KTR00083

HARLEY WEINER 4/18/2008
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION

CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION NO. 05-4182 K2
JUDGE DUVAL
PERTAINS TO MRGO, Robinson MAG. WILKINSON
(No. 06-2268)
Deposition of HARLEY STANFORD WINER,

PH.D., given at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers New Orleans District offices, 7400
Leake Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana
70118-3651, on April 18th, 2008.
REPORTED BY:
JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER #75005
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

Page 2 Page 4
1 APPEARANCES: 1 ALSO PRESENT:
2 REPRESENTING THE PLAINTIFFS: 2 RYAN MALONE, ESQ.
3 LAMBERT AND NELSON 3 KEA SHERMAN, ESQ.
4 (BY: HUGH P. LAMBERT, ESQUIRE) 4 DARCY DECKER, ESQ.
5 701 Magazine Street 5 ROBERT FISHER, ESQ.
6 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 6 JOHN ROBERT, ESQ.
7 504-581-1750 7 CHRISTOPHER THATCH, ESQ. (VIA I-DEP)
8 - and - 8 ERIC GOLDBERG, ESQ. (VIA I-DEP)
9 BRUNO & BRUNO 9 KIRK AURANDT, ESQ. (VIA I-DEP)
10 (BY: FLORIAN BUCHLER, ESQUIRE) 10 J. WARREN GARDNER, JR., ESQ. (I-DEP)
11 855 Baronne Street 11
12 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 12 VIDEOGRAPHER:
13 504-525-1335 13 GILLEY DELORIMIER (DEPO-VUE)
14 - and - 14
15 BRIAN A. GILBERT, P.L.C. 15
16 (BY: BRIAN A. GILBERT, ESQUIRE) 16
17 821 Baronne Street 17
18 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 18
19 504-885-7700 19
20 - and - 20
21 ELWOOD C. STEVENS, JR., APLC 21
22 (BY: DOUG OSBORNE, ESQUIRE) 22
23 1205 Victor II Boulevard 23
24 Morgan City, Louisiana 70380 24
25 000-000-0000 25
Page 3 Page 5
1 - and - 1 EXAMINATION INDEX
2 SHER, GARNER, CAHILL, RICHTER, KLEIN & 2
3 HILBERT, L.L.C. 3 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
4 (BY: CHRISTOPHER T. CHOCHELES, 4
5 ESQUIRE) 5 MR. LAMBERT .................................7
6 909 Poydras Street, 28th Floor 6 EXHIBIT INDEX
7 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 7
8 504-299-2100 8 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE
9 9 Exhibit H.W. 1 ..............................23
10 REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 10 Exhibit H.W. 2 ..............................23
11 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 11 Exhibit H.W. 3 ..............................53
12 TORTS BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION 12 Exhibit H.W. 4 ..............................55
13 (BY: JESSICA SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE) 13 Exhibit H.W. 5 ..............................57
14 (BY: MICELE GREIF, ESQUIRE) 14 Exhibit H.W. 6 ..............................58
15 P.O. Box 888 15 Exhibit H.W. 7 ..............................73
16 Benjamin Franklin Station 16 Exhibit H.W. 8 ..............................89
17 Washington, D.C. 20044 17 Exhibit H.W. 9 .............................109
18 202-616-4289 18 Exhibit H.W. 10 ............................111
19 19 Exhibit H.W. 11 ............................115
20 REPRESENTING THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 20 Exhibit H.W. 12 ............................119
21 CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OFFICE OF COUNSEL 21 Exhibit H.W. 13 ............................122
22 (BY: DAVID DYER, ESQUIRE) 22
23 7400 Leake Avenue 23
24 New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-3651 24
25 504-862-2843 25
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
Page 6 Page 8
1 STIPULATION 1 process, then.
2 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and 2 A. Yes.
3 among counsel for the parties hereto that the 3 Q. All right. And you're doing exactly
4 deposition of the aforementioned witness may be 4 what you need to do, you're waiting until I
5 taken for all purposes permitted within the 5 finish until you answer, and you're doing it
6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in accordance 6 verbally so the record is clear. And I think
7 with law, pursuant to notice; 7 that the only other thing I want to mention to
8 That all formalities, save reading 8 you is that, and remind you, that you are under
9 and signing of the original transcript by the 9 oath. Correct?
10 deponent, are hereby specifically waived; 10 A. Yes.
11 That all objections, save those as to 11 Q. And you know that the same penalties
12 the form of the question and the responsiveness 12 for perjury apply to testimony given here in
13 of the answer, are reserved until such time as 13 this conference room as if you were in a
14 this deposition, or any part thereof, is used 14 federal courtroom.
15 or sought to be used in evidence. 15 A. Yes.
16 16 Q. Okay. I got to give you what I call
17 17 the birthday cake speech. All these lawyers
18 * * * 18 have heard it so they're going to be bored.
19 19 But what it involves is the truthful answer,
20 20 which includes, in this context, information
21 21 which you may not by real certain of. Let me
22 JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR, 22 give you an example. If I ask you the last
23 Certified Court Reporter in and for the State 23 time that you had chocolate cake, your first
24 of Louisiana, officiated in administering the 24 response, if you didn't have it yesterday,
25 oath to the witness. 25 might be I don't remember, because you don't
Page 7 Page 9
1 HARLEY STANFORD WINER, PH.D. 1 know the date, July the 4th, 19 -- you don't
2 950 Picheloup Place, New Orleans, Louisiana 2 know the date. That wouldn't be a truthful
3 70119, a witness named in the above 3 response if, for example, you had a piece of
4 stipulation, having been first duly sworn, was 4 chocolate cake at somebody's birthday or
5 examined and testified on his oath as follows: 5 wedding or some function that you could date,
6 MS. GREIF: 6 or even if you couldn't date we could go back
7 Pursuant to the Federal Rules of 7 later and get a date; in other words, you might
8 Civil Procedure. 8 not remember the exact date of even that event,
9 MR. LAMBERT: 9 but it's a piece of information that will then
10 And that includes, of course, 10 lead to discoverable information which is what
11 reserving objections except to the 11 we're entitled to during this deposition.
12 form? 12 Do you understand that?
13 MS. GREIF: 13 A. Yes.
14 Right. Yes. 14 Q. So I'd like to have complete answers.
15 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 15 You can give me the yes or no and then qualify
16 Q. All right. Dr. Winer, my name is Hugh 16 it. And in the example I just gave you, it
17 Lambert and I represent plaintiffs in 17 would be I don't remember the exact date but I
18 connection with this matter involving the MRGO. 18 went to a whatever.
19 Do you understand that? 19 Do you understand that?
20 A. Yes. 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And we spoke briefly before the 21 Q. Okay. Good. All right. Now,
22 deposition began, and I should have asked you 22 Dr. Winer, would you please give me your
23 then, have you given depositions before, sir? 23 current occupation.
24 A. Yes, I have. 24 A. I'm an engineer. I work for a firm
25 Q. Okay. You're familiar with the 25 called PBS&J in the Metairie office. I am part
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
Page 10 Page 12
1 of the coastal and waterways division of the 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
2 company, and my supervisor in the coastal and 2 Q. Let me just ask you what you
3 waterways office is actually in Tallahassee. 3 understand to be the likely testimony that you
4 And they have other offices in Florida. I'm 4 would give in connection with this matter on
5 the sole person in that division of the company 5 behalf of the Corps.
6 in Louisiana. 6 MS. GREIF:
7 Q. All right. And I see that you have a 7 Objection.
8 bachelor of arts in philosophy? 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
9 A. Yes. 9 Q. She's going to do that now and them,
10 Q. From Lincoln University back in '73. 10 as you know. Go ahead and answer unless you're
11 Correct? 11 instructed not to answer.
12 A. Correct. 12 A. Yes. Well, I will answer the
13 Q. A bachelor of science in civil 13 questions that are asked of me.
14 engineering, University of Delaware, 1981. 14 Q. Okay. And I'm sure you will, but I'm
15 A. Correct. 15 asking you what -- obviously, you've had some
16 Q. A Master's in civil engineering, 16 involvement with the Corps in terms of work
17 topics: Wave periods, effects upon the 17 that you've accomplished for PBS&J. Correct?
18 stability of breakwater armor units. I take it 18 A. No. I joined PBS&J in March of this
19 that was the topic of your thesis. 19 year.
20 A. Correct. 20 Q. Okay.
21 Q. And that's back in 1985. 21 A. I've been with PBS&J a month.
22 A. Correct. 22 Q. Okay. Before that you were with the
23 Q. And then you have a Ph.D. in 23 Corps.
24 engineering mechanics, University of Florida, 24 A. I retired from the Corps February 29th
25 1988. And your dissertation was "Numerical 25 of this year.
Page 11 Page 13
1 Modeling of Wave Induced Currents using 1 Q. I know that. I was just wondering how
2 Parabolic Wave Equation." 2 that whole thing worked in terms of your
3 A. Correct. 3 modeling. Did you do modeling in connection
4 Q. Okay. And its singular, wave 4 with this storm?
5 equation? 5 A. With respect to Katrina?
6 A. I used a particular parabolic wave 6 Q. Yes.
7 equation to generate wave forcing and had a 7 A. No, I did not.
8 numerical model that would give the 8 Q. Okay. Neither before or after?
9 wave-induced currents. 9 A. Well, it would be hard to model
10 Q. Okay. Do you still use that model? 10 Katrina before.
11 A. No. 11 Q. Well, that's true. Did you do any
12 Q. No. Newer things have developed? 12 other modeling of storms before?
13 A. That's correct. 13 A. Oh, yes.
14 Q. Okay. That was in 1988? 14 Q. Okay.
15 A. That's correct. 15 A. Yes. I think rather than having you
16 Q. Since 1988, have you had any formal 16 drag it out of me I'll just tell you everything
17 education in terms of the development of, I 17 that I did for the Corps.
18 guess, modeling -- storm modeling? 18 Q. I'd appreciate that.
19 A. No, not formal education. 19 A. Yes. As part of the -- I think at one
20 Q. All right. Your name appears on a 20 time it was called the MRGO Reevaluation Study,
21 witness list in connection with this matter. 21 this is prior to Katrina --
22 And I don't think I have that. 22 Q. Just so we -- one of these, by any
23 MR. LAMBERT: 23 chance? The bank erosion studies,
24 Do you have the witness list with 24 reconnaissance reports?
25 you, by any chance? I'll get one. 25 A. I don't think that was it, but it may
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
Page 14 Page 16
1 have been. I'm not sure. 1 storm surge elevations at the lock, which -- I
2 Q. All right. 2 mean, you're talking about the lock in the
3 A. I think it was a reevaluation of the 3 Industrial Canal?
4 MRGO. It was -- and the thing that I did was 4 A. Yes.
5 to analyze the impact of the MRGO in terms of 5 Q. The Bayou Bienvenue structure, the
6 its influence on storm surge. 6 Bayou Dupre structure and the Shell Beach
7 Q. What year was that, about? 7 location, were those all basically the same?
8 A. This is quite a time before Katrina. 8 A. They were all minimal. Those
9 Q. Okay. 9 locations were picked, of course, because we
10 A. I don't know exactly when it was. 10 have gauges at those points, and those are just
11 That can all be fleshed out. 11 output stations we've always used in the model
12 Q. Okay. 12 because when we're trying to develop the model
13 A. But it was significantly before 13 we're trying to run historical storms, and we
14 Katrina. 14 test how good our model results are versus the
15 What I did was I ran the model twice. 15 actual gauge.
16 I took exactly -- everything was exactly the 16 I don't remember the exact -- I'm sure
17 same, the same input parameters -- we had a 17 that you could find copies, you know, of that
18 number of storms, nine to be exact. We had, 18 report and find the graphs that were produced,
19 um -- slow speed, medium speed, fast speed, and 19 and you could examine all of those and see what
20 we had weak, moderate and strong storm, and 20 the difference, um -- the maximum difference
21 they all went west of the -- almost sort of a 21 was for a weak storm, not for a strong storm.
22 Betsy track, but not a Betsy track. I just 22 And of course the reason for that, the physical
23 made a track so that the maximum winds would be 23 reason for that, is for the strong storm once
24 blowing up the axis of the Mississippi River 24 the storm surge is out of the channel, you
25 Gulf Outlet. And I ran the model twice with 25 know, the MRGO is pretty insignificant as a
Page 15 Page 17
1 exactly the same -- everything exactly the 1 conveyance channel.
2 same, the same computer, the same input files, 2 We did notice when we ran Betsy it
3 everything exactly the same, except I had two 3 changed the tidal pattern. We ran a few days
4 separate grids. And the two different grids 4 before Betsy, and you could see a significant
5 had exactly the same number of nodes, the exact 5 difference in the tidal signal because the tide
6 same placement of the nodes, except I changed 6 propagates up this channel much easier than it
7 the elevation of the nodes down by the La 7 propagates, you know, through these small
8 Loutre ridge so that in one the channel was 8 openings. But once the storm surge --
9 represented as an open channel and in the other 9 Q. Just so the record is clear, up the
10 grid it was represented as a closure. And we 10 MRGO channel, which has tidal connection to the
11 ran it on exactly the same computer, we made 11 gulf, as opposed to through these small areas
12 everything exactly the same, except changing 12 you're indicating through Lake Borgne.
13 the grid. 13 A. Oh, yes.
14 And then we analyzed what was the 14 Q. Okay. That's fine.
15 difference in storm surge elevations. And we 15 A. Okay. Sure.
16 took four places. Basically, I think -- my 16 Q. All right.
17 memory, one was at the lock, one was at Bayou 17 A. So the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet
18 Bienvenue, one was at Bayou Dupre, and one was 18 is a very big channel with respect to tide, but
19 at Shell Beach. And we compared what the storm 19 with respect to storm surge which -- once it
20 surge would be, and we came to the conclusion 20 gets out of the channel and over the marsh, the
21 that the MRGO had a minimal effect upon the 21 conveyance area of the MRGO is very small
22 storm surge elevations. 22 compared to the conveyance area of the marsh.
23 Q. Okay. 23 Q. All right. Anything else? Is that
24 A. And that is what I'll testify. 24 about it?
25 Q. All right. Was the effect on the 25 A. That's the work that I did, yeah.
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
Page 18 Page 20
1 Q. Okay. 1 Q. I've seen a lots of discussions about
2 A. And one of those, I think it's called 2 that, the argument of permanent gauges that
3 the evaluation report. MRGO reevaluation, I 3 have to be maintained all the time versus ones
4 think. 4 that are deployed for a specific event --
5 Q. All right. 5 MS. GREIF:
6 A. And there should be graphs comparing 6 Objection. Vague.
7 the two -- you know, with and without -- 7 A. Yep.
8 (Brief interruption.) 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
9 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 9 Q. -- and the difficulties in deploying
10 Q. Okay. You started to tell me what the 10 those because of not knowing where the storm
11 maximum effect was, and you said it was in a 11 track is going and not knowing where to put
12 weak storm, but -- 12 them out.
13 A. Yeah. There was about a half a foot 13 A. Well, data collection is an art as
14 of difference between, you know, one and the 14 much as it is a science.
15 other. 15 Q. Right.
16 Q. We're talking six inches? 16 A. And it's expensive and it's difficult,
17 A. .5 feet, yeah. Six inches. 17 and sometimes you succeed in capturing data and
18 Q. Like that much, about? (Indicating.) 18 sometimes you do not succeed in capturing the
19 A. About, yeah. 19 data.
20 Q. Okay. 20 Q. Right. Now, the track was the same
21 A. About that much is more like six 21 for all of these nine scenarios?
22 inches. I think you were giving about four 22 A. Yes.
23 inches. 23 Q. And the track that you told me about
24 Q. About that? Tell you what, we can get 24 was west of the mouth of the river?
25 pretty certain on this. 25 A. That's correct.
Page 19 Page 21
1 A. You got a ruler in your briefcase? 1 Q. Okay. So if we take a look at a
2 Q. Yeah. I sure do. 2 map -- let me just get one that we've got.
3 A. All right. 3 A. A bigger map. Well, it was not the
4 Q. Well, actually, you know what? I 4 same track as Katrina, if that's what you're
5 might have been using it earlier. But anyway, 5 getting at.
6 we know what six inches is. 6 Q. No, not at all.
7 A. Yeah. 7 Does this look like the right track?
8 Q. All right. 8 A. No.
9 A. This is nine inches and this is about 9 Q. Is it further west?
10 seven inches by a stretch. 10 A. Yeah. It's in the report.
11 Q. But it's not much, it's pretty little. 11 Q. Oh, I'm sure it is. And I'm just
12 A. Yeah. It's small. Half a foot. .5. 12 trying to get a general idea, because I don't
13 Q. Got you. 8-1/2 x 11, right? 13 have the report right now.
14 (Indicating.) So less than this. 14 A. Well, it was --
15 A. Yeah. 15 Q. Is this it?
16 Q. Okay. Well, that's some pretty 16 A. No. No. It was a report, and I'm
17 serious measuring. 17 pretty sure it's called the reevaluation study.
18 Let me ask you this: The gauge -- you 18 It was prior to Katrina. MRGO reevaluation.
19 said you used historical storms. What inputs 19 Q. Okay. Was it done after Betsy?
20 did you have from storms, what years, to 20 A. Oh, I was not in New Orleans when
21 develop the model? 21 Betsy happened.
22 A. Well, you use every storm that you can 22 Q. Is this it? (Tendering.) We don't
23 find that you have data. Sometimes you won't 23 have a title page.
24 have data from the gauges, the gauges are wiped 24 A. Yeah. This is, um -- here we are.
25 out or the gauges malfunction. 25 Here are the nine storms.
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
Page 22 Page 24
1 Q. Right. 1 Q. Uh-huh.
2 A. Three different forward speeds, three 2 A. It has the elevations and the water
3 different velocities, maximum winds, and here 3 depths. That's the grid.
4 is the storm track. 4 Q. Okay.
5 Q. Okay. Good. Okay. So this storm 5 A. The land. Louisiana.
6 track is west of the city and west of the 6 Q. I understand.
7 river. 7 A. But it also has boundary conditions.
8 A. That's correct. 8 And this, of course, is the North Atlantic
9 Q. Okay. Can you get that? Can you get 9 grid, so that the boundary is in the North
10 this storm track in here? 10 Atlantic on one of the meridians that goes from
11 MS. GREIF: 11 Nova Scotia to Venezuela, and the reason for
12 Can we mark this as an exhibit? 12 that is because you can input the tidal cycle,
13 MR. LAMBERT: 13 that tidal constituents, and you can get
14 Oh, yeah. 14 generate the tide and you can get basin to
15 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 15 basin from Caribbean to the gulf, you can get
16 Q. All right. And there was a title 16 all the flows from basin to basin, you can get
17 page, apparently, that's not on here. 17 basin to shelf interaction, you don't have to
18 A. Well, that is a Power Point 18 make any assumptions. You can let the model
19 presentation. I don't think that is the 19 figure that out. As opposed to having a model
20 report. 20 that just had Louisiana and just had off the
21 Q. Okay. 21 shelf. You'd have to have -- you have to give
22 A. But that has, you know -- somebody 22 the model the boundary, what's happening at the
23 prepared that, the Power Point presentation. 23 boundary. So the model has -- you can either
24 Q. Okay. 24 be running it with tides or without tides. If
25 MR. LAMBERT: 25 you're running without tides, you just set the
Page 23 Page 25
1 We're going to mark your 1 boundary out in the ocean at a constant water
2 curriculum vitae as H.W. Number 1. 2 level. Or if you're running with tides, you
3 (Exhibit H.W. 1 was marked for 3 give it the tidal constituents at that
4 identification and is attached hereto.) 4 boundary, which are easy to determine.
5 MR. LAMBERT: 5 So you have the grid, you have the
6 And we'll mark what we have of 6 boundary conditions, and of course along the
7 the Power Point as H.W. Number 2. 7 land there is the boundary condition of the --
8 (Exhibit H.W. 2 was marked for 8 there's no flow out of the boundary.
9 identification and is attached hereto.) 9 And the other boundary is the input of
10 A. Now, I should qualify that I did not 10 the pressure and wind, the meteorological
11 produce the Power Point, I produced the 11 forcing. So what the model does is it takes
12 numerical modeling results. 12 the pressure and lets the water respond to
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 13 pressure gradients, and it takes the wind and
14 Q. I understand. Okay. Let me drop back 14 translates the wind into a stress on the water
15 to this model just for a second, if we could. 15 surface so that water will move and pile up at
16 In your report you'll give us the 16 different places and go different places.
17 number of storms that you used to input data 17 Q. Determining -- or depending on the
18 for the model -- historical storms? 18 geometry and so on?
19 MS. GREIF: 19 A. Depending on the geometry and
20 Objection. 20 depending upon the wind forcing.
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 21 Q. I understand.
22 Q. Or does the model just have that 22 A. And also depending upon the tides. So
23 already in? How does it work? 23 if we're trying to see how well our model
24 A. No. The way a model works is you have 24 works, we would run Betsy, we would put the
25 the grid which has the geometry. 25 tides in there, because, you know, the water is
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
Page 26 Page 28
1 going up and down due to tidal effects, but 1 Q. Bayou La Loutre.
2 also due to the meteorological forcing. 2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, did you check your model against 3 Q. You didn't change the grid all the way
4 Betsy? 4 up to MRGO.
5 A. Yes. Using the exact same model that 5 A. I changed a -- I made a closure
6 was being used, used the same grid that was 6 structure in the grid at Bayou La Loutre.
7 being used for the -- and this was the ADCIRC 7 Q. Okay. But in terms of the grid that
8 model, that it was being used by the Lake 8 exists north of Bayou La Loutre, what
9 Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection 9 configuration did you use for the MRGO itself?
10 Project, and is being used now for determining 10 A. The existing MRGO. Nothing was
11 the 100-year flood elevations. 11 changed --
12 There's a different grid now, but 12 Q. No, no, I understand.
13 it's -- and there's been improvements to the 13 A. -- in the two grids.
14 model, but basically the same model. So I took 14 Q. But what was that grid for the
15 the grid that we had, that we had been using, 15 existing MRGO, was it based on its design, on
16 and the grid that was, um -- we had an ITR with 16 its current existence? And if it's current,
17 Bob Dean, Bob Reed and Mark Powell from the 17 what year?
18 weather service. We brought them in and they 18 A. I don't know exactly what -- I didn't
19 critiqued the model and the grid. So I took 19 make the grid itself, um -- and of course, you
20 that grid. That was the best grid that we had 20 know, the grid has -- it doesn't have every
21 at the time. That was quite a few years ago. 21 little contour of the MRGO. The grid has, you
22 That was the SO8 grid. 22 know, maybe two hundred meter resolution or
23 Q. Uh-huh. 23 something like that.
24 A. Version 8. And that was the grid that 24 Q. Okay.
25 I took, I ran the model and used that grid -- 25 A. There might be four nodes, four or
Page 27 Page 29
1 so it had, you know -- I could give you the 1 five nodes across the bottom of the channel.
2 particulars. The report has how many nodes and 2 Q. Put two hundred meters in feet for me.
3 everything, but -- 3 A. Six hundred feet.
4 Q. Okay. 4 Q. Okay. And so --
5 A. So I hope that explains how the model 5 A. Or I think it was maybe a hundred
6 works. 6 meters, resolution. I'm not sure. But, you
7 So the only thing -- so each storm -- 7 know, it's not like you have a whole density
8 so everything is the same, but for each storm I 8 and I have exactly what the configuration.
9 have a different meteorological forcing, a 9 Q. Do a hundred meters in feet for me.
10 different maximum wind, and there's a program 10 A. Three hundred.
11 that creates the wind field that becomes the 11 Q. Okay. So you don't -- I'm trying to
12 forcing in the model. But I ran the model -- I 12 get an idea of -- I understand what you did in
13 ran the model twice with exactly the same wind 13 terms of -- Bayou La Loutre is right about here
14 forcing. 14 right?
15 Q. I understand. 15 A. That's correct.
16 A. Except I used one grid versus the 16 Q. Okay. So that's the natural ridge
17 other grid. 17 that used to be before the MRGO was cut.
18 Q. And the difference in the two grids 18 Correct?
19 was the opening at Bayou La Loutre. 19 A. That's correct.
20 A. That's correct. 20 Q. And that ridge was -- that point along
21 Q. Okay. 21 that ridge is where you changed the model so
22 A. Exact same place of the nodes, all I 22 that you -- one model ran it with the ridge
23 did was I went in and changed the elevations 23 closed and the other model with it open,
24 and sculpted it so it made a nice little 24 correct?
25 embankment going across the channel. 25 A. Correct.
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
Page 30 Page 32
1 Q. But -- 1 for both runs.
2 A. Not model. One run. 2 A. Yes. Same with everything else --
3 Q. Run. Run. 3 Q. And I understand --
4 A. One grid. 4 A. -- the GIWW and the Rigolets and Chef
5 Q. Run. 5 Menteur, all of that stuff -- non of that was
6 A. One grid had it open, one grid had 6 changed.
7 it -- it was the same model. The model is the 7 Q. I understand.
8 ADCIRC model. 8 A. Good.
9 Q. I understand. And it didn't really 9 Q. And also, the conditions that the MRGO
10 make a difference other than the six inches you 10 created in its -- as a result of its
11 told me about. 11 construction back in 1957 or '58, and then its
12 A. For the weak storms. 12 morphing into what it is today, all that was
13 Q. Yeah. And for the stronger storms, it 13 the same in both runs.
14 didn't make any difference at all. 14 MS. GREIF:
15 A. Minuscule. 15 Objection.
16 Q. Okay. Now, but other than that one 16 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
17 point at Bayou La Loutre, did you change the 17 Q. Do you understand my question? Don't
18 grid in terms of the existence of the MRGO 18 answer it if you don't.
19 north of the grid? 19 A. No. You're trying to make some kind
20 A. No. As I stated before, the only 20 of a statement, so just make your statement and
21 thing -- the grids were exactly the same. The 21 I'll say whether I agree with it or not.
22 parallelization schemes, the input boundary 22 Q. Okay. Good. The MRGO was a dredged
23 conditions, everything was exactly the same. 23 navigational channel.
24 Q. Don't complicate my life right now. 24 A. Correct.
25 A. Well, this is an extremely complicated 25 Q. That had a bottom channel width of
Page 31 Page 33
1 model. Everything was exactly the same -- 1 five hundred feet, 36 feet deep, plus a couple
2 Q. Believe me -- 2 of feet for advance maintenance dredging and so
3 A. -- except the elevations. 3 on, a 1 on 2 slope, and then some berms at the
4 Q. I got it. I got how complicated it 4 top where it went through a land cut. That was
5 is. 5 its design.
6 A. Okay. 6 Are you aware of that?
7 Q. I'm trying to get it into my little 7 MS. GREIF:
8 pea brain, okay? 8 Objection. Foundation.
9 A. Okay. 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
10 Q. It takes a little while. 10 Q. You're aware of that. Yes, no?
11 A. Well, I'm trying to help you. 11 A. It had a 500-foot bottom width.
12 Q. And I know you are. But let me just 12 Q. Side slope?
13 explain to you what I think you just told me. 13 A. 1 on 2.
14 And that is that the model grid was changed in 14 Q. Okay. All right. Now, over the years
15 connection with the Bayou La Loutre opening, 15 it changed into a different kind of
16 but insofar as the bottom conditions of the 16 configuration. You're aware of that.
17 channel itself, it wasn't as if there were no 17 A. There has been shoreline erosion. Is
18 MRGO, meaning the channel was taken out for 18 this what you're referring to?
19 that run, the channel was left in its 19 Q. Yeah. That's right.
20 condition, correct? 20 A. Yes.
21 A. The channel was the same in both 21 Q. So instead of -- if you do the math on
22 grids, except there was a closure, a blockage, 22 it -- It's simple math, so even I can do it.
23 so that flow could not come up the channel. 23 But if it's a 2 on 1 slope, it's 40 feet deep,
24 Q. Got it. Got it. But insofar as the 24 it gets to be around 660, plus or minus, wide
25 channel itself is concerned, it was still there 25 at the top.
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
Page 34 Page 36
1 MS. GREIF: 1 You didn't take into account the
2 Objection. 2 cypress swamps, the lack of this, um -- 40-foot
3 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 3 deep channel that's in some places over two
4 Q. My question to you is, your model that 4 thousand feet wide, you didn't take into
5 you ran was using the same configuration of the 5 account pre condition, meaning before that
6 eroded MRGO before and after you put in this 6 occurred, you took after the --
7 closure at Bayou La Loutre, correct? 7 MS. GREIF:
8 A. As I stated before -- 8 Wait, wait.
9 Q. Yes or no, and then tell me. 9 MR. LAMBERT:
10 A. -- the only difference between the two 10 I got to finish.
11 grids was the elevation of the grid nodes at 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
12 the La Loutre ridge. 12 Q. You took after the channel was dug,
13 Q. So the answer is yes. 13 and after it did its damage, and then you ran a
14 A. Everything else was the same. 14 model with two scenarios, one where you closed
15 Q. I understand. So the answer is yes? 15 it off at Bayou La Loutre and one where it
16 A. Well, no. 16 wasn't closed off at Bayou La Loutre, but there
17 Q. You used the same -- 17 was no other change; correct?
18 A. I have an objection to the way you're 18 MS. GREIF:
19 asking the question. 19 Objection. Compound, confusing,
20 Q. Okay. You could do that. Or can you, 20 vague.
21 yeah. Sure, you can. Do whatever you want. 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
22 A. Thank you. 22 Q. Go ahead.
23 Q. Whatever you'd like to do. 23 A. Yes. Okay. First, for the record,
24 What's the problem with the question? 24 this area was heavily logged. And I can show
25 A. If you want to ask me about erosion on 25 you, if you look at aerial photographs, you'll
Page 35 Page 37
1 the MRGO, that's not anything that I am 1 see -- it's beautiful, other than the fact that
2 involved in other than, you know, occasionally 2 it was devastated -- but you see all of these
3 we have done some shoreline -- the Corps has 3 lines going into a single point. They would
4 done some shoreline protection, and while 4 cut down a tree and then winch it into where
5 working at the Corps I've been involved in 5 they had a canal so they could float it out,
6 specifying what size the stone might be. But 6 and you can still see that today in the aerial
7 other than that, the erosion on the shoreline 7 photographs. I was just a couple of days ago
8 is not an issue as far as the numerical 8 on Google Earth.
9 modeling results. What I was demonstrating in 9 Q. Well, first of all, you didn't answer
10 this numerical model is that by making a 10 my question.
11 closure it did not significantly influence the 11 A. Now, I will angles your question now.
12 storm surge elevations for the strong storms. 12 Q. Okay. Let -- but before you give me a
13 Q. Dr. Winer, I understand that. Okay? 13 speech about the logging, I would like for you
14 A. Good. 14 to answer my question. And that is --
15 Q. But what I'm asking you to confirm is 15 MS. GREIF:
16 that in those two different runs you did not 16 He's trying to answer your
17 remove from one run all of the other things 17 question.
18 that the MRGO did in terms of the geography 18 MR. LAMBERT:
19 since its construction; in other words, you 19 No. Wait a second.
20 didn't take the pre-MRGO grid where there were 20 A. Your question was --
21 cypress swamps and where there were -- 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
22 A. Objection. 22 Q. Let me --
23 Q. You can't object right now because I'm 23 A. -- whether I changed the rest of the
24 asking a question. I got to finish my 24 MRGO.
25 question. 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
Page 38 Page 40
1 Q. Yes. 1 from a data standpoint to stop the surge, or
2 A. Okay. And let me explain to you -- 2 for whatever effect it has -- for whatever
3 Q. First of all, can you please -- 3 effect it had. You did not change the model
4 MS. GREIF: 4 with regard to the channel and its effects
5 Wait. It's getting argumentative 5 north of Bayou La Loutre. That's the question.
6 here. Can he just answer the 6 MS. GREIF:
7 question? 7 Objection.
8 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
9 Q. Dr. Winer, let me withdraw the 9 Q. And please answer it and then explain
10 question so we don't have a problem here right 10 all you want. Tell me about logging or
11 now. And let me try and get you to answer my 11 anything else you want, but answer the
12 question. 12 question.
13 A. About the rest of the channel. 13 THE WITNESS:
14 Q. Exactly. And my question to you is, 14 What's your objection?
15 we've got a situation here where we have a 15 MS. GREIF:
16 channel, and we've got whatever happened as a 16 It's vague.
17 result of the channel. You're going to tell me 17 A. Yes. It is. I'm going to explain to
18 it was logging, I'm going to tell you that a 18 you the --
19 Corps witness has testified that it was 19 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
20 saltwater intrusion that destroyed what is 20 Q. You can't answer it?
21 called a swamp -- but that's not for either one 21 A. -- the reason for the study that I
22 of us to -- 22 did. It's called the evaluation study --
23 A. Oaky. that's not my area of expertise. 23 Q. Dr. Winer, I got to object to the
24 MS. GREIF: 24 responsiveness of your answer because --
25 Objection. 25 A. Okay.
Page 39 Page 41
1 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 1 Q. -- I don't care what it's called right
2 Q. Exactly. I don't want to get into 2 now, I just want you to answer my question.
3 that, because that's not what you're here for. 3 A. Your question was too vague.
4 A. Let me answer your question. I know 4 Q. Okay. Let me make it real simple.
5 your question -- 5 All you did in the difference between
6 Q. No. Please. 6 the two models was close the ridge at Bayou La
7 A. -- and I apologize that I didn't 7 Loutre.
8 answer it directly. 8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. We need to have a clear record, 9 Q. Okay. You did not change the grid
10 though. You see, this poor guy over here is 10 insofar as the MRGO?
11 having a heart attack. Joey can't do three 11 A. We changed nothing else.
12 people at the same time. Okay? 12 Q. Okay. Good.
13 A. Okay. 13 A. That's as far as we go.
14 Q. All right. And I need -- 14 Q. That's good. Okay. Now, did you, in
15 A. I apologize. 15 your model, use wave propagation?
16 Q. -- to have my question on the record 16 A. The ADCIRC model at that time did not
17 so that your response makes sense. 17 incorporate wave propagations. It's not a wave
18 A. Okay. 18 propagation model.
19 Q. Even though you know what I'm about to 19 Q. So it was only surge.
20 ask, this camera over here has to demonstrate 20 A. It was a surge model.
21 the proper sequence of events, and so does the 21 Q. Now, I know you're a big wave guy,
22 court reporter. 22 because I've looked at your résumé and I've
23 A. Okay. 23 read some of the other stuff that you've done.
24 Q. Okay. Now, all I want to know is that 24 But have you done wave calculations or wave
25 in your model you simply closed Bayou La Loutre 25 effect calculations regarding the MRGO on the
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
Page 42 Page 44
1 hurricane protection system? 1 me once you've answered my question. And that
2 MS. GREIF: 2 is, did you --
3 Objection. 3 A. The model did not change anything
4 A. No, I have not. 4 other than the elevations.
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 5 Q. At?
6 Q. Okay. All right. Now, did you take 6 A. At La Loutre.
7 into account, for whatever reason -- 7 Q. Okay. I understand. So it didn't --
8 A. Let me clarify that. Prior to Katrina 8 A. So -- and I have no idea exactly what
9 I did not. I've done some wave analysis after 9 was represented inside these levees or outside
10 Katrina, but that's not relevant to this. 10 the levees and, you know, I mean, I could go
11 Q. Okay. Did your model take into 11 and look at it but none of that was changed.
12 account the changes that occurred, whether they 12 It was exactly the same in the model with the
13 were as a result of the MRGO or loggers, of the 13 closure and the model without the closure,
14 loss of swamp, cypress/tupelo swamp? 14 whatever it happened to be.
15 MS. GREIF: 15 Q. I understand. You know, there's been
16 Objection. 16 a Congressionally authorized deauthorization of
17 A. The model -- 17 the MRGO.
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Yes or no, please. 19 Q. And the closure sounds like it's going
20 A. -- did not make any changes -- it did 20 to do exactly what you did in your model, which
21 not -- you're trying to see whether we looked 21 is put --
22 at historical changes. 22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. No. 23 Q. -- some barrier across the Bayou La
24 A. That was not the intent of the model. 24 Loutre. Right?
25 Q. Okay. Good. I'm not trying -- I'm 25 A. That's correct.
Page 43 Page 45
1 not trying to do that at all. I'm trying to 1 Q. And so you're telling me that that's
2 get you to, you, Dr. Winer, to answer my 2 not going to do any good. Right?
3 questions. 3 A. I'm telling you that my model results
4 A. I'm trying to answer them. 4 showed that a closure of the MRGO at Bayou La
5 Q. And you're a real smart guy, and 5 Loutre did not have any influence on the storm
6 you're like twenty miles down the road trying 6 surge -- any significant influence upon the
7 to decide why I asked the question and what 7 storm surge elevations.
8 sort of answer you're supposed to give me in 8 The MRGO deauthorization and closure
9 order to accomplish whatever it is that you 9 structure, to my knowledge, was justified in
10 think you have in mind. I don't want to you do 10 terms of the environmental benefits of reducing
11 that. 11 salinity and other environmental effects. It
12 MS. GREIF: 12 was not justified in terms of storm surge
13 Objection. 13 reduction.
14 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 14 You're correct. The proposed
15 Q. I want you -- so that us simple folk 15 structure at bayou La Loutre will not change
16 here can understand, did your model take into 16 storm surge conditions.
17 account, and that's the last question, the 17 Q. Based on your model.
18 change in the swamp? 18 A. Based upon my model, yes.
19 A. Okay. I understand your question. I 19 Q. But it will change the salinity north
20 object to that question, and I would like to 20 of the Bayou La Loutre because it will keep out
21 explain to you a little bit more about the 21 all that saltwater, correct?
22 model, and perhaps that would answer your 22 A. That's correct.
23 question if you would allow me to do that. 23 Q. Okay. And that will, and as you put
24 Q. No, I would be happy for you to 24 it, environmental help the refurbishment or the
25 explain everything that you want to explain to 25 re-nourishment of the marshland and, hopefully,
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
Page 46 Page 48
1 swamp. Correct? 1 to -- is what you just told me that the closure
2 MS. GREIF: 2 of the MRGO by the proposed deauthorization at
3 Objection. 3 Bayou La Loutre will reduce salinity?
4 A. Well, I'm not a biologist. That was 4 A. Yes.
5 the justification in the, um -- but I'm a 5 Q. And that it's justified by
6 hydraulic engineer and not a biologist. 6 environmental issues?
7 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 7 A. That's my understanding.
8 Q. And Dr. Winer, I understand that, but 8 Q. Right. And I asked you if your
9 you just told me that in your view it would 9 understanding of that, even though you're not
10 help environmentally, and I'm trying to 10 an expert, is that it will help improve the
11 define -- 11 marshland and swamp.
12 A. No, I said the justification for the 12 A. It will change the salinity regime and
13 project, the benefits for the project. 13 that should have beneficial results.
14 Q. That's what I'm talking about. 14 Q. On?
15 A. Yeah. 15 A. My understanding.
16 Q. Are we talking about the same thing? 16 Q. On what?
17 A. Uh-huh. 17 A. On the environment, the marshlands,
18 Q. Why do it? Right? 18 the wetlands.
19 A. Right. 19 Q. Okay. There we go. We finally got
20 Q. In other words, why do it? And so it 20 there.
21 will help -- when you say environmentally, you 21 All right. Now, I guess it's your
22 mean that it will help, and you said reduce 22 opinion that if there's cypress swamp in that
23 salinity, that's in your mind -- even though 23 area and marshland that it really won't have an
24 you're not an expert in environmental 24 effect on surge? Is that what you're saying?
25 engineering or issues, in your mind the benefit 25 A. No, I did not say that.
Page 47 Page 49
1 is to help refurbish the marshland and the 1 Q. Okay. Then a secondary result of the
2 swamp. Correct? 2 closure at Bayou La Loutre, once the
3 MS. GREIF: 3 environmental impacts have been reversed from
4 Objection. 4 the MRGO and the swamp and wetlands are allowed
5 A. Yeah. And this is all -- 5 to refurbish, and I imagine you also know that
6 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 6 there's going to be a likelihood that the
7 Q. Wait. Is that a yes? 7 channel will fill or silt in I think are the
8 MS. GREIF: 8 words used in the reports --
9 Objection. 9 MS. GREIF:
10 A. This is post-Katrina which has no 10 Objection. Foundation.
11 bearing upon Katrina. So I think we need to 11 A. All speculative. All speculative.
12 stick to pre-Katrina questions. 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 13 Q. Well, let's say all those speculative
14 Q. Dr. Winer, I think that the judge will 14 things occur. Is it likely in your view that
15 tell us what to do and not to do. You're here 15 that might have a positive effect in terms of
16 to answer questions. Because you're not the 16 reducing storm surge or storm impact?
17 judge and neither am I. 17 MS. GREIF:
18 MS. GREIF: 18 Objection.
19 Well, he's here to speak about 19 A. Speculative.
20 what he knows. 20 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
21 MR. LAMBERT: 21 Q. Speculative. Do you agree with me
22 Okay. 22 that the cutting of Bayou La Loutre in the
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 23 first place, and the increased salinity that
24 Q. I asked you, and I'll ask you again -- 24 got out of the MRGO when it eroded had a
25 and you can refuse to answer it if you want 25 negative effect on swamp and marsh?
13 (Pages 46 to 49)
Page 50 Page 52
1 MS. GREIF: 1 anything available. What specifically they
2 Objection. 2 used for the MRGO I do not know.
3 A. Objection. My personal opinion is not 3 Q. Do you know if they used design, um --
4 an issue here. My area -- I'm a fact witness 4 MS. GREIF:
5 about the modeling. I am not a biologist. I 5 Objection.
6 can tell you that yes, there's been erosion, 6 A. I don't know whether they had design
7 there's been negative effects of that, but 7 configuration or actual surveys.
8 that's not my area of expertise and that's not 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
9 what I'm going to testify on. 9 Q. How could I find that out?
10 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 10 A. Um -- we could probably ask Joannes
11 Q. Okay. All right. Now, the modeling 11 what he used for the MRGO in the SO8 grid.
12 grid, was that introduced into -- that data 12 Q. Joannes?
13 introduced into the model by some survey work 13 A. Westerink.
14 or by ERDC. 14 Q. Is he here at the Corps?
15 A. Are you talking about ERDC? 15 A. No. He's Professor of Engineering at
16 Q. Yeah. 16 Notre Dame. He's one of the principal authors
17 A. That's the Engineering Research and 17 of the ADCIRC model.
18 Development, um -- what does the C stand for? 18 Q. Okay. Is this Power Point, Nine
19 Council? What is ERDC? Engineering -- Center. 19 Storms, does this give you the -- basically the
20 Center. Yes. Engineering Research and 20 wind data that you used?
21 Development Center. 21 A. Yes. Maximum wind velocity.
22 A grid is constructed from all of the 22 Q. Okay. And the storm track was the
23 best available information. The present grids 23 same each time, and it was the storm track that
24 are -- we use lidar information. Some of these 24 showed in this Power Point.
25 grids -- the grid that I used, was -- some if 25 A. Yes.
Page 51 Page 53
1 it was taken off of topographic charts, 1 Q. Okay. All right.
2 bathymetric charts. For the Mississippi River, 2 A. Now, in that study we also ran Betsy
3 um -- we would use the survey results that 3 with and without the closure.
4 operation gets by running their, um -- you 4 Q. And I imagine it was pretty much the
5 know, they take cross-sections of the river 5 same.
6 frequently. You assemble whatever data is 6 A. Yeah.
7 available, and of course the modeler wants to 7 Q. Yeah. But there was nothing changed
8 get better data, but data is expensive. So -- 8 with regard to the --
9 but -- and since Katrina there's been a lot 9 A. The only thing that was changed, as I
10 more data gathering. Prior to Katrina there 10 said before --
11 was less data gathering. 11 Q. The one point. I understand. I
12 I hope that answers your question. 12 understand.
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 13 Let me show you this document which
14 Q. Not really, but I'll try it again. 14 I'm going to mark for identification as Exhibit
15 A. Okay. 15 Number 3 and ask you just to describe for me,
16 Q. So where did the data come from that 16 as briefly as you can, what it is and when it
17 purported to represent the MRGO in the model 17 was done. Let's start with when.
18 that you ran? 18 (Exhibit H.W. 3 was marked for
19 A. I'm not sure I can answer that 19 identification and is attached hereto.)
20 precisely. I took the SO8 grid that was 20 A. I'm not sure exactly when this was
21 developed by Joannes Westerink and Hasan 21 done, whether this was done -- I think this was
22 Pourtaheri and other people, that was developed 22 done after Katrina, but I'm not sure.
23 by the Corps of Engineers, by the New Orleans 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
24 District, using the available data, bathymetric 24 Q. It kind of looks like it, because on
25 charts, topographic charts, survey information, 25 the very last page it has a reference to, um --
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
Page 54 Page 56
1 ICCE 2006. 1 discussion, it says, Mr. Harley S. Winer asked
2 A. Oh. Yes. Yes. We presented this at 2 how many tons of sediment are dredged from the
3 ICCE 2006. 3 Mississippi River channel in a year, and how
4 MS. GREIF: 4 much of that is used for marsh creation.
5 You only have one copy? 5 MS. GREIF:
6 MR. LAMBERT: 6 It says channels. It's plural.
7 (Tendering.) 7 MR. LAMBERT:
8 MS. GREIF: 8 Channels, yeah.
9 Thank you. 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
10 A. Yeah. This was a study that was 10 Q. And this is talking about just the
11 done -- there are pile dikes on the Mississippi 11 beneficial use of dredge materials, I take it.
12 River. This is on the Mississippi River, not 12 Is that --
13 the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. We have 13 A. Yes.
14 lateral pile dikes that have a purpose of 14 Q. So even though that's not your
15 constricting the flow so that the channel will 15 specialty, you were aware of dredged materials
16 be self maintained by higher velocities if we 16 being available for marsh creation, or at least
17 constrict the flow. 17 used for marsh creation.
18 And it turns out that the dike at the 18 A. Yes.
19 very end of Southwest Pass gets hammered by the 19 Q. Okay. My system seems to have failed
20 waves. And one of my colleagues said, what if 20 me here.
21 we make the dike a little bit below the water 21 A. Oh, I was just being impressed by it,
22 level so that the majority of the wave energy 22 that you found this reference in 1991.
23 goes over the dike but it would still constrict 23 Q. Prematurely --
24 the majority of the flow? So we did a 24 A. Well, you'll get your stride back.
25 laboratory study so that we could come up with 25 Q. Yeah. I'm going to work on it.
Page 55 Page 57
1 methodology of figuring out the forces so that 1 This one is from you in 19 -- and I do
2 we could actually design those heavily 2 not have another copy, and we can make copies.
3 overtopped vertical walls. 3 My colleague is busy studying something else
4 Q. Did it work? 4 over here. We'll just mark this Exhibit 5.
5 A. Oh, yeah. I mean, we haven't built it 5 And this says, in part -- and this is
6 yet. 6 from you to some others -- need for wave
7 Q. Uh-huh. 7 information, reply replied. The recent storm
8 A. But that's on the Mississippi River. 8 (Hurricane Georges) presents us an opportunity
9 Q. No, I understand. 9 to examine our preparedness and the level of
10 A. Yeah. It has nothing to do with the 10 protection afforded by hurricane protection
11 MRGO. There are no pile dikes -- lateral pile 11 levee systems surrounding the metropolitan
12 dikes on the MRGO. 12 area. One serious difficulty in our post-storm
13 Q. I understand that. Just curious as to 13 analysis is our lack of any wave information
14 what that item was. 14 along Lake Pontchartrain. We have no idea how
15 Exhibit 4. (Tendering.) This is a 15 big the waves were. Our only knowledge is
16 document dated 1991, and then there's another 16 anecdotal; i.e., they were big enough to
17 date on it further down, final report 1992, and 17 destroy numerous camps east of the airport and
18 attendees present. This is the Third Coastal 18 they were big enough to put the water on
19 Engineering Research Meeting -- Page 8, here at 19 lakefront airport.
20 the bottom, on the right-hand side? 20 By the way, I have some videos of
21 (Exhibit H.W. 4 was marked for 21 that.
22 identification and is attached hereto.) 22 (Exhibit H.W. 5 was marked for
23 A. Yes. 23 identification and is attached hereto.)
24 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 24 A. You were out there?
25 Q. And then the next page, under 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
Page 58 Page 60
1 Q. Uh-huh. 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
2 And then you go on to discuss the 2 Q. In the time frame after Betsy and
3 difficulties of gathering that kind of 3 before Hurricane Katrina?
4 information. (Tendering.) 4 MS. GREIF:
5 A. Yes. 5 Objection.
6 Q. And then -- and you agree with me that 6 Answer if you can.
7 that sort of data is helpful. 7 A. Prior to Hurricane Georges I don't
8 A. Yes. We collected that kind of data 8 think we had any wave gauges.
9 during Hurricane Katrina. 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
10 Q. Right. 10 Q. And Georges was in --
11 A. Um -- this gentleman that I sent this 11 A. '98.
12 E-mail to agreed with me and funded me to 12 Q. '98.
13 establish a hurricane wave monitoring program. 13 A. And after Georges, and I went out and
14 Q. Okay. Exhibit number 6 again has to 14 inspected eastern New Orleans from the airport
15 do with -- this is back in 1988. If you'll 15 going east, and all the camps that got
16 turn to the second-to-last page, it's 16 destroyed and all of the lumber from the camps
17 discussing this matter of -- and the third to 17 that was on the levee and on the dike out
18 last page, as well, here in that E-mail stream, 18 there, and I said, you know, we need to have a
19 it looks like -- 19 wave gauge so that we know what the wave is. I
20 (Exhibit H.W. 6 was marked for 20 could run a numerical model, but did I trust a
21 identification and is attached hereto.) 21 numerical model? It's hard to trust numerical
22 A. Yeah. You put the sticker on the one 22 models unless you have something to verify that
23 that isn't marked, but that's all right. Tell 23 the model is really producing what you expect.
24 me where you want to go now. I mean, yours is 24 So I convinced, um -- program managers
25 highlight, mine is not. 25 for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity
Page 59 Page 61
1 Q. Third-to-last page, at -- the Bates 1 Project, and they funded me and, um -- we
2 stamp number will be 98. 2 established a program. We got a little bit of
3 A. Okay. 3 Ivan and Dennis data. We deployed the
4 Q. And it says here -- again, we're 4 instruments, but there wasn't a whole lot of
5 talking about gauges and, um -- I'm not sure 5 wave.
6 why we've even got this in here. I guess just 6 And then we deployed the instruments
7 to show that it's an ongoing issue in this data 7 in Katrina and we got good wave data from
8 collection. 8 Katrina in Lake Pontchartrain.
9 MS. GREIF: 9 Q. How about in the MRGO area?
10 Objection. 10 A. We did not deploy gauges in that area.
11 MR. LAMBERT: 11 Q. How about in the area --
12 Easy. I'll just withdraw it. I 12 A. And the reason for that is a real
13 don't see why it's in here. Too much 13 simple reason. Um -- the Coast Guard
14 paper. We'll save the 6 for later. 14 station -- and we used the Coast Guard boats to
15 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 15 deploy gauges, so logistically we could do
16 Q. Now, just so -- I'm going to wake up 16 that, and the Lake Pontchartrain and Basin
17 my friend over here and have him -- we already 17 Foundation -- not basin foundation, the Lake
18 established that there was no wave information 18 Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project didn't have
19 in connection with this modeling, correct? 19 money beyond -- and I think my gauges cost
20 A. That's correct. 20 around twenty-one thousand, the gauges I
21 Q. Okay. When did you accomplish your -- 21 bought. And the deployment was real simple
22 or what sort of accomplishments were made in 22 using the Coast Guard boats.
23 terms of gathering data on wave propagation? 23 We used the Coast Guard -- we went out
24 MS. GREIF: 24 there for one thing -- and, you know, the flood
25 Objection. Vague. 25 gates were already closed. We couldn't go out
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
Page 62 Page 64
1 there with our boat because they closed us off. 1 Oh. By the Coast Guard station?
2 So we got in touch with the Coast Guard and got 2 A. Yeah. Half a mile offshore, about a
3 an agreement with them, so we just had to drive 3 mile -- directly offshore, a mile east and a
4 out there and put our gauges on their boat and 4 mile west.
5 drive out and drop them off and come back, 5 Q. So that would be around the 17th
6 about a half mile offshore. 6 Street Canal?
7 Q. They're anchored? 7 A. Yeah.
8 A. Yeah. Anchored buoys. 8 Q. Okay. But there was none deployed
9 Q. Anchored to buoys? 9 over in the Seabrook lakefront area?
10 A. No. They're floating buoys that are 10 A. No.
11 anchored. 11 Q. And none in the MRGO area.
12 Q. Anchored. 12 A. No.
13 A. Yeah. 13 Q. Okay.
14 Q. Did they stay there during the storm? 14 A. Logistics.
15 A. One of them stayed there. One of them 15 Q. All right. Did you ever compare the
16 got loose from its mooring prior to the storm 16 modeling that you did when you closed off the
17 and was found by a Jefferson sheriff and got 17 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet at the Bayou La
18 returned to us. And another one, um -- 18 Loutre ridge with real data collected later?
19 recorded all the wave data and recorded its 19 MS. GREIF:
20 location as it after the storm drifted to 20 Objection.
21 shore, and we found it on the shore. And one 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
22 stayed anchored. So we put out three. 22 Q. Scratch that. Let me back up. You
23 Redundancy is the key. If you really 23 ran a model pre closing up Bayou La Loutre,
24 want the get data, you have to have redundancy 24 right?
25 because things go wrong. 25 A. I ran the model with two separate
Page 63 Page 65
1 Q. So you put out three, one gave you 1 grids, one with the channel open, one with the
2 data the whole time. 2 channel closed.
3 A. Two gave us data for the storm. 3 Q. Okay. Well, obviously you didn't
4 Q. Okay. 4 run -- you didn't have an opportunity to check
5 A. One gave us data the whole time, but 5 the accuracy of the channel closed yet because
6 it was on the shore. 6 it hadn't been closed yet, right? My question
7 Q. It didn't work very well on the shore. 7 is --
8 A. Well, I mean it was after the storm. 8 A. We assume that the model represents --
9 Q. Well, I understand. 9 that the model was a good model and that
10 A. Right. 10 changing the geometry gives us insight into
11 Q. Well, my question is, you got reliable 11 what would happen if we actually physically did
12 data from the one that you had anchored and it 12 that in the real world.
13 stayed there. 13 Q. No, I understand. Did you have an
14 A. Yes. And we got reliable data from 14 opportunity to check the accuracy of the model
15 the one that stayed anchored during the storm 15 regarding surge with actual data?
16 and then somehow came loose. 16 A. The model has been tested, yes. I
17 Q. Okay. And then the other one? 17 said we had an ITR with Bob Dean, professor
18 A. Came loose before the storm and was 18 emeritus of coastal engineering at University
19 found Saturday night before the storm by 19 of Florida.
20 Jefferson -- 20 Q. You have to tell me what an ITR is.
21 Q. I understand. 21 A. Oh. Independent technical review.
22 A. -- Sheriff Department. 22 Excuse me. I always get upset when Corps
23 Q. Those were all on Lake Pontchartrain? 23 people use acronyms that I don't understand.
24 A. By the Coast Guard station. 24 My apologies. No. Point well taken.
25 Q. They were -- where were they deployed? 25 Q. You did an ITR.
17 (Pages 62 to 65)
Page 66 Page 68
1 A. We did an, um -- the Corps felt that, 1 A. We didn't have it. But what we did
2 you know, we're going to use this model -- this 2 have was high water marks.
3 is pre-Katrina -- we're going to use this model 3 Q. Uh-huh.
4 to be establishing water surge levels that we 4 A. After the storm, teams went out to
5 need to protect against, to provide protection, 5 identify high water marks. But we didn't have
6 and we had an independent technical review to 6 a storm surge hydrograph. Ideally, a storm
7 look at our approach, to look at the model, to 7 surge hydrograph is -- because that's what the
8 look at the grid, to look at all aspects of 8 model produces, you know, a time history of
9 using that model and the grid and the approach 9 what the surge is.
10 and how accurate the results were. 10 So the answer to your question is yes,
11 So we ran a number of storms. There 11 this model has been -- we have looked at the
12 were ten storms that I picked out for the 12 model results and compared them with actual
13 modelers, and the modelers were Joannes 13 data from storms extensively.
14 Westerink and Rick Luettich from the University 14 Q. Relative to surge.
15 of North Carolina. These are the authors of 15 A. Relative to water level elevations,
16 the ADCIRC model. 16 surge.
17 So we ran ten storms, and the storms 17 Q. Okay. All right.
18 were storms that we had good weather service 18 (Lunch break.)
19 data. For example, the 1915 storm we don't 19 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
20 have good representation of what that storm 20 Q. Mr. Winer, I need to go back and
21 actually was. Although New Orleans got flooded 21 further clarify what you told me before. You
22 in 1915, even though there were cypress swamps 22 have been involved in projects modeling the
23 and marsh. But this was before the hurricane 23 MRGO surge in how many occasions?
24 hunters and everything like that, so that we 24 A. One occasion.
25 didn't know the exact track or the exact 25 Q. Okay. And what year --
Page 67 Page 69
1 pressure, we would just have a pressure reading 1 A. Can I elaborate?
2 as it crossed land, but we didn't have a 2 Q. What year was that?
3 continuous record of pressure. Now, with the 3 A. This is pre-Katrina. I don't know the
4 hurricane hunters, we have really good, 4 year exactly.
5 accurate data. 5 Q. Okay.
6 So we had to pick modern storms, so we 6 A. Um -- I would guess it's probably
7 picked modern storms. And we wanted to pick 7 around 2002, but that's just a guess. I could,
8 storms that were big enough that we could see, 8 um -- verify that, look it up, because I
9 you know, produced a surge. And we picked ten 9 traveled to -- it could be substantiated
10 storms that we ran, and we -- and the 10 because I did travel to Notre Dame to confer
11 independent technical review team assessed the 11 with Joannes while we were doing that, and I
12 performance of the model, compared to -- and 12 have a record of my travel dates.
13 also, where we had gauge data. For example, 13 Q. And did you provide him with the
14 Audrey, we didn't have that much gauge data 14 track?
15 because it wiped out all the gauges that were 15 A. He and I did the runs. I provided the
16 out there. So even though Audrey was an 16 track, and the -- we ran it on his computers at
17 extremely significant storm with good surge, we 17 Notre Dame. We did all nine storms at one
18 can't really -- it's difficult to compare the 18 sitting. I mean not one sitting, but one -- at
19 model results with -- though we did run Audrey 19 one shot --
20 because a team -- 20 Q. Okay.
21 Q. Finish your answer. Difficult to -- 21 A. -- I should say, over a period of a
22 because? 22 couple of days.
23 A. Well, it's difficult to compare 23 Q. All right. My question was, did you
24 gauges. 24 pick the track?
25 Q. Because you didn't have any. 25 A. Yes.
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
Page 70 Page 72
1 Q. Okay. And it was the same track used 1 A. If --
2 each time. 2 Q. Please. Please let me finish my
3 A. Yes. 3 question -- the effect of waves on the levee
4 Q. Okay. And did you pick the variations 4 adjacent to the MRGO? Now you can tell me no.
5 of the parameters for the wind speed and the 5 A. No.
6 speed? 6 Q. All right.
7 A. Yes. 7 A. If you would allow me to elaborate I
8 Q. Okay. There was no input data with 8 think I could answer a lot of your questions.
9 regard to waves. 9 Q. I would rather you didn't. I would
10 A. That's correct. It's not a wave 10 rather you just answer the questions that I ask
11 model. 11 you.
12 Q. Okay. And the grid didn't change with 12 A. Okay.
13 the exception of -- for the two different runs, 13 Q. Okay.
14 with the exception of the closure of the -- 14 A. It would save us both a lot of time.
15 A. Bayou La Loutre ridge. 15 Q. I understand. And we can do that in a
16 Q. -- La Loutre ridge is that correct? 16 minute. But I need --
17 A. That's correct. 17 A. Okay.
18 Q. All right. Now, I've looked at your 18 Q. -- to do just --
19 CV, and I noticed several things. One you told 19 A. Follow your train of thought, okay.
20 us about very briefly in connection with 20 Q. Exactly. Otherwise, I'll get lost and
21 another exhibit that I showed you that you told 21 we'll be here forever --
22 us all about the experiment done at Southwest 22 A. Okay.
23 Pass. Or was it South Pass? 23 Q. -- because I'll just spin around in
24 MS. GREIF: 24 circles.
25 Objection. 25 Okay. In one of your papers which I'm
Page 71 Page 73
1 A. Yes. We did some physical model 1 going to show you in a minute you talked about
2 studies. 2 the critical reach being Reach 1, which is the
3 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 3 widened channel of the Intracoastal Waterway
4 Q. Okay. Obviously -- and you've also 4 where the MRGO intersects it on the way to the
5 done, it says, 2-dimensional breakwater 5 Industrial Canal.
6 studies -- I'm sorry -- 2-dimensional 6 MS. GREIF:
7 breakwater stability tests for port facilities 7 Objection.
8 in Nome, Alaska. '85, "Wave Period Effect on 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
9 the Stability of Breakwater Armor Units." 9 Q. What did you mean by that being the
10 And then again, Wave Induced Current 10 critical reach?
11 using Periodic Wave -- you've told us about 11 A. Will you show me the paper, please?
12 those. 12 Q. Well, sure.
13 You're aware of the effect, probably 13 A. The reference.
14 more than most anyone, of wave forces, correct? 14 Q. The study is Appendix 6.
15 A. I understand wave mechanics, correct. 15 A. Of the IPET report?
16 Q. Okay. And do you agree with me that 16 Q. Correct.
17 waves can have a significant impact on a 17 A. Okay.
18 structure? 18 Q. You can have this. We'll mark another
19 A. Yes. 19 one.
20 Q. Okay. Was any part of the modeling 20 MS. GREIF:
21 that you did intended to determine the effect 21 Do you want to review it first?
22 of waves on the -- 22 A. Well --
23 A. No. 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
24 Q. I'm not finished. I know -- but let 24 Q. Here, let me put this 7 on it.
25 me finish my question. 25 (Exhibit H.W. 7 was marked for
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
Page 74 Page 76
1 identification and is attached hereto.) 1 Objection.
2 A. -- I'm familiar with it. I want to 2 A. Well, wider and deeper. You're going
3 know where he's -- 3 to have more area, so the velocities are going
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 4 to go down.
5 Q. Second page. 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
6 A. Second page where? 6 Q. Uh-huh.
7 Q. Bottom paragraph. 7 A. Velocities increase in a smaller area,
8 MS. GREIF: 8 degrees in a bigger area.
9 And this is Appendix 6 to Volume 9 Q. When there was only the Intracoastal
10 4 of the IPET report. 10 Waterway, there was a 150-foot wide channel
11 MR. BUCHLER: 11 12 feet deep.
12 Right. 12 A. And there was only --
13 A. It's critical -- if you read the rest 13 MS. GREIF:
14 of the paragraph it explains, um -- it provides 14 Objection. Foundation.
15 connection hydraulically between Lake 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
16 Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne. 16 Q. I've not finished with my question and
17 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 17 the both of you are jumping in on me. So when
18 Q. And the gulf? 18 y'all are finished I'll finish my question.
19 A. And the gulf. Yeah. 19 Okay?
20 Q. Okay. The velocities of flow of water 20 Before the MRGO --
21 in that area, meaning Reach 1, and actually out 21 A. Let's refer -- this is the
22 through the Intracoastal Canal past the 22 Intracoastal Waterway -- the Gulf Intracoastal
23 Seabrook area are relatively high, aren't they? 23 Waterway. This is the Industrial Canal or the
24 As compared to the way they were before the 24 Inner Harbor Canal. (Indicating.)
25 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet was created. 25 Q. Right. That's right.
Page 75 Page 77
1 MS. GREIF: 1 A. I think you're --
2 Objection. 2 Q. Okay. Got it.
3 A. Conversely, actually. 3 Now, in the Intracoastal Waterway that
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 4 intersects with the Mississippi River Gulf
5 Q. They're low? 5 Outlet, which is actually like two highways
6 A. If you have a channel this big -- 6 going together and it's labeled her both, it's
7 Q. No, let's do it first. You're telling 7 Intracoastal Waterway and MRGO --
8 me -- 8 MS. GREIF:
9 A. I was going to explain. 9 Objection.
10 Q. But I just want to make sure I 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
11 understand first. The velocity of flows along 11 Q. -- like I-10 and I-55 when they go
12 the Reach 1 and the section of the 12 together both of them get a little label. So
13 Intracoastal -- Inner Harbor Canal -- 13 that's what they both are right in that section
14 A. Oh, the Inner Harbor. Okay. 14 which I call Reach 1.
15 Q. The Inner Harbor Canal that connect to 15 A. Yes.
16 the Lake Pontchartrain at Seabrook -- 16 Q. Okay. Now, the IHNC, Inner
17 A. Right. 17 Navigational Harbor --
18 Q. -- right in here, you're telling me 18 A. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal.
19 that those velocities are lower since the 19 Q. There we go, IHNC, Inner Harbor
20 connection of the -- 20 Navigational Canal is what I usually call the
21 A. No. I was referring to in here. 21 Industrial Canal.
22 (Indicating.) 22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. That's because, you're going to 23 Q. And just so we're real clear, the
24 tell me, it's wider? 24 flow -- the velocity of water, you agree with
25 MS. GREIF: 25 me, is higher in the Inner Harbor Navigational
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
Page 78 Page 80
1 Canal since the construction of the MRGO. 1 Q. Let's get the answer first, and then
2 A. I don't know. 2 you can tell me the reason.
3 Q. Okay. Good. And I take it then you 3 A. I would speculate, and this is
4 don't know whether or not the velocities of 4 speculation, but an educated guess with my
5 water in the MRGO, um -- inner navigational 5 knowledge of hydraulics, that indeed they would
6 waterway, this section, Reach 1, are higher 6 be lower. All things being equal, making that
7 than they used to be before the MRGO was dug. 7 channel larger would lower those velocities.
8 MS. GREIF: 8 Q. Okay. Even though you've got it
9 Objection. 9 connected, now, with a tidal channel that
10 A. Well, I have not done any analysis on 10 didn't exist before, just because this is wider
11 that, but from my hydraulic analysis and my 11 and deeper you think that the velocities are
12 hydraulic expertise, all things being equal, 12 going to be lower.
13 you dig that deeper and the velocities through 13 MS. GREIF:
14 here would actually be lower, because what 14 Objection.
15 would control the velocities would be the 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
16 constriction at the Seabrook bridge. 16 Q. Go ahead and answer it.
17 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 17 A. Oh, okay. What controls the --
18 Q. Okay. 18 Q. Yes, no, then all the stuff, please.
19 A. The amount of flow going out through 19 A. I said the velocities would be lower.
20 there. 20 Q. Okay. Good.
21 Q. Okay. Let's do this: Now we're 21 A. Because what controls the velocities
22 talking about Reach 1, which is here, correct? 22 through here is the flow. You know, the flow
23 A. Yes. 23 is equal to the cross-sectional -- the flow,
24 Q. Let me get this down where you can do 24 the volume of water, divided by the
25 the pointing because then I won't make a 25 cross-sectional area, is the velocities. You
Page 79 Page 81
1 mistake. 1 make a larger cross-sectional area and the
2 Would you point out Reach 1? 2 velocity is lower. And it's also governed by
3 A. We refer to Reach 1 where the GIWW and 3 the head differential, the elevation of water
4 the MRGO, as you say, the same highway in the 4 heater versus the elevation of water here. And
5 same location. 5 that's what drives flow. My contention is that
6 Q. Okay. All right. 6 the GIWW, here -- excuse me, not the GIWW, the
7 A. Through here. 7 MRGO. This is the GIWW. The MRGO here does
8 Q. And the Inner Harbor Navigational 8 not have any influence upon the head, the water
9 Canal? 9 elevation at this point. (Indicating.)
10 A. (Indicating.) This here. 10 Q. Great. You're wrong, but I'm glad you
11 Q. Okay. You got that? Okay. Good. 11 told me how you feel.
12 All right, now, the velocities of flow in this 12 MS. GREIF:
13 Inner Harbor Navigational Canal, this section 13 Objection.
14 of it, you believe are higher since the 14 A. My modeling effort showed, using the
15 construction? 15 Bayou Bienvenue gauge, that there was
16 MS. GREIF: 16 insignificant difference.
17 Objection. 17 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
18 A. That I don't know. I've not done any 18 Q. That makes your modeling -- okay.
19 modeling to examine that. 19 A. Should I tell him about my opinion
20 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 20 about opinions?
21 Q. Okay. And you don't know about this 21 Q. Sure. Go ahead. Tell me.
22 either, but your guess is that since it's wider 22 MS. GREIF:
23 and deeper the velocities are lower. 23 Yeah, please. Go ahead.
24 A. The controlling is the constriction 24 A. Should I put it on the record?
25 here. 25 MR. LAMBERT:
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
Page 82 Page 84
1 Yeah, absolutely. 1 MS. GREIF:
2 MS. GREIF: 2 We went through this already
3 Why don't we just move on. 3 before lunch.
4 MR. LAMBERT: 4 A. We've been through this ten times.
5 No, I wanted to hear the opinion 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
6 about opinions. 6 Q. Good. I want to make sure we have it
7 A. Over a beer later. 7 clearly on the record.
8 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 8 A. Now I'd like to elaborate on that. I
9 Q. No, I think I know the same one. 9 said before, if I explained to you --
10 A. What, some stink worse than others? 10 Q. I'd rather you didn't.
11 Q. Yeah, exactly. But now, just so our 11 A. I would rather that I would, please.
12 record is clear -- 12 Q. There's no question on the --
13 A. Nothing personal. 13 MS. GREIF:
14 Q. Nothing personal. 14 We want the record to be where.
15 Just so our record is clear, you, 15 A. I want the record clear, and I'm going
16 Mr. Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering -- right? 16 to elaborate on my answer, sir. I was tasked
17 A. Yes. 17 to investigate, at the time the
18 Q. Okay -- you believe that the flow in 18 re authorization study was looking at various
19 the combination of the Intracoastal waterway 19 closure options and there were questions as to
20 and the MRGO in Reach 1 is lower because it's 20 if they have a twenty foot deep hundred wide or
21 bigger? 21 twelve foot deep hundred wide, or two hundred
22 A. No, I did not say the flow. 22 foot wide or three hundred foot wide opening in
23 MS. GREIF: 23 the, um -- in the closure structure, what would
24 Objection. 24 be the influence upon all of those. And they
25 A. I said the velocity. 25 had so many different options, and they wanted
Page 83 Page 85
1 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 1 to know how would that affect storm surge. And
2 Q. Same thing. Velocity. Okay. 2 I said, well, let's investigate if we close it
3 Velocity -- 3 completely and see what influence that has, and
4 A. There's a big difference between flow 4 then we'll decide how many of these various
5 and velocity. 5 options we need to investigate. But I was
6 Q. No. Velocity is what I meant to say. 6 tasked to investigate closure and the various
7 A. Okay. 7 openings, what effect that would have on storm
8 Q. The speed. Velocity. Velocity. 8 surge.
9 Okay. All right. Now, what about the effect 9 I was not tasked to analyze wave
10 of waves -- oh, wait. I already asked you 10 erosion. I was not tasked to analyze anything
11 that, but I want to make sure we have it 11 other than the effect on storm surge. So I
12 clearly on the record. 12 would prefer that -- if you'd ask me about
13 You did no calculations regarding what 13 storm surge and stop asking me about waves
14 wave effects -- what waves -- 14 because I have not done any wave analysis.
15 A. That was not the intent of my study. 15 Q. As long as it's clear that during your
16 MS. GREIF: 16 testimony at trial there's not going to be any
17 Objection. Asked and answered. 17 wave analysis issues, I'll be happy to do that.
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 18 MS. GREIF:
19 Q. Let me just finish the question. 19 Objection.
20 You did no studies in connection with 20 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
21 your modeling about what effects waves would 21 Q. And that's what we'll do.
22 have on this portion of Reach 2 on the MRGO. 22 A. I haven't done any wave studies.
23 A. My study was not about waves. 23 Q. Okay.
24 Q. So you didn't do that, right? 24 A. So then the record --
25 A. My study did not include any waves. 25 Q. Then I'll do exactly what you ask. We
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
Page 86 Page 88
1 won't ask you any more wave questions. 1 MS. GREIF:
2 A. And I doubt I'll be asked to testify 2 Objection.
3 about waves. 3 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
4 Q. All right. That's fine. Now, I have 4 Q. And this one says what about storm
5 a document which I'm going to mark for 5 surge?
6 identification as Exhibit Number 8, and this -- 6 A. I would have to reread it to tell you
7 is this another appendix to the IPET report? 7 exactly what it says. I wrote this along with
8 A. It's the same thing. 8 Bruce Ebersole and Joannes Westerink in the
9 Q. Is it really? 9 months immediately after it got published in
10 A. Yeah. 10 February, 2006.
11 Q. One is E and one is -- 11 Q. Okay. Did you use any of the work
12 A. 6. 12 done on the preliminary -- I say the
13 Q. 6. 13 preliminary study -- the study this was done by
14 A. Yeah. I mean, they're exact same 14 you before Hurricane Katrina?
15 wording. 15 A. I think it's referenced in here, but
16 Q. Yeah. That's what I thought. I just 16 I'm not -- I'm looking for it. Oh, yes.
17 wondered why there was a difference in the 17 Q. Page?
18 labels. 18 A. Page 8 of Exhibit Number 7 --
19 A. I'm not the editor. 19 Q. Uh-huh.
20 Q. All right. Let's go back to -- then 20 A. -- has references. The fifth one down
21 what we'll do is, so we don't have such a 21 references the 2003 U.S. Army Corps of
22 thick -- 22 Engineers-New Orleans District numerical
23 A. Yeah. We can put Number 8 on 23 modeling of storm surge effect of the MRGO
24 something else. 24 closure. You know, are you looking at Appendix
25 Q. Yeah. I think that's probably a 25 6 or Appendix E?
Page 87 Page 89
1 better way to go. 1 Q. Oh. E.
2 So Appendix E, Note on the Influence 2 A. Oh. I'm on Appendix 6.
3 of Mississippi River Gulf Outlet on Hurricane 3 Q. Okay.
4 Induced Storm Surge in the Vicinity of New 4 A. Wherever the references are. Just
5 Orleans, February 21, 2006, that's exactly the 5 before the first figure -- the page numbering
6 same date you have on that one? 6 is different in the two, but the text is the
7 A. February 21, 2006? Um -- and this is 7 same. There should be -- the references? Look
8 an appendix to Volume 4. 8 towards the last reference, the fourth one from
9 Q. Okay. All right. Now, is this the 9 the end.
10 same thing that you were discussing as -- this 10 Q. Okay. Oh, I see that.
11 is post Hurricane Katrina, correct? 11 A. Yes. Okay. So that answers the
12 A. Yes. 12 question as to the date of that work.
13 Q. And so this is not the same study that 13 Q. Right.
14 you ran before Hurricane Katrina, is it? 14 A. 2003. My guess was 2002, so it's
15 A. That's correct. 15 close.
16 Q. Okay. So you had a study that you ran 16 Q. Okay. You know, I think we're going
17 sometime in the past, which we have the Power 17 to go ahead and put this one in here, Exhibit
18 Point for, Exhibit Number 2 -- 18 E. We'll put that one in just so we can see
19 A. Yes. 19 there's two of them.
20 Q. -- but we don't have the actual 20 (Exhibit H.W. 8 was marked for
21 report. And it said there's no real effect on 21 identification and is attached hereto.)
22 storm surge when we ran those two different 22 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
23 models with the track west of New Orleans and 23 Q. Okay. Now, strictly storm surge, can
24 the variation being the closure at Bayou La 24 you tell me what the storm surge is in the area
25 Loutre. 25 just south of Violet? That would be in this
23 (Pages 86 to 89)
Page 90 Page 92
1 area down here. (Indicating.) 1 doing a whole lot of other things to have had
2 A. Can I tell you what the storm surge 2 the chance to read the IPET report.
3 is? 3 Q. You've never read it?
4 Q. Well, what the surge levels were. 4 A. Not in its entirety, no, sir.
5 A. No, I don't have that information 5 Q. Okay.
6 right at hand. 6 A. It's how many volumes?
7 Q. Okay. That would be south of Bayou La 7 Q. Oh. It's terrible.
8 Loutre, I think. 8 MS. GREIF:
9 A. No. Violet is north. 9 Objection.
10 Q. Okay. 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
11 A. The Violet Canal leads into Bayou 11 Q. I mean it's huge, that's what I meant.
12 Dupre. 12 A. It's huge.
13 Q. Uh-huh. 13 Q. In this area south -- what did you
14 A. Which is the second of the two 14 call this marsh area?
15 openings. 15 A. The Breton estuary.
16 Q. Let me just show you the area I'm 16 Q. Estuary. It says here 19 feet. Is
17 asking you about. 17 that likely that there was a gauge in that area
18 A. I know which way you were looking. 18 that was able to measure, or --
19 Q. Right down in here. (Indicating.) 19 A. Um --
20 A. Yeah. As I said, I don't -- um -- 20 MS. GREIF:
21 that's not my, um -- I don't have all of those 21 Objection.
22 on the top of my head. They're all available 22 A. Well, this is what the IPET -- they
23 in the IPET report. There should be 23 used all available information to put together
24 information as to what the surges were from 24 what they thought was the best approximation of
25 Katrina. 25 how high the water surface got.
Page 91 Page 93
1 Q. Okay. This is a summary of the IPET 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
2 report, and the surge, the only surge data I 2 Q. Okay.
3 see in here, but I'm sure it's in other places, 3 A. Okay.
4 it's just a summary, is on this Page 40. And 4 Q. This one has an arrow pointing to the
5 this is the area I'm talking about in here. 5 south part of the estuary along the --
6 (Indicating.) 6 A. Mississippi River levee.
7 A. Oh. That's the way south of -- that's 7 Q. -- Mississippi River levee, and I
8 in Breton Sound? 8 guess that's because maybe there was a line
9 Q. Well, no, Breton Sound is down here. 9 there or something that they could look -- I'm
10 A. It's in the Breton estuary. Excuse 10 just trying to get an idea of where such a
11 me. Yeah. 11 figure would come from.
12 Q. Do you have an idea of the height of 12 MS. GREIF:
13 the surge in this area? 13 Objection.
14 MS. GREIF: 14 A. Yeah. That's speculation. But, you
15 Objection. 15 know, if I were on the IPET, I would go out and
16 A. Yeah. That's not -- 16 you'd look for all kinds of high water marks,
17 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 17 um -- evidence, um -- you know that it went
18 Q. That's not the same question. I'm 18 over this levee, and you know it went over this
19 sorry. That's the area I'm interested in. 19 levee, and you know it went over this levee, so
20 A. Um -- no, I don't. I mean, this is 20 it had to be this high, how much water? You
21 the document that I would go to if I needed to 21 make your best -- it's forensic investigation.
22 find out what the surge was. 22 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
23 Q. But you'd go to a particular volume? 23 Q. All right. And post-storm, though,
24 A. I don't know. I haven't really 24 would you be able to tell whether there was a
25 explored the IPET. I've been -- I was too busy 25 wave that went over it or whether the surge
24 (Pages 90 to 93)
Page 94 Page 96
1 went over it? How would you tell? 1 A. I have nothing -- no reason to -- I
2 A. That 19 feet is the water level. Now, 2 have no independent knowledge of anything that
3 there were waves on top of that. 3 would lead me to think that these are not the
4 Q. Okay. 4 best estimates.
5 A. But that's the water level. 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
6 Q. All right. And it shows in the area 6 Q. Okay. Let's go back to this model
7 of Lake Borgne 17 feet and 16 feet. That would 7 that was run back in 2003.
8 be water level? 8 A. It was probably run in 2002. The
9 A. Water level, yes. And then waves on 9 report was probably published in 2003.
10 top of that. 10 Q. What other inputs were there to that
11 Q. Okay. And do you think that -- why 11 model that you worked on, other than track and
12 would it be -- and I'm just -- based on all 12 then the three different parameters that you
13 that you know about these storms and stuff, why 13 told us about, and then the two different runs
14 do you think it's higher down here in this 14 with and without the closure?
15 Breton estuary? 15 MS. GREIF:
16 MS. GREIF: 16 Objection.
17 Objection. 17 A. Well, you have your grid, you have the
18 A. Unfortunately we don't have a large 18 model code --
19 scale map. 19 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
20 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 20 Q. But the grid never changed, right?
21 Q. Right. 21 A. The grid never changed.
22 A. But Katrina when it crossed the 22 Q. Okay. I'm just -- okay, the model
23 Mississippi River was a Category 5 storm. By 23 code --
24 the time it got up to crossing the Mississippi 24 A. Well, the two grids never changed.
25 coast it was a Category 3 storm. 25 Q. Never changed. That's right.
Page 95 Page 97
1 Q. Uh-huh. 1 A. And the model code never changed, and
2 A. That area there is a lot closer to 2 the computer hardware never changed. The only
3 when it was a Category 5 storm. Might be one 3 thing that changed for the nine different runs
4 reason. There's all kind of, um -- you know, 4 was the input parameters --
5 the geography and the geometry and the winds, 5 Q. Okay.
6 um -- numerous reasons. 6 A. -- which is the wind field and the
7 Q. Okay. 7 pressure field.
8 MS. GREIF: 8 Q. And those, I think you put in,
9 For the record, what page are we 9 correct? You chose?
10 looking at here? 10 A. I chose. And we constructed an input
11 MR. LAMBERT: 11 path, and the model makes an idealized storm
12 40. 12 with certain wind distribution about the center
13 MS. GREIF: 13 of the storm.
14 Thanks. 14 Q. But you used one track.
15 MR. LAMBERT: 15 A. Yeah.
16 I40, it's the IPET report summary 16 MS. GREIF:
17 section, 40. Okay? 17 Objection.
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 18 A. That track was picked so as to go
19 Q. So you had no independent knowledge, 19 parallel to the MRGO and that the maximum winds
20 but you have no reason to dispute that the 20 would be pushing water up the MRGO, if indeed
21 findings were that the surge, I guess that 21 water could be pushed up the MRGO.
22 would be the water levels, were as they were in 22 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
23 the IPET report. 23 Q. Okay. All right.
24 MS. GREIF: 24 A. That was my educated guess as to what
25 Objection. 25 would be the worst case for that.
25 (Pages 94 to 97)
Page 98 Page 100
1 Q. Was that a track of any other prior 1 grid. The grid was constantly being improved.
2 storm, or was it one you picked? 2 And then after Katrina, with the IPET, there
3 MS. GREIF: 3 was a lot of urgency and a lot of effort to
4 Objection to the extent that this 4 produce the best grid. And it was a more
5 is what we've already discussed. 5 detailed grid.
6 MR. LAMBERT: 6 Q. Well, in this Appendix E, or 6 --
7 No, I understand. 7 let's just use 6 so we're consistent all the
8 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 8 time -- Exhibit 7, what model was used?
9 Q. I just want to know if this track was 9 A. It was the ADCIRC model.
10 something that had happened before, or is it 10 Q. The same one. But with a different
11 something that you developed? 11 grid?
12 A. I just developed it. 12 MS. GREIF:
13 Q. You developed it. Okay. Now, in the 13 Objection. Asked and answered.
14 calculations done regarding Reach 1 of the 14 We've been through this.
15 surge model, do you know what dimensions were 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
16 used to define Reach 1, in other words, the 16 Q. Okay. Different grid?
17 size of the channel? You talked about the 17 A. An improved grid.
18 cross-section. 18 Q. Improved grid. All right. And that
19 A. The existing conditions. Um -- I 19 data for the grid came from where?
20 don't know the exact existing conditions. 20 A. Multiple sources. I explained
21 Q. Okay. And the existing conditions 21 earlier.
22 came from what information? 22 Q. Okay. Multiple sources?
23 A. They were in the SO8 grid. 23 A. I think I've already explained the
24 Q. And the SO -- 24 method of constructing grids. Let's not ask
25 A. And the SO8 grid was constructed by 25 any more questions about the constructing of
Page 99 Page 101
1 Joannes Westerink and Hasan Pourteheri and 1 the grids, please.
2 other people, and was checked and rechecked by 2 Q. Okay. What inputs went into the
3 numerous people. So the exact dimensions of, 3 storm --
4 um -- of that channel I don't know. 4 A. We have already done that, too. You
5 Q. Do you know whether it was a larger 5 take the grid, you take the boundary
6 cross-section than the actual cross-section of 6 conditions, and you take the meteorological
7 Reach 1? 7 conditions.
8 A. I don't know whether it was larger or 8 Q. Okay.
9 smaller or -- I'll make you a bet it was not 9 A. So it was the meteorological
10 exactly what was out there, because it was an 10 conditions from Katrina.
11 approximation. 11 Q. Was there anything with regard to
12 Q. Okay. 12 waves?
13 A. It was the best effort of the team 13 A. No. ADCIRC is not a wave model.
14 that put the grid together to represent all of 14 Q. Okay. So in the Appendix 6 that we're
15 Louisiana and all of the North American grid. 15 looking at here, the note on influence of the
16 Q. Okay. What was used for the 2006 16 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet on
17 study? We'd been talking about the one that 17 hurricane-induced storm surge in New Orleans
18 you did back in 2002. What about the 2006 18 and vicinity is not a wave model.
19 study? 19 A. That is correct.
20 MS. GREIF: 20 Q. Okay. What wind data was used in
21 Objection. Vague. 21 terms of the Katrina --
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 22 A. The best data that could be obtained
23 Q. What grid was used for that? 23 from the National Weather Service.
24 A. I don't recall exactly. It was a 24 Q. All right. Did you have anything to
25 newer grid, because it was a more improved 25 do with that, or was that the weather service?
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
Page 102 Page 104
1 MS. GREIF: 1 A. Objection. My area of expertise is
2 Objection. 2 storm surge. I have not studied that
3 A. I'm not a weatherman. 3 particular aspect of it.
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 4 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
5 Q. So the weather service people put that 5 Q. Okay. We have already established
6 in. What did you put into this model? 6 that you do not have an opinion with regard to
7 A. Now, we used the data from the 7 wetlands and their effect on storm surge;
8 weather -- the weather service did not put the 8 correct? We're getting to the end here, I'm
9 data into the model. 9 just --
10 Q. All right. 10 A. Good. Good.
11 A. Their data was used as input into the 11 Q. -- I'm trying to make sure we got
12 model. I did not participate in the actual 12 these things covered. Okay?
13 modeling, I participated in the writing. 13 A. Um --
14 Q. Okay. 14 Q. You do not have an opinion with regard
15 A. Looking at the results and writing the 15 to the effect of --
16 report. 16 A. I have an opinion.
17 Q. Do you know whether or not there is 17 MS. GREIF:
18 any funnel effect -- 18 Objection.
19 MS. GREIF: 19 A. I'm not offering my opinion because I
20 Objection. Vague, ambiguous. 20 am not a biologist. Um -- and the science is
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 21 still out as to whether or not wetlands do
22 Q. -- involving the MRGO and the Lake 22 reduce or don't reduce storm surge.
23 Borgne area? 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
24 A. That's not my area of expertise. I've 24 Q. Okay. So --
25 not studied that. 25 A. Or the influence of wetland. And
Page 103 Page 105
1 Q. So you just don't -- you don't have an 1 there's debate on that issue in the
2 opinion with regard to whether or not -- 2 scientific -- in literature.
3 A. I have an opinion but I'm not going to 3 Q. So what you're saying is whether or
4 give it to you. 4 not you have a personal opinion with regard to
5 Q. Okay. 5 your field of expertise, you do not fell like
6 A. I'm a fact witness, not an opinion 6 it's appropriate for you to give an opinion
7 generator. 7 regarding wetlands And storm surge, correct?
8 Q. All right. As long as you're not 8 A. Correct.
9 going to give it to me at trial, then I'm fine 9 Q. Do you know how the 100-year storm is
10 with that. 10 calculated?
11 MS. GREIF: 11 MS. GREIF:
12 Objection. 12 Objection.
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 13 A. Yes, I do. But that's not relevant to
14 Q. No funnel effect issues at trial, from 14 my testimony on the MRGO.
15 you. 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
16 MS. GREIF: 16 Q. Okay. You didn't have anything to do
17 Objection. 17 with the parameters of the storm in terms of it
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 18 being a 100-year storm?
19 Q. It's not your area of expertise. 19 A. I was not involved beforehand in
20 A. I have not studied the funnel effect, 20 establishing the storm surge levels of
21 whether it exists or it doesn't exist. 21 protection along the MRGO, and I was not
22 Q. Okay. And I take it it's not your 22 involved after the storm in any of the 100-year
23 area of expertise. 23 storm surge elevations.
24 MS. GREIF: 24 Q. Okay. I've got a document which I'm
25 Objection. 25 not going to mark and attach if it's not
27 (Pages 102 to 105)

Page 106 Page 108
1 relevant. It's says draft, Louisiana Coastal 1 MR. BUCHLER:
2 Protection and Restoration Technical Report, 2 I think so.
3 February, 2008. 3 THE WITNESS:
4 Were you involved in the development 4 Okay, yeah. I know him. I've
5 of this report? 5 met him. Because TetraTech did some
6 A. No. 6 studies after Betsy on storm surge
7 Q. How about data with regard to 7 propagation.
8 information in this report, were you involved 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
9 with the collection of that? 9 Q. This is another part of the IPET
10 A. I do not recall being asked for any 10 report. Oh, I'm sorry. This is part of the
11 data, though data that I may have produced may 11 deauthorization study done for the MRGO, and it
12 have gotten into there somewhere. But I'm not 12 has to do with hydraulic modeling.
13 aware of what data that might be. 13 Were you involved in that preparation?
14 Q. For example, if you had a -- one of 14 (Tendering.) In that document 's preparation.
15 your three gauges, if they've got some data 15 A. If I recall correctly, this is just a
16 from the waves collected by one of your gauges 16 synopsis of all of the different modeling that
17 that were deployed before Katrina, it might be 17 has been done with respect to the MRGO.
18 in here but you're not aware of it. 18 Q. Okay.
19 MS. GREIF: 19 A. So I don't think there was any new
20 Objection. 20 modeling that was done. I certainly did not do
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 21 any new modeling. I think at one time I read a
22 Q. Is that -- 22 draft, and I think they reference my study in
23 A. For example, that might be the case. 23 here.
24 Q. Here's another report which is the 24 Q. Okay.
25 Impact of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet on 25 A. But this is just a synopsis of all the
Page 107 Page 109
1 Hurricane Floods of St. Bernard Parish and New 1 different modeling, the salinity modeling,
2 Orleans Metropolitan area, prepared by 2 um -- you know, the surge modeling, et cetera,
3 Dr. Sahsu, 1973. (Tendering.) 3 et cetera.
4 A. I have not seen this before. So your 4 Q. Okay.
5 question is? 5 A. And -- yeah.
6 Q. Were you involved with it in terms of 6 MS. GREIF:
7 its preparation -- 7 Do you want this to be an
8 A. 1973 -- I came to New Orleans in 1991. 8 exhibit?
9 Q. Okay. So you surely weren't. 9 MR. LAMBERT:
10 Did you use this report in any of your 10 This is another exhibit.
11 work, that you're aware of? 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
12 A. No. 12 Q. I'll take that back. Thank you.
13 Q. Okay. 13 This is another exhibit marked as
14 A. I would be interested in reading it, 14 Number 9. It's an April of 2001 looks like a
15 though. 15 wave ship wake, um -- investigation.
16 MR. BUCHLER: 16 (Exhibit H.W. 9 was marked for
17 I have a copy if you want one. 17 identification and is attached hereto.)
18 THE WITNESS: 18 A. Yes.
19 Thank you. 19 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
20 Is he from TetraTech? 20 Q. And it says, I recommend that you
21 MR. BUCHLER: 21 check with Channing -- let's see. Where are
22 It is my understanding he was a 22 you in here -- up at the top it says --
23 long time LSU faculty member. 23 A. What page are you on?
24 THE WITNESS: 24 Q. I'm just looking at the front, on the
25 Is he a coastal meteorologist? 25 handwritten --
28 (Pages 106 to 109)

Page 110 Page 112
1 A. Okay. 1 Q. And this says -- this is from Arthur
2 Q. I think you may be the Harley that 2 Laurent. Do you know who that is?
3 they're talking about. 3 A. No, that's from Jay Combe. Oh, the
4 A. Louise mailed me and I requested 4 top, yeah. Arthur Laurent was the chief of the
5 something Harley. 5 hydraulic and hydrologic engineering branch.
6 Q. The next page, it says, can anyone 6 Q. Is that where you worked?
7 provide the dimensions of the largest ship that 7 A. That's where I worked.
8 uses the MRGO? If I can get a handle on the 8 Q. Okay. It says, here's my take on what
9 submerged cross-sectional area, if the ship 9 needs to be done so far: An internal review of
10 (along with cross-sectional area of the 10 the calibration and verification model runs to
11 channel) then we can get the blockage factor 11 ensure model is performing satisfactorily;
12 and thus determine the limiting speed in the 12 review, identify, modify model as necessary to
13 channel. Any other suggestions would be 13 address any inconsistencies found in running of
14 appreciated. And it's signed by you. 14 the design hurricane on critical tracks.
15 I take it you were trying to determine 15 What does that mean?
16 at that point in time what kinds of wakes and 16 MS. GREIF:
17 down draw were going to be created by ships? 17 Objection.
18 A. Yes. Yes. And we, um -- we ended up 18 Calls for speculation.
19 getting ERDC to put some gauges out there, and 19 MR. LAMBERT:
20 then we got from the -- Ed Russo got the ship 20 Never mind.
21 captains to provide him a log of what ships 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
22 and, you know, the size of the ships. So, and 22 Q. Do an independent technical review of
23 this was all for Zeki Demirbilek. Zeki 23 the model and study results; decide if and how
24 Demirbilek, if I pronounce it -- Zeki or 24 the model results need adjustment to local sea
25 K-E-K-I -- so that he could calibrate his model 25 level datum; sensitivity analysis: Land/open
Page 111 Page 113
1 and that we could do some modeling. I don't 1 water, shear stresses, wind stresses, land
2 recall if we ever got to that point or not. 2 loss, initial starting water surface
3 Q. This all had to do with erosion, 3 elevations. And then question mark question
4 right? 4 mark.
5 A. Yes. 5 And them it goes on to say, comments,
6 Q. Erosion of the banks of the MRGO, 6 explain and list. Please review and comment.
7 right? 7 Note the latest stuff. Hurricane Track F does
8 A. Yes. There was proposal to put 8 not yield design grade for anything. This is
9 various types of erosion protection, and I 9 essentially the 1947 track, which is also very
10 wanted to get a handle on what size waves there 10 similar to Hurricane Elena in 1985.
11 would be for the design of the erosion 11 Did I read that correctly?
12 protection. 12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. Take your time. This exhibit 13 Q. And then the next page, it says other
14 which I'm going to mark as Exhibit 10 is 14 items, do we want to vary the speed for
15 March 13th, 2000. Second page, you're 15 sensitivity analysis and so on and so forth.
16 mentioned in the "to" section. Please review 16 And then Number 2, it says, is there a
17 and comment. 17 reasonably cheap, effective and timely fix for
18 (Exhibit H.W. 10 was marked for 18 this?
19 identification and is attached hereto.) 19 Oh, I'm sorry. It says, Hasan 's
20 A. Where are you reading? 20 model works very well in open water. In the
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 21 heavily vegetated areas, Lake Maurepas marsh,
22 Q. I think this is -- is that you? 22 St. Charles Parish -- how do you pronounce
23 A. Oh. Okay. Yeah. It's sent to me. 23 that?
24 Q. Yeah. 24 A. Braithwaite
25 A. Yes. 25 Q. Braithwaite water surfaces from models
29 (Pages 110 to 113)

Page 114 Page 116
1 are too high. Is there a reasonably cheap, 1 are tiny in comparison to the ships' effect on
2 effective and timely fix for this? Do we want 2 the bank line. All of our evidence of ship
3 to pursue it? If not, how do you explain that 3 wake phenomena is anecdotal. For example, at
4 some numbers are good and others are no good? 4 the new Shell Beach Blackie's Marina, complain
5 Will that destroy credibility of a model as a 5 that passing ships cause drawdown at his
6 whole? 6 moorings that damage moored boats. We
7 Um -- now, it seems to me like that's 7 installed a tide recorder with a fast chain --
8 saying that in vegetated areas the model 8 A. Chart drive.
9 doesn't work very well because -- 9 Q. -- chart drive, I'm sorry -- but did
10 A. This was back in 2000. 10 not capture a similar event in several months.
11 Objection. This is a discussion of 11 And then it goes on for more discussions about
12 where it was at that time and how to go about 12 the, um -- ship wakes.
13 fixing it and whether or not it absolutely 13 Did you go out on the MRGO and observe
14 needs to be fixed. It doesn't say that the 14 the ship wakes?
15 model doesn't do that work well now. 15 A. I have not had a chance to see it. I
16 Q. You didn't use any vegetation inputs 16 have tried, but they usually slow down when
17 in your model in -- when did you do yours, 17 they see that we're out there investigating
18 2002? 18 them.
19 A. The same vegetation -- 19 Q. All right. Have you talked to people
20 Q. Oh, for both runs. 20 that have experienced the drawdowns?
21 A. -- was exactly the same. 21 A. Oh, yeah. It's a well known
22 Q. But you didn't change the vegetation 22 phenomenon.
23 for -- 23 Q. Would you describe it for us, please?
24 A. I didn't change anything. 24 A. When you have large ship, large in
25 Q. Got you. 25 proportion to a channel -- so you don't get the
Page 115 Page 117
1 Exhibit number 11. This seems to be a 1 same effect on the Mississippi River because
2 discussion regarding different types of 2 even though the ship is large, the channel is
3 foreshore protection for bank erosion on the 3 very large compared to the ship. But in a
4 MRGO. 4 channel like the MRGO, there's a blockage
5 (Exhibit H.W. 11 was marked for 5 factor; what's the ratio of the cross-sectional
6 identification and is attached hereto.) 6 area of the ship to the cross-sectional area at
7 A. (Nods head affirmatively.) 7 the channel, and when that's large number,
8 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 8 basically, the ship going through the channel,
9 Q. And the next page, it says, I would 9 you can model it the same way as if the ship is
10 like to send Harley Winer or go myself on the 10 standing still and the water is going around
11 next inspection of MRGO with respect to 11 that channel. So then if you look in a flume
12 installing ACMs along the bank. 12 and you had the water going around that
13 That must be the mats. Is that right? 13 channel, it has a smaller cross-sectional area
14 A. ACM is articulated concrete mats. 14 around the ship so the water has to go faster,
15 Q. And then it says, unfortunately, 15 and there's a Bernoulli effect and the surface
16 unless you happen to be there when a container 16 goes down.
17 ship flies by you don't get the perspective of 17 Q. How far? I'm talking in extreme
18 the drawdown or the ship's wake effect. 18 cases.
19 MS. GREIF: 19 A. I don't know. I've heard people --
20 And ship wave effect. 20 MS. GREIF:
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 21 Objection.
22 Q. And ship wave effect. Maybe you can 22 A. -- I've heard anecdotal evidence of,
23 get the sinking unit chief and mat boat foreman 23 you know, small fishing boats getting sucked
24 to ride on one of the ships coming down through 24 out of bays in the adjacent marsh, things like
25 the MRGO. Wakes from crew boats and barge tows 25 that. But I've never witnessed it.
30 (Pages 114 to 117)

Page 118 Page 120
1 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 1 whole E-mail?
2 Q. Okay. All right. Did you have to 2 A. I want this whole E-mail read into the
3 calculate the weight of rocks that are 3 record?
4 necessary to stay there, or did you help with 4 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
5 that, because of that suction back into the 5 Q. Well, you can go to the third
6 channel? 6 paragraph. Well, second paragraph. As I've
7 MS. GREIF: 7 stated before in conversation I am concerned
8 Objection. 8 about -- that paragraph.
9 A. I designed -- I specified the rock 9 A. All right. As I stated before in
10 size for the dikes that were constructed along 10 conversation, I'm concerned about issues of toe
11 the MRGO. 11 protection for the proposed ACM installation
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 12 along the MRGO. Ship waves, and particularly
13 Q. And was that partially to get heavy 13 the squat wave, in the MRGO are much greater
14 enough rocks so they wouldn't be pulled back 14 than in the Mississippi River due to the
15 into the channel? 15 greater blockage factor, a function of the more
16 A. Heavy enough rocks that they'll stay 16 confined channel geometry.
17 in place considering the environmental forcing, 17 Q. Which you just explained to us?
18 yes. 18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Is part of the environmental forcing 19 Q. Keep going, please.
20 that you're looking at -- 20 A. Not only are the ship waves greater in
21 A. The ship waves. 21 the MRGO but the toe depth will be
22 Q. Yeah. So yes, so that the rocks 22 significantly less in the MRGO than in the
23 wouldn't get sucked back into the channel by 23 Mississippi River installations. In the
24 the ship waves. 24 Mississippi River installation, the mats hangs
25 A. Or that the waves wouldn't roll them 25 down to a depth below the influence of waves
Page 119 Page 121
1 over. 1 whereas in the MRGO the toe of the mat will be
2 Q. Moved. Moved in or out. 2 at a shallow depth.
3 A. Moved. Moved. 3 Q. That's good enough. So and my
4 Q. Let me show you this document which 4 question was, do you know if these mats were
5 I'm going to mark as Exhibit 12. 5 ever used?
6 (Exhibit H.W. 12 was marked for 6 A. Yes.
7 identification and is attached hereto.) 7 Q. They were?
8 A. And this is? 8 A. Yes. We did some tests, put some test
9 Q. Okay. It says, survey data, and I 9 installations, and what we did was we dug a
10 think this is the size of a channel, but I'm 10 trench and stuck the mats into the trench and
11 not sure. 11 covered the trench back up so as to bury the
12 A. Oh. I've got two copies of this. 12 toe, so as to pin the toe down.
13 MS. GREIF: 13 Q. Did it work out?
14 Thank you. 14 A. Yes.
15 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 15 MS. GREIF:
16 Q. Page 2, from you. Did you use these 16 Objection.
17 mats on the MRGO? 17 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
18 MS. GREIF: 18 Q. And did you use them on significant
19 Objection. 19 reaches?
20 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 20 A. You would have to check with the,
21 Q. Well, you want to read it into the 21 um -- operations manager. I don't know how
22 record or you want me to? You seem to be doing 22 extensively they used them.
23 a better job of reading than me. 23 Q. Okay. Do you know whether there's any
24 MS. GREIF: 24 scour holes created around Seabrook, the
25 What do you want him to read, the 25 Seabrook bridge, because of the volume of flow
31 (Pages 118 to 121)

Page 122 Page 124
1 in the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal? 1 A. I kind of wonder how that got into my
2 A. Yes. 2 papers. I didn't write that.
3 Q. Okay. Or velocity. Velocity of flow. 3 (Off the record.)
4 A. The scour holes are due to high 4 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
5 velocities. 5 Q. Now don't get mad. Okay?
6 Q. Okay. 6 A. You going to ask me a wave question?
7 A. Due to this constriction at that 7 Q. Yeah. I just got one more wave
8 point. 8 question.
9 (Off the record.) 9 A. Did I guess? Okay.
10 (Exhibit H.W. 13 was marked for 10 Q. I'm clear that you did no calculations
11 identification and is attached hereto.) 11 regarding waves promulgating on the MRGO.
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 12 Correct?
13 Q. All right? 13 A. Correct.
14 A. Yes. I think I explained this to you 14 Q. Okay. And I also am clear that you
15 before. This is a paper I wrote about getting 15 have not been involved in the -- well, I mean
16 the wave data. 16 to an extent, but I mean directly involved in
17 Q. Right. And on Page 4, is that a 17 the calculations of how high hurricane
18 permanent kind of gauge setup? 18 protection systems are supposed to be along,
19 MS. GREIF: 19 for example, the MRGO.
20 Objection. 20 A. Correct.
21 A. Actually, the proposal was to have 21 Q. Okay. Let me just show you this
22 both event deployed gauges and permanently 22 document which I'm going to mark for
23 installed gauges. I was able to get the event 23 identification as Number 14, and I'm just
24 deployed gauges, and the program manager ran 24 wondering if you could tell me what that is and
25 out of money before we could buy the 25 why you're the contact person.
Page 123 Page 125
1 permanently deployed gauges, so that diagram 1 A. This is the review of plans and
2 that you see on Page 4 never happened. 2 specifications for Jefferson Parish-St. Charles
3 Q. Page 6; did that happen, that diagram? 3 return levee. Those are construction plans and
4 A. Yes, that is indeed -- and on Page 5 4 specifications.
5 is a photograph of what the gauge actually 5 Q. Okay.
6 looks like. 6 A. And I was put as a point of contact
7 Q. Okay. 7 because I reviewed them, so.
8 A. And that's the gauge that we put out. 8 Q. Okay. It had to do with the civil
9 Q. All right. 9 engineering function of the stability of the
10 A. Three of them. $21,000. 10 levee, not its height?
11 Q. The next page, 7, shows a scour hole 11 A. And whether or not it was designed to
12 in the Mississippi River channel, not the MRGO, 12 the height that had already been determined.
13 but the Mississippi River channel, around is it 13 Q. Okay. Predetermined height.
14 Berrywood? 14 A. Yeah.
15 MS. GREIF: 15 Q. I understand. Okay, that's fine.
16 Burrwood? 16 A. That's not a wave question.
17 A. This is a -- if you look at the bottom 17 Q. No, it's not. I only asked you the
18 of Page 6, the very bottom of Page 6 we're 18 one. And I was afraid, I'm telling you.
19 talking about another paper. 19 A. Oh. This is an exhibit. Okay.
20 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: 20 Q. I think I'm finished.
21 Q. Okay. 21 MR. LAMBERT:
22 A. Okay? 22 Anybody got any questions? Help
23 Q. So that that's a different subject and 23 yourself.
24 it had to do with better visualization. Okay. 24 EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
25 I understand. All right. Good. 25 Q. Thank you. No further questions.
32 (Pages 122 to 125)

Page 126 Page 128
1 A. Good. 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 2 I, JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR,
3 3 Certified Court Reporter in and for the State
4 4 of Louisiana, do hereby certify that the
5 5 aforementioned witness, after having been first
6 6 duly sworn by me to testify to the truth, did
7 7 testify as hereinabove set forth;
8 8 That said deposition was taken by me
9 9 in computer shorthand and thereafter
10 10 transcribed under my supervision, and is a true
11 11 and correct transcription to the best of my
12 12 ability and understanding.
13 13 I further certify that I am not of
14 14 counsel, nor related to counsel or the parties
15 15 hereto, and am in no way interested in the
16 16 result of said cause.
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23 ____________________________________
24 24 JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR
25 25 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER #75005
Page 127
1 WITNESS' CERTIFICATE
2
3 I, HARLEY STANDORD WINER, Ph.D., do
4 hereby certify that the foregoing testimony was
5 given by me, and that the transcription of said
6 testimony, with corrections and/or changes, if
7 any, is true and correct as given by me on the
8 aforementioned date.
9
10 ______________ _________________________
11 DATE SIGNED HARLEY STANDORD WINER, Ph.D.
12
13 _______ Signed with corrections as noted.
14
15 _______ Signed with no corrections noted.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 DATE TAKEN: April 18th, 2008
33 (Pages 126 to 128)


KTR00083

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KTR00083

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HARLEY WEINER 4/18/2008

IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION

Deposition of HARLEY STANFORD WINER,

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

27 (Pages 102 to 105)

28 (Pages 106 to 109)

29 (Pages 110 to 113)

30 (Pages 114 to 117)

31 (Pages 118 to 121)

32 (Pages 122 to 125)

33 (Pages 126 to 128)

You might also like