NANCY POWELL

4/14/2008 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION PERTAINS TO: MRGO-ROBINSON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-4182 "K" (2) JUDGE DUVAL MAG. WILKINSON

FILED IN: 05-4181, 05-4182, 05-5237, 05-6073, 05-6314, 05-6324, 05-6327, 05-6359, 06-0225, 06-0886, 06-1885, 06-2152, 06-2278, 06-2287, 06-2824, 06-4024, 06-4065, 06-4066, 06-4389, 06-4634, 06-4931, 06-5032, 06-5155, 06-5159, 06-5161, 06-5162, 06-5260, 06-5771, 06-5786, 06-5937, 07-0206, 07-0621, 07-1073, 07-1271, 07-1285

Videotaped Deposition of NANCY JEANNE POWELL, 3412 Massachusetts Avenue, Kenner, Louisiana 70065, taken in the offices of the Corps of Engineers, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, on Monday, the 14th day of April, 2008. JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

4/14/2008
Page 4

APPEARANCES: LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. BRUNO (BY: JOSEPH M. BRUNO, ESQ. FLORIAN BUCHLER, ESQ.) 855 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 PLAINTIFFS LIAISON COUNSEL LAMBERT & NELSON (BY: HUGH P. LAMBERT, ESQ.) 701 Magazine Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS SHER, GARNER, CAHILL, RICHTER, KLEIN & HILBERT (BY: R. SCOTT HOGAN, ESQ.) 909 Poydras Street Suite 2800 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS SUTTON LAW FIRM (BY: CHARLES E. SUTTON, JR., ESQ. Suite 105 2101 North Highway 190 Covington, Louisiana 70433 ATTORNEYS FOR THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT (ALSO PRESENT) DUPLASS, ZWAIN, BOURGEOIS, MORTON, PFISTER & WEINSTOCK (BY: RYAN MALONE, ESQ.) Suite 2900 3838 North Causeway Boulevard Metairie, Louisiana 70002 ATTORNEYS FOR THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE LAKE BORGNE BASIN LEVEE DISTRICT (ALSO PRESENT)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Page 3

STIPULATION It is stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the deposition of the aforementioned witness is hereby being taken under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for all purposes, in accordance with law; That the formalities of reading and signing are specifically not waived; That the formalities of certification and filing are specifically waived; That all objections, save those as to the form of the question and the responsiveness of the answer, are hereby reserved until such time as this deposition, or any part thereof, may be used or sought to be used in evidence. * * * * ROGER D. JOHNS, RDR, CRR, Certified Court Reporter for the State of Louisiana, officiated in administering the oath to the witness.
Page 5

1

APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION TORTS BRANCH (BY: MICHELE GREIF, ESQ. KARA MILLER, ESQ.) Post Office Box 888 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 ATTORNEYS FOR UNITED STATES BURGLASS & TANKERSLEY (BY: KEA SHERMAN, ESQ.) 5213 Airline Drive Metairie, Louisiana 70001 ATTORNEYS FOR JEFFERSON PARISH FRANK LUPO, ESQ. 7400 Leake Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 ATTORNEY FOR UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CHAFFE, MCCALL LLP (BY: ROBERT FISHER, ESQ. JOHN ROBERT, ESQ.) Suite 2300 Energy Center New Orleans, Louisiana 70163 ATTORNEYS FOR LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA (ALSO PRESENT) VIDEOTAPED BY: Gilly Delorimier Depo-Vue, Inc. REPORTED BY: ROGER D. JOHNS, RMR, CRR, RDR, CSR Certified Court Reporter State of Louisiana

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

INDEX PAGE Powell Number 1............................ 13 MVD-007-000002668.......................... 44 2688....................................... 44 Coletti Number 2........................... 48 MVD-007-000002526.......................... 97 2537....................................... 97 Powell 2................................... 98 Powell 3.................................. 124 Powell 4.................................. 128

2 (Pages 2 to 5) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 6

4/14/2008
Page 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VIDEO OPERATOR: This is the videotaped deposition of Nancy Powell. This deposition is being taken today at 7400 Leake Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana on April the 14th, 2008. The time is 9:44 A.M. Would Counsel present please introduce themselves. MS. GREIF: Michele Greif for the United States. MS. MILLER: Kara Miller for the United States. MR. LUPO: Frank Lupo, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. MR. SUTTON: Charles Sutton, Orleans Levee District, also present. MR. FISHER: Robert Fisher, Lafarge North America, also present. MS. SHERMAN: Kea Sherman, Jefferson Parish.
Page 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

been selected for this honor is because your name appears on a witness list which has been filed by the government and your name appears on that witness list as a person that they have suggested to us they may call at the trial. Do you understand that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, they have also indicated the subject matter of your testimony; and they have indicated that the subject matter will be the hydrology of the MRGO. Did you know that? A. No. Q. Okay. Have they discussed with you the testimony that you will be offering at trial? A. No. Q. Well, the reason why I am taking your deposition is because I would like to try to figure out what it is that you're going to say at trial so that I can prepare. Now, I know you gave a deposition in the Tommaseo case and unfortunately we were not able to get a copy of the transcript, so you'll forgive me in advance if we ask some of
Page 9

MR. MALONE: Ryan Malone on behalf of EJLD and LBLD, also present. MR. HOGAN: Scott Hogan on behalf of Plaintiffs. MR. LAMBERT: Hugh Lambert on behalf of the Plaintiffs. MR. BUCHLER: Florian Buchler, Plaintiffs. MR. BRUNO: And Joseph Bruno, Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel. VIDEO OPERATOR: Swear the witness, please. NANCY JEANNE POWELL, 3412 Massachusetts Avenue, Kenner, Louisiana 70065, after being duly sworn, did testify as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Good morning, Ms. Powell. A. Morning. Q. My name is Joseph Bruno, again. And the reason why you're lucky enough to have

the same questions. And I don't know what they asked you so I can't avoid it. All right? A. All right. Q. Now, let's start with, since you are going to testify about hydrology, would you tell us -MS. GREIF: Objection. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. -- what hydrology is? She will -If she doesn't make these objections, she'll get fired. A. Okay. Q. So they makes these objections -A. Fine. Q. -- and the way it work is this. She is protecting the record. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. And if she doesn't make any objection at all, then somebody might suggest that she didn't -A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. -- preserve the objection. So she's doing that to preserve the objection on the

3 (Pages 6 to 9) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 10

4/14/2008
Page 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

record. Now, the objections that must be made on the record are the ones that relate to form, because that would allow me to change the form of the question if that was appropriate. But all other objections are reserved like, whatever they are, -MR. LAMBERT: Relevance, materiality. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Relevance, stuff like that. So that's what that's about. A. All right. Q. So you are required to answer the question unless, of course, your Counsel says "Do not answer this question," in which case then I'll be yelling and screaming and calling the Judge and all of that stuff. So we hope we don't go there. But the bottom line is generally you must answer the question because I am entitled to know what you know. And as I told you, that's what this is all about. So she'll be making all of these objections, it'll be fine, you'll pause and you'll stop and you'll look at her and see what she has to say. Okay?
Page 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Okay. A. -- or manage a project, construct a project. As a hydraulic engineer, I look at the volume of water in context with the type of project that is being designed. Q. Okay. A. I don't study the volume of water for the science sake. I apply that knowledge of hydrology to, you know, how do we design a channel, how do we design what the Corps of Engineers does. Q. Okay. Let's learn then a little bit about your educational background and your experience. Let's see. You have been kind enough to give us, which I now know to be an outdated curriculum vitae, and if you would -I would like to attach this, but if you would prefer to give us a more updated one, I'm happy to attach that one. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. I'll leave the choice to you. Or you could let us attach this one and you could indicate -A. I can indicate. Q. -- where the updates need to be.
Page 13

A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. All right. Let's start all over again. If you would be so kind, can you tell us what is hydrology? A. Hydrology is the study of the volume of water and its sources. Q. Okay. Do you regard yourself as an expert in the field of hydrology? MS. GREIF: Objection. THE WITNESS: I consider myself an expert in hydrologic engineering. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. Which prompts me to ask what is hydrologic engineering? A. It's the application of hydrology in an engineering field. Q. Okay. Can you help me understand that a little bit better? The application of the study of the volume of water -A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. -- to engineering, which is what? A. Well, engineers generally design something --

How about that? A. That would be good. Q. Okay. MR. BRUNO: Do we have a clean copy? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. We'll just mark yours -A. Okay. Q. -- as Powell Number 1. MS. GREIF: I'll give you a sticker. THE WITNESS: Oh. Write "Powell Number 1"? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Yes, if you don't mind. This is an example of our technological advancements in the field of law. We apply the sticker and we write "Powell Number 1". A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. All right. You, it appears, graduated from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University at Blacksburg, Virginia and you graduated with distinction, -A. Uh-huh (affirmatively).

4 (Pages 10 to 13) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 14

4/14/2008
Page 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. -- obtaining a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering in June of 1978. Is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And did you take any specific courses that related to hydrology or hydrologic engineering at that time? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Was that a specialty within your degree that you pursued or was it just one of the many courses that you took? A. One of the many courses I took. Q. Okay. Now, it says that "with completion of the Cooperative Education Program". Would you tell us a little bit about -- what is that? A. The Cooperative Education Program is a program where you work in an organization for part of the time and then you go to school for part of the time. Q. Okay. Now, you say that the emphasis on hydraulics, hydrology and environmental engineering. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Now, that's in connection with your
Page 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Headquarters office in Washington. Q. Okay. Then, let's see, you graduated Tulane with a Master's -A. Yes. Q. -- in 1986 with a terrific GPA, 3.9. And once again with an emphasis on hydraulics, hydrology, and geotechnical engineering. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Right? Okay. Now, so let's see. When did you start working, your first job? A. After I graduated? Q. Well, that's why I asked the question. You apparently were working before. A. I worked while I went to school and then I worked after I graduated, yes. Q. Did you work in hydrology at that time? A. I worked while I was going to school for Fairfax County Department of Public Works in their Drainage Department. Q. Okay. And for how long did you work for them? A. Through the co-op program, it would
Page 17

study at Virginia? A. At Virginia Tech. Q. All right. So you just chose as an a focus courses in those subjects; right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And so early on you chose to be knowledgeable about hydraulics and hydrology; right? A. Yes. Q. That's something that you have been interested in for a long time? A. Yes, uh-huh. Q. Okay. How did you become interested in the field? A. My father was a hydraulic engineer. Q. Ah, okay. And who did he work for? A. He worked for the Corps of Engineers. Q. For how long? A. 50 plus years. Q. Was he associated with this office? A. No. Q. Where was he employed; which office? A. He worked part -- part of his career in Portland and part of his career at the

have been a four-year program. Q. Okay. A. Here again, part time. Q. And then after that? A. After I graduated? Q. After you graduated, which was '78 -- See, I see -- Maybe I am reading it the wrong way. You first worked for the Corps I guess was in '82? A. No, that's where this is incomplete. Q. Okay. A. I worked for Greenhorn and Omara after I graduated in 1978 and worked for them for a little less than a year. Then -Q. What is -- Tell us real quick, Greenhorn, what is that? A. Greenhorn and Omara is an engineering consulting firm. Q. And what did you do for them? A. I reviewed flood insurance studies. Q. Okay. And the purpose of that was what, the review? A. They were a contractor for FEMA and other organizations would prepare the flood insurance study and we would do the technical

5 (Pages 14 to 17) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 18

4/14/2008
Page 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

review. Q. What is a flood insurance study? A. The flood insurance study is the analysis that is used to develop the 100 year flood elevation and from which FEMA maps the overflow and from which the government will set Federal flood insurance. Q. All right. Those 100 year floods, I have always been curious about that, because it doesn't really take into consideration flooding from overtopping of levees and the like, does it? A. It can. Q. I see. In New Orleans it does not? A. I have no personal knowledge. Q. Fine. Fair enough. Sometimes they take into consideration flooding from overtopping and sometimes they don't on these flood maps? A. It depends on the area that you're in and whether you have overtopping or not. It's -- It's a case by case basis. Q. I see. When you say "whether you have overtopping or not", can you -- what does that mean? Does that mean within a -- with a
Page 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. That's okay. That's fine. I just wanted just the most general description. I do appreciate that. All right. One year. There, the next job? A. Started work for the Corps of Engineers in April of 1979. Q. Okay. Right. This is the part that's not on here. A. Right. Q. Let's run through that. What did you do first, where? A. At the New Orleans District. Q. So you have been at the New Orleans District for your whole career? A. Since 1979. Q. Okay. Great. Where is our -- our chart, organizational chart. I know it's not the chart that was in place. I'll tell you that now. It's the chart we've got. And it's a chart which shows Colonel Richard Wagenaar as the Commander. So I only say that to you to give you some sense of time. All right? A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Did you go directly into the
Page 21

certain frequency or within a certain period of time or what? A. I am not a subject matter expert for FEMA. I just know what I have read. Q. Okay. What you have read is fine. A. The -- FEMA will map your flood zone depending if there's a presence or an absence of a levee. You know, some parts of the country don't have levees, some parts do. For example, if you're on the Mississippi River and you have a levee, you're up in Tennessee, you know, on the river, there will be a calculation of the 100 year flood and there will be an assessment as to whether that elevation exceeds the levee height or if the 500 year exceeds the levee height. Q. I see. A. And FEMA will map the interior differently depending on, you know, whether that water level does exceed or not. Q. I see. A. They do have some very defined processes and rules which I'm now struggling to tell you because it's beyond, you know, what I do now.

Engineering Division? A. Yes. Q. All right. And did you go directly into the Hydraulics Branch? A. The Hydraulics and Hydrologic Branch, yes. Q. So you have been in the Hydraulics Branch for your whole tenure at the Corps? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What was your entry level position? A. I was a GS-7 engineer. Q. All right. Are you professionally licensed? A. Yes. Q. And when did you obtain your license? A. In 2000. Q. 2000. A. Okay. That's one of the things that needs to be noted on here. It said I took the exam in 2000. I passed in 2000 and have been licensed since 2000. Q. All right. If you want to make notes to yourself about changes. We're -- Not

6 (Pages 18 to 21) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 22

4/14/2008
Page 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

on that one. Let me give you a piece of paper. Because I know -MR. LAMBERT: Let her correct that one. MR. BRUNO: Oh, yes. Yes. THE WITNESS: I was just going to scratch out the word "exam". EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. That's a great idea. A. Can I -Q. No, no. No, no. Every now and then my co-Counsel has a reasonably good idea. A. It's going to read "Registered Professional Engineer, Civil Engineer, New Orleans, Louisiana, October, 2000". MR. BRUNO: Kudos. THE WITNESS: I'll just scratch that out. I'll even initial it if you want. MR. LAMBERT: It only happens like once a year, so it's no big deal.
Page 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. All right. If you could just bring us up to 19- -- I suppose, let's see, bring us up to '82? And I think that we will just rely on your resume for the rest. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. So let's get that done. So '78 to '82, were you in the same position? A. Yes. Q. Okay. You supervised technicians responsible for stages and discharge publication? A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Streamlined processes, introduced new technology, and increased technician responsibilities. Right? A. That was beginning in 1982. Q. Oh, okay. Well, let's -- Then just generally describe -A. Okay. Q. -- then -A. From -Q. -- from '78 to '82, since that's missing. A. '78 and '79 was with Greenhorn and Omara. 1979, started work for the Corps of
Page 25

MR. BRUNO: No, it should require a notation on this record. That's what it -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I'm sorry, I wasn't thinking. And any other changes that you want to note on there is fine, too. I was thinking to myself you might want to do this, to change your resume when you're done. That's why I got sideways. But anyway, this is good. All right. So a licensed -MR. LAMBERT: Should we talk some more about that? MR. BRUNO: We could. (Whereupon a discussion was held off the record.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. So licensed in 2000. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. All right. Your entry level job title, what was that? A. I was either hydraulic engineer or civil engineer. I am not quite sure.

Engineers here in New Orleans; was a GS-7 hydraulic/civil engineer; got a promotion to GS-9 one year later; and a promotion to a GS-11 one year later; and stayed in the organization from 1979 to 1982 when I got this developmental assignment. Q. In '82? A. In '82. Q. All right. As I'm sure you know, this litigation regards allegations made by the Plaintiffs about the MRGO. You know that? Do you know that? No? A. No. Q. All right. So you don't know what the allegations that are made by the Plaintiffs in the case? A. I may have read them. I am not familiar with them. Q. Okay. Well, that's fine. And you don't need to have done that. I don't mean to suggest by the question. What I want to do is alert you to three broad areas that we'll be talking about. Okay? A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. The first is the reconnaissance

7 (Pages 22 to 25) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 26

4/14/2008
Page 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

feasibility authorization and the work done by the Corps following that with regard to the MRGO. Okay? Which would include the navigation lock project on the Industrial Canal. That's one general area. The second general area is the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project. Okay? From reconnaissance feasibility authorization and the like. Okay? And I guess the third is the reconnaissance of the erosion issues related to the MRGO. Because It's my understanding that didn't ever get to the feasibility stage. Okay? So what I am interested in knowing is whether or not between '79 and '82 you had any association with either the MRGO or the navigation lock project or the hurricane protection project. A. I had no association. Q. Great. I don't have to ask you any questions then. So in '82 you became the Chief of the Gauges and Observation Section. Does that have anything to do with the MRGO? A. Not directly. Q. Okay.
Page 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Yes. Q. Okay. What data -- What data points would those be? A. There's a gauge at Shell Beach in proximity of the MRGO. There's also a gauge at the IHNC lock. One on the Mississippi River and the one on the Industrial Canal channel side. Q. Okay. A. There are other gauges present today, but I don't know if they were there back in 1982. MR. LAMBERT: Just so my hearing is okay, you said one at Shell Beach and there's two in the IHNC and -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. This is a good time to pull out my maps. A. Okay. There's one on the river side of the Mississippi River. There's a gauge on that side. MR. LAMBERT: Each end of the lock? THE WITNESS:
Page 29

A. There are some gauges at some of the locations in the vicinity of the MRGO and the IHNC so we would have handled that data. Q. Okay. What is the gauging that you did as the Chief? How would you describe it? A. I would not have done any direct gauging. I would have supervised the technicians in the office that would have processed the data and entered it into the computer. Q. Okay. Would you tell us what data it is that they're gathering and then entering into the computer? A. The New Orleans District is responsible for many gauges that measure water level and also discharge measurements throughout the District boundaries. Q. Okay. A. And that would be the type of data that would have been processed and entered into the computer. Q. Good. Can you tell me what locations would be -- I think the word that you chose to use was associated with the MRGO?

And there's a gauge on the Industrial Canal side. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I'm going to go through that again. Let me show you this map if you don't mind. Because we may be using this, it's probably a good time to orient us. I'm going to hold it because it tends to fall on your head. First of all, this is, as you can see, a satellite picture. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Does this area look familiar to you at all? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Can you see the MRGO portrayed in this photograph? A. Yes. Q. All right. There was a suggestion in one of the previous depositions -- and let me share with you, obviously the legend tells us what the marks are. You can see what's been added to the satellite photograph. Well, mile markers, survey stations, top of the channel design width, and the 2005 shoreline. And those were added by this company,

8 (Pages 26 to 29) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 30

4/14/2008
Page 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Environmental Science Services, Inc. Are you familiar with these guys? A. No. Q. Okay. Have you heard of a fellow by the name of Shay Penland? A. Yes. Q. Are you familiar with him? A. Yeah. Q. His work? A. I have met him. Q. You have met him. Is he regarded as somebody who has any specialized expertise -MS. GREIF: Objection. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. -- in this area -MS. GREIF: Objection. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. -- of mapping? MS. GREIF: You can answer. THE WITNESS: I have no direct knowledge that he has expertise in mapping.
Page 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Sorry. I don't mean to make you stretch. A. Okay. This looks like the Shell Beach area (indicating). Q. All right. It says Yscloskey? A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Do you see that? I'm sorry. MR. LAMBERT: You need to talk a little louder, please EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Can you see this? Right there (indicating). A. You have better eyes than I do. Q. Well, there's a channel and some slips. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Okay. Q. And there's another channel and some slips right there. All right. This is indicated as mile marker 44. Does that seem right? A. I have no idea. Q. That's fine. Anyway, so where is Shell Beach on the map? And if we can try to get this on the video. I'm going to ask you to step back just a little bit so the
Page 33

EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. That's fine. MR. LAMBERT: Chocolate cake. MR. BRUNO: Just let that slide. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Anyway, it's been suggested that maybe the mile markers as reflected on this satellite map may or may not be correct. Do you have any -- As you look at it, I know you don't have any of your maps or books or charts or anything, but if we go -- could you show us where Shell Beach is? A. It's off the map. Q. Okay. A. (Indicating). Q. We have two maps. A. Okay. Q. And again, this is the second of two maps and it's another satellite picture. A. I can't see it. Maybe it wasn't off the map. A hard time finding the community of Shell Beach. Q. Let me bring it down to you.

videographer can get it and you can point since this is a movie. A. Oh. Q. Just point with your pen if you don't mind. A. Okay. It's going to be in this area (indicating). Q. Okay. Now, the gauge itself, does it gauge water in the MRGO or Lake Borgne? A. It's been too long. Q. Okay. A. It gauges water I believe in one of the channels off of the MRGO. Q. All right. Now, I think you -- We can put this down. You indicated other gauges are located at or around the Industrial Canal. One at the river? A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Yes. Q. And then one at the lock? A. On the other side of the lock. Q. Which would be like right about there (indicating)? A. You would have one on this side of the lock, on the river side, and one on the Industrial Canal side of the lock

9 (Pages 30 to 33) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 34

4/14/2008
Page 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

(indicating). Q. Okay. And there's another one I think you said? A. There are gauges that are out there today. I am not aware if they were -Q. Back then. Okay. A. -- back then. Q. All right. Then July to December, '91, just about six months, let's see, Water Control Division, Engineering Directorate of LMVD. Well, that would be at Vicksburg; right? A. Yes. Q. So you left the District for a little while? A. It was a developmental assignment up in Vicksburg, yes. Q. Training? A. A developmental assignment. Q. That's not training? A. No. Q. Okay. Well, then what is a developmental assignment? A. It's an assignment where you go and work in an organization to learn about that
Page 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the hurricane protection structures? A. I did not work on either of those projects while I was at the Division office. Q. Good. Let's go to '92-'93. You're the Basin Captain of the Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act. You reported directly to the District Commander here in New Orleans. Right? A. Correct. Yes. Q. Tell us what you did as the Basin Captain. A. My responsibility was to bring a team together to formulate plans to restore, protect, and increase the acres of coastal wetlands in the Atchafalaya coastal area. Q. Okay. And that's an area where generally in Louisiana? A. That is I would call south central Louisiana, south of Morgan City. Q. All right. And I can guess, but just for the record, it had nothing to do with the MRGO or the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Projects, right? A. That is correct. Nothing to do with it.
Page 37

organization and what that organization does. Q. Okay. So what do they do? MS. GREIF: Objection, vague. THE WITNESS: The Water Control Division up at our Division office is responsible for the water control program of all the Districts within the Division, primarily the Mississippi River. They support the Mississippi River Commission in providing information to the Commission. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. Did that have anything to do with the MRGO -A. No. Q. -- or the Industrial Canal? A. No. Q. By the way, I am going to say Industrial Canal from time to time. You know I mean the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, to be precise. Okay? A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Would that have anything to do with

Q. Okay. Let's go then to '93 to 2003. This is a ten year period. So you are the field -- or were a field review group member for the Corps R and D -- Research and development? Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. -- for flood control channels and structures. Okay. Tell us what -- I guess what the field review group did in that period of time. A. Here again, this is a special assignment. We met once a year to review the Corps' research and development program and make suggestions and recommendations as to what new research was needed. Q. To do -- To accomplish what end? A. To accomplish better designs of flood control channels and structures. Q. When you say better, would that include more efficient? A. I would use the term "more effective". Q. More effective. All right. So that you guys were not involved in trying to find cheaper materials or methods; right?

10 (Pages 34 to 37) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 38

4/14/2008
Page 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. No. We weren't. Not from a hydraulic perspective. Q. Okay. Just for perspective purposes, are you familiar with the E-99 sheet pile test in the Atchafalaya Basin? A. I have heard about it, yes. Q. All right. Is that something that would have been included in this kind of review? A. No. Q. And just to help me understand, why is that? Why would that be either in or out of this kind of review? A. My understanding of the E-99 sheet pile is the geotechnical engineering test or analysis, and that's outside the scope of hydraulics and hydrologic engineering. Q. Okay. A. A different field. Q. Even though both may have been related to flood control, one was really a soils issue, and you were focused on the water issues? A. That's correct. Q. Good. Okay. And I gather from now
Page 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Because you can't see. MR. LAMBERT: Yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. So from '92 to '06, you're the Chief of the Hydrologic Engineering Section. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. And that's, I guess, if you will, a piece of the Hydrologic -- Hydraulics and Hydrologic Branch? A. Correct. Q. How many -- Let me see if there's -Do we have a page 17 on this on this trusty chart? All right. I've got my trusty chart. So it looks to me like -- Let's see here -- within the Engineering Division we have Hydraulics -- sorry, wrong page. Got to be to page 10. And then on page 10, under the Hydraulics Branch, I see a Hydraulic Engineering Section -- Let me show you. I'm sorry. Where you're the Chief. A. (Indicating). Yes. Q. And then there is a Coastal
Page 41

reading the couple of paragraphs above it, this was a duty that you had on top of your day-to-day obligations as part of your job? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Let's go then to -- Let's see if I can figure this out. So -MR. LAMBERT: That last job was '93 to when? MR. BRUNO: That was a '93 to 2003. MR. LAMBERT: Okay. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. And I guess where I am getting a little confused here is that now we go to 1996. So -- to 2003. So that's within that ten year period. So what, I guess, was your day job from '93 to '96? A. On the first page. Q. Oh, this page. Oh, okay. I see. Okay. MR. LAMBERT: I don't have a sheet you people are reading so maybe I don't see it. MR. BRUNO:

Engineering Section where Mr. at least Weiner at the time of this thing was the Chief? A. Yes. Q. And there is a Hydra Modeling Section, and at the time of this chart a Mizland, Misland, Misland? A. Mizland. Q. Mizland was the Chief? A. Yes. Q. All right. If you would, what is the Hydra Modeling Section supposed to do? What do those guys do? A. Their mission was to work in water quality analysis, hydrodynamic modeling associated with water quality, primarily salinity. MR. LAMBERT: Primarily what? THE WITNESS: Salinity. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Salinity. A. Sorry. They did most of our multi-dimensional modeling. Q. What kinds -- What software do these

11 (Pages 38 to 41) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 42

4/14/2008
Page 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

guys use for their multi-dimensional modeling? A. Primarily TABS. Q. And what does that model do? A. It's a hydrodynamic model. It has different components, but there's a hydrodynamic component that does study multi-dimensional flow. You can do two-dimensional or three-dimensional. And there's another component that will model constituents such as salinity and sediment. Q. Okay. Is wind a variable in those models? A. In TABS, I don't think so. If you were going to do wind, you would do something else. Q. Right. Okay. Do they do anything else? We talked about measure the salinity, they do the multi-dimensional modeling, in connection with water quality. Anything else? Generally. I mean, I am not trying to, you know, test you here. MR. LAMBERT: Joe, -- Go ahead. Excuse me. THE WITNESS: I didn't work there in that
Page 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

No, the time of the chart is the time that Wagenaar was the Commander. That's an A. Mizler. MS. GREIF: Do you have a date on that chart? MR. BRUNO: I don't. But you guys -- You know, for the record, it is MVD-007-000002668 is the first number. And the last number in seriatim is 2688. And I am sorry there's no date. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Would you happen to know when Commander Wagenaar -- Am I saying that right? MR. LAMBERT: Yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Wagenaar? Wagenaar? A. That's right. Q. Wagenaar? Okay? When was he the Commander? Roughly. A. 2005 to 2007. Late 2007. Q. All right. So we can -- so this chart is probably reasonably accurate for
Page 45

office. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. That's fine. A. So -Q. So give me your best effort here. MS. GREIF: Objection. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. You don't really know all that it entails? A. That's the primary functions. They may have done other studies as they needed work. Q. Right. MR. LAMBERT: Who was in charge of that? MR. BRUNO: Well, it depends on the time. MR. LAMBERT: Oh, okay. MR. BRUNO: The time of the chart it was -MR. LAMBERT: '92 to '06. MR. BRUNO:

2005? A. Yes. MS. GREIF: Objection. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Now, having established that -A. For the hydraulics part. Q. Sure. Do you -- Well, you were -you're Chief for fifteen years before the storm. What interaction, if any, as the Chief did you have with the Hydra Modeling Section? A. On occasion people that I supervised would work with people in that organization on projects. Q. All right. Did you, as the Chief, have to account for the time expended by the folks in your section? A. Yes. Q. How does that work? Does each person keep track of the hours that they spend working on things? A. Yes. Q. And then how is it categorized? In other words, how do you know whether to charge

12 (Pages 42 to 45) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 46

4/14/2008
Page 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

your time to this project or that project? A. We have a labor number assigned, so when you're given a project, you're given a labor number. So when you work on that project, you use that labor number for the hours that you worked on it. Q. Okay. Does the labor number refer to the project that your section is undertaking or does the labor number refer to the project for which the engineering assistance is being provided? A. I'm not clear on the distinction in your question. Q. Well, I can see, you know -- one thing, lawyers are sometimes required to do is keep a record of their time. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. And we may, for example, take the time that we spend in this deposition and bill it to the case. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. But then there may be a project within the case like taking this deposition or doing a research brief or the like. So I make the distinction in terms of the question as
Page 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

being performed, but that number can be tied back to a particular project? A. Yes. Q. Am I saying that correctly? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Thank you. MS. GREIF: Can I just ask, was that chart used as an exhibit in a different deposition? MR. BRUNO: Yes. It's been used in all the depositions. MS. GREIF: Okay. MR. BRUNO: In fact, it's marked as Coletti Number 2 for your reference. MR. LAMBERT: Are there different -- See if there's different letters or numbers so you could, in this labor number where you can have -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. Can you maybe describe, just
Page 49

between the MRGO project, for example, or the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project as another example. So is the project, the labor number, is that per project -- I'm sorry, per work effort, if you will, or is it a project number that refers back to the MRGO project or Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project or some other project? A. The labor numbers are set up where, if I have the task of performing the water quality, for example, for the Houma Navigation Canal project, there would be a labor number set up to perform that task under that project. Q. Okay. A. There would be a different labor number set up for the geotechnical engineer who might be doing -Q. I got you. A. -- the stability analysis of the channel. Q. Okay. I see. A. But it all goes back to one project. Q. Of course. All right. So the labor number refers generally to the type of work

for example, as somebody dear to my heart would say, the number, in the number itself sometimes there will be a component of the number that you could look at and say -- I mean, for example, you all use all of these acronyms; y'all love these acronyms with the LPV and MPV; you have a lot of acronyms here, -A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. -- right? You can look at it here and know whether it was a District reference or a Division reference by just simply looking at the acronym. I am wondering if this labor number is constructed in such a way that I could just look at the number and I could determine whether it was, for example, the MRGO project or, you know, some other project. Is that how the number -- Is the number constructed in that way? A. No. Q. Okay. MR. LAMBERT: That would make it too easy. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I am not making any value

13 (Pages 46 to 49) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 50

4/14/2008
Page 52

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

judgments. I'm sorry. I'm not going to do it. MR. LAMBERT: How is it constructed? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Do you know how the numbers are issued? A. It's my understanding that the accounting system randomly generates them. Q. Okay. Is there, given that you're required to keep your time, is there a limit on the amount of time that a person can spend working on a particular project? A. There can be. Q. Okay. How is that communicated to the person who's doing the work? A. The person doing the work normally will prepare a budget, a cost estimate to perform the work; and that cost estimate is agreed upon. Then we execute for that amount of money. Q. Okay. And at what level -- I am not asking that correctly. Who participates in the discussion of the budget? Is it the level of the Chief of the Section or is it lower
Page 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

hourly rates for leave is appropriate. Q. Okay. And what happens if there's not enough time available in the budget? A. If -Q. In other words, -- I don't mean before, obviously. That's the whole purpose of having this discussion. You have approved a budget and the work is being accomplished and at some point someone says "I am not finished and I am out of time." Is there a procedure to address that? A. We would go to the Project Manager and lay out why the time and the budget didn't match for whatever reason and secure additional funds to finish the work. Q. Okay. But you have to have authority or some authorization to do the extra work; right? A. Yes. Q. And that authorization doesn't come from the Engineering Division; it comes from the Project Manager, right or, perhaps the -I forgot the name. It comes from either the Operations Division or the Planning Division really. Right?
Page 53

than that or higher than that? A. It can be higher and lower and at that level, yes. Q. Okay. I guess it depends on the nature of the work? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What kinds of things or projects would require the Chief of the Section to participate with regard to budgeting? A. The Chief of the Section normally reviews -MS. GREIF: Objection. THE WITNESS: -- the budget -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. A. -- to make sure it looks reasonable for the work that we're being requested to do; that we've considered all factors that might affect how much time is going to be spent. Q. Okay. A. That the hourly rates are the appropriate rates to use, the burdens on those

A. Those two organizations have the managers in them, yes. Q. Right. And if they don't approve, the work just stops? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Let's talk about the Coastal Engineering Section. Do you know what they do? A. I am familiar with what the Coastal Engineering Section did, yes. Q. Okay. What did they do? A. They worked on coastal protection projects, hurricane protection projects, coastal restoration, shoreline protection or gauges, office was organized into that section. They did other work that came up if they weren't busy, such as flood insurance studies. But their primary focus was coastal protection and coastal navigation projects. Q. Okay. Finally, then, you -- I'm sorry. Did you have any, during your tenure interaction with the Coastal Engineering Section? A. On occasion, yes. Q. And what would those occasions be?

14 (Pages 50 to 53) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 54

4/14/2008
Page 56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. In the course of working on our projects we would use gauge data, again, that was stored and processed by the organization that was now -- that's now in Coastal that processes gauge data and we may again also share a common project where we would work on one aspect and that office would work on another. Q. Okay. And then finally now, let's talk about the Hydrologic Engineering Section. What kind of work do you guys do? A. We primarily worked on projects in the Atchafalaya Basin, flood control, navigation, and environmental restoration. Q. I'm sorry, when you said flood control, navigation, and then environmental restoration, did you mean to connect that with the Atchafalaya Basin? A. Yes. Q. You weren't -- I got you. A. Yes. Q. All right. So then I have to ask you, during -- Well, let's see how to do this. If there's a way to do this more efficiently. As the Chief of the Section, did
Page 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

questions or somebody came to me and asked me a question on the MRGO, I went to Harley Weiner. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. How about the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project? A. I would have gone to Janice Hote. Q. Can you spell her name, please? A. H O T E. Q. Okay. And is she is in the Coastal Engineering Section? I'm sorry, was she in the Coastal Engineering Section? A. She was. Q. Okay. Good. And what was her title? A. She was a hydraulic engineer. Q. All right. Now, let's see. While you're the Chief, since we're on that subject, you had four hydraulic engineers, one hydraulic engineer PT -MS. GREIF: Objection, foundation. MR. BRUNO: I'm reading the chart. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
Page 57

you have any or did you do any work in connection with the MRGO? A. No. Q. So that's from '92 -- That's the whole fifteen years from 1992. Okay. How about the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Plan? A. You're talking about during '92 to 2006? Q. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. A. No, I did not work on that. Q. Would that have been within the ambit of the Coastal Engineering Section? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And the MRGO would also fall within their section, too? A. Yes. Q. Was there a person or persons who would be, you know, the MRGO person during that period in the Coastal Engineering Section? MS. GREIF: Objection, vague. THE WITNESS: I generally, if I had any

Q. -- and three hydraulic engineers. And I guess the distinction I'm seeing here, is one's GS-12s and GS-11s. Is there some difference between the work that these folks did? A. Yes. Q. What would be the distinction? A. The complexity of the work and the -- If it was modeling, you know, the more complex tools were normally used by the GS-12 engineers. Q. Okay. Help me understand. What does the GS stand for? A. General Schedule. Q. Okay. And then the numbers? How does that relate? A. Just where you are in the General Schedule. MR. LAMBERT: It's a pay scale. THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. GREIF: It's a government pay scale. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:

15 (Pages 54 to 57) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 58

4/14/2008
Page 60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. It's a pay scale? All right. So the larger the number, the more what? MR. LAMBERT: Money. MR. BRUNO: I know that, silly. MS. GREIF: Not necessarily. THE WITNESS: That is true. Not necessarily. MS. GREIF: Because within the -- there are different levels. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Different levels? MS. GREIF: With each of them, yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I hate to use the word "competence", but expertise? Is that a better word? Does the number relate to competence? A. Not necessarily. It relates to the function of that position and the complexity of the work that that position is required to perform.
Page 59

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Okay. Did your section do any ADCIRC modeling? A. No. Q. Where would I go to find the section or the group who might have done ADCIRC modeling? A. During the '92 to 2006 time frame? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. The Coastal Engineering Section. Q. Okay. That makes sense. What does the HEC-RAS model do? A. It's a one-dimensional hydraulic model that does backwater calculations, step backwater. Q. Okay. A. Normally used for rivers. Q. HEC-6? What does that model do? A. Sediment transport model, a one-dimensional sediment transport model. Here again, normally used for rivers. Q. Okay. HAS? A. HMS. Q. HMS. I'm sorry. I can't read my own handwriting. A. That is a hydrologic model that does
Page 61

Q. Now, you referenced modeling just a moment ago. What models would you in your section, and your section have employed? A. In my -MS. GREIF: Objection, vague. THE WITNESS: In my office, we would use models such as HEC-RAS. MR. LAMBERT: Say it again? HEC? THE WITNESS: HEC-RAS. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. A. HEC-6. HEC- and the number 6. HMS. TABS. And we had contractors work in -ERDEC working on models such as CH-3D-SED, which is a multi-dimensional sediment transport model. MR. LAMBERT: I didn't get past the dash. THE WITNESS: S E D, SED. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:

the rainfall runoff calculations as input into the other two models. Q. All right. TABS? I think we have already talked about that one. A. Yeah. Q. And the CH-3D? A. CH-3D-SED. Q. Got it. A. That is a multi-dimensional sediment transport model. Q. All right. And that then -- That handles that. Let's talk about, let's see, '85 now to '92. Let's go -- No, never mind. I got myself screwed up. I was trying to go oldest to more recent and then I got caught up in your special assignments, which is where I got confused. A. Yeah. Q. Let's go back to now, let's see now, '83 to '85. You were the Chief of the MR&T unit -A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. -- which is within the Hydraulic Engineer Section. Right? A. The Hydraulic Design Section.

16 (Pages 58 to 61) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 62

4/14/2008
Page 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Okay. What is the MR&T? A. That's Mississippi River and tributaries. And we were the unit responsible for modeling of the Mississippi River and the Atchafalaya River. Q. All right. That would not have included the MRGO? A. That's correct. Q. And -A. It would not. Q. And would not have included hurricane protection or flood control projects? A. That is correct, it would not. Q. Okay. Then we can go to '85 to '92. You're the Chief of the Hydrology unit, still in the Hydraulic Engineering Section; right? A. That's in the Hydrologic Engineering Section. Q. Okay. And let's see. What did you do while you were there? A. Again, continued to work on Atchafalaya projects, subfeatures of the Atchafalaya Basin floodway, and may have
Page 63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE WITNESS: What I know about the hydrology of MRGO is based on what I have read in the design documents since Katrina. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. I take it then that you have read the design documents. A. I have read portions of them, yes. Q. Okay. First, may I ask why did you read those documents? A. I was part of the IPET team, and part of my role was to review those -- the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity and the West Bank and Vicinity and New Orleans to Venice Hurricane Protection Project documents and summarize pertinent hydraulic and hydrologic information from those documents. Q. All right. I got the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project, but I didn't hear you say MRGO. Was that also something you were asked to review? A. As part of IPET we were reviewing documents pertaining to Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project.
Page 65

started initiating some of the work for Morganza to the Gulf Hurricane Protection Project from the interior drainage perspective. Q. All right. Well, that kind of covers your tenure up until Katrina; right? A. Yes. Q. All right. So up until Katrina you really had nothing to do with the MRGO? A. That is correct. Q. And up until Katrina you had really nothing to do with the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project? A. That is correct. Q. All right. (Whereupon a discussion was held off the record.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Let's see now. Having established that, I am told that you are going to talk to us about the hydrology of the MRGO. So what do you know about the hydrology of the MRGO? MS. GREIF: Objection, vague.

Q. Right. Did that get into MRGO? A. That got me into the levee adjacent to the MRGO. So I knew where the MRGO was. Q. Right. A. And we were -- the IPET team was addressing issues related to surge and the landscape and how the landscape would have affected surge. Q. Okay. I'm with you. But does that mean then that you in fact reviewed design documents relative to the MRGO? A. I reviewed portions of one or two of the old documents. I was asked questions like what was the channel size of the MRGO during Hurricane Betsy or if the MRGO actually existed during Hurricane Betsy. So I'd go and dig through the documents and give information to the IPET team. Q. Okay. By the way, any time you want a break, just wave your hand. The deponent in my book is always the boss of breaks. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Okay. In the meantime, when you say channel size, what -- in your world, what dimensions would define channel size?

17 (Pages 62 to 65) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 66

4/14/2008
Page 68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. In my world the channel size is from bank to bank in the whole cross-sectional area. Q. All right. Bank to bank. Now, the reason I ask the question is because we know that, you know, a channel has a bottom, it's got sides, and it has a surface. Right? A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. And we also know from having reviewed some of the MRGO documents that the original authorization called for a specific bottom channel width. Right? A. Called for a navigation channel width. Yes. Q. Well, a channel width, and it was reflected as a width on the bottom is what I mean. A. But that would be the navigation channel. For example, on the Mississippi River, the navigation channel is a much smaller component of the larger hydraulic channel. Q. I understand that. But the MRGO was dug specifically to be a navigation channel, right? It wasn't there before it got dug.
Page 67

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

then what I am referring to then when I say Reach 2? A. Okay. Q. Okay. Good. (Whereupon a discussion was held off the record.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. For the purposes of my questions, so that you and I are on the same page, let's refer to Reach 2 as the channel between the Intracoastal Waterway, okay? A. (Indicating). Q. There, and the point at which the MRGO channel ends at the Gulf. I am not referring to that part of the channel which is in the Gulf. Okay? A. Okay. Q. You with me? All right. And I'll tell you, the reason for the distinction is we're going to be talking about the width between the banks, and obviously in the Gulf there are no banks. A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And that's why I am making that distinction. I'm told that some folks
Page 69

MS. GREIF: Objection. Vague. THE WITNESS: Parts -- My understanding, parts of the GIWW channel was there before the MRGO channel. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. That's right. Well, let me reference specifically the Reach 2. Do you know what I mean by Reach 2? A. No. Q. All right. For the purposes of these questions, let me show to you, someone, I don't know who, divided this into two parts, Reach 1 and Reach 2. I just kind of go along with the program. You know? But Reach 1 has been referred to as the section from the IHNC to the turn (indicating). A. Okay. Q. And then Reach 2 is the part from the turn all the way out to the Gulf (indicating). A. Okay. Q. All right? So let me, having established that -- Is that fair? You'll know

may refer to that is as a different reach, maybe Reach 3, but we're not going to be asking questions about that I don't believe, so let's focus on Reach 2 as I have defined it. Okay? A. Okay. Q. Now, having established that, we do know that -- Here we have the document -MS. GREIF: What is the document? MR. BRUNO: It's the wrong one. Just bear with me. I am going to get to the right document. Give me the Reach 2 document, 1-B, please. Thank you. I don't mean to be so brusk. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. This is the document. I am going to show you -MR. BRUNO: I'm sorry, it doesn't have a Bates number. MS. GREIF: Okay.

18 (Pages 66 to 69) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 70

4/14/2008
Page 72

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. But it is Design Memorandum number 1-B, channels, mile 39 point -- I guess that's a 01 dash mile 63.77. Okay? MS. GREIF: Is this going to be an exhibit? MR. BRUNO: No. I am not -- Unless you want me to attach it. I'm happy -- I hate -- I don't like to burden the record with a bunch of copies. MR. LAMBERT: It's in a bunch of depositions. MR. BRUNO: It's in a ton of depositions. Yes. MS. GREIF: Okay. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. And here's -- And you can use it as a reference point. Let's first talk about the mile, the mile markers. It says mile marker 39.01, which starts on this one. Which is about right here (indicating) on the map. MR. LAMBERT:
Page 71

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

(indicating). Okay? Do you know this, the name of this waterway that crosses here? A. No. Q. Anyway, that's the mile. And the other number what is? The front -- The top. A. 63.77. Q. Here is 63 (indicating). MS. GREIF: Did you already say that the mile markers on this may not be correct? MR. BRUNO: No. Well, they are correct, but somebody suggested that they're not, but we confirmed that the mile markers do in fact correspond with the design memo. That's been confirmed. MS. GREIF: You have compared it to the design memo? MR. BRUNO: With a witness. MS. GREIF: Okay. MR. BUCHLER: With Baumy, I think.
Page 73

Wait. The witness wasn't looking. MR. BRUNO: Okay. MS. GREIF: Do you want to look through this document right now? Review it? THE WITNESS: Yeah. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. If you want to, take your time. A. I am not familiar with it. MS. GREIF: Okay. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. We're not there yet. I'm on the first page. I want to orient you first and that way, maybe it'll allow you to make sense of the document a little quicker. Because as you know, there are different documents for different sections. So let's just orient us on the map first. Okay? A. Okay. Q. It says mile -- just the front page, mile 39.01, which is about right here

MS. GREIF: Okay. With which -MR. BRUNO: Yes. The reason -- I'll tell you, so you'll know -- Who was it that said it was -MR. LAMBERT: Walter Baumy. MR. BRUNO: No, no, no. Who was the one that suggested they were wrong? MR. BUCHLER: Mr. Broussard. MR. BRUNO: Mr. Broussard, in fairness to you, Mr. Broussard looked at it and said "I don't know if these are right" and then that's what provoked me to take the chart and compare it to the -MR. LAMBERT: Design memo. MR. BRUNO: Take the design memo and compare it to the chart, and they line up.

19 (Pages 70 to 73) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 74

4/14/2008
Page 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay? And in fact, that's the -A. Yeah. Q. There it is. A. They start at Paris Road. Q. And there's the -- Go down. A. And I found Shell Beach (indicating). Q. There you go. Okay? All right. So anyway, are we comfortable that we know what section of the MRGO Reach 2 we're talking about? A. We're talking about mile 39.01 to 63.77. Q. Now, having established that, if you want to take a few moments to look at it -MR. LAMBERT: Joe, can we take a break? MR. BRUNO: Yes, we can take a break. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. MR. BRUNO: Which is what I was going to suggest before you said that. But
Page 75

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. GREIF: Well, objection. What do you mean by authorized? MR. BRUNO: Now you sound like Russo. Let me ask the witness. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Does the word "authorized" have any particularized meaning within the Corps? A. Yes. Q. What does it mean? A. It means Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to do something. Q. Okay. A. Gave them the authority. Q. Now, when it comes to a channel like the MRGO, the authorization, and as we see, we have it before you, at page -- let's -Actually, let's go to the table of contents, probably the safest thing to do. MS. GREIF: Just so the record is clear. Miss Powell is looking at the Design Memorandum number 1-B, channels mile 39.01 to mile 63.77. It's dated
Page 77

that's okay. MR. LAMBERT: Joe? MR. BRUNO: All right. It's okay. VIDEO OPERATOR: We're off the record. It's 10:53. (Recess.) VIDEO OPERATOR: Returning to the record, it's 11:23. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Let's see. Where were we. We were talking about the authorization for the MRGO and we were at the point where we were talking about the authorization and was asking you whether or not you recall whether or not the MRGO was in fact a channel authorized to be built for the purpose of navigation. Is that accurate? A. I am not that familiar with it, but I would say that would be a fair statement. That is a navigation channel. Q. All right. And --

September, 1958, revised May, 1959. MR. BRUNO: Right. We had done that before the break. But that's okay. MS. GREIF: Well, on the record. MR. BRUNO: It was on the record. MS. GREIF: Oh, okay. MR. LAMBERT: That's good. MR. BRUNO: That's good. We do it again. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Anyway. If we go to the table of contents, which is about one -MS. GREIF: I'm sorry, but this is not an authorization. MR. BRUNO: What? Never said it was. MS. GREIF: You just referred to this as the authorization.

20 (Pages 74 to 77) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 78

4/14/2008
Page 80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. BRUNO: No, I didn't. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. If I do something wrong, you can call me down. But no, I did not. I asked her to define "authorization"; she did; and then I asked a question about authorization which I withdrew and suggested that we go to the table of contents to read the first sentence, which says -- I'm sorry, not sentence, but the first subtitle "Project authorization." THE WITNESS: Uh-huh (affirmatively). EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. You with me? You see where it says that there? A. In the table of contents, yes. Q. Yes, ma'am. All right. Now, and if we go to paragraph 1 under "General", it says "Project authorization". Does that generally describe the project that's authorized by the Congress there at page -- There's no page number. I'm sorry. This is two pages further along in the document. Do yours have Bates
Page 79

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

channel width and depth. Q. Right. Well, anyway, would you agree with me that the channel design criteria as indicated on page 2 shows a channel width of 500 feet and a channel depth of 36 feet with a channel side slope of one-on-two? A. Channel width authorized 500 feet, channel depth authorized 36 feet below Mean Low Gulf, and the channel side slope of one-on-two, yes. Q. All right. Now, this may or may not be within your area, so just tell me, you know, "Joe, this is not my subject," but when the Congress authorizes the Corps to build a channel and they give the Corps these dimensions, are you authorized to build something larger than the dimensions of the authorizations? For example, larger than 500 feet, deeper than 36 feet, with a different channel slope? MS. GREIF: Objection, vague. THE WITNESS: It's beyond my area of work. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
Page 81

numbers? No. No? A. No. Page 2. This is page 1. Q. Page 1? Good. You're right. Page 1. You see that? A. I see paragraph one, yes. Q. Okay. Is that -- Does that describe the project authorization? A. That is a summary of the project authorization. Q. All right. Now, go to page 2, we have the channel design criteria. Okay? Now, you'll remember this should have all began when I asked you about channel size. Okay? And then you were explaining to me that in existing rivers like the Mississippi, the channel size could be something smaller than the river itself. Right? A. Correct. Q. Now, in this instance, though, this is a channel that's being dug for the first time, so the channel size should equal the channel. Right? A. Beyond my area of expertise. I don't -- I come up with the channel size, but there are other factors that come up with the

Q. Good. All right. Who should I ask that question to? MS. GREIF: Objection. THE WITNESS: My first reaction would be to ask the manager, either the Project Manager or the Operation Manager. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. By the way, who was the Project Manager of the MRGO? I don't know if we have established that. Do you know? A. No. Q. We have already talked to the op manager. There's a whole different branch. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. We have covered that, so we'll leave that alone. All right. Now, there's a whole section on hydrology. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Which is more in your area; right? A. Right. Q. Okay. Now, there are, under "Hydrology", a paragraph called "General", a

21 (Pages 78 to 81) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 82

4/14/2008
Page 84

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

paragraph called "Tidal fluctuation," "Drainage and reclamation", "Salinity", "Beach Erosion Board". Those are the areas; right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I am just curious to know whether -- which of these subtitles, and again as those subtitles appear in the document, okay, would fall within the subject matter of the Hydrologic Engineering Section. For example, would tidal fluctuations, would that fall within the Hydrologic Section or the Coastal Engineering Section or the Hydra Modeling Section? MS. GREIF: Objection, vague. THE WITNESS: It could fall under the Coastal Engineering Section or the Hydrologic Engineering Section. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. A. This is -- It addresses tidal fluctuations, which is more Coastal. Q. All right. But again, you, when you
Page 83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. I don't know what offices existed in '58. It may have been just one organization. Q. Maybe I wasn't artfully asking my question. In fact, your section and the other sections within the Branch are called upon from time to time to provide technical assistance to the Operations Branch; right? A. Yes. Q. And the Operations Manager of the MRGO may from time to time call upon your group for technical advice? A. Yes. Q. All right. So what I am -- I was really not talking about when it was built, but these issues as they relate to the MRGO generally. Okay? I mean, these are issues that would not be just a one-time thing. Right? I mean, they wouldn't -A. Yeah, tides don't go away. Q. Right. And the salinity issue -A. Salt is salt, yes. Q. And drainage and reclamation is what it is, and beach erosion is what it is. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. It's in that context, and I perhaps
Page 85

were Chief, you didn't address these issues with regard to the MRGO; right? A. That's correct. Q. Then that's why I asked the question, to be candid with you. Number 10 says "Drainage and reclamation". Would that be something that might be done by the Hydraulic Engineering group or the Coastal or the Hydro? Which of the three? A. Again, it could be done by the Coastal Engineering or the Hydrologic Engineering Section. Q. Okay. But, in fact, during your tenure as relates to the MRGO, it was done by the Coastal Engineering; right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Good. Number 11 is "Salinity" and I think you have already testified that probably would have been done by the Hydra Modeling Section? A. The Coastal Engineering Section may have been involved, but -- You know, this is -- this was written in 1958. Q. Right.

should have told you that, but in that context that I am asking which of these sections might be called upon. So salinity would be possibly Coastal Section, probably Hydra Modeling Section? A. That would be a correct statement, yes. Q. And finally Beach Erosion Board, would that even fall within any one of these sections? A. The Beach Erosion Board is a different organization. It's more of a Corps-wide board. It would not necessarily have to do with the New Orleans District. Q. All right. A. The name has also changed over time. It's no longer called the Beach Erosion Board. Q. What's it called? How about this? What was it called shortly before Katrina? Let's use that as a frame of reference. A. My understanding, it was the Coastal Engineering Research Board, the CERB. Q. Okay. And that is -- that is a board which -- does it cover an area larger than the Region, Vicksburg Region?

22 (Pages 82 to 85) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 86

4/14/2008
Page 88

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Yes. It's national. Q. Oh, it's national. All right. Which of these three sections, if any at all, would address erosion issues as they might relate to the MRGO? A. I'd have to ask for clarification. Erosion in context with what? Q. Bank erosion. A. Bank erosion? And its cause? Q. Yes. And prevention. A. And prevention? I have to guess. I don't know. Q. Okay. That's -A. I would assume it would be the Coastal Engineering Section. Q. Truthfully, I should have asked it differently, but I was just trying to make certain that it wasn't in your area. A. No, it's not in my area. Q. Not in your area. How about land reclamation as it relates to the MRGO; would that be within your area of expertise or within the Hydrologic Engineering Section? A. I would not say not, not in this context.
Page 87

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that's related to ship traffic? A. Yeah, there are techniques to reduce bank erosion from ship traffic, barge traffic, or natural river flow. Q. And for how long has that technology been available? A. I think there's revetments that are on the Mississippi since Mark Twain days. Q. Okay. And it's possible to, if the channel has widened, to put the revetment in such a location that you can put spoil behind the revetment and reclaim the land that may have been eroded before the revetment was placed? A. That is techniques that have been used, yes. Q. All right. Do you know if those techniques were used on the MRGO at any time up until Katrina? A. I have no direct knowledge. Q. Who should I ask? A. The Operation Manager, our Waterways Section, which would be Rick Broussard. Q. All right. Well, and really, I am trying to frankly confirm that it's okay for
Page 89

Q. Okay. A. Because we deal with -- dealt more with an area as opposed to reclaiming swamp land. That's how I read this paragraph. It's talking about reclaiming swamp land. Q. Right. Let me ask you this. In the Atchafalaya, were there -- did you encounter a situation where there was bank erosion and part of the effort overseen by your office may have included the prevention of the erosion of the banks of any, you know, particular waterway or channel or the like in the Atchafalaya Basin? A. There's some minor erosion in the first 55 miles of the channel, but that channel's now revetted so the erosion is very minor. Q. Okay. Revetted means? A. The bank is protected by concrete revetment along the bank to prevent erosion from vessel traffic or high velocities from river flow. Q. All right. So I gather then that there are technologies available that can address bank erosion, at least bank erosion

me to leave this area, to be candid with you. So let's see if we can just round it out. You said that the context of your review of some MRGO documents related to what again? Help me remember. I'm sorry. MS. GREIF: Objection, vague. THE WITNESS: I testified that, you know, I would get a call from somebody that was on the IPET team and they would ask me, "Well, what was the channel size during this hurricane?" Or "What was the channel size -- where was the channel? Did the channel exist during Hurricane Betsy?" EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. A. Those types of information, and I would just relay them to a particular document or try to find the information for them. Q. Okay. Well, in answer, how would you go about answering what was the channel size? And I guess were they asking about channel size immediately before Katrina or

23 (Pages 86 to 89) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 90

4/14/2008
Page 92

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

were they asking for some other point in time? MS. GREIF: Objection. THE WITNESS: Both. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Both. All right. So if I were to ask you about a point in time, can you just kind of walk me through the process by which you would find the answer to what's the channel size? And let's just pick a date arbitrarily. June, '05. What would you do? MS. GREIF: Objection, speculative. THE WITNESS: June, 2005, I would go up to our Waterways Section and ask them for a cross section. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. A. To see if they have cross sections. And if they're not available, go to the Operation Manager. Q. All right. The first thing I want to understand is, when we say channel size, I
Page 91

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

at a particular location? MS. GREIF: Objection, vague. THE WITNESS: The particular instance that I recall, it was the channel size in the GIWW reach, which is not so much Reach 2. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. But Reach 1? A. More Reach 1. Although, you know, beyond the east side of the Paris Road bridge is still considered Reach 2 from your definition. Q. Right. A. I did get a request to find the channel size there prior to the construction of the MRGO. Q. Okay. And again, just to make certain that the record is crystal clear, you would have a two-dimensional picture; right? And it would be across the width of the channel. And the two dimensions would be the width and the depth, showing, you know, the contours of the bottom? Right?
Page 93

am just curious to know what dimensions would you report? A. I would generally provide a cross section usually. Q. And again, for the record, a cross section would be a slice of the width of the channel -A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. -- showing the depth? A. The context of the people that would ask me these questions would be more toward putting the information in a model, so they will need the complete size, you know, not just the -- if it's -- if it -- here again, go back to the Mississippi River. You got the navigation channel, you got the channel-channel. Q. Right. A. And if you're going to model it, you need to know the exact shape -Q. Of the whole thing? A. -- of the whole thing. Q. And so I am wondering, though, whether or not they're looking for the whole -- the channel size for the entire length or

A. Right. We would go, you know, depending on what the survey showed and depending on what information I could find, the goal would be to find something that went from top of bank, down the bank of the channel, all the way across to the other side, come up the bank, and to the top of bank. You know, it depends on the records. You may not find that complete information. They may not have been documented. Q. Okay. As I have been told, and perhaps I am wrong, but there are -- those kinds of materials or data are maintained in connection with the dredging of the MRGO. Is that not true? A. To the best of my knowledge, they will maintain records at least of the size of the navigation channel and may not necessarily be the whole channel. Q. Okay. A. I don't know. Q. All right. Did you go to those folks in order to answer the question posed by the IPET people? A. I went to documents.

24 (Pages 90 to 93) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 94

4/14/2008
Page 96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. All right. And again, just to round it out, you told me the two places that you went. One was the -- What was it? Which group did you go to first to find the data? A. For information on channel sizes I would normally go to the Waterways Section. Q. Waterways. That's what it was. A. And then the Operation Manager. Q. All right. The Waterways, where are the Waterways folks in this chart? And you can flip backwards and forwards, obviously. MS. GREIF: The organization chart. MR. BRUNO: Yes. THE WITNESS: They would be under the Civil Branch (indicating). EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Of the Engineering Division? A. Of the Engineering Division. Q. All right. And then, of course, the Ops guy is under the Operations Branch; right? A. Yeah, one of these branches is Ops.
Page 95

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Okay. Q. (Counsel hands document to Witness.) Let's just short circuit it. A. Okay. I can see where you're coming from. Q. Okay. A. I was responsible for taking information out of existing documents on the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, West Bank and Vicinity, and New Orleans to Venice projects and summarizing information on the design hurricane and the hydrology and hydraulics from those documents -Q. Okay. A. -- into the IPET report. Q. All right. MS. GREIF: Wait. Wait. What is this document you just handed her? THE WITNESS: This is -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Go ahead and tell her. That's fine. Please. Help us out. A. This is the outline for one of the
Page 97

Q. Okay. A. Operation manager MRGO (indicating). Q. All right. Thank you. That pretty much -- that sums up your association with the MRGO; right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So the other thing that you did for the IPET was to assist them in calculating -- Well, I don't know if you did any calculating or not. I need to ask you that. But you assisted them in their analysis of the design of the levees along the MRGO reach; right? A. No. Q. You did not? A. (Witness shakes head negatively.) Q. Well, you, I thought, had the role of assisting with the design hurricane -- or was that maybe -- is that -- Did you? A. Can you ask that again? MS. GREIF: Objection. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Let me just show you the document. How about that?

volumes of the IPET report. MS. GREIF: Okay. And it's Bates stamped MVD-007-000002526 and then ending 2537. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. Let me ask you one more question about MRGO at the urging of co-Counsel. You don't recall ever having been asked by the IPET folks to get the cross sectional information or channel information as relates to -- I am going to call it Reach 2, but limiting it to after the bend, for the IPET folks? A. No, I don't recall. Just the GIWW area. Q. All right. Let's go back to this now. Which is -- Okay. I was listening to the question and you all -- You have explained what this document is. MR. BRUNO: Do you want to attach it? I don't care. MS. GREIF:

25 (Pages 94 to 97) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 98

4/14/2008
Page 100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Yes. Can we? MR. BRUNO: Yes. We are on Powell 2. Do we have a clean one? MR. BUCHLER: No. Maybe we can make a copy and then attach a copy. MR. BRUNO: Yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Anyway, so the point is, the outline reflects your role with regard to IPET. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And again, this may seem obvious, but it allows me to ask fewer questions. Your contact with the MRGO started after Hurricane Katrina? Isn't that true? A. Yes. MS. GREIF: Objection. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. And with regard to the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Project, any, you know, knowledge of that occurred after the Hurricane Katrina?
Page 99

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. John Jaeger, who is one of the, I guess for lack of a better term, leads of IPET. Q. And he's with the Corps? A. He's with the Corps, yes. MR. LAMBERT: His last name again? THE WITNESS: Jaeger. MR. LAMBERT: Spell it? THE WITNESS: J A E G E R. J E E J A R. Something. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Did we get his title? What's his title? A. I don't know. Q. You may have -- Okay. Good. I'm losing my mind. I thought I missed it. I'll let you do your honors because your penmanship is so much better than mine. This is Powell 2, right? MR. LAMBERT: Should be.
Page 101

A. Yes. Q. Okay, now. And really, your association with either of these two things is the result of the work that you provided -I'm sorry, the assistance that you provided to the IPET team; right? A. That's correct. Q. Now, were you actually a member of the IPET team? A. I was considered a member, yes. Q. Okay. Who appointed the IPET team? A. It's my understanding that General Strock. Q. And who is General Strock, just for the record? A. He was the Chief of Engineers at the time of Katrina. Q. All right. For the whole Corps? A. For the whole Corps, yes. Q. All right. So he made the appointment? A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. All right. And he appointed you? A. No. Q. Well, who appointed you?

MS. MILLER: Yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Now, before Katrina, Ms. Powell, did you understand what the relationship was between a Standard Project Hurricane and hurricane structure design? A. No. Q. Since Katrina have you come to understand the connection, if any, between a Standard Project Hurricane and the design of a hurricane protection structure? A. I have come to understand what Standard Project Hurricane is and I have come to understand how we design protection systems today. Q. Okay. Today meaning post-Katrina? A. Yes. Q. All right. So you are not able to testify about how the Corps designed hurricane protection structures before Katrina. Is that fair? A. I did not do the work. Therefore, I could not testify. Yes. Q. All right. So what you are able to

26 (Pages 98 to 101) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 102

4/14/2008
Page 104

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

testify about -- Well, let me -- You know, I am trying to find the artful way to ask this question. You didn't have anything to do with the original designs. We already know that. So your role was to do research to find out how they did it? Or were you trying to recreate the Standard Project Hurricane? A. My role in this context was to read the documents, the historical documents, the GDMs and design documents, and extract information on the Standard Project Hurricane and the hydrology and hydraulics that went into the design of the hurricane system. Q. All right. Do you feel that you, based upon the effort that you have expended in researching those documents, are competent to testify about how the Standard Project Hurricane was created -MS. GREIF: Objection. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. -- at the time that the hurricane protection structures were designed in the Chalmette area? MS. GREIF:
Page 103

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Lake Pontchartrain, is it your understanding that it was just one Standard Project Hurricane? And before I allow you to answer, let me clarify what I mean. By Standard Project Hurricane, I am describing a hurricane with a certain track, a certain pressure, and certain winds. So in the context of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project, is it your current understanding that in the past there was one or more than one Standard Project Hurricane? A. Under what you just described as the definition, then there would be more than one Standard Project Hurricane. Q. All right. Now, are you able to tell us how many? A. As I recall for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, there may have been three. There's three different tracks. Q. Okay. Right. Now, let's -- and if I say the Chalmette -- I think the references are to the Chalmette area. Is that accurate? To describe the area where we find the MRGO? A. That would be a fair statement. That's how they -- they broke out the reaches
Page 105

Objection. THE WITNESS: I could testify as to what I read. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. A. And how I understood what I read. Q. All right. Have you learned that the Standard Project Hurricane was not necessarily the same project hurricane for each hurricane protection structure? MS. GREIF: Objection, vague. THE WITNESS: My understanding is Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project has a Standard Project Hurricane, and West Bank and Vicinity has a different Standard Project Hurricane. Morganza to the Gulf does not have Standard Project Hurricane because that concept is no longer used by the Corps of Engineers. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Well, with regard to

back then, yes. Q. All right. Is it true that what the designers were trying to understand was what was the worst hurricane that could be expected to hit that area so that one could have an understanding of the still water height coupled with some calculation for wave action so that they then could design a structure to keep that water out? MS. GREIF: Objection, compound. Calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: You referred back to the worst hurricane? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Yes. I think that's the words. A. Because that's not the definition of Standard Project Hurricane. Q. Okay. Let me show you this document and ask if you recall ever having seen it. Please allow me to keep my finger there if you don't mind. There you go. MS. GREIF: What is this document?

27 (Pages 102 to 105) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 106

4/14/2008
Page 108

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. BRUNO: Before -- I'm going to let her look at it and see if she has any knowledge of it first, and then, you're right, we'll go to the next question, which is what it is. At least what I understand it to be. THE WITNESS: Is this House Document 208? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Yes, ma'am. MR. BUCHLER: No. MR. BRUNO: No? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. 203. MR. BUCHLER: 231. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. 231. Okay. This is a test. A. Okay. I am not familiar with 231. Q. But you know what 231 is? Right? A. I'm not familiar with House Document 231.
Page 107

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Right. Okay. And I will submit -But you don't recall ever having read the document that's in front of you? A. I have read House Document 208. I don't -- It may have been an earlier version of this. Q. What is Document 208? What is your understanding of what 208 is? A. My understanding, it was one of the original documents put together prior to Hurricane Betsy and then it was revised after Hurricane Betsy, but I could be wrong. Q. All right. Well, the document that you read, do you know whether or not that document actually became the approved plan by the Congress? MS. GREIF: Objection. THE WITNESS: It's my understanding that the document that I read was not the approved plan. There were changes made after that document was created. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Well, do you recall
Page 109

MR. BUCHLER: Say it again. MR. BRUNO: Maybe we all got it wrong. What's the number? The letter from the Chief. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. This is the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Plan. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. And I forgot which House Number -which House document number it is. Because I just don't remember it. But you recall that the original authorization of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Act authorizes the Corps to build a hurricane protection system pursuant to a particular House document number? MS. GREIF: Object. Objection. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Right? Do you recall that? A. We would have -- There would be a House document that goes with the authorization.

having read the approved plan? A. I don't recall reading the approved plan. Q. All right. Well, -A. I don't think I did. Q. -- I am forced to ask, why would you have read the non-approved plan in view of the fact that it wasn't what Congress actually authorized the Corps to do? A. Availability of the document. We were looking for all documents and I read the ones that I was able to find -Q. Okay. A. -- at the time. Q. Well, how did you satisfy yourself that the document that you read was relevant to the determination of the Standard Project Hurricane by the Corps when the hurricane protection structures for Chalmette were done? A. I would have read DM Number 1, -Q. Okay. A. -- which is a more complete document on the Standard Project Hurricane and the analysis that was done for the Chalmette area,

28 (Pages 106 to 109) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 110

4/14/2008
Page 112

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

which is beyond this document. Q. All right. But just to round it out, would you please go to page 46? A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. I will represent to you and ask you to assume that this is the actual plan approved by Congress. MR. LAMBERT: Of the -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Of the Lake Pontchartrain -MR. LAMBERT: Right. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. -- and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Plan. MR. LAMBERT: Page? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. And at page 46 you see at paragraph 9 something called the Standard Project Hurricane. Okay? A. I see on page 46 paragraph 9, Standard Project Hurricane. Yes. Q. All right. And the first sentence
Page 111

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. All right. A. This says "considered reasonably characteristic of the region", not actually, you know, within all possibility. Q. I am trying to understand the disconnect. Because I, in my question suggested the region. I said that. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively), but you said the worst. Q. That had been experienced over time. Maybe I am -- This was my question. My question was, in fact, didn't the Standard Project Hurricane, wasn't it supposed to be an understanding of the worst storm that could affect an area based upon a study of hurricanes that had affected the area over time? A. And I would say no, I would not categorize the SPH as you define it. Q. All right. Well, in fact, didn't the Corps look to the Weather Service for data on hurricanes that had hit the New Orleans area? Did you understand that? A. Yes. Q. They did that?
Page 113

-- and you'll remember I asked the question if in fact your reading allowed you to conclude that the Standard Project Hurricane was supposed to be an indication of the worst storm anticipated for an area like Chalmette, and with that in mind, please read the first sentence and -- period. A. "A Standard Project Hurricane SPH is one that may be expected from the most severe combination of meteorological conditions that are considered reasonably characteristic of the region." Q. Now, in fact, the design memo says the same thing, doesn't it? A. DM Number 1? Q. Yes. A. It probably uses similar language, yes. Q. All right. So am I -- my question, does it mischaracterize then what Standard Project Hurricane is? That is, the most severe hurricane that one could expect for the particular area? A. I would still say that that is not a complete characterization of --

A. Yes, they consulted with the U.S. Weather Bureau, which is now the National Weather Service. Q. And, in fact, they used a time frame 1900 to 1956. A. That's correct. Q. Do you know why they did that? A. Well, 1956, at the time of this analysis, would have been the latest year. Q. Okay. A. 1900 was probably, from what I read, I concluded that the information that they could derive storm parameters was not available with any kind of reliability prior to 1900. Q. Well, -A. So they did not -- they chose not to use storms that occurred prior to 1900. Q. Now, it further says that "The general SPH that is characteristic for the coastal region of Louisiana was developed in cooperation with the Hydro-meteorological section of the U.S. Weather Bureau --" MS. GREIF: You're still on the same page?

29 (Pages 110 to 113) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 114

4/14/2008
Page 116

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. BRUNO: Yes, and I am in the same paragraph as well and the next sentence. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. "And corresponds to one having a frequency of once in about 200 years." You see that? A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Yes. Q. All right. Do you know how one calculates the one in 200 year hurricane? A. Based on reviewing the documents for IPET, particularly DM-1 and other DMs that were done for Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, it's my understanding that that frequency corresponded to the water level that occurred as a result of this design storm, and the water level had a frequency of about once every 200 years. Q. Let me show you this document and see if you have ever seen it before and then I'll identify it for the record. MS. GREIF: Can we make this an exhibit (indicating)?
Page 115

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Correct. Q. Okay. Thank you. And that, in fact, reflects that there are this hurricane data going back to 1901. And in fact, there's another hurricane dated 1886, but it really doesn't hit New Orleans. You can see it (indicating). A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). It has a map that shows 1886 hurricane. I don't know if it has all the detailed information on that hurricane in there. It may just be a summary of some of the information. For example, on page 7, they talk about Grand Isle area and hurricanes that had major damage or minor damage and they give one central pressure and a maximum gradient wind and a forward speed for that one storm. Q. All right. So do you know what data the Corps got from the Weather Service? A. The Corps of Engineers would have gotten information on the parameters of the hurricane as it moves closer on that track. Q. On that track which, again, for the record, would you agree with me is reflected on page 47? This -- Let's see. I don't know
Page 117

MR. BRUNO: Of course. In fact, we'll just -- We'll have to make some more. MR. BUCHLER: Can we keep it here though so we don't have to make one for each day? MR. BRUNO: How about this? You want the whole document or maybe we could just do the cover page? MS. GREIF: I think I would like the whole document. MR. BRUNO: Okay. We'll let them make a copy. I'll let you make a copy during the break. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Have you ever seen that document? A. I don't know if I have seen this actual one. I may have seen updates. Q. All right. And for the record, that's a history of hurricane occurrences along the coast of Louisiana dated August, 1972.

if you can see it. You see that sentence that begins "The SPH critical to the Chalmette area"? You see that? A. Yes. Q. All right. "The SPH critical to the Chalmette area, the Back Levees of Citrus and New Orleans East and from the Lake Borgne side in the vicinity of the Rigolets and the Chef Menteur Pass has a translational speed of eleven knots." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. All right. What is a translational speed of eleven knots, if you know? A. I don't know. Q. This hurricane approaches from the east, traverses the coast east of the Mississippi River Delta, and south of Lake Borgne and curves slightly northward, passing to the west of Lake Maurepas." All right. Did you attempt to recreate that track in -A. There's -- In DM-1 and maybe even in this document there's a map that shows the track. I know there's one in DM-1. Q. All right. Now, would that be A -A. Chalmette track F.

30 (Pages 114 to 117) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 118

4/14/2008
Page 120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. What plate are you on? I'm trying -A. Plate A-7. Q. A-7. All right. That's A-7 of the document we just referred to. And F? A. F follows the 1947 hurricane and goes and diverges when you get a little bit to the west-southwest of Lake Pontchartrain. Q. Okay. I see. All right. So the 1947 hurricane then is a pretty good indication of what we can expect at least -if we look back at the hurricane in 1947, that track is very close to the track used to assess the Chalmette area. Right? A. That was the track that was considered in the design, yes. Q. Okay. Do we know what wind speed was considered? A. That would be in DM Number 1. Q. Okay. Do you remember it? A. No. Q. Do you know how it relates to the '47 hurricane? A. No. Q. Do you know how the Central Pressure
Page 119

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. If waves are present, there would be a wave characteristics and a wave height and wave period calculated. Q. All right. Do you know how they calculated the wave height for the Standard Project Hurricane for the design of the hurricane protection structures in the Chalmette area? A. I would have pulled it out of the document and placed it in the IPET report. Q. Okay. A. I just don't recall exactly what it said. You -Q. I have got the -- (Indicating). A. Okay. Q. Is it -- Might I find it in here? A. No. I don't know that it would be in this document. Q. Okay. I guess what I am trying to do, to kind of assist us in getting through this, is to learn what section or what volume of IPET you contributed to. A. That would be the -Q. According to the -- Let's see. What's our exhibit?
Page 121

Index of the SPH for Chalmette relates to the '47 hurricane? A. No. Q. Now, once you have got your Standard Project Hurricane, what do you do, or what did they do with that information is a better question? MS. GREIF: Objection, speculative. THE WITNESS: Once you get the storm parameters, then you're going to use your equation -- back at this point in time you would have used your equations along with the track information to generate the water level that would occur as a result of that hurricane following that track. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Is that still water level? A. They would call it -- they may call it still water level, yes. Q. And then there's some calculation of wave height on top of that; right?

A. Yes, it says volume 3. Q. Volume 3? A. But I don't know that -- I don't know that its date is volume 3. That's what I am struggling with. Do you have a list of all the volumes? Q. Yes, right there. Can I see that again, please, if you don't mind? Let see. Your outline says -A. It would be volume 3. Q. Volume 3, the hurricane protection system. A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Yes, volume 3. Q. I just have the summary there, the executive summary in order to kind of make it easier for us to deal with. But volume 3 regards the system itself. And the section of the system that you would have assisted in contributing relates to how the Standard Project Hurricane was developed as a component of the design. Right? A. I would write what the diff- -- take out of the DMs what Standard Project Hurricane

31 (Pages 118 to 121) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 122

4/14/2008
Page 124

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

parameters and track were used for each area and summarize how the designers, the hydraulic designers went from those different parameters that make up the Standard Project Hurricane, wind speed, radius of maximum winds, those types of parameters, going through their equations to calculate what the surge level would be and what the wave characteristics and the run-up would be. Q. All right. Good. Do you know how the still water height was calculated for the Chalmette area? A. As I recall, it was based on some equations that were used at that time in the design. Q. But what was the process? In other words, what information was taken and how did they -- If you want, we can go to -- Let me just show you volume 1, page 29, which is the executive summary again, and -MR. BRUNO: Do we have a copy for her? Okay. Great. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. You can see -- Here we go.
Page 123

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Which we marked as -- we're going to mark -MS. GREIF: Number 3. It should be marked -MR. BRUNO: Yes, it'll be marked 3, yes, once we make it. MR. LAMBERT: That's the design memo? MR. BRUNO: No, it's not. THE WITNESS: No. This is -MS. GREIF: The House Number 231. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Now, -A. This is just some examples of how it was calculated. They have got an example on page 106. Q. Now, Ms. Powell, this is all the business of calculating surge. That is, how high the water got. But it excludes the wave action; right? A. This is how, back in this time
Page 125

You can continue looking at that if you want to. A. There's a sample in here (indicating). Q. Okay. That's page -- Where are you? A. Let me get you -- Starting on page 101. Q. Okay. A. If you want to skip around, it does talk about the historical storms used for verification of the methods. Q. Right. A. The synthetic storms, which is SPH is a synthetic storm. On page 103, they have got the equations to get the maximum theoretical gradient wind. And then on page 104, they have the equation from which the surge heights are calculated. MR. LAMBERT: Page 104? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Of the -- this is of the House document. A. Yeah.

period, that surge heights would have been calculated. Q. Okay. A. And it would have excluded the -the waves would have been a separate calculation. Q. And we have learned from this document and the review of this document that there was an exercise by which past storms and the surge produced by those storms was analyzed; correct? A. That would have been part of the process, to look at historical storms, yes. Q. Now, this may be obvious, but I just want to see if I can establish for the record. Clearly, then, the land masses, that is, the locations of the shoreline, the existence of swamp, the existence of trees and all of that would have been as those things were at the time of those historical storms; right? A. Well, the land in 1947 would have been the land in 1947. Q. Exactly. And you would agree -and, of course, we all know that marsh, land,

32 (Pages 122 to 125) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 126

4/14/2008
Page 128

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

trees provide hurricane buffers; right? MS. GREIF: Objection, foundation. THE WITNESS: I wouldn't say that that was a completely factual statement. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. What's inaccurate about it? A. For example, there's been modeling done where -- ADCIRC modeling done where you have 20 foot of water on top of a marsh that's one foot high versus marsh that may be half a foot high, and the magnitude of the difference in the surge for the same storm, the same path, whatever, is -- is not significant. Q. All right. So what you're saying to me is that there are certain circumstances under which or within which the marsh does not act as a buffer? Right? A. I think -- I believe that, you know, some of the science is still not completely known. Q. Okay. A. I think there's some research that's ongoing right now as to the effects of, you
Page 127

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Okay. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. First, we will attach -- Have you seen that document before? I'm going to mark this as Powell Number 4. We already have a copy. A. I have seen the Morgan City, Louisiana and Vicinity Hurricane Study, yes. Q. All right. Are you familiar with the chart within that study that I have opened for you? A. Yes. Q. You are? What does that chart depict? A. That chart depicts how a storm, as it hits landfall -- my understanding of it is that this chart is of -- they used high water marks to define how you translate your storm once it hits what's known as the surge reference line, and that surge reference line may be the coast, it may not be the coast. When you are making calculations of how the surge propagates beyond that surge reference line, -Q. Right.
Page 129

know, whether you have 40 square miles of land or five square miles of land; whether you have five square miles of land but 35 square miles of very shallow water, how that relates to 40 square miles of land. There's a lot of ongoing research that's being done -Q. Right. A. -- to better define that. Q. Well, certainly, though, before Hurricane Katrina the United States Army Corps of Engineers used to believe that the average surge decrease that could be anticipated for each 2.75 miles of land was about a foot. MS. GREIF: Objection, foundation. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Isn't that true? A. I would not say that's true. Q. Let me show you the document. MS. GREIF: What is that document? MR. BRUNO: I'm going to show it to her first and we'll get there. MS. GREIF:

A. -- you -- there has to be a way to take the equations that are in -- that were done in the analysis and account for the effects of the land on the wind, for example. So there was some analysis -- some initial analysis based on high water marks -Q. Right. A. -- so that they could do what I would -- I think the term now is called "filling", you know, how the storm changes as it moves across from the coast line to your area of interest. Q. All right. So -A. Or what we would call the surge reference line, your area of interest. Q. So would you tell us on this chart, which is plate A-4, and at the last page of the document that we have just marked as Powell Number 4, what does that mean? Average surge decrease, one foot for each 2.75 miles? What does that mean? MS. GREIF: Objection, speculative. THE WITNESS: It's my understanding that this

33 (Pages 126 to 129) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 130

4/14/2008
Page 132

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

would be used to look at -- starting at your surge reference line, if you have got your levee so many miles away, that you need -- that you're looking at what they're calling a weighted mean decrease in surge heights inland. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Right. Essentially what that means is, is that if you have calculated a surge height and you know that that surge is going to pass over land, for purposes of designing your levee you will decrease the surge height by one foot for every 2.75 miles of land. Right? That's what that stands for? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And that's because when this chart was developed, the Corps was of the opinion that marsh and land acted as a buffer to surge. Isn't that correct? MS. GREIF: Objection, speculative. THE WITNESS: I wouldn't say that that was a true statement, a completely true
Page 131

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. A little easier to see it as words. Q. Yes. Well, read -- Well, take your time. (Counsel hands document to witness.) A. Okay. You got "Coastal wetlands absorb large amounts of wave energy and hold large quantities of water that would otherwise allow storms to do much more damage inland." That's the sentence? Q. Correct. And my question is do you agree or disagree? A. I agree to some extent. It will depend on the content of the wetlands. Q. Sure. A. The wave energy you have, the surge. If your wetlands are completely inundated, it's going to respond differently. I'm talking you know, ten, twenty feet of inundation that has a different effect on wave energy, than, for example, if you had inundation of maybe a foot over the wetlands. Has a lot to do with the friction effects and whether you in fact have -- the waves have already broken, because they will break along the coastline -Q. Sure.
Page 133

statement. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. MR. BRUNO: Let me have the reconnaissance report, please. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I'll give that to you. All right. I'm going to ask to ask you -- In fairness to you, ma'am, I am reading from the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet St. Bernard Parish Bank Erosion Reconnaissance Report dated January, 1994 and I am going to read from page B-31, and all I want to know is whether you agree or disagree with this statement. "Marshes provide hurricane and storm surge buffering capacity." Do you agree or disagree? A. I disagree. Q. Okay. "Coastal wetlands absorb large amounts of wave energy and hold large quantities of water that would otherwise allow storms to do much more damage inland." Do you agree or disagree? A. Could I see that? Q. Yes, of course.

A. -- and they can reform and, depending on how they reform, the wet- -- the wetlands may or may not have an effect. I find the statements that are here are more or less written by somebody that's just wanting to put some general terms here to talk about. Q. Right. A. Potential environmental benefits. Q. Well, you would agree that both of those sentences are generally true? MS. GREIF: Objection. Asked and answered EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Right? A. I think there's parts of the statements that for certain situations can be considered true, but then -Q. Sure. A. -- for other situations these statements are not true. Q. Right. MR. LAMBERT: Joe, would you just for the record put the document that's been read, for those reading it, on the

34 (Pages 130 to 133) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 134

4/14/2008
Page 136

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

record? MR. BRUNO: I already did. MR. LAMBERT: No, this -THE WITNESS: This one. MR. BRUNO: Yes, I already did. I already did. I gave the title and I gave the page. MR. LAMBERT: All right. MS. GREIF: Well, so it's clear, what page is it. THE WITNESS: B-31. MR. BRUNO: B-31. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. So they're not false statements; right? MS. GREIF: Objection. Asked and answered.
Page 135

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

where there's a problem? MS. GREIF: Objection. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Right? A. Also the limit. You're going to -Q. Time? A. -- reach a lim- -- No, I'm talking about there's a limit depending on the storm size and the marsh and wetlands configuration, where, you know, you raise the elevation a foot and -- or you extend your land out and it's not going to have an effect. Q. Right. A. The physics is such that, you know, you have to look at the physics of the storm and how the -- the -- the waves and the surge propagate through that area. Q. Right. That would relate to how fast the storm travels through the area as well. Isn't that true? MS. GREIF: Objection, vague. THE WITNESS: You're getting beyond my area of
Page 137

THE WITNESS: I said parts of the statements for certain situations are true and parts of them for other situations are not true. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. So what you would suggest is that there be an elaboration of both of those statements so that one can understand that those statements were not true for all circumstances? Right? A. Right. Q. There are certain circumstances wherein those statements may not be accurate? Right? A. That would be -MS. GREIF: Objection. THE WITNESS: -- a fair statement. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. In other words, there is some buffering capacity, but the extent to which one could expect the buffering capacity to be the same under all circumstances is

expertise. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Oh, okay. Well, does the speed with which a storm passes through an area at all relate to what you do in your field? Or I should say this. How about this? The time during which one has a certain level of wind, in other words, if it's an hour versus two hours versus a day versus a week, does that have anything to do with hydrology? MS. GREIF: Objection, vague. THE WITNESS: The field of hydrology that I practice, I don't -- I don't do coastal processes or hurricanes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Oh, you don't. All right. All right. You don't do coastal processes and you don't do hurricanes. But you could for a given moment in time calculate wave height; right? A. I could dig out my textbook and do that, yes. Q. All right. Well, maybe you can tell

35 (Pages 134 to 137) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 138

4/14/2008
Page 140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

us what a fetch is. Do you know what a fetch is? A. Oh, my brain. When you start looking at open water, it's the distance that the wave has the opportunity to grow and develop. You have areas of, like Lake Pontchartrain, large open water body, you can get waves that form that are much bigger than, for example, a very small area or an area that doesn't have that kind of open water. You get waves on the Mississippi River, for example, and the fetch length that the wind is coming across the river, it's a very short fetch length of open water from which the wave can build, as opposed to, if it's going up the river where you would have, you know, -Q. Much longer? A. -- a much longer length and -Q. Do I gather that it's the amount of space needed at a certain wind velocity for a wave to develop to a certain height? Is that accurate? A. There's probably more physics than that, yes, but that's -- you know, my sim- -Here again, this is out of my field, so that's
Page 139

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

231. MR. BRUNO: Is it 231? MR. BUCHLER: Yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. It's 231. All right. A. Which page again? Q. 104. (Whereupon a discussion was held off the record.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Let's see. It says here that the September, 1947 hurricane had a Central Pressure Index of 28.57. Right? A. Yeah. Q. Do we know what Katrina's Central Pressure Index was? A. At landfall? Q. Yes. A. Yes. I don't know what the number is offhand, but that's known. Q. Okay. You don't know it? A. No. Q. Do you know if it's higher or lower
Page 141

my understanding of -- of part of it. But there's probably other things that would influence how that wave builds and grows and develops, including its history. Q. All right. As promised, this is our lunch break. So we will see you at 12:00 -I'm sorry, 1:30 -A. Okay. Q. -- and I just got to figure out when this phone call with Robin is supposed to be. But I don't think that we have a whole lot more anyway. Okay? VIDEO OPERATOR: Off the record, it's 12:32. (Recess.) VIDEO OPERATOR: Returning to the record, it is 1:35. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Back on the record. Miss Powell, if you would turn to page 104 of the -A. This (indicating)? Q. I forgot what this document number. 803? I don't remember now. MR. BUCHLER:

than 28.57? A. I would say it was lower. Q. By any number? A. I would be speculating. Q. Speculating. Okay. Fine. Do you know the radius of the maximum winds of Katrina? A. Again, that's known. I'd be speculating again to tell you if it was larger or smaller. Q. Do you know the forward speed of Katrina? A. That's also known. Don't know its relationship to 1947. Q. All right. Do you know what VX over miles per hour is? It's the last column of table A-1. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). According to page 103, V sub X is the estimated wind speed 30 feet above the ground. Q. Okay. And do you know Katrina's VX over MPH? A. Not in that context, no. Q. All right. Now, I am just trying to get an understanding of what your contribution

36 (Pages 138 to 141) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 142

4/14/2008
Page 144

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

was to the IPET, and if we can -- and again recognizing that this is not volume 3, but it's, rather, the summary or, I'm sorry, the executive summary, and you told us that you dealt with the system -- All right. Anyway, if you could look at volume 1, page 29, and do you know who wrote this? A. You mean wrote page 129? Q. Yes. A. I don't know. Q. And do you know -MR. LAMBERT: Which page? MR. BRUNO: I-29. MR. LAMBERT: I got you. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. What was your contribution to this section? I mean, you told us about getting documents and providing information, but did you do anything more than that? A. I had no part of the first volume. Q. Well, insofar as the first volume
Page 143

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. That's why I said I didn't write this part. Q. Right. You have told us that the -there were three tracks, storm tracks. The one that was used for the Chalmette area was the '47 storm -A. Right. Q. -- with a little bit of change. A. For Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, they had an SPH storm as the design storm; and for Chalmette area it was track F, which was similar to 1947. Q. All right. So at least as it relates to Chalmette, is this sentence correct or incorrect? A. You would have used the SPH as we defined it with the track F to calculate the maximum water levels, yes. Q. All right. Now, it talks about -And I guess maybe the next sentence, if you would look at it quickly for me, would you have contributed any information to allow for this sentence to have been written? A. I am not sure if it's even true. I don't know where they got their information.
Page 145

summarizes volume 3. This is supposed to be an executive summary. A. Right. Q. And this is entitled "The system" and it says "For more information, see volumes 2 and 3." So I am just using this rather than the big fat volume. I'm trying to do a condensing version. Okay? The first sentence says "The design criteria for these structures was based upon the maximum water level --" I'm sorry, "The maximum water elevations expected from the SPH as previously described for each project." Okay? Is that true? Based upon your understanding? A. Which structures? Q. Well, it says "Describe for each project." A. SPH was not the storm used for New Orleans to Venice. It was a different design storm. So I don't know that I can make that statement completely true. Q. Okay. A. And the report talked about all three protection projects. Q. Okay. So I am confused.

MR. LAMBERT: Read the sentence? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Yes. A. "This amounted to, based on the 1900 to 1956 hurricane period, a 100 year level severity storm that, considering the geometry of the Gulf, has a likelihood of 1 to 200 to 1 to 300 of hitting the New Orleans area each year, hence, a 200 to 300 year protection." Q. All right. And you have a view that this is possibly not accurate? A. Based on my readings of DM-1, the frequency was assigned to the surge elevation, not the likelihood of the storm. I may be misinterpreting this sentence here, but I read the sentence as the storm has a likelihood of 1 in 200. Q. All right. I understand. A. And the frequency is different. Q. Right. Well, the truth of it is that the protection was designed to deal with a particular surge, so your interpretation is likely more accurate. Don't you agree? A. As I read the DMs, we looked at the

37 (Pages 142 to 145) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 146

4/14/2008
Page 148

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

surge frequency curves and that was where the surge elevation comes out. So yeah. Q. All right. Now, it says "The hurricane hazard of today, described in more detail in volume VIII, is quite different and presents a much more severe challenge to the hurricane protection system." Is that an accurate statement? A. I am not sure of the basis for the statement so I can't tell you if it's true or not true. Q. Fine. Do you know what characteristics of Katrina were different from storms that have been encountered by this area in the past? MS. GREIF: Objection, foundation. MR. BRUNO: That's why I asked "Do you know". THE WITNESS: I know that hurricane Betsy had a different track. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Right.
Page 147

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Category 3 storm at landfall, generated substantially higher surges than Camille, a Category 5 storm at landfall in the area where they both made a direct hit." Did you have anything to contribute to that? A. No. Q. Okay. The next sentence, "Whereas the Saffer Simpson scale is a good predictor of wind levels and damage from hurricanes, it is not a particularly good predictor of the surge and wave generation potential for these storms." Did you contribute to that conclusion? A. No. Q. All right. "Surge and wave levels are particularly sensitive to the path the storm takes, the geometry of the coastline and the Continental Shelf and the offshore character of the storm." Did you contribute to that conclusion? A. No. Q. "Hurricane Katrina had much greater wave and storm surge generation potential than the Standard Project Hurricane storms used to design the HPS." Did you contribute to that
Page 149

A. I know that Hurricane Camille had a different track. Q. Okay. A. That's about the extent of my knowledge. Q. Okay. I understand. A. And it may have been different parameters, different speeds, different time in the Gulf, different location in the Gulf where the storm went across. Q. All right. A. But I have not studied them in great detail to be able to tell you the similarities or differences. Q. This was not your contribution -A. That is correct. Q. -- to IPET? Okay. You didn't address hurricane protection structure construction either? A. No. Q. No? That wasn't your deal. Okay. All right. How about -- Let's talk about a subject you may have had something to do with, and that is at page 33 if you want to follow along with me. Okay? It says "Katrina, a

conclusion? A. No. Q. While I'm here, may I ask you if you would agree that wetlands restoration is important? MS. GREIF: Objection. THE WITNESS: I believe wetland -- wetland restoration is important to the environment of Louisiana. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. And why is it important to the environment of Louisiana? A. The wetlands are the nursery for our fish and shrimp; and without wetlands, we don't have, you know, the -- the seafood that we enjoy. Q. Okay. A. The culture that we enjoy. Q. All right. Is it important to regenerate the wetlands for the purposes of creating buffer for storms and/or hurricanes? Is that one of the reasons for coastal restoration?

38 (Pages 146 to 149) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 150

4/14/2008
Page 152

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. I wouldn't make that statement. Q. Okay. Does the depth of the water relate in any way to the height of the wave? A. Yes. Q. And is it a limiting factor? That is, the shallower the water, the lower the wave height? A. Generally that -- There may be some minor exceptions, but that's generally true. Q. Is it true that in shallow water, the depth of the water is the limiter of the height of the wave? In other words, the wave cannot be higher than the depth of the water in shallow water? A. Based on my understanding of the theory, the wave could not be greater than the depth of the water. Q. Okay. Is that true only of shallow water or is it always -- is it true no matter how deep the water is? A. That's beyond my expertise. Q. Is there some kind of formula with regard to water depth? In other words, I had heard, and I don't know this to be accurate or inaccurate, but that in larger depth water,
Page 151

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

called USGS to get their -- whatever gauges they had functional and provided that information to IPET. We extracted the data from the Weather Service gauge which is on the Causeway, which functioned more or less throughout Katrina in bits and pieces, and provided that information. And similar gauges of ours and others, you know, just pulled the records and furnished them and let them evaluate the data. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Now at page 35. "Winds from Katrina generated a record wave environment. "Did you contribute to that? A. No. Q. "Again, the lack of measurements caused the IPET to model the wind-generated waves to determine the conditions created by the storm." Did you contribute to that? A. No. Q. Okay. Do you work with the WAM model at all? A. No.
Page 153

that wave can be no higher than one-quarter of the depth of the water. Does that make sense to you? A. I would think the deep water waves are different than shallow water waves in their formation and propagation, so any kind of conclusion like that might be different. But again, that's not my area of expertise. Q. Okay. And I only ask this because of your brief tenure monitoring gauges, but it says at page 35, if you want to follow with me, "Literally all of the gauging instruments to measure water conditions were destroyed by Katrina." Did you contribute to that? A. We provided the records, what little records that existed, to IPET. Q. Okay. MR. LAMBERT: What does that mean? THE WITNESS: For example, if a gauge -- The Carrollton gauge was working up almost to the time of the peak water level in the Mississippi River, so we extracted the record and sent it to IPET. I

Q. Do you work with the ST Wave model? A. No. Q. Okay. What is the WAM model, if you know? A. It's an offshore wave model. It will basically take waves from the Gulf of Mexico and bring them to the near shore. It doesn't go -- You know, it's primarily deep water. Q. Okay. How about ST Waves? A. ST Wave is a software package that the ERDEC has developed, Engineering Research and Development Center, and it's for near shore shallow wave. Q. Okay. Do you happen to know the water depth of Lake Borgne? A. Not offhand, no. Q. All right. Let's see. It says "The resulting wave heights," from the models, "and wave periods are shown in figure 10 to 13. They demonstrate that the Katrina-generated wave environment was severe." Did you contribute to that? A. No. Q. Okay. "The most significant finding

39 (Pages 150 to 153) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 154

4/14/2008
Page 156

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

was that the waves along the GIWW, St. Bernard, MRGO and Plaquemine levees were ocean-generated waves with wave period in the 15 to 16 second range, much more capable of overtopping structures in the design assumed wave waves with periods of five to six seconds." Did you contribute to that? A. No. Q. All right. Do you have expertise about wave periods? Is that your field? A. No. Q. Who's the wave person? Who do we go to to get the scoop on waves in the Corps here? A. Our area -- center of expertise would be ERDEC. We have people here at the District that would understand waves, but they're not experts in waves. Q. Okay. So where is your ERDEC? I'm sorry. A. That's up in Vicksburg. It's the Engineering and Research Development Center. Q. So we have to go to Vicksburg to get some expertise on waves. A. If you want experts.
Page 155

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

has hired his -- Well, his company is a sub under a contract that we have with Evans and Graves, and we have hired -- we, the Corps, have hired Evans and Graves to help with the building of the hurricane protection system and he provides quality assurance review -Q. All right. A. -- and expertise to -Q. Okay. Maybe I can ask the question this way to help us all have an opportunity to go outside and enjoy the weather. How does your expertise relate to this particular section of the IPET report? And I think we said "The system". Not exactly what you did or didn't do, but your field of expertise. A. I would probably just say on the peripheral, my expertise in being able to read and interpret Corps of Engineers documents based on my experiences working here for almost 30 years. Q. Okay. Historian really? A. Historian. Because I don't -- You know, I did not work on the hurricane protection system up until after Katrina. Q. All right.
Page 157

Q. All right. We have some guys and gals around here who know about waves, and who are they? A. I have a couple of contractors. In-house people would be Bob Bass, would be our primary person. Q. Who are your contractors? A. Matisse Von Leden, who's with Royal Haskoning, a Dutch company, and also Janice Hote, who retired and we hired her back as a contractor. Q. Okay. MR. LAMBERT: Janice what? THE WITNESS: Hote. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Hote, H -A. O T E. Q. -- O T E. And so the Corps, does it have a regular relationship with Mr. Von Leden? A. He's a contractor. Q. Okay. Tell me what that means. A. That means the Corps of Engineers

MR. BRUNO: Mr. Lambert? (Whereupon a discussion was held off the record.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Let me ask you about the accounting system, and this is -- I am going to tell you why I am asking this so that you'll know. We have been given about 800 billion documents, believe me, and we were thinking that maybe if we understood the system it might help us through the process. We have about 20 libraries of information. Can you help me understand that system? I mean, is it simply a random allotment of a number, or is there anything about the number that would help us in ascertaining, you know, what project it's associated with or even the year, for example, even the calendar year? You know, sometimes the first two numbers are the year. A. My understanding of the number that's generated, it's -- it's just a number. Q. Just a randomly allotted number? A. Yeah. MR. LAMBERT:

40 (Pages 154 to 157) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 158

4/14/2008
Page 160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

There's an index. THE WITNESS: There may be an index in the financial management system. I don't deal with that on a day-to-day basis so I don't know what's available in it. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. MR. BRUNO: Could you all look at that for us and see if we can get a look at the index with those numbers? MS. GREIF: An index of what numbers? I'm unclear. MR. BRUNO: The accounting numbers -MS. GREIF: The accounting numbers? MR. BRUNO: -- that Miss Powell has just talked to us about. You know, when she gets -- When the Engineering Department is asked to do a job, they
Page 159

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MRGO project or its maintenance project. The other one has to do with -MR. BRUNO: Gauges? MR. LAMBERT: Gauges, yes, the three gauges. What were they? What -- Describe them. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Oh, the gauges that you -- what did the gauges measure? Was it simply water height, wave height? A. The gauges that I referred to this morning measure water level. Q. Just water level. Just like the one outside here? A. Yeah. MR. LAMBERT: And how are the records kept? How are those records kept? THE WITNESS: The gauge itself has a chip in it that records and that is downloaded onto a computer by the person who goes
Page 161

have a number. And I guess it's on a per -- per job. MR. LAMBERT: Labor number. MR. BRUNO: Labor number is what she called it. Okay? MS. MILLER: I would think if there is an index, it should have been produced with the other documents. MR. BRUNO: Again, in the 14 libraries of information that we would have to go through to find it and know what it was when we saw it. MS. GREIF: So you're interested in determining if there's an index of -MR. BRUNO: Of the numbers, of the labor numbers. MR. LAMBERT: So, for example, we could find out what numbers are related to the

and routinely services, make sure it's functional. And then that record is processed and stored into a database that the H and H Branch office maintains. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. Do you know if the Corps has gauge readings from the time of each of the hurricanes that are, you know, listed on page 104 of the thing? You know, the September, 1915, September, 1947, et cetera? A. We may have records of the 1947. We may have scattered records of 1915. I'm not sure. Some of these gauges may not have been in place. There's a -- There's a Gauge and Discharge publication that we used to put out that would -- from that you can tell if there was a gauge during that period of record. Q. I'm sorry, you can tell what? A. For example, if you look at the Carrollton gauge, Carrollton gauge was there in 1947, and the gauge may have been there in 1915. I am not sure. But the gauge has historically been a very old gauge. You contrast that with a gauge that maybe we

41 (Pages 158 to 161) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

NANCY POWELL
Page 162

4/14/2008
Page 164
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

recently put out in Buffalo Cove in the Atchafalaya. It's only been there for ten years. And this gauge book would tell you when the gauge was installed, its location, and how long it's been there. Q. Do you know -- If you go to page 40, there's some surge data there on figure 14. A. Okay. Q. Okay. You see how it says "Katrina"? A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Now, most of the gauges were destroyed, so do you know how these numbers were obtained? A. There would be two different ways. I can't tell you which way was used. One way would be to collect a high water mark. Generally inside buildings -Q. Right. A. -- or in areas, for example, that there are no buildings, then it was calculated from the storm surge modeling that IPET did. Q. The ADCIRC? A. The ADCIRC modeling. Q. Okay. I think actually IPET says
Page 163

WITNESS'S CERTIFICATE I, NANCY POWELL, read or have had the preceding testimony read to me, and hereby certify that it is a true and correct transcription of my testimony, with the exception of any attached corrections or changes. _____________________ (Witness' Signature) ____________ DATE SIGNED DEPONENT PLEASE INITIAL ONE: _____ Read with no corrections _____ Read and correction sheet attached DATE TAKEN: APRIL 14, 2008

Page 165

that. MR. BRUNO: Do we have anything else we need? Skip? MR. LAMBERT: No. MR. BRUNO: Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I have. * * *

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I, ROGER D. JOHNS, RMR, RDR, CRR, Certified Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the above-named witness, after having been first duly sworn by me to testify to the truth, did testify as hereinabove set forth; that the testimony was reported by me in shorthand and transcribed under my personal direction and supervision, and is a true and correct transcript, to the best of my ability and understanding; that I am not of counsel, not related to counsel or the parties hereto, and not in any way interested in the outcome of this matter.

ROGER D. JOHNS CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER STATE OF LOUISIANA

42 (Pages 162 to 165) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful