall County, Mississippi Prepared By Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Office of Pollution Control TMDL/WLA Branch MDEQ PO Box 10385 Jackson, MS 39289-0385 (601) 961-5171 www.deq.state.ms.us Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Organic Enrichment/Low DO TMDL for Nonconnah Creek FOREWORD This report has been prepared in accordance with the schedule contained within the federal consent decree dated December 22, 1998. The report contains one or more Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for water body segments found on Mississippi’s 1996 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water bodies. Because of the accelerated schedule required by the consent decree, many of these TMDLs have been prepared out of sequence with the State’s rotating basin approach. The implementation of the TMDLs contained herein will be prioritized within Mississippi’s rotating basin approach. The amount and quality of the data on which this report is based are limited. As additional information becomes available, the TMDLs may be updated. Such additional information may include water quality and quantity data, changes in pollutant loadings, or changes in landuse within the watershed. In some cases, additional water quality data may indicate that no impairment exists. Conversion Factors To convert from To Multiply by To convert from To Multiply by mile2 acre 640
    [Show full text]
  • Nonconnah Creek Watershed (08010211) of the Mississippi River Basin Water Quality Management Plan
    NONCONNAH CREEK WATERSHED (08010211) OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SECTION August 20, 2002 NONCONNAH CREEK WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary Chapter 1. Watershed Approach to Water Quality Chapter 2. Description of the Nonconnah Creek Watershed Chapter 3. Water Quality Assessment of the Nonconnah Creek Watershed Chapter 4. Point and Nonpoint Source Characterization of the Nonconnah Watershed Chapter 5. Water Quality Partnerships in the Nonconnah Creek Watershed Chapter 6. Future Plans Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V Glossary GLOSSARY 1Q20. The lowest average 1 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 20 years. 30Q2. The lowest average 3 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 2 years. 7Q10. The lowest average 7 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 10 years. 303(d). The section of the federal Clean Water Act that requires a listing by states, territories, and authorized tribes of impaired waters, which do not meet the water quality standards that states, territories, and authorized tribes have set for them, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. 305(b). The section of the federal Clean Water Act that requires EPA to assemble and submit a report to Congress on the condition of all water bodies across the Country as determined by a biennial collection of data and other information by States and Tribes. AFO. Animal Feeding Operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Houston Levee Road / Center Hill Road Alternatives Study
    HOUSTONHOUSTON LEVEELEVEE ROADROAD // CENTERCENTER HILLHILL ROADROAD ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES STUDYSTUDY PREPARED FOR: THE MEMPHIS URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION IN COOPERATION WITH: SHELBY COUNTY, TN DESOTO COUNTY, MS TOWN OF COLLIERVILLE & CITY OF OLIVE BRANCH NOVEMBER, 2010 Final Report HOUSTON LEVEE ROAD / CENTER HILL ROAD ALTERNATIVES STUDY November, 2010 By Parsons For the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, In cooperation with: DeSoto County, Mississippi Shelby County, Tennessee The City of Olive Branch The Town of Collierville This document was prepared and published by the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization and is prepared in cooperation with or with financial assistance from all or several of the following public entities: the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, the Tennessee and Mississippi Department of Transportation, the Memphis Area Transit Authority, and the local governments in the MPO region. This financial assistance notwithstanding, the contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the funding agencies. It is the policy of the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin or disability in its hiring or employment practices, or in its admission to or operations of its program, services, or activities. All inquiries for Title VI and/or the American Disabilities Act, contact Paul Morris at 901-379-7849 or [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Surficial Geologic and Liquefaction Susceptibility Mapping in Shelby County, Tennessee
    Surficial Geologic and Liquefaction Susceptibility Mapping in Shelby County, Tennessee Award Number: 00HQGR0031 Principal Investigators: Roy Van Arsdale and Randel Cox The University of Memphis Department of Earth Sciences Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Telephone: 901-678-2177 FAX: 901-678-2178 Email: [email protected] Program Element: 1 Key Words: Geologic mapping, Liquefaction, Surficial deposits, Memphis Abstract Geologic maps were made of the Northeast Memphis, Ellendale, and Germantown 7.5’ quadrangles (1:24,000) in Shelby County, Tennessee. Liquefaction susceptibilities were then assigned to the mapped geologic units based on previously published empirical data. Liquefaction susceptibility determinations from borehole blow count data for this same area strongly supports the geology based liquefaction susceptibility maps. However, the geologic maps provide greater detail. The geology based liquefaction susceptibility maps, supported by geotechnical data, appear to be a valuable contribution to liquefaction hazard maps in Shelby County, Tennessee. Introduction The city of Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee, are located approximately 50 km southeast of the New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ), the most hazardous seismic zone in the eastern United States (Johnston and Schweig, 1996) (Fig. 1). Thus, Shelby County and the city of Memphis are exposed to significant seismic hazards. Due to extensive development in the twentieth century, Memphis and Shelby County have become one of the largest urban areas in the south and is the largest distribution center in the United States. A large earthquake occurring anywhere within the NMSZ could cause widespread loss of life, and damage to buildings, bridges, and lifelines in the Memphis area due to ground shaking and soil liquefaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Insurance Study Number 28093Cv000a
    MARSHALL COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AND INCORPORATED AREAS MARSHALL COUNTY COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER BYHALIA, TOWN OF 280112 HOLLY SPRINGS, CITY OF 280113 MARSHALL COUNTY 280274 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) POTTS CAMP, TOWN OF 280114 EFFECTIVE: Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 28093CV000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections),. In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 through A30 AE V1through V30 VE B X C X Part or all of this FIS report may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS report may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial Countywide FIS Report Effective Date: Revised Countywide FIS Report Dates: TABLE
    [Show full text]