WALTER BAUMY

1/9/2008 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-4182 K2 JUDGE DUVAL

PERTAINS TO (Robinson, No. 06-2268)

MAG. WILKINSON

Deposition of WALTER O. BAUMY, JR., given at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District offices, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-3651, on April 9th, 2008.

REPORTED BY: JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER #75005

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS

800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
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

1/9/2008
Page 4

APPEARANCES: REPRESENTING THE PLAINTIFFS:

1 2 3 LAMBERT AND NELSON 4 (BY: HUGH P. LAMBERT, ESQUIRE) 5 701 Magazine Street 6 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 7 504-581-1750 8 - and 9 BRUNO & BRUNO 10 (BY: JOSEPH M. BRUNO, ESQUIRE) 11 (BY: FLORIAN BUCHLER, ESQUIRE) 12 (BY: SCOTT JOANEN, ESQUIRE) 13 855 Baronne Street 14 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 15 504-525-1335 16 - and 17 SHER, GARNER, CAHILL, RICHTER, KLEIN & 18 HILBERT, L.L.C. 19 (BY: MATTHEW CLARK, ESQUIRE) 20 909 Poydras Street, 28th Floor 21 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112-1033 22 504-299-2100 23 24 25
Page 3
REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TORTS BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION (BY: ROBIN SMITH, ESQUIRE) P.O. Box 888 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 202-616-4289

STIPULATION IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among counsel for the parties hereto that the deposition of the aforementioned witness may be taken for all purposes permitted within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in accordance with law, pursuant to notice; That all formalities, save reading and signing of the original transcript by the deponent, are hereby specifically waived; That all objections, save those as to the form of the question and the responsiveness of the answer, are reserved until such time as this deposition, or any part thereof, is used or sought to be used in evidence. * * *

JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR, Certified Court Reporter in and for the State of Louisiana, officiated in administering the oath to the witness.
Page 5

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 REPRESENTING THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS: 10 CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OFFICE OF COUNSEL 11 (BY: NICK MARZONI, ESQUIRE) 12 7400 Leake Avenue 13 New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-3651 14 504-862-2843 15 16 ALSO PRESENT: 17 JOSEPH E. BEARDEN, III, ESQ. 18 KEA SHERMAN, ESQ. 19 CHARLES SUTTON, ESQ. 20 ROBERT B. FISHER, JR., ESQ. 21 JOHN L. ROBERT, III, ESQ. 22 CHRISTOPHER THATCH, ESQ. (VIA I-DEP) 23 ADAM CHUD, ESQ. (VIA I-DEP) 24 VIDEOGRAPHER: KEN HART (HART VIDEO) 25

WALTER O. BAUMY, JR. 203 Reiher Road, Mandeville, Louisiana 70471, a witness named in the above stipulation, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified on his oath as follows: MR. SMITH: No stipulations. It'll be pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. MR. BRUNO: Which I believe are the usual stipulations, but anyway -MR. SMITH: Just for the record. MR. BRUNO: Just for the record, you know. I'm happy to work with these people. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Mr. Baumy, you've already given your deposition in the Robinson case as a 30(b)(6) representative of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. And I have that deposition here, and please know that I have no intent to recover

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 6

1/9/2008
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

the same ground. And so I'd like to follow along some of these things that have already been covered. You are the Chief of the Engineering Division at the New Orleans District Office of the United States Army Corps of Engineers here in New Orleans; is that correct. A. Yes. Q. All right. Would you please share with us whether or not there is a written description for that position that exists within this district. A. Yes. There is. Q. All right. And where might I find that? A. Personnel office. Q. Okay. MR. BRUNO: Robin, would you kindly give us a copy of that, please? MR. SMITH: Yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Can you, for the record -- and I know that I'll be testing your memory, and I don't
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

That's sort of the engineering side of it. I'm also responsible for participating on the district 's executive staff, um -advising the commander in particular areas, as well as helping to arrive at decisions on anything that would -- we would come across. Manage an organization that before the storm was near 300 people, and associated with that had broad personnel and organizational management responsibilities, developing an overall budget for the particular year, and then execution of that budget. Development of personnel staff for the future, training and also job selections, position descriptions, things of that nature, disciplinary actions. So it's a combination job of wearing numerous hats to support the engineering efforts at the district, but at the same time management of a large workforce. Q. Just curious. You said before Katrina 300. How many now? A. Oh, I have 83 vacancies in my group right now. So it's probably in the 220 range if I'm not mistaken. Q. Okay. And those are folks who for
Page 9

expect you to be able to recite it verbatim, but can you give me a general sense of what your job description is. A. Whew. I haven't looked at that in a while. I can give you a sense of, um -- I have oversight of the engineering program at the New Orleans District. And, you know, we participate in new projects, design aspects, it could be in the early report phase where a project is being evaluated for suitability, is it beneficial to put in a particular locale, and then once done, document the design and different phases of that project through, um -through the advertisement phase, actually preparing the plans and specifications. So we produce plans and specifications, we produce designs associated with navigation, flood control and environmental restoration type projects. We also participate in the operations phase in some cases, sometimes limited, sometimes more extensive. We do have a formal periodic inspection program for structures within the New Orleans District, and there's approximately forty to forty-five structures in that program.

whatever reason have moved away? A. It runs the gamut. Some have retired, some have accepted other jobs, some have moved away. It's just personal choice. Q. Okay. All right. You spoke quickly, of course as you should, and I would like to just make certain that I've written these things down appropriately. First, new projects. What is a new project? A. Well, the Corps has various phases of a project. Reconnaissance phase is generally the start of a project from the engineering standpoint, and that would move into the feasibility phase, and again you're getting -working towards authorization for construction of a project. Q. All right. Can I get a sense of, though -- you know, the word project is a broad word, I'm sure you'd agree. A. Sure. Q. -- generally, the kinds or types of projects which fall within the ambit of responsibility of your -- in your role as chief. What types of projects? Do you billed

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 10

1/9/2008
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

buildings? Do you-A. Occasionally, but that's not the bulk of our work. Q. Okay. A. It's a very broad brush. We've, um -we have projects as small as the local community coming in and saying I have a little problem on a stream. And so we call those CAP projects. And I can't tell you what the CAP stands for, but they're very small projects within a special program of the Corps of Engineers to something as big as the LACPR project where you're looking at Category 5 protection, or some higher level of protection across the entire state. So we've got a broad range of projects in the flood control arena, but also the same applies for the navigation and the, um -- hurricane protection. I mean, they're different types of projects. It could be dredges projects, it could be levee construction, it could be a flood gate, it could be a pump station, structures of those types. Q. Would it be accurate for me to say that the United States Army Corps of Engineers
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

assistant secretary and the Chief of the Corps of Engineers, and that's, you know, beyond my levee. I don't get involved with that aspect of it. Q. All right. Which assistant secretary are you referencing in your response? A. Um -- deputy for civil works, Mr. Woodly at this point. Q. All right. The office of the president? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know. A. No. Q. Well, how does a project begin? A. Not necessarily my lane. Um -- in today's society, I mean, I would be contacted by a project manager asking for support. So I don't know the relationship between the project manager and the, um -- local sponsor who may be trying to get a project. I'm not sure how that's initiated and what's the protocol. Q. All right. We'll, once again, can I conclude from your answer that your engineering division acts in a support role? A. Yes.
Page 13

acts as an engineering consultant to the Congress of the United States? A. We have a relationship with it. I can't tell you exactly how it works up in the Washington area. But yeah, we have a relationship with the Congress. Well, um -projects are approved by Congress and they're also funded by Congress, so we do supply them information so they can make informed decisions. Q. Who do you answer to? A. I answer to the commander of the New Orleans District. Q. And who does he answer to? A. He answers to the commander of the Mississippi Valley Division. Q. And who does he or she answer to? A. Um -- I would assume the Chief of Engineers, but I don't know that for a fact. Q. And the Chief of Engineers, is he or she the person in charge of the United States Army Corps of Engineers? A. Um -- I don't know that for a fact. Q. Well, who is in charge, do you know? A. There's a relationship between the

Q. Okay. And the role of support is to provide engineering services? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, I think you've already described for us that a project has phases -A. Yes. Q. -- is that true? You described a reconnaissance phase, you described a feasibility phase, and then you described an authorization phase? A. And there's more phases than that. I mean, those were examples. Q. Right. Well, there has to be, because then there's a design phase. A. Yes. Q. And all that follows from design to build. A. Yes. Q. Let's just focus, though, for the moment, on the reconnaissance phase. First of all, your use of the word reconnaissance, is that a term of art within the New Orleans district? A. No, that's within the Corps of Engineers regulations.

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 14

1/9/2008
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. All right. So what does reconnaissance mean, then, in the context of the regulations? A. It's a limited study. Generally, we would interpret that at the district based upon available data at the time, and doing a broad brush assessment of the types of features you may expect for a particular project, the sizes of those features, predominantly to come up with a cost estimate and weigh that -- provide that to the project management team so that they can look at it from the economics standpoint and try to see if -- is there a possible project here? Q. All right. Now, that sounds like feasibility, to me as a layman. I'm not suggesting that it is in your world. A. Uh-huh. Q. But can you share for me, if you can, the distinction between the reconnaissance phase and the feasibility phase? A. The feasibility phase would typically include more detailed engineering and more -- a closer look, per se, at all the aspects of the project.
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

things that, um -- went in there. Q. Well, let me just make it simple, then. Should an engineer design something as safe as they possibly can, using the definition of the word safe to mean so that it doesn't hurt people or property? A. Engineers are typically designing in accordance with guidelines, that sometimes could be in the form of a, um -- a national code, for instance the American Institute on Steel Construction, or the American -- ACI for concrete construction, and then also the Corps would have certain requirements that were developed over time. Q. All right. A. So they should be designing to those requirements is the way I would look at that. Q. Well, I understand that, but I don't believe that's responsive to the question. What I'm trying to learn is whether or not you believe, as an engineer, that engineers should he design things to make them as safe as possible to people and property. That's a yes or a no. A. I have a hard time answering that with
Page 17

Q. Okay. Would your -- you are a licensed engineer, are you not? A. Yes, I am. Q. Okay. Are you familiar with an engineering concept that I believe is generally viewed to be almost axiomatic, that one, in engineering, designs a product or a thing in such a fashion so as to be as harmless to persons or property as you can within the constraints of economic and design feasibility? Have you ever heard of such a thing? A. Um -- not the way you're putting it, no. Q. Am I -- maybe I'm dancing around it and I'm inarticulately describing it. How have you heard that concept articulated? A. Um -- I'm not sure -- I didn't understand, I guess, the way you were putting the concept together. Q. Well, you said not that way. What were you thinking about when you uttered the answer not that way? A. I was trying to put together the pieces in my mind where you were balancing design requirements versus economics and other

a yes or no. It's, um -Q. That's fine. A. I really do. You design to a guideline. You could always design it safer than the guideline. I mean, that's my, um -my opinion. Q. Well, does the engineer have any responsibility to suggest that the guideline would produce a product that is unsafe to people or property? Is that part of the discussion? A. If they thought that was the case, certainly. Q. All right. So you do agree that the engineer has an obligation to at least measure the design against the potential for harm to people or properties. A. From a philosophy standpoint, I would say yes. Again, from a code standpoint, or a guideline requirement, the safety aspects were evaluated during the development of those guidelines. That's the way I would expect that to happen. Q. All right. So your assumption is that if there's a guideline that was created by

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 18

1/9/2008
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

someone else that you are comfortable in concluding that that guideline covers safety issues. Is that what you're saying to us? A. In general I'm saying, yes, if I was looking at the concrete code, the steel code or a, um -- requirement of the Corps of Engineers, I would say yes. Absolutely. Q. Okay. All right. Now you may have already answered this, but maybe I didn't hear it or forgot: The distinction between reconnaissance and feasibility. A. Reconnaissance is a fairly quick analysis of a particular -- a potential project to determine the types of features that might be possible for providing that function or that mission and putting a relative -- putting a cost on the different alternatives and saying, okay, for this particular project we think this would be a possibility, and here's the approximate cost for that project. Q. All right. Now -A. From an engineering only standpoint. Q. I understand. Would you agree with me that the engineering only standpoint would
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

that in the overall BC ratio and so forth. Q. Fair enough. But who has the responsibility of saying to somebody else, this project has this potential down side? I'm not going to calculate its cost, but I just want you to be aware of it. Whose job, if anyone in the Corps, has that job, has that job? A. I think that's the project manager at this point because they're pulling all the information together from the variety of parties that are contributing. And PDT members who participate on a project delivery team would work that with them. Q. Well, I understand that that may be the person who pulls the information together, but I'm not certain that I understand who, if anybody in this organization, has the responsibility of ascertaining whether or not there are deleterious effects in connection with the feasibility study of a project. MR. SMITH: Object to the form. Is there a question pending? MR. BRUNO: Yes.
Page 21

require an analysis of the deleterious effects, if any, of a particular project? A. Yes. Q. All right. And do you agree with me that if one were doing a cost-benefit analysis part of the cost of any project must include an analysis of the cost of the deleterious effects? A. Again, that's not my lane. That's more in the project management side of the house with the economics group. They have certain regulations that they abide by. Q. Well, I thought that you indicated on the record that you assist with cost estimation. A. I do. Q. Well, if you do that, who's in the better position to know about the deleterious effect of a project, the engineering technical expert side or the project side which is simply compiling information from other sources? A. I think it's broader than that. Um -we would cost out anything associated with the project, but again the economics group would run the numbers as far as how they consider

MR. SMITH: What's the question? MR. BRUNO: Let's read it back. (Whereupon the previous question was read back.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. And so, who is that person? A. And I thought I answered that with the project manager. Q. Fair enough. All right, now authorization is a phase that you described, I believe. Right? A. Yes. Q. Now, what does authorization mean? A. I can only tell you from my role in the organization. If a project is authorized, then I have to start planning the engineering resources to begin the design phases of that work. Q. All right. So you're telling me that beyond that, you have no concept of what the word authorization means? A. I do, but I'm not the best person to answer that because I don't have that

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 22

1/9/2008
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

factual -Q. Oh. Wait a minute. Let's clear up this record right now. This is not a 30(b)(6) notice of deposition, and I'm going to suggest on the record, and if we have to go to the judge let's do it right now. MR. SMITH: Joe. Joe, I'm going to object to your tone right here with this witness. MR. BRUNO: Then let's go off the record. MR. SMITH: We don't need to clarify anything. MR. BRUNO: Oh, yes we do. MR. SMITH: No, we don't. MR. BRUNO: Yes, we do. MR. SMITH: He will answer the questions to the best of his knowledge and that's all he's saying.
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

MR. BRUNO: I want and demand an answer. MR. SMITH: No. MR. BRUNO: Fine. Let's call the judge right now. And we'll do it on the record. Where's the phone? And give me a number. We're not going to have this. There was a phone thing here? Stay on. Where's the phone thing that was here yesterday? Can we have access to a phone? (Whereupon the judge was called and was not available.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. We're still on the record, so, all right, sir, I want to see if I can understand what you're saying to me. I recognize that there are other folks within the organization that have more knowledge about the authorization process than you. Are you telling me that you have absolutely no
Page 25

MR. BRUNO: You know what? He just admitted that he's not answering to the best of his knowledge. MR. SMITH: No, he did not. MR. BRUNO: Yes, he did. MR. SMITH: We're staying on the record. MR. BRUNO: Fine. We'll stay on the record all day if you like. He's said, I'm not best person. I'm not asking him whether or not he's the best person. I'm asking him what he knows. MR. SMITH: And he told you. MR. BRUNO: And in his answer he is admitting that he knows but there's somebody else who has perhaps more knowledge and therefore he's not answering. MR. SMITH: That not what he said.

knowledge of the authorization process? A. No, I'm not. Q. All right. I take it, then, you have some knowledge. A. I have some understanding of it. Q. Fair enough. Do you at least know who is giving the -(Brief interruption.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. We had this issue come up last week, and so to the extent we need some assistance, we will. But this is your deposition, you understand that. A. Yes. Q. You're not here as a representative of the Corps. And I'm just going to suggest to you that I believe, however wrong I may be, I have the right to ask what you know. I mean, let me ask this this way: Don't you agree with me that you have to have at least some understanding of the authorization process in order for you to do your job? A. An understanding is different as to what I know about the facts of how the process works when it leaves the district.

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 26

1/9/2008
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

Q. All right. A. That's a different question in my opinion. Q. So asking you what you know is different from asking you what you understand. A. That's correct. MR. LAMBERT: Joe, can we use the chocolate cake analogy so we can -- he understands? MR. BRUNO: No. I don't like the chocolate cake analogy. MR. LAMBERT: I like it. MR. BRUNO: I know you do. MR. LAMBERT: Okay. Never mind. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I am going to be straight up about it, which is, I will say to you that every time I ask the word what do you know, I mean it to mean what do you understand. And I will endeavor to use the phase, and I will put it on
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

authorization it would seem to me you would want to know who you're dealing with. And I guess you're telling me you don't feel any need to know who you're dealing with, factually. Not understanding wise, but factually. A. I know exactly who I'm dealing with. Q. Okay. All right. And so all you care about is the fact that you are dealing with, for example, the project manager, right? A. No. Q. Well, who do you care about who you're dealing with? A. Who do I care? Q. Yeah. I mean, you told me -MR. SMITH: I'm going to object. That's vague. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Let's back up and I'll read where the phrase came from. I took it from your answer. At least I tried to. I might not have done it by mistake. I want to know who you feel compelled to know factually who you're dealing with. Tell me about that process. A. From the engineering project process,
Page 29

a big yellow piece of paper, what do you understand, in place of what do you know. And I would, for the record, like for you to explain to me, in fairness to you, because you have the right to have a different opinion, what is your understanding of the distinction between an understanding of an issue and knowledge of an issue? A. Understanding of in issue, to me, is here's my appreciation as to how it works, compared to what I know as I would know facts about that and say, here's how it does work. So I may not be in tune to all the requirements, all the facts and steps along the way, but what I understand as a general process of how it happens. Q. Right. Well -A. It's a different question, to me. Q. I understand that. But what's curious to me about that is, for example, when I asked you who's the authorizing agency, I believe you said somebody else is better than you. Right? A. Yes. Q. Well, as the person offering technical assistance to the person who is trying to get

I will be dealing with a project manager and the project management division here at the district, also with the commander, also with my peers around the -- for the other organizations at the district. We have a division office in Vicksburg, so I would deal with those folks on the engineering side directly, but I would not deal generally with the engineering folks at the headquarters directly unless I included -unless I coordinated with the division office and then we, together, contacted the headquarters office. Q. All right. I'm just trying to get -I need to understand where you're coming from. A. Uh-huh. Q. Okay? And I need to understand this distinction you make between understanding and knowledge. A. Uh-huh. Q. So you know you deal with those folks -A. Yes, I do. Q. You know who they are? A. Yes. Q. You know their roles, you know their

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 30

1/9/2008
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

positions. A. Yes. Q. So I guess what you're saying to me is you have some understanding that there may be some folks above them who will review your work. A. That's correct. Q. And even though you have some general understanding about who they might be, you're not concerned about finding out who they truly factually are. A. I know who they're on the engineering side. Q. All right. Where does the buck stop at the engineering side? Who's the top guy or girl? A. James Dalton is the top person -Q. Okay. A. -- in Engineering today. Q. So you are factually concerned with knowing that your engineering product needs to satisfy this person, whoever he or she is, but beyond that you don't have any need to understand factually who may be reviewing your engineering product. Right?
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

is, right? I mean, we've already established that. A. You're asking a very limited question, and, um -- for a very broad field. I mean, that's -(Brief interruption.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Well, we'll play it your way. What is your understanding of who is the authorizing agency or agent or person in the context of the work of supporting the authorization process? A. My understanding is it goes to the Chief of Engineers, and then goes to the Assistant Secretary of the Army. Q. And that's where it stops? A. Then it would be coordinated with other federal agencies and the Congress. Q. Well, do you have at least an understanding of who gives you the authorization? A. Congress. Q. All right. Well, you know that. So would you agree with me that the Congress is the person -- or the entity to whom you are
Page 33

A. Yes. Q. That's it. End of the line. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you don't have any interest in knowing who that person will take your product to. Right? Because you just said he's the top guy. A. Yes. Q. All right. So what that means to me, as a layman, is that as long as you satisfy that top guy, you're good and you don't really care about satisfying anybody else. A. That's -- no, I wouldn't say that. Q. Why not? You don't even know who they are? A. It's a different question. Q. Well, then tell me here. You told me the only person that you're interested in knowing factually who will review your work and therefore you want to make sure that that person is satisfied with your product is this end guy, whatever his name is? You know, or you have some vague understanding that he reports to somebody else and you're not interested in knowing factually who what person

supplying your technical expertise? Do you, Walter Baumy? A. In the report, sure. Q. Of course. A. Sure. Q. And would you agree with me that the Congress is relying on what's contained in your technical engineering support product? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, and would you agree with me that the person who -- whoever the entity may be, in deciding to authorize or not authorizing a particular project, needs to know what's good about the project? Would you agree with me? A. Yes. Q. And would you agree with me that the person authorizing the project needs to know what's bad about the project? Right? A. It should be a comprehensive report. Q. Sue. And it should include, then, a discussion of all of the deleterious potential effects of the project. Don't you agree? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Because without that, the

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 34

1/9/2008
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

person who is issuing the authorization doesn't really have a fair amount of information upon which to make its judgment. Right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, just help me understand, b because I thought -- maybe I didn't. I thought you told me that your branch supports the cost estimating component. And then I thought I heard you say, well, that's really somebody else. What is your role -- let me just finish the question. And tell me if it needs to be changed, because I'll change it. A. Okay. Q. But what is your, your meaning your technical support role in cost estimation? A. In the project -- the reconnaissance and the feasibility phases, there will be a number of alternatives that are considered for a project, and we will fully cost out the project features. And, um -Q. And forgive me for interrupting you, but when you say to fully cost out the project features, do I understand that to mean what it would cost to build?
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

I don't know how much of this gets into the picture. Can you see this? A. Yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I know you can. I wasn't talking to you, Mr. Baumy, I was talking to the videographer. Do you recognize the location depicted in this satellite photograph? A. Yes, I do. Q. All right. And do you see -- and I will share with you, I'm certain it's obvious to you as an expert engineer, that there are some overlays on this photograph, some yellow, green and some numbers. A. Yes. Q. Okay? All right. And I will share with you that the legend suggests what these overlays are. Which is pretty typical for these kinds of maps, right? A. Yes. Q. That's why you have a legend. The legend tells you what the symbols mean; right? A. Yes.
Page 37

A. Yes. Q. Okay. So can I assume, or can I glean from that answer that you're not really evaluating the costs of the deleterious effects if any of a particular project, that's somebody else. A. I guess I'm having difficulty with the deleterious effects, trying to categorize that in my mind as to what that may or may not mean. Q. Fair enough. Well, you know we're here about the MRGO? A. Yes. Q. And you know that the allegation made by the plaintiffs are that there are deleterious effects associated with the MRGO? A. Yes. Q. Do you know at least, or do you understand -- do you understand what the plaintiffs allege those deleterious effects to be? A. No, I do not. Q. Okay. Good enough. Fair enough. We have, to assist us, those satellite photos. And I'm going to -MR. BRUNO:

Q. All right. Now, first thing is, the markings, they are over the -- or would you agree with me that the markings are over the location of the MRGO channel up to the point where the channel intersects with the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I don't expect you to do any kind of technical analysis here, but last week during the deposition it was suggested that maybe the mile markers were wrong. Is it possible for you, as you sit there, to look at this map and tell me whether or not you share the view that they're wrong or that they may be close or whatever? A. No, I can't do that. Q. Fair enough. All right. But would you agree with me that the end of the mile markers is the point at which the MRGO comes into the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal? A. I don't know that for a fact. Q. Okay. Do you know how the mile markers are oriented, that is, going away from the Industrial Canal or coming into the MRGO from the gulf?

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 38

1/9/2008
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, I don't. Q. All right. How about stations; do you know what stations are? A. Yes. Q. Would you describe for the record what stations are? A. Stations are markers along a particular alignment that are surveyed out -laid out in the field that would actually relate to a particular point along that alignment. Q. All right. Now, I put this board up there just to see if there was some understanding of what the plaintiffs allege. You know that the United States Army Corps of Engineers received an authorization from the Congress to build this channel called the MRGO; right? A. Yes. Q. Now, when you get an authorization, does the authorization just simply say build it? Or does the authorization generally contain a description with specifications, depending upon the degree of specificity, of what you're supposed to build?
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

difference between the yellow and the green? A. Yes. Q. Okay. All right. Now, first of all, do you know, Mr. Baumy, today, as you sit in that chair, know, not understand, using your words, your comprehension of the word know, whether or not the shoreline as it exists today is where the channel design width says it's supposed to be? A. It's not. Q. Okay. And is it outside or inside or -- do you know what I mean when I say inside or outside the line? A. I believe I do. Q. Is it inside or outside the channel design width? A. Outside. Q. All right. And do you know why? A. Um -- in general, yes. Q. Just generally. That's fair enough. Tell me. A. Erosion and overall subsidence. Q. All right. Now, deleterious is my word, in fairness to you. A. Okay.
Page 41

A. I don't know that for a fact. I really don't. Q. Okay. All right. If Mr. Accardo testified on Friday -- do you know him? A. Yes. Q. All right. Would you have any reason or any knowledge upon which to disagree with his suggestion that the Congress tells you to build, in the case of a MRGO, a channel so wide, so deep? A. No, I wouldn't have any reason to disagree with him. Q. Fair enough. Now, you see the green line? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And again, I'm not asking you to accept that this thing is accurate. I'm asking this in the context of understanding an allegation which is something we assert, that we will ultimately have to prove. Do you understand that? A. Yes. Q. All right. The green is the top of the channel design width, and then the yellow is the 2005 shoreline. Do you see the

Q. And do you have some general understanding of the use of that word? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So I'm wondering, sir, whether or not you would agree with me that erosion and/or subsidence, I think you said, would those be deleterious effects of the MRGO? A. Erosion could be, yes. Subsidence I would say no. Q. Okay. All right. Now, so do you understand that the plaintiffs allege that the construction of the MRGO had as a deleterious effect the erosion of the shoreline? That's an allegation. I'm not asking you to say that it's true. Okay? But just understand that's what we allege? A. Okay. Yes. Q. You understand that. Fair enough. With that understanding, I just want to clarify that understanding so that I can ask you some more questions. Okay? Fair enough? A. Yep. Q. All right. Now, let me ask you this question, just while we're up: This is a second map. And I'll share with you it just

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 42

1/9/2008
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

continues from the first map, this is the rest of the MRGO channel out into the gulf. Do you recognize the depiction on this satellite photo to be reasonably accurate? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Fair enough. The area to the north, what would you call this? You, you know, as an expert engineer, what would you call this? A. I would just call it the marshlands north of the project. Q. All right. So you'd call it marsh. A. Yeah. Q. All right. How about the area to the south; would you also call that marsh? A. Generally, yes. Q. Okay. And going back to the other one, would you call this area marsh? A. Yes. Q. This area marsh? A. Yes. Q. And this area marsh? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Okay. When you assumed the role as chief, obviously there were a lot of
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

projects, which would include the hurricane protection structures built pursuant to the 1965 Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection plan. Right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I want to understand generally, what did you do to learn about the history of these projects in order to be in a position to offer the technical assistance to these various folks, if anything? I'm not saying you had to do it, I'm just asking you what did you do? A. We provided support in the operation and maintenance phase. So in the example of structures, there was a formal program for periodic inspection of those structures. And we provided that service to operations division. And so we would actually complete a report every three to five years, depending on the structure, that would assess the current condition of the structure and the -- any suggestions from observations or suggested remedial actions from that standpoint. In the case of the MRGO, we provided dredging support to operations division; if there was a segment of the channel that, um -Page 45

projects that were in place already when you took over that position. Right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. There was the flood protection structures on the river from Baton Rouge to the gulf, right? A. Yes. Q. And there is in fact an operations division with a person who is in charge of the day-to-day operation of that project, right? A. Yes. Q. And your engineering division is expected to provide support to that person, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Same thing with the Atchafalaya basin, right? A. Yes. Q. And the Calcasieu River and Pass, right? A. Yes. Q. And the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, right? A. Yes. Q. And I believe it's called completed

that was shoaling and needed to be opened for navigation, then we would go in and prepare that when requested. There were also some earlier documents that documented the means for providing erosion protection along the channel, and so we worked from that document. Q. Okay. Well, let me -- that really wasn't responsive to what I was asking. A. Okay. Q. Which is okay. I'm happy for the response. Let me see if I can clarify. Oftentimes when a person takes a new position, you know, you walk in the first day, and obviously your job has got a lot of responsibility to it, and I don't know about you but a lot of folks like you just kind of get some understanding of what's happened in the past, what's going on around the office. That's what I meant. Specifically with regard -- let's use MRGO. What the heck? A. Uh-huh. Q. What if anything did you do to learn about the history, in other words, before you got there stuff, of the MRGO? And again, I not suggesting you had to in my question, I just

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 46

1/9/2008
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

want know what you did. A. Uh-huh. Q. Perhaps learn about the authorization, um -- you know, perhaps learn about, you know, whether or not the -- it had to be a certain width or a certain depth. Just general stuff like that. What did you do? A. Generally, we talked to people that were involved with the project for some period of time, found out about the ongoing works initiatives, the basis of the work that they were doing, and if they observed any particular issues that had to, um -- come to my attention. Q. Okay. Is -- I should say was. When you began, that was in 2002, was there a person or persons who, you know, you felt like were the go to people in connection with the MRGO within your organization at that time? A. No, there were several people that were involved. Several different functions were involved from various aspects. Q. Okay. Well, were there -- I said person or persons. So there was a bunch of folks? A. A handful, yes.
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

A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you have any particularized knowledge of the soils? A. General knowledge. Q. Just general? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. All right. Would that general knowledge include an understanding that the soils in south Louisiana are pretty spongy and difficult to work with? A. Yes. Q. But again, you probably would rely on somebody with specific knowledge to answer specific questions about soils. A. Yes. Q. Am I right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. All right. Now you told us, I believe, in answer to the question, that, um -there were periodic inspections. Right? A. For the Bienvenue and the Dupre control structures, yes. Q. Okay. That's where I got lost. I thought you told me that there were periodic inspections for each of the ongoing projects.
Page 49

Q. A handful. Who would be those folks who would be your go to people for MRGO? A. On the period inspection it would be Joe Chrysoverges, and that would be the Bienvenue and the Bayou Dupre structures. Um -- Keith O'Cane was the go to person for me on the MRGO, and Rick Broussard was more on the technical side supporting Keith. He worked for Keith. Don Rawson worked in the revetment area. And on the geotechnical side, I don't recall who that was. I'm not sure if they're still with us. I'm trying to think of who else. Q. Yeah. Do you have a name for the geotechnical person, even though they're not with us? I'm just trying to identify names now. A. Might have been, um -- Shung Chiu, but I'm not 100 percent certain. Q. Now, I know that you have a BS from the University of New Orleans in civil engineer, you've got a Master's of engineering from Tulane, and that you really have a specialty in the structural side.

A. No. Q. Okay. I wrote the words currents condition and suggested remedial action. A. That would be as part of the periodic inspection program. There's a limited number of structures within that program. Q. Okay. All right. There's a periodic inspection program. A. Yes. Q. And that's the right name. A. Yes. Q. And who designed the program? Or developed. A. I would have to guess that that would be the headquarters of the Corps of Engineers. Q. All right. Headquarters. Help me because -- is that Vicksburg? A. Washington. Q. Washington, D.C. A. Yes. It's a national program. Q. It's a national program. All right. Does the district office have any role in determining which projects get included in this periodic inspection program? A. They -- yes. Yes.

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 50

1/9/2008
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

Q. Explain for me, please, if you know, the process. A. The process would have been in the design memorandum phase back in the -- what you would call the feasibility phase now. There would be a discussion of that operations and maintenance throughout the project, and as part of that, if the project was going to go into the periodic inspection program, there would be some discussion about that. Q. Well, I take your answer to mean that the periodic inspection program predated the building of the MRGO. Is that wrong? A. I don't know. Q. Okay. Did your office, by office, let's say your division, have anything to do with the inclusion of the MRGO components in that periodic inspection program? A. I don't know that for a fact. But I would assume yes for the two -- the bigger structures, the Bienvenue and the Dupre structures. Q. All right. Now, those were built in the nineties, right?
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

pipelines on the MRGO. Do you know anything about that? A. No specific knowledge. I know they were out there. I don't know exactly where. Q. Do you know why they were put there? A. Not, um -- not factually. Q. Do you have an understanding of why they're there? A. Um -- I have a general understanding of why they're there. Q. All right, sir. A. And, um -- but again, it's not a factual understanding. Q. Doesn't matter. I want your understanding. A. Um -- they were put there most likely for one or two reasons. One, there was, um -difficulty in obtaining borrow material to raise that area or, two, you may have had some weak soil strength that prevented you from putting fill on the back -- on the protected side berm to stabilize it at a higher elevation. Q. Okay. Is that the kind of thing -and you may not know this -- that would have
Page 53

A. No. Q. When were they built? A. Um -- late sixties, early seventies. Q. The structures were there? A. I would, um -- I would guess at that. Again, I don't know that as a fact. But I would -- just based on my recollection, I would say the late sixties or early seventies. Q. Perhaps I'm reading this sentence of the IPET report at Page 27 incorrectly. A. Okay. Q. I'll show it to you, and I have it highlighted in yellow. And you just verify that in fact is the IPET Volume 1, if you want to. I have it all there. (Tendering.) A. I don't know. I don't see a specific time mentioned here. Q. You see the closure of the -- there's a sentence which specifically says, sheet pile closures at bayous and pipelines were placed in 1992. A. The Bayou Bienvenue and Bayou Dupre structures are not sheet pile closures. Q. Okay. Fair enough. So in 1992, there were sheet pile closures at bayous and

been done with an O&M budget dollar, or would that would be a capital dollar? A. I believe that would have been a, um -- project dollar and not an O&M dollar. Q. Why is that? Just curiosity. A. But the project was under construction at that point. We were scheduled to do future lifts on it. So if there were future lifts scheduled, then I assume that was still in the project phase and not necessarily in the full O&M phase. Q. So your understanding is if the project is not complete you can use -(Whereupon Judge Wilkinson returned the earlier call.) JUDGE WILKINSON: Mr. Smith? MR. SMITH: Good morning, judge. JUDGE WILKINSON: Good morning. How are you? MR. SMITH: Very good, thank you. JUDGE WILKINSON: Mr. Bruno.

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 54

1/9/2008
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

MR. BRUNO: Good morning, Your Honor. I thank you for taking this call. May we have the court reporter read to you the exchange which provoked the -JUDGE WILKINSON: Yeah. I want the court reporter to take down this, as well. Okay? MR. BRUNO: All right. JUDGE WILKINSON: She can read it first and then take everything down that we say as part of the deposition record. (Whereupon the question at issue was read back as follows: Question: All right. So you're telling me that beyond that, you have no concept of what the word authorization means? Answer: I do, but I'm not the best person to answer that because I don't have that factual --) MR. BRUNO: And judge, my problem was he had answered negatively in the earlier part of the deposition, and it became
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

this distinction between what he calls factual and he calls understanding of a particular issue. I suggested to counsel and the witness that this is not a 30(b)(6), that he doesn't have the right in thinking about how to answer question that there may be somebody else who has more knowledge which would give him the right to not answer a question or to say that he has no knowledge. It's of particular importance to me, particularly in this discovery deposition, to know what the witness knows, and so I thought it appropriate to frankly nip this problem in the bud before we got to too far because it could taint the entire deposition. JUDGE WILKINSON: All right. Mr. Smith? MR. SMITH: Yes your Honor, I think the pertinent point to be made here is that Mr. Bruno interrupted Mr. Baumy
Page 57

clear to me that the witness was somehow making the distinction between knowledge and understanding, which I still don't know that I get, but I wanted to -JUDGE WILKINSON: Read to me the question one more time, please. (Whereupon the question at issue was read back as follows: Question: All right. So you're telling me that beyond that, you have no concept of what the word authorization means? Answer: I do, but I'm not the best person to answer that because I don't have that factual --) MR. BRUNO: That's where it stopped. JUDGE WILKINSON: All right, Mr. Bruno, go ahead. MR. BRUNO: Yeah, and my point is, Judge, I had asked questions of the witness and he had indicated that he had no knowledge, and then when I pressed him on it I learned that he was making

in the midst of answering the question and began to berate him for not giving a response that was full and complete. Mr. Bruno jumped the gun and assumed that Mr. Baumy was not going to give a complete answer without even giving him a chance to answer the question. Mr. Baumy has not refused to answer any question that's been posed to the fullest extent of his knowledge. He did not, contrary to what Mr. Bruno says, disclaim knowledge about that. He gave the information that he had and was simply clarifying and qualifying that his knowledge was incomplete, and that if Mr. Bruno wanted to know everything that was to know about that, there would be other people who could address it better. JUDGE WILKINSON: Okay. All right. I assume that you all are familiar with the process of questioning under oath. And, you know, the process should go with a

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 58

1/9/2008
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

question and then an answer being permitted to be given as completely as the witness wants to give it. And if there's follow-up clarification that needs to be done, then there should be follow-up clarification. Now, if Mr. Baumy has some knowledge in response to a question, and, you know, the fragment of an answer that was just read to me indicates that he does have some additional knowledge about which he has not testified, then he should testify. The fact that he's not the best person to provide the information doesn't mean that he's somehow excused from providing the information that he has. So, you know, as to that question -- first of all, Mr. Bruno, you need to let him finish. It didn't sound like he was finished. Okay? If he does have additional knowledge that's responsive to the question, then he should provide it whether he's the best person to
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

something, and then -JUDGE WILKINSON: No, what you asked was, beyond that you don't have any concept of the term authorization? MR. BRUNO: Right. JUDGE WILKINSON: And he said, I do, but I'm not the best person. Maybe he was going to tell you what he does know before you interrupted him. MR. BRUNO: Well, the problem -JUDGE WILKINSON: He should tell you what he does know. MR. BRUNO: I agree. And remember, this is the Corps of Engineers. I was asking him who authorizes projects, and he claimed not to know. So that's what got me a little exercised. But judge, I hear you loud and clear, and -JUDGE WILKINSON:
Page 61

provide it or not. If there's some explanation he wants to make for his answer, for example, you know, I have some knowledge, I guess it's limited but here it is, X, Y and Z, the best person to answer that is so and so, he'd know more about it than me, then he should be permitted to give that explanation. The question should be asked, answer should be provided without interruption, and when the answer is finished, if there needs to be explanation or follow-up, that can follow. Beyond that, I don't know what to say about this little dispute, gentlemen. But Mr. Bruno, let him finish his answers. MR. BRUNO: Absolutely, judge. And again, I didn't burden you with the exchange for the, you know, pages before that point in time, but if you will recall the question I was asking him do you really believe that you don't know

Listen, if I don't know is a truthful answer it's a perfectly acceptable answer. MR. BRUNO: Right. And then if the witness does know he's required to answer. JUDGE WILKINSON: That's correct. MR. BRUNO: That's it. That's all I need. JUDGE WILKINSON: All right. MR. BRUNO: Thank you, judge. JUDGE WILKINSON: But if he's got some explanation that goes with his answer, he needs to be permitted to give it. MR. BRUNO: Right. JUDGE WILKINSON: Okay? MR. BRUNO: Yes, judge. JUDGE WILKINSON:

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 62

1/9/2008
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

All right. Anything else? MR. BRUNO: No. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Does the witness understand the Court's admonition? MR. SMITH: Your Honor, in fact Mr. Bruno continued that line of questioning for some time after he placed the call. MR. BRUNO: I did. MR. SMITH: This area has been completely covered now. JUDGE WILKINSON: Okay. Fine. MR. BRUNO: I just don't want this to happen -- the reason I called you, Judge, and I don't do this lightly, but I don't want to have a deposition go eight hours and then at the end of the deposition find out that the witness in his own brain made a
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

Joe. Joe. Joe. MR. BRUNO: Joe, Joe what? MR. SMITH: He heard the Judge. You don't need to admonish him. That's not your role. You're here to ask him questions. If you have a question, ask the question. MR. BRUNO: I have a question. I just don't want to have that issue come up again, because I know you will agree with me, Robin, it will taint the whole deposition if we have some little -MR. SMITH: One thing I will agree is this was unnecessary. MR. BRUNO: I won't agree with that at all. No, on the contrary, I think we have different testimony since the call. MR. LAMBERT: And I think it's clear that the witness -Page 65

distinction between the words knowledge and understanding. And now, I'll be happy at another time to share with you this dialogue between us about how he makes a distinction between understanding and knowledge, which is for another day. I think we're good, I think the witness understands your admonition and we can go forward. JUDGE WILKINSON: Do you understand my admonition, too, Mr. Bruno? MR. BRUNO: Yes, sir. JUDGE WILKINSON: Then go forward. MR. BRUNO: Thank you. JUDGE WILKINSON: Okay. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. We got it now? If you have any knowledge you have to give it to me. MR. SMITH:

MR. SMITH: Skip, you're not participating in this deposition. MR. LAMBERT: Okay. I'll be quiet. MR. SMITH: Is this time for a break? (Brief recess.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Let me see if I can clarify just one or two things for me, if not the record. We're talking about your role as chief, and we're therefore limiting these questions to 2002 to the present time. Okay? And I just got a little confused by your use of the word periodic inspection, and I wanted to make certain that we're all clear as to what that meant. I think before the break you were just telling us about a periodic inspection program that comes out of the Washington office. Right? A. Yes. Q. All right. Give us the name of that program. A. It's the periodic inspection program,

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 66

1/9/2008
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

to my knowledge. Q. That's brilliant. There is no acronym? A. I don't use it, if there is. Q. Okay. Y'all have more acronyms than any organization on the planet. All right. So the periodic inspection program. Now, I'm going to walk through, if you don't mind, each of the operation division operations manager for each project in order to ascertain if you know whether or not a particular project is in that periodic inspection program or a component of that project is in the periodic inspection program. Okay? A. Are these current managers or past? Q. No, I wasn't going to use their name, I was going to use their title. A. Okay. Q. You understand? A. Yes. Q. First, the Mississippi River Baton Rouge to Gulf. Are there any components of that that would fall within the ambit of oversight responsibility of that op manager, to
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

we would actually inspect the project, we would look back at the history of the project and see if there were any, um -- engineering issues that needed attention for those projects. So we would put a diverse team together of engineering disciplines that would include the civil, the structural, hydraulic engineer and so forth, they would go out, inspect that particular structure, then write a report that would include here are the recommendations for operations division to implement. And then we turn that over to operations, and it's their responsibility to implement those as funding and desires permit. Q. All right. How does your division come to some understanding about the scope of what it is that you're expected to do in the context of periodic inspections? Is there a writing, for example, or is this an oral or is this just something that you just formulate yourself? A. No, it's -- we follow written guidance from the, um -- as part of the program, and there's a longstanding history of what's been in the periodic inspections over the years. So
Page 69

your knowledge, that fall within the periodic inspection program? A. There are projects along the Mississippi River. As far as how ops has them separated with authorities, fundings, I really don't know. But yes, there are projects along the Mississippi River. Q. I just want an example. I don't need you to go through each of them. A. Okay. An example? Q. Just one. A. Yeah, the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal lock. Well, maybe that could be GIWW, so. Q. I was going to say, you threw my. A. That's where my distinctions are a little cloudy. Port Allen lock could be on the Mississippi. Q. All right. And give us a little, if you can, some understanding of the support role that your division gives in the context of the periodic inspection of something like that lock at Port Allen. A. Okay. Yeah. On the Port Allen lock, we would go out on a five-year basis and, um --

what you do is you mesh the guidance with the past practices and come up with a report at that time. Q. Okay. Clearly, you're looking to determine whether or not the structure is functional, right? A. Yes. Q. Are you looking, though, to ascertain whether or not the structure is failing? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Yes. Q. And is your division interested, in any way, as to what the source of funding may be for a particular recommendation, or does your division simply make an engineering recommendation based upon guidelines and the experience of past inspections? A. For periodic inspection, we would make an assessments of that structure and we would make engineering recommendations based upon our observations and analysis. Q. All right. But the question was, does money play a role? A. No.

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 70

1/9/2008
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

Q. Okay. That's my point. You don't really care how much it costs or who's paying for it, you're offering your engineering advice, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Is there a division or a person or a section who evaluates your recommendation to determine the money side, that is, how much it would cost, whether it comes out of the maintenance budget, capital outlay budget, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? A. That would be the operations division for structures in the periodic inspection program. They are generally in the O&M phase. Q. Good. And we've talked to Mr. Accardo, as I said, about that. All I want to know from you is, from your side, the engineering side, whether or not you offer any technical advice with regard to money other than perhaps the cost of a suggested repair? Or the cost of a suggested anything? Take out the word repair. A. No, not on periodic inspection. Q. Okay. Atchafalaya basin. Is that or any component of the basin part of the periodic
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

protection, they would fall within the responsibility of the operations -- the op manager for completed projects. A. That's my understanding. Q. Okay. Anyway, but I was asking the question about the gulf outlet. Is the gulf outlet itself, or any component thereof, in this periodic inspection program? A. No. Q. Okay. All right. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway? A. There would be locks along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Yes. Q. All right. Now, it sounds to me, Mr. Baumy, but, you know, please tell me if I'm incorrect, that the periodic inspection program really regards structures, like locks -A. Yes. Q. -- as opposed to canals or levees or I-walls or T-walls. Is that a reasonable -A. In general, that is correct. But there are selected projects where I-walls or T-walls are included in those inspections. Q. In this periodic inspection program. A. Yes.
Page 73

inspection? A. Yes. Q. All right. Just generally, kind of things. A. Charenton flood gate, Berwick lock. Those would be examples. Q. Good. Calcasieu. A. Um -Q. River and Pass, to be complete for the record. A. Yes. There are structures out there. Q. Okay. The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet? A. Not -- the structures are not on the gulf outlet. They're on part of the hurricane protection. Q. Okay. I hear you. And so that means that that would fall within I think it's called completed projects ops. Right? A. Which aspect? Q. Um -- the Bienvenue and -A. Dupre. Q. -- Dupre locks? A. Yes. Q. Because they're part of hurricane

Q. Can you give me an example, just an example, of a project where the T-wall or the I-wall is a component to be inspected pursuant to the periodic inspection program? A. Morgan City floodwall. Q. Okay. Do you know, Mr. Baumy, what it is about the Morgan City floodwall that suggests that it be included in this periodic inspection program, given the fact that, as we know, there are miles and miles and miles and miles of I-walls, T-walls and earth berm levees in the system? A. I did at one time, but I really don't remember exactly at this point. Q. Can you suggest to me who I might speak to to find out the answer to that question? A. I think it would come back to me, eventually, with going back through the historical documents, but I hadn't done that. Q. All right. Well, which branch would be in charge -- I'm sorry. Which op manager would be in charge of that particular, um -A. I would surmise the Atchafalaya Basin, because that's it's location. But it could be

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 74

1/9/2008
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

inspection of completed works, I really don't know. Q. So, um -- let's see if we can kind of walk through this: How does one know which components of a particular project are in this periodic inspection program? A. It's a formalized program, and we coordinate with operations division in our division office, and we have what we call a five-year schedule. So all the projects that are inspected as part of that program are listed, and not only listed but the financial requirement to inspect them in which year is included so we can manage that overall program. Q. I'm gathering from your answer the this is written down, then. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And it's a writing that's in the possession of each of these op managers. A. I would assume it is. Q. But it comes from Washington. A. Um -- I don't -- no. No. That does not come from Washington. Q. All right. Well, where -A. Coordination is between the district
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

particular project or component of a project? A. I would assume so, yes. Q. All right. Do I gather from your answer that that's not within the ambit of engineering -- of the engineering division? A. We would certainly weigh in on that decision -- on that recommendation. Q. Well, weigh in, I take that answer to mean that you're not the initiator of the request or thought to include but, rather, it sounds like you're responding to else 's suggestion for inclusion and you're offering your technical advices to that entity or person. A. I don't know that answer, um -- I don't know it today. Q. All right. Well, I'm just trying to understand your answer. Weigh in clearly would suggest to me -- tell me if I'm crazy here, but weigh in would suggest to me that somebody else is asking for your opinion. A. Okay. Q. Is that fair? A. Yeah. Q. All right. And so I take that -- I
Page 77

and the division as to which structures are in that program, as far as the execution of that periodic inspection program. Q. All right. So it's the division -it's at the division level, to ask the question a little better, that the decision is made to include a project or a component of a project in the periodic inspection program. A. Yes. Q. And maybe I should have asked this first: Is it possibly part of the original authorization? A. I don't know that. Q. All right. Do you know the criteria for inclusion of a particular component of the project itself for inclusion in the periodic inspection? A. I don't remember. Q. Okay. But the actual decision to include or not include is at the division level. A. Yes. Q. Is there a process by which recommendations are made by the district office to the division office for the inclusion of a

wonder if there's a logical, um -- conclusion that can be made therefrom would be that somebody else has got the thought in their brain to include a project or a component thereof in this periodic inspection. A. Um -- I'm not sure how to answer you at this point in time. THE WITNESS: Um -- I may have to talk to you offline. I don't know if I want to do that or you want -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Feel free to. MR. SMITH: Okay. Can we take a little break? MR. BRUNO: Yeah. (Off the record.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Got it? A. Yes. Q. Do you want to read back? (Whereupon the previous question was read back.)

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 78

1/9/2008
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. SMITH: And I'm not sure that's a question, but if it is, it's certainly vague and ambiguous. So maybe we could -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Well, you know, it's like Jerry Spence would always say, isn't that true? MR. SMITH: Yeah. But which part of what you said? That. MR. BRUNO: All right. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Listen, maybe I'm crazy here, but it would seem to me that the division of this district office that has the most knowledge with regard to how things work, how they break, would be your division. Is that accurate? A. I would say no. Q. No? Well, who would that be? A. It would be a combination of engineering division and operations division, because they operate many of these projects. Q. Okay. All right. So they're out
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

Q. We meaning your division? A. Yes. And, um -- so that's the way it's -- it comes to light. You know, that's just a natural part of the process is the O&M phase. And, um -- those inspections will be part of that phase. Q. Well, let's remember, now, I asked you specifically whether or not your division had a role in ascertaining whether or not a project or a component thereof would be included in the periodic inspection, and you said no. Now you're telling me that it's part of the original design. A. Is that what I said? I don't recall saying no, that we didn't have a role in that. Q. Well, I specifically asked the question -- not only did I ask it generally, but I went through each project. So let's talk about the Morganza project. Those would be I-walls or T-walls that are part of -- you'll remember, I thought -A. Mostly T-walls. But there probably are some, um -- I-walls there. But it's mostly large T-walls. Q. Okay. Large T-walls. Now, do you
Page 81

there having, then, the opportunity to observe, and then they can put you on notice of what they observe, and then you can offer engineering expertise? A. Yes. Q. Is that it? A. Yes. Q. So I guess what you're saying is, without knowing that there's something to evaluate, you can't evaluate it. Right? A. In the case of a periodic inspection, yes. Q. All right. So I'm gathering then that the business of ascertaining the need for inspection is one that's based competely on experience with a particular project or a component thereof, you watch it, you observe it, see how it performs. Right? A. That's part of it. Yes. Q. Well, what else is there? A. Um -- most of the structures that we operate as the Corps of Engineers where our folks actually operate it, we set out the periodic inspection requirements at the inception of the project.

know whether or not the original design for the construction called for the inclusion of these T-walls or I-walls in the periodic inspection program? A. No, I don't. I'd have to go back and look at the references. Q. Do you know why those T-walls or I-walls are in -- by do you know, I'm using the understanding and the knowledge business. A. Uh-huh. Q. Are included in the periodic inspection program? A. I would have to look at the written word as to why they were in there, but, um -from my experience, they're very, very tall walls. Some of them are 19, 20 feet tall. And so that is my, um -- I would call it speculation at this point, or my general understanding is you've got a very, very tall wall there, which is pretty unusual. Q. Right. A. And they were entered into the program at an earlier time. Q. Well, on that note, I think I understand your own Corps specifications to

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 82

1/9/2008
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

suggest that you don't use an I-wall if the I-wall is going to be above a certain height. Is that correct? A. I don't think that's correct. Q. Okay. Is there any limit on the height above the surface for an I-wall in your Corps specifications? A. There are suggested limitations in past -- yes. Q. What is the suggested limitation in the Corps -- I'm going to call them generally guides. A. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I would suspect there are various pieces of guidance that may have different numbers in them. But it will give you a generality. Q. Is it fair for me to conclude that in the instance that an I-wall, in particular, exceeds those guidelines, that that would be a basis for inclusion in the periodic inspection program? A. No, it would not. Q. Okay. All right. Do you know -- and I only ask the question because I thought your answer was that the Morganza T-walls and/or
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

project and whether they were in there. MR. BRUNO: No, I didn't. I broke it down between I-walls and T-walls -MR. SMITH: Go ahead. MR. BRUNO: -- specifically for this reason. MR. SMITH: That's fine. He will answer. I apologize if I'm incorrect. MR. LAMBERT: Is this the same as Morgan City? THE WITNESS: That's really what it is. It's Morgan City, it's not Morganza. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I'm sorry. Then I misspoke. But again, we talked about I-walls, let's talk about T-walls. Do you know why those are in the periodic inspection program? A. Again, it's just -- my opinion at this point in time, without looking at the written word, is that they were brought in because of
Page 85

I-walls that are included are included because they're so high. A. That is my guess at this point in time without looking at the documentation. Q. All right. And you can understand why I would ask the question. A. Uh-huh. Q. That I'm wondering if it's because they exceed the guideline height suggested limit, that that's the reason why they would be included. Do you understand that? A. I don't know that they exceed the suggested limit. The T-walls are different than I-walls. Q. All right. How about the T-walls, do you know why they are in the periodic inspection program? A. Um -MR. SMITH: Asked and answered. MR. BRUNO: No, We asked for I-walls. I broke it down into two parts, Robin. MR. SMITH: No, you asked about the Morganza

their large, unusual heights. But, I don't know. It could be their critical location for all I know. I'd have to look at the written word. Q. All right. Fine. Now, Mr. Baumy, outside of this periodic inspection program which is a Washington-based program, is there any other periodic inspection that your division does on any of the projects or components thereof in the op division? A. We participate in the inspection of completed works, but it's not, um -- it's not necessarily a formalized participation. Q. All right. Is that the -- I've used the word periodic purposefully. Okay? A. Uh-huh. Q. Is the annual inspection that the manager of completed ops does on the hurricane protection structures in and around New Orleans one of those things that you participate in? A. I have not participated in any of those. Q. Your division, I'm sorry. Your division. A. We do participate, but it's not

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 86

1/9/2008
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

consistent participation. Q. All right. And who makes the decision as to whether or not you participate or not? A. Ops will generally send a request to somebody who may have been working on the project at one time, or who has participated in past inspections. Q. All right. A. And they will support them as requested. Q. All right. Now, the word reconnaissance. You use that in the context of a phase of the project development. Is the word reconnaissance also used in the context of a study or an evaluation? A. Yes. Q. I take it that reconnaissance in the context of evaluating a project for future possible authorization is different from the reconnaissance that is done by the operations folks. Is that correct? A. I don't know if operations actually does reconnaissance. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm not aware of them doing what you call reconnaissance.
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

thing is a study done in connection with a reconnaissance phase that might be in connection with some project? A. I don't know how that came about, that study, as far as how it tied into the normal Corps process of recon, feasibility, plans and specifications, operations and so forth. Q. All right. Well, I need to sort of -I need to get just a fundamental understanding of the use of the word. Okay? You've already testified about a reconnaissance phase report that comes from a reconnaissance phase evaluation that your office -- or I should say your division may do for a particular project. Okay? I'm trying to now learn whether or not this report, because it uses the word reconnaissance, necessarily then is a component of the process by which the germ of a project goes from the germ to authorization. Can I make that conclusion? A. I don't know that you can in this case. Q. Okay. All right. So then I have to ask you, if the phrase reconnaissance report, does that have any special meaning in this
Page 89

Q. All right. Who does the reconnaissance that we just talked about a few seconds ago? A. Well, what we were talking about a few seconds ago, I thought, was reconnaissance phase of a project, and it's really a study phase. Q. No. A. A reconnaissance study. That's the way I took it. Q. Okay. It's one of these. (Tendering.) A. Okay. That's a reconnaissance report. That would be the same as a study phase, but it's a different, um -- I'm not sure where that one went, but -- I've seen it, but I hadn't looked at it in a long time. Q. Well, for the record we're referring to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet St. Bernard Parish Bank Erosion Reconnaissance Report. A. Okay. Q. Have you ever seen this before? A. Yes, I have. Q. And so are you testifying that this

district office? A. Yes. Q. All right. What does it mean? A. I would look at the word reconnaissance on the report and say it was a limited analysis, with further design to follow at some point in time. Q. Okay. All right, sir. Now, can you answer this question: Is this a true statement or a false statement? We do reconnaissance studies on all of our projects on a regular basis. Is that a true statement or a false statement? A. I would say generally true. Q. All right. Explain that. A. Okay. If you start with the inception of a project, you would do the reconnaissance study generally first, then move to the feasibility phase, and then move to the post feasibility phase -Q. Right. A. -- which would include design and then construction, and O&M and so forth. So that would be the general how projects work at this point in time.

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 90

1/9/2008
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

That report I would have to look at, because the project was already in the O&M phase, so I don't know the connection without looking at the details. Q. Okay. I understand your answer and perhaps I didn't ask the question as well as I should have, because I meant to ask the question, is it true or false that the Corps does a reconnaissance study on every project after it's completed, on a regular basis? A. I would say generally not. Q. Okay. All right. Let's talk very specifically about the MRGO channel. Okay? If we can. And we have got these two boards to assist us in connection with these questions. Now, I know this predates you. This is -obviously this is long before you became the chief. And so obviously if you don't know the answer you don't know the answer. But if you have some information I'd like to know the information. A. Okay. Q. And if, you know, if you happen to know the name of some lady or man that I should talk to to get more information, I would
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

Q. -- for the MRGO? A. You lost me. I didn't follow your question. Q. Well, what I was asking you is this: We know today we have these nice phrases which describe a particularized process for moving a project from a thought to authorization -A. Yes. Q. -- to building and completion. And you've already told me, and I understand that you may not be aware of the nomenclature employed by the Corps back in the fifties and the sixties. A. I've seen it, I just don't remember it sitting here. Q. I understand. And I'm not asking you to tell me the words. A. Okay. Q. I'm asking you whether or not you would agree with me that something that would likely be called a reconnaissance phase study was done in the fifties. A. I would agree that there was an earlier report that was done around that time period.
Page 93

appreciate that, too. But one thing we accept, you and I, this is a project of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the MRGO. Right? A. It's a project with the Corps of Engineers and a local sponsor and some surrounding parishes who put this project together. Q. All right. It's a project which the Corps designed, right? A. Yes. Q. It's a project which the Corps conducted a reconnaissance phase study on, right? A. I don't know. Q. Okay. You don't know if the business of doing a reconnaissance phase evaluation was in place back in the fifties. A. Right. There were earlier reports, I just don't know what they were called. Q. Okay. Would there have been some kind of evaluation of the proposed project that may have been called something else at the time but is now called a reconnaissance report -A. I don't --

Q. Okay. And it would have been done by the Corps. A. I would have to assume yes. Q. Okay. All right. Now, do you know if the Corps had any role in suggesting to the Congress where to put the channel? A. I would believe that would be detailed in the reports. Q. Okay. Am I wrong to assume that the district office in New Orleans would have been the office that would have conducted these types of studies that may have been done in connection with the idea of digging this channel? A. I would say yes. Q. Okay. So it would have been the Corps? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, we got that much. So what I'm trying to figure out is, you know, just the process here. A. Uh-huh. Q. So, um -- specifically with regard to the MRGO, do you know how the Corps approached the problem, that is, were they just simply

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 94

1/9/2008
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

told, hey, guys, we need a back channel to get from the gulf to the river? Tell us? Or, is there more to it than that? A. I think there's more to it. Q. If you know. Okay. What would be the -- what do you know about that process? A. The way the process generally works, and I would assume it was no different here but do not know this factually, that the, um -- the Corps would be approached by a local -MR. SMITH: I'm going to object that it's calling for speculation. Go ahead and answer. A. Okay. The Corps would generally work with a local sponsor who wants project in a particular area, and they together would put that project together. The Corps could be the lead in a design role, and sometimes the sponsor may do certain things on their own and filter that into the overall project. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. I'm just curious, have you ever built a house?
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. Yes. Q. I mean, you know, you -- as the guy spending the money, you want to know how much it's going to cost you to build what you tell the guy to build. A. Uh-huh. Q. Right? You don't want to be told at the end of completion of the project, pay me, and it be more than you can afford. Right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I'm just trying to understand if that dynamic is in place in the context of ideas like the MRGO where there's this local sponsor and then there's the Corps who are interacting with one another and who are just kind of talking through, in a reconnaissance phase, using today's words, not the fifties words, is that the kind of thing that happens in the development phase of these kinds of projects? A. Generally, yes. Q. Okay. Is there a part of this process which would include, you know, again, whether or not what you build would cause damage to your neighbor 's land? Is that part of the
Page 97

A. Pardon? Q. Have you ever built a house? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever hired an architect -A. No. Q. -- to build a house? A. No. Q. Did you ever hire a contractor to build a house? A. Yes. Q. Okay. You know, I'm gathering that when you built your house with your contractor you are told the contractor generally what you wanted. A. Yes. Q. You told them how big you wanted the house. Right? A. Yes. Q. You gave them some sense of the design. Right? A. Yes. Q. And you had an expectation, did you not, that the contractor would tell you how much what you wanted to build would cost? Right?

analysis, or the discussion at that early phase? A. Generally, you look at with and without project conditions. Q. Okay. A. And you may look at a variety of alternatives. That's generally what you would do. Q. All right. Do you know whether or not the Corps expected, once it received the authorization to build this channel, that the banks of the MRGO would erode? A. I don't know. I'd have to look at the report. Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the Corps expected salt water to intrude into areas that it would not have otherwise intruded into but for the MRGO? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. You, you're the engineering guy. Is it an engineering division issue to determine whether or not saltwater intrusion into an area where saltwater didn't ordinarily go was a good thing or a bad thing? A. In today's environment, we would look

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 98

1/9/2008
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

at environmental modeling. We have tools that can look at it today. Q. So the answer is yes? A. For today, yes. Q. I mean, today -A. Yes. Q. -- it's an engineering division function. I'm just trying to decide who I need to talk to. It's an engineering division function. A. We're part of the overall function. Q. Well, back in the fifties and the sixties, would there have been somebody other than an engineering guy who would have been responsible for answering the question, if it was posed, is saltwater going to cause any damage? A. I don't know where they would reside. Q. Okay. A. I mean, I don't know what the organization looked like back then. Q. Understood. Would you agree with me that the most logical person to talk to would be a guy who's got education and experience in that area?
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

know if it caused everything or not. I would say it contributed. Q. Okay. Fair enough. What are the other contributing factors, in your opinion? A. Um -- overall subsidence of the region and traffic up and down the waterway. Q. Okay. Well, wouldn't traffic be, really, in fairness, a component of the channel, because if there's no channel there's no traffic? A. Could be. Yes. You could look at it that way. Q. All right. Now, how about saltwater intrusion, is it your opinion that the MRGO provided a means by which saltwater could intrude into lands and waterways that it did not intrude into before the construction of the MRGO? A. With my limited expertise in that area, I would say in general there would be some additional saltwater movement in the lower part of the channel. How far it moved up, I wouldn't know. Q. Understood, Mr. Baumy. Who should I talk to to ask the question to get a definitive
Page 101

A. Yes. You would have to -Q. And would that likely be an engineer? A. I could be an engineer, it could be a biologist. It could be a variety of folks, different scientists. Q. Your biologists -- do you have any biologists today? A. We have an environmental group. I don't know what their titles are, but we have an environmental group in our project management division, and operations division also has some environmental types within their organization. Q. Okay. All right. A. And we would have modelers in our organization. Q. All right. Now, let me just ask you today, you are the chief of the engineering division -A. Yes. Q. -- of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Is it your opinion that the MRGO channel caused the erosion of its banks since the channel was dug until today? A. I would say it contributed. I don't

answer as to the Corps 's view about whether or not the MRGO contributed to saltwater intrusion into areas that were not exposed to saltwater at the levels that they were before the MRGO was constructed? A. I would look to the modeling experts. Q. And who are they and where are they? A. I would think they're a variety of people. Q. All right. Are they in the district office? A. We have some in the district. Well, we had some in the district office. Q. Who are they? A. Harley Winer was one. Q. Title? A. Um -- hydraulic engineer. He was a modeler. Part of the coastal restoration group with Troy Constance. I'm not sure who in his office, but they're looking more at the coastal effects and the newer projects, and they've been looking at this for some time. Q. Sure. A. You've got scientists at the

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 102

1/9/2008
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

universities, you've got folks that participated on the IPET investigation both Corps and non Corps people. Q. Anybody in your division? A. I have people that have participated, but I'd have to look at their role. Q. All right. By title, what would be the title of the person that would do that, hydraulic? A. It would be out of my hydraulics branch. Hydraulics and hydrology branch. Q. That's in your division; right? A. Yes. Q. So all these folks that you've just described reside in the engineering division. A. No, they don't. The folks I described were broad context, university, other folks around the district, IPET and so forth. Q. I'm sorry. All of the folks who are employed by the Corps reside in your division. A. No, they don't. Q. Where else do they reside? A. The project management branch and now an extension of that is what they call the protection and restoration office.
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

if the studies have been completed, to tell you the truth. Q. Let me divide that question into two parts just for my own benefit. Okay? A. Okay. Q. The first part of the question would be the evaluation of what's happening. And the second part of the question would be what one does in response to what's happening. A. Okay. Q. Does that make any sense to you? A. Yeah. Q. In other words, am I crazy here? But as an engineer, in order for you to determine what's the appropriate fix, don't you need to know what's causing the problem to happen in the first place? A. It depends. Q. Well, in the context of bank erosion, do you need to know what's causing the problem? A. You would look at the factors that contribute to the problem, sure. Q. Okay. A. Yeah. Q. Well, in the context of bank erosion,
Page 105

Q. Okay. A. So they reside between the various organizations. Q. Has your division, since you've been there -- I'm going to divide it into two pieces, since you've been there and then before you got there, so that you can -- you understand? A. (Nods affirmatively.) Q. Has your division, since you got there, had anything to do with the evaluation of bank erosion on the MRGO? A. Yes. Q. All right. What if anything did your division have to do with that evaluation? A. We have worked placing rock along the banks of the MRGO to, um -- mitigate the, um -the ship wakes and so forth, preserve the bank as it is now. Q. All right. A. We have likely had some modelers participate in these other studies, but I have not, um -- I'd have to look at those studies today and see exactly what's there. I don't remember what's in the studies. I'm not sure

what did your division, if it did, ascertain to be the cause of bank erosion? A. I'd have to look at the reports to go back and refresh. Q. Okay. Well, I thought you just said -- maybe I'm wrong -- I thought you just said that the rocks were put there because of the ship wakes. A. That was part of it -Q. Well -A. -- but there's other contributing factors. Q. That's at least one, right? You just gave me the answer, you know, a minute ago, and now I asked the same question and you're not giving me the answer. Is it true that -MR. SMITH: Well, then, I think maybe it was asked and answered. MR. BRUNO: No. The record will establish who's right or wrong on this point. I don't want to fight with you anymore, Robin. I just -- you know, I'm just

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 106

1/9/2008
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

listening here. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I thought you said -- I mean, I'm asking you real simple, okay? You're the head engineering person in this district office, you're the guy, you're the man. Right? A. I'm in charge of the engineering division. Q. You're in charge. Okay. So I'm asking the guy in charge to teach me how you determine how to put protection on the banks of the MRGO to protect against erosion, and I thought you told me you put the rocks there. That's what you guys decided to do, you put rocks. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And is there a -- what do you call that? Is there some kind of -- foreshore protection? Is that right? A. Yeah. Q. Is it the right thing to call it? A. Yeah. Q. Foreshore protection? All right. Did you put foreshore protection on the banks of the MRGO since you've been chief?
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

um -- chosen for foreshore protection either as part of an ongoing plan where there is a first, second and third section, or whether or not there was some sections which were the sections you were going to deal with? Can you tell us how that occurred? A. There was a role -- you've shown me a copy of a report that was produced, and, um -we participated in that study. Again, I have not looked at that study in many, many years, and was not involved with it personally, so I can't tell you what the study says. Q. Well, I'm asking you if you remember, yourself, since -A. No, I don't. I was not involved. Q. Okay. Because I thought you told us that since 2002 you did install some foreshore protection. A. I did. Q. Okay. And you don't know why the particular locations at which the foreshore protection was installed were chosen, right? A. I thought I answered that by saying that there was a previous plan what was put together and we were executing that plan.
Page 109

A. Yes. Q. Okay. So let's understand the process then, since you were here. A. Okay. Q. How did the issue get brought to your attention in the first instance? A. It was an ongoing O&M program to stabilize banks along the MRGO, and so engineering division was executing that program based upon previous studies that engineering division participated in. I was not involved in those earlier studies, and hence I'm having a little trouble trying to tell you why and so forth certain things were done. What I know is that we had a program to execute and we were doing that. Q. Okay. Fine. So you had a program to execute, and you have described it generally as foreshore protection on the entire length of the MRGO. Right? A. Selected portions, yes. Q. All right. Well, that's why you know where I'm going. I'm trying to know whether or not the engineering division had a role in determining what portions of the MRGO would be,

Q. All right. MR. SMITH: And just let me interpose this: You're using the word you in two different sentences. Sometimes you say you and you're referring to the engineering division, sometimes you use the word you and you're referring to Mr. Baumy personally. So there's some ambiguity there. MR. BRUNO: All right. Okay. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Do you know whether or not the cost of the foreshore protection that was done while you were the chief of the division was paid for with funds from the MRGO project operations and maintenance budget or whether it was paid for with funds from the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project operations and maintenance budget? A. I know some of it was paid out of the operations and maintenance budget. I don't know if all of it was paid for under that budget.

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 110

1/9/2008
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

Q. Which one? Which project? A. The, um -Q. They both have O&M budgets. Well, let me ask you. Do you know whether or not there is a budget for Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity operations and maintenance as opposed to a budget for MRGO? A. No, I do not. Q. You do not. Okay. That's an operations issue. Right? A. Um -- not necessarily. Q. Well, whose issue is it? A. If there is a Lake Pontchartrain budget for O&M, then it would be a Lake Pontchartrain manager. Q. That's operations. A. I don't know of a Lake Pontchartrain manager in operations. Q. Didn't we already establish that the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project is under the auspices of the manager of completed projects? A. But that's not the Lake Pontchartrain manager. That person has many, many duties. Q. I didn't say that.
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

MR. SMITH: Is there a date? MR. BRUNO: Yes. April, 1957, and below that in paren there is revised July, 1957. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay? A. Okay. Q. And I'm going to hand it to you but I want to mark this page. So let me ask you, first, Mr. Baumy, have you ever seen this document? A. I don't recall. Q. Okay. All right. Now, we've already established, I think, I hope we have, the Congress of the United States authorized the Corps of Engineers to design and build the MRGO. Right? A. I would assume, yes. Q. You assume. Okay. Do you know whether or not that authorization called for the channel to have a certain width? MR. SMITH: Well, if he doesn't know whether they authorized it, it's going to be
Page 113

A. Many other areas. Q. Okay. Do you understand whether or not the office of the manager for completed projects has a budget which is different from the budget of the manager of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are you aware of a dialogue within this office about whether to have the O&M budget of the completed projects as opposed to the O&M budget from the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet budget pay for foreshore protection? A. No, I am not. Q. Okay. Are you aware of a discussion on that issue that occurred in the late sixties? A. No, I'm not. Q. All right. Let me show you a document which is entitled Design Memorandum Number 1-A, Channels Mile 63.77 to Mile 68.85, Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana. A. Okay. Q. I'm sorry it doesn't have a Bates number on it. I think there's --

kind of hard for him to know whether the authorization had a certain width. MR. BRUNO: Maybe that's true. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Is that -A. So what's the question? Q. Do you know -- I'm sorry. Your testimony is you don't know? Are you telling me on the record that you do not know, as you sit here today, that the Congress of the United States authorized the United States Army Corps of Engineers to design and build the MRGO channel? Is that your testimony? A. No, I'm not saying that. Q. Well, do you know it or you don't know? Or do I have to use the word understanding? Do I have to play that game? A. It wouldn't be a project if it wasn't authorized. Q. Well, so are you making the distinction between understanding and know now? A. Is that a question? Q. Yeah. Are you making a distinction between my use of the word understanding versus

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 114

1/9/2008
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

my use of the word know? MR. SMITH: Look, joe. MR. BRUNO: Yes or no? MR. SMITH: Look, this is fairly obvious what he's trying to say. MR. BRUNO: On the contrary, I thought my question was fairly easy and obvious. MR. SMITH: Okay, look. MR. BRUNO: In fact, it's stipulated between me and the government -MR. SMITH: That's fine. MR. BRUNO: -- and he doesn't know? He's the chief. MR. SMITH: Well, I'm sorry. When was it authorized, Joe? Maybe he wasn't an employee here then.
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

telling this jury, you're telling this judge, you don't know -MR. SMITH: Joe, if you're not going to use the exhibits, please sit down. MR. BRUNO: Why? MR. SMITH: I'm not going to have you standing over the witness. MR. BRUNO: For the record, and everybody in the room will testify, I am not standing over the witness. In fact, I'm over here a good four or five feet from the witness. Yes, I'm standing up, and yes, I am walking, but I'm not standing over the witness. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. BRUNO: All right? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Now, let's ask it one more time. Because I didn't think this stuff was
Page 117

MR. BRUNO: I didn't ask him -MR. SMITH: And maybe he's never reviewed the authorization, so maybe he doesn't know for a fact that it was authorized but he knows that it's a project -MR. BRUNO: Good grief, robin. Now we're way out there, man. MR. SMITH: I'm sorry, but that's what he's trying to say, I believe. You can ask him whether he's ever read the authorization -MR. BRUNO: Listen, if that's his testimony you are absolutely correct. And I respect you and I respect the witness. All I want to do is make a record. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. If it's your testimony you don't know, I would like the record to so reflect. So tell me, Mr. Baumy, you're telling this record, you're telling this court, you're

controversial, I got to tell you. We have a stipulation with the government that it's an authorized project. But you don't know? Fine, you don't know. But just put on the record, do you know whether or not the Congress of the United States authorized the United States Army Corps of Engineers to design and build the MRGO? Yes or no? A. I'm going to say yes. Q. Yes. A. All right. Q. Do you know whether or not that authorization included channel design criteria? A. Yes. Q. And do you know whether or not the channel design criteria included a channel width? A. Yes. Q. And did it include a channel depth? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, all of that to ask this: I asked Mr. Accardo on Friday -- and I'll just let you read it, and I want you to tell me whether or not you agree with his assessment.

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 118

1/9/2008
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

(Brief recess.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Let me just show this to you, Mr. Baumy, just to get it -- I know that -- you don't remember it, but I'm just -- this is Page 4 of the Design Memorandum Number 1-A, and it is under the paragraph entitled Channel Design Criteria. A. Uh-huh. Q. And if you would just take a quick look at the channel design criteria. (Tendering.) And the reason why I want you to look at that is because I want to ask this question, and if you know the answer: Does the Corps have the authorization to deviate from those design criteria? A. Not without, um -- further documentation or approvals. Q. All right. So let's talk about something like the degree of curvature. First of all, do you know what that is? A. Yeah. Q. It's 1 degree 7 minutes. A. Okay. Q. And I'm told that that has something
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

EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All I see here, I have to tell you, I'll show you what I'm looking at, I don't see anything other than one width, unless -there's two widths on here, for the record. One says channel width, authorized, 500 feet, the other one says channel depth, 36 feet, and then it says berm width, 140 feet. A. Okay. Q. Okay? (Tendering.) I don't see any other width. A. Okay. The question? Q. Okay. The question is, because Robin objected, do you know what the channel width refers to? (Indicating.) Is it the top, the surface, or is it the bottom? A. I don't know. Q. Okay. Do you know what berm width is? A. Yes. Q. What is berm width? A. It's a flattened area above the channel dimension that would bench out. Q. All right. But that's onshore? A. I don't know. Q. All right. Well, it is what it is.
Page 121

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

to do with what a vessel needs to turn. Is that -- am I wrong about that? A. Could be, sure, a consideration. Q. All right. So obviously if you change that dimension you may -- may -- impact the ability of a vessel to turn. Right? A. Without further studies. You would have to do additional work to do that. Q. Right. And that's why, as you indicate on the record, you have to do additional studies and you have to have additional documentation for the deviation from the authorization. Right? A. In that case, I don't know if there was any such occurrence or not, but, um -- I would do that today, yes. Q. All right. Now, we know that the channel width is no longer 500 feet. Don't you agree? MR. SMITH: Are you talking about the top width or the bottom width? MR. LAMBERT: That's the bottom width. Top is about 680. But it's a 2 on 1 slope.

It says channel width, 500 feet. Whatever that means. You don't know what it means. A. I would look in the document for additional graphics that would depict exactly what they're talking about. Q. Well, I'm glad to let you have the entire -- you're going to need a magnifying glass, though, unfortunately. Take a look at it. I don't know if you can see it or read it or interpret it or not, but first of all, is that the kind of thing you would look to? A. Yeah. Q. Oh. (Tendering.) A. So they're showing the 500-foot as the bottom width in this. I don't see anything that tells me what the bench would be. Q. I'm sorry. The bench? A. Yeah. There was -- you asked me about the bench. Q. Oh, berm. Berm. A. Berm. Q. Berm, not bench. A. Okay. And this says typical section, so there could be other sections that differ from this, but this is the one predominantly

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 122

1/9/2008
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

used. MR. SMITH: Just so the record is clear, what page or drawing are you looking at? THE WITNESS: Plate 5. It says Design Memorandum Number 1-A, channels, and it's gives some miles that I can't really read. MR. SMITH: Is there a date at bottom? MR. BRUNO: April, 1957? MR. SMITH: No, for this drawing. THE WITNESS: That's what it looks like. It's hard to tell, but that's what it appears to be. MR. SMITH: All right. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. The south side -- let's see. If I look at the top one, it says Station 4 plus 15, typical section Station 0 plus 00 to
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

saying yes. Q. Okay. All right. So since we don't know if this 500 is a top width or bottom width, let me just ask the question generally. MR. LAMBERT: He said it was the bottom width, Joe. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Is it the bottom? A. According to this, um -- document you handed me, yes. In that particular typical section it was the bottom width. Q. And just to complete the slope is supposed to be 1 on 2? A. Theoretical cut, it says, where they were having to cut a slope. One side they're not cutting a slope. Q. But on Page 4, it says, channel side slopes -- you with me on Page 4? 1 on 2? A. Okay. Q. What does that mean? A. That means coming off the bottom on a 1 on 2 slope. Q. But for the record, what does 1 on 2 mean?
Page 125

Station 4 plus 15. First of all, using our map, can we -- do you know -- we know the stations are intended to give us a way to align the plans with the actual geography, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Can we agree that the stations start with 0 at or near the Industrial Canal and go up until they reach the gulf? A. Yes. Zero is at the Industrial Canal. Q. All right. So Station 4 plus 15, is that 100 feet or 40 feet, do you know? A. It would be 415 feet, I believe. Unless there's some zeros behind it somewhere. But if it's just 0 plus 415, that would be 415 feet as typically laid out. But I cannot read them on here. I'm trying but I cannot read them. Q. Okay. It says, um -- Mile 63.77 to Mile 68.85. So if this was accurate, that would be about from, let's see -- 63, about right here, to 68 here. A. Okay. Q. Just roughly. Correct? A. It's your map. Yeah. You're just reading the numbers off your map to me and I'm

A. Oh, okay. Um -- 1 vertical on 2 horizontal. Q. Okay. A. It doesn't say that, but that's the way it would -- I would typically interpret this. Q. All right. Now, here is the question: Let's assume -- well, we don't know -according to your testimony, we don't know what the channel width on the top is authorized by this piece of paper. Right? A. I don't understand. Q. Or do we? Well, it says channel width is 500 on the bottom. What is the maximal authorized channel width on the top? A. You would go with that bottom elevation and then just project up that distance, and wherever it fell out that would be your distance. Q. Okay. I see. A. That's the way you would -- that's where you would go from here, at least. Q. I see. Okay. So if the bottom is authorized to be 500 and the depth is authorized to be 36 feet, then it's simply a

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 126

1/9/2008
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

mathematical equation to calculate using the 1 on 2 slope what the surface width should be. Is that right? A. That's not what this drawing shows, though. This typical section does not show that. And I don't know how typical this was throughout it. But that's not what it shows. Q. All right. How does it show something different from that? A. It's showing a 1 on 2 cut on one side, but the other side it seems to be hitting some water at the GIWW location. Some elevation down there that looks common to that minus 36, approximately. It's a little bit above the minus 36. Q. So I'm wondering if it's logical -it's showing a center line here, right? A. Uh-huh. Yes. Q. Okay. So that if you draw the center line where the channel is supposed to be, along the route selected by the Corps or authorized by the Congress -- okay? -- then we know that the maximal bottom width is 500 feet, and we know the depth is maximally 36 feet, and we know that the slope is 1 on 2, so that for any
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

go spend federal dollars to fill it in to say you could only have a 500-foot channel. Q. All right. So the answer, I guess, to the question is -A. It's a navigation channel. Q. Well, I understand that it's a navigational channel, but the question is this: And if the answer is yes, the answer is yes. It's okay. But I'm gathering from your testimony that the Corps believes that it is authorized to allow the channel bottom to get wider than 500 feet. A. I don't know the answer to that. I don't know what the authorization says in that regard. Q. Well, assume for the sake of the question that this document is accurate, this document being the Design Memorandum Number 1A, channels Mile 63.77 to Mile 68.85, at Page 4 shows a channel bid of 500 feet and that the channel width is for the bottom. Assume that to be true. A. Okay. Q. I just want to get an understanding of your view as the chief of the engineering
Page 129

particular point along the length of the MRGO we can ascertain the authorized surface width. A. The channel width, yes. Q. Okay. All right. Now, whatever that calculation may be at a particular given point along the route, here's the question: Is the Corps authorized to have a wider channel, either on the bottom or on the surface? A. You have a bottom surface channel width, I know that. Q. Okay. A. I don't know about the surface. Q. All right. Well, you didn't answer my question. Is the Corps authorized to allow the channel, either through its own devices, dredging, or through other natural occurrences, allow the bottom of that channel to get wider than 500 feet? That's the question. If you're only authorized the 500-foot bottom, I'm trying to understand if the Corps is supposed to keep that channel at 500 or not. A. Generally, channels are kept open a minimum distance. Q. Okay. A. And if they were wider, you would not

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

division of this district office here in New Orleans. A. Okay. Q. Do you understand that the Corps can allow, through dredging or through natural processes, that channel bottom to get wider than 500 feet? MR. SMITH: I'm going to object. That was the same question you asked a few minutes ago. MR. BRUNO: And there was no answer. MR. SMITH: No, there was an answer. And it can be read back. We can read the question back and the answer back. MR. BRUNO: It's a yes or no -MR. SMITH: He answered the question. MR. BRUNO: -- question. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Well, did you answer yes or did you

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 130

1/9/2008
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

answer no? MR. SMITH: He gave you a statement. He answered the question. MR. BRUNO: I want an answer which requires a yes or a no answer. MR. SMITH: No. No. He answered the question. Go ahead. You may answer again. A. Okay. I cannot answer that yes or no because you're asking different pieces of questions. So it's not yes and no for both pieces. So again, you're not clear. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I'm not clear? A. At least it not clear in my mind. Q. All right. What's not clear? What do you need to know to answer that question? A. I thought you asked about the navigation channel with a 500-foot width, and can we make it bigger, smaller, and a variety of other offshoots of that question. Q. I didn't ask that.
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

But go ahead. A. And the answer is I don't know. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Who do I ask? A. I would ask, um -- operations division because they were maintaining the channel. Q. Okay. I take it then if I asked that question to the chief of operations division who is Mr. Accardo, and he gave me an answer, that you would rely on that answer. Right? A. Yes. Q. You'd defer to him. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And so you would also agree with his answer to this question: We allege in our complaint against the United States of America that the MRGO caused the erosion of the marsh and caused the death of trees and swamps and things like that, and in that sense reduced the capacity of the marsh to act as a buffer for surge. Okay? That's our allegation. Now here's the question: Does the Corps have any interest in ascertaining whether or not as they continue to dredge the MRGO that they are in fact contributing to the loss of
Page 133

A. And that's the way I interpreted that. Q. Well, that wasn't the question. A. And that was combined with, okay, now take the surface area at the top and give me yes or no and include all the parts. And I can't do that. Q. I didn't ask that either. I didn't ask any of that. So we'll try it one more time. A. Okay. Q. I'm only talking about the bottom width. A. Bottom width. Q. Bottom width. Okay? A. Got it. Q. I ask you to assume the bottom width as authorized is 500, period. A. Okay. Q. I want to know, is the Corps authorized to allow that bottom width to go larger than 500 feet for whatever reason, through any process? MR. SMITH: Same objection, asked and answered.

that buffer, the marsh? His answer: We were doing what Congress told us to do. Through authorization, the channel was authorized for navigation purposes. The navigation industry needed that channel to exist. So it was not whether I felt we were hurting the marsh, or the project management felt that we were hurting the marsh, it was irrelevant. Congress of the United States says, you will dredge that channel and provide project dimensions for the navigation industry. It was not anybody within operations division to question and say, but we're destroying the marsh. Okay? Do you agree with that or not? A. I don't know what his responsibility is in regard to destroying the marsh, so I would have to defer to him. I really don't know his responsibility there. Q. Fair enough. So you defer to his answer. A. Yes. Q. As the chief of engineers, since you don't have responsibility for this area and you've testified it's the operations that has

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 134

1/9/2008
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

responsibility, you defer to him. A. For that question. Q. For that question. A. Yes. Q. Thank you. A. And that's for navigation purposes. That's what you're talking about. Q. Do I gather what you're saying now to mean that, okay, the Congress authorized the building of the MRGO channel for navigation purposes, to let vessels move across its surface, that because of that that the Corps did what it did to make certain that those ships could navigate that channel? Is that what you're saying? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, in general, as the chief of engineering, do you, in that capacity, have any responsibility of ascertaining whether or not in serving the purpose of navigation you have any duty, not moral, not legal, but as the chief of engineering -- okay? -- given the responsibility of you acting as the chief, do you have any duty to ascertain whether or not that navigation channel is damaging the marsh
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

description, what you're here to do for this Corps, in this position, in this office, did that duty include assessing whether or not this navigation channel damaged the neighboring marsh? Yes or no? A. No. Q. Okay. Do you know if anybody at the Corps had that duty? A. I don't know who had the duty, but I know there were ongoing studies. Q. Fair enough. A. That's what I can tell you. Q. Fair enough. We're going to talk about those studies in a minute. A. Okay. Q. I'm just trying to figure out if anybody -- I'm trying to figure out if there is, quite frankly -- okay? And on the record, I want to know if there is a job description within this district which would include in the ambit of responsibility evaluating projects to ascertain whether or not those projects damaged either people or property. Is there such a department or division or a branch at this office?
Page 137

which is, as we established earlier in the deposition, near this MRGO? A. As the chief of engineering, we were aware of the widening of the channel and we were working on bank erosion protection measures to mitigate and stabilize that channel. There were other ongoing studies that we had involvements with but weren't in the lead for the studies, and I'm not sure the studies have progressed to the point where anything would come to bear in a way of construction or a new project, Coastal Louisiana, for instance. So there were activities happening at the district that was looking at the overall coastal restoration, and this was a part of it. Q. Right. A. That area. Q. Well, I understand, Mr. Baumy, that your answer discusses the things that were done -A. Okay. Q. -- in response to this issue. But the question was, do you, as the chief engineer, based upon your understanding of your job

A. I don't think there's a separate branch or office to do that very thing. Q. All right. Is there an office or a branch within which that obligation is to be found? A. Again, I'd have to go back and -maybe I'm not clear as to what you're asking, but there were ongoing activities looking at the overall coastal restoration, and this was a part of that, and the district was participating in that, including engineering and people outside the Corps of Engineers, frankly lots of other, um -- groups, um -- in the mix in trying to put these projects on the board and get them moving. Q. All right. I understand. Now, let's talk about -- we talked about the business of damaging the marsh. Let's talk about damaging the hurricane protection structure. Okay? In this particular location, we have the MRGO. And forgive me, I have to stand up again to illustrate. We've got the MRGO, and we know we have a hurricane protection structure from -- well, we have it from really approximately here, which is where the

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 138

1/9/2008
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

Intracoastal Waterway meets the Industrial Canal, along the north bank of the -- I'm sorry -- south bank of MRGO going all the way to Violet, and then making a hard right turn -MR. SMITH: Verret. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Is it Verret? It's Verret, right? Making a hard right turn here, and then going I guess that would be west back to the river. MR. SMITH: Yes. To Caernarvon. A. Yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. So we know that the MRGO is in close proximity of that hurricane protection structure, at least from the Intracoastal Waterway to where it makes that hard right turn at Verret. A. Okay. Q. Okay. Now, here's the question: Is the Corps interested in knowing whether or not that navigation project damaging its adjacent hurricane protection project? A. I would turn that around and say the
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

A. There is an engineering connection there, yes. Q. Right. Okay. And you've already told me that you're in a support role here, right? A. Yes. Q. So the only way that the engineering question can be answered is if the engineering question is asked, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. All right. And so I'm wondering, would you expect the operations manager for the MRGO, if he sees erosion -well, withdraw. You would expect, I hope, your engineering manager of the MRGO to be aware of the erosion. Right? A. Repeat it, please. Q. Would you expect -- we've already established on this record, I hope, that the Corps was well aware of the fact that the banks on the MRGO were eroding over time. For whatever reason. A. Okay. Q. Right? All right. I'm wondering whether or not you would expect the operations manager in charge of the MRGO to have been
Page 141

Corps is interested in the integrity of the hurricane protection project and would observe what's happening with that project to determine whether it was infringing on the hurricane protection project. Q. Okay. Well, that's fine, but that sort of tells me that the guy in charge of the MRGO project is not really interested in who he's hurting. Is that what you're meaning to say? A. No, I'm not saying that. Q. All right. Okay. All right. Well -so again, we're talking about the MRGO now. I'm the guy -- I mean, we have already established on this record we have a guy whose job it is to oversee the daily operations of the MRGO. There is an op manager for that project. That's his daily job, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And I'm just -- and would you agree with me that the business of whether or not that MRGO, through erosion, is causing potential damage to the hurricane protection structure is an engineering question, at least in part?

aware of that fact. A. Yes. Q. In fact, he's the guy who -- the buck stops with him with regard to knowledge of that particular fact, wouldn't you agree? A. Pertaining to the MRGO I would say yes. Q. Absolutely. Okay. So he's the guy who has the ultimate responsibility for being aware of what maintenance issues exist on his project, in this case the MRGO. A. Yes. Q. All right, sir. So having established that, A, the Corps knew, and B, the op manager for MRGO should know, would you expect the op manager for MRGO to make an inquiry to the engineering division to ascertain whether or not the erosion on the banks of the MRGO at the hurricane protection project could potentially damage that hurricane protection project? A. I would expect that the ops manager, the project manager for the hurricane protection project, and then the engineering participants on the two different PDTs were conversing on that and they were well aware of

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 142

1/9/2008
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

the requirements for the hurricane protection levee and were observing what was happening in the MRGO to determine is there a problem on the hurricane protection levee. Q. Where in the structure are the PDTs? Where are they? Are they in operation? A. They're lead by the project manager in the project management division, and engineering division will supply team members for the various teams in the variety of projects. Q. All right. Now, I was given to understand that project management no longer has a role when the project is finished. Is that incorrect? A. But the hurricane protection project was not finished. There were still lifts to be put on that project. Q. In 2005? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So as far as you know, the hurricane protection structures along the MRGO were never finished before Katrina. A. The levees were not completely finished.
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

the manager of the operations for the MRGO to ask you as the engineering division head, or somebody in your office, not you in particular, about the potential for that erosion damaging this fellow's property? A. There's so many ways I could answer that question, but, um -- there wouldn't be a structure there unless it was there by permit. And if it was going in by permit, we would be looking at its potential -- its proximity to the hurricane protection system and determining in advance if we thought that would harm the hurricane protection system. So the ops manager as well as the project managers or engineer, just like we have specialty engineers in the engineering division, they're also engineers, and they could look at a cross-section of the hurricane protection levees and determine whether that channel was infringing on that protection or not. Q. Okay. I think you misunderstood my question. A. Okay. I. Q. I asked you to assume there's no hurricane protection. In fact, let's make it
Page 145

Q. Okay. A. They needed lifts. Q. Okay. And so your testimony is, and I guess I'm a little confused by this, you just sort of expect both of these two guys, your project manager on the hurricane protection side and your operations manager on the MRGO side, to have just been in communication on this point. A. Sure. Q. All right. Do you know whether or not the -- never mind. It's a different subject. It was not within your area. Now, is that, that dialogue, okay? That is, the potential for damaging the property of the -- let's take out of the analysis the fact that is a hurricane protection structure, and let's say there's a house there. All right? There happens to be a little shack on the banks of the MRGO right where the hurricane protection structure exists, and your manager of the MRGO sees the erosion, he sees the banks eroding away, and every year the water gets closer and closer to the fellow's house. Okay? Would you expect

easy for you. Let's go down here. The house is right there. A. Uh-huh. Q. The guy has a little cabin and he likes to go kill some duck every now and then. He's right there. Okay? And the manager for your -- and you can see -- in particular, you can see right here where there's a big space between the yellow line and the green line at mile 48. A. Okay. Q. A big space. And, you know, let's assume that his house is right there on that yellow, but when the MRGO was built there was a nice little piece of dirt between him and the MRGO. A. Uh-huh. Q. You see where I'm going? I'm just trying to understand whether or not the operations manager for MRGO would call upon you guys to say, well, wait, you know, this guy 's house is close to the banks of the MRGO and now the bank is moving toward his house. I mean, I'm just asking myself, wouldn't somebody -wouldn't that raise some kind of red flag to

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 146

1/9/2008
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

somebody to ask the question could this guy 's house possibly be damaged? Do you understand my question? A. Not really. I don't understand what you're asking me. Q. I'm asking whether or not anybody within the Corps, particularly the manager of operations for the MRGO, would feel compelled to and make the inquiry as to whether that erosion which he sees getting worse and worse every year, and getting closer and closer to the guy 's house -- it's getting closer and closer to the guys house, it's trending. I mean, you know, the green line is where the channel began, the yellow line is where it is today, so clearly there's a trend in his mind. I'm just trying to ascertain, if there's some interest on the part of the Corps in ascertaining whether or not there is the potential to harm the guy 's house, and what do you do about it? If you don't do anything, that's fine. If you don't care, that's fine. I just need to get an answer from you. A. And I would say we definitely care, but you would have to ask the operations
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

manager. Q. Right. And you would respond to his request, of course. If he asked you for that help, you'd give it to him, right? A. If he could -- if it was tied to the federal project and he could pay for it, sure, I would do it. Q. Does he have to -- your answer provokes the question, does the -- before you can give assistance, do you have to ascertain whether there's money in the budget for you to give assistance; in other words, is there a money issue involved? A. I'm funded by, generally, operations or project management to provide services at the district. Q. So does that mean before you can give assistance you have to see if it's in your budget? A. No, it doesn't have to be in my budget. They have to send funds to me in some capacity, whether it was put in the initial budget or something has come up and I'm going to give you money -Q. Oh, I see.
Page 149

manager because they're responsible for managing their project. What would they do? I don't know. Q. That's fine. Okay. I got you. All you can tell me is that if he decides to ask you the question, that is, if he says, Mr. Baumy, I need some engineering help with these, you would give him help. A. Sure. Q. Okay. All right. That's your role. Certainly you would agree that your role is not to inspect the MRGO and tell anybody that there's some potential for harm. Right? That's not your job. A. I did not inspect the MRGO. No. Q. That's not my question. A. Okay. Q. It's not the job of the chief of the engineering division, or anybody within his division, to go out to the MRGO and inspect it for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the MRGO could possibly do damage to somebody's property. That's not in your job description; isn't that true? A. I would defer to the operations

A. -- that's the way I would work. Q. Oh, I see. So that in the instance that the op manager says, okay, Mr. Baumy, I need some help, he has to pay for it. A. Sure. Q. How -- I mean, you know, now I got to ask you, at what point in -- I guess all you have to sell is your time, right? So don't you agree? I mean, you get paid -- you guys get paid for your time. Isn't that true? A. It could be more than that, but yes, that's part of it. Q. That's part of it. Well, I mean, how small -- I should perhaps ask it a different way. How large a project is involved when there's a requirement for money to change hands between the, um -A. We account for our time. Q. -- divisions? All the time? A. We have an accounting system where we account -- we charge our time to particular labor codes which are tied to projects. Q. Okay. I take it then, clearly before -- let's say I'm a guy what wants your assistance. Before I call you on the phone I

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 150

1/9/2008
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

need to make certain that I've got money in my budget to pay for the services that I would ask you to give me. Right? A. Generally, yes. Q. Okay. All right. So then but you have your own budget. Right? A. My budget is built around the various offices of the district providing funds for my organization. Q. Okay. So you don't have your own budget that's yours alone, that you get to spend the way you want to spend it. A. No. Q. Okay. Does the operations division have its own budget to spend the way it wants to spend money? A. There is an operations division budget. Q. Is there a real estate division budget? A. Yes, there is also an engineering division budget, but they're built around projects. Same as real estate. Built around projects, generally. Q. Okay. All right. And planning,
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

potential that a particular design would cause a particular maintenance problem, would you expect your contractor to tell you? A. I have no idea. Q. Well, okay. What role does engineering play in the design of projects? A. There are documents produced that would show the basis of the design. So in the early formulation phase, engineering would be participating with the PDT in putting that part together of the document. And then a project manager would coordinate the entire document. Q. Okay. Now, if the engineering group suggests the need for protection for erosion, it puts it in the plan, there is the possibility that somebody higher up could take it out, isn't that true? A. I don't know. I don't know if that is true, actually. Q. Okay. And would you expect that if your group had suggested the need for erosion protection then that suggestion should have been communicated to the authorizing agency, whoever that may be. A. Documents such as those would be
Page 153

programs and project management, they obviously have a budget built around projects. A. Well, they are the ones who work -- we have a program management office that works within project management, and so you've got funds in two areas, project management and operations, generally are the way the budget -in general. There's other smaller things, but those are the big ticket items. Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the authorization for the construction of the MRGO included authorization for foreshore protection against erosion by wave wash from shipping? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. Who is responsible for the quality of the design of the MRGO, if anybody? Which entity? A. The quality of the design? Q. Yeah. The quality. A. If it's a design feature, the, um -channel size, it would be engineering division. Q. Okay. Would you -- and using my analogy to the building of a home, if you knew there was the potential for -- if you were a contractor and you knew that there was a

reviewed by higher authority. And, um -- if there was a disagreement in a conclusion, then you would have discussions upon the merits of both arguments and hopefully you could come to a conclusion, a consensus as to what's the right thing to do in that situation, what's the correct thing? And that's the way it would generally work. I don't know what happened here because I hadn't seen the documents in a long time. Q. Understood. So that I gather from your answer that you would expect that if somebody higher up disagreed, that you should be told and you should have an opportunity to explain why you believe this thing is in or out of your proposal. A. In the processes that we use now, there would be a formal comment back to us and we would respond to that comment, agreeing, disagreeing, and we could continue that process until there was a conclusion that was bought by all parties. Q. Okay. But would you generally agree with the notion that the authorizing agency really needs to know, in order to make

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 154

1/9/2008
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

intelligent judgments about whether to go forward or not, that there, you know, was a suggestion for the need for some protective let's use the word devices, without getting into foreshore protection, that they should know that in order to make an intelligent judgment? A. At some point through the various documents that are produced, there will be -there will be recognition of all features that need to be a part of that project, and also what's expected during the O&M phase. Q. Okay. A. So, I mean, that's -- I have to go back to the record. Q. Right. Yeah. And again, we don't have the whole record in front of us but, again, let's assume for the sake of this hypothet Congress is the authorizing agency. Let's assume for the sake of the hypothet that the proposal before the Congress includes no mention of protection of the banks. None. No riprap, no nothing. Okay? And let's also assume that there is an engineer in the New Orleans District who felt like foreshore
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

United States Army Corps of Engineers proposed, as a component part of the project, erosion protection? A. I don't know. Q. All right. Do you know what the right of way width was for the MRGO? A. I haven't looked at the documents. Q. All right. But you certainly would agree with me that if the erosion got to the point where you were encroaching beyond the right of way, that that would be a problem? A. No, I wouldn't agree with you. Q. You wouldn't? A. No. Q. Well, wouldn't you be taking somebody's -- wouldn't you be violating somebody's right to own property? A. That's what we have lawyers for. I don't know. Q. Okay. Let me just show you this document. I know you haven't seen the document, you don't remember the document, but I just ask if at Page 7 if this document is accurate. A. What is the document?
Page 157

protection was a necessary component in order to prevent future erosion. Would you agree with me that the authorizing agency should have the benefit of that piece of information? A. We do our work in documents. And our thoughts should be in those documents at that time. Whatever we thought the best information was at that particular time should be in that document. Q. And I agree with you, Mr. Baumy. I'm asking the question, suppose somebody higher up removed the document from the proposal to the Congress? I mean, you didn't do it, somebody above you did it. I'm just wondering if you -the way you understand this whole thing works, if you would agree with me that the authorizing agency does have a right to know about the need for protection. A. I don't know the answer to that. Q. All right. Do you understand whether or not the United States Army Corps of Engineers understood when it designed the MRGO that there would be an erosion problem? A. I don't know that. Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the

Q. You can look at it again. I showed it to you a little while ago. It's the Design Memo 1-A. MR. SMITH: Is this the same one you handed him before? A. It looks like it. What's the difference? MR. SMITH: There's no difference. He's just giving you his highlighted copy, I guess. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Yeah. I was trying to make it easy on you. But we can go the other way. A. No, I'm all right. Q. I just want to see if this document doesn't confirm that no recommendation was made by the Corps for erosion protection when it sought authorization to build the channel. A. I find it confusing, just reading it quickly here without understanding the context for the whole document. Q. Okay. So the Corps document is confusing?

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 158

1/9/2008
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

A. Just reading this one piece without looking at the -- more of the document, um -Q. So you would tell the Congress, beware, don't read one piece, read the whole document. A. Sure. Q. Okay. A. So what's the question? Q. The question was whether or not this document confirms that the United States Army Corps of Engineers, in seeking authorization from the Congress to build the MRGO, made no recommendation for foreshore protection on the banks of the channel. MR. SMITH: This goes without saying, but my objection is there's going to be a lack of foundation because he hasn't read the whole document, he's looked at one page, he's told you just looking at that one page he's not sure. MR. BRUNO: But that's an answer, though, and I need that answer.
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

if and when the need arises, the question was whether or not when the Corps sought authorization it didn't recommend any shore protection at that time. If you want to substitute the word initially, fine, we'll use the word initially. A. I don't know at that time. Q. Okay. All right. But you would agree with me, the words are no channel protection is recommended initially, right? A. Yes. Yes, that's what it says. Q. Now, here's the question: Let's say I'm right. God forbid. Then the next sentence says, protection for this area can be provided if and when the need for it becomes necessary. Okay, here's the question: Since money and budgeting obviously is important, if it becomes necessary to put channel protection, how do we go about getting the money to get that protection? A. I don't know. It would not be my job to figure that out and go forward. That would be an authorization issue that would have to be looked at by others. Q. And would you agree with me, knowing
Page 161

MR. SMITH: Well -MR. BRUNO: He's telling me he has to read the whole document, and somebody else may say, no, you don't need to read whole document you, you just need to read that paragraph, and that's why I want the answer. A. I can tell you, I mean, reading this, I mean, it says no channel protection is recommended initially. But there's a big however, erosion in open areas -- and you'd have to look where do they expect open areas -can be expected in the upper part of the channel where the peat and highly organic clays are exposed. So this is referencing particular areas. I don't know which areas they're referencing. Q. Well, but it says -A. And it says, protection can be provided if and when the need for it becomes necessary. Q. That's fine. But the question wasn't

what you know about the budget process and Congress and how hard it is to get money out of anybody, that it's more difficult to get money after the fact than it is to get money when you initially request authorization? MR. SMITH: I'm going to object for lack of foundation. Go ahead and answer. A. I don't know. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. You don't know? A. I don't know. Q. You have no opinion on that one way or the other. A. No. Q. Okay. So it could be just as easy to get money after the fact as it is to get money when you initially apply, you just don't know. A. I don't know. Q. Fair enough. Do you know if the United States Army Corps of Engineers, since this project was authorized, has ever gone back to Congress to request money for channel protection?

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 162

1/9/2008
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

A. No. I don't know. Q. You don't know. Okay. Do you know whether or not it is necessary to get Corps authorization in order to do channel protection? A. No, I don't. MR. SMITH: Sorry. When you said Corps you meant Congressional authorization? MR. BRUNO: You're right. I'm sorry, Robin. Let me ask it again if I screwed it up. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Do you know -- let's me just ask is this way: Channel protection generally, is that a maintenance item or is that a capital item? A. I don't know. I'm not used to dealing with capital items versus -- are you talking about initial construction, I'm assuming? Q. Yeah. A. I don't know. I mean, I just looked at that document and it gives me a -- it says when deemed necessary. So I don't know. I
Page 163

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. Now they're not talking about a particular location, they're talking about the whole length of the channel. Right? A. Maybe. You would have to look at the geological profile, or if they make reference to specific areas. I don't know that without looking at. Q. All right. I'm just asking more of a general question. So I'm just asking you as, a you know, reading the words, the document at least suggests that erosion is expected. Right? Even if you say in some locations, it's expected. A. It says, can be expected in the upper part of the channel slope, with some qualifiers, yes. Q. Of course. And then it says, channel protection, because of that, may be necessary. Right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So can you explain for us what is the process by which the Corps goes through to ascertain, one, when erosion is a problem, and two, how do you deal with it?
Page 165

could be different for different situations. Q. Now, it further says, the reach covered by this report lies in the proposed New Harbor Development Area, and the construction of slips, wharves, piers and other structures will probably provide for some channel protection that may be required. A. (Nods affirmatively.) Q. Now, do you have any understanding as to what that reference is, this building of wharves? Page 7. Robin is showing it to you now. A. I can tell you what I believe, um -it's referencing that there may be some future development in that area and these types of facilities may come here and here's what may happen if they do. Q. Okay. A. That's -Q. Well, here's what's troubling me: The document says, in black and white, erosion due to wave wash in open areas can be expected in the upper part of the channel slope where the peat and highly organic clays are exposed. Right?

A. At that point in time, the project would be in the hands of the operations manager and operations division. Q. Okay. A. So they would lead that effort in, um -- figuring out the course of action that's necessary. Q. All right. You would expect the operations manager in charge of the MRGO -let's just assume this is an authentic and accurate document -- to be aware of the thoughts expressed here, and you would expect the operations manager for MRGO to respond to whatever issues these sentences may suggest. Fair enough? A. Yes. Q. Okay. (Lunch break.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Mr. Baumy, if you would, we've asked you just to very generally, not tie it down to the millimeter, but evaluate these satellite maps and the mile markers as indicated and then to compare them to the mile markers as shown on the design memorandum plates which are appended

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

WALTER BAUMY
Page 166

1/9/2008
Page 168

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

to Design Memo 1-A and 1-B and see if you wouldn't agree that generally the mile markers are consistent with the plates insofar as they relate to certain geographic features. A. I would say generally yes. I looked at Mile 60 on your board and I compared it on the scale here and it looks about the same. Same proximate location. Q. Okay. Now, and we've put in front of you Design Memo 1-B. I think that Design Memo 1-A we agree discussed the section from the Industrial Canal to about, you know, somewhere where the MRGO turns into the Intracoastal waterway. A. Okay. Q. Okay? And now what you have in front of you, Design Memo 1-B, and if you look at the cover page, it suggests that this design memo covers Mile 39.01 to Mile 63.77? A. Okay. Q. And would you agree that, you know, again very generally, Mr. Baumy, covers the section of the MRGO which is generally near to the hurricane protection structures from the Intracoastal Waterway to about Verret.
Page 167

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. It's a document that lays out the concept of the design, the -- and you can look at the table of contents, and it pretty much tells you about what's included, project authorization, location, the channel location, the design criteria, the hydrology, geology, soils, rights of way, and then a host of other materials to support that. But it generally gives you a description of the overall project and the costs associated with it. And a lot of times there will be a schedule for implementation of the project to go with it. Q. All right. What is it used for? If you know. A. It's a basis for design for proceeding to the contract plans and specifications. Q. All right. If we go to Page 2, at Number 6, does this suggest that it was the Corps who selected the route? A. I would say yes. But there may have been others who had input into that selection. Q. All right. And then in Number 7, the channel design criteria, would this be the description of the width of the bottom, the depth and the channel slopes that's authorized?
Page 169

A. It runs a little further out than Verret, yes. It continues down to the bayou. Q. All right. I just want to cover, very, very quickly, this design memo, very much like Design Memo 1-A, describes the authorized channel design criteria at Page 2. You with me? A. Okay. Q. All right. First perhaps I should ask this, but can you tell by looking at the cover piece of this document who prepared the document? A. Yes. It would be the New Orleans District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Q. All right. And does it further indicate within the New Orleans District who may have prepared it, that is, engineering as opposed to planning or operations or -A. Not by the cover, no. Q. All right. Is there any other pages that might suggest who prepared it? A. No, not that I can find. Q. Okay. All right. Now, again, for the record, what is a design memorandum?

A. Yes, it would. Q. Okay. And in connection with this paragraph, the questions that I asked you about does the Corps have the authorization to go outside of these numbers, would your answer be the same? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. And then finally, if we would look at the plates in the back, I just wanted to confirm the business about the 500 feet referring to the bottom as opposed to the surface. I think if you'll look at Plate Number 12, which I think is the last piece of paper in the stack, is that the right plate to look at? A. Yes. Q. And what would your answer be with regard to the 500 feet? A. Yes. It's shown as the channel bottom width. Q. All right. And does it also show the slope? A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. And it's still 1 over 2?

43 (Pages 166 to 169) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 170

1/9/2008
Page 172

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. Did I say that right? A. Well, let me verify that. Yes. Q. Okay. All right. And of course at Page 3, Number 12, would you agree with me that there was at least some consideration to whether or not the channel would allow hurricane swell to reach New Orleans in this document? A. Okay. What was the question? Q. The question was, would you agree that Paragraph 12 would seem to indicate that the Corps considered whether or not the existence of the channel would contribute to increased height of the water in the case of a hurricane? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And in Paragraph 11, would you agree what the Corps considered the impact of the channel on increases in salinity in a variety of areas in and around the MRGO? A. Okay. I'm going to have to read it. Q. Yes. Pleas do. A. It looks like it was addressed. Q. Okay. And would you agree that -- how do I say this? I don't want to -- is increased
Page 171

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

about the marsh itself. Q. Okay. Is there any difference in the ability of a freshwater marsh as opposed to brackish marsh to act as a buffer to hurricane surge? A. I don't know. Q. Who should I ask that question to; is that a hydrologist again? A. Pardon? Q. Who should I ask that question to; is that a hydrologist? A. I would ask the Louisiana coastal experts that are involved. It may not be a hydrologist. It may be a biologist. Q. Okay. A. More likely a biologist or some other scientist in that area. Q. All right. Would you agree, though, that there was a desire to use the spoil to keep the salinity down? Now again, I'm referring to that last sentence again. I'm trying to see if I'm reading it correctly. A. Just looking at that one sentence by itself, it does reference if you separate the channel by spoil.
Page 173

salinity a potential problem in the marsh? A. I'm having a hard time answering that question by reading the paragraph. Q. Well, here's where I'm going with that, Mr. Baumy: If you look at the last sentence where it says, if the channel is separated by spoil from the surrounding area, except for a few openings, the salinities in the area inland from Shell Beach to the west of the channel will tend to be fresher and Lake Borgne should remain essentially unchanged. Now, before I ask you about the particulars of that sentence, it just occurs to me from reading that sentence that there was a consideration that the salinities ought to remain unchanged. Would you agree with that? A. No, I cannot -- I don't know. I don't know what their intent was there. Q. Okay. As an engineer, do you know whether or not increased salinities in the marsh could pose a threat to the marsh in general? Let's start there and then work our way down. A. I know it would be a threat to hardwoods and other species, but I'm not sure

Q. Okay. A. And here's what you would expect. Q. Maybe you can help us. Where is Shell Beach, if you can, on either of the two maps? And you can use a mile marker as a general reference, I think. A. I don't know exactly where it's at, but I would think it's back in this area. Q. Okay. In the neighborhood of Mile 45? A. 39 to 45. Q. Okay. And then it says from Shell Beach to the west of the channel. To the west. Do you know where that might be? What that might be referencing? A. I would come this way, and maybe this side. Q. Okay. All right. MR. SMITH: Just so the record is clear, when he references the mile markers it's as depicted on these maps that are here. MR. BRUNO: Yes. You're right. As depicted on these maps, which I think we've established are pretty close although

44 (Pages 170 to 173) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 174

1/9/2008
Page 176

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

maybe not identical to the plats that are attached to the Design Memos 1-A and 1-B. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. And finally, on this document, Mr. Baumy, if you'd go to Page 519, this is again the channel protection. You'll see that no channel protection is recommended? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And once again, we have that same sentence, erosion due to wave wash in open areas can be expected in the upper part of the channel slope where the peat and high organic clays are exposed. Right? A. Yes. Q. So your answers to the questions I posed with regard to 1-A would be the same as here? A. Yes. Q. Because there's no change in the words, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Good. All right. I'm going to show you -- I guess the best way to describe it is as a memo.
Page 175

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. MR. SMITH: I'm just trying to see what the reference to is. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay? You with me? All right. First, Mr. Baumy, do you happen to know what he's referencing here when he says at Paragraph 2, the decision of the Chief of Engineers in the first IND? A. First endorsement. That would be a previous letter on the same subjects. Q. Okay. And the chief of the engineers, that's the head guy in Washington. A. It appears that way, yes. Q. Okay. Well, is that title used by anybody else other than the -A. No. Q. Okay. All right. And you can see that this discusses this business of whether to characterize the cost of foreshore protection as either hurricane protection or MRGO, right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And I just wanted to see if I could understand, through your eyes, what he is
Page 177

It is appended to General Design Memorandum Number 2, Supplement Number 4, Foreshore Protection. Okay? And it is dated 21 March 1966. And then it says LMNED. (Tendering.) All right. I'm at the top of the page, Mr. Baumy, where it says LMED -A. Okay. Q. -- dash PP? A. Yes. Q. All right. LM is the lower Mississippi, right? A. Yes. Q. And then N is the New Orleans office. A. Correct. Q. And then E is -A. Engineering division. Q. - PP? If you know. A. Those were, um -- project engineers or project manager types at that time. Q. Okay. But it would be the engineering division. A. At that time, yes. Q. Okay. And there's -- if you would, take a moment to just read the document. I just have a few questions.

saying in Paragraph 5. This principle is in no wise comparable to that of taking action to correct an unforeseen condition which has been brought on by the functioning of a project. I didn't understand that sentence. A. I don't understand it either. I would have to look at the whole set of correspondence and see what the real issue is here. Q. All right. A. I mean, by itself, I don't understand it. Q. Well, I'm wondering if you would agree with me that bank erosion on the MRGO is not unforeseen. A. It was referenced in the previous documents that we looked at as a possibility. Q. Right. And because it's -- because it was foreseeable, and then certainly it's something that should have been addressed by that project budget as opposed to some other project budget, right? A. I don't know that. Q. Okay. Who makes that call? A. Apparently, this set of correspondence made the call in this case and I don't know

45 (Pages 174 to 177) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 178

1/9/2008
Page 180

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

what it says. Q. I don't mean -- I mean, what level of hierarchy makes that call, is what I meant, in your organization? A. If it happened today, I would have my office of counsel working with the project managers and us to define what needs to be done and where is the proper place for it to be funded. Q. Okay. Let me ask you, I think, one more question about this. A. Okay. Q. I says, the application of the cost shifting principle violates the cardinal principle of incremental justification and could be utilized to bring an unfavorable benefit/cost ratio to above unity by having a completed project bear part of the costs. Okay? Now, rather than ask you what the whole sentence means, let me see if I can get some help from you about some of these phrases. First of all, the cost shifting principle, does that -- is that phrase used today?
Page 179

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

ratio above 1. Q. Oh. Explain that to us, please. So unity means something? A. That's the way I take it reading this -- what's here. Q. All right. And so a cost/benefit ratio above 1 is when you compare the cost to the benefit the benefit is larger than 1? Or .1? A. It's a benefit/cost ratio, so the benefit is higher than 1. Q. Higher than 1. A. Versus the cost that it, um -Q. Now, is 1 meaning -- higher than 1 means -- 1 to 1 is equal, so 1.1 is higher than 1? A. Yes. Q. All right. Thank you. And then it says, such action would bring up many awkward funding problems, particularly where fully completed projects are involved. Any idea what he's trying to convey there? A. I have a limited understanding of
Page 181

A. That's the first time I have ever seen it. Q. Okay. So do you have any idea what he's talking about? A. No. No. Q. Okay. Second thing is, he says there is the cardinal principle of incremental justification. Is the phrase incremental justification used in your office today? A. Not by me, no -Q. Okay. A. -- or the folks in my office. Q. All right. Have you heard that utilized in this office? A. No. No. Q. Okay. So you don't know -- we don't know what he's meaning there. A. No. Q. Okay. Fine. And then he says -- he talks about the above unity. Unity. Is that -- does that, unity, have any -- is that a word that has some peculiar meaning to this district office? A. Yeah, 1.0 is what -- the benefit cost

that, but -- and there may be a better understanding, but it would appear that if you had a completed project then it seems to be one of those hypotheticals. If you had a completed project and another project was there and you tried to come back to that completed project for increased requirements, then how do you fund that if the project is already completed? I mean, that's what it appears to be. Q. Right. That's sort of alludes to the question I asked you before, which is, that if you had the problem of going back to ask for more money for capital improvement to the project, as opposed to a maintenance item, then I think he's recognizing here that that's somewhat more difficult. Isn't that what he's really saying? A. I don't know. Q. Okay. Well, what do you mean by -maybe I misinterpreted what you just said. I thought that's what you were saying, that once it's completed, you know you got a maintenance budget, that's there, but don't have a capital budget, you got to go back and get that approved. Isn't that accurate?

46 (Pages 178 to 181) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 182

1/9/2008
Page 184

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 completed project could be turned over to local interests for maintenance and we wouldn't have any maintenance funds or responsibility. So I think there's several different directions you can run here. Q. Well, the point, though, is the same, that whether you have a maintenance budget or not, you know you don't have a capital budget. Once the project is finished, you spent all the money the government gave you to spend. Am I wrong about that? A. I don't know. Projects are authorized and they're funded to a certain level. Q. Right. And so when you spend the money, it's gone. Or am I missing something here? A. Those are long-term projects. I mean, there are, um -- operations and maintenance extended for many years on these projects. Q. I'm not talking about operations and maintenance. I said, once you've finished the project, the money is over, when it comes to -I mean, if you've been allocated an amount of money to build it, you build it, then you get no more money. I mean, what am I missing here?
Page 183

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. Now, would your division, the engineering division, have been responsible for determining what the standard project hurricane was, to which the hurricane protection should have been designed? Or is that some other division or department or branch or whatever? A. That was worked with other agencies with -- the Corps ultimately put that in the document as the design storm, but they worked with other agencies to do that. Q. Okay. All right. Now, work with other agencies versus relying on other agencies is two different things, would you agree? A. Yeah. Q. All right. So what I'm trying to figure out is, did you have a role in it or not? Or did you get it from the weather service? A. I know the weather service provided a storm. I'm not sure how the interaction occurred at that time. Q. Okay. Well, the IPET says that the weather service provided the storm. A. Okay.
Page 185

A. Okay. Q. Is that true? A. It sounds like it, from the way you've presented it, yes. Q. Okay. A. I mean, in that scenario I'd say yes. Q. All right. The Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Act of '65 authorized the Corps to build some hurricane protection structures, right? A. I don't know. I mean I haven't read it is what I should say. Q. Do you know whether or not this district office was authorized to build hurricane protection structures, yes or no? A. Yes. Q. And do you know whether or not the engineering division would have had a role in designing those hurricane protection structures? A. Yes. Q. You would agree with me that the authorizing legislation required the Corps to build hurricane protection to a standard project hurricane.

Q. And the IPET report seems to suggest that the period of time on which the weather service relied was 1900 to 1956. Do you know that to be true or false? A. I don't know it to be either. Q. Okay. Now, standard project hurricane provides information as to a projected surge height in a standard project hurricane, right? A. Could you repeat that? Q. The standard project hurricane provides a projected still water height against which you designed your hurricane protection. A. I believe the standard project hurricane that is utilized to determine the surge heights that are then used to design the protective structures to. Q. Okay. Now, the model, the standard project hurricane, is simply a matter of looking back in time and evaluating hurricanes that occurred in the past to determine what is the highest amount of water, in surge, still water level, now, that we might be able -- that we might forecast we would get in the future, right? A. I'm not sure that's actually the way

47 (Pages 182 to 185) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 186

1/9/2008
Page 188

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

it works. I'm not an expert in that area, but, um -- you work with the parameters of the standard project hurricane to develop the surge heights, based upon the characteristics as described in the standard project hurricane. Q. Well, for example, do you know whether or not the path of the hurricane is relevant to the determination of standard project hurricane? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. Is there anybody in the district office that I could go to to ask that question? A. There were a couple of people, but they're no longer with us, so I don't know. Q. Okay. Who were those folks? A. Harley Winer and Jay Combe. Q. What were their titles? A. Hydraulic engineers. Q. Okay. All right. The truth of it is, hurricane protection, before Katrina, was designed to deal with a certain height of water expected to be generated by a future hurricane. Is that true? A. Yeah.
Page 187

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

about Katrina, if anything, as opposed to hurricanes that came through this area between 1900 and 1956? A. Not the full range, no. Q. Okay. A. I don't -- I'm not familiar with all the hurricanes in that earlier period. Q. All right. Well, is there anything that you know of that -- about Katrina that made it peculiar, let's use that word first, as opposed to hurricanes that may have passed through here from 1900 to 1956? A. I would suspect the size of it. Q. Okay. And to be fair for the record, size meaning it's breadth. I mean, just the number of miles under this thing, the diameter, if you will. A. That, and also the power of it as it approached the Louisiana coast. Q. Okay. Utilizing the Saffir-Simpson scale. A. Just utilizing the parameters of the storm itself. Q. Well, isn't that what the Saffir-Simpson scale does?
Page 189

Q. Okay. And that's why -- you know, we've heard this before, but that's why the Corps didn't design any armoring or protection for the back side of the I-walls, the T-walls or the earth berm levees, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. The part that I'm missing, Mr. Baumy, is how -- I mean, I know that the surge we get, from a review of past hurricanes -- how do you figure the wave component on top of the still water height? Do you know? A. It's specified in various, um -design documents and guidance. I don't know the mechanics of doing it, but I know it's, um -- it's -- there's a specified procedure for doing so. Q. Do you know if the calculation of wave run-up is a component of the determination of the standard project hurricane, or is it an add-on? A. I don't know. Q. Okay. And that's hydrology again? A. Yep. Q. Okay. Do you know what was different

A. Um -- I'm not sure it takes in all those parameters together. It takes some of the parameters, but not all of them. Q. I understand. Would you agree that -and if you can follow with me if you'd like. I'm reading from Page 2 of Volume 1 of the IPET report. (Tendering.) I guess it would be I-2. That's going to be little I, keep going. A. Okay. Q. All right. Do you see where it says the performance? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. If you would go to the second page where it says, ironically, the structures that ultimately breached performed as designed -- you see that phrase? A. Yes. Q. Would you agree that the hurricane protection structures designed and built by the United States Army Corps of Engineers along the MRGO -- okay? A. Uh-huh. Q. You with me-- as far as those whatever length that is, performed as designed? A. Yes.

48 (Pages 186 to 189) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 190

1/9/2008
Page 192

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. Now, do you know, Mr. Baumy, whether or not the surge -- and let me just represent, I think it's Figure Number 14, if you would look at that, that will help you and me with this question -- Figure 14 and Figure 15. A. Okay. Q. You with me there? A. Yes. Q. And you can also, if you like, look at Page 9. By the way, have you seen this before? A. I've seen it. I've skimmed through it. Q. All right. I'm just wondering if you know whether or not the weather conditions, let's just be general, the weather conditions to which the hurricane protection structure alongside the MRGO -- okay? -- was subjected to the same weather conditions as the hurricane protection structure built from Verret all the way to -A. Caernarvon. Q. -- Caernarvon. A. Overall scheme of thing, general weather conditions, yes. Actual wave direction, height and surge elevations?
Page 191

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. Degree of settlement? Q. Yeah. In other words, the speed. By degree, I mean over time. So in fairness to the question, the question would be this: Mr. Baumy, can you tell me whether or not the MRGO contributed to the speed with which the MRGO lifts settled over time? A. I would go to my geologists and geotechnical engineers. I wouldn't expect that to happen, but they would probably have a more informed opinion. Q. Okay. Why wouldn't you expect that to happen? A. Because the weight of the levee is sufficiently away from the channel that the loads imposed are, um -- not necessarily in the same area. Q. Do you know -- and this may be a question better left to the hydrology, I'll tell you in advance, but do you know whether or not wave period is affected by depth? Water depth. A. I would be speculating. Q. Good. So I should ask the wave questions to the hydrologists.
Page 193

Probably not. Q. Okay. All right. So you think that there were different surge and waves along the let's call it the Verret/Caernarvon levee as opposed to the MRGO levee. A. That's what I would suspect, but I would have to look through here to see how they categorized it. Q. All right. And of course we also know that the Verret/Caernarvon levee didn't really breach. A. Correct. Q. Do you know why? A. No. Q. Okay. Do you know -A. I'm sorry. What page are we on now? Q. Not on a page yet. But generally speaking, did the Corps undertake any evaluation to assess whether or not the digging of the channel, the MRGO channel, would have any impact on the rate of settlement of the MRGO hurricane protection structures? A. I don't know that. Q. Okay. Is that something that your division could do?

A. Yep. MR. BRUNO: Robin, your guess is as good as mine on this. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. But anyway, best I can do is give you the document and describe it. There is a Bates number on it from CACI, C-A-C-I, but I can't read it. I'm looking at a document entitled, first of all, it says L-M-V-R-E: So that's lower Mississippi, Vicksburg, right? You can keep that. I mean, you can't keep it keep it but you can look at. A. Yeah. I would think that's from our division office in Vicksburg. Q. R-E? A. I would assume that's real estate. Q. -A? A. Don't know. Q. Okay. Fair enough. If you would go to the third page of the document, and I don't know why it's stapled this way, I guess it came to us this way, okay? So I can't vouch for why these things are together. Having said that, if you look at the

49 (Pages 190 to 193) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 194

1/9/2008
Page 196

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

document dated 19 February 87, it's the third letter from the top -A. Okay. Q. You with me? A. Uh-huh. Q. All right. L-M-N. So here we're in the New Orleans District, right? A. If it's an N. I can't, um -- Oh, you're at the top of the page? Q. Top left, yeah. - 20, I think. I'm guessing there. A. Your guess is as good as mine. Q. Okay. But if you look at the signature, it says, Cletis R. Wagenaar, chief of the planning division, and that would be consistent with Lower Mississippi, New Orleans PD, which is the planning division. A. Yes. Q. Fair enough? A. Yes. Q. All right. It says, initiation of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet bank erosion reconnaissance study. A. Okay. Q. All right? And if you look at the
Page 195

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. Now, first thing I note, it says, the planning division is initiating this study. Can you explain why it would be the planning division? A. Because it's a reconnaissance study. Q. Okay. All right. Well, that's -this really corroborates what you've told me in the past, that if it's got the word reconnaissance on it, then it really does relate to the initial thinking about whether or not someone wants to do some kind of a project. A. Uh-huh. Yes. Q. Right? And doesn't that imply that it's not -- it's no longer a maintenance issue, somebody is thinking in the back of their head, we need to go back and get some more funding, um -- because you need funding for a project. A. That's what it would appear. Q. Am I making -- is that reasonable? A. Yeah. I would think so. Q. Okay. All right. Well, since we don't have the '84, let me just jump to the '88. Do these things, these things, these reconnaissance studies -- I just sort of got
Page 197

third -- second paragraph, it says, the subject study was initiated in December, 1986, and is scheduled for completion, December, '87. All right? Do you know anything about this study? A. Just that it was done. Q. All right. MR. BRUNO: And Robin, if I may, we haven't been able to find the initial one. We do have '88, we do have '94. May I ask that -- it's entitled The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet: A Study of Bank Stabilization, December, '84 be produced, if you don't mind? MR. SMITH: If we have a copy. If we have a copy, it probably has been produced, I'd venture to say, but I can't promise. We'll look. MR. BRUNO: I understand. And we gave it our best shot to find it. Okay? MR. SMITH: We'll look.

the impression from you this morning that this was something that you did kind of relatively quickly just to kind of see if there was a reason to go forward. So I'm just wondering, is this something that takes years and years and years to do, and milli and millions of dollars, or could it take ten years to do and lots of money, as opposed to a brief, limited inquiry with a limited budget? A. Generally, you would have a limited budget in a recon phase. Q. Okay. A. And you could have starts and stops in any of our studies due to funds available in a particular fiscal year. Q. All right. I'm going to show you the '88, and really the first thing I want us to do is see if we can't agree that -- forgive me, I'm trying to find Page 1. Okay. I could be wrong, I'm just hoping that this is Page 1. (Tendering.) Okay. You with me? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me from your, and again, brief opportunity to review -- well, have you

50 (Pages 194 to 197) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 198

1/9/2008
Page 200

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

seen this before? Let me ask you that. A. I believe I've seen it before. But it was quite some ago. Q. Are you able to tell me what it's about? A. I can tell you what it says it's about. And that's the, um -- present the findings of a recon study of bank erosion and erosion-related problems in the vicinity of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet with apparently some specific reach in mind. Q. Okay. Now, you'll remember that you told us that a recon study is usually sort of one of those kind of test the water, if you will, for a project. So the first thing that strikes me is that there doesn't seem to be a project involved here. Or is there? A. It says, in the vicinity of the gulf outlet. I'd have to look at the -Q. Right. A. It says Mississippi River Gulf Outlet at the top of the page. Q. Well, that's already there. I was given to understand that the recon study was to sort of test the water about a new project.
Page 199

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

Do you know? That the MRGO is causing erosion? A. It appears to be a -- looking for a solution to erosion that's occurring along the MRGO. Q. All right, sir. A. And presenting the alternatives and, I would suspect, identifying a path forward. Q. All right. So where might I look for these proposed solutions to the problem? A. Further back in the document, I would suspect. Q. Okay. All right. Would you look at Page 30? Is that the right place to look? A. Let me -- yeah. It appears that way. Q. All right. One of the alternatives discussed is closure. A. And it's on Page 30? Where is that at? Q. I'm sorry. I misspoke. It doesn't discuss closure -A. Okay. Q. -- on Page 30, right? Now, what I see -- what are the alternatives that are discussed on Page 30? A. First they talking about management
Page 201

A. And that would have been a generality. This seems like a more specific case. Q. Okay. Of what? A. Exactly what it says, is that a recon study of the bank erosion problems, and it talks about the gulf outlet. Q. Okay. Do I take it then that this particular recon study is not a study to determine whether or not a particular project should be pursued but, rather, it is a study of the erosion issues that the Corps has come to realize are associated with the MRGO? A. It appears to be specifically related to erosion issues along the channel. Q. Okay. All right. So what -- is there some way that a person like myself could understand what the purpose of this report is? A. I think if you digested the entire report you would come away clearly with what the purpose is. Q. Well, I mean, having read it and digested it, it seems to me that it states the obvious, that the MRGO is causing erosion, but, you know, I'm just a layman. Does it say anything more than that?

measures, and without reading this it looks like they're discussing non structural measures, and then structural measures. So they're looking at both of those from some sort of management, and apparently that's along the waterway. Then they're looking at alternative plans, and the first plan being looked at on Page 30 is a no action plan where you just let the, um -- development take place over time. So what's going to occur in the long run here. Q. Okay. A. So that's the first alternative there. And then the second alternative is some sort of structural bank protection. And maybe they're looking at a variety of options here, I don't know. There's quite a few pages here. Q. All right. Would you agree with me that by 1984 the Corps recognized that -- I'm sorry, by 1988 the Corps recognized that the erosion was causing increased salinity in the surrounding marshes and in the waterways? A. I don't know that. Q. Okay. Now -(Off the record.)

51 (Pages 198 to 201) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 202

1/9/2008
Page 204

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. All right. Mr. Baumy, the document that you are looking at was presented to us with those papers in the front. Okay? A. Okay. Q. It's got this nice pretty cover sheet, Reconnaissance Report. And I'd like to see if I can understand what these pieces of paper are. And I have them here. And I have a duplicate. A. Do you want this back? Q. Yeah. I'll give you the whole stack. (Tendering.) A. Okay. Q. Let's look at the first -- first of all, is it customary within your organization to have this nice front cover piece and then have a bunch of memos and such, and then get to the first page of the actual report? Is that common? A. Yes, it is. Q. Can you explain generally, you know, what the purpose of that is? A. Okay. That is a record of the reviews that had taken place, usually between the
Page 203

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

recent document in the stack. A. Apparently it's a memorandum of a conference that they had on that date. Q. Okay. All right. And it says, as you say, the purpose of the design conference was to discuss comments that were made on the reconnaissance report for the subject project. The responses to these comments are to be incorporated into the GDM supplement. But what does that mean, the GDM supplement? A. That would be a general design memorandum. Q. Okay. All right. Now, we're at the reconnaissance stage, so the next thing that would happen to this is that it should go to the feasibility phase, right? A. I don't know that based upon what I'm seeing right here. Sometimes you will go from a reconnaissance phase straight into plans and specifications on a particular project. It just depends upon the type of project or the scope of it. Q. Okay. Looking at Comment 8 C, they're talking about slower ship speed as maybe one of
Page 205

district and the division. And sometimes you'll have the district, the division and the headquarters for different types of projects. And this would be the original, then the various endorsements that would resolve the comments that the other officers may have had on the project and how they were resolved. It should lay a record of that. Q. I understand. Now, for this particular project that we have already agreed emanates from the planning division, what would be the normal course of review; in other words, who's first, who's second, who's third and who blesses? A. It would come normally from the district to the division office. And we would have to reach concurrence with the division on comments. And I don't know if they would have sent this one to the headquarters office or not. Q. Okay. All right. In terms of what pieces of paper go first, second or third, is that important? In other words, as we walk through this, the first thing I see is November 30th, 1988, which seems to be the most

the ways to resolve the problems? Is that what I'm seeing? A. Where are you? Q. I'm on the second -- the very next page, F. Comment 8 C. A. Okay. Q. Do I take it that the Corps has some influence on ship speed? A. I don't know if the Corps has influence, but apparently they were identifying the benefits of reducing -- or the improvements that they could see by reducing ship speed. Q. Okay. A. I would think the Coast Guard would have to address that. Q. All right. If you look at B where it says comment 1B, as stated earlier, the erosion right along Lake Borgne is about 15 feet a year? A. Okay. Q. Would you agree with me that's a pretty aggressive erosion rate? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. So I can assume then that this document is the final comment on the comments.

52 (Pages 202 to 205) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 206

1/9/2008
Page 208

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

Am I right? A. I don't know that, from what's in here. Q. Okay. What should I look -A. I'm looking for some official endorsements, and I'm having difficulty with, um -- there are some LMVD comments back here on the reconnaissance report. And then here's the design conference. Q. Wait. You're going a little too fast for me. A. Okay. Q. Did you skip past this -- let's see if -- did we identify it? The first thing we had been talking about November 30th, '88, was this memorandum of this design conference. A. Yes. Q. All right. We finished that. Now, the next thing I see is it looks like a sign-in sheet. A. Correct. Q. And that's the folks who showed up at the design conference. A. Yes. Q. Okay. That's fine. Let's go to next
Page 207

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. Right. Q. And then I see a line -- what appears to be a line through the sentence. A. All right. Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge about Mr. Chatry 's opinion about closing the MRGO? A. No, I do not. Q. Okay. For the record, he's a predecessor of yours, is he not? A. Yes, he was. Q. Okay. And he was the chief of the engineering division at the time that this reconnaissance report was done. A. That's correct. Q. Now, it says here, this alternative will control all future channel maintenance problems by controlling bank erosion, preventing the associated biological -A. Excuse me, where are you? Q. I'm in the same place. MR. SMITH: Page? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Same page. Page 30, alternate plan. A. Uh-huh.
Page 209

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

thing. Next thing I see is an agenda, which obviously relates to the design conference. Right? A. Yep. Q. And then we see the LMVD comments. And that's Vicksburg. A. But usually those comments would come in the form of a memorandum as we were looking at only some of the others that would have first endorsements or something, but I don't see that here. Q. Okay. All we see is -A. An apparent list of comments. Q. Just a list. Okay. And I note it says, at Paragraph 2, the alternative to completely close the MRGO waterway should be evaluated and a discussion of the evaluation should be included in the report. You see that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you see that it's lined out? Not on yours, but on mine it is. That's part of the problem with multiple copies. Take a look at mine. It's line out and it says, Chatry says no?

Q. And it's the next sentence. This alternative will control all future channel maintenance problems by controlling bank erosion, preventing the associated -- can you not find it? A. Okay, I see it. It's not highlighted. Q. Did you speak to Chatry about this issue? A. No, I did not. Q. All right. Where was I? This alternative will control all future channel maintenance problems by controlling bank erosion, preventing the associated biological resources problems, preventing saltwater intrusion and lessening the recreational losses. Can I assume by this comment that the author thought those were all problems? MR. SMITH: Objection. Calls for speculation. He's asking you what Mr. Bruno can conclude. Do you know what Mr. Bruno can conclude from this? MR. LAMBERT: Mr. Bruno?

53 (Pages 206 to 209) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 210

1/9/2008
Page 212

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. How about a judge? MR. SMITH: He asked whether he could conclude. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Yeah. I asked that question. Can I reasonably conclude from this sentence that the author is describing what he or she perceives to be problems with the MRGO? That's exactly the question. A. I think what it's saying, when I read the first part combined with that, is saying we want to you do an evaluation of this alternative. And they're throwing out some specific information that they want to offer there. Q. Right. This -- that's your interpretation despite the language that says this will control, right? A. Yes. They're still asking for an evaluation of the alternative. Q. Not a problem. It goes on to say, in addition to solving the aforementioned problems, is it still your testimony that the
Page 211

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

responsibility of evaluating the reconnaissance report and giving his or her comments? A. It would have been a broad evaluation where you would have counterparts to the folks at the district office. So if you had a planning division, an engineering division, a real estate, operations and so forth, you would have the same group of people complementary reviewing the document up there. Q. Okay. A. And, um -Q. All right. A. Okay. Q. At Paragraph 3, there's a suggestion that -- there is recommend the economic justification of continued maintenance of the existing project be demonstrated. Does that mean that the cost of maintenance should be compared against the value to the shipping industry who uses this channel for navigation purposes? A. That's what it appears to say. Q. All right. Do you know whether or not the district, New Orleans District, ever conducted such an evaluation?
Page 213

author is not suggesting that these are problems? A. Again, he may be suggesting that, but he's saying to the district, evaluate it. Q. All right. Well, again, despite the language that says it will also reduce the possibility of catastrophic damage to urban areas by a hurricane surge coming up this waterway and also greatly reduce the need to operate (and could possibly eliminate) the control structures at Bayous Dupre and Bienvenue, right? A. That's what it reads. Q. Okay. Well, I know it reads that, but I'm asking you if it's reasonable to conclude that the author believes that this closure will reduce the possibility of catastrophic damage to urban areas. Okay? That's what I'm asking you. A. It appears that way. Q. All right. Do you know who wrote this paper? A. No, I don't. Q. Do you know who at Vicksburg, by title, not by name, would have had the

A. I don't know. Q. Okay. Which division would be responsible for conducting such an evaluation, if one had been requested? A. It would have been a multiple division approach. Q. It would have included engineering? A. Yes. Q. With regard to Paragraph 2, I neglected to ask you this question: The study that's recommended there, would that have included the participation of the engineering division? A. This report? Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes. Q. All right. And then finally, Table 13. Is that a part of Vicksburg comments, do you think, or is that just -- it says Enclosure 2 at the bottom. A. Is it talking about a table? Q. Yes. The table 13. A. Is that right behind it? Q. Yes, it was right behind it. And I don't have what you're looking at.

54 (Pages 210 to 213) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 214

1/9/2008
Page 216

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 see that. Q. Okay. All right. We have two different versions. All right. Let's see. Let's just take a look at '94. Now-- you want to -- you're welcome to continue looking. I went to show you '94, because we're trying to kind of get through this. All right. Now, we have this second report, this is '94, it's entitled, again, Reconnaissance Report. There's a syllabus, and I guess what strikes me first is that there doesn't seem to be this comment, um -- you know, the series of papers reflecting a comment, but then it goes into the syllabus then. A. Uh-huh. Q. Can we agree that the cover sheet is identical to the cover sheet for '88? MR. SMITH: Well, with the exception of the dates, you mean? MR. BRUNO: Yes. Thank you. A. It appears to be the same subject. MR. BRUNO:
Page 215

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

preliminary analysis indicate the construction of bank stabilization measures along the MRGO may be warranted based upon an evaluation of project costs and both monetary and non-monetary benefits, continuation into the feasibility phase is advisable. Now, does this assist you in sort of figuring out whether or not the reconnaissance phase, by this document, has been completed? A. Um -- it's -- this is certainly a, um -- a report that was produced. Whether it's the final report or not, I can't tell without the appropriate correspondence to go with it. Q. What would I look for to know that this is the final document? What should I be -A. I would look for the correspondence that would have the -- just as you had in the previous one, the district forwarding it to the division and then a closeout from the division, saying approved. It's approved. Q. All right. So approval comes from the division. A. Yeah. Q. It doesn't have to go to Washington.
Page 217

Thank you, Robin. Yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. And I ask the question because the very next page of the '94 one goes into a letterhead with the Department of the Army, it has January, 1994, and then it has reply to the attention of CELMN. What is that? A. New Orleans District. Q. C-E? A. C-E? I don't recognize that symbol. Let me see. Q. (Tendering.) A. C-E-L-M-N-P-D, right? Q. -FJ. A. So that would be planning division, most likely. Q. Okay. So that's New Orleans? A. Yes. Q. Okay. First sentence under the syllabus says, this report presents the results of continued reconnaissance phase investigation of bank erosion and erosion-related problems in the vicinity of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet channel. The results of this

A. I don't -Q. Or does it? A. I don't know. I don't believe so, but I don't know. Q. Well, to go to the feasibility phase, do you need Washington's approval, or can you get -- can you get division approval to go to the feasibility phase? A. I believe they go to Washington. Q. Okay. All right. The feasibility phase, is it also characterized by a report like this? A. Yes. Q. And does it say feasibility report? A. It should, yes. Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not there was a feasibility report on bank erosion in connection with the MRGO? A. No, I don't. Q. Who should I ask? A. I would ask, um -- probably the project manager. Q. Who's the project manager of this, for lack of a better word, inquiry? A. I don't know. We have an operations

55 (Pages 214 to 217) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 218

1/9/2008
Page 220

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

manager -Q. We know that's Russo. A. -- today. And then you have a project manager for the broader LCA project, and whether they provided oversight for any of this I don't know. Q. You said LCA. What does that refer to? A. Louisiana Coastal Authority. That was an earlier environmental. And it probably had some different names as you go back in time and probably different people. So I don't know who it would have been back here. Q. All right. Well, I have -- we've been using this organizational chart which shows Col. Wagenaar as the commander? A. But that's -- this predates Col Wagenaar. Q. Oh, it does? A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. BRUNO: Robin, let me just ask you, because I haven't seen any feasibility phase, if you could advise -Page 219

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, and now we've got, frankly, further information, reconnaissance, feasibility, authorization, planning, drawing up of specifications. A. Uh-huh. Q. Okay? Now, as I understand it, in connection with Task Order Number 26, the United States Army Corps of Engineers did not draft plans and specifications for the use of the contractor to do the environmental remediation on the water side of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal between the what we now know to be the north and south breaks of the east side hurricane protection structure. Okay? A. Okay. Q. Are you with me? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, is that a true statement? A. I don't remember that. I don't know. Q. Okay. Does the Corps, in the way it does business, distinguish between those projects where it draws the plans and specifications as opposed to contracting with
Page 221

MR. SMITH: Okay. I don't think this ever made it to the feasibility phase, but -MR. BRUNO: Well, I'll take that. That's why when I look I don't see. MR. SMITH: I don't think it made it that far, but we'll see. I think it was funding issues, I believe -- is my understanding as to why it never made it to feasibility. I think it required a local sponsor. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Let me, before it gets too late, ask you about the TERC. I mean the T-E-R-C. You know what I'm talking about? A. I believe I do, yes. Q. Did you have anything to do with the Task Order 26? A. May have. I don't recall exactly with the TERC itself. Q. All right. Now, we have in the past talked to you and others about the process by

someone to perform general work for it? A. There's different mechanisms for getting work done, and I'm not, um -- I guess very, very knowledgeable on the TERC process, but if we're going out for advertisement for bid, obviously we'll produce a set of plans and specifications. If you're going out for a contractor design and then execute, you would maybe have knowledge or limited contract documents. And I don't know what was done in that particular case. Q. All right. Will, do you know, very generally, what the scope of the work was in connection with the TERC, particularly Task Order 26? A. I don't -- I know generally the scope of the work, but I'm not -- I don't remember it by Task Order 26. Q. Okay. A. I can't make that connection. Q. I see. I see. Well, let me just for the record ask you to accept that 26 refers to this area. A. Okay. Q. Recognizing that you can you always

56 (Pages 218 to 221) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 222

1/9/2008
Page 224

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

object, or Robin will object at a later date. I'm just going to use 26 for these questions. A. Uh-huh. Q. But do you at least know that the work that the Corps contracted to do at that location was the removal of wharves, piling, other debris, et cetera? A. In general terms, yes. Q. In other words, what I'm driving at is, Mr. Baumy, it wasn't building something, it was removing something. A. Yes. I understand that. Q. Okay. And is that the kind of a thing that the Corps would develop plans and specifications for? A. Um -- again, I don't remember. I, um -Q. And this is a general question, not a specific one: Just generally, when the Corps wants something removed, you know, does the Corps generally draft plans and specifications? I mean, demolition projects and the like. A. A task order is a contract document. So the Corps may have information or requirements contained in that task order that
Page 223

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. Sure. Right. But there's a whole lot of difference between the degree to which you're controlling the work product as between a contract to build something versus contract to remove something, wouldn't you agree? A. Not necessarily. Q. If I ask you to go take the debris off the site of my backyard, are you suggesting to me that's exactly the same as asking you to build me a house? A. If it's got a levee next to it, yes. Q. Well, who said anything about a levee? MR. SMITH: Who says this has anything to do with this case? MR. BRUNO: Robin, just give me a fair answer to a fair question. It has a lot to do with this case, and you well know where I'm going with this. MR. SMITH: Your house? Just ask your questions about this case and not about your house. MR. BRUNO:
Page 225

would be reflective of a set of plans and specifications. That, in essence, would lay the scope of the contract and contractual requirements that would supplement the bigger TERC contract, if you just put that into, um -into those types terms. Q. Well, I guess I'm not being -- when I think of plans and specifications I think of a drawing that would show you the building, or the thing that you're building, specifications would indicate to you the kind of materials to use, how big, how wide, how thick, the types of materials, et cetera. Do you see any distinction at all between building something and tearing out something in terms of the need for plans and specifications? Or are they the same? A. It's a different contract mechanism. Q. Exactly. A. If someone -- if you're executing a contract to remove something, then I would expect that, um -- you would have whatever data is available in some form of contract document or reference so the contractor knows what he's going to be removing.

I'm asking about this case. Okay? The witness is telling me -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. And that's fine. If that's your testimony, just tell the judge. You're going to tell the judge -MR. SMITH: That's his testimony, Joe. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. That's fine. I just want to make sure that's your testimony. You're going to tell the judge from the witness stand after you swear the oath that plans and specifications that would be utilized to build a house would exhibit the same degree of control over the work as a request for somebody to remove debris from a site. And the answer is yes. You think those two are exactly the same, right? MR. SMITH: Objection. It's argumentative. MR. BRUNO: I just want to know what he says. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Are they the same? A. I said yes in the proximity of

57 (Pages 222 to 225) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 226

1/9/2008
Page 228

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

something that's important to me. Yes. Q. All right. Well, what do you mean -I didn't put in my question anything proximate to anything. A. Okay. Q. I put into the question what I put. You're adding the floodwall, not me. I didn't ask you about floodwall. I didn't ask you about hurricane protection. I asked you very generally about contracts. Do you understand that? MR. SMITH: Joe, you've asked him this question. You've got his answer. If you don't -MR. BRUNO: I don't have an answer. MR. SMITH: You do have an answer, and if you don't agree with it, that's different. MR. BRUNO: Robin, I don't have an answer because I didn't ask about hurricane protection, I didn't ask about the proximity to anything.
Page 227

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

of the house to anything, and without regard to the pile of trash to anything, I simply want for you to confirm for this record that in your opinion you believe that a contract which includes very precise plans and specifications for the building of something exhibits the same degree of control over the work as a contract to remove a big pile of debris off of a piece of land. MR. SMITH: Objection. Asked and answered. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Now if I can get my answer we'll move on. MR. SMITH: We're going to answer it one more time and then we're going to move on or we'll call the judge. MR. BRUNO: I'm happy to call the judge. If I get the a reference to something else, then we'll call the judge. Because I didn't ask that. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Now what's your answer?
Page 229

MR. SMITH: You asked about building a house. Move on and ask something that's relevant to this case. MR. BRUNO: I'm going to get as answer to this question. MR. SMITH: You've gotten an answer to this question. MR. BRUNO: I have no answer. I don't intend to ask about the proximity to anything. That wasn't in the question. The witness supplied that himself. That's not fair. That's not playing the game. Okay? MR. SMITH: You ask a relevant question and you'll get an answer. MR. BRUNO: This is an extremely relevant question, as you well know. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Now, without regard to the proximity

A. So if you have a house in the middle of nowhere and you're building and hauling material, I'd say yeah, there's a significant difference. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Thank you. And your government thanks you. Will one day. Do you know whether or not this district has, since now we're talking -- I will now ask you the question that you thought I was asking. You are building in the vicinity of a hurricane protection structure. Okay? Now, does this district office have a set of written guidelines that will assist me in knowing whether or not I have to take any precautions if I choose to build or dig or do anything around a hurricane protection structure? A. Yeah. There are permit requirements. Q. All right. What are the permit requirements, and who issues the permit? A. I don't have those in front of me. I, um -- engineering division would issue technical requirements related to the permit, but there's other parts that go with it. Q. All right. But what kind of permit do

58 (Pages 226 to 229) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 230

1/9/2008
Page 232

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

I ask for? Is it a digging permit? Is it a building next to a hurricane protection structure permit? What is it called? A. It's called a permit. Q. It's called a permit. A. You come in with a permit to build -take some action in the vicinity of a project. That's what a contractor or individual would do. Q. All right. So your testimony is that anytime anybody builds in the vicinity of a Corps project they need to get a permit. A. Yes. Q. All right. Now how do I know how close I can go without getting a permit? A. That would be published somewhere, through the Corps and through the levee districts. The levee districts also participate in the permit process. Q. All right. we're not talking about the levee districts, we're talking about the Corps. You told me Corps has published guidelines. I want to see the Corps' published guidelines. So where do I go to understand -A. Permits.
Page 231

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

excavating around a flood control project? A. I don't know what's written that's in the public sector. Q. Okay. All right. Let me show you this. (Tendering.) I will represent to you that this is a print from a website. Okay? A. Okay. Q. From the Kansas City District office of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. And you will see at least at Page 3 of the document, it says in black and white, guidance for work proposed near or within a federally constructed flood control project. Fair enough? A. Yes. Q. It says that. All right. Now, would you agree with me that if such a document exists in this district that it would have been prepared by the engineering division, or at least with the input from the engineering division? A. It certainly would have had the input. Q. Okay. All right. Have you ever seen a document like this in the New Orleans District office?
Page 233

Q. Permits office? A. Yeah. Q. All right. Where on the chart is the permits office? A. Operations division. Q. Operations division. Now how do I know which division? A. I just said it. Q. Well, there's a technical support branch, there's a readiness branch, there's a physical support branch, there's a regulatory branch, a management support branch, and then it goes into various op managers, including the Mississippi River Baton Rouge to Gulf. A. Regulatory. Q. I go to them. Okay. Now, is there a written set of guidelines that I can pick up and read to help me understand this process? A. I have not looked at them lately, but there should be, yes. Q. All right. A. I would expect there are. Q. Does the Corps have a written set of guidelines that would discuss rules, regulations, advisories, about digging or

A. Not a comprehensive document like this, no. Q. Well, would you at least agree with me that this document gives some guidance about how close you can get to a federal flood control project? It says here, this information has been compiled to provide general guidance regarding engineering, operation and maintenance aspects of construction within the critical area of flood control projects constructed by the Corps of Engineers. You see that? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. So this does give some information about what you should do or should not do depending upon how close you are to a federal flood control project, right? A. It appears to. Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now, do you know if there's a permit required to do work outside of 300 feet on the water side of a flood control project? A. Okay. What was the question again? Q. If you take a look at the top, you see

59 (Pages 230 to 233) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 234

1/9/2008
Page 236

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 it says -A. I'm reading the text. Q. Yeah, the text says, the critical area is, and then it says 300 water side, 500 land side. A. And what is your question? Q. My question is, do you know if you need a permit to do work? A. No, I don't. I'd have to review the requirements. MR. SMITH: You're talking about in this district or -MR. BRUNO: Yes. MR. SMITH: -- in Kansas City? MR. BRUNO: No. This district. A. I'd have to review the requirements. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. Now, as an engineer, Mr. Baumy, for this district, knowing what you know about the flood control projects in this district, and knowing what you know about the geology of
Page 235

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. Uh-huh. Q. -- that an engineering evaluation needs be done with regard to proposed excavation? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Do you know if your department did any engineering evaluation of any excavations done by the Washington Group International on the water side of the Lower Nine flood control project between where we now know the breaks occurred? A. I would have to look at the record, but I, um -- I would expect that we did. Q. All right. MR. BRUNO: Robin, may I call for the production of any such tests or evaluations or, I guess the best word -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Tell me the best way to describe that stuff so Robin and I will know what we're talking about. Is it an evaluation, is it a permit request? What -A. It would be a -- probably a submittal
Page 237

the soils and the subsurface, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera -- okay? Do you agree that the critical area is 300 feet riverward and 500 feet landward? A. I'd have to look at that in detail. Q. Where would you go to look? A. I would go to my geotechnical section and look at criteria that we're using right now as permits come in. Q. Do you have to do an analysis every time a permit comes in? A. Sure, you do. Q. You do? A. Yeah. Q. So in other words, the 300 feet may be 400 feet for a particular project, or 600 feet? A. It would be whatever our requirements are, and that may mean we want to see work within those confines and do an engineering evaluation as to the potential effects it may have on the flood protection works. Q. Okay. Would you agree with me that whatever that distance ultimately is determined to be dependent upon a particular project -okay?

by the contractor on any proposed excavation. Or there would be some guidance given to the contractor that would, um -- not require him to submit an excavation plan if he met certain parameters. Q. Okay. Let me see if I'm hearing you right. So that at the end of the evaluation process, what the contractor would get back from you is an excavation plan? A. No. Q. Oh. All right. What would he get? A. You could -- generally, for projects, you would do it one or two ways: You could give parameters and say, okay, if you're outside of these parameters then we don't have a problem with it. If you're within these parameters, then we need to review your plan and we will approve it or in some way signify that it's okay -Q. All right. A. -- from our view. We have no problems with it, essentially; not that it's okay, but we don't have any objections to it. Q. Now, Mr. Baumy, in fairness to you, Mr. Colletti -- do you know who he is?

60 (Pages 234 to 237) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 238

1/9/2008
Page 240

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. All right. He testified that in this district, on the water side, it's 300 feet. Do you have any reason to believe that he's wrong? A. No. Q. Okay. And he said that on the land side -- and by the way, 300 feet from center line. I should have -- in fairness to you, I should have told you that. And then on the land side, 500 feet from center line. Would you have any reason to say to us that that -- if he said that, that it is incorrect? A. No, I wouldn't. Q. All right, sir. Did you think the 300 feet is arbitrary? A. No. Q. Okay. And would you agree that if a contractor dug a hole 20 feet down within 30 feet of the center line of a hurricane protection structure then there should be some kind of engineering evaluation? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, who in your division
Page 239

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

around that time period. Q. That time period being what, '99, 2000? A. 2005. Q. Oh. A. Around the 2005 time period. Q. No, I think that was my end date. A. Right. Q. In other words, this gentleman was there up until 2005? Or close? A. Close. Q. Close is good. A. Yeah. Q. I think the work ended in like June. A. He retired somewhere between 2004 and 2005. I don't remember exactly when. Q. Okay. All right. Well, that's fine. I have to say I'm still a little confused about when -- how on earth would a third party know that they need a permit to work around the hurricane protection structure? How would I figure that out? A. You didn't like my answer last time, but the levee boards are involved with this, with the permits. We coordinate permit reviews
Page 241

would be responsible for doing the evaluation? By that -- I didn't mean the person. I should have said which of your branches would be responsible for the evaluation? A. There were two branches that would have been responsible at that time, and one of them is no longer in the organization. And the general engineering branch would have worked the, um -- package with construction for the TERC contract. The geotechnical branch would have worked with the general engineering branch to either provide appropriate guidance or do detailed reviews when submittals came in. Q. Okay. Our understanding is that the work was done between 1999 and 2005. Okay? A. Okay. Q. Would you kindly tell me, if you know or can remember, who was chief of the geotechnical branch in '99? A. Bill Caver. Q. And would that have been true up to 2005, or were there other folks who took his place? A. I don't remember exactly. There was a change in leadership of that branch somewhere

with the levee boards. And they are actually out there. So, um -- I'm not sure what they put out. I don't look at their website. And the Corps has a regulatory branch that would put information out, and I have not looked at that recently. Q. Well, it's not that I didn't like your answer, it's that it's inconsistent with what I heard all last week, which is that there are no permits required to work, by the Corps, around hurricane protection structures; rather, that it is in fact the levee board that issue the permit. So, you know, but you're telling me that there is some kind of a permit that the Corps issues. A. You asked me an individual. You didn't ask me about the Corps. Q. All right. Well, does the Corps issue permits for work proposed near or within federally constructed flood control projects? A. Not my lane, but I don't believe so. Q. Okay. It's the levee boards; right? A. Uh-huh. Yes. Q. All right. So to kind of get the cases, you know, Mr. Colletti said there are no

61 (Pages 238 to 241) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 242

1/9/2008
Page 244

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

written guidelines for work proposed near or within federally constructed flood control projects, that these Kansas City ones were the first time he had seen written guidelines. Do you have any reason to say that that's inaccurate? A. But that doesn't mean there are not guidelines used within particular offices for reviewing permits as they come in. Q. Well, except that wasn't the question. The question was written guidelines. Just like this. (Indicating.) A. They're not going to be just like that. Q. Okay. All right. Do you know what the sheet pile depths is of the sheet pile at the Lower Nine hurricane protection structure between where we now know the breaks occurred? A. No, I don't. MR. SMITH: Wait. What time period are we talking about? MR. BRUNO: Pre-Katrina. I'm not asking any questions post-Katrina.
Page 243

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. So it's the -- it's actually the division office that's telling the district office to change the word performed for the word failed in the memorandum as described at Paragraph A, right? A. I hadn't seen it. Q. (Tendering.) A. That's what they said. Q. All right. Now, this test was the test that was used to justify using less sheet pile in I-walls, isn't that true? A. I believe it resulted in that. Q. Right. A. Yes. Q. In other words, the idea was you could drive the sheet pile into the earth to a, um -less of a depth than you all previously thought you had to. Right? A. That would be the end result, yes. Q. All right. The only problem was, when you did that there was a deflection problem. Wasn't there? Actually, the pile would fall over. A. I don't know that that's accurate. Q. Okay. All right. Well, do you know
Page 245

A. I'd have to look at the plans. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Do you have any knowledge of the E-99 sheet pile test in the Atchafalaya basin? A. Yes, I have some knowledge of it, but not -- I hadn't looked at it in a long time. Q. What was your involvement, if any? A. I reviewed the report at one time. I remember that. Um -- I can't remember too much past that right now. Q. Well, in the usual course, as you've indicated, there is an opportunity to comment on documents, and here's a comment: It's C-E-L-M-V. Is that Vicksburg? A. If there's no other letter behind it, it's probably a district. A division. Q. No. There is. It's CELMV-ED-TS. (Tendering.) A. Let me see it. That would be the division office. Q. So it says, for the commander New Orleans District, attention, CELMN-ED-DD. A. That would be structural design section in design branch.

what failed refers to? A. No, I'd have to go through the text. Q. Okay. A. What year was that? Q. Here's the memo. 18 November 88. A. Okay. Q. Okay? And it's Chatry. It's subject, I-wall deflection. And here's the minutes about which -- and you can check this out if you like -- about which the comment is being made, and it's Paragraph 5 where the word failed appears, and there's a suggestion to change the word failed to the word performed. A. Okay. So what's the question? Q. I think the question was, didn't the test indicate a failure as it relates to the propensity of the pile to, um -- fall over? A. I really don't remember all the details, but my recollection was the pile did not fall over. Q. Well, not 100 percent, but just leaned a whole lot. Is that right? A. I don't recall that happening either. Q. Well, why did they use the word failed?

62 (Pages 242 to 245) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 246

1/9/2008
Page 248

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. Q. Okay. So my question actually originally was what does the word failed refer to there? A. Again, I would have to look at the report, but, um -- I don't recall the sheet piling failing in that test. Q. Okay. Somebody thought so. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. A. Well, somebody used the word, at least. Q. Well, yeah. And however somebody used the word. Okay. A. And the -- I mean, the thing I recall about that test was that there was difficulty keeping the water against the wall and there was some failures in that area of just the water stops. So I don't know what this is really referring to. Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the actual Atchafalaya E-99 test was videotaped or not? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. Or audio -- or there was any
Page 247

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

is that -- that's the government? Okay, this is a document which does have a Bates number. NED-149-000000005, 6 and 7. All right. Is that your signature on the document? A. Yes. Q. Do you know what that is? A. Yes. Q. What is it? A. It's a quality control plan for review of the project. Q. What project? A. The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock Replacement Project, showing a design documentation report. Q. All right. A. For preparation and demolition. Q. Okay. Now, is that the whole project, or is it limited to preparation and demolition? A. It's limited to preparation and demolition. Q. Okay. All right. And the quality control plan was to accomplish what? A. Look at the, um -- the work of the AE
Page 249

kind of audio? A. I do not. Q. Would you expect any kind of a boom to be associated with a deflection? A. A what? Q. A deflection of the sheet pile? A. Expect a what? Q. Any kind of a boom. A sound. A sound to be emitted? A. No, I wouldn't. Q. By the way, what was your role? Is your name on here somewhere? What was your role on the E-99? A. I was a structural engineer at the time. I don't know if I really had a role in the E-99 test. I did a review at the district of the findings and commented on that. Participated in the meeting. Q. Do you recall your comments? A. Um -- no, I think a few of them are written down, but I don't recall the -- much detail about the meeting. I'd have to go back to the record. Q. Let me show you this document. And it's NED. Is that your designation, NED? Or

contractor. Q. AE? A. Waldemar Nelson and Company in association. It says Hartman Engineering and also Dames & Moore, so there were three consulants involved with this work. Q. Okay. I'm confused. What's the work? A. Well, right here it says part of the navigation canal lock replacement project, design documentation report for site preparation and demolition. So that would have been some work along the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. Q. Okay. And the work was done by? A. The work was done by Waldemar Nelson, Hartman Engineering and Dames & Moore. Q. Okay. And what got me confused was the quality control. What is the -- I guess what I was trying to figure out was, were you evaluating quality control or was the document itself a quality control? A. This is an independent technical team to review the contractor's quality procedures. Q. All right. So Waldemar and Nelson are evaluating the contractors --

63 (Pages 246 to 249) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 250

1/9/2008
Page 252

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, no, no. Q. Please help me. I don't know who's evaluating who and for what. A. This is a design report that's being prepared by three contractors with a review team of the government. The names here are government employees reviewing the work of this other contractor. Q. Okay. All right. So the government is reviewing something that Waldemar Nelson and Dames & Moore have prepared. A. Yes. Q. Okay. So the quality control plan is what the Corps is doing, right? A. It's the overall execution of the project. It's the contractors doing certain work and then the Corps is doing certain, um -has a certain role. Q. All right. You'll forgive me, because on this thing I'm just not getting it. I can understand that the quality control -- there is a quality control component in making certain that the person that you've asked to do something does it the way they're supposed to do it. Right?
Page 251

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

Number 26. A. Okay. Q. And it references work done by Waldemar Nelson and Dames deems and -A. Dames & Moore. Q. Let me have it back and I can read it to you. For the record, it says that -- first of all, for the record, this is WGI 1000001 in seriatim to 000229. It's the first thing WGI produced. It's entitled Order for Supplies And Services. Showing you Number 3 in the series. Do you know what that is? A. I'm vaguely familiar with it, but I do not remember much about it. Q. Well, I mean the form. Let's just talk about the form. It's a government form, isn't it? A. Yes, issued by the Tulsa District. Q. Tulsa District of -A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Q. All right. And when does the Corps use this form? A. Apparently, it's a contracting issued form, so looks like for issuing some sort of delivery order to a particular contractor. It
Page 253

A. And it varies for different projects, and I'd have to look at that in more detail or go back to the record, but, um -- a lot of times when we hired contractors, we hired the contractor to do the design, and we also hired them to have an independent review of their work. And in that case, we'd only provide a quality assurance review that the independent check was done by a properly, um -- proper team. Q. Okay. A. And it looked -- you know, we'd have some interaction with them there. In other cases, we've had the contractor do work and then we would have a technical support team that would sort of take an independent look at the contractor's work. Q. Do you know what the case was -A. No, I would have to go back and see. Q. You can't tell? A. I can't tell with just that there. (Off the record.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Mr. Baumy, we have given you during the break a copy of the TERC Order

says, requisition purchase request. Q. All right. It says the contractor is Morrison Knudsen Corporation, right? A. Yes. Q. And then it says, see scope of work. Is this the kind of order that's used when you have a contract and specifications? A. Generally not. Q. When is this form used? A. That was used with a TERC contract, and I really don't have a lot of -- I hadn't used the TERC contractor a lot, so I don't have much memory of that back then. Q. Well, I know that. But that really wasn't the question. A. Okay. Q. When is this form used? A. Um -- again, it looks like a contracting document, it's to procure some sort of service. Q. Supplies or services. A. Yeah. Q. And it says, schedule of supplies and services, and it just describes demolition and site preparation for Inner Harbor Navigation

64 (Pages 250 to 253) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 254

1/9/2008
Page 256

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

Canal Lock Replacement Project, East Bank Industrial Area, New Orleans, Louisiana, right? A. Uh-huh. Q. Let me ask you this: If this was a contract which called upon somebody to build something that had as its purpose the building of something that had plans and specifications, what -- how would that be done? What would the contract look like? A. I don't understand the question. Q. Well, how would it be different from this, if it had plans and specifications attached? A. It could have specifications attached. It could have work requirements. It may not be called specifications, but it could be very similar. Q. Well, I'm talking about -- you've already testified this is different from the kind of piece of paper that would be used if you had a contract for the building of something, and consistent with plans and specifications, so -A. Well, I may have misspoken because I don't know that for a fact. That is a
Page 255

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

New Orleans District and Morrison Knudsen Corporation. Now, what are site documents? A. Could be a variety of documents. I don't remember if this work document here produced any of those site documents or did research to get those site documents. I would assume, without again looking at that file in great detail, that the site documents are probably old plans and specifications or available information of features that were out in that area. Q. Okay. And then there's a section called government furnished information. A. Okay. Q. And that would be where I would look for the plans and specifications, right? That would be the thing that would tell me what I was building. Right? A. Um -- again, you need to look at the whole document. There may be other requirements besides reference documents. Q. Okay. Well, would you agree with me that if there are plans and specifications this big stack of paper should refer to them?
Page 257

contracting document issued to a contractor to procure a service. When they issue a construction contract, whether they issue the same form or not I really can't tell you. Q. Okay. When you do a -- when you have a contractor perform work consistent with a contract plans and specifications, is there usually a scope of work? A. Yes. Q. All right. The scope of work is the plans and specifications, though, isn't it? A. That's where the contract requirements are defined. Q. Right. Now, this contract says, contractor shall furnish all services, materials, supplies, labor, travel, as required in connection with the coordination and technical review of site documents for the remediation and demolition of the east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, IHNC, between Claiborne Avenue and Florida Avenue from the IHNC east to the floodwall. Interagency partners involved in this project consist of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

A. Yeah. Q. Fair enough. A. Uh-huh. Q. Okay. All right. Now, under government furnished documents, there's this reference to Waldemar Nelson and this Dames & Moore, and which is the purpose why I showed it to you. A. Okay. Q. To see if you could connect this that to that. That other piece of paper. A. Uh-huh. Q. It says, and this is under the section government furnished documents, 1999 final submittal, demolition, design memorandum input, demolition of buildings, foundations and facilities along the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal for the lock replacement submitted to the USACE-NOD by Waldemar Nelson, Inc. You think that's the document that's referenced by your quality control? A. I would think so. Q. Okay. All right. Now, and then so your evaluation -- your technical team evaluation would be to make certain that this

65 (Pages 254 to 257) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 258

1/9/2008
Page 260

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

thing that Waldemar Nelson did complied with your rules and regulations. A. Uh-huh. Q. Okay. MR. SMITH: That was a yes? THE WITNESS: Yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. That was a yes. And likewise, above ground structures report, environmental support to Inner Harbor Navigation Canal New Lock and Connecting Channels, Final Draft submitted to USACE-NOD by Dames & Moore. And then there's two more, mixed waste mounds, environmental support to Inner Harbor Navigation Canal New Lock and Connecting Channels, Final Draft submitted to USACE-NOD by Dames & Moore, and then finally the above ground storage tanks report, environmental support to Inner Harbor Navigation Canal New Lock and Connecting Channels Final Draft submitted to USACE-NOD by Dames & Moore. You think those are the Dames & Moore
Page 259

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

Elmore, Dave Wurtzel, and that may have been others but those are at least documented on this plan. Q. Okay. All right. Thank you. Let me show you this document and see if you can help us with that. All right. Do you know what this document is? A. I know generally what it is, but not the detail of it, no. Q. All right. Would your office have had anything to do with this? It says it's prepared by the foundation and materials branch and the hydraulics and hydrologic branch of the engineering division -- these guys are under you. A. Today, yes. Q. All right. And this was done in '93, which is before your time. A. Yes. Q. All right. So do you have any knowledge of this document? A. I may have seen it, but I don't remember at this point. Q. All right. This is becoming my
Page 261

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

reports that are referenced by your quality control evaluation? A. More than likely. Q. And again, you would have evaluated them to make sure that those reports met your quality control requirements. A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you know the names of any of the folks in your division who worked on the, this TERC, Task Order 26? A. Gary Brouse and Rubin Mabry. Q. Brouse? A. Brouse. I believe he was on it, if I recall correctly. But I don't recall seeing his name on this sheet. I thought he was involved with it. Rubin Mabry was definitely involved with it. George Bacuta, Gene Vossen, Rick Broussard -(Off the record.) A. Spadaro. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Have we got all the names? A. No. Q. Okay. I know where we stopped? A. Rick Broussard, Mark Gonski, David

favorite question of all these depositions: Chain-link fences on top of earth berms which may or may not contain sheet pile I-walls. A. Okay. Q. Okay? Can you think of any potential deleterious impact to the integrity of the earth berm by having a chain-link fence embedded into the -- I guess it's the crown, or near the crown, of the earth berm in an I-wall scenario? A. I think that would be better answered by a geotechnical expert. Q. All right. Do you know whether or not there were chain-link fences on the flood control structure on the Lower Nine east bank between where we now know the breaks occurred -A. No, I don't recall. Q. All right. I didn't finish -- during the time that WGI did its work in connection with the Task Order Number 26? A. I don't know for sure. Q. All right, sir. A. Or don't remember. Q. Do you know if there is any policy

66 (Pages 258 to 261) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 262

1/9/2008
Page 264

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

about having chain-link fences on flood protection structures at all? A. On the structure? Q. Yeah. The earth berm -A. Oh, on the levee. Q. On the levee. Well, I'm using I-walls, too, which might have an earth berm. Right? A. Uh-huh. I'd have to look at the requirements. I don't recall at this point. Q. All right. Let me show you a document which is marked NED-141-000000139. Appears to be signed by you, if not authored by you. A. Okay. Q. All right. Tell us what that's about, please. A. This was a test section done on the bank of the IHNC where we hired a contractor to go in and use soils cement technology, a strengthening of the soils, and then loaded those soils to see how it performed. Q. Was that Mr. McElwee? A. I don't know. I don't recall that name. Q. Do you know the name?
Page 263

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

to fill a void? A. Yeah. Q. All right. And why would you use this bentonite and sand mixture, as opposed to -A. In which application? Q. In any application that you use it. A. If you're using it adjacent to sheet pile, you're effectively sealing that area. You're making sure that you don't have voids, when you -- because you can't compact that material with equipment with a high degree of reliability. Q. All right. So essentially you're using it in order to cut of potential underseepage problems, right? A. Not necessarily underseepage. It could be seepage from the ground surface. Usually it's in a higher application. Q. Well, it's there -- you're doing it to deal with seepage problems; how about that? A. That's part of it. But that's not the whole story. Q. Never said it was. A. All right. Q. But part of it is to deal with seepage
Page 265

A. No. Q. Was this -- what's it called? What's the material? Is that bentonite? A. I don't know what's in the material. I know it's a cement-based application. Q. All right. Is it also used to fill holes, you know, that are -- for example, if you pull a pile out next to a hurricane protection structure, you fill it with bentonite. Have you ever heard if such a thing? A. Um -- I've, in the flood walls we had used a sand bentonite slurry mix. So I've heard of mixtures of material. I can't tell you if bentonite by itself has been used. Q. Well, so let's talk about the mixture. You're familiar with the use of bentonite with, apparently, some other materials. A. Yes. Q. And what is the purpose of that -what is the purpose of filling a hole with that mixture of materials? A. You're filling a void. Q. And why is it -- well, is it important

problems, right? A. Part of it is to deal with water. And could be rainwater, could be seepage, could be anything. Q. Right. And when you have a hole in the ground which allows one layer of material to communicate with another layer of material under the earth, there's a potential for seepage there, as well, right? I mean, water can go up and down the strata. If you put a hole through it, whereas if there was no hole perhaps that there may be a clay layer or something to prevent the water from going up and down, so you're blocking the ability of water to move. That's what I was referring to. A. I don't know that for a fact. Q. You don't know what for a fact? A. What -- your statement. Q. Well, are you telling me that it wouldn't block the movement of water? THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the statement so I can understand it? (Whereupon the previous question was read back.)

67 (Pages 262 to 265) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 266

1/9/2008
Page 268

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. Then I'd say yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. That's a nice way to end the day, I got to tell you. Let's take a break, see if I'm finished. (Off the record.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. Mr. Baumy, Ms. Arlene Smith, do you know her? A. Eileen Smith? Q. Arlene. A-R-L-E-N-E. A. I always called her by Eileen. If it's the same person, I don't know. Q. I know. I had the same problem the other day. Let me just show you -- she's contracting officer and she was the contracting officer for this TERC Number 26. A. Okay. Q. Do you know whether or not she's an engineer? A. Um -- no. Q. Meaning you don't know, or she's not an engineer? A. I don't know. I don't know.
Page 267

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. I think one last question, that is, when water, in an I-wall setting -- okay? Where the water actually on a daily basis comes in contact with the I-wall, there's no earth berm, is that acceptable within the guidelines of the United States Army Corps of Engineers for I-walls at water locations? A. I don't know of any reason why it would not be. I don't know if the regulations are silent or elaborate on that or not. But I'm not aware of any limitations. Q. Okay. Guillory. Does Guillory have a specialty? A. He worked in our construction division at that time. Q. Structural engineer? A. No, construction. Q. I'm sorry. But is he a structural engineer? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know. In the I-wall setting adjacent to water, in a flood control -- in other words, the I-wall is a flood control structure, can water travel down the sheet pile and go
Page 269

Q. Is a contracting officer the person that you would expect to do -- remember we spoke a little bit ago about the evaluation of excavations? A. Yes. Q. You remember that? A. Yes. Q. Is a contracting officer the person that you would expect to do that, or should it be somebody in engineering? A. To perform the technical review? Q. Yes. A. It would be engineering to perform a technical review. Q. All right. Lee Guillory. Is Mr. Guillory an engineer? A. Yes. Q. George Baruta? A. Bacuta. Q. Bacuta. A. He's a geologist. Q. Gary Brouse? A. Civil engineer. Q. And Rubin Mabry? A. Civil and environmental engineer.

underneath? A. Water can travel, um -- a variety of paths, under an I-wall or through it, actually. Sheet pile is not impervious. Water is going to move. I mean, you have groundwater movement all the time. Q. All right. Just to round out some questions that I'm now remembering I didn't ask you: Southern boundary of New Orleans East at the Intracoastal Waterway, the Citrus back levee, the breach there, would you agree that the hurricane protection structures at that location performed as designed? A. I would have to look at the IPET findings. I don't recall exactly what was said. Q. Well, I have them. I think the way that they did it was there's only four locations where there's foundation failure. A. And that wasn't one of them. I know that. Q. All right. But do you remember that there was only four foundation failures. A. That's what IPET had, yes. Q. All right. 17th Street Canal is one

68 (Pages 266 to 269) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 270

1/9/2008
Page 272

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

of them, the two at London -A. Yes. Q. And then the one at north breach of the east bank of the Industrial Canal. A. Correct. Q. Okay. So that can we then deduce that the Citrus back levee performed as designed? A. Yes. Q. And the hurricane protection structure at the southern location of breaching also performed as designed? A. Yes. Q. Now, do you know whether or not the Corps ever investigated, in connection with the north breach, where even the IPET suggests some foundation issue, whether anybody investigated the possible connection between that breach and holes that were dug by the TERC contractor in connection with the remediation of that area? A. I believe the IPET team looked at that, but I don't know. Q. Well, I'm asking, did you guys look at it? Did you? Did your engineering -A. My engineers looked at it. They provided the IPET team a variety of information
Page 271

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

really studied that. A. Um -Q. That is, the connection between backfilled holes and foundation failure, north breach, Industrial Canal, east side, Lower Nine. A. I know there's been discussion on it. But as far as a study, I don't know. Q. Okay. Do you recall the discussions? Were they -- they were when and with whom? A. It would have been, again, providing the IPET additional information on soil characteristics, observations from the people who saw the area immediately after the hurricane and for some time, just giving them additional information. Q. Okay. But any names that you can recall? A. Rich Varuso would be one, yeah. MR. SMITH: Maybe you should depose Mr. Varuso. MR. BRUNO: I think I did, and I think I asked him that precise question,
Page 273

in that area and also, um -- asked them to look at things from a different perspective related to that area. So they provided information. I don't recall exactly what they provided, but they did engage them. Q. All right. I can find no reference whatsoever by IPET, and candidly by anybody who evaluated the potential connection between the work by WGI and the failures. I mean, you remember that there was a specific reference to that somewhere? A. I don't remember a specific to WGI, but I remember a specific, um -- on the northern breach of us supplying additional information to the IPET team. May have been verbal, may have been hard copy. I don't know. But we did provide some interaction there. Q. No, understanding that, can you say for certain that that additional information related to the holes backfilled by WGI in connection with the environmental remediation project? A. I don't remember that specifically. Q. All right. That's what I'm saying. And really, as far as you know, nobody has

Mr. Smith. That's all I've got. Thank you very much for your patience, Mr. Baumy.

69 (Pages 270 to 273) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

WALTER BAUMY
Page 274

1/9/2008

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

WITNESS' CERTIFICATE I, WALTER O. BAUMY, JR., do hereby certify that the foregoing testimony was given by me, and that the transcription of said testimony, with corrections and/or changes, if any, is true and correct as given by me on the aforementioned date. ______________ DATE SIGNED _________________________ WALTER O. BAUMY, JR.

_______ Signed with corrections as noted. _______ Signed with no corrections noted.

DATE TAKEN: April 9th, 2008
Page 275

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, JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR, Certified Court Reporter in and for the State of Louisiana, do hereby certify that the aforementioned witness, after having been first duly sworn by me to testify to the truth, did testify as hereinabove set forth; That said deposition was taken by me in computer shorthand and thereafter transcribed under my supervision, and is a true and correct transcription to the best of my ability and understanding. I further certify that I am not of counsel, nor related to counsel or the parties hereto, and am in no way interested in the result of said cause.

____________________________________ JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER #75005

70 (Pages 274 to 275) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful