KTR00189

THOMAS WOLFF, Ph. D.
February 6, 2009
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION

CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION NO. 05-4182 K2
JUDGE DUVAL
PERTAINS TO: MRGO AND ROBINSON
(No. 06-2268)
Deposition of THOMAS F. WOLFF, PH.D.,

P.E., given at the offices of the United States
Department of Justice, 400 Poydras Street, 9th
Floor, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, on
February 6th, 2009.
REPORTED BY:
JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER #75005
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

THOMAS WOLFF, Ph. D. February 6, 2009
Page 2 Page 4
1 REPRESENTING THE PLAINTIFFS: 1 EXAMINATION INDEX
2 ELWOOD C. STEVENS, JR., APLC 2
3 (BY: ELWOOD C. STEVENS, JR., ESQUIRE) 3 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
4 1205 Victor II Boulevard 4
5 Morgan City, Louisiana 70380 5 MR. STEVENS .................................6
6 985-384-8611 6 EXHIBIT INDEX
7 - AND - 7
8 ANDRY LAW FIRM 8 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE
9 (BY: KEA SHERMAN, ESQUIRE) 9 Exhibit 1 .................................7
10 610 Baronne Street 10 Exhibit 2 ................................11
11 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 11 Exhibit 3 ................................52
12 504-586-8899 12 Exhibit 4 ...............................142
13 - AND - 13 Exhibit 5 ...............................162
14 DEGRAVELLES, PALMINTIER, HOLTHAUS & 14 Exhibit 6 ...............................187
15 FRUGE, L.L.P. 15 Exhibit 7 ...............................220
16 (BY: MICHAEL C. PALMINTIER, ESQUIRE) 16 Exhibit 8 ...............................253
17 618 Main Street 17 Exhibit 9 ...............................259
18 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801-1910 18 REQUESTS FOR INFO INDEX
19 225-344-3735 19
20 20 NO. PAGE
21 21 Request for Infomation 1 ....................81
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
Page 3 Page 5
1 REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1 STIPULATION
2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 2 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and
3 TORTS BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION 3 among counsel for the parties hereto that the
4 (BY: RICHARD STONE, ESQUIRE) 4 deposition of the aforementioned witness may be
5 (BY: DAN BAEZA, ESQUIRE) 5 taken for all purposes permitted within the
6 P.O. Box 888 6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in accordance
7 Benjamin Franklin Station 7 with law, pursuant to notice;
8 Washington, D.C. 20044 8 That all formalities, save reading
9 202-616-4289 9 and signing of the original transcript by the
10 10 deponent, are hereby specifically waived;
11 ALSO PRESENT: 11 That all objections, save those as to
12 DAVID DYER, ESQ. 12 the form of the question and the responsiveness
13 ANDREW CAPITELLI, ESQ. 13 of the answer, are reserved until such time as
14 14 this deposition, or any part thereof, is used
15 PARTICIPATING VIA I-DEP: 15 or sought to be used in evidence.
16 ROBIN SMITH, ESQ. 16
17 RICHARD PAVLICK, ESQ. 17
18 ELWOOD STEVENS, ESQ. 18 * * *
19 NICK DIETZEN, ESQ. 19
20 20
21 VIDEOGRAPHER: 21
22 TODD MEAUX (DEPO-VUE) 22 JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR,
23 23 Certified Court Reporter in and for the State
24 24 of Louisiana, officiated in administering the
25 25 oath to the witness.
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
Page 6 Page 8
1 THOMAS F. WOLFF, PH.D., P.E., 1 fact produced any of the items listed?
2 2595 Robin's Way, Okemos, Michigan 48864, a 2 A. I did not specific to Exhibit A.
3 witness named in the above stipulation, having 3 Q. Okay. Now, I was handed when we
4 been first duly sworn, was examined and 4 walked in a CD. I don't know, is this a CD or
5 testified on his oath as follows: 5 a -- no, it's a CD, not a DVD, which is labeled
6 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 6 Wolff Expert Report Reliance Materials and
7 Q. Good morning, Dr. Wolff. As I 7 Publicly Available Documents.
8 introduced myself, I'm Elwood Stevens. I'll 8 Did you assist in any way in preparing
9 ask you questions today. If I ask anything you 9 this CD?
10 don't understand because lawyers and engineers 10 A. Not that physical CD, no.
11 kind of don't speak the same language 11 Q. Okay.
12 sometimes, I'm not precise enough, stop me and 12 A. It's my understanding that the
13 we'll back up and start over. I'll warn you 13 Department of Justice attorneys compiled the
14 that I'm from Opelousas and I have sort of a 14 reliance materials that I had used and
15 long-winded way of asking questions. Make sure 15 furnished them and made that CD from that --
16 I finish my question before you begin your 16 MR. STONE:
17 answer. It will make the transcript read 17 Can I short cut this a bit for
18 better and you'll be answering a full question. 18 you? The thing that you won't have
19 Because Joe here is going to report it in it in 19 here is any communications between us
20 the same order that it's spoken. 20 and Dr. Wolff or any of his draft
21 Try to avoid nodding your head. Even 21 reports. Those are things that have
22 though we're on video, if Joe's is not looking 22 not been produced by anyone in the
23 at you he may miss your response. And he'll 23 litigation. And under the case
24 stop us if we're talking over each over. Or if 24 management order they're not required
25 you're giving non verbal responses, he'll ask 25 to be produced. So you have all those
Page 7 Page 9
1 you, did mean yes or no? So you might as well 1 reliance materials in advance and on
2 say it in the first place. Otherwise, I'll try 2 that disk.
3 not to take up too much of your time, but I do 3 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
4 have a good bit of ground to cover. Your 4 Q. All right. So we did get some
5 report seems to cover a lot of different areas. 5 reliance materials, I have those in a stack
6 So let's start with attaching a copy 6 here, but I didn't have this CD, per se. I
7 of the notice at Exhibit 1. I'll hand you a 7 guess it will just take a few minutes, let's
8 copy of Amended Notice of Deposition and ask 8 walk through. You will recall what you
9 you, sir, have you seen that before I handed it 9 provided to counsel to provide to us.
10 to you? 10 A. Yes.
11 (Exhibit 1 was marked for 11 Q. Is your engagement letter included in
12 identification and is attached hereto.) 12 the reliance materials?
13 A. I saw this just a few minutes ago. 13 A. I have a standard federal contract.
14 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 14 Q. Okay.
15 Q. Attached to the Amended Notice of 15 A. I don't know if it's on that CD.
16 Deposition is, on the third and fourth page, 16 Q. I didn't see it in the materials that
17 called Exhibit A. Exhibit A lists sixteen 17 I reviewed and I don't see it listed on the
18 items, or categories of documents and things, 18 index that we printed out of the CD.
19 that you were called upon to produce. Have you 19 MR. STONE:
20 seen that Exhibit A before now? 20 And I'm sure we have not provided
21 A. Just a few minutes before the 21 it, but if you need that for something
22 deposition. 22 I'll go back and see if we're allowed
23 Q. So I trust that before appearing here 23 to provide that.
24 today you didn't make any record search or file 24 MR. STEVENS:
25 review to determine whether or not you had in 25 Okay.
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
Page 10 Page 12
1 MR. STONE: 1 Q. Okay. And when did you first complete
2 But just let me know. 2 the report? I know the final final is in
3 MR. STEVENS: 3 December --
4 We asked for it, so I guess I'll 4 A. We worked on that report -- I worked
5 say yes, we would like it. 5 on that report and, um -- all the way up to
6 MR. STONE: 6 within few days of that date.
7 That's a bit different than what 7 Q. Okay. I'm just looking through your
8 you asked for, but -- 8 invoice here. And your hourly rate, Dr. Wolff,
9 MR. STEVENS: 9 how much did you charge per hour on this
10 A copy of the engagement letter? 10 project?
11 MR. STONE: 11 A. $200 per hour.
12 Right. He doesn't have an 12 Q. Have you been asked to do any
13 engagement letter, it's a contract. 13 additional work beyond preparing for this
14 But we're not playing games. 14 deposition, issuing this report that we've
15 MR. STEVENS: 15 identified as December 18th, 2008, and
16 I understand. 16 preparing for this deposition? Have you been
17 MR. STONE: 17 asked to do any future work?
18 Let me see if I can get that for 18 A. Not officially at this time. I
19 you. 19 understand that plaintiffs' expert submitted
20 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 20 some reports late last week and that there may
21 Q. So you had a standard government 21 be some additional work for me to do in that
22 contract. 22 regard, but that has not been formalized or
23 How long have you had a contract with 23 finalized.
24 the -- is it the DOJ or is it the Army Corps of 24 Q. And do you know what the scope of that
25 Engineers? 25 work is, or the nature?
Page 11 Page 13
1 A. It's the DOJ. 1 A. I have downloaded his reports, I have
2 Q. Okay. 2 looked at the table of contents to get the -- a
3 A. I did bring invoices. 3 sense of the nature of those reports. In this
4 Q. Okay. 4 short time frame I've not had the opportunity
5 A. It appears that my first conversations 5 to read those reports.
6 with them were 1/30/08. And as I recall the 6 Q. And the report is from whom?
7 contract was in that time frame, early 2008. 7 A. Dr. Bea.
8 Q. Okay. And since January 30th of '08, 8 MR. STONE:
9 how many hours have you billed? 9 That's the January 29 report.
10 A. 164.2. 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
11 Q. Okay. And is that a copy we can 11 Q. Number 4 asks for preliminary drafts
12 attach? 12 of your expert report. Did you have
13 A. Yes. 13 preliminary drafts of your December 18 report?
14 Q. Thank you. We'll mark this as Wolff 14 A. Yes.
15 Number 2. 15 Q. And when was your first draft prepared
16 (Exhibit 2 was marked for 16 or circulated?
17 identification and is attached hereto.) 17 A. Probably in the spring or summer of
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 18 2008.
19 Q. I have a copy of a report that you 19 Q. Okay.
20 issued in this case dated December 18th of 20 A. It may be reflected in those invoices.
21 2008. 21 It may or may not be.
22 A. Yes. 22 Q. I don't see anything that says draft
23 Q. Is this the only report that you've 23 report or circulate draft here.
24 generated in connection with this litigation? 24 A. I think you will only see wrote draft
25 A. Yes. 25 report or edited draft report.
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
Page 14 Page 16
1 Q. And did you circulate the draft to the 1 the reference section of your report that you
2 attorneys? 2 relied upon for your opinions in this case?
3 A. I furnished the draft to the 3 A. Not that I recall.
4 Department of Justice. 4 Q. Okay. And just so we're on the same
5 Q. Did you furnish it to any other 5 page, you have a copy of your report here?
6 defense experts? 6 A. Yes.
7 A. No. 7 Q. The references are listed from
8 Q. Okay. I like your invoice for 8 pages -- on Pages 51, 52 and 53; correct?
9 August 5th, it says, ditto, two hours. I like 9 A. Yes.
10 that. I know it refers to what you did the day 10 Q. Okay. I'll come back to that in a
11 before, but that's the first invoice I see 11 bit, but I just wanted to confirm that those
12 somebody could bill two hundred bucks an hour 12 are -- the four corners of those three pages
13 for ditto. I like that. I'll borrow it if you 13 contains the universe of references that you
14 don't mind. 14 rely upon for your opinions in this case.
15 Which reminds me to ask you, in 15 A. Yes.
16 connection with your report, did you have 16 Q. All right. I didn't see any
17 direct consults or communications with any 17 photographs listed. You don't rely upon any
18 other defense experts? 18 photographs?
19 A. There was a period of time where there 19 A. I have relied on photographs that are
20 were some routine conference calls among the 20 in these various references.
21 experts and the Department of Justice, 21 Q. Okay. To the extent that you relied
22 generally in the fall of 2008. 22 on photographs, they're in those reports or
23 Q. And can you tell me who those experts 23 documents that you list as references.
24 were? 24 A. Yes.
25 A. Not specifically because various 25 Q. But separate and apart from those, you
Page 15 Page 17
1 people were on at various times. Dr. Mosher 1 haven't done any review of other photographs.
2 was on at various times, Mr. Baeza, Mr. Stone, 2 A. Not for this case.
3 I'm certain Mr. Ebersole was on there, and then 3 Q. Okay. And when I say photographs, I'm
4 at various times there may have been other 4 talking about photographs of the New Orleans
5 parties on there. 5 levee system --
6 Q. What about Mr. Britsch, Mr. Barras, 6 A. Let me -- permit me to clarify.
7 did you ever consult with them? 7 Q. Yeah.
8 A. I could not say for certain, no. 8 A. My report will show that I was a
9 Q. Dr. Resio? 9 member of the American Society of Civil
10 A. What I remember better is that the 10 Engineers team in New Orleans in October, 2005.
11 subject matter was mostly around hydraulic 11 Q. Okay.
12 models, so I would expect that the experts 12 A. I took photographs during that time.
13 around modeling would have been -- 13 Q. Okay.
14 Q. Did you consult with Steven 14 A. I did not use any of those specific
15 Fitzgerald? 15 photographs, nor did I have anything in those
16 A. No. 16 photographs that provided me anything better
17 Q. All right. Let me go back to the 17 than the photographs that were in the IPET
18 Exhibit A. It says, a copy of all documents 18 report, the ILIT report, the experts' reports.
19 and photographs reviewed and relied upon by you 19 Q. Okay. Got you. In a sense, the
20 in, you know, formulation of your opinions in 20 photographs that you reviewed back then relate
21 this case, obviously. Are all the things that 21 to this case but they weren't for this case.
22 you reviewed or relied upon listed in the 22 A. That's correct.
23 section called references with your report? 23 Q. All right. I didn't see a list of
24 A. Yes. 24 depositions. And it may be here. Actually, I
25 Q. Anything other than what's listed in 25 remember seeing a bunch of lawyer names.
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
Page 18 Page 20
1 A. I believe I was looking at that right 1 than ten, twelve years old.
2 before the deposition. If my memory is 2 Q. The attorney who retained you was
3 correct, on Page -- 3 David Landry?
4 Q. Consulting? 4 A. Yes.
5 A. On Page 71, the last case in which I 5 Q. I see some of our Acadian cousins have
6 was deposed was either in 1995 or 1996. 6 migrated north. But Mr. Landry represented the
7 Q. 71? 7 plaintiffs?
8 A. Yes. 71 is my curriculum vitae. 8 A. Yes. He took the case over from an
9 Q. Oh, it's been separated. Okay. Thank 9 earlier attorney that may be listed in here.
10 you. 10 If you go to the previous page, 17, near the
11 A. It's Page 18 of my CV. 11 middle, Ed Suprinski originally had the case
12 Q. Got you. 12 and it was passed along to Mr. Landry.
13 A. I have served as an expert witness. 13 Q. And were the plaintiffs successful in
14 Some cases I've been deposed, some I have not. 14 that case?
15 Q. Have you testified in court, appeared 15 A. I do not know.
16 in trials? 16 Q. Your opinion, if you will, in
17 A. Once, as I recall. 17 connection with this drowning case, was it your
18 Q. And where was that? 18 opinion that the dam operator or -- who was
19 A. That was in Bay City, Michigan, and it 19 responsible for that dam?
20 was on a -- it would be at the top of Page 18 20 A. A power company in Michigan.
21 of my CV, expert witness on drowning below 21 Q. Okay. They were responsible for the
22 hydropower dam. 1993. 22 lack of warnings?
23 Q. And what was the nature of your 23 A. I don't recall that I issued an
24 testimony in that case? 24 opinion. I answered various questions about
25 A. Um -- a young man was fishing below a 25 common practices and what was in various
Page 19 Page 21
1 dam, and with waders on, and there was a hole 1 regulations about dams.
2 below the, a -- below the water was a deep 2 Q. Okay. So you didn't go the next step
3 scour hole due to the outflow of the hydropower 3 to say whether the regulations were violated or
4 facilities, and he slid down into the hole, his 4 not?
5 waders filled with water and he drowned in view 5 A. I may have. I do not recall.
6 of his wife and young children. My role was 6 Q. All right. Let's --
7 largely to explain to the attorneys and the 7 A. The regulations -- I don't recall.
8 judge various features of dams and to what 8 Q. In any of the cases listed here in
9 extent there were various Federal Energy 9 your CV where you were retained as a consultant
10 Regulatory Commission requirements about 10 or an expert in connection with any kind of
11 warning signs and so forth on dams. So I 11 litigation, are any of them particularly
12 served as a person knowledgeable on dams. 12 relevant to the issues which you address in
13 Q. And you were retained by the 13 this case?
14 plaintiffs or the defendants in that case? 14 A. There was one that involved levees.
15 A. I was retained by the plaintiffs. 15 Q. Okay. Which one?
16 Q. Okay. Did you give a deposition in 16 A. That would be in the middle of
17 that case? 17 Page 71. Ruman, Clements, Tobin and Holub.
18 A. I believe I did. That's been more 18 This was a levee near Hammond, Indiana, near
19 than fifteen years ago. 19 Gary, Indiana, east of Chicago, and a party
20 Q. Would you still have copy of your 20 constructing I believe a parking lot for a bus
21 deposition in your files? 21 terminal had degraded part of a levee. A flood
22 A. I do not know. 22 came along and flooded an area that would not
23 Q. Okay. 23 have been flooded had the levee been
24 A. I moved to a new home last year and 24 degraded --
25 probably threw away some things that were more 25 Q. Had the levee not been degraded.
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
Page 22 Page 24
1 A. Had the levee not been degraded. And 1 Q. Okay. Well --
2 I was called on the answer a number of 2 A. There are various reports about
3 questions about levee design and levee height. 3 levees.
4 Q. Okay. And who owned the levee in that 4 Q. Right. And we're going -- we'll get
5 case? 5 to those, too.
6 A. My recollection was that it was a 6 Now, Number 7 asks you to produce a
7 levee -- local levee district, county or 7 copy of any exhibits, animations or
8 township levee district. It may have been Lake 8 demonstrative evidence which you might use at
9 County, Illinois. And I believe it was a Corps 9 the trial of this case. Do you have anything
10 constructed levee turned over to local 10 other than what's included in your report that
11 interests. 11 you intend to use if this case goes to trial?
12 Q. And was there any issue in that case 12 A. No.
13 about why the levee breached? 13 Q. Okay. We have your CV. I trust this
14 A. No, the levee had been deliberately 14 is the latest version --
15 breached for this construction. 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. Do you have a deposition in 16 Q. -- most recent version of your CV.
17 that case? 17 You gave us your invoice.
18 A. Yes. 18 Now, Number 10 asks for you to produce
19 Q. Or did you give a deposition in that 19 maps which would identify all points of
20 case? 20 measurements by latitude and longitude and
21 A. Yes. 21 identify referenced landmarks for water heights
22 Q. Did you issue a report in that case? 22 and/or land heights used in connection with
23 A. I do not -- I may have issued a 23 your report. I know you talk about some
24 report. I do not recall. 24 subsidence and whatnot in your report.
25 Q. And do you have a copy of your 25 What is the source of your information
Page 23 Page 25
1 deposition from that case? 1 about those elevations?
2 A. Again, I don't know without looking at 2 A. The IPET report, the ILIT report,
3 this point. 3 um -- the Woolley and Shabman report, various
4 Q. Do you remember the name of the case? 4 reports that are in my reliance materials.
5 A. I do not recall the specific name of 5 Q. All right. Other than those three
6 the case. It may have had the term Lake 6 sources, and you listed IPET, ILIT and this
7 County, Indiana in the title. 7 decision-making chronology report from Woolley
8 Q. Okay. And were you retained by the 8 and Shabman, any other sources of information
9 plaintiffs or the defendants? 9 for identifying points?
10 A. Plaintiffs. 10 A. Let me clarify. I was using those as
11 Q. Same thing; I would ask for a copy of 11 example sources of my entire set of reliance
12 that deposition if you can locate it. 12 materials. I have --
13 MR. STONE: 13 Q. Okay.
14 Dr. Wolff, I'm asking you now to 14 A. -- as you're aware, a substantial
15 search when you get back home and see 15 number of various reports related to this case
16 if you have those. 16 that are listed in my reliance materials.
17 THE WITNESS: 17 Q. But in forming your opinions in this
18 Okay. 18 case, did you rely upon any specific set of
19 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 19 measurements for --
20 Q. Are any of these other cases that you 20 A. I did not make any measurements or
21 list here on your CV, are any of them other 21 rely on any specific set of measurements.
22 cases involve a levee? 22 Q. All right. Did you rely on
23 A. No. 23 hydrographs at all in forming any of your
24 Q. Okay. 24 opinions in this case?
25 A. Not legal cases. 25 A. I have certainly looked at hydrographs
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
Page 26 Page 28
1 that, for example, show the water higher than 1 A -- and it takes a lot of discipline to walk
2 the top of the levee. And I did not produce 2 through this, so bear with me.
3 any hygrographs. I did not do any modeling or, 3 MR. STONE:
4 I don't believe, any calculations even in this 4 Take your time.
5 work. 5 MR. STEVENS:
6 Q. And can you tell me the source of the 6 I'm not very good at being
7 hydrographs you looked at, who did generate 7 disciplined.
8 those hydrographs? 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
9 A. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 9 Q. Number 12 asks for copies of documents
10 Q. Okay. Can you steer me to the 10 cited or referenced in your expert report.
11 specific ones, are they referenced in your 11 Now, to go back to the references, Page 51, you
12 materials, which ones you used? 12 told us earlier that is the universe of
13 A. I don't believe that my report points 13 references you rely upon.
14 to specific hydrographs. My general 14 A. That is correct.
15 understanding is that the actual hydrographs 15 Q. Okay. If you have Page 51 in front of
16 used in various places in this matter go back 16 you, of your report, I just kind of want to
17 to the hydrographs in the IPET report which 17 check them off because there are only --
18 were assembled by recognized experts. 18 there's three pages but it will go pretty
19 Q. Right. 19 quickly. The American Society of Civil
20 A. And then there are various calculated 20 Engineers, Hurricane Katrina External Review
21 hydrographs made by different modelers. But 21 Panel. Right? "What went wrong and why?"
22 again, my work has been more related to the 22 Have you produced that report?
23 design history, and I have taken those 23 A. It is my understanding that the
24 hydrographs as background information and not 24 Department of Justice attached those materials
25 have done any work very specific with those 25 to the CD. This is a publicly available book.
Page 27 Page 29
1 hydrographs. 1 Q. Is that on the CD?
2 Q. All right. Now, a hydrograph used in 2 MR. STONE:
3 the IPET report, for example, those would be 3 We've tried to produce everything
4 easy to kind of figure out. When you say you 4 for you here, again, so that you'd
5 used hydrographs from other modelers, did you 5 have it today. But it's all been
6 use Dr. Westerink 's hydrographs? 6 produced in the past, too, so.
7 A. I've not looked at Dr. Westerink 's 7 A. That is a soft bound book widely
8 report. 8 available.
9 Q. Can you tell me whose -- which 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
10 modeler's hydrographs you looked at? 10 Q. Okay. Then the next one is the
11 A. I have reviewed reports by both, um -- 11 Deposition of Baumy, Naomi, Powell and O'Cain.
12 Dr. Mosher, I have looked at some degree to 12 We have those, we attended those depositions,
13 Dr. Ebersole 's report, and I have read 13 so you don't need to produce those. I guess
14 Dr. Bea 's reports. All of those include 14 while I'm doing this we might as well kind of
15 hydrographs. But as a geotechnical engineer, 15 kill two birds with one stone.
16 the focus of my work has been that of matters 16 That first report you list, can you
17 related to the soil. And as a broader civil 17 tell me what specifically about that ASCE
18 engineer with experience in the overall design 18 review panel report you relied upon in forming
19 of flood control structures, levees and so 19 your opinions in this case?
20 forth, I have, um -- reviewed some of the 20 A. I've looked at many things. I'd have
21 design history of this project, but I have not 21 to go back to my report. I believe I quote
22 had any need to do any work very specific to 22 part of that in my expert report. The one
23 hydrographs other than to generally understand 23 thing that comes to mind is, as I recall, the
24 the nature of the high water. 24 ASCE report states that the breaches in
25 Q. Okay. Item Number 12 on the Exhibit 25 St. Bernard Parish along the MRGO were caused
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
Page 30 Page 32
1 by overtopping. 1 declarations.
2 Q. And you accept that as an accurate 2 MR. STONE:
3 assessment? 3 Can I just say something again?
4 A. Yes. 4 If there is something here that you
5 Q. Okay. Anything else about that 5 don't have, whether we failed to
6 report? 6 produce it or you just didn't bring it
7 A. Not that I recall unless I'm 7 with you, if you give us a chance to
8 specifically pointed to something. 8 try to bring it around for you we can
9 Q. And we'll go into it in a bit, but I 9 probably go pull it up here in this
10 just want to go through and ask you what you 10 office.
11 consider to be significant, as you recall, for 11 MR. STEVENS:
12 each one of these. The depositions of Baumy, 12 Okay. Very good. Thank you.
13 Naomi, Powell and O'Cain. Can you tell me what 13 MR. STONE:
14 about those folks' testimony you rely upon in 14 At least we'll try.
15 forming your opinions in this case? 15 MR. STEVENS:
16 A. I don't recall that I relied on 16 We'll see as it goes. For now, I
17 anything specifically. I believe I mentioned 17 want to do what we're doing, and I
18 those in my report as documents reviewed. 18 thank you for bearing with me.
19 Q. Okay. But as far as any one of these 19 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
20 folks, let's say Nancy Powell, for example, 20 Q. There was a second declaration by
21 anything that she might have testified to in 21 Dr. Bea dated September 17th of '07 regarding
22 her deposition that -- 22 manmade features bordering the MRGO. Anything
23 A. I don't recall getting anything 23 in particular about that "dec?"
24 particularly useful to my report out of those 24 A. Again, if I refer to my specific
25 depositions of Corps personnel. 25 statement, it would be difficult without
Page 31 Page 33
1 Q. All right. The next one is the 1 looking at those materials to recall which of
2 declaration of Dr. Bea regarding failures along 2 his statements were in which declarations.
3 the IHNC dated April 16, '06. What about that 3 Q. And then he gave a deposition dated
4 declaration did you rely upon in forming your 4 November '07. And again, anything about that
5 opinions in this case? 5 depo you recall?
6 A. Dr. Bea has published many 6 A. Not with any specificity.
7 declarations, and it is frankly difficult to 7 Q. And then I'm going to ask you the same
8 recall which was said -- what was said in which 8 thing. You have Dr. Bea listed four more
9 of his many declarations. What I have focused 9 times. Declarations dated March 25, '08, A and
10 on across the breadth of those declarations, as 10 B. Anything about those you recall? And you
11 a geotechnical engineer, is his method of 11 have the list in front of you so I'm not going
12 taking samples, his reliance on the erosion 12 to recite what they say.
13 function apparatus, issues related to levee 13 A. Again, as we get more recent in time,
14 settlement, slope stability, factors of 14 um -- did I not list the July reports --
15 safety -- essentially, he discusses a number of 15 declarations? My recollection is that Bea
16 geotechnical matters that I have read and have 16 issued July declarations where he spent a
17 then referred to at various points in my 17 larger amount of time speaking for the erosion
18 report, particularly the nature of the staged 18 and the modeling. And those may not have, as I
19 construction of these levees, um -- his coinage 19 see here, been listed in the references.
20 of the term earth berm spoil bank as it -- as 20 Q. Okay. Anything in particular about
21 he attempts to differentiate that term from 21 the July 2008, I trust --
22 levees, his use of the erosion test, his 22 A. Yes.
23 attempted modeling of erosion and so forth. 23 Q. -- declarations of Dr. Bea?
24 Q. Okay. 24 A. As I recall, those declarations, um --
25 A. That crosses a number of these 25 produced much more information regarding
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
Page 34 Page 36
1 LS-DYNA modeling, regarding his use of 1 complex flow regime, and its effects on soil
2 parameters from the erosion function apparatus 2 erosion.
3 test, his use of a time step integrated damage 3 Q. Anything else?
4 accumulation model, um -- and related matters. 4 A. Not that I recall at the moment.
5 Q. Okay. Anything else about the July 5 Q. Okay. And you list one more thing by
6 '08 declarations of Dr. Bea? 6 Dr. Bea, along with a person named Storesund,
7 A. Not that I recall at the moment. 7 s-T-O-R-S-U-N-D, dated same date, March 25th,
8 Q. Okay. Again, we'll come back to that. 8 2008 entitled Analysis of Breaching of MRGO
9 There is one big inventory here -- we've got a 9 Reach 2 EBSBs -- earthen berm spoil bank,
10 lot of topics. This might should have been a 10 right?
11 two-day depo. 11 A. Yes.
12 (Off the record.) 12 Q. Go ahead.
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 13 A. The previously cited report or
14 Q. Now, the next one listed is, it's Bea 14 appendix on the two structures and the report
15 and Cobos-Roa, Analysis of the Effects of U.S. 15 now cited are essentially dealing with the same
16 Army Corps of Engineers IHNC Lock Expansion 16 area, and it is likely that the erosion testing
17 Project. 17 and modeling matter that I just discussed is
18 Anything about that technical report 18 probably in this particular report rather than
19 that you specifically rely upon in forming your 19 the previous.
20 opinions in this case? 20 Q. As far as any specific reliance by you
21 A. No. 21 on that report, it would be the same thing that
22 Q. Okay. And then the next one is the 22 you just described from the two previous
23 same two authors, same date, Analysis of 23 appendices.
24 Breaching of the MRGO, Bayou Dupre and Bayou 24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Bienvenue Structures. 25 Q. All right. Now you list Dr. Briaud --
Page 35 Page 37
1 Anything about that report? 1 A. Briaud. Jean-Louis Briaud.
2 A. Those were, as I recall, essentially 2 Q. Sounds kind of Cajun.
3 appendices to the declaration, and those 3 A. He's a Frenchman to my knowledge.
4 reports may discuss further the soil sampling, 4 Q. Dr. Briaud, and Chin and others, the
5 the erosion testing, and related matters. 5 next two entries on your reference list, the
6 Q. Okay. Again, did anything that 6 first one is a report dated February 2nd, 2008
7 they -- that you read in reviewing those two 7 titled Erosion Function Apparatus for Scour
8 appendices, if you will, aid you in forming 8 Rate Predictions. What is it about that -- and
9 your opinions in this case? 9 that looks like it may be a journal article of
10 A. If those related to soil sampling and 10 some kind.
11 erosion testing, yes, they did. 11 A. There's actually a typo right there.
12 Q. Okay. And how? You say yes they did. 12 The 2001 in the first line is correct. That
13 How did it aid you in your opinions? 13 was a 2001 article in the journal, so -- and if
14 A. Again, assuming it was in that 14 you look at the volume numbers of that and the
15 particular report, um -- some of their soil 15 previous one, that one should be February 2001.
16 sampling involved disturbed and reconstituted 16 Q. Okay. Instead of 2008.
17 samples compacted to very low and very high 17 A. Yes, sir.
18 densities. There were issues as to whether 18 Q. Okay. The second one is May 2008.
19 those disturbed and reconstituted samples were 19 A. That's correct.
20 at all representative of eroded materials. The 20 Q. Another publication in the same
21 erosion function apparatus test that was used 21 journal.
22 to determine some erosion parameters models 22 A. Yes.
23 sheet flow across a surface and has never been 23 Q. All right. Well, I'll pencil in a
24 used, and it does not appear to have any basis 24 correction on that. What is it about these two
25 in modeling wave attack, which is a very 25 journal articles by Dr. Briaud that you rely
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
Page 38 Page 40
1 upon for forming your opinions in this case? 1 A. They did. They report that they did.
2 A. The 2001 report describes the 2 Q. Okay. And can you -- I'm going to ask
3 development of the EFA test, or the erosion 3 you if you can steer me to the information in
4 function apparatus test. To my knowledge, 4 their report where they give the geographic
5 Dr. Briaud had one or more contracts with the 5 location for the low index and the high index,
6 Federal Highway Administration who was 6 I guess you call it EFA index values.
7 interested in scour of bridge piers due to 7 A. I do not recall. They may or may not
8 river flow in river channels. And once his 8 specifically show the geographical location in
9 work in developing the apparatus and the test 9 their paper, but my recollection is that they
10 had reached a mature point, he published it in 10 list sample numbers that can be correlated back
11 the Journal of the American Society of Civil 11 to the other reports such as the ILIT report.
12 Engineers Journal of Geotechnical and 12 Q. And when you say sample numbers, are
13 Geoenvironmental Engineering Division, to 13 you referring the soil boring samples?
14 present to the profession here is this test. 14 A. Yes.
15 The 2008 report describes the use of that test 15 Q. Okay.
16 to characterize the erosion of the levees in 16 A. Well, soil boring samples and their,
17 Katrina due to overtopping. And the authors 17 um -- bag sample, shovel bag samples.
18 make a very clear point in that report, or in 18 Q. Now, I don't think we ever got a copy
19 that journal paper, that their analysis only is 19 of the soil boring logs from the LPV levee, so
20 limited to sheet flow due to overtopping. And 20 unless somebody can point to me where it is on
21 they do some numerical modeling that shows that 21 this DVD, if you want to take a look and see if
22 the erosion of the levees is consistent due to 22 it's on your CD, fine, I'll stand corrected.
23 sheet flow on the back side, is consistent with 23 If not, I'm going to call for production of the
24 the erodibility parameters determined in the 24 soil boring logs for the LPV levee here on the
25 test, and they develop a chart or figure that 25 record.
Page 39 Page 41
1 related erodibility measurements in their test 1 MR. STEVENS:
2 to levees that eroded or did not erode and show 2 If you would, Joe, put that in
3 that the results of the erosion function 3 the index up front of things
4 apparatus test can provide something I would 4 requested.
5 characterize as an index value that soils 5 MR. STONE:
6 having low erodibility would perform well 6 I think you have that.
7 because they were correlated to levees that 7 MR. STEVENS:
8 performed well in Katrina, and that levees 8 I don't think we do. If we do I
9 found to have a high erodibility index in their 9 apologize in advance. And again, I'll
10 test severely eroded due to overtopping and 10 stand corrected, but as far as I know
11 sheet flow during Katrina. 11 we don't.
12 Q. Okay. We'll get back to that. 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
13 I want to know where -- based upon 13 Q. Let me ask you, Dr. Wolff, did you at
14 what you just told me about these two indexes 14 any point attempt to compare --
15 and how you sort of worked backwards and said, 15 MR. STONE:
16 a, if it had a low index it performed well, if 16 Before we go on, let's stay on
17 it had a high index it did not. 17 that, because I want to get you what
18 A. Let me clarify. I did not make that 18 you need.
19 correlation. That's presented in their paper. 19 MR. STEVENS:
20 Q. I understand. But did you, at any 20 Okay.
21 point, ever connect the dots so to speak and 21 MR. STONE:
22 take that information and then go and look 22 So --
23 along the levees and see where it performed 23 MR. STEVENS:
24 well and where it did not perform well? Or did 24 Soil boring logs from the LPV
25 they? 25 levees.
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
Page 42 Page 44
1 MR. STONE: 1 MS. SHERMAN:
2 You mean like any that were ever 2 Joe was asking for the soil
3 taken? 3 boring logs that were kept in
4 MR. STEVENS: 4 Mississippi. I think they were
5 No, the ones referenced in his 5 offered at some point and we wanted to
6 report. 6 get them produced with his deposition.
7 MR. STONE: 7 MR. STONE:
8 Oh, for 2001. 8 Can we talk about this
9 THE WITNESS: 9 afterwards, then?
10 No, I believe he is asking for, 10 MR. STEVENS:
11 in the ILIT report and in Briaud 's 11 I was going to suggest --
12 paper they state that certain Shelby 12 MR. STONE:
13 tube samples and shovel samples were 13 I don't want you to walk you away
14 retrieved. 14 without what you claim you need here,
15 MR. STONE: 15 but I have to know exactly what you
16 Is that what you're asking for? 16 want for us to be able to get it for
17 MR. STEVENS: 17 you.
18 Yes. 18 THE WITNESS:
19 MR. STONE: 19 Might I clarify? It is my
20 That's your people that did those 20 understanding that the EFA testing was
21 samples. 21 on samples taken by the ILIT team of
22 THE WITNESS: 22 which Dr. Bea was a member.
23 Dr. Bea took those samples. 23 MR. STEVENS:
24 MR. STEVENS: 24 Okay.
25 No, the U.S. Army Corps of 25 MR. STONE:
Page 43 Page 45
1 Engineers samples, that's the ones I 1 Those aren't Corps samples.
2 want. 2 MR. STEVENS:
3 MR. STONE: 3 Joe, C-O-R-P-S core samples.
4 You got to help us here, because 4 U.S. Army Corps.
5 I want to know exactly what you want 5 MR. STONE:
6 because I can't -- but I know that in 6 Right.
7 the Chalmette Area Plan for 2001 there 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
8 were samples taken. 8 Q. If we can just rule it out, then, if
9 MR. STEVENS: 9 you can tell us on this transcript, were there
10 Right. 10 individual sample numbers relied upon by either
11 MR. STONE: 11 yourself or Dr. Briaud, et al, in connection
12 You have a copy of the Chalmette 12 with this EFA index where there was a low index
13 Area Plan. Correct? Dan will correct 13 and the levee performed well or a high index
14 me. 14 and it did not perform well?
15 MR. BAEZA: 15 A. Might I look at Dr. Briaud 's paper?
16 And there was a 2001 geotechnical 16 Q. Absolutely.
17 investigation. 17 (Brief recess.)
18 MR. STONE: 18 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
19 And there's a 2001 geotechnical 19 Q. Doctor, when we broke you were going
20 investigation for the LPV levees, and 20 to look at Dr. Briaud's paper and see if you
21 you should have the soil borings that 21 could point me to where he might have made
22 are attached to those. 22 specific geographic location connections with
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 23 the samples.
24 Q. If you go the Page 21 of your 24 A. Yes. I have since brought up both his
25 report -- 25 paper and noted that in Pages 40 and 41 of my
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
Page 46 Page 48
1 report I drew some information about certain 1 region prone to figure by overtopping and prone
2 samples from his paper. 2 to resist overtopping. So he performed that
3 MR. STONE: 3 correlation.
4 For the deposition record, can we 4 I primarily looked at his paper and
5 just refer to that report by reference 5 results to get an understanding of the
6 as, is it Briaud May 2008? 6 intention of the erosion function test and his
7 THE WITNESS: 7 work related to overtopping, and I took
8 Yes. 8 particular note of two things: One is that he
9 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 9 went -- made a particular point in the paper of
10 Q. What page on the Briaud 2008 paper? 10 saying he did not analyze wave attack at all,
11 A. I'm reading the Journal of 11 and a fact that a coauthor of the paper,
12 Geotechnical Engineering 's page numbers, there 12 Mr. Storesund, I knew had worked with Dr. Bea
13 is a Figure 13 on Page 623 that shows 13 on this matter.
14 essentially the entire New Orleans area and 14 Q. And you say you knew that
15 shows the locations of a number of samples, and 15 Dr. Storesund had worked with Dr. Bea on which
16 shows that four of those samples were along the 16 matter?
17 MRGO. And then I limit my discussion to those 17 A. This case. I believe his name turns
18 four samples. 18 up in some of the earlier declarations.
19 Q. So it looks like you have -- out of 19 Q. Okay. And do you know what
20 the four samples, one would be sort of near 20 contribution to Dr. Bea 's opinion
21 Paris Road, one near Bayou Bienvenue and one 21 Dr. Storesund made or how Dr. Bea relied on
22 down near Bayou Dupre? 22 Storesund?
23 A. That is correct. 23 A. Not specifically. My understanding is
24 Q. In a general way. 24 that Mr. Storesund is either a graduate student
25 A. In a general sense. 25 or a recent graduate at Berkley and was
Page 47 Page 49
1 Q. Go ahead. 1 available to perform various analyses for
2 A. I believe the plaintiff expert reports 2 Dr. Bea.
3 have more precise information on those samples. 3 Q. Okay.
4 Q. Okay. And then you mentioned that in 4 A. That's my impression.
5 your report you discussed it at what page? 40, 5 Q. In fact, as of the publication of this
6 you say? 6 article with Dr. Briaud in May of 2008 -- I
7 A. Page 40 and 41. In Dr. Briaud 's 7 don't know his first name, R. Storesund,
8 paper, on Page 624, he provides a Table 2 8 whatever the R is --
9 showing the results of his tests, and I have 9 A. It stands for Rune. R-U-N-E.
10 summarized some of those results related to the 10 Q. -- Rune Storesund is listed here as a
11 samples along MRGO Reach 2 on Page 40 and 41 in 11 Ph.D. candidate, Department of Civil and
12 my Table 2. 12 Environmental Engineering, Davis Hall, U. Cal.
13 Q. Now, the ultimate question becomes, 13 Berkley.
14 did you or can you correlate any of those 14 A. Yes.
15 specific samples with either a low index or 15 Q. Okay. Now, in terms of this paper,
16 high index location that performed well or did 16 "Levee Erosion by Overtopping," is it not a
17 not perform well from the EFA index value you 17 fact that this group led by Dr. Briaud defines
18 gave us earlier? 18 erodibility as the relationship between the
19 A. Dr. Briaud in his Figure 17, on Page 19 velocity of water flowing over the soil and the
20 626, Corps relates -- well, excuse me, that's 20 corresponding erosion rate experienced by the
21 his test results. In his Figure 19, on Page 21 soil?
22 627, he plots the results of his erodibility 22 A. That's correct.
23 tests with samples that either failed or did 23 Q. Is that an accurate quote? And do you
24 not fail, and in his Figure 20 he takes his 24 agree with that concept or notion?
25 same erodibility chart and puts on, in red, a 25 A. Yes.
13 (Pages 46 to 49)
Page 50 Page 52
1 Q. Does that sound scientifically correct 1 MR. STEVENS:
2 to you? 2 That would be my very next
3 A. Yes. Fundamentally his test involves 3 question.
4 a flume where water flows in a more or less 4 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
5 uniform direction and then a tubular sample of 5 Q. This last entry on -- I've marked as
6 soil is pressed or jacked up into the flume, 6 Exhibit Number 3 the printed index of the
7 and the rate at which the flowing water over 7 materials contained on the CD.
8 the surface of the soil removes the soil is 8 (Exhibit 3 was marked for
9 observed. 9 identification and is attached hereto.)
10 Q. Okay. Let me do this while I'm 10 MR. STONE:
11 thinking about it, it's a little housekeeping 11 And you can tell Mr. Stevens your
12 matter: If you all would confirm for me, this 12 involvement in that, Dr. Wolff.
13 is a printed index of the materials on the CD 13 A. Oh. Well, these were -- the
14 we got. If you would confirm that that is 14 Department of Justice sent me a variety of
15 everything you produced as Dr. Wolff 's 15 documents over a long period of time, and as I
16 reliance materials, then I'll attach that copy 16 put them into my references, and then I was
17 of it as -- 17 told that I needed to provide reliance
18 MR. STEVENS: 18 materials, essentially they and I went through
19 What's our next number, Joe? 3? 19 the references and made sure, and essentially
20 MR. STONE: 20 they copied onto the CD whatever they had given
21 Yes, it is. But there is another 21 me. I furnished them, I believe, some of the
22 housekeeping matter. At the very end 22 last things here, TM3-424 Volume 1 is a report
23 here, we've produced a WGI exploration 23 from the 1950s on levees that I had. The
24 plan. Now we want to claw back that 24 Verrujit book I furnished to table of contents
25 because it was -- I believe that is 25 and a few pages. It was a book in my library.
Page 51 Page 53
1 joint defense privileged. And we can 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
2 talk about this later, but I just want 2 Q. That's V-E-R-R-U-J-I-T. Verrujit.
3 to bring it up with you now to let you 3 A. Yes. The papers on the Stability of
4 know. Because what it was was a plan 4 Atchafalaya Levees was in my personal library,
5 for doing soil borings in the EBIA 5 it's ASCE conference proceeding from 1966, and
6 that never came to fruition because 6 I scanned those papers and furnished them to
7 they're now out of the case. And this 7 DOJ to put into these reliance materials. But
8 is inadvertently produced. 8 for the most part they were things that had
9 MR. STEVENS: 9 been furnished to me.
10 Claw back. That sounds like 10 MR. STONE:
11 something my wife would do. 11 You can go ahead with that
12 MR. STONE: 12 discussion all you want to,
13 You should hope. But this is -- 13 Mr. Stevens, but I'm asking him about
14 the claw back order is something 14 that very last entry there.
15 that's been entered into in this case 15 MR. STEVENS:
16 that allows parties to withdraw 16 Sure.
17 produced privileged material. 17 MR. STONE:
18 MR. STEVENS: 18 And you can tell Mr. Stevens what
19 So you're claiming you 19 your involvement was in that.
20 inadvertently produced it or you 20 A. Yes. Yes. Um -- I was called by the
21 produced it in error. 21 Department of Justice and told that --
22 MR. STONE: 22 THE WITNESS:
23 And it really isn't a part of 23 The WGII?
24 Dr. Bea's reliance materials, but you 24 MR. STONE:
25 can ask him whether it is or not. 25 WGII.
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
Page 54 Page 56
1 A. WGII, and I would know them better -- 1 Q. I was going to interrupt myself, but
2 I believe they were in outgrowth of Morrison 2 go ahead.
3 Knudsen. 3 A. You had asked me what in the Briaud
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 4 paper of 2008 I had found of importance.
5 Q. Washington Group International, Inc. 5 Q. Yes. And I was going to go back and
6 A. -- proposed to do some drilling along 6 wrap that up, but thank you.
7 the levees in the Ninth Ward along the IHNC, 7 A. Okay. And in addition to the nature
8 and before they did that drilling they asked me 8 of this test and the design intent of this test
9 to look over the document describing the 9 regarding flow parallel to the soil, the other
10 intended drilling to see if there were any 10 thing that I -- that caught my eye in this
11 things that, um -- was the drilling and 11 report is the last sentence of the paper that
12 sampling adequate for our information purposes. 12 said, the possible erosion of the levees by
13 And I furnished them, I believe, about two 13 wave attack prior to overtopping sheet flow was
14 pages of comments. The biggest substance I 14 not studied in this work. And I found that
15 recall was it was not clear to me if WGI was to 15 interesting because it is unusual when you are
16 do the drilling themselves or whether they were 16 writing a technical paper about one thing to
17 going to hire a contract driller, and if they 17 note that you're not talking about some other
18 were to hire a contract driller there were some 18 thing. And the paper would be complete without
19 things I thought could be written more clearly 19 that statement. It would simply be a report
20 in terms of what they were to do. I didn't 20 about overtopping. And I found it interesting
21 have any, you know, that I would consider 21 because wave attack prior to overtopping has
22 significant changes or recommendations about 22 been mentioned often in this case, and Dr. Bea
23 that drilling plan, as I recall. 23 has attempted to use the results from this in
24 Q. But it's your understanding that in 24 his erosion model and yet the paper by
25 any event this never took place, this was a 25 Dr. Briaud who performed the tests, including
Page 55 Page 57
1 proposed drilling plan -- 1 coauthorship by Dr. Storesund, or soon to be
2 A. That's correct. 2 Dr. Storesund, specifically calls out that we
3 Q. -- that never happened. 3 didn't analyze that. And I just felt that that
4 A. That is correct. 4 was of interest.
5 Q. Or at least has not happened yet. 5 Q. Okay. So you're talking about the
6 MR. STONE: 6 very last sentence on Page --
7 Right. 7 A. It would be Page 629 of the published
8 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 8 paper.
9 Q. Now, we kind of -- we're kind of 9 Q. Yes.
10 getting spread between two things. We were on 10 A. Prior to the acknowledgment.
11 Item 12 of Exhibit A, which is the documents 11 Q. Which reads, quote, the possible
12 cited or referenced in your report, which 12 erosion of the levees by wave attack prior to
13 brought us to Page 51 of your report which was 13 overtopping sheet flow was not studied in this
14 references, and as we walked through that we 14 work --
15 had gotten through the first full page, and 15 A. Yes.
16 that got us to the bottom of the page Briaud, 16 Q. -- period, end of quote --
17 and we kind of got sidetracked into some 17 A. Yes.
18 details and that's almost unavoidable in these 18 Q. -- right?
19 cases, as much as you want to stay on the 19 A. To my knowledge, these authors did not
20 inventory you dive right into the gist of 20 study it anywhere else. Or the primary authors
21 what's said. I've never gotten all the way 21 at Texas A & M.
22 through without doing it a few times. Today 22 Q. Have you conferred with Dr. Briaud,
23 will be no exception. 23 Chin or Storesund, any of the authors of these
24 But the next one -- 24 papers directly about this case?
25 A. Well, might I interrupt? 25 A. No.
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
Page 58 Page 60
1 Q. Okay. I'm trying not to get -- I want 1 A. Yes.
2 the dive into this paper but I'm going to wait. 2 Q. The next article or item listed in
3 We'll come back to it. 3 Page 52 of your reference is Kaufman and
4 Anything else while we're taking 4 Weaver, 1966, "Stability of the Atchafalaya
5 inventory? 5 Levees." Tell me what about that report is
6 A. No. 6 significant the your opinions.
7 Q. Now, the next item referenced on Page 7 A. Bob Kaufman was the chief of
8 51 of your report is the American Society of 8 engineering at that time, I believe, of the
9 Civil Engineers External Review Panel, What 9 Lower Mississippi Valley Division of the Corps
10 Went Wrong and Why. Seems like that's a 10 of Engineers in Vicksburg, and Mr. Frank Weaver
11 repeat. Are there two of those? Oh, no. I 11 was the chief of the geotechnical -- or at that
12 went back to the top of Page 1. I didn't flip 12 time, the Geology, Soils and Materials branch
13 the page. It's the IPET report, right, is did 13 in Vicksburg, Mississippi. And they reported
14 next item? 14 at a 1966 conference in Berkley, which was, to
15 A. Yes, sir. 15 my knowledge, the first major conference in the
16 Q. What about the IPET report did you 16 United States about stability of earth
17 specifically rely upon in forming your opinions 17 embankments about the design and construction
18 in this case? 18 procedures used on very soft soils in
19 A. The IPET report, primarily Volume 5, 19 Louisiana. And they explained how when one
20 concludes the levees in MRGO Reach 2 failed to 20 attempts to build levees out of these
21 the overtopping. The IPET report also provides 21 materials, particularly, or including hydraulic
22 a voluminous amount of general information 22 fills, that you might raise a levee a certain
23 about water levels and time and geology and, 23 amount, let's say eight feet, and then it may
24 you know, locations of various features and so 24 settle back a significant fraction of that
25 on. 25 amount, let's say five or six feet, and that in
Page 59 Page 61
1 Q. Now, in terms of translating the 1 order to build levees to the desired height
2 information to opinions that you ultimately 2 they would build and wait for consolidation and
3 hold in this case, what did you rely upon for 3 strength gain, build some more and wait, and
4 formation of your opinions? Or a better 4 they'd put in a various instruments in some of
5 question: How did the information in Volume 5 5 these levees, and used prevailing soil
6 of the IPET report assist you in forming your 6 mechanics equations to show how they could
7 opinions? 7 develop a design procedure that would let them
8 A. The IPET report was written by a large 8 estimate or predict how much time it would take
9 team of engineers across academia, industry and 9 for the levee to consolidate and gain strength,
10 government, um -- who have significant 10 and when they could put another lift on. So
11 reputations. It was reviewed independently by 11 that report in 1966 documents that the type of
12 the American Society of Civil Engineers, with 12 stage construction used for levees in southern
13 that team led by Dr. Dave Daniel, President of 13 Louisiana, such as was used on Reach 2, was a
14 University of Texas, Dallas, and then further 14 well established practice in the Corps of
15 reviewed by a National Research Council, um -- 15 Engineers. I believe they referred to it going
16 team, also with persons of prominent 16 back into the 1940s.
17 credentials, and the finding that the levees in 17 Q. And would the also include sort of
18 question here failed by overtopping pervades 18 factoring in subsidence over time, that when
19 all of that expertise. 19 you --
20 Q. Therefore, how did you rely on it? 20 A. No.
21 A. I agree that it failed by overtopping. 21 Q. -- build to a certain height you would
22 Q. Okay. Let me ask you those and then 22 anticipate some subsidence due to compaction
23 we'll get more specific letter. But for now, 23 and --
24 Dr. Wolff, is it your opinion that the levees 24 A. Let me please clarify subsidence,
25 in this case performed as designed? 25 consolidation and compaction.
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
Page 62 Page 64
1 Q. Okay. 1 Atchafalaya levees, I have a keen interest in
2 A. Subsidence is time-based lowering of 2 that because I live in Morgan City.
3 the ground level independent of any 3 A. Okay, well --
4 construction. And the New Orleans area is now 4 Q. Okay? And so the region in the
5 known to undergo -- be undergoing significant 5 Atchafalaya Basin where I live, and the New
6 subsidence. Other parts of the United States, 6 Orleans basin here, are those two areas
7 I believe Houston has undergone some 7 experiencing regional subsidence at the same
8 subsidence, and it may be due to geologic 8 basic rate?
9 activity, it may be due to groundwater 9 A. I do not know the rate at all in the
10 withdrawal but it's a regional lowering of the 10 Atchafalaya. I learned from the IPET report
11 ground not connected to an individual 11 that the subsidence even in New Orleans area as
12 structure. 12 I recall is greater to the eastern side, toward
13 Consolidation is the settlement or 13 the area in question than to the western side.
14 compression of soil over time under its own 14 Q. And do you have an understanding as to
15 weight or under the weight of materials above 15 what the annual rate of subsidence is in the
16 it, whether that be soils under this levee or 16 region in question?
17 whether that be soils under the leaning Tower 17 A. I believe.
18 of Pizza. Compaction, as used by geotechnical 18 Q. St. Bernard basin?
19 engineers, is getting soil to a greater density 19 A. I may have it in my report. And
20 and strength using mechanical means such as a 20 pardon me?
21 compaction roller or running over it with a 21 Q. The St. Bernard basin.
22 bulldozer and so forth. You will occasionally 22 A. I may or may not have it in my report,
23 find personnel that are not geotechnical 23 my recollection from the IPET report was that
24 engineers, including, um -- the hydraulics 24 it was on the order of a foot a decade or an
25 gentlemen deposed, Mr. Ebersole, yesterday, may 25 inch a year, which would be a foot in twelve
Page 63 Page 65
1 use the term compaction where the proper 1 years. At least that was close to the IHNC.
2 geotechnical term is consolidation. 2 There was also some discussion of regional
3 Q. Now, I'd like to get a glossary of 3 subsidence in DM 3, and I was a much smaller
4 terms defined, and I appreciate you doing that, 4 number than that.
5 you're a professor and so you're accustomed to 5 Q. And how long has that information been
6 teaching people, and I need to be taught, 6 available in the scientific community or in
7 believe me. 7 geotechnical circles?
8 A. Thank you. 8 A. I did not review that in great detail.
9 Q. So when we speak, we speak in the same 9 I relied on what was in the IPET report and the
10 terms. If I use the wrong term, correct me, 10 earlier documents.
11 and let's make sure we key the nomenclature 11 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to --
12 correct . 12 A. I did, in my report, review some of
13 A. We're speaking of consolidation here I 13 the discussion, I believe it was around 1966,
14 believe. 14 where the Corps becomes aware that subsidence
15 Q. And consolidation, if you will, is 15 rates were greater than previously
16 something that you would anticipate when you 16 understood -- I'm sorry, that was 1984, 1985.
17 design and/or build a levee. 17 On Page 27 of my report, um -- that there's --
18 A. Yes. In Design Memorandum 3, as I 18 that the Corps of Engineers have learned from
19 recall, or one of the documents shortly 19 the National Geodetic Survey of subsidence
20 following it, the Corps of Engineers actually 20 greater than they previously knew.
21 lays out a fairly detailed plan about how many 21 One of the issues or problems around
22 stages of placement, how many shapings, and how 22 subsidence is you're determining elevations
23 many years between those that it will take to 23 from benchmarks, which are precise, permanent
24 get the levee up to grade. 24 markers of known elevation, and if an area is
25 Q. And then when it comes to the 25 subsiding, those benchmarks are themselves
17 (Pages 62 to 65)
Page 66 Page 68
1 subsiding, and one has to somehow survey back 1 in Washington, D.C. and Bill Turnbull,
2 to some reference that they believe is not 2 essentially were the primary parties
3 subsiding. 3 responsible for researching, understanding and
4 Q. Again, I got to hold myself back from 4 developing design criteria for seepage under
5 going into it now. Let's proceed with our 5 levees in the United States. And my own
6 inventory. 6 Master's thesis work drew on their reports.
7 Was there anything else about the 1966 7 They published a number of other Corps reports.
8 stability of the Atchafalaya levees I guess 8 What is significant is that
9 report, conference proceedings, that you found 9 Mr. Kaufman is in the review chain for Design
10 significant or in some way relied upon it? 10 memorandum 3 where is it stated that the Corps
11 A. No. 11 makes a judgment that underseepage is not a
12 Q. Now then you list Dr. Kemp 's 12 concern in these particular projects in its
13 declaration and deposition as the next two 13 design because you have short duration
14 items in your reference list. What was it 14 loadings, short duration hurricanes compared to
15 about Dr. Paul Kemp 's declaration of September 15 river flood loadings, and generally impervious
16 '07? 16 soils. And while they were making a judgment
17 A. I don't recall anything specifically 17 decision, the detailed underseepage analysis
18 in Kemp 's deposition that I relied on. It was 18 were not necessary in their capacity as
19 among documents reviewed. 19 division reviewer. This was the same
20 Q. Okay. 20 Mr. Kaufman that essentially wrote the book and
21 MR. STONE: 21 wrote the criteria and did the research on
22 He was asking about the 22 levee underseepage in the United States. So
23 declaration. 23 that was the best judgment, the most
24 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 24 experienced party one could have in that
25 Q. There's two there, the declaration and 25 matter. And on that I formed an opinion that,
Page 67 Page 69
1 the depo. Would the same answer be for both? 1 um -- the Corps of Engineers choosing not to do
2 A. Yes, sir. 2 underseepage analyses or feeling that they were
3 Q. Okay. Next one is Mansur, 3 not needed for these levees was entirely
4 M-A-N-S-U-R -- 4 consistent with the best expertise available at
5 A. Mansur. 5 the time.
6 Q. Mansur? 6 Q. And when you say at the time, at the
7 A. Mansur. 7 time of what?
8 Q. Mansur. He's not from Louisiana. 8 A. At the time of design.
9 A. No. 9 Q. Anything else about that article?
10 Q. And Kaufman. K-A-U-F-M-A-N. 10 A. No.
11 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. All right. Next one is Oreskes?
12 Q. Underseepage, Mississippi River 12 O-R-E-S-K-E-S?
13 Levees, St. Louis District, 1956. 13 A. Yes.
14 A. Yes. 14 Q. Shrader and Belitz, 1994.
15 Q. What was it about that publication 15 A. Yes, sir.
16 that you found significant here? 16 Q. All right.
17 A. Bob Kaufman and Charles Mansur -- this 17 A. Um -- in Mr. Bea 's July declaration
18 is the same Bob Kaufman who was the assistant 18 he develops a fairly elaborate set of models to
19 chief of the engineering division that 19 attempt to show that front side wave attack may
20 coauthored the paper with Weaver that we just 20 have led to breaching prior to overtopping, and
21 discussed. In the 1950s, Charles or Charlie 21 these are numerical models with a number of
22 Mansur and Bob Kaufman were researchers at what 22 pieces or components. And it was my opinion,
23 was then the Waterways Experiment Station, WES, 23 is my opinion, that those models have not been
24 in Vicksburg, Mississippi. And they, along 24 verified and can not be verified in the same
25 with, um -- a gentleman named Reginald Barron, 25 way that many or most engineering models are
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
Page 70 Page 72
1 because you don't really have a prototype test 1 verified or validated -- in a nutshell is that
2 such as you do where LS-DYNA is used for crash 2 what they're saying?
3 testing of automobiles. In trying to explain 3 A. They referred to natural systems.
4 this in my report, and again there are many, 4 Q. Okay.
5 many people doing various many kinds of 5 A. They really were talking about
6 engineering modeling, I attempted to find a 6 modeling of natural systems in general.
7 very general reference about the need for 7 Q. Such as?
8 models to be verified, and I found this paper 8 A. And I would take levee erosion to be
9 looking through Google scholar, and saw that it 9 an example of a natural system.
10 was in Science Magazine, which is a very 10 Q. Does the article discuss levee erosion
11 prestigious journal, and that it had over 800 11 specifically?
12 references, and that it was not specific to any 12 A. No.
13 particular application but was of general 13 Q. Does it discuss earthen berms or any
14 discussion of the need for models to be 14 other form of levee erosion?
15 verified, and the paper as I read it takes the 15 A. No, it was about numerical modeling in
16 point that models of natural systems really 16 general.
17 cannot be fully verified. 17 Q. In general. It didn't have any
18 Q. I think he says they were heuristic? 18 specific application to land masses adjacent to
19 It's a new word on me. 19 water bodies or anything along those linings at
20 A. H-E-U-R-I-S-T-I-C. And I would have 20 all.
21 to look up a precise definition, but it 21 A. No.
22 essentially, as I would understand it, refers 22 Q. Okay. What do you derive from
23 to rules or practices or tools or equations 23 Oreskes' article in the context of this case?
24 that are developed more from intuition and 24 A. Actually, before I looked at article,
25 observation than from explicit, um -- tests or 25 I was already well aware that people who do
Page 71 Page 73
1 evidence. 1 numerical modeling, to use those results,
2 Q. So it's a helpful analysis but it's 2 attempt to validate them against some sort of
3 not necessarily specific proof or scientific 3 physical modeling or prototype testing, and
4 proof. Is that another way of saying that? 4 that is very, very wide throughout all
5 A. That's fair. 5 engineering fields, and I was simply seeking a
6 Q. Okay. 6 good reference where that had been written
7 MR. STONE: 7 about.
8 That's Dr. Bea. You called him 8 Q. Okay. Is there anything in specific
9 Mr. Bea. I don't think you meant to. 9 in that article that you take the position
10 It's Dr. Bea. 10 refutes or diminishes the reliability of
11 (Brief interruption.) 11 Dr. Bea 's work in this case?
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 12 A. I would not say -- I'm not certain I
13 Q. I think we were in the middle of 13 have something connected directly to the
14 something here. I had asked you about Oreskes. 14 article, but the main point I would use from
15 Was there anything else about that paper -- you 15 the article would be to mirror my own
16 said something about -- 16 understanding and experience that numerical
17 A. No. You had asked me about heuristic. 17 models are much more accurate, precise,
18 Q. Oh, I was Mr. Stone said something 18 believable when they can be shown to match up
19 about, I believe it's Dr. Bea. That's what I 19 with some observed result.
20 was reading. 20 Q. Okay. Now, the next item listed in
21 A. I inadvertently said Mr. Bea. 21 your reference list is written by Dr. Bea and a
22 Q. All right. To the extent that 22 fellow named, Seed. I say a fellow, a person,
23 Oreskes, et al, are of the opinion that with 23 R.B. Seed. It might be a she.
24 regard to earth sciences and numerical models 24 A. That's Raymond Seed.
25 for earth sciences not being able to be 25 Q. Raymond. Okay. And there were
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
Page 74 Page 76
1 thirty-five authors on this paper, right? 1 into the team that wrote the ILIT report. They
2 A. Yeah. Well, that is the -- what is 2 added and deleted some people. I was not a
3 commonly known as the ILIT report. 3 member -- I was not an author in any part of
4 Q. Okay. Very good. What about the ILIT 4 the ILIT report, but I was physically in New
5 report, better known as the Independent Levee 5 Orleans at the same time with some of those
6 Investigation Team, correct? 6 members.
7 A. Yes. 7 Q. So did you ever become a member of the
8 Q. ILIT. 8 ILIT team?
9 A. Yes. 9 A. No.
10 Q. What about that report do you rely 10 Q. Okay. Did you assist the ILIT team in
11 upon for forming your opinions in this case? 11 any way?
12 A. I would have to go back to specific 12 A. No.
13 parts of my report to see where I have 13 Q. Did you contribute any writings or
14 discussed that, but my recollection is that in 14 offer any of your opinions or beliefs based
15 general it also refers to these levees as 15 upon what you had done while you were in New
16 having been overtopped. 16 Orleans?
17 Q. Were you a member of the ILIT team, 17 MR. STONE:
18 you personally? 18 To the ILIT?
19 A. Let me clarify, because that can be 19 A. Not to the ILIT team specifically.
20 read different ways. 20 I'm going to use the term the U. Cal. Berkley
21 Q. Okay. 21 team prior to that. The U. Cal. Berkley team
22 A. In October, 2005, about five weeks 22 and the ASCE team issued a joint report to the
23 after Katrina, there were three teams on the 23 U.S. Senate around November 1st, 2005, and that
24 ground in Louisiana doing a first 24 report has twenty-one authors including myself,
25 reconnaissance investigation based on what 25 Dr. Bea, Dr. Seed and so forth, and then that
Page 75 Page 77
1 could be seen prior to any analysis. One was 1 was the end of that work. Berkley people then
2 the Corps of Engineers team, one was a team led 2 formed the ILIT team.
3 by Dr. Seed out of University of California 3 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
4 Berkley that included Dr. Bea and others from 4 Q. And what was the name of that report,
5 Berkley and others from California, and a team 5 the one they submitted to Congress?
6 from the American Society of Civil Engineers 6 A. That I believe is listed under Seed as
7 who was investigating this from the standpoint 7 the lead author. It's in the middle of
8 of the professional society. I was on a 8 Page 52 -- I'm sorry. That's the ILIT report.
9 team -- on the team sponsored by the American 9 Q. I'm glad I'm not the only one that
10 Society of Civil Engineers, and I was here in 10 gets confused.
11 Week 2 of that three-team effort. Dr. Seed and 11 A. There's twenty-one authors. It's in
12 Dr. Bea were here during the first week, I was 12 my résumé. It's in my résumé, not in the
13 here during the second week. Um -- I met 13 references because I did not rely on that
14 Dr. Seed and Dr. Bea for about twenty to thirty 14 report.
15 minutes in the lobby of the hotel as they were 15 Q. Okay. It's in your list of
16 ready to leave, and I had just arrived, and 16 publications; correct?
17 they were talking to some parties that were 17 A. Yes. And it is -- I'll get you the
18 spanning a longer time about what we might 18 title. Hold on. Okay. It's on Page 60 of my
19 still ought to look at, and the Corps of 19 report, Publications, Special Reports, Seed,
20 Engineers were essentially -- we couldn't go 20 Nicholson, et cetera, Wolff, twenty-two
21 anywhere without being in a Corps vehicle or 21 authors.
22 following a Corps vehicle, so they were with 22 Q. I'm not finding it.
23 us. 23 A. Well, it's on my CV Page 7. The CV I
24 The Berkley led team that was here at 24 believe was separate.
25 the same time I was with the ASCE team evolved 25 Q. Okay. Now you've got the right page
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
Page 78 Page 80
1 number. 1 Dr. Seed and Dr. Nicholson who lead the ASCE
2 A. I can read you the title, if you wish. 2 team to testify to the Senate about what the
3 Right up at the top. Special Reports. 3 profession had seen.
4 Q. Okay. Seed -- Special Reports, Seed, 4 Q. And did they ultimately testify to the
5 Nicholson, Wolff plus twenty-two authors. 5 Senate Committee on Homeland Security?
6 2005? 6 A. I believe they testified to two Senate
7 A. Yes. 7 committees, I believe the first -- one was
8 Q. All right. Preliminary Report on the 8 Homeland Security -- one was an Interior
9 Performance of the New Orleans Levee Systems in 9 committee, I believe the second one may have
10 Hurricane Katrina on August 29, '05. All 10 been Homeland Security.
11 right. And as you call it, it's a joint report 11 Q. Environment and Public Works I think
12 of teams from the American Society and the 12 was the other one, according to your note.
13 University of California at Berkley, right? 13 Committee on Environment and Public Works.
14 A. Yes. 14 It's listed here.
15 Q. Now, do you have a copy of what your 15 A. Okay.
16 insert was or your contribution to this report 16 Q. And did you participate in any of
17 was in your files? 17 those proceedings?
18 A. That is not separable. What happened 18 A. No. Only the team leaders.
19 was, with twenty-two parties across two teams, 19 Q. Okay. Have you seen a transcript of
20 some of whom were scattered from the 20 their testimony to either of those Senate
21 Netherlands to Japan, certain parties were 21 committees?
22 charged to take the lead in writing different 22 A. No. I believe I may have watched a
23 chapters. Someone took the lead on writing 23 little bit of it on the web at the time it was
24 about the canal levees, someone took the lead 24 going on.
25 on St. Bernard, someone took the load on 25 Q. Okay. I don't know that we have a
Page 79 Page 81
1 Plaquemines Parish and so forth. I was not a 1 copy of that, certainly not in conjunction with
2 lead writer, so the six or seven lead writers 2 your testimony. If we have it it may be in the
3 would write for a few days and then stop, and 3 global database someplace, and I'm sure
4 put their stuff up on an FTP site, and then the 4 somebody else has it. I haven't seen it.
5 others would read it and fill in and comment. 5 Would you have a copy of this report
6 And so the lead writers would then take these 6 in your files?
7 comments and incorporate them into these 7 A. I should.
8 reports. So there's a long string of E-mails 8 Q. Okay.
9 that were written at that time, and you would 9 A. I can make it available. I believe it
10 find me making comments like someone had a 10 is still publicly available from the American
11 photo that said this is looking north, and I 11 Society of Civil Engineers' website. But I've
12 said I think that's looking south, and so 12 not looked recently.
13 forth. 13 Q. Either way, if you could help us get
14 Q. Right. Ultimately -- 14 one --
15 A. We all agreed on it ultimately. 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Exactly. Ultimately, the report, 16 (Request for Information 1 was
17 there were no dissenters from the report. 17 previously marked for identification and is
18 A. There's -- no. 18 attached hereto.)
19 Q. And you personally did not dissent 19 MR. STEVENS:
20 from any of the conclusions or opinions offered 20 Joe, if you would just list it as
21 in this 2005 preliminary report. 21 additional information requested in
22 A. No. But I will add that there was 22 the Table of Contents and then we
23 a -- no analyses had been done for that report. 23 won't have to go look for it in the
24 That was based on our observations as soon as 24 transcript, which on the rough I guess
25 the area was dewatered with an intent for 25 is around Page 76.
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
Page 82 Page 84
1 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 1 layman's terms for me --
2 Q. Can you describe for us or tell us 2 A. Yes, sir.
3 what opinions you offered in connection with 3 Q. -- when you say there are no measures
4 this special report? 4 in redundancy in levee design --
5 A. For the most part it was a group 5 A. Yes, sir.
6 opinion. 6 Q. -- tell me what you're talking about.
7 Q. Okay. 7 A. Yes. The brakes on your automobile
8 A. There were as many as fifteen to 8 are divided into two separate systems, so if
9 twenty of us out there walking around, and we 9 you -- on most vehicles if you cut a break line
10 shared information. One of the things that -- 10 you'll lose one of your front wheels and one of
11 well, as I recall, some of the key conclusions 11 your back wheels on the opposite side but you
12 of the report, again based on visual 12 still have two brakes. So you have a backup
13 observations and not attributable to a single 13 system. If a levee breaches or overtops or
14 person on that team, were that the, um -- south 14 fails in any manner, um -- there is no backup
15 breach in the IHNC appeared to be due to 15 system. Many engineering, um -- here I have a
16 overtopping. As I recall, the north breach was 16 battery and a power supply and maybe a spare
17 more inconclusive. The gap development along 17 battery.
18 these walls was evident from looking at some of 18 Q. I've got belt and suspenders. I'm not
19 the canal breaches, particularly near failure 19 wearing them both.
20 on the east side of the Orleans canal. 20 A. Levees are not belts and suspenders
21 Q. When you talk about gap development 21 devices.
22 along these walls --- 22 Q. Okay. And then you referred to your,
23 A. I'm referring to the floodwalls on the 23 quote, unquote, reliability background.
24 canals, not the ones on this matter. 24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. So the flood walls on the Inner 25 Q. Describe that for us.
Page 83 Page 85
1 Harbor Navigational Canal? 1 A. My Ph.D. thesis at Purdue University
2 A. No, the floodwalls on the Orleans 2 involves applying probabilistic statistical
3 Canal, 17 Street Canal and so forth. 3 reliability based methods to design of earth
4 Q. Oh, okay. 4 dams. It essentially takes the Corps' design
5 A. So the issue of the gap development on 5 criteria for earth dams and illustrates if you
6 floodwalls and I-walls on top of levees became 6 used probabilistic methods to design an earth
7 apparent to that committee. 7 dam how that would be done. I have, and it's
8 Q. Okay. Any other observations you 8 cited here and cited by plaintiffs, prepared a
9 recall? 9 report for the Corps of Engineers about how
10 A. The single thing that I would say I 10 reliability of probabilistic methods can be
11 may have added to that report that might not 11 used to analyze existing levees for project
12 have been there had I not added it was a 12 evaluation, economic purposes.
13 notation from my background in reliability that 13 I have written various reports for the
14 unlike many other structures levees are what 14 Corps, some of which were used as design
15 are called series systems, that they are very 15 guidance, letters and manuals, about
16 long and encompass large areas and that if you 16 reliability based design, probabilistic design.
17 have a failure at one location you can have 17 I have taught a couple of short
18 damage at very large locations. And that there 18 courses for the Corps of Engineers in
19 is no, um -- measures of redundancy in levee 19 elementary probability statistics as they apply
20 design as there are in other engineering 20 to geotechnical engineering.
21 structures by their nature. And that was just 21 Q. And let me ask you, when did you first
22 an observation that was put in the report and 22 publish for the Army Corps of Engineers a
23 obvious to a number, but I think I may have 23 design guidance? And if you want to just steer
24 suggested putting that in. 24 me to your publications list, which page?
25 Q. Now, if you would translate that to 25 A. Well, we'll start on technical
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
Page 86 Page 88
1 reports. And let me clarify the term design 1 is something you authored and you presented to
2 guidance, because much of the guidance I have 2 the Corps of Engineers in 1994 to evaluate the
3 done that's actually Corps guidance relates not 3 reliability of the existing levees.
4 to design but to evaluation of existing 4 A. Let me clarify. Appendix B to that I
5 structures. 5 offered in '94. Okay? The actual ETL itself
6 Q. Okay. But you did use the term design 6 which also presents some probabilistic methods,
7 guidance, I thought. 7 I wrote drafts and then they issued that as an
8 A. In the context of my thesis. 8 ETL.
9 Q. Oh, okay. Tell me when and what you 9 Q. Thank you. You prepared the report in
10 wrote for the Corps in connection with -- 10 '94, and in '99 they attached it to ETL1110 as
11 A. Okay, I'm looking. 11 Appendix B.
12 Q. -- probabilistic modeling for levee 12 A. Yes. But I was also instrumental in
13 design. And correct me every chance you get 13 writing that ETL itself.
14 about -- 14 Q. Okay. And we'll come back to that.
15 A. The first place I write some guidance 15 We're going talk to you, because I have a copy
16 for the Corps to illustrate how to do 16 of it here.
17 reliability analysis, but not for levees, is on 17 A. Yes.
18 the top of my CV, Page 12, Wolff and Wong, 1992 18 Q. But in a nutshell, if you would, tell
19 Engineering Reliability of Navigation 19 us what this Appendix B and this ETL --
20 Structures, research report. 20 A. Yes. Okay.
21 Q. Page 12, Wolff and Wong -- Wang or 21 Q. -- instructed the Corps of Engineers
22 Wong? 22 about the reliability of the existing levees.
23 A. Wong. 23 A. Okay.
24 Q. W-O-N-G? 24 Q. Particularly the New Orleans levees
25 A. W-A-N-G. 25 that are involved in this case.
Page 87 Page 89
1 Q. But it's pronounced Wong. 1 A. It did not have any -- to my
2 A. Pronounced Wong. 2 knowledge, it's not been used for New Orleans
3 Q. I knew I pronounced it Wong. 3 levees. It was in fact used -- here was the
4 A. Okay. 1992, I provide recommended 4 issue: There are many private levees in the
5 procedures for reliability analyses specific to 5 United States, and old levees that various
6 a particular existing lock, and again this was 6 constituents would like to have raised higher.
7 for analyzing whether that lock needed 7 And at some point back in time there was a
8 rehabilitation funding. 8 discussion among the hydrologists and the
9 Some others there -- the place that I 9 economists if you are determining cost benefits
10 first do levees is the 1994 Evaluating the 10 for an area with an existing levee, some said
11 Reliability of Existing Levees prepared for the 11 there would be no flood benefits until the
12 Waterways Experiment Station, and then that 12 existing levee was overtopped. And therefore,
13 became Appendix B to Engineered Technical 13 we have to assume that the existing levee is
14 Letter 111-2-556, Risk Based Analysis in 14 there. Others said, well, since that old
15 Geotechnical Engineering for Support of 15 existing private levee is not built to Corps
16 Planning Studies, 1999. Some of my work also 16 standard, we can not depend on it and flood
17 formed the main part of that letter. My 1994 17 damages occur as soon as the water gets over
18 report in its entirety became Appendix B to 18 bank because we don't know anything about this
19 that letter. 19 levee. That argument led, as the hydraulic
20 Q. Right. And that ETL is an engineering 20 people got more involved in probabilistic
21 technical letter? 21 statistical analysis, that they decided to say
22 A. Yes. The Corps of Engineers has 22 that levee is there with some probability, and
23 engineer manuals, engineer technical letters, 23 if the water gets to --
24 engineer circulars, and on and on. 24 Q. Some probability of reliance.
25 Q. Right. And the ETL Number 1110-2-556 25 A. Yes.
23 (Pages 86 to 89)
Page 90 Page 92
1 Q. Thank you. 1 A. One was the probable failure point and
2 A. Okay -- so we can count on that levee 2 the probable non failure point.
3 being there with a fifty/fifty chance, or a 3 Q. Okay.
4 sixty/forty chance or some such odds. 4 A. And they assumed a straight line
5 Q. Uh-huh. 5 between them. And inherently, assuming a
6 A. And then the question became how did 6 straight line between them did not include any
7 one characterize how reliable you should assume 7 information about the material in the levee or
8 that that levee is in an economic analysis. 8 it's strength or stability or seepage, so
9 And the Corps' economic analysis and 9 waterways in Vicksburg, Mississippi, came to
10 hydrological analysis actually used 10 me, because I had been working with them on
11 probabilistic techniques called Monte Carlo 11 navigation structure reliability, and said,
12 simulation where they model a flood, and then 12 could you had lay out a framework for how we
13 if this levee has a 60 percent chance of 13 could calculate a better shape for this
14 failing in 60 percent of the simulations the 14 function than a straight line? And I took my
15 levee would fail and in 40 percent it would 15 thesis work and my navigation structure work
16 not, and then they calculate all sorts of 16 and elementary probability theory and
17 things with random numbers. Their guidance 17 illustrated how one could do probabilistic
18 then was dependent on something called profile 18 analysis of slope stability, how we could do
19 guidance letter -- policy guidance letter 26, 19 probabilistic analysis of underseepage, through
20 which I mention very briefly in my report 20 seepage, and then when we got to erosion there
21 because it was the case that shows about the 21 was not a recognized model and essentially we
22 name levee doesn't refer to quality but only to 22 chose two things in the literature where people
23 intended function. 23 had proposed some erosion models and used those
24 Q. Say the last phrase again. 24 in that report as an illustration. And I
25 A. Okay. 25 believe the report has something that said to
Page 91 Page 93
1 Q. Because the case shows that the levee 1 the effect that if a better erosion model comes
2 doesn't refer to quality but only to intended 2 along it could be dropped into this procedure
3 function -- oh, to call it a levee. 3 in this place.
4 A. Yes. Yes. That was another issue in 4 The important significance I think
5 this case. 5 that comes out of that is rather than getting a
6 Q. All right. Go ahead. 6 straight line that's just assumed to be a
7 A. So policy guidance letter number 26 7 straight line you calculate sort of an S curve,
8 says if the water is up at the top of the levee 8 and I show how to combine probabilities of
9 it's reliability is zero obviously because will 9 failure from those various modes into a single
10 be overtopped. And if the water is at the base 10 global probability of failure.
11 of the levee it's 100 percent reliable because 11 Q. And did you at any time or to your
12 the water is not yet on it. And in between, 12 knowledge did the Corps of Engineers at any
13 not knowing any more, draw a straight line. So 13 time from '94 when you first published this
14 that if the water is halfway up the levee it's 14 paper or '99 when they attached it to ETL, or
15 50 percent, or actually they had some points on 15 their engineering technical letter as Appendix
16 the levee determined by geometry for which it 16 B, did anyone, yourself or the Corps, apply
17 would be 100 percent reliable. 17 your methodology, your model, if you will, to
18 Q. The PNP and the PFP. 18 assess the probability of failure or the
19 A. Yes, sir. So it was not just the top 19 probable failure point for any of the levees
20 of a levee, it was to top of where a good levee 20 surrounding the St. Bernard basin?
21 would be in their opinion. 21 A. Not to my knowledge.
22 Q. And I guess for now we ought to say 22 Q. Would your model as described in your
23 what a PNP is and what a PFP is. 23 '94 paper have been capable of calculating a
24 A. Probable -- 24 PNP and/or a PFP for the St. Bernard basin
25 Q. Failure point? 25 levees?
24 (Pages 90 to 93)
Page 94 Page 96
1 A. My work replaced the concept of PNP 1 specifically get into wave run-up. And
2 and -- 2 essentially the guidance, and I think I
3 Q. Okay. 3 mentioned some of that, is you have a good
4 A. -- you could calculate those for those 4 grass cover or if you had some information that
5 levees with the guidance prior to my work. 5 showed large sustained waves, you might have
6 Q. Okay. Did -- based upon your work, do 6 something else, but that gets over into
7 you feel that you advanced the science in a 7 hydraulic and coastal engineering and not
8 sense, made the -- 8 geotechnical engineering.
9 A. I advanced the ability of economists 9 So my work again was the mathematical
10 to calculate or predict benefits and costs 10 probabilistic framework to determine
11 associated with levee improvements. That was 11 probability of failure given models that are
12 the intent of that work. 12 plugged into it.
13 Q. I understand. But did your work, 13 Q. But I guess if I could ask you to
14 whether it might be the intent or a by-product 14 maybe stay with my question --
15 of your work, would your work combined with the 15 A. Yes.
16 modeling that was available before that was 16 Q. -- did the Corps as of '94 or '99 when
17 able to calculate PNPs and PFPs, would the 17 they issued their -- '94 when you published
18 Corps have had the tools as of 1999 to evaluate 18 your paper or '99 when they did ETL,
19 the probability of failure for the New Orleans 19 engineering technical letter, have the tools
20 levees surrounding the St. Bernard basin? 20 available to assess probability of failure from
21 A. It would have had the ability to 21 surge, wave run-up and overtopping?
22 calculate the probability of failure to the 22 A. Not to my knowledge.
23 extent that the deterministic models used for 23 Q. Okay. And what was it that would have
24 slope stability, seepage and erosion and so 24 prevented them from doing that at that time?
25 forth in there were good deterministic models. 25 A. When I say not to my knowledge, I did
Page 95 Page 97
1 And as I point out in that report, the slope 1 not know or I do not know the state of modeling
2 stability and underseepage models were well 2 that they have on wave run-up because as a
3 established in the Corps. 3 geotechnical engineer my expertise was slope
4 The Corps, and I will say the levee 4 stability, seepage and reliability analysis for
5 engineering profession, does not have a widely 5 those matters.
6 accepted erosion model. And so my work simply 6 Q. But they did have the ability to
7 illustrates how if you had an erosion model how 7 assess the probability of failure from every
8 you would cast it in probabilistic terms. 8 aspect except overtopping.
9 So in terms of erosion damage, no, my 9 A. In varying degrees, yes.
10 model is not good because it doesn't have an 10 Q. And we'll go back to your paper in a
11 erosion model. In the context of slope 11 little bit, but you listed -- separate and
12 stability, underseepage and so forth in levees, 12 apart from overtopping, there were four
13 I would believe so, yes. 13 common --
14 Q. All right. What about in the context 14 A. Erosion of any type, whether
15 of overtopping and wave run-up? Or wave run-up 15 overtopping or whether wave attack.
16 and overtopping? 16 Q. They didn't have that.
17 A. It does not specifically -- well, in 17 A. No.
18 the case of overtopping, once overtopping 18 Q. Okay. I'm going to try to speed this
19 begins, from a damage viewpoint that this was 19 up a little bit, but thank you for bearing with
20 developed from, geotechnical engineering is out 20 me.
21 of the picture because the structure, whether 21 We were on your ILIT report or your
22 it is now there or not, is overtopping and 22 contributions to the ILIT report which led up
23 flooded the protected area -- intended 23 to your 1994 report and the technical letters
24 protected area. 24 some kind of way.
25 In terms of wave run-up, we did not 25 MR. STONE:
25 (Pages 94 to 97)
Page 98 Page 100
1 I kind of think that misstates a 1 listed four entries later on your reference
2 little bit that he's not contributing 2 list.
3 to the ILIT report, but -- 3 A. Yes.
4 MR. STEVENS: 4 Q. March 31, '78 Design and Construction
5 Well, yeah. The joint report. 5 of Levees Engineering Manual 1110-2-1913;
6 But that's how we got where we were. 6 correct?
7 I'm trying to figure out where to pick 7 A. Yes.
8 up on Page 52 -- 8 Q. All right. Was there anything of
9 MR. STONE: 9 particular significance about that engineering
10 Yeah. I'm not attacking you 10 manual that assisted you in forming your
11 here, I thought it misstated it a 11 opinions in this case?
12 little bit. 12 A. That manual documents factors of
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 13 safety for slope stability, it has some
14 Q. All right. The next one on your list 14 discussion of types of materials for levees,
15 of references is the Army Corps of Engineers 15 um -- a lot of general things. I'd have to go
16 April 1947 Code for Utilization of Soils Data 16 to specific statements in my report.
17 for Levees -- 17 Q. Okay. That's fine. Let me ask you a
18 A. Yes. 18 general question.
19 Q. -- from the War Department. 19 A. Yes.
20 What was it about that particular code 20 Q. Whether you're an engineer in private
21 section? 21 practice, you're an engineer in the university
22 A. That document, which I became aware of 22 setting, you're an engineer working for the
23 during this case, summarized design and 23 Corps of Engineers, or you're an engineer who
24 construction procedures for levees in the Lower 24 is in the United States Army and an engineer in
25 Mississippi Valley, and to my knowledge was the 25 the engineering division --
Page 99 Page 101
1 only summary document of that until the 1 A. Yes.
2 publication of engineer manual on levees in 2 Q. -- of the Department of the Army,
3 1978. That report or, that code document, 3 engineering practices and procedures are still
4 um -- included information that, um -- 4 the same, are they not? Whether you're a
5 hydraulic fill construction was a commonly 5 military engineer or a civilian engineer.
6 accepted method of levee construction in that 6 A. In the general sense?
7 time frame. 7 Q. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. 1947. 8 A. Yes.
9 A. Yes. 9 Q. I mean, the laws of physics are the
10 Q. All right. And then you said until 10 same.
11 1978. And is that the one that's listed like 11 A. Yes.
12 three or four -- 12 Q. Design criterion are the same.
13 A. 1978 was the first publication of an 13 A. Yes.
14 engineer manual for Corps-wide use around the 14 Q. Safety factors are the same. If
15 design and construction of levees. Prior to 15 you're building a bridge, it has to support a
16 that, there was established practice such as 16 certain amount after weight, you do the same
17 summarized in this code document on a 17 thing with it --
18 project-by-project basis, um -- in the New 18 A. The actual --
19 Orleans, Vicksburg, St. Louis districts, but as 19 Q. -- whether you're in the military or
20 an engineer in the St. Louis District when that 20 in a civilian setting.
21 came out in 1978, I recall when it showed up on 21 A. Yes.
22 our desk, you know, well, we now have some 22 Q. Okay. In a nutshell, professional
23 guidance for the things we've been designing 23 judgment for engineers doesn't change because
24 for the last many, many years. 24 you're working for or a member of the Corps of
25 Q. Okay. And so that's the one that's 25 Engineers as opposed to a civilian engineer.
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
Page 102 Page 104
1 A. As you would apply that judgment to a 1 for the MRGO levees.
2 specific question, I would think not. 2 Q. So this is basically -- in your
3 Q. Okay. Well, as it applies to levee 3 opinion, this would serve as the foundation or
4 design or levee construction. 4 basis for the conclusion in GDM Number 3.
5 A. No. Would you would find, even within 5 A. Yes. And the that the reviewers of
6 Corps documents, some differences in criteria 6 GDM 3 were also some of the researchers and
7 for dams and for levees, probably, if we laid 7 authors that developed those reports.
8 them out side by side, because they're 8 Q. And TM stands for what?
9 difference structures. 9 A. Technical memorandum.
10 Q. Right. But if you're talking apples 10 Q. Technical memo. Okay. Thank you.
11 and apples, levees and levees -- 11 All right. The next one, the U.S.
12 A. Yes. 12 Army Corps, 1966, Lake Pontchartrain Design
13 Q. -- it's the same whether you're a 13 Memo Number 3. Right?
14 civilian or in the military. 14 A. Yes.
15 A. Yes. 15 Q. The one -- you've referred to it a
16 Q. Okay. I was asking about what 16 couple of times.
17 specific reliance you had on the '47 code and 17 A. Yes.
18 the '78 design and construction of levees from 18 Q. And unless there's something new, what
19 the engineering manual. Anything else about 19 is it about GDM Number 3 that you rely upon
20 those two documents that -- 20 here?
21 A. I believe there's a new number of 21 A. That design memorandum, and its many
22 places in my report where I talk about some 22 indorsements which are letters of comment back
23 specifics, yes. 23 and forth between the New Orleans District, the
24 Q. Okay. We'll get those. 24 division office in Vicksburg and the
25 Next one is Army Corps 1956, A and B, 25 headquarters in Washington, D.C., essentially
Page 103 Page 105
1 there are two together. 1 document the design, the design discussions,
2 A. Yes. 2 the design criteria, the design considerations
3 Q. Investigation of underseepage at its 3 and so forth, for the MRGO levees. So that if
4 control, the lower Mississippi River levee. 4 you want to know the design intent and so
5 And then the other one is. 5 forth, that document is it.
6 A. Alton to Gale, Illinois. 6 Q. Does this design memo or either of the
7 Q. Yes. One's at Vicksburg and one's at 7 two previous technical memos that we talked
8 Alton, A-L-T-O-N T-O G-A-L-E. 8 about a minute ago, TM3-424 and TM3-430, do any
9 What about those two -- what are those 9 of those memos discuss modification or
10 TMs? 10 alteration of a design after the construction
11 A. Those summarize the design of 11 of a structure like a levee if new information
12 underseepage control measures for two major 12 becomes available?
13 levee systems along the Mississippi River. 13 A. Yes.
14 They're very similar in their equations and so 14 Q. Tell me about it.
15 forth. They were largely written by Kaufman 15 A. Technical Memorandum 3-430, the Alton
16 and Mansur, and the significance here is all of 16 to Gale levees, describes 240 miles of the
17 the substantive work on underseepage, the place 17 Mississippi River, and the engineers in the
18 that the Corps is concerned about underseepage 18 1950s reviewed the soil profiles and did
19 is thin clay layers called blankets over thick 19 calculations and determined where seepage
20 deposits of sand. And the Corps has -- it was 20 control measures such as relief wells that
21 based on that work and experiences in lower 21 relieve water pressure under the ground were
22 Mississippi levees where did you not have this 22 needed and where they were not needed. And
23 geology to which the designers in DM 3 drew the 23 then in some places where the need was what we
24 conclusion that underseepage analyses or 24 could call marginal, they installed piezometers
25 measures -- control measures were not needed 25 which can measure subsurface water pressures
27 (Pages 102 to 105)

Page 106 Page 108
1 during a flood. 1 Orleans where you're dependent on authorization
2 Q. Spell piezometer, please. 2 and appropriation of funds to complete projects
3 A. P-I-E-Z-O-M-E-T-E-R-S. 3 or to provide additions to projects. So when
4 Q. Thank you. 4 you say does an engineer have an obligation,
5 A. These are simply pipes in the ground 5 the only thing I could do as an engineer is
6 with a well screen, you can drop a tape and 6 write in my report that based on my
7 measure the water level. The purpose of those 7 calculations should this flood to the top of
8 piezometers were so that in these areas that 8 the levee occur, that additional measures might
9 were sort of questionable, marginal safety, 9 be warranted. It's then up to the government
10 where they might be okay and they may not, the 10 to find those funds and design that system.
11 idea was that in a subsequent flood that we 11 And that had not occurred at least in the few
12 can -- that the Corps could make measurements 12 years after my report.
13 in those piezometers and refine the 13 Let me add to that, if I may. You
14 calculations. In 1973 flood, that occurred, 14 will also see in my CV that I was on an expert
15 and about 20,000 piezometer readings were taken 15 panel regarding the safety of the Herbert
16 over a month or more, along 200 miles of levee. 16 Hoover dike around Lake Okeechobee, California.
17 And my work for the next year, which included a 17 I'm sorry -- Okeechobee, Florida. And the
18 report to the Corps and my Master's thesis, was 18 district in Jacksonville was concerned as to
19 to identify those areas where the data obtained 19 whether that dike would be safe in a major
20 in 1973 flood would indicate that additional 20 hurricane. The expert panel that I was on
21 underseepage controls might be warranted or not 21 identified or agreed with the concerns of the
22 warranted. 22 district. And to my knowledge they have
23 So the designers in the fifties 23 subsequently started some of that remediation
24 provided a way to gather some data regarding 24 but it did not occur immediately and it
25 underseepage during a flood, making I would say 25 depended on authorization and you funding.
Page 107 Page 109
1 a big assumption that there would be a smaller 1 Q. And that, at the time, was a completed
2 flood before the bigger flood, and that some 2 project kind of like the other issue you dealt
3 young engineer, myself, without be available to 3 with a minute ago?
4 analyze all that data and determine how well 4 A. To my understanding, yes.
5 their design was. 5 Q. When you design a levee, you have to
6 Q. And as an engineer, if you identify a 6 design it for the environment in which it is
7 risk or a hazard based upon monitoring 7 going to be placed; correct?
8 pressures through a piezometer or other 8 A. It depends on how you use the word
9 whatever observational tools you have as an 9 environment, but in general, yes.
10 engineer, once you discover a hazard or a risk, 10 Q. Yeah. The topography.
11 is it not then your obligation to do something 11 A. The topography, physical conditions,
12 to mitigate the risk or protect against the 12 certainly.
13 harm? 13 Q. Absolutely. In this instance, what is
14 A. Actually, what happened there, as an 14 your understanding as to whether or not the
15 engineer we filed the report, but the areas 15 MRGO itself, the channel, was a design
16 that we did find deficient then ran into the 16 consideration when the MRGO levees were
17 problem that this project was completed, and 17 designed?
18 that there was no longer any project 18 A. I believe there's evidence in the
19 authorization to make any additions to the 19 comments to Design Memorandum 3 that
20 project. And, um -- I left the Corps in '85, 20 specifically raises concerns as to whether the
21 yeah, the flood was in '73, my report was about 21 bank erosion of the MRGO may encroach and
22 '75 or '76, and I actually do not know if the 22 jeopardize levee stability. And there is a
23 Corps was able to add some of those additional 23 statement in one of the endorsements that the
24 measures prior to the 1993 flood because one 24 district would check for that by making
25 gets into the same cycle that you saw in New 25 analysis assuming that bank erosion progresses
28 (Pages 106 to 109)

Page 110 Page 112
1 all the way up to the levee. I did not find 1 I meant to say April. If I did,
2 that analysis or the results of that analysis, 2 I miss smoke.
3 but it was certainly a consideration that MRGO 3 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
4 was there and that bank erosion could head in 4 Q. So this second edition, do you have
5 the direction of the levee and that there was a 5 any recollection of what the significant
6 need to either provide erosion protection for 6 changes or edits were?
7 the levee or make an analysis to see, um -- 7 A. I believe I referred to one or two of
8 whether the levee would be stable if 8 those around erosion in my report. I'd have to
9 significant erosion occurred. So they did in 9 look specifically.
10 fact consider MRGO. 10 Q. All right, sir. And any specific
11 Q. And to your knowledge, did any bank 11 reliance upon that in connection with your
12 erosion measure ever get implemented along the 12 opinions in this case?
13 MRGO? Bank erosion protection measure. 13 A. Again, I rely on that as the best
14 A. I don't know. 14 available information summarizing the Corps'
15 Q. All right. Let's finish our 15 overall design considerations for levees.
16 inventory, because I keep diving into these 16 Q. Then you read Mr. Varuso's deposition?
17 documents. Policy Guidance Letter No. 26 you 17 A. Yes.
18 mention and a bit already. 18 Q. Anything about it that you
19 A. Yes, sir. 19 specifically relied upon?
20 Q. That's the next thing on your list. 20 A. Not that I recall.
21 What specifically about it did you rely upon? 21 Q. All right. Van Heerden and Kemp with
22 A. I used -- there's only one line 22 ten coauthors issued a report for the Louisiana
23 reference to that, but that is one of, um -- if 23 Department of Transportation and Development
24 we went and read that letter, it uses the term 24 better known as the Team Louisiana report.
25 levee directly in connection with private 25 A. Yes.
Page 111 Page 113
1 levees which are believed to be of poor 1 Q. Anything about that report that you
2 quality, and I used that information to provide 2 specifically --
3 my opinion that the definition of a levee does 3 A. I looked at it. I do not believe I
4 not imply any meaning of the quality of the 4 used that to any significant extent.
5 levee, only that parties constructed a 5 Q. Okay. Another 2006 Loyola Law Review
6 structure with the intent of providing -- 6 article by van Heerden and Kemp.
7 preventing flooding. 7 A. I don't recall that -- I looked that
8 Q. I take it you are of the belief, and 8 up because it was mentioned, I believe, in
9 we can go into your report, that the levees 9 Kemp 's deposition, or I Googled them, but no.
10 along the MRGO were in fact designed to 10 Q. Then, I won't even try to pronounce
11 function as a levee. 11 it, V-E-R-H-E-I-J?
12 A. Yes, sir. 12 A. I believe it's Verheij.
13 Q. Based in your definition. 13 Q. Verheij?
14 A. Yes, sir. 14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Next document is Corps' Design 15 Q. Et al. "Erosion Resistance of
16 Construction, August 30, '00, engineering 16 Grassland as Dike Covering." What about that
17 manual -- is that a repeat? 17 Delft University November 97 -- is that an
18 A. No. The same manual was revised in 18 article?
19 2000. 19 A. That's a technical paper.
20 Q. Okay. From the 1978 versus. 20 Q. Technical paper? Okay.
21 A. Yeah. So that's the second edition. 21 A. Um -- TAW Delft is either a university
22 MR. STONE: 22 or a research -- government research facility
23 Did you say August 30? It's 23 or both. It's a report similar to some of
24 April. 24 these reports from the Vicksburg Waterways
25 MR. STEVENS: 25 Experiment Station. That report is significant
29 (Pages 110 to 113)

Page 114 Page 116
1 in that, um -- Dr. Bea references it in order 1 was a professor in Israel.
2 to determine in his numerical model how long it 2 Q. Okay. So he's on the high end --
3 will take grass to lift off of a levee before 3 Dr. Bea is on the high end --
4 soil erosion could occur. I looked at that 4 A. Yes.
5 report. They did some wave tank tests, and I 5 Q. -- of assigning a permeability value?
6 noted in the early part of that report that 6 A. Yes.
7 they made some remarks about the state of the 7 Q. And Verrujit, et al, are sort of
8 art, I'll call it state of the art of modeling 8 moderate, they're not totally on the low end --
9 of their work, and, um -- they made some 9 A. Low to moderate, and more consistent
10 remarks to the effect that a few years before 10 with what either the IPET report or my own
11 their work there was really nothing known about 11 experience would suggest.
12 this and they are now starting to develop some 12 Q. Okay. And then the next one is Wolff
13 level of knowledge. But their wording, which I 13 and the last one is Woolley and Shabman?
14 believe I have quoted, gives one the sense that 14 A. Wolff '94 is essentially my report
15 modeling of grass lift off is still in its 15 that became Appendix B in the 1999 ETL.
16 early stages. 16 Q. And that's the economic analysis of
17 Q. Have you done any specific work, 17 existing levees.
18 yourself, with regard to grass lift off in 18 A. That was the reliability analysis for
19 general or modeling of grass lift off in 19 the purpose of economic studies.
20 specific? 20 Q. Okay.
21 A. No. 21 A. Yes. And then Woolley and Shabman
22 Q. You mentioned this fellow before 22 which I'm certain you're familiar with -- yes,
23 Verrujit? 23 you had it there.
24 A. I will say Verrujit for the purposes 24 Q. Yeah, I have a copy.
25 here. 25 A. -- is I thought a very well written
Page 115 Page 117
1 Q. Okay. I'll agree with you. 1 historical summary of all the many events that
2 A. Um -- 2 occurred over the forty plus years of this
3 Q. Theory of Groundwater Flow. 3 study, and I used it alongside my review of
4 A. That is a textbook. I used it to look 4 Design Memo 3 and some of the design decisions
5 up some typical values for permeability of peat 5 to try to understand how this project
6 and marsh. 6 developed.
7 Q. And how did that translate into an 7 Q. All right. We're going to break for
8 opinion here in this case? 8 lunch in a bit, but before we do, we kind of
9 A. Um -- my opinion was that the 9 had a little bit of a delay starting, we'll go
10 permeabilities of the marsh deposits modeled by 10 a few more minutes if you don't mind.
11 the plaintiffs' experts aligned with some 11 A. Sure.
12 numbers given by Pete -- by Dr. Bear, and that 12 Q. Let me just ask you this: Because
13 if one looked across a range of permeability 13 you've been very patient with me and walked
14 values, that Dr. Bear 's citation is on the 14 through all your references, let me see if
15 high end, and we're speaking of orders of 15 there is anything else -- that was Item 12, all
16 magnitude. Dr. Verrujit and some other sources 16 that we just went through on the notice. 13
17 give a range of values. Verrujit 's would be 17 asks for maps showing the locations of high
18 several orders of magnitude lower. And my 18 water marks. Did you personally rely upon high
19 opinion is that the values used by Dr. Bea are 19 water marks, specific high water marks --
20 on the high end of recognized values for these 20 A. No.
21 materials, um -- and higher than, um -- I would 21 Q. -- for any of your opinions?
22 expect. 22 A. No.
23 Q. So Bear is B-A-Y-E-R? 23 Q. It would be fair to say that all of
24 A. B-E-A-R. Just like the animal. He 24 your information about that is from the IPET
25 is, or was, I don't know if he's still alive, 25 report --
30 (Pages 114 to 117)

Page 118 Page 120
1 A. All of the -- 1 Q. Geotechnical and/or civil?
2 Q. -- or others? 2 A. Yes, sir.
3 A. -- maps and hydrographs and so forth 3 Q. All right. Well, let's do this, since
4 were taken from the already cited reports. 4 we're all about defining terms:
5 Q. Okay. Did you involve yourself at all 5 A. Yes.
6 with classifications of land areas as swamp or 6 Q. Give me the difference -- define civil
7 marsh or -- 7 engineer, geotechnical engineering, and tell me
8 A. No. 8 if the two -- where they --
9 Q. -- whatever? Forested areas? That's 9 A. Geotechnical engineering --
10 not part of -- 10 Q. -- overlap.
11 A. No. 11 A. -- is a subdiscipline of civil
12 Q. -- any of your opinions. 12 engineering. Geotechnical engineering deals
13 You didn't attempt to -- you don't 13 with soils and rocks and so forth.
14 offer any opinions about the time line or 14 Probabilistic analysis or reliability
15 sequence of events for the high water coming 15 analysis is a set of techniques that can be
16 into the central wetlands unit and eventually 16 applied across engineering disciplines. My
17 into the inhabited portions of St. Bernard 17 primary work has been involved in applying them
18 Parish? 18 to levees, navigation structures, slope
19 A. No. 19 stability and geotechnical features. But to
20 Q. And Number 16, do you have pay 20 the extent that people put on the record things
21 documentation about the conversion of 21 around probabilistic stuff in general, such as
22 hydrographs for surge peaks -- surge peaks from 22 talking about normal distributions, log normal
23 tenths of days to hours? 23 distributions or coefficients of variation,
24 A. No. 24 should some of those questions come up I can
25 Q. All right. We have now done all our 25 speak about the mathematics and the meanings of
Page 119 Page 121
1 housekeeping for the morning. Thank you. That 1 those sorts of terms.
2 was tedious. I'm going to have some specific 2 Q. Okay. Now, in the context of this
3 questions for you when we come back from lunch, 3 case --
4 but let me just -- can you give me -- and it 4 A. Yes, sir.
5 will help me sort of focus this afternoon, I 5 Q. -- did you do any probabilistic
6 will use my lunch hour to kind of -- you have a 6 analysis, or did you employ any of those
7 lot of opinions about a lot of areas. Can you 7 techniques in arriving at opinions that you
8 tell me, what is the primary opinion that you 8 intend to offer at the time of trial?
9 intend to -- first of all, what is the area of 9 A. Not so far.
10 expertise as to which you will be tendered as 10 Q. Okay. In terms of the analysis of
11 an expert witness at the time of trial in this 11 soils or rocks or materials in the levees, did
12 case? 12 you do any specific analysis of soils, rocks or
13 A. To my understanding, I would say it's 13 materials?
14 geotechnical engineering very specifically. 14 A. I did not do any analysis, um --
15 More broadly, design of levees in the Corps of 15 referring to calculations. In terms of
16 Engineers. And to the extent they may come in, 16 engineering, I did an analysis from reading
17 um -- applications of probability and 17 these materials and drawing conclusions. I did
18 reliability analysis in geotechnical 18 not do engineering calculations or use computer
19 engineering. 19 programs because in my current position as an
20 Q. That's such a long phrase, but 20 administrator I don't have up-to-date tools,
21 applications -- thank God for computers, I got 21 and Dr. Mosher handled that sort of thing.
22 it -- of probability and reliability analyses 22 Q. And we'll get into specifics after
23 in geotechnical engineering. 23 lunch, but before we leave, you said that
24 A. We could broad that to civil 24 design of levees within the Corps of
25 engineering. 25 Engineers --
31 (Pages 118 to 121)

Page 122 Page 124
1 A. Yes. 1 You have a BS in civil engineering from the
2 Q. -- is an area of expertise. 2 University of Missouri, 1970, a Master's in
3 A. Yes. 3 civil engineering from Oklahoma State, '74,
4 Q. Is that a subdiscipline of some field 4 correct?
5 of engineering? 5 A. Yes, sir.
6 A. I would say it's a crosscutting area 6 Q. And a Ph.D. from Purdue in 1985 --
7 of design. Because if you're designing a dam 7 A. Yes.
8 or a levee or a pumping station in the Corps of 8 Q. -- in civil engineering.
9 Engineers, in order to execute that design 9 A. Let me clarify that we would say
10 you're at the table with hydraulic engineers, 10 University of Missouri at Raleigh to
11 hydrologic engineers, structural engineers, 11 distinguish ourself from the primary campus in
12 geotechnical engineers, working as a team, and 12 Columbia.
13 so you become familiar with each other's 13 Q. Thank you. Your Master's thesis was
14 terminology and general purpose and part in the 14 on the performance of underseepage controls
15 design, although you may not have the expertise 15 during the '73 Mississippi River flood.
16 to perform the others' calculations. 16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And outside the Corps of Engineers, if 17 Q. And your Ph.D. thesis was the
18 you were building a levee or a dam for a 18 "Analysis and Design of Embankment Dam Slopes,
19 private corporation or someone other than the 19 a Probabilistic Approach." Is that when you
20 Corps, you wouldn't have access to a similar 20 started developing your model that we're going
21 team? 21 to talk about some more?
22 A. You would. 22 A. Um -- the various probabilistic work
23 Q. You would. 23 that I've done in some of the reports that are
24 A. But those -- 24 cited, this is where it starts.
25 Q. It would be done the same way. 25 Q. Okay. You were a direct employee, am
Page 123 Page 125
1 A. It would be done the same way, because 1 I correct, of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2 the Corps criteria is essentially the only 2 for fifteen years?
3 written established set of guidelines and 3 A. Fifteen years as a full-time employee,
4 policies. 4 plus three years before that intermittently as
5 Q. Anywhere. 5 a student.
6 A. In the United States. 6 Q. Okay. So while you were in
7 Q. All right. The Corps is the, if you 7 undergraduate school?
8 will, the entity with the most expertise -- 8 A. Yes. I was a student intern and a
9 A. That's correct. 9 co-op student.
10 Q. -- in this area. 10 Q. And then upon graduation from
11 A. That is correct. 11 University of Missouri at Raleigh --
12 Q. And the relevant Corps guidelines we 12 A. Yes.
13 just went over. 13 Q. -- you went to work for the Corps.
14 A. Yes, sir. 14 A. And I was fully employed during my
15 Q. The two technical memos and the GDM 15 work at Oklahoma State and Purdue.
16 and I think maybe that one letter, that 16 Q. And so during the time you wrote your
17 Number 26 whatever that is, those were the 17 two theses --
18 primary sources of -- 18 A. Yes, sir.
19 A. Yes. 19 Q. -- for four Master's and your Ph.D.,
20 Q. -- guidelines or guidance by the 20 you were in the direct employ of the Corps of
21 Corps. 21 Engineers.
22 If we want to see the Corps' policy 22 A. Yes.
23 for building levees, we go the those sources. 23 Q. St. Louis district, right?
24 A. Yes, sir. 24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. Back to your CV for a second. 25 Q. Now, if you would, tell me, in
32 (Pages 122 to 125)

Page 126 Page 128
1 formulating the opinions that are expressed in 1 procedures they followed at the time of the
2 your report dated December 18th, 2008, what 2 design. Are you an expert in intent of
3 methodology did you follow? 3 engineers?
4 A. I read the reports by others, all of 4 A. I would say that I was an expert in
5 which we've just discussed. 5 the knowledge available and the practices used
6 Q. They're listed in your references. 6 in levee design at that time. And I was
7 A. Yes. 7 reporting to the Corps essentially how that was
8 Q. Okay. 8 done and what the meaning of these various
9 A. And attempted to document my 9 documents is.
10 understanding of the design intent, the design 10 Q. In layman's terms, are you telling us
11 procedures, what was known about levee design 11 that you were an expert in the state of the art
12 at the time of the design. Um -- on the 12 as of the time of the design?
13 erosion questions I read the appropriate 13 A. I would use the term state of the
14 reports and made judgments as to whether the 14 practice, but I would say I was an expert in
15 EFA test was appropriate and whether the 15 the state of the practice at the time of the
16 numerical modeling was sound. And discussed a 16 design.
17 few other things, but in each case, basically 17 Q. All right. And at the time of the
18 I'm drawing on the reports, um -- to talk about 18 design is what time frame?
19 either the original design of the Corps of 19 A. The design I believe is 19 -- what's
20 Engineers and to what extent it followed 20 the DM? 1966 or thereabouts through, um --
21 practices and what the state of the practice 21 2000. And I was working on levee design
22 was at the time. And in reviewing Dr. Bea 's 22 from -- as a Corps employee, from 1967 to 1985,
23 reports, um -- my analysis was to determine to 23 and then from 1985 on, working through research
24 what extent his approach of putting together 24 and consulting for the Corps on helping them
25 erosion modeling and wave modeling and, um -- 25 develop levee guidance. So I probably have
Page 127 Page 129
1 damage accumulation models and so forth had 1 read and am familiar with almost everything the
2 been done before and had any basis to be 2 Corps of Engineers has ever produced, um -- in
3 considered reliable. 3 that sixties, seventies, eighties time frame of
4 Q. Now, first, you attempted to document 4 levees, and with some of the stuff done in the
5 the design intent procedures at the time of the 5 forties and fifties.
6 design. 6 Q. Have you published any articles or any
7 A. Yes. 7 peer reviewed, um -- reports relating to the
8 Q. Okay. Is that the type of think that 8 state of the practice, if you will, for
9 experts in your field are customarily called 9 knowledge available at the time of design? Is
10 upon to do? 10 that a topic you've ever published on?
11 A. I'm not sure what if anything around 11 A. No.
12 Katrina is customary, but if -- given that 12 Q. You said that with regard to the
13 plaintiffs have filed suit based on the 13 erosion questions you read the appropriate
14 performance of the levee, an implied question, 14 reports and you made judgments as to whether
15 and a question I was asked to consider, was did 15 the modeling was sound.
16 the designers do a good job based on the 16 A. Yes.
17 knowledge and practice at the time? So I 17 Q. The EFA test and the modeling was
18 addressed that. 18 sound.
19 Q. I guess when I asked you what your 19 To arrive at those judgments, did you
20 expertise was, you told me it was the design of 20 weigh the opinions of competing experts like
21 levees in the Corps of Engineers, as one of it, 21 Dr. Bea versus the other experts in this case?
22 and plus your probability and reliability 22 A. Yes.
23 analysis. But what -- the task you set out to 23 Q. Okay. And in doing that, did you make
24 do, as you describe, is to document the 24 a credibility call as to which one you would
25 intent -- the designer intent and the 25 believe, one over the other?
33 (Pages 126 to 129)

Page 130 Page 132
1 MR. STONE: 1 to break new ground here, and we do not have
2 Objection here. Is this 2 the benefit of, let's say, a video documented
3 credibility call, is that on 3 reporting of wave attack on the front side of
4 personalities or based on the 4 one of these levees such as you do when LS-DYNA
5 documents? 5 is used for auto crash testing, that you could
6 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 6 see what actually happened in the time history
7 Q. Credibility of the opinion expressed 7 and then calibrate the model against it.
8 by the either the report or the deposition 8 Q. So I guess what I'm asking you is,
9 testimony? 9 what methodology did you follow in assessing
10 A. I'm not exactly sure of the question, 10 whether or not Dr. Bea 's approach is reliable?
11 but let me state this: 11 That's an opinion you offer.
12 Q. Okay. 12 A. Yes. The methodology I use is to ask
13 A. From what I have read, the EFA test 13 whether there is any precedent for those
14 was developed based on the federal highways 14 applications, and since I can find no precedent
15 interest in understanding scour of bridge piers 15 I can't tell if they're reliable. There's no
16 in rivers, it very clearly is developed and 16 proof that they are reliable, there's no --
17 measures erosion of straight line or sheet flow 17 I'll leave it at that.
18 against a soil surface which is a close analogy 18 Q. Okay. So other than in your opinion
19 to river bottoms and bridge piers, and 19 the absence of sort of other confirming studies
20 Dr. Brieud and his colleagues further write a 20 by other folks, did you go into Dr. Bea 's
21 paper showing that it provides useful 21 underlying data, his LS-DYNA model or the EFA
22 information of sheet flow on the back side of 22 that he used and the variables that he plugged
23 the levees, and nowhere could I find any 23 into his model to determine whether there was
24 suggestion that it would be useful for wave 24 anything that you found to be erroneous?
25 attack. I don't see that it would be useful 25 A. I did not go into his data.
Page 131 Page 133
1 for wave attack, and Dr. Briaud and his 1 Q. Okay. I think this is a good -- I've
2 coauthors interestingly bring up one sentence 2 taken inventory, we've followed your
3 at the end of their report that they explicitly 3 methodology. Is there anything else about your
4 did not look at wave attack, and there's 4 methods that you want to tell us about,
5 many -- an infinite number of other things they 5 anything else you did in forming your opinions
6 did not look at, and I found it interesting, 6 in this case?
7 given the connection between Dr. Bea and this 7 A. I guess I would just reiterate that my
8 testing, that they went to the trouble to very 8 work did not involve calculations or detailed
9 specifically say we only looked at sheet flow. 9 numerical analysis, it deals more with, I guess
10 So in my opinion the EFA test is intended for 10 I would say, the broad view of the reports and
11 sheet flow, and I'm not of the opinion that 11 the types of tests run and the conclusions
12 it's been shown to be applicable to anything 12 drawn and the approaches used.
13 else. 13 Q. So you don't play any offense here,
14 Q. And then you reviewed Dr. Bea 's 14 just playing defense, if I could reduce that to
15 report. And to the extent again his erosion, 15 layman's terms.
16 wave and damage accumulation models -- you 16 A. Um -- I'm not sure I can answer that
17 dispute, you say that that's not been done 17 question.
18 before, or if it's been done before it's not 18 Q. Okay. Let me ask it a better way.
19 reliable. 19 A. I do not have an analysis that shows
20 A. I am not aware of anyone before that 20 something different happened or didn't happen.
21 has combined the LS-DYNA model for wave run-up 21 Q. Thank you. You're not offering any of
22 with parameters from the erosion function 22 the results of your own study or work, you're
23 apparatus, with a time dependent damage 23 disputing, if you will, or refuting the
24 accumulation model and used it to predict wave 24 reliability of the work of others. Is that a
25 attack in levees. So I believe he's attempting 25 fair assessment?
34 (Pages 130 to 133)

Page 134 Page 136
1 A. I'm commenting on them and finding 1 Q. And how much time was it?
2 differences of opinion with it, yes, sir. 2 A. Um -- Page 11 of my report, the
3 Q. With that he we will break for lunch. 3 primary design documents for the MRGO were
4 And the time at the tone is what, 12:35. So 4 1957, 1958, and the primary design for the MRGO
5 well be back at 1:30? Is that fair? 5 levees is around 1966 --
6 MR. STONE: 6 Q. And the source of the information for
7 That's good. 7 those two dates.
8 (Lunch break.) 8 A. -- 1957, April 30th, the New Orleans
9 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 9 District transmitted the first design
10 Q. Dr. Wolff, when we broke for lunch I 10 memorandum DM-1A on channels regarding the
11 had just sort of covered the general nature of 11 MRGO. Design Memorandum 1B on channels also
12 the opinions you intend to offer and the 12 was on September 15th, 1958. They revised that
13 methodology that you followed to arrive at 13 design memo on May 14th, 1959, and it was that
14 those. Did we cover everything, the general 14 revised document that provided the design for
15 nature of your opinions and the methods you 15 MRGO Reach 2, the area of interest for this
16 followed in arriving at your opinions? 16 report. The 1966 document, General Design
17 A. Yes. 17 Memorandum Number 3 for Lake Pontchartrain and
18 Q. Dr. Wolff, you were telling us that 18 Vicinity was the primary design document for
19 your opinion is -- one of the things you 19 the levees.
20 analyzed was whether or not the designers of 20 Q. And that was 1966.
21 the levees did a good job based on the 21 A. Yes.
22 knowledge available at the time. And in a 22 Q. Now, in the 1966 LPV design memo -- do
23 nutshell that was one of the questions you -- 23 you have a copy of that handy or on your
24 A. Yes. 24 computer?
25 Q. -- were setting out to answer. 25 A. Um -- should be on my computer.
Page 135 Page 137
1 A. I agree. 1 Q. Okay. Can you tell me in that -- or
2 Q. And ultimately, you concluded that did 2 can you steer me to a section or a portion of
3 do a good job based on the knowledge at the 3 the '66 LPV design memo where the MRGO, per se,
4 time. 4 is taken into consideration for the design of
5 A. Yes. 5 the levee?
6 Q. I also asked you whether or not in the 6 A. I believe I mentioned it here.
7 design of the MRGO levees whether or not they 7 (Brief interruption.)
8 considered the presence of the MRGO. Right? 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
9 A. Yes. 9 Q. Dr. Wolff, have you found the spot?
10 Q. And you said yes because there were 10 A. Yes.
11 some memos that said the MRGO might erode the 11 Q. Where is it?
12 banks next to it and at some point may maybe 12 A. Okay. I found both my report and
13 cause a problem for the levee. 13 materials from the Design Memorandum Number 3.
14 A. That's correct. 14 Q. Okay.
15 Q. All right. And my question is, when 15 A. On Page 19 of my report I quote the
16 you say the design, which design are you 16 General Design Memorandum Number 3,
17 referring to? Is there a one design for the 17 Paragraph 50, states that the banks of the MRGO
18 levees and the MRGO or are they separate 18 were expected ultimately to stabilize at a
19 designs? 19 slope not flatter than 1 vertical on 3
20 A. They're separate designs. 20 horizontal and that significant erosion of the
21 Q. All right. And did those designs take 21 foreshore area between the levee and the
22 place simultaneously or was there, based on the 22 channel bank via ship generated waves could
23 history you reviewed, some lapse of time 23 pose a threat to the stability of the levee if
24 between the two events? 24 this erosion reached the levee slopes situated
25 A. There was a lapse of time. 25 several hundred feet from the bank of the MRGO.
35 (Pages 134 to 137)

Page 138 Page 140
1 Later, in the sixth indorsement -- 1 Q. But you really can't say yea or nay.
2 with an i, that's indorsement with an i, Army 2 A. That's correct.
3 spelling -- to GDM Number 3, the New Orleans 3 Q. Let me refer you to Page 23 of Design
4 District decided to perform stability analyses 4 Memo Number 3. It would be Section 8, little
5 with the assumption that the entire foreshore 5 D, 7 on Page 23.
6 area had eroded away. That exact statement is 6 A. This is Page 23 of the original
7 in the sixth indorsement to the submission 7 documents?
8 letter to the GDM. The sixth indorsement is 8 Q. Yes. Yes. Not your report, of the
9 dated 12 April '67, Paragraph 10, Item 1, and I 9 GDM 3.
10 quote, As agreed to at the conference in New 10 A. Not of the indorsements to the GDM.
11 Orleans on 4 April 1967 which was attended by 11 Q. Correct. Yes, it is not.
12 Messrs. Kaufman and Weaver, LMVD, and 12 A. Okay, I was scrolling so fast here
13 Messrs. Hudson, Huesmann, Worley, Henderson, 13 Adobe Acrobat is shutting down and restarting.
14 Canon, Smith, Lee and Chatry, NOD, we shall 14 Q. This is Part 1, Chalmette, '66, GDM 3.
15 check the final levee location for stability 15 A. I have a lot of comments and
16 assuming erosion of the entire foreshore to 16 supplementary reports that are in the front of
17 elevation -3 (bottom of foreshore protection). 17 that GDM. So I'm still working my way to the
18 So it is evident in that section that 18 document.
19 there's discussion and concerns whether erosion 19 Q. That's okay. That's fine.
20 of the MRGO channel will encroach on the 20 A. Okay, Page 23. Top of Page 23 says
21 stability of the levees adjacent to MRGO, and 21 Paragraph 38. At least on my Page 23.
22 the New Orleans District agrees to perform 22 Q. Are you in Part 1 regarding Chalmette?
23 analysis of same. 23 Let me show you the cover page to the report
24 Q. Okay. Any other section of the GDM 24 and make sure you understand --
25 Number 3 that in your estimation deal with 25 A. This not the DM 3. This DM 1,
Page 139 Page 141
1 consideration of the MRGO in the design of the 1 hydrology and hydraulics.
2 levees? 2 Q. I'm sorry.
3 A. It's my recollection that the MRGO is 3 A. I'm in the main body of DM 3, Page 23,
4 discussed in a number of places. That is the 4 but that's Page 118 of all the indorsements and
5 one that I could find to be the most relevant 5 supplements.
6 example. 6 Q. We can just start over with it. It is
7 Q. Let me ask you this, Dr. Wolff: Based 7 this memo, DM Number 1, August 66, Page 23,
8 upon that discussion you just gave us, that 8 Section 8 d 7.
9 recitation from -- I forget what -- 9 A. I'm not sure if I can put my hands on
10 A. Sixth indorsement to the GDM. 10 that quickly. Um -- that's in a file I have
11 Q. -- the sixth indorsement, do you know 11 with large numbers of exhibits, which some of
12 of any specific design input or modification 12 them I went back and put in titles of what the
13 that resulted from the sixth indorsement? 13 exhibits were. I have DM 2. I don't recall
14 A. The sixth indorsement is a long set of 14 being very concerned with DM 1. But I likely
15 comments. So without rereading it I couldn't 15 have printed it and looked at it at some time.
16 say. 16 This is -- yeah. I may have looked at DM 1,
17 Q. Well, certainly from that comment you 17 and if I did, I looked at it on the IPET
18 just read -- 18 website, not through any of the furnished
19 A. From that comment it is my 19 materials.
20 understanding they performed those analyses and 20 Q. Maybe we can get a quick copy made of
21 did not make any design changes. 21 this. I'll just give you the cover page and
22 Q. Okay. Do you know or can you tell me, 22 Page 23 and that will speed things up.
23 did anyone ever do that stability testing? 23 A. Okay.
24 A. I was not able to find a record of it. 24 (Off the record.)
25 I assume it was done. 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
36 (Pages 138 to 141)

Page 142 Page 144
1 Q. Can we mark this as Exhibit Number 4, 1 not factored in.
2 if you don't mind, Doc? I'm going to mark the 2 A. Into my analysis?
3 cover page as Exhibit 4. And then we have 3 Q. Or into the --
4 Page 23 attached to it. So if you would, let 4 A. I don't know.
5 me refer you to Paragraph 8 d 7 at the top of 5 Q. -- levee design is what I'm concerned
6 Page 23. 6 about at this point.
7 Have you had a chance to review that 7 A. I've not attempted to track surge
8 paragraph? 8 elevations from various points in this -- the
9 (Exhibit 4 was marked for 9 development of this design over the years.
10 identification and is attached hereto.) 10 I've dealt with geotechnical policies and so
11 A. I'm reading it now. 11 forth over those years.
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 12 Q. But in terms of design criterion or
13 Q. Okay. I guess for the record let me 13 the design considerations --
14 just recite it. It's not that long. 14 A. Yes.
15 A. Okay. 15 Q. -- when designing a levee that's going
16 Q. It says, a study is presently being 16 to be adjacent to a channel, wouldn't you need
17 made by a consultant to evaluate effects of the 17 to consider things like what effect that
18 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet on hurricane 18 channel might have on hurricane surge
19 surge elevations at key locations in the Lake 19 elevation?
20 Borgne area period. The procedures presented 20 A. From a geotechnical engineering
21 in this report were based on the assumption 21 standpoint, the hydraulic and hydrologic
22 that the gulf outlet had no effect on the 22 engineers in the Corps of Engineers tell you
23 hurricane surge elevation. If it is found that 23 that you're designing for water to a certain
24 the gulf outlet does contribute to surge 24 height and you may need a certain freeboard due
25 elevation, revisions will be necessary. 25 to waves or settlement, and the geotechnical
Page 143 Page 145
1 Okay. My question to you is, taken in 1 engineers go design for that. And if at some
2 three parts because there are three sentences 2 point in time the hydraulic engineers come back
3 in that paragraph, the study that was presently 3 to you and say, no, that elevation has gone up
4 being done, have you ever located that study? 4 or down, you redesign for that elevation. So
5 A. My recollection is that one of the 5 the hand off between the hydraulic engineering
6 many reports I looked at referred to that 6 designers and the geotechnical engineering
7 study. As I recall it was a German name. 7 designers is the water height and freeboard.
8 Um -- I do not recall -- I don't believe I have 8 Q. So in a nutshell, you, as a
9 a copy of that study, and I definitely have not 9 geotechnical engineer, a levee designer
10 analyzed that study. 10 familiar with what persons would have to do who
11 Q. And does the name Bretschneider -- 11 are designing this levee at that point in time,
12 A. That I recall is the name. 12 would take the design -- would take the water
13 Q. Okay. And the next sentence says, the 13 levels and wave levels as given to them and
14 procedures presented in this report were based 14 simply design a levee based --
15 on the assumption that the gulf outlet had no 15 A. Correct.
16 effect on the hurricane surge elevation. 16 Q. -- on those assumptions.
17 Right? 17 A. Correct.
18 A. Yes. 18 Q. All right. And then if at a
19 Q. Have you found anything that disputed 19 subsequent time, to get to the third sentence
20 that, disagreed with that or changed that? 20 of 8 d 7, if it is found that the gulf outlet
21 A. No, my focus -- we were on 21 does contribute to surge elevations, revisions
22 geotechnical matters. 22 will be necessary. Correct?
23 Q. Period. 23 A. That's what it says.
24 A. Period. 24 Q. Now, in layman's terms, that would
25 Q. So surge elevation for a hurricane was 25 mean to me that if they later learned that
37 (Pages 142 to 145)

Page 146 Page 148
1 surge elevations, water elevations or wave 1 question that says anticipated to be higher
2 heights, would be higher than they originally 2 than designed for, because the design was based
3 expected, you would then need to raise the 3 on an anticipated event that was defined, the
4 levee, or redesign, as you call it, the levee. 4 standard project hurricane.
5 A. Correct. 5 Q. And the standard project hurricane
6 Q. And that would be based upon sound, 6 that was used for the design of these levees,
7 professional engineering judgment -- 7 do you know what the source of that information
8 A. Correct. 8 was?
9 Q. -- that you would make that 9 A. The U.S. Weather Bureau or National
10 determination the redesign the levees based 10 Weather Service, whichever it was at that time.
11 upon -- 11 Q. And do you know what surge and wave
12 A. Based on their -- 12 height they used?
13 Q. -- new information? 13 A. Not offhand.
14 A. Based on the hydraulic engineers' 14 Q. Okay. Do you know which hurricanes or
15 professional judgment. 15 which historical data they used to determine
16 Q. That's it. Thank you. 16 the standard project hurricane? In connection
17 Do you know, as we speak, or did 17 with the original design of the MRGO levees.
18 anything you researched or reviewed in 18 A. I couldn't name them, no.
19 preparation of your report or in preparation 19 Q. Do you know the time frames they
20 for this deposition, were you able to determine 20 looked at?
21 what wave height, what still water level was 21 A. Not precisely. My sense of
22 assumed in the original design of the levee? 22 recollection would be the fifty years or so
23 A. I would have -- I can't tell you what 23 prior to 1960.
24 that number would be. I am aware that there 24 Q. Okay. When you design a dike or a
25 are still water level heights in DM Number 3 25 levee, did you also take into consideration the
Page 147 Page 149
1 where the geotechnical design starts, and there 1 terrain immediately adjacent to that levee or
2 are water heights, surge heights in the -- in 2 that structure?
3 the post-Katrina reports, there are figures 3 A. Yes.
4 that show the expected water height at various 4 Q. For example, if you design a dike or
5 point along the levee profile. I did not make 5 levee with trees in place, should you make sure
6 a 1:1 comparison of those. 6 you maintain the basic topography or the basic
7 Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you, then, 7 landscape around that structure?
8 regardless of what the numbers turned out to 8 A. I'm not clear on your question. Trees
9 be, what they originally assumed, what they 9 water side of the levee or --
10 later learned, et cetera, what is the 10 Q. Yes.
11 consequence of a larger than designed for wave 11 A. We don't like trees on levees.
12 or surge? If no redesign is effected? 12 Q. Oh, no, not on the levee. In the area
13 A. I'm not certain I understand your 13 adjacent to the levee.
14 question. 14 A. Not in terms of stability or --
15 Q. What is the consequence of a larger 15 closely adjacent to the levee, no.
16 than designed for wave if you don't redesign 16 Q. Let me ask you this way:
17 the levee? 17 A. Yes.
18 A. If you in fact have a wave larger than 18 Q. If you design a dike or a levee with
19 it was designed for? 19 the terrain in mind, that is, the presence of
20 Q. Yeah. No. Yeah, if surge -- 20 trees and swamp and wetlands and all that stuff
21 A. If you experience a surge. 21 between you and the gulf --
22 Q. Yeah, if water levels and waves are 22 A. Okay.
23 actually anticipated to be higher than what you 23 Q. -- or between the levee and the gulf,
24 designed for, what is the consequence? 24 if you eliminate any of those things, you
25 A. I don't understand the part of your 25 eliminate the trees, you eliminate the swamp,
38 (Pages 146 to 149)

Page 150 Page 152
1 you eliminate the marsh, should you then 1 it prudent to redesign the levee to accommodate
2 redesign the levee to account for the absence 2 those changes?
3 of trees if the original design considered the 3 A. In the Corps of Engineers, you
4 presence of trees? 4 actually would have to seek funding to do that
5 A. From a geotechnical standpoint you're 5 redesign.
6 really only interested in you have a structure 6 Q. Separate and apart from the funding
7 that's a levee that has certain heights, 7 issue, because I know --
8 certain soils and certain water levels. If the 8 A. You would seek funding to further
9 factor that you mention were potentially 9 evaluate that.
10 capable of changing the water levels or the 10 Q. But from a professional engineering
11 wave levels, that information again would have 11 standard, or standpoint, you would need to
12 to come from hydraulic engineers. The very 12 redesign that levee if significant features of
13 fact that this is Design Memorandum 1, 13 the landscape changed that enhanced storm surge
14 hydrology and hydraulics, which is very common 14 and wave action.
15 in the Corps of Engineers, the geotechnical 15 A. You would need to investigate whether
16 design is done in Design Memo 3 is indicative 16 that is warranted.
17 of this hand off of information from the 17 Q. Okay. Now, as we see in Design Memo
18 hydraulic engineer to the geotechnical 18 Number 1 and Number -- what was Number 2 about?
19 engineer. 19 I don't have Design Memo Number 2.
20 Q. All right. Well, let me ask you to 20 A. I don't recall.
21 assume a hypothetical then. Because experts 21 Q. You didn't reference it in your
22 can do that. You know, hypothetically, I'm 22 materials and I don't recall reading about it
23 going to ask you to assume that at the time of 23 in your report. So I trust it wasn't --
24 the design there were trees and marsh and swamp 24 A. It may have been real estate needs or
25 there, and that over time those things became 25 something. I'm just guessing from experience.
Page 151 Page 153
1 eliminated and that that elimination of those 1 Q. All right. Now, in General Design
2 topographic features, if you will, would have 2 Memorandum Number 3, if you would take us
3 the effect of enhancing or increasing storm 3 there, and tell us which section of GDM
4 surge and wave height. Based on those assumed 4 Number 3, and maybe you've already done that,
5 facts, would you then feel it prudent to 5 is that the one you told me already --
6 redesign the levee? 6 addressed a consideration of the MRGO and its
7 MR. STONE: 7 impact on levee design.
8 Objection. That hypothetical is 8 A. Um -- that's what I had read on the
9 vague. 9 record here a few minutes ago.
10 MR. STEVENS: 10 Q. Okay. That's the only --
11 Sure. 11 A. I'm sure MRGO is mentioned a number of
12 A. I would say that a prudent engineer, 12 places there. I selected the one about the
13 as a geotechnical engineer, if informed by a 13 foreshore erosion as the most relevant to this
14 hydraulic engineer or environmental scientist 14 case.
15 that these levels could be higher, would be 15 Q. That's the one I would like to talk
16 prudent to do an analysis to see if what the 16 about. And if I could, let me refer you to --
17 previous design was adequate. 17 can you find the eighth indorsement to GDM
18 Q. You would certainly revisit the 18 Number 3?
19 design. 19 A. Should be able to in a moment. It
20 A. You would revisit the design. 20 will take me a moment. The Corps sometimes
21 Q. And assume further that when you 21 puts the newest one or the latest one on top
22 revisited the design you were told that the 22 and they end up in backwards order. Okay, I
23 absence of those topographic features in fact 23 have the eighth indorsement, dated 15 June '67.
24 enhance the water level and the wave, the surge 24 Q. I'm sorry?
25 level and the wave level, would you then feel 25 A. I have the eight indorsement dated 15
39 (Pages 150 to 153)

Page 154 Page 156
1 June '67. Now, there may be an eight 1 Q. Now do you know why I can't find
2 indorsement to a supplement to the GDM. 2 anything?
3 Q. Let me just show you the document I'm 3 A. Yes.
4 looking at. 4 Q. Okay. What I really want to know is
5 A. Yeah. 5 what did they ever do about foreshore
6 Q. You can tell me -- and if you can find 6 protection?
7 your own, that will be great. 7 A. I don't -- the Lake Pontchartrain
8 A. This is not the general design 8 barrier plan was abandoned, to my knowledge.
9 memorandum, this is a modification of the 9 Q. Okay.
10 Chalmette Area Plan. 10 A. And Supplement Number 1 to the general
11 Q. Okay. 11 design memorandum for the Chalmette area plan
12 A. So that was a supplement to the GDM. 12 I'm not certain if I have or not. To the best
13 It's bound together, I believe. 13 of my recollection, this discussion that they
14 Q. Now, can you find it now that you've 14 would do stability analyses to make sure that
15 seen -- 15 the stability of the levees remained okay given
16 A. I'll give it a try. It may be bound 16 erosion of the MRGO foreshore was to be done, I
17 on the front. As I recall, the GDM had about 17 have not found those analyses, and here many
18 eleven indorsements, and that supplement had 18 years later, with some foreshore erosion to my
19 about nine. Okay. I think we're getting close 19 knowledge there have not been any stability
20 here. It might be easier if you -- 20 problems of those levees.
21 Q. You want me to just read it to you? 21 So I assume that they did those
22 A. Sure. 22 analyses. I have not found them.
23 Q. Let's do that. Whatever this is, it's 23 Q. All right, sir. In terms of foreshore
24 dated 14 July '67, and it's Page 15, whatever 24 protection along the MRGO --
25 it is. It's titled eighth indorsement. 25 A. Yes.
Page 155 Page 157
1 MR. BAEZA: 1 Q. -- is it correct that there has been
2 Tom, I have it as Page 34 in the 2 no foreshore protection installed or
3 pdf file. 3 implemented along the MRGO?
4 THE WITNESS: 4 A. I'm not aware.
5 Okay. 5 MR. STONE:
6 MR. BAEZA: 6 Objection. Overly broad.
7 14 July. 7 A. I'm not aware of any that's been
8 MR. STEVENS: 8 placed.
9 Does it look like this? 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
10 A. Yes, I have it. 10 Q. Okay. In terms of impact or effect of
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 11 erosion over time on surge height and/or wave
12 Q. Okay, you got it. Go to Paragraph 3. 12 height, do you have any opinions about that
13 It reads, design for a portion of the foreshore 13 topic?
14 protection has been covered in General Design 14 A. No.
15 Memorandum Number 3 for the Chalmette area 15 Q. If widening of the channel from
16 plan. Inasmuch as the foreshore protection is 16 erosion has in fact caused enhanced storm surge
17 more or less integral to and must be 17 and/or wave heights, you have not figured that
18 coordinated with the levee construction, it is 18 into any of your opinions in this case or
19 planned to cover the design of the remaining 19 relied upon that fact in forming any of the
20 foreshore protection in the General Design 20 opinions in this case.
21 Memorandum for the Lake Pontchartrain Barrier 21 A. That's correct. The geotechnical
22 Plan Number 2, and in Supplement Number 1 to 22 interest in foreshore erosion was whether it
23 the general design memo for the Chalmette area 23 effectively got so close to the levee that the
24 plan. 24 levee fell down.
25 A. Yes. 25 Q. And in the final analysis, you
40 (Pages 154 to 157)

Page 158 Page 160
1 conclude that that did not happen. 1 conceivable.
2 A. That's correct. 2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. But can we safely assume 3 Q. All right. Do those terms, or does
4 for the rest of the day and for the rest of 4 consideration of those events, standard project
5 this case that you offer no opinions and you 5 hurricane or a maximum probable hurricane,
6 have no opinions about the impact of erosion on 6 influence levee design?
7 enhancing storm surge and/or wave height? 7 A. From a geotechnical standpoint, no.
8 A. Correct, I have no opinions about 8 Essentially, geotechnical engineers start once
9 hydrologic/hydraulic matters at all. 9 the decision has been made whether a levee is
10 Q. All right. Very good. 10 going to be designed for a fifty-year event or
11 Likewise, with regard to the impact, 11 a hundred-year event or a standard project
12 if any, of the destruction of wetlands, do have 12 event or a probable maximum event.
13 any opinions about the impact of the 13 Q. So you don't make an analysis of
14 destruction of wetlands -- 14 standard project hurricane or maximum probable
15 A. No. 15 hurricane, somebody else does that and provides
16 Q. -- from -- 16 you with that information.
17 A. No. 17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- a geotechnical standpoint? 18 Q. Like you told us earlier, that goes
19 A. No. 19 into the hand off.
20 Q. To your knowledge, and based upon your 20 A. Yes.
21 own opinions or opinions of others that you've 21 Q. The passing of the baton between
22 read, did the MRGO contribute to creating a 22 the --
23 different kind of wave? 23 A. Yes.
24 A. I don't know. 24 Q. -- hydrologic engineers and the
25 Q. Okay. Wave analysis of any type is 25 geotechnical engineers.
Page 159 Page 161
1 not your field. 1 A. Yes.
2 A. That's correct. 2 Q. And in this case, your analysis of
3 Q. Fair enough. Do you know the 3 whether or not the levees were designed --
4 difference between a standard project hurricane 4 whether they did a good job designing the
5 and a maximum probable hurricane? 5 levels based on the knowledge available at the
6 A. In general terms, yes. 6 time makes that same assumption --
7 Q. All right. If you would, share it 7 A. Yes.
8 with me and that way we can talk in the same 8 Q. -- that they did it according to what
9 terms. 9 they were told from the hydrologists.
10 A. This is a civil engineer but not a 10 A. They designed levees to be safe
11 hydraulic engineer speaking. 11 against the water levels furnished by the
12 Q. All right. 12 hydrologic engineers.
13 A. Similar terms are used for things such 13 Q. And to the extent that the hydrologic
14 as maximum credible earthquake and so forth. 14 engineers were wrong or erred in determining
15 Standard project hurricane has a definition 15 standard project hurricane, maximum probable
16 along the lines of being a reasonably large 16 hurricane, or water levels in general, then the
17 storm that can be expected. And probable 17 design would need to be revisited.
18 maximum hurricane has a definition along the 18 A. The design would be adequate for the
19 lines of being the largest event that could be 19 actual levels that were furnished or expected
20 conceived with everything known about 20 to be adequate, um -- and if they were found
21 meteorology. So the differences -- and again, 21 during the design period to require change, I
22 these are my own terms. The distinction is 22 would assume they would be changed.
23 among reasonably expected to occur versus 23 Q. Okay. That would be the prudent thing
24 possible to conceive or imagine. 24 to do.
25 Q. And in a nutshell, expected versus 25 A. Yes.
41 (Pages 158 to 161)

Page 162 Page 164
1 Q. That would be sound professional 1 the levee are subject to severe erosive attack
2 engineering judgment. 2 by waves generated by the marine traffic using
3 A. You could use those terms, yes. 3 the channel. Without protective works, this
4 Q. Let me mark for identification as 4 attack would erode the foreshore, undermine the
5 Exhibit Number 5 -- I'll hand it to Mr. Stone, 5 levees and ultimately result in their failure.
6 and I've got an extra copy for you if you want 6 To your knowledge, did anyone ever
7 to give him that one, and then let's identify 7 follow-up on that warning, if you will?
8 it for the record. Exhibit 5 is a Memorandum 8 A. I don't know. I have not seen this
9 for Special Assistant to the Secretary of the 9 document. I note that it refers on Page 3 to
10 Army for Civil Functions, and it's subject is 10 the north bank of the MRGO and the NASA
11 the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. And do we 11 facility. I don't know what may have ever been
12 have a date? It's by the Chief of Engineers. 12 done up there.
13 Best we can come up with is this is probably 13 Q. Not in the paragraph I'm referring to.
14 the 1st of July of 1967. 14 Right? The paragraph I'm referring to is
15 MR. STONE: 15 Paragraph 5, the aforementioned levees are to
16 It's a draft. 16 be constructed either as new levee on the
17 (Exhibit 5 was marked for 17 existing Mississippi River Gulf Outlet spoil
18 identification and is attached hereto.) 18 bank south bank or as an enlargement of an
19 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 19 existing local interest levee north bank.
20 Q. It's a draft. But just to give you a 20 A. Oh, you're on Page 2, okay.
21 time reference, it's July '67 is a date we, 21 Q. Yeah, at the bottom of Page 2, and
22 um -- Page 3, the current July 1, '67 estimated 22 than I start -- the quote was the next
23 construction costs for foreshore protection 23 sentence.
24 along the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet is 24 A. On south bank -- what was the
25 $4,507,300, et cetera, et cetera. Just the 25 question?
Page 163 Page 165
1 date reference there is the current date, July 1 Q. The question is -- and then I want to
2 '67 for reference sake. 2 refer you to one more sentence, if you will,
3 Now, in this memo -- 3 it's Paragraph 7 that begins at the very bottom
4 MR. STONE: 4 of Page 3 and goes over onto Page 4. It says,
5 I don't read that the way you do, 5 at the time that the Mississippi River Gulf
6 but it's not a big deal here. 6 Outlet was authorized -- and as I recall it was
7 MR. STEVENS: 7 authorized in '56, right?
8 If you got a better date, I'll 8 A. Thereabouts.
9 use it -- 9 Q. Yeah -- there existed within the city
10 MR. STONE: 10 for a distance of about six miles along what
11 I don't. But when it says the 11 was to become the north bank of the outlet, a
12 current 1 July '67, this means this 12 levee of substantial dimension.
13 can be anytime after July 1, '67. 13 A. Okay.
14 MR. STEVENS: 14 Q. And I'm going to skip down to the
15 Okay. 15 bottom. It is evident that the navigation
16 MR. STONE: 16 project should have made adequate provisions
17 But I don't think you can get any 17 for protecting the levee against the added
18 closer than that from that. 18 threat which the existence of the outlet would
19 MR. STEVENS: 19 generate.
20 That's fine. Sometime in '67 is 20 A. Okay. What is the question?
21 good enough for me. 21 Q. My question is, what are they talking
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 22 about there?
23 Q. At the bottom of Page 2, it begins, 23 A. This is the first time I've seen this
24 the last sentence, the navigation channel banks 24 document, but as I read this document they're
25 and the foreshore area between channel bank and 25 seeking -- let's go back to, um -- Design Memo
42 (Pages 162 to 165)

Page 166 Page 168
1 3 for a moment, because where erosion was 1 from the bank of the MRGO. Later they decide
2 addressed in Design Memo 3 there was a comment 2 to perform the stability analysis. So there
3 to the effect that they would just let it erode 3 are two ways to approach the concern with ship
4 as long as it didn't encroach on the levee, and 4 generated waves; make sure that you have enough
5 there was also a comment, um -- to the effect, 5 distance that it will not reach the levee, or
6 um -- hoping that the local interest would be 6 provide some erosion protection as suggested in
7 able to acquire the rights-of-way for that 7 this document just furnished.
8 erosion. It appears at this time the writer of 8 Q. And did they ever do that?
9 this memo, whoever they are, have some concern 9 A. I don't -- I'm not aware they did it
10 about that erosion and feel it would be a good 10 along MRGO. I don't know about other -- along
11 idea to provide some erosion protection and are 11 these levees.
12 preparing a cost estimate. 12 Q. Okay. Let me ask you about something,
13 Q. If you would, go to Page 6 and tell us 13 a general statement you made earlier about the
14 who the writer of this memo is. 14 rate of subsidence in this region.
15 A. Page 6, um -- yes. I cannot tell who 15 A. Yes.
16 the writer is for the following reason: In the 16 Q. If I understand you correctly, I
17 Corps of Engineers, where I worked for fifteen, 17 believe you said it was about one foot?
18 eighteen years, many people would write things 18 A. Per decade.
19 and then the top person would sign it. So this 19 Q. Per decade?
20 was written by someone for consideration of the 20 A. That's my recollection of Volume 2 of
21 Chief of Engineers to sign. 21 the IPET report. I could be corrected if I
22 Q. Okay. So it was going to be for the 22 looked.
23 Chief of Engineers' signature. 23 Q. On Page 2 of your report --
24 A. Should he chose to sign it, yes. 24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right. 25 Q. -- you indicate here, in the second
Page 167 Page 169
1 A. This could have been written in 1 paragraph, um -- the issue of regional
2 Washington, this could have been written in New 2 subsidence in the area was established by a
3 Orleans or Vicksburg. 3 district engineer to have been .4 feet per
4 Q. Okay. All right. I guess to sum that 4 century.
5 up let me ask you this: Would you anticipate 5 A. What page are you on?
6 that vessel-generated wakes would in and of 6 Q. 2.
7 themselves have any significant impact on 7 A. Page 2 is table of contents.
8 erosion along the MRGO? 8 Q. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay.
9 A. They could have. 9 Page 12. My bad. I left too many outlines
10 Q. All right. And to your knowledge was 10 floating around. Page 12?
11 that potential impact, if you will, considered 11 A. Yes. That's as reported in the
12 in the original design of the MRGO levees? 12 authorizing document.
13 A. Yes. 13 Q. Correct. Now, the authorizing
14 Q. Show me where. 14 document reported that regional subsidence in
15 A. What I had referred to before, that 15 the area has been about .4 feet per century,
16 there was a concern that, um -- let me read 16 which would be about one half inch per decade,
17 this here. 17 and that additional subsidence has occurred
18 Q. Take us to your report. 18 where marsh and swamplands have been reclaimed
19 A. Page 19, second bullet under Foreshore 19 and drained.
20 Protection, GDM Number 3, Paragraph 50, states 20 A. Yes.
21 that significant erosion of the foreshore area 21 Q. How do you reconcile those two
22 between the levee and the channel bank via ship 22 statements, did you misspeak or can you
23 generated waves could pose a threat to the 23 reconcile what you said earlier?
24 stability of the levee if this erosion reached 24 A. No. In 1965, this is what the Corps
25 the levee slope situated several hundred feet 25 of Engineers district engineer's report said
43 (Pages 166 to 169)

Page 170 Page 172
1 the subsidence was. In the IPET report some 1 subheading in your report?
2 forty years later, they reported that recent 2 A. Yes.
3 subsidence in the nineties and thousands was 3 Q. T National Geodetic Survey, NGS,
4 much higher. I'm not sure what I was asked to 4 determined in November of '84 that certain
5 reconcile. 5 adjustments needed to be made to benchmarks,
6 Q. Well, I thought you were saying the 6 correct?
7 regional subsidence rate was one foot per 7 A. Yes.
8 decade, or half a foot per decade -- 8 Q. All right. Describe that for us.
9 A. That's -- 9 MR. STONE:
10 Q. -- at the time of the design. 10 You mean the process or what --
11 A. No. 11 MR. STEVENS:
12 Q. At the time of the design the 12 What adjustments needed to be
13 understanding was it was .4 feet -- 13 made and where?
14 A. In round numbers, half inch per decade 14 A. Okay. The national -- let me put for
15 at the time of the design. 15 the record while I am not a surveying expert, I
16 Q. And .4 feet per century is, um -- half 16 do actually teach the -- half of a course in
17 inch per decade. 17 surveying, very elementary surveying as it
18 A. Yes. And at the IPET report, my 18 relates to civil engineering, to civil
19 recollection is close to a foot per decade, 19 engineering freshmen. So this is just the very
20 much, much higher. 20 fundamental elements of surveying.
21 Q. And is it your understanding or belief 21 The National Geodetic Survey has a
22 that this same rate is applicable throughout 22 system of benchmarks, which are bronze
23 the region? 23 monuments in the ground, throughout the United
24 A. No. 24 States that are referenced to the National
25 Q. Is it applicable in the St. Bernard 25 Geodetic -- or the North American Vertical
Page 171 Page 173
1 basin? 1 Datum of 1988, and are very precisely located
2 A. My only recollection was that around 2 with respect to horizontal coordinates,
3 the IHNC, which is close to the St. Bernard 3 latitude, longitude coordinates and so forth,
4 basin, the rate was higher than to the west of 4 and those are the benchmarks that all of the
5 New Orleans. I'd have to go back and look at 5 other benchmarks used for design and
6 that. 6 construction of things throughout the United
7 Q. Have you done anything to investigate 7 States are referenced to. So there's a high
8 that, to determine why the subsidence rate 8 order set done by the National Geodetic Survey,
9 might be higher in the St. Bernard basin than 9 and then other entities such as the national --
10 in other areas west of the basin? 10 U.S. Geological Survey, the Corps of Engineers
11 A. No. 11 and others add additional benchmarks for their
12 Q. Not your area. 12 projects.
13 A. Correct. 13 By adjustment, what NGS does is they
14 Q. Is that not geotechnical -- in the 14 have a point up in, um -- Quebec that by
15 geotechnical engineering field? 15 definition is the reference point for all of
16 A. It's geological, I would say. 16 North America, and then they survey from there
17 Geotechnical deals more specifically with 17 to all these other benchmarks in multiple
18 structures that are to be built of or on soil, 18 directions, go through some complicated math
19 and not regional effects. 19 and figure out the elevations and confirm the
20 (Brief recess.) 20 elevations of these high order points.
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 21 By 1984-1985, they apparently had
22 Q. Doctor, on Page 27 of your report, and 22 become aware that these points are no longer at
23 it might spill over onto 28, I believe, it says 23 the elevations that they previously computed
24 in 1984 and '5, talking about the New Orleans 24 them to be, therefore implying regional
25 Division 's decision on benchmarks is the 25 subsidence. And so they and the Corps of
44 (Pages 170 to 173)

Page 174 Page 176
1 Engineers are having discussions about regional 1 heights?
2 subsidence, because if the region is in fact 2 A. Let me answer that this way: The
3 subsiding the levees and the flood protection 3 subsidence would not change the elevations of
4 system are subsiding with it, sea level is not, 4 the design storm surge, but as the ground being
5 and as a result the level of protection could 5 lower, the height of that storm surge relative
6 be being compromised. 6 to the ground would now be higher. But most
7 Q. Would that be, as we discussed 7 importantly, the top of the protection would
8 earlier, a change in the topographic area 8 now be lower and closer to the same storm
9 adjacent to the levees? 9 surge. And they did in fact consider that, and
10 A. It would be the change in the 10 in my opinion, I could even say that they were
11 topographic area of the entire region, levees 11 prudent in the following sense: They had a
12 and all. 12 very difficult decision to make because
13 Q. Okay. Now, in your report you start 13 probably millions of dollars of this
14 off with the statement that in '84 and '85 the 14 construction had been completed at what was now
15 New Orleans division and the 1lower Mississippi 15 an insufficient elevation, and then there were
16 Valley Division confronted the issue that 16 other millions of dollars yet to be
17 significant subsidence was occurring in the 17 constructed. And then the decision was -- at
18 region and that the design levee grades may not 18 least the way they approached the decision was,
19 be sufficiently high to protect against the 19 it would be important to have a uniform level
20 intended standard project hurricane, period, 20 of protection, and they made the decision to
21 end of quote. 21 move forward to complete a uniform level of
22 Did I correctly quote your report? 22 protection, apparently knowing that that level
23 A. Yes. 23 of protection would not be as high as they
24 Q. All right. Can you tell us whether 24 intended at the time construction began. In
25 either division, the New Orleans Division or 25 fact, on Page 28 of my report their letter said
Page 175 Page 177
1 the Lower Mississippi Valley Division of the 1 hurricane protection projects which are
2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ever did anything 2 partially completed, that was the case for LPV.
3 to account for that subsidence? 3 Q. And they made that analysis based upon
4 A. It would be the New Orleans 4 the same standard project hurricane that they
5 District -- 5 had used to design the levees in the first
6 Q. Oh, I'm sorry. 6 place, correct?
7 A. The New Orleans District made a 7 A. I don't know the specifics. I just
8 decision not to change the project heights 8 know that they found the levee to be lower than
9 because part of the project had already been 9 they thought it was, both the partially
10 completed, and the division concurred with that 10 completed levees and the part that had not yet
11 recommendation. 11 been designed -- or constructed, that they were
12 Q. Now, as a prudent engineer, if 12 designed to be -- provide a certain level of
13 conditions change do you know what impact that 13 protection against a standard project
14 lowering, if you will, or subsidence of the 14 hurricane, and that they would now be lower.
15 benchmarks would have on wave heights, surge 15 Q. Now, on Page 28 of your report you
16 heights or wave run-up? 16 report about -- it's a first indorsement to
17 A. No. 17 that letter dated November 19, 1985 --
18 Q. To your knowledge, did anyone at the 18 A. Yes.
19 Corps analyze or consider these subsided 19 Q. -- and I quote -- are you're quoting
20 benchmarks? Is that a fair term? 20 from that first indorsement.
21 A. Yes. This whole exercise was about 21 A. Yes.
22 what to do from the information of subsided 22 Q. Quote: Considerations should be given
23 benchmarks. 23 to reanalyzing and modifying, if needed,
24 Q. But did they consider it in the 24 hurricane protection work in high density urban
25 context of elevated storm surge and/or wave 25 areas where the datum changes will drastically
45 (Pages 174 to 177)

Page 178 Page 180
1 reduce the level of protection, end of quote. 1 methodology, if we looked at slope stability or
2 A. Yes. 2 settlement, we take numbers, soil strength,
3 Q. All right, sir. And do you know if 3 soil permeability and so forth, you put those
4 anyone ever reanalyzed or modified hurricane 4 into equations, and you calculate a factor of
5 protection works? 5 safety or predicted settlement or some measure
6 A. I'm not aware that they did. It was 6 of performance. In the case of erosion, there
7 my impression they felt they did not need to. 7 was no quantitative method where you ran a
8 MR. STONE: 8 test, even such as Briaud 's test, that would
9 Can I just add something here? I 9 give you a number such as so many millimeters
10 don't want to interfere. 10 per hour that you could then put in some
11 MR. STEVENS: 11 equation and then come out with a factor of
12 No, no. If you don't mind, he's 12 safety or a time to failure or something like
13 doing pretty well. 13 that. The guidance simply says that fat clays
14 MR. STONE: 14 and good grass and so forth provide some level
15 That's fine. 15 of erosion protection, and that's about it.
16 MR. STEVENS: 16 Rock and concrete blankets or something may
17 If we start that, we'll be here 17 provide more. But there's no guidance
18 for three days. 18 identified by 2000 that is quantitative in the
19 MR. STONE: 19 sense of what is done for slope stability,
20 No. I'm not going to do it. I 20 seepage and other geotechnical aspects.
21 asked and you said no. 21 Q. Now, in the next sentence you add that
22 A. Something I might add is the first 22 this may also be -- or it may also reflect that
23 bullet below there in my opinion, that they saw 23 the manual in large part was written for river
24 the standard project flood as a very rare event 24 levees for which it was considered adequate.
25 or a limiting case, and with the amount of 25 Is there a distinction between river
Page 179 Page 181
1 subsidence that now occurred I imagine that 1 levees and levees like the MRGO levee?
2 they still saw that as a very rare event. So 2 A. Primary concern on river levees is
3 levees were designed for a very rare event, 3 current -- erosion due to currents parallel to
4 with subsidence they were lower but still up to 4 the levee from water flow. River levees, large
5 a height for a very rare event. 5 ones such as on the Mississippi, can get some
6 Q. On page 29, your opinion says in the 6 wave attack during high winds. Okay?
7 twenty-two year period between the two manuals, 7 Hurricane levees, of which there are
8 and you're referring to the two engineering 8 many fewer in the country than river levees,
9 manuals that we outlined earlier, Engineering 9 notably in New Orleans, perhaps in Galveston,
10 Manual 1110, for the design and construction of 10 by definition deal with very high winds.
11 levees that was originally done in '78 and 11 That's the nature of a hurricane. And so the
12 revised in 2000, those are the two I'm 12 levee manual does not address hurricane levees
13 referring to, or that you refer to here. 13 very specifically. Nothing does, to my
14 A. Yes. 14 knowledge. So if you want guidance for levees,
15 Q. You indicated that these -- in the 15 it is these manuals. But because hurricane
16 22-year period between those two manuals 16 levees are fairly unique, the real design
17 nothing quantitative regarding design for 17 guidance evolves in the conversations among the
18 erosion protection came about for which the 18 New Orleans District, the Vicksburg Division
19 Corps had enough confidence in the methodology 19 and Washington over the years.
20 to include it in the revised engineering 20 Q. And those issues, as you say in your
21 manual. 21 report, are addressed on a case-by-case basis.
22 A. Correct. 22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right. Translate that to layman's 23 Q. All right. You then conclude that the
24 terms for me. 24 judgment of the district and the division with
25 A. Yes. Okay. By quantitative 25 regard to not amending the manual, right,
46 (Pages 178 to 181)

Page 182 Page 184
1 correctly remained that because of only short 1 A. Let me provide a very simple example
2 duration of exposure to waves and the levee 2 of a series in parallel system.
3 composition of primarily fat clays, existing 3 Q. Okay.
4 levee design was adequate. 4 A. Series Christmas lights --
5 A. Yes. 5 Q. I remember those things.
6 Q. I misspoke. I said not amending the 6 A. Yes, if one lights burns out they all
7 manual. Not redesigning the levee. Right? 7 burn out because you create a hole in the
8 A. What I'm saying was that the MRGO 8 circuit. Parallel systems have two wires and
9 levees, having been composed with significant 9 the current flows across the two wires so that
10 amounts of clays and having a grass cover, was 10 if one light burns out the others remain lit,
11 considered to have adequate erosion protection 11 so the lighting still serves its intended
12 for a short-duration event such as a hurricane. 12 function, it produces light.
13 Q. Okay. Now, that's the question I 13 So levees, because they're long
14 really wanted to ask you. If we talk about 14 singular structures, except where they in fact
15 short-duration events, you're talking about 15 are divided up into polders that protect
16 during a hurricane, what do you factor in for 16 discreet areas, if you have a break at one spot
17 vessel wave wash and wave action created by 17 in a levee the rest of the levee doesn't
18 vessel traffic? That's not short duration, 18 matter. And in the -- because you have -- the
19 that's every day. 19 levee 's failed its intended purpose, you now
20 A. On an everyday basis, the vessel 20 have flooding behind the levee. So the context
21 traffic would not -- the waters would not be up 21 of that report was a very -- not only to
22 on the levee, it would be out on the banks of 22 identify what happened in New Orleans, but from
23 the MRGO canal. Those are two different 23 the American Society of Civil Engineers'
24 issues. 24 viewpoint, start to pose some questions and
25 Q. Okay. All right. And I want to ask 25 answer some questions such as if we can design
Page 183 Page 185
1 you about something you said earlier, too. You 1 safe bridges and other safe structures, what's
2 said that although you didn't contribute any 2 different about levees? And I was pointing out
3 specific portion to the ILIT report you did 3 that many to most engineering structures have
4 make one contribution that you thought would 4 more redundancy in them than levees do. Now,
5 not have been in the report. Is that -- 5 there's no simple answer to that. One could in
6 A. That was not to the ILIT report. 6 concept put a second levee behind the first
7 Q. It's the composite -- 7 levee or segment the City of New Orleans into a
8 A. To the joint report. 8 number of components. Actually, I can provide
9 Q. The joint report. Thank you. The one 9 an example of that. If you've seen a tank
10 you did between the society of engineers -- 10 farm, you will see containment levees or dikes
11 A. Yes. 11 around each tank so that if one tank fails the
12 Q. -- and the U. Cal. Berkley people. 12 fluid or the oil is contained and doesn't go
13 A. Yes. 13 all over the place. In principle, there are
14 Q. And your contribution was to point out 14 probably ways that you could have what you
15 that a levee system like this was a series 15 referred to as belt and suspenders features on
16 system? 16 levees, but in practice I'm not aware it's ever
17 A. Series system. 17 been done. So that went in the report to kind
18 Q. S-E-R-I-E-S 18 of talk about the challenge of levees from a
19 A. Yes. 19 reliability viewpoint because they're very long
20 Q. A series system. 20 and singular.
21 A. Yes. 21 Q. All right. So your comment was once
22 Q. And that if you have a breach at one 22 it fails at one point it's not about whether
23 point it can cause damage -- 23 it's going to protect in other areas because
24 A. Yes. 24 the water is behind the levee now and it's
25 Q. -- to a lot of other areas. 25 going to flood the whole area.
47 (Pages 182 to 185)

Page 186 Page 188
1 A. That's correct. 1 in constructing some project. I think I
2 Q. All right. I thought I heard you to 2 answered the question.
3 say that once it fails at one point it can 3 Q. Okay. In this PGL Number 26, in
4 cause damage at a lot of other places. But the 4 Paragraph 4, entitled Sources of Uncertainty,
5 damage you're referring to is from the water 5 it reads: Studies involving existing levees --
6 getting behind the levee -- 6 and this is dated December '91; am I right?
7 A. Yeah, behind the levee. 7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- not damage to the levee itself. 8 Q. Okay -- existing levees will focus on
9 A. That's correct. 9 the sources of uncertainty (likely causes of
10 Q. All right. I just Wanted to clarify. 10 failure). Other than overtopping, levees
11 Thank you. 11 principally fail due to one or a combination of
12 In the sequence of events that 12 four causes: Surface erosion, internal erosion
13 occurred on August 29, 2005, Dr. Wolff, do you 13 or piping, underseepage, and slides within the
14 know which breach occurred first, where the 14 levee embankment or foundation soils.
15 failure in your series system of the MRGO levee 15 In the context of your work in this
16 took place? 16 case, did you arrive at a determination or did
17 A. Considering the entire -- oh, from 17 others arrive at a determination about what
18 MRGO? No, not without -- 18 caused the breach -- the north breach at the
19 Q. Well, Reach 1, Reach 2, all the way -- 19 Industrial Canal?
20 not just the MRGO, but also into -- 20 A. Um -- the IPET team reached certain
21 A. St. Bernard Parish? Um -- I believe 21 conclusions, the ILIT team reached somewhat
22 that the north breach of the IHNC would have 22 different conclusions, um -- and those are
23 been the first place water came in. That was 23 discussed on Page 48 of my report.
24 reported, I believe, around 5:30 a.m. 24 Q. Okay. And as between the four, it
25 Q. Okay. According to some it was 25 wasn't overtopping, we just discussed that. As
Page 187 Page 189
1 3:50 a.m., but somewhere in the early morning 1 between the other four likely causes of failure
2 hours. 2 listed in PGL Number 26, which was the cause of
3 A. Okay. 3 the north breach in the Industrial Canal?
4 Q. That's the first place. And that 4 MR. STONE:
5 breach was not an overtopping, correct? You 5 Objection. You're limiting to
6 agree with that. 6 four causes.
7 A. That's correct. 7 THE WITNESS:
8 Q. Okay. I'm going to mark for 8 Shall I go ahead?
9 identification as Exhibit Number 6 a document 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
10 you referenced a couple of times, and it's 10 Q. And please don't be limited. If
11 something you listed in your report as a 11 there's another cause, tell me.
12 document you relied on. I'm sorry I only -- 12 A. This document lists four causes. My
13 it's PGL 26. In PGL 26 -- tell us, in layman's 13 report in '94 on reliability of levees that
14 terms, what is a PGL? 14 responded to this may list five or six causes,
15 (Exhibit 6 was marked for 15 and I've seen documents that list maybe seven
16 identification and is attached hereto.) 16 or eight. Um -- they're all variations. Okay?
17 A. I, actually, in my time in the Corps 17 There was disagreement -- IPET would attribute
18 and thereafter did not come across PGLs nearly 18 it to -- well, the slides within the levee or
19 as often as I did ETLs, engineer technical 19 the foundation soils. We would call it slide
20 letters. Policy guidance letters would be 20 within the foundation soils, the levee
21 aimed mostly at -- or would emanate for the 21 instability. The ILIT report lists, um -- says
22 purposes of economic analysis by the planning 22 that it could have been one of any three
23 divisions in the Corps of Engineers to 23 factors, and the seepage, erosion and piping at
24 determine who would do the early planning to 24 the inward toe and hydraulic uplift or blowout
25 determine whether there was a federal interest 25 at inboard toe would both be underseepage in
48 (Pages 186 to 189)

Page 190 Page 192
1 the context of PGL 26. 1 B to the ETL.
2 The translation stability failure 2 MR. STONE:
3 would again be slides within the foundation in 3 Is that it?
4 the context of PGL 26. But with a little 4 MR. STEVENS:
5 different driving cause. The ILIT findings say 5 Yeah, that is it. Thank you.
6 that it could be any of these, they can't 6 MR. STONE:
7 really tell, but they believe that the seepage 7 Glad to be of service.
8 and erosion won the race, quote. 8 MR. STEVENS:
9 The reality is that the evidence to 9 Appreciate you.
10 make a definitive determination has been 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
11 destroyed. And the fact that it has -- at that 11 Q. On Page B-16 of -- what are we going
12 particular site, the deformations were such 12 to refer to this as? Evaluating the
13 that the concrete floodwall and the underlying 13 Reliability of Exiting Levees?
14 sheet pile actually rotated 180 degrees and 14 A. Yes.
15 that floodwall was upside-down. And so the 15 Q. Do you have a short name for it?
16 definitive evidence was destroyed. And these 16 A. That's a good name because that was
17 determinations were made by analysis of -- 17 the title of the original document and it
18 calculations to see what would have been 18 remained as it became this appendix. You could
19 plausible. 19 refer to it as 1999 Appendix B if you wish.
20 Q. When you say the erosion, et cetera, 20 Q. All right. Let's do that. 1999
21 won the race, you're saying it occurred before 21 Appendix B. Go to Page B-16. And the title is
22 overtopping, or won the race with what? 22 Current Corps of Engineers Guidance. And it
23 A. No, of -- the ILIT report postulates 23 refers to EM1110 from 1978 -- right?
24 three different reasons that it may have failed 24 A. Yes.
25 before overtopping, and it says they can't tell 25 Q. -- which was later amended in 2000,
Page 191 Page 193
1 for sure which one it was. They use won the 1 right?
2 race to speculate one of their three mechanisms 2 A. Yes.
3 probably was the one, but they were all, they 3 Q. All right. But this is '91. We're
4 believed, going on at the same time. 4 talk about something in between. And you said
5 Q. And which one won the race? 5 at that time that EM1110 of 1978, quote, is the
6 A. In their opinion, seepage, erosion and 6 primary source of Corps policy on the
7 piping. 7 engineering aspects of levee design.
8 Q. Okay. What was the date of the report 8 Did anything subsequent to this change
9 that you said was in response to PGL Number 26? 9 your belief that EM 1110 in '78, and I would
10 A. My 1991 report that became Appendix B 10 assume as later amended in 2000, is as we speak
11 to the '9 -- I'm sorry. My 1994 report that 11 today the primary source of Corps policy on
12 became Appendix B to the 1999 ETL responded -- 12 engineer aspects of levee design?
13 or built upon or replaced the guidance in PGL 13 A. First, for simplicity, let's call that
14 26. 14 EM1913. They all start with 1110-2. All
15 Q. Do you have a copy in your computer? 15 engineering stuff relevant to levees.
16 A. I may not because I have a hard copy 16 Q. All right. Well, then, we got to use
17 of that in my library. 17 the last four digits --
18 MR. STONE: 18 A. Yes.
19 What are you looking for? 19 Q. -- instead of the first. Okay. Thank
20 MR. STEVENS: 20 you. UEM1913, the '78 version as amended in
21 Appendix B. 21 2000, is it still as we speak the primary
22 MR. STONE: 22 source of Corps policy on the engineering
23 I may have a copy of that. 23 aspects of levee design?
24 MR. STEVENS: 24 A. Yes. In my opinion.
25 It's the May 28th, 1999 Appendix 25 Q. And then you conclude that with, in
49 (Pages 190 to 193)

Page 194 Page 196
1 addition to the EM, and you're referring the 1 the Corps; correct?
2 1913, there exists a voluminous collection of 2 A. Correct.
3 research reports, flood performance reports and 3 Q. All right. Now, in PGL Number 26,
4 division regulations (all developed by the 4 they started off, or in 1991, this is the Army
5 Corps) as well as journal papers and reference 5 Corps memo, correct?
6 books that deal with the analysis and design of 6 A. Yes.
7 levees, period. 7 Q. From the Department of the Army.
8 A. Yes. 8 A. Yes,
9 Q. Okay. Are there any specific division 9 Q. They developed the PNP and the PFP --
10 regulations that you can steer us to that deal 10 A. Yes.
11 particularly with analysis and design of 11 Q. -- characterizations, classifications
12 levees? 12 that we spoke to earlier.
13 A. There is, or was, a Lower Mississippi 13 A. Yes.
14 Valley Division regulation that would have a 14 Q. Were you in any way a part of
15 number something like 1110-2-400 that involved 15 developing the probable non failure point and
16 some additional guidance within the Lower 16 the probable failure point for that --
17 Mississippi Valley Division about levees. I 17 A. No, I had no part in developing any of
18 was not able to find copies of that. It's not 18 the guidance in 1991.
19 on the Internet. I do not know whether the -- 19 Q. All right. Now what I want to take us
20 what's now the Mississippi Valley Division, it 20 to, are those definitions, those two specific
21 now goes all the way up to Minnesota, I do not 21 points, the PNP and the PFP, are they still in
22 know whether they still have those regulations 22 use today?
23 or not. There are -- at various points in the 23 A. I don't know.
24 design memorandums you may find references to 24 Q. Okay. Were they -- you wrote a paper
25 the division regulation. 25 in 1994, this Appendix B --
Page 195 Page 197
1 Q. Okay. But as we speak today, you as a 1 A. Yes.
2 geotechnical engineer with at least fifteen 2 Q. -- where you addressed those two
3 years experience working directly with the Army 3 points; correct?
4 Corps of Engineers on levee design -- 4 A. Yes.
5 A. The primary starting manual would be 5 Q. PNP and PFPs.
6 1913. 6 A. I provided more complete methods to
7 Q. -- the EM1913 is the starting point, 7 develop the functions shown on Page 5 of PGL
8 and it is the primary source of Corps policy -- 8 26, which were straight lines.
9 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. And that's what we asked you,
10 Q. -- on engineering aspects of levee 10 you advanced the science, so to speak.
11 design. 11 A. Yes.
12 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you patent it, by chance?
13 Q. All right. I trust, then, you would 13 A. No.
14 also add to that the division regulations, if 14 Q. Okay. You could have. You enhanced
15 we could find them, that you referred to. 15 the ability to analyze the probability of
16 A. Not as the primary source. 16 failure.
17 Q. But as an additional source? 17 A. Yes.
18 A. Yes. 18 Q. Tell us what your model does that the
19 Q. And then you would add to that 19 original PGL Number 26 did not do.
20 reference books and engineering manuals, et 20 A. Okay. First of all, let me point out
21 cetera, that are available to the civilian 21 that my model and this guidance and so forth,
22 engineers. 22 to my knowledge, has never been used for
23 A. Yes. 23 design. The title here is the benefit
24 Q. Same thing I asked earlier: Laws of 24 determination involving existing levees.
25 physics don't change just because you work for 25 Q. Okay.
50 (Pages 194 to 197)

Page 198 Page 200
1 A. So this is for -- if you have an 1 So to state that another way, if we
2 existing levee and the government is proposing 2 lowered the top of the existing levee to a
3 to authorize a project to raise it or improve 3 point where we could have flatter side slopes,
4 it, they first need to do some cost-benefit 4 whatever that lower point would be would be
5 analysis, and the question is how good is the 5 taken as the PFP, or probable failure point.
6 existing levee before we worry about whether we 6 And Profile Guidance Letter 26 simply assumed
7 need a new one? 7 that the change in reliability or probability
8 Q. Okay. So to translate to my 8 of failure from the probable failure point to
9 Opelousas -- 9 the probable non failure point could be
10 A. Okay. 10 represented by a straight line between two
11 Q. -- you're saying this original Policy 11 elevations and two probabilities without any
12 Guidance Letter Number 26 as well as your 12 sort of calculation about how reliable the
13 Appendix B later -- 13 levee might be for different heights of water
14 A. Yes. 14 on the levee. My work shows how that you can
15 Q. -- are not to be used to design new 15 assume a range of heights on the levee, as many
16 levees -- correct? 16 as you wish, explicitly do a seepage analysis,
17 A. Correct. 17 a slope stability analysis and so on, for each
18 Q. -- but only to evaluate the 18 water height, explicitly determine a
19 probability of failure from a cost 19 probability of failure associated with that
20 perspective -- 20 water height and plot a curve which will
21 A. Yes. 21 generally be an S-shaped curve.
22 Q. -- of existing levees. 22 Q. And to your knowledge, did the Corps
23 A. For cost purposes, yes. 23 of Engineers at any time prior to the
24 Q. Okay. 24 occurrence of Hurricane Katrina on or about
25 A. In fact, the levee EM that comes out 25 August 29, 2005, ever apply your model,
Page 199 Page 201
1 in 2000, after my '94 work and it's '99 use, 1 explicitly, to determine the probability of
2 still does not involve any probabilistic 2 failure associated with any of those things,
3 methods. 3 seepage --
4 Q. Okay. 4 A. To my knowledge, it was not applied to
5 A. Okay. So to get back to your first 5 the north levee because there was, to my
6 question what does my work include, PGL 26 -- I 6 knowledge, no consideration of a new authorized
7 thought it was right in the PGL 26. What was 7 grade or a new project.
8 used to develop the PNP and the PFP at this 8 Q. Okay. So unless and until there's
9 frame was something called the template method. 9 some project involved and a cost-benefit
10 And I thought it was referenced in here, but 10 analysis needs to be done, is it your belief
11 perhaps not. Let me look and see. Yes. The 11 that your model would not be used for any other
12 template method is not referenced in here. But 12 purpose?
13 I could describe it. 13 A. That's my understanding of current
14 Q. Please. 14 Corps policy.
15 A. Okay. If you have a very steep levee 15 Q. But from an engineering standard, just
16 with side slopes that would generally be 16 from a basic engineer 's perspective, if you
17 considered very steep for a levee, you would 17 wanted to apply your model to those aspects,
18 draw a template of a flatter levee with good 18 you could do it.
19 side slopes, 1 vertical to 3 or 4 horizontal, 19 A. Yes.
20 and slide that drawn template under the steeper 20 Q. Okay. And you could do it for any one
21 levee profile, and it wouldn't go completely up 21 of those multiple modes of failure you
22 to the top of that levee but it would go to 22 described a second ago.
23 some elevation below the top of that levee and 23 A. To the extent that there's a
24 that would be assigned as the probable non 24 deterministic model that models that mode of
25 failure point. 25 failure. And the erosion is the weak point in
51 (Pages 198 to 201)

Page 202 Page 204
1 my analysis, and I wrote the report in such a 1 conditional-probability-of-failure functions
2 way that at such times as better erosion models 2 for levees as functions of floodwater
3 would be available it could be dropped into my 3 elevation.
4 methodology. 4 Please translate that to layman's
5 Q. Okay. But in terms of those other 5 terms.
6 methods, if you will -- 6 A. Yes. A function means if you tell me
7 A. Modes of failure? 7 the value X I can tell you the value Y. So
8 Q. -- modes of failure -- thank you -- 8 it's a relationship between two variables. So
9 nothing prevents doing that. 9 what this says is if we pick a range of water
10 A. That's correct. 10 levels, and if for each of those water levels,
11 Q. All right. 11 so we assume the water level is up to Elevation
12 A. Let me add that if they were refined 12 4 on the levee, we can do a seepage analysis
13 for some reason later, the new refinements also 13 and determine the probability of failure due to
14 could be put into my model. Because my model 14 seepage, we can do a slope stability analysis
15 essentially shows how to put them together. 15 and find the probability of failure due to
16 Q. From an engineering standpoint, 16 slope stability failure, and so on. And then
17 Dr. Wolff, the fact that there is no, as you 17 having those several probabilities of failure
18 termed, deterministic model or analytical 18 we can mathematically combine them to a total
19 technique for performance of a levee under, you 19 or global probability of failure for the water
20 know, certain circumstances, that doesn't mean 20 at that elevation. We can repeat that process
21 that you shouldn't do anything, right? 21 for a series of elevations up to the top of the
22 A. Right. 22 levee so that we end up with a function that
23 Q. It just means you can't model it. 23 shows the probability of failure for any level
24 A. Correct. 24 of water on the levee for each mode, and then
25 Q. It can still be analyzed, it just 25 finally a function that combines all of those
Page 203 Page 205
1 can't be analyzed with a deterministic model. 1 to give you the probability of failure of the
2 A. It cannot be quantitatively analyzed. 2 levee for any reason, um -- for any water
3 It's handled by experience and judgment on 3 level.
4 observations around grass and slopes and so 4 Q. And again, did anybody do that in this
5 forth. 5 case for this levee under any assumed water
6 Q. After all that engineering discussion, 6 levels?
7 common sense still plays a part. 7 A. Not to my knowledge.
8 A. Yep. I'll call it engineering 8 Q. Do you know of any reason, Dr. Wolff,
9 judgment, but if you're an experienced engineer 9 that that could not have been done in
10 it's common sense. 10 connection with those levees adjacent to the
11 Q. Thank you very much. 11 MRGO?
12 Let me ask you to go to the 12 A. No, only within the limitations of the
13 conclusions section of this Appendix B dated 13 deterministic models to the failure levels.
14 May 28th, 1999. In your conclusions, 14 Q. Isn't it a fact that one of the
15 Conclusion B says -- 15 conclusions you reach in your Appendix B,
16 A. Did you have a page number, please? 16 May 28th, 1999, Conclusion H as in Howard, Page
17 Q. B-106. Sorry. With me? 17 B-107, is that engineering judgment regarding
18 A. Yes. 18 the probability of failure for modes other than
19 Q. B: The probabilistic capacity-demand 19 those analyzed can be incorporated into the
20 model can be used to develop 20 analysis so long as it can be quantified.
21 conditional-probability-of-failure functions 21 Right?
22 for levees as functions of floodwater 22 A. Yes.
23 elevation. I'm going to read that straight 23 Q. Now, I'm kind of slow --
24 through. The probabilistic capacity-demand 24 A. Okay.
25 model can be used to develop 25 Q. -- semi-educable.
52 (Pages 202 to 205)

Page 206 Page 208
1 A. All right. 1 based upon some semblance of reliability based
2 Q. Am I correct in understanding that 2 upon the person you're getting it from --
3 what you're saying is, in addition to the 3 A. Yes.
4 things listed -- 4 Q. -- the source of the information, you
5 A. Yes. 5 can then factor that into your model.
6 Q. -- underseepage, slope stability, 6 A. It simply shows how to put those
7 through seepage, surface erosion, et cetera, 7 numbers together. It's actually a very
8 you could add any other number of variables to 8 straightforward application of probability
9 your model, it's sort of a template -- 9 theory, but to my knowledge this is the first
10 A. Yes. 10 time it's been illustrated in the context of
11 Q. -- to use for other possibilities and 11 levee failure modes.
12 circumstances? 12 Q. Did you -- have you, at any time, in
13 A. Yes. What that Conclusion H 13 connection with this case, attempted to
14 specifically addresses, though, is something 14 quantify, by analyzing other folks' opinions
15 called judgmental probabilities. 15 and testimony, the contribution of wave attack
16 Q. Okay. 16 or erosion to the exterior of the levee and
17 A. So while we can do calculations on 17 plug it into your model pursuant to this
18 probabilities of failure due to things that can 18 engineering judgment?
19 be modeled, such as slope stability, one can 19 A. No.
20 also so do probabilistic calculations based on 20 Q. Would anything prohibit you from doing
21 expert's judgment. So, for example, we don't 21 that?
22 know the probability that we will have a 22 A. My available time.
23 depression or a -- well, we're in a 23 Q. Okay.
24 recession -- a depression or another war at the 24 A. As a university administrator, I have
25 end of the year -- 25 much less time than Dr. Bea has put in and
Page 207 Page 209
1 Q. Okay. That may be a little less 1 others have put in, or the persons in the Corps
2 probable than a recession. 2 who are working full-time. And it would take
3 A. -- but there are formal processes 3 me, um -- some time to get my calculation tools
4 where you can quiz experts and ask them what 4 back together because I've not used those in a
5 they think the probability is and then use 5 long time.
6 those expert judgmental values in the same 6 Q. Okay.
7 manner that I've used these engineering-related 7 A. In principle, I could do it.
8 values. And so if you want the address 8 Q. But hypothetically, if someone were
9 something like ground hog burrows and whether 9 able to provide you with some information about
10 you think that there would be a failure due to 10 the degree of wave wash, the frequency of wave
11 a groundhog burrow -- 11 wash, the amount of erosion, et cetera, you
12 Q. Nutria burrows. We don't have 12 could then in some way quantify that function
13 groundhogs. 13 and put it into your model.
14 A. Okay. Whatever. 14 A. The piece that I would need that I
15 Q. They'd drown here. 15 don't believe is available is something that
16 A. -- without actually seeing those, if 16 would get you from characterizing the wave to
17 you had information from people that were 17 telling you how much soil would erode from that
18 familiar with what has occurred on these levees 18 wave. I don't believe that there's a link
19 and they said I think there's about a 1 in 10 19 between those two processes.
20 or a 1 in 100 chance that there could be some 20 Q. And -- okay.
21 bad burrows along this stretch of levee, to the 21 MR. STEVENS:
22 extent that you thought that was good 22 Could we attach this Appendix B?
23 information you could also incorporate those 23 It's kind of big.
24 quantified judgments into this procedure. 24 MR. STONE:
25 Q. So as long as it can be quantified 25 Let's do it by reference.
53 (Pages 206 to 209)

Page 210 Page 212
1 MR. STEVENS: 1 a near miss. So that's just from an overall,
2 Yeah. We all know what it is, 2 um -- observational viewpoint.
3 and we used page numbers. So it's 3 In terms of his modeling, I point out
4 kind of large to attach. 4 to some extent in my report that, one, we don't
5 MR. STONE: 5 have anything that is physically comparable to
6 Did you say ETL 1110-2-556? 6 a numerical model of a auto crash or a
7 MR. STEVENS: 7 numerical model of a blast structure or
8 No, I would have just said 556. 8 something else where you can conduct a physical
9 I would have just used ETL 556. 9 experiment or an observation of what actually
10 MR. STONE: 10 happened that can corroborate his model. And
11 28 May '99. 11 that's different than some of the hydraulic
12 (Off the record.) 12 models where they have well established high
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 13 water marks so they can run a model, they can
14 Q. What I'd like to do with the time we 14 compare it to the high water mark, make
15 have remaining is discuss with you your 15 adjustments in the model and either determine
16 problems, if you will, with or disagreements 16 that the model represents the physical world or
17 with Dr. Bea 's opinions and the basis for your 17 perhaps has some bias.
18 disagreements. 18 In particular, I do not see that the
19 A. Okay. 19 use of the erosion parameters derived from the
20 Q. So if you would -- I know you have 20 EFA test are in any way applicable to, um --
21 several issues, so if you would just take them 21 quantitative analysis of wave-induced erosion.
22 one issue at a time and tell us what issue you 22 They were developed for sheet flow erosion
23 have with Dr. Bea 's opinions. 23 parallel to the surface. So I think that one
24 A. Okay. Um -- the primary issue would 24 alone is the strongest defect in his model.
25 be in, um -- well, let's take several. Let's 25 His time damage accumulation model I
Page 211 Page 213
1 start with the general idea that front side 1 can find faults with in several cases. The
2 wave attack led to initiation of breaching 2 general concept of time damage accumulation
3 prior to overtopping. And if that were the 3 models are well established for a variety of
4 case, first of all where the levees are 4 phenomena, but again the erosion parameters
5 breached, they're breached and the evidence is 5 from the EFA tests have not been used that way
6 essentially destroyed. There are, as pointed 6 to my knowledge. If one did have erosion
7 out particularly in Dr. Mosher 's report, a 7 parameters -- as far as I can tell he uses a
8 number of cases that show what I will call near 8 constant value of soil erosion parameters
9 miss where there was land side breaching -- I'm 9 throughout the levee even though there's
10 sorry, land side erosion that did not progress 10 evidence from multiple sources that the levee
11 to full breaching, but we do not observe, to my 11 composition varies and likely has more clay to
12 knowledge, any significant incidents of what we 12 the middle of the levee and sandy areas more to
13 could call a near miss of front side wave 13 the outside of the levee. So if you did have
14 attack erosion that did not lead to breaching. 14 parameters in a methodology to model that, then
15 So if the breaches were caused by front side 15 as the levee erodes the model should call up
16 wave attack, then we might expect, for 16 different values of the erosion resistance.
17 instance, south of Bayou Dupre where the levee 17 Going back to the LS-DYNA model, it is
18 was somewhat higher, some places that were also 18 my understanding that he's using that to get
19 substantially eroded due to wave attack but for 19 the wave forces but as the levee erodes he does
20 which the duration was such that breaching did 20 not change the geometry of the model in the
21 not occur. We should see various stages, a 21 LS-DYNA model.
22 range of stages of front side erosion, and to 22 He makes various statements at various
23 my knowledge the front side erosion is either 23 places -- well, for example, let's -- in trying
24 up near the crown and fairly minor or 24 to describe what could be calculated by his
25 nonexistent, and there's not what I would term 25 models and his analysis, he uses a variety of
54 (Pages 210 to 213)

Page 214 Page 216
1 references from the late 1990s about erosion 1 A. Well, I was referring to grass lift
2 and grass and so forth, and even if those are 2 off times at this particular point. That was
3 the best references in the world they could not 3 from Verheij's report where they built a tank,
4 have helped the designers in the 1960s, so that 4 subjected a grassed slope to waves, and they
5 still at least to me says that the designers 5 felt -- essentially, they stated that this is
6 used the best information they had at the time. 6 about the first time folks are doing this kind
7 Um -- I'll stop there for the moment. 7 of research and that it's a first attempt at
8 Q. Okay. Separate and apart from design, 8 quantification.
9 as to grass did you do anything or do you have 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
10 any criticism of Dr. Bea 's opinions about the 10 Q. Now, let me ask you, the Verheij work
11 rate of erosion because of the presence of 11 that you're referring to that was a first
12 grass or -- 12 attempt, so to speak, what is the date of that
13 A. Yeah. Dr. Bea recognized that the 13 article?
14 grass would stop erosion for some period of 14 A. 1997. It was cited by Dr. Bea.
15 time, and he needed the -- he needed to include 15 Q. I don't see -- because I'm looking at
16 something that he would call grass lift-off 16 one and I thought I had it. It's Chapter 14,
17 time, so that in his model waves could attack 17 grass covers and reinforcement measures, but
18 the grass and then only after some delay time 18 it's by Seijffert, two or three other folks,
19 would erosion begin. Um -- so to get his -- to 19 and Verheij.
20 quantify that, he uses a chart developed by 20 A. Those are the same fellows but not the
21 some tests done by the Dutch, Verheij and so 21 same report.
22 on, and I would be reasonably certain that the 22 Q. Okay.
23 grass that they used was likely not at all the 23 MR. STONE:
24 same types of grasses down here in southern 24 That report is attached to
25 Louisiana. I did not research any details 25 Mr. Ebersole 's report, I believe.
Page 215 Page 217
1 about those grasses. 1 MR. STEVENS:
2 And in the, um -- introduction, I 2 The one I have here, Chapter 14?
3 believe, to their report, the same report that 3 MR. STONE:
4 he relies on for the grass, um -- analysis -- 4 I think so, but I'm not sure.
5 let me look in my report for the moment -- the 5 MR. STEVENS:
6 authors of Verheij and others put in their 6 It's attached to his report or
7 introduction, this report concerns the 7 his depo?
8 stability of grass coverings against the 8 MR. STONE:
9 erosion caused by the loading put on them by 9 I think it's his report, but I'm
10 waves. Until 1990 there was almost nothing 10 not sure about that.
11 known about this subject. Six years later, 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
12 there is more to say about the design, 12 Q. Because I was looking at the
13 maintenance and testing of grass mats and the 13 introduction and I didn't see that language you
14 first attempt at a model has been made. 14 referred to.
15 So the work that he's using to 15 A. It should be in my reliance material.
16 establish grass lift off times is characterized 16 MR. BAEZA:
17 by the persons that did the research as a first 17 Yes, it was provided. It's
18 attempt. I would therefore conclude that it 18 Verheij, Erosion Resistance of
19 can't be characterized as providing any 19 Grassland as Dike Covering, 1997.
20 certainty. 20 MR. STEVENS:
21 Q. Anything else about that? How about 21 Well, that's the one he's
22 grass lift off time? 22 referring to.
23 MR. STONE: 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
24 Do you mean other than what he 24 Q. I was trying to figure out, do we know
25 has in his report here? 25 what date this one is, Chapter 14, Grass Covers
55 (Pages 214 to 217)

Page 218 Page 220
1 and Reinforcement Measures? 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
2 A. I don't know. 2 Q. Okay. Now, let me refer you to Figure
3 MR. STONE: 3 6 on Page 297 of this chapter, and if the same
4 I may have it wrong about that 4 figure appears I'll just get you to confirm
5 being attached to Mr. Ebersole 's 5 that it's the same. The figure is entitled
6 report, too, now that I think about 6 maximum permissible duration of wave attack.
7 it. 7 A. Could I see the figure, please?
8 MR. STEVENS: 8 MR. STEVENS:
9 This would appear to be a chapter 9 (Tendering.)
10 in a textbook of some kind. I'd like 10 MR. STONE:
11 to figure out when this textbook was 11 Let's just attach it as an
12 published. 12 exhibit since you've asked him
13 A. I'm bringing up Verheij. Okay. The 13 questions a it.
14 report I was referring to is called Technical 14 MR. STEVENS:
15 Report, Erosion Resistance of Grassland as Dike 15 We can. We'll mark it for
16 Covering, I can't read the Dutch, TAW is the 16 identification as Number 7.
17 name of the Dutch organization, translated to 17 (Exhibit 7 was marked for
18 Technical Advisory Committee for Flood Defense 18 identification and is attached hereto.)
19 in the Netherlands, and it is dated 19 A. It appears to be the same as Figure 6.
20 November 1997. I would suspect that the 20 It is the same as Figure 6 in my document.
21 chapter that you have there took this work from 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
22 '97 and summarized it in some sort of reference 22 Q. Okay. Well, if you would just
23 book. I would suspect they may have some 23 reference yours, we're going to attach this one
24 similar figures. 24 so we can have a discussion here without having
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 25 to share the same piece of paper. I'm going to
Page 219 Page 221
1 Q. And we'll have to figure out what the 1 ask you to refer to Figure 6. And that Figure
2 date is. And if you want a copy I'll make you 2 6 says it is the relationship between T max and
3 one, we can attach it if you like. But the 3 HS? Whatever HS is.
4 comment here in the introduction to this 4 A. Mine shows time and hours against wave
5 Chapter 14 says, as a result of the research of 5 height H Sub-S.
6 the last ten to fifteen years, a good insight 6 Q. H Sub-S is presented for different
7 has been gained into the relations between the 7 values of C sub-E. Right?
8 management of the grass cover, the quality of 8 A. Yes.
9 the vegetation and the erosion resistance. 9 Q. And C sub-E is the coefficient,
10 A. Okay. 10 correct?
11 Q. So I don't know -- 11 A. C sub-E, yes, is a coefficient. The
12 A. I would note that the document I 12 grass erosion coefficient.
13 referenced in '96 says -- talks about six years 13 Q. All right. Then it says, the
14 later, so I would presume that was even later. 14 coefficient is related to the quality of the
15 Q. This may be later. Okay. 15 turf and the soil in the sod. Relevant
16 MR. STONE: 16 parameters seem to be percentage of coverage by
17 Can I see that? 17 vegetation, root length and amount of fines.
18 MR. STEVENS: 18 A. (Nods affirmatively.)
19 Absolutely. And we'll make you a 19 Q. Is that the same basic description of
20 copy, too. Or we can attach one if 20 Figure 6 that's contained in the 1997 version?
21 you want. 21 A. The 1997 version essentially says here
22 A. That figure turns up, also. 22 are some conservative values for erosion
23 MR. STONE: 23 resistant grassland that is either good,
24 This is one of Dr. Bea 's 24 moderate or poor.
25 reliance materials. 25 Q. Now, looking at the chart can you tell
56 (Pages 218 to 221)

Page 222 Page 224
1 us what is the maximum permissible duration of 1 MR. STEVENS:
2 wave attack before there is grass lift off? 2 I understand.
3 A. Well, it would depend on this value of 3 THE WITNESS:
4 this coefficient C sub-E. That's why they show 4 That's correct. That's
5 two curves. 5 identified in this report.
6 Q. Okay. 6 MR. STEVENS:
7 A. And then depending on the wave height, 7 All right. I'll attach it as
8 what the chart says, as I would understand this 8 Number 7. And the red sticky on it is
9 chart and I have not studied this in great 9 to identify the Figure 6 that we were
10 detail, that if you were given a wave height, 10 referring to.
11 one could read the time in hours to which, 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
12 um -- the grass would start to be jeopardized. 12 Q. What was Dr. Bea 's conclusion about
13 Q. Okay. And assuming the two parameters 13 the time for grass lift off?
14 they gave, what would be the average time for 14 A. I would have to go back to his
15 grass lift off between the two different 15 declarations. He ran quite a few models, but
16 assumptions? 16 my perception would be that he used this
17 A. It depends on the wave height. 17 chart --
18 Q. Okay. 18 Q. Okay.
19 A. If you go on the left side of there, 19 A. -- and that it would have been, um --
20 there's different wave height. So if you told 20 a time shorter than two hours, certainly.
21 me a wave height in meters, I could read off 21 Q. Okay.
22 the time -- the grass lift off time. 22 A. Times within the time frame of the
23 Q. All right. Let's assume a wave height 23 event.
24 of fifteen feet converted to meters is -- 24 Q. All right. Now, let's -- we'll go
25 A. The chart only goes up to 25 back over your criticisms of Dr. Bea. You
Page 223 Page 225
1 1.4 meters -- 1 started off by saying, number one, he concluded
2 Q. Okay. 2 that front side wave attack led to the
3 A. -- which would be roughly four to five 3 initiation of breaching prior to overtopping.
4 feet. 4 You disagree with that because you say
5 Q. Four feet. Well, let's use four feet. 5 the physical evidence says there were no near
6 A. Something on the order of two to four 6 misses, or no near missing on the front side.
7 hours. 7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. 8 Q. Now, is that based upon your personal
9 A. For a four-foot wave. 9 opinion or is that the type of analysis that's
10 Q. For four feet. And what if it was 10 been conducted in peer reviewed journal
11 doubled, do you know where it would go? 11 articles, or have you ever come across that
12 A. Well, the chart ends there, but as we 12 before?
13 get of waves significantly higher than four 13 A. I would say it's personal opinion
14 feet we would be talking about times of two 14 based on observations that if you looked at,
15 hours or less. 15 um -- other failures in New Orleans,
16 Q. Okay. Thank you. 16 overtopping by scour, for example, there are
17 MR. STONE: 17 occasions where there were -- or even on the
18 I believe the waves they're 18 New Orleans -- or in the Orleans canal, there
19 talking about there are significant 19 are, and in this gap development, there are
20 wave. Significant wave heights. H 20 cases of failures and then there are cases of
21 Sub-S. 21 near misses. And we don't find a near miss,
22 MR. STEVENS: 22 um -- of similar extent on front side wave
23 Okay. 23 attack.
24 MR. STONE: 24 Q. Let me ask you this: What field of
25 So that's just one kind of wave. 25 engineering is that? Is that hydrology? Is
57 (Pages 222 to 225)

Page 226 Page 228
1 that geotechnical engineering? Is that civil 1 participated in a number of forensic
2 engineering? What field of expertise are you 2 investigations, but he would be considered a
3 relying upon for your opinion that the absence 3 civil engineer.
4 of near misses on the front side of the levee 4 Q. Okay.
5 is evidence that it was not caused by wave 5 A. And from my knowledge of his primary
6 attack? 6 expertise, my understanding would be that he
7 A. Geotechnical engineering. 7 would be an ocean engineering, structural
8 Q. Okay. Now, to answer my original 8 engineering, um -- and related fields. You
9 question, can you steer me to any peer reviewed 9 could have engineers in any field doing
10 journal article or other study which analyzed 10 forensics.
11 levee breaching in the context of near misses 11 Q. Okay. But my question to you is,
12 from frontal attack? 12 whether it's a field of engineering or it's an
13 A. Not that I recall at the moment. 13 application of civil engineering are you a
14 Q. Okay. 14 forensic engineer?
15 A. There are peer reviewed journal 15 A. No.
16 articles written by some members of the IPET 16 Q. Well, and have you done a forensic
17 team in ASCE May 2008 -- American Society of 17 analysis, if you will, in this case? You,
18 Civil Engineers Journal of Geotechnical 18 personally.
19 Engineering May 2008, there's a collection of 19 A. I would say as a member of the joint
20 papers, some written by the ILIT team, some 20 team in New Orleans in October, 2008, and as a
21 written by the IPET team. And the IPET team 21 member of the internal technical review team on
22 for certain states that these levees were 22 the IPET report, um -- that I participated in a
23 failed by overtopping. I don't recall what the 23 very large forensic investigation of Katrina.
24 ILIT team may have stated. 24 Q. You said New Orleans October '08. Did
25 Q. Okay. But my question is very, very 25 you mean '05?
Page 227 Page 229
1 specific. 1 A. Yes. I'm sorry.
2 A. Okay. 2 Q. It's late.
3 Q. Not to go -- you've been very patient 3 A. Okay.
4 with me all day. I appreciate you bearing with 4 Q. Just for clarification. But again, in
5 me for a little bit longer. 5 the global sense you participated in a forensic
6 A. I don't recall a discussion of near 6 investigation. Did your contribution to the
7 misses. 7 investigation constitute forensic analysis of
8 Q. Thank you. And are you a forensic 8 any type?
9 engineer? 9 A. Yes.
10 A. Okay. I'm going to wear my hat as a 10 Q. Tell us what that was.
11 associate dean of engineering and an expert on 11 A. All of that was team efforts. And
12 engineering education. Where there are a 12 virtually everything in civil engineering is
13 number of -- there are probably thirty to forty 13 team efforts. So, for example, when I looked
14 types of engineering degrees recognized by 14 at the 17th Street Canal actually before I ever
15 ABET, the Accreditation Board for Engineering 15 came down here from a photo in the paper, I
16 and Technology. The four most common are 16 said, that's a translational slide. Based on
17 civil, mechanical, electrical and chemical. 17 my experience as a geotechnical engineer, I
18 Then you have biomedical, nuclear and some less 18 could look at that forensically and say, that's
19 common, mining engineering -- some less common 19 a translational slide.
20 ones. When you get over to applications, you 20 When I accompanied team members over
21 will hear terms like forensic engineer or 21 to the IHNC floodwalls and saw floodwalls
22 automotive engineer or safety engineer and so 22 laying on the ground and then saw adjacent
23 forth, but these often refer to the types of 23 areas with erosion trenches, I and others all
24 practice people are doing rather than their 24 concluded that that was due to overtopping. So
25 inherent discipline. I know that Dr. Bea has 25 my opinion along with all those other opinions
58 (Pages 226 to 229)

Page 230 Page 232
1 would have been a forensic investigation. 1 if it doesn't match what you've observed you
2 Q. IHNC floodwalls, you're talking about 2 can adjust the properties and adjust parameters
3 on the northern end? 3 in the model until the model matches the actual
4 A. I'm referring to the southern breach. 4 crash. And if you have, let's say, four or
5 Q. The southern breach. Okay. Not the 5 five crashes in numerical models, you can
6 northern breach, okay. Very good. I was going 6 learn -- using the model in between those
7 to say the northern edge of the Ninth Ward -- 7 events, you can learn as much about the crash
8 A. I looked at northern -- the northern 8 behavior of the car as you previously might get
9 breach, again, was such a more pronounced 9 out of twenty or thirty or forty crashes
10 failure that, um -- we knew that it had 10 because you can at various defined points
11 overtopped. It was not known that it was a 11 correlate the model results with the physical
12 failure short of overtopping until some of this 12 results.
13 clock data and so forth came along. And 13 I mentioned blast testing because I
14 eyewitness reports. And that was after my 14 know that LS-DYNA has also been used for
15 time. 15 measuring blast effects. And some other folks
16 Q. Okay. Now, for clarification, you 16 down at the -- in Vicksburg do military blast
17 were saying we looked at the northern breach, 17 modeling using LS-DYNA, and they build some
18 and then you said we know that it overtopped. 18 structures and explode them and observe that
19 But it didn't overtop, it failed. The northern 19 and then calibrate that to models.
20 breach. 20 And there's a whole variety of -- if
21 A. It failed and then overtopped. 21 you look at the LS-DYNA website, they mention a
22 Q. Okay. Very good. I want to make sure 22 wide ranks of various things that the software
23 we don't change -- 23 can model.
24 A. But we could not determine at that 24 Q. I didn't ask you, did you examine or
25 time that it had in fact failed prior to 25 consider the modeling done by Mr. Steven
Page 231 Page 233
1 overtopping because the team here in October, 1 Fitzgerald? I don't know if he's
2 2005, did not have all the eyewitness data and 2 Dr. Fitzgerald. We'll call him doctor.
3 the clock data and so forth that came later. 3 A. No.
4 Q. But you have since reached that 4 Q. No, you did not.
5 conclusion. 5 A. No.
6 A. Absolutely. Others studied that in 6 Q. Do you know Steven Fitzgerald?
7 great detail. 7 A. No.
8 Q. You said -- the second criticism, if 8 Q. Do you know who he is?
9 you will, of Dr. Bea is his modeling. And I 9 A. Not without looking up --
10 want to go back to that. You were talking 10 Q. Do you know his connection to this
11 about there's nothing physically comparable 11 case?
12 here to an automobile accident or a blast. 12 A. Not offhand.
13 Explain. 13 Q. If I were to suggest to you that he
14 A. Those are examples where you can take 14 was a modeler who did some modeling to
15 a program, I'll use LS-DYNA. 15 determine peak water levels in the Lower Ninth
16 Q. Uh-huh. 16 Ward and St. Bernard Parish --
17 A. So in automotive crash testing, and 17 A. Is that the interior water modeling?
18 we've had students from Michigan State 18 Q. Yes.
19 University go into automotive crash testing, 19 A. Okay, I'm familiar that some interior
20 and they told me a little bit about what they 20 water modeling was done.
21 do. You can crash a car under controlled 21 Q. Did you examine any interior water
22 conditions and observe, with time lapse 22 modeling?
23 photography, the crumpling of the fender, then 23 A. Only to the following --
24 you can run a program such as LS-DYNA and put 24 Q. Animations is the word I was looking
25 in properties and watch the fender crumple, and 25 for.
59 (Pages 230 to 233)

Page 234 Page 236
1 A. I saw the animation. As I was going 1 video camera setting somewhere that would stay
2 through the documents that were furnished to me 2 put watching this levee erode, and if you coul
3 recently, I saw that one of them was an 3 actually observe how much the levee had eroded
4 animation file, and I played it and looked at 4 at various times, and then see if that compared
5 it, and I called my wife over and I said, you 5 with Dr. Bea 's model, or adjust Dr. Bea 's
6 want to see something interesting to watch? 6 model until it matched the progression of the
7 And I showed her how the water flowed in. 7 erosion in time that had been viewed, which it
8 Q. Okay. 8 had not been, um -- then you would have a much
9 A. That's the extent of my knowledge of 9 higher confidence in the use of the model in
10 that subject. 10 other places that were not observed. That
11 Q. Now, as a geotechnical engineer do you 11 obviously did not occur.
12 have any disagreement or dispute with what you 12 Q. Okay. You were not aware of any
13 saw from Mr. Fitzgerald 's animation? 13 videotape imagery of Hurricane Katrina in
14 A. No. 14 progress which showed any levee breaches?
15 Q. Did his animation correlate with 15 A. Not for erosion. Not for erosion
16 physical observations that you rely on for any 16 issues.
17 of your opinions? 17 Q. And it's your testimony that absent
18 A. I didn't analyze it in any detail. 18 some physical evidence depicting actual
19 Q. Okay. 19 erosion, that LS-DYNA model is not appropriate,
20 A. Um -- it was about a fifteen-second 20 or not reliable.
21 clip, as I recall. As I recall, it showed, 21 A. By model, I'm referring to the
22 um -- water coming over, or through, couldn't 22 combination of LS-DYNA and Bea 's time step
23 tell because it was a plan view, the MRGO 23 integration model.
24 levees in some places and not others, and then 24 Q. Okay.
25 after some period of time it shows water going 25 A. In the absence of that type
Page 235 Page 237
1 over the 40 Arpent levee and at that point 1 verification, it is much less credible. My
2 St. Bernard Parish being flooded. And as I 2 largest concern with it would be the erosion
3 recall it shows water coming in near the north 3 function apparatus results being used for
4 breach of the IHNC earlier. And that was 4 something that they were never intended to be
5 really the extent of it. I did no analysis of 5 used for.
6 it. 6 Q. Okay. Now, I was going to ask you
7 Q. Okay. Now, you indicated that one of 7 about that next. Your criticism is that he
8 the issues you had with Dr. Bea 's LS-DYNA 8 used the erosion coefficients from the EFA?
9 modeling was that there were no high water 9 A. Yes.
10 marks used in his work? You mentioned high 10 Q. Erosion --
11 water marks in the context of no physically 11 A. Function apparatus.
12 comparable information. 12 Q. -- function apparatus. And that that
13 A. I was referring to ways that one could 13 would be inappropriate because it's really
14 calibrate a model. 14 designed for flow erosion --
15 Q. Uh-huh. 15 A. Yes.
16 A. If you had a hydraulic model such 16 Q. -- as opposed to sheet erosion. Did I
17 as -- there's been many of them in this case -- 17 have that backwards?
18 to represent how high the water was at various 18 A. You have it incorrectly. The EFA test
19 points in time, that you could take the high 19 was developed for we can call it sheet erosion
20 water in your model and compare it to observed 20 or flow erosion, it's one-directional, steady
21 high water marks. So that's a type of 21 flow parallel to the surface of the soil, and
22 calibration. 22 not wave attack which is intermittent, changing
23 If one were to do the same level of 23 direction, changing velocity. So in the EFA
24 calibration in Bea 's erosion model, it would 24 test, you have constant direction, constant
25 appear that it would have been great to have a 25 velocity. In wave attack, you have changing
60 (Pages 234 to 237)

Page 238 Page 240
1 direction, changing velocities, pulsing, 1 Q. Center line of?
2 intermittent flow, a whole variety of different 2 A. The levee.
3 phenomena that Briaud did not design the test 3 Q. Of the levee itself. Okay.
4 for at all. 4 A. The sandy pockets described in all of
5 Q. So in the final analysis, what effect 5 the reports are notably along the face of the
6 did Dr. Bea 's use of the erosion coefficient 6 levee. And Dr. Mosher 's report refers to the
7 from the EFA have on the outcome of his 7 hydraulic fill and states that the manner of
8 results? 8 the hydraulic fill would have been such that
9 A. I believe it cast very significant 9 the middle of the levee may have had more clay
10 doubt over all of the outcome of his results. 10 and the face of the levee may have had more
11 Q. Be more specific. 11 sand. So the borings and the physical
12 A. I don't think his results are useful. 12 observations at the site kind of all suggest
13 Q. Why not? 13 that the middle of the levee has more clay and
14 A. Or reliable. Because a key part, he's 14 clay would be more erosion resistant. So if
15 trying to predict erosion rate and wave attack, 15 you did have a model for wave attack and you
16 and he's using a test and test results or soil 16 believed that the levee had more clay to the
17 parameters that are intended for quantifying 17 middle, as you model the wave attack, starting
18 soil erosion under we'll call it sheet flow. 18 at the face you would use an erosion parameter
19 Q. So is it your opinion that by using 19 showing the soil to be relatively more erosive,
20 the erosion coefficient from the EFA his test 20 and as you time step and spatially step the
21 results showed more and -- that it showed a 21 erosion closer to the center of the levee, the
22 higher rate of erosion or a higher cumulative 22 soil erosion parameters -- the soil would be
23 erosion, or both? 23 less erodible, and in fact the erosion rate
24 A. I frankly have no idea what they show 24 could slow down. And that may in fact be what
25 because he's using a test that does not relate 25 occurred in some of the few places that we do
Page 239 Page 241
1 to the mechanism whatsoever. 1 see front side wave attack where we see some
2 Q. Okay. 2 erosion and then it stops at some point. We
3 A. I really have no idea. 3 may have in fact have seen it reached a part of
4 Q. So you don't know what Dr. Bea 's 4 the levee that had more clay. Or
5 results would be but for use of the erosion 5 alternatively, the water started coming down.
6 coefficient from the EFA. 6 We don't know.
7 A. That's correct. 7 An analogy to this is the well-known
8 Q. Now, the other issue you took was the 8 problem again on the 17th Street Canal levees
9 fact that he used constant values for erosion 9 where the strength of the soil under the center
10 parameters -- 10 of the levee was stronger than the strength of
11 A. Yes. 11 the soil at the toe. And the New Orleans
12 Q. -- despite the fact that there may be 12 District, it's well established, used the
13 variables -- 13 average, and using the average soil strength
14 A. Yes. 14 the levee stood up, but if you put stronger
15 Q. -- in the materials along the levee. 15 material under the levee and weaker material
16 A. Yes. 16 near the toe the levee would fall down in the
17 Q. Clay versus sand versus silt or 17 analysis. Similar things could be expected in
18 whatever? 18 erosion progressing through the levee.
19 A. Yes. 19 Q. Let me ask you this: With regard to
20 Q. All right. What is the ultimate 20 Dr. Bea 's constant value for erosion
21 result of using a constant value for those 21 parameters, I take it your position is he
22 erosion parameters? 22 should have used a different coefficient for
23 A. Okay. Most of the borings along the 23 clay than for sand?
24 levee show fat clays, CH, if you take borings 24 A. If in fact there were a test that
25 from the center line. 25 would permit him to do that. Again, I discount
61 (Pages 238 to 241)

Page 242 Page 244
1 the EFA test, add frankly if the EFA test could 1 understanding that as certain portions get
2 be used, these Dutch folks Verheij and so forth 2 removed by erosion the geometry you're
3 would not be needing to build wave tanks and do 3 referring to is the slope of the levee?
4 erosion testing due to front side wave induced 4 A. Yes.
5 erosion, they could simply use the results of 5 Q. And the interaction between the water
6 the EFA test as Bea has attempted to do. 6 and that new shape?
7 Q. What erosion value do you understand 7 A. Yes.
8 had Dr. Bea used in his modeling? 8 Q. That newly formed shape, correct?
9 A. It's my understanding that he used a 9 A. Yes.
10 range of erosion values, but it is also my 10 Q. Okay.
11 understanding that whichever one he was using 11 A. To my knowledge he did not do that.
12 he used it throughout the levee. 12 He used LS-DYNA to get run-up velocities on the
13 Q. So he used a constant value for each 13 original -- on the uneroded levee.
14 run or different model? 14 Q. All right. And would the fact that he
15 A. That's my assumption. 15 used constant velocity cause the result of his
16 Q. Okay. And do you know which one more 16 model to erode the levee sooner or faster or
17 appropriately applies to clay versus sand? 17 slower?
18 A. Higher values would apply to sand. 18 A. I did not know.
19 Q. Okay. And if he used a constant for 19 Q. Okay. You have not analyzed that.
20 sand -- even I can see that one through -- when 20 A. No.
21 he got to clay the erosion is moving too fast 21 Q. You cannot tell us --
22 and his model doesn't match when would really 22 A. No.
23 happen in the environment. 23 Q. -- what the results are -- now, back
24 A. If there were any model that were 24 to the Industrial Canal, Page 47 of your report
25 appropriate to produce erosion parameters -- 25 regarding the IHNC floodwall performance. And
Page 243 Page 245
1 Q. Yeah. 1 we've beat that horse to death that the north
2 A. -- and if you understood the levee to 2 breach occurred first not as a result of
3 be -- or perhaps be clayier, had more clay 3 overtopping, south branch occurred sometime
4 toward the middle, then as you model the 4 later.
5 progression of erosion it would be prudent to 5 Do you rely upon the ILIT report where
6 call up the appropriate value at various points 6 it found that the failure occurred between 7:30
7 in the levee. 7 and 7:45?
8 Q. I understand. But I'm assuming a 8 A. I'm simply reporting what the ILIT
9 constant value. Whether it's too low or too 9 report says.
10 high, I want to know the result. So if you 10 Q. All right. So you don't have any
11 used the value for sand throughout -- 11 independent basis for confirming or denying
12 A. The levee would fill sooner. 12 that that's --
13 Q. And if you used the value for clay 13 A. No, the IPET report indicates some
14 throughout -- 14 times, the ILIT findings report some times, I
15 A. The levee would erode more slowly. 15 understand there's some eye wetness reports
16 Q. Right. Can you direct us to any one 16 that report some times, and I believe you
17 of his scenarios, if you will, where he assumed 17 earlier suggested even some earlier times.
18 different -- albeit constant but different 18 Q. Yeah. A different time. Okay.
19 erosion parameters where you feel his work 19 What about the water levels in the
20 shows that the levees eroded too swiftly? 20 Industrial Canal? This here says 14 to 14-1/2
21 A. No. 21 feet MSL. Mean sea level, I trust. And then
22 Q. Now, you also indicated that in using 22 at the top it says IPET 14.2 feet at nine
23 LS-DYNA, when you deal with wave forces as the 23 o'clock. Do you know what was the water level
24 levee began to erode or fail you would need to 24 in the Industrial Canal when the north breach
25 change the geometry. And am I correct in 25 occurred?
62 (Pages 242 to 245)

Page 246 Page 248
1 A. I do not know it precisely. I'm 1 volume the water pressures or what we call pore
2 paraphrasing from these reports. I will point 2 pressures increase. So for an example, if we
3 out that the ILIT report apparently used MSL as 3 had a water-filled air mattress and you sit on
4 mean sea level. The IPET findings, the IPET 4 it, because of your weight the water pressure
5 report is based on NAVD88, and there's some 5 in the mattress will go up.
6 difference I understand on the order of eight 6 When you are modeling soils that have
7 tenths of a foot. But I simply relied on -- 7 low permeabilities, in stability analysis for
8 I'm just simply restating these two reports 8 short-term loadings you use undrained strengths
9 here. 9 to reflect that because of the low permeability
10 (Brief interruption.) 10 the soil cannot change water content and,
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 11 therefore, the pore water pressure changes.
12 Q. Okay. If I could refer you to Page 49 12 Dr. Bea, in his analysis, uses
13 and 50 -- 13 undrained strength, which would be
14 A. Yes. 14 representative of a low permeability material
15 Q. -- I wanted to ask you about -- the 15 like a clay in stability calculations for these
16 last paragraph there above closing, it says, 16 marsh materials, which he at the same time uses
17 additional uncertainty exists regarding the 17 permeability values in the seepage analysis of
18 validity of the assumptions in the declaration 18 ten to the minus two centimeters per second
19 regarding the character of excavation backfill 19 which, for which it would be appropriate to use
20 materials and the use of undrained strengths to 20 drained conditions similar to a sand. So
21 model the marsh materials for the cases where 21 essentially, he is treat ing the marsh as a
22 it has been assigned a high permeability, 22 high-permeability material on the seepage
23 period. 23 analysis and treating the marsh as a
24 Now, this is Bob Bea 's declaration 24 low-permeability material in the stability
25 you're referring to. 25 analysis at the same time. It's either more
Page 247 Page 249
1 A. Why he. 1 like clay or more like sand. And that is, to
2 Q. And what exactly are you describing as 2 myself and to Dr. Mosher, a glaring error in
3 an uncertainty? 3 his analysis and suggests that he doesn't have
4 A. The most important one there is using 4 much understanding of one of the important
5 the undrained strength. I need to teach you a 5 principles of geotechnical engineering.
6 little bit of soil mechanics. Clays have what 6 Q. Now, on that same page, in that same
7 are called drain strengths and undrained 7 paragraph, you state, quote, as has been stated
8 strengths. So when you put a stress change on 8 in the earlier section on erosion resistance of
9 a clay, it tries to change volume. So if you 9 MRGO levee soils, and in the section I guess
10 load a clay, it tries to change volume, or if 10 you mean on numerical modeling, it is not
11 you load any soil it tries to change volume. 11 apparent that the analysis in the declaration
12 If you have a permeable soil such as a sand, as 12 prove anything, but merely illustrate that
13 it tries to change volume it has to push water 13 certain things could have occurred if all the
14 out or suck water in, and it could do that very 14 various assumptions made are in fact correct.
15 readily because the soil is permeable. So 15 If I translate that to my parlance, am
16 those are what we call drained conditions. 16 I saying that all that might be, um -- a
17 Soil -- the water can move in and out of the 17 distinction without a difference? Or he may be
18 soil at a rate consistent with the loading. 18 wrong about it but did it ultimately affect the
19 Q. Uh-huh. 19 reliability of his results?
20 A. If you have low permeability soils 20 A. Yes.
21 such as clays, the soil tries to change volume 21 Q. Tell me how.
22 but the water cannot move out of the way -- the 22 A. He's made a whole variety of analyses
23 water in the pores cannot move out of the way 23 with a whole variety of assumptions, and a
24 or be pulled in as fast as the load you're 24 number of those assumptions can be called into
25 putting on, and so because it cannot change 25 question, such as the permeability of the marsh
63 (Pages 246 to 249)

Page 250 Page 252
1 material where there's substantial difference 1 Industrial Canal. Correct? The IHNC.
2 of opinion. Some of his assumptions for 2 A. That conclusion, although near the end
3 certain sets of analysis are absolutely 3 of the report, is in a section on the north
4 inconsistent, such as using undrainded 4 breach, yes.
5 strengths for high-permeability material. And 5 Q. Are there any other specific locations
6 in some cases his assumptions such as the use 6 along the Industrial Canal, the GIWW, or, you
7 of the EFA test are just not applicable to the 7 know, the MRGO itself, where you can point to
8 fact that he's doing -- 8 any assumption or adoption of facts that are
9 Q. But on the permeability of the 9 inappropriate in any of Dr. Bea 's scenarios or
10 materials, for example, you indicated that he 10 models?
11 used certain assumptions for certain analysis, 11 A. Yeah. We've discussed at great length
12 and then he sort of ran every one. 12 the EFA test.
13 A. Yes. 13 Q. And that applies --
14 Q. Is this just a situation where one 14 A. He used that for his analysis of Reach
15 example applied an assumption that really 15 2 MRGO.
16 doesn't fit, he is adding apples and oranges in 16 Q. Any others?
17 one scenario but it doesn't necessarily apply 17 A. Not at the moment.
18 to all of them? 18 Q. Okay.
19 A. No, as I recall he relies on the 19 A. He certainly produced a lot of stuff.
20 permeability value being high in order to in 20 I have an entire book case at my home dedicated
21 the case of that seepage analysis suggest that 21 to just the parts that I have printed.
22 seepage was the cause of the north breach of 22 Q. I'll bet you do. Oh, let help ask
23 the IHNC. 23 you, there was a report produced about the --
24 Q. Okay. 24 about inspections of the levees in December of
25 A. And if we simply dealt with the IHNC 25 2004. Were you involved in those inspections?
Page 251 Page 253
1 seepage analysis, if those numbers are right, 1 A. No.
2 without doing another detailed evaluation, if 2 Q. Okay. I'm not sure where that came
3 the permeability are in fact that high, then 3 from. It's a document you produced or was
4 the seepage analysis could be right but then 4 produced to me as something you relied upon in
5 the slope stability analysis is wrong because 5 forming your opinions in this case, and it's
6 it's using undrained strengths. 6 entitled 2005 Inspection of Completed Flood
7 Q. Right. So if we sort of cherry pick 7 Control Works in the New Orleans District.
8 and took the seepage analysis versus the slope 8 I'll just mark a copy as Wolff Number 8 and
9 slide analysis, it may be applicable for the 9 hand it to you and ask you if you've seen that
10 seepage analysis, it may be entirely 10 before.
11 appropriate but not for the other. 11 (Exhibit 8 was marked for
12 A. Could be. Yes. 12 identification and is attached hereto.)
13 Q. All right. 13 A. I may have, but I don't recall having
14 A. In layman's terms, all of that says I 14 used it in, um -- in my report.
15 don't believe he's proven anything. 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
16 Q. At all. Anywhere about anything? Or 16 Q. Okay. On Page 4 of this inspection
17 just in that situation? 17 report --
18 A. Regarding the primary point of this 18 A. Okay.
19 case -- 19 Q. -- it says the types of testing
20 Q. Okay. 20 available. And I trust that's available to do
21 A. -- the wave front erosion and, um -- 21 inspections of levees.
22 seepage being a contributor to failures. 22 A. I don't recall looking at that
23 Q. All right. Let me ask you this: That 23 particular report. Can I look at that page of
24 location we were just talking about is with 24 the report for a minute?
25 specific reference to the north breach in the 25 Q. Sure.
64 (Pages 250 to 253)

Page 254 Page 256
1 A. I have participate, years ago, in 1 A. Okay.
2 levee inspections and dam inspections when I 2 Q. The levee district involved in this
3 worked for the Corps. 3 case, the levees that are the subject of
4 Q. And in the lower left corner of that 4 Dr. Bea 's work, your work and the flooding of
5 Page 4 lists tools available, if you will, for 5 St. Bernard --
6 assessing -- 6 A. Uh-huh.
7 A. Okay. 7 Q. -- is that the Orleans Levee District
8 Q. -- levees. 8 we're referring to?
9 A. So this is post-Katrina. I don't 9 A. I'm not certain. It was my impression
10 recall seeing this document. I'm looking at -- 10 that the Orleans Levee District was to the east
11 there's a list of testing, and I'm reading the 11 side of the IHNC and that St. Bernard Parish
12 paragraph right above it for context. This 12 was a separate entity, but I'm not -- I'm not
13 unwritten district policy will be discussed at 13 an expert on --
14 an upcoming manager 's workshop and 14 MR. STONE:
15 headquarters guidance will be solicited. For 15 I think you said that backward.
16 your information below are some of the common 16 A. The west. Orleans Levee District for
17 testing procedures and estimated costs 17 certain is on the west. My understanding, but
18 associated with them. Costs include testing 18 I'm not an expert on this, is that St. Bernard
19 and analysis. They list soil borings, 19 Parish is a separate jurisdiction.
20 piezometer, ground penetrating radar and so 20 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS:
21 forth. 21 Q. All right. Well, stop me if I hit the
22 Q. Right. 22 right one, but the levees that were inspected
23 A. So it appears they're considering more 23 here --
24 detailed evaluations during inspections than 24 A. Okay.
25 levee inspections had been prior. 25 Q. -- and this is '05, so it's really not
Page 255 Page 257
1 Q. And levee inspections, I mean, this 1 the one I'm looking for anyway but I just want
2 type of testing, the availability of this type 2 to get the nomenclature, was the West Jefferson
3 of testing, soil borings, cone penetrometers -- 3 Levee District? That's not involved with us.
4 A. Those are things that could be done. 4 A. No.
5 Q. They listed eight different ones, and 5 Q. East Jefferson Levee District?
6 I'll list them all: Parallel seismic testing, 6 A. No.
7 piezometers, slope inclinometers, GeoProbe, and 7 Q. Red River, Atchafalaya and Bayou
8 downhole magnetometers. Those things are not 8 Boeuf?
9 new technology in 2005. 9 A. No.
10 A. Some of those are new subsequent to my 10 Q. Fifth Louisiana Levee District?
11 leaving the Corps and becoming a professor. 11 A. No. Well, for the purpose of
12 Q. Right. But you left the Corps in 12 answering the question I could assume that
13 1986? 13 Orleans Levee District is the -- if that's the
14 A. '86. 14 one you want to ask about.
15 Q. But these things were available, all 15 Q. Yeah. I'm thinking so. It says the
16 of these, in the nineties. 16 shore of Lake Pontchartrain and canals
17 A. A few of those I'm not very familiar 17 connected thereto, the levee district also is
18 with. 18 responsible for operating and maintaining the
19 Q. Okay. 19 Bayou Bienvenue control structure.
20 A. Many of them I am. 20 A. Okay. Then that would be correct.
21 Q. All right. Now I really want to talk 21 Q. So that's the one that's involved with
22 about the Atchafalaya Basin Levee District 22 us.
23 because that's where I live and it's near and 23 A. Yes.
24 dear to my heart, but we'll avoid that for 24 Q. At this time, 2005, when this report
25 today. 25 was done, and I don't know the precise date, it
65 (Pages 254 to 257)

Page 258 Page 260
1 just says 2005 so I'll go to the last page, 1 And what is the inspection result
2 maybe they'll give a specific date. And it 2 report by the Corps of engineers based upon its
3 does not. 3 inspection of the Orleans Levee District levees
4 A. The previous wording I had suggested 4 in December, 2004?
5 it was after Hurricane Katrina. So it would be 5 A. It gives them an acceptable rating.
6 late 2005. 6 Q. It also reported that as of April 28,
7 Q. All right. It just says, Orleans 7 2004 the Bayou Bienvenue control structure was
8 Levee District. An acceptable rating is 8 determined to be well maintained and in
9 assigned based on conditions prior to the 9 excellent condition; correct?
10 hurricanes. Right? 10 A. Yes.
11 A. I'll have to read it. 11 Q. Okay. I got one wrap up for you.
12 Q. (Tendering.) 12 Have you seen -- I think it's prepared
13 A. It states that both flood protection 13 by Dr. Fitzgerald, or Mr. Fitzgerald, and it's
14 systems visually were in exceptional condition 14 a graphic representation of the elevations of
15 prior to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita; however, 15 all the breaches along Reach 2 of the MRGO?
16 the levees and floodwalls within this levee 16 A. I have seen several charts in the
17 district was severely impacted by the 2005 17 various documents that show lidar profiles of
18 hurricanes, most of the hurricane protection 18 the remnant embankments. I couldn't point to a
19 system was damaged and is being repaired with 19 particular one.
20 PL84-99 funds. An acceptable rating is 20 Q. Okay. Did you in anyway attempt to
21 assigned based on conditions prior to the 21 correlate the I think it was eleven breaches
22 hurricane. 22 along Reach 2 of the MRGO that Mr. Fitzgerald
23 My understanding of this is the Corps 23 identified in his charts, did you attempt to
24 did visual inspections of those levees, and at 24 correlate those breach sites with any physical
25 some time I assume prior to the hurricane, and 25 evidence of outside wave attack or front side
Page 259 Page 261
1 considered them to be in acceptable condition. 1 wave attack?
2 Q. Now, let me show you another one I'll 2 A. No.
3 mark -- thank you. We'll just attach that as 3 Q. To your knowledge, did anyone else do
4 Number 8. And I'll show you another similar 4 that?
5 report we'll mark for identification as Wolff 5 A. I know that Mosher and Ebersole 's
6 Number 9. And it's dated December 20, 2004. 6 expert reports both talk in some detail and
7 Annual Inspection of Completed Works, by Peter 7 provide a variety of photos regarding, um --
8 J. Rowan, Colonel, EN Commanding. 8 both backside and front side wave attack, and
9 I guess that means engineer, EN? 9 they connect it to locations and they connect
10 (Exhibit 9 was marked for 10 it to borings and the soil types at those
11 identification and is attached hereto.) 11 locations is. They spent much more time than I
12 A. Yes. 12 did.
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 13 Q. All right. You indicated that there
14 Q. Take a moment and look at that. Were 14 were a couple of near misses on the outside --
15 you provided this document in connection with 15 or near misses of front side wave attack.
16 your work in this case? 16 A. No.
17 A. I don't recall. I don't recall. 17 Q. There were some.
18 Q. And prior to me putting it in front of 18 A. No. I state that they point out some
19 you, have you seen this document? 19 cases of front side wave attack near the crown,
20 A. I may have, I don't recall. I have a 20 but I did not characterize them as near misses.
21 feeling I have it, but there's not much in it 21 By near miss I would mean that's something that
22 that -- 22 you would look at it and say, whoa, this came
23 Q. And then I have a green tab there -- 23 close.
24 A. Yes. 24 Q. Right.
25 Q. -- for the Orleans Levee District. 25 A. The ones that they identified did not
66 (Pages 258 to 261)

Page 262 Page 264
1 come close to breaching the levee. 1 WITNESS' CERTIFICATE
2 Q. Okay. But in terms of where those are 2
3 located, you would defer to Dr. Mosher? 3 I, THOMAS F. WOLFF, Ph.D., P.E., do
4 A. Yes. 4 hereby certify that the foregoing testimony was
5 Q. Okay. 5 given by me, and that the transcription of said
6 MR. STONE: 6 testimony, with corrections and/or changes, if
7 I can help you with that. But I 7 any, is true and correct as given by me on the
8 don't want to unless you want me to. 8 aforementioned date.
9 MR. STEVENS: 9
10 Help me. 10 ______________ _________________________
11 MR. STONE: 11 DATE SIGNED THOMAS F. WOLFF, Ph.D., P.E.
12 There's one picture in 12
13 Mr. Ebersole 's report. So take a 13 _______ Signed with corrections as noted.
14 look at that. It's south of Bayou 14
15 Dupre, I believe. 15 _______ Signed with no corrections noted.
16 EXAMINATION BY MR. STEVENS: 16
17 Q. Other than that one, do you know of 17
18 any others? 18
19 A. No. 19
20 Q. Okay. Thank you, doctor. Those are 20
21 all questions I have. 21
22 I would reserve a right, if I might, 22
23 when we get the additional information 23
24 requested if it generates the need for a little 24
25 more questioning I may beg you for some more 25 DATE TAKEN: February 6th, 2009
Page 263 Page 265
1 time. But other than that, thank you very 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 much. 2 I, JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR,
3 A. You're welcome. 3 Certified Court Reporter in and for the State
4 Q. You've been very patient and I 4 of Louisiana, do hereby certify that the
5 appreciate it. 5 aforementioned witness, after having been first
6 MR. STONE: 6 duly sworn by me to testify to the truth, did
7 I want to attach his report by 7 testify as hereinabove set forth;
8 reference to the deposition. 8 That said deposition was taken by me
9 9 in computer shorthand and thereafter
10 10 transcribed under my supervision, and is a true
11 11 and correct transcription to the best of my
12 12 ability and understanding.
13 13 I further certify that I am not of
14 14 counsel, nor related to counsel or the parties
15 15 hereto, and am in no way interested in the
16 16 result of said cause.
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23 ____________________________________
24 24 JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR
25 25 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER #75005
67 (Pages 262 to 265)

Page 266
A activity 62:9 adoption 252:8 78:12 81:10 175:19 197:15

abandoned 156:8 actual 26:15 88:5 advance 9:1 41:9 172:25 184:23 234:18
ABET 227:15 101:18 161:19 advanced 94:7,9 226:17 analyzed 134:20
ability 94:9,21 97:6 232:3 236:18 197:10 amount 33:17 143:10 202:25
197:15 265:12 add 79:22 107:23 Advisory 218:18 58:22 60:23,25 203:1,2 205:19
able 44:16 71:25 108:13 173:11 affect 249:18 101:16 178:25 226:10 244:19
94:17 107:23 178:9,22 180:21 affirmatively 209:11 221:17 analyzing 87:7
139:24 146:20 195:14,19 202:12 221:18 amounts 182:10 208:14
153:19 166:7 206:8 242:1 aforementioned analogy 130:18 ANDREW 3:13
194:18 209:9 added 76:2 83:11 5:4 164:15 264:8 241:7 ANDRY 2:8
absence 132:19 83:12 165:17 265:5 analyses 49:1 69:2 and/or 24:22 63:17
150:2 151:23 adding 250:16 afternoon 119:5 79:23 87:5 103:24 93:24 120:1
226:3 236:25 addition 56:7 194:1 ago 7:13 19:19 119:22 138:4 157:11,17 158:7
absent 236:17 206:3 105:8 109:3 153:9 139:20 156:14,17 175:25 264:6
absolutely 45:16 additional 12:13,21 201:22 254:1 156:22 249:22 animal 115:24
109:13 219:19 81:21 106:20 agree 49:24 59:21 analysis 34:15,23 animation 234:1,4
231:6 250:3 107:23 108:8 115:1 135:1 187:6 36:8 38:19 68:17 234:13,15
academia 59:9 169:17 173:11 agreed 5:2 79:15 71:2 75:1 86:17 animations 24:7
Acadian 20:5 194:16 195:17 108:21 138:10 87:14 89:21 90:8 233:24
accept 30:2 246:17 262:23 agrees 138:22 90:9,10 92:18,19 annual 64:15 259:7
acceptable 258:8 additions 107:19 ahead 36:12 47:1 97:4 109:25 110:2 answer 5:13 6:17
258:20 259:1 108:3 53:11 56:2 91:6 110:2,7 116:16,18 22:2 67:1 133:16
260:5 address 21:12 189:8 119:18 120:14,15 134:25 176:2
accepted 95:6 99:6 181:12 207:8 aid 35:8,13 121:6,10,12,14,16 184:25 185:5
access 122:20 addressed 127:18 aimed 187:21 124:18 126:23 226:8
accident 231:12 153:6 166:2 air 248:3 127:23 133:9,19 answered 20:24
accommodate 181:21 197:2 al 45:11 71:23 138:23 144:2 188:2
152:1 addresses 206:14 113:15 116:7 151:16 157:25 answering 6:18
accompanied adequate 54:12 albeit 243:18 158:25 160:13 257:12
229:20 151:17 161:18,20 aligned 115:11 161:2 168:2 177:3 anticipate 61:22
account 150:2 165:16 180:24 alive 115:25 187:22 190:17 63:16 167:5
175:3 182:4,11 allowed 9:22 194:6,11 198:5 anticipated 147:23
Accreditation adjacent 72:18 allows 51:16 200:16,17 201:10 148:1,3
227:15 138:21 144:16 alongside 117:3 202:1 204:12,14 anybody 205:4
accumulation 34:4 149:1,13,15 174:9 alteration 105:10 205:20 212:21 anytime 163:13
127:1 131:16,24 205:10 229:22 alternatively 241:5 213:25 215:4 anyway 257:1
212:25 213:2 adjust 232:2,2 Alton 103:6,8 225:9 228:17 260:20
accurate 30:2 236:5 105:15 229:7 235:5 238:5 apart 16:25 97:12
49:23 73:17 adjustment 173:13 amended 7:8,15 241:17 248:7,12 152:6 214:8
accustomed 63:5 adjustments 172:5 192:25 193:10,20 248:17,23,25 APLC 2:2
acknowledgment 172:12 212:15 amending 181:25 249:3,11 250:3,11 apologize 41:9
57:10 administering 5:24 182:6 250:21 251:1,4,5 apparatus 31:13
acquire 166:7 Administration America 3:1 251:8,9,10 252:14 34:2 35:21 37:7
Acrobat 140:13 38:6 173:16 254:19 38:4,9 39:4
action 1:4 152:14 administrator American 17:9 analytical 202:18 131:23 237:3,11
182:17 121:20 208:24 28:19 38:11 58:8 analyze 48:10 57:3 237:12
Adobe 140:13 59:12 75:6,9 85:11 107:4 apparent 83:7

Page 267
249:11 approaches 133:12 arriving 121:7 associated 94:11 130:25 131:1,4,25

apparently 173:21 appropriate 126:13 134:16 200:19 201:2 132:3 164:1,4
176:22 246:3 126:15 129:13 art 114:8,8 128:11 254:18 181:6 208:15
appear 35:24 218:9 236:19 242:25 article 37:9,13 49:6 assume 89:13 90:7 211:2,14,16,19
235:25 243:6 248:19 60:2 69:9 72:10 139:25 150:21,23 214:17 220:6
appeared 18:15 251:11 72:23,24 73:9,14 151:21 156:21 222:2 225:2,23
82:15 appropriately 73:15 113:6,18 158:3 161:22 226:6,12 237:22
appearing 7:23 242:17 216:13 226:10 193:10 200:15 237:25 238:15
appears 11:5 166:8 appropriation articles 37:25 204:11 222:23 240:15,17 241:1
220:4,19 254:23 108:2 129:6 225:11 257:12 258:25 260:25 261:1,8,15
appendices 35:3,8 April 31:3 98:16 226:16 assumed 92:4 93:6 261:19
36:23 111:24 112:1 ASCE 29:17,24 146:22 147:9 attacking 98:10
appendix 36:14 136:8 138:9,11 53:5 75:25 76:22 151:4 200:6 205:5 attempt 41:14
87:13,18 88:4,11 260:6 80:1 226:17 243:17 69:19 73:2 118:13
88:19 93:15 area 21:22 36:16 asked 10:4,8 12:12 assuming 35:14 215:14,18 216:7
116:15 191:10,12 43:7,13 46:14 12:17 54:8 56:3 92:5 109:25 216:12 260:20,23
191:21,25 192:18 62:4 64:11,13 71:14,17 127:15 138:16 222:13 attempted 31:23
192:19,21 196:25 65:24 79:25 89:10 127:19 135:6 243:8 56:23 70:6 126:9
198:13 203:13 95:23,24 119:9 170:4 178:21 assumption 107:1 127:4 144:7
205:15 209:22 122:2,6 123:10 195:24 197:9 138:5 142:21 208:13 242:6
apples 102:10,11 136:15 137:21 220:12 143:15 161:6 attempting 131:25
250:16 138:6 142:20 asking 6:15 23:14 242:15 250:15 attempts 31:21
applicable 131:12 149:12 154:10 42:10,16 44:2 252:8 60:20
170:22,25 212:20 155:15,23 156:11 53:13 66:22 assumptions attended 29:12
250:7 251:9 163:25 167:21 102:16 132:8 145:16 222:16 138:11
application 70:13 169:2,15 171:12 asks 13:11 24:6,18 246:18 249:14,23 attorney 20:2,9
72:18 208:8 174:8,11 185:25 28:9 117:17 249:24 250:2,6,11 attorneys 8:13 14:2
228:13 areas 7:5 64:6 aspect 97:8 Atchafalaya 53:4 19:7
applications 83:16 106:8,19 aspects 180:20 60:4 64:1,5,10 attributable 82:13
119:17,21 132:14 107:15 118:6,9 193:7,12,23 66:8 255:22 257:7 attribute 189:17
227:20 119:7 171:10 195:10 201:17 attach 11:12 50:16 August 14:9 78:10
applied 120:16 177:25 183:25 assembled 26:18 209:22 210:4 111:16,23 141:7
201:4 250:15 184:16 185:23 assess 93:18 96:20 219:3,20 220:11 186:13 200:25
applies 102:3 213:12 229:23 97:7 220:23 224:7 author 76:3 77:7
242:17 252:13 argument 89:19 assessing 132:9 259:3 263:7 authored 88:1
apply 85:19 93:16 Army 10:24 26:9 254:6 attached 7:12,15 authorization
102:1 200:25 34:16 42:25 45:4 assessment 30:3 11:17 28:24 43:22 107:19 108:1,25
201:17 242:18 85:22 98:15 133:25 52:9 81:18 88:10 authorize 198:3
250:17 100:24 101:2 assigned 199:24 93:14 142:4,10 authorized 165:6,7
applying 85:2 102:25 104:12 246:22 258:9,21 162:18 187:16 201:6
120:17 125:1 138:2 assigning 116:5 216:24 217:6 authorizing 169:12
appreciate 63:4 162:10 175:2 assist 8:8 59:6 218:5 220:18 169:13
192:9 227:4 263:5 195:3 196:4,7 76:10 253:12 259:11 authors 34:23
approach 124:19 Arpent 235:1 assistant 67:18 attaching 7:6 38:17 57:19,20,23
126:24 132:10 arrive 129:19 162:9 attack 35:25 48:10 74:1 76:24 77:11
168:3 134:13 188:16,17 assisted 100:10 56:13,21 57:12 77:21 78:5 104:7
approached 176:18 arrived 75:16 associate 227:11 69:19 97:15 215:6

Page 268
auto 132:5 212:6 61:16 66:1,4 142:21 143:14 236:22 238:6 Belitz 69:14
automobile 84:7 74:12 84:11 88:14 145:14 146:6,10 239:4 241:20 belt 84:18 185:15
231:12 89:7 97:10 104:22 146:12,14 148:2 242:6,8 246:24 belts 84:20
automobiles 70:3 119:3 123:25 151:4 158:20 248:12 252:9 benchmarks 65:23
automotive 227:22 130:22 134:5 161:5 177:3 256:4 65:25 171:25
231:17,19 141:12 145:2 206:20 208:1,1 bear 28:2 115:12 172:5,22 173:4,5
availability 255:2 165:25 171:5 225:8,14 229:16 115:14,23 173:11,17 175:15
available 8:7 28:25 199:5 209:4 246:5 258:9,21 bearing 32:18 175:20,23
29:8 49:1 65:6 213:17 224:14,25 260:2 97:19 227:4 benefit 132:2
69:4 81:9,10 231:10 244:23 basic 64:8 149:6,6 beat 245:1 197:23
94:16 96:20 backfill 246:19 201:16 221:19 Bea's 51:24 benefits 89:9,11
105:12 107:3 background 26:24 basically 104:2 becoming 255:11 94:10
112:14 128:5 83:13 84:23 126:17 beg 262:25 Benjamin 3:7
129:9 134:22 backside 261:8 basin 64:5,6,18,21 began 176:24 Berkley 48:25
161:5 195:21 backup 84:12,14 93:20,24 94:20 243:24 49:13 60:14 75:4
202:3 208:22 backward 256:15 171:1,4,9,10 begins 95:19 75:5,24 76:20,21
209:15 253:20,20 backwards 39:15 255:22 163:23 165:3 77:1 78:13 183:12
254:5 255:15 153:22 237:17 basis 35:24 99:18 behavior 232:8 berm 31:20 36:9
average 222:14 bad 169:9 207:21 104:4 127:2 belief 111:8 170:21 berms 72:13
241:13,13 Baeza 3:5 15:2 181:21 182:20 193:9 201:10 Bernard 29:25
avoid 6:21 255:24 43:15 155:1,6 210:17 245:11 beliefs 76:14 64:18,21 78:25
aware 25:14 65:14 217:16 baton 2:18 160:21 believable 73:18 93:20,24 94:20
72:25 98:22 bag 40:17,17 battery 84:16,17 believe 18:1 19:18 118:17 170:25
131:20 146:24 bank 31:20 36:9 Baumy 29:11 30:12 21:20 22:9 26:4 171:3,9 186:21
157:4,7 168:9 89:18 109:21,25 Bay 18:19 26:13 29:21 30:17 233:16 235:2
173:22 178:6 110:4,11,13 Bayou 34:24,24 42:10 47:2 48:17 256:5,11,18
185:16 236:12 137:22,25 163:25 46:21,22 211:17 50:25 52:21 54:2 best 68:23 69:4
A-L-T-O-N 103:8 164:10,18,18,19 257:7,19 260:7 54:13 60:8 61:15 112:13 156:12
a.m 186:24 187:1 164:24 165:11 262:14 62:7 63:7,14 162:13 214:3,6
167:22 168:1 Bea 13:7 27:14 64:17 65:13 66:2 265:11
B banks 135:12 31:2,6 32:21 33:8 71:19 77:6,24 bet 252:22
B 4:6 33:10 87:13 137:17 163:24 33:15,23 34:6,14 80:6,7,9,22 81:9 better 6:18 15:10
87:18 88:4,11,19 182:22 36:6 42:23 44:22 92:25 95:13 17:16 54:1 59:4
93:16 102:25 Baronne 2:10 48:12,15,20,21 102:21 109:18 74:5 92:13 93:1
116:15 191:10,12 Barras 15:6 49:2 56:22 69:17 112:7 113:3,8,12 112:24 133:18
191:21 192:1,19 barrier 155:21 71:8,9,10,19,21 114:14 128:19 163:8 202:2
192:21 196:25 156:8 73:11,21 75:4,12 129:25 131:25 beyond 12:13
198:13 203:13,15 Barron 67:25 75:14 76:25 114:1 137:6 143:8 bias 212:17
203:19 205:15 base 91:10 115:19 116:3 154:13 168:17 Bienvenue 34:25
209:22 based 39:13 74:25 126:22 129:21 171:23 186:21,24 46:21 257:19
back 6:13 9:22 76:14 79:24 82:12 131:7,14 132:10 190:7 209:15,18 260:7
15:17 16:10 17:20 85:3,16 87:14 132:20 208:25 215:3 216:25 big 34:9 107:1
23:15 26:16 28:11 94:6 103:21 107:7 210:17,23 214:10 223:18 238:9 163:6 209:23
29:21 34:8 38:23 108:6 111:13 214:13 216:14 245:16 251:15 bigger 107:2
39:12 40:10 50:24 127:13,16 130:4 219:24 224:12,25 262:15 biggest 54:14
51:10,14 56:5 130:14 134:21 227:25 231:9 believed 111:1 bill 14:12 68:1
58:3,12 60:24 135:3,22 139:7 235:8,24 236:5,5 191:4 240:16 billed 11:9

Page 269
biomedical 227:18 230:17,20 235:4 brought 45:24 190:18 206:17,20 Carlo 90:11
birds 29:15 245:2,24 250:22 55:13 248:15 case 8:23 11:20
bit 7:4 8:17 10:7 251:25 252:4 BS 124:1 calibrate 132:7 15:21 16:2,14
16:11 30:9 80:23 260:24 bucks 14:12 232:19 235:14 17:2,21,21 18:5
97:11,19 98:2,12 breached 22:13,15 build 60:20 61:1,2 calibration 235:22 18:24 19:14,17
110:18 117:8,9 211:5,5 61:3,21 63:17 235:24 20:8,11,14,17
227:5 231:20 breaches 1:4 29:24 232:17 242:3 California 75:3,5 21:13 22:5,12,17
247:6 82:19 84:13 building 101:15 78:13 108:16 22:20,22 23:1,4,6
blankets 103:19 211:15 236:14 122:18 123:23 call 40:6,23 78:11 24:9,11 25:15,18
180:16 260:15,21 built 89:15 171:18 91:3 105:24 114:8 25:24 29:19 30:15
blast 212:7 231:12 breaching 34:24 191:13 216:3 129:24 130:3 31:5 34:20 35:9
232:13,15,16 36:8 69:20 211:2 bulldozer 62:22 146:4 189:19 38:1 48:17 51:7
blowout 189:24 211:9,11,14,20 bullet 167:19 193:13 203:8 51:15 56:22 57:24
Board 227:15 225:3 226:11 178:23 211:8,13 213:15 58:18 59:3,25
Bob 60:7 67:17,18 262:1 bunch 17:25 214:16 233:2 72:23 73:11 74:11
67:22 246:24 breadth 31:10 Bureau 148:9 237:19 238:18 88:25 90:21 91:1
bodies 72:19 break 84:9 117:7 burn 184:7 243:6 247:16 91:5 95:18 98:23
body 141:3 132:1 134:3,8 burns 184:6,10 248:1 100:11 112:12
Boeuf 257:8 184:16 burrow 207:11 called 7:17,19 115:8 119:12
book 28:25 29:7 Bretschneider burrows 207:9,12 15:23 22:2 53:20 121:3 126:17
52:24,25 68:20 143:11 207:21 71:8 83:15 90:11 129:21 133:6
218:23 252:20 Briaud 36:25 37:1 bus 21:20 90:18 103:19 153:14 157:18,20
books 194:6 195:20 37:1,4,25 38:5 by-product 94:14 127:9 199:9 158:5 161:2 177:2
bordering 32:22 42:11 45:11,15 B-A-Y-E-R 115:23 206:15 218:14 178:25 180:6
Borgne 142:20 46:6,10 47:7,19 B-E-A-R 115:24 234:5 247:7 188:16 205:5
boring 40:13,16,19 49:6,17 55:16 B-106 203:17 249:24 208:13 211:4
40:24 41:24 44:3 56:3,25 57:22 B-107 205:17 calls 14:20 57:2 228:17 233:11
borings 43:21 51:5 131:1 180:8 238:3 B-16 192:11,21 camera 236:1 235:17 250:21
239:23,24 240:11 Briaud's 45:20 campus 124:11 251:19 252:20
254:19 255:3 bridge 38:7 101:15 C canal 1:4 78:24 253:5 256:3
261:10 130:15,19 C 2:2,3,16 221:7,9 82:19,20 83:1,3,3 259:16
borrow 14:13 bridges 185:1 221:11 222:4 182:23 188:19 cases 18:14 21:8
bottom 55:16 Brief 45:17 71:11 Cajun 37:2 189:3 225:18 23:20,22,25 55:19
138:17 163:23 137:7 171:20 Cal 49:12 76:20,21 229:14 241:8 211:8 213:1
164:21 165:3,15 246:10 183:12 244:24 245:20,24 225:20,20 246:21
bottoms 130:19 briefly 90:20 calculate 90:16 252:1,6 250:6 261:19
Boulevard 2:4 Brieud 130:20 92:13 93:7 94:4 canals 82:24 case-by-case
bound 29:7 154:13 bring 11:3 32:6,8 94:10,17,22 180:4 257:16 181:21
154:16 51:3 131:2 calculated 26:20 candidate 49:11 cast 95:8 238:9
Box 3:6 bringing 218:13 213:24 Canon 138:14 categories 7:18
brakes 84:7,12 Britsch 15:6 calculating 93:23 capable 93:23 caught 56:10
branch 3:3 60:12 broad 119:24 calculation 200:12 150:10 cause 135:13
245:3 133:10 157:6 209:3 capacity 68:18 183:23 186:4
breach 82:15,16 broader 27:17 calculations 26:4 capacity-demand 189:2,11 190:5
183:22 186:14,22 broadly 119:15 105:19 106:14 203:19,24 244:15 250:22
187:5 188:18,18 broke 45:19 134:10 108:7 121:15,18 CAPITELLI 3:13 265:16
189:3 230:4,5,6,9 bronze 172:22 122:16 133:8 car 231:21 232:8 caused 29:25

Page 270
157:16 188:18 Chalmette 43:7,12 chart 38:25 47:25 claim 44:14 221:11,12,14
211:15 215:9 140:14,22 154:10 214:20 221:25 claiming 51:19 222:4 238:6,20
226:5 155:15,23 156:11 222:8,9,25 223:12 clarification 229:4 239:6 241:22
causes 188:9,12 chance 32:7 86:13 224:17 230:16 coefficients 120:23
189:1,6,12,14 90:3,4,13 142:7 charts 260:16,23 clarify 17:6 25:10 237:8
CCR 1:24 5:22 197:12 207:20 Chatry 138:14 39:18 44:19 61:24 coinage 31:19
265:2,24 change 101:23 check 28:17 109:24 74:19 86:1 88:4 colleagues 130:20
CD 8:4,4,5,9,10,15 161:21 174:8,10 138:15 124:9 186:10 collection 194:2
9:6,15,18 28:25 175:8,13 176:3 chemical 227:17 classifications 226:19
29:1 40:22 50:13 193:8 195:25 cherry 251:7 118:6 196:11 Colonel 259:8
52:7,20 200:7 213:20 Chicago 21:19 claw 50:24 51:10 Columbia 124:12
center 239:25 230:23 243:25 chief 60:7,11 67:19 51:14 combination
240:1,21 241:9 247:8,9,10,11,13 162:12 166:21,23 clay 103:19 213:11 188:11 236:22
centimeters 248:18 247:21,25 248:10 children 19:6 239:17 240:9,13 combine 93:8
central 118:16 changed 143:20 Chin 37:4 57:23 240:14,16 241:4 204:18
century 169:4,15 152:13 161:22 choosing 69:1 241:23 242:17,21 combined 94:15
170:16 changes 54:22 chose 92:22 166:24 243:3,13 247:9,10 131:21
certain 15:3,8 112:6 139:21 Christmas 184:4 248:15 249:1 combines 204:25
42:12 46:1 60:22 152:2 177:25 chronology 25:7 clayier 243:3 come 16:10 34:8
61:21 73:12 78:21 248:11 264:6 circles 65:7 clays 180:13 182:3 58:3 88:14 119:3
101:16 116:22 changing 150:10 circuit 184:8 182:10 239:24 119:16 120:24
144:23,24 147:13 237:22,23,25 circulars 87:24 247:6,21 145:2 150:12
150:7,8,8 156:12 238:1 circulate 13:23 clear 38:18 54:15 162:13 180:11
172:4 177:12 channel 109:15 14:1 149:8 187:18 225:11
188:20 202:20 137:22 138:20 circulated 13:16 clearly 54:19 262:1
214:22 226:22 144:16,18 157:15 circumstances 130:16 comes 29:23 63:25
244:1 249:13 163:24,25 164:3 202:20 206:12 Clements 21:17 93:1,5 198:25
250:3,11,11 256:9 167:22 citation 115:14 clip 234:21 coming 118:15
256:17 channels 38:8 cited 28:10 36:13 clock 230:13 231:3 234:22 235:3
certainly 25:25 136:10,11 36:15 55:12 85:8 close 65:1 130:18 241:5
81:1 109:12 110:3 chapter 216:16 85:8 118:4 124:24 154:19 157:23 Commanding
139:17 151:18 217:2,25 218:9,21 216:14 170:19 171:3 259:8
224:20 252:19 219:5 220:3 city 2:5 18:19 64:2 261:23 262:1 comment 79:5
certainty 215:20 chapters 78:23 165:9 185:7 closely 149:15 104:22 139:17,19
CERTIFICATE character 246:19 civil 1:4 3:3 5:6 closer 163:18 176:8 166:2,5 185:21
264:1 265:1 characterizations 17:9 27:17 28:19 240:21 219:4
Certified 1:25 5:23 196:11 38:11 49:11 58:9 closing 246:16 commenting 134:1
265:3,25 characterize 38:16 59:12 75:6,10 coastal 96:7 comments 54:14
certify 264:4 265:4 39:5 90:7 261:20 81:11 119:24 coauthor 48:11 79:7,10 109:19
265:13 characterized 120:1,6,11 124:1 coauthored 67:20 139:15 140:15
cetera 77:20 215:16,19 124:3,8 159:10 coauthors 112:22 Commission 19:10
147:10 162:25,25 characterizing 162:10 172:18,18 131:2 committee 80:5,9
190:20 195:21 209:16 184:23 226:1,18 coauthorship 57:1 80:13 83:7 218:18
206:7 209:11 charge 12:9 227:17 228:3,13 Cobos-Roa 34:15 committees 80:7,21
CH 239:24 charged 78:22 229:12 code 98:16,20 99:3 common 20:25
chain 68:9 Charles 67:17,21 civilian 101:5,20,25 99:17 102:17 97:13 150:14
challenge 185:18 Charlie 67:21 102:14 195:21 coefficient 221:9 203:7,10 227:16

Page 271
227:19,19 254:16 conceived 159:20 confirm 16:11 consistent 38:22,23 235:11 254:12
commonly 74:3 concept 49:24 94:1 50:12,14 173:19 69:4 116:9 247:18 contract 9:13 10:13
99:5 185:6 213:2 220:4 consolidate 61:9 10:22,23 11:7
communications concern 68:12 confirming 132:19 CONSOLIDATED 54:17,18
8:19 14:17 166:9 167:16 245:11 1:5 contracts 38:5
community 65:6 168:3 181:2 237:2 confronted 174:16 consolidation 61:2 contribute 76:13
compacted 35:17 concerned 103:18 confused 77:10 61:25 62:13 63:2 142:24 145:21
compaction 61:22 108:18 141:14 Congress 77:5 63:13,15 158:22 183:2
61:25 62:18,21 144:5 conjunction 81:1 constant 213:8 contributing 98:2
63:1 concerns 108:21 connect 39:21 237:24,24 239:9 contribution 48:20
company 20:20 109:20 138:19 261:9,9 239:21 241:20 78:16 183:4,14
comparable 212:5 215:7 connected 62:11 242:13,19 243:9 208:15 229:6
231:11 235:12 conclude 158:1 73:13 257:17 243:18 244:15 contributions
compare 41:14 181:23 193:25 connection 11:24 constituents 89:6 97:22
212:14 235:20 215:18 14:16 20:17 21:10 constitute 229:7 contributor 251:22
compared 68:14 concluded 135:2 24:22 45:11 82:3 constructed 22:10 control 27:19 103:4
236:4 225:1 229:24 86:10 110:25 111:5 164:16 103:12,25 105:20
comparison 147:6 concludes 58:20 112:11 131:7 176:17 177:11 253:7 257:19
competing 129:20 conclusion 103:24 148:16 205:10 constructing 21:20 260:7
compiled 8:13 104:4 203:15 208:13 233:10 188:1 controlled 231:21
complete 12:1 205:16 206:13 259:15 construction 22:15 controls 106:21
56:18 108:2 224:12 231:5 connections 45:22 31:19 60:17 61:12 124:14
176:21 197:6 252:2 consequence 62:4 98:24 99:5,6 conversations 11:5
completed 107:17 conclusions 79:20 147:11,15,24 99:15 100:4 102:4 181:17
109:1 175:10 82:11 121:17 conservative 102:18 105:10 conversion 118:21
176:14 177:2,10 133:11 188:21,22 221:22 111:16 155:18 converted 222:24
253:6 259:7 203:13,14 205:15 consider 30:11 162:23 173:6 coordinated 155:18
completely 199:21 concrete 180:16 54:21 110:10 176:14,24 179:10 coordinates 173:2
complex 36:1 190:13 127:15 144:17 consult 15:7,14 173:3
complicated concurred 175:10 175:19,24 176:9 consultant 21:9 copied 52:20
173:18 condition 258:14 232:25 142:17 copies 28:9 194:18
components 69:22 259:1 260:9 consideration consulting 18:4 copy 7:6,8 10:10
185:8 conditional-prob... 109:16 110:3 128:24 11:11,19 15:18
composed 182:9 203:21 204:1 137:4 139:1 consults 14:17 16:5 19:20 22:25
composite 183:7 conditions 109:11 148:25 153:6 contained 52:7 23:11 24:7 40:18
composition 182:3 175:13 231:22 160:4 166:20 185:12 221:20 43:12 50:16 78:15
213:11 247:16 248:20 201:6 containment 81:1,5 88:15
compression 62:14 258:9,21 considerations 185:10 116:24 136:23
compromised conduct 212:8 105:2 112:15 contains 16:13 141:20 143:9
174:6 conducted 225:10 144:13 177:22 content 248:10 162:6 191:15,16
computed 173:23 cone 255:3 considered 127:3 contents 13:2 52:24 191:23 219:2,20
computer 121:18 conference 14:20 135:8 150:3 81:22 169:7 253:8
136:24,25 191:15 53:5 60:14,15 167:11 180:24 context 72:23 86:8 core 45:3
265:9 66:9 138:10 182:11 199:17 95:11,14 121:2 corner 254:4
computers 119:21 conferred 57:22 228:2 259:1 175:25 184:20 corners 16:12
conceivable 160:1 confidence 179:19 considering 186:17 188:15 190:1,4 corporation 122:19
conceive 159:24 236:9 254:23 208:10 226:11 Corps 10:24 22:9

Page 272
26:9 30:25 34:16 145:17,22 146:5,8 261:14 current 121:19 216:12 217:25
42:25 45:1,4 157:1,21 158:2,8 course 172:16 162:22 163:1,12 219:2 257:25
47:20 60:9 61:14 159:2 169:13 courses 85:18 181:3 184:9 258:2 264:8,11,25
63:20 65:14,18 171:13 172:6 court 1:1,25 5:23 192:22 201:13 dated 11:20 31:3
68:7,10 69:1 75:2 177:6 179:22 18:15 265:3,25 currents 181:3 32:21 33:3,9 36:7
75:19,21,22 85:4 186:1,9 187:5,7 cousins 20:5 curriculum 18:8 37:6 126:2 138:9
85:9,14,18,22 196:1,2,5 197:3 cover 7:4,5 96:4 curve 93:7 200:20 153:23,25 154:24
86:3,10,16 87:22 198:16,17 202:10 134:14 140:23 200:21 177:17 188:6
88:2,21 89:15 202:24 206:2 141:21 142:3 curves 222:5 203:13 218:19
90:9 93:12,16 221:10 224:4 155:19 182:10 customarily 127:9 259:6
94:18 95:3,4 239:7 243:25 219:8 customary 127:12 dates 136:7
96:16 98:15 244:8 249:14 coverage 221:16 cut 8:17 84:9 datum 173:1
100:23 101:24 252:1 257:20 covered 134:11 CV 18:11,21 21:9 177:25
102:6,25 103:18 260:9 264:7 155:14 23:21 24:13,16 Dave 59:13
103:20 104:12 265:11 Covering 113:16 77:23,23 86:18 David 3:12 20:3
106:12,18 107:20 corrected 40:22 217:19 218:16 108:14 123:25 Davis 49:12
107:23 111:15 41:10 168:21 coverings 215:8 cycle 107:25 day 14:10 158:4
112:14 119:15 correction 37:24 covers 216:17 C-O-R-P-S 45:3 182:19 227:4
121:24 122:8,17 corrections 264:6 217:25 days 12:6 79:3
122:20 123:2,7,12 264:13,15 co-op 125:9 D 118:23 178:18
123:21,22 125:1 correctly 168:16 crash 70:2 132:5 d 4:1,6,18 140:5 deal 138:25 163:6
125:13,20 126:19 174:22 182:1 212:6 231:17,19 141:8 142:5 181:10 194:6,10
127:21 128:7,22 correlate 47:14 231:21 232:4,7 145:20 243:23
128:24 129:2 232:11 234:15 crashes 232:5,9 Dallas 59:14 dealing 36:15
144:22 150:15 260:21,24 create 184:7 dam 18:22 19:1 deals 120:12 133:9
152:3 153:20 correlated 39:7 created 182:17 20:18,19 85:7 171:17
166:17 169:24 40:10 creating 158:22 122:7,18 124:18 dealt 109:2 144:10
173:10,25 175:2 correlation 39:19 credentials 59:17 254:2 250:25
175:19 179:19 48:3 credibility 129:24 damage 34:3 83:18 dean 227:11
187:17,23 192:22 corresponding 130:3,7 95:9,19 127:1 dear 255:24
193:6,11,22 194:5 49:20 credible 159:14 131:16,23 183:23 death 245:1
195:4,8 196:1,5 corroborate 212:10 237:1 186:4,5,8 212:25 dec 32:23
200:22 201:14 cost 89:9 166:12 criteria 68:4,21 213:2 decade 64:24
209:1 254:3 198:19,23 85:5 102:6 105:2 damaged 258:19 168:18,19 169:16
255:11,12 258:23 costs 94:10 162:23 123:2 damages 89:17 170:8,8,14,17,19
260:2 254:17,18 criterion 101:12 dams 19:8,11,12 December 11:20
Corps-wide 99:14 cost-benefit 198:4 144:12 21:1 85:4,5 102:7 12:3,15 13:13
correct 16:8 17:22 201:9 criticism 214:10 Dan 3:5 43:13 126:2 188:6
18:3 28:14 37:12 coul 236:2 231:8 237:7 Daniel 59:13 252:24 259:6
37:19 43:13,13 Council 59:15 criticisms 224:25 data 98:16 106:19 260:4
46:23 49:22 50:1 counsel 5:3 9:9 crosscutting 122:6 106:24 107:4 decide 168:1
55:2,4 63:10,12 265:14,14 crosses 31:25 132:21,25 148:15 decided 89:21
74:6 77:16 86:13 count 90:2 crown 211:24 230:13 231:2,3 138:4
100:6 109:7 123:9 country 181:8 261:19 database 81:3 decision 68:17
123:11 124:4 county 22:7,9 23:7 crumple 231:25 date 12:6 34:23 160:9 171:25
125:1 135:14 couple 85:17 crumpling 231:23 36:7 162:12,21 175:8 176:12,17
140:2,11 145:15 104:16 187:10 cumulative 238:22 163:1,1,8 191:8 176:18,20

Page 273
decisions 117:4 deliberately 22:14 described 36:22 167:12 170:10,12 determinations

decision-making demonstrative 24:8 93:22 201:22 170:15 173:5 190:17
25:7 densities 35:18 240:4 174:18 176:4 determine 7:25
declaration 31:2,4 density 62:19 describes 38:2,15 177:5 179:10,17 35:22 96:10 107:4
32:20 35:3 66:13 177:24 105:16 181:16 182:4 114:2 126:23
66:15,23,25 69:17 denying 245:11 describing 54:9 184:25 193:7,12 132:23 146:20
246:18,24 249:11 Department 1:12 247:2 193:23 194:6,11 148:15 171:8
declarations 31:7,9 3:2 8:13 14:4,21 description 221:19 194:24 195:4,11 187:24,25 200:18
31:10 32:1 33:2,9 28:24 49:11 52:14 design 22:3 26:23 197:23 198:15 201:1 204:13
33:15,16,23,24 53:21 98:19 101:2 27:18,21 56:8 214:8 215:12 212:15 230:24
34:6 48:18 224:15 112:23 196:7 60:17 61:7 63:17 238:3 233:15
dedicated 252:20 depend 89:16 63:18 68:4,9,13 designed 59:25 determined 38:24
deep 19:2 222:3 69:8 83:20 84:4 109:17 111:10 91:16 105:19
defect 212:24 depended 108:25 85:3,4,6,14,16,16 147:11,16,19,24 172:4 260:8
defendants 19:14 dependent 90:18 85:23 86:1,4,6,13 148:2 160:10 determining 65:22
23:9 108:1 131:23 98:23 99:15 100:4 161:3,10 177:11 89:9 161:14
defense 14:6,18 depending 222:7 101:12 102:4,18 177:12 179:3 deterministic 94:23
51:1 133:14 depends 109:8 103:11 104:12,21 237:14 94:25 201:24
218:18 222:17 105:1,1,2,2,4,6,10 designer 127:25 202:18 203:1
defer 262:3 depicting 236:18 107:5 108:10 145:9 205:13
deficient 107:16 depo 33:5 34:11 109:5,6,15,19 designers 103:23 develop 38:25 61:7
define 120:6 67:1 217:7 111:15 112:15 106:23 127:16 114:12 128:25
defined 63:4 148:3 deponent 5:10 117:4,4 119:15 134:20 145:6,7 197:7 199:8
232:10 deposed 18:6,14 121:24 122:7,9,15 214:4,5 203:20,25
defines 49:17 62:25 124:18 126:10,10 designing 99:23 developed 70:24
defining 120:4 deposition 1:10 5:4 126:11,12,19 122:7 144:15,23 95:20 104:7 117:6
definitely 143:9 5:14 7:8,16,22 127:5,6,20 128:2 145:11 161:4 130:14,16 194:4
definition 70:21 12:14,16 18:2 128:6,12,16,18,19 designs 135:19,20 196:9 212:22
111:3,13 159:15 19:16,21 22:16,19 128:21 129:9 135:21 214:20 237:19
159:18 173:15 23:1,12 29:11 135:7,16,16,17 desired 61:1 developing 38:9
181:10 30:22 33:3 44:6 136:3,4,9,11,13 desk 99:22 68:4 124:20
definitions 196:20 46:4 66:13,18 136:14,16,18,22 despite 239:12 196:15,17
definitive 190:10 112:16 113:9 137:3,4,13,16 destroyed 190:11 development 38:3
190:16 130:8 146:20 139:1,12,21 140:3 190:16 211:6 82:17,21 83:5
deformations 263:8 265:8 144:5,9,12,13 destruction 158:12 112:23 144:9
190:12 depositions 17:24 145:1,12,14 158:14 225:19
degraded 21:21,24 29:12 30:12,25 146:22 147:1 detail 65:8 222:10 develops 69:18
21:25 22:1 deposits 103:20 148:2,6,17,24 231:7 234:18 devices 84:21
DEGRAVELLES 115:10 149:4,18 150:3,13 261:6 dewatered 79:25
2:14 DEPO-VUE 3:22 150:16,16,24 detailed 63:21 DIETZEN 3:19
degree 27:12 depression 206:23 151:17,19,20,22 68:17 133:8 251:2 difference 102:9
209:10 206:24 152:17,19 153:1,7 254:24 120:6 159:4 246:6
degrees 97:9 derive 72:22 154:8 155:13,14 details 55:18 249:17 250:1
190:14 227:14 derived 212:19 155:19,20,23 214:25 differences 102:6
delay 117:9 214:18 describe 82:2 84:25 156:11 160:6 determination 134:2 159:21
deleted 76:2 127:24 172:8 161:17,18,21 146:10 188:16,17 different 7:5 10:7
Delft 113:17,21 199:13 213:24 165:25 166:2 190:10 197:24 26:21 74:20 78:22

Page 274
133:20 158:23 126:5,16 139:4 60:9 67:19 68:19 216:6 227:24 draft 8:20 13:15,22
182:23 185:2 174:7 188:23,25 100:25 104:24 228:9 250:8 251:2 13:23,24,25 14:1
188:22 190:5,24 252:11 254:13 171:25 174:15,16 DOJ 10:24 11:1 14:3 162:16,20
200:13 212:11 discusses 31:15 174:25,25 175:1 53:7 drafts 13:11,13
213:16 221:6 discussion 46:17 175:10 181:18,24 dollars 176:13,16 88:7
222:15,20 238:2 53:12 65:2,13 194:4,9,14,17,20 dots 39:21 drain 247:7
241:22 242:14 70:14 89:8 100:14 194:25 195:14 doubled 223:11 drained 169:19
243:18,18 245:18 138:19 139:8 divisions 187:23 doubt 238:10 247:16 248:20
255:5 156:13 203:6 DM 65:3 103:23 downhole 255:8 drastically 177:25
differentiate 31:21 220:24 227:6 128:20 140:25,25 downloaded 13:1 draw 91:13 199:18
difficult 31:7 32:25 discussions 105:1 141:3,7,13,14,16 Dr 6:7 8:20 12:8 drawing 121:17
176:12 174:1 146:25 13:7 15:1,9 23:14 126:18
digits 193:17 disk 9:2 DM-1A 136:10 27:6,7,12,13,14 drawn 133:12
dike 108:16,19 dispute 131:17 Doc 142:2 31:2,6 32:21 33:8 199:20
113:16 148:24 234:12 doctor 45:19 33:23 34:6 36:6 drew 46:1 68:6
149:4,18 217:19 disputed 143:19 171:22 233:2 36:25 37:4,25 103:23
218:15 disputing 133:23 262:20 38:5 41:13 42:23 driller 54:17,18
dikes 185:10 dissent 79:19 document 54:9 44:22 45:11,15,20 drilling 54:6,8,10
dimension 165:12 dissenters 79:17 98:22 99:1,3,17 47:7,19 48:12,15 54:11,16,23 55:1
diminishes 73:10 distance 165:10 105:1,5 111:15 48:15,20,21,21 driving 190:5
direct 14:17 124:25 168:5 126:9 127:4,24 49:2,6,17 50:15 drop 106:6
125:20 243:16 distinction 159:22 136:14,16,18 51:24 52:12 56:22 dropped 93:2
direction 50:5 180:25 249:17 140:18 154:3 56:25 57:1,2,22 202:3
110:5 237:23,24 distinguish 124:11 164:9 165:24,24 59:13,24 66:12,15 drown 207:15
238:1 distributions 168:7 169:12,14 71:8,10,19 73:11 drowned 19:5
directions 173:18 120:22,23 187:9,12 189:12 73:21 75:3,4,11 drowning 18:21
directly 57:24 district 1:1,2 22:7,8 192:17 219:12 75:12,14,14 76:25 20:17
73:13 110:25 67:13 99:20 220:20 253:3 76:25 80:1,1 due 19:3 38:7,17,20
195:3 104:23 108:18,22 254:10 259:15,19 114:1 115:12,14 38:22 39:10 61:22
disagree 225:4 109:24 125:23 documentation 115:16,19 116:3 62:8,9 82:15
disagreed 143:20 136:9 138:4,22 118:21 121:21 126:22 144:24 181:3
disagreement 169:3,25 175:5,7 documented 132:2 129:21 130:20 188:11 204:13,15
189:17 234:12 181:18,24 241:12 documents 7:18 131:1,7,14 132:10 206:18 207:10
disagreements 253:7 254:13 8:7 15:18 16:23 132:20 134:10,18 211:19 229:24
210:16,18 255:22 256:2,7,10 28:9 30:18 52:15 137:9 139:7 242:4
discipline 28:1 256:16 257:3,5,10 55:11 61:11 63:19 186:13 202:17 duly 6:4 265:6
227:25 257:13,17 258:8 65:10 66:19 205:8 208:25 Dupre 34:24 46:22
disciplined 28:7 258:17 259:25 100:12 102:6,20 210:17,23 211:7 211:17 262:15
disciplines 120:16 260:3 110:17 128:9 214:10,13 216:14 duration 68:13,14
discount 241:25 districts 99:19 130:5 136:3 140:7 219:24 224:12,25 182:2,18 211:20
discover 107:10 disturbed 35:16,19 189:15 234:2 227:25 231:9 220:6 222:1
discreet 184:16 ditto 14:9,13 260:17 233:2 235:8 236:5 Dutch 214:21
discuss 35:4 72:10 dive 55:20 58:2 doing 29:14 32:17 236:5 238:6 239:4 218:16,17 242:2
72:13 105:9 divided 84:8 51:5 55:22 63:4 240:6 241:20 DUVAL 1:6
210:15 184:15 70:5 74:24 96:24 242:8 248:12 DVD 8:5 40:21
discussed 36:17 diving 110:16 129:23 178:13 249:2 252:9 256:4 DYER 3:12
47:5 67:21 74:14 division 3:3 38:13 202:9 208:20 260:13 262:3 D.C 3:8 68:1

Page 275
104:25 213:5 237:8,18,23 146:1,1 173:19,20 159:10,11 169:3 105:17 119:16

238:7,20 239:6 173:23 176:3 175:12 187:19 121:25 122:9,10
E 242:1,1,6 250:7 200:11 204:21 193:12 195:2 122:11,11,12,17
E 4:1,1,6,6,18,18 252:12 260:14 201:16 203:9 125:1,21 126:20
4:18 effect 93:1 114:10 eleven 154:18 227:9,21,22,22 127:21 128:3
earlier 20:9 28:12 142:22 143:16 260:21 228:3,14 229:17 129:2 144:22,22
47:18 48:18 65:10 144:17 151:3 eliminate 149:24 234:11 259:9 145:1,2 146:14
160:18 168:13 157:10 166:3,5 149:25,25 150:1 Engineered 87:13 150:12,15 152:3
169:23 174:8 238:5 eliminated 151:1 engineering 38:13 160:8,24,25
179:9 183:1 effected 147:12 elimination 151:1 46:12 49:12 60:8 161:12,14 162:12
195:24 196:12 effectively 157:23 Elwood 2:2,3 3:18 67:19 69:25 70:6 166:17,21,23
235:4 245:17,17 effects 34:15 36:1 6:8 73:5 83:20 84:15 169:25 173:10
249:8 142:17 171:19 EM 193:9 194:1 85:20 86:19 87:15 174:1 175:2
early 11:7 114:6,16 232:15 198:25 87:20 93:15 95:5 183:10 184:23
187:1,24 effort 75:11 emanate 187:21 95:20 96:7,8,19 187:23 192:22
earth 31:20 60:16 efforts 229:11,13 embankment 100:5,9,25 101:3 195:4,22 200:23
71:24,25 85:3,5,6 eight 60:23 153:25 124:18 188:14 102:19 111:16 226:18 228:9
earthen 36:9 72:13 154:1 189:16 embankments 119:14,19,23,25 260:2
earthquake 159:14 246:6 255:5 60:17 260:18 120:7,9,12,12,16 engineer's 169:25
easier 154:20 eighteen 166:18 employ 121:6 121:16,18 122:5 enhance 151:24
east 21:19 82:20 eighth 153:17,23 125:20 124:1,3,8 144:20 enhanced 152:13
256:10 257:5 154:25 employed 125:14 145:5,6 146:7 157:16 197:14
eastern 1:2 64:12 eighties 129:3 employee 124:25 152:10 162:2 enhancing 151:3
easy 27:4 either 18:6 45:10 125:3 128:22 171:15 172:18,19 158:7
Ebersole 15:3 47:15,23 48:24 EM1110 192:23 179:8,9,20 185:3 enlargement
27:13 62:25 80:20 81:13 105:6 193:5 193:7,15,22 164:18
216:25 218:5 110:6 113:21 EM1913 193:14 195:10,20 201:15 entered 51:15
261:5 262:13 116:10 126:19 195:7 202:16 203:6,8 entire 25:11 46:14
EBIA 51:5 130:8 164:16 EN 259:8,9 205:17 208:18 138:5,16 174:11
EBSBs 36:9 174:25 211:23 encompass 83:16 225:25 226:1,2,7 186:17 252:20
economic 85:12 212:15 221:23 encroach 109:21 226:19 227:11,12 entirely 69:3
90:8,9 116:16,19 248:25 138:20 166:4 227:14,15,19 251:10
187:22 elaborate 69:18 endorsements 228:7,8,12,13 entirety 87:18
economists 89:9 electrical 227:17 109:23 229:12 249:5 entities 173:9
94:9 elementary 85:19 ends 223:12 engineering-relat... entitled 36:8 188:4
Ed 20:11 92:16 172:17 Energy 19:9 207:7 220:5 253:6
edge 230:7 elements 172:20 engagement 9:11 engineers 6:10 entity 123:8 256:12
edited 13:25 elevated 175:25 10:10,13 10:25 17:10 26:9 entries 37:5 100:1
edition 111:21 elevation 65:24 engineer 27:15,18 28:20 34:16 38:12 entry 52:5 53:14
112:4 138:17 142:23,25 31:11 87:23,23,24 43:1 58:9 59:9,12 environment 80:11
edits 112:6 143:16,25 144:19 97:3 99:2,14,20 60:10 61:15 62:19 80:13 109:6,9
education 227:12 145:3,4 176:15 100:20,21,22,23 62:24 63:20 65:18 242:23
EFA 38:3 40:6 199:23 203:23 100:24 101:5,5,25 69:1 75:2,6,10,20 environmental
44:20 45:12 47:17 204:3,11,20 107:3,6,10,15 81:11 85:9,18,22 49:12 151:14
126:15 129:17 elevations 25:1 108:4,5 120:7 87:22 88:2,21 equation 180:11
130:13 131:10 65:22 142:19 145:9 150:18,19 93:12 98:15 equations 61:6
132:21 212:20 144:8 145:21 151:12,13,14 100:23 101:23,25 70:23 103:14

Page 276
180:4 219:9 221:12,22 195:20 206:7 43:23 45:7,18 existence 165:18

erode 39:2 135:11 229:23 235:24 209:11 46:9 52:4 53:1 existing 85:11 86:4
164:4 166:3 236:7,15,15,19 ETL 87:20,25 88:5 54:4 55:8 66:24 87:6,11 88:3,22
209:17 236:2 237:2,8,10,14,16 88:8,13,19 93:14 71:12 77:3 82:1 89:10,12,13,15
243:15,24 244:16 237:19,20 238:6 96:18 116:15 98:13 112:3 130:6 116:17 164:17,19
eroded 35:20 39:2 238:15,18,20,22 191:12 192:1 134:9 137:8 182:3 188:5,8
39:10 138:6 238:23 239:5,9,22 210:6,9 141:25 142:12 197:24 198:2,6,22
211:19 236:3 240:14,18,21,22 ETLs 187:19 155:11 157:9 200:2
243:20 240:23 241:2,18 ETL1110 88:10 162:19 163:22 exists 194:2 246:17
erodes 213:15,19 241:20 242:4,5,7 evaluate 88:2 94:18 171:21 189:9 Exiting 192:13
erodibility 38:24 242:10,21,25 142:17 152:9 192:10 210:13 Expansion 34:16
39:1,6,9 47:22,25 243:5,19 244:2 198:18 216:9 217:11,23 expect 15:12
49:18 249:8 251:21 Evaluating 87:10 218:25 220:1,21 115:22 211:16
erodible 240:23 erosive 164:1 192:12 224:11 246:11 expected 137:18
erosion 31:12,22,23 240:19 evaluation 85:12 253:15 256:20 146:3 147:4
33:17 34:2 35:5 erred 161:14 86:4 251:2 259:13 262:16 159:17,23,25
35:11,21,22 36:2 erroneous 132:24 evaluations 254:24 examine 232:24 161:19 241:17
36:16 37:7 38:3 error 51:21 249:2 event 54:25 148:3 233:21 experience 27:18
38:16,22 39:3 ESQ 3:12,13,16,17 159:19 160:10,11 examined 6:4 73:16 116:11
48:6 49:16,20 3:18,19 160:12,12 178:24 example 25:11 26:1 147:21 152:25
56:12,24 57:12 ESQUIRE 2:3,9,16 179:2,3,5 182:12 27:3 30:20 72:9 195:3 203:3
72:8,10,14 92:20 3:4,5 224:23 139:6 149:4 184:1 229:17
92:23 93:1 94:24 essentially 31:15 events 117:1 185:9 206:21 experienced 49:20
95:6,7,9,11 97:14 35:2 36:15 46:14 118:15 135:24 213:23 225:16 68:24 203:9
109:21,25 110:4,6 52:18,19 68:2,20 160:4 182:15 229:13 248:2 experiences 103:21
110:9,12,13 112:8 70:22 75:20 85:4 186:12 232:7 250:10,15 experiencing 64:7
113:15 114:4 92:21 96:2 104:25 eventually 118:16 examples 231:14 experiment 67:23
126:13,25 129:13 116:14 123:2 everyday 182:20 excavation 246:19 87:12 113:25
130:17 131:15,22 128:7 160:8 evidence 5:15 24:8 excellent 260:9 212:9
137:20,24 138:16 202:15 211:6 71:1 109:18 190:9 exception 55:23 expert 8:6 12:19
138:19 153:13 216:5 221:21 190:16 211:5 exceptional 258:14 13:12 18:13,21
156:16,18 157:11 248:21 213:10 225:5 excuse 47:20 21:10 28:10 29:22
157:16,22 158:6 establish 215:16 226:5 236:18 execute 122:9 47:2 108:14,20
166:1,8,10,11 established 61:14 260:25 exercise 175:21 119:11 128:2,4,11
167:8,21,24 168:6 95:3 99:16 123:3 evident 82:18 exhibit 4:8,9,10,11 128:14 172:15
179:18 180:6,15 169:2 212:12 138:18 165:15 4:12,13,14,15,16 207:6 227:11
181:3 182:11 213:3 241:12 evolved 75:25 4:17 7:7,11,17,17 256:13,18 261:6
188:12,12 189:23 estate 152:24 evolves 181:17 7:20 8:2 11:16 expertise 59:19
190:8,20 191:6 estimate 61:8 exact 138:6 15:18 27:25 52:6 69:4 97:3 119:10
201:25 202:2 166:12 exactly 43:5 44:15 52:8 55:11 142:1 122:2,15 123:8
206:7 208:16 estimated 162:22 79:16 130:10 142:3,9 162:5,8 127:20 226:2
209:11 211:10,14 254:17 247:2 162:17 187:9,15 228:6
211:22,23 212:19 estimation 138:25 EXAMINATION 220:12,17 253:11 experts 14:6,18,21
212:21,22 213:4,6 et 45:11 71:23 4:3 6:6 7:14 9:3 259:10 14:23 15:12 17:18
213:8,16 214:1,11 77:20 113:15 10:20 11:18 13:10 exhibits 24:7 26:18 115:11
214:14,19 215:9 116:7 147:10 23:19 28:8 29:9 141:11,13 127:9 129:20,21
217:18 218:15 162:25,25 190:20 32:19 34:13 41:12 existed 165:9 150:21 207:4

Page 277
expert's 206:21 249:14 250:8 fall 14:22 241:16 195:2 219:6 178:15
explain 19:7 70:3 251:3 familiar 116:22 222:24 fines 221:17
231:13 factor 150:9 180:4 122:13 129:1 fifteen-second finish 6:16 110:15
explained 60:19 180:11 182:16 145:10 207:18 234:20 FIRM 2:8
explicit 70:25 208:5 233:19 255:17 Fifth 257:10 first 6:4 7:2 11:5
explicitly 131:3 factored 144:1 far 30:19 36:20 fifties 106:23 129:5 12:1 13:15 14:11
200:16,18 201:1 factoring 61:18 41:10 121:9 213:7 fifty 148:22 29:16 37:6,12
explode 232:18 factors 31:14 farm 185:10 fifty-year 160:10 49:7 55:15 60:15
exploration 50:23 100:12 101:14 fast 140:12 242:21 fifty/fifty 90:3 74:24 75:12 80:7
exposure 182:2 189:23 247:24 figure 27:4 38:25 85:21 86:15 87:10
expressed 126:1 facts 151:5 252:8 faster 244:16 46:13 47:19,21,24 93:13 99:13 119:9
130:7 fail 47:24 90:15 fat 180:13 182:3 48:1 98:7 173:19 127:4 136:9
extent 16:21 19:9 188:11 243:24 239:24 217:24 218:11 165:23 177:5,16
71:22 94:23 113:4 failed 32:5 47:23 faults 213:1 219:1,22 220:2,4 177:20 178:22
119:16 120:20 58:20 59:18,21 features 19:8 32:22 220:5,7,19,20 185:6 186:14,23
126:20,24 131:15 184:19 190:24 58:24 120:19 221:1,1,20 224:9 187:4 193:13,19
161:13 201:23 226:23 230:19,21 151:2,23 152:12 figured 157:17 197:20 198:4
207:22 212:4 230:25 185:15 figures 147:3 199:5 208:9 211:4
225:22 234:9 failing 90:14 February 1:14 37:6 218:24 215:14,17 216:6,7
235:5 fails 84:14 185:11 37:15 264:25 file 7:24 141:10 216:11 245:2
exterior 208:16 185:22 186:3 federal 5:6 9:13 155:3 234:4 265:5
External 28:20 failure 82:19 83:17 19:9 38:6 130:14 filed 107:15 127:13 fishing 18:25
58:9 91:25 92:1,2 93:9 187:25 files 19:21 78:17 fit 250:16
extra 162:6 93:10,18,19 94:19 feel 94:7 151:5,25 81:6 Fitzgerald 15:15
eye 56:10 245:15 94:22 96:11,20 166:10 243:19 fill 79:5 99:5 240:7 233:1,2,6 234:13
eyewitness 230:14 97:7 164:5 180:12 feeling 69:2 259:21 240:8 243:12 260:13,13,22
231:2 186:15 188:10 feet 60:23,25 filled 19:5 five 60:25 74:22
E-mails 79:8 189:1 190:2 137:25 167:25 fills 60:22 189:14 223:3
196:15,16 197:16 169:3,15 170:13 final 12:2,2 138:15 232:5
F 198:19 199:25 170:16 222:24 157:25 238:5 flatter 137:19
F 1:10 4:18,18 6:1 200:5,8,8,9,19 223:4,5,5,10,14 finalized 12:23 199:18 200:3
264:3,11 201:2,21,25 202:7 245:21,22 finally 204:25 flip 58:12
face 240:5,10,18 202:8 204:13,15 fell 157:24 find 62:23 70:6 floating 169:10
facilities 19:4 204:16,17,19,23 fellow 73:22,22 79:10 102:5 flood 21:21 27:19
facility 113:22 205:1,13,18 114:22 107:16 108:10 68:15 82:25 89:11
164:11 206:18 207:10 fellows 216:20 110:1 130:23 89:16 90:12 106:1
fact 8:1 48:11 49:5 208:11 230:10,12 felt 57:3 178:7 132:14 139:5,24 106:11,14,20,25
49:17 89:3 110:10 245:6 216:5 153:17 154:6,14 107:2,2,21,24
111:10 147:18 failures 31:2 fender 231:23,25 156:1 194:18,24 108:7 124:15
150:13 151:23 225:15,20 251:22 fewer 181:8 195:15 204:15 174:3 178:24
157:16,19 174:2 fair 71:5 117:23 field 122:4 127:9 213:1 225:21 185:25 194:3
176:9,25 184:14 133:25 134:5 159:1 171:15 finding 59:17 77:22 218:18 253:6
190:11 198:25 159:3 175:20 225:24 226:2 134:1 258:13
202:17 205:14 FAIRBANKS 1:24 228:9,12 findings 190:5 flooded 21:22,23
230:25 239:9,12 5:22 265:2,24 fields 73:5 228:8 245:14 246:4 95:23 235:2
240:23,24 241:3 fairly 63:21 69:18 fifteen 19:19 82:8 fine 40:22 100:17 flooding 111:7
241:24 244:14 181:16 211:24 125:2,3 166:17 140:19 163:20 184:20 256:4

Page 278
floodwall 190:13 forensics 228:10 137:9,12 142:23 211:11 140:14,17 153:3

190:15 244:25 foreshore 137:21 143:19 145:20 fully 70:17 125:14 153:17 154:2,12
floodwalls 82:23 138:5,16,17 156:17,22 161:20 full-time 125:3 154:17 167:20
83:2,6 229:21,21 153:13 155:13,16 177:8 245:6 209:2 general 26:14
230:2 258:16 155:20 156:5,16 foundation 104:3 function 31:13 34:2 46:24,25 58:22
floodwater 203:22 156:18,23 157:2 188:14 189:19,20 35:21 37:7 38:4 70:7,13 72:6,16
204:2 157:22 162:23 190:3 39:3 48:6 90:23 72:17 74:15
Floor 1:13 163:25 164:4 four 16:12 33:8 91:3 92:14 111:11 100:15,18 101:6
Florida 108:17 167:19,21 46:16,18,20 97:12 131:22 184:12 109:9 114:19
flow 35:23 36:1 Forested 118:9 99:12 100:1 204:6,22,25 120:21 122:14
38:8,20,23 39:11 forget 139:9 125:19 188:12,24 209:12 237:3,11 134:11,14 136:16
56:9,13 57:13 form 5:12 72:14 189:1,6,12 193:17 237:12 137:16 153:1
115:3 130:17,22 formal 207:3 223:3,5,5,6,10,13 functions 162:10 154:8 155:14,20
131:9,11 181:4 formalities 5:8 227:16 232:4 197:7 203:21,22 155:23 156:10
212:22 237:14,20 formalized 12:22 fourth 7:16 204:1,2 159:6 161:16
237:21 238:2,18 formation 59:4 four-foot 223:9 fundamental 168:13 211:1
flowed 234:7 formed 68:25 77:2 fraction 60:24 172:20 213:2
flowing 49:19 50:7 87:17 244:8 frame 11:7 13:4 Fundamentally generally 14:22
flows 50:4 184:9 forming 25:17,23 99:7 128:18 129:3 50:3 27:23 68:15
fluid 185:12 29:18 30:15 31:4 199:9 224:22 funding 87:8 199:16 200:21
flume 50:4,6 34:19 35:8 38:1 frames 148:19 108:25 152:4,6,8 generate 26:7
focus 27:16 119:5 58:17 59:6 74:11 framework 92:12 funds 108:2,10 165:19
143:21 188:8 100:10 133:5 96:10 258:20 generated 11:24
focused 31:9 157:19 253:5 Frank 60:10 furnish 14:5 137:22 164:2
folks 30:14,20 formulating 126:1 Franklin 3:7 furnished 8:15 167:23 168:4
132:20 208:14 formulation 15:20 frankly 31:7 14:3 52:21,24 generates 262:24
216:6,18 232:15 forth 19:11 27:20 238:24 242:1 53:6,9 54:13 gentleman 67:25
242:2 31:23 62:22 76:25 freeboard 144:24 141:18 161:11,19 gentlemen 62:25
follow 126:3 132:9 79:1,13 83:3 145:7 168:7 234:2 Geodetic 65:19
followed 126:20 94:25 95:12 Frenchman 37:3 further 35:4 59:14 172:3,21,25 173:8
128:1 133:2 103:15 104:23 frequency 209:10 130:20 151:21 Geoenvironmental
134:13,16 105:3,5 118:3 freshmen 172:19 152:8 265:13 38:13
following 63:20 120:13 127:1 front 28:15 33:11 future 12:17 geographic 40:4
75:22 166:16 144:11 159:14 41:3 69:19 84:10 45:22
176:11 233:23 173:3 180:3,14 132:3 140:16 G geographical 40:8
follows 6:5 197:21 203:5 154:17 211:1,13 gain 61:3,9 geologic 62:8
follow-up 164:7 214:2 227:23 211:15,22,23 gained 219:7 geological 171:16
foot 64:24,25 230:13 231:3 225:2,6,22 226:4 Gale 103:6 105:16 173:10
168:17 170:7,8,19 242:2 254:21 241:1 242:4 Galveston 181:9 geology 58:23
246:7 265:7 251:21 259:18 games 10:14 60:12 103:23
forces 213:19 forties 129:5 260:25 261:8,15 gap 82:17,21 83:5 geometry 91:16
243:23 forty 117:2 170:2 261:19 225:19 213:20 243:25
foregoing 264:4 227:13 232:9 frontal 226:12 Gary 21:19 244:2
forensic 227:8,21 forward 176:21 FRUGE 2:15 gather 106:24 GeoProbe 255:7
228:1,14,16,23 found 39:9 56:4,14 fruition 51:6 GDM 104:4,6,19 geotechnical 27:15
229:5,7 230:1 56:20 66:9 67:16 FTP 79:4 123:15 138:3,8,24 31:11,16 38:12
forensically 229:18 70:8 131:6 132:24 full 6:18 55:15 139:10 140:9,10 43:16,19 46:12

Page 279
60:11 62:18,23 91:6 97:10 100:15 government 10:21 167:4 249:9 259:9 harm 107:13
63:2 65:7 85:20 111:9 117:9 59:10 108:9 guessing 152:25 hat 227:10
87:15 95:20 96:8 123:23 132:20,25 113:22 198:2 guidance 85:15,23 hazard 107:7,10
97:3 119:14,18,23 145:1 155:12 grade 63:24 201:7 86:2,2,3,7,15 head 6:21 110:4
120:1,7,9,12,19 165:25 166:13 grades 174:18 90:17,19,19 91:7 headquarters
122:12 143:22 171:5 173:18 graduate 48:24,25 94:5 96:2 99:23 104:25 254:15
144:10,20,25 185:12 189:8 graduation 125:10 110:17 123:20 hear 227:21
145:6,9 147:1 192:21 199:21,22 graphic 260:14 128:25 180:13,17 heard 186:2
150:5,15,18 203:12 222:19 grass 96:4 114:3,15 181:14,17 187:20 heart 255:24
151:13 157:21 223:11 224:14,24 114:18,19 180:14 191:13 192:22 Heerden 112:21
158:18 160:7,8,25 227:3 231:10,19 182:10 203:4 194:16 196:18 113:6
171:14,15,17 248:5 258:1 214:2,9,12,14,16 197:21 198:12 height 22:3 61:1,21
180:20 195:2 God 119:21 214:18,23 215:4,8 200:6 254:15 144:24 145:7
226:1,7,18 229:17 goes 24:11 32:16 215:13,16,22 guidelines 123:3,12 146:21 147:4
234:11 249:5 160:18 165:4 216:1,17 217:25 123:20 148:12 151:4
German 143:7 194:21 222:25 219:8 221:12 gulf 142:18,22,24 157:11,12 158:7
getting 30:23 55:10 going 6:19 24:4 222:2,12,15,22 143:15 145:20 176:5 179:5
62:19 93:5 154:19 33:7,11 40:2,23 224:13 149:21,23 162:11 200:18,20 221:5
186:6 208:2 44:11 45:19 54:17 grassed 216:4 162:24 164:17 222:7,10,17,20,21
gist 55:20 56:1,5 58:2 61:15 grasses 214:24 165:5 222:23
give 19:16 22:19 66:5 76:20 80:24 215:1 G-A-L-E 103:8 heights 24:21,22
32:7 40:4 115:17 88:15 97:18 109:7 grassland 113:16 146:2,25 147:2,2
119:4 120:6 117:7 119:2 217:19 218:15 H 150:7 157:17
141:21 154:16 124:20 142:2 221:23 H 4:6 205:16 175:8,15,16 176:1
162:7,20 180:9 144:15 150:23 great 65:8 154:7 206:13 221:5,6 200:13,15 223:20
205:1 258:2 160:10 165:14 222:9 231:7 223:20 help 43:4 81:13
given 1:11 52:20 166:22 178:20 235:25 252:11 half 169:16 170:8 119:5 252:22
96:11 115:12 185:23,25 187:8 greater 62:19 170:14,16 172:16 262:7,10
127:12 131:7 191:4 192:11 64:12 65:15,20 halfway 91:14 helped 214:4
145:13 156:15 203:23 213:17 green 259:23 Hall 49:12 helpful 71:2
177:22 222:10 220:23,25 227:10 ground 7:4 62:3,11 Hammond 21:18 helping 128:24
264:5,7 230:6 234:1,25 74:24 105:21 hand 7:7 145:5 Henderson 138:13
gives 114:14 260:5 237:6 106:5 132:1 150:17 160:19 Herbert 108:15
giving 6:25 good 6:7 7:4 28:6 172:23 176:4,6 162:5 253:9 hereinabove 265:7
GIWW 252:6 32:12 73:6 74:4 207:9 229:22 handed 7:9 8:3 hereto 5:3 7:12
glad 77:9 192:7 91:20 94:25 95:10 254:20 handled 121:21 11:17 52:9 81:18
glaring 249:2 96:3 127:16 133:1 groundhog 207:11 203:3 142:10 162:18
global 81:3 93:10 134:7,21 135:3 groundhogs 207:13 hands 141:9 187:16 220:18
204:19 229:5 158:10 161:4 groundwater 62:9 handy 136:23 253:12 259:11
glossary 63:3 163:21 166:10 115:3 happen 133:20 265:15
go 9:22 15:17 20:10 180:14 192:16 group 49:17 54:5 158:1 242:23 heuristic 70:18
21:2 26:16 28:11 198:5 199:18 82:5 happened 55:3,5 71:17
28:18 29:21 30:9 207:22 219:6 guess 9:7 10:4 78:18 107:14 he'll 6:23,25
30:10 32:9 36:12 221:23 230:6,22 29:13 40:6 66:8 132:6 133:20 high 27:24 35:17
39:22 41:16 43:24 Google 70:9 81:24 91:22 96:13 184:22 212:10 39:9,17 40:5
47:1 53:11 56:2,5 Googled 113:9 127:19 132:8 Harbor 83:1 45:13 47:16
74:12 75:20 81:23 gotten 55:15,21 133:7,9 142:13 hard 191:16 115:15,20 116:2,3

Page 280
117:17,18,19 118:23 187:2 144:21 160:24 40:11 42:11 44:21 Inasmuch 155:16
118:15 173:7,20 221:4 222:11 161:12,13 74:3,4,8,17 76:1,4 inboard 189:25
174:19 176:23 223:7,15 224:20 hydrological 90:10 76:8,10,18,19 inch 64:25 169:16
177:24 181:6,10 housekeeping hydrologic/hydr... 77:2,8 97:21,22 170:14,17
212:12,14 235:9 50:11,22 119:1 158:9 98:3 183:3,6 incidents 211:12
235:10,18,19,21 Houston 62:7 hydrologists 89:8 188:21 189:21 inclinometers
243:10 246:22 Howard 205:16 161:9 190:5,23 226:20 255:7
250:20 251:3 HS 221:3,3 hydrology 141:1 226:24 245:5,8,14 include 27:14
higher 26:1 89:6 Hudson 138:13 150:14 225:25 246:3 61:17 92:6 179:20
115:21 146:2 Huesmann 138:13 hydropower 18:22 Illinois 22:9 103:6 199:6 214:15
147:23 148:1 hundred 14:12 19:3 illustrate 86:16 254:18
151:15 170:4,20 137:25 167:25 hygrographs 26:3 249:12 included 9:11
171:4,9 176:6 hundred-year hypothetical illustrated 92:17 24:10 75:4 99:4
211:18 223:13 160:11 150:21 151:8 208:10 106:17
236:9 238:22,22 hurricane 28:20 hypothetically illustrates 85:5 including 56:25
242:18 78:10 108:20 150:22 209:8 95:7 60:21 62:24 76:24
Highway 38:6 142:18,23 143:16 H-E-U-R-I-S-T-I... illustration 92:24 inconclusive 82:17
highways 130:14 143:25 144:18 70:20 imagery 236:13 inconsistent 250:4
high-permeability 148:4,5,16 159:4 imagine 159:24 incorporate 79:7
248:22 250:5 159:5,15,18 160:5 I 179:1 207:23
hire 54:17,18 160:5,14,15 idea 106:11 166:11 immediately incorporated
historical 117:1 161:15,16 174:20 211:1 238:24 108:24 149:1 205:19
148:15 177:1,4,14,24 239:3 impact 153:7 incorrectly 237:18
history 26:23 27:21 178:4 181:7,11,12 identification 7:12 157:10 158:6,11 increase 248:2
132:6 135:23 181:15 182:12,16 11:17 52:9 81:17 158:13 167:7,11 increasing 151:3
hit 256:21 200:24 236:13 142:10 162:4,18 175:13 independent 62:3
hog 207:9 258:5,18,22,25 187:9,16 220:16 impacted 258:17 74:5 245:11
hold 59:3 66:4 hurricanes 68:14 220:18 253:12 impervious 68:15 independently
77:18 148:14 258:10,15 259:5,11 implemented 59:11
hole 19:1,3,4 184:7 258:18 identified 12:15 110:12 157:3 index 9:18 39:5,9
HOLTHAUS 2:14 hydraulic 15:11 108:21 180:18 implied 127:14 39:16,17 40:5,5,6
Holub 21:17 60:21 89:19 96:7 224:5 260:23 imply 111:4 41:3 45:12,12,13
home 19:24 23:15 99:5 122:10 261:25 implying 173:24 47:15,16,17 50:13
252:20 144:21 145:2,5 identify 24:19,21 importance 56:4 52:6
Homeland 80:5,8 146:14 150:12,18 106:19 107:6 important 93:4 indexes 39:14
80:10 151:14 159:11 162:7 184:22 176:19 247:4 Indiana 21:18,19
Hoover 108:16 189:24 212:11 224:9 249:4 23:7
hope 51:13 235:16 240:7,8 identifying 25:9 importantly 176:7 indicate 106:20
hoping 166:6 hydraulics 62:24 IHNC 31:3 34:16 impression 49:4 168:25
horizontal 137:20 141:1 150:14 54:7 65:1 82:15 178:7 256:9 indicated 179:15
173:2 199:19 hydrograph 27:2 171:3 186:22 improve 198:3 235:7 243:22
horse 245:1 hydrographs 25:23 229:21 230:2 improvements 250:10 261:13
hotel 75:15 25:25 26:7,8,14 235:4 244:25 94:11 indicates 245:13
hour 12:9,11 14:12 26:15,17,21,24 250:23,25 252:1 inadvertently 51:8 indicative 150:16
119:6 180:10 27:1,5,6,10,15,23 256:11 51:20 71:21 individual 45:10
hourly 12:8 118:3,22 II 2:4 inappropriate 62:11
hours 11:9 14:9 hydrologic 122:11 ILIT 17:18 25:2,6 237:13 252:9 indorsement 138:1

Page 281
138:2,7,8 139:10 252:25 253:21 228:21 188:20 189:17 JOSEPH 1:24 5:22
139:11,13,14 254:2,2,24,25 International 54:5 226:16,21,21 265:2,24
153:17,23,25 255:1 258:24 Internet 194:19 228:22 245:13,22 journal 37:9,13,21
154:2,25 177:16 instability 189:21 interrupt 55:25 246:4,4 37:25 38:11,12,19
177:20 installed 105:24 56:1 Israel 116:1 46:11 70:11 194:5
indorsements 157:2 interruption 71:11 issue 22:12,22 83:5 225:10 226:10,15
104:22 140:10 instance 109:13 137:7 246:10 89:4 91:4 109:2 226:18
141:4 154:18 211:17 introduced 6:8 152:7 169:1 JR 1:24 2:2,3 5:22
induced 242:4 instructed 88:21 introduction 215:2 174:16 210:22,22 265:2,24
Industrial 188:19 instrumental 88:12 215:7 217:13 210:24 239:8 judge 1:6 19:8
189:3 244:24 instruments 61:4 219:4 issued 11:20 20:23 judgment 68:11,16
245:20,24 252:1,6 insufficient 176:15 intuition 70:24 22:23 33:16 76:22 68:23 101:23
industry 59:9 integral 155:17 inventory 34:9 88:7 96:17 112:22 102:1 146:7,15
infinite 131:5 integrated 34:3 55:20 58:5 66:6 issues 21:12 31:13 162:2 181:24
influence 160:6 integration 236:23 110:16 133:2 35:18 65:21 203:3,9 205:17
Infomation 4:21 intend 24:11 119:9 investigate 152:15 181:20 182:24 206:21 208:18
information 24:25 121:8 134:12 171:7 210:21 235:8 judgmental 206:15
25:8 26:24 33:25 intended 54:10 investigating 75:7 236:16 207:6
39:22 40:3 46:1 90:23 91:2 95:23 investigation 43:17 issuing 12:14 judgments 126:14
47:3 54:12 58:22 131:10 174:20 43:20 74:6,25 item 27:25 55:11 129:14,19 207:24
59:2,5 65:5 81:16 176:24 184:11,19 103:3 228:23 58:7,14 60:2 July 33:14,16,21
81:21 82:10 92:7 237:4 238:17 229:6,7 230:1 73:20 117:15 34:5 69:17 154:24
96:4 99:4 105:11 intent 56:8 79:25 investigations 138:9 155:7 162:14,21
111:2 112:14 94:12,14 105:4 228:2 items 7:18 8:1 162:22 163:1,12
117:24 130:22 111:6 126:10 invoice 12:8 14:8 66:14 163:13
136:6 146:13 127:5,25,25 128:2 14:11 24:17 I-DEP 3:15 June 153:23 154:1
148:7 150:11,17 intention 48:6 invoices 11:3 13:20 I-walls 83:6 jurisdiction 256:19
160:16 175:22 interaction 244:5 involve 23:22 118:5 Justice 1:12 3:2
207:17,23 208:4 interest 57:4 64:1 133:8 199:2 J 8:13 14:4,21
209:9 214:6 130:15 136:15 involved 21:14 J 259:8 28:24 52:14 53:21
235:12 254:16 157:22 164:19 35:16 88:25 89:20 jacked 50:6
262:23 166:6 187:25 120:17 194:15 Jacksonville K
informed 151:13 interested 38:7 201:9 252:25 108:18 Katrina 1:4 28:20
ing 248:21 150:6 265:15 256:2 257:3,21 January 11:8 13:9 38:17 39:8,11
inhabited 118:17 interesting 56:15 involvement 52:12 Japan 78:21 74:23 78:10
inherent 227:25 56:20 131:6 234:6 53:19 Jean-Louis 37:1 127:12 200:24
inherently 92:5 interestingly 131:2 involves 50:3 85:2 Jefferson 257:2,5 228:23 236:13
initiation 211:2 interests 22:11 involving 188:5 jeopardize 109:22 258:5,15
225:3 interfere 178:10 197:24 jeopardized 222:12 Kaufman 60:3,7
Inner 82:25 interior 80:8 inward 189:24 job 127:16 134:21 67:10,17,18,22
input 139:12 233:17,19,21 IPET 17:17 25:2,6 135:3 161:4 68:9,20 103:15
insert 78:16 intermittent 26:17 27:3 58:13 Joe 6:19 41:2 44:2 138:12
insight 219:6 237:22 238:2 58:16,19,21 59:6 45:3 50:19 81:20 KEA 2:9
inspected 256:22 intermittently 59:8 64:10,23 Joe's 6:22 keen 64:1
inspection 253:6,16 125:4 65:9 116:10 joint 51:1 76:22 keep 110:16
259:7 260:1,3 intern 125:8 117:24 141:17 78:11 98:5 183:8 Kemp 66:12,15,18
inspections 252:24 internal 188:12 168:21 170:1,18 183:9 228:19 112:21 113:6,9

Page 282
kept 44:3 246:1 252:7 Landry 20:3,6,12 led 49:17 59:13 91:20,20 92:7
key 63:11 82:11 257:25 261:5 landscape 149:7 69:20 75:2,24 94:11 95:4 99:6
142:19 238:14 262:17 152:13 89:19 97:22 211:2 102:3,4 103:4,13
kill 29:15 knowing 91:13 language 6:11 225:2 105:11 106:16
kind 6:11 21:10 176:22 217:13 Lee 138:14 108:8 109:5,22
27:4 28:16 29:14 knowledge 37:3 lapse 135:23,25 left 107:20 169:9 110:1,5,7,8,25
37:2,10 55:9,9,17 38:4 57:19 60:15 231:22 222:19 254:4 111:3,5,11 114:3
97:24 98:1 109:2 89:2 93:12,21 large 59:8 83:16,18 255:12 122:8,18 126:11
117:8 119:6 96:22,25 98:25 96:5 141:11 legal 23:25 127:14 128:6,21
158:23 185:17 108:22 110:11 159:16 180:23 length 221:17 128:25 135:13
205:23 209:23 114:13 127:17 181:4 210:4 252:11 137:5,21,23,24
210:4 216:6 128:5 129:9 228:23 letter 9:11 10:10,13 138:15 144:5,15
218:10 223:25 134:22 135:3 largely 19:7 103:15 59:23 87:14,17,19 145:9,11,14 146:4
240:12 156:8,19 158:20 larger 33:17 87:21 90:19,19 146:4,22 147:5,17
kinds 70:5 161:5 164:6 147:11,15,18 91:7 93:15 96:19 148:25 149:1,5,9
knew 48:12,14 167:10 175:18 largest 159:19 110:17,24 123:16 149:12,13,15,18
65:20 87:3 230:10 181:14 197:22 237:2 138:8 176:25 149:23 150:2,7
know 8:4 9:15 10:2 200:22 201:4,6 late 12:20 214:1 177:17 198:12 151:6 152:1,12
12:2,24 14:10 205:7 208:9 229:2 258:6 200:6 153:7 155:18
15:20 19:22 20:15 211:12,23 213:6 latest 24:14 153:21 letters 85:15 87:23 157:23,24 160:6,9
23:2 24:23 39:13 228:5 234:9 latitude 24:20 97:23 104:22 164:1,16,19
41:10 43:5,6 244:11 261:3 173:3 187:20,20 165:12,17 166:4
44:15 48:19 49:7 knowledgeable law 2:8 5:7 113:5 let's 7:6 9:7 21:6 167:22,24,25
51:4 54:1,21 19:12 laws 101:9 195:24 30:20 41:16 60:23 168:5 174:18
58:24 64:9 80:25 known 62:5 65:24 lawyer 17:25 60:25 63:11 66:5 177:8 181:1,4,12
89:18 97:1,1 74:3,5 112:24 lawyers 6:10 110:15 120:3 182:2,4,7,22
99:22 105:4 114:11 126:11 lay 92:12 132:2 154:23 183:15 184:17,17
107:22 110:14 159:20 215:11 layers 103:19 162:7 165:25 184:19,20 185:6,7
115:25 139:11,22 230:11 laying 229:22 192:20 193:13 185:24 186:6,7,8
144:4 146:17 Knudsen 54:3 layman's 84:1 209:25 210:25,25 186:15 188:14
148:7,11,14,19 K-A-U-F-M-A-N 128:10 133:15 213:23 220:11 189:18,20 193:7
150:22 152:7 67:10 145:24 179:23 222:23 223:5 193:12,23 195:4
156:1,4 158:24 K2 1:5 187:13 204:4 224:24 232:4 195:10 198:2,6,25
159:3 164:8,11 251:14 levee 17:5 21:18,21 199:15,17,18,21
168:10 175:13 L lays 63:21 21:23,25 22:1,3,3 199:22,23 200:2
177:7,8 178:3 L 5:1 lead 77:7 78:22,23 22:4,7,7,8,10,13 200:13,14,15
186:14 194:19,22 labeled 8:5 78:24 79:2,2,6 22:14 23:22 26:2 201:5 202:19
196:23 202:20 lack 20:22 80:1 211:14 31:13 40:19,24 204:12,22,24
205:8 206:22 laid 102:7 leaders 80:18 45:13 49:16 60:22 205:2,5 207:21
210:2,20 217:24 Lake 22:8 23:6 leaning 62:17 61:9 62:16 63:17 208:11,16 211:17
218:2 219:11 104:12 108:16 learn 232:6,7 63:24 68:22 72:8 213:9,10,12,13,15
223:11 227:25 136:17 142:19 learned 64:10 72:10,14 74:5 213:19 226:4,11
230:18 232:14 155:21 156:7 65:18 145:25 78:9 83:19 84:4 235:1 236:2,3,14
233:1,6,8,10 257:16 147:10 84:13 86:12 89:10 239:15,24 240:2,3
239:4 241:6 land 24:22 72:18 leave 75:16 121:23 89:12,13,15,19,22 240:6,9,10,13,16
242:16 243:10 118:6 211:9,10 132:17 90:2,8,13,15,22 240:21 241:4,10
244:18 245:23 landmarks 24:21 leaving 255:11 91:1,3,8,11,14,16 241:14,15,16,18

Page 283
242:12 243:2,7,12 188:10 189:13 line 37:12 84:9 248:8 141:17 143:6
243:15,24 244:3 192:13 193:15 91:13 92:4,6,14 lobby 75:15 148:20 168:22
244:13,16 249:9 194:7,12,17 93:6,7 110:22 local 22:7,10 180:1 225:14
254:2,25 255:1,22 197:24 198:16,22 118:14 130:17 164:19 166:6 229:13 230:8,17
256:2,7,10,16 203:22 204:2 200:10 239:25 locate 23:12 234:4
257:3,5,10,13,17 205:10 207:18 240:1 located 143:4 173:1 looking 6:22 12:7
258:8,16 259:25 211:4 226:22 lines 159:16,19 262:3 18:1 23:2 33:1
260:3 262:1 234:24 241:8 197:8 location 40:5,8 70:9 79:11,12
levees 21:14 24:3 243:20 252:24 linings 72:19 45:22 47:16 83:17 82:18 86:11 154:4
27:19 31:19,22 253:21 254:8 link 209:18 138:15 251:24 191:19 216:15
38:16,22 39:2,7,8 256:3,22 258:16 list 16:23 17:23 locations 46:15 217:12 221:25
39:23 41:25 43:20 258:24 260:3 23:21 29:16 33:11 58:24 83:18 233:9,24 253:22
52:23 53:4 54:7 level 62:3 106:7 33:14 36:5,25 117:17 142:19 254:10 257:1
56:12 57:12 58:20 114:13 146:21,25 37:5 40:10 66:12 252:5 261:9,11 looks 37:9 46:19
59:17,24 60:5,20 151:24,25,25 66:14 73:21 77:15 lock 34:16 87:6,7 lose 84:10
61:1,5,12 64:1 174:4,5 176:19,21 81:20 85:24 98:14 log 120:22 lot 7:5 21:20 28:1
66:8 67:13 68:5 176:22 177:12 100:2 110:20 logs 40:19,24 41:24 34:10 100:15
69:3 74:15 78:24 178:1 180:14 189:14,15 254:11 44:3 119:7,7 140:15
83:6,14 84:20 204:11,23 205:3 254:19 255:6 long 10:23 52:15 183:25 186:4
85:11 86:17 87:10 235:23 245:21,23 listed 8:1 9:17 65:5 79:8 83:16 252:19
87:11 88:3,22,24 246:4 15:22,25 16:7,17 114:2 119:20 Louis 67:13 99:19
89:3,4,5 93:19,25 levels 58:23 145:13 20:9 21:8 25:6,16 139:14 142:14 99:20 125:23
94:5,20 95:12 145:13 147:22 33:8,19 34:14 166:4 184:13 Louisiana 1:2,13
98:17,24 99:2,15 150:8,10,11 49:10 60:2 73:20 185:19 205:20 2:5,11,18 5:24
100:5,14 102:7,11 151:15 161:5,11 77:6 80:14 97:11 207:25 209:5 60:19 61:13 67:8
102:11,18 103:22 161:16,19 204:10 99:11 100:1 126:6 longer 75:18 74:24 112:22,24
104:1 105:3,16 204:10 205:6,13 187:11 189:2 107:18 173:22 214:25 257:10
109:16 111:1,9 233:15 245:19 206:4 255:5 227:5 265:4
112:15 116:17 library 52:25 53:4 lists 7:17 189:12,21 longitude 24:20 low 35:17 39:6,16
119:15 120:18 191:17 254:5 173:3 40:5 45:12 47:15
121:11,24 123:23 lidar 260:17 lit 184:10 long-winded 6:15 116:8,9 243:9
127:21 129:4 lift 61:10 114:3,15 literature 92:22 look 37:14 39:22 247:20 248:7,9,14
130:23 131:25 114:18,19 215:16 litigation 1:5 8:23 40:21 45:15,20 lower 60:9 98:24
132:4 134:21 215:22 216:1 11:24 21:11 54:9 70:21 75:19 103:4,21 115:18
135:7,18 136:5,19 222:2,15,22 little 50:11 80:23 81:23 112:9 115:4 175:1 176:5,8
138:21 139:2 224:13 97:11,19 98:2,12 131:4,6 155:9 177:8,14 179:4
146:10 148:6,17 lift-off 214:16 117:9 140:4 190:4 171:5 199:11 194:13,16 200:4
149:11 156:15,20 light 184:10,12 207:1 227:5 215:5 229:18 233:15 254:4
161:3,10 164:5,15 lighting 184:11 231:20 247:6 232:21 253:23 lowered 200:2
167:12 168:11 lights 184:4,6 262:24 259:14 261:22 lowering 62:2,10
174:3,9,11 177:5 Likewise 158:11 live 64:2,5 255:23 262:14 175:14
177:10 179:3,11 limit 46:17 LMVD 138:12 looked 13:2 25:25 low-permeability
180:24 181:1,1,2 limitations 205:12 load 78:25 247:10 26:7 27:7,10,12 248:24
181:4,7,8,12,14 limited 38:20 247:11,24 29:20 48:4 72:24 Loyola 113:5
181:16 182:9 189:10 loading 215:9 81:12 113:3,7 LPV 40:19,24
184:13 185:2,4,10 limiting 178:25 247:18 114:4 115:13 41:24 43:20
185:16,18 188:5,8 189:5 loadings 68:14,15 131:9 141:15,16 136:22 137:3

Page 284
177:2 195:5 60:12,21 62:15 39:1 106:12 232:13 235:10

LS-DYNA 34:1 manuals 85:15 100:14 115:21 measures 83:19 merely 249:12
70:2 131:21 132:4 87:23 179:7,9,16 121:11,13,17 84:3 103:12,25,25 Messrs 138:12,13
132:21 213:17,21 181:15 195:20 137:13 141:19 105:20 107:24 met 75:13
231:15,24 232:14 maps 24:19 117:17 152:22 219:25 108:8 130:17 meteorology
232:17,21 235:8 118:3 239:15 246:20,21 216:17 218:1 159:21
236:19,22 243:23 March 33:9 36:7 248:16 250:10 measuring 232:15 meters 222:21,24
244:12 100:4 math 173:18 MEAUX 3:22 223:1
lunch 117:8 119:3 marginal 105:24 mathematical 96:9 mechanical 62:20 method 31:11 99:6
119:6 121:23 106:9 mathematically 227:17 180:7 199:9,12
134:3,8,10 marine 164:2 204:18 mechanics 61:6 methodology 93:17
L.L.P 2:15 mark 11:14 142:1,2 mathematics 247:6 126:3 132:9,12
162:4 187:8 120:25 mechanism 239:1 133:3 134:13
M 212:14 220:15 mats 215:13 mechanisms 191:2 179:19 180:1
M 4:1 57:21 253:8 259:3,5 matter 15:11 26:16 member 17:9 44:22 202:4 213:14
Magazine 70:10 marked 7:11 11:16 36:17 48:13,16 74:17 76:3,7 methods 85:3,6,10
magnetometers 52:5,8 81:17 50:12,22 68:25 101:24 228:19,21 88:6 133:4 134:15
255:8 142:9 162:17 82:24 184:18 members 76:6 197:6 199:3 202:6
magnitude 115:16 187:15 220:17 matters 27:16 226:16 229:20 MICHAEL 2:16
115:18 253:11 259:10 31:16 34:4 35:5 memo 104:10,13 Michigan 6:2 18:19
main 2:17 73:14 markers 65:24 97:5 143:22 158:9 105:6 117:4 20:20 231:18
87:17 141:3 marks 117:18,19 mattress 248:3,5 136:13,22 137:3 middle 20:11 21:16
maintain 149:6 117:19 212:13 mature 38:10 140:4 141:7 71:13 77:7 213:12
maintained 260:8 235:10,11,21 max 221:2 150:16 152:17,19 240:9,13,17 243:4
maintaining marsh 115:6,10 maximum 159:5,14 155:23 163:3 migrated 20:6
257:18 118:7 150:1,24 159:18 160:5,12 165:25 166:2,9,14 miles 105:16
maintenance 169:18 246:21 160:14 161:15 196:5 106:16 165:10
215:13 248:16,21,23 220:6 222:1 memorandum military 101:5,19
major 60:15 249:25 mean 7:1 42:2 63:18 68:10 104:9 102:14 232:16
103:12 108:19 masses 72:18 65:11 101:9 104:21 105:15 millimeters 180:9
making 68:16 Master's 68:6 145:25 172:10 109:19 136:10,11 millions 176:13,16
79:10 106:25 106:18 124:2,13 202:20 215:24 136:17 137:13,16 mind 14:14 29:23
109:24 125:19 228:25 245:21 150:13 153:2 117:10 142:2
man 18:25 match 73:18 232:1 246:4 249:10 154:9 155:15,21 149:19 178:12
management 8:24 242:22 255:1 261:21 156:11 162:8 Mine 221:4
219:8 matched 236:6 meaning 111:4 memorandums mining 227:19
manager 254:14 matches 232:3 128:8 194:24 Minnesota 194:21
manmade 32:22 material 51:17 meanings 120:25 memory 18:2 minor 211:24
manner 84:14 92:7 217:15 means 62:20 memos 105:7,9 minus 248:18
207:7 240:7 241:15,15 248:14 163:12 202:23 123:15 135:11 minute 105:8 109:3
Mansur 67:3,5,6,7 248:22,24 250:1,5 204:6 259:9 mention 90:20 253:24
67:8,17,22 103:16 materials 8:6,14 meant 71:9 112:1 110:18 150:9 minutes 7:13,21
manual 99:2,14 9:1,5,12,16 25:4 measure 105:25 232:21 9:7 75:15 117:10
100:5,10,12 25:12,16 26:12 106:7 110:12,13 mentioned 30:17 153:9
102:19 111:17,18 28:24 33:1 35:20 180:5 47:4 56:22 96:3 mirror 73:15
179:10,21 180:23 50:13,16 51:24 measurements 113:8 114:22 misses 225:6,21
181:12,25 182:7 52:7,18 53:7 24:20 25:19,20,21 137:6 153:11 226:4,11 227:7

Page 285
261:14,15,20 27:5 Mosher 15:1 27:12 national 59:15 Netherlands 78:21

missing 225:6 modeler's 27:10 121:21 211:7 65:19 148:9 172:3 218:19
Mississippi 44:4 modeling 15:13 240:6 249:2 261:5 172:14,21,24 never 35:23 51:6
60:9,13 67:12,24 26:3 31:23 33:18 262:3 173:8,9 54:25 55:3,21
92:9 98:25 103:4 34:1 35:25 36:17 move 176:21 natural 70:16 72:3 197:22 237:4
103:13,22 105:17 38:21 70:6 72:6 247:17,22,23 72:6,9 new 1:13 2:11 17:4
124:15 142:18 72:15 73:1,3 moved 19:24 nature 12:25 13:3 17:10 19:24 46:14
162:11,24 164:17 86:12 94:16 97:1 moving 242:21 18:23 27:24 31:18 62:4 64:5,11
165:5 174:15 114:8,15,19 MRGO 1:7 29:25 56:7 83:21 134:11 70:19 76:4,15
175:1 181:5 126:16,25,25 32:22 34:24 36:8 134:15 181:11 78:9 88:24 89:2
194:13,17,20 129:15,17 212:3 46:17 47:11 58:20 NAVD88 246:5 94:19 99:18
Missouri 124:2,10 231:9 232:17,25 104:1 105:3 navigation 86:19 102:21 104:18,23
125:11 233:14,17,20,22 109:15,16,21 92:11,15 120:18 105:11 107:25
misspeak 169:22 235:9 242:8 248:6 110:3,10,13 163:24 165:15 132:1 136:8 138:3
misspoke 182:6 249:10 111:10 135:7,8,11 Navigational 83:1 138:10,22 146:13
misstated 98:11 models 15:12 35:22 135:18 136:3,4,11 nay 140:1 164:16 167:2
misstates 98:1 69:18,21,23,25 136:15 137:3,17 near 20:10 21:18 171:5,24 174:15
mitigate 107:12 70:8,14,16 71:24 137:25 138:20,21 21:18 46:20,21,22 174:25 175:4,7
mode 201:24 73:17 92:23 94:23 139:1,3 148:17 82:19 211:8,13,24 181:9,18 184:22
204:24 94:25 95:2 96:11 153:6,11 156:16 212:1 225:5,6,21 185:7 198:7,15
model 34:4 56:24 127:1 131:16 156:24 157:3 225:21 226:4,11 201:6,7 202:13
90:12 92:21 93:1 201:24 202:2 158:22 164:10 227:6 235:3 225:15,18 228:20
93:17,22 95:6,7 205:13 212:12 167:8,12 168:1,10 241:16 252:2 228:24 241:11
95:10,11 114:2 213:3,25 224:15 181:1 182:8,23 255:23 261:14,15 244:6 253:7 255:9
124:20 131:21,24 232:5,19 252:10 186:15,18,20 261:19,20,21 255:10
132:7,21,23 moderate 116:8,9 205:11 234:23 nearly 187:18 newest 153:21
197:18,21 200:25 221:24 249:9 252:7,15 necessarily 71:3 newly 244:8
201:11,17,24 modes 93:9 201:21 260:15,22 250:17 NGS 172:3 173:13
202:14,14,18,23 202:7,8 205:18 MSL 245:21 246:3 necessary 68:18 Nicholson 77:20
203:1,20,25 206:9 208:11 multiple 173:17 142:25 145:22 78:5 80:1
208:5,17 209:13 modification 105:9 201:21 213:10 need 9:21 27:22 NICK 3:19
212:6,7,10,13,15 139:12 154:9 M-A-N-S-U-R 67:4 29:13 41:18 44:14 nine 154:19 245:22
212:16,24,25 modified 178:4 63:6 70:7,14 nineties 170:3
213:14,15,17,20 modifying 177:23 N 105:23 110:6 255:16
213:21 214:17 moment 34:7 36:4 N 4:1,1,1,6,18,18 144:16,24 146:3 Ninth 54:7 230:7
215:14 232:3,3,6 153:19,20 166:1 5:1 152:11,15 161:17 233:15
232:11,23 235:14 214:7 215:5 name 23:4,5 48:17 178:7 198:4,7 NOD 138:14
235:16,20,24 226:13 252:17 49:7 77:4 90:22 209:14 243:24 nodding 6:21
236:5,6,9,19,21 259:14 143:7,11,12 247:5 262:24 Nods 221:18
236:23 240:15,17 monitoring 107:7 148:18 192:15,16 needed 52:17 69:3 nomenclature
242:14,22,24 Monte 90:11 218:17 87:7 103:25 63:11 257:2
243:4 244:16 month 106:16 named 6:3 36:6 105:22,22 172:5 non 6:25 92:2
246:21 monuments 172:23 67:25 73:22 172:12 177:23 196:15 199:24
modeled 115:10 Morgan 2:5 64:2 names 17:25 214:15,15 200:9
206:19 morning 6:7 119:1 Nancy 30:20 needing 242:3 nonexistent 211:25
modeler 233:14 187:1 Naomi 29:11 30:13 needs 152:24 normal 120:22,22
modelers 26:21 Morrison 54:2 NASA 164:10 201:10 north 20:6 79:11

Page 286
82:16 164:10,19 197:19 198:12 obtained 106:19 16:10,21 17:3,11 157:10 158:25
165:11 172:25 203:16 206:8 obvious 83:23 17:13,19 18:9 161:23 163:15
173:16 186:22 211:8 220:16 obviously 15:21 19:16,23 20:21 164:20 165:13,20
188:18 189:3 224:8 225:1 91:9 236:11 21:2,15 22:4,16 166:22 167:4
201:5 235:3 245:1 227:13 228:1 occasionally 62:22 23:8,18,24 24:1 168:12 169:8
245:24 250:22 249:24 253:8 occasions 225:17 24:13 25:13 26:10 172:14 174:13
251:25 252:3 259:4,6 occur 89:17 108:8 27:25 28:15 29:10 179:25 181:6
northern 230:3,6,7 numbers 37:14 108:24 114:4 30:5,19 31:24 182:13,25 184:3
230:8,8,17,19 40:10,12 45:10 159:23 211:21 32:12 33:20 34:5 186:25 187:3,8
notably 181:9 46:12 90:17 236:11 34:8,22 35:6,12 188:3,8,24 189:16
240:5 115:12 141:11 occurred 106:14 36:5 37:16,18 191:8 193:19
notation 83:13 147:8 170:14 108:11 110:9 39:12 40:2,15 194:9 195:1
note 48:8 56:17 180:2 208:7 210:3 117:2 169:17 41:20 44:24 47:4 196:24 197:9,14
80:12 164:9 251:1 179:1 186:13,14 48:19 49:3,15 197:20,25 198:8
219:12 numerical 38:21 190:21 207:18 50:10 56:7 57:5 198:10,24 199:4,5
noted 45:25 114:6 69:21 71:24 72:15 240:25 245:2,3,6 58:1 59:22 62:1 199:15 201:8,20
264:13,15 73:1,16 114:2 245:25 249:13 64:3,4 66:20 67:3 202:5 205:24
notice 5:7 7:7,8,15 126:16 133:9 occurrence 200:24 71:6 72:4,22 73:8 206:16 207:1,14
117:16 212:6,7 232:5 occurring 174:17 73:20,25 74:4,21 208:23 209:6,20
notion 49:24 249:10 ocean 228:7 76:10 77:15,18,25 210:19,24 214:8
November 33:4 Nutria 207:12 October 17:10 78:4 80:15,19,25 216:22 218:13
76:23 113:17 nutshell 72:1 88:18 74:22 228:20,24 81:8 82:7,25 83:4 219:10,15 220:2
172:4 177:17 101:22 134:23 231:1 83:8 84:22 86:6,9 220:22 222:6,13
218:20 145:8 159:25 odds 90:4 86:11 87:4 88:5 222:18 223:2,8,16
nuclear 227:18 offense 133:13 88:14,20,23 90:2 223:23 224:18,21
number 11:15 O offer 76:14 118:14 90:25 92:3 94:3,6 226:8,14,25 227:2
13:11 22:2 24:6 O 4:1,18,18 5:1 121:8 132:11 96:23 97:18 99:8 227:10 228:4,11
24:18 25:15 27:25 oath 5:25 6:5 134:12 158:5 99:25 100:17 229:3 230:5,6,16
28:9 31:15,25 Objection 130:2 offered 44:5 79:20 101:22 102:3,16 230:22 233:19
46:15 50:19 52:6 151:8 157:6 189:5 82:3 88:5 102:24 104:10 234:8,19 235:7
65:4 68:7 69:21 objections 5:11 offering 133:21 106:10 111:20 236:12,24 237:6
78:1 83:23 87:25 obligation 107:11 offhand 148:13 113:5,20 115:1 239:2,23 240:3
91:7 102:21 104:4 108:4 233:12 116:2,12,20 118:5 242:16,19 244:10
104:13,19 118:20 observation 70:25 office 32:10 104:24 121:2,10 123:25 244:19 245:18
123:17 131:5 83:22 212:9 offices 1:11 124:25 125:6 246:12 250:24
136:17 137:13,16 observational officially 12:18 126:8 127:8 251:20 252:18
138:3,25 139:4 107:9 212:2 officiated 5:24 129:23 130:12 253:2,16,18 254:7
140:4 141:7 142:1 observations 79:24 oh 18:9 42:8 52:13 132:18 133:1,18 255:19 256:1,24
146:24,25 152:18 82:13 83:8 203:4 58:11 71:18 83:4 137:1,12,14 257:20 260:11,20
152:18,18,19 225:14 234:16 86:9 91:3 149:12 138:24 139:22 262:2,5,20
153:2,4,11,18 240:12 164:20 169:8 140:12,19,20 Okeechobee
155:15,22,22 observe 211:11 175:6 186:17 141:23 142:13,15 108:16,17
156:10 162:5 231:22 232:18 252:22 143:1,13 147:7 Okemos 6:2
167:20 180:9 236:3 oil 185:12 148:14,24 149:22 Oklahoma 124:3
185:8 187:9 188:3 observed 50:9 okay 8:3,11 9:14,25 152:17 153:10,22 125:15
189:2 191:9 73:19 232:1 11:2,4,8,11 12:1,7 154:11,19 155:5 old 20:1 89:5,14
194:15 196:3 235:20 236:10 13:19 14:8 16:4 155:12 156:4,9,15 once 18:17 38:8

Page 287
95:18 107:10 opposed 101:25 outlet 142:18,22,24 58:7,12,13 60:3 142:5,8 143:3
160:8 185:21 237:16 143:15 145:20 65:17 77:8,18,23 155:12 164:13,14
186:3 opposite 84:11 162:11,24 164:17 77:25 81:25 85:24 164:15 165:3
ones 26:11,12 42:5 oranges 250:16 165:6,11,18 86:18,21 98:8 167:20 169:1
43:1 82:24 181:5 order 6:20 8:24 outlined 179:9 136:2 137:15 188:4 246:16
227:20 255:5 51:14 61:1 64:24 outlines 169:9 140:3,5,6,20,20 249:7 254:12
261:25 114:1 122:9 outside 122:17 140:21,23 141:3,4 parallel 56:9 181:3
one's 103:7,7 153:22 173:8,20 213:13 260:25 141:7,21,22 142:3 184:2,8 212:23
one-directional 223:6 246:6 261:14 142:4,6 154:24 237:21 255:6
237:20 250:20 overall 27:18 155:2 162:22 parameter 240:18
Opelousas 6:14 orders 115:15,18 112:15 212:1 163:23 164:9,20 parameters 34:2
198:9 Oreskes 69:11 overlap 120:10 164:21 165:4,4 35:22 38:24
operating 257:18 71:14,23 72:23 Overly 157:6 166:13,15 167:19 131:22 212:19
operator 20:18 organization overtop 230:19 168:23 169:5,7,9 213:4,7,8,14
opinion 20:16,18 218:17 overtopped 74:16 169:10 171:22 221:16 222:13
20:24 48:20 59:24 original 5:9 126:19 89:12 91:10 176:25 177:15 232:2 238:17
68:25 69:22,23 140:6 146:22 230:11,18,21 179:6 188:23 239:10,22 240:22
71:23 82:6 91:21 148:17 150:3 overtopping 30:1 192:11,21 197:7 241:21 242:25
104:3 111:3 115:8 167:12 192:17 38:17,20 39:10 203:16 205:16 243:19
115:9,19 119:8 197:19 198:11 48:1,2,7 49:16 210:3 220:3 paraphrasing
130:7 131:10,11 226:8 244:13 56:13,20,21 57:13 244:24 246:12 246:2
132:11,18 134:2 originally 20:11 58:21 59:18,21 249:6 253:16,23 pardon 64:20
134:19 176:10 146:2 147:9 69:20 82:16 95:15 254:5 258:1 Paris 46:21
178:23 179:6 179:11 95:16,18,18,22 pages 16:8,8,12 Parish 29:25 79:1
191:6 193:24 Orleans 1:13 2:11 96:21 97:8,12,15 28:18 45:25 52:25 118:18 186:21
225:9,13 226:3 17:4,10 46:14 187:5 188:10,25 54:14 233:16 235:2
229:25 238:19 62:4 64:6,11 76:5 190:22,25 211:3 PALMINTIER 256:11,19
250:2 76:16 78:9 82:20 225:3,16 226:23 2:14,16 parking 21:20
opinions 15:20 83:2 88:24 89:2 229:24 230:12 panel 28:21 29:18 parlance 249:15
16:2,14 25:17,24 94:19 99:19 231:1 245:3 58:9 108:15,20 part 5:14 21:21
29:19 30:15 31:5 104:23 108:1 overtops 84:13 paper 38:19 39:19 29:22 51:23 53:8
34:20 35:9,13 136:8 138:3,11,22 owned 22:4 40:9 42:12 45:15 76:3 82:5 87:17
38:1 58:17 59:2,4 167:3 171:5,24 O'Cain 29:11 45:20,25 46:2,10 114:6 118:10
59:7 60:6 74:11 174:15,25 175:4,7 30:13 47:8 48:4,9,11 122:14 140:14,22
76:14 79:20 82:3 181:9,18 184:22 o'clock 245:23 49:15 56:4,11,16 147:25 175:9
100:11 112:12 185:7 225:15,18 O-R-E-S-K-E-S 56:18,24 57:8 177:10 180:23
117:21 118:12,14 225:18 228:20,24 69:12 58:2 67:20 70:8 196:14,17 203:7
119:7 121:7 126:1 241:11 253:7 70:15 71:15 74:1 238:14 241:3
129:20 133:5 256:7,10,16 P 93:14,23 96:18 partially 177:2,9
134:12,15,16 257:13 258:7 P 5:1 97:10 113:19,20 participate 80:16
157:12,18,20 259:25 260:3 page 4:3,8,20 7:16 130:21 196:24 254:1
158:5,6,8,13,21 other's 122:13 16:5 18:3,5,11,20 220:25 229:15 participated 228:1
158:21 208:14 ought 75:19 91:22 20:10 21:17 28:11 papers 53:3,6 228:22 229:5
210:17,23 214:10 ourself 124:11 28:15 43:24 46:10 57:24 194:5 PARTICIPATING
229:25 234:17 outcome 238:7,10 46:12,13 47:5,7,8 226:20 3:15
253:5 outflow 19:3 47:11,19,21 55:13 paragraph 137:17 particular 32:23
opportunity 13:4 outgrowth 54:2 55:15,16 57:6,7 138:9 140:21 33:20 35:15 36:18

Page 288
48:8,9 68:12 168:2 pervades 59:18 130:19 203:16 204:4

70:13 87:6 98:20 performance 78:9 Pete 115:12 piezometer 106:2 220:7
100:9 190:12 124:14 127:14 Peter 259:7 106:15 107:8 plot 200:20
212:18 216:2 180:6 194:3 PFP 91:18,23 93:24 254:20 plots 47:22
253:23 260:19 202:19 244:25 196:9,21 199:8 piezometers 105:24 plug 208:17
particularly 21:11 performed 39:8,16 200:5 106:8,13 255:7 plugged 96:12
30:24 31:18 60:21 39:23 45:13 47:16 PFPs 94:17 197:5 pile 190:14 132:22
82:19 88:24 48:2 56:25 59:25 PGL 187:13,13,14 pipes 106:5 plus 78:5 117:2
194:11 211:7 139:20 188:3 189:2 190:1 piping 188:13 125:4 127:22
parties 5:3 15:5 period 14:19 52:15 190:4 191:9,13 189:23 191:7 PL84-99 258:20
51:16 68:2 75:17 57:16 142:20 196:3 197:7,19 Pizza 62:18 PNP 91:18,23
78:19,21 111:5 143:23,24 161:21 199:6,7 place 7:2 54:25 93:24 94:1 196:9
265:14 174:20 179:7,16 PGLs 187:18 86:15 87:9 93:3 196:21 197:5
parts 62:6 74:13 194:7 214:14 phenomena 213:4 103:17 135:22 199:8
143:2 252:21 234:25 246:23 238:3 149:5 177:6 PNPs 94:17
party 21:19 68:24 permanent 65:23 photo 79:11 229:15 185:13 186:16,23 pockets 240:4
passed 20:12 permeabilities photographs 15:19 187:4 point 23:3 38:10,18
passing 160:21 115:10 248:7 16:17,18,19,22 placed 109:7 157:8 39:21 40:20 41:14
patent 197:12 permeability 115:5 17:1,3,4,12,15,16 placement 63:22 44:5 45:21 48:9
patient 117:13 115:13 116:5 17:17,20 places 26:16 70:16 73:14 89:7
227:3 263:4 180:3 246:22 photography 102:22 105:23 91:25 92:1,2
Paul 66:15 247:20 248:9,14 231:23 139:4 153:12 93:19 95:1 135:12
PAVLICK 3:17 248:17 249:25 photos 261:7 186:4 211:18 144:6 145:2,11
pay 118:20 250:9,20 251:3 phrase 90:24 213:23 234:24 147:5 173:14,15
pdf 155:3 permeable 247:12 119:20 236:10 240:25 183:14,23 185:22
peak 233:15 247:15 physical 8:10 73:3 plaintiff 47:2 186:3 195:7
peaks 118:22,22 permissible 220:6 109:11 212:8,16 plaintiffs 2:1 12:19 196:15,16 197:20
peat 115:5 222:1 225:5 232:11 19:14,15 20:7,13 199:25 200:3,4,5
peer 129:7 225:10 permit 17:6 241:25 234:16 236:18 23:9,10 85:8 200:8,9 201:25
226:9,15 permitted 5:5 240:11 260:24 115:11 127:13 212:3 216:2 235:1
pencil 37:23 person 19:12 36:6 physically 76:4 plan 43:7,13 50:24 241:2 246:2
penetrating 254:20 73:22 82:14 212:5 231:11 51:4 54:23 55:1 251:18 252:7
penetrometers 166:19 208:2 235:11 63:21 154:10 260:18 261:18
255:3 personal 53:4 physics 101:9 155:16,22,24 pointed 30:8 211:6
people 15:1 42:20 225:8,13 195:25 156:8,11 234:23 pointing 185:2
63:6 70:5 72:25 personalities 130:4 Ph.D 1:10 6:1 planned 155:19 points 24:19 25:9
76:2 77:1 89:20 personally 74:18 49:11 85:1 124:6 planning 87:16 26:13 31:17 91:15
92:22 120:20 79:19 117:18 124:17 125:19 187:22,24 144:8 173:20,22
166:18 183:12 228:18 264:3,11 Plaquemines 79:1 194:23 196:21
207:17 227:24 personnel 30:25 pick 98:7 204:9 plausible 190:19 197:3 232:10
percent 90:13,14 62:23 251:7 play 133:13 235:19 243:6
90:15 91:11,15,17 persons 59:16 picture 95:21 played 234:4 polders 184:15
percentage 221:16 145:10 209:1 262:12 playing 10:14 policies 123:4
perception 224:16 215:17 piece 209:14 133:14 144:10
perform 39:6,24 perspective 198:20 220:25 plays 203:7 policy 90:19 91:7
45:14 47:17 49:1 201:16 pieces 69:22 please 61:24 106:2 110:17 123:22
122:16 138:4,22 PERTAINS 1:7 piers 38:7 130:15 189:10 199:14 187:20 193:6,11

Page 289
193:22 195:8 predicted 180:5 136:3,4,18 181:2 159:5,17 160:5,12 profile 90:18 147:5
198:11 201:14 Predictions 37:8 193:6,11,21 195:5 160:14 161:15 199:21 200:6
254:13 preliminary 13:11 195:8,16 210:24 196:15,16 199:24 profiles 105:18
Pontchartrain 13:13 78:8 79:21 228:5 251:18 200:5,8,9 207:2 260:17
104:12 136:17 preparation 146:19 principally 188:11 probably 13:17 program 231:15,24
155:21 156:7 146:19 principle 185:13 19:25 32:9 36:18 programs 121:19
257:16 prepared 13:15 209:7 102:7 128:25 progress 211:10
poor 111:1 221:24 85:8 87:11 88:9 principles 249:5 162:13 176:13 236:14
pore 248:1,11 260:12 printed 9:18 50:13 185:14 191:3 progresses 109:25
pores 247:23 preparing 8:8 52:6 141:15 227:13 progressing 241:18
portion 137:2 12:13,16 166:12 252:21 problem 107:17 progression 236:6
155:13 183:3 presence 135:8 prior 56:13,21 135:13 241:8 243:5
portions 118:17 149:19 150:4 57:10,12 69:20 problems 65:21 prohibit 208:20
244:1 214:11 75:1 76:21 94:5 156:20 210:16 project 12:10 27:21
pose 137:23 167:23 present 3:11 38:14 99:15 107:24 procedure 5:6 61:7 34:17 85:11
184:24 presented 39:19 148:23 200:23 93:2 207:24 107:17,18,20
position 73:9 88:1 142:20 211:3 225:3 procedures 60:18 109:2 117:5 148:4
121:19 241:21 143:14 221:6 230:25 254:25 87:5 98:24 101:3 148:5,16 159:4,15
possibilities 206:11 presently 142:16 258:9,15,21,25 126:11 127:5 160:4,11,14
possible 56:12 143:3 259:18 128:1 142:20 161:15 165:16
57:11 159:24 presents 88:6 private 89:4,15 143:14 254:17 174:20 175:8,9
postulates 190:23 President 59:13 100:20 110:25 proceed 66:5 177:4,13 178:24
post-Katrina 147:3 pressed 50:6 122:19 proceeding 53:5 188:1 198:3 201:7
254:9 pressure 105:21 privileged 51:1,17 proceedings 66:9 201:9
potential 167:11 248:4,11 probabilistic 85:2 80:17 projects 68:12
potentially 150:9 pressures 105:25 85:6,10,16 86:12 process 172:10 108:2,3 173:12
Powell 29:11 30:13 107:8 248:1,2 88:6 89:20 90:11 204:20 177:1
30:20 prestigious 70:11 92:17,19 95:8 processes 207:3 project-by-project
power 20:20 84:16 presume 219:14 96:10 120:14,21 209:19 99:18
Poydras 1:12 pretty 28:18 121:5 124:19,22 produce 7:19 24:6 prominent 59:16
practice 61:14 178:13 199:2 203:19,24 24:18 26:2 29:3 prone 48:1,1
99:16 100:21 prevailing 61:5 206:20 29:13 32:6 242:25 pronounce 113:10
126:21 127:17 prevented 96:24 probabilities 93:8 produced 8:1,22,25 pronounced 87:1,2
128:14,15 129:8 preventing 111:7 200:11 204:17 28:22 29:6 33:25 87:3 230:9
185:16 227:24 prevents 202:9 206:15,18 44:6 50:15,23 proof 71:3,4 132:16
practices 20:25 previous 20:10 probability 85:19 51:8,17,20,21 proper 63:1
70:23 101:3 36:19,22 37:15 89:22,24 92:16 129:2 252:19,23 properties 231:25
126:21 128:5 105:7 151:17 93:10,18 94:19,22 253:3,4 232:2
precedent 132:13 258:4 96:11,20 97:7 produces 184:12 proposed 54:6 55:1
132:14 previously 36:13 119:17,22 127:22 production 40:23 92:23
precise 6:12 47:3 65:15,20 81:17 197:15 198:19 profession 38:14 proposing 198:2
65:23 70:21 73:17 173:23 232:8 200:7,19 201:1 80:3 95:5 protect 107:12
257:25 primarily 48:4 204:13,15,19,23 professional 75:8 174:19 184:15
precisely 148:21 58:19 182:3 205:1,18 206:22 101:22 146:7,15 185:23
173:1 246:1 primary 57:20 68:2 207:5 208:8 152:10 162:1 protected 95:23,24
predict 61:8 94:10 119:8 120:17 probable 91:24 professor 63:5 protecting 165:17
131:24 238:15 123:18 124:11 92:1,2 93:19 116:1 255:11 protection 110:6

Page 290
110:13 138:17 93:13 96:17 129:6 209:12 214:20 191:2,5 258:11

155:14,16,20 129:10 218:12 quantifying 238:17 radar 254:20 readily 247:15
156:6,24 157:2 pull 32:9 quantitative raise 60:22 146:3 reading 5:8 46:11
162:23 166:11 pulled 247:24 179:17,25 180:7 198:3 71:20 121:16
167:20 168:6 pulsing 238:1 180:18 212:21 raised 89:6 142:11 152:22
174:3,5 176:7,20 pumping 122:8 quantitatively raises 109:20 254:11
176:22,23 177:1 Purdue 85:1 124:6 203:2 Raleigh 124:10 readings 106:15
177:13,24 178:1,5 125:15 Quebec 173:14 125:11 reads 57:11 155:13
179:18 180:15 purpose 106:7 question 5:12 6:16 ran 107:16 180:7 188:5
182:11 258:13,18 116:19 122:14 6:18 47:13 52:3 224:15 250:12 ready 75:16
protective 164:3 184:19 201:12 59:5,18 64:13,16 random 90:17 real 152:24 181:16
prototype 70:1 257:11 90:6 96:14 100:18 range 115:13,17 reality 190:9
73:3 purposes 5:5 54:12 102:2 127:14,15 200:15 204:9 really 51:23 70:1
prove 249:12 85:12 114:24 130:10 133:17 211:22 242:10 70:16 72:5 114:11
proven 251:15 187:22 198:23 135:15 143:1 ranks 232:22 140:1 150:6 156:4
provide 9:9,23 39:4 pursuant 5:7 147:14 148:1 rare 178:24 179:2,3 182:14 190:7
52:17 87:4 108:3 208:17 149:8 164:25 179:5 235:5 237:13
110:6 111:2 push 247:13 165:1,20,21 rate 12:8 37:8 239:3 242:22
166:11 168:6 put 41:2 52:16 53:7 182:13 188:2 49:20 50:7 64:8,9 250:15 255:21
177:12 180:14,17 61:4,10 79:4 198:5 199:6 226:9 64:15 168:14 256:25
184:1 185:8 209:9 83:22 120:20 226:25 228:11 170:7,22 171:4,8 reanalyzed 178:4
261:7 141:9,12 172:14 249:25 257:12 214:11 238:15,22 reanalyzing 177:23
provided 9:9,20 180:3,10 185:6 questionable 106:9 240:23 247:18 reason 166:16
17:16 106:24 202:14,15 208:6 questioning 262:25 rates 65:15 202:13 205:2,8
136:14 197:6 208:25 209:1,13 questions 6:9,15 rating 258:8,20 reasonably 159:16
217:17 259:15 215:6,9 231:24 20:24 22:3 119:3 260:5 159:23 214:22
provides 47:8 236:2 241:14 120:24 126:13 Raymond 73:24,25 reasons 190:24
58:21 130:21 247:8 129:13 134:23 reach 36:9 47:11 recall 9:8 11:6 16:3
160:15 puts 47:25 153:21 184:24,25 220:13 58:20 61:13 18:17 20:23 21:5
providing 111:6 putting 83:24 262:21 136:15 168:5 21:7 22:24 23:5
215:19 126:24 247:25 quick 141:20 186:19,19 205:15 29:23 30:7,11,16
provisions 165:16 259:18 quickly 28:19 252:14 260:15,22 30:23 31:8 33:1,5
prudent 151:5,12 P-I-E-Z-O-M-E-... 141:10 reached 38:10 33:10,24 34:7
151:16 152:1 106:3 quite 224:15 137:24 167:24 35:2 36:4 40:7
161:23 175:12 P.E 1:11 6:1 264:3 quiz 207:4 188:20,21 231:4 54:15,23 63:19
176:11 243:5 264:11 quote 29:21 49:23 241:3 64:12 66:17 82:11
Public 80:11,13 P.O 3:6 57:11,16 84:23 read 6:17 13:5 82:16 83:9 99:21
publication 37:20 137:15 138:10 27:13 31:16 35:7 112:20 113:7
49:5 67:15 99:2 Q 164:22 174:21,22 70:15 74:20 78:2 141:13 143:7,8,12
99:13 quality 90:22 91:2 177:19,22 178:1 79:5 110:24 152:20,22 154:17
publications 77:16 111:2,4 219:8 190:8 193:5 249:7 112:16 126:4,13 165:6 226:13,23
77:19 85:24 221:14 quoted 114:14 129:1,13 130:13 227:6 234:21,21
publicly 8:7 28:25 quantification quoting 177:19 139:18 153:8 235:3 250:19
81:10 216:8 154:21 158:22 253:13,22 254:10
publish 85:22 quantified 205:20 R 163:5 165:24 259:17,17,20
published 31:6 207:24,25 R 4:18,18 49:7,8 167:16 203:23 recess 45:17 171:20
38:10 57:7 68:7 quantify 208:14 race 190:8,21,22 218:16 222:11,21 recession 206:24

Page 291
207:2 246:12 248:9 204:8 221:2 234:16 245:5

recitation 139:9 reference 16:1 37:5 reflected 13:20 relative 176:5 relying 226:3
recite 33:12 142:14 46:5 60:3 66:2,14 refutes 73:10 relatively 240:19 remain 184:10
reclaimed 169:18 70:7 73:6,21 refuting 133:23 relevant 21:12 remained 156:15
recognized 26:18 100:1 110:23 regard 12:22 71:24 123:12 139:5 182:1 192:18
92:21 115:20 152:21 162:21 114:18 129:12 153:13 193:15 remaining 155:19
214:13 227:14 163:1,2 173:15 158:11 181:25 221:15 210:15
recollection 22:6 194:5 195:20 241:19 reliability 73:10 remarks 114:7,10
33:15 40:9 64:23 209:25 218:22 regarding 31:2 83:13 84:23 85:3 remediation
74:14 112:5 139:3 220:23 251:25 32:21 33:25 34:1 85:10,16 86:17,19 108:23
143:5 148:22 263:8 56:9 106:24 87:5,11 88:3,22 remember 15:10
156:13 168:20 referenced 24:21 108:15 136:10 91:9 92:11 97:4 17:25 23:4 184:5
170:19 171:2 26:11 28:10 42:5 140:22 179:17 116:18 119:18,22 reminds 14:15
recommendation 55:12 58:7 172:24 205:17 244:25 120:14 127:22 remnant 260:18
175:11 173:7 187:10 246:17,19 251:18 133:24 185:19 removed 244:2
recommendations 199:10,12 219:13 261:7 189:13 192:13 removes 50:8
54:22 references 15:23 regardless 147:8 200:7 208:1 repaired 258:19
recommended 87:4 16:7,13,20,23 regime 36:1 249:19 repeat 58:11
reconcile 169:21,23 28:11,13 33:19 Reginald 67:25 reliable 90:7 91:11 111:17 204:20
170:5 52:16,19 55:14 region 48:1 64:4,16 91:17 127:3 replaced 94:1
reconnaissance 70:12 77:13 98:15 168:14 170:23 131:19 132:10,15 191:13
74:25 114:1 117:14 174:2,11,18 132:16 200:12 report 6:19 7:5 8:6
reconstituted 35:16 126:6 194:24 regional 62:10 64:7 236:20 238:14 11:19,23 12:2,4,5
35:19 214:1,3 65:2 169:1,14 reliance 8:6,14 9:1 12:14 13:6,9,12
record 7:24 34:12 referred 31:17 170:7 171:19 9:5,12 25:4,11,16 13:13,23,25,25
40:25 46:4 120:20 61:15 72:3 84:22 173:24 174:1 31:12 36:20 50:16 14:16 15:23 16:1
139:24 141:24 104:15 112:7 regulation 194:14 51:24 52:17 53:7 16:5 17:8,18,18
142:13 153:9 143:6 167:15 194:25 89:24 102:17 22:22,24 24:10,23
162:8 172:15 185:15 195:15 regulations 21:1,3 112:11 217:15 24:24 25:2,2,3,7
210:12 217:14 21:7 194:4,10,22 219:25 26:13,17 27:3,8
red 47:25 224:8 referring 40:13 195:14 relied 15:19,22 27:13 28:10,16,22
257:7 82:23 121:15 Regulatory 19:10 16:2,19,21 29:18 29:16,18,21,22,24
redesign 145:4 135:17 164:13,14 rehabilitation 87:8 30:16 45:10 48:21 30:6,18,24 31:18
146:4,10 147:12 179:8,13 186:5 reinforcement 65:9 66:10,18 34:18 35:1,15
147:16 150:2 194:1 216:1,11 216:17 218:1 112:19 157:19 36:13,14,18,21
151:6 152:1,5,12 217:22 218:14 reiterate 133:7 187:12 246:7 37:6 38:2,15,18
redesigning 182:7 224:10 230:4 relate 17:20 238:25 253:4 40:1,4,11 42:6,11
reduce 133:14 235:13 236:21 related 25:15 26:22 relief 105:20 43:25 46:1,5 47:5
178:1 244:3 246:25 27:17 31:13 34:4 relies 215:4 250:19 52:22 55:12,13
redundancy 83:19 256:8 35:5,10 39:1 relieve 105:21 56:11,19 58:8,13
84:4 185:4 refers 14:10 70:22 47:10 48:7 221:14 rely 16:14,17 25:18 58:16,19,21 59:6
refer 32:24 46:5 74:15 164:9 228:8 265:14 25:21,22 28:13 59:8 60:5 61:11
90:22 91:2 140:3 192:23 240:6 relates 47:20 86:3 30:14 31:4 34:19 64:10,19,22,23
142:5 153:16 refine 106:13 172:18 37:25 58:17 59:3 65:9,12,17 66:9
165:2 179:13 refined 202:12 relating 129:7 59:20 74:10 77:13 70:4 74:3,5,10,13
192:12,19 220:2 refinements 202:13 relations 219:7 104:19 110:21 76:1,4,22,24 77:4
221:1 227:23 reflect 180:22 relationship 49:18 112:13 117:18 77:8,14,19 78:8

Page 292
78:11,16 79:16,17 Reporter 1:25 5:23 researched 146:18 113:5 117:3 142:7 165:7 166:25
79:21,23 81:5 265:3,25 researchers 67:22 228:21 167:4,10 172:8
82:4,12 83:11,22 REPORTER'S 104:6 reviewed 9:17 174:24 178:3
85:9 86:20 87:18 265:1 researching 68:3 15:19,22 17:20 179:23 181:23,25
88:9 90:20 92:24 reporting 128:7 reserve 262:22 27:11,20 30:18 182:7,25 185:21
92:25 95:1 97:21 132:3 245:8 reserved 5:13 59:11,15 66:19 186:2,10 188:6
97:22,23 98:3,5 reports 8:21 12:20 Resio 15:9 105:18 129:7 192:20,23 193:1,3
99:3 100:16 13:1,3,5 16:22 resist 48:2 131:14 135:23 193:16 195:13
102:22 106:18 17:18 24:2 25:4 resistance 113:15 146:18 225:10 196:3,19 199:7
107:15,21 108:6 25:15 27:11,14 213:16 217:18 226:9,15 202:11,21,22
108:12 111:9 33:14 35:4 40:11 218:15 219:9 reviewer 68:19 205:21 206:1
112:8,22,24 113:1 47:2 68:6,7 77:19 249:8 reviewers 104:5 221:7,13 222:23
113:23,25 114:5,6 78:3,4 79:8 85:13 resistant 221:23 reviewing 35:7 224:7,24 239:20
116:10,14 117:25 86:1 104:7 113:24 240:14 126:22 243:16 244:14
126:2 130:8 131:3 118:4 124:23 respect 173:2 revised 111:18 245:10 251:1,4,7
131:15 136:2,16 126:4,14,18,23 responded 189:14 136:12,14 179:12 251:13,23 254:12
137:12,15 140:8 129:7,14 133:10 191:12 179:20 254:22 255:12,21
140:23 142:21 140:16 143:6 response 6:23 revisions 142:25 256:21,22 258:7
143:14 146:19 147:3 194:3,3 191:9 145:21 258:10 261:13,24
152:23 167:18 230:14 240:5 responses 6:25 revisit 151:18,20 262:22
168:21,23 169:25 245:15 246:2,8 responsible 20:19 revisited 151:22 rights-of-way
170:1,18 171:22 261:6 20:21 68:3 257:18 161:17 166:7
172:1 174:13,22 represent 235:18 responsiveness RICHARD 3:4,17 risk 87:14 107:7,10
176:25 177:15,16 representation 5:12 right 9:4 10:12 107:12
181:21 183:3,5,6 260:14 rest 158:4,4 184:17 15:17 16:16 17:23 Rita 258:15
183:8,9 184:21 representative restarting 140:13 18:1 21:6 24:4 river 38:8,8 67:12
185:17 187:11 35:20 248:14 restating 246:8 25:5,22 26:19 68:15 103:4,13
188:23 189:13,21 represented 20:6 result 73:19 164:5 27:2 28:21 31:1 105:17 124:15
190:23 191:8,10 200:10 174:5 219:5 36:10,25 37:11,23 130:19 142:18
191:11 202:1 REPRESENTING 239:21 243:10 43:10 45:6 55:7 162:11,24 164:17
211:7 212:4 215:3 2:1 3:1 244:15 245:2 55:20 57:18 58:13 165:5 180:23,25
215:3,5,7,25 represents 212:16 260:1 265:16 69:11,16 71:22 181:2,4,8 257:7
216:3,21,24,25 reputations 59:11 resulted 139:13 74:1 77:25 78:3,8 rivers 130:16
217:6,9 218:6,14 Request 4:21 81:16 results 39:3 47:9,10 78:11,13 79:14 Road 46:21
218:15 224:5 requested 41:4 47:21,22 48:5 87:20,25 91:6 ROBIN 3:16
228:22 240:6 81:21 262:24 56:23 73:1 110:2 95:14 98:14 99:10 ROBINSON 1:7
244:24 245:5,9,13 require 161:21 133:22 232:11,12 100:8 102:10 Robin's 6:2
245:14,16 246:3,5 required 8:24 237:3 238:8,10,12 104:11,13 110:15 Rock 180:16
252:3,23 253:14 requirements 238:16,21 239:5 112:10,21 117:7 rocks 120:13
253:17,23,24 19:10 242:5 244:23 118:25 120:3 121:11,12
257:24 259:5 rereading 139:15 249:19 123:7 125:23 role 19:6
260:2 262:13 research 59:15 retained 19:13,15 128:17 135:8,15 roller 62:21
263:7 68:21 86:20 20:2 21:9 23:8 135:21 143:17 root 221:17
reported 1:23 113:22,22 128:23 retrieved 42:14 145:18 150:20 rotated 190:14
60:13 169:11,14 194:3 214:25 review 7:25 17:1 153:1 156:23 Rouge 2:18
170:2 186:24 215:17 216:7 28:20 29:18 58:9 158:3,10 159:7,12 rough 81:24
260:6 219:5 65:8,12 68:9 160:3 164:14 roughly 223:3

Page 293
round 170:14 108:15 180:5,12 scenario 250:17 212:18 216:15 164:23 165:2
routine 14:20 227:22 scenarios 243:17 217:13 219:17 180:21
Rowan 259:8 sake 163:2 252:9 220:7 234:6 236:4 sentences 143:2
RPR 1:24 5:22 sample 40:10,12,17 scholar 70:9 241:1,1 242:20 separable 78:18
265:2,24 45:10 50:5 school 125:7 Seed 73:22,23,24 separate 16:25
rule 45:8 samples 31:12 science 70:10 94:7 75:3,11,14 76:25 77:24 84:8 97:11
rules 5:6 70:23 35:17,19 40:13,16 197:10 77:6,19 78:4,4 135:18,20 152:6
Ruman 21:17 40:17 42:13,13,21 sciences 71:24,25 80:1 214:8 256:12,19
run 133:11 212:13 42:23 43:1,8 scientific 65:6 71:3 seeing 17:25 separated 18:9
231:24 242:14 44:21 45:1,3,23 scientifically 50:1 207:16 254:10 September 32:21
Rune 49:9,10 46:2,15,16,18,20 scientist 151:14 seek 152:4,8 66:15 136:12
running 62:21 47:3,11,15,23 scope 12:24 seeking 73:5 sequence 118:15
run-up 95:15,15,25 sampling 35:4,10 scour 19:3 37:7 165:25 186:12
96:1,21 97:2 35:16 54:12 38:7 130:15 seen 7:9,20 75:1 series 83:15 183:15
131:21 175:16 sand 103:20 239:17 225:16 80:3,19 81:4 183:17,20 184:2,4
244:12 240:11 241:23 screen 106:6 154:15 164:8 186:15 204:21
résumé 77:12,12 242:17,18,20 scrolling 140:12 165:23 185:9 serve 104:3
R-U-N-E 49:9 243:11 247:12 se 9:6 137:3 189:15 241:3 served 18:13 19:12
R.B 73:23 248:20 249:1 sea 174:4 245:21 253:9 259:19 serves 184:11
sandy 213:12 240:4 246:4 260:12,16 service 148:10
S save 5:8,11 search 7:24 23:15 seepage 68:4 92:8 192:7
s 4:18,18 5:1 27:6,7 saw 7:13 70:9 second 32:20 37:18 92:20 94:24 97:4 set 25:11,18,21
27:13,14 42:11 107:25 178:23 75:13 80:9 111:21 105:19 180:20 69:18 120:15
45:15 46:12 47:7 179:2 229:21,22 112:4 123:25 189:23 190:7 123:3 127:23
48:20 50:15 66:12 234:1,3,13 167:19 168:25 191:6 200:16 139:14 173:8
66:15,18 69:17 saying 48:10 71:4 185:6 201:22 201:3 204:12,14 265:7
73:11 93:7 113:9 72:2 170:6 182:8 231:8 248:18 206:7 248:17,22 sets 250:3
115:14,17 126:22 190:21 198:11 Secretary 162:9 250:21,22 251:1,4 setting 100:22
131:14 132:10,20 206:3 225:1 section 15:23 16:1 251:8,10,22 101:20 134:25
171:25 180:8 230:17 249:16 98:21 137:2 segment 185:7 236:1
184:19 201:16 says 13:22 14:9 138:18,24 140:4 Seijffert 216:18 settle 60:24
210:17,23 211:7 15:18 70:18 91:8 141:8 153:3 seismic 255:6 settlement 31:14
214:10 216:25 140:20 142:16 203:13 249:8,9 selected 153:12 62:13 144:25
218:5 219:24 143:13 145:23 252:3 semblance 208:1 180:2,5
224:12 234:13 148:1 163:11 Security 80:5,8,10 semi-educable seven 79:2 189:15
235:8,24 236:5,5 165:4 171:23 see 9:16,17,22 205:25 seventies 129:3
236:22 238:6 179:6 180:13 10:18 13:22,24 Senate 76:23 80:2,5 severe 164:1
239:4 240:6 189:21 190:25 14:11 16:16 17:23 80:6,20 severely 39:10
241:20 246:24 203:15 204:9 20:5 23:15 32:16 sense 13:3 17:19 258:17
252:9 254:14 214:5 219:5,13 33:19 39:23 40:21 46:25 94:8 101:6 Shabman 25:3,8
256:4 261:5 221:2,13,21 222:8 45:20 54:10 74:13 114:14 148:21 116:13,21
262:13 225:5 245:9,20,22 108:14 110:7 176:11 180:19 shape 92:13 244:6
safe 108:19 161:10 246:16 251:14 117:14 123:22 203:7,10 229:5 244:8
185:1,1 253:19 257:15 130:25 132:6 sent 52:14 shapings 63:22
safely 158:3 258:1,7 151:16 152:17 sentence 56:11 share 159:7 220:25
safety 31:15 100:13 scanned 53:6 185:10 190:18 57:6 131:2 143:13 shared 82:10
101:14 106:9 scattered 78:20 199:11 211:21 145:19 163:24 sheet 35:23 38:20

Page 294
38:23 39:11 56:13 side 38:23 64:12,13 135:22 200:3 203:4 89:17
57:13 130:17,22 69:19 82:20 84:11 single 82:13 83:10 slow 205:23 240:24 sooner 243:12
131:9,11 190:14 102:8,8 130:22 93:9 slower 244:17 244:16
212:22 237:16,19 132:3 149:9 singular 184:14 slowly 243:15 sorry 65:11,16 77:8
238:18 199:16,19 200:3 185:20 smaller 65:3 107:1 108:17 141:2
Shelby 42:12 211:1,9,10,13,15 sir 7:9 36:24 37:17 Smith 3:16 138:14 153:24 169:8,8
SHERMAN 2:9 211:22,23 222:19 58:15 67:2,11 smoke 112:2 175:6 187:12
44:1 225:2,6,22 226:4 69:15 84:2,5 society 17:9 28:19 191:11 203:17
ship 137:22 167:22 241:1 242:4 91:19 110:19 38:11 58:8 59:12 211:10 229:1
168:3 256:11 260:25 111:12,14 112:10 75:6,8,10 78:12 sort 6:14 39:15
shore 257:16 261:8,15,19 120:2 121:4 81:11 183:10 46:20 61:17 73:2
short 8:17 13:4 sidetracked 55:17 123:14,24 124:5 184:23 226:17 93:7 106:9 116:7
68:13,14 85:17 sign 166:19,21,24 125:18 134:2 sod 221:15 119:5 121:21
182:1,18 192:15 signature 166:23 156:23 178:3 soft 29:7 60:18 132:19 134:11
230:12 Signed 264:11,13 sit 248:3 software 232:22 200:12 206:9
shorter 224:20 264:15 site 79:4 190:12 soil 27:17 35:4,10 218:22 250:12
shorthand 265:9 significance 93:4 240:12 35:15 36:1 40:13 251:7
shortly 63:19 100:9 103:16 sites 260:24 40:16,19,24 41:24 sorts 90:16 121:1
short-duration significant 30:11 situated 137:24 43:21 44:2 49:19 sought 5:15
182:12,15 54:22 59:10 60:6 167:25 49:21 50:6,8,8 sound 50:1 126:16
short-term 248:8 60:24 62:5 66:10 situation 250:14 51:5 56:9 61:5 129:15,18 146:6
shovel 40:17 42:13 67:16 68:8 110:9 251:17 62:14,19 105:18 162:1
show 17:8 26:1 112:5 113:4,25 six 60:25 79:2 114:4 130:18 sounds 37:2 51:10
39:2 40:8 61:6 137:20 152:12 165:10 189:14 171:18 180:2,3 source 24:25 26:6
69:19 93:8 140:23 167:7,21 174:17 215:11 219:13 209:17 213:8 136:6 148:7 193:6
147:4 154:3 182:9 211:12 sixteen 7:17 221:15 237:21 193:11,22 195:8
167:14 211:8 223:19,20 238:9 sixth 138:1,7,8 238:16,18 240:19 195:16,17 208:4
222:4 238:24 significantly 139:10,11,13,14 240:22,22 241:9 sources 25:6,8,11
239:24 259:2,4 223:13 sixties 129:3 241:11,13 247:6 115:16 123:18,23
260:17 signing 5:9 sixty/forty 90:4 247:11,12,15,17 188:4,9 213:10
showed 96:5 99:21 signs 19:11 skip 165:14 247:18,21 248:10 south 79:12 82:14
234:7,21 236:14 silt 239:17 slid 19:4 254:19 255:3 164:18,24 211:17
238:21,21 similar 103:14 slide 189:19 199:20 261:10 245:3 262:14
showing 47:9 113:23 122:20 229:16,19 251:9 soils 39:5 60:12,18 southern 61:12
117:17 130:21 159:13 218:24 slides 188:13 62:16,17 68:16 214:24 230:4,5
240:19 225:22 241:17 189:18 190:3 98:16 120:13 spanning 75:18
shown 73:18 248:20 259:4 slope 31:14 92:18 121:11,12 150:8 spare 84:16
131:12 197:7 simple 184:1 185:5 94:24 95:1,11 188:14 189:19,20 spatially 240:20
shows 38:21 46:13 simplicity 193:13 97:3 100:13 247:20 248:6 speak 6:11 39:21
46:15,16 90:21 simply 56:19 73:5 120:18 137:19 249:9 63:9,9 120:25
91:1 133:19 95:6 106:5 145:14 167:25 180:1,19 solicited 254:15 146:17 193:10,21
200:14 202:15 180:13 200:6 200:17 204:14,16 somebody 14:12 195:1 197:10
204:23 208:6 208:6 242:5 245:8 206:6,19 216:4 40:20 81:4 160:15 216:12
221:4 234:25 246:7,8 250:25 244:3 251:5,8 someplace 81:3 speaking 33:17
235:3 243:20 simulation 90:12 255:7 somewhat 188:21 63:13 115:15
Shrader 69:14 simulations 90:14 slopes 124:18 211:18 159:11
shutting 140:13 simultaneously 137:24 199:16,19 soon 57:1 79:24 special 77:19 78:3

Page 295
78:4 82:4 162:9 125:23 170:25 starting 114:12 Stevens 2:2,3 3:18 76:17 97:25 98:9
specific 8:2 17:14 171:3,9 186:21 117:9 195:5,7 4:5 6:6,8 7:14 9:3 111:22 130:1
23:5 25:18,21 233:16 235:2 240:17 9:24 10:3,9,15,20 134:6 151:7 157:5
26:11,14,25 27:22 256:5,11,18 starts 124:24 147:1 11:18 13:10 23:19 162:5,15 163:4,10
32:24 36:20 45:22 stability 31:14 53:3 state 5:23 42:12 28:5,8 29:9 32:11 163:16 172:9
47:15 59:23 70:12 60:4,16 66:8 92:8 97:1 114:7,8 32:15,19 34:13 178:8,14,19 189:4
71:3 72:18 73:8 92:18 94:24 95:2 124:3 125:15 41:1,7,12,19,23 191:18,22 192:2,6
74:12 87:5 100:16 95:12 97:4 100:13 126:21 128:11,13 42:4,17,24 43:9 209:24 210:5,10
102:2,17 112:10 109:22 120:19 128:15 129:8 43:23 44:10,23 215:23 216:23
114:17,20 117:19 137:23 138:4,15 130:11 200:1 45:2,7,18 46:9 217:3,8 218:3
119:2 121:12 138:21 139:23 231:18 249:7 50:18 51:9,18 219:16,23 220:10
139:12 183:3 149:14 156:14,15 261:18 265:3 52:1,4,11 53:1,13 223:17,24 256:14
194:9 196:20 156:19 167:24 stated 68:10 216:5 53:15,18 54:4 262:6,11 263:6
227:1 238:11 168:2 180:1,19 226:24 249:7 55:8 66:24 71:12 stood 241:14
251:25 252:5 190:2 200:17 statement 32:25 77:3 81:19 82:1 stop 6:12,24 79:3
258:2 204:14,16 206:6 56:19 109:23 98:4,13 111:25 214:7,14 256:21
specifically 5:10 206:19 215:8 138:6 168:13 112:3 130:6 134:9 stops 241:2
14:25 29:17 30:8 248:7,15,24 251:5 174:14 137:8 141:25 Storesund 36:6
30:17 34:19 40:8 stabilize 137:18 statements 33:2 142:12 151:10 48:12,15,21,22,24
48:23 57:2 58:17 stable 110:8 100:16 169:22 155:8,11 157:9 49:7,10 57:1,2,23
66:17 72:11 76:19 stack 9:5 213:22 162:19 163:7,14 storm 151:3 152:13
95:17 96:1 109:20 stage 61:12 states 1:1,11 3:1,2 163:19,22 171:21 157:16 158:7
110:21 112:9,19 staged 31:18 29:24 60:16 62:6 172:11 178:11,16 159:17 175:25
113:2 119:14 stages 63:22 114:16 68:5,22 89:5 189:9 191:20,24 176:4,5,8
131:9 171:17 211:21,22 100:24 123:6 192:4,8,10 209:21 straight 91:13 92:4
181:13 206:14 stand 40:22 41:10 137:17 167:20 210:1,7,13 216:9 92:6,14 93:6,7
specificity 33:6 standard 9:13 172:24 173:7 217:1,5,11,20,23 130:17 197:8
specifics 102:23 10:21 89:16 148:4 226:22 240:7 218:8,25 219:18 200:10 203:23
121:22 177:7 148:5,16 152:11 258:13 220:1,8,14,21 straightforward
speculate 191:2 159:4,15 160:4,11 station 3:7 67:23 223:22 224:1,6,11 208:8
speed 97:18 141:22 160:14 161:15 87:12 113:25 246:11 253:15 Street 1:12 2:10,17
Spell 106:2 174:20 177:4,13 122:8 256:20 259:13 83:3 229:14 241:8
spelling 138:3 178:24 201:15 statistical 85:2 262:9,16 strength 61:3,9
spent 33:16 261:11 standpoint 75:7 89:21 sticky 224:8 62:20 92:8 180:2
spill 171:23 144:21 150:5 statistics 85:19 STIPULATED 5:2 241:9,10,13 247:5
spoil 31:20 36:9 152:11 158:18 stay 41:16 55:19 stipulation 6:3 248:13
164:17 160:7 202:16 96:14 236:1 stone 3:4 8:16 9:19 strengths 246:20
spoke 196:12 stands 49:9 104:8 steady 237:20 10:1,6,11,17 13:8 247:7,8 248:8
spoken 6:20 start 6:13 7:6 85:25 steep 199:15,17 15:2 23:13 28:3 250:5 251:6
sponsored 75:9 141:6 160:8 steeper 199:20 29:2,15 32:2,13 stress 247:8
spot 137:9 184:16 164:22 174:13 steer 26:10 40:3 41:5,15,21 42:1,7 stretch 207:21
spread 55:10 178:17 184:24 85:23 137:2 42:15,19 43:3,11 string 79:8
spring 13:17 193:14 211:1 194:10 226:9 43:18 44:7,12,25 stronger 241:10,14
St 29:25 64:18,21 222:12 step 21:2 34:3 45:5 46:3 50:20 strongest 212:24
67:13 78:25 93:20 started 108:23 236:22 240:20,20 51:12,22 52:10 structural 122:11
93:24 94:20 99:19 124:20 196:4 Steven 15:14 53:10,17,24 55:6 228:7
99:20 118:17 225:1 241:5 232:25 233:6 66:21 71:7,18 structure 62:12

Page 296
92:11,15 95:21 168:14 169:2,14 supply 84:16 84:13,15 108:10 185:18 193:4
105:11 111:6 169:17 170:1,3,7 support 87:15 172:22 174:4 255:21 261:6
149:2,7 150:6 171:8 173:25 101:15 183:15,16,17,20 talked 105:7
212:7 257:19 174:2,17 175:3,14 Suprinski 20:11 184:2 186:15 talking 6:24 17:4
260:7 176:3 179:1,4 sure 6:15 9:20 258:19 56:17 57:5 72:5
structures 27:19 subsiding 65:25 52:19 53:16 63:11 systems 70:16 72:3 75:17 84:6 102:10
34:25 36:14 83:14 66:1,3 174:3,4 81:3 117:11 72:6 78:9 83:15 120:22 165:21
83:21 86:5,20 substance 54:14 127:11 130:10 84:8 103:13 184:8 171:24 182:15
102:9 120:18 substantial 25:14 133:16 140:24 258:14 223:14,19 230:2
171:18 184:14 165:12 250:1 141:9 149:5 S-E-R-I-E-S 231:10 251:24
185:1,3 232:18 substantially 151:11 153:11 183:18 talks 219:13
student 48:24 211:19 154:22 156:14 S-shaped 200:21 tank 114:5 185:9
125:5,8,9 substantive 103:17 168:4 170:4 191:1 s-T-O-R-S-U-N-D 185:11,11 216:3
students 231:18 subsurface 105:25 217:4,10 230:22 36:7 tanks 242:3
studied 56:14 sub-E 221:7,9,11 253:2,25 tape 106:6
57:13 222:9 231:6 222:4 surface 35:23 50:8 T task 127:23
studies 87:16 Sub-S 221:5,6 130:18 188:12 T 4:1,6,18 5:1,1 taught 63:6 85:17
116:19 132:19 223:21 206:7 212:23 172:3 221:2 TAW 113:21
188:5 successful 20:13 237:21 tab 259:23 218:16
study 57:20 117:3 suck 247:14 surge 96:21 118:22 table 13:2 47:8,12 teach 172:16 247:5
133:22 142:16 sufficiently 174:19 118:22 142:19,23 52:24 81:22 teaching 63:6
143:3,4,7,9,10 suggest 44:11 142:24 143:16,25 122:10 169:7 team 17:10 44:21
226:10 116:11 233:13 144:7,18 145:21 take 7:3 9:7 28:4 59:9,13,16 74:6
stuff 79:4 120:21 240:12 250:21 146:1 147:2,12,20 39:22 40:21 61:8 74:17 75:2,2,5,9,9
129:4 149:20 suggested 83:24 147:21 148:11 63:23 72:8 73:9 75:24,25 76:1,8
193:15 252:19 168:6 245:17 151:4,24 152:13 78:22 79:6 111:8 76:10,19,21,21,22
subdiscipline 258:4 157:11,16 158:7 114:3 135:21 77:2 80:2,18
120:11 122:4 suggestion 130:24 175:15,25 176:4,5 145:12,12 148:25 82:14 112:24
subheading 172:1 suggests 249:3 176:9 153:2,20 167:18 122:12,21 188:20
subject 15:11 suit 127:13 surrounding 93:20 180:2 196:19 188:21 226:17,20
162:10 164:1 sum 167:4 94:20 209:2 210:21,25 226:21,21,24
215:11 234:10 summarize 103:11 survey 65:19 66:1 231:14 235:19 228:20,21 229:11
256:3 summarized 47:10 172:3,21 173:8,10 239:24 241:21 229:13,20 231:1
subjected 216:4 98:23 99:17 173:16 259:14 262:13 teams 74:23 78:12
submission 138:7 218:22 surveying 172:15 taken 5:5 26:23 78:19
submitted 12:19 summarizing 172:17,17,20 42:3 43:8 44:21 technical 34:18
77:5 112:14 suspect 218:20,23 106:15 118:4 56:16 85:25 87:13
subsequent 106:11 summary 99:1 suspenders 84:18 133:2 137:4 143:1 87:21,23 93:15
145:19 193:8 117:1 84:20 185:15 200:5 264:25 96:19 97:23 104:9
255:10 summer 13:17 sustained 96:5 265:8 104:10 105:7,15
subsequently supervision 265:10 swamp 118:6 takes 28:1 47:24 113:19,20 123:15
108:23 supplement 154:2 149:20,25 150:24 70:15 85:4 187:19 218:14,18
subsided 175:19,22 154:12,18 155:22 swamplands talk 24:23 44:8 228:21
subsidence 24:24 156:10 169:18 51:2 82:21 88:15 technique 202:19
61:18,22,24 62:2 supplementary swiftly 243:20 102:22 124:21 techniques 90:11
62:6,8 64:7,11,15 140:16 sworn 6:4 265:6 126:18 153:15 120:15 121:7
65:3,14,19,22 supplements 141:5 system 17:5 72:9 159:8 182:14 technology 227:16

Page 297
255:9 157:10 159:6,9,13 106:4 119:1,21 80:11 83:23 93:4 128:12,15,17,18

tedious 119:2 159:22 160:3 124:13 133:21 96:2 98:1 102:2 129:3,9 131:23
tell 14:23 26:6 27:9 162:3 179:24 146:16 183:9 123:16 127:8 132:6 134:4,22
29:17 30:13 45:9 187:14 202:5 186:11 192:5 133:1 154:19 135:4,23,25 136:1
52:11 53:18 60:5 204:5 212:3 193:19 202:8 163:17 188:1 141:15 145:2,11
82:2 84:6 86:9 227:21 251:14 203:11 223:16 207:5,10,19 145:19 148:10,19
88:18 105:14 262:2 227:8 259:3 212:23 217:4,9 150:23,25 157:11
119:8 120:7 terrain 149:1,19 262:20 263:1 218:6 238:12 161:6 162:21
125:25 132:15 test 31:22 34:3 theory 92:16 115:3 256:15 260:12,21 165:5,23 166:8
133:4 137:1 35:21 38:3,4,9,14 208:9 thinking 50:11 170:10,12,15
139:22 144:22 38:15,25 39:1,4 thereabouts 128:20 257:15 176:24 180:12
146:23 153:3 39:10 47:21 48:6 165:8 third 7:16 145:19 187:17 191:4
154:6 166:13,15 50:3 56:8,8 70:1 thereof 5:14 thirty 75:14 227:13 193:5 200:23
174:24 187:13 126:15 129:17 thereto 257:17 232:9 208:10,12,22,25
189:11 190:7,25 130:13 131:10 theses 125:17 thirty-five 74:1 209:3,5 210:14,22
197:18 204:6,7 180:8,8 212:20 thesis 68:6 85:1 THOMAS 1:10 6:1 212:25 213:2
210:22 213:7 237:18,24 238:3 86:8 92:15 106:18 264:3,11 214:6,15,17,18
221:25 229:10 238:16,16,20,25 124:13,17 thought 54:19 86:7 215:22 216:6
234:23 244:21 241:24 242:1,1,6 they'd 61:4 207:15 98:11 116:25 221:4 222:11,14
249:21 250:7 252:12 thick 103:19 170:6 177:9 183:4 222:22,22 224:13
telling 128:10 testified 6:5 18:15 thin 103:19 186:2 199:7,10 224:20,22 230:15
134:18 209:17 30:21 80:6 thing 8:18 23:11 207:22 216:16 230:25 231:22
template 199:9,12 testify 80:2,4 265:6 29:23 33:8 36:5 thousands 170:3 234:25 235:19
199:18,20 206:9 265:7 36:21 56:10,16,18 threat 137:23 236:7,22 240:20
ten 20:1 112:22 testimony 18:24 83:10 101:17 165:18 167:23 245:18 248:16,25
219:6 248:18 30:14 80:20 81:2 108:5 110:20 three 16:12 25:5 257:24 258:25
tendered 119:10 130:9 208:15 121:21 161:23 28:18 74:23 99:12 261:11 263:1
Tendering 220:9 236:17 264:4,6 195:24 125:4 143:2,2 times 15:1,2,4 33:9
258:12 testing 35:5,11 things 7:18 8:21 178:18 189:22 55:22 104:16
tenths 118:23 36:16 44:20 70:3 15:21 19:25 29:20 190:24 191:2 187:10 202:2
246:7 73:3 131:8 132:5 41:3 48:8 52:22 216:18 215:16 216:2
term 23:6 31:20,21 139:23 215:13 53:8 54:11,19 three-team 75:11 223:14 224:22
63:1,2,10 76:20 231:17,19 232:13 55:10 82:10 90:17 threw 19:25 236:4 245:14,14
86:1,6 110:24 242:4 253:19 92:22 99:23 time 5:13 7:3 11:7 245:16,17
128:13 175:20 254:11,17,18 100:15 120:20 12:18 13:4 14:19 time-based 62:2
211:25 255:2,3,6 126:17 131:5 17:12 28:4 33:13 title 23:7 77:18
termed 202:18 tests 47:9,23 56:25 134:19 141:22 33:17 34:3 52:15 78:2 192:17,21
terminal 21:21 70:25 114:5 144:17 149:24 58:23 60:8,12 197:23
terminology 133:11 213:5 150:25 159:13 61:8,18 62:14 titled 37:7 154:25
122:14 214:21 166:18 173:6 69:5,6,7,8 75:18 titles 141:12
terms 49:15 54:20 Texas 57:21 59:14 184:5 201:2 206:4 75:25 76:5 79:9 TM 104:8
59:1 63:4,10 84:1 textbook 115:4 206:18 232:22 80:23 89:7 93:11 TMs 103:10
95:8,9,25 120:4 218:10,11 241:17 249:13 93:13 96:24 99:7 TM3-424 52:22
121:1,10,15 thank 11:14 18:9 255:4,8,15 109:1 118:14 105:8
128:10 133:15 32:12,18 56:6 think 13:24 40:18 119:11 121:8 TM3-430 105:8
144:12 145:24 63:8 88:9 90:1 41:6,8 44:4 70:18 125:16 126:12,22 Tobin 21:17
149:14 156:23 97:19 104:10 71:9,13 79:12 127:5,17 128:1,6 today 6:9 7:24 29:5

Page 298
55:22 193:11 115:7 179:23 78:5,19 179:7 135:2 137:18 underseepage

195:1 196:22 198:8 204:4 two 14:9,12 29:15 164:5 249:18 67:12 68:11,17,22
255:25 249:15 34:23 35:7 36:14 um 12:5 18:25 25:3 69:2 92:19 95:2
TODD 3:22 translated 218:17 36:22 37:5,24 27:11,20 31:19 95:12 103:3,12,17
toe 189:24,25 translating 59:1 39:14 48:8 54:13 33:14,24 34:4 103:18,24 106:21
241:11,16 translation 190:2 55:10 58:11 64:6 35:15 40:17 53:20 106:25 124:14
told 28:12 39:14 translational 66:13,25 78:19 54:11 59:10,15 188:13 189:25
52:17 53:21 229:16,19 80:6 84:8,12 62:24 65:17 67:25 206:6
127:20 151:22 transmitted 136:9 92:22 102:20 69:1,17 70:25 understand 6:10
153:5 160:18 Transportation 103:1,9,12 105:7 75:13 82:14 83:19 10:16 12:19 27:23
161:9 222:20 112:23 112:7 120:8 84:14,15 99:4,4 39:20 70:22 94:13
231:20 treat 248:21 123:15 125:17 99:18 100:15 117:5 140:24
Tom 155:2 treating 248:23 135:24 136:7 107:20 110:7,23 147:13,25 168:16
tone 134:4 trees 149:5,8,11,20 168:3 169:21 113:21 114:1,9 222:8 224:2 242:7
tools 70:23 94:18 149:25 150:3,4,24 179:7,8,12,16 115:2,9,21,21 243:8 245:15
96:19 107:9 trenches 229:23 182:23 184:8,9 119:17 121:14 246:6
121:20 209:3 trial 24:9,11 119:11 196:20 197:2 124:22 126:12,18 understanding
254:5 121:8 200:10,11 204:8 126:23,25 128:20 8:12 26:15 28:23
top 18:20 26:2 trials 18:16 209:19 216:18 129:2,7 133:16 44:20 48:5,23
58:12 78:3 83:6 tried 29:3 222:5,13,15 223:6 136:2,25 141:10 54:24 64:14 68:3
86:18 91:8,19,20 tries 247:9,10,11 223:14 224:20 143:8 153:8 73:16 109:4,14
108:7 140:20 247:13,21 246:8 248:18 161:20 162:22 119:13 126:10
142:5 153:21 trouble 131:8 two-day 34:11 165:25 166:5,6,15 130:15 139:20
166:19 176:7 true 264:7 265:10 type 61:11 97:14 167:16 169:1 170:13,21 201:13
199:22,23 200:2 trust 7:23 24:13 127:8 158:25 170:16 173:14 206:2 213:18
204:21 245:22 33:21 152:23 225:9 229:8 186:21 188:20,22 228:6 242:9,11
topic 129:10 195:13 245:21 235:21 236:25 189:16,21 205:2 244:1 249:4
157:13 253:20 255:2,2 209:3 210:24,25 256:17 258:23
topics 34:10 truth 265:6 types 100:14 212:2,20 214:7,19 265:12
topographic 151:2 try 6:21 7:2 32:8,14 133:11 214:24 215:2,4 222:12 understood 65:16
151:23 174:8,11 97:18 113:10 227:14,23 253:19 224:19 225:15,22 243:2
topography 109:10 117:5 154:16 261:10 228:8,22 230:10 undrainded 250:4
109:11 149:6 trying 58:1 70:3 typical 115:5 234:20,22 236:8 undrained 246:20
TORTS 3:3 98:7 213:23 typo 37:11 249:16 251:21 247:5,7 248:8,13
total 204:18 217:24 238:15 T-O 103:8 253:14 261:7 251:6
totally 116:8 tube 42:13 unavoidable 55:18 uneroded 244:13
Tower 62:17 tubular 50:5 U uncertainty 188:4 uniform 50:5
township 22:8 turf 221:15 U 4:18 5:1 49:12 188:9 246:17 176:19,21
track 144:7 Turnbull 68:1 76:20,21 183:12 247:3 unique 181:16
traffic 164:2 turned 22:10 147:8 UEM1913 193:20 undergo 62:5 unit 118:16
182:18,21 turns 48:17 219:22 Uh-huh 90:5 undergoing 62:5 United 1:1,11 3:1,2
transcribed 265:10 twelve 20:1 64:25 231:16 235:15 undergone 62:7 60:16 62:6 68:5
transcript 5:9 6:17 twenty 75:14 82:9 247:19 256:6 undergraduate 68:22 89:5 100:24
45:9 80:19 81:24 232:9 ultimate 47:13 125:7 123:6 172:23
transcription 264:5 twenty-one 76:24 239:20 underlying 132:21 173:6
265:11 77:11 ultimately 59:2 190:13 universe 16:13
translate 83:25 twenty-two 77:20 79:14,15,16 80:4 undermine 164:4 28:12

Page 299
university 59:14 validity 246:18 244:12 visual 82:12 258:24 233:16

75:3 78:13 85:1 Valley 60:9 98:25 velocity 49:19 visually 258:14 warn 6:13
100:21 113:17,21 174:16 175:1 237:23,25 244:15 vitae 18:8 warning 19:11
124:2,10 125:11 194:14,17,20 verbal 6:25 volume 37:14 164:7
208:24 231:19 value 39:5 47:17 Verheij 113:12,13 52:22 58:19 59:5 warnings 20:22
unquote 84:23 116:5 204:7,7 214:21 215:6 168:20 247:9,10 warranted 106:21
unusual 56:15 213:8 222:3 216:10,19 217:18 247:11,13,21 106:22 108:9
unwritten 254:13 239:21 241:20 218:13 242:2 248:1 152:16
upcoming 254:14 242:7,13 243:6,9 Verheij's 216:3 voluminous 58:22 wash 182:17
uplift 189:24 243:11,13 250:20 verification 237:1 194:2 209:10,11
upside-down values 40:6 115:5 verified 69:24,24 V-E-R-H-E-I-J Washington 3:8
190:15 115:14,17,19,20 70:8,15,17 72:1 113:11 54:5 68:1 104:25
up-to-date 121:20 207:6,8 213:16 Verrujit 52:24 53:2 V-E-R-R-U-J-I-T 167:2 181:19
urban 177:24 221:7,22 239:9 114:23,24 115:16 53:2 wasn't 152:23
use 17:14 24:8,11 242:10,18 248:17 115:17 116:7 188:25
27:6 31:22 34:1,3 van 112:21 113:6 version 24:14,16 W watch 231:25 234:6
38:15 56:23 63:1 variables 132:22 193:20 221:20,21 waders 19:1,5 watched 80:22
63:10 73:1,14 204:8 206:8 versus 111:20 wait 58:2 61:2,3 watching 236:2
76:20 86:6 99:14 239:13 129:21 159:23,25 waived 5:10 water 19:2,5 24:21
109:8 119:6 variation 120:23 239:17,17 242:17 wakes 167:6 26:1 27:24 49:19
121:18 128:13 variations 189:16 251:8 walk 9:8 28:1 44:13 50:4,7 58:23
132:12 162:3 varies 213:11 vertical 137:19 walked 8:4 55:14 72:19 89:17,23
163:9 191:1 variety 52:14 213:3 172:25 199:19 117:13 91:8,10,12,14
193:16 196:22 213:25 232:20 vessel 182:17,18,20 walking 82:9 105:21,25 106:7
199:1 206:11 238:2 249:22,23 vessel-generated walls 82:18,22,25 117:18,19,19
207:5 212:19 261:7 167:6 Wang 86:21 118:15 144:23
223:5 231:15 various 14:25 15:1 Vicinity 136:18 want 28:16 30:10 145:7,12 146:1,21
236:9 238:6 239:5 15:2,4 16:20 19:8 Vicksburg 60:10 32:17 39:13 40:21 146:25 147:2,4,22
240:18 242:5 19:9 20:24,25 60:13 67:24 92:9 41:17 43:2,5,5 149:9 150:8,10
246:20 248:8,19 24:2 25:3,15 99:19 103:7 44:13,16 50:24 151:24 161:11,16
250:6 26:16,20 31:17 104:24 113:24 51:2 53:12 55:19 181:4 185:24
useful 30:24 130:21 49:1 58:24 61:4 167:3 181:18 58:1 85:23 105:4 186:5,23 200:13
130:24,25 238:12 70:5 85:13 89:5 232:16 123:22 133:4 200:18,20 204:9
uses 110:24 213:7 93:9 124:22 128:8 Victor 2:4 154:21 156:4 204:10,11,19,24
213:25 214:20 144:8 147:4 video 6:22 132:2 162:6 165:1 205:2,5 212:13,14
248:12,16 194:23 211:21 236:1 178:10 181:14 233:15,17,20,21
Utilization 98:16 213:22,22 232:10 VIDEOGRAPH... 182:25 196:19 234:7,22,25 235:3
U.S 26:9 34:15 232:22 235:18 3:21 207:8 219:2,21 235:9,11,18,20,21
42:25 45:4 76:23 236:4 243:6 videotape 236:13 230:22 231:10 241:5 244:5
104:11 125:1 249:14 260:17 view 19:5 133:10 234:6 243:10 245:19,23 247:13
148:9 173:10 Varuso's 112:16 234:23 255:21 257:1,14 247:14,17,22,23
175:2 varying 97:9 viewed 236:7 262:8,8 263:7 248:1,4,10,11
vegetation 219:9 viewpoint 95:19 wanted 16:11 44:5 waters 182:21
V 221:17 184:24 185:19 182:14 186:10 waterways 67:23
vague 151:9 vehicle 75:21,22 212:2 201:17 246:15 87:12 92:9 113:24
validate 73:2 vehicles 84:9 violated 21:3 war 98:19 206:24 water-filled 248:3
validated 72:1 velocities 238:1 virtually 229:12 Ward 54:7 230:7 wave 35:25 48:10

Page 300
56:13,21 57:12 212:20 213:5 238:18 255:24 116:12,14 134:10 world 212:16 214:3
69:19 95:15,15,25 247:22,23 265:15 259:3,5 134:18 137:9 Worley 138:13
96:1,21 97:2,15 ways 74:20 168:3 we're 6:22,24 9:22 139:7 186:13 worry 198:6
114:5 126:25 185:14 235:13 10:14 16:4 24:4 202:17 205:8 wouldn't 122:20
130:24 131:1,4,16 weak 201:25 32:17 55:9 58:4 253:8 259:5 264:3 144:16 199:21
131:21,24 132:3 weaker 241:15 63:13 88:15 264:11 wrap 56:6 260:11
145:13 146:1,21 wear 227:10 115:15 117:7 won 190:8,21,22 write 79:3 86:15
147:11,16,18 wearing 84:19 120:4 124:20 191:1,5 108:6 130:20
148:11 150:11 Weather 148:9,10 154:19 193:3 Wong 86:18,21,22 166:18
151:4,24,25 Weaver 60:4,10 206:23 220:23 86:23 87:1,2,3 writer 79:2 166:8
152:14 157:11,17 67:20 138:12 256:8 Woolley 25:3,7 166:14,16
158:7,23,25 web 80:23 we've 12:14 29:3 116:13,21 writers 79:2,6
175:15,16,25 website 81:11 34:9 50:23 99:23 word 70:19 109:8 writing 56:16
181:6 182:17,17 141:18 232:21 126:5 133:2 233:24 78:22,23 88:13
208:15 209:10,10 week 12:20 75:11 231:18 245:1 wording 114:13 writings 76:13
209:16,18 211:2 75:12,13 252:11 258:4 written 54:19 59:8
211:13,16,19 weeks 74:22 WGI 50:23 54:15 work 12:13,17,21 73:6,21 79:9
213:19 220:6 weigh 129:20 WGII 53:23,25 12:25 26:5,22,25 85:13 103:15
221:4 222:2,7,10 weight 62:15,15 54:1 27:16,22 38:9 116:25 123:3
222:17,20,21,23 101:16 248:4 whatnot 24:24 48:7 56:14 57:14 166:20 167:1,2
223:9,20,20,25 welcome 263:3 whatsoever 239:1 68:6 73:11 77:1 180:23 226:16,20
225:2,22 226:5 wells 105:20 wheels 84:10,11 87:16 92:15,15 226:21
237:22,25 238:15 well-known 241:7 whichever 148:10 94:1,5,6,12,13,15 wrong 28:21 58:10
240:15,17 241:1 went 28:21 48:9 242:11 94:15 95:6 96:9 63:10 161:14
242:3,4 243:23 52:18 58:10,12 whoa 261:22 103:17,21 106:17 218:4 249:18
251:21 260:25 110:24 117:16 wide 73:4 232:22 114:9,11,17 251:5
261:1,8,15,19 123:13 125:13 widely 29:7 95:5 120:17 124:22 wrote 13:24 68:20
waves 96:5 137:22 131:8 141:12 widening 157:15 125:13,15 133:8 68:21 76:1 86:10
144:25 147:22 185:17 wife 19:6 51:11 133:22,24 177:24 88:7 125:16
164:2 167:23 weren't 17:21 234:5 188:15 195:25 196:24 202:1
168:4 182:2 WES 67:23 winds 181:6,10 199:1,6 200:14 W-A-N-G 86:25
214:17 215:10 west 171:4,10 wires 184:8,9 215:15 216:10 W-O-N-G 86:24
216:4 223:13,18 256:16,17 257:2 wish 78:2 192:19 218:21 235:10
wave-induced Westerink 27:6,7 200:16 243:19 256:4,4 X
212:21 western 64:13 withdraw 51:16 259:16 X 4:1,1,6,6,18
way 6:2,15 8:8 12:5 wetlands 118:16 withdrawal 62:10 worked 12:4,4 204:7
46:24 55:21 66:10 149:20 158:12,14 witness 5:4,25 6:3 39:15 48:12,15
69:25 71:4 76:11 wetness 245:15 18:13,21 23:17 166:17 254:3 Y
81:13 97:24 we'll 6:13 11:14 42:9,22 44:18 working 92:10 Y 204:7
106:24 110:1 24:4 30:9 32:14 46:7 53:22 119:11 100:22 101:24 yea 140:1
122:25 123:1 32:16 34:8 39:12 155:4 189:7 224:3 122:12 128:21,23 yeah 17:7 74:2 98:5
133:18 140:17 58:3 59:23 85:25 264:1 265:5 140:17 195:3 98:10 107:21
149:16 159:8 88:14 97:10 Wolff 1:10 6:1,7 209:2 109:10 111:21
163:5 176:2,18 102:24 117:9 8:6,20 11:14 12:8 works 80:11,13 116:24 141:16
186:19 194:21 121:22 178:17 23:14 41:13 50:15 164:3 178:5 253:7 147:20,20,22
196:14 200:1 219:1,19 220:15 52:12 59:24 77:20 259:7 154:5 164:21
202:2 209:12 224:24 233:2 78:5 86:18,21 workshop 254:14 165:9 186:7 192:5

Page 301
210:2 214:13 155:22 156:10 18th 11:20 12:15 1997 216:14 217:19 220 4:15
243:1 245:18 162:22 163:12,13 126:2 218:20 221:20,21 225-344-3735 2:19
252:11 257:15 186:19 199:19 180 190:14 1999 87:16 94:18 23 140:3,5,6,20,20
year 19:24 64:25 207:19,20 187 4:14 116:15 191:12,25 140:21 141:3,7,22
106:17 179:7 1B 136:11 19 47:21 128:19 192:19,20 203:14 142:4,6
206:25 1lower 174:15 137:15 167:19 205:16 240 105:16
years 19:19 20:1 1st 76:23 162:14 177:17 25 33:9
63:23 65:1 99:24 1.4 223:1 1913 194:2 195:6 2 25th 36:7
108:12 114:10 1/30/08 11:6 1940s 61:16 2 4:10 11:15,16 253 4:16
117:2 125:2,3,4 1:1 147:6 1947 98:16 99:8 36:9 47:8,11,12 259 4:17
144:9,11 148:22 1:30 134:5 1950s 52:23 67:21 58:20 61:13 75:11 2595 6:2
156:18 166:18 10 24:18 138:9 105:18 136:15 141:13 26 90:19 91:7
170:2 181:19 207:19 1956 67:13 102:25 152:18,19 155:22 110:17 123:17
195:3 215:11 100 91:11,17 1957 136:4,8 163:23 164:20,21 187:13,13 188:3
219:6,13 254:1 207:20 1958 136:4,12 168:20,23 169:6,7 189:2 190:1,4
Yep 203:8 11 4:10 136:2 1959 136:13 186:19 252:15 191:9,14 196:3
yesterday 62:25 111-2-556 87:14 1960 148:23 260:15,22 197:8,19 198:12
young 18:25 19:6 1110 179:10 193:9 1960s 214:4 2nd 37:6 199:6,7 200:6
107:3 1110-2 193:14 1965 169:24 20 47:24 259:6 27 65:17 171:22
1110-2-1913 100:5 1966 53:5 60:4,14 20,000 106:15 28 171:23 176:25
Z 1110-2-400 194:15 61:11 65:13 66:7 200 106:16 177:15 210:11
zero 91:9 1110-2-556 87:25 104:12 128:20 2000 111:19 128:21 260:6
210:6 136:5,16,20,22 179:12 180:18 28th 191:25 203:14
$ 118 141:4 1967 128:22 138:11 192:25 193:10,21 205:16
$200 12:11 12 27:25 28:9 55:11 162:14 199:1 29 13:9 78:10 179:6
$4,507,300 162:25 86:18,21 117:15 1970 124:2 2001 37:12,13,15 186:13 200:25
138:9 169:9,10 1973 106:14,20 38:2 42:8 43:7,16 297 220:3
# 43:19
12:35 134:4 1978 99:3,11,13,21
#75005 1:25 265:25 2004 252:25 259:6 3
1205 2:4 111:20 192:23
0 13 46:13 117:16 193:5 260:4,7 3 4:11 50:19 52:6,8
14 154:24 155:7 1984 65:16 171:24 20044 3:8 63:18 65:3 68:10
00 111:16
216:16 217:2,25 1984-1985 173:21 2005 17:10 74:22 103:23 104:4,6,13
05 78:10 228:25
219:5 245:20 1985 65:16 124:6 76:23 78:6 79:21 104:19 109:19
256:25
14th 136:13 128:22,23 177:17 186:13 200:25 117:4 136:17
05-4182 1:5
14-1/2 245:20 1986 255:13 231:2 253:6 255:9 137:13,16,19
06 31:3
14.2 245:22 1988 173:1 257:24 258:1,6,17 138:3,17,25 140:4
06-2268 1:8
2006 113:5 140:9,14,25 141:3
07 32:21 33:4 66:16 142 4:12 1990 215:10
15 153:23,25 1990s 214:1 2008 11:7,21 12:15 146:25 150:16
08 11:8 33:9 34:6
154:24 1991 191:10 196:4 13:18 14:22 33:21 153:2,4,18 155:12
228:24
15th 136:12 196:18 36:8 37:6,16,18 155:15 162:22
1 16 31:3 118:20 1992 86:18 87:4 38:15 46:6,10 164:9 165:4 166:1
1 4:9,21 7:7,11 162 4:13 1993 18:22 107:24 49:6 56:4 126:2 166:2 167:20
52:22 58:12 81:16 164.2 11:10 1994 69:14 87:10 226:17,19 228:20 199:19
137:19 138:9 17 20:10 47:19 83:3 87:17 88:2 97:23 2009 1:14 264:25 3-430 105:15
140:14,22,25 17th 32:21 229:14 191:11 196:25 202-616-4289 3:9 3:50 187:1
141:7,14,16 241:8 1995 18:6 21 43:24 30 111:16,23
150:13 152:18 18 13:13 18:11,20 1996 18:6 22-year 179:16 30th 11:8 136:8

Page 302
31 100:4 624 47:8 96:16,17 116:14

34 155:2 626 47:20 189:13 199:1
38 140:21 627 47:22 96 219:13
629 57:7 97 113:17 218:22
4 66 137:3 140:14 985-384-8611 2:6
4 4:12 13:11 138:11 141:7 99 88:10 93:14
142:1,3,9 165:4 67 138:9 153:23 96:16,18 199:1
169:3,15 170:13 154:1,24 162:21 210:11
170:16 188:4 162:22 163:2,12
199:19 204:12 163:13,20
253:16 254:5
40 45:25 47:5,7,11 7
90:15 235:1 7 4:9,15 24:6 77:23
400 1:12 140:5 141:8 142:5
41 45:25 47:7,11 145:20 165:3
47 102:17 244:24 220:16,17 224:8
48 188:23 7:30 245:6
48864 6:2 7:45 245:7
49 246:12 70113 2:11
70130 1:13
5 70380 2:5
5 4:13 58:19 59:5 70801-1910 2:18
162:5,8,17 164:15 71 18:5,7,8 21:17
171:24 197:7 73 107:21 124:15
5th 14:9 74 124:3
5:30 186:24 75 107:22
50 91:15 137:17 76 81:25 107:22
167:20 246:13 78 100:4 102:18
504-586-8899 2:12 179:11 193:9,20
51 16:8 28:11,15
55:13 58:8 8
52 4:11 16:8 60:3 8 4:16 140:4 141:8
77:8 98:8 142:5 145:20
53 16:8 253:8,11 259:4
556 210:8,9 800 70:11
56 165:7 81 4:21
84 172:4 174:14
6 85 107:20 174:14
6 4:5,14 166:13,15 86 255:14
187:9,15 220:3,19 888 3:6
220:20 221:1,2,20
224:9 9
6th 1:14 264:25 9 4:17 191:11 259:6
60 77:18 90:13,14 259:10
610 2:10 9th 1:12
618 2:17 91 188:6 193:3
623 46:13 94 88:5,10 93:13,23

KTR00189

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KTR00189

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THOMAS WOLFF, Ph. D.

IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION

Deposition of THOMAS F. WOLFF, PH.D.,

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

27 (Pages 102 to 105)

28 (Pages 106 to 109)

29 (Pages 110 to 113)

30 (Pages 114 to 117)

31 (Pages 118 to 121)

32 (Pages 122 to 125)

33 (Pages 126 to 129)

34 (Pages 130 to 133)

35 (Pages 134 to 137)

36 (Pages 138 to 141)

37 (Pages 142 to 145)

38 (Pages 146 to 149)

39 (Pages 150 to 153)

40 (Pages 154 to 157)

41 (Pages 158 to 161)

42 (Pages 162 to 165)

43 (Pages 166 to 169)

44 (Pages 170 to 173)

45 (Pages 174 to 177)

46 (Pages 178 to 181)

47 (Pages 182 to 185)

48 (Pages 186 to 189)

49 (Pages 190 to 193)

50 (Pages 194 to 197)

51 (Pages 198 to 201)

52 (Pages 202 to 205)

53 (Pages 206 to 209)

54 (Pages 210 to 213)

55 (Pages 214 to 217)

56 (Pages 218 to 221)

57 (Pages 222 to 225)

58 (Pages 226 to 229)

59 (Pages 230 to 233)

60 (Pages 234 to 237)

61 (Pages 238 to 241)

62 (Pages 242 to 245)

63 (Pages 246 to 249)

64 (Pages 250 to 253)

65 (Pages 254 to 257)

66 (Pages 258 to 261)

67 (Pages 262 to 265)

A activity 62:9 adoption 252:8 78:12 81:10 175:19 197:15

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

249:11 approaches 133:12 arriving 121:7 associated 94:11 130:25 131:1,4,25

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

decisions 117:4 deliberately 22:14 described 36:22 167:12 170:10,12 determinations

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

104:25 213:5 237:8,18,23 146:1,1 173:19,20 159:10,11 169:3 105:17 119:16

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

180:4 219:9 221:12,22 195:20 206:7 43:23 45:7,18 existence 165:18

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

floodwall 190:13 forensics 228:10 137:9,12 142:23 211:11 140:14,17 153:3

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285