Bea Vol

BEA (VOL II), ROBERT
1/31/2009
Page 251
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
--oOo--
IN RE KATRINA CANAL BREACHES
CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION,
No. 05-4182 "K" (2)
PERTAINS TO: ROBINSON, NO.

06-2268
_____________________________
DEPOSITION OF ROBERT GLENN BEA

(Volume II, Pages 251 - 539)
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Reported By:
KATHLEEN WILKINS, CSR #10068, RPR, CRR
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

1/31/2009
Page 252 Page 254
1 INDEX 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL (Continued)
2 INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS 2 For Lafarge North American, Inc.:
3 PAGE 3 GOODWIN & PROCTER
BY: MARK S. RAFFMAN, Attorney at Law
4 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. STONE ..............256 4 901 New York Avenue, N.W.
5 AFTERNOON SESSION .............................362 Washington, D.C. 20001
6 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH ......................479 5 Telephone: (202) 346-4000
7 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. STONE ..............490 E-mail: Mraffman@goodwinprocter.com
8 EXAMINATION BY MR. BAEZA ......................504 6
9 ---o0o--- 7 ALSO PRESENT: Benjamin Gerald, Videographer; Dawn
10 8 Miller and Nina Cortiella
9
11 --oOo--
12 10
13 11
14 12
15 13
16 14
15
17 16
18 17
19 18
20 19
21 20
22 21
22
23
23
24 24
25 25
Page 253 Page 255
1 DEPOSITION OF ROBERT GLENN BEA 1 January 31, 2009 8:39 A.M.
2 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Saturday,
3 January 31, 2009, commencing at the hour of 8:39 2 PROCEEDINGS
4 a.m. thereof, at GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Three 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We are
5 Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor, San Francisco,
6 California, before me, Kathleen A. Wilkins, RPR,
4 on the video record, ladies and gentlemen, at
7 CRR, CRP, a Certified Shorthand Reporter, in and 5 8:39 a.m. I am Benjamin Gerald from Legal Point,
8 for the State of California, personally appeared 6 LLC, in San Francisco, California. The phone
9 ROBERT GLENN BEA, a witness in the above-entitled
10 court and cause, who, being by me first duly 7 number is (415) 692-3600.
11 sworn, was thereupon examined as a witness in said 8 This is a matter pending before the
12 action.
13 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
9 United States District Court, Eastern District of
14 Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel: 10 Louisiana in the case captioned "In Re Katrina
15 LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH M. BRUNO 11 Canal Breaches," Civil Action Number 05-4182K.
BY: JOSEPH M. BRUNO, ESQ.
16 855 Baronne Street 12 This is the beginning of Tape No. 1,
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 13 Volume II, of the deposition of Dr. Robert Glenn
17 Telephone: (504) 525-3780
E-mail: Jbruno@jbrunolaw.com
14 Bea, taken on January 31st, 2009. We are located
18 15 at Three Embarcadero Center, San Francisco,
For the Defendants: 16 California.
19
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 17 This is taken on behalf of the
20 TORTS BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION 18 defendant.
BY: RICHARD R. STONE, SR., Attorney at
21 Law
19 Counsel, would you please identify
ROBIN DOYLE SMITH, Attorney at Law 20 yourselves, starting with the questioning
22 DAN BAEZA, Attorney at Law 21 attorney.
1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room 8002N
23 Washington, DC 20004 22 MR. STONE: Richard Stone, Department of
Telephone: (202) 616-4291 23 Justice.
24 E-mail: Richard.stone@usdoj.gov
Robin.doyle.smith@usdoj.gov
24 MR. BAEZA: Dan Baeza, Department of
25 25 Justice.
2 (Pages 252 to 255)

1/31/2009
Page 256 Page 258
1 MR. SMITH: Robin Smith, for the 1 objection, and it may be valid, so let's talk
2 Defendant, United States. 2 about that for a second.
3 MR. RAFFMAN: Mark Raffman, 3 MR. BRUNO: Okay.
4 Goodwin & Proctor, for third party, Lafarge North 4 MR. STONE: Q. A lot of the work here
5 American, Inc. 5 that I haven't been able to look at yet seems to
6 MR. BRUNO: Joseph Bruno, plaintiffs' 6 me to suggest that you're trying to establish that
7 liaison counsel. 7 your opinions are valid under the Supreme Court
8 MR. STONE: We also have Dawn Miller and 8 case of Daubert; is that fair to say?
9 Nina Cortiella. 9 A. That's fair to say.
10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. 10 Q. Okay. Then how critical is this to your
11 Would the reporter please swear the 11 analysis, where you try to support that your
12 witness. 12 opinions are valid under Daubert?
13 ROBERT GLENN BEA, 13 MR. BRUNO: Object to form.
14 having been duly sworn, 14 MR. STONE: Q. If you're having trouble
15 was examined and testified as follows: 15 with that, I'll rephrase it any way we need.
16 --oOo-- 16 I just want to know: Where does this
17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. 17 fit within the -- in the analysis and how
18 Please proceed. 18 important is it to the analysis that you satisfy
19 MR. STONE: I should have mentioned 19 that analysis through this report?
20 yesterday, but I bring it up now, that this 20 A. I think it's very important. The
21 pertains to Case No. 06-2268, which is the 21 defendants' expert report by Dr. Tom Wolff clearly
22 Robinson case. 22 points out the importance of developing
23 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. STONE 23 reliability analytical models.
24 Q. Dr. Bea, I'd like to refer to your 24 In my 56 years of experience in ocean
25 Technical Report 2 of January 29, 2009, that we 25 and offshore coastal engineering, this step is of
Page 257 Page 259
1 received yesterday. And we will refer to this 1 critical importance. And the reason for that
2 as -- by reference, rather than attaching it as an 2 critical importance is analytical models can tell
3 exhibit. 3 the truth, produce realistic results where they
4 A. Technical Report 2 or -- 4 can be extremely misleading.
5 Q. Yes, sir. 5 Given that the analytical process is
6 A. -- or Part 2, expert report? 6 computer-based, the element of validation and
7 Q. No. The one from January 29 that we 7 proof becomes even more critical because there are
8 received yesterday. And the title is "Validations 8 three components that have to be validated.
9 of EBSB Wave-Induced Erosion and Breaching 9 The first component would be the
10 Analyses." 10 analytical process itself. The computer program,
11 A. Thank you. Just a second. 11 for example, that could be employed.
12 Yes, sir. 12 Q. Are you talking about LS-DYNA there?
13 Q. What is the purpose of this report? 13 A. No. There's actually a whole series.
14 A. To document the validation processes we 14 LS-DYNA is one. But a series of computer-aided
15 had gone through to assure reliability of the 15 computations that we employed in this set of
16 analytical models that we have employed in 16 analyses.
17 analysis of front-to-back wave initiated breaching 17 The second component that is equally
18 of manmade earthen protection structures along 18 important is the input. That's a way of saying
19 MRGO Breach 2. 19 that the human has to put information into the
20 Q. How critical is this analysis to your 20 analysis and the validity of that input becomes
21 personal evaluation of your Daubert 21 crucial.
22 responsibilities in this case? 22 There's a third component, equally
23 MR. BRUNO: Object. Calls for a legal 23 important to the first two, and that's the
24 conclusion. And I object to form. 24 interpretation, understanding and insight that
25 MR. STONE: I'm listening to that 25 comes from the output.
3 (Pages 256 to 259)
1/31/2009
Page 260 Page 262
1 All three of those components need to be 1 protection structures. And that's the solid
2 validated to assure that you have models that can 2 components.
3 produce reliable, dependable results. 3 There's a second component, and that's
4 Q. This report that you have here, is the 4 the fluid components. The fluid components
5 purpose of this report to prove that your model, 5 interact with the solid components. And in this
6 LS-DYNA, is appropriate for use in the conditions 6 case, we are interacting with the solid
7 that you've specified for this case? 7 components, with the fluid being forced into wave
8 A. Yes, sir. 8 action.
9 Q. Okay. Do you recognize this textbook, 9 The -- one of the boundaries of the
10 "Structural Reliability Analysis and Reduction"? 10 model is like a wave paddle in a real laboratory
11 That's one -- that's part of the suggested reading 11 wave flume. So the paddle moves back and forth,
12 materials in your program? 12 it generates waves that then propagate to the face
13 A. By Rob Melchers, yes. He was on my 13 of the solid structure.
14 doctoral dissertation committee. 14 And on reaching the face of the solid
15 Q. Let me read a paragraph. And I don't 15 structure, we then analyze the contact interface
16 think it's taken out of context for what you've 16 velocities.
17 just said to me, but see if you agree with it, 17 Those velocities are the first important
18 because I think you will. 18 step then to the calculation/evaluation of
19 "Modeling uncertainty is caused by the 19 erosion.
20 use of a simplified relationship between the basic 20 Q. All right. Let's go to page 1 of your
21 variables to represent the real" -- in quotes -- 21 report.
22 "relationship or phenomenon of interest. In its 22 See the section below No. 3, where it
23 simplest form, modeling uncertainty concerns the 23 says, "Wave-induced cumulative erosion of EBSB
24 uncertainty of physical models, such as limit 24 materials"?
25 state equations." 25 A. Got you.
Page 261 Page 263
1 Correct? 1 Q. "(E) was calculating using an integrated
2 A. Correct. 2 time-step function" --
3 Q. Is LS-DYNA a limit state equation? 3 A. Sure.
4 A. No, it is not. 4 Q. -- "(EQ1) based on the erodibility of
5 Q. Okay. What kind of an equation is that? 5 the EBSB material at the time-step being
6 A. Your question is ambiguous. Please 6 evaluated" --
7 repeat your question. 7 A. Check.
8 Q. When you say here that you use it as an 8 Q. -- "(where the erodibility of the
9 integrated time-step function, is that the type of 9 time-step is determined by the time average shear
10 equation that you're using when you're using 10 velocities calculated at the defined storm surge
11 LS-DYNA? I don't know enough about this field to 11 elevations)."
12 ask you -- 12 You're with me there?
13 A. I got you. 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- a technical question about this kind 14 Q. Can you explain to us what is meant by
15 of modeling, so -- 15 "integrated time-step function." And I'd ask that
16 A. Let me try to explain what we use 16 you do it in layman's terms, if you can, sir. I
17 LS-DYNA to do. 17 believe the judge is a poli sci major. He may be
18 Conceptually, it's the equivalent of 18 knowledgeable about all this, I don't know.
19 what Don Resio, Bruce Ebersole use in the form of 19 But for us to understand, the closer you
20 the computer software identified as Coulwave. 20 can come to layman's terms would be preferable for
21 The model is used first to prescribe, 21 us.
22 describe, characterize the geometric 22 A. If I can't -- I'm not an expert. I'll
23 characteristics of the structure of concern. In 23 do my best.
24 this case, we're modeling the profile 24 Q. Okay. That will suffice.
25 cross-section of the EBSBs, manmade earthen flood 25 A. Imagine a sine wave. That sine wave
4 (Pages 260 to 263)
1/31/2009
Page 264 Page 266
1 would be characteristics of the velocities that 1 do short-term cumulative fatigue evaluations of
2 are acting on the surface of the EBSB, much like a 2 how this sander is working on the surface of the
3 sanding block would be used to sand the surface of 3 EBSBs.
4 a door, back to this sine wave that's applied of 4 Q. All right.
5 amplitude of the velocity as a function of time. 5 A. Does that help?
6 So it starts out at zero, increases, 6 Q. That does help. I believe it does.
7 increases, increases, to the peak of the sine 7 Now, let me try to draw analogy here for
8 wave, and then begins to decrease. 8 purposes of these tests.
9 And then when it crosses the axis, the 9 A. Perfect.
10 velocity is going down, you'd call that the uprush 10 Q. You use a monochromatic wave for your
11 velocity pulse and the downrush velocity pulse. 11 LS-DYNA testing; is that fair to say?
12 What we do is we take the uprush 12 A. That's correct.
13 velocity pulse, divide it into very, very small 13 Q. Now, that would be like a belt sander --
14 time-step intervals. 100th of a second, for 14 A. Yes.
15 example. 15 Q. -- right?
16 Now, the velocity is varying during that 16 But there are also rotary sanders?
17 100th of a second. We average the velocity during 17 A. Amen.
18 that 100th of a second. We connect that velocity 18 Q. If you had the computing capability to
19 to the erodibility function that says -- 19 do the belt sanding type of analysis, which would
20 erodibility function says, well, if you have that 20 be analytically equal to irregular waves, as
21 velocity, then you will erode, displace that 21 opposed to monochromatic, then you'd put that into
22 amount of material. 22 your system, and it would give you a more detailed
23 We go to the next time-step, next 23 and accurate depiction of the real world; is that
24 time-step, and the entire time interval that we 24 fair to say?
25 are analyzing is analyzed in that manner. 25 A. For the time interval over which you
Page 265 Page 267
1 But the time-step is -- as I attempted 1 were looking.
2 to describe it, you have a sander with sandpaper 2 Now, the problem with that approach is
3 on the surface of wood. The sand moves up slow. 3 there's an infinite number -- the problem with
4 Wood is removed. The sander is moved down slow, 4 that approach is there's an infinite number of
5 and more wood is removed. The process continues. 5 realizations of this irregular condition as
6 And what we're monitoring is the amount 6 opposed to the monochromatic condition.
7 of material that's being lost perpendicular to the 7 Now, reverting back to fatigue analysis,
8 face. And because we have put into the model a 8 this is exactly what a fatigue analysis of an
9 prescribed way that that sanding surface develops, 9 ocean structure must confront, because in reality,
10 we progress upslope with the amount of material 10 the sea -- is rarely, I should not say not.
11 that has been lost perpendicular. 11 That's absolute. And it's absolutely not going to
12 So it's like an ice cream scoop out of 12 be appropriate for some conditions.
13 the surface of the EBSB. 13 But the sea, in general, is not
14 We do this by accumulating the damage 14 monochromatic. It's irregular. You have big
15 over time. The basic of the model that we 15 waves and you have small waves. So fatigue
16 employed comes from fatigue analysis. 16 technology says, I can't possibly -- we can't
17 Fatigue can be short-term, a few cycles 17 possibly handle this over long durations of time.
18 or an hour, or it can be very, very long-term, 18 And that could be several hours or several hundred
19 many years. 19 years. Fatigue can be short-term or long-term.
20 Coastal ocean offshore structures have 20 So the fatigue technology has developed
21 to confront fatigue. Fatigue is cumulative damage 21 what is called rainflow corrections to the
22 over time. 22 monochromatic sea analyses to properly incorporate
23 So due to the past experience and 23 the irregular conditions.
24 practice I've had in fatigue analysis, we use that 24 Now, one of the surprises we got as we
25 as a basic conceptual model that would allow us to 25 came through this four and a half decades of work,
5 (Pages 264 to 267)
1/31/2009
Page 268 Page 270
1 we said, it's going to be those big waves that are 1 tell, identical to what we're doing with LS-DYNA.
2 the big damagers. 2 Now, the thing that we have not done yet
3 It turns out that as long as those big 3 with LS-DYNA is go 3D. Coulwave has, in fact, got
4 waves were not -- we'll call it catastrophic, 4 a three-dimensional characteristics, which lets
5 that's wrong. It's the small, daily eroding of 5 the waves come from many directions. So
6 your teeth that is going to take your teeth out. 6 directional spreading, a thing like orbital
7 It's not that big chomp. 7 sander, can get into play rather than this damn
8 So we've gone through that. How do you 8 belt sander.
9 correct this? How do you get it right? 9 But that also brings with it, you have
10 We found out something really 10 to run many hundreds of realizations to find out
11 interesting. We found out that if you use a 11 where the expected damage comes from.
12 significant wave height, the peak period to 12 Well, thank God for fatigue technology,
13 describe this regular sea builds your damage over 13 because it taught us how to do it. They have to
14 that picture. The damage has to be reduced to 14 do it, too.
15 accommodate the irregular sea conditions. 15 When you put a platform out in the
16 We've studied irregular sea conditions 16 ocean, it doesn't get waves from one direction; it
17 for a wide variety of spectral width parameters 17 gets them from every direction, including tropical
18 and characteristics. I would commend to the 18 cyclones.
19 extremely intelligent oceanographers that you have 19 So I would still commend to all of our
20 working on this problem that they become very 20 experts to become familiar with these
21 familiar with this technology. 21 technologies.
22 Q. Coulwave and Delft 3D actually look at 22 Q. So in this instance, you're trying to
23 irregular waves, don't they? 23 prove the validity and to verify 2D LS-DYNA before
24 A. And they can look at regular waves. 24 you go to a 3D LS-DYNA, correct?
25 Q. Why did you reject Coulwave and Delft 3D 25 A. Correct.
Page 269 Page 271
1 in LS-DYNA in this case? 1 Q. Okay. So that's what I'm going to
2 A. Because, just as I cited, there is an 2 assume that you're doing in this report.
3 infinite number of irregular sea states; that if 3 A. Very true.
4 you adopt that approach, you have to continue the 4 Q. All right. Let me turn to some
5 approach. You can't go halfway with it. 5 questions I got from outside the office here.
6 And if you're going to analyze over 6 A. That's fine.
7 several hours, you can complete that analysis, but 7 Q. I mean, it's interruption for us and
8 you have to repeat it many hundreds of times. 8 it's out of order --
9 That's a computational challenge that you don't 9 A. That's fine.
10 want to undertake. 10 Q. -- but let me just ask questions.
11 Q. Is it a limitation on your computing 11 A. It's almost as though the experts were
12 capability that you have? Because others have 12 sitting across the table.
13 used Coulwave for this purpose. 13 MR. BRUNO: That's exactly right.
14 A. Oh, I have done it over many hundreds of 14 MR. STONE: Q. I'm to ask you where
15 sea state resolutions for many tens of hours. I 15 this procedure that you have described has been
16 think that's not true. 16 verified in field or laboratory investigations?
17 I've reviewed the literature that I was 17 A. The field and laboratory investigations
18 able to get from Robin Smith, after he rejected my 18 verification/documentation are contained in the
19 request for it earlier, saying he would not give 19 document you have referred to and that we are
20 anything that was public information. 20 currently discussing.
21 But thank you, Robin, you came through. 21 It has also been now published in
22 We got as deep as we could into that 22 peer-reviewed journal articles. I referred to
23 work to understand Coulwave's power and its 23 these yesterday. The American Society of Civil
24 limitation. 24 Engineers of Waterways continue the description,
25 Coulwave is, from everything we can 25 and the Japanese Journal of Coastal Engineering.
6 (Pages 268 to 271)
1/31/2009
Page 272 Page 274
1 The basics of the work have been 1 A. The third place we go is the field. And
2 reported in an American Society of Civil 2 in the field, we actually measure in the prototype
3 Engineers, Geotechnical Journal discussion, it is 3 system how damage is accumulating.
4 in press. 4 We have things called "fatigue cages,"
5 Q. Where's your evidence that they've been 5 in which you can actually monitor with a
6 commonly accepted in the engineering community? 6 microscope the growth of damage in the system. We
7 A. The common acceptance comes from the 7 then compare that with our analytical model.
8 peer-review component of those journal articles. 8 We're still not through.
9 They've been thoroughly peer reviewed, and that's 9 The fourth one is in-service behavior.
10 how we are in publication. 10 Tankers out here in the bay, that we've worked
11 Q. Is it fair to say that fatigue damage 11 extensively on, that come and go to the coast and
12 accumulation is only a manmade approximation to 12 come in and out of this bay, are subjected to the
13 experimental data? 13 same kinds of fatigue damage we're concerned with
14 A. Please repeat the question. 14 in these levees.
15 Q. Is fatigue damage accumulation only a 15 We will monitor these tankers, find out
16 manmade approximation to experimental data? 16 where trouble is showing up, and at that point, do
17 A. Oh, no. 17 yet a fourth level of validation.
18 Q. Okay. What's the basis for your 18 That is what we're doing with the
19 object -- or concluding that it's not? 19 LS-DYNA system. We have seen no systems that
20 A. Fatigue damage accumulation is developed 20 similar diligent efforts to properly document and
21 based on the following sources: One is analytical 21 validate the analytical models being used have
22 simulations. 22 been done by the defense experts.
23 What do I mean by "analytical 23 Q. How are the inputs from irregular waves
24 simulations"? 24 taken from SWAN changed to sine waves?
25 The analytical simulation can be done 25 A. We use the significant wave height and
Page 273 Page 275
1 using your orbital sander. Okay. And it can also 1 the peak spectral wave period to prescribe the
2 be done analytically using the belt sander. So I 2 sine wave characteristics.
3 can make a comparison between two analytical 3 Q. Define "significant wave height."
4 processes, both can accumulate damage, and the 4 A. The average of the highest one-third
5 question is, what is the correlation between the 5 wave height in a particular sea state at a
6 two? That's the first test. 6 particular point in space and at a particular
7 Second test is to go to the laboratory, 7 time. It would be the height that your eye would
8 and in the laboratory, simulate the damage 8 tend to see as you look out over the irregular
9 accumulation process through repeated cycling of 9 waves approaching here.
10 the material, it could be geotechnical, could be 10 Q. Have you made a comparison of the
11 timber, could be aluminum, could be steel, all of 11 difference in results due to sine waves in your
12 those have been tested, including vegetation. 12 system and irregular waves in your analysis?
13 And so in a lab, you've got the 13 A. Not an extensive comparison. We've made
14 accumulated damage. You're measuring and 14 a few exploratory comparisons using the process.
15 observing it. Well, now you can do an analysis to 15 At that point, assured ourselves that we were
16 see if it correlates with that. 16 in -- I'll call it reasonably good agreement with
17 That doesn't work, because a laboratory 17 those comparisons.
18 brings with it always compromises with reality. 18 And then we reverted back to the four
19 There are boundary conditions and all sorts of 19 and a half decades of fatigue damage experience to
20 things that make the laboratory a second-class 20 carry us the rest of the way. So we did an
21 citizen. 21 exploratory validation study.
22 Q. We'll get into some of those with your 22 That's documented in the reports that
23 report, I think. 23 you have received, principally, the July 14th
24 A. I think you will. 24 expert report --
25 Q. Okay. 25 Q. I'm going to see if I can take you there
7 (Pages 272 to 275)
1/31/2009
Page 276 Page 278
1 right now. Just one second. 1 and empirical peak velocities.
2 A. -- and the January 29th expert report. 2 And from what I see for both Scenario 1
3 Q. Do you still have in front of you there 3 and 2C, LS-DYNA underpredicts in every instance;
4 your technical report? 4 is that correct?
5 A. Which technical report associated -- 5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Technical -- I'm sorry. I get these 6 Q. That's all I was asking about. And I'm
7 confused. 7 not sure why that was confusing, but if we do this
8 A. Me too. 8 and go right back to what you say, we'll see where
9 Q. Technical Report No. 1 or July 11, 2008. 9 we're going.
10 A. No, I do not. But I'll get it. 10 A. The empirical predictions that we refer
11 Q. Okay. Actually, I'm still looking 11 to, because there are a variety of empirical
12 for -- I remember a chart in your report -- I can 12 predictions, come from the U.S. Army Corps of
13 do this without looking at it, I believe, and 13 Engineers coastal engineering manual.
14 maybe you can, too. 14 Because that technology has been under
15 A. I'll try, too. 15 development for so many years, that becomes a very
16 Q. Maybe you can, too. 16 important reference for us to be able to validate
17 A. If either feel uncomfortable, we'll go 17 against.
18 to it. 18 We used, as well, other empirical
19 Q. It's my recollection from your 19 check-ins, and those are documented in the expert
20 reports -- and I can find for you in a couple 20 report of January 2009.
21 minutes, but I don't want to waste the time -- 21 Q. Okay. Were -- questions from online.
22 that when you did your comparison of LS-DYNA to 22 How do you account for the higher energy
23 other predictors, LS-DYNA always underpredicted. 23 that results from the use of monochromatic waves
24 Is that fair to say? 24 for a same wave height as for significant wave
25 A. No, that's not fair to say. 25 height?
Page 277 Page 279
1 Q. But that's what your charts say in each 1 A. Would you repeat the question? I think
2 one of your -- I just have to take you there. 2 there may be an error in your transmission of the
3 It -- 3 question.
4 A. Make sure we're talking about apples and 4 Q. Okay. Could be.
5 apples. 5 You use significant wave height,
6 Q. Yeah. 6 correct?
7 A. Okay. You're going to tell me which? 7 A. Correct.
8 MR. SMITH: Can we go off the record for 8 Q. As an input for the monochromatic wave?
9 a second. 9 A. Correct.
10 MR. STONE: Page 146. 10 Q. This results in higher energy for the
11 MR. SMITH: Can we go off the record for 11 same wave height. How do you account for this?
12 a second. 12 A. For the same wave height of what?
13 MR. STONE: Yeah. 13 Q. Under SWAN, if you compare SWAN with
14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 9:11, and 14 your model.
15 we are off the record. 15 Let me try something else.
16 (Discussion held off record.) 16 Is it fair to say that SWAN models wave
17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 9:19 a.m. 17 energy, not wave height?
18 We are back on the record. 18 A. That's correct. And that's where we get
19 Q. Sir, were you able to find pages 146 and 19 the significant height. The significant height is
20 147 of your Technical Report No. 1, July 14 -- I'm 20 reflecting the energy in that sea state.
21 sorry, July 11, 2008? 21 Q. And you get that as an output of the
22 A. Yes, sir. 22 SWAN model?
23 Q. Okay. There are two tables there. 23 A. Yes. Yes.
24 They're marked 32 and 33, and they appear to me to 24 Q. Now how do you account for --
25 show a comparison between LS-DYNA peak velocities 25 A. They have the same energy.
8 (Pages 276 to 279)
1/31/2009
Page 280 Page 282
1 Q. But you're using monochromatic and SWAN 1 Q. And that is applied to determine erosion
2 uses irregular. 2 through sheet flow?
3 A. Well, SWAN produces an irregular C 3 A. Correct.
4 output. That has to be analyzed to determine the 4 Q. And through sheet flow overtopping; is
5 spectral energy. We then use that spectral energy 5 that correct?
6 to prescribe the significant wave height. 6 A. That's incorrect.
7 So the energy in those two, given that 7 Q. The reason I'm asking you, from an
8 the analysis has been done correctly, is the same. 8 article here he wrote back in 2000 --
9 Q. Is it fair to say that equating 9 A. Yeah.
10 significant wave height with monochromatic waves 10 Q. -- final version, 2008.
11 results in higher wave energy? 11 A. Okay.
12 A. Higher than what? 12 Q. It says, "This paper addresses the
13 Q. Than you would have for -- 13 erosion aspects of the New Orleans levees as they
14 A. Irregular? 14 were overtopped by sheet flow. The possible
15 Q. -- irregular waves? 15 erosion of the levees by wave attack prior to
16 A. No. 16 overtopping sheet flow was not studied in this
17 Q. Okay. Did you compare the two types of 17 work."
18 waves whenever you were -- you've said that 18 A. Correct.
19 already, that you did not compare them? 19 Q. Do you know why he didn't study that
20 A. Correct. 20 aspect of it and stuck with overtopping flow --
21 Q. Okay. 21 A. No.
22 A. Only in that exploratory set of 22 Q. -- sheet flow?
23 analyses, to ensure we had things reasonably 23 Okay. Do you know if his method of
24 coherent. And then we went to the fatigue 24 determining erosion is applicable to anything
25 analysis technology to carry the ball the rest of 25 other than parallel flows of water across a
Page 281 Page 283
1 the way. 1 material?
2 What I would like to reinforce is the 2 A. Would you repeat your question.
3 technology tells us using regular wave damage 3 Q. It seems to me that in this case, you
4 mechanics, where the regular wave is based on the 4 have waves coming in that are attacking the front
5 significant height, and the peak period results in 5 of the levees.
6 an overprediction of the damage. 6 A. Correct.
7 If you go to the regular, you have to 7 Q. You have wave breaking.
8 reduce that damage. The reduction is about .87 to 8 A. Correct.
9 .95. Call it 1. 9 Q. And then you have waves, surge levels
10 Q. You've talked about Briaud and testing 10 coming up the surface of the face of the levee.
11 that's been done, and I think it was done for 11 A. Correct.
12 ILIT; is that correct? 12 Q. And you have waves touching at each of
13 A. Actually, Briaud did testing much before 13 these points as they're coming up.
14 ILIT. Three to four years, he has done testing 14 A. Correct.
15 after ILIT was concluded, 6:00 a.m., 14th of May, 15 Q. And then you have a sheet flow over the
16 2005. 16 top. With overtopping, you have waves on the --
17 We've actually referred to that entire 17 A. Or backflow down --
18 body of technology. 18 Q. And I'm missing the few steps, I know.
19 Q. You had some of your samples tested by 19 A. Well, you got back down the front.
20 Dr. Briaud? 20 Q. And backflow.
21 A. Yes. 21 A. Like the belt sander.
22 Q. Okay. Now, he used a flume test; is 22 Q. Well, my question is, Dr. Briaud's work
23 that right? 23 is generally for sheet flow across a level
24 A. What he calls, I think, the EFA test. 24 surface?
25 Flume test is just fine. 25 A. That's correct.
9 (Pages 280 to 283)
1/31/2009
Page 284 Page 286
1 Q. So did you have him analyze your samples 1 MR. STONE: S-W-A-S-H zone.
2 in a particular way to account for these other 2 MR. STONE: Q. Nor does it simulate
3 vectors, let's say, of flow? 3 cascading water that falls over the edges of a
4 A. No. 4 steep head cut, for example?
5 Q. Okay. Why not? 5 A. Exactly.
6 A. Because a flume can't perform such 6 Q. We've taken a detour. Let's go back to
7 tests. 7 that report we were talking about earlier.
8 Q. Okay. 8 Well, now, I got another list of
9 A. Now, we considered the -- 9 questions here. Let me see those again. And
10 Q. Go ahead, sir. 10 let's finish those up, and then we'll get back to
11 A. We considered their work done by the 11 this. Because I'd kind of like to stick straight
12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which uses an 12 on this.
13 impinging flow condition on the soils. Those 13 This is very complex, and for us to
14 tests are performed in situ. They were performed 14 understand it --
15 along the EBSBs on Reach 2 following Hurricane 15 A. It's important.
16 Katrina. 16 Q. -- we'll --
17 That data was published in the IPED 17 A. It was part of your homework.
18 report. We accessed that data as well to evaluate 18 Q. Yeah. The Technical Report No. 2,
19 the erodibility function. Both sets of tests were 19 January 29, 2009, is what we're talking about.
20 used. 20 Let me just start at the beginning.
21 Q. But those tests that you're talking 21 What is a monochromatic series of
22 about weren't made from soils taken from Station 22 incident waves?
23 497 plus 00, were they? 23 A. Regular sine waves -- regular sine-like
24 A. I don't recall whether or not there was 24 waves in a time history. They could have had a
25 an exact overlap with Station 497 plus 00 and the 25 perfectly sine shape or they could have
Page 285 Page 287
1 test locations used by the Army Corps of Engineers 1 monochromatic, but nonsinusoidal shape.
2 in the IPED study. 2 Q. For your analysis of Katrina at
3 But they sampled a wide variety of soils 3 Station 497, what was the time period that you
4 along Reach 2 and along Reach 1, as well. That 4 were -- you're talking about for that sine wave?
5 was a very valuable dataset to give us insight 5 A. I don't recall exactly. Something on
6 into the normal direction of flow erosion effects. 6 the order of 100 seconds, 120.
7 We actually use that to help us 7 Q. In this report you use 130 when you
8 compute/analyze the development of erosion 8 evaluate.
9 trenches behind the flood walls after overtopping. 9 A. Perfect. Thank you.
10 Q. Does the erosion function apparatus -- I 10 Q. That's where you would have --
11 think you've answered this. If you have, just 11 A. We would do the analysis for the 130
12 bear with me. 12 seconds, and then get the duration of the sine
13 A. No. Just fine. You're bearing it with 13 wave or the wave acting at a particular elevation
14 me. 14 for a particular time through summation of the
15 Q. Does the erosion function apparatus 15 damage from the 130 seconds to the end of that
16 simulate turbulence in vortices caused by breaking 16 time period.
17 waves? 17 Q. Which might result in a multiplication
18 A. No. Because there are no breaking waves 18 of by, like, thousands, right?
19 in the apparatus. It does simulate the degree of 19 A. Not thousands. It would depend on the
20 turbulence that the apparatus brings with it. You 20 time period.
21 can't have perfectly laminar flow. 21 Q. Well -- okay.
22 Q. But isn't uprushing/downrushing waves in 22 What is an irregular series of incident
23 the swashes zone -- 23 waves?
24 A. Exactly. 24 A. These are waves that had differing
25 (Reporter interruption.) 25 amplitudes or double amplitudes, if you want to
10 (Pages 284 to 287)
1/31/2009
Page 288 Page 290
1 refer to heights, as a function of time. 1 anchor point for these other evaluations.
2 So rather than -- rather than all of the 2 Q. And that study of Station 497 was an
3 crests being at the same elevations for the waves, 3 anchor point, too, right?
4 some will be smaller; some will be larger. 4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Okay. All right. Back to this 5 Q. So what was the crest elevation at
6 Technical Report No. 2. 6 Section 497 [sic] that you looked at?
7 We went through the first page. And 7 A. Sixteen and a half feet.
8 then at the top of the next page, it starts with 8 Q. Okay. Now, did you look at crest
9 "a plot is then generated that displays the 9 elevations on either side of that for existing
10 estimated lateral erosion as a function of 10 levees that weren't eroded by -- and washed away
11 time" -- 11 by Hurricane Katrina?
12 That's what you've just been talking 12 A. Let me address that question after I
13 about to some extent, right? 13 make sure we get on to the same page.
14 A. Yes. 14 There's a confusion that, in fact,
15 Q. -- "and EBSB characteristics." 15 permeates the defense experts' reports. The
16 A. And we're Technical Report 2, January, 16 confusion regards the reference for elevation. We
17 correct? 17 have consistently used NAVD 88.
18 Q. Yes, sir. Top of page 2. 18 Q. Right.
19 A. Now, I'm with you, sir. 19 A. So the elevations I'm referring --
20 Q. Geometry, grass cover, erodibility and 20 Q. I'm going to have a conversion for you.
21 hydrodynamics, those are the characteristics that 21 A. -- are there, but the defense experts
22 you're looking at. 22 have used differing reference elevations.
23 Are you on the page with me? 23 And so when they refer to a certain
24 A. I can't find -- 24 elevation -- and frequently they don't document
25 Q. Page 2, very top of the first. 25 which one they're using -- we're finding it
Page 289 Page 291
1 A. First sentence? 1 confusing.
2 Q. Yes, sir. 2 Q. I can't comment on that because I
3 A. "The" -- 3 haven't really evaluated all their reports. But
4 (Reporter interruption.) 4 it's my understanding we're all trying to use NAVD
5 MR. STONE: Q. Just read it to 5 88.
6 yourself. It's okay. 6 A. We might be trying, but we're not
7 I want to ask you about those 7 getting there yet.
8 characteristics. 8 Q. Okay. But you and I will.
9 A. Understood. 9 A. You betcha, sir.
10 Q. You say those are the characteristics of 10 Q. So you said 16 and a half feet. I
11 the EBSB, correct? 11 thought it was 16 feet for your crest elevation
12 A. That's correct. 12 for Station 497.
13 Q. All right. Did you, for your LS-DYNA 13 A. Would you like me to check the profile?
14 model, compute using one geometry for these 14 Q. Yes, if you would, please, sir. I just
15 levees? 15 want to make sure it's accurate, because the
16 A. Well, there is only one study location, 16 locations on either side are going to matter, and
17 so the answer is, yes. 17 we want to know what their heights are, too,
18 Q. I believe we went over that yesterday. 18 because I have a series of questions about this.
19 A. Yes. 19 MR. STONE: Can you guys get ready to
20 Q. You did one study location, and you 20 put up those two drawings? They want us to use
21 applied that to all the other stations? 21 them. They're so bored down there at the end of
22 A. No, that's incorrect -- well, no, that 22 the table.
23 is partially correct. Because to apply to the 23 MR. BRUNO: I understand completely.
24 other stations, we had to use other sources of the 24 MR. STONE: Grab a copy of
25 information and analysis. So LS-DYNA became an 25 Mr. Ebersole's report from one of those boxes over
11 (Pages 288 to 291)
1/31/2009
Page 292 Page 294
1 there. 1 Q. I don't think we have uncertainty
2 MR. STONE: Q. You know, if it's going 2 factors with these because they were actual
3 to take any while, let's assume 16 and a half -- 3 measurements. They weren't LIDAR and they weren't
4 A. Or 16. 4 sheet pile or anything like that. These were --
5 Q. -- or 16. Either one. And if we find 5 these were actual measurements that were part of
6 it's different later, we'll correct it. 6 the drawing.
7 MR. BRUNO: Are you almost there? 7 A. All measurements are made using
8 THE WITNESS: I'm almost there. 8 instruments. Go through an interpretative process
9 Sixteen. 9 that result in the prescribed, assumed elevation.
10 MR. STONE: Q. All right. Thank you. 10 None are free from uncertainty.
11 A. Who said 16 first, you or me? 11 Q. I'll accept that.
12 Q. I did. 12 So all of that being said, let's look at
13 A. You're right. I'm wrong. 13 that page 240, please. And that's for Station
14 Q. That's because Dan told me it was 16. 14 445. That would be just north of your station
15 A. Dan's right. 15 447, correct?
16 Q. Now, we have it on record. 16 A. Correct.
17 We can put it on the screen, through 17 Q. And --
18 TrialDirector, a couple of drawings that show you 18 A. 47 --
19 the elevations on either side of your test site, 19 Q. 497.
20 at least I believe they are. And you can look at 20 A. 497.
21 these. Correct me if I'm wrong. 21 Q. Sorry. 497.
22 But we can also do this from 22 A. So now we're even.
23 Mr. Ebersole's report, because he shows them in 23 Q. You're north of 497?
24 the report. One is Station 570. I have a copy 24 A. Correct.
25 here for you. 25 Q. And this is Station 445?
Page 293 Page 295
1 A. Oh, do you? Thank you. 1 A. Sure.
2 Q. This appendix -- 2 Q. And do you know that to be at a section
3 MR. BRUNO: There are Bates number in 3 of the levee that only eroded for a few feet at
4 the bottom corner. 4 the top, according to Mr. Ebersole's eroded crest
5 MR. STONE: -- has a Bates number on the 5 elevation?
6 bottom of the page. 6 A. Is this at the -- or in the sheet pile
7 MR. STONE: Q. Okay. The Bates number 7 section? See, there's a sheet pile section north
8 at the bottom of the page is 240. 8 of this.
9 While you're -- while you guys are 9 Q. No. This is a levee.
10 looking for that, let me just ask you a question. 10 A. So soil levee?
11 Have you read Dr. De Loach's report? 11 Q. Yes, sir.
12 A. No. 12 A. Okay. And your question again, please.
13 Q. You haven't. 13 Q. Do you note that this section of the
14 Are you comfortable with the conversion 14 levee only eroded for the approximate amount that
15 factor from NGVD to NAVD 88 of .8 for this area 15 Mr. Ebersole shows here in this drawing?
16 that you're working in for Station 497? 16 A. I -- I can only conclude from --
17 A. I don't know. 17 Q. You don't have any reason to disagree
18 Q. Let's work with it today, and then if we 18 with him, that that's how much it eroded?
19 find it's different later, you can tell me. 19 A. That's correct.
20 A. Well, the other thing I would add is, 20 Q. And this is shown to be at a ground
21 most of our information concerning elevations have 21 elevation of 18.1 NGVD.
22 an uncertainty band around them. 22 A. Got you.
23 My uncertainty band says, if I know this 23 Q. That was the original crest?
24 plus or minus a half a foot, a foot range, I'm 24 A. Yeah.
25 home. 25 Q. 18.1?
12 (Pages 292 to 295)
1/31/2009
Page 296 Page 298
1 A. And that's NAVD 88? 1 that's a soil boring --
2 Q. That's -- says right there in the lower 2 A. Correct.
3 left-hand corner. 3 Q. -- that's shown there, isn't it?
4 A. Thank you, sir. 4 A. Yes. Well, no, that's incorrect.
5 Q. Can you convert NGVD for that area to 5 Q. Okay.
6 NAVD 88? 6 A. That's a log from a soil boring.
7 A. So I take off a foot, 17 feet? 7 What I mean by a log, soil sample is
8 Q. I've talked to Mr. De Loach, and he says 8 obtained.
9 it's a .8 conversion, in his opinion. 9 The person that sees the soil sample has
10 A. Multiply or subtract? 10 to characterize that soil sample. Then that
11 Q. Subtract. 11 characterization has to be transferred to the
12 A. So take all of .8 -- we'll call it a 12 diagram that is in front of here.
13 foot, round numbers. So it's about 17 feet. 13 Q. Okay.
14 Q. Seventeen. A little over. Whatever. 14 A. There's a human in between the soil and
15 (Reporter interruption.) 15 that picture.
16 MR. STONE: Q. And you are at 16 feet 16 Q. In this diagram, did you rely on either
17 for your test site? 17 of these diagrams in their original form without
18 A. Yes, sir. 18 Mr. Ebersole's red marks on them? Did you rely on
19 Q. So it's a bit higher -- 19 either of these diagrams for any purpose when you
20 A. Correct. 20 were investigating what the soil conditions were
21 Q. -- than that. 21 for your test site?
22 Let's go now to page 243, and that's 22 A. I believe we did. Now, I'd have to get
23 Station 509 plus 00. 23 more specific to the boring numbers --
24 A. Yes, sir. 24 Q. I don't want to trick you here.
25 Q. And that's about 16 -- 25 A. I know you don't.
Page 297 Page 299
1 A. 16 feet. 1 Q. I thought the first time you saw them
2 Q. 16.6 or something like that. Slightly 2 was at the -- your last deposition with Mr. Smith
3 higher, but not much. 3 in --
4 But these two areas did not completely 4 A. That was the 2001. That's the first
5 erode away like the test site that you used, 5 time we saw the 2001 --
6 correct? 6 Q. That's where this is from?
7 If Mr. Ebersole is correct in his eroded 7 A. Okay. If that's true, then --
8 crest elevations here -- I think you're on the 8 Q. It says right here, 25 January 001.
9 wrong page. It's 243. It's XBE001243. 9 A. Perfect. Then we did not see that prior
10 A. Where did the red line shown here as the 10 to the selection of the site, but we have analyzed
11 eroded crest elevation come from? 11 it since that time.
12 Q. It came from Mr. Ebersole, but I don't 12 Q. Okay. What kind of soil materials in
13 know his source. 13 this soil boring log is shown on page 240 that
14 A. I cannot comment until I understand the 14 make up that levee section?
15 source. 15 A. You got clay, silts, sands, organic
16 Q. Well, I'll ask you, then. 16 material.
17 Did you look at the crest elevations on 17 Q. Let's go from the crest to minus 7.
18 either side of the remaining crest elevations on 18 What do you have?
19 either side of Station 497? 19 A. Pardon me for a few minutes.
20 A. Yes. We went all the way to the north 20 Q. You need your magnifying glass? I
21 of Bienvenue and went all the way to the south end 21 sometimes do, too. Take your time.
22 of Reach 2, at its turn to Caernarvon. 22 MR. STONE: Is this a good time for a
23 (Reporter interruption.) 23 break for everyone? We've been at it for a while.
24 THE WITNESS: C-A-N-A-V-E-R-O-N [sic]. 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is
25 MR. STONE: Q. Looking at these two -- 25 9:47 a.m., and we are off the record.
13 (Pages 296 to 299)
1/31/2009
Page 300 Page 302
1 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 1 Q. And although these two levees eroded,
2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2 they did not erode -- erode as significantly as
3 10:04 a.m., and we are back on the record. 3 did the site that you used as a test site,
4 MR. STONE: Q. Dr. Bea, have you had a 4 correct?
5 chance to look at those two soil boring logs that 5 A. I can't corroborate that because I'm
6 we pointed out to you earlier? 6 unfamiliar with how the eroded crest elevation has
7 A. Only cores from Location 1. 7 been determined here.
8 Q. Okay. That was Station 445 plus 00? 8 Q. They didn't erode down to the same
9 A. Yes, sir. 9 elevation that your test site eroded to, did they?
10 Q. Okay. How do those soil -- 10 A. Correct. But the supposition of that is
11 A. Characteristics? 11 this elevation information is reliable.
12 Q. -- yes, sir -- compare to the 12 Q. When you evaluated these two soil boring
13 characteristics of the soil that you collected 13 records, what did you conclude from them that was
14 from the breach site that you're using as a test 14 relevant to your test site, if anything?
15 site? 15 A. Well, the -- I think we now have
16 A. The surface is difficult for me to tell 16 something on the order of 100 soil borings, logs,
17 from the symbols and the words. It appears to be 17 laboratory test data, that we've incorporated into
18 silty, sandy, clay material that transitions into 18 a GIS system, global-mapped based.
19 fat clay. 19 The soils along the Reach 2 stretch are
20 Then there's an eroded crest elevation 20 highly variable. They can start out at the
21 red line that shows out there. And it obliterates 21 surface with sands and silts and transition into
22 the symbol, so I can't tell for sure. But I think 22 fat clays or can transition into sands again and
23 it's indicating silty, sandy, clay material. 23 silts, transition into this consistent organic
24 Q. I think we gave you a drawing that has 24 marker layer.
25 this without the red line in it in front of you 25 There is no, quote, typical soil
Page 301 Page 303
1 there for 445. Maybe that will help you read it. 1 condition. But it varies from site to site or
2 A. No. The letters are so small, and my 2 along the entire length. And that helps us
3 eyes are so poor. So this is a good one. 3 understand and explain why some areas eroded and
4 The rest of the profile transitions into 4 some areas did not.
5 fat clay, until we hit this endemic, systemic, 5 Q. Do you know whether these two levees
6 organic layer that I just showed you the sample 6 that are still existing that you just looked at
7 of -- 7 would have been overtopped?
8 Q. At what level? 8 A. No, I do not. I don't know the
9 A. We're down at minus 10 NGVD. And then 9 locations relative to the surge. But if we can
10 we go into a variable profile. 10 rely on this elevation of 17.4, approximately
11 Q. Okay. That's -- how about page 243 now? 11 16 feet in AVD, that area must have been
12 How do those characteristics compare to the 12 overtopped by 1 to 2 feet of surge.
13 characteristics of the soil that you obtained from 13 Q. And the other would have also been
14 the breach site at 497? 14 overtopped by --
15 A. The area in -- that identified eroded 15 A. Approximately.
16 crest elevation looked very similar to the soils 16 Q. -- a bit less?
17 that we sampled and tested at that location. 17 A. Yeah.
18 The surface material, of course, has 18 Q. How long would the overtopping have been
19 been eroded relative to this illustration. Below 19 for?
20 it we transition into fat clay with, it looks 20 A. Short period of time based on the surge
21 like, some silt content in it, and then, again, 21 hydrographs that our Delft team has developed.
22 hit that marker, if you will, organic layer, and 22 Based on the latest surge hydrographs we obtained
23 translate deeper into clay. 23 in the expert report by Dr. Westerlink, there is a
24 Organic clay or -- consistently shows up 24 first peak that would result in overtopping, and
25 in this minus 10 elevation range. 25 then there's a very mysterious second peak that
14 (Pages 300 to 303)
1/31/2009
Page 304 Page 306
1 would potentially also result in overtopping. 1 A. Correct.
2 Thus far, we've been able to -- unable 2 Q. And you have no evidence at that precise
3 to validate/corroborate the characteristics of 3 location as to what grass was there before?
4 that second peak. It was not present in the 4 A. Other than the observational information
5 initial IPET results. It's certainly not shown to 5 I referred to yesterday, chiefly aerial
6 that amplitude nor timing in the Delft results. 6 photographs, that shows grass could be -- we'll
7 So there are questions concerning that 7 call it moderate to sparse to none.
8 second peak and its ability to contribute to the 8 Q. And you took none as your --
9 flooding overtopping that's your question. 9 A. No. That's incorrect.
10 Q. In the section of levee that's missing 10 Q. Okay. What did you --
11 there that you used as your test site, pretty much 11 A. Moderate --
12 everything depends, for your evaluation, on 12 (Reporter interruption.)
13 whether or not you got the soil right, doesn't it? 13 MR. STONE: Withdrawn.
14 A. No, that's not fair to say. 14 MR. STONE: Q. You assumed no grass, I
15 Q. Let me explain what I'm saying. No 15 said?
16 guesswork here. 16 A. That is incorrect.
17 If the soils at that site were the same 17 Q. What did you assume?
18 as the soils on either side, what would be the 18 A. We assumed a range of grass cover
19 difference of the site that you're investigating 19 conditions, that one prescribed for the EBSB study
20 that would cause it to completely wash away and 20 location was a moderate grass cover with a sand
21 those other two levees not wash away? 21 substrate.
22 A. Okay. A grass cover could be one. The 22 Q. I promise I'm going to get back to that
23 characteristics of the surface materials could be 23 document we started with this morning, but let's
24 another. Variables in the wave action along that 24 go to your Declaration No. 1 of July 11, 2008.
25 length. The wave action is being influenced by 25 A. Page number?
Page 305 Page 307
1 the vegetation fronting the MRGO. 1 Q. Let's start with page 132.
2 So you can have variability in what I 2 A. 132. The paragraph No. 110, parametric
3 was calling yesterday "the demand 3 wave attack erosion evaluations?
4 characteristics," the waves, you know, or the 4 Q. That's page 131. That's where it
5 surge and its duration, or the capacity 5 starts, yes, sir.
6 characteristics. 6 A. I'm on 132.
7 And those then become importantly 7 Q. And then page --
8 related to the soils, and also to the topography 8 MR. BRUNO: You're getting different
9 of the EBSB and earthen flood protection 9 page numbers on your computer.
10 structure. 10 MR. STONE: It's the next page. Let's
11 And that actually introduced a concern 11 do it by paragraphs. Would that be better?
12 that we had with the defense expert reports 12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 because they presume one cross-sectional elevation 13 MR. STONE: Q. Okay. 111.
14 applicable to the entire length of Reach 2. 14 A. Got it.
15 The available field survey information, 15 Q. Tell me what these results are here.
16 both before and after Katrina, clearly show that 16 Because I see in this paragraph, it's the middle
17 that's not appropriate. 17 of the paragraph, these results are for no grass
18 Q. You said grass would be an issue? 18 cover.
19 A. Yes. 19 A. Mh-hmm.
20 Q. Soil would be an issue? 20 Q. What are you working on in this section
21 A. Yes. 21 here that entitles you to assume no grass cover?
22 Q. And the grass is no longer there at this 22 A. Well, since we were uncertain as to the
23 point, either way. There either was grass -- 23 grass cover at the EBSB study location, as for the
24 A. As it erodes -- correct. 24 other parameters, we studied a range of plausible
25 Q. There either was grass or there wasn't? 25 grass cover conditions.
15 (Pages 304 to 307)
1/31/2009
Page 308 Page 310
1 This is a section dealing with nongrass 1 crenellation have occurred earlier than
2 cover conditions. 2 6:00 o'clock a.m.?
3 Q. Okay. The next sentence says, "Based on 3 A. Depends on what's contributing to
4 these simulations, and the EBSB geometric 4 overtopping and how you're using the term.
5 configuration materials, the EBSB crest is 5 The waves are pushing water up. The
6 breached by wave side attack around 5:00 o'clock 6 mean water level, which we would call the surge
7 a.m. Central Daylight Time." 7 elevation, is lower than that point.
8 A. Check. 8 So even before surge overtopping, water
9 Q. "After 5:30 a.m. Central Daylight Time, 9 is going over or through the soil erosional
10 the magnitude of lateral erosion dramatically 10 feature that has been formed.
11 reduces at the outboard face because the outboard 11 Q. I'd like to -- unless I distinguish
12 face is fully submerged by the storm surge (which 12 between surge overtopping and surge and wave, I'm
13 occurs around 6:00 o'clock a.m. Central Daylight 13 talking about surge and wave.
14 Time). At this stage, the erosion has shifted to 14 A. Got it.
15 the back side face." 15 Q. We can just simplify that.
16 A. Correct. 16 So it would have been overtopping as
17 Q. Are you talking about your test area 17 early as 6:00 o'clock a.m. here?
18 there? 18 A. Correct.
19 A. Correct. 19 Q. For a period of 2.5 hours minimum, there
20 Q. And that's a test area with no grass 20 would have been overtopping --
21 cover? 21 A. Correct.
22 A. Correct. For this set of conditions. 22 Q. -- in that area?
23 Q. Okay. Now, since this is getting to -- 23 Let's go to paragraph 114, couple pages
24 MR. BRUNO: Is this -- 24 later. I want to know if this is --
25 THE WITNESS: No. He said declarations, 25 A. 114?
Page 309 Page 311
1 I think. 1 Q. Yes, sir.
2 Did you? 2 A. You mean --
3 MR. STONE: We're reading from the same 3 Q. Paragraph 114, page 134.
4 document, Declaration No. 1. 4 A. Check.
5 MR. BRUNO: Okay. 5 Q. Read that paragraph to yourself, and
6 MR. STONE: Page 131 and -- or paragraph 6 then tell me if you are saying there that after
7 111. 7 you've done your LS-DYNA analysis, and you've
8 MR. STONE: Q. This means that there 8 assumed no grass and sand, this is your ultimate
9 would be overtopping there as early as 9 conclusion about these levees.
10 6:00 o'clock a.m., correct? 10 A. And your question is?
11 A. Well, here's where this term of 11 Q. I want to know if this is, after you've
12 "overtopping" has to be carefully defined. 12 done those, the LS-DYNA analysis, and you've
13 As I said yesterday, if the crest of the 13 assumed sand is the material and no grass --
14 EBSB remains intact, then there -- the surge has 14 A. It's not quite sand as material. We
15 got to elevate the water to the elevation that 15 didn't assume it.
16 will exceed the crest elevation of a EBSB. 16 Q. Well, the material that you've used in
17 If the wave erosion has breached that 17 here.
18 location, has lowered that elevation, water comes 18 A. Is the material we sampled from the
19 through earlier, faster and longer. 19 location. So there's not an assumption as to the
20 Q. And with your model, have you concluded 20 material.
21 that that 16-foot crest had been crenellated -- 21 Q. Well, let me just define it, then --
22 A. Correct. 22 A. Okay.
23 Q. -- let's say, by that time? 23 Q. -- as I think you have defined it.
24 A. Correct. 24 Noncohesive, uncompacted?
25 Q. So would overtopping through that 25 A. Correct. That's better.
16 (Pages 308 to 311)
1/31/2009
Page 312 Page 314
1 Q. So you've used noncohesive, uncompacted 1 noncohesive, uncompacted, without good grass
2 material and no grass cover in concluding what 2 cover, subjected to the same front side wave
3 you've concluded here in paragraph 114, right? 3 attacks, better materials --
4 A. No. Because it says all of the 4 A. Right.
5 parametric analyses confirm that levees 5 Q. -- good materials --
6 constructed of good materials, cohesive, compacted 6 A. Right.
7 with low erodibility would have performed 7 Q. -- cohesive, compacted would have
8 significantly better than one constructed of high 8 experienced insignificant front side wave erosion?
9 erodibility materials. 9 A. And, in fact, that's an important
10 Subjected to the same front side wave 10 validation. Important because we went to the
11 attack, the levees with good materials would have 11 north of Bayou Bienvenue, where trucked, compacted
12 experienced insignificant front side erosion. 12 cohesive material with moderate grass cover had
13 Q. Okay. I didn't understand, then, what 13 been used, and we performed the analysis at that
14 you meant by "all the parametric analyses." 14 location, and it showed no breaching. And so did
15 What do you include in all of the 15 the observational information following Hurricane
16 parametric analyses? 16 Katrina.
17 A. We studied a variety of demand 17 So we were able to validate a site for
18 conditions, ranging from significant wave heights 18 none and a site for significant breaching.
19 of 2 feet to 7 feet, significant wave periods 19 Q. Okay. And this would be true under
20 incredibly from the IPED study of 16 seconds to 20 either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2C?
21 short wave, wind waves of three seconds to four 21 A. You would have to reform your --
22 seconds. 22 rephrase your question because --
23 We studied a variety of shapes. The 23 Q. Let me do that.
24 study location. The design shape, as well as the 24 Under either -- and I'm just going to
25 LIDAR-based shape that was present prior to 25 add this last sentence to it.
Page 313 Page 315
1 Hurricane Katrina. 1 So under either Scenario 1 or 2C, good
2 We studied a variety of soil 2 materials, quote, subjected to the same front side
3 characteristics, meaning this general category, 3 wave attacks, the levee with good materials would
4 compacted or moderately compacted. We studied a 4 have experienced insignificant front side erosion?
5 variety of surface cover, including no grass 5 A. And that's correct.
6 cover, moderate grass cover, very dense grass 6 But the thing that's confusing in your
7 cover, all on sand substrate. 7 sentence, you say "conditional on the same wave
8 To get the grass cover on sand substrate 8 attack." Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 had very
9 from the available information on grass cover and 9 different wave attacks.
10 clay substrate, we had to rely on other 10 MR. BRUNO: One and 2C.
11 experimental data that had tested those two 11 MR. STONE: Q. How do you separate
12 domains in comparable ways to make that length. 12 Scenario 1 and --
13 That's a question that was registered by 13 A. 2C?
14 Mr. Ebersole. 14 Q. Let's say the worst-case -- the
15 Q. Assuming a continuum from the best kind 15 worst-case scenario for wave side -- for front
16 of levee that you analyzed here to the worst kind 16 side wave attacks that you analyzed --
17 of levee that you analyzed here, is your 17 A. That's Scenario 1, Katrina as-was.
18 conclusion that you've -- after analyzing all of 18 Q. Okay.
19 those, everything points to that, even if any of 19 A. Got it?
20 those were subjected to the same -- question's 20 Q. Right.
21 withdrawn. 21 A. Question?
22 A. I understand. It's hard to ask. 22 Q. These good materials would have survived
23 Q. On that continuum that I just talked 23 this front side wave attack?
24 about, that you have worst case and best case for 24 A. And they did.
25 the materials that you're looking at, and they are 25 Q. Okay. So under Scenario 2C, that's
17 (Pages 312 to 315)
1/31/2009
Page 316 Page 318
1 subjected to the -- okay, that's a better scenario 1 Q. And we're under "Scope."
2 for front side wave attack? 2 MR. BRUNO: All right. What page?
3 A. The waves are lower. 3 MR. STONE: Page 2.
4 Q. The waves are lower? 4 THE WITNESS: Technical Report 2. And
5 A. Less energetic. So, therefore, they 5 this is January 29th.
6 would not breach under that condition. 6 What page, please?
7 Q. Okay. So even without MRGO in the 7 MR. STONE: Q. Two.
8 picture, with good materials, cohesive, compacted 8 A. Two.
9 and good grass cover, front side wave attacks 9 Q. Under "Scope."
10 would have caused insignificant erosion? 10 MR. BRUNO: Two.
11 A. Correct. 11 THE WITNESS: Got you.
12 Q. Okay. We're not talking about 12 MR. STONE: Q. And there you talk about
13 overtopping there, are we? 13 developing three simulation validation case
14 A. We're talking about everything. 14 studies.
15 Q. Even overtopping? 15 A. Got it.
16 A. Yes. 16 Q. And what is a "validation case study"?
17 Q. So they would -- it would have been okay 17 What are you trying to validate here?
18 for overtopping also, then? 18 A. We're trying to, in this case, validate
19 A. Because the two scenarios both include 19 the entire wave unprotected side breaching of the
20 overtopping conditions, so you can't separate 20 earthen structures.
21 it -- can't separate them. 21 So concisely put, we're trying to
22 And that's a point I made in my October 22 integrate -- or trying to evaluate the total
23 declaration: You can't cut a cow in half and have 23 integrated result coming from our analysis with
24 two cows. 24 applicable data information from field, laboratory
25 Q. I saw that. 25 and analytical studies.
Page 317 Page 319
1 Have you ever heard the saying that you 1 Q. And you equate them all to the MRGO
2 can sell a man with one cow two milking machines 2 Station 497, correct?
3 and take the cow as a down payment? 3 A. That's correct.
4 A. I'll remember that one. I got a whole 4 Q. And you bring in Hurricane Gustav and
5 collection of them. 5 you do an analysis based on Hurricane Gustav also?
6 Q. I just don't want you to do that to me 6 A. That's correct.
7 here either. 7 Q. Hurricane Gustav surge was 10.8 feet,
8 A. Well put, buddy. 8 and there were no areas of overtopping of levees
9 Q. All right. Okay. Hold that. I want to 9 for Hurricane Gustav, correct?
10 deal with this report. 10 A. That's correct.
11 A. The organizer. 11 Q. So let's go back to a little bit of what
12 Q. I apologize, Dr. Bea. 12 we were talking about yesterday, about that
13 A. You don't have to. 13 freeboard on the levee and the front side wave
14 Q. I've got so many people wanting to ask 14 attack.
15 questions, and they're all good and they're all 15 The practical effect of there being
16 better than mine. 16 freeboard and a front side wave attack that lasts
17 A. You really hate the smart ass in class. 17 for a period of time is that those waves just
18 Q. In the military, we call them spring 18 continue to pound against the face of the levee?
19 butts. 19 A. Exactly.
20 A. Is that right? 20 Q. Rather than moving on up and passing on
21 Q. Okay. Page -- we're at page 2 of your 21 by, what they've been doing, that's like passing
22 report from this morning that we were -- we're 22 through the surf zone, right?
23 looking at. January 29, 2000, [sic] Technical 23 A. Yes.
24 Report No. 2. 24 Q. Siejffert and Verheij talk about it?
25 A. Shift gears. 25 A. Yeah.
18 (Pages 316 to 319)
1/31/2009
Page 320 Page 322
1 Q. So you got the surf zone and say you've 1 A. Right.
2 got grass taken out? 2 Q. -- to the toe on the levee?
3 A. Right. 3 A. Right.
4 Q. And then the wave moves on up the levee? 4 Q. It's not moving up the face even yet?
5 A. Right. 5 A. Okay. Now. I'm with you.
6 Q. And you may see some more if it stays 6 Q. Obviously, then, it follows that as it
7 for a period of time on the levee. And if the 7 moves up the face, it gets a little bit farther --
8 levee is tall enough and the surge goes high 8 A. Right.
9 enough, including waves, you can get that 9 Q. -- shorter increments away, then the
10 crenellation effect. In fact, you see one picture 10 magnitudes of the erosion decreases more?
11 of that in Mr. Ebersole's report, correct? 11 A. That's correct.
12 A. That's correct. 12 Q. So --
13 Q. One that's clear that you're sure of. I 13 A. And we do agree -- we do agree with
14 mean, I don't know how to analyze these pictures, 14 their analyses and work.
15 but that seems to me that I'm fairly sure of that. 15 Q. So do you have to have a coefficient of
16 A. We spent a lot of hours trying to 16 friction for a surface of the berm to be able to
17 analyze the pictures. 17 determine how much of that energy has dissipated
18 Now, you have identified a point that 18 that would normally create an erosion depth?
19 also shows up as very confusing amongst the 19 A. No.
20 experts. And you identified it in the Siejffert 20 Q. You don't have to know the coefficient
21 laboratory experimental results. 21 of friction for the surface?
22 The confusion comes when you begin to 22 A. It depends on how you're calculating the
23 discuss wave heights, principally. As they show 23 fluid mechanics.
24 very clearly, there's a wave height removed from 24 You referred to the EFA test that was
25 the face of the structure you are concerned with. 25 the -- and this is another very important point
Page 321 Page 323
1 There is a wave height at the face of 1 that you are making.
2 the structure you are concerned with. And as you 2 The EFA test, velocities are measured in
3 move into the structure, there are yet additional 3 the center of the test section. Those velocities
4 wave heights. 4 do not affect or are not affected by the friction
5 And, essentially, this is reflecting the 5 at the bottom of the test flume.
6 wave interaction with the bottom and the stuff 6 So there's -- there's -- you would call
7 that's there. You really have to be careful what 7 it a profile that starts down. It's vertical. As
8 wave height you talk about. 8 you near the interface, it begins the decrease in
9 Q. Now, I believe Siejffert says that the 9 the velocities, and that's the effect of friction.
10 magnitude of erosion depth decreases in the 10 But you feel the same thing with the
11 landward direction. 11 wind in this area because if you stood at the top
12 And let me see if I understand that and 12 of this building, the wind is very, very high
13 whether you agree with Siejffert and Verjeij. 13 velocity. You can feel it fast. But if you're
14 That means that you come across the bank 14 down at the street level, it's much lower. And
15 of the MRGO -- 15 that's the effect of that local friction.
16 A. Right. 16 All the velocity work we have done has
17 Q. -- and you hit the berm. Call it 17 been removed from that boundary layer, so that
18 foreshore. Then you travel the wave to the toe of 18 we're in an area that is fundamentally unaffected
19 the levee. 19 by friction.
20 As you move inward, the forces decrease 20 So, no, you don't necessarily have to do
21 and erosion depth decreases. 21 it. But if you focus your work in the boundary
22 A. When you say "inward," you mean up the 22 condition, then you have to know the frictional
23 face -- 23 coefficients in that detail.
24 Q. I mean from just -- as the -- as the 24 Q. All right. A moment from now -- we're
25 water moves from the bank of the MRGO -- 25 going to assume for the sake of argument you're
19 (Pages 320 to 323)
1/31/2009
Page 324 Page 326
1 right about all that. But for right now, a 1 A. The page?
2 boundary layer that's rough slows things down 2 Q. Sixty-three.
3 faster than a boundary layer that's smooth. 3 A. That's where the --
4 A. Right. 4 Q. The paragraph starts, "In order to fully
5 Q. You talked about aviation the other day, 5 develop the hurricane waves."
6 right? 6 A. Right below Figure 50?
7 A. Yes. 7 Q. Yes, sir.
8 Q. You have a smooth wing, and the air is 8 A. I'm with you.
9 coming over the top -- Bernoulli principle 9 Q. The second sentence of that paragraph
10 again -- you have that air coming faster over the 10 says -- okay. Let me withdraw that.
11 top and meeting with the air that comes under the 11 You're talking about model geometry in
12 bottom and you have lift. 12 this section. That's the second title.
13 A. It's even better than that. 13 A. Model geometry for the EBSB Study
14 The sailboats that are out here behind 14 location 497 plus 00.
15 us, the ones that race, that's the reasons they 15 Q. And I quote your sentence. It says,
16 polish the bottoms. They're removing that 16 "The actual distance from the edge of the MRGO
17 roughness effect, and they go faster than my 17 channel to the flood side toe of the EBSB is
18 sailboat because I don't polish the bottom. 18 approximately 258 feet, however, for this
19 Q. So if you roughen that boundary layer -- 19 simulation, the model distance was 50 feet (to
20 this goes along with your talks about the 20 reduce the numerical computation time)."
21 wetlands, right? 21 A. That's correct.
22 A. Yes, that's part of it. 22 Q. So reducing that foreshore berm to
23 Q. -- then you'd have to -- under your 23 50 feet adds an element of more aggressiveness to
24 analysis of the way the wetlands work, you'd have 24 the waves on the face of the levee; isn't that
25 to assume that the water would slow a bit more 25 correct?
Page 325 Page 327
1 across the berm if you have a different 1 A. It would be if we didn't correct for it.
2 coefficient of friction if it's higher. 2 Q. Okay. How do you correct for that?
3 A. You are exactly right. 3 A. We have to -- as I was referring to the
4 Q. Okay. 4 important points you made regarding Siejffert, you
5 A. But there -- out in the condition that 5 have to make sure that the wave that arrives at
6 you referenced concerning the wetlands, it's more 6 the face of the structure you're concerned with is
7 than friction. And, in fact, friction -- if you 7 appropriate for the incoming wave conditions.
8 go to the detail -- is not a good way to model 8 So we had to carefully deal with that
9 that characteristic. It's a way that's been 9 translation from the western side of the MRGO to
10 adopted in analytical modeling for these 10 get it all the way to the point of the EBSB
11 conditions. 11 surface, where you were at a particular point in
12 Q. All right. Let's go to your Technical 12 time.
13 Report No. 1, page No. 63. 13 Those calculations and details are
14 MR. BRUNO: Of January or July? 14 provided in the technical report.
15 MR. STONE: July 11, 2008. 15 Q. And do you do that in some way by
16 MR. BRUNO: July Technical Report No. 1. 16 multiplication, or how do you take the modeling
17 And what page? 17 result for 50 feet and recompute it some way or
18 MR. STONE: Sixty-three. 18 whatever to show it for 258 feet?
19 THE WITNESS: If you would, again, for 19 A. It's essentially a function of water
20 me. 20 depth. And in this case, the waves are breaking.
21 MR. STONE: Q. You want a paragraph? 21 And as pointed out in a recent Corps of
22 A. I need to first find out the basic 22 Engineering document I received last night, the
23 documents you are referencing. 23 wave condition out in deep water would be
24 Q. That's Technical Report No. 1 of July 24 approximately 60 percent of the water depth
25 the 11th, 2008. 25 under -- we'll call it normal, smooth bottom
20 (Pages 324 to 327)
1/31/2009
Page 328 Page 330
1 conditions. But it's approximately 40 percent 1 materials.
2 under vegetated conditions. 2 A. Reform your question.
3 It was, in fact, that exact translation 3 Q. Okay.
4 that we used to achieve this input condition for 4 A. Make sure I answer it.
5 the wave-breaching analyses. 5 Q. We spoke earlier about if you had good
6 Q. All right. Let's go back to -- 6 materials, cohesive and compacted and grass
7 MR. BRUNO: I think it's reverse, other 7 cover --
8 way around. Sixty is where there's a water 8 A. Check.
9 bottom, deep water bottom, and 40 is where there's 9 Q. -- you wouldn't have had a failure?
10 not. 10 A. Correct.
11 THE WITNESS: Sixty is for no 11 Q. How do you back that down to the point
12 vegetation. Forty is with. 12 where you know that a failure will occur? What do
13 MR. BRUNO: I thought it was the 13 you have to take away before you know that you're
14 location of the water. 14 going to have a failure and what critical wave
15 MR. STONE: Okay. 15 height you have to reach that point?
16 THE WITNESS: I could quote it. 16 It's incredibly complex, isn't it?
17 MR. STONE: Q. From your model, what is 17 A. Oh, for sure. But let's see if we can
18 the critical wave height for failure? 18 step through your question. You correct me if I'm
19 A. Critical wave height for failure? How 19 not stepping in the right direction.
20 do you define "failure"? 20 Let's take away the grass cover.
21 Q. The way you've defined it in your 21 Q. All right. Let's do that first.
22 reports, as the breaching of the -- 22 A. Okay. Then the structure is exposed --
23 A. Of the crest crenellation? 23 or the soil that comprises the structure is
24 Q. Is that the way you would define it? 24 subjected immediately to the erosive effects of
25 A. Yes. 25 the waves.
Page 329 Page 331
1 Q. So I want to do this based on what you 1 That would tell you that under that
2 would define. 2 condition, given that those soils are eroding,
3 A. It's actually the accumulated effect of 3 that it would breach much quicker than with the
4 the wave time history that has preceded that point 4 grass cover.
5 of penetration. 5 Q. Let's assume a 16-foot levee height.
6 Q. Okay. 6 What critical wave height do you need to breach it
7 A. So it starts small and -- or however the 7 without that grass cover?
8 waves are varying in time, that final fatigue 8 A. How do you define "critical wave
9 result -- fatigue damage result is an accumulation 9 height"?
10 of all the contributions from those wave time 10 Q. "Critical" means it will cause the
11 histories. 11 breach.
12 Q. Okay. For your test site and first 12 A. There is no single wave that causes the
13 crest breaching occurring, what is the critical 13 breach.
14 wave height? 14 Q. Okay. But there's a wave height that
15 A. It varies, depend -- depending on this 15 you use because it's monochromatic, right?
16 history and where the surge is at the time and how 16 A. That's only for a time-step.
17 the waves are moving up the face of the system. 17 As the waves are moving up the face, the
18 Whether or not there's grass cover. It's not just 18 wave conditions are changing because the water is
19 a simple one-on-one relationship. 19 getting deeper.
20 Q. Well, where would it be for what we just 20 Q. Right. Got you.
21 recently talked about in that -- 21 And there's no further surface attack
22 A. Gustav? 22 underneath where the water is above that surface
23 Q. No. Your final conclusion that we -- 23 point?
24 that we discussed, about how Scenario 1 and 2C, 24 A. Our sander has moved up the slope.
25 you wouldn't have had a breach if you had had good 25 Q. So you have surge, and it's moving up
21 (Pages 328 to 331)
1/31/2009
Page 332 Page 334
1 the front side of the levee? 1 Dr. Bea, I don't want to send you off on
2 A. We call it "mowing the grass." 2 a project. I'm not trying to put you on the spot
3 Q. And you have a wave on top of that 3 here for this. I just want to know if -- if you
4 surge? 4 can do this in a short period of time, great.
5 A. That's correct. That's mowing. The 5 A. It's the wave condition at approximately
6 detritus that's in the water. That's another. 6 10:00 a.m. UTC, 5:00 a.m. CDT, and I'm searching
7 (Reporter interruption.) 7 for the wave condition, surge condition at that
8 THE WITNESS: Detritus. Junk. 8 time.
9 That's another one that you have to 9 Q. Okay. I saw a table in here that I
10 watch carefully here. The water is not clean 10 wonder if it would help you. One of your
11 unlike the Coulwave analyses presume. 11 tables --
12 The water has got large amounts of -- 12 A. Times time to the parameters.
13 we'll call got it flotsam and jetsam detritus that 13 That's a good point. It's an input
14 actually is an important erosive element for the 14 characteristic.
15 grass cover. 15 Q. How about looking at page 48 and 49 of
16 MR. STONE: Q. There goes a bunny 16 your Technical Report no. 1 of July 11. I don't
17 rabbit. 17 know if that's the table that will help you with
18 Did you take into consideration flotsam 18 that, but those are your -- your numbers.
19 and jetsam in your LS-DYNA analysis? 19 And at 5:00 a.m., you show 10.7 -- for
20 A. We tried to. 20 Scenario 2C, you show 10.7 storm surge, .8 --
21 Q. Okay. But you were unable to because 21 A. I see 11 at 0500.
22 it's too complex, isn't it? 22 MR. BRUNO: What page are we on?
23 A. No, it's not at all. You just have to 23 MR. STONE: Pages 48 and 49.
24 understand that what you're getting from the 24 MR. BRUNO: We're getting different
25 analysis has got uncertainty, and that depends 25 numbers here.
Page 333 Page 335
1 whether or not you got flotsam and jetsam at your 1 MR. STONE: I'm talking about his No. 1
2 location. 2 Technical Report.
3 It's another one of these delving 3 MR. BRUNO: So are we at Table 3?
4 parameters in a multiparameter problem. And if 4 MR. STONE: Yes. Tables 3 and 4.
5 you think it's a two-dot issue, you've 5 MR. BRUNO: Table 3 says 11.
6 oversimplified complexity and you're going to get 6 MR. STONE: I was looking at four.
7 the wrong answer. 7 MR. STONE: Q. But are those numbers
8 Q. Okay. Right out of your textbook that 8 you're looking for? Is that helpful?
9 you recommend reading, trying to model the real 9 A. Yeah. Thank you.
10 world, you can't oversimplify it. 10 Q. Sure.
11 A. Amen, brother. 11 So what would be the significant --
12 Dr. Wolff, as well, says that very 12 MR. BRUNO: Just for the record, Table 4
13 eloquently. 13 is 2C hydrographs.
14 Q. Okay. Let's go back to critical wave 14 MR. STONE: And Table 3 is --
15 height. As we said, you've got 16 1/2 feet of 15 MR. BRUNO: Scenario 1. So you were
16 crest. 16 looking at the wrong one.
17 A. Okay. 17 MR. STONE: It doesn't matter.
18 Q. You've got noncohesive, noncompacted 18 MR. BRUNO: I don't want the record to
19 materials with no grass. 19 be confused because we got two different numbers
20 A. Got it. 20 and ...
21 Q. At what point does the surge have to 21 THE WITNESS: About 0500.
22 reach on that levee, and what is the critical wave 22 MR. STONE: Q. Let's do 2C, Scenario
23 height above that before your levee breaches in 23 2C --
24 the way you've talked about through the 24 A. That's fine.
25 crenellation affect? 25 Q. -- since you take the MRGO out.
22 (Pages 332 to 335)
1/31/2009
Page 336 Page 338
1 All right. What would be your critical 1 Q. Nowhere along the EBSB on Reach 2 would
2 wave height at 0500? 2 there be overtopping at that time from storm
3 A. Approximately 0.8 feet. One feet -- one 3 surge, right?
4 foot. 4 A. That's correct. But there can be wave
5 Q. Approximately a foot? 5 overtopping due to the uprush. And if it spills
6 A. Yeah. 6 over a low section, you got an overtopping. In
7 Q. Okay. 7 fact, the graphical analyses I provided in our
8 A. Now, that doesn't breach. The breaching 8 report snapshot those conditions.
9 condition is the one you were talking about that 9 Q. Can we drop down to 0800 in Table 4,
10 that's connected to 2C. 10 where you have 17-point feet of surge and 2.2
11 MR. BRUNO: One. 11 significant wave heights.
12 THE WITNESS: Or one, pardon me. 12 And under overtopping, you don't have
13 When I was referencing things, I was 13 any --
14 referencing everything to that condition. And you 14 A. What time period?
15 asked about a variety of soil and surface 15 Q. 0800, Table 4.
16 conditions. They fall at about that 0500 time 16 A. Got it.
17 period. So we'll stay on the same page. 17 MR. BRUNO: Table 4 is 2C again. You're
18 MR. STONE: Q. Thank you. It's better 18 switching -- it makes a big difference. It makes
19 for me to keep it simple, and I'm trying to, but 19 a big difference. Okay?
20 I'm not accomplishing it. 20 THE WITNESS: Yes, it does.
21 A. You're doing just fine. 21 MR. BRUNO: Let's stay in Hurricane
22 So if you look at Table 3, that's when 22 Katrina, if you don't mind.
23 you'll see the conditions consistent with 23 THE WITNESS: Because that's where --
24 penetration at 0500. 24 MR. STONE: I woke Joseph Bruno up
25 Q. For Scenario 1? 25 finally.
Page 337 Page 339
1 A. 11-foot surge, 2.1 -- 1 THE WITNESS: He's been awake all
2 (Reporter interruption.) 2 morning.
3 THE WITNESS: Storm surge is 11.0 feet 3 MR. BRUNO: I've been awake. I just
4 in AVD 88. Significant wave height is 2.1 feet. 4 want to make sure --
5 The wave period, peak wave period, is 4.2 seconds. 5 (Reporter interruption.)
6 And the overtopping rate is zero cubic feet per 6 MR. STONE: Q. Let me start over.
7 second per foot. 7 You have two tables here, right?
8 MR. STONE: Q. While we're on those 8 Scenario 1 and Scenario 2C. I'll talk about
9 charts, we're going to see them again in your 9 either one of them as far as what you have here in
10 report that we've been working on slowly. You've 10 the table for overtopping, and we're both on the
11 got them in there again, so our time is not wasted 11 same sheet of music that way.
12 here on 48 and 49. 12 A. Let's, therefore, use Scenario 1,
13 A. That's fine. My time's your time. 13 Katrina as-was.
14 Q. It's not possible, let me say, that you 14 Q. Scenario 1. Okay. Let's do that.
15 can have 17-point feet of storm surge and have no 15 0800, you have a storm surge of
16 overtopping at 0800 even in Scenario 2C, it seems. 16 17.8 feet.
17 And I don't see you listing any overtopping over 17 A. Right.
18 to the right. 18 Q. Significant wave height of 6 feet.
19 Why is there no overtopping in any of 19 A. Check.
20 the right-hand columns of either of these, except 20 Q. That's 23.8 feet of water at particular
21 for, like, .2 at 0730 and .2 at 0830? Why is 21 times. And at the end of the line, you don't have
22 there no overtopping in this? 22 overtopping listed. Why not?
23 A. Your question has confused me. Let's 23 A. Because it's dot, dot, dot. We
24 focus on 0500 time period. At that time the storm 24 didn't -- it was very large, and we didn't report
25 surge is at 11 feet. 25 it.
23 (Pages 336 to 339)
1/31/2009
Page 340 Page 342
1 Q. Because it's not evaluated by you in 1 all I'm trying to find out.
2 your project that you're doing in this Technical 2 A. In this document?
3 Report No. 1, is it? 3 Q. In this document.
4 A. Incorrect. 4 A. Okay. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. 5 Q. Okay. So this first one is --
6 A. May I explain? 6 A. Is Gustav.
7 Q. Oh, yes. I want your words, not mine. 7 Q. -- is your first validation case study?
8 A. As soon as you breach the crest, the 8 A. Correct.
9 flow turns to -- that focused on what you were 9 Q. And you used LS-DYNA for your case study
10 calling the crest crenellation exploitation. 10 there?
11 At that time, the flow is entirely 11 A. We used LS-DYNA in that case study.
12 focused on the back side. We then move to a 12 Q. Okay. And then the second validation
13 Phase II analysis, where the entire study is being 13 case is velocity profiles. So the first is for
14 focused on erosion back side. 14 simulating wave attack. Then you're trying to
15 So they want to use the term 15 determine velocity profiles?
16 "front-to-back erosion." We're covering both 16 A. Correct.
17 phases. If you use the term "back to front," 17 Q. And what's the --
18 there's only one phase, and that's associated with 18 MR. STONE: Let's just go ahead and
19 the overtopping. 19 change the tape. Let's take a break. Five
20 Q. In these tables, what is the error band 20 minutes.
21 for the wave heights? 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end of
22 A. Error band for the wave heights would be 22 Disk No. 1 in the deposition of Dr. Robert Bea,
23 expressed with a coefficient of variation, which 23 Volume II. The time is 11:01 a.m., and we are off
24 is standard deviation of wave height to the mean 24 the record.
25 referenced wave height, of approximately 25 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
Page 341 Page 343
1 20 percent. 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the
2 Q. So the 6-foot height would have an error 2 beginning of Disk No. 2 in the deposition of
3 band of about 1.2 feet? 3 Dr. Robert Bea. The time is 11:10 a.m., and we
4 A. Yes. 4 are back on the record.
5 Q. Back to page 2 of your report from this 5 MR. STONE: Q. Dr. Bea, when we were
6 morning, the January 29 Technical Report No. 2. 6 talking before, I asked you about storm surge plus
7 A. Technical Report No. 1. You're not 7 significant wave height, and I gave a number of
8 there. 8 23.8. And that was just adding the significant
9 Q. It's No. 2, January 29, 2009. 9 wave height to the top of the surge.
10 MR. BRUNO: I don't have it. 10 And I've been informed that I ought to
11 THE WITNESS: Technical Report 2, 11 divide that by half. It should be 17.8 and 3
12 validation studies, now we're getting there. 12 feet, half of the 6 feet, if I'm going to talk
13 Page? 13 about overtopping.
14 MR. STONE: Q. Twenty-two. 14 Is that -- is that fair to say?
15 A. Yes, sir. 15 A. No.
16 Q. The last paragraph that starts with, 16 Q. Okay.
17 "For the validation numerical modeling analysis to 17 A. Because the water level is coming up and
18 simulate wave attack." 18 down, so the thing you need to reference to
19 Is that your first validation test? 19 maintain sanity is the surge elevation, knowing
20 A. No. 20 that that elevation is getting larger and smaller
21 Q. Okay. In this document, you say, down 21 during the time period you're focused on.
22 on page 3, in the middle of the page, "The third 22 Q. The third validation case, you say here,
23 validation case study." 23 "will be developed to confirm the wave-induced
24 So I was wondering if these first two 24 erosion rate."
25 were your first and second case studies. That's 25 What do you mean by "will be developed"?
24 (Pages 340 to 343)
1/31/2009
Page 344 Page 346
1 A. In the report. 1 comparison based on laboratory experimental
2 Q. Oh, it's in the report? 2 results provided by Hughes, 2008.
3 A. Yes, sir. 3 So what did you collect from Hughes and
4 Q. And how do you compare the three of 4 how did you apply it to evaluate LS-DYNA?
5 these -- question's withdrawn. 5 A. Steven Hughes, who is a senior engineer
6 How did you select the studies by 6 with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, ran
7 Kriebel and Dean, 1993 to use in your validation 7 a series of scale laboratory tests on a physical
8 case studies? What is it about Kriebel and Dean, 8 model to simulate the earthen protection
9 1993, that you thought would be useful in doing a 9 structures along Reach 2 of the MRGO.
10 case study to validate your LS-DYNA work? 10 And the structure itself was simulated
11 A. Because they had done similar kinds of 11 with a foam model that was capped with an
12 studies relative to beach dune erosion. And those 12 articulated concrete mattress. The foam model had
13 studies are well summarized in the U.S. Army Corps 13 transducers embedded in its crest and back side
14 of Engineers coastal engineering research manual. 14 that allowed the determination of velocities
15 So we thought this was yet another way 15 associated with wave and surge overtopping action.
16 to validate the analytical work that we were 16 Q. And Geisenhainer and Kortenhaus, 2006,
17 doing. It addresses both the changes in the mean 17 that's for lateral erosion magnitude and duration
18 sea level and changes in the wave conditions, 18 validation based on laboratory experimental
19 specifically for tropical cyclones and hurricanes. 19 results, right?
20 So we chose it because it had a very 20 A. That's correct.
21 broad pedigree. It had been developed by some 21 Q. And what did you get from them that you
22 very fine people, Bob Dean and Dave Kriebel. 22 thought applied to your LS-DYNA work?
23 The coastal engineering manual had 23 A. It was one of the critical cases in
24 subsumed it, and it had been subsumed in the 24 checking in validating at the laboratory scale
25 Corps' coastal engineering practice. It had one 25 where erosion, propagation due to wave side attack
Page 345 Page 347
1 fine pedigree. 1 had been measured in the laboratory.
2 Q. Did Kriebel and Dean use LS-DYNA in 2 Q. And at the bottom of page 3, you state,
3 their work? 3 "These wave-induced erosion analytical solutions
4 A. No, they did not. 4 do not address all the parameters accounted for in
5 Q. How do you select Stanczack, 2008? 5 the LS-DYNA erosion evaluation, but because these
6 A. We've been in contact with the European 6 analytical solutions have been validated with
7 research community during the course of this work. 7 field observations and laboratory experimental
8 The first major contact through their flood safe 8 data, they will be useful to validate the general
9 consortium with a Dr. D'Eliso, and Dr. D'Eliso 9 magnitudes (and times) of estimated breaching."
10 referred her to -- or referred us to her 10 A. That's correct.
11 colleague, Dr. Stanczack. 11 Q. Okay. So what do they not address from
12 Their work has been chronicled as part 12 the parameters that you applied in your LS-DYNA
13 of the European consortium identified as "Flood 13 erosion evaluation?
14 Safe." 14 A. Well, for example, just say
15 Q. Your three tests, your three case 15 cross-sectional profile of the earthen flood
16 studies -- back up to the first paragraph under 16 protection structure. So the -- these analytical
17 "Scope," on page 2. 17 results handle a wide variety of profiles.
18 The first case study has to do with 18 In the LS-DYNA study for the study
19 lateral erosion at MRGO Station 497 plus 00 during 19 location, we studied one profile.
20 Hurricane Gustav? 20 Some of the analytical methods that are,
21 A. Correct. 21 in fact, in practice and in use in Europe, they
22 Q. And that study, I guess, starts at page 22 either include or don't include other components,
23 6? 23 for example, density or characteristics of the
24 A. That's correct. 24 vegetation on the surface of the earthen flood
25 Q. And the second study is velocity 25 protection structure.
25 (Pages 344 to 347)
1/31/2009
Page 348 Page 350
1 Q. Page 4 under "summary," you did an 1 all because you have other things that are in
2 analysis of Station 497 plus 00 after Hurricane 2 there, but it is critical. If your LS-DYNA
3 Gustav? 3 approach fails, your analysis in the end fails?
4 A. Yes. 4 A. As I said yesterday, all these
5 Q. And I am assuming you went out and 5 analytical models are like a chain. And they've
6 visited the site or had someone visit the site? 6 got strong links and weak links. They'll break at
7 A. The latter. 7 the weak link.
8 Q. Who was that? He's mentioned in your 8 Q. So if I misstate it later, it's
9 report? 9 accidental.
10 A. Dr. Professor Ivor Van Heerden and 10 The next paragraph talks about
11 Dr. Paul Kemp and associated staff and students. 11 Kortenhaus and Geisenhainer. And that's the dike
12 Q. And he observed that there was no 12 that you were talking about, but the soil
13 significant erosion at the location when he looked 13 comprising that dike was low compaction, poorly
14 at it after Gustav? 14 sorted sand?
15 A. That's correct. 15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. And you conclude that the LS-DYNA 16 Q. Okay. And then the final summary
17 analyses are in agreement with his observations. 17 paragraph on that page provides the breaching
18 So is that, in your opinion, one step in 18 times for the study area?
19 validating your LS-DYNA? 19 A. That's correct.
20 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. And these breaching times, 1.5 hours,
21 Q. The next summary is that the 21 2.4 and 2.0 hours, they're breaching times where?
22 LS-DYNA-based analyses of the laboratory 22 A. Breaching times where? At the study
23 experimental data reported by Hughes showed good 23 location.
24 agreement between predicted and measured water 24 Q. At 497 plus 00?
25 velocities at crown and back side of the modeled 25 A. Correct.
Page 349 Page 351
1 water levee? 1 Q. Is Station 497 one of the 55 percent of
2 A. Yes. 2 sites that you found breached primarily because of
3 Q. And the -- when you -- but when you say 3 overtopping?
4 "LS-DYNA-based analyses" in each of these, you 4 A. No. It's part of the 45 percent that we
5 mean taking what you got from the other scientists 5 found breached due to wave-induced front side
6 and then applying it and then looking at LS-DYNA 6 erosion, back to front. 55 percent from back to
7 and see how it -- the outcome of the LS-DYNA work 7 front.
8 related to the -- what you had from them? 8 Q. Have you quantified --
9 A. Fundamentally, yes. 9 MR. BRUNO: You meant front to back in
10 But the thing that I would encourage you 10 the first sentence?
11 to avoid, because it propagates a 11 THE WITNESS: Let me correct the record.
12 misunderstanding, the analyses we are doing should 12 MR. BRUNO: Here. Read it so you'll ...
13 not be called "LS-DYNA analyses." 13 THE WITNESS: Oh, the correction and
14 But if we contributed to that 14 answer is, wave breaching front to back is the
15 miscommunication, I apologize. But I would not 15 45 percent, 55 percent is back-to-front breaching.
16 want to see it propagated, because LS-DYNA is only 16 MR. STONE: Q. Have you quantified how
17 used for the fluid structure interaction portion 17 many breaches occurred that were back to front on
18 of the work. 18 16-foot levees -- levee crests?
19 Q. Let me see if I understand. 19 A. No.
20 LS-DYNA is one part of your analysis? 20 Q. Have you quantified how many were on
21 A. Yes, sir. 21 lower levee crests or higher levee crests?
22 Q. But it's a critical part of your 22 A. Not in a continuous fashion down the
23 analysis? 23 Reach 2, but rather we have taken -- I believe
24 A. All parts are critical. 24 it's seven sensing points, moving down that length
25 Q. Okay. And it's not the end all and be 25 from Bayou Bienvenue to the beginning of Reach 2
26 (Pages 348 to 351)
1/31/2009
Page 352 Page 354
1 at the turn of the flood protection structures to 1 Answer: Yes.
2 Carnivoran. 2 Q. You phrase it better than I do.
3 Those results are chronicled in the 3 A. I try.
4 report -- technical report that deals with that 4 Q. This is the first time that you have
5 Phase II work in my January expert report. 5 done that in the reports that you've submitted; is
6 Q. Okay. Let's go to Hurricane Gustav, 6 that correct?
7 page 6. 7 A. That's correct.
8 The first sentence. You say there that 8 Q. Okay. Sentence on page 7 at the end of
9 the numerical modeling analysis to simulate wave 9 the first section.
10 attack, Hurricane Gustav, was conducted using the 10 A. Where are we? In what document?
11 "wave-induced erosion method." 11 Q. Still same document, Technical Report
12 And what is that wave-induced erosion 12 No. 2, from this morning.
13 method? 13 A. Page?
14 A. That's one you have been calling the 14 Q. Page 7. Are you there yet?
15 "LS-DYNA method." 15 A. I'm there now.
16 Q. Do you provide anywhere in your reports 16 Q. Okay. You say, at the very end of that
17 a margin of error for the predictions of LS-DYNA? 17 upper section, before "EBSB erodibility
18 A. Yes, I do. 18 characterization" --
19 Q. And where would I locate that? 19 A. Yes, sir.
20 A. Let's see. The analysis of uncertainty 20 Q. -- you say, "These lower side grades" --
21 begins in Part 2 of my expert report identified as 21 I think that's a misspelling there, should be
22 "Declaration," paragraph 51, page 32. 22 "side" -- "allow for larger wafers to form for
23 Q. I think you left out the declaration 23 hurricane storm surges due to the increase in
24 number. Is it one, two -- 24 depth near the toe of the MRGO levee."
25 A. The expert report is divided into three 25 Is this a different geometry that you're
Page 353 Page 355
1 parts. Part 1 is the summary, Part 2 is the 1 talking about than you had for the MRGO levees
2 declaration, and Part 3 are six supporting 2 before Hurricane Katrina?
3 technical reports. 3 A. Yes. This is a Gustav analysis, so the
4 Q. And in Part 2, you have Declaration 4 Reach 2 structures have been repaired after
5 No. 1, Declaration No. 2 and No. 3? 5 Hurricane Katrina.
6 A. No. That's incorrect. 6 So we went back, got the information to
7 Q. Okay. I thought they were laid out like 7 ensure that the study site for Gustav was
8 that. 8 representative of the condition at the time of
9 A. That's true for the July expert report. 9 Gustav.
10 Q. Okay. 10 Q. I didn't have an opportunity to look at
11 A. The January one has only one 11 those other documents.
12 declaration. 12 Did you supply the supporting material
13 Q. So that's January 29? 13 for each of these --
14 A. That's correct. 14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. Now, that's something I haven't 15 Q. -- anywhere except in this report?
16 looked at yet. 16 A. Anywhere except in this report?
17 A. We can go there and look at it. 17 Q. Is there something more that fleshes out
18 Q. I don't know that I'll have time to 18 what you've said here? Like runs of data or
19 understand it is what -- I'm thinking I have to 19 anything like that? I have your report here and
20 spend some time because I'm slow. 20 what's attached to it.
21 A. I understand. 21 A. Right.
22 But I think what you were trying to ask 22 Q. Is there any more in the 600 pages that
23 me is have we explicitly analyzed the 23 you gave us yesterday --
24 uncertainties associated from the output from the 24 A. No.
25 wave breaching front-to-back erosion analyses. 25 Q. -- that supports this?
27 (Pages 352 to 355)
1/31/2009
Page 356 Page 358
1 A. I should watch that quick answer. 1 checking the 10.8. You must have checked that
2 In the documentation I provided to you 2 this morning or last time.
3 yesterday on the CDs, Packet No. 1, are a large 3 Q. And for how long did that surge attack
4 number of technical reports and papers that 4 this levee without producing any scouring?
5 further background the information contained in 5 A. Several hours. The specific time is
6 this technical report. 6 stated, documented in the report.
7 So essentially, I provided you with the 7 Q. Okay. And do you remember from your
8 references available in electronic form, not 8 document here how fast the -- the flood waters
9 protected by copyright, that substantiate/support 9 rose along that levee?
10 this work, even though they were public documents. 10 A. How fast? You mean feet per hour?
11 Q. And you've supplied here two or three or 11 Q. Yes, sir. If it's in here, we'll get to
12 four appendices to this report that show some of 12 it.
13 your calculations, right? 13 A. It's there. It's documented.
14 A. That's correct. We provided everything. 14 Q. Have you compared that rate of rise on
15 Q. Okay. So for me to be able to evaluate 15 the levee face with the rate of rise for Hurricane
16 this report, though, I pretty much have everything 16 Katrina?
17 here in the report that I need? 17 A. No, I have not.
18 A. Yes, you do. 18 Q. Why not?
19 Q. Okay. On your MRGO -- I'm sorry, on 19 A. Because I was attempting to validate
20 your Hurricane Gustav section, this is the EBSB 20 against Hurricane Gustav, so I didn't try and
21 erodibility characterization section, page 7. 21 compare Gustav conditions to Hurricane Katrina
22 A. Yes. 22 conditions because the storms were of decidedly
23 Q. When Dr. Van Heerden went out to -- I 23 different characteristics.
24 don't know if he's doctor, but -- 24 Q. How does the validation for Gustav
25 A. He's doctor. 25 correlate with validation for Katrina?
Page 357 Page 359
1 Q. When he went out to look at the faces of 1 A. Well, the source of the correlation is
2 the levees after Gustav, he found "minor erosion 2 the analytical technique that is being used to
3 damage (most of the erosion was a result of 3 evaluate the performance of the earthen flood
4 rain-induced drilling)." 4 protection structures for those two sets of
5 And then there's a picture on the next 5 conditions.
6 page, page 8. It seems that the drilling is 6 Q. So you assume that if it predicts
7 pretty obvious there. 7 correctly for Gustav, it predicted correctly for
8 A. Yes. 8 Katrina?
9 Q. And that this area has been cleared of 9 A. No. It's just one check-in point.
10 grass by the scour. 10 Q. Okay. But what I'd like to know is how
11 A. By the rilling scour, and they've had 11 you apply this to the Katrina situation to make
12 great difficulty in getting grass to grow out 12 sure that your LS-DYNA was valid for Katrina.
13 there. 13 A. The concept is that you are using an
14 Q. But does this appear to be anything 14 analytical model under a wide variety of
15 related to Gustav's actions against this levee, 15 conditions, as wide as you can get them, to
16 this bareness that's in these grassy areas here? 16 validate how the model is working.
17 A. No, it does not. That appears to be the 17 That process could validate the entire
18 result of rainfall-associated rilling, coupled 18 analytical modeling process or validate a
19 with the inability of the surface sand to support 19 component.
20 grass. 20 The objective is to assure the analyst
21 Q. But what we're looking at here is 21 that under these wide variety of conditions, that
22 Gustav -- is the levee at Section 497, and it's 22 the analytical model is producing reasonable
23 after Gustav, where the surge was a maximum of 23 results.
24 10.8 feet. 24 Q. Let's go to page 8. I think we're
25 A. Continue your question. I'm just 25 probably already there.
28 (Pages 356 to 359)
1/31/2009
Page 360 Page 362
1 A. Yes, sir. 1 beneath the flood faced clay veneer."
2 Q. You say here that there was no 2 A. Correct.
3 information on in situ density of these materials. 3 Q. So that clay that had covered that
4 A. That's correct. 4 sand --
5 Q. So you had no way of comparing the 5 A. Right.
6 density of the materials for your Gustav test to 6 Q. -- if it was there --
7 the density of materials for 497 in your earlier 7 A. Is gone.
8 LS-DYNA tests? 8 Q. -- had been advected and dispersed?
9 A. Right. Because it wouldn't make any 9 A. That's correct.
10 sense because the soils had been altered with 10 MR. STONE: Is this a good time for
11 the soils brought in to replace the study location 11 everybody to take a break now for lunch?
12 breach. 12 MR. BRUNO: Yeah. Sure.
13 Q. But for the analysis that you go through 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is
14 there, you assume that the official soils have a 14 11:40 a.m., and we are off the record.
15 low degree of compaction, correct? 15 (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken.)
16 A. That's correct. 16 AFTERNOON SESSION
17 Q. So that's just what you put into your 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:07 p.m.
18 model. Regardless of what -- what happened there? 18 and we are back on the record.
19 You assumed that -- 19 MR. STONE: Q. Dr. Bea, we're on your
20 A. Well, that assumption was based on the 20 report from this morning, Technical Report 2,
21 field studies performed by the aforementioned 21 January 29, 2009, page 11.
22 people. 22 A. Let me call the document up.
23 Q. Okay. But that was just from looking at 23 Q. Okay. I hear you're there.
24 the soils? 24 Last section of that page talks about a
25 A. And using their hands to excavate the 25 water depth of 2 feet. That's on the berm and up
Page 361 Page 363
1 soils. 1 against the levee.
2 Q. I saw that picture on page 10. 2 A. Correct.
3 A. Yes. 3 Q. And that's for Gustav, and it's at your
4 Q. That's even less soil than a shovel 4 497 station, correct?
5 full, right? 5 A. Correct.
6 A. Yes. So if you can stick your hand in 6 Q. And I assume, then, that the freeboard
7 it, it isn't compacted. 7 there would be 8.8 feet? 10.8 minus 2?
8 Q. We're going to break pretty soon, but I 8 A. Correct.
9 just want to finish a little bit right here. 9 Q. And I'm also -- well, let me ask.
10 You remember we talked about advection 10 How long was the storm striking the face
11 and dispersion yesterday? 11 of that levee for Gustav in that 2-foot section?
12 A. Yes. 12 A. Approximately six hours.
13 Q. And how cohesive materials are advected 13 Q. And the amount of damage that it did
14 and dispersed. 14 striking that levee within that 2-foot space for
15 You say here on page 8, the last clause, 15 six hours, is that shown on page 8 in Figure 2?
16 "Figure 5 shows the observed sand beneath the 16 A. No, that is not. The best picture is
17 flood face clay veneer." 17 Figure 4, page -- I think that's 6 -- 9.
18 A. You're on page 8? 18 Q. Okay.
19 Q. Yes, sir. Page 8. The one with the 19 A. It's a female student looking at that
20 picture of the rilling. 20 eroded area with the wrack, flotsam and jetsam,
21 A. Right. 21 that's been transported to the high mark about the
22 Q. That's the very last clause in that 22 surge and waves.
23 sentence. 23 Q. What do you conclude about the grass
24 A. Yes. 24 cover from looking at Figure 4?
25 Q. "Figure 5 shows the observed sand 25 A. Well, the grass cover below the wrack
29 (Pages 360 to 363)
1/31/2009
Page 364 Page 366
1 zone is moderate. Within the wrack zone, it's 1 A. Correct.
2 been erased by the erosive effects of both the 2 Q. It's 238 feet for the berm, and I don't
3 water and material transported in the water, and 3 see any place in here where you correct for that
4 then you can see upslope. It progressively gets 4 238 feet.
5 less dense. 5 A. 238 feet?
6 Q. But it appears to be more like brush up 6 Q. Rather than 50 feet.
7 above, doesn't it? 7 A. Got it.
8 A. It's a pictures of brush and grass. And 8 The correction is the water depth at the
9 that can be seen in the photograph above, 9 elevation that the analysis is performed at. So
10 Figure 3. 10 that bathymetry inclination, the water could be at
11 Q. Okay. Let's go to the model 11 this point or it could be at this point.
12 configuration on page 12. 12 The characteristic of the wave at those
13 A. Yes, sir. 13 two example points, midway on the incline slope
14 Q. You say, "Model geometry was based on 14 and at the upper end, the water depth is
15 the Morris 2008 survey" -- 15 increasing. So, therefore, the breaking wave
16 A. Correct. 16 height has to increase. So the correction is
17 Q. -- "and was composed of four components: 17 based on water depth.
18 The EBSB, water, void space and the wave 18 Q. And in this instance, you're only
19 generation/water inflow mechanism (for overtopping 19 talking about 2 feet, right?
20 conditions)." 20 A. Two feet of what?
21 Why did you use a wave generation/water 21 Q. Of water that's striking the face of the
22 inflow mechanism for overtopping conditions in 22 levee for a period of six hours.
23 your analyses? 23 A. You're referring to the mean water
24 A. This is what I referred to this morning 24 depth --
25 as the analytical wave paddle at the MRGO side of 25 Q. The depth --
Page 365 Page 367
1 the simulation section. 1 A. -- or the mean water depth plus some
2 So that -- that model has to be capable 2 amplitude added for wave action?
3 of addressing water levels from -- or water depths 3 Q. I'm talking about the actual distance on
4 from zero to exceeding the crest of the EBSB. And 4 the face of the levee that water is striking for
5 that model is shown in Figure 8, detailed it in 5 six hours. From the berm up on to the face of the
6 Figure 9. 6 levee, you have 2 feet, I think; is that accurate?
7 Q. Now, in Figure 9, you see a -- is that a 7 A. I remain confused with your question,
8 238.5-foot berm? 8 and that's because I'm trying to get the geometry
9 A. It's being referenced from the zero 9 correct to respond to you.
10 coordinate system to the left, where it's 10 Q. I thought earlier we discussed this,
11 initiated. Comes 238 feet to the toe, then goes 11 that you had 2 feet of water striking the levee
12 to the top at 289.5. The top's at 19.3 feet. 12 face --
13 That's a cross-sectional geometry reference. 13 A. Okay.
14 Q. And where in your work do you show that 14 Q. -- for a period of six hours.
15 you corrected your LS-DYNA model for 238 feet 15 A. Look at Figure 9.
16 rather than 50 feet for that berm? 16 Q. Okay. I'm looking at that.
17 A. Repeat your question, please. 17 A. The elevation at this point, at the
18 Q. We discussed earlier this morning that 18 toe -- let's see, is 8.5 feet. Add to that the 2
19 you used a 50-foot berm when you did your analyses 19 feet. So we would be 2 feet up that face of the
20 with LS-DYNA. 20 earthen flood protection structure.
21 A. For the original configuration? 21 Q. Okay. And you said that the correction
22 Q. Right. 22 that you used for distance over the ground from
23 A. Got it. 23 the water's edge to the toe of the levee was based
24 Q. Then you have a different configuration 24 on the depth of the water?
25 here. 25 A. That's correct.
30 (Pages 364 to 367)
1/31/2009
Page 368 Page 370
1 Q. And that's the depth of the water 1 .5 times the water depth, or 1 foot.
2 between that 149 feet and 138-foot section, right? 2 So that's our uncertainty range in the
3 A. Well, there's actually a change in the 3 incident height of the waves causing erosion.
4 water depth. It can move from zero coordinate 4 Q. And where do you show in this report
5 system to the left, which is where the grass 5 that you made any correction at all for any
6 starts, to the point at which you strike the face 6 distance beyond 50 feet in this --
7 of the levee. 7 A. Table 2, page 15. Times 1730. Surge
8 The water depth that is important in 8 elevation 10.8 feet. Wave height parameter new,
9 controlling the incident wave height is at local 9 .6. Wave period parameter measure, 1.102.
10 water depth. 10 Those are the correction factors for
11 This was a point you were making earlier 11 that intervening distance.
12 this morning with the Siejffert and Briaud 12 Q. And do those correction factors account
13 laboratory study. 13 for any roughness of the surface of the berm --
14 And we discussed that in deep water 14 A. Certainly.
15 where the wave paddle is -- is one height, and 15 Q. -- in that area?
16 that height is changing continuously to the point 16 A. Certainly.
17 of impact with the structure. 17 Q. How do they account for that?
18 Q. Is it fair to say that from 149 feet to 18 A. Well, the ST wave, shallow water wave
19 238 feet in Figure No. 9, your water depth 19 algorithm, assumes normal bottom -- normal
20 remains -- 20 roughness bottom conditions.
21 A. Constant. 21 Similarly embedded in the Bretschneider
22 Q. -- constant of about 2 feet? 22 Lake Okeechobee relationships are the normal
23 A. Correct. 23 bottom conditions found at that location, so that
24 Q. So the waves that are striking the face 24 roughnesses are included in the algorithms that I
25 of that levee for six hours are at a depth of 25 have cited.
Page 369 Page 371
1 about 2 feet, correct, sir? 1 Q. Do Figures 3 and Figures 4 show a normal
2 A. Correct. 2 bottom roughness condition?
3 Q. The question is, how do you correct -- 3 A. Figure 4 shows a vegetated bottom
4 let's just use the distance there, which is maybe 4 condition to the right-hand side, which is heading
5 80, 90 feet. 5 to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
6 How -- how did you correct, in this 6 If you were to take into account that
7 analysis, for that extra distance over the 50 feet 7 vegetated condition, the incident wave height
8 that you normally used -- 8 would change from approximately six-tenths of the
9 A. The -- 9 water depth to four-tenths of the water depth. It
10 Q. -- in LS-DYNA? 10 would decrease.
11 A. As I attempted to explain earlier, the 11 Q. By a third, correct, sir?
12 incident wave height is a function of the local 12 A. Yes.
13 water depth. 13 Q. Okay. And I'm not really pressing you
14 For unvegetated conditions, based on the 14 on this, but you do not show that you have made
15 Corps of Engineers ST wave model, that is 15 that correction in this work.
16 determined to be approximately 60 percent of the 16 A. That's correct. Because at that point,
17 water depth. So if we have a 2-foot local water 17 that material on the bottom is submerged.
18 depth, the wave height would be 1.2 feet. 18 Submerged above the surface that we're concerned
19 The other algorithm analytical method we 19 with that influences the behavior of the waves.
20 use was based on one developed for Charles 20 Q. As a layman, it looks to me like it's
21 Bretschneider, for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 21 only submerged by 2 feet.
22 Lake Okeechobee, Florida. 22 A. That's at the local point. It's shown,
23 Those are instrumented measurements that 23 as we were talking, back 200 feet it's much deeper
24 he analyzed, and that condition results in a wave 24 and, hence, the frictional effects are much less
25 height at the interface structure of approximately 25 for these low wave heights.
31 (Pages 368 to 371)
1/31/2009
Page 372 Page 374
1 Q. Right. But between 149 feet and 1 of time for very long, but I want to ask you a
2 238 feet -- 2 different question.
3 A. There's no change. 3 A. Sure. So Technical Report 1, July --
4 Q. Okay. 4 Q. Yes, sir. And page 63.
5 Page 15, at the end of the top 5 A. I'm with you.
6 paragraph, you have a sentence there that says, 6 Q. Okay. In the middle of the paragraph
7 "The boundary is a prescribed velocity boundary." 7 there, below Figure 50, you say, "For this
8 A. Correct. 8 simulation, the model distance was 50 feet."
9 Q. What does that term mean? 9 A. Correct.
10 A. You can, at the boundary prescribed -- 10 Q. And you're still using that model
11 boundary between the fluid elements and the solid 11 distance of 50 feet in the test that you're doing
12 elements, you can prescribe different kinds of 12 here in Technical Report No. 2?
13 conditions. Those conditions could be a 13 A. Incorrect.
14 prescribed geometric variation happening at the 14 Q. What are you using there as a distance
15 interface, bumps and valleys, or it could be 15 on the berm for the wave to --
16 prescribed in the form of frictional roughnesses, 16 A. A distance of 238.5 feet for the Gustav
17 and those could be described in various ways. 17 analyses.
18 Or you could, in fact, put structural 18 Q. And how much of that are you computing
19 elements in to simulate the behavior of submerged 19 with LS-DYNA?
20 grasses or those sorts of things. 20 A. The entire distance.
21 Q. And is that boundary -- question's 21 Q. Okay. And is wave damping implemented
22 withdrawn. 22 in the model?
23 The prescribed velocity boundary here 23 A. Those corrections that we identified in
24 does not take into consideration that vegetation 24 the table -- Table 2. And on the new
25 that we looked at a few moments ago, correct? 25 identifications that are given in Table 3,
Page 373 Page 375
1 A. I think that's correct, in the sense 1 together with their XY coordinates and their
2 that the boundary condition prescribed here is for 2 elevations.
3 zero roughness, low roughness, and the velocities 3 Q. Okay. Let me make sure I understand.
4 that we're monitoring are above the boundary 4 When you modeled Station 497 for --
5 layer. 5 A. Katrina.
6 Q. Now, if you run your test for 130 6 Q. -- Katrina, you used a distance of
7 seconds, how many times do you have to multiply -- 7 50 feet for your simulation to save computing
8 we will get to that. The question's withdrawn. 8 time?
9 In any of the analyses you do in here, 9 A. Correct.
10 you're still using the 50-foot berm that we talked 10 Q. But when you model Gustav, you use a
11 about earlier in your -- question's withdrawn. 11 distance of 238 feet?
12 When you do your LS-DYNA analysis here 12 A. Correct.
13 for Gustav, you're still using the 50-foot berm 13 Q. And then you draw a straight line
14 width we talked about earlier? 14 comparison between Gustav and Katrina outcomes for
15 A. No, that's not correct. 15 your LS-DYNA.
16 Q. Okay. 16 I say that because I don't see where you
17 A. The LS-DYNA model is as shown on 17 modify either of these to reflect what happened
18 Figure 9. Figure 8 shows an identifying 18 with the other.
19 components within the model. Figure 9 shows 19 A. We never draw a straight line between
20 geometry. 20 two points. And that's because there can be
21 Q. Right. I understand that, sir. 21 another point between those two points. And so
22 I'm talking about -- let's go back to 22 you've got to carefully track what's happening in
23 page 63 of your Technical Report No. 1 of July the 23 the intervening distance.
24 11th, 2008. 24 Now, as I said to you before, actually,
25 I'm not going to go over the same period 25 that intervening distance is relatively
32 (Pages 372 to 375)

1/31/2009
Page 376 Page 378
1 unimportant because it's a local water depth at 1 your computations for 258 feet for the Katrina?
2 the point of wave breaking, initiation of runup, 2 A. They're in the Katrina report.
3 rundown zone, your orbital sander, that is a point 3 Q. Is that a new report?
4 of importance. 4 A. No. It's the same one you have.
5 Q. Well, that doesn't sound right. Because 5 Q. You said you did 50 feet, and then you
6 at Katrina, you have 16 feet of surface on the 6 did some kind of mathematical calculations to show
7 face of the levee, approximately. 7 that it's 200, and that it applies -- to modify it
8 A. You're referring to the incline surface? 8 for 258 feet.
9 Q. Yes. Of the incline surface. 9 A. That's correct. And the applied
10 And you've got water depths all the way 10 corrections are the same analytical model
11 up to 16 feet. 11 corrections used for Gustav. That was at .6 times
12 A. Exactly. 12 the water depth given -- we'll call it
13 Q. And here you only have 2 feet. 13 insignificant bottom roughness effects on the
14 A. Right. 14 incoming waves to .4 times the water depth, if it
15 Q. And you're measuring over 238 feet, and 15 was being significantly affected by vegetation and
16 the other you only measure over 50 feet. 16 bottom effects.
17 How do you draw comparisons that matter 17 Q. I must have misunderstood you. Because
18 between your LS-DYNA analyses for Katrina and your 18 I thought for Gustav, you actually computed from
19 LS-DYNA analysis for Gustav? 19 zero to 238 feet.
20 A. The techniques being used to analyze 20 A. And we did. And that was because we had
21 Gustav are identical to the techniques being used 21 one elevation for Kat, so the computational time
22 to analyze Katrina. 22 to propagate the wave from that point to the face
23 The geometries can be different, and 23 of the structure being study was workable.
24 appropriately different, for the computations that 24 Q. I may have misunderstood you, but I
25 must be performed. The correlation between the 25 thought you said you applied the same correction
Page 377 Page 379
1 two is the analytical model. 1 factor for Gustav that did for Katrina.
2 Q. All right. Let me see if I understand. 2 A. We did. And that says that the wave
3 You had an analysis that you did for 3 heights that arrive at the face of the structure
4 LS-DYNA, through LS-DYNA with the -- for the 4 are appropriate for that water depth and that
5 Katrina -- 5 condition.
6 A. Correct. 6 Q. But I'm talking about modeling over the
7 Q. -- incident. 7 full distance and what you get when you do the
8 And now you're doing a completely 8 LS-DYNA modeling. So let -- let me just rephrase
9 separate analysis for Gustav? 9 it.
10 A. Correct. 10 If you only did a 50-foot computation
11 Q. Okay. And you conclude that if your 11 for Katrina at the same place you're doing a
12 analysis for Gustav points to what happened with 12 238 feet, with completely different geometry, how
13 Gustav, that proves your model for Katrina? 13 did you correct the 50 feet to show that it
14 A. Wrong. 14 actually means that you've modeled for 258 feet,
15 Q. Okay. What do you draw from that? 15 whereas here, you've actually modeled for the
16 A. I only have one point. I have to make 16 258 feet? You don't need a correction factor in
17 many tests -- 17 Gustav, do you --
18 Q. I don't mean that alone proves it. I 18 A. Yes.
19 mean that is one of the things that you conclude 19 Q. -- you need a correction factor in the
20 proves your model? 20 other?
21 A. Yes. 21 A. You need both.
22 Q. Okay. 22 Q. Okay.
23 A. We're there. 23 A. Another way to respond to your question
24 Q. So now that you've done the computations 24 is the analytical modeling process is insensitive
25 for 238 feet for the Gustav situation, where are 25 to whether it's 250 or 50.
33 (Pages 376 to 379)
1/31/2009
Page 380 Page 382
1 The thing that has to be done in the 1 I don't understand why, for Gustav, you
2 analytical process is to make sure that what is 2 would do this entire set of calculations --
3 happening here at the wave paddle, be it 50 or 3 A. Right.
4 258 feet, has stabilized to the intended 4 Q. -- when it has to do with another
5 conditions at the face of the structure by the 5 hurricane with a different --
6 time those analytical waves arrive there. 6 A. Geometry.
7 So it could be 50, could be 250. The 7 Q. -- geometry for the levee system and
8 test is what gets at the face of the structure. 8 different -- you don't even know the soils are the
9 Now, if we detect what's coming from the 9 same for the two systems. You can't be sure.
10 wave paddle is not what's intended at the face of 10 A. As far as the analytical model for the
11 the structure, we have to change the 11 LS-DYNA portion is concerned, it does not know
12 characteristics of the wave paddle. The control 12 what soils are there.
13 points at the face of the structure. 13 Q. Well, leave that out of our discussions,
14 Q. How do you know that the modeling is 14 then. We'll leave soils out of our discussion for
15 insensitive to distance? 15 the moment, because later -- we don't need them
16 A. By working it for more than a year. 16 right now.
17 Q. Well -- 17 But Katrina, the much more complex --
18 A. Multiple analyses that we run using 18 A. Right.
19 different kinds of configurations. It's given us 19 Q. -- analysis, you didn't elect to use
20 an understanding of how sensitive it is to this 20 your computing power for that?
21 parameter. 21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Help me out here. You decided to model 22 Q. And it is the more relevant condition
23 the entire distance for Gustav? 23 for the case that we're involved in, isn't it?
24 A. Correct. 24 You're trying to prove something about the levees
25 Q. From the berm -- from the Mississippi 25 in Katrina rather than the levees in Gustav?
Page 381 Page 383
1 River Gulf Outlet bank to the toe -- 1 A. For the Scenario 1, EBSB conditions, we
2 A. Correct. 2 had to experiment with geometry, meaning do you
3 Q. -- of the levee? 3 analyze 150? 250? Do you carry it to the
4 You decided not to do that for the -- 4 channel? Where do you stop that model? The Gulf
5 A. Katrina. 5 of Mexico?
6 Q. -- for Katrina? 6 So we said why don't -- we will have to
7 A. Correct. 7 determine where it is important in this -- as
8 Q. Why did you decide to do it for Gustav 8 close as you can get it, because computational
9 and not do it for Katrina? 9 difficulty, complexity, and, in fact, potential
10 A. Because I had one water elevation and 10 numerical errors escalates as you further expand
11 one wave height to analyze for the time period, 11 this model.
12 computationally. 12 So we kept on, if you will, using a
13 Q. So the Katrina modeling was much more 13 discrete progressive analysis approach to
14 complex? 14 determine when we had a distance that was
15 A. Yes, sir. Took much more time. 15 computationally tractable, but did not endanger
16 Q. Peanut gallery. 16 the reliability of the analyses being performed
17 (Reporter interruption.) 17 for Hurricane Katrina.
18 MR. BRUNO: Go ahead, please, Robin. 18 Q. You had to experiment here with the
19 MR. STONE: Q. You've been doing this 19 LS-DYNA model to get it right for yourself for
20 for a year or more? 20 this Hurricane Katrina scenario, correct?
21 A. Yes. 21 A. You captured it totally correctly.
22 Q. Why is it -- this has boggled my mind a 22 Q. All right. Now, that's Scenario 1 and
23 bit -- 23 2C, you had to experiment for both of them, right?
24 A. Okay. 24 A. Well, one experiment would work for
25 Q. -- but that's easy to do. 25 both.
34 (Pages 380 to 383)
1/31/2009
Page 384 Page 386
1 Q. Okay. What's the guidance you had from 1 industry for a variety of computational challenges
2 the literature about doing this experimentation 2 similar to this one. It's been -- it's been used
3 for the application that you now want to use 3 in a variety of analytical scenarios that include
4 LS-DYNA for? 4 fluid structure interaction. It's had a wide
5 A. Well, it started with my high school 5 variety of applications by a wide variety of
6 mathematics textbook. 6 industries.
7 It's a numerical process, where you 7 Has it found -- used by the U.S. Army
8 start an analysis, get an answer, and then you 8 Corps of Engineers in analyzing the wave side
9 change a part of that analysis. 9 attack on earthen berm structures? No. They
10 Q. This really isn't helpful. I'll let you 10 contend to this day that those analyses cannot be
11 finish, but it's not -- it's not -- I apologize. 11 done reliably.
12 A. Okay. I'm sorry. I couldn't do it more 12 Q. Okay. Let's look at this from your
13 clearly. 13 perspective.
14 Q. Here's what I need to know. 14 You said what industry are we talking
15 A. It's a numerical approximation. 15 about and what application?
16 Q. I want to know where the literature is 16 The application that you use -- and we
17 that had validated and verified this LS-DYNA 17 don't have to call it an industry, we can call it
18 program -- 18 a discipline or whatever. But what discipline or
19 A. Okay. 19 industry or whatever are you in when you're
20 Q. -- for the application that you were 20 applying this LS-DYNA method, let's say, and
21 applying it to and what guidance you got from that 21 concluding things about the Hurricane Katrina
22 literature to help you understand how to 22 erosion? What is your place in the universe for
23 experiment here. 23 that?
24 A. I got it. 24 A. Forensic engineering.
25 Q. Okay. 25 Q. Okay. Then let's ask that.
Page 385 Page 387
1 A. The LS-DYNA users manual, example manual 1 In forensic engineering, where are the
2 and theoretical manual, provide the background you 2 articles where other forensic engineers have
3 seek. Those manuals have been provided to you in 3 adopted this LS-DYNA program to the application
4 electronic form. 4 you're using it for, that erosion testing? Where
5 Q. Right. We have those. 5 is the literature on that?
6 A. Good. 6 A. There's been fluid structure where the
7 Q. But those manuals, we've looked through 7 structure soil interaction analyses done using the
8 them carefully, all the hundreds of applications 8 LS-DYNA in analogous situations. That literature
9 of this LS-DYNA. We don't find the literature 9 is referenced in the aforementioned user,
10 that says that LS-DYNA is accepted in the industry 10 theoretical and examples manuals.
11 for the application that you're using it for, and 11 Q. I'm looking for something more directly
12 we don't find the literature that said it's been 12 on point.
13 validated and verified for that. 13 Analogous -- we all use analogies. But
14 And so I'm asking you, is it only the 14 when we use analogy, that analogy also has to be
15 three articles that you gave us recently that 15 valid for the purpose.
16 you're able to rely on for literature in the 16 And if you have a valid purpose for
17 industry that's been peer-reviewed and -- 17 using your analogy here, you ought to be able to
18 A. Certainly not. LS-DYNA is a general 18 have a model that you can put that analogy in that
19 purpose finite element computer program. 19 actually has been proven to use that type of
20 Now, you asked the question, approved or 20 analogy.
21 accepted by, and you use the term "industry." 21 A. And you're exactly right. And that's a
22 Q. Right. 22 report in literature that you have immediately in
23 A. Who's the approving group and in what 23 front of you now. That's incorporated in both my
24 industry? 24 July and its January expert report.
25 LS-DYNA has been used in the offshore 25 Q. So those reports are where you are
35 (Pages 384 to 387)
1/31/2009
Page 388 Page 390
1 validating the LS-DYNA model for the use you're 1 A. Sure.
2 making of it in this instance? 2 Q. Okay. How about Delft 3D?
3 A. That's correct. 3 A. I have no idea. I haven't compared
4 Q. But I want to know who else has 4 against Delft 3D.
5 validated it for the use that you're using it in 5 Q. Does Delft 3D do any of the analyses
6 this industry. 6 that Coulwave would do?
7 A. We -- that's when I cited the 7 A. Yes.
8 peer-reviewed journal articles in which that has 8 Q. Okay. Why did you -- why did you not
9 been done. 9 look into Delft 3D before you decided to go off
10 Q. The three articles that you provided us? 10 with LS-DYNA?
11 A. That's correct. 11 A. We did.
12 Q. And that's all you have? 12 Q. And why did you reject Delft 3 for use
13 A. That's correct. 13 of LS-DYNA?
14 I would ask a question if I could. 14 A. We didn't. They did.
15 Q. Yes, sir. 15 Q. Okay. Delft did?
16 A. What does the defense experts have to 16 A. Yes.
17 validate their models? I'm unable to find any 17 Q. Okay. What was their reasoning, if you
18 effort to validate. 18 know?
19 Q. Actually, they have provided in their 19 A. Because they couldn't complete the
20 reports the evidence of applying valid models. 20 entire analysis. They could complete the fluid
21 Maybe we're talking cross-purposes. 21 mechanics interaction part, but that's only the
22 A. We are -- 22 start of the show.
23 Q. I don't mean to do that because -- 23 The rest of the show is the evaluation
24 A. We are. 24 of the reaching accumulated damage.
25 Q. -- I'm asking -- all right. 25 Q. Okay. So let's draw a bright line as
Page 389 Page 391
1 Can you say that Coulwave has not been 1 close as we can here.
2 validated, verified, tested and approved for the 2 Delft would take you up to what point?
3 purpose that it's used for? 3 A. The same point Coulwave took us to. And
4 A. It has been validated using analytical, 4 we checked in with Coulwave's published results.
5 laboratory and available field experiments. That 5 Q. And what is the point they would take
6 is classically good validation. 6 you to?
7 That's only the first step in what we 7 A. Same place.
8 are attempting to do. It's only one link in the 8 Q. Okay. But I want to know what point
9 analytical chain. It's a very strong link. 9 that is.
10 And we've requested additional 10 What is it that Coulwave or Delft would
11 information on Coulwave's analyses. That 11 have done for you up to the point you would have
12 information has not been produced by the defense. 12 to stop and then start working with LS-DYNA?
13 Q. But it's available in the industry, 13 A. Beautiful question.
14 isn't it -- 14 All of these analytical approaches are
15 A. No, it is not. 15 attempting to develop understanding numerical
16 Q. -- if you do the search? 16 results, quantitative, to understand the velocity,
17 How about Delft 3D, they're on your 17 water motion characteristics at the point of --
18 side, right? Delft is on your side? 18 points of interest along the structure.
19 A. I think Delft is on the side of people 19 Coulwave is a marvelous tool. And based
20 who want to get right answers. 20 on the results that you had published on IPET, we
21 Q. Well, I hope everybody is. I don't mean 21 validated our results from LS-DYNA with that work,
22 it from an adversarial standpoint. I mean it from 22 and it's documented in my July expert report.
23 the point of view that you're working with those 23 If we had available the additional work
24 folks, and they will share their information with 24 that you have done with LS-DYNA, even premised on
25 you, right? 25 the erroneous cross-section that you have used, we
36 (Pages 388 to 391)

1/31/2009
Page 392 Page 394
1 would still check in with it because it's a fine, 1 electronic things given to me a week ago, I guess,
2 validated tool for its purpose. 2 about round numbers. I haven't had time to go to
3 Q. My question is more basic than that. 3 those connections.
4 A. Okay. I'll try again. 4 You bet we will check in with anything
5 Q. You could use Coulwave and you could use 5 that has the pedigree of Coulwave. It's a
6 Delft 3D to do the same purpose. And what kind of 6 marvelous tool. I'd be an ignorant dunker to
7 calculations would they do for you, what would 7 ignore it.
8 they establish for you and where would they end 8 Q. Okay. All right. Back to the use of
9 and then you have to take over with your LS-DYNA 9 the LS-DYNA and back to my earlier question that I
10 analysis? 10 might not have phrased very well.
11 A. They got me the velocity-time 11 As to how these waves react on the face
12 characteristics at the various points along the 12 of a levee --
13 structure, which is correlated to various time 13 A. Got it.
14 points -- and that means both surge and wave -- 14 Q. -- and cause front side erosion --
15 and current. So there's a third player in here. 15 A. Right.
16 They carry me to that point. 16 Q. -- is there, within the industry, an
17 At that point I have to start the 17 accepted expectation of how those waves will
18 erosion damage accumulation analysis. 18 react?
19 Q. And -- and is part of the reason for 19 A. Sure.
20 having to go to the LS-DYNA model at that point 20 Q. Okay. Where is that found?
21 the fact that there is no consensus of opinion in 21 A. Coastal engineering manual, U.S. Army
22 the industry as to how to predict the erosion that 22 Corps of Engineers. Talk with Steve or -- talk
23 would occur on the face of the levee? 23 with Bruce Ebersole or Steve Hughes. Those people
24 A. Consensus where and who? 24 have brought that technology to that point.
25 Q. In your industry. 25 Q. Where that breaks down, Dr. Bea, is that
Page 393 Page 395
1 A. In my industry, there is consensus. 1 Mr. Ebersole and you have different opinions about
2 Q. What is the consensus as to how to 2 how that works.
3 predict it? 3 A. But that's just fine. Differences in
4 A. Well, you use basic fluid mechanics, 4 opinion are not bad things. It's when you fail to
5 just as Coulwave has used, just as Delft 3D uses, 5 resolve them that they turn out to be bad things.
6 just as LS-DYNA uses. 6 Q. But --
7 My industry would be the ocean industry, 7 MR. BRUNO: They're right and you're
8 where I spent 56 years, and the forensic 8 wrong. See, that's where we're messing up.
9 engineering that adopts multipurpose tools that 9 MR. STONE: Q. But if you have an
10 can be used to analyze very complex problems. 10 accepted expectation in the industry, the
11 Q. I guess the question I have here is that 11 engineers in the industry are all going to be
12 if you had Coulwave and Delft available to you to 12 expecting the same thing from that -- the
13 take you to a certain position -- 13 practice?
14 A. I'd use them. 14 A. I think you're trying to make a
15 Q. And why weren't they available to you? 15 industry -- we'll call it engineering --
16 A. Well, one, we wouldn't get it. That's 16 homogeneous, isotropic and elastic. It's not.
17 Delft. And other one was they wouldn't give it to 17 Overgeneralizations are killers.
18 us. That's Coulwave. 18 Q. I guess I'm just going to have to drop
19 Did anybody come forward and say, "Hey, 19 this at this point for now if I want to get
20 we'll give you Coulwave and you can go be cool" -- 20 anything done today.
21 Q. Did you ask for it? 21 A. I'll be glad to help you. It is
22 A. Yes, we ask for it. 22 difficult to understand.
23 Q. Can't you just download Coulwave off the 23 Q. Back to your Technical Report No. 2.
24 Internet? 24 A. Get my computer working again.
25 A. I can't. Now, there's been some 25 MR. BRUNO: Are we on January or July?
37 (Pages 392 to 395)
1/31/2009
Page 396 Page 398
1 THE WITNESS: Mr. Stone will tell you in 1 what the velocity-time elements are, the
2 a second. I'm on page -- 2 analytical process is to determine when the grass,
3 MR. BRUNO: Are you in January or July? 3 quote, fails
4 THE WITNESS: -- 65, and this has to 4 We called it "lift-off."
5 be -- well, which are you on? 5 Q. Where is the -- where are the technical
6 MR. STONE: Page 19. 6 publications in your industry that demonstrate how
7 THE WITNESS: Of which report? 7 you can determine when grass lift-off occurs?
8 MR. STONE: That's the Technical Report 8 A. I've cited them in the expert report of
9 No. 2, January 29, 2009. 9 July 2009, and I have furnished all of the
10 THE WITNESS: Got you. 10 references, with the exception of copyrighted
11 And you're on page? 11 publications, to you.
12 MR. STONE: Q. Nineteen. All right. 12 Q. Is there any disagreement in the
13 A. I'm not with you yet. I'm sorry. 13 industry on erosion rates, coastal engineering
14 Q. Okay. 14 industry?
15 A. Erosion analyses. Right page? 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Yes, sir. 16 Q. Now, that you're using LS-DYNA to prove,
17 A. Got it. With you. 17 correct?
18 Q. Is there disagreement -- I'm going to 18 A. That's incorrect.
19 use the term "the industry." You can call it 19 Q. Okay. What are you using for that?
20 civil and geotech engineering. 20 A. We're using the erodibility functions
21 A. Coastal. 21 determined from the test previously described,
22 Q. Let's use that term because that is 22 discussed, performed by Professor Dr. Jean-Louis
23 probably a better term for this. 23 Briaud.
24 Is there disagreement in the coastal 24 Q. And that's that flume test, the sheet
25 engineering industry about grass lift-off times, 25 flow that we talked about earlier?
Page 397 Page 399
1 and is that disagreement due to the number of 1 A. That's correct.
2 variables involved? 2 Q. And is it true that there was no
3 A. It's due to several factors. First, to 3 standard for lift-off of grass in the U.S. prior
4 respond directly to your question, given two 4 to Katrina?
5 experts in the same industry, you probably will 5 A. I would not know. The U.S. is a big
6 have four opinions. 6 place, and I don't know what goes on in the U.S.
7 Q. About grass lift-off? 7 Q. How about in your coastal engineering
8 A. About grass lift-off. 8 industry; was there a standard for a lift-off of
9 And that then ties to your second point. 9 grass prior to Katrina?
10 It is a complex issue. 10 A. Define "standard."
11 Is there an internationally accepted 11 Q. A standard that says when the lift-off
12 standard for grass lift-off? Not yet. But Europe 12 will occur.
13 has a very good start on it. The U.S. Army Corps 13 A. That was being used here in the United
14 of Engineers recently has adopted some of that 14 States?
15 technology. It's starting. 15 Q. Yes, sir.
16 Q. And you're using LS-DYNA to try to 16 A. Yes.
17 determine in this case, the Katrina circumstances, 17 Q. What was the standard?
18 how that grass lift-off would have occurred? 18 A. I have reference to standards that we
19 A. No. 19 obtained from both the United Kingdom and the
20 Q. Okay. What -- the grass lift-off is 20 Netherlands that have been applied in developing
21 coming from some other model, I guess? 21 the figure that you're looking at, Figure No. 13.
22 A. That's correct. 22 Q. On page 19 of your report, right?
23 Q. Okay. 23 A. That's correct. That's the synthesis of
24 A. And it's velocity-duration dependent. 24 the best technology that we could obtain or
25 So as LS-DYNA or Coulwave or Delft 3D tells you 25 understand to apply it to this particular problem.
38 (Pages 396 to 399)
1/31/2009
Page 400 Page 402
1 Q. In the Siejffert and Verheij report that 1 of reality.
2 Mr. Ebersole cites -- 2 Q. Would the engineers designing the MRGO
3 A. Right. 3 or its levees have had literature about grass
4 Q. -- I quote, "Until 1990, there was 4 lift-off available to them?
5 almost nothing known about this subject. Six 5 A. Certainly they have. We've been
6 years later, there's more to say about design, 6 accessing it and using it. Steven Hughes has
7 maintenance and testing of grass mats, and the 7 published some marvelous stuff. We've been using
8 first attempt at a model has been made." 8 it.
9 So as of 1996, they believed that the 9 But the problem is that it has factors
10 first attempt at modeling had been made, correct? 10 of safety in it, and that's to ensure that the
11 A. They believed that, but it's not 11 results are conservative. The report I received
12 accurate. 12 last night, which is a national levee
13 Q. Okay. It's not accurate? 13 recertification document, states so.
14 A. That's correct. 14 Q. Safety factors, though, what do you mean
15 Q. All right. What would be an accurate 15 by "safety factors"?
16 statement about the standards at that time? 16 A. The ultimate capacity divided by the
17 A. Well, we've located standard far beyond 17 design capacity. The ultimate capacity divided by
18 that time that come from agriculture, from the 18 the design capacity generally is something of the
19 design of roadway culverts, many structures face 19 order of two.
20 this challenge of fluid-soil interaction where 20 If I was working with the nuclear power
21 there's grass in between. 21 plant piping system, it would be an order of 20.
22 Q. That same report says, "In summary, it 22 Q. You have in this case --
23 has been established that the empirical model 23 A. For the levees -- for lateral stability,
24 still contains some uncertainties concerning 24 it was 1.3.
25 application area and accuracy, which means it 25 Q. I started to say, you've seen levels of
Page 401 Page 403
1 cannot yet be used in practical design work." 1 1.3 and 1.5 in this case?
2 Is that fair to say? 2 A. And they make me sick.
3 A. I think that's fair to say. 3 Q. Well, let's talk about factors of safety
4 Q. Okay. 4 for a second.
5 A. The keyword is "practical design 5 A. I would love to.
6 application." This is not practical design 6 Q. You spoke about aviation before.
7 application. 7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Then let's -- let's deal with 8 Q. Do you know what the factor of safety is
9 that. 9 for landing speed over stall speed?
10 When you say "this," I'm going to hold 10 A. Oh, one and a half.
11 you to your -- 11 Q. It's 1.3.
12 A. My finger. 12 A. Okay. I'm a private pilot.
13 Q. -- you don't -- let me say this. 13 Q. If you're out there flying a 747, your
14 What do you mean when you say "this is 14 safety factor for all the lives on board that
15 not practical design application"? 15 aircraft are you maintain a speed at least 1.3
16 A. Outstanding. Thank you. 16 times stall speed.
17 Forensic engineering in this complex 17 A. Or hopefully I'm stalling out close to
18 domain. Design engineering is intended to develop 18 the ground during a landing exercise. I have to
19 structures that are safe, serviceable, durable, 19 control descent and altitude so that if I do lose
20 compatible, sustainable and resilient. 20 and I have stall indicators to cut me off and
21 The objective here is to find out how a 21 land, that's why landing gears have shock
22 system performs. 22 absorbers in them.
23 Are there uncertainties? Certainly. 23 I don't kill everybody with that one. I
24 I've addressed them, both computationally and 24 can kill everybody with 1.3.
25 analytically. That's a part of the complexities 25 Q. I'm actually talking about approach
39 (Pages 400 to 403)
1/31/2009
Page 404 Page 406
1 speed. So -- 1 engineers ran that you're looking at in here, that
2 A. I'm talking -- I'm talking about the 2 you're looking at their models and their reports
3 subject at hand, which is a performance of these 3 and everything, their tests took place over longer
4 flood protection structures -- 4 periods of time --
5 Q. You take issue with the establishment of 5 A. Correct.
6 a 1.3 factor? 6 Q. -- correct?
7 A. I have published it. I have justified 7 So how did you modify your work to make
8 it. I have presented workshops in New Orleans 8 sure that it was covering the same or similar
9 with Corps of Engineers people in attendance, yes. 9 period?
10 Q. Was there any guidance in the Corps of 10 A. Understood.
11 Engineering manuals about grass lift-off when 11 The -- in the natural test conditions,
12 these levees were designed? 12 where the environmental conditions were varying as
13 A. I don't think so. 13 a function of time, both -- I'll call it
14 Q. Is there now? 14 increasing and decreasing in intensity, that is a
15 A. Yes. In fact I have the portion of 15 time varying process.
16 those design guidelines here under my table. 16 What we did was to take time snapshots
17 Q. And which manual are you talking about? 17 within that process to emulate, simulate the
18 A. This is a Corps of Engineers New Orleans 18 continuous time varying process.
19 District 100-year condition manual for the flood 19 Q. And you multiplied by what amounts?
20 protection system to be installed. 20 A. Well, it depended on the time period
21 Q. And when was that published? 21 that the simulation was being taken to cover. But
22 A. About a year ago. 22 if the time period was something of the order of
23 Q. Okay. 23 two hours, then we would have to multiply the
24 MR. STONE: It's been about an hour. 24 initial simulation by something on the order of
25 You want to take a five-minute break? 25 70.
Page 405 Page 407
1 THE WITNESS: You're a mind-reader. 1 Q. Okay.
2 Thank you. 2 A. 3600 divided by 130.
3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end of 3 Q. Before Hughes laboratory experimental
4 Disk No. 2 of the Dr. Robert Bea, Volume II. The 4 results --
5 time is 2:06 p.m., and we are off the record. 5 A. Yes, sir.
6 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 6 Q. -- it seems like you have a summary
7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the 7 sentence there that says, "No appreciable erosion
8 beginning of Disk No. 3 in the deposition of 8 was found, and the LS-DYNA wave-induced erosion
9 Dr. Robert with Bea, Volume II. The time is 2:18, 9 method predicted no appreciable erosion should
10 and we are back on the record. 10 occur."
11 MR. STONE: Q. Page 21 of that 11 A. Correct.
12 Technical Report No. 2 -- 12 Q. Okay. So these two are -- because of
13 A. For January expert report? 13 what you learned with Gustav, you now have
14 Q. Yes, sir. 14 determined that your LS-DYNA model comes up with
15 A. Page? 15 the same prediction, and that means it's been
16 Q. Twenty-one. 16 proven, right?
17 A. Yes, sir. 17 A. No. It means it's only been proven for
18 Q. At the very top, you say, "The numerical 18 that test.
19 simulation only has an effective time duration of 19 Q. Okay. For that test.
20 130 seconds." 20 Now, I only find in your reports one
21 A. Correct. 21 place where you determine how LS-DYNA predicts
22 Q. That's -- we were correct earlier when 22 compared to something else that's predicting, and
23 we were talking about the numbers. 23 that's only --
24 A. Yes. 24 A. That's unfortunate.
25 Q. And so the tests that the other 25 Q. Well, I'm not saying I've done a
40 (Pages 404 to 407)

1/31/2009
Page 408 Page 410
1 completely exhaustive search, but you can tell 1 A. It's as I was explaining yesterday. The
2 me -- 2 sanding motion is a function of what happens over
3 A. Could I describe it for you? 3 the entire time period.
4 Q. Sure. 4 So you could have a peak velocity, one
5 A. In the July 2008 report, we validate 5 big swing of your sanding block, but what is
6 LS-DYNA with analytical comparisons. We validate 6 actually contributing to the major are the lower
7 the LS-DYNA erosion -- wave erosion breaching 7 amplitude waves.
8 model with first analytical comparisons. This is 8 Q. Okay. What is the importance of peak
9 to compare the LS-DYNA evaluations of velocities 9 velocity to the outcome of your LS-DYNA model?
10 versus those that come from analytical models. 10 A. Well, you would have to specify over
11 We also carry the LS-DYNA process all 11 what time period that peak velocity was occurring.
12 the way through the analysis of the breaching at 12 If it was a peak for a two-hour duration, that
13 the study location. 13 would be very different than if it was a peak for
14 And the question is, do we get the 14 a six-second duration.
15 breaching unfolding there in a time sense that 15 Notice the two-hour duration would
16 we'll be able to explain the subsequent flooding 16 encompass many waves with differing amplitudes.
17 of the polar between the 40 Arpent levee and the 17 The second one conceptually would be one
18 Reach 2 EBSB, it's subsequent overtopping without 18 wavelength. So it would have two crest periods or
19 breaching, which is actually an interesting point, 19 crest points.
20 to then inundate St. Bernard Parish. 20 Q. And even more basic than that, I think,
21 (Reporter interruption.) 21 if you have velocity as a -- an input, is velocity
22 THE WITNESS: B-E-R-N-A-R-D, like the 22 an input into the system, or is it something that
23 dog -- Parish. 23 comes out of the system after you've put other
24 We also, in that July report, present 24 information about waves into the LS-DYNA program?
25 comparable validations for location just to the 25 A. It's the latter.
Page 409 Page 411
1 north of Bayou Bienvenue. There the location did 1 Q. This is what comes out at the end?
2 not breach. We use the same analytical process to 2 A. Correct. At the end of the fluid
3 determine whether or not breaching will occur. 3 structure and action step.
4 During the same time period of July to 4 Q. All right. I'm there now, I think.
5 today, we have been continuing to expand the 5 A. Got you.
6 validation processes. And the end product of all 6 Q. Correct me if I'm wrong.
7 of that is essentially all of last year's work, is 7 A. I think you're there.
8 what you have in my January 2009 expert report. 8 Q. But when you do your LS-DYNA program --
9 MR. STONE: Q. All right. That being 9 A. Right.
10 said, when I've looked through your model 10 Q. -- in the end, you're expecting to find
11 calibration and validation section of your 2008 11 out what your peak velocity is?
12 technical report, I see two tables there, 12 A. All the velocities.
13 Tables 32 and 33, where you compare peak velocity, 13 Q. All the Velocities --
14 imperial peak velocity at different storm surges, 14 A. Full-time history, and we present the
15 with some other model, I guess, for Dr. Brunn, I 15 plots.
16 guess it is. 16 Q. That you're going to then apply to your
17 A. Per Brunn. He taught me coastal 17 erosion testing?
18 engineering. 18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I don't see where you -- question's 19 Q. So in these tables, you're talking about
20 withdrawn. 20 the complete velocities?
21 What's the correlation between these 21 A. That's all we're comparing because
22 peak velocities in your LS-DYNA model and the 22 that's all Brunn's analytical algorithm would let
23 outcome of the LS-DYNA model? 23 you compare against.
24 A. It's not a one-to-one. 24 Q. Dr. Brunn now was not using LS-DYNA?
25 Q. Okay. 25 A. Oh, no. He didn't let me see those.
41 (Pages 408 to 411)
1/31/2009
Page 412 Page 414
1 Q. Let's go back to page 21 of your 1 thinking that --
2 Technical Report No. 2 from today -- or from the 2 A. That's all that we did?
3 29th of January. And it's that last sentence 3 Q. No, not all that you did. But as far as
4 above Hughes laboratory. 4 a statement of how the comparisons work between
5 A. Yes, sir. 5 your model and any other model, this is all I have
6 Q. "No appreciable erosion was found in the 6 is these tables here --
7 LS-DYNA wave-induced erosion model" -- excuse 7 A. As of that point in time.
8 me -- "methods predicted no appreciable erosion 8 Q. Okay. As of that point in time?
9 should occur." 9 A. That's correct.
10 A. Right. 10 Q. Otherwise, I only have -- the only thing
11 Q. But the outcome from the process of 11 extra I have about this is in this latest report?
12 LS-DYNA is wave velocity? 12 A. And it has included the work we've done
13 A. Correct. 13 since January 2008.
14 Q. And the only comparison you have 14 Q. Okay.
15 anywhere is these two tables, showing that wave 15 A. So we swept the room of all of the
16 velocity is underpredicted when compared to 16 validation work -- principle validation work we've
17 Brunn's report, right? 17 done.
18 A. Incorrect. 18 Q. Let's go back to the sentence I was
19 Q. That's the only tables I see that show 19 talking about on page 21 of your Technical Report
20 any comparison of -- 20 No. 2 of January 29th.
21 A. Velocities? 21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. -- velocities. 22 Q. The LS-DYNA, when used to predict
23 A. Go to Hughes. We made check-ins -- 23 velocity for Gustav in the circumstances that
24 Q. Okay. 24 you've been looking at, at Station 497, shows that
25 A. We made check-ins of velocity with a 25 velocity is zero?
Page 413 Page 415
1 wide variety of investigators. 1 A. That's incorrect.
2 Q. I see. Well, maybe it matters to my 2 Q. Whatever comes out of the calculations
3 next question or maybe it's not. I'm building up 3 when applied to erosion, zero erosion is expected?
4 to something here. 4 A. Well, that means I perhaps haven't
5 A. Let's go -- 5 listed the turf. Or if I have listed the turf,
6 MR. BRUNO: You guys may be building, 6 I've only begun trying to erode the underlying
7 but remember your record. 7 material.
8 THE WITNESS: Keep stepping. 8 Q. Okay. So how does zero erosion for
9 MR. BRUNO: And it ain't on the record. 9 Gustav, as predicted by all the work that you've
10 MR. STONE: What do you mean, it's not 10 done --
11 on the record? 11 A. Right.
12 MR. BRUNO: I mean you are having this 12 Q. -- and LS-DYNA predicting only velocity,
13 brain meld and -- 13 but not the next step, velocity plus erosion --
14 THE WITNESS: It's not being captured? 14 A. Right.
15 MR. BRUNO: It's not being captured. 15 Q. -- how do you conclude that LS-DYNA
16 But it's your deposition. 16 is -- is proven by this finding of zero erosion
17 THE WITNESS: Let's take it step by 17 for both -- both instances?
18 step. You're doing just fine. 18 A. I related to that this morning, when I
19 MR. STONE: Q. As of the date of your 19 said I would encourage you to cease using the term
20 Technical Report No. 1, July 11, 2008, the only 20 "LS-DYNA" to properly characterize the entire
21 work that you had done was to show that this model 21 erosion analysis process.
22 underpredicts velocities as compared to Brunn? 22 That's pointed out in the end of the --
23 A. Incorrect. 23 or in the words that follow "LS-DYNA" in that
24 Q. Okay. I'm struggling with this because 24 sentence. They say, I quote, "LS-DYNA
25 these are the only two tables I see, and I'm 25 wave-induced erosion method predicted no
42 (Pages 412 to 415)
1/31/2009
Page 416 Page 418
1 appreciable erosion should occur." 1 that LS-DYNA underpredicts the velocity, and
2 Q. So the LS-DYNA wave-induced erosion 2 you're applying LS-DYNA to the data for Gustav,
3 method, it's a two-part process. It may be more 3 then velocity is likely underpredicted to some
4 parts, but mainly two parts. It's the velocity 4 extent in that application?
5 from LS-DYNA, and then that applied to the erosion 5 A. Only for the peak.
6 testing? 6 Q. Only for the peak. And is the peak what
7 A. It's three parts. 7 you use when you do the erosion analysis?
8 Q. Okay. What's the third part? 8 A. No.
9 A. It's the accumulation of the damage due 9 Q. What other part of the velocity do you
10 to erosion. That's what has to be accumulated, 10 use --
11 the damage accumulation rule, to determine how far 11 A. The entire velocity-time history over
12 the erosion front is propagating toward the 12 the entire 130 seconds of computation.
13 protected side. 13 Q. So do you have any evidence that those
14 I draw a -- as clear a picture in the 14 other velocities aren't underpredicted by LS-DYNA?
15 January 2009 declaration to show you how that 15 A. Yes.
16 process works. 16 Q. Okay. What's the evidence of that?
17 Q. All right. If -- and I don't see 17 A. Here we go to Hughes, the next check-in
18 anything else in your reports that tells me about 18 point.
19 velocities, but if -- 19 Q. Let's look at Hughes.
20 A. Hughes is coming, and it will. 20 Keep in mind, Dr. Bea, I just had last
21 Q. We'll get to Hughes next. But up to 21 night to look at these, so this is pretty
22 this point, what I have is the technical report, 22 technical for me.
23 and then I have this Technical Report No. 2 up to 23 A. Keep in mind, I've only had the last 20
24 this point. And I'll read the next with you -- 24 days to look at the pile of results your sterling
25 A. Correct. 25 experts produced.
Page 417 Page 419
1 Q. -- in a minute. 1 Q. That's okay. That's okay. All right.
2 But up to this point, you're not using 2 You got me.
3 Hughes here to state that the LS-DYNA wave-induced 3 A. Together with references. It's tough,
4 erosion method predicted no appreciable erosion; 4 too.
5 you're still dealing with just Gustav there, 5 Q. Why is this Hughes analysis of water
6 right? 6 velocities at the crown, crest and back side
7 A. Yes. You've got it exactly. 7 relevant to your LS-DYNA validation?
8 Q. When you look back here at these two 8 A. It's an important part of the phase --
9 tables, everything I see is that LS-DYNA 9 or the Part 2 analyses. As previously explained,
10 underpredicts velocity. 10 we do our front-to-back breaching analyses in two
11 A. And that comparison, that is exactly 11 phases.
12 correct. 12 The first phase is -- we will call it
13 Q. Okay. It was the peaks? 13 crenellation. And the second phase is
14 A. There's where I was saying, well, that 14 exploitation of the crenellation; that is, water
15 was what Per Brunn's analytical technique -- 15 overtopping, downrush on the back side of the
16 which, by the way, was based on both field and 16 structure.
17 laboratory testing -- would allow you to make 17 Q. And this Hughes test that you're looking
18 comparisons against. 18 at, I guess it's a -- you look at the Hughes
19 And that's because it was compared with 19 document, and how do you go about this?
20 peak things like peak wave forces acting on 20 A. Steven Hughes is a graduate from the
21 coastal structures associated with peak 21 University of Florida. As part of his doctoral
22 velocities, so he could check in at that point. 22 research, did laboratory large-scale experiments
23 But you had no understanding of what was going on 23 on -- we'll call it beach erosion, dune erosion,
24 other than the peaks. 24 in which the beach and dune are primarily
25 Q. Okay. If it's an accurate statement 25 cohesionless materials.
43 (Pages 416 to 419)
1/31/2009
Page 420 Page 422
1 Steven Hughes today is a senior coastal 1 concrete mattress up.
2 engineer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2 The conclusion was: We better nail
3 Mississippi. Dr. Hughes was tasked to investigate 3 these suckers down if we put them on the wave
4 the performance of future earthen flood protection 4 side.
5 structures along Reach 2 of the Mississippi River 5 Q. Page 31, after Hughes has been evaluated
6 Gulf Outlet. 6 in your report at the top of the page, it says,
7 He developed the laboratory experiment 7 "The LS-DYNA generated maximum velocities of
8 to simulate the earthen flood protection structure 8 approximately 20 to 30 percent above the reported
9 using a foam-based model. He embedded at the 9 values from Hughes."
10 crest and the back side transducers from which he 10 A. Correct.
11 could deduce/determine velocities. 11 Q. So in one area, you tell us that the
12 And over the top of the system, he 12 velocities are underreported --
13 placed a model articulated concrete mattress. He 13 A. The peak velocities.
14 then proceeded to propagate waves in a large 14 Q. Peak velocities.
15 laboratory wave flume at Vicksburg, Mississippi, 15 What's the difference between a maximum
16 and analytically and with camera, determined the 16 velocity and a peak velocity?
17 performance of the structure, including time 17 A. Again, you have to reference the time.
18 histories of the velocities on the crest and the 18 Are you talking about a single cycle or over a
19 back side. 19 long period of time?
20 We found this work extremely interesting 20 Q. I'm trying to talk -- I'm trying to give
21 and extremely useful. First, getting good high 21 you an opportunity to tell us what you're talking
22 quality laboratory results is not easy. The 22 about here.
23 people at Vicksburg and -- and Steven Hughes 23 A. We're referencing --
24 himself are very, very high quality 24 Q. How did --
25 experimentalists. So we knew that -- we had a 25 A. We're referencing between maximum over
Page 421 Page 423
1 good chance that the results coming out of this 1 the experimental time period.
2 model would be reasonably representative prototype 2 Q. Okay. And how is that different from
3 conditions. 3 peak velocities, as shown in your earlier
4 And the reason I emphasized "reasonably 4 technical report?
5 representative" is you cannot capture in the 5 A. Compare the two drafts. We show both
6 laboratory all of the important things that 6 the LS-DYNA prediction at that time snapshot and
7 characterize true prototype field conditions. 7 the same from the laboratory.
8 Now, the other aspect we found 8 Q. I don't understand that.
9 interesting was a concrete mattress performance. 9 Are you talking about page 32, 32, 33
10 Before I go there, the thing that 10 and 34?
11 mystified us was with his previous history, why 11 A. I think that's right.
12 weren't there velocity sensing transducers on the 12 Q. My question, though, has to do with two
13 flood wave side. There were none. That left a 13 different things here.
14 curious question mark. 14 You have peak velocities in one, and
15 The next thing that produced a curious 15 they're all underpredicted and some substantially.
16 question mark is a propagated waves over the model 16 And then you have maximum velocity in another
17 earthen flood protection structure, armored both 17 model you look at, and it's approximately 20 to
18 flood side and back side. Interesting new 18 30 percent above the reported values from the
19 development. 19 reports that you're trying to prove your model
20 Can you give me a judgment of where that 20 from.
21 concrete mattress failed and how it failed? 21 A. Correct.
22 It failed on the flood wave side due to 22 Q. So how does this -- where do you go with
23 uplift rolling on the concrete mattress after 23 that? You've got one proves 20 to 30 percent
24 overtopping by the surge. The wave forces were 24 above for maximum velocity. The other is below
25 still large enough on the flood side to roll the 25 for peak velocity.
44 (Pages 420 to 423)
1/31/2009
Page 424 Page 426
1 How does peak and maximum compare, and 1 back on page 21 again.
2 why doesn't it matter to you in your proof here of 2 A. You're very patient. Thank you.
3 LS-DYNA? 3 Q. And that sentence has to do just with
4 A. First, your presumption that it doesn't 4 Gustav.
5 matter is incorrect. 5 A. Okay.
6 Q. Okay. 6 Q. And we're not including Hughes in this
7 A. It does matter. 7 analysis yet.
8 Now, the second thing is to return to, 8 A. Got you.
9 what is it that's causing the accumulated damage? 9 Q. If you have the Gustav prediction by
10 Is it the peak, or is it less-than-peak erosive 10 LS-DYNA, zero, and LS-DYNA underpredicts, and if
11 action? 11 you have the -- I mean, if it underpredicts zero,
12 All the information says the peaks are 12 how do you conclude that your model has been
13 relatively ineffective. It's the average over the 13 proven, because how far under does it predict?
14 time history that is the erosive killer. 14 And underpredicting zero seems to me to be
15 Despite that sort of general picture, 15 nonsense.
16 our damage accumulation model accounts for the 16 So how does it -- how does your model
17 contribution of all of them. 17 get proven by this scenario?
18 The next important point is when you 18 A. It can't.
19 make comparisons of an analytical model with 19 Q. That's why you have to go to Hughes,
20 results from a laboratory or, even better, into 20 okay?
21 the field, you will get both over and 21 A. Well, you have to go to much more than
22 underpredictions. 22 Hughes. You have --
23 When you asked me earlier had I tracked 23 Q. We'll do the other two as we go, but I
24 the uncertainties associated with this analysis, 24 want to do piece as best we can --
25 the answer is, yes. And I answered, well, the 25 A. Exactly.
Page 425 Page 427
1 coefficient of variation in the case of the wave 1 Q. -- so that I can understand it.
2 height you asked about was approximately 2 A. No. I think that's very --
3 20 percent. 3 Q. If I look at these two tables on pages
4 Now, that picture -- you might relate 4 146 and 147 of your technical report, and then I
5 back to your grading in school, where they talked 5 look at your analysis of Gustav, and I say, okay,
6 about the bell curve. Looks like a bell. 6 LS-DYNA says there should be no erosion, the
7 In the center is something we would call 7 circumstances that you're looking at for Gustav --
8 1.0. That 1.0 is a ratio of the true and measured 8 A. Right.
9 value to the calculated value. So if I'm there, 9 Q. -- then I look at the fact that LS-DYNA
10 that's a good thing. But if I'm over, well, it 10 underpredicts from these tables, and I say, so it
11 just means a bias is bigger than one. 11 underpredicts zero, and yet you conclude that that
12 If I'm under, which also happens at all 12 is somehow proof of LS-DYNA?
13 of the -- we'll call it data I've ever dealt with, 13 A. No.
14 well, guess what, you're not properly predicting 14 Q. Okay. All right. So that can't be, can
15 there. 15 it?
16 The uncertainty band that becomes so 16 A. That's correct.
17 crucial to testimony in court of this nature is 17 Q. All right. All right. Then Hughes you
18 encompassing both. And that's why we are so 18 bring in next, and you have an overprediction of
19 diligently tracking not what reinforces our view 19 another type of velocity --
20 of the world, but, rather, what reinforces the 20 A. Right.
21 view of the real world. 21 Q. -- that matters.
22 It will do both more and less than your 22 A. Correct.
23 analytical model, and that's because your 23 Q. And it overpredicts by 20 or 30 percent,
24 analytical model must be imperfect. All are. 24 and yet you conclude that also helps to prove that
25 Q. All right. Let's look at that sentence 25 LS-DYNA is useful as a tool for your work.
45 (Pages 424 to 427)
1/31/2009
Page 428 Page 430
1 A. Correct. 1 (Record read by the reporter as follows:
2 Q. Okay. 2 QUESTION: And on the other side, when
3 A. Well -- 3 we're looking at Gustav, and we're looking
4 Q. How are you able to say that something 4 at however peak and maximum compared to
5 that overpredicts by 20 or 30 percent just in one 5 each other, you've got places here where
6 instance is validated and verified? 6 the underprediction is by at least 300
7 A. Well, because that's how you validate or 7 percent?
8 verify an analytical model that's attempting to 8 ANSWER: Say again.
9 describe a complex physical process. 9 QUESTION: Page 147, look at your --
10 Q. Okay. 10 at the technical report.
11 A. There is no precise deterministic 11 ANSWER: 147 of which technical
12 answer. If you have one, somebody's not telling 12 report?
13 you the truth. 13 QUESTION: That's the Technical Report
14 Q. I don't have anything. 14 No. 1 for July 11, 2008.
15 A. I know. But be on the alert. 15 ANSWER: Page?)
16 Q. Yes, sir. But I go back to your 16 MR. STONE: Q. I think that's good
17 other -- here you're talking about a 20 to 17 enough. Don't you, sir?
18 30 percent overprediction, on page 31, of Hughes. 18 A. I do, too.
19 A. Right. 19 Now, show me how you calculated -- or
20 Q. And on the other side, when we're 20 describe for me how you calculated 300 percent.
21 looking at Gustav, and we're looking at however 21 Q. Well, I'm just looking at the table.
22 peak and maximum compared to each other, you've 22 And if you look at Table 33 -- and my math isn't
23 got places here where the underprediction is by at 23 that great, of course -- and that's for Scenario
24 least 300 percent? 24 2C, where you have a 16.2-foot storm surge
25 A. Say again. 25 elevation, you have a 3-foot-per-second velocity;
Page 429 Page 431
1 Q. Page 147, look at your -- at the 1 is that correct?
2 technical report. 2 A. That's correct.
3 A. 147 of which technical report? 3 Q. That's peak velocity for LS-DYNA?
4 Q. That's the Technical Report No. 1 for 4 A. Mh-hmm.
5 July 11, 2008. 5 Q. Compared to your empirical, I guess
6 A. Page? 6 calculated peak velocity by Brunn --
7 Q. 147, paragraph -- not numbered 7 A. Correct.
8 paragraphs. It's those two tables we were looking 8 Q. -- of 12.8 feet per second.
9 at -- 9 And I don't know that this is linear,
10 A. Page 147? 10 but that looks like it's at least 400 percent to
11 Q. Yes, sir. You're looking at Scenario 2 11 me.
12 there for that analysis. 12 A. Well, there are two asterisks shown next
13 I can't remember whether I asked you a 13 to that No. 3.
14 question, but when you've had a chance to find 14 Q. Okay.
15 that, I will. Okay. Then I'll get it read back 15 A. What do the asterisks say?
16 if you need it. 16 Q. I don't understand what your point is
17 Are you having trouble finding the page? 17 with that. I can read it.
18 A. Yeah. 18 A. It's a geometric instability caused at
19 Q. Okay. It's -- 19 that point for those conditions. The result
20 A. And it's because I got lost in the 20 coming from LS-DYNA is not dependable, and that's
21 appendices. They are also numbered. 21 the reason we asterisked it.
22 I'm at 147. 22 All numerical integration techniques go
23 Would you repeat your question. 23 unstable when you push them to the point of
24 MR. STONE: Would you read that question 24 breaking. That could be a breaking wave for
25 back, please. 25 Coulwave or it could be a geometric instability
46 (Pages 428 to 431)
1/31/2009
Page 432 Page 434
1 point. This is one such point. Hence, we throw 1 "bias."
2 that work away. 2 Your expert, Dr. Tom Wolff, knows this
3 Q. Okay. No problem. 3 backwards and forwards. He would not throw in,
4 A. It's not reliable. 4 quote, 200 percent unless he knew what it was
5 Q. Okay. No problem. I understand that. 5 referencing. Words matter.
6 You throw that away because you believe it's not 6 Q. Page 32, sir, of that Technical Report
7 relevant to your analysis. 7 No. 2, January 29, 2009.
8 A. No. That's incorrect. 8 A. I got 42 [sic]. Yes, sir.
9 Q. You understood it and then you're done 9 Q. All right. I think I understood at the
10 with it at that point because you've used it for 10 top, Figure No. 20, is for a period of 1500
11 whatever purpose you need? 11 seconds.
12 A. That's incorrect. 12 A. I'm looking at an aerial photograph of
13 Q. Okay. 13 Bayou Bienvenue control structure.
14 A. We understand it's a numerical model. 14 Q. I'm sorry. Page 32 of your Technical
15 It's not able to converge on a reliable solution; 15 Report No. 2 of January 29.
16 therefore, we say that's numerical instability, 16 A. January.
17 you can't depend on it, remove it. 17 Q. We're going to be going back and forth
18 Q. All right. So let's take those out for 18 to this all the time.
19 the moment. 19 A. It's hard.
20 A. They're done. 20 Q. This is what we're going to try to
21 Q. Then the top two differences, you have 21 finish with as best we can.
22 150 percent underpredicting, plus or minus for the 22 A. In January, right?
23 0430 time frame. 23 Q. Yes, sir. Technical Report No. --
24 A. Now, how I would ask you to present that 24 A. I'm not trying to be difficult.
25 would be as I described before. The term that we 25 Q. I don't have any problem. I just want
Page 433 Page 435
1 use is called bias, and it's got a Capital B. And 1 to make sure we're on the right page of what we're
2 it's a ratio of what you think is a true result to 2 talking about.
3 your nominal. 3 A. Thank you. Okay. Now, I'm with you.
4 Your true result for 0530 that you're 4 Q. The top figure, No. 20 --
5 referencing is 11.3. Call it 12. The nominal is 5 A. Right.
6 6. The bias is 2. 6 Q. -- although it doesn't say so, appears
7 Q. Okay. 7 to be over a period of 1500 seconds.
8 A. That helped you get -- you get into 8 A. Well, the record stabilizes at a time
9 trouble with these percentages of over or 9 count of approximately 100 seconds, and that's the
10 underprediction because they depend on what you 10 reason you don't see any amplitude pulses --
11 are referencing in that percentage. 11 Q. No, no. I'm sorry. The top, Figure
12 Q. So it underpredicts by, what, two times 12 No. --
13 or -- 13 A. That's what I'm referring to.
14 A. Right. Factor of two. 14 You start at zero, and there's no
15 Q. I got to ask, how is that different from 15 amplitude pulsing until after approximately 100
16 200 percent? I mean, I just don't get it. I 16 seconds.
17 mean, that's problematic for me. 17 Q. Okay.
18 That's okay. You don't have to answer 18 A. And then we go out to 1500. So we got
19 that. 19 about a 1400-second time frame.
20 A. I would prefer to. 20 Q. I got it. I was just trying to find out
21 Q. Okay. Please do. 21 what that bottom time frame meant. That's all I
22 A. The technique that a forensic engineer, 22 was trying to do.
23 dealing with uncertainty in the forensic 23 A. Got you.
24 engineering analyses, is defined in the manner I 24 Q. The next figure is for 140 seconds.
25 described for you. It's defined as a term called 25 A. Correct.
47 (Pages 432 to 435)
1/31/2009
Page 436 Page 438
1 Q. Now, you can't look at the two of them 1 Q. Yes, sir.
2 together and say, hey, these -- these match up? 2 A. Got it.
3 A. Right. You have to -- 3 Q. You have fluctuations in that last --
4 Q. I have to -- 4 from 110 seconds to past 140 --
5 A. You have to mentally compress -- 5 A. Right.
6 Q. Expand this or shrink this? 6 Q. -- of -- from a minus 12 --
7 A. Bingo. You have to extend or shrink 7 A. Feet per second.
8 this. 8 Q. -- feet per second to as much as --
9 Q. All right. 9 A. Twenty.
10 MR. STONE: You back with us? 10 Q. -- 19.
11 THE REPORTER: Yes. 11 You call it 20. I say 19.
12 MR. STONE: Q. All right. Now, 12 A. Sure.
13 pages 32, 33 and 34 are where you're demonstrating 13 Q. Something like that.
14 that Hughes is, what was it, 20 to 30 percent -- 14 A. Twenty is okay.
15 LS-DYNA is 20, 30 percent off there? 15 Q. And you don't know why you have those
16 A. Whatever it says. 16 fluctuations --
17 Q. Okay. 17 A. Oh, no. We do.
18 A. And we raise the question about the 18 Q. Okay. Why do you have those
19 laboratory results because they show velocity 19 fluctuations in LS-DYNA?
20 pulsing when there shouldn't be any, because it's 20 A. Because one's the uprush of the fluid
21 before overtopping. 21 and the other is a downrush of the fluid. We're
22 So we're not sure if it's leakage over 22 tracking the entire time history of motion of the
23 the experimental facility or what's happening. 23 fluid over the surface of the structure.
24 Q. Okay. Is that what you're talking about 24 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't hear that, sir.
25 between, like, 110 seconds here and the end of the 25 THE WITNESS: Would you read my answer,
Page 437 Page 439
1 graph on the Figure 21? 1 please.
2 A. Correct. 2 (Record read by the reporter as follows:
3 Q. Okay. Because it's really flopping 3 ANSWER: Because one's the uprush of
4 around there, isn't it? 4 the fluid and the other is a downrush of
5 A. That's exactly right. And Steven Hughes 5 the fluid. We're tracking the entire time
6 and the laboratory people have to do the same 6 history of motion of the fluid over the
7 thing we do analytically. They've got to 7 surface of the structure.)
8 stabilize the wave tank so they've got reasonably 8 MR. STONE: Q. But you don't see that
9 coherent wave input for the analytical model. 9 same kind of fluctuation in the Figure 20, do you?
10 We have to do the same with LS-DYNA. 10 A. And that's what raised one of the
11 We actually run more than 130 seconds. 11 questions concerning experimental means of
12 In fact, the first 100 seconds, approximately, are 12 measuring velocities.
13 thrown away because we're building that stability. 13 Q. So your question here about these
14 Q. So for this -- looks like some people's 14 fluctuations in Figure 21, is -- is it a result of
15 EKG, maybe not mine, but this is like an EKG 15 LS-DYNA or is it a result of the testing in the
16 figure to me. 16 facility?
17 A. In fact -- in fact, that's how we first 17 A. Exactly.
18 learned technologically to process this 18 Q. Okay. And you don't know which it is at
19 information. 19 this point in time?
20 Q. Okay. And after 110 seconds, you have 20 You can tell me if you suspect which it
21 fluctuations in this LS-DYNA program that's being 21 is. I'm happy to see that.
22 recorded here from as much as minus 12 velocity -- 22 But you do not know definitively whether
23 A. What figure? 23 it's LS-DYNA that's doing this or your model test?
24 Q. I'm still looking at 21. 24 A. In a definitive way, you are correct.
25 A. Figure 21? 25 But based on my experience with laboratory
48 (Pages 436 to 439)
1/31/2009
Page 440 Page 442
1 experiments under similar conditions, the 1 A. No. A surge is moving vertically. Of
2 expectation of noise or distortion in the 2 course, it's got some horizontal transfer. But if
3 velocity-measuring transducers is to be expected. 3 I raise the surge very slowly, I'm creating no
4 Velocity measurements are not easy to 4 velocities at the structure interface.
5 get accurate. So I have a suspicion there could 5 Q. In the real world hurricane situation,
6 be some of the trouble there. But as well, there 6 your surge is going to be increasing and your body
7 can also be trouble in the LS-DYNA velocity 7 of water is going to be moving in a direction,
8 calculations. 8 correct?
9 And the reason that you have to be 9 A. That's correct.
10 careful is Steven is measuring his velocities at 10 Q. And different places within that water
11 that foam surface. Smooth. Okay. Meaning low 11 can be moving in different directions?
12 boundary layer. Okay. But we're measuring 12 A. Amen.
13 velocities above the boundary layer. 13 Q. So what you will have there is different
14 So when you make the comparison, you 14 vectors of water particles throughout that column
15 have to be alert to that potential effect. 15 and moving forward, moving up. And even in the
16 Q. All right. Let's stop and talk about 16 waves, you can have different vectors in the
17 that for a second. 17 waves. You --
18 What you're talking about is the column 18 A. Going around and around, back and forth.
19 of the water. And at any particular time, that 19 Q. You do it like a churning effect there
20 column of water may be in a particular place, and 20 for the waves?
21 you'll have some water touching the surface, water 21 A. Right. But in the setting that we're
22 will be on top of that, more water, more water, 22 focused on, we've got two -- I'll call it velocity
23 then you'll have the top of the surge, and then 23 vectors of primary concern.
24 you'll have a wave on top of that. 24 One is the one that you were describing,
25 A. Okay. 25 up and down, parallel to the face of the
Page 441 Page 443
1 Q. Now, within that column of water, there 1 structure. And after overtopping by the surge and
2 are a lot of different vectors of water movement 2 the waves, then it's doing the same to the back
3 by water particles; is that fair to say? 3 side.
4 A. Oh, it is very fair to say. 4 Q. Can I interrupt you here?
5 Q. Okay. So to do a complete analysis of 5 A. Please.
6 how the column of water is affected and how it 6 Q. Let's do the face since that's what
7 affects erosion or any other thing it does when it 7 we're working on.
8 gets to its destination, you have to understand 8 A. The flood face?
9 that the particles closer to the surface of the 9 Q. Face of the levee on the flood side.
10 bottom are moving in a linear direction, correct? 10 A. Yes, sir.
11 A. Maybe not. 11 Q. Those, the vector, as the column
12 Q. But more likely they are because, as you 12 approaches, is toward the face. And in the
13 get closer to the boundary layer, the particles 13 column, particles will be moving in different
14 become linear if they're moving in a straight 14 directions?
15 line? 15 A. Correct.
16 A. Well, the way you have conditioned your 16 Q. So when you do your LS-DYNA program, you
17 statement forces the outcome. If the water has 17 do not account for all those different vectors of
18 got an orbital motion, for example, a jet headed 18 motion and the way that the friction changes as
19 at the bottom, your picture is not correct. 19 you get close to the bottom and the way the
20 Q. Okay. Let's talk about surge, Katrina's 20 particles, let me say, become linear in movement
21 surge as it comes ashore. 21 near the bottom.
22 A. Just a rising water? 22 A. Well stated.
23 Q. Rising water moving -- 23 Q. Okay. Let's go --
24 A. No waves? 24 (Discussion held off record.)
25 Q. -- at a speed toward the shore. 25 MR. STONE: Q. I've been asked to ask
49 (Pages 440 to 443)

1/31/2009
Page 444 Page 446
1 you, are you measuring the velocity of the water 1 materials used by the 1961 Rijkswaterstaat study."
2 at the top of the column and not at the bottom? 2 A. That's correct.
3 A. No. 3 Q. So here you had to apply another
4 Q. Okay. How are you doing that? 4 assumption?
5 A. Were making the measurement just above 5 A. That's correct.
6 what -- if you recognize friction, would be the 6 Q. Okay. And did you have to apply any
7 onset of the boundary layer. 7 assumptions in Hughes? You did not, did you,
8 Q. Just above the -- 8 because there wasn't an erosive material used
9 A. And the reason we choose that point, 9 there. It wasn't sand or anything like that.
10 that's the point at which velocity is measured in 10 A. For the erodibility, that's true.
11 the erosion testing apparatus. 11 But to continue your point of
12 So you have to have a one-to-one 12 assumptions, if in the LS-DYNA work we had assumed
13 correlation. 13 saltwater, that would be wrong, because
14 Q. I think we did a bit of this before. 14 Steven Hughes used fresh water.
15 A. That's right. 15 Q. Okay.
16 Q. That's why we don't do the -- you don't 16 A. They are different.
17 do the friction of the surface. 17 Q. I didn't think you got that wrong at
18 A. Correct. 18 all.
19 Q. Okay. And this is for purposes of 19 A. I actually give it as a test question
20 simplification for your model to be able to 20 for the students. It's amazing how many get it
21 predict? 21 wrong.
22 A. Exactly. 22 Q. Also, the density of the sand in that
23 Q. Okay. Let's go to the Geisenhainer 23 Rijkswaterstaat study was not detailed.
24 discussion at page 35. G-E-I-S-E-N-H-E- -- 24 A. Right.
25 A-I-N-E-R. 25 Q. And you believe that this has a major
Page 445 Page 447
1 A. Yes, sir. 1 impact on the erodibility characteristics of the
2 (Discussion held off record.) 2 sand?
3 MR. STONE: Somebody help me out with 3 A. Right.
4 Smith, please. 4 Q. The first model that we talked about
5 THE WITNESS: His mom is not here. 5 earlier here, after Gustav, there was an issue
6 MR. STONE: Q. Okay. Would you explain 6 there about whether you knew what the materials
7 to us what is it about the Geisenhainer article 7 were and the compacting and erodibility of them,
8 and laboratory analyses that you believe relevant 8 correct?
9 to prove your LS-DYNA model? 9 A. Always.
10 A. To help prove it. 10 Q. Okay. So in neither of the two studies
11 In this case, an experiment very much 11 that you're comparing your work to can you
12 like the work done by Steven Hughes for the Corps 12 definitively determine what materials they're
13 at Vicksburg is done, with the exception that 13 using as far as studying erodibility?
14 there are no velocity transducer measurements, and 14 A. Well stated.
15 the structure that's involved in the experiment is 15 Q. So in either instance, you're using
16 a soil structure. 16 studies and attempting to compare those densities
17 This is one of the first important 17 of soils and the soil materials to your
18 pieces of information that gives us insight into 18 reconstituted samples that you got from
19 the accumulation of damage leading to breaching of 19 Station 497 plus 00 for your test site and early
20 the earthen -- model earthen protective structure. 20 LS-DYNA study, correct?
21 Q. Now, in this test -- question's 21 A. Incorrect.
22 withdrawn. 22 Q. Okay. Explain how that's incorrect.
23 In your analysis here at page 36, the 23 A. We had many samples that fell into the
24 first sentence you say, "There was no explicit 24 different categories of erodibility. The samples
25 information available, only erodibility of dike 25 taken at the EBSB Study Location 497 plus 00 were
50 (Pages 444 to 447)
1/31/2009
Page 448 Page 450
1 only -- I think there were two out of the group of 1 If it was pure sand, it can only stand
2 perhaps 50 samples. 2 at the inclination angle that is equivalent to the
3 Q. Sample 4 is the one I'm talking about in 3 angle of internal friction in the cohesiveless
4 your reports. 4 binder.
5 Sample 4 is the one you ultimately 5 For example, if that was 30 degrees, the
6 concluded was the soil that mattered for your 6 surface would be inclined at 30 degrees, and
7 analyses, correct? 7 that's how the Egyptians learned to build
8 A. That we sampled from a shoulder of the 8 pyramids.
9 breach at that point. 9 Q. What was the angle that you took that
10 Q. Right. And that one you concluded was 10 soil from?
11 loosely compacted or -- 11 A. Approximately 10, 20 degrees. Because
12 A. Loosely compacted. 12 the shoulder is curved.
13 Q. Highly erodable? 13 Q. Let me just jump a bunch of steps ahead
14 A. Highly erodable. It had some cohesive 14 here.
15 binder to it; hence, the surface that Mr. Ebersole 15 In the end, you did an analysis based on
16 observed in the photograph is correct. But it 16 sand and no grass, and you came up with some
17 proved to be highly erodable. 17 conclusions. And we talked about those
18 Q. And you also concluded noncohesive for 18 conclusions this morning, correct?
19 that material? 19 A. That's only one set of the analyses.
20 A. No, I wouldn't quite carry it that far. 20 Q. Okay. All right.
21 Q. Okay. 21 A. We did it with turf. We did it lower
22 A. What we mean by "noncohesive" is related 22 erodibility material. We studied a wide range of
23 to the index characteristics of the soil. That's 23 parameters. But there's not one size that fits
24 a function of the percentage of clay fraction 24 all here, at least in this team.
25 relative to the soils and the sand fraction in the 25 Q. Back to page 35 of that --
Page 449 Page 451
1 soil. 1 A. Same report.
2 So you can have a material that is 2 Q. -- Technical Report No. 2, sir. Still
3 behaving in a noncohesive manner that has a 3 on Geisenhainer.
4 cohesive binder in there, but there's not enough 4 What did you learn that was relevant to
5 cohesive binder in there for it to behave in a 5 your proof of validation for LS-DYNA from
6 cohesive way. 6 Geisenhainer?
7 You'll see this resurface in the 7 A. When we replicated the laboratory
8 debate/deliberations that Reed Mosher and I had 8 conditions in the LS-DYNA wave-breaching erosion
9 concerning behavior of soils in a drained and 9 analytical model, we got reasonable agreement
10 undrained manner. It's the same thing. 10 between the time to breaching from the model with
11 Q. How would you describe the cohesiveness 11 the laboratory experimental time.
12 or cohesive nature of the soil that you took as a 12 So the bias for the time to breaching is
13 sample at your test site? 13 approximately unity.
14 A. Very light. Very little cohesive 14 Q. What does unity mean?
15 binder. Less than 10 percent by weight in clay 15 A. One.
16 fraction. 16 Q. Okay. How do you know what was
17 The precise characteristics Jean-Louis 17 reasonable if you don't know what kind of soil
18 Briaud determined in his laboratory test. 18 they were using in the compaction level?
19 Q. Did it have enough cohesive binder for 19 A. That's where we had to both determine
20 the soil as a whole to demonstrate cohesiveness? 20 from their laboratory experiment how they had
21 A. Well, the fact that the slopes are 21 placed their material.
22 standing at the shoulder of that slope, standing 22 They specified no compaction. And if
23 at its inclination, tells you immediately that 23 they had compacted it, they would have specified
24 there is a cohesive binder that would allow it to 24 it.
25 stand at that inclination. 25 So then we deduced that they had used an
51 (Pages 448 to 451)
1/31/2009
Page 452 Page 454
1 uncompacted sort of place material and run the 1 Q. Okay. What did you learn from those
2 experiment. 2 about the materials used to construct the levee?
3 So we had to use, in this case, 3 Is that post-Katrina?
4 induction and deduction to arrive at that 4 A. Yes, sir. March 2006.
5 conclusion. 5 Q. I'm sorry.
6 Q. In Katrina, how did you either deduce or 6 Have you seen any of the pre-Katrina
7 induce that there were levees with compaction that 7 QC/QA documents?
8 breached and levels without compaction that 8 A. No, I have not.
9 breached? 9 Q. Okay.
10 A. For example, on the Citrus Back Levee 10 A. They've not been made available publicly
11 Reach 1, that had specified compaction. 11 or privately to me.
12 The levee on the funnel that turns into 12 Q. I got sidetracked. Five-minute break?
13 the GIWW from Reach 1 to Reach 2 was also -- had 13 A. Sure. Thank you.
14 specified mechanical compaction requirements. We 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is
15 determined it from the construction histories. 15 3:26 p.m., and we are off the record.
16 The EBSB, Reach 2, for example, 16 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
17 Bienvenue to Caernavron had no specified 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:40 p.m.
18 mechanical compaction. 18 We are back on the record.
19 Q. Have you reviewed the narrative 19 MR. STONE: Q. Let's go back to page
20 completion reports for any of the levee 20 35, sir, of that technical report that we've been
21 construction? 21 looking at.
22 A. Could you be more specific, please. 22 A. I'm there.
23 Q. The levees were built in lifts, correct? 23 Q. That page begins by talking about
24 A. Yes. And we recount the history. 24 Rijkswaterstaat and D'Eliso.
25 Q. Okay. And there are levee completion 25 How do you apply their work to prove
Page 453 Page 455
1 reports when those lifts are completed, so each 1 your use of LS-DYNA? I see here that you've got
2 lift has reports that are associated with the 2 hydrodynamics, and you're looking at D'Eliso's
3 lift, and they describe the materials that were 3 work there. Page 35.
4 put in place, correct? 4 A. Please repeat your question.
5 A. Would you -- I couldn't hear the end of 5 Q. Actually, I withdraw it because I'm kind
6 your question. 6 of backing up here, and I don't want to do that at
7 Q. I'm sorry. 7 this time of day.
8 A. You spoke so rapidly. 8 That was -- let's go to page 39,
9 Q. Do they -- do the levee completion 9 Table 10.
10 reports describe the materials that were used in 10 A. Table 10. Yes, sir.
11 the lift? 11 Q. What is that table telling us?
12 A. I don't know. 12 A. It's telling me the water elevation at
13 Q. Have you read those reports? 13 which the simulations are being performed.
14 A. No, I have not. 14 It tells me the wave height or the wave
15 Q. Okay. Have you received any of the 15 height parameters, if you will, that's being used
16 QA/QC documents for the levees and their 16 to determine the wave at the point of intersection
17 construction? 17 with the experimental earthen flood protection
18 A. I received the QA/QC documents on the 18 structure.
19 reconstruction of the Reach 2 EBSBs in March 2006. 19 The wave parameter is a similar
20 The information was provided by the New Orleans 20 corrective parameter to recognize the conditions
21 District, and Colonel Setliff handed me the 21 in front of that point of intersections. And
22 information. 22 overtopping velocity indicates there was no
23 We discussed it with John Jaeger and 23 overtopping for the experimental condition study.
24 other members of the Army Corps of Engineers that 24 Q. Okay. Again, this is a very low surge
25 accompanied me on that field trip. 25 elevation and a very short wave height. And so
52 (Pages 452 to 455)
1/31/2009
Page 456 Page 458
1 the attack on the front levee surface is going to 1 sound silly, but you'll know whether it is or not.
2 be for a long period of time in a narrow band, 2 Is there a difference between Dutch
3 correct? 3 grass and grass along the levees along the MRGO?
4 A. That's correct. The -- one thing that I 4 A. Oh, there can be. Very substantial.
5 would add, that you perhaps already have correct, 5 Q. How -- I mean, generally, there is a
6 all of this is for laboratory experimental 6 difference, isn't there?
7 conditions. So the wave heights and wave numbers 7 A. Yes.
8 all represent model scaling done for the 8 Q. What are the differences between those
9 laboratory work. 9 types of grass?
10 Q. And at some point in this, you're going 10 A. Well, first the type of grass is
11 to compare what the outcome is of these tests to 11 different, so bitter blue versus Bermuda grass
12 your outcome from LS-DYNA? 12 would be an example.
13 A. Exactly. 13 The next thing that is different is the
14 Q. Page 41, Figure 30. 14 substrate. Because the Dutch use grass as an
15 Does LS-DYNA appear in that chart in any 15 engineering armoring strategy for some of their
16 way? 16 dikes, they very, very carefully control the
17 A. Figure 30? 17 substrate.
18 Q. Figure 30, page 41. 18 The second thing that is important is
19 A. Yes. Those are all the time history 19 that they require and do diligent maintenance of
20 plots for the approximately 100 -- 110 seconds at 20 the grass.
21 various elevations being monitored on the flood 21 As you know, from mowing your lawn, as
22 side face of the experimental model, showing 22 you mow more frequently, you encourage density and
23 uprush and downrush velocities. 23 extent of root growth development.
24 Q. And these are the velocities that you 24 They also require fertilization,
25 talk about with LS-DYNA -- LS-DYNA establishes 25 chemical fertilization, to encourage the growth of
Page 457 Page 459
1 these velocities for you? 1 the root stem structure. So it's a highly
2 A. Yes, sir. 2 controlled grass soil structure.
3 Q. And are they in this drawing anywhere? 3 That explains why we had to be careful
4 A. That is what the time plot is. 4 in transferring from the Dutch laboratory
5 Q. That's your LS-DYNA program producing 5 experiments that had focused on those kinds of
6 this? 6 conditions to get an appropriate range of
7 A. That's correct. That's correct. 7 understanding for the Mississippi River Gulf
8 Q. Okay. Is that a monochromatic wave 8 Outlet Reach 2 conditions.
9 plot? 9 Q. Okay. I notice here on page 43 of your
10 A. No way. 10 report that it says, "Because the dike tested did
11 Q. Okay. So they did it with an irregular 11 not have a grass cover" --
12 wave? 12 A. Right.
13 A. No. No. 13 Q. -- "this aspect was neglected in this
14 Q. What is it? 14 modeling as well."
15 A. They used a regular wave, but the plot 15 A. Correct. We didn't put something in
16 is not monochromatic, as you can tell. It's not 16 there wasn't there.
17 regular. And that's due to uprush, followed by 17 Q. Okay. So this model that you're using
18 downrush. That history affects the next incoming 18 here to compare to your LS-DYNA work actually
19 wave. It's like a backwash or an undertow at the 19 gives you something that you concluded for your
20 beach. 20 LS-DYNA project that there's -- you're not looking
21 Q. But the regular wave that they used here 21 at a grass cover of any significance, and they're
22 is similar to your use of the monochromatic -- 22 not looking at a grass cover of any significance?
23 A. It's the same. Same wave. 23 A. Correct. We're trying to maintain an
24 Q. Before we move very much farther, I want 24 apples-and-apples comparison.
25 to ask you. Is there a difference -- this may 25 One of the things that your question
53 (Pages 456 to 459)
1/31/2009
Page 460 Page 462
1 draws out is, unfortunately, there's no field 1 Q. -- compared to D'Eliso?
2 prototype information that will permit extensive 2 A. Right.
3 validation of all parts of the analytical modeling 3 Q. And in there, you have underpredictions
4 that must be done; hence, we have to utilize the 4 as we talked about before.
5 available information to progressively test all 5 A. Correct. And if we underpredict
6 those important parts. 6 velocity, given everything else is correct, we
7 It would be much more desirable to just 7 would tend to underpredict wave-breaching Phase I
8 have one that allows you to do that. That's the 8 initiation.
9 reason for this search and continuing search for 9 Q. The next sentence on page 43, after the
10 appropriate ways to further validate the 10 31 minutes --
11 analytical modeling. 11 A. Starts with D'Eliso?
12 Q. Still on page 43, middle of the page, 12 Q. It starts with "however."
13 you say, "The breach time was determined to be 1.5 13 A. Okay.
14 hours, with a total lateral erosion of 3.8 feet." 14 Q. The next sentence.
15 Now, which model, LS-DYNA or D'Eliso, 15 A. Yes, sir.
16 came up with that 1.5-hour number? 16 Q. "However, this would be largely
17 If you look down below the table, it 17 influenced by the assumed erodibility
18 says, "D'Eliso reported that the dike breached 18 characteristics curve defined in this study
19 within 31 minutes, significantly faster than 19 compared with the actual erodibility
20 predicted by the wave-induced erosion method." 20 characteristics of the original test model, as
21 A. Now, repeat your question because I'm 21 reported in D'Eliso 2007."
22 getting -- 22 Do you see that sentence?
23 Q. The question is, where did the 1.5 hours 23 A. Yes.
24 come from? 24 Q. And what assumption of erodable
25 A. The 1.5 hours comes from the LS-DYNA 25 characteristics curve are you talking about, and
Page 461 Page 463
1 simulation of the experimental results reported by 1 what is the comparison to? Are you making
2 D'Eliso, performed by Geisenhainer and his 2 assumptions there?
3 coauthor. 3 A. Of course.
4 Q. Okay. And LS-DYNA reported that it 4 Q. Okay. And then you're saying that you'd
5 would be 1.5 hours to failure, and D'Eliso's 5 have to compare that to the actual that D'Eliso
6 laboratory tests showed 31 minutes. 6 relied on?
7 A. Correct. So we have a bias in this case 7 A. D'Eliso, as we previously discussed, did
8 of, let's say, 30 minutes to breaching. We would 8 not report the density compaction that was
9 predict 90 minutes to breaching. So it would be 9 utilized in the laboratory model experiments.
10 30 divided by 90, which would be one-third. 10 Therefore, we had to bracket plausible
11 Culled, the bias is .33. 11 density erosion characteristics based on their
12 We're underpredicting the erosive attack 12 stated method of placement and the type of soil
13 based on this experimental -- 13 used in the experimental model.
14 Q. Okay. Which is consistent with the 14 That information is contained on the
15 underpredictions of the peak waves in those tables 15 next page, Figure 22 -- 32. Pardon me. Shows a
16 that we looked at in your technical report, 16 range of erodibility characteristics that we used.
17 correct? 17 Q. Okay. So you had to do this range of
18 A. Not exactly. Because the peak waves are 18 erodibility characteristics and try your best to
19 not necessarily reflective of the cumulative 19 determine what you think is the appropriate
20 damage contributed by the less-than-peak waves. 20 modification?
21 Q. Okay. In either instance, though, you 21 A. Correct.
22 have an underprediction? 22 Q. And then --
23 A. Correct. 23 A. Bracket it.
24 Q. Here you have an underprediction -- 24 Q. Then you applied that to come up with
25 A. Correct. 25 a -- I'll say a fix --
54 (Pages 460 to 463)
1/31/2009
Page 464 Page 466
1 A. Yes. 1 Q. What do you mean by "pass the test" in
2 Q. -- to your LS-DYNA -- 2 that --
3 A. Sure. 3 A. We would end up with biases, as
4 Q. -- outcome to .5 hours? 4 previously defined, that would fall within a
5 A. To .5, correct. 5 reasonable range.
6 And that shows a sensitivity of the 6 If we end up with biases that fall out
7 result of that parameter. 7 of the reasonable range, it says either the test
8 Q. Whenever you use the term "wave-induced 8 is wrong or the model is wrong.
9 erosion method" in this, you're talking about your 9 Q. And what's the reasonable range for bias
10 LS-DYNA program, plus what comes after with the 10 when you're comparing these tests to your test?
11 erosion -- 11 A. If we talk about wave-side initiated
12 A. Cumulative damage steps, correct. 12 breaching, Phase I and Phase II, and focus on the
13 Q. All right. This section on page 45 is 13 erosion distance, the estimated coefficient
14 called "Comparisons with Validated Analytical 14 variation for that erosion distance is between 50
15 Methods." 15 and 100 percent.
16 A. Very important step. 16 That means if I predict an erosion
17 Q. The last sentence of that first 17 distance of 100 feet, plus or minus one standard
18 paragraph says, "For the Hurricane Katrina 18 deviation, it could be 150 or 50 feet.
19 scenarios, poor grass density on sandy substrate 19 Is that a clear answer to your question?
20 was assumed in these analyses." 20 Q. I think so, sir.
21 A. Correct. 21 I believe you said before that soil
22 Q. And what compaction level did you 22 compaction is very important in resistance of a
23 assume? 23 levee to front side wave attack.
24 A. Poor compaction. 24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. And we've discussed that enough to know 25 Q. Did Dr. Briaud's EFA analyze the
Page 465 Page 467
1 how you got to that, haven't we? 1 erodibility of compacted soils?
2 A. Correct. 2 A. Yes, he did.
3 Q. Okay. You cite here, Kriebel and Dean? 3 Q. Did he analyze uncompacted soils?
4 A. Correct. 4 A. Yes, he did.
5 Q. Stanczack? 5 Q. Do you agree that the difference in
6 A. Correct. 6 erodibility between compacted and uncompacted
7 Q. Allsop? 7 levee soils at Station 497 plus 00 is an order of
8 A. Correct. Allsop actually subsumes into 8 magnitude of five?
9 his work, because it's Allsop, et al., Stanczack's 9 A. I would have to check the order of
10 work and D'Eliso's work. 10 magnitude, but I would presume your calculations
11 Allsop treats both front side wave 11 are correct.
12 erosion, Phase I and Phase II, overflow, 12 And there is a substantial difference as
13 crenellation, exploitation, and also overtopping 13 you move across compaction and soil composition,
14 erosion by itself, given that there is no flood 14 and that difference is very large.
15 side wave erosion. 15 Q. Okay. And the resilience to erosion of
16 This has been used now by the Flood Safe 16 compacted soil at your test site is 100,000 times
17 consortium in Europe -- including Europe and 17 greater than uncompacted soils, correct?
18 Germany and the Netherlands. They have done 18 A. I cannot confirm that calculation until
19 validation tests, done reliability tests and have 19 I would perform it.
20 now performed flood risk analyses based on these 20 Q. But when you said "very great," you're
21 algorithms. 21 talking about numbers of that magnitude?
22 They are accepted by the European 22 A. I cannot confirm your order of magnitude
23 Community, and our feeling was if we could pass a 23 until I would perform such an analysis.
24 test using this established technology, it was yet 24 Q. Have you ever -- for this case, did you
25 another good step to help validate our analyses. 25 perform such a comparative analysis?
55 (Pages 464 to 467)
1/31/2009
Page 468 Page 470
1 A. Yes. It's reported in my July report. 1 A. Which bias?
2 We ranged across soil types and grass covers and 2 Q. The bias that you just spoke about.
3 so forth. 3 A. Well, the bias can assume a value
4 Q. But I'm looking for a comparison to give 4 between zero and infinity. It's a ratio of two
5 us an estimate of the magnitude empirically, such 5 numbers.
6 as this number that I just gave you, 100,000 times 6 Maybe I can help you this way. What we
7 greater. 7 have attempted to do is to unbias our analysis of
8 Do you have anything like that in your 8 the erosion distance equivalent to erosion time,
9 report? 9 associated with the unprotected side wave attack.
10 Let me ask the question again, make it 10 Now, what I mean by "unbiased," we
11 simple. It's late in the day, Saturday. 11 struggle with each parameter that you come through
12 The resilience to erosion of compacted 12 in this analysis to define a condition that would
13 soil at your Station 497 is 100,000 times greater 13 result in a bias of one, unity, which means our
14 than uncompacted soil? 14 expected true value, average expected, if you
15 A. What type? 15 will, divided by the nominal coming from the
16 Q. The soil that you're working with. 16 analysis is unity. That means they're equal.
17 A. Sand? 17 Now, because of variability associated
18 Q. Yes, sir. 18 with each one of the components in the analysis,
19 A. Okay. And? Continue. 19 you have to involve, in loose terms, call it
20 Q. That's the question. Is there something 20 integrate, although it's not a formal source of
21 in your reports where you have made this kind of a 21 integration, it's called convolution -- all of the
22 comparison and determined what the magnitude is? 22 uncertainties across the process to develop the
23 A. Yes. 23 resultant uncertainty in the analytical erosion
24 Q. Okay. What? 24 distance.
25 A. It's in the July 2008 reports. 25 I have provided you with an explicit
Page 469 Page 471
1 Q. Okay. 1 analysis of those uncertainties in this January
2 A. The comparison is timed to crest 2 report, and the range that I explained is 50 to
3 breaching, crenellation, and we studied that range 3 100 percent.
4 of soil conditions in combination with a range of 4 And the nature of the distribution is a
5 turf cover conditions. 5 Log normal distribution because the parameters are
6 Q. An Internet question for you. 6 multiplicative in nature. And due to the central
7 Dr. Bea said erosion coefficient of 7 limit theorem, that distribution tends to be Log
8 variation could be 50 to 100 percent. 8 normal.
9 A. Correct. 9 If it was additive, it would tend to be
10 Q. If the coefficient of variation of the 10 normally distributed. But in this case, we're
11 erosion distance can be as high as 100 percent, 11 multiplying a large number of random variables.
12 and the predicted difference is 100 feet, does 12 I gave to you both the plus and minus
13 that mean it could be zero to 200 feet? 13 one standard deviation values given a predicted
14 A. No. 14 distance of 100 feet. Others follows from simple
15 Q. What does it mean, then? 15 mathematics.
16 A. You'd have to prescribe the nature of 16 Q. Okay. Can you direct me to that in your
17 the distribution characterizing the bias. 17 technical report?
18 If it were extreme value one or Log 18 A. Yes. It will be in Part 1 -- or Part 2
19 normal, it would determine a differing lower bound 19 declaration. The discussion will start on page
20 than you have described. 20 33, and it's titled "Forensic Engineering
21 (Reporter interruption.) 21 Uncertainties: The End of Certainty."
22 THE WITNESS: Log normal. L-O-G, 22 I describe the different types of
23 N-O-R-M-A-L. Capital L. 23 uncertainties, how we have organized them,
24 MR. STONE: Q. What would the range be 24 described them and characterized them. That's in
25 if the bias were two, sir? 25 paragraph 51.
56 (Pages 468 to 471)
1/31/2009
Page 472 Page 474
1 Q. I'm sorry. 1 was assumed in these analyses."
2 A. Just fine. 2 A. Could you tell me what line or --
3 Q. I have Declaration No. 2 here. 3 Q. It's the last sentence of the first
4 A. We're in the January report. Just fine. 4 paragraph on page 45.
5 You have been so kind to me. 5 A. And it starts with?
6 Q. I'm okay here. I haven't looked at that 6 Q. "For the Hurricane Katrina."
7 yet, so that's why I don't know where it is. I 7 A. Two approaches were used ... oh. "For
8 believe. So let's hold that thought. 8 the Hurricane Katrina scenarios, poor grass
9 A. Done, buddy. 9 density on sandy substrate was assumed in these
10 Q. I think you've given us -- 10 analyses."
11 MR. BRUNO: The page numbers. 11 Q. What kind of grass did you assume there?
12 MR. STONE: Q. -- at least the page 12 A. Bermuda-type grass.
13 numbers. 13 Q. Was Bermuda grass used in any of the
14 A. Yeah, that's the section to go to. 14 other models that you're comparing your model to?
15 Q. Now, you've read Mr. Ebersole's report? 15 A. Yes.
16 A. Excellent piece of work. 16 Q. Which ones?
17 Q. You said earlier that -- 17 A. The test results reported in England had
18 A. Flawed, but excellent. 18 a grass that was similar in roots and stem
19 Q. You said earlier that you agree that the 19 structure to that of Bermuda grass. Bermuda grass
20 difference in erodibility between compacted and 20 testing on sandy substrate, to my knowledge, has
21 uncompacted -- 21 not been done at this time.
22 (Reporter interruption.) 22 Q. What kind of grass did they use in the
23 MR. STONE: I'm sorry. 23 English study, and how did you know -- how do you
24 Q. You said earlier that you agree that the 24 know that it's similar to the Bermuda grass?
25 difference in erodibility between compacted and 25 A. Because they had pictures of it and
Page 473 Page 475
1 uncompacted levee soils at Station 497 plus 00 is 1 described the root and stem structure. And
2 an order of magnitude of five, correct? 2 because I've lived in New Orleans for a long
3 A. I did not concur with that because I did 3 period of time, I could make the judgmental
4 not have the information that -- the EFSA test 4 correlation.
5 results refer to. But you can get it off a graph 5 Q. Page 47.
6 given a specified velocity. That amount will 6 A. Yes, sir.
7 depend on where you are in the velocity range. 7 Q. Figure 34.
8 Q. And that is a factor of 100,000? 8 A. Yes, sir.
9 A. Whatever -- no. I cannot confirm that 9 Q. You say, "These are photographs of wave
10 number because I don't have the results here in 10 side attack initiated breaching of clay and
11 front of me, but I'm certain you can determine 11 grass-covered dikes."
12 that accurately. 12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Okay. Page 45. 13 Q. What kind of loading occurred there, and
14 A. Of what document are we on? 14 was there overtopping?
15 Q. It's the Technical Report No. 2. 15 A. There was wave loading and there was
16 A. Can't be Technical Report 1. Got to be 16 overtopping.
17 January -- we're back on the validation technical 17 Q. Okay. For how long did this levee
18 report? 18 receive a front side attack?
19 Q. Yes, sir. This is comparisons. 19 A. I don't recall exactly, but because it's
20 A. Page number? 20 the north sea dike, the exposure to wave side
21 Q. Forty-five. 21 attack would be long. Several hours.
22 A. I'm there. 22 Q. So you can't conclude how long it took
23 Q. I think I've already asked you about 23 from these photographs --
24 that sentence, "For the Hurricane Katrina 24 A. No. You have to go back to the
25 scenarios, poor grass density on sandy substrate 25 references I cited.
57 (Pages 472 to 475)
1/31/2009
Page 476 Page 478
1 Q. Okay. 1 If we regard Kriebel and Dean as a true
2 A. Similarly, with Figure 35B, which is 2 value, the ratio would be 2.4 to 1.5.
3 where Stanczack and others calibrated their 3 Q. And then the bias for your wave-induced
4 analytical model with field prototype results, 4 erosion method and Stanczack would be 2.0 to 1.5?
5 those calculations contain the answer to the 5 A. Exactly. And that's summarized in Table
6 question that you have asked. 6 17.
7 Q. Page 52. Kriebel -- Kriebel and Dean, 7 Q. I've just been asked, how, based on
8 1993. 8 these three models, can we determine what the true
9 A. Yes, sir. 9 time to erosion is?
10 Q. Hold that thought. Let's go to page 55 10 A. You can't. And that's why I said you
11 instead. 11 have to premise that Kriebel and Dean are true to
12 A. Yes, sir. 12 get to this bias.
13 Q. Okay. The second sentence under 13 Remember, I said that bias is a true
14 Hurricane Katrina Scenario 1, "For an EBSB with 14 actual value to the computed one. Well, in this
15 poor grass density and sandy (high erodable) 15 case, we're comparing two analytical models. So
16 substrate, the estimated time to failure via the 16 if you'll give respect to the pedigree of the
17 wave-induced erosion method was determined to be 17 analytical models, replace them as a true value,
18 about one hour for erosion of the turf cover and 18 it would be ratios as shown in Table 17.
19 then another 30 minutes for breach of the sand 19 For Kriebel and Dean, it's 2.4 to 1.5,
20 core." 20 and for Stanczack and Allsop, treating the EBSB
21 A. Correct. 21 study location for Scenario 1, Hurricane Katrina
22 Q. And Table 16 is a summary of Scenario 1 22 as-was, it would be 2.0 to 1.5.
23 for 497 plus 00, but you show no overtopping 23 Q. Have either of the other two models,
24 because you do not put any overtopping parameters 24 either Kriebel and Dean or Stanczack, been
25 into your LS-DYNA testing, correct? 25 validated?
Page 477 Page 479
1 A. Incorrect. 1 A. Yes. One of the important things with
2 Q. Okay. Well, let me -- I know I'm going 2 Stanczack and Allsop has been validated
3 to -- they listed a long string here on that, but 3 extensively in the literature, which means it's
4 what I'm looking at here is Table 16, which is the 4 been peer reviewed and passed by the European
5 same table that we looked at this morning. 5 Community responsible for these flood protection
6 A. Correct. 6 structures. That's kind of important. Maybe.
7 Q. And the same statements that you made 7 But it's been validated with all of the
8 about that table this morning apply -- 8 available laboratory tests. It's been validated
9 A. Exactly. 9 with all of the available field experimental
10 Q. -- right? 10 results and testing, including overtopping and all
11 But here you find the Kriebel and Dean 11 of that.
12 formulation found at the time of breach would be 12 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
13 on the order of 2.4 hours? 13 believes to this day, and has published it, that
14 A. Correct. 14 there is no established technique for evaluating
15 Q. What's the bias there between your model 15 wave and overtopping attack on earthen flood
16 and Kriebel and Dean? 16 protection structures. That belief is another in
17 A. Well, the answer to that would be our 17 a long list of corporate organizational myths.
18 time to crest crenellation compared with Kriebel 18 Q. What is the error rate for Kriebel and
19 and Dean's time to crest crenellation, and it 19 Dean?
20 should be stated right here. 20 MR. STONE: Just go ahead and ask him
21 There is -- there is an answer. Our 21 the question.
22 LS-DYNA-based wave erosion analytical model time 22 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH
23 to crest crenellation breaching was 1.5 hours. 23 MR. SMITH: Q. What's the relationship
24 Kriebel and Dean's formulation was 2.4 24 between the results in the Kriebel and Dean's
25 hours. 25 analysis and empirically verified results?
58 (Pages 476 to 479)
1/31/2009
Page 480 Page 482
1 A. I don't recall. They have published the 1 Q. Given that uncertainty, can you say
2 data, and that error range could certainly be 2 with -- with what degree of certainty can you say
3 determined. It's been written about by Kriebel 3 that there would not have been greater breaching
4 and Dean and other investigators. 4 under Scenario 2C than you have reported your --
5 I don't recall the answer. But based on 5 in the report you provided to us today?
6 the work that I referred to earlier, I would 6 A. The results we had provided in our
7 conclude it would fall about in that same range of 7 reports to you today have been the expected best
8 50 to 100 percent. High uncertainty. 8 estimate values, meaning we have attempted to put
9 The same with Stanczack and D'Eliso and 9 them at that so-called average value, which, if
10 Allsop. 10 you were so reckless to presume a normal
11 Now, continuing, if you will let me, 11 distribution, would be the same as a mode, the
12 this uncertainty is a kind of uncertainty that an 12 median and the mean value.
13 engineer must deal with when the decision is made 13 So we've attempted -- everything we have
14 for a factor of safety. And it's many forms 14 reported has been the most likely result. That's
15 that's incorporated into an engineered system. 15 how probabilistic risk analyses people, forensic
16 With a larger uncertainty, it's logical that there 16 engineers refer to that. And we have to tell you
17 should be a larger factor of safety. 17 what the error bars are.
18 For fatigue analysis for ship 18 And that could be plus or minus 10
19 components, a factor of safety for the life cycle 19 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent, whatever you
20 fatigue damage would be the order of 10 to 15. 20 specify to us as what you would like us to tell
21 This is one of the reasons I get a 21 you are the potential errors associated with the
22 little upset when I hear about factors of safety 22 model. We've actually done the analysis.
23 for earthen flood protection structures that are 23 We can't find anywhere where the defense
24 1.3. And I'm not stalling airplanes. 24 experts have done such an analysis.
25 Q. When you -- when you model Scenario 2C, 25 Q. Can you tell us what the probability is,
Page 481 Page 483
1 did you calculate whether breaching would have 1 whether it's more likely than not that there would
2 occurred at a hundred percent variation from your 2 not have been, say, twice as much breaching as you
3 calculated value? 3 presented to us as the most likely breaching
4 A. That's how I obtain the range of 50 to 4 scenario, applying your erodibility analysis?
5 100. The base analyses provide conceptually an 5 A. The section that I was referring to in
6 equation to determine that resultant breaching 6 my January declaration does exactly that for you,
7 distance. 7 Mr. Smith.
8 It could be expressed as follows: A 8 Q. And what section is that? I'm sorry.
9 times B times C times D times E equals the 9 A. That was the section I referred to as
10 resultant breaching distance. We will call that 10 "The End of Certainty" and the declaration of this
11 L. 11 month.
12 Each one of those components, A through 12 Q. And that begins -- is that in this
13 whenever my last one it is, has a median mean 13 report we've been looking at, Tech Report No. 2 --
14 value -- let's call it mean for average -- and 14 A. No.
15 they have a coefficient of variation. 15 Q. -- or is that in a different report?
16 If I take each one of those components, 16 A. That's in the declaration, the body.
17 I can convolve them in the manner described them 17 Q. The January declaration?
18 in the appendix of Melchers' textbook that you 18 A. That's correct.
19 showed me this morning, using the first 19 Q. If there's a 50 to 100 percent
20 order-second moment techniques, to determine the 20 coefficient of variation in your time to erosion
21 resultant uncertainty bias associated with the 21 analysis --
22 analytical algorithm. 22 A. Right.
23 That is the calculation that I've 23 Q. -- would that explain why the Corps
24 performed to develop the results documented in my 24 continues to state that there's no reliability
25 January expert report declaration, Part 2. 25 method for this?
59 (Pages 480 to 483)
1/31/2009
Page 484 Page 486
1 A. Oh, no. If you said a coefficient of 1 distribution that's most likely expectation that's
2 variation is not reliable and that you couldn't 2 being used says, this is where my -- all of my
3 engineer a system with that coefficient of 3 information, my professional judgment, my
4 variation, you would have to come here in a 4 analytical modeling, this tells me where the most
5 Conestoga wagon. You couldn't fly. 5 likely value is.
6 Airplanes have to address that degree of 6 All of the others are less likely, less
7 variability when they fly. If you said, well, 100 7 probable to happen.
8 percent coefficient of variation is unacceptable, 8 But if you ever get an expert tells you
9 most of the pharmaceuticals that you deal with 9 that it can't happen, run. Because that's
10 could not, in fact, be passed by the FDA. 10 probably exactly when you're going to get it to
11 Those coefficients of variation fall 11 happen.
12 within ranges that have to be dealt with in the 12 Q. But we're not interested in knowing
13 configuration of modern engineered systems. 13 whether it can happen. We're interested in the
14 Q. At what point would you say that the 14 range of possibilities here.
15 method becomes unreliable? 200 percent? If 15 What you're saying is those
16 there's a 200 percent coefficient of variation in 16 possibilities overlap here.
17 the time to erosion analysis, would that be -- 17 A. No, I'm not.
18 (Reporter interruption.) 18 MR. BRUNO: No.
19 MR. SMITH: Q. If there were a 200 19 THE WITNESS: I'm saying the uncertainty
20 percent coefficient in the time to erosion 20 is associated with the analysis of the two
21 analysis, would you consider that to be a reliable 21 scenarios are comparable. And the results that we
22 method for calculating time to erosion? 22 have given you are the most probable ones we can
23 A. It could be. The coefficient of 23 identify.
24 variation associated with earthquake intensities 24 MR. SMITH: Q. But there are other
25 affecting this building -- and, in fact, they were 25 possible results based on your own method of
Page 485 Page 487
1 taken into account for the design of Embarcadero 1 analysis; true?
2 3 -- are approximately 200 percent. 2 A. Exactly. And they fall out in the tails
3 Do you feel safe in this building? You 3 of distribution.
4 should. 4 Q. Exactly. And those distributions
5 Q. I feel safe in this building. 5 overlap, don't they?
6 A. You should because it's had to confront 6 A. No. There's only one.
7 a coefficient of variation associated with a 7 Q. There's two distributions. There's a
8 principal demand on the building of more than, in 8 distribution for Scenario 2, and there's a
9 fact, 200 percent. That's not unreliable. 9 distribution for Scenario 1; is that correct?
10 It just says there's a large uncertainty 10 A. But they're on different pages of paper.
11 associated with the performance of the system. 11 They don't overlap.
12 The engineer's counter move to that uncertainty is 12 Q. The breach scenarios -- if you have
13 called "factors of safety resilience and 13 breaching under both scenarios within that range
14 robustness" in the system. That's how we deal 14 of values, that's what we're concerned about here,
15 with it. That's how your airplane got you here. 15 aren't we, Professor?
16 Q. But in this case, we're concerned about 16 If you have possible breaching under
17 the differences between Scenario 1 and Scenario 17 Scenario 2C --
18 2C, aren't we? 18 A. Right.
19 A. And they drag along with them the same 19 Q. -- within that range of distributions
20 degree of uncertainty. 20 that you've just described --
21 Q. So if that uncertainty between those two 21 A. Correct.
22 comparisons overlaps, then is there any reliable 22 Q. -- and you can't -- you cannot eliminate
23 conclusion that can be drawn that there's a 23 that, can you, through your method?
24 different result from those two scenarios? 24 A. No method can.
25 A. Why, certainly. Because the peak of the 25 Q. Exactly.
60 (Pages 484 to 487)
1/31/2009
Page 488 Page 490
1 A. Okay. Proceed. 1 at the location. The other says you don't.
2 Q. Can you tell the Court that it's -- that 2 Q. But that's only at your most probable
3 it's -- what's the range of possibility? Where 3 outcome, and that doesn't deal with other
4 does it become more likely than not that any value 4 possibilities that you can't exclude from your
5 within that range that you've described is not 5 model, can you?
6 what, in fact, occurred during Hurricane Katrina? 6 A. Well, I have, in fact, characterized
7 A. The most likely result is identified as 7 those for you. That's that 50 percent example
8 the mean or mode value for the distribution. 8 that he gave to you.
9 That's the central tendency center of gravity. 9 And where have you done comparably?
10 When we do an analysis for Scenario 2C, 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end of
11 we have a certain breaching characteristic. 11 Disk No. 3 in the deposition of Dr. Robert Bea.
12 When we do an analysis for Scenario -- 12 The time is 4:32 p.m., and we are off the record.
13 MR. BRUNO: One. 13 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
14 THE WITNESS: -- 1, we have an 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the
15 expectation, the most likely. 15 beginning of Disk No. 4 in the deposition of
16 And there's uncertainty associated with 16 Dr. Robert Bea, Volume II. The time is 4:46 p.m.
17 both of them, and they are comparable. Because 17 We are back on the record.
18 they're -- they're dealing with the expression I 18 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. STONE
19 was attempting to explain to you. They both have 19 MR. STONE: Q. Dr. Bea, kind of along
20 comparable uncertainties. So the resultant 20 the lines of what you and Mr. Smith were
21 uncertainty has got to be comparable as well. 21 discussing earlier, have you used the results of
22 And if you have done an adequate job of 22 the Dutch modeling any way in your analyses?
23 unbiasing all of your work, then the two central 23 A. Please better specify what you mean by
24 tendencies sit there. And what you attempt to 24 "The Dutch modeling."
25 make your judgment on is the central density 25 Q. The latest information that we have was
Page 489 Page 491
1 expectation from the analysis. 1 provided, I believe, in July of 2008, unless
2 If you want to deal with details, then 2 something's been provided in the last few weeks.
3 you're going to have to start dealing with factors 3 But they did models for Scenario 1, Scenario 2C,
4 of safety in the system. And that's why the use 4 Scenario 3.
5 of design techniques in a forensic engineering 5 Have you used in any of that material --
6 process is just totally inappropriate. 6 A. Yes.
7 MR. SMITH: Q. But we're not talking 7 Q. -- in your analyses here?
8 about designing something. We're talking about 8 A. Yes. The reason for my question was
9 the range of what happened during the storm and 9 there's a Dutch group involved in the hurricane
10 whether you can exclude certain possible 10 analytical condition characterization work. And,
11 scenarios. 11 as well, we've been working with people from the
12 Not just what was the most probable, but 12 Netherlands on a wave structure interaction, and
13 the range of possibilities. Because if it's 13 he asked for a request for clarification.
14 possible that there was breaching under Scenario 14 Q. And as a result of their models, they
15 2C, then you have the same flight you have under 15 provided maximum surge at different time --
16 Scenario 1; isn't that true, Professor? 16 A. Yes.
17 A. We have done exactly that in looking at 17 Q. -- periods --
18 the two possible realizations to characterize 18 A. Yes.
19 Hurricane Katrina. 19 Q. -- correct?
20 One was our best evaluation of Hurricane 20 A. Yes.
21 Katrina as-was. That tells us a certain result. 21 Q. When you looked at those surge numbers,
22 Then we did a same evaluation for Hurricane 22 let's say there was a surge number of 17.1 feet,
23 Katrina neutral. And same expectation, no shading 23 did you evaluate that number in any way? Did you
24 of results, no biasing, and we had another result. 24 vet it --
25 One said you breach from the wave side 25 A. Yes.
61 (Pages 488 to 491)
1/31/2009
Page 492 Page 494
1 Q. -- as 17.1 feet? 1 Let me give you an example.
2 Did you find there was a margin of error 2 A. No. That's very true.
3 in that 17.1 feet? 3 Q. Let's say at -- these numbers may be
4 A. The good way to put it is the -- when I 4 accurate, maybe not, but let's just do this as a
5 looked at the result, for example, the surge 5 hypothetical.
6 elevation, although they did not prescribe it, I 6 Let's say for Scenario 1, they have at
7 attached to that a variability around the 7 8:00 a.m., on August 29th, 17 feet for the surge.
8 specified result. 8 And let's say in Scenario 3 --
9 The premise is that they're giving me 9 A. Right.
10 this best expectation result. But as I move 10 Q. -- they have 17.6 feet at the same time.
11 forward through the analysis, I have to propagate 11 A. Correct.
12 and be aware of the uncertainties. 12 Q. Now, most people look at that and say,
13 Q. Okay. 13 it's not significant -- not a significant
14 A. So I added those myself. Now -- 14 difference as far as surge goes, and that's
15 Q. Go ahead. 15 probably why things have smoothed out in this case
16 A. -- the basis on which I added them is a 16 as far as surge goes, correct?
17 nonprofessional judgment, but is driven by the 17 A. Correct.
18 calibration work that's been done by the 18 Q. Well, how do we know that the 17.1 is
19 meteorology/oceanography community to validate 19 not more than 17.6 or 17.6 is not less than 17.1?
20 their models. 20 A. You don't. And that's the reason for
21 So they'll take actual measured surge 21 the structured formal uncertainty analysis.
22 conditions at a particular point, simulate it and 22 Q. Okay.
23 compare it to what they measured. They also 23 A. So here's where two kinds of
24 determine a bias. And from that collection of 24 uncertainties at this stage enter the evaluation.
25 work, you can then estimate the uncertainties. 25 One kind is natural variability. For
Page 493 Page 495
1 But that work has been chronicled in 1 example, along the Reach 2 earth structures, I
2 several books I have read, starting in 1990. 2 could take a sample here, and I could move 10 feet
3 Q. From what I remember from the numbers 3 away and take another sample, and it would be
4 that I see in the Dutch report, they start with 4 different. Won't be identical.
5 the outcome of -- I believe it's ST wave? 5 And as I continue that process, I'm
6 A. Yes. 6 gathering additional information to give me
7 Q. And that has like a .6 margin of error? 7 insight into the uncertainties in the soil
8 A. Yes. 8 strengths, and that's a natural uncertainty.
9 Q. And they cite that right up front in the 9 Same way with wave height. Given that
10 report, but they don't -- but then they apply 10 all the conditions are equal along a particular
11 variables to their numbers. I don't want to get 11 place, the wave heights won't be the same. So
12 too much into their activity. 12 that's a natural variability. We call it Type 1.
13 A. I think the .6 applies to the expected 13 If you want a fancy academic word, which
14 value for the maximum wave height or breaking wave 14 is the way I stay in business, it's called
15 height that can be sustained in a defined water 15 "aleatory," A-L-E-A-T-O-R-Y.
16 depth. 16 A second kind of uncertainty comes from
17 So that if I have a 10-foot water depth, 17 the analytical models. And it says, every
18 the maximum wave height for that condition would 18 analytical model that we utilize today brings with
19 be 6 feet. 19 it uncertainties. And those uncertainties we
20 Q. But I don't see -- 20 characterize with that term that I've used earlier
21 A. But there's an uncertainty around it. 21 today, "Bias," with a capital B, the ratio of the
22 Q. Okay. But I don't see in their reports 22 true best estimate value to the nominal one that's
23 where they give an uncertainty factor, a margin of 23 coming from your analytical model.
24 error, whatever you want to call it, for the 24 Here the struggle is to ensure that the
25 actual numbers they give for their surges. 25 experimental result is representative of the
62 (Pages 492 to 495)
1/31/2009
Page 496 Page 498
1 conditions that you're concerned with. So you 1 to the outcome of your LS-DYNA models?
2 can't measure 5-foot-high waves when you're 2 A. Yes.
3 concerned with 55-foot-high waves. 3 Q. You have an outcome from it, and you
4 So you have to be careful in what you 4 have a confidence level in that outcome, but it
5 regard as truth because truth is elusive. 5 can be plus or minus?
6 The analytical model is attempting to 6 A. Yes.
7 replicate that, but it can't do it all the time. 7 Q. Okay. And it's -- and the way you deal
8 So the bias can be one. That's very fortunate. 8 with margin of error there is by determining bias?
9 Sometimes, in fact, it can be made to do that. 9 A. Partially. Because I said there were
10 And then at other times, it will be bigger than 10 two kinds of uncertainties that we were
11 one or less than one. That uncertainty is the 11 propagating. So if we can return to the A times B
12 Type 2 uncertainty. 12 times C, so I can remember three, equals the
13 Now, when I've done our uncertainty 13 result, I've actually got two uncertainties that
14 analyses, I've convolved, integrated -- loose 14 are applying to A and B and C.
15 term -- those uncertainties. And when I use that 15 One is a natural variability, and the
16 value I gave in the discussion with Robin Smith of 16 other is the variability contributed by the
17 50 to 100 percent, that's a resultant total 17 models.
18 uncertainty for predicted erosion distance or 18 The textbook by Rob Melchers that you
19 time. 19 showed me this morning has got an excellent
20 Q. Thank you. 20 treatise on how you handle this convolution of
21 Let's go back for a second to those 21 uncertainties.
22 numbers that I was talking about, the 17 feet plus 22 Q. Okay. Mr. Baeza just pulled up here
23 or 17.6 -- 23 the -- I think the Dutch report, and there they
24 A. Right. 24 use the root mean square to determine the
25 Q. -- on one scenario as opposed to the 25 confidence level in their numbers, I guess.
Page 497 Page 499
1 other scenario. 1 Is that the way you would term it?
2 A. Right. 2 A. No, I would not.
3 Q. When you looked at the Dutch numbers -- 3 Q. The difference between Adcirc and
4 and I don't want to play you off against the 4 Finnel, the difference in order of .6 feet and
5 Dutch. I want to know something here that -- 5 difference in peak water level is less than 1
6 A. Sure. Glad to help. 6 foot, those numbers seem to be reasonably
7 Q. The question is, those numbers that they 7 accurate, in your opinion, right?
8 provided to you, that you looked at and 8 A. The difficulty in answering your
9 potentially used, did you determine that they had 9 question is associated what really was there.
10 like a 6-inch or a foot margin of error that -- 10 We didn't have a measurement. So when
11 A. Yes. 11 you -- in that bias that we were discussing, when
12 Q. -- that you used? 12 you say, this is the truth and here's my nominal,
13 Okay. 13 you have to presume what that truth is.
14 A. And I had to use the technique that I 14 Now, the oceanographers that they --
15 referred to you earlier, which is analogous work 15 represented by the Delft team, the oceanographers
16 done in the ocean offshore coastal industries that 16 represented by -- I'll call it the Notre Dame,
17 would say, well, for something of this type, the 17 Westerlink, et al. team, Dr. Resio, they have to
18 plus/minus one standard deviation results, or 18 grapple with the same thing.
19 express it as a coefficient of variation, would be 19 Now, the way they attempt to grapple
20 of the order of 20 to 30 percent. 20 with it is to unbias as best they can the
21 That would mean that this value, let's 21 principal characteristics that are coming from the
22 say we computed, of ten, at a one -- standard plus 22 analytical models.
23 one standard deviation could be 13 or it could be 23 So that, for example, Bruce Ebersole
24 seven. 24 says, well, we observed flotsam and jetsam to a
25 Q. Okay. So the same applies, essentially, 25 certain elevation. We think that can be
63 (Pages 496 to 499)
1/31/2009
Page 500 Page 502
1 representative of the surge. 1 A. Yes.
2 And then he has to make a bias 2 Q. -- and you get down to a point where
3 correction to the prediction by Westerlink to get 3 you're discussing wave-induced erosion method.
4 that observed result. 4 Calculated time to breach is 1.5 hours over .5
5 Now, the tenuous step is there is you 5 hours. And then Kriebel and Dean is 12.3 hours
6 think that that is the truth, but we know to try 6 and Stanczack is point 4 hours. And then reported
7 this, and -- et cetera, their positions don't 7 laboratory breach time is .5 hours.
8 necessarily represent the position of the surge 8 A. Correct.
9 because the waves are -- we'll call it interacting 9 Q. This is more along the lines of all of
10 and affecting that view of the truth. 10 those uncertainties that come into these
11 Both teams struggle with it. 11 laboratory versus --
12 Q. The same is true as for the LS-DYNA 12 A. Prototype.
13 model, the Kriebel Dean and the Stanczack? 13 Q. Or mechanical model?
14 A. Exactly. 14 A. Exactly.
15 Q. And Allsop? 15 Q. Okay. So here this 12.3 hours that
16 A. Exactly. 16 Kriebel and Dean calculate, that far exceeds what
17 Q. When did the Dutch do root mean square 17 your LS-DYNA model --
18 comparison between Adcirc and Finnel? 18 A. That's correct.
19 A. I'd have to speculate to answer that 19 Q. -- predicts?
20 question as best, the -- given to the 20 A. And there's a reason for that.
21 investigators that actually formed the analyses. 21 Q. Okay. What is that reason?
22 I'm not being evasive. I just don't know. 22 A. Well, the Kriebel and Dean model was
23 Q. Do you use root mean square? 23 originally developed for sandy beach dune
24 A. No. I use the method I described to 24 conditions. They observed a wide range in these
25 you. 25 conditions at the various breaches on the Gulf and
Page 501 Page 503
1 Q. Let's go to page 56 of your Technical 1 East Coast of the United States, and then
2 Report No. 2. We're coming to the end of that 2 developed an empirical observation model that
3 one. 3 would allow you to evaluate how the beachfront
4 A. Page 56. I'm with you. 4 would change as a function of the history of a
5 Q. All right. At the very bottom of the 5 storm.
6 page, you state, "It should be noted that Kriebel 6 Now, a beach might seem to be an
7 and Dean do not directly account for -- 7 uncompacted sand fill, and it can be, depending on
8 A. Yes, sir. Keep going. 8 the beach. But the thing that compacts it are the
9 Q. -- "density differences in EBSB 9 waves, so that the wave actions act much like a
10 composition" -- 10 sheep foot roller does in compacting a road fill,
11 A. Correct. 11 and the material can be very, very dense.
12 Q. -- "which impacts the rate of 12 Alternatively, if that action has not
13 erosion" -- 13 been active on the beach front, it can be a pile
14 A. Correct. 14 of sugar-like material.
15 Q. -- correct? 15 So the variability that shows up in
16 I'm going to take a second here because 16 their model is chiefly tied up in those --
17 I'm trying to avoid repetition in this. I think 17 variability of those beach conditions. But,
18 we've already talked about this one group, but it 18 unfortunately, the uncertainty associated with the
19 appears to be in here again. 19 incoming wave and -- I'll call it rising water
20 Well, I'll just do that. 20 level conditions also are uncertain because those
21 The -- page 60. 21 are not directly measured.
22 A. Sixty. Yes, sir. 22 So high variability. But high
23 Q. From the bottom of page 60, through to 23 variability doesn't translate necessarily to lack
24 just before conclusions on 61, where you're 24 of reliability unless you don't accommodate that
25 talking about Geisenhainer and Kortenhaus -- 25 high uncertainty.
64 (Pages 500 to 503)
1/31/2009
Page 504 Page 506
1 Q. I talked to Mr. Bruno earlier, and 1 A. No, that's not a correct conclusion.
2 Mr. Baeza has been collecting some questions here 2 Q. And why is that?
3 from our Internet folks. 3 A. Well, because engineers -- engineers,
4 A. You mean the people that have been so 4 particularly, have to deal with such large
5 patient and quiet? 5 uncertainty bounds -- I use the uncertainty
6 MR. STONE: He has a couple questions 6 associated with the loadings induced on this
7 other than that. I'd like for him to be able to 7 building that we are presently in.
8 talk to you, and I'll find what else is in here I 8 Those uncertainties exceed 200 percent
9 need to ask you about. 9 expressed as a coefficient of variation. But yet
10 EXAMINATION BY MR. BAEZA 10 publicly and legally, this is, quote, a safe
11 MR. BAEZA: Q. Thank you. 11 building.
12 Dr. Bea, I understand I'm the third 12 So unless you do something incorrect in
13 person to question you. 13 the engineering process that underlies or is
14 A. Dan, it will be a pleasure. 14 downstream of the understanding of uncertainty,
15 Q. Just bear with me. I think the 15 you can accommodate it.
16 videographer and the court reporter have some 16 Q. Are the principles, then, for building
17 questions too after I'm done. 17 design the same or reasonably similar to the
18 Are you familiar with the term "first 18 principles in the design of --
19 order-second moment techniques"? 19 (Reporter interruption.)
20 A. Yes. 20 MR. BAEZA: Q. -- design of flood
21 Q. What do you understand that term to 21 control structures and coastal environment, was
22 mean? 22 that --
23 A. It's a -- a good approximation that is 23 (Simultaneous colloquy.)
24 developed based on two elements in the uncertainty 24 (Reporter interruption.)
25 characterization: The expected value and the 25 MR. BAEZA: Where did you leave off?
Page 505 Page 507
1 uncertainty, commonly expressed as standard 1 (Record read by the reporter as follows:
2 deviation, or a coefficient of variation. 2 ANSWER: So unless you do something
3 The first order-second moment techniques 3 incorrect in the engineering process that
4 only utilize those first two. And then the 4 underlies or is downstream of the
5 analyst must handle, as a third element, the 5 understanding of uncertainty, you can
6 characteristics of the statistical distributions 6 accommodate it.
7 that underlie those two moments. Hence, the term 7 QUESTION: Are the principles, then,
8 "first order-second moment technique." 8 for building design the same or reasonably
9 And it's described extremely well in the 9 similar to the principles --)
10 appendix of Rob Melchers' textbook that you 10 MR. BAEZA: Q. Okay.
11 brought here earlier today. 11 -- in the design of flood control
12 Q. Would the comparison between Scenario 1 12 projects in a coastal environment?
13 and Scenario 2C be a first order-second moment 13 A. Yes.
14 technique? 14 Q. And why is that?
15 A. Yes. 15 A. Because the principles are the same.
16 Q. And why is that? 16 Q. And are there any Corps guidelines --
17 A. That's the method that I used to analyze 17 withdraw that.
18 the uncertainties, as I previously discussed and 18 Has the geotechnical engineering
19 illustrated with the coefficient of variation of 19 profession in the United States, as a whole,
20 the resultant answer of 50 to 100 percent. 20 embraced reliability analysis in embankment design
21 Q. Would it be fair to say, sir, that any 21 and foundation design?
22 resulting uncertainty in the bias from the first 22 A. The geotechnical profession in the
23 order-second moment technique is large, so large 23 United States has not, as a whole, embraced
24 that one cannot make predictions with any 24 anything.
25 reasonable confidence? 25 Q. So would it be fair to say, then, that
65 (Pages 504 to 507)
1/31/2009
Page 508 Page 510
1 the Corps of Engineers has also not embraced 1 and repeated in the expert report of January of
2 reliability analysis in embankment design and 2 2009.
3 foundation design? 3 Q. Is it fair to say that there were no
4 A. No, that's not true. 4 lifts between 1999 and Hurricane Katrina along
5 Q. And why is that not true? 5 Reach 2 of the MRGO?
6 A. Well, for example, the fine work done by 6 A. I don't recall the correct answer, but
7 Professor Wolff that's chronicled in one of your 7 my memory says that is correct.
8 engineering manuals dated approximately 1999 very 8 Q. Okay.
9 well characterizes such an approach. 9 A. Mr. Baeza?
10 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' fine 10 Q. Yes, sir?
11 work on dam safety has richly embraced this and 11 A. Can I return to the question you asked
12 has utilized it. The IPET study, Volume 8, 12 me concerning reliability-based methods for
13 dealing with flood risk analysis for the greater 13 coastal offshore and ocean engineering structures?
14 New Orleans area, employed this same technology to 14 Q. Absolutely.
15 evaluate flood -- flooding probabilities for the 15 A. I'd like to quote to you a section, and
16 Greater New Orleans area. 16 I have a copy of the section of the document that
17 The industry -- commercial, industrial, 17 I will quote for you.
18 private -- is replete with many examples of 18 The document is titled "Certification of
19 reliability-based design. The technology has been 19 Levee Systems for the National Flood Insurance
20 under intensive development since the early 1950s, 20 Program," NFIP, issued by the Department of the
21 primarily fostered by the nuclear power industry, 21 Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington,
22 followed later by the commercial aviation 22 D.C., Circular No. EC1110-2-6067 dated 30
23 industry, followed even later by the space 23 September 2008.
24 industry. 24 The section I would refer you to is in
25 At the time that the nuclear power 25 the Appendix D5 to that report.
Page 509 Page 511
1 industry was initiating their work, the coastal 1 Q. Okay.
2 offshore ocean industry initiated their work. We 2 A. It says, I quote, "This" -- meaning
3 have proceeded parallel. And, in fact, the 3 reliability-based design -- "is a general
4 coastal offshore industry that I work are at this 4 direction in which risk assessment is heading for
5 time technologically more sophisticated and 5 the coastal estuarine lake environment. This same
6 advanced than nuclear power. 6 approach has applicability to nonhurricane events.
7 Q. Okay. You mentioned Dr. Wolff's 7 Other methods for computing still water levels and
8 publication in 1999. 8 waves associated with exo-tropical storm events
9 Were there any -- withdraw that. 9 could be used in place of Steps A and B above in
10 Were there any reliability-based 10 the JPM-OS approach."
11 guidelines for the Corps of Engineers during the 11 That references deterministic -- a
12 design and construction of the LPVHPP? 12 convolution of the uncertainties associated. The
13 A. Would you repeat your question. 13 point that I think this makes is, why does this
14 Q. Yes. Were there any reliability-based 14 part of the coastal offshore engineering
15 analyses that were in place for the design and 15 committee, why is it just heading there in 2009,
16 construction of the LPVHPP? 16 when the coastal offshore engineering profession
17 A. For use by the Corps of Engineers? 17 was heading there in 1960?
18 Q. Yes. 18 This refers to a question, Mr. Stone,
19 A. No. 19 that you asked me yesterday about the
20 Q. And are you aware of any -- are you 20 dissimilarity between the offshore coastal ocean
21 aware of any lifts for the manmade flood control 21 engineering community and what is perceived as the
22 structures along Reach 2 of the MRGO between 1999 22 coastal engineering community typified by the U.S.
23 and Hurricane Katrina on August 29th, 2005? 23 Army Corps of Engineers.
24 A. The history of the lifts in that section 24 Q. All right. Well, thank you.
25 are chronicled in our expert reports of July 2008 25 Dr. Bea, are you familiar with the term
66 (Pages 508 to 511)
1/31/2009
Page 512 Page 514
1 "calibration"? 1 Q. Are you aware of whether this
2 A. Yes. 2 calibration process was performed for modeling the
3 Q. What do you understand that term to 3 surge during Hurricane Katrina?
4 mean? 4 A. Yes. It was done. In fact, you can see
5 A. It means I have a result, an answer, and 5 it in the background used by Dr. Professor
6 I make a prediction, and I can calibrate my 6 Westerlink. Or Dr. Resio has certainly
7 prediction to give me the answer. 7 participated in the evolution/development of that
8 Q. And in order to perform calibration, 8 technology.
9 would you have to do an empirical analysis of 9 And, similarly, the previously mentioned
10 field observations? 10 Dutch team dealing with storm characteristics have
11 A. That would be a part of it, certainly. 11 moved through the same technology evolution,
12 Q. Would you also do laboratory 12 comparing field measurements or -- in many places
13 observations? 13 and conditions versus the analytical results from
14 A. Certainly. 14 these complex models.
15 Q. So for the erosion of a levee, would you 15 Q. And so it would be the same process for
16 observe the erosion of a levee in a field 16 modeling the waves as well?
17 observation? 17 A. Yes.
18 A. Yes. 18 Q. And for the flooding as well?
19 Q. And you would expose the levee to 19 A. Yes.
20 certain hydrodynamic forces, and you would 20 Q. Okay. And also for erosion?
21 calculate the rates of erosion, for instance? 21 A. Yes.
22 A. Let me reform your question. 22 Q. And how would you calibrate erosion of
23 Q. Okay. Because I didn't understand it as 23 soils if the levee that you are trying to
24 well. So if you can teach me, that will be 24 numerically model has been washed away?
25 helpful. 25 And if you don't understand my question
Page 513 Page 515
1 A. If I do it inappropriately, please 1 I can try to clarify it.
2 correct me. 2 A. I think I did.
3 My understanding is that the scenario 3 That's the process that we had to move
4 you are constructing is that I have an actual 4 through to develop the analyses of the EBSB study
5 earthen structure subjected to hurricane surge 5 location at Station 497 plus 00. That is exactly
6 wave and current conditions. And I can observe 6 what had to be done, because we had some
7 the performance of that actual structure. 7 before-storm, before-hurricane observational
8 Then I can develop an analytical model, 8 information, including some soil borings and soil
9 put parameters in the analytical model which 9 characterizations, had some understanding of grass
10 attempt to simulate that prototype field 10 cover and so forth.
11 performance condition, characteristics and 11 We had post-storm information as well.
12 outcomes. 12 That had to be assembled to develop a picture of
13 The question is, do I correctly produce 13 how it could happen.
14 the outcome or do I incorrectly produce the 14 That's forensic engineering.
15 outcome, and that it is focused on the term I call 15 Q. In your forensic engineering, did you
16 "Bias." 16 perform an analysis of a Reach 2 levee section
17 Because the first thing, given that 17 that did not breach?
18 everything has been correctly done, represents, 18 A. Yes.
19 quote, the truth. 19 Q. And where did you perform that analysis?
20 The second thing represents the nominal 20 A. North -- just north of Bayou Bienvenue.
21 predicted value. If the ratio of those two things 21 The details of the results are in two places
22 is unity, the bias is one. I'm home. If it 22 explained in our July 2008 expert report.
23 isn't, I'm not home. 23 Q. Is it your opinion that the levees north
24 Now, at this point, I could introduce a 24 of Bayou Bienvenue were made with less erodable --
25 correction factor to give me the observed result. 25 A. Yes.
67 (Pages 512 to 515)
1/31/2009
Page 516 Page 518
1 Q. -- materials than the ones -- 1 that we called Sites A to -- and I can't remember
2 A. Yes. 2 how far down the alphabet seven went to. Several
3 Q. -- on Reach 2 of the MRGO? 3 of those locations did not breach.
4 A. Yes. 4 Q. And that's in your January 29th
5 Q. And it is also your opinion that the 5 declaration?
6 levees to the north of Bayou Bienvenue were more 6 A. January 2009 expert report, yes.
7 compacted than the levees along Reach 2 of the 7 Q. And there are -- there are LS-DYNA
8 MRGO? 8 numerical calculations described in that
9 A. Certainly. 9 declaration?
10 Q. Then how are you able to perform a 10 A. Yes.
11 comparative analysis of the levees along Reach 1 11 Q. And does it -- do you also include
12 of the MRGO with the Reach 2 of MRGO? 12 LS-DYNA modeling of the -- withdraw that.
13 A. Well, if I can predict one extreme, well 13 Do you also include an LS-DYNA model of
14 compacted, et cetera, as you've outlined, do a 14 a levee that overtopped?
15 prediction that makes sense for another location, 15 A. Yes.
16 I have started the validation of the model. 16 Q. And did this levee breach due to
17 Now, in addition, we've extended the 17 overtopping?
18 study into what we call the Phase II. We've now 18 A. Yes. And we discovered something very
19 done seven locations, down the Reach 2 EBSBs, 19 important, that even if the soils were, quote,
20 south of Bayou Bienvenue, to the turn at 20 compacted, cohesive, it still would breach.
21 Caernavron, testing the veracity of the analytical 21 Q. And what was the critical --
22 model. 22 And what was the critical -- or what
23 That work is documented in the January 23 were the conditions that would cause levee breach?
24 expert report. 24 A. Hurricane Katrina as-was Scenario 1
25 Q. Would you describe the process that 25 conditions were used for that location and the
Page 517 Page 519
1 you're using in this Phase II analysis? 1 conditions were as prescribed/described by the
2 A. It is -- if you want me to read it, I 2 cited Dutch team.
3 can't. But it's articulated in the document. 3 Q. What was the levee height at this
4 It's written down in the documents I just cited. 4 location?
5 Q. And do you make comparisons to empirical 5 A. I do not recall, but it is clearly
6 results? 6 spelled out and profiled in the aforementioned
7 A. We make comparisons to the observed 7 expert report.
8 results at those locations as we move down the 8 Q. And do you recall the storm surge
9 Reach 2 EBSB space. 9 elevation?
10 The locations had to be chosen based on 10 A. Between 17 and 18 feet.
11 whether they breached or didn't breach because we 11 Q. Do you recall the wave elevation -- or
12 wanted to do that complete sample. We had to have 12 the significant wave height? Excuse me.
13 soil conditions at the locations. We had to have 13 A. No, I don't.
14 pre-Katrina profile characteristics. We had to 14 Q. Do you recall the back side velocities
15 have understanding of the vegetation outboard and 15 on this levee?
16 on the EBSBs. It was a very trying effort. 16 A. No, I don't. But those are also
17 Q. You haven't modeled any of these other 17 documented. They were of the same order of
18 conditions in LS-DYNA, have you? 18 magnitude as determined by IPET in their analyses
19 A. Please define "these other conditions." 19 of back side-induced erosion.
20 Q. For instance, a levee that doesn't 20 We checked in with the velocities that
21 breach. 21 had been provided through the IPET study for the
22 A. Yes, we have. 22 Coulwave overtopping conditions. The velocities
23 Q. And where is that in your report? 23 were comparable.
24 A. As I explained to you, north of Bayou 24 Q. Let's go back to the materials.
25 Bienvenue, we have a section along the stretch 25 How would you classify these levee
68 (Pages 516 to 519)
1/31/2009
Page 520 Page 522
1 materials that eroded due to overtopping? 1 squeezing.
2 A. They could be very good to very bad. 2 A compensation that had to be used to
3 That's an important point of what we discovered, 3 avoid having to mobilize a significant amount of
4 that even though -- if they were very good, given 4 equipment into the field was to employ a sheet
5 the sustained overtopping conditions at the 5 pile repair to get the required or necessary,
6 studied locations we had, it would breach back to 6 desired elevation to this section of the EBSB.
7 front. 7 Its performance is connected with the
8 Q. Well, let's start with the top of the 8 proximity of the MRGO channel to the location.
9 levee. 9 Q. Let's turn now to page 97. And this is
10 What kind of soil conditions were there? 10 also -- do you see it?
11 A. I don't recall, but soil boring 11 A. Yes.
12 information is provided in the referenced 12 Q. And this is also one of the locations
13 documentation. We used whatever the soil boring 13 that breached due to overtopping?
14 told us was there. 14 A. Surge overtopping initiated breaching,
15 Q. Dr. Bea, do you have a copy of your 15 protected side to flood side, so this is what you
16 declaration from January 29, 2009, with you? 16 call back side-to-front side breaching.
17 A. Yes, I do. 17 Q. Okay. And the height of the levee at
18 Q. Can you first turn to page 96. 18 this location was approximately 17 feet?
19 A. Of the declaration? 19 A. 18. That's the red line, 2000 LIDAR
20 Q. Yes, sir. And I will be referring to 20 survey-based elevation referenced to NAVD 88.
21 Figure 30. 21 Q. Is it your opinion, sir, that during
22 A. So that's Part 2, declaration. Page? 22 Scenario 2C that the sheet pile-repaired areas of
23 Q. Ninety-six. 23 the levees would have been subjected to
24 A. Coming up. 24 overtopping and would be expected to breach in the
25 We did six locations. And we're on page 25 same areas as developed during Hurricane Katrina
Page 521 Page 523
1 94, 95. 1 due to the sheet piling interlock failures that
2 Yes, sir. I'm on 96. We're looking at 2 precipitated these breaches?
3 Location C, sheet pile overtopping, erosion and 3 A. I believe so. Due to the late hour of
4 breaching. 4 the day, I don't recall precisely. But the logic
5 Q. And is this location the location you 5 of the breaching of the sheet pile was they
6 just referred to that was composed of good 6 actually breached on the outflow because they were
7 materials that breached due to overtopping? 7 bent outwards.
8 A. That information is provided in the 8 So if I had the same outflow from the
9 details of the analysis associated with Location 9 overtopping performance of the system, I would
10 C. The soil borings are all compiled in one of 10 expect the performance of the sheet pile to be the
11 the appendices to this declaration. I can look up 11 same, given that the defect at the interlock at
12 the soil boring if that would be helpful. 12 that particular system was present in both
13 Q. Let's move on. 13 scenarios.
14 A. The conditions we observed at the 14 Q. Okay. I want to turn now to the Dutch
15 location when we had pictures that was, at least 15 interior flood modeling report.
16 on the surface, a very sandy, silty material. 16 Do you have a copy of that with you?
17 Photographs at the breaches and edges and at the 17 A. No, I don't.
18 bottom clearly indicated that. 18 Q. Actually, I'll just ask you.
19 The other thing that was important about 19 A. Okay.
20 this location was it was very characteristic of 20 Q. There is a chart in the Delft flood
21 the locations that had suffered what we were 21 modeling that says, "Overview of the failure modes
22 discussing yesterday as squeezing; that is, a 22 during Scenario 2C in the GIWW, MORG and IHNC by
23 channel of the MRGO had encroached to the point 23 RBG and RGB and P. Kemp."
24 where the overburdened stresses were causing 24 A. So that's a summary.
25 excessive settlement contribution from the 25 Q. And it appears on page 39 of the Dutch
69 (Pages 520 to 523)

1/31/2009
Page 524 Page 526
1 flood modeling report, Bates number XJV002215. 1 MR. BAEZA: Q. Okay.
2 A. I recall the tape. 2 A. So I got the table.
3 Q. I thought you were going to say you 3 Q. All right. You say, "Where surge
4 recall the Bates number. 4 elevation exceeds crest elevation for more than
5 A. No. 5 one hour, good grass cover, breaching can
6 Q. Which would have scared me. 6 develop."
7 The location, MRGO Reach 2, under the 7 A. We're not -- we're not on the table you
8 primary failure modes for Scenario 2C, it says, 8 were -- referred to?
9 "No breaching. Good turf/ground cover 9 Q. Are you looking at the Dutch table or
10 conditions." 10 now the one from your declaration, the original
11 A. Correct. 11 table?
12 Q. What do you mean by "good turf/ground 12 A. I'm looking at the declaration original
13 cover conditions"? 13 table.
14 A. Dense root-structured turf, clay 14 MR. BRUNO: They're the same.
15 substrata. 15 MR. BAEZA: Q. Right. This is from
16 Q. So is it your opinion, then, that there 16 your third declaration, July 11th?
17 would have been no breaching only where grass 17 A. And the --
18 covering and materials were good? 18 Q. Yeah. I'm reading from the MRGO Reach 2
19 A. It's as expressed in that summary table. 19 line.
20 That summary has not changed. 20 A. MRGO Reach 2. Okay. Reach 2 EBSBs.
21 Q. What locations would have breached then 21 Continue. Ah, far right-hand column.
22 during Scenario 2C along Reach 2 of the MRGO? 22 And that's primary failure modes
23 A. They're described and summarized in the 23 associated with Scenario 2C. It reads, "No
24 table. 24 breaching, good turf/ground cover conditions.
25 MR. BRUNO: It's in here somewhere. I 25 Where surge elevation exceeds crest elevation for
Page 525 Page 527
1 don't know where. 1 more than one hour, good grass cover, breaching
2 THE WITNESS: I brought it. 2 can develop. Breaching at sea pile repaired.
3 MR. BRUNO: Let's just move on. I don't 3 Interlock failure locations."
4 know what we're doing here. 4 Q. So it's your opinion, sir, that for
5 MR. BAEZA: Q. Can we turn now to -- 5 levees that had good grass covering, they would
6 A. Do you want me to continue the search or 6 have breached under Scenario 2C if the surge
7 not? 7 elevation exceeded their crest elevation for more
8 Q. No, it's okay. I found the section I 8 than one hour?
9 was looking for. 9 A. That's correct.
10 A. It's in my July 2008 expert report, 10 Q. Were there -- are you aware of areas
11 Declaration No. 3, toward the end of the 11 along Reach 2 of the MRGO where there were levees
12 declaration. That's the original form of that 12 that were subjected to surge heights that exceeded
13 table. 13 their crest elevation for more than one hour?
14 That was transmitted to the Dutch 14 A. Yes.
15 flooding team so that they could perform the 15 MR. BRUNO: In 1 or 2C?
16 flooding analyses. 16 MR. BAEZA: I'm asking about 2C.
17 Q. Correct. And I'm familiar with that. 17 MR. BRUNO: Okay. Thank you.
18 A. Page 152 of whatever, declaration. 18 MR. BAEZA: Q. For areas where there
19 Did you ever get the color copy of the 19 was, in your opinion, inadequate grass cover,
20 current expert report? 20 would these levees have breached under Scenario
21 MR. BRUNO: I got only one, and I told 21 2C?
22 them to send two. I gave it to them. So I'll 22 A. The EBSBs under 2C conditions all have
23 have it reprinted, and I'll send you another one. 23 good grass cover, proper substrate development.
24 THE WITNESS: It will be a Christmas 24 That's part of the neutral conditions, do no harm,
25 present. Thank you. 25 as characterized in this work.
70 (Pages 524 to 527)
1/31/2009
Page 528 Page 530
1 Q. I'm afraid I don't understand, which 1 information is available is utilized in Step 1.
2 is -- would you please explain why the "do no 2 Q. The second -- it's your opinion that
3 harm" condition has good grass cover for the 3 the -- the topography of the flood control
4 levees? 4 structures has been extensively tested and
5 A. Sure. 5 validated?
6 Q. And why? 6 A. Please repeat your question.
7 A. It's the -- we'll call it saline effects 7 Q. You agree that the -- the processes for
8 on both grass and foreshore vegetation protection 8 determining the geometric configuration of the
9 that we mitigated in the process of neutralization 9 flood control structures has been extensively
10 of the effects caused by the history of the MRGO. 10 tested and validated?
11 Q. And you personally analyzed the salinity 11 A. The -- that question is best directed at
12 effects on the grass covering -- 12 experts in surveying.
13 A. No, I did not. I consulted 13 Q. Okay.
14 biologist/environmental people that were part of 14 A. The -- they have, of course, gone
15 our team. 15 through validation work to validate what's coming
16 Q. And who are these people? 16 from LIDAR is representative of what is actually
17 A. John Day, Shea Penland, 17 in place. Those measurements have uncertainty
18 Duncan Fitzgerald and the man at Lafayette 18 bands.
19 University -- 19 Now, if I'm using high-level land
20 MR. BRUNO: Gary Shafer. 20 surveying techniques, that will have a different
21 THE WITNESS: -- Gary Shafer. 21 uncertainty value.
22 MR. BAEZA: Q. So then did you not 22 So it will depend upon what surveying
23 analyze the -- I'll withdraw that. 23 technique is being used to accomplish this step.
24 Did you perform a breaching analysis 24 Q. Are you aware of the uncertainty band
25 using the surge and wave conditions in Scenario 25 for the geometric configuration of the flood
Page 529 Page 531
1 2C, but the turf conditions of the levees in 1 control structures?
2 Scenario 1? 2 A. Yes, indeed. And we actually studied
3 A. No. That would have been apples, 3 that directly.
4 oranges, fruit salad analysis. 4 Q. And what is the uncertainty?
5 Q. I want to now go to Table 4 of your 5 A. Well, the way that we studied that, we
6 declaration on page 45. 6 took the best characterization that we could
7 A. Which dec? 7 develop, based principally on the 2000 LIDAR
8 Q. Your most recent one. 8 survey for the EBSB study location, and now it has
9 A. What page? 9 expanded to six locations.
10 Q. Page 45. 10 In the Phase I analyses, we studied, as
11 A. Yes, sir. 11 well, the design profile. So what was intended to
12 Q. Okay. I just want to see if I 12 be there versus what was, quote, actually there,
13 understand your analytical method for flood side 13 it was through those comparative analyses --
14 wave-induced erosion analyses. 14 everything else held constant -- that we began to
15 A. Certainly. 15 understand the uncertainty contributed by the
16 Q. Your first step is to define the 16 geometric characteristics to the breaching
17 geometric configuration of the control structure? 17 mechanics.
18 A. Correct. 18 Q. Okay. And what was that uncertainty?
19 Q. And this is done generally with LIDAR 19 A. Very small. Ten percent outcome effect.
20 imaging? 20 Q. For the height or the slopes or both?
21 A. Whatever surveying information that we 21 A. For the study location variability,
22 have available comes into that step. It could be 22 singularly.
23 measured in the laboratory, or it could be 23 Q. Okay. So the second part is you define
24 prescribed for an analytical model. 24 the hydrodynamics, paren, significant wave height,
25 In comparison, whatever objective 25 wave period, wave direction, storm surge, during
71 (Pages 528 to 531)
1/31/2009
Page 532 Page 534
1 the hurricane? 1 sample have to take into account any advection and
2 A. Correct. 2 dispersion of cohesive settlements?
3 Q. And these are the surge and wave models 3 A. Of course. Of course. Actually, that
4 that are performed by the other experts in this 4 advection, the rest of the process is subsumed
5 litigation? 5 into the analytical background behind what's being
6 A. In fact, all the other experts. We have 6 done. So that those are just terms that reflect
7 utilized not only the input, I will call it 7 how different materials are being moved in
8 hydrodynamic conditions from the Dutch team, we 8 different ways and directions.
9 have utilized the IPET, we utilized as we could 9 Q. Okay. Now, the fifth step is you
10 bring into the analytical train the later results 10 analyze the rushup and rushdown wave-induced shear
11 that have been developed by Professor Westerlink 11 velocities on the flood side face using LS-DYNA.
12 in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers 12 A. Yes.
13 employees in Vicksburg. So we've been analyzing 13 Q. Okay. And then you combine these five
14 that complete range. 14 steps to utilize the calculated shear velocities,
15 In addition, we analyzed the 15 flood side armoring and erodibility
16 oceanographic/hydrodynamic characterizations 16 characteristics, to calculate lateral erosion,
17 originally developed by the team Louisiana, 17 correct?
18 Professor Iver Van Heerden, Professor Paul Kemp 18 A. That's Step 6 you just read from?
19 and Professor Hassan Mashriqui. 19 Q. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Okay. Next is characterization of the 20 A. That's correct. Yes. That is actually
21 armoring or grass cover. 21 what I called yesterday "the cumulative damage
22 A. Yes. 22 step."
23 Q. And these are based on the analyses 23 Q. So it is this cumulative damage step
24 including the ones performed by Siejffert and 24 that has not been validated for Hurricane Katrina,
25 Verheij? 25 correct?
Page 533 Page 535
1 A. Correct. 1 A. That's incorrect.
2 Q. And it's also subject to the limitations 2 Q. I'm reading here from your testing
3 of the different types of grass cover that the 3 section.
4 peer-reviewed publications have reviewed and the 4 "Testing of the method is possible
5 grass cover that was present in New Orleans? 5 provided the appropriate model input values are
6 A. And that's correct. 6 provided. Very few case studies exist that
7 Q. Next is characterization of the 7 document all required input values. Two
8 erodibility of the soils. 8 validation runs have been conducted using the
9 And this is subject to the limitations 9 method post-Hurricane Gustav results from Hughes
10 of making sure that you have the correct samples, 10 and Stanczack. These validation analyses provide
11 correct? 11 strong support that the method is accurate and
12 A. It's subject -- 12 reliable."
13 MR. STONE: Representative sample. 13 A. That's correct.
14 THE WITNESS: Mr. Stone said it more 14 Q. They were -- based on your statement
15 correctly. 15 here, these validation runs were not performed for
16 Representative samples. Because you 16 the Hurricane Katrina event, correct?
17 can't rely on a single sample because we're 17 A. Repeat your question.
18 traversing through a vertical cut, if you will, 18 Q. Based on your statement in this table,
19 through the earthen structure. 19 your validation runs were not performed for
20 So you have to have, quote, a 20 Hurricane Katrina, correct?
21 representative sample. That's not an easy step. 21 A. No. That's incorrect. In the Phase I
22 As I said yesterday, it's like trying to 22 analyses, documented in the July 2008 reports,
23 get a representative sample of the people around 23 meaning the expert report and the supporting
24 this table. 24 technical reports, we validated for the breach
25 MR. BAEZA: Q. Would a representative 25 location at Station 497 plus 00 and as well as the
72 (Pages 532 to 535)
1/31/2009
Page 536 Page 538
1 nonbreached location north of Bayou Bienvenue. 1 and we are back on the record.
2 MR. BRUNO: And we've covered this 2 MR. STONE: No further questions today,
3 already twice. 3 Dr. Bea. I apologize. We're going to have to ask
4 THE WITNESS: Just -- 4 Joe or the Court or whomever to come back because
5 MR. BAEZA: I'm just going through what 5 of the issues that we've talked about before.
6 he gave me. 6 MR. BRUNO: We're not going to fight
7 MR. BRUNO: I know. But those questions 7 over it today. We'll just -- Rob and I will get
8 have already been asked, Dan, and by Richard. 8 on the phone early Monday morning, Rob, when you
9 MR. BAEZA: Moving on. 9 get back, to try to get back to somebody.
10 Q. It says here, under peer review, 10 THE WITNESS: I want to thank all of you
11 "Multiple flood side wave-induced erosion method 11 for your professionalism. It's been a pleasure to
12 publications have been prepared and submitted to 12 work with you.
13 peer-review technical journals. The preparation 13 MR. STONE: Thank you for your time.
14 and submission of these publications occurred 14 MR. BAEZA: Thank you.
15 immediately following completion of the analyses, 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end of
16 and it is anticipated that these technical 16 Disk No. 4 of 4 and concludes today's deposition
17 articles will be published" -- or excuse me -- 17 of Dr. Robert Bea, Volume II. The time is
18 "accepted and published by late 2009." 18 6:04 p.m., and we are off the record.
19 A. One of them has already been accepted in 19 (Deposition concluded at 6:04 p.m.)
20 press. And the other one has been accepted and is 20 --oOo--
21 in press. And the third one has, quote, been 21 I declare under penalty of perjury the
22 accepted, but not yet entered in press. That's 22 foregoing is true and correct. Subscribed at
23 the one that will wait till late 2009. 23 _________________________, California, this
24 Q. What are the two that have been accepted 24 ____day of ____________ 2009.
25 and are in press? 25
Page 537 Page 539
1 A. I furnished those to you. 1 ________________________________
2 Q. Okay. 2 ROBERT GLENN BEA
3 A. I furnished all three to you. 3
4 Q. And the one that you expect to be 4
5 published by late 2009 concerns the cumulative 5
6 method that you discuss here? 6
7 A. It includes every step. Every -- all 7
8 six steps are chronicled in the paper. Not one 8
9 step, all six. 9
10 Q. All six of them. Okay. 10
11 A. Has to. People like Don Resio, 11
12 Bruce Ebersole are going to look at it and attempt 12
13 to understand how we made each one of those steps. 13
14 But it has to pass a severe critique on the part 14
15 of true experts. 15
16 So every step has to be presented 16
17 because, as I've said, this process is like a 17
18 chain. And if any one of these links is weak, the 18
19 entire system fails. 19
20 MR. STONE: Let's take a five-minute 20
21 break. 21
22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 5:57 p.m. 22
23 and we are off the record. 23
24 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 24
25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 6:04 p.m. 25
73 (Pages 536 to 539)

1/31/2009
Page 540
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2
3 I, KATHLEEN A. WILKINS, RPR, CRR, CRP,
4 Certified Shorthand Reporter, hereby certify that
5 the witness in the foregoing deposition was by me
6 duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and
7 nothing but the truth in the within-entitled
8 cause; that said deposition was taken down in
9 shorthand by me, a disinterested person, at the
10 time and place therein stated, and that the
11 testimony of the said witness was thereafter
12 reduced to typewriting, by computer, under my
13 direction and supervision.
14 I further certify that I am not of
15 counsel or attorney for either or any of the
16 parties to the said deposition, nor in any way
17 interested in the event of this cause, and that I
18 am not related to any of the parties thereto.
19
20 DATED:__________________________, 2009
21
22
23 __________________________________________
24 KATHLEEN WILKINS, CRR, RPR, CRP, CSR 10068
25
74 (Page 540)
1/31/2009
Page 541
A 390:24 416:10 495:6 aircraft 403:15 497:15

ability 304:8 424:9 additive 471:9 airplane 485:15 analogy 266:7
able 258:5 269:18 accumulating address 290:12 airplanes 480:24 387:14,14,17,18
277:19 278:16 265:14 274:3 347:4,11 484:6 484:6 387:20
304:2 314:17 accumulation addressed 401:24 al 465:9 499:17 analyses 257:10
322:16 356:15 272:12,15,20 addresses 282:12 aleatory 495:15 259:16 267:22
385:16 387:17 273:9 329:9 344:17 alert 428:15 440:15 280:23 312:5,14
408:16 428:4 392:18 416:9,11 addressing 365:3 algorithm 369:19 312:16 322:14
432:15 444:20 424:16 445:19 adds 326:23 370:19 411:22 328:5 332:11
504:7 516:10 accuracy 400:25 adequate 488:22 481:22 338:7 348:17,22
above-entitled accurate 266:23 adopt 269:4 algorithms 370:24 349:4,12,13
253:9 291:15 367:6 adopted 325:10 465:21 353:25 364:23
absolute 267:11 400:12,13,15 387:3 397:14 allow 265:25 365:19 373:9
absolutely 267:11 417:25 440:5 adopts 393:9 354:22 417:17 374:17 376:18
510:14 494:4 499:7 advanced 509:6 449:24 503:3 380:18 383:16
absorbers 403:22 535:11 advected 361:13 allowed 346:14 386:10 387:7
academic 495:13 accurately 473:12 362:8 allows 460:8 389:11 390:5
accept 294:11 achieve 328:4 advection 361:10 Allsop 465:7,8,9,11 396:15 419:9,10
acceptance 272:7 act 503:9 534:1,4 478:20 479:2 433:24 445:8
accepted 272:6 acting 264:2 adversarial 389:22 480:10 500:15 448:7 450:19
385:10,21 394:17 287:13 417:20 aerial 306:5 434:12 alphabet 518:2 464:20 465:20,25
395:10 397:11 action 253:12 affect 323:4 333:25 altered 360:10 474:1,10 481:5
465:22 536:18,19 255:11 262:8 aforementioned Alternatively 482:15 490:22
536:20,22,24 304:24,25 346:15 360:21 387:9 503:12 491:7 496:14
accessed 284:18 367:2 411:3 519:6 altitude 403:19 500:21 509:15
accessing 402:6 424:11 503:12 afraid 528:1 aluminum 273:11 515:4 519:18
accidental 350:9 actions 357:15 AFTERNOON amazing 446:20 525:16 529:14
accommodate 503:9 252:5 362:16 ambiguous 261:6 531:10,13 532:23
268:15 503:24 active 503:13 aggressiveness Amen 266:17 535:10,22 536:15
506:15 507:6 activity 493:12 326:23 333:11 442:12 analysis 257:17,20
accompanied actual 294:2,5 ago 372:25 394:1 American 254:2 258:11,17,18,19
453:25 326:16 367:3 404:22 256:5 271:23 259:20 260:10
accomplish 530:23 462:19 463:5 agree 260:17 272:2 265:16,24 266:19
accomplishing 478:14 492:21 321:13 322:13,13 amount 264:22 267:7,8 269:7
336:20 493:25 513:4,7 467:5 472:19,24 265:6,10 295:14 273:15 275:12
account 278:22 Adcirc 499:3 530:7 363:13 473:6 280:8,25 287:2,11
279:11,24 284:2 500:18 agreement 275:16 522:3 289:25 311:7,12
370:12,17 371:6 add 293:20 314:25 348:17,24 451:9 amounts 332:12 314:13 318:23
443:17 485:1 367:18 456:5 agriculture 400:18 406:19 319:5 324:24
501:7 534:1 added 367:2 Ah 526:21 amplitude 264:5 332:19,25 340:13
accounted 347:4 492:14,16 ahead 284:10 304:6 367:2 410:7 341:17 348:2
accounts 424:16 adding 343:8 342:18 381:18 435:10,15 349:20,23 350:3
accumulate 273:4 addition 516:17 450:13 479:20 amplitudes 287:25 352:9,20 355:3
accumulated 532:15 492:15 287:25 410:16 360:13 366:9
273:14 329:3 additional 321:3 ain't 413:9 analogies 387:13 369:7 373:12
389:10 391:23 air 324:8,10,11 analogous 387:8,13 376:19 377:3,9,12

1/31/2009
Page 542
382:19 383:13 495:23 496:6 538:3 384:21 386:20 422:11 508:14,16

384:8,9 390:20 499:22 513:8,9 apparatus 285:10 388:20 418:2 areas 297:4 303:3,4
392:10,18 408:12 514:13 516:21 285:15,19,20 483:4 498:14 319:8 357:16
415:21 418:7 529:13,24 532:10 444:11 appreciable 407:7 522:22,25 527:10
419:5 424:24 534:5 appear 277:24 407:9 412:6,8 527:18
426:7 427:5 analytically 266:20 357:14 456:15 416:1 417:4 argument 323:25
429:12 432:7 273:2 401:25 APPEARANCES approach 267:2,4 armored 421:17
441:5 445:23 420:16 437:7 253:13 254:1 269:4,5 350:3 armoring 458:15
450:15 467:23,25 analyze 262:15 appeared 253:8 383:13 403:25 532:21 534:15
470:7,12,16,18 269:6 284:1 appears 300:17 508:9 511:6,10 Army 278:12
471:1 479:25 320:14,17 376:20 357:17 364:6 approaches 391:14 284:12 285:1
480:18 482:22,24 376:22 381:11 435:6 501:19 443:12 474:7 344:13 346:6
483:4,21 484:17 383:3 393:10 523:25 approaching 275:9 369:21 386:7
484:21 486:20 466:25 467:3 appendices 356:12 appropriate 260:6 394:21 397:13
487:1 488:10,12 505:17 528:23 429:21 521:11 267:12 305:17 420:2 453:24
489:1 492:11 534:10 appendix 293:2 327:7 379:4 459:6 479:12 508:10
494:21 507:20 analyzed 264:25 481:18 505:10 460:10 463:19 510:21,21 511:23
508:2,13 512:9 280:4 299:10 510:25 535:5 Arpent 408:17
515:16,19 516:11 313:16,17 315:16 apples 277:4,5 appropriately arrive 379:3 380:6
517:1 521:9 353:23 369:24 529:3 376:24 452:4
528:24 529:4 528:11 532:15 apples-and-apples approved 385:20 arrives 327:5
analyst 359:20 analyzing 264:25 459:24 389:2 article 282:8 445:7
505:5 313:18 386:8 applicability 511:6 approving 385:23 articles 271:22
analytical 257:16 532:13 applicable 282:24 approximate 272:8 385:15
258:23 259:2,5,10 anchor 290:1,3 305:14 318:24 295:14 387:2 388:8,10
272:21,23,25 angle 450:2,3,9 application 384:3 approximately 536:17
273:3 274:7,21 answer 289:17 384:20 385:11 303:10,15 326:18 articulated 346:12
318:25 325:10 330:4 333:7 386:15,16 387:3 327:24 328:1 420:13 517:3
344:16 347:3,6,16 351:14 354:1 400:25 401:6,7,15 334:5 336:3,5 ashore 441:21
347:20 350:5 356:1 384:8 418:4 340:25 363:12 asked 336:15 343:6
359:2,14,18,22 424:25 428:12 applications 385:8 369:16,25 371:8 385:20 424:23
364:25 369:19 430:8,11,15 386:5 376:7 422:8 425:2 429:13
377:1 378:10 433:18 438:25 applied 264:4 423:17 425:2 443:25 473:23
379:24 380:2,6 439:3 466:19 282:1 289:21 435:9,15 437:12 476:6 478:7
382:10 386:3 476:5 477:17,21 346:22 347:12 450:11 451:13 491:13 510:11
389:4,9 391:14 480:5 500:19 378:9,25 399:20 456:20 485:2 511:19 536:8
398:2 408:6,8,10 505:20 507:2 415:3 416:5 508:8 522:18 asking 278:6 282:7
409:2 411:22 510:6 512:5,7 463:24 approximation 385:14 388:25
417:15 424:19 answered 285:11 applies 378:7 272:12,16 384:15 527:16
425:23,24 428:8 424:25 493:13 497:25 504:23 aspect 282:20
437:9 451:9 460:3 answering 499:8 apply 289:23 346:4 area 293:15 296:5 421:8 459:13
460:11 464:14 answers 389:20 359:11 399:25 301:15 303:11 aspects 282:13
470:23 476:4 anticipated 536:16 411:16 446:3,6 308:17,20 310:22 ass 317:17
477:22 478:15,17 anybody 393:19 454:25 477:8 323:11,18 350:18 assembled 515:12
481:22 486:4 apologize 317:12 493:10 357:9 363:20 assessment 511:4
491:10 495:17,18 349:15 384:11 applying 349:6 370:15 400:25 associated 276:5

1/31/2009
Page 543
340:18 346:15 331:21 341:18 509:20,21 514:1 496:21 519:14,19 504:24 517:10
348:11 353:24 342:14 346:25 527:10 530:24 519:24 520:6 531:7 532:23
417:21 424:24 352:10 358:3 axis 264:9 522:16 538:1,4,9 535:14,18
453:2 470:9,17 386:9 456:1 A-I-N-E-R 444:25 538:9 basic 260:20
481:21 482:21 461:12 466:23 A-L-E-A-T-O-R-Y backflow 283:17 265:15,25 325:22
484:24 485:7,11 470:9 475:10,18 495:15 283:20 392:3 393:4
486:20 488:16 475:21 479:15 a.m 253:4 255:1,5 background 356:5 410:20
499:9 503:18 attacking 283:4 277:17 281:15 385:2 514:5 534:5 basics 272:1
506:6 511:8,12 attacks 314:3 315:3 299:25 300:3 backing 455:6 basis 272:18
521:9 526:23 315:9,16 316:9 308:7,9,13 309:10 backwards 434:3 492:16
assume 271:2 attempt 400:8,10 310:2,17 334:6,6 backwash 457:19 Bates 293:3,5,7
292:3 306:17 488:24 499:19 334:19 342:23 back-to-front 524:1,4
307:21 311:15 513:10 537:12 343:3 362:14 351:15 bathymetry 366:10
323:25 324:25 attempted 265:1 494:7 bad 395:4,5 520:2 bay 274:10,12
331:5 359:6 369:11 470:7 Baeza 252:8 253:22 Bayou 314:11
360:14 363:6 482:8,13 B 255:24,24 498:22 351:25 409:1
464:23 470:3 attempting 358:19 B 433:1 481:9 504:2,10,11 434:13 515:20,24
474:11 389:8 391:15 495:21 498:11,14 506:20,25 507:10 516:6,20 517:24
assumed 294:9 428:8 447:16 511:9 510:9 525:5 526:1 536:1
306:14,18 311:8 488:19 496:6 back 262:11 264:4 526:15 527:16,18 Bea 251:9 253:1,9
311:13 360:19 attendance 404:9 267:7 275:18 528:22 533:25 255:14 256:13,24
446:12 462:17 attorney 253:20,21 277:18 278:8 536:5,9 538:14 300:4 317:12
464:20 474:1,9 253:22 254:3 282:8 283:19 ball 280:25 334:1 342:22
assumes 370:19 255:21 540:15 286:6,10 288:5 band 293:22,23 343:3,5 362:19
assuming 313:15 August 494:7 300:3 306:22 340:20,22 341:3 394:25 405:4,9
348:5 509:23 308:15 319:11 425:16 456:2 418:20 469:7
assumption 311:19 available 305:15 328:6 330:11 530:24 490:11,16,19
360:20 446:4 313:9 356:8 389:5 333:14 340:12,14 bands 530:18 504:12 511:25
462:24 389:13 391:23 340:17 341:5 bank 321:14,25 520:15 538:3,17
assumptions 446:7 393:12,15 402:4 343:4 345:16 381:1 539:2
446:12 463:2 445:25 454:10 346:13 348:25 bareness 357:16 beach 344:12
assure 257:15 460:5 479:8,9 351:6,6,9,14,17 Baronne 253:16 419:23,24 457:20
260:2 359:20 529:22 530:1 355:6 362:18 bars 482:17 502:23 503:6,8,13
assured 275:15 AVD 303:11 337:4 371:23 373:22 base 481:5 503:17
asterisked 431:21 Ave 253:22 394:8,9 395:23 based 263:4 272:21 beachfront 503:3
asterisks 431:12,15 Avenue 254:4 405:10 412:1 281:4 302:18 bear 285:12 504:15
as-was 315:17 average 263:9 414:18 417:8 303:20,22 308:3 bearing 285:13
339:13 478:22 264:17 275:4 419:6,15 420:10 319:5 329:1 346:1 Beautiful 391:13
489:21 518:24 424:13 470:14 420:19 421:18 346:18 360:20 before-hurricane
attached 355:20 481:14 482:9 425:5 426:1 364:14 366:17 515:7
492:7 aviation 324:5 428:16 429:15,25 367:23 369:14,20 before-storm 515:7
attaching 257:2 403:6 508:22 434:17 436:10 391:19 417:16 began 531:14
attack 282:15 avoid 349:11 442:18 443:2 439:25 450:15 beginning 255:12
307:3 308:6 501:17 522:3 450:25 452:10 461:13 463:11 286:20 343:2
312:11 315:8,23 awake 339:1,3 454:18,19 473:17 465:20 478:7 351:25 405:8
316:2 319:14,16 aware 492:12 475:24 490:17 480:5 486:25 490:15

1/31/2009
Page 544
begins 264:8 323:8 434:21 463:18 bit 296:19 303:16 316:6 329:25 breaking 283:7
352:21 454:23 482:7 489:20 319:11 322:7 331:3,6,11,13 285:16,18 327:20
483:12 492:10 495:22 324:25 361:9 336:8 340:8 366:15 376:2
begun 415:6 499:20 500:20 381:23 444:14 360:12 409:2 431:24,24 493:14
behalf 255:17 530:11 531:6 bitter 458:11 448:9 460:13 breaks 394:25
behave 449:5 bet 394:4 block 264:3 410:5 476:19 477:12 Bretschneider
behaving 449:3 betcha 291:9 blue 458:11 487:12 489:25 369:21 370:21
behavior 274:9 better 307:11 board 403:14 502:4,7 515:17 Briaud 281:10,13
371:19 372:19 311:25 312:8 Bob 344:22 517:11,21 518:3 281:20 368:12
449:9 314:3 316:1 body 281:18 442:6 518:16,20,23 398:23 449:18
belief 479:16 317:16 324:13 483:16 520:6 522:24 Briaud's 283:22
believe 263:17 336:18 354:2 boggled 381:22 535:24 466:25
266:6 276:13 396:23 422:2 books 493:2 breached 308:6 bright 390:25
289:18 292:20 424:20 490:23 bored 291:21 309:17 351:2,5 bring 256:20 319:4
298:22 321:9 beyond 370:6 boring 298:1,6,23 452:8,9 460:18 427:18 532:10
351:23 432:6 400:17 299:13 300:5 517:11 521:7 brings 270:9
445:8 446:25 bias 425:11 433:1,6 302:12 520:11,13 522:13 523:6 273:18 285:20
466:21 472:8 434:1 451:12 521:12 524:21 527:6,20 495:18
491:1 493:5 523:3 461:7,11 466:9 borings 302:16 breaches 251:4 broad 344:21
believed 400:9,11 469:17,25 470:1,2 515:8 521:10 255:11 333:23 brother 333:11
believes 479:13 470:3,13 477:15 bottom 293:4,6,8 351:17 502:25 brought 360:11
bell 425:6,6 478:3,12,13 321:6 323:5 521:17 523:2 394:24 505:11
belt 266:13,19 481:21 492:24 324:12,18 327:25 breaching 257:9,17 525:2
270:8 273:2 495:21 496:8 328:9,9 347:2 314:14,18 318:19 Bruce 261:19
283:21 498:8 499:11 370:19,20,23 328:22 329:13 394:23 499:23
beneath 361:16 500:2 505:22 371:2,3,17 378:13 336:8 347:9 537:12
362:1 513:16,22 378:16 435:21 350:17,20,21,22 Brunn 409:15,17
Benjamin 254:7 biases 466:3,6 441:10,19 443:19 351:14,15 353:25 411:24 413:22
255:5 biasing 489:24 443:21 444:2 408:7,12,15,19 431:6
bent 523:7 Bienvenue 297:21 501:5,23 521:18 409:3 419:10 Brunn's 411:22
berm 321:17 314:11 351:25 bottoms 324:16 445:19 451:10,12 412:17 417:15
322:16 325:1 409:1 434:13 bound 469:19 461:8,9 466:12 Bruno 253:15,15
326:22 362:25 452:17 515:20,24 boundaries 262:9 469:3 475:10 256:6,6 257:23
365:8,16,19 366:2 516:6,20 517:25 boundary 273:19 477:23 481:1,6,10 258:3,13 271:13
367:5 370:13 536:1 323:17,21 324:2,3 482:3 483:2,3 291:23 292:7
373:10,13 374:15 big 267:14 268:1,2 324:19 372:7,7,10 487:13,16 488:11 293:3 307:8
380:25 386:9 268:3,7 338:18,19 372:11,21,23 489:14 521:4 308:24 309:5
Bermuda 458:11 399:5 410:5 373:2,4 440:12,13 522:14,16 523:5 315:10 318:2,10
474:13,19,19,24 bigger 425:11 441:13 444:7 524:9,17 526:5,24 325:14,16 328:7
Bermuda-type 496:10 bounds 506:5 527:1,2 528:24 328:13 334:22,24
474:12 binder 448:15 boxes 291:25 531:16 335:3,5,12,15,18
Bernard 408:20 449:4,5,15,19,24 bracket 463:10,23 break 299:23 336:11 338:17,21
Bernoulli 324:9 450:4 brain 413:13 342:19 350:6 338:24 339:3
best 263:23 313:15 Bingo 436:7 BRANCH 253:20 361:8 362:11 341:10 351:9,12
313:24 363:16 biologist/environ... breach 257:19 404:25 454:12 362:12 381:18
399:24 426:24 528:14 300:14 301:14 537:21 395:7,25 396:3

1/31/2009
Page 545
413:6,9,12,15 382:2 392:7 415:2 402:16,17,17,18 540:8,17 503:4

472:11 486:18 440:8 467:10 capital 433:1 caused 260:19 changed 274:24
488:13 504:1 476:5 518:8 469:23 495:21 285:16 316:10 524:20
524:25 525:3,21 calculation/evalu... capped 346:11 431:18 528:10 changes 344:17,18
526:14 527:15,17 262:18 captioned 255:10 causes 331:12 443:18
528:20 536:2,7 calibrate 512:6 capture 421:5 causing 370:3 changing 331:18
538:6 514:22 captured 383:21 424:9 521:24 368:16
brush 364:6,8 calibrated 476:3 413:14,15 CDs 356:3 channel 326:17
buddy 317:8 472:9 calibration 409:11 careful 321:7 CDT 334:6 383:4 521:23
build 450:7 492:18 512:1,8 440:10 459:3 cease 415:19 522:8
building 323:12 514:2 496:4 center 253:5 characteristic
413:3,6 437:13 California 253:6,8 carefully 309:12 255:15 323:3 325:9 334:14
484:25 485:3,5,8 255:6,16 538:23 327:8 332:10 425:7 488:9 366:12 488:11
506:7,11,16 507:8 call 264:10 268:4 375:22 385:8 central 308:7,9,13 521:20
builds 268:13 275:16 281:9 458:16 471:6 488:9,23,25 characteristics
built 452:23 296:12 306:7 Carnivoran 352:2 certain 290:23 261:23 264:1
bumps 372:15 310:6 317:18 carry 275:20 393:13 473:11 268:18 270:4
bunch 450:13 321:17 323:6 280:25 383:3 488:11 489:10,21 275:2 288:15,21
bunny 332:16 327:25 332:2,13 392:16 408:11 499:25 512:20 289:8,10 300:11
business 495:14 362:22 378:12 448:20 certainly 304:5 300:13 301:12,13
butts 317:19 386:17,17 395:15 cascading 286:3 370:14,16 385:18 304:3,23 305:4,6
B-E-R-N-A-R-D 396:19 406:13 case 255:10 256:21 401:23 402:5 313:3 347:23
408:22 419:12,23 425:7 256:22 257:22 480:2 485:25 358:23 380:12
425:13 433:5 258:8 260:7 512:11,14 514:6 391:17 392:12
C 438:11 442:22 261:24 262:6 516:9 529:15 447:1 448:23
C 255:2 280:3 470:19 481:10,14 269:1 283:3 certainty 471:21 449:17 462:18,20
481:9 498:12,14 493:24 495:12 313:24,24 318:13 482:2 483:10 462:25 463:11,16
521:3,10 499:16 500:9 318:16,18 327:20 CERTIFICATE 463:18 499:21
Caernarvon 503:19 513:15 341:23,25 342:7,9 540:1 505:6 513:11
297:22 516:18 522:16 342:11,13 343:22 Certification 514:10 517:14
Caernavron 528:7 532:7 344:8,10 345:15 510:18 531:16 534:16
452:17 516:21 called 267:21 274:4 345:18 382:23 Certified 253:7 characterization
cages 274:4 349:13 398:4 397:17 402:22 540:4 298:11 354:18
calculate 481:1 433:1,25 464:14 403:1 425:1 certify 540:4,14 356:21 491:10
502:16 512:21 470:21 485:13 445:11 452:3 cetera 500:7 504:25 531:6
534:16 495:14 518:1 461:7 467:24 516:14 532:20 533:7
calculated 263:10 534:21 471:10 478:15 chain 350:5 389:9 characterizations
425:9 430:19,20 calling 305:3 485:16 494:15 537:18 515:9 532:16
431:6 481:3 502:4 340:10 352:14 535:6 challenge 269:9 characterize
534:14 calls 257:23 281:24 cases 346:23 400:20 261:22 298:10
calculating 263:1 camera 420:16 catastrophic 268:4 challenges 386:1 415:20 421:7
322:22 484:22 Canal 251:4 255:11 categories 447:24 chance 300:5 421:1 489:18 495:20
calculation 467:18 capability 266:18 category 313:3 429:14 characterized
481:23 269:12 cause 253:10 change 342:19 471:24 490:6
calculations 327:13 capable 365:2 304:20 331:10 368:3 371:8 372:3 527:25
356:13 378:6 capacity 305:5 394:14 518:23 380:11 384:9 characterizes

1/31/2009
Page 546
508:9 396:20 484:1,3,8,16,20 320:22 324:11 compacts 503:8

characterizing clarification 484:23 485:7 365:11 407:14 comparable 313:12
469:17 491:13 497:19 505:2,19 410:23 411:1 408:25 486:21
Charles 369:20 clarify 515:1 506:9 415:2 441:21 488:17,20,21
chart 276:12 class 317:17 coefficients 323:23 460:25 464:10 519:23
456:15 523:20 classically 389:6 484:11 495:16 529:22 comparably 490:9
charts 277:1 337:9 classify 519:25 coherent 280:24 comfortable comparative
check 263:7 291:13 clause 361:15,22 437:9 293:14 467:25 516:11
308:8 311:4 330:8 clay 299:15 300:18 cohesionless coming 283:4,10,13 531:13
339:19 392:1 300:19,23 301:5 419:25 318:23 324:9,10 compare 274:7
394:4 417:22 301:20,23,24 cohesive 312:6 343:17 380:9 279:13 280:17,19
467:9 313:10 361:17 314:7,12 316:8 397:21 416:20 300:12 301:12
checked 358:1 362:1,3 448:24 330:6 361:13 421:1 431:20 344:4 358:21
391:4 519:20 449:15 475:10 448:14 449:4,5,6 470:15 495:23 408:9 409:13
checking 346:24 524:14 449:12,14,19,24 499:21 501:2 411:23 423:5
358:1 clays 302:22 518:20 534:2 520:24 530:15 424:1 447:16
check-in 359:9 clean 332:10 cohesiveless 450:3 commencing 253:3 456:11 459:18
418:17 clear 320:13 cohesiveness commend 268:18 463:5 492:23
check-ins 278:19 416:14 466:19 449:11,20 270:19 compared 358:14
412:23,25 cleared 357:9 colleague 345:11 comment 291:2 390:3 407:22
chemical 458:25 clearly 258:21 collect 346:3 297:14 412:16 413:22
chiefly 306:5 305:16 320:24 collected 300:13 commercial 508:17 417:19 428:22
503:16 384:13 519:5 collecting 504:2 508:22 430:4 431:5 462:1
chomp 268:7 521:18 collection 317:5 committee 260:14 462:19 477:18
choose 444:9 close 383:8 391:1 492:24 511:15 comparing 360:5
chose 344:20 403:17 443:19 colloquy 506:23 common 272:7 411:21 447:11
chosen 517:10 closer 263:19 441:9 Colonel 453:21 commonly 272:6 466:10 474:14
Christmas 525:24 441:13 color 525:19 505:1 478:15 514:12
chronicled 345:12 coast 274:11 503:1 column 440:18,20 community 272:6 comparison 273:3
352:3 493:1 508:7 coastal 258:25 441:1,6 442:14 345:7 465:23 275:10,13 276:22
509:25 537:8 265:20 271:25 443:11,13 444:2 479:5 492:19 277:25 346:1
churning 442:19 278:13 344:14,23 526:21 511:21,22 375:14 412:14,20
Circular 510:22 344:25 394:21 columns 337:20 compacted 312:6 417:11 440:14
circumstances 396:21,24 398:13 combination 469:4 313:4,4 314:7,11 459:24 463:1
397:17 414:23 399:7 409:17 combine 534:13 316:8 330:6 361:7 468:4,22 469:2
427:7 417:21 420:1 come 263:20 270:5 448:11,12 451:23 500:18 505:12
cite 465:3 493:9 497:16 506:21 274:11,12 278:12 467:1,6,16 468:12 529:25
cited 269:2 370:25 507:12 509:1,4 297:11 321:14 472:20,25 516:7 comparisons
388:7 398:8 510:13 511:5,14 393:19 400:18 516:14 518:20 275:14,17 376:17
475:25 517:4 511:16,20,22 408:10 460:24 compacting 447:7 408:6,8 414:4
519:2 coauthor 461:3 463:24 470:11 503:10 417:18 424:19
cites 400:2 coefficient 322:15 484:4 502:10 compaction 350:13 464:14 473:19
citizen 273:21 322:20 325:2 538:4 360:15 451:18,22 485:22 517:5,7
Citrus 452:10 340:23 425:1 comes 259:25 452:7,8,11,14,18 compatible 401:20
civil 253:20 255:11 466:13 469:7,10 265:16 270:11 463:8 464:22,24 compensation
271:23 272:2 481:15 483:20 272:7 309:18 466:22 467:13 522:2

1/31/2009
Page 547
complete 269:7 computationally 427:11,24 475:22 364:20,22 369:14 consensus 392:21

390:19,20 411:20 381:12 383:15 480:7 370:20,23 372:13 392:24 393:1,2
441:5 517:12 401:24 concluded 281:15 372:13 380:5 conservative
532:14 computations 309:20 312:3 383:1 406:11,12 402:11
completed 453:1 259:15 376:24 448:6,10,18 421:3,7 431:19 consider 484:21
completely 291:23 377:24 378:1 459:19 538:19 440:1 451:8 consideration
297:4 304:20 compute 289:14 concludes 538:16 455:20 456:7 332:18 372:24
377:8 379:12 computed 378:18 concluding 272:19 459:6,8 469:4,5 considered 284:9
408:1 478:14 497:22 312:2 386:21 492:22 495:10 284:11
completion 452:20 computer 259:10 conclusion 257:24 496:1 502:24,25 consistent 302:23
452:25 453:9 261:20 307:9 311:9 313:18 503:17,20 513:6 336:23 461:14
536:15 385:19 395:24 329:23 422:2 514:13 517:13,18 consistently 290:17
complex 286:13 540:12 452:5 485:23 517:19 518:23,25 301:24
330:16 332:22 computer-aided 506:1 519:1,22 520:5,10 CONSOLIDATED
381:14 382:17 259:14 conclusions 450:17 521:14 524:10,13 251:4
393:10 397:10 computer-based 450:18 501:24 526:24 527:22,24 consortium 345:9
401:17 428:9 259:6 concrete 346:12 528:25 529:1 345:13 465:17
514:14 compute/analyze 420:13 421:9,21 532:8 constant 368:21,22
complexities 285:8 421:23 422:1 conducted 352:10 531:14
401:25 computing 266:18 concur 473:3 535:8 construct 454:2
complexity 333:6 269:11 374:18 condition 267:5,6 Conestoga 484:5 constructed 312:6
383:9 375:7 382:20 284:13 303:1 confidence 498:4 312:8
component 259:9 511:7 316:6 323:22 498:25 505:25 constructing 513:4
259:17,22 262:3 concept 359:13 325:5 327:23 configuration construction
272:8 359:19 conceptual 265:25 328:4 331:2 334:5 308:5 364:12 452:15,21 453:17
components 259:8 conceptually 334:7,7 336:9,14 365:21,24 484:13 509:12,16
260:1 262:2,4,4,5 261:18 410:17 355:8 369:24 529:17 530:8,25 consulted 528:13
262:7 347:22 481:5 371:2,4,7 373:2 configurations contact 262:15
364:17 373:19 concern 261:23 379:5 382:22 380:19 345:6,8
470:18 480:19 305:11 442:23 404:19 455:23 confirm 312:5 contain 476:5
481:12,16 concerned 274:13 470:12 491:10 343:23 467:18,22 contained 271:18
composed 364:17 320:25 321:2 493:18 513:11 473:9 356:5 463:14
521:6 327:6 371:18 528:3 confront 265:21 contains 400:24
composition 382:11 485:16 conditional 315:7 267:9 485:6 contend 386:10
467:13 501:10 487:14 496:1,3 conditioned 441:16 confused 276:7 content 301:21
compress 436:5 concerning 293:21 conditions 260:6 335:19 337:23 context 260:16
comprises 330:23 304:7 325:6 267:12,23 268:15 367:7 continue 269:4
comprising 350:13 400:24 439:11 268:16 273:19 confusing 278:7 271:24 319:18
compromises 449:9 510:12 298:20 306:19 291:1 315:6 357:25 446:11
273:18 concerns 260:23 307:25 308:2,22 320:19 468:19 495:5
computation 537:5 312:18 316:20 confusion 290:14 525:6 526:21
326:20 379:10 concisely 318:21 325:11 327:7 290:16 320:22 Continued 254:1
418:12 conclude 295:16 328:1,2 331:18 connect 264:18 continues 265:5
computational 302:13 348:16 336:16,23 338:8 connected 336:10 483:24
269:9 378:21 363:23 377:11,19 344:18 358:21,22 522:7 continuing 409:5
383:8 386:1 415:15 426:12 359:5,15,21 connections 394:3 460:9 480:11

1/31/2009
Page 548
continuous 351:22 Corps 278:12 372:25 373:1,15 370:5,10,12 425:17 488:2

406:18 284:12 285:1 374:9 375:9,12 371:15 378:25 504:16 538:4
continuously 327:21 344:13,25 377:6,10 378:9 379:16,19 500:3 cover 288:20
368:16 346:6 369:15,21 379:13 380:24 513:25 304:22 306:18,20
continuum 313:15 386:8 394:22 381:2,7 382:21 corrections 267:21 307:18,21,23,25
313:23 397:13 404:9,10 383:20 388:3,11 374:23 378:10,11 308:2,21 312:2
contribute 304:8 404:18 420:2 388:13 397:22 corrective 455:20 313:5,6,6,7,8,9
contributed 349:14 445:12 453:24 398:17 399:1,23 correctly 280:8 314:2,12 316:9
461:20 498:16 479:12 483:23 400:10,14 405:21 359:7,7 383:21 329:18 330:7,20
531:15 507:16 508:1,10 405:22 406:5,6 513:13,18 533:15 331:4,7 332:15
contributing 310:3 509:11,17 510:21 407:11 411:2,6 correlate 358:25 363:24,25 406:21
410:6 511:23 532:12 412:13 414:9 correlated 392:13 459:11,21,22
contribution correct 261:1,2 416:25 417:12 correlates 273:16 469:5 476:18
424:17 521:25 266:12 268:9 422:10 423:21 correlation 273:5 515:10 524:9,13
contributions 270:24,25 278:4,5 427:16,22 428:1 359:1 376:25 526:5,24 527:1,19
329:10 279:6,7,9,18 431:1,2,7 435:25 409:21 444:13 527:23 528:3
control 380:12 280:20 281:12 437:2 439:24 475:4 532:21 533:3,5
403:19 434:13 282:3,5,18 283:6 441:10,19 442:8,9 corroborate 302:5 covered 362:3
458:16 506:21 283:8,11,14,25 443:15 444:18 Cortiella 254:8 536:2
507:11 509:21 288:17 289:11,12 446:2,5 447:8,20 256:9 covering 340:16
529:17 530:3,9 289:23 290:4 448:7,16 450:18 Coulwave 261:20 406:8 524:18
531:1 292:6,21 294:15 452:23 453:4 268:22,25 269:13 527:5 528:12
controlled 459:2 294:16,24 295:19 456:3,4,5 457:7,7 269:25 270:3 covers 468:2
controlling 368:9 296:20 297:6,7 459:15,23 461:7 332:11 389:1 cow 316:23 317:2,3
converge 432:15 298:2 302:4,10 461:17,23,25 390:6 391:3,10,19 cows 316:24
conversion 290:20 305:24 306:1 462:5,6 463:21 392:5 393:5,12,18 cream 265:12
293:14 296:9 308:16,19,22 464:5,12,21 465:2 393:20,23 394:5 create 322:18
convert 296:5 309:10,22,24 465:4,6,8 467:11 397:25 431:25 creating 442:3
convolution 470:21 310:18,21 311:25 467:17 469:9 519:22 crenellated 309:21
498:20 511:12 315:5 316:11 473:2 475:12 Coulwave's 269:23 crenellation 310:1
convolve 481:17 319:2,3,6,9,10 476:21,25 477:6 389:11 391:4 320:10 328:23
convolved 496:14 320:11,12 322:11 477:14 483:18 counsel 253:13,14 333:25 340:10
cool 393:20 326:21,25 327:1,2 487:9,21 491:19 254:1 255:19 419:13,14 465:13
cooperation 532:12 330:10,18 332:5 494:11,16,17 256:7 540:15 469:3 477:18,19
coordinate 365:10 338:4 342:8,16 501:11,14,15 count 435:9 477:23
368:4 345:21,24 346:20 502:8,18 506:1 counter 485:12 crest 290:5,8
coordinates 375:1 347:10 348:15 510:6,7 513:2 couple 276:20 291:11 295:4,23
copy 291:24 292:24 350:15,19,25 524:11 525:17 292:18 310:23 297:8,11,17,18
510:16 520:15 351:11 353:14 527:9 529:18 504:6 299:17 300:20
523:16 525:19 354:6,7 356:14 532:2 533:1,6,10 coupled 357:18 301:16 302:6
copyright 356:9 360:4,15,16 362:2 533:11 534:17,20 course 301:18 308:5 309:13,16
copyrighted 398:10 362:9 363:2,4,5,8 534:25 535:13,16 345:7 430:23 309:21 328:23
core 476:20 364:16 366:1,3 535:20 538:22 442:2 463:3 329:13 333:16
cores 300:7 367:9,25 368:23 corrected 365:15 530:14 534:3,3 340:8,10 346:13
corner 293:4 296:3 369:1,2,3,6 correction 351:13 court 251:1 253:10 365:4 410:18,19
corporate 479:17 371:11,16 372:8 366:8,16 367:21 255:9 258:7 419:6 420:10,18

1/31/2009
Page 549
469:2 477:18,19 cycle 422:18 Dawn 254:7 256:8 481:25 483:6,10 447:12
477:23 526:4,25 480:19 day 324:5 386:10 483:16,17 518:5,9 degree 285:19
527:7,13 cycles 265:17 455:7 468:11 520:16,19,22 360:15 482:2
crests 288:3 351:18 cycling 273:9 479:13 523:4 521:11 525:11,12 484:6 485:20
351:21,21 cyclones 270:18 528:17 538:24 525:18 526:10,12 degrees 450:5,6,11
critical 257:20 344:19 Daylight 308:7,9 526:16 529:6 Delft 268:22,25
258:10 259:1,2,7 C-A-N-A-V-E-R-... 308:13 declarations 303:21 304:6
328:18,19 329:13 297:24 days 418:24 308:25 389:17,18,19
330:14 331:6,8,10 DC 253:23 declare 538:21 390:2,4,5,9,12,15
333:14,22 336:1 D De 293:11 296:8 decrease 264:8 391:2,10 392:6
346:23 349:22,24 D 255:2 481:9 deal 317:10 327:8 321:20 323:8 393:5,12,17
350:2 518:21,22 daily 268:5 401:8 480:13 371:10 397:25 499:15
critique 537:14 dam 508:11 484:9 485:14 decreases 321:10 523:20
crosses 264:9 damage 265:14,21 489:2 490:3 498:7 321:21 322:10 delving 333:3
cross-purposes 268:13,14 270:11 506:4 decreasing 406:14 demand 305:3
388:21 272:11,15,20 dealing 308:1 deduce 452:6 312:17 485:8
cross-section 273:4,8,14 274:3 417:5 433:23 deduced 451:25 demonstrate 398:6
261:25 391:25 274:6,13 275:19 488:18 489:3 deduce/determine 449:20
cross-sectional 281:3,6,8 287:15 508:13 514:10 420:11 demonstrating
305:13 347:15 329:9 357:3 deals 352:4 deduction 452:4 436:13
365:13 363:13 390:24 dealt 425:13 deep 269:22 327:23 dense 313:6 364:5
crown 348:25 392:18 416:9,11 484:12 328:9 368:14 503:11 524:14
419:6 424:9,16 445:19 Dean 344:7,8,22 deeper 301:23 densities 447:16
CRP 253:7 540:3 461:20 464:12 345:2 465:3 476:7 331:19 371:23 density 347:23
540:24 480:20 534:21,23 477:11,16 478:1 defect 523:11 360:3,6,7 446:22
CRR 251:25 253:7 damagers 268:2 478:11,19,24 defendant 255:18 458:22 463:8,11
540:3,24 Dame 499:16 479:19 480:4 256:2 464:19 473:25
crucial 259:21 damn 270:7 500:13 501:7 defendants 253:18 474:9 476:15
425:17 damping 374:21 502:5,16,22 258:21 488:25 501:9
CSR 251:25 540:24 Dan 253:22 255:24 Dean's 477:19,24 defense 274:22 Department
cubic 337:6 292:14 504:14 479:24 290:15,21 305:12 253:19 255:22,24
Culled 461:11 536:8 debate/deliberati... 388:16 389:12 510:20
culverts 400:19 Dan's 292:15 449:8 482:23 depend 287:19
cumulative 262:23 data 272:13,16 dec 529:7 define 275:3 329:15 432:17
265:21 266:1 284:17,18 302:17 decades 267:25 311:21 328:20,24 433:10 473:7
461:19 464:12 313:11 318:24 275:19 329:2 331:8 530:22
534:21,23 537:5 347:8 348:23 decide 381:8 399:10 470:12 dependable 260:3
curious 421:14,15 355:18 418:2 decided 380:22 517:19 529:16 431:20
current 392:15 425:13 480:2 381:4 390:9 531:23 depended 406:20
513:6 525:20 dataset 285:5 decidedly 358:22 defined 263:10 dependent 397:24
currently 271:20 date 413:19 decision 480:13 309:12 311:23 depending 329:15
curve 425:6 462:18 dated 508:8 510:22 declaration 306:24 328:21 433:24,25 503:7
462:25 540:20 309:4 316:23 462:18 466:4 depends 304:12
curved 450:12 Daubert 257:21 352:22,23 353:2,4 493:15 310:3 322:22
cut 286:4 316:23 258:8,12 353:5,12 416:15 definitive 439:24 332:25
403:20 533:18 Dave 344:22 471:19 472:3 definitively 439:22 depiction 266:23

1/31/2009
Page 550
deposition 251:9 designed 404:12 developed 267:20 485:24 487:10 368:14 398:22
253:1 255:13 designing 402:2 272:20 303:21 491:15 495:4 453:23 463:7
299:2 342:22 489:8 343:23,25 344:21 530:20 533:3 464:25 505:18
343:2 405:8 desirable 460:7 369:20 420:7 534:7,8 discussing 271:20
413:16 490:11,15 desired 522:6 502:23 503:2 differing 287:24 490:21 499:11
538:16,19 540:5,8 Despite 424:15 504:24 522:25 290:22 410:16 502:3 521:22
540:16 destination 441:8 532:11,17 469:19 discussion 272:3
depth 321:10,21 detail 323:23 325:8 developing 258:22 difficult 300:16 277:16 382:14
322:18 327:20,24 detailed 266:22 318:13 399:20 395:22 434:24 443:24 444:24
354:24 362:25 365:5 446:23 development difficulty 357:12 445:2 471:19
366:8,14,17,24,25 details 327:13 278:15 285:8 383:9 499:8 496:16
367:1,24 368:1,4 489:2 515:21 421:19 458:23 dike 350:11,13 discussions 382:13
368:8,10,19,25 521:9 508:20 527:23 445:25 459:10 disinterested 540:9
369:13,17,18 detect 380:9 develops 265:9 460:18 475:20 Disk 342:22 343:2
370:1 371:9,9 determination deviation 340:24 dikes 458:16 405:4,8 490:11,15
376:1 378:12,14 346:14 466:18 471:13 475:11 538:16
379:4 493:16,17 determine 280:4 497:18,23 505:2 diligent 274:20 dispersed 361:14
depths 365:3 282:1 322:17 diagram 298:12,16 458:19 362:8
376:10 342:15 383:7,14 diagrams 298:17 diligently 425:19 dispersion 361:11
descent 403:19 397:17 398:2,7 298:19 direct 471:16 534:2
describe 261:22 407:21 409:3 difference 275:11 directed 530:11 displace 264:21
265:2 268:13 416:11 447:12 304:19 338:18,19 direction 270:16,17 displays 288:9
408:3 428:9 451:19 455:16 422:15 457:25 285:6 321:11 dissertation 260:14
430:20 449:11 463:19 469:19 458:2,6 467:5,12 330:19 441:10 dissimilarity
453:3,10 471:22 473:11 478:8 467:14 469:12 442:7 511:4 511:20
516:25 481:6,20 492:24 472:20,25 494:14 531:25 540:13 dissipated 322:17
described 271:15 497:9 498:24 499:3,4,5 directional 270:6 distance 326:16,19
372:17 398:21 determined 263:9 differences 395:3 directions 270:5 367:3,22 369:4,7
432:25 433:25 302:7 369:16 432:21 458:8 442:11 443:14 370:6,11 374:8,11
469:20 471:24 398:21 407:14 485:17 501:9 534:8 374:14,16,20
475:1 481:17 420:16 449:18 different 292:6 directly 387:11 375:6,11,23,25
487:20 488:5 452:15 460:13 293:19 307:8 397:4 501:7 379:7 380:15,23
500:24 505:9 468:22 476:17 315:9 325:1 503:21 531:3 383:14 466:13,14
518:8 524:23 480:3 519:18 334:24 335:19 disagree 295:17 466:17 469:11
describing 442:24 determining 354:25 358:23 disagreement 470:8,24 471:14
description 271:24 282:24 498:8 365:24 372:12 396:18,24 397:1 481:7,10 496:18
design 312:24 530:8 374:2 376:23,24 398:12 distinguish 310:11
400:6,19 401:1,5 deterministic 379:12 380:19 discipline 386:18 distortion 440:2
401:6,15,18 428:11 511:11 382:5,8 395:1 386:18 distributed 471:10
402:17,18 404:16 detour 286:6 409:14 410:13 discovered 518:18 distribution 469:17
485:1 489:5 detritus 332:6,8,13 423:2,13 433:15 520:3 471:4,5,7 482:11
506:17,18,20 develop 326:5 441:2 442:10,11 discrete 383:13 486:1 487:3,8,9
507:8,11,20,21 391:15 401:18 442:13,16 443:13 discuss 320:23 488:8
508:2,3,19 509:12 470:22 481:24 443:17 446:16 537:6 distributions 487:4
509:15 511:3 513:8 515:4,12 447:24 458:11,13 discussed 329:24 487:7,19 505:6
531:11 526:6 527:2 531:7 471:22 483:15 365:18 367:10 District 251:1,2

1/31/2009
Page 551
255:9,9 404:19 dot 339:23,23,23 driven 492:17 365:18 367:10 338:1 354:17
453:21 double 287:25 drop 338:9 395:18 368:11 369:11 356:20 364:18
divide 264:13 download 393:23 due 265:23 275:11 373:11,14 394:9 365:4 383:1
343:11 downrush 264:11 338:5 346:25 398:25 405:22 408:18 447:25
divided 352:25 419:15 438:21 351:5 354:23 423:3 424:23 452:16 476:14
402:16,17 407:2 439:4 456:23 397:1,3 416:9 447:5 472:17,19 478:20 501:9
461:10 470:15 457:18 421:22 457:17 472:24 480:6 515:4 517:9 522:6
DIVISION 253:20 downstream 471:6 518:16 490:21 495:20 531:8
doctor 356:24,25 506:14 507:4 520:1 521:7 497:15 504:1 EBSBs 261:25
doctoral 260:14 DOYLE 253:21 522:13 523:1,3 505:11 266:3 284:15
419:21 Dr 255:13 256:24 duly 253:10 256:14 early 309:9 310:17 453:19 516:19
document 257:14 258:21 281:20 540:6 447:19 508:20 517:16 526:20
271:19 274:20 283:22 293:11 Duncan 528:18 538:8 527:22
290:24 306:23 300:4 303:23 dune 344:12 earth 495:1 EC1110-2-6067
309:4 327:22 317:12 333:12 419:23,24 502:23 earthen 257:18 510:22
341:21 342:2,3 334:1 342:22 dunker 394:6 261:25 305:9 edge 326:16 367:23
354:10,11 358:8 343:3,5 345:9,9 durable 401:19 318:20 346:8 edges 286:3 521:17
362:22 402:13 345:11 348:10,11 duration 287:12 347:15,24 359:3 EFA 281:24 322:24
419:19 473:14 356:23 362:19 305:5 346:17 367:20 386:9 323:2 466:25
510:16,18 517:3 394:25 398:22 405:19 410:12,14 420:4,8 421:17 effect 319:15
535:7 405:4,9 409:15 410:15 445:20,20 455:17 320:10 323:9,15
documentation 411:24 418:20 durations 267:17 479:15 480:23 324:17 329:3
356:2 520:13 420:3 434:2 Dutch 458:2,14 513:5 533:19 440:15 442:19
documented 466:25 469:7 459:4 490:22,24 earthquake 484:24 531:19
275:22 278:19 490:11,16,19 491:9 493:4 497:3 East 503:1 effective 405:19
358:6,13 391:22 499:17 504:12 497:5 498:23 Eastern 251:2 effects 285:6
481:24 516:23 509:7 511:25 500:17 514:10 255:9 330:24 364:2
519:17 535:22 514:5,6 520:15 519:2 523:14,25 easy 381:25 420:22 371:24 378:13,16
documents 325:23 538:3,17 525:14 526:9 440:4 533:21 528:7,10,12
355:11 356:10 drafts 423:5 532:8 Ebersole 261:19 effort 388:18
453:16,18 454:7 drag 485:19 D'Eliso 345:9,9 295:15 297:7,12 517:16
517:4 drained 449:9 454:24 460:15,18 313:14 394:23 efforts 274:20
dog 408:23 dramatically 461:2 462:1,11,21 395:1 400:2 EFSA 473:4
doing 270:1 271:2 308:10 463:5,7 480:9 448:15 499:23 Egyptians 450:7
274:18 319:21 draw 266:7 375:13 D'Eliso's 455:2 537:12 either 276:17 290:9
336:21 340:2 375:19 376:17 461:5 465:10 Ebersole's 291:25 291:16 292:5,19
344:9,17 349:12 377:15 390:25 D.C 254:4 510:22 292:23 295:4 297:18,19 298:16
374:11 377:8 416:14 D5 510:25 298:18 320:11 298:19 304:18
379:11 381:19 drawing 294:6 472:15 305:23,23,25
384:2 413:18 295:15 300:24 E EBSB 257:9 262:23 314:20,24 315:1
439:23 443:2 457:3 E 255:2,2 263:1 263:5 264:2 317:7 337:20
444:4 525:4 drawings 291:20 481:9 265:13 288:15 339:9 347:22
domain 401:18 292:18 earlier 269:19 289:11 305:9 375:17 447:15
domains 313:12 drawn 485:23 286:7 300:6 306:19 307:23 452:6 461:21
Don 261:19 537:11 draws 460:1 309:19 310:1 308:4,5 309:14,16 466:7 478:23,24
door 264:4 drilling 357:4,6 330:5 360:7 326:13,17 327:10 540:15

1/31/2009
Page 552
EKG 437:15,15 empirical 278:1,10 engineers 271:24 261:10 481:6 353:25 357:2,3
elastic 395:16 278:11,18 400:23 272:3 278:13 equations 260:25 370:3 386:22
elect 382:19 431:5 503:2 512:9 284:12 285:1 equipment 522:4 387:4 392:18,22
electronic 356:8 517:5 344:14 346:6 equivalent 261:18 394:14 396:15
385:4 394:1 empirically 468:5 369:15,21 386:8 450:2 470:8 398:13 407:7,8,9
element 259:6 479:25 387:2 394:22 EQ1 263:4 408:7,7 411:17
326:23 332:14 employ 522:4 395:11 397:14 erased 364:2 412:6,7,8 415:3,3
385:19 505:5 employed 257:16 402:2 404:9,18 erodable 448:13,14 415:8,13,16,21,25
elements 372:11,12 259:11,15 265:16 406:1 420:2 448:17 462:24 416:1,2,5,10,12
372:19 398:1 508:14 453:24 479:12 476:15 515:24 417:4,4 418:7
504:24 employees 532:13 482:16 506:3,3 erode 264:21 297:5 419:23,23 427:6
elevate 309:15 emulate 406:17 508:1,10 509:11 302:2,2,8 415:6 441:7 444:11
elevation 287:13 encompass 410:16 509:17 510:21 eroded 290:10 451:8 460:14,20
290:5,16,24 encompassing 511:23 532:12 295:3,4,14,18 463:11 464:9,11
291:11 294:9 425:18 engineer's 485:12 297:7,11 300:20 465:12,14,15
295:5,21 297:11 encourage 349:10 England 474:17 301:15,19 302:1,6 466:13,14,16
300:20 301:16,25 415:19 458:22,25 English 474:23 302:9 303:3 467:15 468:12
302:6,9,11 303:10 encroached 521:23 ensure 280:23 363:20 520:1 469:7,11 470:8,8
305:13 309:15,16 endanger 383:15 355:7 402:10 erodes 305:24 470:23 476:17,18
309:18 310:7 endemic 301:5 495:24 erodibility 263:4,8 477:22 478:4,9
343:19,20 366:9 energetic 316:5 enter 494:24 264:19,20 284:19 483:20 484:17,20
367:17 370:8 energy 278:22 entered 536:22 288:20 312:7,9 484:22 496:18
378:21 381:10 279:10,17,20,25 entire 264:24 354:17 356:21 501:13 502:3
430:25 455:12,25 280:5,5,7,11 281:17 303:2 398:20 445:25 512:15,16,21
492:6 499:25 322:17 305:14 318:19 446:10 447:1,7,13 514:20,22 519:19
519:9,11 522:6,20 engineer 346:5 340:13 359:17 447:24 450:22 521:3 529:14
526:4,4,25,25 420:2 433:22 374:20 380:23 462:17,19 463:16 534:16 536:11
527:7,7,13 480:13 484:3 382:2 390:20 463:18 467:1,6 erosional 310:9
elevations 263:11 engineered 480:15 410:3 415:20 472:20,25 483:4 erosive 330:24
288:3 290:9,19,22 484:13 418:11,12 438:22 533:8 534:15 332:14 364:2
292:19 293:21 engineering 258:25 439:5 537:19 eroding 268:5 424:10,14 446:8
297:8,17,18 375:2 271:25 272:6 entirely 340:11 331:2 461:12
456:21 278:13 327:22 entitles 307:21 erosion 257:9 erroneous 391:25
eliminate 487:22 344:14,23,25 environment 262:19,23 282:1 error 279:2 340:20
eloquently 333:13 386:24 387:1 506:21 507:12 282:13,15,24 340:22 341:2
elusive 496:5 393:9 394:21 511:5 285:6,8,10,15 352:17 479:18
embankment 395:15 396:20,25 environmental 288:10 307:3 480:2 482:17
507:20 508:2 398:13 399:7 406:12 308:10,14 309:17 492:2 493:7,24
Embarcadero 401:17,18 404:11 equal 266:20 312:12 314:8 497:10 498:8
253:5 255:15 409:18 433:24 470:16 495:10 315:4 316:10 errors 383:10
485:1 458:15 471:20 equally 259:17,22 321:10,21 322:10 482:21
embedded 346:13 489:5 506:13 equals 481:9 322:18 340:14,16 escalates 383:10
370:21 420:9 507:3,18 508:8 498:12 343:24 344:12 ESQ 253:15
embraced 507:20 510:13 511:14,16 equate 319:1 345:19 346:17,25 essentially 321:5
507:23 508:1,11 511:21,22 515:14 equating 280:9 347:3,5,13 348:13 327:19 356:7
emphasized 421:4 515:15 equation 261:3,5 351:6 352:11,12 409:7 497:25

1/31/2009
Page 553
establish 258:6 514:7 490:4 experimentalists 275:21 280:22

392:8 exact 284:25 328:3 excuse 412:7 420:25 expose 512:19
established 400:23 exactly 267:8 519:12 536:17 experimentation exposed 330:22
465:24 479:14 271:13 285:24 exercise 403:18 384:2 exposure 475:20
establishes 456:25 286:5 287:5 exhaustive 408:1 experiments 389:5 express 497:19
establishment 319:19 325:3 exhibit 257:3 419:22 440:1 expressed 340:23
404:5 376:12 387:21 exist 535:6 459:5 463:9 481:8 505:1 506:9
estimate 468:5 417:7,11 426:25 existing 290:9 expert 257:6 524:19
482:8 492:25 437:5 439:17 303:6 258:21 263:22 expression 488:18
495:22 444:22 456:13 exo-tropical 511:8 275:24 276:2 extend 436:7
estimated 288:10 461:18 475:19 expand 383:10 278:19 303:23 extended 516:17
347:9 466:13 477:9 478:5 483:6 409:5 436:6 305:12 352:5,21 extensive 275:13
476:16 486:10 487:2,4,25 expanded 531:9 352:25 353:9 460:2
estuarine 511:5 489:17 500:14,16 expect 523:10 387:24 391:22 extensively 274:11
et 465:9 499:17 502:14 515:5 537:4 398:8 405:13 479:3 530:4,9
500:7 516:14 EXAMINATION expectation 394:17 409:8 434:2 extent 288:13
Europe 347:21 252:4,6,7,8 395:10 440:2 481:25 486:8 418:4 458:23
397:12 465:17,17 256:23 479:22 486:1 488:15 509:25 510:1 extra 369:7 414:11
European 345:6,13 490:18 504:10 489:1,23 492:10 515:22 516:24 extreme 469:18
465:22 479:4 EXAMINATIONS expected 270:11 518:6 519:7 516:13
evaluate 284:18 252:2 415:3 440:3 525:10,20 535:23 extremely 259:4
287:8 318:22 examined 253:11 470:14,14 482:7 experts 270:20 268:19 420:20,21
346:4 356:15 256:15 493:13 504:25 271:11 274:22 505:9
359:3 491:23 example 259:11 522:24 290:15,21 320:20 eye 275:7
503:3 508:15 264:15 286:4 expecting 395:12 388:16 397:5 eyes 301:3
evaluated 263:6 347:14,23 366:13 411:10 418:25 482:24 E-mail 253:17,24
291:3 302:12 385:1 441:18 experience 258:24 530:12 532:4,6 254:5
340:1 422:5 450:5 452:10,16 265:23 275:19 537:15
evaluating 479:14 458:12 490:7 439:25 explain 261:16 F
evaluation 257:21 492:5 494:1 495:1 experienced 312:12 263:14 303:3 face 262:12,14
304:12 347:5,13 499:23 508:6 314:8 315:4 304:15 340:6 265:8 283:10
390:23 489:20,22 examples 387:10 experiment 383:2 369:11 408:16 308:11,12,15
494:24 508:18 383:18,23,24 445:6 447:22 319:18 320:25
evaluations 266:1 excavate 360:25 384:23 420:7 483:23 488:19 321:1,23 322:4,7
290:1 307:3 408:9 exceed 309:16 445:11,15 451:20 528:2 326:24 327:6
evasive 500:22 506:8 452:2 explained 419:9 329:17 331:17
event 535:16 exceeded 527:7,12 experimental 471:2 515:22 358:15 361:17
540:17 exceeding 365:4 272:13,16 313:11 517:24 363:10 366:21
events 511:6,8 exceeds 502:16 320:21 346:1,18 explaining 410:1 367:4,5,12,19
everybody 362:11 526:4,25 347:7 348:23 explains 459:3 368:6,24 376:7
389:21 403:23,24 excellent 472:16,18 407:3 423:1 explicit 445:24 378:22 379:3
evidence 272:5 498:19 436:23 439:11 470:25 380:5,8,10,13
306:2 388:20 exception 398:10 451:11 455:17,23 explicitly 353:23 392:23 394:11
418:13,16 445:13 456:6,22 461:1,13 exploitation 340:10 400:19 442:25
evolution 514:11 excessive 521:25 463:13 479:9 419:14 465:13 443:6,8,9,12
evolution/develo... exclude 489:10 495:25 exploratory 275:14 456:22 534:11

1/31/2009
Page 554
faced 362:1 fall 336:16 466:4,6 339:16,18,20 374:7 399:21,21 342:5,7,13 345:8
faces 357:1 480:7 484:11 341:3 343:12,12 434:10 435:4,11 345:16,18 351:10
facility 436:23 487:2 357:24 358:10 435:24 437:1,16 352:8 354:4,9
439:16 falls 286:3 362:25 363:7 437:23,25 439:9 389:7 397:3 400:8
fact 270:3 290:14 familiar 268:21 365:11,12,15,16 439:14 456:14,17 400:10 408:8
314:9 320:10 270:20 504:18 366:2,4,5,6,19,20 456:18 463:15 419:12 420:21
325:7 328:3 338:7 511:25 525:17 367:6,11,18,19,19 475:7 476:2 424:4 437:12,17
347:21 372:18 fancy 495:13 368:2,18,19,22 520:21 445:17,24 447:4
383:9 392:21 far 304:2 339:9 369:1,5,7,18 Figures 371:1,1 458:10 464:17
404:15 427:9 382:10 400:17 370:6,8 371:21,23 fill 503:7,10 474:3 481:19
437:12,17,17 414:3 416:11 372:1,2 374:8,11 final 282:10 329:8 504:18 505:3,4,8
449:21 484:10,25 426:13 447:13 374:16 375:7,11 329:23 350:16 505:13,22 513:17
485:9 488:6 490:6 448:20 494:14,16 376:6,11,13,15,16 finally 338:25 520:18 529:16
496:9 509:3 514:4 502:16 518:2 377:25 378:1,5,8 find 270:10 274:15 fit 258:17
532:6 526:21 378:19 379:12,13 276:20 277:19 fits 450:23
factor 293:15 379:1 farther 322:7 379:14,16 380:4 288:24 292:5 Fitzgerald 528:18
379:16,19 403:8 457:24 431:8 438:7,8 293:19 325:22 five 342:19 467:8
403:14 404:6 fashion 351:22 460:14 466:17,18 342:1 385:9,12 473:2 534:13
433:14 473:8 fast 323:13 358:8 469:12,13 471:14 388:17 401:21 five-minute 404:25
480:14,17,19 358:10 491:22 492:1,3 407:20 411:10 454:12 537:20
493:23 513:25 faster 309:19 324:3 493:19 494:7,10 429:14 435:20 fix 463:25
factors 294:2 324:10,17 460:19 495:2 496:22 477:11 482:23 Flawed 472:18
370:10,12 397:3 fat 300:19 301:5,20 499:4 519:10 492:2 504:8 fleshes 355:17
402:9,14,15 403:3 302:22 522:18 finding 290:25 flight 489:15
480:22 485:13 fatigue 265:16,17 fell 447:23 415:16 429:17 flood 261:25 285:9
489:3 265:21,21,24 female 363:19 fine 271:6,9 281:25 305:9 326:17
fail 395:4 266:1 267:7,8,15 fertilization 458:24 285:13 335:24 345:8,13 347:15
failed 421:21,21,22 267:19,20 270:12 458:25 336:21 337:13 347:24 352:1
fails 350:3,3 398:3 272:11,15,20 field 261:11 271:16 344:22 345:1 358:8 359:3
537:19 274:4,13 275:19 271:17 274:1,2 392:1 395:3 361:17 362:1
failure 328:18,19 280:24 329:8,9 305:15 318:24 413:18 472:2,4 367:20 404:4,19
328:20 330:9,12 480:18,20 347:7 360:21 508:6,10 420:4,8 421:13,17
330:14 461:5 FDA 484:10 389:5 417:16 finger 401:12 421:18,22,25
476:16 523:21 feature 310:10 421:7 424:21 finish 286:10 361:9 443:8,9 455:17
524:8 526:22 feel 276:17 323:10 453:25 460:1 384:11 434:21 456:21 465:14,16
527:3 323:13 485:3,5 476:4 479:9 finite 385:19 465:20 479:5,15
failures 523:1 feeling 465:23 512:10,16 513:10 Finnel 499:4 480:23 506:20
fair 258:8,9 266:11 feet 290:7 291:10 514:12 522:4 500:18 507:11 508:13,15
266:24 272:11 291:11 295:3 fifth 534:9 first 253:10 259:9 509:21 510:19
276:24,25 279:16 296:7,13,16 297:1 fight 538:6 259:23 261:21 522:15 523:15,20
280:9 304:14 303:11,12 312:19 figure 326:6 361:16 262:17 273:6 524:1 529:13
343:14 368:18 312:19 319:7 361:25 363:15,17 288:7,25 289:1 530:3,9,25 534:11
401:2,3 441:3,4 326:18,19,23 363:24 364:10 292:11 299:1,4 534:15 536:11
505:21 507:25 327:17,18 333:15 365:5,6,7 367:15 303:24 325:22 flooding 304:9
510:3 336:3,3 337:3,4,6 368:19 371:3 329:12 330:21 408:16 508:15
fairly 320:15 337:15,25 338:10 373:18,18,19 341:19,24,25 514:18 525:15,16

1/31/2009
Page 555
Floor 253:5 536:15 found 268:10,11 503:13 520:7 generally 283:23

flopping 437:3 follows 256:15 351:2,5 357:2 fronting 305:1 402:18 458:5
Florida 369:22 322:6 430:1 439:2 370:23 386:7 front-to-back 529:19
419:21 471:14 481:8 394:20 407:8 257:17 340:16 generated 288:9
flotsam 332:13,18 507:1 412:6 420:20 353:25 419:10 422:7
333:1 363:20 foot 293:24,24 421:8 477:12 fruit 529:4 generates 262:12
499:24 296:7,13 336:4,5 525:8 full 361:5 379:7 generation/water
flow 282:2,4,14,16 337:7 370:1 foundation 507:21 fully 308:12 326:4 364:19,21
282:20,22 283:15 497:10 499:6 508:3 Full-time 411:14 gentlemen 255:4
283:23 284:3,13 503:10 four 267:25 275:18 function 261:9 geometric 261:22
285:6,21 340:9,11 forced 262:7 281:14 312:21 263:2,15 264:5,19 308:4 372:14
398:25 forces 321:20 335:6 356:12 264:20 284:19 431:18,25 529:17
flows 282:25 417:20 421:24 364:17 397:6 285:10,15 288:1 530:8,25 531:16
fluctuation 439:9 441:17 512:20 fourth 274:9,17 288:10 327:19 geometries 376:23
fluctuations 437:21 foregoing 538:22 four-tenths 371:9 369:12 406:13 geometry 288:20
438:3,16,19 540:5 fraction 448:24,25 410:2 448:24 289:14 326:11,13
439:14 forensic 386:24 449:16 503:4 354:25 364:14
fluid 262:4,4,7 387:1,2 393:8 frame 432:23 functions 398:20 365:13 367:8
322:23 349:17 401:17 433:22,23 435:19,21 fundamentally 373:20 379:12
372:11 386:4 471:20 482:15 Francisco 253:5 323:18 349:9 382:6,7 383:2
387:6 390:20 489:5 515:14,15 255:6,15 funnel 452:12 geotech 396:20
393:4 411:2 foreshore 321:18 free 294:10 furnished 398:9 geotechnical 272:3
438:20,21,23 326:22 528:8 freeboard 319:13 537:1,3 273:10 507:18,22
439:4,5,6 form 257:24 319:16 363:6 further 252:4,7 Gerald 254:7 255:5
fluid-soil 400:20 258:13 260:23 frequently 290:24 256:23 331:21 Germany 465:18
flume 262:11 261:19 298:17 458:22 356:5 383:10 getting 291:7 307:8
281:22,25 284:6 354:22 356:8 fresh 446:14 460:10 490:18 308:23 331:19
323:5 398:24 372:16 385:4 friction 322:16,21 538:2 540:14 332:24 334:24
420:15 525:12 323:4,9,15,19 future 420:4 341:12 343:20
fly 484:5,7 formal 470:20 325:2,7,7 443:18 357:12 420:21
flying 403:13 494:21 444:6,17 450:3 G 460:22
foam 346:11,12 formed 310:10 frictional 323:22 G 255:2 GIS 302:18
440:11 500:21 371:24 372:16 gallery 381:16 give 266:22 269:19
foam-based 420:9 forms 480:14 front 276:3 283:4 Gary 528:20,21 285:5 393:17,20
focus 323:21 formulation 477:12 283:19 298:12 gathering 495:6 421:20 422:20
337:24 466:12 477:24 300:25 312:10,12 gears 317:25 446:19 468:4
focused 340:9,12 forth 262:11 314:2,8 315:2,4 403:21 478:16 493:23,25
340:14 343:21 434:17 442:18 315:15,23 316:2,9 Geisenhainer 494:1 495:6 512:7
442:22 459:5 468:3 515:10 319:13,16 332:1 346:16 350:11 513:25
513:15 fortunate 496:8 340:17 351:5,6,7 444:23 445:7 given 259:5 280:7
folks 389:24 504:3 Forty 328:12 351:9,14,17 451:3,6 461:2 331:2 374:25
follow 415:23 Forty-five 473:21 387:23 394:14 501:25 378:12 380:19
followed 457:17 forward 393:19 416:12 455:21 general 267:13 394:1 397:4 462:6
508:22,23 442:15 492:11 456:1 465:11 313:3 347:8 465:14 471:13
following 272:21 forwards 434:3 466:23 473:11 385:18 424:15 472:10 473:6
284:15 314:15 fostered 508:21 475:18 493:9 511:3 482:1 486:22

1/31/2009
Page 556
495:9 500:20 goes 320:8 324:20 graph 437:1 473:5 491:9 501:18 290:7 291:10
513:17 520:4 332:16 365:11 graphical 338:7 grow 357:12 292:3 293:24
523:11 399:6 494:14,16 grapple 499:18,19 growth 274:6 316:23 343:11,12
gives 445:18 going 264:10 grass 288:20 458:23,25 403:10
459:19 267:11 268:1,6 304:22 305:18,22 guess 345:22 halfway 269:5
giving 492:9 269:6 271:1 305:23,25 306:3,6 393:11 394:1 hand 361:6 404:3
GIWW 452:13 275:25 277:7 306:14,18,20 395:18 397:21 handed 453:21
523:22 278:9 290:20 307:17,21,23,25 409:15,16 419:18 handle 267:17
glad 395:21 497:6 291:16 292:2 308:20 311:8,13 425:14 431:5 347:17 498:20
glass 299:20 306:22 310:9 312:2 313:5,6,6,8 498:25 505:5
Glenn 251:9 253:1 314:24 323:25 313:9 314:1,12 guesswork 304:16 hands 360:25
253:9 255:13 330:14 333:6 316:9 320:2 guidance 384:1,21 happen 486:7,9,11
256:13 539:2 337:9 343:12 329:18 330:6,20 404:10 486:13 515:13
global-mapped 361:8 373:25 331:4,7 332:2,15 guidelines 404:16 happened 360:18
302:18 395:11,18 396:18 333:19 357:10,12 507:16 509:11 375:17 377:12
go 262:20 264:23 401:10 411:16 357:20 363:23,25 Gulf 371:5 381:1 489:9
269:5 270:3,24 417:23 434:17,17 364:8 368:5 383:4 420:6 459:7 happening 372:14
273:7 274:1,11 434:20 442:6,7,18 396:25 397:7,8,12 502:25 375:22 380:3
276:17 277:8,11 456:1,10 477:2 397:18,20 398:2,7 Gustav 319:4,5,7,9 436:23
278:8 281:7 486:10 489:3 399:3,9 400:7,21 329:22 342:6 happens 410:2
284:10 286:6 501:8,16 524:3 402:3 404:11 345:20 348:3,14 425:12
294:8 296:22 536:5 537:12 450:16 458:3,3,9 352:6,10 355:3,7 happy 439:21
299:17 301:10 538:3,6 458:10,11,14,20 355:9 356:20 hard 313:22 434:19
306:24 310:23 good 255:3 275:16 459:2,11,21,22 357:2,22,23 harm 527:24 528:3
319:11 324:17 299:22 301:3 464:19 468:2 358:20,21,24 Hassan 532:19
325:8,12 328:6 312:6,11 314:1,5 473:25 474:8,11 359:7 360:6 363:3 hate 317:17
333:14 342:18 315:1,3,22 316:8 474:12,13,18,19 363:11 373:13 head 286:4
352:6 353:17 316:9 317:15 474:19,22,24 374:16 375:10,14 headed 441:18
359:24 360:13 325:8 329:25 476:15 515:9 376:19,21 377:9 heading 371:4
364:11 373:22,25 330:5 334:13 524:17 526:5 377:12,13,25 511:4,15,17
381:18 390:9 348:23 362:10 527:1,5,19,23 378:11,18 379:1 hear 362:23 438:24
392:20 393:20 385:6 389:6 528:3,8,12 532:21 379:17 380:23 453:5 480:22
394:2 412:1,23 397:13 420:21 533:3,5 381:8 382:1,25 heard 317:1
413:5 414:18 421:1 425:10 grasses 372:20 407:13 414:23 Heerden 348:10
418:17 419:19 430:16 465:25 grassy 357:16 415:9 417:5 418:2 356:23 532:18
421:10 423:22 492:4 504:23 grass-covered 426:4,9 427:5,7 height 268:12
426:19,21,23 520:2,4 521:6 475:11 428:21 430:3 274:25 275:3,5,7
428:16 431:22 524:9,12,18 526:5 gravity 488:9 447:5 535:9 278:24,25 279:5
435:18 443:23 526:24 527:1,5,23 great 334:4 357:12 Gustav's 357:15 279:11,12,17,19
444:23 454:19 528:3 430:23 467:20 guys 291:19 293:9 279:19 280:6,10
455:8 472:14 Goodwin 253:4 greater 467:17 413:6 281:5 320:24
475:24 476:10 254:3 256:4 468:7,13 482:3 G-E-I-S-E-N-H-E 321:1,8 328:18,19
479:20 492:15 Grab 291:24 508:13,16 444:24 329:14 330:15
496:21 501:1 grades 354:20 ground 295:20 331:5,6,9,14
519:24 529:5 grading 425:5 367:22 403:18 H 333:15,23 336:2
God 270:12 graduate 419:20 group 385:23 448:1 half 267:25 275:19 337:4 339:18

1/31/2009
Page 557
340:24,25 341:2 histories 329:11 445:12 446:7,14 301:15 320:18,20 importantly 305:7
343:7,9 366:16 420:18 452:15 535:9 345:13 352:21 inability 357:19
368:9,15,16 history 286:24 human 259:19 374:23 488:7 inadequate 527:19
369:12,18,25 329:4,16 411:14 298:14 identify 255:19 inappropriate
370:3,8 371:7 418:11 421:11 hundred 267:18 486:23 489:6
381:11 425:2 424:14 438:22 481:2 identifying 373:18 inappropriately
455:14,15,25 439:6 452:24 hundreds 269:8,14 ignorant 394:6 513:1
493:14,15,18 456:19 457:18 270:10 385:8 ignore 394:7 incident 286:22
495:9 519:3,12 503:4 509:24 hurricane 284:15 IHNC 523:22 287:22 368:9
522:17 531:20,24 528:10 290:11 313:1 II 251:10 255:13 369:12 370:3
heights 288:1 hit 301:5,22 321:17 314:15 319:4,5,7 340:13 342:23 371:7 377:7
291:17 312:18 hold 317:9 401:10 319:9 326:5 352:5 405:4,9 inclination 366:10
320:23 321:4 472:8 476:10 338:21 345:20 465:12 466:12 449:23,25 450:2
338:11 340:21,22 home 293:25 348:2 352:6,10 490:16 516:18 incline 366:13
371:25 379:3 513:22,23 354:23 355:2,5 517:1 538:17 376:8,9
456:7 495:11 homework 286:17 356:20 358:15,20 ILIT 281:12,14,15 inclined 450:6
527:12 homogeneous 358:21 382:5 illustrated 505:19 include 312:15
held 277:16 443:24 395:16 383:17,20 386:21 illustration 301:19 316:19 347:22,22
445:2 531:14 hope 389:21 442:5 464:18 Imagine 263:25 386:3 518:11,13
help 266:5,6 285:7 hopefully 403:17 473:24 474:6,8 imaging 529:20 included 370:24
301:1 334:10,17 horizontal 442:2 476:14 478:21 immediately 414:12
380:22 384:22 hour 253:3 265:18 488:6 489:19,20 330:24 387:22 includes 537:7
395:21 445:3,10 358:10 404:24 489:22 491:9 449:23 536:15 including 270:17
465:25 470:6 476:18 523:3 509:23 510:4 impact 368:17 273:12 313:5
497:6 526:5 527:1,8,13 513:5 514:3 447:1 320:9 420:17
helped 433:8 hours 267:18 269:7 518:24 522:25 impacts 501:12 426:6 465:17
helpful 335:8 269:15 310:19 532:1 534:24 imperfect 425:24 479:10 515:8
384:10 512:25 320:16 350:20,21 535:16,20 imperial 409:14 532:24
521:12 358:5 363:12,15 hurricanes 344:19 impinging 284:13 incoming 327:7
helps 303:2 427:24 366:22 367:5,14 hydrodynamic implemented 378:14 457:18
hey 393:19 436:2 368:25 406:23 512:20 532:8 374:21 503:19
high 312:8 320:8 460:14,23,25 hydrodynamics importance 258:22 incorporate 267:22
323:12 363:21 461:5 464:4 288:21 455:2 259:1,2 376:4 incorporated
384:5 420:21,24 475:21 477:13,23 531:24 410:8 302:17 387:23
469:11 476:15 477:25 502:4,5,5 hydrographs important 258:18 480:15
480:8 503:22,22 502:6,7,15 303:21,22 335:13 258:20 259:18,23 incorrect 282:6
503:25 Hughes 346:2,3,5 hypothetical 494:5 262:17 278:16 289:22 298:4
higher 278:22 348:23 394:23 286:15 314:9,10 306:9,16 340:4
279:10 280:11,12 402:6 407:3 412:4 I 322:25 327:4 353:6 374:13
296:19 297:3 412:23 416:20,21 ice 265:12 332:14 368:8 398:18 412:18
325:2 351:21 417:3 418:17,19 idea 390:3 383:7 419:8 421:6 413:23 415:1
highest 275:4 419:5,17,18,20 identical 270:1 424:18 445:17 424:5 432:8,12
highly 302:20 420:1,3,23 422:5 376:21 495:4 458:18 460:6 447:21,22 477:1
448:13,14,17 422:9 426:6,19,22 identifications 464:16 466:22 506:12 507:3
459:1 427:17 428:18 374:25 479:1,6 518:19 535:1,21
high-level 530:19 436:14 437:5 identified 261:20 520:3 521:19 incorrectly 513:14

1/31/2009
Page 558
increase 354:23 389:11,12,24 intact 309:14 296:15 297:23 issued 510:20

366:16 410:24 424:12 integrate 318:22 306:12 332:7 issues 538:5
increases 264:6,7,7 437:19 445:18,25 470:20 337:2 339:5 Iver 532:18
increasing 366:15 453:20,22 460:2,5 integrated 261:9 381:17 408:21 Ivor 348:10
406:14 442:6 463:14 473:4 263:1,15 318:23 469:21 472:22
incredibly 312:20 486:3 490:25 496:14 484:18 506:19,24 J
330:16 495:6 515:8,11 integration 431:22 intersection 455:16 Jaeger 453:23
increments 322:9 520:12 521:8 470:21 intersections January 251:11
index 252:1,2 529:21 530:1 intelligent 268:19 455:21 253:3 255:1,14
448:23 informed 343:10 intended 380:4,10 interval 264:24 256:25 257:7
indicated 521:18 initial 304:5 406:24 401:18 531:11 266:25 276:2 278:20
indicates 455:22 initiated 257:17 intensities 484:24 intervals 264:14 286:19 288:16
indicating 300:23 365:11 466:11 intensity 406:14 intervening 370:11 299:8 317:23
indicators 403:20 475:10 509:2 intensive 508:20 375:23,25 318:5 325:14
induce 452:7 522:14 interact 262:5 introduce 513:24 341:6,9 352:5
induced 506:6 initiating 509:1 interacting 262:6 introduced 305:11 353:11,13 362:21
induction 452:4 initiation 376:2 500:9 inundate 408:20 387:24 395:25
industrial 508:17 462:8 interaction 321:6 investigate 420:3 396:3,9 405:13
industries 386:6 input 259:18,20 349:17 386:4 investigating 409:8 412:3
497:16 279:8 328:4 387:7 390:21 298:20 304:19 414:13,20 416:15
industry 385:10,17 334:13 410:21,22 400:20 491:12 investigations 434:7,15,16,22
385:21,24 386:1 437:9 532:7 535:5 interest 260:22 271:16,17 471:1 472:4
386:14,17,19 535:7 391:18 investigators 413:1 473:17 481:25
388:6 389:13 inputs 274:23 interested 486:12 480:4 500:21 483:6,17 510:1
392:22,25 393:1,7 insensitive 379:24 486:13 540:17 involve 470:19 516:23 518:4,6
393:7 394:16 380:15 interesting 268:11 involved 382:23 520:16
395:10,11,15 insight 259:24 408:19 420:20 397:2 445:15 Japanese 271:25
396:19,25 397:5 285:5 445:18 421:9,18 491:9 Jbruno@jbrunol...
398:6,13,14 399:8 495:7 interface 262:15 inward 321:20,22 253:17
508:17,21,23,24 insignificant 323:8 369:25 in-service 274:9 Jean-Louis 398:22
509:1,2,4 312:12 314:8 372:15 442:4 IPED 284:17 285:2 449:17
ineffective 424:13 315:4 316:10 interior 523:15 312:20 jet 441:18
infinite 267:3,4 378:13 interlock 523:1,11 IPET 304:5 391:20 jetsam 332:13,19
269:3 instability 431:18 527:3 508:12 519:18,21 333:1 363:20
infinity 470:4 431:25 432:16 internal 450:3 532:9 499:24
inflow 364:19,22 installed 404:20 internationally irregular 266:20 job 488:22
influenced 304:25 instance 270:22 397:11 267:5,14,23 Joe 538:4
462:17 278:3 366:18 Internet 393:24 268:15,16,23 John 453:23
influences 371:19 388:2 428:6 469:6 504:3 269:3 274:23 528:17
information 259:19 447:15 461:21 interpretation 275:8,12 280:2,3 Joseph 253:15,15
269:20 289:25 512:21 517:20 259:24 280:14,15 287:22 256:6 338:24
293:21 302:11 instances 415:17 interpretative 457:11 journal 271:22,25
305:15 306:4 instrumented 294:8 isotropic 395:16 272:3,8 388:8
313:9 314:15 369:23 interrupt 443:4 issue 305:18,20 journals 536:13
318:24 355:6 instruments 294:8 interruption 271:7 333:5 397:10 JPM-OS 511:10
356:5 360:3 Insurance 510:19 285:25 289:4 404:5 447:5 judge 263:17

1/31/2009
Page 559
judgment 421:20 474:6,8 476:14 380:14 382:8,11 449:18 451:7,11 layman 371:20
486:3 488:25 478:21 488:6 384:14,16 388:4 451:20 456:6,9 layman's 263:16,20
492:17 489:19,21,23 390:18 391:8 459:4 461:6 463:9 leading 445:19
judgmental 475:3 509:23 510:4 399:5,6 403:8 479:8 502:7,11 leakage 436:22
July 275:23 276:9 514:3 518:24 428:15 431:9 512:12 529:23 learn 451:4 454:1
277:20,21 306:24 522:25 534:24 438:15 439:18,22 lack 503:23 learned 407:13
325:14,15,16,24 535:16,20 451:16,17 453:12 ladies 255:4 437:18 450:7
334:16 353:9 Katrina's 441:20 458:1,21 464:25 Lafarge 254:2 leave 382:13,14
373:23 374:3 keep 336:19 413:8 472:7 474:23,24 256:4 506:25
387:24 391:22 418:20,23 501:8 477:2 494:18 Lafayette 528:18 left 352:23 365:10
395:25 396:3 Kemp 348:11 497:5 500:6,22 laid 353:7 368:5 421:13
398:9 408:5,24 523:23 532:18 525:1,4 536:7 lake 369:22 370:22 left-hand 296:3
409:4 413:20 kept 383:12 knowing 343:19 511:5 legal 255:5 257:23
429:5 430:14 keyword 401:5 486:12 laminar 285:21 legally 506:10
468:1,25 491:1 kill 403:23,24 knowledge 474:20 land 403:21 530:19 length 303:2
509:25 515:22 killer 424:14 knowledgeable landing 403:9,18 304:25 305:14
525:10 526:16 killers 395:17 263:18 403:21 313:12 351:24
535:22 kind 261:5,14 known 400:5 landward 321:11 less-than-peak
jump 450:13 286:11 299:12 knows 434:2 large 332:12 424:10 461:20
Junk 332:8 313:15,16 378:6 Kortenhaus 346:16 339:24 356:3 letters 301:2
Justice 253:19 392:6 439:9 350:11 501:25 420:14 421:25 let's 258:1 262:20
255:23,25 451:17 455:5 Kriebel 344:7,8,22 467:14 471:11 284:3 286:6,10
justified 404:7 468:21 472:5 345:2 465:3 476:7 485:10 505:23,23 292:3 293:18
474:11,22 475:13 476:7 477:11,16 506:4 294:12 296:22
K 479:6 480:12 477:18,24 478:1 largely 462:16 299:17 306:23
K 251:5 490:19 494:25 478:11,19,24 larger 288:4 307:1,10 309:23
Kat 378:21 495:16 520:10 479:18,24 480:3 343:20 354:22 310:23 315:14
Kathleen 251:25 kinds 274:13 500:13 501:6 480:16,17 319:11 325:12
253:6 540:3,24 344:11 372:12 502:5,16,22 large-scale 419:22 328:6 330:17,20
Katrina 251:4 380:19 459:5 lasts 319:16 330:21 331:5
255:10 284:16 494:23 498:10 L late 468:11 523:3 333:14 335:22
287:2 290:11 Kingdom 399:19 L 469:23 481:11 536:18,23 537:5 337:23 338:21
305:16 313:1 knew 420:25 434:4 lab 273:13 lateral 288:10 339:12,14 342:18
314:16 315:17 447:6 laboratory 262:10 308:10 345:19 342:19 352:6,20
338:22 339:13 know 258:16 271:16,17 273:7,8 346:17 402:23 359:24 364:11
355:2,5 358:16,21 261:11 263:18 273:17,20 302:17 460:14 534:16 367:18 369:4
358:25 359:8,11 282:19,23 283:18 318:24 320:21 latest 303:22 373:22 386:12,20
359:12 375:5,6,14 291:17 292:2 346:1,7,18,24 414:11 490:25 386:25 390:25
376:6,18,22 377:5 293:17,23 295:2 347:1,7 348:22 Law 253:15,21,21 396:22 401:8,8
377:13 378:1,2 297:13 298:25 368:13 389:5 253:22 254:3 403:3 412:1 413:5
379:1,11 381:5,6 303:5,8 305:4 407:3 412:4 lawn 458:21 413:17 414:18
381:9,13 382:17 310:24 311:11 417:17 419:22 layer 301:6,22 418:19 425:25
382:25 383:17,20 320:14 322:20 420:7,15,22 421:6 302:24 323:17 432:18 440:16
386:21 397:17 323:22 330:12,13 423:7 424:20 324:2,3,19 373:5 441:20 443:6,23
399:4,9 452:6 334:3,17 353:18 436:19 437:6 440:12,13 441:13 444:23 454:19
464:18 473:24 356:24 359:10 439:25 445:8 444:7 455:8 461:8 472:8

1/31/2009
Page 560
476:10 481:14 458:3 515:23 537:18 531:8,21 535:25 497:3,8

491:22 494:3,4,6 516:6,7,11 522:23 list 286:8 479:17 536:1 looking 267:1
494:8 496:21 527:5,11,20 528:4 listed 339:22 415:5 locations 285:1 276:11,13 288:22
497:21 501:1 529:1 415:5 477:3 291:16 303:9 293:10 297:25
519:24 520:8 level 274:17 283:23 listening 257:25 516:19 517:8,10 313:25 317:23
521:13 522:9 301:8 310:6 listing 337:17 517:13 518:3 334:15 335:6,8,16
525:3 537:20 323:14 343:17 literature 269:17 520:6,25 521:21 349:6 357:21
levee 283:10 295:3 344:18 451:18 384:2,16,22 385:9 522:12 524:21 360:23 363:19,24
295:9,10,14 464:22 498:4,25 385:12,16 387:5,8 527:3 531:9 367:16 387:11
299:14 304:10 499:5 503:20 387:22 402:3 log 298:6,7 299:13 399:21 406:1,2
313:16,17 315:3 levels 283:9 365:3 479:3 469:18,22 471:5,7 414:24 419:17
319:13,18 320:4,7 402:25 452:8 litigation 251:4 logic 523:4 427:7 428:21,21
320:8 321:19 511:7 532:5 logical 480:16 429:8,11 430:3,3
322:2 326:24 liaison 253:14 little 296:14 319:11 logs 300:5 302:16 430:21 434:12
331:5 332:1 256:7 322:7 361:9 long 267:17 268:3 437:24 454:21
333:22,23 349:1 LIDAR 294:3 449:14 480:22 303:18 358:3 455:2 459:20,22
351:18,21,21 522:19 529:19 lived 475:2 363:10 374:1 468:4 477:4
354:24 357:15,22 530:16 531:7 lives 403:14 422:19 456:2 483:13 489:17
358:4,9,15 363:1 LIDAR-based LLC 255:6 475:2,17,21,22 521:2 525:9 526:9
363:11,14 366:22 312:25 LLP 253:4 477:3 479:17 526:12
367:4,6,11,23 life 480:19 Loach 296:8 longer 305:22 looks 301:20
368:7,25 376:7 lift 324:12 453:2,3 Loach's 293:11 309:19 406:3 371:20 425:6
381:3 382:7 453:11 loading 475:13,15 long-term 265:18 431:10 437:14
392:23 394:12 lifts 452:23 453:1 loadings 506:6 267:19 loose 470:19
402:12 408:17 509:21,24 510:4 local 323:15 368:9 look 258:5 268:22 496:14
443:9 452:10,12 lift-off 396:25 369:12,17 371:22 268:24 275:8 loosely 448:11,12
452:20,25 453:9 397:7,8,12,18,20 376:1 290:8 292:20 lose 403:19
454:2 456:1 398:4,7 399:3,8 locate 352:19 294:12 297:17 lost 265:7,11
466:23 467:7 399:11 402:4 located 255:14 300:5 336:22 429:20
473:1 475:17 404:11 400:17 353:17 355:10 lot 258:4 320:16
510:19 512:15,16 light 449:14 location 289:16,20 357:1 367:15 441:2
512:19 514:23 limit 260:24 261:3 300:7 301:17 386:12 390:9 Louisiana 251:2
515:16 517:20 471:7 306:3,20 307:23 417:8 418:19,21 253:16 255:10
518:14,16,23 limitation 269:11 309:18 311:19 418:24 419:18 532:17
519:3,15,25 520:9 269:24 312:24 314:14 423:17 425:25 love 403:5
522:17 limitations 533:2,9 326:14 328:14 427:3,5,9 429:1 low 312:7 338:6
levees 274:14 line 297:10 300:21 333:2 347:19 430:9,22 436:1 350:13 360:15
282:13,15 283:5 300:25 339:21 348:13 350:23 460:17 494:12 371:25 373:3
289:15 290:10 375:13,19 390:25 360:11 370:23 521:11 537:12 440:11 455:24
302:1 303:5 441:15 474:2 408:13,25 409:1 looked 290:6 lower 296:2 310:7
304:21 311:9 522:19 526:19 447:25 478:21 301:16 303:6 316:3,4 323:14
312:5,11 319:8 linear 431:9 441:10 490:1 515:5 348:13 353:16 351:21 354:20
351:18 355:1 441:14 443:20 516:15 518:25 372:25 385:7 410:6 450:21
357:2 382:24,25 lines 490:20 502:9 519:4 521:3,5,5,9 409:10 461:16 469:19
402:3,23 404:12 link 350:7 389:8,9 521:15,20 522:8 472:6 477:5 lowered 309:18
452:7,23 453:16 links 350:6,6 522:18 524:7 491:21 492:5 LPVHPP 509:12

1/31/2009
Page 561
509:16 451:5,8 455:1 385:2 394:21 447:6,12,17 453:3 meaning 313:3

LS-DYNA 259:12 456:12,15,25,25 404:17,19 453:10 454:2 383:2 440:11
259:14 260:6 457:5 459:18,20 manuals 385:3,7 516:1 519:24 482:8 511:2
261:3,11,17 460:15,25 461:4 387:10 404:11 520:1 521:7 535:23
266:11 269:1 464:2,10 476:25 508:8 524:18 534:7 means 309:8
270:1,3,23,24 498:1 500:12 March 453:19 math 430:22 321:14 331:10
274:19 276:22,23 502:17 517:18 454:4 mathematical 379:14 392:14
277:25 278:3 518:7,12,13 margin 352:17 378:6 400:25 407:15,17
289:13,25 311:7 534:11 492:2 493:7,23 mathematics 384:6 415:4 425:11
311:12 332:19 LS-DYNA-based 497:10 498:8 471:15 439:11 466:16
342:9,11 344:10 348:22 349:4 mark 254:3 256:3 mats 400:7 470:13,16 479:3
345:2 346:4,22 477:22 363:21 421:14,16 matter 255:8 512:5
347:5,12,18 lunch 362:11,15 marked 277:24 291:16 335:17 meant 263:14
348:16,19 349:6,7 L-O-G 469:22 marker 301:22 376:17 424:2,5,7 312:14 351:9
349:13,16,20 302:24 434:5 435:21
350:2 352:15,17 M marks 298:18 mattered 448:6 measure 274:2
359:12 360:8 M 253:15,15 342:21 343:1 matters 413:2 370:9 376:16
365:15,20 369:10 machines 317:2 405:3,7 490:10,14 427:21 496:2
373:12,17 374:19 magnifying 299:20 538:15 mattress 346:12 measured 323:2
375:15 376:18,19 magnitude 308:10 marvelous 391:19 420:13 421:9,21 347:1 348:24
377:4,4 379:8 321:10 346:17 394:6 402:7 421:23 422:1 425:8 444:10
382:11 383:19 467:8,10,21,22 Mashriqui 532:19 maximum 357:23 492:21,23 503:21
384:4,17 385:1,9 468:5,22 473:2 match 436:2 422:7,15,25 529:23
385:10,18,25 519:18 material 263:5 423:16,24 424:1 measurement
386:20 387:3,8 magnitudes 322:10 264:22 265:7,10 428:22 430:4 444:5 499:10
388:1 390:10,13 347:9 273:10 283:1 491:15 493:14,18 measurements
391:12,21,24 maintain 343:19 299:16 300:18,23 mean 271:7 272:23 294:3,5,7 369:23
392:9,20 393:6 403:15 459:23 301:18 311:13,14 298:7 310:6 311:2 440:4 445:14
394:9 397:16,25 maintenance 400:7 311:16,18,20 320:14 321:22,24 514:12 530:17
398:16 407:8,14 458:19 312:2 314:12 340:24 343:25 measuring 273:14
407:21 408:6,7,9 major 263:17 355:12 364:3 344:17 349:5 376:15 439:12
408:11 409:22,23 345:8 410:6 371:17 415:7 358:10 366:23 440:10,12 444:1
410:9,24 411:8,24 446:25 446:8 448:19 367:1 372:9 mechanical 452:14
412:7,12 414:22 making 323:1 449:2 450:22 377:18,19 388:23 452:18 502:13
415:12,15,20,23 368:11 388:2 451:21 452:1 389:21,22 401:14 mechanics 281:4
415:24 416:2,5 444:5 463:1 491:5 503:11,14 402:14 413:10,12 322:23 390:21
417:3,9 418:1,2 533:10 521:16 426:11 433:16,17 393:4 531:17
418:14 419:7 man 317:2 528:18 materials 260:12 448:22 451:14 mechanism 364:19
422:7 423:6 424:3 manmade 257:18 262:24 299:12 458:5 466:1 364:22
426:10,10 427:6,9 261:25 272:12,16 304:23 308:5 469:13,15 470:10 median 481:13
427:12,25 431:3 509:21 312:6,9,11 313:25 481:13,14 482:12 482:12
431:20 436:15 manner 264:25 314:3,5 315:2,3 488:8 490:23 meeting 324:11
437:10,21 438:19 433:24 449:3,10 315:22 316:8 497:21 498:24 Melchers 260:13
439:15,23 440:7 481:17 330:1,6 333:19 500:17,23 504:4 481:18 498:18
443:16 445:9 manual 278:13 360:3,6,7 361:13 504:22 512:4 505:10
446:12 447:20 344:14,23 385:1,1 419:25 446:1 524:12 meld 413:13

1/31/2009
Page 562
members 453:24 466:17 471:12 413:21 414:5,5 moderate 306:7,11 443:18

memory 510:7 482:18 498:5 420:9,13 421:2,16 306:20 313:6 move 321:3,20
mentally 436:5 minute 417:1 423:17,19 424:16 314:12 364:1 340:12 368:4
mentioned 256:19 minutes 276:21 424:19 425:23,24 moderately 313:4 457:24 467:13
348:8 509:7 514:9 299:19 342:20 426:12,16 428:8 modern 484:13 485:12 492:10
messing 395:8 460:19 461:6,8,9 432:14 437:9 modes 523:21 495:2 515:3 517:8
meteorology/oce... 462:10 476:19 439:23 444:20 524:8 526:22 521:13 525:3
492:19 miscommunicati... 445:9,20 447:4 modification moved 265:4
method 282:23 349:15 451:9,10 456:8,22 463:20 331:24 514:11
352:11,13,15 misleading 259:4 459:17 460:15 modify 375:17 534:7
369:19 386:20 missing 283:18 462:20 463:9,13 378:7 406:7 movement 441:2
407:9 415:25 304:10 466:8 474:14 mom 445:5 443:20
416:3 417:4 Mississippi 371:5 476:4 477:15,22 moment 323:24 moves 262:11
460:20 463:12 380:25 420:3,5,15 480:25 482:22 382:15 432:19 265:3 320:4
464:9 476:17 459:7 490:5 495:18,23 481:20 504:19 321:25 322:7
478:4 483:25 misspelling 354:21 496:6 500:13 505:3,8,13,23 moving 319:20
484:15,22 486:25 misstate 350:8 502:13,17,22 moments 372:25 322:4 329:17
487:23,24 500:24 misunderstanding 503:2,16 513:8,9 505:7 331:17,25 351:24
502:3 505:17 349:12 514:24 516:16,22 Monday 538:8 441:10,14,23
529:13 535:4,9,11 misunderstood 518:13 529:24 monitor 274:5,15 442:1,7,11,15,15
536:11 537:6 378:17,24 535:5 monitored 456:21 443:13 536:9
methods 347:20 mitigated 528:9 modeled 348:25 monitoring 265:6 mow 458:22
412:8 464:15 mobilize 522:3 375:4 379:14,15 373:4 mowing 332:2,5
510:12 511:7 mode 482:11 488:8 517:17 monochromatic 458:21
Mexico 383:5 model 260:5 modeling 260:19 266:10,21 267:6 Mraffman@goo...
Mh-hmm 307:19 261:21 262:10 260:23 261:15,24 267:14,22 278:23 254:5
431:4 265:8,15,25 274:7 325:10 327:16 279:8 280:1,10 MRGO 257:19
microscope 274:6 279:14,22 289:14 341:17 352:9 286:21 287:1 305:1 316:7 319:1
middle 307:16 309:20 325:8 359:18 379:6,8,24 331:15 457:8,16 321:15,25 326:16
341:22 374:6 326:11,13,19 380:14 381:13 457:22 327:9 335:25
460:12 328:17 333:9 400:10 459:14 month 483:11 345:19 346:9
midway 366:13 346:8,11,12 460:3,11 486:4 MORG 523:22 354:24 355:1
military 317:18 359:14,16,22 490:22,24 514:2 morning 255:3 356:19 364:25
milking 317:2 360:18 364:11,14 514:16 518:12 306:23 317:22 402:2 458:3
Miller 254:8 256:8 365:2,5,15 369:15 523:15,21 524:1 339:2 341:6 509:22 510:5
mind 338:22 373:17,19 374:8 models 257:16 354:12 358:2 516:3,8,12,12
381:22 418:20,23 374:10,22 375:10 258:23 259:2 362:20 364:24 521:23 522:8
mind-reader 405:1 377:1,13,20 260:2,24 274:21 365:18 368:12 524:7,22 526:18
mine 317:16 340:7 378:10 380:22 279:16 350:5 415:18 450:18 526:20 527:11
437:15 382:10 383:4,11 388:17,20 406:2 477:5,8 481:19 528:10
minimum 310:19 383:19 387:18 408:10 474:14 498:19 538:8 multiparameter
minor 357:2 388:1 392:20 478:8,15,17,23 Morris 364:15 333:4
minus 293:24 397:21 400:8,23 491:3,14 492:20 Mosher 449:8 Multiple 380:18
299:17 301:9,25 407:14 408:8 495:17 498:1,17 motion 391:17 536:11
363:7 432:22 409:10,15,22,23 499:22 514:14 410:2 438:22 multiplication
437:22 438:6 410:9 412:7 532:3 439:6 441:18 287:17 327:16

1/31/2009
Page 563
multiplicative 491:12 369:8 471:10 O 497:16 509:2

471:6 neutral 489:23 north 254:2 256:4 O 255:2 510:13 511:20
multiplied 406:19 527:24 294:14,23 295:7 object 257:23,24 oceanographers
multiply 296:10 neutralization 297:20 314:11 258:13 272:19 268:19 499:14,15
373:7 406:23 528:9 409:1 475:20 objection 258:1 oceanographic/h...
multiplying 471:11 never 375:19 515:20,20,23 objective 359:20 532:16
multipurpose new 253:16 254:4 516:6 517:24 401:21 529:25 October 316:22
393:9 282:13 370:8 536:1 obliterates 300:21 office 271:5
music 339:11 374:24 378:3 note 295:13 observation 503:2 OFFICES 253:15
mysterious 303:25 404:8,18 421:18 noted 501:6 512:17 official 360:14
mystified 421:11 453:20 475:2 notice 410:15 459:9 observational offshore 258:25
myths 479:17 508:14,16 533:5 Notre 499:16 306:4 314:15 265:20 385:25
NFIP 510:20 nuclear 402:20 515:7 497:16 509:2,4
N NGVD 293:15 508:21,25 509:6 510:13 511:14,16
observations 347:7
N 255:2 295:21 296:5 number 255:7,11 348:17 512:10,13 511:20
nail 422:2 301:9 267:3,4 269:3 observe 512:16 oh 269:14 272:17
narrative 452:19 night 327:22 293:3,5,7 306:25 513:6 293:1 330:17
narrow 456:2 402:12 418:21 343:7 352:24 observed 348:12 340:7 344:2
national 402:12 Nina 254:8 256:9 356:4 397:1 361:16,25 448:16 351:13 403:10
510:19 Nineteen 396:12 460:16 468:6 499:24 500:4 411:25 438:17
natural 406:11 Ninety-six 520:23 471:11 473:10,20 502:24 513:25 441:4 458:4 474:7
494:25 495:8,12 noise 440:2 491:22,23 524:1,4 517:7 521:14 484:1
498:15 nominal 433:3,5 numbered 429:7 observing 273:15 okay 258:3,10
nature 425:17 470:15 495:22 429:21 obtain 399:24 260:9 261:5
449:12 469:16 499:12 513:20 numbers 296:13 481:4 263:24 271:1
471:4,6 nonbreached 536:1 298:23 307:9 obtained 298:8 272:18 273:1,25
NAVD 290:17 noncohesive 334:18,25 335:7 301:13 303:22 276:11 277:7,23
291:4 293:15 311:24 312:1 335:19 394:2 399:19 278:21 279:4
296:1,6 522:20 314:1 333:18 405:23 456:7 obvious 357:7 280:17,21 281:22
near 323:8 354:24 448:18,22 449:3 467:21 470:5 Obviously 322:6 282:11,23 284:5,8
443:21 noncompacted 472:11,13 491:21 occur 330:12 287:21 288:5
necessarily 323:20 333:18 493:3,11,25 494:3 392:23 399:12 289:6 290:8 291:8
461:19 500:8 nongrass 308:1 496:22 497:3,7 407:10 409:3 293:7 295:12
503:23 nonhurricane 498:25 499:6 412:9 416:1 298:5,13 299:7,12
necessary 522:5 511:6 numerical 326:20 occurred 310:1 300:8,10 301:11
need 258:15 260:1 nonprofessional 341:17 352:9 351:17 397:18 304:22 306:10
299:20 325:22 492:17 383:10 384:7,15 475:13 481:2 307:13 308:3,23
331:6 343:18 nonsense 426:15 391:15 405:18 488:6 536:14 309:5 311:22
356:17 379:16,19 nonsinusoidal 431:22 432:14,16 occurring 329:13 312:13 314:19
379:21 382:15 287:1 518:8 410:11 315:18,25 316:1,7
384:14 429:16 normal 285:6 numerically 514:24 occurs 308:13 316:12,17 317:9
432:11 504:9 327:25 370:19,19 NW 253:22 398:7 317:21 322:5
neglected 459:13 370:22 371:1 N-O-R-M-A-L ocean 258:24 325:4 326:10
neither 447:10 469:19,22 471:5,8 469:23 265:20 267:9 327:2 328:15
Netherlands 482:10 N.W 254:4 270:16 393:7 329:6,12 330:3,22
399:20 465:18 normally 322:18 331:14 332:21

1/31/2009
Page 564
333:8,14,17 334:9 452:25 453:15 opportunity 355:10 outcomes 375:14 408:18 419:15
336:7 338:19 454:1,9 455:24 422:21 513:12 421:24 436:21
339:14 340:5 457:8,11 459:9,17 opposed 266:21 outflow 523:6,8 443:1 455:22,23
341:21 342:4,5,12 461:4,14,21 267:6 496:25 Outlet 371:5 381:1 465:13 475:14,16
343:16 347:11 462:13 463:4,17 oranges 529:4 420:6 459:8 476:23,24 479:10
349:25 350:16 465:3 467:15 orbital 270:6 273:1 outlined 516:14 479:15 518:17
352:6 353:7,10,15 468:19,24 469:1 376:3 441:18 output 259:25 519:22 520:1,5
354:8,16 356:15 471:16 472:6 order 271:8 287:6 279:21 280:4 521:3,7 522:13,14
356:19 358:7 473:13 475:17 302:16 326:4 353:24 522:24 523:9
359:10 360:23 476:1,13 477:2 402:19,21 406:22 outside 271:5 Overview 523:21
362:23 363:18 488:1 492:13 406:24 467:7,9,22 Outstanding o'clock 308:6,13
364:11 367:13,16 493:22 494:22 473:2 477:13 401:16 309:10 310:2,17
367:21 371:13 497:13,25 498:7 480:20 497:20 outwards 523:7 o0o 252:9
372:4 373:16 498:22 502:15,21 499:4 512:8 overburdened
374:6,21 375:3 507:10 509:7 519:17 521:24 P
377:11,15,22 510:8 511:1 order-second overflow 465:12 P 255:2 523:23
379:22 381:24 512:23 514:20 481:20 504:19 Overgeneralizati... Packet 356:3
384:1,12,19,25 522:17 523:14,19 505:3,8,13,23 395:17 paddle 262:10,11
386:12,25 390:2,8 525:8 526:1,20 organic 299:15 overlap 284:25 364:25 368:15
390:15,17,25 527:17 529:12 301:6,22,24 486:16 487:5,11 380:3,10,12
391:8 392:4 394:8 530:13 531:18,23 302:23 overlaps 485:22 page 252:3 262:20
394:20 396:14 532:20 534:9,13 organizational overprediction 277:10 288:7,8,18
397:20,23 398:19 537:2,10 479:17 281:6 427:18 288:23,25 290:13
400:13 401:4,8 Okeechobee organized 471:23 428:18 293:6,8 294:13
403:12 404:23 369:22 370:22 organizer 317:11 overpredicts 296:22 297:9
407:1,12,19 ones 324:15 474:16 original 295:23 427:23 428:5 299:13 301:11
409:25 410:8 486:22 516:1 298:17 365:21 oversimplified 306:25 307:1,4,7
412:24 413:24 532:24 462:20 525:12 333:6 307:9,10 309:6
414:8,14 415:8 one's 438:20 439:3 526:10,12 oversimplify 311:3 317:21,21
416:8 417:13,25 one-on-one 329:19 originally 502:23 333:10 318:2,3,6 325:13
418:16 419:1,1 one-third 275:4 532:17 overtopped 282:14 325:17 326:1
423:2 424:6 426:5 461:10 Orleans 253:16 303:7,12,14 334:15,22 336:17
426:20 427:5,14 one-to-one 409:24 282:13 404:8,18 518:14 341:5,13,22,22
428:2,10 429:15 444:12 453:20 475:2 overtopping 282:4 345:17,22 347:2
429:19 431:14 online 278:21 508:14,16 533:5 282:16,20 283:16 348:1 350:17
432:3,5,13 433:7 onset 444:7 ought 343:10 285:9 303:18,24 352:7,22 354:8,13
433:18,21 435:3 oOo 251:3 254:9 387:17 304:1,9 309:9,12 354:14 356:21
435:17 436:17,24 256:16 538:20 outboard 308:11 309:25 310:4,8,12 357:6,6 359:24
437:3,20 438:14 opinion 296:9 308:11 517:15 310:16,20 316:13 361:2,15,18,19
438:18 439:18 348:18 392:21 outcome 349:7 316:15,18,20 362:21,24 363:15
440:11,12,25 395:4 499:7 409:23 410:9 319:8 337:6,16,17 363:17 364:12
441:5,20 443:23 515:23 516:5 412:11 441:17 337:19,22 338:2,5 370:7 372:5
444:4,19,23 445:6 522:21 524:16 456:11,12 464:4 338:6,12 339:10 373:23 374:4
446:6,15 447:10 527:4,19 530:2 490:3 493:5 498:1 339:22 340:19 396:2,6,11,15
447:22 448:21 opinions 258:7,12 498:3,4 513:14,15 343:13 346:15 399:22 405:11,15
450:20 451:16 395:1 397:6 531:19 351:3 364:19,22 412:1 414:19

1/31/2009
Page 565
422:5,6 423:9 471:5 476:24 payment 317:3 percent 327:24 275:1 281:5 287:3
426:1 428:18 513:9 peak 264:7 268:12 328:1 341:1 351:1 287:16,20 303:20
429:1,6,10,17 parametric 307:2 275:1 277:25 351:4,6,15,15 310:19 319:17
430:9,15 434:6,14 312:5,14,16 278:1 281:5 369:16 422:8 320:7 334:4
435:1 444:24 pardon 299:19 303:24,25 304:4,8 423:18,23 425:3 336:17 337:5,5,24
445:23 450:25 336:12 463:15 337:5 409:13,14 427:23 428:5,18 338:14 343:21
454:19,23 455:3,8 paren 531:24 409:22 410:4,8,11 428:24 430:7,20 366:22 367:14
456:14,18 459:9 Parish 408:20,23 410:12,13 411:11 431:10 432:22 370:9 373:25
460:12,12 462:9 part 257:6 260:11 417:20,20,21 433:16 434:4 381:11 406:9,20
463:15 464:13 286:17 294:5 418:5,6,6 422:13 436:14,15 449:15 406:22 409:4
471:19 472:11,12 324:22 345:12 422:14,16 423:3 466:15 469:8,11 410:3,11 422:19
473:13,20 474:4 349:20,22 351:4 423:14,25 424:1 471:3 480:8 481:2 423:1 434:10
475:5 476:7,10 352:21 353:1,1,2 424:10 428:22 482:19,19,19 435:7 456:2 475:3
501:1,4,6,21,23 353:4 384:9 430:4 431:3,6 483:19 484:8,15 531:25
520:18,22,25 390:21 392:19 461:15,18 485:25 484:16,20 485:2,9 periods 312:19
522:9 523:25 401:25 416:8 499:5 490:7 496:17 406:4 410:18
525:18 529:6,9,10 418:9 419:8,9,21 peaks 417:13,24 497:20 505:20 491:17
pages 251:10 471:18,18 481:25 424:12 506:8 531:19 perjury 538:21
277:19 310:23 511:14 512:11 Peanut 381:16 percentage 433:11 permeates 290:15
334:23 355:22 520:22 527:24 pedigree 344:21 448:24 permit 460:2
427:3 436:13 528:14 531:23 345:1 394:5 percentages 433:9 perpendicular
487:10 537:14 478:16 Perfect 266:9 287:9 265:7,11
paper 282:12 partially 289:23 peer 272:9 479:4 299:9 person 298:9
487:10 537:8 498:9 536:10 perfectly 285:21 504:13 540:9
papers 356:4 participated 514:7 peer-review 272:8 286:25 personal 257:21
paragraph 260:15 particles 441:3,9 536:13 perform 284:6 personally 253:8
307:2,16,17 309:6 441:13 442:14 peer-reviewed 467:19,23,25 528:11
310:23 311:3,5 443:13,20 271:22 385:17 512:8 515:16,19 perspective 386:13
312:3 325:21 particular 275:5,6 388:8 533:4 516:10 525:15 pertains 251:6
326:4,9 341:16 275:6 284:2 penalty 538:21 528:24 256:21
345:16 350:10,17 287:13,14 327:11 pending 255:8 performance 359:3 pharmaceuticals
352:22 372:6 339:20 399:25 penetration 329:5 404:3 420:4,17 484:9
374:6 429:7 440:19,20 492:22 336:24 421:9 485:11 phase 340:13,18
464:18 471:25 495:10 523:12 Penland 528:17 513:7,11 522:7 352:5 419:8,12,13
474:4 particularly 506:4 Pennsylvania 523:9,10 462:7 465:12,12
paragraphs 307:11 parties 540:16,18 253:22 performed 284:14 466:12,12 516:18
429:8 parts 349:24 353:1 people 317:14 284:14 312:7 517:1 531:10
parallel 282:25 416:4,4,7 460:3,6 344:22 360:22 314:13 360:21 535:21
442:25 509:3 party 256:4 389:19 394:23 366:9 376:25 phases 340:17
parameter 370:8,9 pass 465:23 466:1 404:9 420:23 383:16 398:22 419:11
380:21 455:19,20 537:14 437:6 482:15 455:13 461:2 phenomenon
464:7 470:11 passed 479:4 491:11 494:12 465:20 481:24 260:22
parameters 268:17 484:10 504:4 528:14,16 514:2 532:4,24 phone 255:6 538:8
307:24 333:4 passing 319:20,21 533:23 537:11 535:15,19 photograph 364:9
334:12 347:4,12 patient 426:2 504:5 people's 437:14 performs 401:22 434:12 448:16
450:23 455:15 Paul 348:11 532:18 perceived 511:21 period 268:12 photographs 306:6

1/31/2009
Page 566
475:9,23 521:17 463:10 378:22 387:12 possibly 267:16,17 preferable 263:20

phrase 354:2 play 270:7 497:4 389:23 391:2,3,5 post-Hurricane premise 478:11
phrased 394:10 player 392:15 391:8,11,17 535:9 492:9
physical 260:24 please 255:19 392:16,17,20 post-Katrina 454:3 premised 391:24
346:7 428:9 256:11,18 261:6 394:24 395:19 post-storm 515:11 preparation 536:13
picture 268:14 272:14 291:14 397:9 408:19 potential 383:9 prepared 536:12
298:15 316:8 294:13 295:12 414:7,8 416:22,24 440:15 482:21 prescribe 261:21
320:10 357:5 318:6 365:17 417:2,22 418:18 potentially 304:1 275:1 280:6
361:2,20 363:16 381:18 429:25 424:18 431:16,19 497:9 372:12 469:16
416:14 424:15 433:21 439:1 431:23 432:1,1,10 pound 319:18 492:6
425:4 441:19 443:5 445:4 439:19 444:9,10 power 269:23 prescribed 265:9
515:12 452:22 455:4 446:11 448:9 382:20 402:20 294:9 306:19
pictures 320:14,17 490:23 513:1 455:16,21 456:10 508:21,25 509:6 372:7,10,14,16,23
364:8 474:25 517:19 528:2 484:14 492:22 practical 319:15 373:2 529:24
521:15 530:6 502:2,6 511:13 401:1,5,6,15 prescribed/descr...
piece 426:24 pleasure 504:14 513:24 520:3 practice 265:24 519:1
472:16 538:11 521:23 344:25 347:21 present 254:7
pieces 445:18 plot 288:9 457:4,9 pointed 300:6 395:13 304:4 312:25
pile 294:4 295:6,7 457:15 327:21 415:22 preceded 329:4 408:24 411:14
418:24 503:13 plots 411:15 456:20 points 258:22 precipitated 523:2 432:24 523:12
521:3 522:5 523:5 plus 284:23,25 283:13 313:19 precise 306:2 525:25 533:5
523:10 527:2 293:24 296:23 327:4 351:24 428:11 449:17 presented 404:8
pile-repaired 300:8 326:14 366:13 375:20,21 precisely 523:4 483:3 537:16
522:22 343:6 345:19 377:12 380:13 predict 392:22 presently 506:7
piling 523:1 348:2 350:24 391:18 392:12,14 393:3 414:22 press 272:4 536:20
pilot 403:12 367:1 415:13 410:19 426:13 444:21 536:21,22,25
piping 402:21 432:22 447:19,25 polar 408:17 461:9 466:16 pressing 371:13
place 274:1 366:3 464:10 466:17 poli 263:17 516:13 presume 305:13
379:11 386:22 467:7 471:12 polish 324:16,18 predicted 348:24 332:11 467:10
391:7 399:6 406:3 473:1 476:23 poor 301:3 464:19 359:7 407:9 412:8 482:10 499:13
407:21 440:20 482:18 496:22 464:24 473:25 415:9,25 417:4 presumption 424:4
452:1 453:4 497:22 498:5 474:8 476:15 460:20 469:12 pretty 304:11
495:11 509:15 515:5 535:25 poorly 350:13 471:13 496:18 356:16 357:7
511:9 530:17 plus/minus 497:18 portion 349:17 513:21 361:8 418:21
540:10 point 255:5 274:16 382:11 404:15 predicting 407:22 previous 421:11
placed 420:13 275:6,15 290:1,3 position 393:13 415:12 425:14 previously 398:21
451:21 305:23 310:7 500:8 prediction 407:15 419:9 463:7 466:4
placement 463:12 316:22 320:18 positions 500:7 423:6 426:9 500:3 505:18 514:9
places 428:23 322:25 327:10,11 possibilities 486:14 512:6,7 516:15 pre-Katrina 454:6
430:5 442:10 329:4 330:11,15 486:16 489:13 predictions 278:10 517:14
514:12 515:21 331:23 333:21 490:4 278:12 352:17 primarily 351:2
plaintiffs 253:14 334:13 359:9 possibility 488:3 505:24 419:24 508:21
256:6 366:11,11 367:17 possible 282:14 predictors 276:23 primary 442:23
plant 402:21 368:6,11,16 337:14 486:25 predicts 359:6 524:8 526:22
platform 270:15 371:16,22 375:21 487:16 489:10,14 407:21 502:19 principal 485:8
plausible 307:24 376:2,3 377:16 489:18 535:4 prefer 433:20 499:21

1/31/2009
Page 567
principally 275:23 516:25 528:9 promise 306:22 338:7 346:2 356:2 476:24 482:8
320:23 531:7 534:4 537:17 proof 259:7 424:2 356:7,14 385:3 492:4 513:9
principle 324:9 processes 257:14 427:12 451:5 388:10,19 453:20 pyramids 450:8
414:16 273:4 409:6 530:7 propagate 262:12 470:25 482:5,6 p.m 362:17 405:5
principles 506:16 PROCTER 253:4 378:22 420:14 491:1,2,15 497:8 454:15,17 490:12
506:18 507:7,9,15 254:3 492:11 519:21 520:12 490:16 537:22,25
prior 282:15 299:9 Proctor 256:4 propagated 349:16 521:8 535:5,6 538:18,19
312:25 399:3,9 produce 259:3 421:16 provides 350:17
private 403:12 260:3 513:13,14 propagates 349:11 proximity 522:8 Q
508:18 produced 389:12 propagating public 269:20 QA/QC 453:16,18
privately 454:11 418:25 421:15 416:12 498:11 356:10 QC/QA 454:7
probabilistic produces 280:3 propagation publication 272:10 quality 420:22,24
482:15 producing 358:4 346:25 509:8 quantified 351:8
probabilities 359:22 457:5 proper 527:23 publications 398:6 351:16,20
508:15 product 409:6 properly 267:22 398:11 533:4 quantitative
probability 482:25 profession 507:19 274:20 415:20 536:12,14 391:16
probable 486:7,22 507:22 511:16 425:14 publicly 454:10 question 261:6,7,14
489:12 490:2 professional 486:3 protected 356:9 506:10 272:14 273:5
probably 359:25 professionalism 416:13 522:15 published 271:21 279:1,3 283:2,22
396:23 397:5 538:11 protection 257:18 284:17 391:4,20 290:12 293:10
486:10 494:15 Professor 348:10 262:1 305:9 346:8 402:7 404:7,21 295:12 304:9
problem 267:2,3 398:22 487:15 347:16,25 352:1 479:13 480:1 311:10 313:13
268:20 333:4 489:16 508:7 359:4 367:20 536:17,18 537:5 314:22 315:21
399:25 402:9 514:5 532:11,18 404:4,20 420:4,8 pulled 498:22 330:2,18 337:23
432:3,5 434:25 532:18,19 421:17 455:17 pulse 264:11,11,13 357:25 365:17
problematic profile 261:24 479:5,16 480:23 pulses 435:10 367:7 369:3 374:2
433:17 291:13 301:4,10 528:8 pulsing 435:15 379:23 385:20
problems 393:10 323:7 347:15,19 protective 445:20 436:20 388:14 391:13
procedure 271:15 517:14 531:11 prototype 274:2 pure 450:1 392:3 393:11
proceed 256:18 profiled 519:6 421:2,7 460:2 purpose 257:13 394:9 397:4
488:1 profiles 342:13,15 476:4 502:12 260:5 269:13 408:14 413:3
proceeded 420:14 347:17 513:10 298:19 385:19 421:14,16 423:12
509:3 program 259:10 prove 260:5 270:23 387:15,16 389:3 429:14,23,24
process 259:5,10 260:12 384:18 382:24 398:16 392:2,6 432:11 430:2,9,13 436:18
265:5 273:9 385:19 387:3 423:19 427:24 purposes 266:8 439:13 446:19
275:14 294:8 410:24 411:8 445:9,10 454:25 444:19 453:6 455:4
359:17,18 379:24 437:21 443:16 proved 448:17 push 431:23 459:25 460:21,23
380:2 384:7 398:2 457:5 464:10 proven 387:19 pushing 310:5 466:19 468:10,20
406:15,17,18 510:20 407:16,17 415:16 put 259:19 265:8 469:6 476:6
408:11 409:2 progress 265:10 426:13,17 266:21 270:15 479:21 491:8
412:11 415:21 progressive 383:13 proves 377:13,18 291:20 292:17 497:7 499:9
416:3,16 428:9 progressively 377:20 423:23 317:8 318:21 500:20 504:13
437:18 470:22 364:4 460:5 provide 352:16 334:2 360:17 507:7 509:13
489:6 495:5 project 334:2 340:2 385:2 481:5 372:18 387:18 510:11 511:18
506:13 507:3 459:20 535:10 410:23 422:3 512:22 513:13
514:2,15 515:3 projects 507:12 provided 327:14 453:4 459:15 514:25 530:6,11

1/31/2009
Page 568
535:17 466:9 469:3,4,24 493:2 507:1 517:2 recess 300:1 342:25 278:16 290:16,22
questioning 255:20 471:2 473:7 480:2 534:18 362:15 405:6 343:18 365:13
questions 271:5,10 480:7 481:4 reading 260:11 454:16 490:13 399:18 422:17
278:21 286:9 486:14 487:13,19 309:3 333:9 537:24 referenced 325:6
291:18 304:7 488:3,5 489:9,13 526:18 535:2 reckless 482:10 340:25 365:9
317:15 439:11 502:24 532:14 reads 526:23 recognize 260:9 387:9 520:12
504:2,6,17 536:7 ranged 468:2 ready 291:19 444:6 455:20 522:20
538:2 ranges 484:12 real 260:21 262:10 recollection 276:19 references 356:8
question's 313:20 ranging 312:18 266:23 333:9 recommend 333:9 398:10 419:3
344:5 372:21 rapidly 453:8 425:21 442:5 recompute 327:17 475:25 511:11
373:8,11 409:19 rarely 267:10 realistic 259:3 reconstituted referencing 325:23
445:21 rate 337:6 343:24 reality 267:9 447:18 336:13,14 422:23
quick 356:1 358:14,15 479:18 273:18 402:1 reconstruction 422:25 433:5,11
quicker 331:3 501:12 realizations 267:5 453:19 434:5
quiet 504:5 rates 398:13 270:10 489:18 record 255:4 277:8 referred 271:19,22
quite 311:14 512:21 really 268:10 291:3 277:11,15,16,18 281:17 306:5
448:20 ratio 425:8 433:2 317:17 321:7 292:16 299:25 322:24 345:10,10
quote 302:25 315:2 470:4 478:2 371:13 384:10 300:3 335:12,18 364:24 480:6
326:15 328:16 495:21 513:21 437:3 499:9 342:24 343:4 483:9 497:15
398:3 400:4 ratios 478:18 reason 259:1 282:7 351:11 362:14,18 521:6 526:8
415:24 434:4 RBG 523:23 295:17 392:19 405:5,10 413:7,9 referring 290:19
506:10 510:15,17 reach 284:15 285:4 421:4 431:21 413:11 430:1 327:3 366:23
511:2 513:19 285:4 297:22 435:10 440:9 435:8 439:2 376:8 435:13
518:19 531:12 302:19 305:14 444:9 460:9 491:8 443:24 445:2 483:5 520:20
533:20 536:21 330:15 333:22 494:20 502:20,21 454:15,18 490:12 refers 511:18
quotes 260:21 338:1 346:9 reasonable 359:22 490:17 507:1 reflect 375:17
351:23,25 355:4 451:9,17 466:5,7 537:23 538:1,18 534:6
R 408:18 420:5 466:9 505:25 recorded 437:22 reflecting 279:20
R 253:20 255:2 452:11,13,13,16 reasonably 275:16 records 302:13 321:5
rabbit 332:17 453:19 459:8 280:23 421:2,4 recount 452:24 reflective 461:19
race 324:15 495:1 509:22 437:8 499:6 red 297:10 298:18 reform 314:21
Raffman 254:3 510:5 515:16 506:17 507:8 300:21,25 522:19 330:2 512:22
256:3,3 516:3,7,11,12,19 reasoning 390:17 reduce 281:8 regard 478:1 496:5
rainfall-associated 517:9 524:7,22 reasons 324:15 326:20 regarding 327:4
357:18 526:18,20,20 480:21 reduced 268:14 Regardless 360:18
rainflow 267:21 527:11 recall 284:24 287:5 540:12 regards 290:16
rain-induced 357:4 reaching 262:14 475:19 480:1,5 reduces 308:11 registered 313:13
raise 436:18 442:3 390:24 510:6 519:5,8,11 reducing 326:22 regular 268:13,24
raised 439:10 react 394:11,18 519:14 520:11 reduction 260:10 281:3,4,7 286:23
ran 346:6 406:1 read 260:15 289:5 523:4 524:2,4 281:8 286:23 457:15,17
random 471:11 293:11 301:1 receive 475:18 Reed 449:8 457:21
range 293:24 311:5 351:12 received 257:1,8 refer 256:24 257:1 reinforce 281:2
301:25 306:18 416:24 429:15,24 275:23 327:22 278:10 288:1 reinforces 425:19
307:24 370:2 430:1 431:17 402:11 453:15,18 290:23 473:5 425:20
450:22 459:6 438:25 439:2 recertification 482:16 510:24 reject 268:25
463:16,17 466:5,7 453:13 472:15 402:13 reference 257:2 390:12

1/31/2009
Page 569
rejected 269:18 253:2 355:19 356:6,12 504:16 506:19,24 respect 478:16

relate 425:4 remove 432:17 356:16,17 358:6 507:1 540:1,4 respond 367:9
related 305:8 349:8 removed 265:4,5 362:20,20 370:4 reports 275:22 379:23 397:4
357:15 415:18 320:24 323:17 373:23 374:3,12 276:20 290:15 responsibilities
448:22 540:18 removing 324:16 378:2,3 387:22,24 291:3 305:12 257:22
relationship 260:20 repair 522:5 391:22 395:23 328:22 352:16 responsible 479:5
260:22 329:19 repaired 355:4 396:7,8 398:8 353:3 354:5 356:4 rest 275:20 280:25
479:23 527:2 399:22 400:1,22 387:25 388:20 301:4 390:23
relationships repeat 261:7 269:8 402:11 405:12,13 406:2 407:20 534:4
370:22 272:14 279:1 408:5,24 409:8,12 416:18 423:19 result 287:17 294:9
relative 301:19 283:2 365:17 412:2,17 413:20 448:4 452:20 303:24 304:1
303:9 344:12 429:23 455:4 414:11,19 416:22 453:1,2,10,13 318:23 327:17
448:25 460:21 509:13 416:23 422:6 468:21,25 482:7 329:9,9 357:3,18
relatively 375:25 530:6 535:17 423:4 427:4 429:2 493:22 509:25 431:19 433:2,4
424:13 repeated 273:9 429:3,4 430:10,12 535:22,24 439:14,15 464:7
relevant 302:14 510:1 430:13 434:6,15 represent 260:21 470:13 482:14
382:22 419:7 repetition 501:17 434:23 451:1,2 456:8 500:8 485:24 488:7
432:7 445:8 451:4 rephrase 258:15 454:20 459:10 representative 489:21,24 491:14
reliability 257:15 314:22 379:8 461:16 463:8 355:8 421:2,5 492:5,8,10 495:25
258:23 260:10 replace 360:11 468:1,9 471:2,17 495:25 500:1 498:13 500:4
383:16 465:19 478:17 472:4,15 473:15 530:16 533:13,16 512:5 513:25
483:24 503:24 replete 508:18 473:16,18 481:25 533:21,23,25 resultant 470:23
507:20 508:2 replicate 496:7 482:5 483:13,13 represented 499:15 481:6,10,21
reliability-based replicated 451:7 483:15 493:4,10 499:16 488:20 496:17
508:19 509:10,14 report 256:25 498:23 501:2 represents 513:18 505:20
510:12 511:3 257:4,6,13 258:19 510:1,25 515:22 513:20 resulting 505:22
reliable 260:3 258:21 260:4,5 516:24 517:23 reprinted 525:23 results 259:3 260:3
302:11 432:4,15 262:21 271:2 518:6 519:7 request 269:19 275:11 278:23
484:2,21 485:22 273:23 275:24 523:15 524:1 491:13 279:10 280:11
535:12 276:2,4,5,9,12 525:10,20 535:23 requested 389:10 281:5 304:5,6
reliably 386:11 277:20 278:20 reported 251:24 require 458:19,24 307:15,17 320:21
relied 463:6 284:18 286:7,18 272:2 348:23 required 522:5 346:2,19 347:17
rely 298:16,18 287:7 288:6,16 422:8 423:18 535:7 352:3 359:23
303:10 313:10 291:25 292:23,24 460:18 461:1,4 requirements 369:24 391:4,16
385:16 533:17 293:11 303:23 462:21 468:1 452:14 391:20,21 402:11
remain 367:7 317:10,22,24 474:17 482:4,14 research 344:14 407:4 418:24
remaining 297:18 318:4 320:11 502:6 345:7 419:22 420:22 421:1
remains 309:14 325:13,16,24 reporter 253:7 resilience 467:15 424:20 436:19
368:20 327:14 334:16 256:11 285:25 468:12 485:13 461:1 473:5,10
remember 276:12 335:2 337:10 289:4 296:15 resilient 401:20 474:17 476:4
317:4 358:7 338:8 339:24 297:23 306:12 Resio 261:19 479:10,24,25
361:10 413:7 340:3 341:5,6,7 332:7 337:2 339:5 499:17 514:6 481:24 482:6
429:13 478:13 341:11 344:1,2 381:17 408:21 537:11 486:21,25 489:24
493:3 498:12 348:9 352:4,4,5 430:1 436:11 resistance 466:22 490:21 497:18
518:1 352:21,25 353:9 439:2 469:21 resolutions 269:15 514:13 515:21
REMEMBERED 354:11 355:15,16 472:22 484:18 resolve 395:5 517:6,8 532:10

1/31/2009
Page 570
535:9 388:25 389:18,20 490:11,16 538:17 S 254:3 255:2 sandpaper 265:2

resurface 449:7 389:25 394:8,15 539:2 safe 345:8,14 sands 299:15
return 424:8 395:7 396:12,15 Robin 253:21 401:19 465:16 302:21,22
498:11 510:11 399:22 400:3,15 256:1 269:18,21 485:3,5 506:10 sandy 300:18,23
reverse 328:7 407:16 409:9 381:18 496:16 safety 402:10,14,15 464:19 473:25
reverted 275:18 411:4,9 412:10,17 Robinson 251:6 403:3,8,14 480:14 474:9,20 476:15
reverting 267:7 415:11,14 416:17 256:22 480:17,19,22 502:23 521:16
review 536:10 417:6 419:1 Robin.doyle.smit... 485:13 489:4 sanity 343:19
reviewed 269:17 423:11 425:25 253:24 508:11 satisfy 258:18
272:9 452:19 427:8,14,17,17,20 robustness 485:14 sailboat 324:18 Saturday 251:11
479:4 533:4 428:19 432:18 roll 421:25 sailboats 324:14 253:2 468:11
RGB 523:23 433:14 434:9,22 roller 503:10 sake 323:25 save 375:7
Richard 253:20 435:1,5 436:3,9 rolling 421:23 salad 529:4 saw 299:1,5 316:25
255:22 536:8 436:12 437:5 room 253:22 saline 528:7 334:9 361:2
Richard.stone@... 438:5 440:16 414:15 salinity 528:11 saying 259:18
253:24 442:21 444:15 root 458:23 459:1 saltwater 446:13 269:19 304:15
richly 508:11 446:24 447:3 475:1 498:24 sample 298:7,9,10 311:6 317:1
right 262:20 266:4 448:10 450:20 500:17,23 301:6 448:3,5 407:25 417:14
266:15 268:9 459:12 462:2 roots 474:18 449:13 495:2,3 463:4 486:15,19
271:4,13 276:1 464:13 477:10,20 root-structured 517:12 533:13,17 says 262:23 264:19
278:8 281:23 483:22 487:18 524:14 533:21,23 534:1 264:20 267:16
287:18 288:5,13 493:9 494:9 rose 358:9 sampled 285:3 282:12 293:23
289:13 290:3,18 496:24 497:2 rotary 266:16 301:17 311:18 296:2,8 299:8
292:10,13,15 499:7 501:5 rough 324:2 448:8 308:3 312:4 321:9
296:2 299:8 511:24 526:3,15 roughen 324:19 samples 281:19 326:10,15 333:12
304:13 312:3 right-hand 337:20 roughness 324:17 284:1 447:18,23 335:5 372:6 379:2
314:4,6 315:20 371:4 526:21 370:13,20 371:2 447:24 448:2 385:10 399:11
317:9,20 318:2 Rijkswaterstaat 373:3,3 378:13 533:10,16 400:22 407:7
319:22 320:3,5 446:1,23 454:24 roughnesses San 253:5 255:6,15 422:6 424:12
321:16 322:1,3,8 rilling 357:11,18 370:24 372:16 sand 264:3 265:3 427:6 436:16
323:24 324:1,1,4 361:20 round 296:13 306:20 311:8,13 459:10 460:18
324:6,21 325:3,12 rise 358:14,15 394:2 311:14 313:7,8 464:18 466:7
326:6 328:6 rising 441:22,23 RPR 251:25 253:6 350:14 357:19 485:10 486:2
330:19,21 331:15 503:19 540:3,24 361:16,25 362:4 490:1 495:17
331:20 333:8 risk 465:20 482:15 rule 416:11 446:9,22 447:2 499:24 510:7
336:1 337:18 508:13 511:4 run 270:10 373:6 448:25 450:1,16 511:2 523:21
338:3 339:7,17 River 371:5 381:1 380:18 437:11 468:17 476:19 524:8 536:10
346:19 355:21 420:5 459:7 452:1 486:9 503:7 scale 346:7,24
356:13 360:9 road 503:10 rundown 376:3 sander 265:2,4 scaling 456:8
361:5,9,21 362:5 roadway 400:19 runs 355:18 535:8 266:2,13 270:7,8 scared 524:6
365:22 366:19 Rob 260:13 498:18 535:15,19 273:1,2 283:21 scenario 278:2
368:2 372:1 505:10 538:7,8 runup 376:2 331:24 376:3 314:20,20 315:1,8
373:21 376:5,14 Robert 251:9 253:1 rushdown 534:10 sanders 266:16 315:8,12,15,17,25
377:2 382:3,16,18 253:9 255:13 rushup 534:10 sanding 264:3 316:1 329:24
383:19,22,23 256:13 342:22 265:9 266:19 334:20 335:15,22
385:5,22 387:21 343:3 405:4,9 S 410:2,5 336:25 337:16

1/31/2009
Page 571
339:8,8,12,14 326:9,12 337:7 349:19 352:20 serviceable 401:19 shoulder 448:8

383:1,20,22 341:25 342:12 364:4 365:7 366:3 SESSION 252:5 449:22 450:12
426:17 429:11 345:25 396:2 367:18 375:16 362:16 shovel 361:4
430:23 476:14,22 397:9 403:4 377:2 395:8 set 259:15 280:22 show 277:25
478:21 480:25 410:17 419:13 409:12,19 411:25 308:22 382:2 292:18 305:16
482:4 483:4 424:8 431:8 438:7 412:19 413:2,25 450:19 320:23 327:18
485:17,17 487:8,9 438:8 440:17 416:17 417:9 Setliff 453:21 334:19,20 356:12
487:17 488:10,12 458:18 476:13 435:10 439:8,21 sets 284:19 359:4 365:14 370:4
489:14,16 491:3,3 495:16 496:21 449:7 455:1 setting 442:21 371:1,14 378:6
491:4 494:6,8 501:16 513:20 462:22 493:4,20 settlement 521:25 379:13 390:22,23
496:25 497:1 530:2 531:23 493:22 514:4 settlements 534:2 412:19 413:21
505:12,13 513:3 seconds 287:6,12 522:10 529:12 seven 351:24 416:15 423:5
518:24 522:22 287:15 312:20,21 seek 385:3 497:24 516:19 430:19 436:19
523:22 524:8,22 312:22 337:5 seen 274:19 364:9 518:2 476:23
526:23 527:6,20 373:7 405:20 402:25 454:6 Seventeen 296:14 showed 301:6
528:25 529:2 418:12 434:11 sees 298:9 severe 537:14 314:14 348:23
scenarios 316:19 435:7,9,16,24 select 344:6 345:5 shading 489:23 461:6 481:19
386:3 464:19 436:25 437:11,12 selection 299:10 Shafer 528:20,21 498:19
473:25 474:8 437:20 438:4 sell 317:2 shallow 370:18 showing 274:16
485:24 486:21 456:20 send 334:1 525:22 shape 286:25 287:1 412:15 456:22
487:12,13 489:11 second-class 525:23 312:24,25 shown 295:20
523:13 273:20 senior 346:5 420:1 shapes 312:23 297:10 298:3
school 384:5 425:5 section 262:22 sense 360:10 373:1 share 389:24 299:13 304:5
sci 263:17 290:6 295:2,7,7 408:15 516:15 Shea 528:17 363:15 365:5
scientists 349:5 295:13 299:14 sensing 351:24 shear 263:9 534:10 371:22 373:17
scoop 265:12 304:10 307:20 421:12 534:14 423:3 431:12
Scope 318:1,9 308:1 323:3 sensitive 380:20 sheep 503:10 478:18
345:17 326:12 338:6 sensitivity 464:6 sheet 282:2,4,14,16 shows 292:23
scour 357:10,11 354:9,17 356:20 sentence 289:1 282:22 283:15,23 295:15 300:21
scouring 358:4 356:21 357:22 308:3 314:25 294:4 295:6,7 301:24 306:6
screen 292:17 362:24 363:11 315:7 326:9,15 339:11 398:24 320:19 361:16,25
sea 267:10,13,22 365:1 368:2 351:10 352:8 521:3 522:4,22 371:3 373:18,19
268:13,15,16 409:11 464:13 354:8 361:23 523:1,5,10 414:24 463:15
269:3,15 275:5 472:14 483:5,8,9 372:6 407:7 412:3 Shift 317:25 464:6 503:15
279:20 344:18 509:24 510:15,16 414:18 415:24 shifted 308:14 shrink 436:6,7
475:20 527:2 510:24 515:16 425:25 426:3 ship 480:18 sic 290:6 297:24
search 389:16 517:25 522:6 445:24 462:9,14 shock 403:21 317:23 434:8
408:1 460:9,9 525:8 535:3 462:22 464:17 shore 441:25 sick 403:2
525:6 see 260:17 262:22 473:24 474:3 short 303:20 side 290:9 291:16
searching 334:6 273:16 275:8,25 476:13 312:21 334:4 292:19 297:18,19
second 257:11 278:2,8 286:9 separate 315:11 455:25 304:18 308:6,15
258:2 259:17 295:7 299:9 316:20,21 377:9 shorter 322:9 312:10,12 314:2,8
262:3 264:14,17 307:16 320:6,10 September 510:23 shorthand 253:7 315:2,4,15,16,23
264:18 273:7 321:12 330:17 series 259:13,14 540:4,9 316:2,9 318:19
276:1 277:9,12 334:21 336:23 286:21 287:22 short-term 265:17 319:13,16 326:17
303:25 304:4,8 337:9,17 349:7,16 291:18 346:7 266:1 267:19 327:9 332:1

1/31/2009
Page 572
340:12,14 346:13 302:23 263:16 277:19,22 situations 387:8 272:2

346:25 348:25 silty 300:18,23 284:10 288:18,19 six 353:2 363:12,15 software 261:20
351:5 354:20,22 521:16 289:2 291:9,14 366:22 367:5,14 soil 295:10 298:1,6
364:25 371:4 similar 274:20 295:11 296:4,18 368:25 400:5 298:7,9,10,14,20
386:8 389:18,18 301:16 344:11 296:24 300:9,12 520:25 531:9 299:12,13 300:5
389:19 394:14 386:2 406:8 440:1 307:5 311:1 326:7 537:8,9,10 300:10,13 301:13
416:13 419:6,15 455:19 457:22 341:15 344:3 Sixteen 290:7 302:12,16,25
420:10,19 421:13 474:18,24 506:17 348:20 349:21 292:9 304:13 305:20
421:18,18,22,25 507:9 354:19 358:11 Sixty 328:8,11 310:9 313:2
422:4 428:20 similarly 370:21 360:1 361:19 501:22 330:23 336:15
430:2 443:3,9 476:2 514:9 364:13 369:1 Sixty-three 325:18 350:12 361:4
456:22 465:11,15 simple 329:19 371:11 373:21 326:2 387:7 445:16
466:23 470:9 336:19 468:11 374:4 381:15 six-second 410:14 447:17 448:6,23
475:10,18,20 471:14 388:15 396:16 six-tenths 371:8 449:1,12,20
489:25 519:14 simplest 260:23 399:15 405:14,17 size 450:23 450:10 451:17
522:15,15,16 simplification 407:5 412:5 Slightly 297:2 459:2 463:12
529:13 534:11,15 444:20 428:16 429:11 slope 331:24 466:21 467:13,16
536:11 simplified 260:20 430:17 434:6,8,23 366:13 449:22 468:2,13,14,16
sidetracked 454:12 simplify 310:15 438:1,24 443:10 slopes 449:21 469:4 495:7 515:8
side-induced simulate 273:8 445:1 451:2 454:4 531:20 515:8 517:13
519:19 285:16,19 286:2 454:20 455:10 slow 265:3,4 520:10,11,13
side-to-front 341:18 346:8 457:2 462:15 324:25 353:20 521:10,12
522:16 352:9 372:19 466:20,24 468:18 slowly 337:10 soils 284:13,22
Siejffert 319:24 406:17 420:8 469:25 473:19 442:3 285:3 301:16
320:20 321:9,13 492:22 513:10 475:6,8 476:9,12 slows 324:2 302:19 304:17,18
327:4 368:12 simulated 346:10 501:8,22 505:21 small 264:13 305:8 331:2
400:1 532:24 simulating 342:14 510:10 520:20 267:15 268:5 360:10,11,14,24
significance 459:21 simulation 272:25 521:2 522:21 301:2 329:7 361:1 382:8,12,14
459:22 318:13 326:19 527:4 529:11 531:19 447:17 448:25
significant 268:12 365:1 374:8 375:7 534:19 smaller 288:4 449:9 467:1,3,7
274:25 275:3 405:19 406:21,24 sit 488:24 343:20 467:17 473:1
278:24 279:5,19 461:1 site 292:19 296:17 smart 317:17 514:23 518:19
279:19 280:6,10 simulations 272:22 297:5 298:21 Smith 252:6 253:21 533:8
281:5 312:18,19 272:24 308:4 299:10 300:14,15 256:1,1 269:18 solid 262:1,5,6,13
314:18 335:11 455:13 301:14 302:3,3,9 277:8,11 299:2 262:14 372:11
337:4 338:11 Simultaneous 302:14 303:1,1 445:4 479:22,23 solution 432:15
339:18 343:7,8 506:23 304:11,17,19 483:7 484:19 solutions 347:3,6
348:13 494:13,13 sine 263:25,25 314:17,18 329:12 486:24 489:7 somebody 445:3
519:12 522:3 264:4,7 274:24 348:6,6 355:7 490:20 496:16 538:9
531:24 275:2,11 286:23 447:19 449:13 smooth 324:3,8 somebody's 428:12
significantly 302:2 286:25 287:4,12 467:16 327:25 440:11 something's 491:2
312:8 378:15 sine-like 286:23 sites 351:2 518:1 smoothed 494:15 soon 340:8 361:8
460:19 single 331:12 sitting 271:12 snapshot 338:8 sophisticated 509:5
silly 458:1 422:18 533:17 situ 284:14 360:3 423:6 sorry 276:6 277:21
silt 301:21 singularly 531:22 situation 359:11 snapshots 406:16 294:21 356:19
silts 299:15 302:21 sir 257:5,12 260:8 377:25 442:5 Society 271:23 384:12 396:13

1/31/2009
Page 573
434:14 435:11 522:1 345:22 368:6 534:9,18,22,23 504:6 511:18

438:24 453:7 SR 253:20 462:11,12 474:5 537:7,9,16 533:13,14 537:20
454:5 472:1,23 St 369:15 370:18 state 253:8 260:25 stepping 330:19 538:2,13
483:8 408:20 493:5 261:3 269:15 413:8 stood 323:11
sort 424:15 452:1 stability 402:23 275:5 279:20 steps 283:18 stop 383:4 391:12
sorted 350:14 437:13 347:2 417:3 450:13 464:12 440:16
sorts 273:19 372:20 stabilize 437:8 483:24 501:6 511:9 534:14 storm 263:10
sound 376:5 458:1 stabilized 380:4 stated 358:6 443:22 537:8,13 308:12 334:20
source 297:13,15 stabilizes 435:8 447:14 463:12 sterling 418:24 337:3,15,24 338:2
359:1 470:20 staff 348:11 477:20 540:10 Steve 394:22,23 339:15 343:6
sources 272:21 stage 308:14 statement 400:16 Steven 346:5 402:6 354:23 363:10
289:24 494:24 414:4 417:25 419:20 420:1,23 409:14 430:24
south 297:21 stall 403:9,16,20 441:17 535:14,18 437:5 440:10 489:9 503:5 511:8
516:20 stalling 403:17 statements 477:7 445:12 446:14 514:10 519:8
so-called 482:9 480:24 states 251:1 255:9 stick 286:11 361:6 531:25
space 275:6 363:14 Stanczack 345:5,11 256:2 269:3 Stone 252:4,7 storms 358:22
364:18 508:23 465:5 476:3 478:4 399:14 402:13 253:20 255:22,22 straight 286:11
517:9 478:20,24 479:2 503:1 507:19,23 256:8,19,23 375:13,19 441:14
sparse 306:7 480:9 500:13 station 284:22,25 257:25 258:4,14 strategy 458:15
specific 298:23 502:6 535:10 287:3 290:2 271:14 277:10,13 street 253:16
358:5 452:22 Stanczack's 465:9 291:12 292:24 286:1,2 289:5 323:14
specifically 344:19 stand 449:25 450:1 293:16 294:13,14 291:19,24 292:2 strengths 495:8
specified 260:7 standard 340:24 294:25 296:23 292:10 293:5,7 stresses 521:24
451:22,23 452:11 397:12 399:3,8,10 297:19 300:8 296:16 297:25 stretch 302:19
452:14,17 473:6 399:11,17 400:17 319:2 345:19 299:22 300:4 517:25
492:8 466:17 471:13 348:2 351:1 363:4 306:13,14 307:10 strike 368:6
specify 410:10 497:18,22,23 375:4 414:24 307:13 309:3,6,8 striking 363:10,14
482:20 490:23 505:1 447:19 467:7 315:11 318:3,7,12 366:21 367:4,11
spectral 268:17 standards 399:18 468:13 473:1 325:15,18,21 368:24
275:1 280:5,5 400:16 515:5 535:25 328:15,17 332:16 string 477:3
speculate 500:19 standing 449:22,22 stations 289:21,24 334:23 335:1,4,6 strong 350:6 389:9
speed 403:9,9,15 standpoint 389:22 statistical 505:6 335:7,14,17,22 535:11
403:16 404:1 start 286:20 302:20 stay 336:17 338:21 336:18 337:8 structural 260:10
441:25 307:1 339:6 384:8 495:14 338:24 339:6 372:18
spelled 519:6 390:22 391:12 stays 320:6 341:14 342:18 structure 261:23
spend 353:20 392:17 397:13 steel 273:11 343:5 351:16 262:13,15 267:9
spent 320:16 393:8 435:14 471:19 steep 286:4 362:10,19 381:19 305:10 320:25
spills 338:5 489:3 493:4 520:8 stem 459:1 474:18 395:9 396:1,6,8 321:2,3 327:6
spoke 330:5 403:6 started 306:23 475:1 396:12 404:24 330:22,23 346:10
453:8 470:2 384:5 402:25 step 258:25 262:18 405:11 409:9 347:16,25 349:17
spot 334:2 516:16 330:18 348:18 413:10,19 429:24 367:20 368:17
spreading 270:6 starting 255:20 389:7 411:3 430:16 436:10,12 369:25 378:23
spring 317:18 397:15 493:2 413:17,18 415:13 439:8 443:25 379:3 380:5,8,11
square 498:24 starts 264:6 288:8 464:16 465:25 445:3,6 454:19 380:13 386:4
500:17,23 307:5 323:7 326:4 500:5 529:16,22 469:24 472:12,23 387:6,7 391:18
squeezing 521:22 329:7 341:16 530:1,23 533:21 479:20 490:18,19 392:13 411:3

1/31/2009
Page 574
419:16 420:8,17 344:10 345:18,22 suffered 521:21 331:21,22 336:15 sustained 493:15
421:17 434:13 345:25 347:18,18 suffice 263:24 347:24 357:19 520:5
438:23 439:7 350:18,22 355:7 sugar-like 503:14 370:13 371:18 SWAN 274:24
442:4 443:1 360:11 368:13 suggest 258:6 376:6,8,9 438:23 279:13,13,16,22
445:15,16,20 378:23 408:13 suggested 260:11 439:7 440:11,21 280:1,3
455:18 459:1,2 446:1,23 447:20 summarized 441:9 444:17 swashes 285:23
474:19 475:1 447:25 455:23 344:13 478:5 448:15 450:6 swear 256:11
491:12 513:5,7 462:18 474:23 524:23 456:1 521:16 swept 414:15
529:17 533:19 478:21 508:12 summary 348:1,21 surge 263:10 283:9 swing 410:5
structured 494:21 515:4 516:18 350:16 353:1 303:9,12,20,22 switching 338:18
structures 257:18 519:21 531:8,21 400:22 407:6 305:5 308:12 sworn 253:11
262:1 265:20 studying 447:13 476:22 523:24 309:14 310:6,8,12 256:14 540:6
318:20 346:9 stuff 321:6 402:7 524:19,20 310:12,13 319:7 symbol 300:22
352:1 355:4 359:4 subject 400:5 404:3 summation 287:14 320:8 329:16 symbols 300:17
386:9 400:19 533:2,9,12 supervision 540:13 331:25 332:4 synthesis 399:23
401:19 404:4 subjected 274:12 supplied 356:11 333:21 334:7,20 system 266:22
417:21 420:5 312:10 313:20 supply 355:12 337:1,3,15,25 274:3,6,19 275:12
479:6,16 480:23 314:2 315:2 316:1 support 258:11 338:3,10 339:15 302:18 329:17
495:1 506:21 330:24 513:5 357:19 535:11 343:6,9,19 346:15 365:10 368:5
509:22 510:13 522:23 527:12 supporting 353:2 357:23 358:3 382:7 401:22
530:4,9 531:1 submerged 308:12 355:12 535:23 363:22 370:7 402:21 404:20
struggle 470:11 371:17,18,21 supports 355:25 392:14 421:24 410:22,23 420:12
495:24 500:11 372:19 supposition 302:10 430:24 440:23 480:15 484:3
struggling 413:24 submission 536:14 Supreme 258:7 441:20,21 442:1,3 485:11,14 489:4
stuck 282:20 submitted 354:5 sure 263:3 277:4 442:6 443:1 523:9,12 537:19
student 363:19 536:12 278:7 290:13 455:24 491:15,21 systemic 301:5
students 348:11 Subscribed 538:22 291:15 295:1 491:22 492:5,21 systems 274:19
446:20 subsequent 408:16 300:22 320:13,15 494:7,14,16 500:1 382:9 484:13
studied 268:16 408:18 327:5 330:4,17 500:8 513:5 514:3 510:19
282:16 307:24 substantial 458:4 335:10 339:4 519:8 522:14 S-W-A-S-H 286:1
312:17,23 313:2,4 467:12 359:12 362:12 526:3,25 527:6,12
347:19 450:22 substantially 374:3 375:3 380:2 528:25 531:25 T
469:3 520:6 531:2 423:15 382:9 390:1 532:3 table 271:12
531:5,10 substantiate/sup... 394:19 406:8 surges 354:23 291:22 334:9,17
studies 318:14,25 356:9 408:4 435:1 409:14 493:25 335:3,5,12,14
341:12,25 344:6,8 substrata 524:15 436:22 438:12 surprises 267:24 336:22 338:9,15
344:12,13 345:16 substrate 306:21 454:13 464:3 survey 305:15 338:17 339:10
360:21 447:10,16 313:7,8,10 458:14 497:6 528:5 364:15 531:8 370:7 374:24,24
535:6 458:17 464:19 533:10 surveying 529:21 374:25 404:16
study 275:21 473:25 474:9,20 surf 319:22 320:1 530:12,20,22 430:21,22 455:9
282:19 285:2 476:16 527:23 surface 264:2,3 survey-based 455:10,11 460:17
289:16,20 290:2 subsumed 344:24 265:3,9,13 266:2 522:20 476:22 477:4,5,8
306:19 307:23 344:24 534:4 283:10,24 300:16 survived 315:22 478:5,18 524:19
312:20,24 318:16 subsumes 465:8 301:18 302:21 suspect 439:20 524:24 525:13
326:13 340:13 subtract 296:10,11 304:23 313:5 suspicion 440:5 526:2,7,9,11,13
341:23 342:7,9,11 suckers 422:3 322:16,21 327:11 sustainable 401:20 529:5 533:24

1/31/2009
Page 575
535:18 373:10,14 398:25 276:4,5,6,9 Telephone 253:17 373:6 374:11

tables 277:23 425:5 447:4 277:20 286:18 253:23 254:5 380:8 398:21,24
334:11 335:4 450:17 462:4 288:6,16 317:23 tell 259:2 270:1 406:11 407:18,19
339:7 340:20 501:18 504:1 318:4 325:12,16 277:7 293:19 419:17 439:23
409:12,13 411:19 538:5 325:24 327:14 300:16,22 307:15 445:21 446:19
412:15,19 413:25 talking 259:12 334:16 335:2 311:6 331:1 396:1 447:19 449:13,18
414:6 417:9 427:3 277:4 284:21 340:2 341:6,7,11 408:1 422:11,21 460:5 462:20
427:10 429:8 286:7,19 287:4 352:4 353:3 439:20 457:16 465:24 466:1,7,10
461:15 288:12 308:17 354:11 356:4,6 474:2 482:16,20 467:16 473:4
tails 487:2 310:13 316:12,14 362:20 373:23 482:25 488:2 474:17
take 264:12 268:6 319:12 326:11 374:3,12 395:23 540:6 tested 273:12
275:25 277:2 335:1 336:9 343:6 396:8 398:5 telling 428:12 281:19 301:17
292:3 296:7,12 350:12 355:1 405:12 409:12 455:11,12 313:11 389:2
299:21 317:3 366:19 367:3 412:2 413:20 tells 281:3 397:25 459:10 530:4,10
327:16 330:13,20 371:23 373:22 414:19 416:22,23 416:18 449:23 testified 256:15
332:18 335:25 379:6 386:14 418:22 423:4 455:14 486:4,8 testimony 425:17
342:19 362:11 388:21 403:25 427:4 429:2,3,4 489:21 540:11
371:6 372:24 404:2,2,17 405:23 430:10,11,13 ten 497:22 531:19 testing 266:11
391:2,5 392:9 411:19 414:19 434:6,14,23 451:2 tend 275:8 462:7 281:10,13,14
393:13 404:5,25 422:18,21 423:9 454:20 461:16 471:9 387:4 400:7
406:16 413:17 428:17 435:2 471:17 473:15,16 tendencies 488:24 411:17 416:6
432:18 481:16 436:24 440:18 473:17 501:1 tendency 488:9 417:17 439:15
492:21 495:2,3 448:3 454:23 535:24 536:13,16 tends 471:7 444:11 474:20
501:16 534:1 462:25 464:9 technique 359:2 tens 269:15 476:25 479:10
537:20 467:21 489:7,8 417:15 433:22 tenuous 500:5 516:21 535:2,4
taken 255:14,17 496:22 501:25 479:14 497:14 term 309:11 310:4 tests 266:8 284:7
260:16 274:24 talks 324:20 350:10 505:8,14,23 340:15,17 372:9 284:14,19,21
284:22 286:6 362:24 530:23 385:21 396:19,22 345:15 346:7
300:1 320:2 tall 320:8 techniques 376:20 396:23 415:19 360:8 377:17
342:25 351:23 tank 437:8 376:21 431:22 432:25 433:25 405:25 406:3
362:15 405:6 tankers 274:10,15 481:20 489:5 464:8 495:20 456:11 461:6
406:21 447:25 tape 255:12 342:19 504:19 505:3 496:15 499:1 465:19,19 466:10
454:16 485:1 524:2 530:20 504:18,21 505:7 479:8
490:13 537:24 tasked 420:3 technologically 511:25 512:3 textbook 260:9
540:8 taught 270:13 437:18 509:5 513:15 333:8 384:6
talk 258:1 318:12 409:17 technologies terms 263:16,20 481:18 498:18
319:24 321:8 teach 512:24 270:21 470:19 534:6 505:10
339:8 343:12 team 303:21 technology 267:16 test 273:6,7 281:22 thank 256:10,17
394:22,22 403:3 450:24 499:15,17 267:20 268:21 281:24,25 285:1 257:11 269:21
422:20 440:16 514:10 519:2 270:12 278:14 292:19 296:17 270:12 287:9
441:20 456:25 525:15 528:15 280:25 281:3,18 297:5 298:21 292:10 293:1
466:11 504:8 532:8,17 394:24 397:15 300:14 302:3,9,14 296:4 335:9
talked 281:10 teams 500:11 399:24 465:24 302:17 304:11 336:18 401:16
296:8 313:23 Tech 483:13 508:14,19 514:8 308:17,20 322:24 405:2 426:2 435:3
324:5 329:21 technical 256:25 514:11 323:2,3,5 329:12 454:13 496:20
333:24 361:10 257:4 261:14 teeth 268:6,6 341:19 360:6 504:11 511:24

1/31/2009
Page 576
525:25 527:17 448:1 463:19 277:14,17 286:24 339:21 347:9 TORTS 253:20
538:10,13,14 466:20 472:10 287:3,14,16,20 350:18,20,21,22 total 318:22 460:14
theorem 471:7 473:23 493:13 288:1,11 299:1,5 370:1,7 373:7 496:17
theoretical 385:2 498:23 499:25 299:11,21,22,24 378:11,14 396:25 totally 383:21
387:10 500:6 501:17 300:2 303:20 403:16 433:12 489:6
thereof 253:4 504:15 511:13 308:7,9,14 309:23 467:16 468:6,13 touching 283:12
thereto 540:18 515:2 319:17 320:7 481:9,9,9,9 440:21
thing 270:2,6 thinking 353:19 326:20 327:12 496:10 498:11,12 tough 419:3
293:20 315:6 414:1 329:4,8,10,16 time's 337:13 track 375:22
323:10 343:18 third 256:4 259:22 334:4,8,12 336:16 time-step 261:9 tracked 424:23
349:10 380:1 274:1 341:22 337:11,13,24,24 263:2,5,9,15 tracking 425:19
395:12 414:10 343:22 371:11 338:2,14 340:11 264:14,23,24 438:22 439:5
421:10,15 424:8 392:15 416:8 342:23 343:3,21 265:1 331:16 tractable 383:15
425:10 437:7 504:12 505:5 353:18,20 354:4 timing 304:6 train 532:10
441:7 449:10 526:16 536:21 355:8 358:2,5 title 257:8 326:12 transducer 445:14
456:4 458:13,18 thoroughly 272:9 362:10,13,17 titled 471:20 transducers 346:13
499:18 503:8 thought 291:11 374:1 375:8 510:18 420:10 421:12
513:17,20 521:19 299:1 328:13 378:21 380:6 today 293:18 440:3
things 273:20 344:9,15 346:22 381:11,15 392:13 395:20 409:5 transfer 442:2
274:4 280:23 353:7 367:10 394:2 400:16,18 412:2 420:1 482:5 transferred 298:11
324:2 336:13 378:18,25 472:8 405:5,9,19 406:4 482:7 495:18,21 transferring 459:4
350:1 372:20 476:10 524:3 406:13,15,16,18 505:11 538:2,7 transition 301:20
377:19 386:21 thousands 287:18 406:20,22 408:15 today's 538:16 302:21,22,23
394:1 395:4,5 287:19 409:4 410:3,11 toe 321:18 322:2 transitions 300:18
417:20 421:6 three 253:4 255:15 414:7,8 420:17 326:17 354:24 301:4
423:13 459:25 259:8 260:1 422:17,19 423:1,6 365:11 367:18,23 translate 301:23
479:1 494:15 281:14 312:21 424:14 432:23 381:1 503:23
513:21 318:13 344:4 434:18 435:8,19 told 292:14 520:14 translation 327:9
think 258:20 345:15,15 352:25 435:21 438:22 525:21 328:3
260:16,18 269:16 356:11 385:15 439:5,19 440:19 Tom 258:21 434:2 transmission 279:2
273:23,24 279:1 388:10 416:7 451:10,11,12 tool 391:19 392:2 transmitted 525:14
281:11,24 285:11 478:8 498:12 454:14,17 455:7 394:6 427:25 transported 363:21
294:1 297:8 537:3 456:2,19 457:4 tools 393:9 364:3
300:22,24 302:15 three-dimensional 460:13 470:8 top 283:16 288:8 travel 321:18
309:1 311:23 270:4 474:21 475:3 288:18,25 295:4 traversing 533:18
328:7 333:5 throw 432:1,6 476:16 477:12,18 323:11 324:9,11 treating 478:20
352:23 353:22 434:3 477:19,22 478:9 332:3 343:9 treatise 498:20
354:21 359:24 thrown 437:13 483:20 484:17,20 365:12 372:5 treats 465:11
363:17 367:6 tied 503:16 484:22 490:12,16 405:18 420:12 trenches 285:9
373:1 389:19 ties 397:9 491:15 494:10 422:6 432:21 TrialDirector
395:14 401:3 till 536:23 496:7,19 502:4,7 434:10 435:4,11 292:18
404:13 410:20 timber 273:11 508:25 509:5 440:22,23,24 trick 298:24
411:4,7 423:11 time 263:9 264:5 537:22,25 538:13 444:2 520:8 tried 332:20
427:2 430:16 264:24 265:15,22 538:17 540:10 topography 305:8 trip 453:25
433:2 434:9 266:25 267:17 timed 469:2 530:3 tropical 270:17
444:14 446:17 275:7 276:21 times 269:8 334:12 top's 365:12 344:19

1/31/2009
Page 577
trouble 258:14 352:1 395:5 two-part 416:3 485:10,12,20,21 291:23 297:14

274:16 429:17 516:20 520:18 type 261:9 266:19 486:19 488:16,21 303:3 312:13
433:9 440:6,7 522:9 523:14 387:19 427:19 493:21,23 494:21 313:22 321:12
trucked 314:11 525:5 458:10 463:12 495:8,16 496:11 332:24 349:19
true 269:16 271:3 turns 268:3 340:9 468:15 495:12 496:12,13,18 353:19,21 373:21
299:7 314:19 452:12 496:12 497:17 503:18,25 504:24 375:3 377:2 382:1
353:9 399:2 421:7 Twenty 438:9,14 types 280:17 458:9 505:1,22 506:5,5 384:22 391:16
425:8 433:2,4 Twenty-one 405:16 468:2 471:22 506:14 507:5 395:22 399:25
446:10 470:14 Twenty-two 341:14 533:3 530:17,21,24 423:8 427:1
478:1,8,11,13,17 twice 483:2 536:3 typewriting 540:12 531:4,15,18 431:16 432:5,14
487:1 489:16 two 259:23 273:3,6 typical 302:25 uncomfortable 441:8 504:12,21
494:2 495:22 277:23 280:7,17 typified 511:22 276:17 512:3,23 514:25
500:12 508:4,5 291:20 297:4,25 uncompacted 528:1 529:13
537:15 538:22 300:5 302:1,12 U 311:24 312:1 531:15 537:13
truth 259:3 428:13 303:5 304:21 ultimate 311:8 314:1 452:1 467:3 understanding
496:5,5 499:12,13 313:11 316:19,24 402:16,17 467:6,17 468:14 259:24 291:4
500:6,10 513:19 317:2 318:7,8,10 ultimately 448:5 472:21 473:1 380:20 391:15
540:6,6,7 335:19 339:7 unable 304:2 503:7 417:23 459:7
try 258:11 261:16 341:24 352:24 332:21 388:17 underlie 505:7 506:14 507:5
266:7 276:15 356:11 359:4 unacceptable 484:8 underlies 506:13 513:3 515:9
279:15 354:3 366:13,20 375:20 unaffected 323:18 507:4 517:15
358:20 392:4 375:21 377:1 unbias 470:7 underlying 415:6 understood 289:9
397:16 434:20 382:9 397:4 499:20 underneath 331:22 406:10 432:9
463:18 500:6 402:19 406:23 unbiased 470:10 underpredict 462:5 434:9
515:1 538:9 407:12 409:12 unbiasing 488:23 462:7 undertake 269:10
trying 258:6 410:18 412:15 uncertain 307:22 underpredicted undertow 457:19
270:22 291:4,6 413:25 416:4 503:20 276:23 412:16 undrained 449:10
318:17,18,21,22 417:8 419:10 uncertainties 418:3,14 423:15 unfamiliar 302:6
320:16 333:9 423:5,12 426:23 353:24 400:24 underpredicting unfolding 408:15
334:2 336:19 427:3 429:8 401:23 424:24 426:14 432:22 unfortunate 407:24
342:1,14 353:22 431:12 432:21 470:22 471:1,21 461:12 unfortunately
367:8 382:24 433:12,14 436:1 471:23 488:20 underprediction 460:1 503:18
395:14 415:6 442:22 447:10 492:12,25 494:24 428:23 430:6 unimportant 376:1
422:20,20 423:19 448:1 469:25 495:7,19,19 433:10 461:22,24 United 251:1 255:9
434:24 435:20,22 470:4 474:7 496:15 498:10,13 underpredictions 256:2 399:13,19
459:23 501:17 478:15,23 485:21 498:21 502:10 424:22 461:15 503:1 507:19,23
514:23 517:16 485:24 486:20 505:18 506:8 462:3 unity 451:13,14
533:22 487:7 488:23 511:12 underpredicts 470:13,16 513:22
turbulence 285:16 489:18 494:23 uncertainty 260:19 278:3 413:22 universe 386:22
285:20 498:10,13 504:24 260:23,24 293:22 417:10 418:1 University 419:21
turf 415:5,5 450:21 505:4,7 513:21 293:23 294:1,10 426:10,11 427:10 528:19
469:5 476:18 515:21 525:22 332:25 352:20 427:11 433:12 unprotected
524:14 529:1 535:7 536:24 370:2 425:16 underreported 318:19 470:9
turf/ground 524:9 two-dot 333:5 433:23 470:23 422:12 unreliable 484:15
524:12 526:24 two-hour 410:12 480:8,12,12,16 understand 263:19 485:9
turn 271:4 297:22 410:15 481:21 482:1 269:23 286:14 unstable 431:23

1/31/2009
Page 578
unvegetated utilize 460:4 342:7,12 343:22 484:24 485:7 264:17,18,21

369:14 495:18 505:4 344:7 346:18 497:19 505:2,19 323:13,16 342:13
uplift 421:23 534:14 358:24,25 389:6 506:9 342:15 345:25
upper 354:17 utilized 463:9 409:6,11 414:16 varies 303:1 329:15 372:7,23 391:16
366:14 508:12 530:1 414:16 419:7 variety 268:17 409:13,14 410:4,9
uprush 264:10,12 532:7,9,9 451:5 460:3 278:11 285:3 410:11,21,21
338:5 438:20 U.S 253:19 278:12 465:19 473:17 312:17,23 313:2,5 411:11 412:12,16
439:3 456:23 284:12 344:13 516:16 530:15 336:15 347:17 412:25 414:23,25
457:17 346:6 369:21 535:8,10,15,19 359:14,21 386:1,3 415:12,13 416:4
uprushing/down... 386:7 394:21 validations 257:8 386:5,5 413:1 417:10 418:1,3,9
285:22 397:13 399:3,5,6 408:25 various 372:17 421:12 422:16,16
upset 480:22 420:2 479:12 validity 259:20 392:12,13 456:21 423:16,24,25
upslope 265:10 508:10 510:21 270:23 502:25 427:19 430:25
364:4 511:22 valleys 372:15 varying 264:16 431:3,6 436:19
use 260:6,20 261:8 valuable 285:5 329:8 406:12,15 437:22 440:4,7
261:16,19 265:24 V value 425:9,9 406:18 442:22 444:1,10
266:10 268:11 valid 258:1,7,12 469:18 470:3,14 vector 443:11 445:14 455:22
274:25 278:23 359:12 387:15,16 478:2,14,17 481:3 vectors 284:3 441:2 462:6 473:6,7
279:5 280:5 285:7 388:20 481:14 482:9,12 442:14,16,23 velocity-duration
287:7 289:24 validate 274:21 486:5 488:4,8 443:17 397:24
291:4,20 331:15 278:16 314:17 493:14 495:22 vegetated 328:2 velocity-measuri...
339:12 340:15,17 318:17,18 344:10 496:16 497:21 371:3,7 440:3
344:7 345:2 344:16 347:8 504:25 513:21 vegetation 273:12 velocity-time
347:21 364:21 358:19 359:16,17 530:21 305:1 328:12 392:11 398:1
369:4,20 375:10 359:18 388:17,18 values 422:9 347:24 372:24 418:11
382:19 384:3 408:5,6 428:7 423:18 471:13 378:15 517:15 veneer 361:17
385:21 386:16 460:10 465:25 482:8 487:14 528:8 362:1
387:13,14,19 492:19 530:15 535:5,7 velocities 262:16 veracity 516:21
388:1,5 390:12 validated 259:8 Van 348:10 356:23 262:17 263:10 Verheij 319:24
392:5,5 393:4,14 260:2 347:6 532:18 264:1 277:25 400:1 532:25
394:8 396:19,22 384:17 385:13 variability 305:2 278:1 323:2,3,9 verification/docu...
409:2 418:7,10 388:5 389:2,4 470:17 484:7 346:14 348:25 271:18
433:1 452:3 455:1 391:21 392:2 492:7 494:25 373:3 408:9 verified 271:16
457:22 458:14 428:6 464:14 495:12 498:15,16 409:22 411:12,13 384:17 385:13
464:8 474:22 478:25 479:2,7,8 503:15,17,22,23 411:20 412:21,22 389:2 428:6
489:4 496:15 530:5,10 534:24 531:21 413:22 416:19 479:25
497:14 498:24 535:24 variable 301:10 417:22 418:14 verify 270:23 428:8
500:23,24 506:5 validate/corrobo... 302:20 419:6 420:11,18 Verjeij 321:13
509:17 304:3 variables 260:21 422:7,12,13,14 version 282:10
useful 344:9 347:8 validating 346:24 304:24 397:2 423:3,14 439:12 versus 408:10
420:21 427:25 348:19 388:1 471:11 493:11 440:10,13 442:4 458:11 502:11
user 387:9 validation 257:14 variation 340:23 456:23,24 457:1 514:13 531:12
users 385:1 259:6 274:17 372:14 425:1 519:14,20,22 vertical 323:7
uses 280:2 284:12 275:21 314:10 466:14 469:8,10 534:11,14 533:18
393:5,6 318:13,16 341:12 481:2,15 483:20 velocity 264:5,10 vertically 442:1
UTC 334:6 341:17,19,23 484:2,4,8,11,16 264:11,11,13,16 vet 491:24

1/31/2009
Page 579
Vicksburg 346:6 517:2 523:14 wave 257:17 262:7 420:15 421:13,22 wave-breaching
420:15,23 445:13 525:6 529:5,12 262:10,11 263:25 421:24 422:3 328:5 451:8 462:7
532:13 538:10 263:25 264:4,8 425:1 431:24 wave-induced
video 255:4 wanted 517:12 266:10 268:12 437:8,9 440:24 257:9 262:23
videographer wanting 317:14 274:25 275:1,2,3 455:14,14,16,19 343:23 347:3
254:7 255:3 wash 304:20,21 275:5 278:24,24 455:25 456:7,7 351:5 352:11,12
256:10,17 277:14 washed 290:10 279:5,8,11,12,16 457:8,12,15,19,21 407:8 412:7
277:17 299:24 514:24 279:17 280:6,10 457:23 465:11,15 415:25 416:2
300:2 342:21 Washington 280:11 281:3,4 466:23 470:9 417:3 460:20
343:1 362:13,17 253:23 254:4 282:15 283:7 475:9,15,20 464:8 476:17
405:3,7 454:14,17 510:21 287:4,13,13 477:22 479:15 478:3 502:3
490:10,14 504:16 wasn't 305:25 304:24,25 307:3 489:25 491:12 529:14 534:10
537:22,25 538:15 446:8,9 459:16 308:6 309:17 493:5,14,14,18 536:11
view 389:23 425:19 waste 276:21 310:12,13 312:10 495:9,11 503:9,19 wave-side 466:11
425:21 500:10 wasted 337:11 312:18,19,21 513:6 519:11,12 way 258:15 259:18
visit 348:6 watch 332:10 356:1 314:2,8 315:3,7,9 528:25 531:24,25 265:9 275:20
visited 348:6 water 282:25 286:3 315:15,16,23 531:25 532:3 281:1 284:2
void 364:18 309:15,18 310:5,6 316:2,9 318:19 wavelength 410:18 297:20,21 305:23
Volume 251:10 310:8 321:25 319:13,16 320:4 waves 262:12 324:24 325:8,9
255:13 342:23 324:25 327:19,23 320:23,24 321:1,4 266:20 267:15,15 327:10,15,17
405:4,9 490:16 327:24 328:8,9,14 321:6,8,18 327:5 268:1,4,23,24 328:8,21,24
508:12 538:17 331:18,22 332:6 327:7,23 328:18 270:5,16 274:23 333:24 339:11
vortices 285:16 332:10,12 339:20 328:19 329:4,10 274:24 275:9,11 344:15 360:5
343:17 348:24 329:14 330:14 275:12 278:23 376:10 379:23
W 349:1 362:25 331:6,8,12,14,18 280:10,15,18 408:12 417:16
wafers 354:22 364:3,3,18 365:3 332:3 333:14,22 283:4,9,12,16 439:24 441:16
wagon 484:5 365:3 366:8,10,14 334:5,7 336:2 285:17,18,22 443:18,19 449:6
wait 536:23 366:17,21,23 337:4,5,5 338:4 286:22,23,24 456:16 457:10
walls 285:9 367:1,4,11,24 338:11 339:18 287:23,24 288:3 470:6 490:22
want 258:16 269:10 368:1,4,8,10,14 340:21,22,24,25 305:4 310:5 491:23 492:4
276:21 287:25 368:19 369:13,17 341:18 342:14 312:21 316:3,4 495:9,14 498:7
289:7 291:15,17 369:17 370:1,18 343:7,9 344:18 319:17 320:9 499:1,19 531:5
291:20 298:24 371:9,9 376:1,10 346:15,25 351:14 326:5,24 327:20 540:16
310:24 311:11 378:12,14 379:4 352:9 353:25 329:8,17 330:25 ways 313:12 372:17
317:6,9 325:21 381:10 391:17 364:18,21,25 331:17 363:22 460:10 534:8
329:1 334:1,3 419:5,14 440:19 366:12,15 367:2 368:24 370:3 weak 350:6,7
335:18 339:4 440:20,21,21,22 368:9,15 369:12 371:19 378:14 537:18
340:7,15 349:16 440:22 441:1,2,3 369:15,18,24 380:6 394:11,17 week 394:1
361:9 374:1 384:3 441:6,17,22,23 370:8,9,18,18 410:7,16,24 weeks 491:2
384:16 388:4 442:7,10,14 444:1 371:7,25 374:15 420:14 421:16 weight 449:15
389:20 391:8 446:14 455:12 374:21 376:2 441:24 442:16,17 went 280:24 288:7
395:19 404:25 493:15,17 499:5 378:22 379:2 442:20 443:2 289:18 297:20,21
426:24 434:25 503:19 511:7 380:3,10,12 461:15,18,20 314:10 348:5
455:6 457:24 waters 358:8 381:11 386:8 496:2,3 500:9 355:6 356:23
489:2 493:11,24 Waterways 271:24 392:14 408:7 503:9 511:8 357:1 518:2
495:13 497:4,5 water's 367:23 412:12,15 417:20 514:16 weren't 284:22

1/31/2009
Page 580
290:10 294:3,3 472:4 473:17 308:25 318:4,11 465:9,10,10 Y

393:15 421:12 478:15 485:16 325:19 328:11,16 472:16 480:6 Yeah 277:6,13
Westerlink 303:23 486:12,13 487:14 332:8 335:21 488:23 491:10 282:9 286:18
499:17 500:3 489:7,8 501:2 336:12 337:3 492:18,25 493:1 295:24 303:17
514:6 532:11 520:25 521:2 338:20,23 339:1 497:15 508:6,11 319:25 335:9
western 327:9 525:4 526:7,7 341:11 351:11,13 509:1,2,4 516:23 336:6 362:12
wetlands 324:21,24 533:17 538:3,6 396:1,4,7,10 527:25 530:15 414:21 429:18
325:6 we've 268:8,16 405:1 408:22 538:12 472:14 526:18
we'll 268:4 273:22 274:10 275:13 413:8,14,17 workable 378:23 year 380:16 381:20
276:17 278:8 281:17 286:6 438:25 445:5 worked 274:10 404:22
286:10,16 292:6 299:23 302:17 469:22 486:19 working 266:2 years 258:24
296:12 306:6 304:2 337:10 488:14 525:2,24 268:20 293:16 265:19 267:19
327:25 332:13 345:6 385:7 528:21 533:14 307:20 337:10 278:15 281:14
336:17 358:11 389:10 400:17 536:4 538:10 359:16 380:16 393:8 400:6
378:12 382:14 402:5,7 414:12,16 540:5,11 389:23 391:12 year's 409:7
393:20 395:15 442:22 454:20 woke 338:24 395:24 402:20 yesterday 256:20
408:16 416:21 464:25 482:13,22 Wolff 258:21 443:7 468:16 257:1,8 271:23
419:23 425:13 483:13 491:11 333:12 434:2 491:11 289:18 305:3
426:23 500:9 501:18 516:17,18 508:7 works 395:2 306:5 309:13
528:7 538:7 532:13 536:2 Wolff's 509:7 416:16 319:12 350:4
we're 261:24 265:6 538:5 wonder 334:10 workshops 404:8 355:23 356:3
270:1 274:8,13,18 wide 268:17 285:3 wondering 341:24 world 266:23 361:11 410:1
277:4 278:9 347:17 359:14,15 wood 265:3,4,5 333:10 425:20,21 511:19 521:22
286:19 288:16 359:21 386:4,5 word 495:13 442:5 533:22 534:21
290:25 291:4,6 413:1 450:22 words 300:17 340:7 worst 313:16,24 York 254:4
294:22 301:9 502:24 415:23 434:5 worst-case 315:14
309:3 316:12,14 width 268:17 work 258:4 267:25 315:15 Z
317:21,22 318:1 373:14 269:23 272:1 wouldn't 329:25 zero 264:6 337:6
318:18,21 323:18 Wilkins 251:25 273:17 282:17 330:9 360:9 365:4,9 368:4
323:24 334:24 253:6 540:3,24 283:22 284:11 393:16,17 448:20 373:3 378:19
337:8,9 339:10 wind 312:21 323:11 293:18 322:14 wrack 363:20,25 414:25 415:3,8,16
340:16 341:12 323:12 323:16,21 324:24 364:1 426:10,11,14
357:21 359:24 wing 324:8 344:10,16 345:3,7 written 480:3 427:11 435:14
361:8 362:19 withdraw 326:10 345:12 346:22 517:4 469:13 470:4
371:18 373:4 455:5 507:17 349:7,18 352:5 wrong 268:5 zone 285:23 286:1
377:23 382:23 509:9 518:12 356:10 365:14 292:13,21 297:9 319:22 320:1
388:21 395:8 528:23 371:15 383:24 333:7 335:16 364:1,1 376:3
398:20 411:21 withdrawn 306:13 391:21,23 401:1 377:14 395:8
422:23,25 426:6 313:21 344:5 406:7 409:7 411:6 446:13,17 #
428:20,21 430:3,3 372:22 373:8,11 413:21 414:4,12 446:21 466:8,8 #10068 251:25
434:17,20 435:1,1 409:20 445:22 414:16,16 415:9 wrote 282:8
436:22 437:13 within-entitled 420:20 427:25 0
438:21 439:5 540:7 432:2 445:12 X 0.8 336:3
440:12 442:21 witness 253:9,11 446:12 447:11 XBE001243 297:9 00 284:23,25
443:7 459:23 256:12 292:8 454:25 455:3 XJV002215 524:1 296:23 300:8
461:12 471:10 297:24 307:12 456:9 459:18 XY 375:1 326:14 345:19

1/31/2009
Page 581
348:2 350:24 1.0 425:8,8 11.0 337:3 296:16,25 297:1 345:17 346:9
447:19,25 467:7 1.102 370:9 11.3 433:5 303:11 312:20 351:23,25 352:21
473:1 476:23 1.2 341:3 369:18 11:01 342:23 333:15 376:6,11 353:1,4,5 354:12
515:5 535:25 1.3 402:24 403:1,11 11:10 343:3 476:22 477:4 355:4 362:20,25
001 299:8 403:15,24 404:6 11:40 362:14 16-foot 309:21 363:7,15 366:19
0430 432:23 480:24 110 307:2 436:25 331:5 351:18 367:6,11,18,19
05-4182 251:5 1.5 350:20 403:1 437:20 438:4 16.2-foot 430:24 368:22 369:1
05-4182K 255:11 460:13,23,25 456:20 16.6 297:2 370:7 371:21
0500 334:21 335:21 461:5 477:23 111 307:13 309:7 17 296:7,13 478:6 374:12,24 376:13
336:2,16,24 478:2,4,19,22 114 310:23,25 478:18 494:7 395:23 396:9
337:24 502:4 311:3 312:3 496:22 519:10 405:4,12 408:18
0530 433:4 1.5-hour 460:16 12 364:12 433:5 522:18 412:2 414:20
06-2268 251:7 1/2 333:15 437:22 438:6 17-point 337:15 416:23 419:9
256:21 1:07 362:17 12.3 502:5,15 338:10 420:5 429:11
0730 337:21 10 301:9,25 361:2 12.8 431:8 17.1 491:22 492:1,3 433:6 434:7,15
0800 337:16 338:9 449:15 450:11 120 287:6 494:18,19 451:2 452:13,16
338:15 339:15 455:9,10 480:20 13 399:21 497:23 17.4 303:10 453:19 459:8
0830 337:21 482:18 495:2 130 287:7,11,15 17.6 494:10,19,19 471:18 472:3
10-foot 493:17 373:6 405:20 496:23 473:15 481:25
1 10.7 334:19,20 407:2 418:12 17.8 339:16 343:11 483:13 487:8
1 255:12 262:20 10.8 319:7 357:24 437:11 1730 370:7 495:1 496:12
276:9 277:20 358:1 363:7 370:8 131 307:4 309:6 18 519:10 522:19 501:2 509:22
278:2 281:9 285:4 10:00 334:6 132 307:1,2,6 18.1 295:21,25 510:5 515:16
300:7 303:12 10:04 300:3 1331 253:22 19 396:6 399:22 516:3,7,12,19
306:24 309:4 100 287:6 302:16 134 311:3 438:10,11 517:9 520:22
314:20 315:1,8,12 435:9,15 437:12 138-foot 368:2 19.3 365:12 524:7,22 526:18
315:17 325:13,16 456:20 466:15,17 14 277:20 1950s 508:20 526:20,20 527:11
325:24 329:24 469:8,11,12 471:3 14th 275:23 281:15 1960 511:17 2C 278:3 314:20
334:16 335:1,15 471:14 480:8 140 435:24 438:4 1961 446:1 315:1,10,13,25
336:25 339:8,12 481:5 483:19 1400-second 1990 400:4 493:2 329:24 334:20
339:14 340:3 484:7 496:17 435:19 1993 344:7,9 476:8 335:13,22,23
341:7 342:22 505:20 146 277:10,19 1996 400:9 336:10 337:16
353:1,5 356:3 100th 264:14,17,18 427:4 1999 508:8 509:8 338:17 339:8
370:1 373:23 100,000 467:16 147 277:20 427:4 509:22 510:4 383:23 430:24
374:3 383:1,22 468:6,13 473:8 429:1,3,7,10,22 480:25 482:4
413:20 429:4 100-year 404:19 430:9,11 2 485:18 487:17
430:14 452:11,13 10068 540:24 149 368:2,18 372:1 2 251:5 256:25 488:10 489:15
471:18 473:16 11 276:9 277:21 15 370:7 372:5 257:4,6,19 284:15 491:3 505:13
476:14,22 478:21 306:24 325:15 480:20 285:4 286:18 522:22 523:22
485:17 487:9 334:16,21 335:5 150 383:3 432:22 288:6,16,18,25 524:8,22 526:23
488:14 489:16 337:25 362:21 466:18 297:22 302:19 527:6,15,16,21,22
491:3 494:6 413:20 429:5 1500 434:10 435:7 303:12 305:14 529:1
495:12 499:5 430:14 435:18 312:19 317:21,24 2D 270:23
505:12 516:11 11th 325:25 373:24 152 525:18 318:3,4 337:21,21 2-foot 363:11,14
518:24 527:15 526:16 16 291:10,11 292:3 338:1 341:5,6,9 369:17
529:2 530:1 11-foot 337:1 292:4,5,11,14 341:11 343:2 2.0 350:21 478:4,22

1/31/2009
Page 582
2.1 337:1,4 510:2 511:15 343:11 347:2 362 252:5 515:5 535:25
2.2 338:10 518:6 520:16 353:2,5 364:10 39 455:8 523:25
2.4 350:21 477:13 536:18,23 537:5 371:1 374:25 5
477:24 478:2,19 538:24 540:20 390:12 405:8 4 5 361:16,25 370:1
2.5 310:19 202 253:23 254:5 431:13 485:2 4 335:4,12 338:9,15 464:4,5 502:4,7
2:06 405:5 21 405:11 412:1 490:11 491:4 338:17 348:1 5-foot-high 496:2
2:18 405:9 414:19 426:1 494:8 525:11 363:17,24 371:1,3 5:00 308:6 334:6,19
20 341:1 402:21 437:1,24,25 3D 268:22,25 270:3 378:14 448:3,5 5:30 308:9
418:23 422:8 439:14 270:24 389:17 490:15 502:6 5:57 537:22
423:17,23 425:3 22 463:15 390:2,4,5,9 392:6 529:5 538:16,16 50 326:6,19,23
427:23 428:5,17 23.8 339:20 343:8 393:5 397:25 4.2 337:5 327:17 365:16
434:10 435:4 238 365:11,15 3-foot-per-second 4:32 490:12 366:6 369:7 370:6
436:14,15 438:11 366:2,4,5 368:19 430:25 4:46 490:16 374:7,8,11 375:7
439:9 450:11 372:2 375:11 3.8 460:14 40 328:1,9 408:17 376:16 378:5
482:19 497:20 376:15 377:25 3:26 454:15 400 431:10 379:13,25 380:3,7
200 371:23 378:7 378:19 379:12 3:40 454:17 41 456:14,18 448:2 466:14,18
433:16 434:4 238.5 374:16 30 422:8 423:18,23 415 255:7 469:8 471:2 480:8
469:13 484:15,16 238.5-foot 365:8 427:23 428:5,18 42 434:8 481:4 483:19
484:19 485:2,9 24th 253:5 436:14,15 450:5,6 43 459:9 460:12 490:7 496:17
506:8 240 293:8 294:13 456:14,17,18 462:9 505:20
2000 282:8 317:23 299:13 461:8,10 476:19 445 294:14,25 50-foot 365:19
522:19 531:7 243 296:22 297:9 482:19 497:20 300:8 301:1 373:10,13 379:10
20001 254:4 301:11 510:22 520:21 447 294:15 504 252:8 253:17
20004 253:23 25 299:8 300 428:24 430:6 45 351:4,15 464:13 509 296:23
2001 299:4,5 250 379:25 380:7 430:20 473:13 474:4 51 352:22 471:25
2005 281:16 509:23 383:3 31 251:11 253:3 529:6,10 52 476:7
2006 346:16 453:19 251 251:10 255:1 422:5 47 294:18 475:5 525-3780 253:17
454:4 256 252:4 428:18 460:19 479 252:6 539 251:10
2007 462:21 258 326:18 327:18 461:6 462:10 48 334:15,23 55 351:1,6,15
2008 276:9 277:21 378:1,8 379:14,16 31st 255:14 337:12 476:10
282:10 306:24 380:4 32 277:24 352:22 49 334:15,23 55-foot-high 496:3
325:15,25 345:5 289.5 365:12 409:13 423:9,9 337:12 56 258:24 393:8
346:2 364:15 29 256:25 257:7 434:6,14 436:13 490 252:7 501:1,4
373:24 408:5 286:19 317:23 463:15 497 284:23,25 570 292:24
409:11 413:20 341:6,9 353:13 33 277:24 409:13 287:3 290:2,6
414:13 429:5 362:21 396:9 423:9 430:22 291:12 293:16 6
430:14 468:25 434:7,15 520:16 436:13 461:11 294:19,20,21,23 6 339:18 343:12
491:1 509:25 29th 276:2 318:5 471:20 297:19 301:14 345:23 352:7
510:23 515:22 412:3 414:20 34 423:10 436:13 319:2 326:14 363:17 370:9
525:10 535:22 494:7 509:23 475:7 345:19 348:2 378:11 433:6
2009 251:11 253:3 518:4 346-4000 254:5 350:24 351:1 493:7,13,19 499:4
255:1,14 256:25 35 444:24 450:25 357:22 360:7 534:18
278:20 286:19 3 454:20 455:3 363:4 375:4 6-foot 341:2
341:9 362:21 3 262:22 315:8 35B 476:2 414:24 447:19,25 6-inch 497:10
396:9 398:9 409:8 335:3,4,5,14 36 445:23 467:7 468:13 6:00 281:15 308:13
416:15 434:7 336:22 341:22 3600 407:2 473:1 476:23 309:10 310:2,17

1/31/2009
Page 583
6:04 537:25 538:18 901 254:4

538:19 94 521:1
60 327:24 369:16 95 281:9 521:1
501:21,23 96 520:18 521:2
600 355:22 97 522:9
61 501:24
616-4291 253:23
63 325:13 373:23
374:4
65 396:4
692-3600 255:7
7
7 299:17 312:19
354:8,14 356:21
70 406:25
70113 253:16
747 403:13
8
8 293:15 296:9,12
334:20 357:6
359:24 361:15,18
361:19 363:15
365:5 373:18
508:12
8.5 367:18
8.8 363:7
8:00 494:7
8:39 253:3 255:1,5
80 369:5
8002N 253:22
855 253:16
87 281:8
88 290:17 291:5
293:15 296:1,6
337:4 522:20
9
9 363:17 365:6,7
367:15 368:19
373:18,19
9:11 277:14
9:19 277:17
9:47 299:25
90 369:5 461:9,10

Bea Vol

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Bea Vol

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEA (VOL II), ROBERT

No. 05-4182 "K" (2)

PERTAINS TO: ROBINSON, NO.

DEPOSITION OF ROBERT GLENN BEA

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

2 (Pages 252 to 255)

32 (Pages 372 to 375)

36 (Pages 388 to 391)

40 (Pages 404 to 407)

49 (Pages 440 to 443)

69 (Pages 520 to 523)

73 (Pages 536 to 539)

A 390:24 416:10 495:6 aircraft 403:15 497:15

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

382:19 383:13 495:23 496:6 538:3 384:21 386:20 422:11 508:14,16

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

413:6,9,12,15 382:2 392:7 415:2 402:16,17,17,18 540:8,17 503:4

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

508:9 396:20 484:1,3,8,16,20 320:22 324:11 compacts 503:8

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

complete 269:7 computationally 427:11,24 475:22 364:20,22 369:14 consensus 392:21

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

continuous 351:22 Corps 278:12 372:25 373:1,15 370:5,10,12 425:17 488:2

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

establish 258:6 514:7 490:4 experimentalists 275:21 280:22

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Floor 253:5 536:15 found 268:10,11 503:13 520:7 generally 283:23

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

increase 354:23 389:11,12,24 intact 309:14 296:15 297:23 issued 510:20

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

476:10 481:14 458:3 515:23 537:18 531:8,21 535:25 497:3,8

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

509:16 451:5,8 455:1 385:2 394:21 447:6,12,17 453:3 meaning 313:3

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

members 453:24 466:17 471:12 413:21 414:5,5 moderate 306:7,11 443:18

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

multiplicative 491:12 369:8 471:10 O 497:16 509:2

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

475:9,23 521:17 463:10 378:22 387:12 possibly 267:16,17 preferable 263:20

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

rejected 269:18 253:2 355:19 356:6,12 504:16 506:19,24 respect 478:16

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

535:9 388:25 389:18,20 490:11,16 538:17 S 254:3 255:2 sandpaper 265:2

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

339:8,8,12,14 326:9,12 337:7 349:19 352:20 serviceable 401:19 shoulder 448:8

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

340:12,14 346:13 302:23 263:16 277:19,22 situations 387:8 272:2

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

434:14 435:11 522:1 345:22 368:6 534:9,18,22,23 504:6 511:18