In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Civil Action Consolidated Litigation

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION

CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION
NO. 05-4182
and Consolidated Cases
"K" (2)
JUDGE DUVAL
MAG. WILKINSON
----------------------------------------------
ROBINSON CIVIL ACTION
NO. 06-2286
VERSUS
THE UNITED STATES
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
ROBERT GLENN BEA,
60 Shuy Drive, Moraga, California 94556
given in the offices of Lambert & Nelson, 701
Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
on Monday November 19, 2007.
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 APPEARANCES: 1 ALSO PRESENT IN ATTENDANCE (CONTINUED)

2 O'DONNELL & ASSOCIATES 2
(BY: PIERCE O'DONNELL, ESQ.)
MCCRANIE, SISTRUNK, ANZELMO, HARDY,
3 Suite 1000
550 Hope Street
3 MAXWELL & MCDANIEL
4 Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 (BY: DARCY DECKER, ESQ.)
ATTORNEYS FOR ROBINSON PLAINTIFFS 4 Suite 800
5 3445 North Causeway Blvd.
6 5 Metairie, Louisiana 70002
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ATTORNEYS FOR ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT
7 TORTS BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION
(BY: ROBIN D. SMITH, ESQ.)
6
8 DAN BAEZA, ESQ. 7
Room 8095N GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
9 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 8 (BY: MARK S. RAFFMAN, ESQ.)
Washington, D.C. 20530 901 New York Avenue NW
10 ATTORNEYS FOR UNITED STATES
11
9 Washington, D.C. 20001
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH M. BRUNO ATTORNEYS FOR LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA
12 (BY: JOSEPH M. BRUNO, ESQ.) 10
FLORIAN BUCHLER, ESQ.) 11
13 855 Baronne Street 12 ALSO PRESENT:
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 Richard J. Varuso
14 PLAINTIFF LIAISON COUNSEL 13
15 -------------------------------
16 ALSO PRESENT IN ATTENDANCE:
14
17 LAMBERT & NELSON VIDEOTAPED BY: Greg Cassin, Depo-Vue
(BY: LINDA NELSON, ESQ. 15
18 ALEXIS BEVIS, ESQ.) 16
701 Magazine Street REPORTED BY: ROGER D. JOHNS, RMR, CRR, CSR
19 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 17 Certified Court Reporter,
ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
20 State of Louisiana
21 18
GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER & 19
22 WARSHAUER 20
(BY: GERALD E. MEUNIER, ESQ.) 21
23 1100 Poydras Street 22
Suite 2800
24 New Orleans, Louisiana 70163
23
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 24
25 25
Page 2 Page 4
1
2
ALSO PRESENT IN ATTENDANCE (CONTINUED) 1 STIPULATION
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL E. BECNEL 2
3 (BY: DANIEL E. BECNEL, JR., ESQ.)
425 West Airline Highway
3 It is stipulated and agreed by and between
4 Suite B 4 counsel for the parties hereto
LaPlace, Louisiana 70068
5 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 5 that the deposition of the aforementioned
6
F. GERALD MAPLES, PA
6 witness is hereby being taken under the
7 (BY: TODD CAMPBELL, ESQ.) 7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for all
902 Julia Street
8 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 8 purposes, in accordance with law;
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
9
9 That the formalities of reading and
10 DUPLASS, ZWAIN, BOURGEOIS, MORTON, 10 signing are not waived;
PFISTER & WEINSTOCK
11 (BY: GARY ZWAIN, ESQ. 11 That the formalities of certification and
Suite 2900
12 3838 North Causeway Boulevard
12 filing are specifically waived;
Metairie, Louisiana 70002 13 That all objections, save those as to the
13 ATTORNEYS FOR THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE LAKE BORGNE 14 form of the question and the responsiveness of
14
15
BASIN LEVEE DISTRICT 15 the answer, are hereby reserved until such
STONE PIGMAN WALTHER WITTMANN 16 time as this deposition, or any part thereof,
16 (BY: WILLIAM D. TREEBY, ESQ.)
546 Carondelet Street
17 may be used or sought to be used in evidence.
17 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3588 18
ATTORNEYS FOR WASHINGTON GROUP
18 INTERNATIONAL, INC. 19 * * * *
19
BURGLASS & TANKERSLEY
20
20 (BY: MONICA WALDRON, ESQ.) 21 ROGER D. JOHNS, RDR, CRR Certified Court
5213 Airline Drive
21 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 22 Reporter, for the State of Louisiana,
ATTORNEYS FOR JEFFERSON PARISH
22
23 officiated in administering the oath to the
23 24 witness.
24
25 25
Page 3 Page 5
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 INDEX 1 MR. ZWAIN:

2 PAGE 2 I'm Gary Zwain. I represent the
3 Bea Exhibit Number 1....................... 12 3 Lake Borgne Basin Levee District. I'm
4 Bea Exhibit Number 2....................... 30 4 attending only today, not
5 Exhibit Number 3........................... 55
6 Exhibit 22................................. 56
5 participating, per agreement of
7 Bea 4...................................... 77 6 Counsel.
8 Bea Exhibit Number 5...................... 130 7 MR. TREEBY:
9 Bea Exhibit Number 6...................... 190 8 William D. Treeby for Washington
10 Bea 7..................................... 201 9 Group International, Inc. I am not
11 Bea Exhibit Number 8...................... 211 10 participating today, just appearing by
12 Bea Exhibit Number 9...................... 231 11 agreement of Counsel.
13 Bea Exhibit Number 10..................... 233 12 MS. DECKER:
14 Bea Exhibit Number 11..................... 269
15
13 Darcy Decker for the Orleans
16 14 Levee District, just here to observe
17 15 today, not participate.
EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:................... 9 16 MR. BRUNO:
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:................. 275 17 Joe Bruno, Plaintiffs Liaison
19 18 Counsel.
20 *** REQUESTED ITEMS BY COUNSEL *** 19 MS. NELSON:
21 Rune Storesund or Mr. Cobos-Roa independent 20 Linda Nelson, Lambert and Nelson,
reports or written findings................ 35
22
21 along with Alexis Bevis, for the
Additional soils data that are not contained
22 Plaintiffs.
23 within appendix............................ 61 23 MR. BUCHLER:
24 24 Florian Buchler with Joseph
25 25 Bruno.
Page 6 Page 8
1 VIDEO OPERATOR: 1 VIDEO OPERATOR:

2 This is the videotaped deposition 2 Would the Court Reporter please
3 of Dr. Robert Bea. This deposition is 3 swear in the witness.
4 being held at 701 Magazine Street, New 4 ROBERT GLENN BEA,
5 Orleans, Louisiana on November 19th, 5 60 Shuy Drive, Moraga, California 94556, who,
6 2007 at the time indicated on the 6 after having been duly sworn, did testify as
7 video screen, 8:16. 7 follows:
8 My name is Greg Cassin and I am a 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
9 Certified Legal Video Specialist. The 9 Q. Good morning, Dr. Bea.
10 Court Reporter is Roger Johns with 10 A. Good morning.
11 Johns, Pendleton. 11 Q. We met previously just before the
12 Would Counsel please introduce 12 deposition began for the first time.
13 themselves. 13 A. Indeed.
14 MR. O'DONNELL: 14 Q. And I'm here to ask you some
15 Yes, I'm Pierce O'Donnell, lawyer 15 questions concerning the work that you have
16 for the Robinson Plaintiffs, and I 16 performed and any work that you will be
17 will be representing the witness 17 performing in the future for the Plaintiffs in
18 today. 18 this matter.
19 MR. SMITH: 19 A. Yes.
20 My name is Robin Smith. I 20 Q. Do you understand that?
21 represent the United States. With me 21 A. Yes.
22 is Dan Baeza, who also represents the 22 Q. You understand that you have been
23 United States. And Richard Varuso who 23 sworn by the Court Reporter and that you're
24 is a representative of the United 24 under oath?
25 States. 25 A. Correct.
Page 7 Page 9
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Q. And because the Court Reporter is 1 conversations with either Mr. Becnel or Mr.
2 going to be making a written transcript of 2 Bruno after that initial discussion?
3 your comments, I would ask you to please give 3 A. Certainly.
4 me an audible answer rather than nodding your 4 Q. And can you tell me a little bit
5 head. 5 about those conversations?
6 A. Done. 6 A. Really dealing with understanding
7 Q. Is there any reason today why you 7 details of the studies that we had performed
8 cannot give competent testimony in this 8 here since September 30th, 2005.
9 matter? Are you under any medications or -- 9 Q. And when you say "we had performed
10 A. None. 10 here", what studies are you referring to that
11 Q. -- any disabilities? 11 you had performed beginning in September of
12 A. Old age. 12 2005?
13 Q. Other than the ones that afflict us 13 A. Those were the studies that are
14 all. 14 documented in the Independent Levee
15 A. Some of us. 15 Investigation Team report.
16 Q. If at any point I ask you a question 16 Q. Okay. Did you bring a copy of that
17 and it's not clear, will you agree to tell me 17 report with you, Dr. Bea?
18 that it's not clear and give me an opportunity 18 A. Electronically.
19 to restate the question? 19 Q. All right.
20 A. Yes. 20 MR. O'DONNELL:
21 Q. I would like to find out how you 21 Let's mark his computer.
22 first became involved in this litigation. 22 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
23 A. It happened a year from -- Well, 23 Q. I am going to hand you what's been
24 March, 19 -- Or, pardon me. March, 2006. I 24 marked as Bea Exhibit Number 1 and ask if you
25 was contacted by Mr. Danny Becnel and 25 can identify that as the report that you just
Page 10 Page 12
1 subsequently by Joseph Bruno. 1 referenced.

2 Q. And what did they tell you at that 2 A. This is a part of the report.
3 time? 3 Q. What part is that?
4 A. Well, they were actually asking 4 A. The front part.
5 would I serve as an expert concerned with the 5 Q. What is the front part?
6 consolidated Katrina litigation Federal 6 A. It is chapters -- parts 1 through
7 District Court, New Orleans. 7 15.
8 Q. And did you agree at that time? 8 Q. All right. Let's change this out.
9 A. No, I did not. 9 This has got the whole thing. I gave you the
10 Q. Okay. Did you subsequently agree? 10 wrong one. Let's mark this one 1.
11 A. Yes. March, 2007. 11 All right. I'm going to hand you,
12 (Whereupon a discussion was held 12 again, something that's maybe a little more
13 off the record.) 13 complete and hopefully it will have the entire
14 VIDEO OPERATOR: 14 report.
15 We're back on the record. It's 15 MR. O'DONNELL:
16 8:22. 16 Is that the ILIT report?
17 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 17 MR. SMITH:
18 Q. I understand from your previous 18 Yes.
19 answer that you were first contacted 19 MR. O'DONNELL:
20 concerning this litigation in March of 2006. 20 Thanks.
21 A. Correct. 21 MR. SMITH:
22 Q. At that time you did not agree to 22 Well, Dr. Bea will tell us. I
23 serve as an expert. 23 believe it is.
24 A. Correct. 24 MR. O'DONNELL:
25 Q. Did you have continuing 25 I don't want to carry it home.
Page 11 Page 13
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Keep it. 1 Q. Okay.

2 THE WITNESS: 2 A. Auda Athanasopoulos, Gordon
3 Yes. This is the report. 3 Boutwell, Jean Louis Bray, Diego Cobos-Roa,
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 4 Luke Ehrensing, Daniel Farber, Kofe Inkabi,
5 Q. All right. 5 Robert Moss, Juan Pestana, Mike Riemer,
6 A. All of it. 6 Karline Roberts, David Rogers, Rund Storesund,
7 Q. That's the entire report. Thank 7 Joe Wartman, Solomon Yim.
8 you, sir. What's the date of that report? 8 Q. And the list of names that you just
9 A. July the 31st, 2006. 9 gave us are individuals who are continuing to
10 Q. Did the studies that you were 10 study the details of the work that are
11 performing beginning in September 30th, 2005 11 described in that report?
12 conclude with the publication of that report 12 A. That's correct.
13 in July of 2006? 13 Q. And is there a second group of
14 A. No. 14 individuals who are studying or working on the
15 Q. Are they ongoing at the present 15 project to extend beyond the scope of that
16 time? 16 report?
17 A. Correct. 17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is the same group of scholars and 18 Q. And what is the -- Can you please
19 experts who compiled that report still 19 describe to me the subjects that's being
20 continuing to meet and to work on the same 20 developed by these scholars who are going
21 project? 21 beyond what's in that current report?
22 A. Parts of it. 22 A. There are three scholars involved in
23 Q. What parts of that report are 23 the ongoing work: Professor Robert Bea, Mr.
24 continuing to be studied? 24 Rune Storesund, and Mr. Diego Cobos-Roa.
25 A. The primary documents contained in 25 Q. Those are the people who are working
Page 14 Page 16
1 this report dealing with the major breaching 1 on that. And what area are you studying that
2 that developed here during Hurricane Katrina. 2 goes beyond what's contained in that report?
3 Q. And I believe, sir, that in that 3 A. For example, we are working on
4 report it identifies 35 or 37 different 4 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Reach 2 levee
5 individuals who assisted in the production of 5 navigation structure current, wave surge
6 that report. 6 interactions as they developed during
7 A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 7 Hurricane Katrina. The second category of
8 Q. Are all of those individuals still 8 studies are being performed to determine the
9 involved in the ongoing studies? 9 same thing absent the presence and effects of
10 A. No, all are not. 10 the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. The second
11 Q. Can you tell me who is continuing to 11 category of studies are dealing with the
12 assist in the ongoing studies? 12 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Reach 1 Lower
13 A. It's -- It will be useful to clarify 13 Ninth Ward breaching that developed during
14 that there are two lines of ongoing studies. 14 Hurricane Katrina with and without the effects
15 One line of ongoing studies deals with details 15 of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
16 of the work described in this report. The 16 Q. Just so I am clear, it sounds like
17 second line of ongoing studies is extending 17 what you're -- you're continuing to study,
18 beyond the details in this report. The first 18 because you're part of this second group that
19 line of studies are continuing -- continuing 19 you have just described, --
20 with Professor Raymond Seed, Professor Robert 20 A. Correct.
21 Bea, -- 21 Q. -- the wave surge interaction with
22 Q. This is the details of the work 22 the Reach 2 levees along MRGO --
23 described in the report. Now you're telling 23 A. Yes.
24 me whose working on that part of the project? 24 Q. -- as occurred during Hurricane
25 A. Correct. Correct. 25 Katrina?
Page 15 Page 17
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. Correct. 1 between levee and sea dike?

2 Q. And what's the focus of that area of 2 A. Yes.
3 inquiry? In other words, what are you trying 3 Q. What is the difference between a
4 to understand that's not already developed in 4 levee and a sea dike?
5 your present report? 5 A. A sea dike is designed expressly to
6 A. We're trying to understand in 6 withstand the effect of surge waves and
7 greater detail the development of the 7 currents.
8 breaching, particularly focused at the Bayou 8 Q. And is it an earthen embankment?
9 Dupre and Bayou Bienvenue navigation 9 A. It can be.
10 structures abutments. We're studying 10 Q. What else can it be?
11 development of breaching on the earthen berm 11 A. It can be concrete, could be
12 spoil bank between Bayou Bienvenue and Dupre, 12 composite of an earthen embankment and
13 areas that breached and areas that did not 13 concrete types of structures, for example,
14 breach. The studies are focusing on scour 14 identified as DOLOS.
15 erosion hydraulic effects in and under the 15 Q. I'm sorry?
16 earthen berm spoil bank areas, which I guess 16 A. DOLOS, D O L O S. So it can take
17 we can call EBSBs. 17 many forms.
18 Q. Did you say hydraulic effects in and 18 Q. Well, you have named three. Are
19 under -- 19 there others?
20 A. Correct. 20 A. Certainly they can be a levee that
21 Q. -- the EBSBs? 21 is armored in various ways.
22 A. SBs, correct. 22 Q. So an armored levee could be a sea
23 Q. Now, I saw that term in your 23 dike?
24 report. Is that a term that you made up? 24 A. Correct.
25 A. Yes. 25 Q. Could an armored levee not be a sea
Page 18 Page 20
1 Q. Did you make it up specifically for 1 dike?

2 the creation of this report? 2 A. Yes.
3 A. Yes. 3 Q. When would an armored levee not be a
4 Q. Why did you create that term? 4 sea dike?
5 A. The term was created to clarify the 5 A. When the armoring was not sufficient
6 difference between a levee, a sea dike, and 6 to withstand wave and current action.
7 what was there. 7 Q. How much wave action does a levee
8 Q. When you say "what was there," do 8 have to have in order to qualify as a sea
9 you mean what was there when Katrina passed by 9 dike?
10 -- 10 A. A portion of that is determined by
11 A. Correct. 11 the location of the defensive structure. For
12 Q. -- on August the 29th, 2005? 12 example, a sea dike would normally be exposed
13 A. Correct. 13 to the sea, so it -- it is subject to the
14 MR. O'DONNELL: 14 intense wave action associated with storms,
15 I like that phrase, "passed by". 15 surge and the currents. A dike in general
16 THE WITNESS: 16 would not be confronted by that combination.
17 That's what she did. 17 Q. A dike would not be, or a levee
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 18 would not be?
19 Q. Now, you say you created that term 19 A. Pardon me. A levee. Clarify that
20 to clarify the difference between a levee, a 20 point.
21 sea dike, and what was there at the time of 21 Q. So just so I am clear, a sea dike
22 Katrina. 22 could be an armored levee that has sufficient
23 A. Correct. 23 armoring to withstand a specified load or
24 Q. Are those three separate types of 24 force exerted against a structure by sea tides
25 structures? I mean, are you differentiating 25 and waves; is that correct?
Page 19 Page 21
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. That's correct. 1 A. Correct.

2 Q. How is the amount of sea tide and 2 Q. Is there a single model that's gone
3 wave action determined? 3 through five different successive iterations,
4 A. The sea and wave action is 4 or are there various models that have been
5 determined using a combination of two 5 developed but aren't linearly related?
6 elements. The first element would be 6 A. It's the latter.
7 measurements on location, on site, 7 Q. The latter. So when was the model
8 measurements of waves, tide, currents. The 8 that you have used developed?
9 second would be analytical modeling that has 9 A. That was being developed in the
10 been validated using the measurements. 10 1960s and validated with in-sea measurements
11 Q. When you say an analytical model 11 in the 1970s and employed in design criteria
12 that's been validated using the measurements, 12 guideline developments in the 1970s, '80s, and
13 what do you mean by that? 13 '90s.
14 A. Scientists and engineers have 14 Q. And is there a name for that model?
15 developed a variety of mechanics physics-based 15 A. It's called a second generation wave
16 models that are able to characterize surge, 16 model identified with the name of a principal
17 waves, and currents. 17 developer called Basil Wilson. It's a Wilson
18 Q. Is that an area of expertise that 18 hindcasting model supplemented with a model
19 you have? 19 developed by Dr. Bretschneider.
20 A. Yes, it is. 20 Q. The supplementation by
21 Q. And what's that -- Is that listed in 21 Bretschneider, is that supplementation within
22 your C.V. as one of your areas of principal 22 the second generation wave model that you
23 expertise? 23 used?
24 A. Yes, it is. 24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Is that the first one, "Ocean 25 Q. And is that second generation -- Is
Page 22 Page 24
1 environmental conditions and forces"? 1 it Basil Wilson?

2 A. That's correct. 2 A. Basil Wilson, yes.
3 Q. And what model do you use when 3 Q. Basil Wilson model still in
4 you're validating the measurements against 4 widespread use today?
5 which armoring must be designed? 5 A. Yes, it is.
6 A. There are five generations of 6 Q. Is it the principal model that's
7 analytical models that have been used. The 7 used by experts in this field?
8 work I perform personally was done using the 8 A. No.
9 second generation model. 9 Q. What is the principal model that's
10 Q. I'm sorry, sir. I didn't quite 10 used by experts in this field?
11 understand that last statement. There are 11 A. There are more than one principal
12 five generations of analytical models? 12 models being used by the experts today.
13 A. Correct. 13 Q. Okay. What would be the most
14 Q. And then what did you say after 14 commonly used models today by experts in this
15 that? 15 field?
16 A. I personally used the second 16 A. In the United States?
17 generation of analytical models. The 17 Q. Let's say in the United States to
18 analytical -- Pardon me. The analytical 18 begin with.
19 models have been developing in terms of their 19 A. The dominant model would be, for
20 ability to capture details largely based on 20 surge, ADCIRC, A D C I R C.
21 the revolution in digital computing. 21 Q. ADCIRC?
22 Q. Is there a name for these models? 22 A. Correct.
23 A. They go by a wide variety of names. 23 Q. And what was you said before that?
24 Q. Well, you say there are five 24 What did you say before ADCIRC? I'm sorry, I
25 generations. 25 couldn't understand that.
Page 23 Page 25
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. The principal model -- 1 being performed by, or has been performed by

2 Q. Oh, is the ADCIRC. 2 Professor Iver Van Herdin, Professor Paul
3 A. -- would be ADCIRC. 3 Kemp, and Professor Hassan Mashriki. The
4 Q. The ADCIRC model. 4 second --
5 A. Right. 5 Q. Now, they're not part of your team,
6 Q. Okay. 6 though. Is that correct?
7 A. That -- That's used for evaluating 7 A. No.
8 surge conditions and on large scale currents. 8 Q. The team that you just described,
9 Q. Is that used to evaluate the erosive 9 can I call it the ILIT Team? You continue to
10 force of waves against levees and dikes? 10 use that acronym for your ongoing studies? We
11 A. It can be, but frequently the model 11 got into this area -- When we started talking
12 does not have the detail in it to determine 12 about this, we were talking about the two
13 those erosive forces. Other models must be 13 lines of ongoing study and the first one was
14 employed to do that. 14 elaborating on what's contained within the
15 Q. Is there another dominant model in 15 report and then the second one was going
16 the United States other than the ADCIRC model 16 beyond the report.
17 at this time? 17 A. Right.
18 A. Yes. 18 Q. And I understood that we were
19 Q. What would that be? 19 talking about the efforts that you and others
20 A. That would be the Swan model that is 20 working with you are making to go beyond the
21 utilized to evaluate waves. 21 report.
22 Q. And is the Swan model able to 22 A. Would you repeat your question now?
23 determine the erosive forces exerted by waves 23 Q. Sure. Is anyone in your group using
24 against levees or dikes? 24 a model to evaluate the erosive forces that
25 A. Yes. 25 were exerted against the hurricane protective
Page 26 Page 28
1 Q. And do you have facility in using 1 structures along Reach 2 of the MRGO at the
2 the Swan model yourself? 2 time of Hurricane Katrina?
3 A. No, I do not. 3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What about the ADCIRC model; do you 4 Q. And who would that be?
5 have facility in using that model? 5 A. That would be Mr. Rune Storesund.
6 A. No, I do not. 6 The computer program used, being used to
7 Q. What about the Basil Wilson model? 7 perform that work is identified as L.S. DYNA,
8 Does that have the ability to provide detail 8 D Y N A.
9 concerning the erosive forces of waves and 9 Q. And is that like a software program
10 tides against levees and dikes? 10 that --
11 A. Yes, it does. 11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And is that the model that you're 12 Q. What you referred to as a model
13 using now to evaluate the events that occurred 13 though, I take it, right? It's a software
14 along Reach 2 of the MRGO during Hurricane 14 model that --
15 Katrina? 15 A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.)
16 A. No. 16 The -- The framework to understand it is for
17 Q. What model are you using at this 17 the application along Reach 2 of the
18 time to evaluate the impact of storm surge and 18 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, L.S. DYNA
19 tides and waves and currents on the hurricane 19 begins its analysis on the west bank of the
20 protection structures that were located along 20 channel. It takes input at that point from
21 Reach 2 of the MRGO at the time of Hurricane 21 three different models. One is the ADCIRC
22 Katrina? 22 model.
23 A. The modeling we are using to 23 Q. So these are boundaries conditions,
24 determine surge conditions is the ADCIRC 24 in other words?
25 model, I believe version 8. That work is 25 A. You're a good engineer. Yes.
Page 27 Page 29
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 That's exactly right. So ADCIRC is used to 1 results of this ongoing study by this group
2 describe the boundary conditions associated 2 which includes yourself, Raymond Seed, Mr.
3 with surge. 3 Athanasopoulos -- is Rune Storesund I guess in
4 Swan is a model used to describe 4 this group as well?
5 the boundary conditions associated with 5 A. There are only three members of the
6 waves. 6 ongoing studies that are addressed in my
7 A third model identified as an 7 declaration. They are myself, Mr. Rune
8 open channel model is used to describe the 8 Storesund, and Mr. Diego Cobos, C O B O S,
9 currents within the water column. It is the 9 -Roa.
10 synthesis of those -- results from those three 10 MR. O'DONNELL:
11 models that are put as boundary conditions for 11 Bob, would you move over to that
12 the L.S. DYNA analyses. 12 way a little bit? You're off camera.
13 Q. Is Rune Storesund a graduate student 13 I would say you're off-centered, but
14 that works -- studies under you at the 14 that's something else. Thank you.
15 University of California at Berkeley? 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
16 A. Yes, he is. 16 Q. And so Rune Storesund and Diego
17 Q. And what's his area of 17 Cobos?
18 concentration? 18 A. Roa.
19 A. Geotechnical engineering, system 19 Q. Roa?
20 engineering, risk and reliability analysis. 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Have you used the results of these 21 Q. The three of you have collaborated
22 ongoing studies in the creation of the report 22 in producing this report?
23 that you have prepared in this matter? And I 23 A. Correct.
24 would just like to go ahead and get that 24 Q. When I say "this report", I am
25 marked at this time as Bea Exhibit Number 2. 25 referring to the Bea report, the 702-C
Page 30 Page 32
1 Let me just hand you this and ask 1 report.

2 if you would look at that and see if that is 2 A. Correct.
3 the report that you prepared for the 3 Q. Are the ongoing studies that you've
4 Plaintiffs in this case. 4 referred to in paragraph 84 of your report --
5 MR. O'DONNELL: 5 A. Page?
6 The 702-C report? 6 Q. It would be page 65.
7 MR. SMITH: 7 A. Those are the ongoing studies,
8 Yes. 8 correct.
9 MR. O'DONNELL: 9 Q. That are being performed by you and
10 It may be used later, but we'll 10 the other two gentlemen that you have
11 call at it the 702-C report if that's 11 described?
12 okay. 12 A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.)
13 MR. SMITH: 13 Q. And the other two gentlemen are both
14 Fine. Or the Bea report until he 14 graduate students that are studying under you
15 produces a second Bea report. 15 at the University of California at Berkeley?
16 MR. O'DONNELL: 16 A. That is correct.
17 Like it would be Bea 2, Bea 3? 17 Q. Are these other two gentlemen being
18 MR. SMITH: 18 compensated by the Plaintiffs in this matter
19 Exactly. 19 for the work that they're performing in
20 MR. O'DONNELL: 20 connection with this?
21 The Bea movie? 21 A. Yes, they are.
22 THE WITNESS: 22 Q. Do you know what their compensation
23 Yes, this is that report. 23 agreement is?
24 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. All right. Have you been using the 25 Q. What is their compensation
Page 31 Page 33
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 agreement? 1 that we have agreed to give?

2 A. $150 per hour of their work. Their 2 Appreciate that. Or a table. Thank
3 agreement has other terms as well concerning 3 you.
4 confidentiality, for example. 4 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
5 Q. Yes. I just meant the financial 5 Q. When you say "We produce a written
6 arrangements. 6 report every two weeks," is that pursuant to
7 And what are the financial terms 7 your retention agreement in this litigation?
8 of your compensation arrangement with the 8 A. Would you repeat your question,
9 Plaintiffs in this matter? 9 please?
10 A. For deposition, court testimony, 10 Q. Sure. I understood you to say that
11 $900 per hour. For analytical studies 11 you and the two students who are studying with
12 associated with this work, $600 per hour. For 12 you produce a report every two weeks.
13 travel, $300 per hour. 13 A. Correct.
14 MR. O'DONNELL: 14 Q. Is that pursuant to the terms of
15 We should have taken this 15 your agreement with the Plaintiffs in this
16 deposition on an airplane. 16 matter?
17 MR. SMITH: 17 A. That is correct.
18 You'd probably have had to pay 18 Q. And do you recall when Mr. Storesund
19 him $900 an hour. 19 and Mr. Cobos-Roa were retained by the
20 MR. O'DONNELL: 20 Plaintiffs to provide expert analysis in this
21 We have to pay 900 plus 300, gets 21 matter?
22 1,200. Forget that. 22 A. Mr. Storesund began his work in
23 THE WITNESS: 23 June, 2007. Mr. Diego Cobos-Roa began his
24 You do have to have the right 24 work in July, 2007.
25 sign. 25 Q. And so would it be fair to say then
Page 34 Page 36
1 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 1 that for the past five or four months that
2 Q. I understand. 2 these gentlemen have been producing a report
3 A. 1,200 is the right answer. 3 every two weeks?
4 Q. Have Rune Storesund or Mr. 4 A. Correct.
5 Cobos-Roa, have they produced any independent 5 Q. I would like to obtain all of those
6 reports or written findings? 6 if we may.
7 A. Yes, they have. 7 A. Certainly.
8 Q. And how would I go about obtaining 8 Q. Are there any other -- any other
9 those? 9 models, other than the L.S. DYNA model, the
10 A. By asking for them. 10 ADCIRC model, and the Swan model, and the
11 Q. Okay. Would you be able to produce 11 third model which I don't believe you gave me
12 those to me? 12 a name for --
13 A. If I am allowed to. 13 A. Open -- Open channel.
14 MR. O'DONNELL: 14 Q. That's to define the boundary
15 Give them to me and I will review 15 conditions?
16 them and I am sure if there's no 16 A. Correct.
17 problem, I'll produce them. 17 Q. Open channel model?
18 MR. SMITH: 18 A. Correct. That's used to take the
19 Thank you. 19 input information from Swan and ADCIRC and go
20 THE WITNESS: 20 to a scale that is useful for the boundary
21 We produce reports every two 21 conditions in the model that Rune Storesund
22 weeks, written. 22 has developed and is using.
23 MR. O'DONNELL: 23 Q. Do you have any preliminary results
24 Mr. Reporter, could you mark in 24 of those studies? In other words, can you
25 the deposition any request information 25 characterize what you have learned so far as a
Page 35 Page 37
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 result of these continuing studies? 1 --

2 A. For the fluid structure soil 2 A. That would be approximately 6:00
3 interactions, we are now computing the 3 A.M. the morning of August 29th, 2005.
4 tractive erosive forces acting on the EBSBs 4 Q. That's local time then, is 6:00
5 and at the faces and foundations of the 5 A.M.?
6 navigation structures at Bayou Bienvenue and 6 A. That's correct.
7 Bayou Dupre. 7 Q. And I'm sorry, is this one of the
8 Q. I want to go back to -- Well, let me 8 stages you say at which you have -- you
9 just ask you a little bit about that. Can you 9 believe you have quantified the erosive
10 elaborate a little bit more on that in 10 forces?
11 detail? In other words, how much have you 11 A. Correct.
12 been able to quantify the erosive forces? 12 Q. When you say you have quantified
13 A. We're still validating the models. 13 them, you're still validating them, though, I
14 We have quantified the erosive forces at three 14 take it?
15 stages during Hurricane Katrina for the 15 A. Correct.
16 condition of the presence and effects of the 16 Q. All right. What would be the second
17 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. Those we 17 snapshot then?
18 identify as time snapshots. The first time 18 A. The second snapshot is when the
19 snapshot is when the surge is at the toe of 19 surge has reached mid height of the EBSB.
20 the levee, the outboard face of the primary 20 Q. And how high would that be?
21 levee, has covered the -- 21 A. 7 feet above the toe of the levee
22 Q. This is along Reach 2 of MRGO? 22 approximately.
23 A. Correct. 23 Q. 7 feet from the toe -- above the toe
24 Q. Okay. 24 of the levee?
25 A. The water in the first time snapshot 25 A. Correct.
Page 38 Page 40
1 has covered the earthen berms, the front, the 1 Q. And if that's at the mid height,
2 primary EBSB. 2 then would -- I mean, does that take into
3 Q. Would that be what you just 3 account then that the levee would have been
4 described as a levee there? 4 approximately 14 feet from toe to crest at
5 A. No. 5 that time?
6 Q. Is that the same structure? 6 A. Correct.
7 A. They are two parts of the 7 Q. Is this at some particular location
8 structure. 8 along Reach 2 of the MRGO?
9 Q. I'm just trying to differentiate. 9 A. Yes.
10 Where's the levee? I mean, you said the first 10 Q. And what would that location be?
11 snapshot was when the surge was at the toe of 11 A. There are three locations. One is
12 the levee. 12 the navigation structure at Bayou Dupre.
13 A. Covering the berm in front of the 13 Proceeding north approximately midway between
14 levee. 14 Dupre and Bienvenue is location number 2.
15 Q. Okay. Okay. 15 Location number 3 is approximately 1,000 yards
16 A. The second time snapshot is -- 16 north of location number 2. Location number 4
17 Q. Do you know -- Excuse me. I'm 17 is at the abutment of the navigation structure
18 sorry. 18 at Bayou Bienvenue.
19 A. Certainly. 19 Q. The abutment of the Bayou Bienvenue
20 Q. I apologize for interrupting you. 20 structure with what?
21 A. That's fine. 21 A. With the EBSB.
22 Q. Do you know what time that was? 22 Q. On which side of the structure?
23 Either, you know, UTC or CET? 23 A. On the south side. It's on the
24 A. Local time? 24 north side at Bayou Dupre.
25 Q. Yes, local time, whatever. I mean, 25 Q. Now, I'm sorry, but I thought you
Page 39 Page 41
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 said there were three locations. Were there 1 location number 1?

2 three or four? One was at the north side of 2 A. Dupre. Correct.
3 the Bayou Dupre structure? 3 Q. The north side of Bayou Dupre
4 A. Got it. 4 control structure.
5 Q. The second one -- 5 A. Correct.
6 A. That's true. 6 Q. Do you know whether what that time
7 Q. -- was midway -- So there are four. 7 would have been at location number 2?
8 Okay. 8 A. I think it's almost at the same
9 A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 9 time.
10 Q. The second one was midway between 10 Q. Okay. What about location number 3?
11 the two control structures. 11 A. The same time.
12 A. Correct. 12 Q. Okay. And then what about at the
13 Q. The third one was 1,000 yards north 13 fourth location, the Bayou Bienvenue
14 of location number 2? 14 structure?
15 A. Correct. 15 A. About the same time.
16 Q. And then the fourth one was at the 16 Q. So for the --
17 south end of the Bayou Bienvenue structure. 17 A. For the first snapshot.
18 A. Correct. 18 Q. For the first snapshot, the surge
19 Q. Okay. And so you believe you have 19 reached the toe -- or I guess it would be the
20 quantified the erosive forces that were being 20 base then of the structure --
21 exerted at three different times at four 21 A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.)
22 locations? 22 Q. -- if we're talking about the
23 A. Correct. 23 control structures themselves, --
24 Q. And the first time you say was 24 A. Correct.
25 approximately 6:00 A.M. on 8/29 when the surge 25 Q. -- would have been at about the same
Page 42 Page 44
1 was at the toe of the structure, whatever 1 time, 6:00 A.M.?

2 we're going to call it, -- 2 A. Right.
3 A. Correct. 3 Q. What about the second snapshot? Is
4 Q. -- EBSB or the levee? 4 this data contained in your report?
5 A. Correct. 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The second time was when it was 6 Q. Can you direct me to that?
7 about midway up. What would be the third time 7 A. You can look at page 94, figure 63.
8 then? 8 Q. And is this -- figure 63, is that
9 A. That would be at the time of 9 what you're referencing?
10 overtopping. 10 A. That's correct. There's an
11 Q. Now, according to your modeling, 11 associated figure on page 83, figure 54.
12 would those three snapshots have occurred 12 Q. Are these the four locations, these
13 simultaneously at all four locations? 13 stations? Do these stations represent the
14 A. No, they would not. 14 four locations that you've just described to
15 Q. So do we have -- Do you know how 15 me? In other words, these do not appear to
16 many different times those are? I mean, are 16 correlate with that. And I am looking at
17 they separate times at each location? 17 figure 54 in your report. Just based on their
18 A. They would differ by perhaps an 18 descriptions, they don't look like they match
19 hour. 19 up.
20 Q. So when you gave me a 6:00 A.M. 20 A. The two in the center, they're
21 approximate time for the first snapshot, would 21 identified with Dupre and Bienvenue. Those
22 that time stamp have been with respect to 22 would be stations 1 and 4.
23 which of these four locations? 23 Q. Right. And do you know whether
24 A. The south location. 24 there's -- I know the fourth one. And when I
25 Q. The furtherest south? That was 25 say the fourth one, the one at the bottom in
Page 43 Page 45
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 figure number 54 -- 1 when the surge was overtopping? And let's

2 A. Is south. 2 just start with the southernmost location,
3 Q. -- would not correlate with any of 3 which would be the Bayou Dupre structure.
4 these four? 4 A. The third time snapshot would be
5 A. That's correct. 5 approximately 8:00 A.M. August the 29th. At
6 Q. What about station 364, the very top 6 the northern end, approximately 9:00 A.M.
7 one there in figure 54; does that correlate 7 Q. So at Dupre, 8:00 A.M.; at
8 with any of these four locations? 8 Bienvenue, 9:00 A.M.
9 A. No. 9 A. Correct.
10 Q. No? Okay. 10 Q. And then I take it the intermediary
11 A. No, that's in New Orleans East on 11 locations would be at intermediate times?
12 the New Orleans East Back Levee. 12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Okay. I'm sorry, so I just -- If 13 Q. Have you been able to determine
14 you could go ahead, now that you have just 14 based upon the studies that are ongoing now
15 shown me what you're referencing, what would 15 when the breaching would have commenced at
16 the time stamp be for the second snapshot that 16 each of these four locations?
17 you developed for these four locations? I am 17 A. We have not progressed that far.
18 not going to hold you to this, because I can 18 Q. So I take it the same thing would be
19 see you're trying to remember and that's 19 true, then, with respect to other locations
20 fine. But I am trying to get as close an 20 along Reach 2 of the MRGO?
21 approximation as you can recall. 21 A. Correct.
22 A. The second time snapshot would be 22 Q. I mean, you're working on these four
23 approximately 7:00 A.M. that morning. 23 first and you haven't gotten any data on any
24 Q. And do you know whether that time 24 other points along Reach 2 yet; is that
25 would vary from location to location among the 25 correct?
Page 46 Page 48
1 four locations? 1 A. That's correct.

2 A. Slightly. 2 Q. All right. Now, has this ongoing
3 Q. Would that time stamp vary by as 3 study enabled you to understand what the
4 much as an hour? Because I believe -- 4 failure mode was? When I say failure mode, I
5 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). 5 mean what mechanism led to a loss of crown
6 Q. That one would? 6 elevation at any of these four locations?
7 A. Yes. 7 A. Would you repeat your question?
8 Q. Do you know which of these four 8 Q. Yes. Okay. The ongoing studies
9 locations that surge height reached the mid 9 that we have been discussing, we have
10 level first? 10 established that you are not yet able to
11 A. I believe it was at the southern end 11 determine when the breaching of these
12 Bayou Dupre. 12 structures commenced on August the 29th.
13 Q. And would that -- then the 7:00 A.M. 13 A. Right.
14 time, would that have been the southern 14 Q. Have your ongoing studies enabled
15 location? 15 you to identify the mechanism that caused the
16 A. Correct. 16 erosion of these structures?
17 Q. Okay. And would the last occurring 17 A. No, not yet.
18 of those snapshots have been at the 18 Q. But is that one of the goals of your
19 northernmost of those locations? 19 ongoing studies?
20 A. That's correct. 20 A. The ongoing studies have three
21 Q. And then the two in between, I take 21 goals. One goal is to understand the erosive
22 it, would be in the range between? 22 scouring effects focused at the surface of the
23 A. Correct. 23 levee. The second group of modeling and
24 Q. All right. And do you have an 24 studies are focused on seepage hydraulic
25 approximate time for the third time stamp, 25 effects developed in and below the EBSB. The
Page 47 Page 49
13 (Pages 46 to 49)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 third category of study are focused on the 1 A. That is correct.

2 global stability of the levee berm as affected 2 Q. Have you begun working on that goal
3 by the hydraulic seepage effects and the 3 yet?
4 erosive scouring effects. 4 A. No, we have not.
5 Q. Now, as I understand the way you 5 Q. And I take it that that has to await
6 have described the L.S. DYNA model, that is 6 the validation of your results for the erosive
7 going to enable you to understand the erosive 7 forces? Is that --
8 forces and evaluate them as they're being 8 A. With the exception that we can begin
9 exerted on the surface of the levees or EBSBs 9 to characterize the soils at the locations.
10 and the control structures at given points in 10 Q. You can begin to characterize the
11 time. 11 soils at the locations?
12 A. That is correct. 12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What model are you using to 13 Q. All right. Well, let's talk a
14 accomplish the second goal, which is to 14 little bit about that then. How do you
15 evaluate seepage in and below these structures 15 characterize the soils at the various
16 during Hurricane Katrina. 16 locations?
17 A. It's a two-dimensional finite 17 A. We're using --
18 element analysis model. 18 MR. O'DONNELL:
19 Q. This is not -- This is nothing new, 19 You mean before Katrina or after
20 I take it? Or am I -- Maybe I'm being 20 or both?
21 presumptuous. This is the same model that's 21 Mr. SMITH:
22 been previously used by you and others to 22 I'm interested in how he's doing
23 evaluate under-seepage and through-seepage? 23 it right now for purposes of his
24 A. Correct. 24 study.
25 Q. So how does the ongoing development 25 EXAMINATION BY Mr. SMITH;
Page 50 Page 52
1 of data concerning erosion of the forces 1 Q. I take it that you're trying to do

2 affect the -- I take it, it's going to affect 2 -- If I am mistaken, tell me. Okay? But I
3 the input of data into the finite element 3 just want to state my understanding. My
4 model that you're using. 4 understanding is that you're developing this
5 A. It can. 5 to determine what occurred during Hurricane
6 Q. Okay. Can you then explain to me 6 Katrina.
7 how the new data you're going to generate will 7 A. Correct.
8 influence your finite element modeling of up 8 Q. And so when you're trying to
9 under-seepage and through-seepage? 9 characterize the nature of the soils at a
10 A. For example, at the erosive surface, 10 location, we're talking about the nature of
11 forces have removed part of the supporting 11 the soils on August the 29th, --
12 structure that's introduced into the second 12 A. Correct.
13 model. So if the geometry is changing as a 13 Q. -- 2005?
14 function of time, that geometry change is 14 A. Correct.
15 introduced. 15 Q. All right. So how are you
16 Q. So if I understand then what you're 16 undertaking to characterize the soils? I take
17 saying, by understanding how the geometry of 17 it first that these four specific locations --
18 the structure changes over time, you have 18 A. Correct. We're utilizing soil
19 different data at given points to apply in 19 boring laboratory testing data developed by
20 your finite element analysis. 20 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the
21 A. Correct. 21 history of the design and construction of
22 Q. And so by using the newly developed 22 these structures, supplemented with additional
23 data concerning geometry of the structures, 23 information that we gathered as a part of our
24 you will be able to compute different rates of 24 original ILIT effort. "ILIT" meaning
25 under-seepage and through-seepage? 25 Independent Levee Investigation Team.
Page 51 Page 53
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Q. Do you know which soil boring data 1 Pierce, you have got this
2 you're relying on from -- I take it this is 2 already, I think. Would you like
3 historical data -- 3 another copy? This is what we used
4 A. Correct. 4 during the Arnold report -- Oh, no, I
5 Q. -- from the Corps of Engineers. 5 guess it wasn't. It was with the 30
6 A. Would you repeat your question? 6 (b)(6) last week.
7 Q. Yes. There were a number of soil 7 MR. O'DONNELL:
8 borings that were taken at various times -- 8 What's it's called?
9 A. Right. 9 THE WITNESS:
10 Q. -- as you're aware of -- 10 This is the 2001 geotechnical
11 A. Right. 11 study.
12 Q. -- along the levees, structures, 12 MR. O'DONNELL:
13 earthen embankments, whatever we're going to 13 What did we mark it as at the
14 call them, -- 14 other deposition? Remember?
15 A. Right. 15 MR. SMITH:
16 Q. -- over a number of decades. 16 Pardon?
17 A. Right. 17 MR. O'DONNELL:
18 Q. And I am asking you can you identify 18 What was it --
19 which soil boring data you are relying on in 19 MR. SMITH:
20 extending your studies further. 20 Oh, it was Exhibit 22 in the 30
21 A. No, I cannot. 21 (b)(6).
22 Q. Why can you not identify that? 22 MR. O'DONNELL:
23 A. Because there's a large number of 23 Fine. Great. Thanks.
24 different borings taken at different times 24 EXAMINATION BY Mr. SMITH;
25 located in different places and we're 25 Q. Dr. Bea, I have handed you what's
Page 54 Page 56
1 presently assembling and analyzing that data. 1 been marked Bea Exhibit Number 3 and ask, is
2 Q. So it's just incomplete at this 2 this soil boring data that you have previously
3 point is what you're trying to say? You don't 3 seen? If you recall. I am not asking you to
4 have a complete data set and you don't have a 4 have perfect recall. If you recall.
5 present memory of what those would be? 5 A. I don't recall.
6 A. That's correct. 6 Q. All right. Is this the -- Taking a
7 Q. That's all you're saying. 7 look at this, is this the sort of historical
8 A. All of the data that you referred to 8 soil boring data that you were attempting to
9 is being assembled in a GIS system. 9 accumulate --
10 Q. Let me just go ahead and hand you -- 10 A. Assemble.
11 We're going to mark this, but I want to give 11 Q. -- and assemble and evaluate?
12 you a chance to look at it before, so we don't 12 A. Yes.
13 waste time essentially. 13 Q. And why are you attempting to
14 MR. BAEZA: 14 assemble this soil boring data?
15 Is this Bea 3? 15 A. To develop sufficient detailed
16 MR. SMITH: 16 knowledge of the soils present at those
17 Yes, it's Bea 3. 17 locations at the time of Hurricane Katrina.
18 MR. O'DONNELL: 18 Q. So that if you have -- if you
19 Is this Exhibit 3, Robin? 19 understand in sufficient detail the character
20 MR. SMITH: 20 and quality of the soils, you'll be able to
21 This will be the Exhibit Number 21 evaluate the impact of the erosive forces that
22 3. 22 you're calculating using the L.S. DYNA model,
23 MR. O'DONNELL: 23 I take it?
24 Thank you. 24 A. And in addition, the seepage and
25 MR. SMITH: 25 hydraulic effects and evaluate the stability
Page 55 Page 57
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 characteristics of those locations. 1 sources of information concerning the

2 Q. And I take it that as was the case 2 character of the soils. The first was the
3 with respect to seepage in and below these 3 soil boring data that you're gathering from
4 structures or embankments, the same would be 4 USACE.
5 true of your global stability analysis; you 5 A. The Corps.
6 have not yet advanced to that stage of your -- 6 Q. I'll call it USACE, the Corps of
7 A. That's correct. That's -- That's 7 Engineers. But I believe you also said that
8 third in line of development. 8 you're relying on soil samples that you
9 Q. How are you gathering the soil 9 collected?
10 characterization data from the Corps of 10 A. That's correct.
11 Engineers borings? 11 Q. And you personally?
12 A. From the Interagency Performance 12 A. No.
13 Evaluation Task Force website pre- and 13 Q. No. Not you personally. When I say
14 post-Katrina, the public website, and the 14 "you", you mean the ILIT Team?
15 password protected information that we have 15 A. That's correct. That data is
16 received. 16 incorporated in the appendix section of the
17 Q. When you say password protected 17 ILIT report.
18 information, is this again Corps information? 18 Q. So what appears in the -- Can you
19 A. All Corps. 19 tell me which appendix that would be in?
20 Q. All Corps information? 20 A. The soils data is contained in
21 A. Correct. 21 Appendix B to Appendix F.
22 Q. And you obtained this password 22 Q. Is this a complete statement of all
23 through the lawyers in this litigation? 23 of the data that was gathered by the ILIT Team
24 A. That's correct. 24 with respect to soils?
25 Q. All right. Do you know what lab 25 A. No.
Page 58 Page 60
1 test data exists concerning the soils that 1 Q. Are there additional soils data that
2 were present in the embankments, earthen 2 are not contained within this appendix?
3 embankments along Reach 2 of the MRGO at the 3 A. Correct.
4 time of Hurricane Katrina? 4 Q. Are you relying on those in your
5 A. It would be characterized with the 5 ongoing studies?
6 information contained in the reports that you 6 A. Indeed we are.
7 showed. 7 Q. And where are those data to be
8 Q. Is that principally -- Does that 8 found?
9 principally consist of uniform -- unified soil 9 A. In the office of Professor Raymond
10 classification charts? 10 Seed and Mr. Diego Cobos-Roa.
11 A. That would be a part of it. 11 Q. Would you be able to provide us with
12 Q. What else would be data that you 12 a complete set of all the data?
13 would be attempting to capture? 13 A. Certainly.
14 A. Grain size. 14 Q. Thank you.
15 Q. Grain size? 15 MR. SMITH:
16 A. Characteristics. Strengths 16 Would you mark that, please?
17 characteristics. Weight. 17 Thank you.
18 Q. Is that shear strength? 18 EXAMINATION BY Mr. SMITH;
19 A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 19 Q. Are the details of the soil sample
20 Compressive or shear. And strength. So we're 20 collection efforts by the ILIT Team contained
21 -- we're interested in stress strength data, 21 within the ILIT report?
22 density and weight. 22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And moisture content? Is that -- 23 Q. Are the soil samples obtained by the
24 A. And moisture contents as well. 24 ILIT Team geo referenced?
25 Q. And I believe you identified two 25 A. Correct.
Page 59 Page 61
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Q. Was there a protocol for collection 1 approximately ten individuals, are any of
2 and storage of these soil samples? 2 these individuals being compensated for their
3 A. Correct. 3 work, their continuing studies as part of the
4 Q. Is that protocol stated in the ILIT 4 ILIT study?
5 report? 5 A. The students. They're compensated
6 A. Would you repeat your question? 6 from Associated Research funds.
7 Q. Yes. Is there a protocol that 7 Q. Is that through the University?
8 governed the collection of soil samples, the 8 A. That's correct.
9 collection and storage of soil samples by the 9 Q. And that's separate and apart from
10 ILIT Team? 10 the compensation that Mr. Storesund and Mr.
11 A. And the answer to that is yes. 11 Diego Cobos-Roa are receiving?
12 Q. Is that protocol written? 12 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Where is that protocol written? 14 Why don't you let me know when
15 A. It's written and was part of the 15 you get to a convenient breaking
16 development by Soil Testing Engineers of 16 time. This may not be it.
17 Louisiana. 17 MR. SMITH:
18 Q. And is that protocol contained 18 This is fine. This is fine.
19 within the ILIT report? 19 MR. O'DONNELL:
20 A. No, it is not. 20 Take a five minute break.
21 Q. Can you provide me with a copy of 21 VIDEO OPERATOR:
22 that protocol? 22 Off the record at 9:38. This
23 A. Given that I can obtain it, 23 concludes tape 1.
24 certainly. 24 (Recess.)
25 Q. Would there be any reason for you to 25 VIDEO OPERATOR:
Page 62 Page 64
1 think you cannot obtain a copy of the protocol 1 We're back on the record. It's
2 that your team used for collection of soil 2 9:52. This is the start of tape 2.
3 samples? 3 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
4 A. It's just a matter of access to the 4 Q. Dr. Bea, before we took a little
5 information. So I would need to contact the 5 break we were discussing the collection of
6 man that was in charge of performing the work 6 soil data that you are using in connection
7 and obtaining the protocol document from him. 7 with your ongoing study of the impact of
8 Q. Who was the man in charge of that 8 Hurricane Katrina's storm surge on the flood
9 work? 9 protection structures along Reach 2 of the
10 A. Mr. Gordon Boutwell. 10 MRGO.
11 Q. And Mr. Boutwell is a professor? Is 11 A. That is correct.
12 that correct? 12 Q. And you indicated that you were
13 A. No, he -- he was a former owner of 13 trying to obtain a variety of types of data,
14 Soil Testing Engineers of Louisiana. 14 including grain size, shear strength, density,
15 Q. All right. 15 moisture content. Is that correct?
16 A. Now retired. 16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. But you listed Mr. Boutwell as one 17 Q. That's not an exhaustive list,
18 of the individuals who's continuing to develop 18 though?
19 the details of the work in the ILIT report. 19 A. That's correct.
20 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Will your analysis, once you have
21 Q. Is he being compensated for his 21 obtained collection of data concerning the
22 continuing work with the ILIT Team? 22 soils that were in these structures at the
23 A. No. 23 time of Hurricane Katrina, require you to
24 Q. Are any of the members that you have 24 conduct hydraulic conductivity analysis?
25 identified, and I believe you identified 25 A. Yes.
Page 63 Page 65
17 (Pages 62 to 65)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Q. How will you perform that analysis? 1 content, water content characteristics of the
2 A. Using the finite element computer 2 soils.
3 program identified as model 2. 3 Q. Will this finite element analysis
4 Q. Is this a laboratory test? Will you 4 give you data concerning the soil properties?
5 -- 5 A. The soil properties are input
6 A. Repeat your question. 6 information to the analytical model. The
7 Q. Yes. Is the finite element model 2 7 analytical model does not provide soil
8 test, is this a laboratory test? 8 properties.
9 A. No, it's a computer program. 9 Q. And is the parametric study, is that
10 Q. Okay. Do you anticipate performing 10 a sensitivity analysis?
11 laboratory testing for hydraulic conductivity? 11 A. That is correct.
12 A. We have discussed it. We have not 12 Q. What will the boundaries be?
13 initiated nor performed those tests. 13 A. Plausible ranges of the important
14 Q. What's been the substance of those 14 parameters.
15 discussions? 15 Q. Plausible -- How will plausibility
16 A. To locate samples that are of 16 be determined?
17 sufficient quality to give reliable 17 A. Based on the correlation of the soil
18 information on hydraulic conductivity. 18 characteristics of the soils used in the
19 Q. And do you anticipate that being an 19 hydraulic conductivity test.
20 obstacle? 20 Q. So if I understand, and I just want
21 A. Yes. 21 to make sure I do understand, and if I am
22 Q. Do you have a plan of overcoming 22 mistaken, you'll tell me, please, --
23 that obstacle? 23 A. Yes.
24 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- lacking actual soil samples from
25 Q. What is your plan for overcoming 25 the levees --
Page 66 Page 68
1 that obstacle? 1 A. Right.

2 A. To study -- To study the critical 2 Q. -- you are going to gather data from
3 issues parametrically, varying parameters 3 -- historical data from the USACE and data
4 within reasonable ranges to determine the 4 from -- that was developed by the ILIT Team --
5 effect of those parametric variations on the 5 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively).
6 important hydraulic effects. 6 Q. -- which is contained in the report,
7 Q. If I understand what you just said, 7 which is supplemented by additional data that
8 you're going to do a work-around? You're not 8 you're going to provide to me subsequently, --
9 actually going to do a laboratory test; you're 9 A. Correct.
10 going to develop data that would approximate 10 Q. -- and you're going to assemble a
11 data that you would determine -- that you 11 profile essentially --
12 would obtain normally through laboratory 12 A. Right.
13 testing. Am I correct? 13 Q. -- of that soil, --
14 A. No. 14 A. Right.
15 Q. No? 15 Q. -- and then you're going to locate a
16 A. The laboratory testing and, in fact, 16 soil sample that mimics those characteristics,
17 the in situ testing would be the preferable 17 and then you're going to perform a hydraulic
18 way to develop the hydraulic conductivity 18 conductivity test on those samples?
19 characteristics. In lack of that, well use 19 A. That is incorrect.
20 laboratory data gathered previously on similar 20 Q. Okay.
21 soils to identify the hydraulic conductivity 21 A. What the -- The soil samples that we
22 characteristics. 22 will be using have already been gathered and
23 Q. Well, you say similar soils, do you 23 tested. So that test data is available
24 mean -- how will you determine similarity? 24 together with the characteristics of those
25 A. Based on the grain size, organic 25 soils. We then have to correlate those
Page 67 Page 69
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 characteristics to those in the profile of the 1 Q. We won't find that term in any of
2 structure that we are studying. 2 the literature?
3 Q. So is there a standardized test or a 3 A. Not to my knowledge.
4 standardized protocol for assessing 4 Q. So if I was to speak to a civil
5 similarity? In other words, how similar do 5 engineer and ask him about EBSBs, he would
6 soils have to be in order for a hydraulic 6 draw a blank?
7 conductivity test performed on one sample to 7 A. Well, if you described what EBSB
8 be valid for another sample? 8 meant, he wouldn't draw a blank. He would
9 A. They have got to have the same 9 know what was being described with those
10 general characteristics of grain size and 10 terms.
11 compaction and age and those critical 11 Q. And what would -- what would he know
12 elements. 12 is being described by that term?
13 Q. So, for instance, grain size, what 13 A. An earthen berm, a spoil bank.
14 would be the range of differences that would 14 Q. Is "earthen berm" and "spoil bank",
15 be acceptable? 15 are those separate terms?
16 A. The range of differences or 16 A. Generally, yes.
17 variability that we see from the soil 17 Q. So what would a civil engineer make
18 characteristics in the structures. Because 18 of the combination of those two terms? Would
19 there's not a single value. There's a range. 19 he know why those two terms had been linked
20 Q. And so would the ranges -- How 20 together without someone explaining?
21 closely would the ranges have to match up? 21 A. As soon as you linked "earthen berm"
22 A. They need to be very close. 22 to the "spoil bank" he would understand we're
23 Q. How close? Can you quantify that, 23 talking about something that was developed
24 or is that beyond where you have gotten yet? 24 using hydraulic dredging techniques.
25 That's something you're still working on? 25 Q. So your understanding of this term,
Page 70 Page 72
1 A. We are still working on it, that's 1 and your understanding is the only
2 correct. 2 understanding that matters since you made it
3 Q. And in terms of the other soil 3 up, an EBSB is an embankment?
4 characteristics other than grain size, 4 A. Certainly. Comprised of earth.
5 moisture content, shear strength, 5 Q. An earthen embankment comprised of
6 compressibility, have you established the 6 hydraulic fill?
7 parameters for those comparisons as well? 7 A. Correct.
8 A. That's underway now. 8 Q. And is there anything else that's
9 Q. Would it be fair to say that the 9 entailed in that term?
10 validity of your hydraulic conductivity 10 A. The lack of compaction, the lack of
11 analysis will depend upon the accuracy of the 11 rigorous control of water contents, the lack
12 -- the closeness of the correlation between 12 of control on coarse fractions, such as
13 the soil characteristics of the sample for 13 shells, the lack --
14 which you actually have hydraulic conductivity 14 Q. I'm sorry, what was the --
15 data -- 15 A. Shells.
16 A. And that's correct. 16 Q. Before shells. Coarse fraction? Is
17 Q. -- and those what you believe to 17 that what you said?
18 have been present along Reach 2 of the MRGO? 18 A. Coarse fractions. Sand, silt.
19 A. Correct. 19 Q. Is that C O A R S E?
20 Q. Now, you've said there are three 20 A. Yes, sir.
21 separate terms that are perhaps relevant to 21 Q. Coarse fractions? Is that what you
22 this case. One is EBSB, which I think you 22 said?
23 said is something that you made up just for 23 A. Correct.
24 purposes of this litigation. 24 Q. I am not familiar with that. It has
25 A. Correct. 25 to do with the --
Page 71 Page 73
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. Grain size. Of particular 1 back there?

2 importance also is organic material. 2 VIDEO OPERATOR:
3 Q. When you say "of particular 3 Counsel is going to be in the
4 importance", what do you mean, particular 4 camera.
5 importance? How is it important? Does it 5 MR. O'DONNELL:
6 matter what a -- what's in an EBSB? 6 Why don't we just move it. Move
7 A. Certainly. 7 it up a little? Just one moment.
8 Q. Why? 8 I'll move it up closer.
9 A. That determines the ability of the 9 MR. SMITH:
10 ESB to perform its intended functions. 10 Thank you, Pierce.
11 Q. And what is the intended function of 11 MR. O'DONNELL:
12 an EBSB? 12 How's that? You got that okay?
13 A. In this case, this -- the particular 13 MR. SMITH:
14 ESB that we're talking about along Reach 2 was 14 That's great.
15 constructed to help control hurricane flood 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
16 waters. 16 Q. If you could indicate with your hand
17 Q. Is that true of the EBSBs along 17 where the New Orleans East Back Levee that you
18 Reach 2 of the MRGO? 18 believe was -- consisted of EBSBs at the time
19 A. Repeat your question, please. 19 of Hurricane Katrina was.
20 Q. Yes. I'm sorry. I said is that 20 A. (Indicating). Starting at this
21 true of the EBSBs along Reach 2 of the MRGO? 21 point, terminating approximately this point
22 A. Please define "that". 22 (indicating).
23 Q. Is that true? Okay. What you just 23 Q. Okay. And --
24 said. You said -- I asked you -- We'll just 24 MR. O'DONNELL:
25 go back a little bit. I asked you why organic 25 You want to mark that for
Page 74 Page 76
1 content was important in the analysis of an 1 convenience?

2 EBSB and you said it's important because it 2 MR. SMITH:
3 determines whether the intended function will 3 Thank you.
4 be achieved by the EBSB. And I asked you -- 4 MR. O'DONNELL:
5 A. That's right. 5 It came from Dalrymple. So mark
6 Q. -- what was the intended function of 6 it "Bea" if you want.
7 the -- what's the intended function of an EBSB 7 MR. SMITH:
8 and you said in this case it was intended to 8 Let's go ahead and mark it.
9 control hurricane storm surge. 9 MR. BAEZA:
10 A. Correct. 10 This will be Bea 4.
11 Q. And so my next question was, are we 11 MR. O'DONNELL:
12 referring to the EBSBs along Reach 2 of the 12 And I will get a copy made at the
13 MRGO? 13 break.
14 A. Yes. 14 MR. SMITH:
15 Q. I believe in your report, and I am 15 Thank you.
16 just -- rather than ask you this, because I 16 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
17 think this is stated pretty clearly in your 17 Q. Dr. Bea, I am handing you what's
18 report, you also have an opinion that there 18 been marked as Exhibit Number 4. And It's a
19 were EBSBs along what the Corps has referred 19 little bit different from what you just
20 to as the New Orleans East Back Levee. 20 indicated, I believe.
21 A. That's correct. 21 A. It goes on down to here
22 Q. And just for the sake of clarity, so 22 (indicating).
23 we all know what we're talking about -- 23 Q. Goes on down to the Michoud Canal?
24 A. (Indicating). 24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Yes, I guess. Can we see that map 25 Q. Could we agree then that the New
Page 75 Page 77
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Orleans East Back Levee could refer to that 1 Engineers following Hurricane Betsy?
2 entire reach, or would you prefer to truncate 2 A. Correct.
3 it as you showed previously? It doesn't 3 Q. And were they built pursuant to -- I
4 matter to me. I just want it to be clear. 4 think you have got this in your report. Were
5 A. I would prefer to truncate it. 5 they built pursuant to the Design Memorandum
6 Q. Okay. And so you're going to break 6 Number 3, dated 1966, which I guess you've
7 it essentially at the mid point between -- 7 referenced in Appendix A-1 of your report?
8 A. Right here (indicating). 8 A. Correct.
9 Q. -- where the -- the right-hand 9 Q. Is that correct?
10 terminus of the red line that's shown on Bea 10 A. That's correct.
11 Exhibit Number 4, you're going to say it's the 11 Q. Now, you've combined two terms which
12 right-hand half essentially of that -- 12 can be used independently, I believe. You
13 A. That's correct. 13 have combined "earthen berm" --
14 Q. -- is what you prefer to call the 14 A. Correct.
15 New Orleans East Back Levee? 15 Q. -- and "spoil bank".
16 A. Correct. 16 A. Correct.
17 Q. What would you refer to this 17 Q. And created a new term "EBSB".
18 remaining part of the -- it's indicated here 18 A. Correct.
19 by red. Would that be something other than an 19 Q. If these terms -- We're going the
20 EBSB, or is that a levee or -- 20 take these terms and break them apart.
21 A. The material characteristics -- 21 A. Okay.
22 Q. That's the pump station. I'm 22 Q. Do the each of these terms
23 sorry. Is that the pump station there? All 23 separately have a commonly understood
24 right. 24 definition within the civil engineering
25 A. Yes. 25 profession? In other words, let's just take
Page 78 Page 80
1 Q. I didn't know there was a pump 1 "earthen berm".

2 station there. Somebody pointed that out to 2 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively).
3 me. 3 Q. Does that have a commonly understood
4 A. So the material characteristics in 4 definition within the civil engineering field?
5 the levee changed at that point. 5 A. It would amongst experienced
6 Q. Okay. So in Corps terminology, then 6 geotechnical engineers.
7 I guess the point I guess would be the Corps 7 Q. Okay. And what would experienced
8 might have referred to this entire red reach 8 geotechnical engineers understand the term
9 as New Orleans East Back Levee. 9 "earthen berm" to denote?
10 A. Correct. 10 A. A loosely put pile of dirt.
11 Q. You would be comfortable calling the 11 Q. Anything more than that?
12 western half of this a levee; and the eastern 12 A. They would infer that it didn't have
13 half of it you would not call a levee; right? 13 compaction. Perhaps little or no control over
14 A. Correct. 14 moisture contents, organic contents. That
15 Q. You would call it an EBSB? 15 even perhaps the types of soil that might be
16 A. Correct. 16 employed.
17 Q. But the purpose of that EBSB, I take 17 Q. Would they infer that it was a
18 it, like the EBSB along Reach 2 of the MRGO, 18 structure that was not engineered?
19 was to protect New Orleans East from hurricane 19 A. Correct.
20 storm surge? 20 Q. What about "spoil bank"?
21 A. Correct. 21 A. Well, spoil banks are a by-product
22 Q. Were these EBSBs along the GIWW and 22 of dredging activities.
23 along the MRGO, were they part of the regional 23 Q. Are all by-products of dredging
24 hurricane protection system that was 24 activities spoil banks?
25 constructed under the auspices of the Corps of 25 A. No.
Page 79 Page 81
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Q. But all spoil banks are by-products 1 far as I know, among anybody who's studied
2 of dredging activities? 2 this about whether there were spoil banks
3 A. Correct. 3 along the MRGO.
4 Q. Now, when you say a by-product of 4 A. Got it.
5 dredging activity, would soils that were 5 Q. But that's not what I asked you.
6 placed in a particular location for a later 6 A. Okay.
7 purpose, in other words, soils that were not 7 Q. I asked you whether there was
8 merely a by-product of dredging, but were 8 dredging that was done, not for maintenance
9 obtained by dredging, so they would be 9 purposes, --
10 hydraulically obtained but not simply as 10 A. Got it.
11 by-products -- 11 Q. -- but for the specific purpose of
12 A. Correct. 12 obtaining materials for use in constructing a
13 Q. -- of an excavation of a channel or 13 levee?
14 other body of water, -- 14 MR. O'DONNELL:
15 A. Right. 15 Can you tell me what period of
16 Q. -- would those be considered spoil 16 time, Robin?
17 banks? 17 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
18 A. Would you repeat your question? 18 Q. At any period of time after the
19 Q. Sure. If materials were 19 construction of the MRGO prior to Hurricane
20 hydraulically obtained -- 20 Katrina.
21 A. Okay. 21 MR. O'DONNELL:
22 Q. -- and placed in a location for a 22 After it was completed? You say
23 specific later use, -- 23 construction. As we know, it went
24 A. Got it. 24 over many years.
25 Q. -- would those materials be 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
Page 82 Page 84
1 considered spoils? 1 Q. Let's limit it to the period after

2 A. No. 2 1965, October, 1965, when the Lake
3 Q. And I take it, then, that they would 3 Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane
4 not be considered, even if they were mounded 4 Protection Project was authorized.
5 up, they wouldn't be considered a spoil bank? 5 A. Right.
6 A. Correct. 6 Q. Do you know whether the MRGO was
7 Q. Do you know whether the MRGO was 7 intentionally dredged below design depth for
8 dredged specifically for the purpose of 8 navigation for the purpose of obtaining
9 obtaining materials for use in the 9 materials to be used in constructing a levee?
10 construction of levees along the Reach 2 of 10 A. No, I do not.
11 the MRGO? 11 Q. You don't know that. Do you know
12 A. Please repeat your question. 12 what the authorized depth of the MRGO channel
13 Q. Yes. Do you know whether Reach 2 of 13 was?
14 the MRGO, the waterway itself, -- 14 A. I remember 32 to 36 feet.
15 A. Right. 15 Q. If you turn to page 17 of Appendix A
16 Q. -- was dredged for the specific 16 in your report --
17 purpose of obtaining materials for use in 17 A. Page number?
18 constructing a levee? 18 Q. Page 17.
19 A. The waterway was dredged for the 19 MR. O'DONNELL:
20 purpose of establishing a commercial channel 20 A dot 17?
21 for shipping. The spoil banks were the 21 MR. SMITH:
22 by-product of that dredging, channel dredging 22 Yes.
23 activity. 23 THE WITNESS:
24 Q. I understand that. I don't think 24 Okay.
25 there's any dispute in this litigation or, as 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
Page 83 Page 85
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Q. Can you read the first paragraph 1 materials were placed within the footprint of
2 that's at the top of that page? 2 the levee as a fluid and no compactive effort
3 A. "The EBSB construction method was 3 was employed to densify the EBSB materials."
4 hydraulic fill, referencing a USACE 4 Q. Okay. What is a footprint of a
5 publication in 1972, implying that fill 5 levee?
6 materials were placed within the footprint of 6 A. It would include the protective
7 the levee as a fluid and no compactive effort 7 berms and the primary structure normally
8 was employed to densify the EBSB materials. 8 identified as the levee.
9 Temporary dikes were constructed on either 9 Q. And does a levee footprint exist
10 side of the levee toes to contain the 10 where there is no levee or no intent to
11 hydraulic fill as it was placed within the 11 construct a levee?
12 EBSB footprint. Materials for this phase of 12 A. No.
13 work came from the MRGO channel excavated from 13 Q. Let me turn your attention to page
14 elevation minus 47 feet to elevation minus 70 14 11 of Appendix A. And I am going to direct
15 feet MSL, mean sea level. Figure A-15 15 your attention to the third full paragraph on
16 presents a design section for this phase of 16 that page which begins "Full project
17 the work reference, same USACE 1972 report." 17 dimensions".
18 Q. Does this refresh your recollection 18 A. Yes, sir.
19 as to whether materials were dredged from the 19 Q. Could you read that paragraph?
20 MRGO for the specific purpose of obtaining 20 A. "Full project dimensions were
21 materials for the construction of a levee? 21 completed between Bayou Bienvenue to Bayou
22 A. Yes. 22 LaLoutre in October, 1963, but later the full
23 Q. Would the answer to that be yes, 23 project dimensions were exceeded when the
24 they were? 24 Hurricane Protection Levee Project authorized
25 A. Yes. 25 channel deepening to allow for additional
Page 86 Page 88
1 MR. O'DONNELL: 1 levee material between Bayou Bienvenue and

2 Just so we're clear, the same 2 Bayou Dupre dredging in some locales reached
3 stimulation, by using the word 3 minus 80 feet. Some shoaling has occurred
4 "levee", we're not necessarily 4 since these."
5 agreeing that it was a levee for 5 Q. Does that paragraph indicate that
6 purposes of the Flood Control Act 6 after the MRGO was completely dredged for
7 immunity issues. 7 navigation purposes, material was obtained
8 MR. SMITH: 8 from the bed of the MRGO for the specific
9 Well, I understand the Plaintiffs 9 purpose of constructing hurricane protection
10 may not agree, but Dr. Bea seems to 10 levees?
11 believe there was a levee there. 11 A. That is correct.
12 MR. O'DONNELL: 12 Q. Can you explain what Appendix A is?
13 Where does he say that? 13 A. Appendix A is titled "Historic
14 THE WITNESS: 14 overview, MRGO Reach 2 EBSBs and navigation
15 It was an earthen berm. 15 structures design and construction".
16 MR. O'DONNELL: 16 Q. And can you just interpret that
17 It says "EBSB". 17 caption? What does that -- What's the -- Why
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 18 is Appendix A included in your report here?
19 Q. Well, okay. Well, what's the 19 A. We're attempting to understand how
20 footprint of the levee? I see in the first 20 the levees were constructed, the EBSBs.
21 sentence there -- Could you read that first 21 Q. And were these constructed through a
22 sentence there? 22 period -- a series of lifts?
23 A. "The EBSB construction method was 23 A. That's correct.
24 hydraulic fill, reference U.S. Army Corps of 24 Q. And were these levees or EBSBs
25 Engineers report 1972, implying that fill 25 constructed as a component of the Chalmette
Page 87 Page 89
23 (Pages 86 to 89)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 area plan that's contained in Design 1 Q. And what design parameters were
2 Memorandum Number 3, which I believe you 2 adopted or developed based upon the project --
3 reference in -- 3 Pardon me --
4 A. That is correct. 4 A. PMH.
5 Q. And again, that's part of the Lake 5 Q. -- Probable Maximum Hurricane?
6 Pontchartrain Louisiana and Vicinity Hurricane 6 A. Repeat your question.
7 Protection Project? 7 Q. Yes. What design parameters for the
8 A. That's correct. 8 MRGO levees were developed from the PMH?
9 Q. Did you study the Design Memorandum 9 A. The PMH was dropped as a design
10 Number 3 in conjunction with your preparation 10 criteria element before these designs were
11 of this report? 11 completed.
12 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Do you know when it was dropped?
13 Q. And did you obtain information 13 A. Only approximately.
14 concerning the design of the levees along 14 Q. Approximately.
15 Reach 2 of the MRGO from that document? 15 A. It shows up clearly in the Lake
16 MR. SMITH: 16 Pontchartrain and Vicinity authorization and
17 I'll object to "levees". As long 17 is discussed in several Corps of Engineers
18 as we can have the understanding he's 18 developments leading to this design and
19 not agreeing they're levees as he 19 construction and at that point the PMH was
20 defines them in his report. 20 dropped.
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 21 Q. When you say "at this point", I
22 Q. I'll let you define your terms, 22 believe you have already said it was prior to
23 sir. I am not going to define them for you. 23 the development of Design Memorandum Number 3
24 They're your terms. You can define them as 24 in November of 1966.
25 you wish. 25 A. I don't recall whether they actually
Page 90 Page 92
1 A. Repeat your question, please. 1 had cited the PMH in that document. I could
2 Q. I don't know what my question was. 2 refer to it and determine that.
3 (Requested question read back.) 3 Q. Can you?
4 THE WITNESS: 4 A. Sure.
5 That's correct. 5 It appears as though the PMH is
6 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 6 not present in this document.
7 Q. And are the design elements that you 7 Q. Okay.
8 obtained from that document summarized in 8 MR. O'DONNELL:
9 table A-1 that appears on page A-3? 9 "This document" again was the --
10 A. That is correct. 10 THE WITNESS:
11 Q. And is it your understanding that 11 DM-3.
12 these design parameters were developed from 12 MR. O'DONNELL:
13 the data obtained from the Standard Project 13 Thank you.
14 Hurricane? 14 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
15 A. That is correct. 15 Q. You said that the project -- Sorry
16 Q. And was the Standard Project 16 -- Probable Maximum Hurricane shows up in the
17 Hurricane the design hurricane for the Lake 17 Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane
18 Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane 18 Protection Project authorization. What
19 Protection Project? 19 document are you referring to as the Lake
20 A. It was one of them. 20 Pontchartrain and Vicinity authorization?
21 Q. What other hurricanes were design 21 A. May I?
22 hurricanes for the Lake Pontchartrain and 22 Q. Yes. Oh, yes.
23 Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project? 23 VIDEO OPERATOR:
24 A. The Probable Maximum Hurricane 24 Off the record?
25 identified as PMH. 25 A. Off the record.
Page 91 Page 93
24 (Pages 90 to 93)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 VIDEO OPERATOR: 1 two design storms?

2 Off the record at 10:34. 2 A. That is correct.
3 (Recess.) 3 Q. And is it your understanding that
4 VIDEO OPERATOR: 4 the authorization of the Lake Pontchartrain
5 We're back on the record. It's 5 and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project by
6 10:35. 6 Congress required the Corps to construct a
7 THE WITNESS: 7 hurricane protection system to protect against
8 The name of the document is the 8 flooding caused by the Probable Maximum
9 Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity 9 Hurricane?
10 Louisiana, letter to the Secretary of 10 A. No, that the function of the
11 the Army, identified as House document 11 Probable Maximum Hurricane was to provide
12 231, dated July 6, 1965. 12 information that engineers could be -- could
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 13 use to incorporate resiliency and protection
14 Q. Is that the 89th Congress? 14 against exceeding the Standard Project
15 A. (Witness hands document to Counsel.) 15 Hurricane.
16 Q. It's not shown on here. I can't 16 Q. Okay. So if I -- just to make sure
17 recall if that's 89-231 or not. I think it 17 I understand your answer, it's your opinion,
18 is. 18 based upon your reading of this document, that
19 MR. O'DONNELL: 19 Congress did not require the Corps to
20 It's the '89th, first session. 20 construct, to design and construct a hurricane
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 21 protection system to combat flooding generated
22 Q. Can you identify for me, Dr. Bea, 22 by the Probable Maximum Hurricane, but the
23 where in that document the Probable Maximum 23 Probable Maximum Hurricane provided data that
24 Hurricane shows up? 24 could be used in the discretion of the Corps
25 A. It shows up in section 9, titled 25 of Engineers in designing features in the
Page 94 Page 96
1 "Standard Project Hurricane", page 46, 1 hurricane protection system that would address
2 continues to page 47, section 20, "Probable 2 storms exceeding the Standard Project
3 Maximum Hurricane". The inclusion shows up 3 Hurricane?
4 most pointedly on plate A-26, page 159. 4 A. Well, it's not my knowledge that the
5 MR. O'DONNELL: 5 Corps had the discretion. This was part of
6 What's the plate number again? 6 the specified environmental design criteria.
7 Sorry. 7 Q. When you say "this was part of the
8 A. Plate A-26. 8 specified environmental design criteria, what
9 MR. O'DONNELL: 9 do you mean, "this"?
10 Thank you. 10 A. The Probable Maximum Hurricane.
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 11 Q. Okay. I am having a little bit of
12 Q. And why do you say it shows up most 12 trouble hearing. You're going to have to
13 notably on plate A-26? 13 tease this out a little for me. So they
14 A. Plate A-26 shows the extent of 14 weren't required to build a system to protect
15 flooding that would be associated with the 15 against the Probable Maximum Hurricane and
16 Standard Project Hurricane and the Maximum 16 they didn't have the discretion to build a
17 Probable Hurricane. 17 hurricane protection system to combat flooding
18 Q. So plate -- May I see that? I'm 18 from a Probable Maximum Hurricane, but then
19 sorry, sir. 19 what were they either authorized or permitted
20 A. (Indicating). 20 to do with the data and --
21 Q. I have got a copy and I will bring 21 A. The -- The important term is we're
22 it back at the break. 22 not attempting to build a system that can
23 And does House document 89-231, 23 survive the surge from the Probable Maximum
24 plate A-26, compare the extent of flooding in 24 Hurricane. We're designing the system to be
25 Orleans Parish with respect to each of those 25 able to survive the surge from the Standard
Page 95 Page 97
25 (Pages 94 to 97)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Project Hurricane with an acceptable factor of 1 to the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain has
2 safety and resiliency in the condition, for 2 an average translation speed of 6 knots. Over
3 example, of overtopping. 3 water the speed is about 8 knots, and over
4 Q. And I take it that's your opinion. 4 land, at the time of recurvature, the speed is
5 Is that opinion -- That opinion is based upon 5 4 knots. This SPH approaches from the south,
6 house document 89-231? 6 traverses the coast west of the Mississippi
7 A. That's correct. 7 River Delta, and curves eastward over Lake
8 Q. Can you direct me to the portion in 8 Borgne. The SPH critical to the North Shore
9 House document 89-231 which informs your 9 of Lake Pontchartrain has a translation speed
10 opinion? 10 of 5 knots. This hurricane approaches from
11 A. That would be paragraphs 9 and 10. 11 the south-southeast, traverses the coast west
12 MR. O'DONNELL: 12 of the Mississippi River Delta, and curves
13 Page number? 13 northward passing west of Lake Maurepas. The
14 THE WITNESS: 14 SPH critical to the Chalmette area, the Back
15 Pages 46 and 47. 15 Levees of Citrus and the New Orleans East and
16 MR. O'DONNELL: 16 from the Lake Borgne side in the vicinity of
17 Thank you. 17 the Rigolets and the Chef Menteur Pass has a
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 18 translation speed of 11 knots. This hurricane
19 Q. Can you read paragraph 9, please? 19 approaches from the east, traverses the coast
20 A. "A Standard Project Hurricane, SPH, 20 east of the Mississippi River Delta and south
21 is one that may be expected from the most 21 of Lake Borgne, and curves slightly northward
22 severe combination of meteorological 22 passing to the west of Lake Maurepas."
23 conditions that are considered reasonably 23 Q. I'm sorry, but I -- Was there a
24 characteristic of the region. The general SPH 24 reference to the Maximum Probable Hurricane in
25 that is characterized for the coastal region 25 that paragraph?
Page 98 Page 100
1 of Louisiana was developed in cooperation with 1 A. That's -- It's in the next one.
2 the Hydrometeorological Section, U.S. Weather 2 Q. Oh.
3 Bureau, and corresponds to one having a 3 A. The next paragraph, 10.
4 frequency of once in about 200 years in the 4 Q. So may I see -- I apologize, but I
5 study area. The derivation of procedures and 5 thought you said it was in 9 and 10 and I --
6 frequency computations are described in detail 6 A. It is 9 and 10.
7 in Appendix A. Each of the specific SPH's," 7 Q. Okay. Without having you read that,
8 pleural, "for the study area has a Central 8 and I apologize for asking you to read the
9 Pressure Index, CPI, of 27.6 inches and a 9 first one, --
10 maximum wind velocity of 100 miles per hour at 10 MR. O'DONNELL:
11 a radius of 30 miles. These parameters define 11 But he did a good job.
12 a hurricane which is similar in intensity to 12 MR. SMITH:
13 the September, 1915 hurricane. Various 13 He did a very good job. But he's
14 translation speeds, race of hurricane forward 14 a high priced reader.
15 movement, and paths are necessary to produce 15 MR. O'DONNELL:
16 SPH effects with maximum winds perpendicular 16 And I am paying for the depo.
17 to the shores at different locations in the 17 MR. BRUNO:
18 study area. The occurrence of an SPH for any 18 Right.
19 location in the study area would produce 19 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
20 maximum surge heights of 11.2 feet along the 20 Q. I see that it shows up, the Probable
21 south shore of Lake Pontchartrain, 12.5 feet 21 Maximum Hurricane being "it", shows up in
22 at Mandeville, 11.9 feet in the Chalmette 22 paragraph 10, but all I see is a description
23 area, 12.5 feet at the Citrus and New Orleans 23 of it.
24 East Back Levees, and 13 feet in the Rigolets 24 A. Correct.
25 and the Chef Menteur Pass. The SPH critical 25 Q. And you seem to place some import to
Page 99 Page 101
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 its appearance there. 1 A. The example that I cited is on page

2 A. Correct. 2 159 and identifies Standard Project Hurricane
3 Q. And I am asking you what's -- what 3 flooding and Probable Maximum Hurricane
4 import do you assign to its description there? 4 flooding within the Orleans Parish bowl.
5 A. The engineer understands that the 5 Q. Okay. And just to be clear, what is
6 conditions being used for design can be 6 it about plate A-26 that provides that
7 exceeded by more intense conditions. That is 7 information?
8 encouraging the engineer to design the flood 8 A. It shows different extents and
9 protection structures works so that they are 9 amounts of flooding depending on whether it's
10 able to perform their intended function even 10 the Standard Project Hurricane or the Probable
11 though exceeded by their design condition. 11 Maximum Hurricane. Further, it states what
12 Q. Well, Dr. Bea, I mean, isn't that -- 12 the water level conditions are associated with
13 you don't need a Probable Maximum -- Correct 13 those two different criteria conditions.
14 me if I am wrong, I don't want to be 14 Q. And is there anything beyond the
15 argumentative, but you don't need a Probable 15 simple statement of values in that diagram
16 Maximum Hurricane to understand that the 16 that would inform an engineer what design
17 Standard Project Hurricane dimensions can be 17 characteristics to employ in designing a flood
18 exceeded, right? I mean, isn't that 18 protection system?
19 inherent? It's a compound question, but -- 19 A. It would inform the engineer to
20 A. Repeat your question. 20 incorporate resilience capability for the
21 Q. Yes. Isn't the notion -- Doesn't 21 flood protection works to withstand conditions
22 the notion of Standard Project Hurricane 22 such as a Probable Maximum Hurricane.
23 itself connote that there will be storms that 23 Q. Does the document in front of you
24 will exceed this storm, the definition that 24 have any data concerning storm surge
25 you -- 25 elevations generated by the Probable Maximum
Page 102 Page 104
1 A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 1 Hurricane?

2 Q. You're shaking your head. 2 A. This particular document identifies
3 A. Indeed that's correct. This is 3 Standard Project Hurricane WTLs, which would
4 informing the engineer how much it can be 4 imply water surface elevations, levels, for
5 exceeded. 5 both the Standard Project Hurricane and the
6 Q. And indeed, it could be exceeded by 6 Probable Maximum Hurricane. For example, to
7 even something greater than the Probable 7 the west of the bowl it shows a Standard
8 Maximum Hurricane. Isn't that the case? 8 Project Hurricane water level of 11.2 feet.
9 A. That is the case, correct. That's 9 It identifies a Probable Maximum Hurricane
10 why it's called the Probable Maximum. 10 water level of 12.6 feet.
11 Q. That's what I thought. Words do 11 Q. Is there any mention of resiliency
12 have meaning. 12 in that document?
13 A. Yes, they do. 13 A. I do not recall. I don't think so.
14 Q. Even in Wonderland. Is there 14 Q. Is there anything else in that
15 something other than in paragraphs 9 and 10 in 15 document, other than plate A-26, that would
16 this document that informs your opinion that 16 provide the information that you have just
17 engineers designing a hurricane protection 17 described to engineers who were designing and
18 system pursuant to the authorization that 18 constructing a flood protection system to
19 Congress gave as a result of this report were 19 combat the Standard Project Hurricane storm?
20 authorized to include design features for a 20 A. Yes. Section 2. It is titled
21 storm having characteristics exceeding the 21 "Hydraulic design interior drainage". The
22 Standard Project Hurricane? 22 page 136 refers specifically to St. Charles
23 A. Yes. 23 Parish. This section describes the drainage
24 Q. And where in this document is that 24 areas. It states "The proposed plan of
25 information to be found? 25 improvement. The area will be protected from
Page 103 Page 105
27 (Pages 102 to 105)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 hurricane overflow by constructing levees 1 Q. Well, okay. I'm sorry. I was

2 along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain 2 trying to evoke a response from you. Tease
3 and along the St. Charles-Jefferson Parish 3 this out for me, if you will. There's two
4 line." And the remainder of the section 4 design --
5 further details design of the drainage 5 A. Conditions.
6 system. 6 Q. -- hurricanes, right. Two sets of
7 Q. And what does that have to do with 7 conditions that can be expected.
8 the Probable Maximum Hurricane? 8 A. Right.
9 A. There are two hurricane water levels 9 Q. One is more probable than another.
10 and flows that are involved. One is the 10 A. Correct.
11 Standard Project Hurricane and the other is 11 Q. And so the design engineer has these
12 the Probable Maximum Hurricane. 12 two sets of data.
13 Q. But I think you've previously stated 13 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively), conditions.
14 that the Corps was not authorized to design 14 Q. Anticipated conditions.
15 flood control structures to combat the 15 A. Yeah.
16 Probable Maximum Hurricane. Did I understand 16 Q. And he is tasked with designing a
17 that correctly? 17 hurricane protection structure --
18 A. I think you didn't. 18 A. Right.
19 Q. Okay. Explain that to me then. 19 Q. -- or system of structures --
20 A. The design engineer will set the 20 A. Correct.
21 elevation strength characteristics based on 21 Q. -- to provide flood protection
22 the Standard Project Hurricane conditions. 22 against the Standard Project Hurricane storm.
23 The design engineer also has to incorporate 23 Is that correct?
24 additional strength in the system so that it 24 A. Correct. And to be able to survive
25 can withstand the effects of a more severe 25 the Probable Maximum Hurricane. Could I give
Page 106 Page 108
1 hurricane. That more severe hurricane 1 you an example?

2 condition is described as a Probable Maximum 2 Q. Yes, please do.
3 Hurricane. 3 A. Offshore platforms in the Gulf of
4 Q. Okay. The distinction is lost on me 4 Mexico are designed for two conditions. One
5 and you're going to have to explain to me. Is 5 condition is identified as the 100 year return
6 this just an inference? In other words, are 6 period design condition. The engineer designs
7 you just inferring that the design engineer 7 the primary elements of the structure, sizes
8 should incorporate elements within his design 8 those elements based on those forces or forces
9 to withstand the Probable Maximum Hurricane? 9 associated with those conditions, and employs
10 A. Correct. 10 factors of safety to develop an ultimate
11 Q. Even though he's not basing his -- 11 strength substantially larger than that design
12 the basis of the elevation strength 12 strength. A 1,000 to 10,000 year return storm
13 characteristics are not derived from the 13 is also to assure things like deck elevations
14 Probable Maximum Hurricane. 14 so that the structure is able to develop that
15 A. Correct. 15 strength without the wave crests encountering
16 Q. So if I understand your opinion, 16 the deck sections of the structure. The total
17 then, your opinion is that the description of 17 strength of the structure translates to
18 a Probable Maximum Hurricane, in addition to a 18 something that is survivable in a 10,000 year
19 Standard Project Hurricane, informs the design 19 return period storm.
20 engineer to design certain characteristics of 20 Q. Is it true that including design
21 the system to combat the Standard Project 21 elements for a -- to address the Probable
22 Hurricane and those -- those characteristics 22 Maximum Hurricane would result in increased
23 would be elevation, strength -- 23 costs?
24 A. There are many levels of strength. 24 A. Correct.
25 One -- 25 Q. So taking your analogy and applying
Page 107 Page 109
28 (Pages 106 to 109)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 it to levee construction, what 1 Q. No? Why not?

2 characteristics, in your opinion, in a design 2 A. Because the function of the Standard
3 should be based on the Standard Project 3 Project Hurricane is to inform the engineer
4 Hurricane? 4 for fundamental things that determine the
5 A. For example, it would be the 5 geometric characteristics of the structure.
6 elevation of the crown of a levee. 6 Q. But if the same condition is to be
7 Q. Okay. Crown elevation. What else? 7 addressed in the design, what's the point of
8 A. For the Standard Project Hurricane? 8 having the two separate design storms? I
9 Q. Yes. 9 mean, if you're saying on one hand, well, you
10 A. It would have to have stability 10 can only build it to 17 and a half feet --
11 characteristics that would be able to 11 A. Right.
12 withstand the Standard Project Hurricane 12 Q. -- to combat the Standard Project
13 conditions with stipulated factors of safety. 13 Hurricane, --
14 Q. Okay. What factors of safety would 14 A. Right.
15 those be? 15 Q. -- but we know we might get a storm
16 A. They vary depending on the potential 16 that exceeds 17 and a half feet --
17 failure mode being addressed by the engineer. 17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Okay. 18 Q. -- but I am not going to let you
19 A. Failure modes that have high 19 build it any higher than 17 and a half feet,
20 uncertainties generally require higher factors 20 because the storm surge for the Standard
21 of safety. Those failure modes that have low 21 Project Hurricane plus wave run-up is not
22 uncertainties require generally stipulated 22 going to exceed 17 and a half feet. Are you
23 factors of safety that are smaller. So the 23 -- Is that correct?
24 factor of safety is attempting to inform the 24 A. That's correct.
25 engineer about how to incorporate additional 25 Q. Who sets these rules?
Page 110 Page 112
1 strength into the proportioned structure. 1 A. The rules are being at this point
2 Q. Okay. So we've got two elements 2 set by the authorization. Now, to --
3 based on the Standard Project Hurricane. We 3 Q. So the authorization tells the
4 have got the crown elevation and we have got 4 design engineer "You cannot exceed this design
5 stability. 5 elevation because the design elevation is
6 A. Exactly. 6 determined by the Standard Project Hurricane."
7 Q. And what else? 7 A. Correct.
8 A. Overtopping comes next. That's the 8 Q. But the authorization also tells him
9 condition that would be associated with 9 that while he can't build it any higher, he
10 Probable Maximum Hurricanes. 10 can do other things to that levee --
11 Q. Okay. So, right. I would take it 11 A. And that's correct.
12 couldn't overtopping be addressed through 12 Q. -- to take into account the fact
13 increased crown elevation? 13 that there will be a storm theoretically at
14 A. It could. 14 least some day --
15 Q. I mean, I don't understand. The 15 A. Perfect.
16 design engineer, if he's -- if he's to begin 16 Q. -- that will exceed the Standard
17 including elements to address storm surge 17 Project Hurricane.
18 that's greater than the surge created by the 18 A. You've got it.
19 Standard Project Hurricane, that being 19 Q. And is that all -- I mean, is that
20 conditions created by the Probable Maximum 20 written down somewhere?
21 Hurricane, is it within his discretion to 21 A. Sure.
22 decide whether to build levees higher rather 22 Q. Where is that written down?
23 than armoring the back side, for instance, to 23 A. In several Corps of Engineers
24 account for overtopping? 24 guidelines.
25 A. Generally, no. 25 Q. Okay. Could you -- if I -- Do you
Page 111 Page 113
29 (Pages 110 to 113)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 know what manuals? Is it in a manual 1 Q. -- you previously described them as

2 somewhere? 2 being two different types of flood control
3 A. Well, design of dams would be a 3 structures.
4 perfect example to cite. 4 A. And they are.
5 Q. It was a perfect example to cite? 5 Q. And yet in the engineering
6 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). 6 profession, they are sometimes used
7 Q. Now, that doesn't sound like a 7 interchangeably; is that correct?
8 document that would be expected to address the 8 A. I think that's not correct.
9 situation of a -- Are we talking about levees 9 Q. Okay. They're not used
10 or dikes here? 10 interchangeably?
11 A. In the design guideline I am citing 11 A. No. The Corps --
12 from the Corps, we're talking about dams. 12 Q. So in the documents that were
13 That showed a third structure. 13 submitted to Congress --
14 Q. I'm just thinking in terms of the 14 A. Got it.
15 Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane 15 Q. -- that proposed the construction of
16 Protection Project. 16 levees, --
17 A. Okay. 17 A. Correct.
18 Q. These structures that were 18 Q. -- this was a document that was
19 authorized along Reach 2 of the MRGO, were 19 produced by civil engineers. Is that correct?
20 those -- were those levees that were 20 A. Portions of the document were. To
21 authorized, or were they dikes? 21 my knowledge.
22 A. Generically the term used in this 22 Q. It was a document from the United
23 authorization is "levees". 23 States Army Corps of Engineers. Is that
24 Q. So the three structures that you 24 correct?
25 identified at the outset of this deposition, 25 A. That's correct.
Page 114 Page 116
1 levees, sea dikes, and EBSBs, your use of 1 Q. Is the Corps of Engineers an
2 those terms is not consistent with the 2 engineering organization?
3 authorization document. Is that correct? 3 A. That's correct.
4 A. The authorization document does not 4 Q. Okay.
5 cite EBSBs. 5 A. But all the employees are not
6 Q. And nor does it cite sea dikes? 6 engineers.
7 A. That's correct. To my knowledge. 7 Q. I understand that. But this was a
8 Q. So it describes the structures to be 8 recommendation of an engineered project. Is
9 constructed as levees; is that correct? 9 that correct?
10 A. Levees, floodwall -- levees and 10 A. That is correct.
11 other associated flood protection structures. 11 Q. And it's for that reason that you
12 Q. But your understanding of the use of 12 and your colleagues came to New Orleans
13 "levees" in the authorization is broad enough 13 following Hurricane Katrina to study what
14 to encompass what you previously described as 14 occurred. Isn't that correct?
15 a sea dike? 15 A. Repeat your question.
16 A. Correct. 16 Q. You came, you and the other members
17 Q. So the terms don't have separate and 17 of what eventually came to be known as the
18 distinct -- necessarily separate and distinct 18 ILIT Team, --
19 definitions within the field of civil 19 A. Right.
20 engineering. Is that correct? 20 Q. -- came here to study the
21 A. Would you repeat your question? 21 catastrophe that occurred in the wake of
22 Q. The two terms, the two terms -- 22 Hurricane Katrina because there was an
23 A. Right. 23 engineered system that failed. Is that
24 Q. -- "sea dike" and "levee", -- 24 correct?
25 A. Right. 25 A. Correct.
Page 115 Page 117
30 (Pages 114 to 117)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Q. And in the document that -- In all 1 IHNC, were flood control structures designed
2 of the documents, to my knowledge, and correct 2 and constructed pursuant to the Lake
3 me if I am wrong, that describe this system of 3 Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane
4 engineered structures, they're not described 4 Protection Project. Is that --
5 as sea dikes, but are described variously as 5 A. That is correct.
6 levees or related structures. 6 Q. That's your opinion.
7 A. Correct. 7 I believe in your study you state
8 Q. And it's your testimony today that 8 that a decision was made at some time after
9 within the field of engineering the term 9 1965 to build piles of dirt.
10 "levee" has a distinct meaning from the 10 A. Correct.
11 meaning of "sea dike"? 11 MR. O'DONNELL:
12 A. Correct. 12 Is this a good break point? Is
13 Q. And the Corps was authorized by 13 this a transition? Or keep going if
14 Congress to build levees. 14 you want. We have been going for
15 A. Correct. 15 quite a bit.
16 Q. And indeed, they built levees 16 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
17 pursuant to that authorization; is that not 17 Q. Do you need a break, Dr. Bea? I'm
18 correct? 18 happy to give you a break any time you need a
19 A. That's not correct. 19 break.
20 Q. They did not build any levees? 20 A. Thank you. Keep going.
21 A. That was not your question that I 21 Q. Okay.
22 heard. They built some levees. There were 22 MR. O'DONNELL:
23 others that -- 23 Great.
24 Q. Yes. 24 (Whereupon a discussion was held
25 A. -- that I would not classify as 25 off the record.)
Page 118 Page 120
1 levees. 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:

2 Q. I understood that. I didn't mean 2 Q. What's the basis of that statement?
3 that everything they built was a levee. 3 MR. O'DONNELL:
4 Everything they built wasn't a levee. They 4 What paragraph are you on?
5 built, you know, the flood control structures, 5 MR. SMITH:
6 for instance, at Bayou Dupre and Bayou 6 Well, that's a good question. I
7 Bienvenue; they built floodwalls along some of 7 don't remember where that "piles of
8 the outfall canals. We all know that. 8 dirt" statement is, but I certainly
9 A. Correct. 9 remember the statement. It's close to
10 Q. But just since we're on this point, 10 the beginning, I know that.
11 I understood your report to indicate that you 11 MR. O'DONNELL:
12 believed the Corps did build levees along what 12 We wanted to make sure you were
13 you have described in your report as Reach 1 13 paying attention. You obviously were.
14 of the MRGO. 14 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
15 A. Correct. 15 Q. Ah, paragraph 21. I'm sorry.
16 Q. And it is your opinion that they 16 A. Perfect. That's where I was.
17 built levees along what you describe in your 17 Q. Yes. You're ahead of me.
18 report as the Citrus Back Levee. 18 That's at least one place it
19 A. Correct. 19 appears. I am not sure. It may appear before
20 Q. And they built levees and floodwalls 20 that, because you say "In addition to the
21 along the IHNC. 21 decision", and I am not sure if it appears --
22 A. That is correct. 22 A. I don't recall that.
23 Q. And all of these levees that we have 23 Q. -- prior to that. Maybe one "pile
24 just described in those three distinct areas, 24 of dirt" reference is enough for this report.
25 Reach 1 of MRGO, Citrus Back Levee, and the 25 A. It is.
Page 119 Page 121
31 (Pages 118 to 121)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Q. What is the basis of that assertion, 1 MR. SMITH:

2 sir? 2 Well, Pierce, it looks like you
3 A. The multiple field studies that I 3 get your wish. We're about out of
4 participated in on Reach 2 of the Mississippi 4 time on the videotape. So let's take
5 River Gulf Outlet EBSBs. 5 a break now.
6 Q. Okay. So is that essentially a 6 MR. O'DONNELL:
7 conclusion based upon what you observed in the 7 Okay. Great.
8 wake of Hurricane Katrina at those locations 8 VIDEO OPERATOR:
9 that you visited? 9 Off the record. This concludes
10 A. That and information that became 10 tape two.
11 subsequent to those visits. 11 (Recess.)
12 Q. Okay. And what information? 12 VIDEO OPERATOR:
13 A. For example, soil borings. 13 We're back on the record. It's
14 Q. Which soil borings would you be 14 11:33. This is the start of tape 3.
15 referring to, if you know? 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
16 A. I don't recall the numbers, but 16 Q. Dr. Bea, I wanted to ask you just a
17 there is something of the order of 30 soil 17 question that I didn't ask you earlier and
18 borings along Reach 2 of -- along Reach 2. 18 it's a little bit unrelated, but just to go
19 Q. Would these be soil borings taken 19 back and clean it up. You are being paid on,
20 from the center line of the earthen levees or 20 compensated on an hourly basis by the
21 earthen embankments? 21 Plaintiffs in this matter and you're producing
22 A. In some cases, yes. 22 a written report every two weeks. Do you get
23 Q. Well, you referred to 30. I thought 23 paid on a regular basis?
24 you had 30 specifically in mind. Are these -- 24 A. Yes.
25 Some soil borings as I understand it were 25 Q. And how frequently do you get paid?
Page 122 Page 124
1 taken along the -- 1 A. Monthly from the University of

2 A. Alignment. 2 California at Berkeley. Monthly from the
3 Q. -- alignment of the MRGO itself. 3 Consolidated Katrina Litigation Levees and
4 A. Correct. 4 MRGO groups.
5 Q. The waterway. 5 Q. Are you being compensated separately
6 A. Correct. 6 by the Robinson Plaintiffs or is --
7 Q. And I am just trying to find out if 7 A. Correct.
8 the soil borings that informed your opinion 8 Q. I mean, when I say separately, I
9 about what was built there were soil borings 9 mean is that in addition and separate to the
10 that were taken from the navigation channel. 10 compensation you're receiving monthly from the
11 A. (Witness shakes head negatively.) 11 consolidated Katrina --
12 Q. No? 12 A. It's part of.
13 A. No. 13 Q. Okay. So --
14 Q. From the levee alignment itself? 14 A. So there's two groups. The levee
15 A. Correct. 15 group and the GO group.
16 Q. And these would be USACE documents? 16 Q. So you're billing some of your hours
17 A. USACE? 17 to the MRGO group?
18 Q. When I say "these", I mean the 30 18 A. Correct.
19 soil borings that you're referring to, these 19 Q. Some of your hours to the levee
20 were soil borings that were performed at the 20 group?
21 behest of the Corps of Engineers? 21 A. Correct.
22 A. That plus the additional ones we 22 Q. And how many -- Do you know how many
23 performed there. 23 hours you have billed both of those two groups
24 Q. Subsequent to Hurricane Katrina? 24 together?
25 A. Correct. 25 A. Yes. We can separate it and then
Page 123 Page 125
32 (Pages 122 to 125)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 you can total it. Approximately 400 hours to 1 more pro bono hours since this report was
2 the MRGO group; approximately 350 hours to the 2 written.
3 levee group. 3 Q. More than you did before the report
4 Q. So 750 hours. That would have been 4 was written? I mean, when you say more, I am
5 since -- 5 not sure what the comparison is to.
6 A. March, 2007. 6 A. Well, you're referring to the 5,000
7 Q. March of this year. 7 hours here?
8 A. Correct. 8 Q. Correct.
9 Q. And that's a little more than seven 9 A. Well, since that time I have
10 months ago? 10 continued the pro bono work here.
11 A. Correct. 11 Q. I see. And that pro bono work is
12 Q. So about 100 -- approximately 100 12 what you identify with the ILIT studies?
13 hours a month? 13 A. Correct.
14 A. Correct. 14 Q. We were talking about the -- which I
15 Q. The work that you're performing as 15 take it to be your criticism of the flood
16 part of the ILIT Team, I take it -- you have 16 protection structures that were built by the
17 mentioned that it's for the benefit of the 17 Corps of Engineers along Reach 2 of the MRGO
18 Plaintiffs in this litigation who have 18 and along the New Orleans East Back Levee --
19 retained you, because you're using the results 19 A. Correct.
20 of those studies that you're pursuing in 20 Q. -- before the break. And your
21 producing this report, for instance. 21 dissatisfaction, I suppose, with the work that
22 A. Correct. 22 was performed there led you to coin a phrase,
23 Q. So are the hours that you're 23 "EBSB", --
24 spending as extending and elaborating on the 24 A. Correct.
25 ILIT report, are you billing those to the 25 Q. -- to describe those structures in
Page 126 Page 128
1 Plaintiffs in this litigation? 1 those two locations.

2 A. No. 2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. Are you being compensated for that 3 Q. And I asked you specifically about
4 by the University? 4 what you describe in your report as a decision
5 A. No. 5 to build -- not to build levees, --
6 Q. Are you keeping track of those hours 6 A. Correct.
7 separate and apart from the hours that you're 7 Q. -- but to build piles of dirt. Is
8 working for the Plaintiffs in this 8 the decision not to build levees reflected in
9 litigation? 9 Design Memorandum Number 3, which is the
10 A. Yes. 10 design memorandum, 1966, November, for the
11 Q. Do you know how many hours you have 11 Chalmette area --
12 spent on the ILIT -- 12 A. Correct.
13 A. Related efforts? 13 Q. -- levees? Okay. I would like to
14 Q. Related efforts? 14 turn your attention to that document at this
15 A. Approximately 5,530. 15 time.
16 Q. Now, that sounds like an update from 16 MR. BAEZA:
17 the number that you listed in your report. I 17 Just bring it over?
18 think you said 5,000 in your report. 18 THE WITNESS:
19 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). 19 Sure. Whatever works.
20 Q. You might have said more than. So 20 MR. O'DONNELL:
21 you just approximated it there. 21 Do you have another copy?
22 A. Well, I've actually been spending 22 MR. BAEZA:
23 more pro bono hours. 23 A couple of copies.
24 Q. I'm sorry, say that again, sir? 24 MR. O'DONNELL:
25 A. I have actually been spending much 25 I just need one.
Page 127 Page 129
33 (Pages 126 to 129)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 MR. BAEZA: 1 to your own question, right?

2 This will be Bea Exhibit Number 2 MR. SMITH:
3 5. 3 As Pierce would say, "Withdrawn".
4 THE WITNESS: 4 MR. O'DONNELL:
5 Thank you. 5 Exactly.
6 MR. BAEZA: 6 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
7 No problem. 7 Q. Let me direct your attention to page
8 THE WITNESS: 8 8. We won't make this a guessing game.
9 Okay. 9 A. Good.
10 MR. SMITH: 10 Q. It's page 8, paragraph 15. It's
11 Well, okay. He's got it 11 after the endorsements.
12 organized differently from mine. 12 MR. O'DONNELL:
13 MR. O'DONNELL: 13 8 of the main body?
14 Thanks, buddy. 14 MR. SMITH:
15 MR. BAEZA: 15 Yes, 8 of the design memorandum
16 No problem. 16 itself. Not the endorsements.
17 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 17 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
18 Q. You previously testified today, sir, 18 Q. And I direct your attention to
19 that you considered this information in 19 paragraph 15-B specifically.
20 preparing the report for the attorneys in this 20 That doesn't look like we're on
21 case. Is that correct? 21 the same page.
22 A. That is correct. 22 MR. O'DONNELL:
23 Q. Does this document reflect that -- 23 You're not talking about
24 We've previously talked about net levee grades 24 drainage. Design elevations?
25 and how they're established. 25 MR. SMITH:
Page 130 Page 132
1 A. Right. 1 Oh, sorry, I have the wrong

2 Q. Does this document reflect that the 2 document in front of me. I
3 flood protection structures which you have 3 apologize.
4 denominated EBSBs -- 4 THE WITNESS:
5 A. Right. 5 There's three of them.
6 Q. -- were -- the net levee grades or 6 MR. O'DONNELL:
7 the grades for those structures were 7 You want number 3 or another
8 established based upon the results of 8 one?
9 hydraulic studies using hurricane parameters 9 THE WITNESS:
10 that exceeded the Standard Project Hurricane 10 I think you had one, right? No?
11 -- 11 MR. BAEZA:
12 A. No. 12 It was supplements DM-3.
13 Q. -- as it was understood prior to the 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
14 authorization of the Lake Pontchartrain and 14 Q. Let me direct your attention to page
15 Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project? 15 7 of this document, sir. I apologize for the
16 A. I -- 16 confusion. Paragraph number 12. It begins at
17 Q. It's not a trick question. I'm 17 the bottom of page 6. So I wonder if you
18 sorry. That's too long. That's too long. 18 could just read -- The caption above paragraph
19 Let me take that one back. That's too long. 19 12, reads "Departures from project document
20 A. I'm trying to keep up with the 20 plan". Is that correct?
21 sections. 21 A. Correct.
22 Q. I'm sorry. That was a bad 22 Q. Then paragraph 12 is labeled
23 question. 23 "general". Can you read that sentence?
24 MR. O'DONNELL: 24 A. 12, point "General" point, "The
25 You're just stating an objection 25 project plan presented herein is generally the
Page 131 Page 133
34 (Pages 130 to 133)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 same as the plan presented in the project 1 Q. Sure.

2 document." 2 A. I am trying to keep up with the
3 Q. And then go on and finish that 3 sequence.
4 paragraph. 4 Q. Well, let me see if I can direct
5 A. "The following minor changes which 5 your attention to the map.
6 are considered to be within the discretionary 6 MR. O'DONNELL:
7 authority of the Chief of Engineers were 7 You got a page?
8 made", colon. 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
9 Q. Okay. And then there's a series of 9 Q. The map. Because the map would be
10 five paragraphs lettered A, B, C through D 10 --
11 which describe those, what are said to be 11 A. Perfect.
12 minor changes, but I would like you to read 12 Q. -- the easiest way to see what this
13 the paragraph lettered subparagraph A. 13 deals with. If I can find the page. It
14 A. "The net levee grades were revised 14 should be plate 1. Yes, here it is. It's
15 upward in accordance with the results of tidal 15 plate number 1. It follows --
16 hydraulic studies utilizing the latest 16 A. Page?
17 hurricane parameters developed by the U.S. 17 Q. Well, it's shortly after page 64.
18 Weather Bureau and information derived from 18 There's a few -- 64, 65, and then there's a
19 the passage of the major hurricane Betsy in 19 few unnumbered pages. A couple of letters
20 September, 1965." 20 attached.
21 Q. So does this paragraph reflect that 21 A. This it (indicating)?
22 the designs that were developed for the levees 22 Q. Yes.
23 along Reach 2 of the MRGO were set based upon 23 A. Got it.
24 hurricane storm surge data that was generated 24 MR. O'DONNELL:
25 following Hurricane Betsy? 25 You talking about the
Page 134 Page 136
1 A. Correct. 1 "Recommendations" section?

2 Q. And was that an appropriate decision 2 MR. SMITH:
3 in your opinion as a civil engineer? Is that 3 I'm looking at the general plan,
4 an appropriate engineering decision in 4 index and vicinity map, plate number 1.
5 connection with the construction of the 5 MR. O'DONNELL:
6 authorized flood protection works? 6 Where is plate number 1?
7 A. Would you reframe your question? 7 MR. SMITH:
8 Q. I'm sorry. Yes. 8 It follows page -- the enumerated
9 Was the decision to revise the net 9 pages and then there's a few
10 levee grades upward using newly developed 10 unnumbered -- There's Appendix A.
11 storm surge data an appropriate decision? 11 It's after Appendix A, which is --
13 Q. Why was that an appropriate 13 After appendix A. Okay. Great.
14 decision? 14 MR. SMITH:
15 A. As new knowledge becomes available, 15 -- the Fish and Wildlife
16 it's incumbent on the engineers to properly 16 studies.
17 utilize, apply that new information. 17 MR. O'DONNELL:
18 Q. And do you understand, or is it 18 Plate number 1? Got it.
19 true, I'll just ask you if you know, that the 19 MR. SMITH:
20 levees that are designed that are the subject 20 Yes.
21 of this design memorandum were the levees that 21 MR. O'DONNELL:
22 extended from the IHNC, along the GIWW, MRGO 22 Thank you.
23 common reach, and then along the descending 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
24 reach of MRGO all the way to Bayou Dupre? 24 Q. Does this reflect that the location
25 A. Repeat the question. 25 of the work in this design memorandum extended
Page 135 Page 137
35 (Pages 134 to 137)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 from the lock on the IHNC -- 1 Nelson and Company, Incorporated.

2 A. The lock. Correct. 2 THE WITNESS:
3 Q. -- all the way along the MRGO, GIWW 3 Okay.
4 reach, and then continuing along the MRGO 4 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
5 reach all the way down to Bayou Dupre? 5 Q. Does this letter indicate to you
6 A. That's correct. 6 that this design memorandum was created by the
7 Q. And do you understand that 7 private firm of Waldemar S. Nelson and
8 subsequently the plan of protection was 8 Company? Why don't you just go ahead and read
9 enlarged to extend this protective levee 9 the -- It's just a single paragraph. Why
10 farther along Reach 2 of MRGO? 10 don't you just read the paragraph in the
11 A. Correct. 11 bottom of the letter.
12 Q. And is the extent of the enlargement 12 A. "We transmit herewith in accordance
13 down to what's known as Verret? 13 with the subject contract 35, parentheses 35,
14 A. Correct. 14 close paren, copies of Design Memorandum
15 Q. Was the decision to build these 15 Number 3 for the Chalmette area plan of the
16 levees -- and when I say "these levees", the 16 Lake Pontchartrain Louisiana and Vicinity
17 levees that are the subject of this design 17 Hurricane Protection Project developed in
18 memorandum -- was the decision to build those 18 accordance with your letter of October 5, 1966
19 levees through a series of lifts within the 19 and conferences and letters subsequent
20 standard of care for the design and 20 thereto, reviewing the preliminary draft
21 construction of a hurricane protection 21 submitted under date of August 20th, 1966.
22 structure? 22 This completes our preparation of Design
23 A. Yes. 23 Memorandum Number 3 to the best of our
24 Q. Yes. Do you know whether these 24 knowledge, subject to review and comment by
25 drawings in this design memorandum were 25 higher authority. We await your further
Page 138 Page 140
1 created by an architect engineer firm rather 1 instructions or comment on this project."

2 than the Corps itself? 2 Q. And does that indicate that this
3 A. Repeat your question? 3 design memorandum was drafted by this private
4 Q. Yes. Do you know whether this 4 architect engineering firm?
5 design memorandum was drafted by the Corps of 5 A. Yes.
6 Engineers or by a private architect engineer 6 Q. Are there elements in this design
7 firm? 7 memorandum that are inappropriate for the
8 A. No, I do not. 8 construction of the authorized flood control
9 Q. Let me direct your attention to a 9 structures under the LPV HPP?
10 letter which is -- I'm sorry these pages are 10 A. What definition are you using for
11 not numbered, but it's right before the table 11 the word "inappropriate"?
12 of contents and then there's -- 12 Q. Are there elements in this design
13 MR. O'DONNELL: 13 that fell below the standard of care for the
14 The beginning of the document? 14 engineering of a flood protection system that
15 MR. SMITH: 15 was authorized by the Lake Pontchartrain and
16 Yes. It's close to the 16 Vicinity legislation?
17 beginning. After the endorsements. 17 MR. O'DONNELL:
18 It's the last -- Basically it follows 18 Did you give an answer, yes or
19 the last endorsement. 19 no?
20 THE WITNESS: 20 THE WITNESS:
21 Here it is. 21 I didn't give an answer.
22 MR. O'DONNELL: 22 MR. SMITH:
23 You're looking for what? 23 He indicated that he understood
24 MR. SMITH: 24 the question.
25 It's captioned as Waldemar S. 25 THE WITNESS:
Page 139 Page 141
36 (Pages 138 to 141)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 The question. 1 document? What is the source of your

2 MR. O'DONNELL: 2 understanding as to the standard of care for
3 Okay. God, a witness that is 3 the construction of this closure in 1966?
4 going to think about the answer. 4 A. A good point of reference for the
5 God. 5 closure of the structure would be the version
6 THE WITNESS: 6 of the Corps' predecessor to the Shore
7 Would you repeat the question? 7 Protection Manual.
8 (Requested question read back.) 8 Q. The predecessor to the Shore
9 THE WITNESS: 9 Protection Manual?
10 Yes. Yes. 10 A. Right. There was one that would
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 11 have been in effect at this time.
12 Q. And what are those elements? 12 MR. O'DONNELL:
13 A. Elements that are associated with 13 Is that TR-4?
14 the EBSB juncture to the wing walls of the 14 THE WITNESS:
15 flood protection structures at Bayou -- pardon 15 Thank you.
16 me, the navigation structures at Bayou 16 MR. O'DONNELL:
17 Bienvenue and Dupre, and the definition for 17 TR-4, you produced it, I think.
18 the construction of the EBSB between those two 18 MR. SMITH:
19 locations using impounded dredge spoil. 19 Yes. Well, we produced a lot of
20 Q. Can you direct me where in this 20 stuff. It doesn't mean I have seen it.
21 document those flaws are to be found? 21 THE WITNESS:
22 A. You could refer to plates number 60, 22 TR-4 is the correct document.
23 61, and 83 is, for example, the structures, 23 MR. O'DONNELL:
24 drainage structures at Bienvenue. That would 24 You gave it to me and I gave your
25 also include plate number 59. 25 copy back. That's okay.
Page 142 Page 144
1 Q. Plate 59, plate 60. I'm sorry, sir, 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
2 what were the other plates? 2 Q. Do you have a specific citation in
3 A. 61. 3 the TR-6 document?
4 Q. 61? 4 A. No, I don't.
5 A. And 63. 5 Q. Okay. What do you recall is in the
6 MS. NELSON: 6 TR-6 document that indicates that the use of
7 83 or 63? 7 shell in this manner is below the standard of
8 THE WITNESS: 8 care?
9 6. 26, 28, 29, 65. 26, 28, 29, 9 A. It would not pass the requirements
10 65. 10 for erodibility and scour.
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 11 Q. Would those requirements be relevant
12 Q. Those are the plate numbers? 12 if this shell was to be capped with a more, or
13 A. Correct. 13 should I say less erodible material?
14 Q. Can we just go through those then -- 14 A. Or structure.
15 A. Sure. 15 Q. Or structure? Would those
16 Q. -- and you can tell me what you feel 16 requirements in the document that you
17 -- 17 referenced, with respect to erodibility, would
18 A. Were the concerns? 18 they be applicable to this application where
19 Q. -- is inadequate. Yes. 19 the shell is shown as being covered with an
20 A. 26 is where we are setting up the 20 additional layer of less erodible material?
21 levee berm cross section and the berm is being 21 A. If it's able to withstand wave,
22 constructed of fill. There's a shell fill 22 current, and surge action.
23 that is shown at the closure. Shell is 23 Q. Is that qualification found within
24 lightweight and easily erodible. 24 the TR-6 document?
25 Q. And is there some reference 25 A. I don't know. That qualification is
Page 143 Page 145
37 (Pages 142 to 145)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 found in the Shore Protection Manual currently 1 A. No.

2 known as the Coastal Engineering Manual. 2 Q. Okay. Then let's go to plate number
3 Q. Now, if it's able to withstand surge 3 28. What is there in plate number 28, Dr.
4 and tides, how do you determine what surge and 4 Bea, that indicates the design did not comport
5 tide levels it needs to be able to withstand? 5 with the applicable standard of care at that
6 Because I would think that it would depend 6 time?
7 upon what levels of surge and tide were the 7 A. Shown midway in the plate vertically
8 proper reference. 8 are marsh layers.
9 A. Correct. They would size components 9 Q. At approximately minus 10 feet mean
10 in the protection based on the Standard 10 sea level elevation?
11 Project Hurricane. There could be components 11 A. Minus 10 to minus 15.
12 within it that have to be based on the 12 Q. And why is that -- What does that
13 characteristics of a Probable Maximum 13 indicate to you that would be below the
14 Hurricane. 14 standard of care for this design?
15 Q. And was there a method of analyzing 15 A. At that time marsh layers were
16 the erodibility of these materials that was 16 recognized to be potentially very highly water
17 accessible to these engineers in 1966? 17 conductive; and given the potential high water
18 A. Yes. 18 conductive nature of the material, you would
19 Q. That they could have determined 19 want a way to stop that water from either
20 whether -- What level of erodibility would 20 weakening the soil, transporting the soil, or
21 have been required to satisfy the surge 21 developing hydraulic uplift forces that could
22 generated by the Standard Project Hurricane? 22 destabilize the structures.
23 A. The surge itself is not the source 23 Q. This is, if I understand plate
24 of the eroding characteristics until 24 number 28, this is a geologic profile of the
25 overtopping. It's the current and the waves 25 IHNC. Is that correct?
Page 146 Page 148
1 that are associated with the surge that 1 A. That's correct.

2 determine the erodibility, scour resistance 2 Q. Okay. So this would be irrelevant
3 requirements on the unprotected side. After 3 essentially to the Reach 2 structures?
4 overtopping, the system has to have erosion 4 A. Correct. Correct.
5 scour characteristics that will allow it to 5 Q. Right? Is it your opinion that this
6 survive overtopping. 6 profile shows foundation conditions?
7 Q. You say that's on the unprotected 7 A. Correct.
8 side. 8 Q. And so, in your opinion, the
9 A. For the first. That'll be what your 9 proposed levee and I-wall construction could
10 Standard Project Hurricane is telling you are 10 not have been constructed without modifying
11 those conditions. 11 the subsurface conditions of the soils?
12 Q. Is there a name for the test or the 12 A. Or taking proper account of it.
13 calculation that's applied for erodibility? 13 Q. And how would that taking account of
14 A. Scour and erosion. 14 it be evidenced in these designs?
15 Q. Scour and erosion? 15 A. The engineer would need to perform
16 A. And erosion. 16 seepage, hydraulic uplift, and stability
17 Q. And where would that analysis be? 17 calculations to justify the acceptability of
18 Would that analysis be contained within one of 18 the proposed design.
19 -- the Shore Protection Manual? 19 Q. Would that require soil borings?
20 A. Correct. 20 A. Yes. And laboratory soil testing.
21 Q. And I take it then you would do the 21 Q. Let's move on to plate number 29. I
22 same calculations for currents and waves? 22 believe you said there was something here that
23 A. Correct. 23 caught your attention.
24 Q. Okay. Let's go to -- Is there 24 A. We are now -- We're now along the
25 anything else in plate 26? 25 section where we're moving into Reach 2. The
Page 147 Page 149
38 (Pages 146 to 149)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Paris Road Canal is identified, Bayou 1 Is that correct?

2 Bienvenue is identified, Bayou Villere 2 A. 65.
3 pipeline canal is in there, to Bayou Dupre. 3 Q. 65?
4 Q. In fact, this also comprises Reach 1 4 A. Correct.
5 as well, if I -- 5 Q. I'm sorry. Okay. And what is it in
6 A. It swings into Reach 1. 6 plate 65 that you find problematic?
7 Q. Reach 1 and Reach 2 of MRGO. 7 A. This is the plate that outlines the
8 A. Correct. 8 construction of the Reach 2 levees utilizing
9 Q. All right. And this represents 9 fill material to construct the levee
10 distribution of soil types beneath the center 10 progressively in lifts.
11 line of the proposed levee? 11 Q. And you see that -- This is the
12 A. Correct. 12 stream closure. Is this simply in the stream
13 Q. And again, is the problematic 13 closure area where you're seeing this
14 feature in this plate the existence of marsh? 14 indication of shell and hydraulic fill or --
15 A. And fill. 15 A. Repeat your question.
16 Q. And fill. 16 Q. Well, where in plate number 65 do
17 A. Correct. 17 you see an indication of inappropriate fill
18 Q. And again, is that because of the 18 material?
19 potential for under-seepage? 19 A. We're -- The construction for areas
20 A. Correct. 20 X and X are, if you will, impoundment
21 Q. Which could result in global 21 structures for the construction of area W. It
22 instability? 22 refers to the existing channel bottom. And
23 A. Correct. 23 they're referring to the hydraulic lift.
24 Q. Let's move on. 24 Q. Below that?
25 A. 65. 25 A. Correct.
Page 150 Page 152
1 Q. Just so I am clear here, this is 1 Q. Below that. But is the caption

2 pertinent -- when I say "this", plate 29 that 2 there, "Stream closure construction", do you
3 we just looked at, the soil types that would 3 understand these three notes, which refer to
4 have been beneath structures that failed 4 hydraulic fill and shell, do you understand
5 during -- the embankments that failed during 5 this to be a reference to use of shell in
6 Hurricane Katrina, -- 6 closing the streams --
7 A. Correct. 7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. -- this would be relevant to the 8 Q. -- at Bayou Bienvenue and Bayou
9 analysis that you and your team of students 9 Dupre?
10 are undertaking? 10 A. That's correct.
11 A. That is exactly right. 11 Q. Would the use of shell be indicated
12 Q. For purposes of determining the 12 because of the fact that these locations were
13 permeability of the foundation soils? 13 inside stream beds that would have been
14 A. Correct. 14 submerged?
15 Q. And this would be supplemented by 15 A. Yes.
16 subsequent borings that would have been taken 16 Q. And so it wouldn't have been
17 in these same locations? 17 feasible to place clay soils directly in these
18 A. Correct. 18 stream beds for levee construction, would it?
19 Q. And is global instability one of the 19 A. It's feasible, certainly.
20 possible failure mechanisms that your team is 20 Q. Would not the clay soils have been
21 studying? 21 -- lost their cohesiveness in placing them
22 A. Correct. That's that third level of 22 within the stream bed?
23 models. 23 A. It depends on how you place it. If
24 Q. So then I think the next plate that 24 you use draglines or I'll call it lifting
25 you identified as problematic was plate 59? 25 equipment where you brought the cohesive
Page 151 Page 153
39 (Pages 150 to 153)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 material in on barges, you can lift that and 1 the Standard Project Hurricane. That's the
2 deposit it in the water. But if you're 2 purpose of factors of safety and armoring
3 pumping it in in hydraulic fill, the cohesive 3 structures.
4 material will not remain. 4 Q. And how is the extent to which the
5 Q. Is your conclusion that the use of 5 design parameters should exceed the expected
6 shell fill in closing these streams was 6 or the -- Let me strike that and start over
7 inappropriate based upon the result that 7 again.
8 occurred during Hurricane Katrina? 8 How is the maximum force against
9 A. That's correct. 9 which a design is to be -- Let me start over
10 Q. It's not based upon any laboratory 10 again a third time here.
11 testing of the actual placement of these 11 How are the hydraulic forces
12 materials prior to Katrina, is it? 12 against which a structure such as this is to
13 A. That is incorrect. The basis of the 13 be designed determined?
14 Shore Protection Manual includes laboratory 14 A. Through calculation.
15 testing of materials to determine their 15 Q. And what are the calculations
16 erodibility and scour resistance. So at the 16 derived from?
17 point when I saw the shell show up here, what 17 A. They're based on analytical models
18 I am saying is we have information available 18 appropriately validated with measurements and
19 to us to tell that those materials are very 19 experiments.
20 dangerous when you confront them with an 20 Q. And how are those models and
21 active wave and current environment. 21 experiments validated?
22 Q. Then it's not your testimony that 22 A. Experiments validated? The engineer
23 the use of shell fill could not have been done 23 researcher develops an analytical model based
24 appropriately at this location? 24 on physics, mechanics, and materials. That
25 A. That's correct. 25 model then is subjected to conditions to
Page 154 Page 156
1 Q. I'm wondering, sir, whether you 1 replicate where the experiments are
2 would agree that the storm surge forces and 2 performed. The intent is that the engineering
3 wave forces, tidal actions, currents, that 3 model is able to reproduce the experiment.
4 this structure was exposed to during Hurricane 4 Q. How are the input values for the
5 Katrina exceeded the Standard Project 5 model derived? Are they derived based upon
6 Hurricane. 6 historical data?
7 A. Repeat your question. 7 A. No, they will be derived based on
8 Q. I'm not sure I can repeat the 8 the experiments.
9 question. Let me just rephrase it. 9 Q. How does --
10 A. Okay. 10 A. Unless you call that historical
11 Q. Wasn't this structure that was built 11 data.
12 pursuant to these design specifications 12 Q. Well, my understanding in this
13 subjected to greater hydraulic forces during 13 instance is the Standard Project Hurricane and
14 Hurricane Katrina than that for which it was 14 the Probable Maximum Hurricane both were
15 designed? 15 essentially synthetic storms that were
16 A. Yes. 16 composites of elements of prior historical
17 Q. So wouldn't you agree then that 17 storms.
18 simply the fact that this structure failed 18 A. And that's correct.
19 during Hurricane Katrina would not indicate in 19 Q. And how do you know how great a
20 and of itself that the design or the 20 storm to design against? I mean, is the
21 construction was inadequate? 21 Probable Maximum Hurricane storm a big enough
22 A. That is incorrect. 22 storm to design for? Because it could be
23 Q. And why is that incorrect? 23 exceeded. I think we have already agreed
24 A. The system should be able to perform 24 previously there can be a storm greater than
25 acceptably when the design conditions exceed 25 the Probable Maximum Hurricane.
Page 155 Page 157
40 (Pages 154 to 157)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. Are you referring to at the time the 1 A. Correct.

2 PMH Standard Project Hurricanes were being set 2 Q. -- why does not the standard of care
3 up or are you asking the question in the 3 require designing elements to combat that
4 context of presentday knowledge? 4 greater storm?
5 Q. Yes, in the abstract. In the 5 A. It does require it.
6 abstract. I'm just asking you now in the 6 Q. So the standard of care requires the
7 abstract. In other words, isn't it a value 7 design of a structure to withstand any
8 choice what storm surge dimensions, hydraulic 8 conceivable future hydraulic forces?
9 forces are selected to be designed against in 9 A. No.
10 combating them? 10 Q. Okay. Then what's the -- How is it
11 A. Could you define for me "value 11 determined then what the forces, the level of
12 choice"? 12 forces against which the structure must be
13 Q. Yes. Value based upon the level of 13 designed are determined?
14 protection desired. 14 A. The essential element being
15 A. Correct. 15 addressed by the engineer is the reliability
16 Q. Isn't it true that structures can be 16 of the constructed structure. The reliability
17 designed with -- Strike that. 17 synthesizes natural variability in storms or
18 In this instance, now that we have 18 in soils. It synthesizes natural
19 developed that, in this instance, what were 19 variabilities in fill. It also synthesizes
20 the hydraulic factors against which this 20 uncertainties associated with models, because
21 structure had to be designed in order to meet 21 models have limits. The engineer's focus is
22 the standard of care that applied to this 22 to produce a structure that has acceptable
23 project? 23 reliability characteristics, thereby
24 A. There will be external parameters, 24 recognizing the potential for exceedances of
25 for example, that are derived from the 25 the design forces and potentials for less than
Page 158 Page 160
1 Standard Project Hurricane that would describe 1 the design capacities and resistances.
2 surge and waves and currents. There will be 2 Q. Who determines what's acceptable?
3 internal factors that will become involved 3 A. The definition in determination of
4 relative to the structure such as allowable 4 acceptable or reliability is a social process
5 erodibility, permeability of the materials, 5 involving the public that is involved,
6 shear strength, so those parameters have to be 6 governments, and industry.
7 synthesized, brought together in a way that 7 Q. Dr. Bea, do you know whether there
8 you develop a structure that has acceptable 8 was a failure of the flood protection
9 performance characteristics. 9 structure at these shell-filled closures
10 Q. Acceptable under those conditions? 10 during Hurricane Katrina?
11 A. Under both conditions. 11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And could those conditions be 12 Q. And was there one?
13 exceeded by a future storm? 13 A. Yes.
14 A. Certainly. 14 Q. At which of these closures?
15 Q. And why is it within the standard of 15 A. At the south closure for Bayou
16 care not to take that into account in 16 Bienvenue at the juncture between the
17 designing a structure? 17 navigation structure wing wall and the earthen
18 A. Define "that". 18 levee.
19 Q. Sure. Given that a greater storm 19 Q. But that's not where the stream
20 and greater hydraulic forces than those that 20 was.
21 you have previously identified -- 21 A. That is where the stream was
22 A. Got it. 22 originally.
23 Q. -- are theoretically possible and 23 Q. Not when the stream was closed.
24 can be expected over a great enough period of 24 They built the structure adjacent to where the
25 time, -- 25 stream was.
Page 159 Page 161
41 (Pages 158 to 161)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). 1 A. Over the buried bayou.

2 Q. And -- 2 Q. Not -- But not where the -- Isn't
3 A. That's right. 3 the shell fill -- Do you see where the stream
4 Q. -- they used shell fill to close the 4 closure is indicated in this diagram, plate
5 stream. 5 number 60, sir? "Typical stream closure
6 A. Correct. Keep coming. 6 section, --"
7 Q. But you -- Pardon me? 7 A. Yes. I got it.
8 A. Keep coming. I'm following your 8 Q. "See plate number 26". And there is
9 question. 9 a little arrow.
10 Q. Well, you have said that there was a 10 A. Yeah.
11 failure at the juncture between the control 11 Q. And that's identified as station 365
12 structure -- 12 plus, looks like "50" to me.
13 A. Right. 13 A. Correct.
14 Q. -- and the abutting levee or -- 14 Q. Isn't that where the shell fill was
15 A. EBSB. 15 placed, sir?
16 Q. -- embankment. 16 A. Correct.
17 A. And there was. 17 Q. That's not where the failure was
18 Q. But that's not the same place as 18 during Hurricane Katrina, is it?
19 where the stream that was closed with shell 19 A. That's incorrect.
20 fill was. 20 Q. That's not where the abutment
21 A. At Bienvenue or Dupre? 21 between the embankment and the control
22 Q. Yes. We can see that in the 22 structure was. It shows you where the control
23 drawings. 23 structure is, and that's not where it is.
24 A. Okay. 24 That's why they had to -- That's why they had
25 Q. If I can find the drawings. Look at 25 to move it away from the stream when they
Page 162 Page 164
1 plate number 60. 1 built the structure, so that they could

2 A. 60. Okay. 2 develop a new channel for traffic before they
3 MR. O'DONNELL: 3 closed the stream.
4 Is that Bayou Bienvenue? 4 A. The -- During Katrina, a breach
5 MR. SMITH: 5 develops on the south side of the Bayou
6 This is the Bayou Bienvenue 6 Bienvenue navigation structure. That breach
7 drainage structure plan. 7 is in the vicinity of this now buried bayou.
8 THE WITNESS: 8 Q. But you don't know whether that
9 Oh, I've got plate 61. I'm 9 breach originated above that shell fill or
10 sorry. Okay. And your question? 10 not, do you?
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 11 A. That's what we're studying now.
12 Q. Well, -- 12 Q. So the answer to my question would
13 A. Give me the question. 13 be yes, you do not know.
14 Q. Sure. You have identified a place 14 A. Correct. And you could arrive at
15 where you said there was a failure during 15 the same conclusion by looking at plate number
16 Hurricane Katrina. 16 61, which is the Bayou Dupre structure.
17 A. Correct. 17 Q. Let's go on to plate number 61. Is
18 Q. And that place was the abutment 18 this the same situation, sir, that you
19 between the control structure -- 19 identified -- I'm sorry. You took these -- I
20 A. Correct. 20 had a list here of plate numbers, but I think
21 Q. -- and the adjacent earthen 21 you were just talking out loud.
22 embankment. 22 Does that conclude your list of
23 A. That's correct. 23 information in Design Memorandum Number 3 that
24 Q. Doesn't this diagram show that that 24 you find to have fallen below the applicable
25 abutment is -- 25 standard of care?
Page 163 Page 165
42 (Pages 162 to 165)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. Correct. 1 performed?
2 Q. Let me just ask you just to comment, 2 I'm sorry, it's page 20. It's
3 just so that there's -- we're clear about 3 paragraph 38. Did I say page 38?
4 this. Will you look at paragraph 36 on page 4 A. My page 38 was blank.
5 19. I would like to direct your attention to 5 Q. I'm sorry. Page 20, paragraph 38.
6 paragraph -- Yes, it's the bottom of the 6 A. Got you.
7 page. I'm sorry. 7 Repeat your question. It's a long
8 MR. O'DONNELL: 8 paragraph.
9 What page? 9 Q. Sure. It is. It is a long
10 MR. SMITH: 10 paragraph.
11 It's page 19, paragraph 36. 11 A. A long section.
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 12 Q. And I just wondered if you'd
13 Q. Can you read paragraph 36 for us, 13 reviewed this stability analysis in paragraph
14 please? 14 38 and whether in your opinion it was
15 A. Certainly. It's titled "Erosion 15 acceptable within the standard of care at the
16 protection". "Due to the short duration of 16 time.
17 hurricane floods and the generally 17 A. No, it was not.
18 erosion-resistant nature of the soil along 18 Q. Why was it not?
19 this project, no erosion protection is 19 A. Seepage hydraulic uplift effects
20 considered necessary along the leveed portion 20 were omitted.
21 of the project. Rip-rap protection is 21 Q. They're just not discussed in this
22 considered necessary around the structures at 22 paragraph?
23 Florida Avenue." 23 A. From what I can tell, they were
24 Q. Do you agree that that decision was 24 totally omitted.
25 within the standard of care at that time? 25 Q. Okay. What about paragraph number
Page 166 Page 168
1 A. No, I do not agree. 1 39, the next paragraph?

2 Q. What do you believe should have been 2 A. Do you want --
3 provided? 3 Q. Do I want you to elaborate?
4 A. Something that wouldn't fail when it 4 A. Yes.
5 was challenged with water. 5 Q. Sure, go ahead and elaborate.
6 Q. Something that would never fail when 6 A. The.
7 challenged with water? 7 Q. You're getting paid.
8 A. One -- One -- Those -- Repeat your 8 A. The levees had no armoring. The
9 question so I make sure. 9 levees are exposed directly to see wave action
10 Q. Well, I asked you what sort of 10 during high water. The levees are composed of
11 erosion protection was required to meet the 11 erodible material. Given an analysis, it
12 standard of care, and you said something that 12 would have examined those failure modes, the
13 would not fail when challenged by water. 13 engineer would not have allowed the levees
14 A. Correct. 14 that we encountered or saw in Hurricane
15 Q. And my question to you was, ever 15 Katrina.
16 fail under any conditions? 16 Q. All right, sir. How about paragraph
17 A. No. 17 39? I think -- It's on page 28.
18 Q. No. Again, we're back to the same 18 A. Right.
19 -- 19 Q. This talks about constructing the
20 A. Exactly. 20 levee in lifts and shape-ups, and I think you
21 Q. -- analysis we did before. 21 previously agreed that that was an appropriate
22 A. Bingo. 22 method for levee construction.
23 Q. All right. Thank you. 23 MR. O'DONNELL:
24 What about the levee stability 24 It was or was not?
25 analyses on page 38; were those properly 25 MR. SMITH:
Page 167 Page 169
43 (Pages 166 to 169)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Was. 1 MR. SMITH:

2 MR. O'DONNELL: 2 Yes. "Economic justification".
3 Was. Yes. 3 MR. O'DONNELL:
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 4 Thank you.
5 Q. But the second sentence is guess is 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
6 what I am interested in your opinion as to, 6 Q. I can just go ahead and read this.
7 sir. Can you read the second sentence? 7 It says "The average annual benefits of
8 A. Starts with "From"? 8 7,629,000 and average annual charges of
9 Q. "It is proposed". 9 $1,254,800 result in a favorable benefit cost
10 A. I may be in the wrong paragraph. 10 ratio of 6.1 to 1." Do you know why the
11 Q. No, you're in the right one. The 11 economic justification appears in this design
12 first sentence says "The levee will be 12 memorandum?
13 constructed in lifts and shape-ups". 13 A. It's part of the justification for
14 A. Correct. 14 undertaking projects.
15 Q. And then the next sentence. 15 Q. Was it true that the Corps of
16 A. "It is --" Oh. "It is proposed 16 Engineers had to be able to provide an
17 that the lifts will be made hydraulically 17 economic justification for the designs that it
18 except for the final 3,000 feet approximately 18 developed for the creation of these hurricane
19 of the project, which will be made with 19 protection structures?
20 truck-hauled fill." 20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. And then read the next sentence, 21 MR. SMITH:
22 please. 22 I think this might be a good time
23 A. "From the IHNC to station 807 plus 23 to take a break.
24 zero zero, borrow will be made from the MRGO 24 MR. O'DONNELL:
25 channel on a selected material basis." 25 Okay. You want to take a lunch
Page 170 Page 172
1 Q. Is that something that you find to 1 break or a break-break?

2 have -- a design element to have been below 2 MR. SMITH:
3 the standard of care? 3 Let's a lunch break, although
4 A. Correct. 4 it's got to be a quick one.
5 Q. And it's below the standard of care 5 VIDEO OPERATOR:
6 because the use of hydraulic fill was 6 Off --
7 inappropriate? 7 MR. SMITH:
8 A. That's correct. 8 Can we come back in --
9 Q. This paragraph, 39, envisions what I 9 MR. O'DONNELL:
10 think you have described in more detail in 10 In an hour?
11 Appendix A. 11 MR. SMITH:
12 A. Correct. 12 An hour.
13 Q. That they envisioned placement of 13 MR. O'DONNELL:
14 the material within the levee footprint and 14 Perfect.
15 then subsequent lifts and shape-ups to bring 15 MR. SMITH:
16 it up to design grade over a period of years. 16 Let's come back in an hour.
17 A. Correct. 17 VIDEO OPERATOR:
18 Q. Allowing for consolidation of 18 Off the record at 12:44. This is
19 foundation soils and levee soils themselves. 19 the end of tape 3.
20 A. Correct. 20 (Recess.)
21 Q. Do you understand, Dr. Bea, -- Well, 21 VIDEO OPERATOR:
22 let me ask you to read paragraph 68, which is 22 We're back on the record. It's
23 on page 64. 23 1:57. This is the start of tape 4.
24 MR. O'DONNELL: 24 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
25 "Economic justification"? 25 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Bea.
Page 171 Page 173
44 (Pages 170 to 173)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. Good afternoon. 1 MR. BAEZA:

2 Q. Continuing on with Design Memorandum 2 Yes.
3 Number 3, the Chalmette area plan, I want to 3 THE WITNESS:
4 direct your attention back to paragraph 39. 4 I have located it.
5 A. I don't have it. 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
6 Q. I'm sorry. (Counsel hands document 6 Q. All right. Would you agree then
7 to Witness.) 7 that levee construction described in paragraph
8 A. Thank you. Page? 8 39 is for both Reaches 1 and 2 of the MRGO?
9 Q. Page 28. 9 A. Reach 1 extends to station zero, so
10 A. Got it. 10 it doesn't include all of Reach 1.
11 Q. I believe you stated before we took 11 Q. Are you sure, sir? I believe we
12 a break that you felt that the proposed use of 12 previously established that station zero was
13 hydraulic fill fell below the standard of care 13 at the IHNC lock.
14 for the construction of these levees. Is that 14 A. Correct.
15 correct? 15 Q. So --
16 A. Correct. 16 MR. O'DONNELL:
17 Q. Is it your understanding from the 17 It says zero plus zero zero.
18 design memorandum, specifically paragraph 39, 18 MR. SMITH:
19 that hydraulic fill was proposed for use along 19 Right.
20 both Reach 1 and Reach 2 of the MRGO? 20 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
21 A. No. 21 Q. Then if you look at where the GIWW
22 Q. Okay. Will you look at the station 22 and the MRGO leave the IHNC, I think you'll
23 designation at the beginning of paragraph 39. 23 see that that station number, and I can't make
24 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). 24 it out, if it's a 70 -- I mean an 80 or a 90.
25 Q. And where does that station 25 It looks like an 80 plus zero zero.
Page 174 Page 176
1 designation indicate? 1 A. It is 80.

2 A. 90.25 equal -- or to 7 plus 52.9 to 2 Q. So would you agree then that station
3 station 1050 plus 57.7. 3 90 plus 25 to station 1050 is virtually all of
4 Q. And do you know where station 90 4 Reach 1 and all of Reach 2?
5 plus 25 is? 5 A. Reach 1 and Reach 2? With the
6 A. Not offhand. 6 exception of where Reach 1 extension into the
7 Q. Okay. Turn to plate number -- It 7 Industrial Canal.
8 may be more easily seen on plate number 1? 8 Q. All right. Now, you have previously
9 Does plate 1 show it clearly? Let's look at 9 testified that it was your opinion that levees
10 plate 1 then. 10 were constructed along Reach 1 of the MRGO.
11 Here is an enlarged version if 11 Is the use of hydraulic fill, does that affect
12 that would make it easier to look at. 12 your analysis if hydraulic fill was used to
13 A. Thank you. 13 construct the Reach 1 levees, would they still
14 Q. It's hard to see. 14 be considered levees in your view?
15 MR. O'DONNELL: 15 A. The answer is yes, given that
16 Do you have an extra one of 16 control has been exerted on the grain size,
17 those? 17 the clay content, the compaction, and the
18 MR. BAEZA: 18 armoring.
19 We just have one copy of these. 19 Q. And how do you know that control has
20 MR. SMITH: 20 been exerted along those factors along Reach
21 I wish we did. 21 1?
22 MR. O'DONNELL: 22 A. The method we used was to observe
23 He can copy it after it's 23 their performance during Hurricane Katrina.
24 finished. That would be great. No 24 Q. Now, you didn't actually observe
25 problem. Thanks. Thanks. 25 their performance during Hurricane Katrina,
Page 175 Page 177
45 (Pages 174 to 177)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 did you, sir? 1 A. Repeat your question, please.

2 A. Very true. More correctly stated, 2 Q. Yes. You've indicated that you
3 by observing their performance following 3 concluded that the earthen embankments along
4 Hurricane Katrina. 4 Reach 1 were levees --
5 Q. Okay. And they really weren't 5 A. Right.
6 performing anything when you were there after 6 Q. -- because they had different soil
7 Hurricane Katrina, were they? They were just 7 characteristics from the embankments along
8 sitting there being levees; right? 8 Reach 2.
9 A. Being nice. 9 A. Correct.
10 Q. So I take it what your shorthand -- 10 Q. And they had more protective
11 this is your shorthand way of saying that you 11 covering --
12 and your team of investigators went to the 12 A. Correct.
13 site and studied the situation that existed 13 Q. -- than the embankments along Reach
14 there after Hurricane Katrina and drew 14 2.
15 conclusions about the nature of the levee 15 A. Correct.
16 based upon what you observed? Is that 16 Q. And what I was asking was, how were
17 correct? 17 you able to make that comparison with the
18 A. Partially. 18 levees that no longer existed after Hurricane
19 Q. Okay. And can you elaborate then? 19 Katrina?
20 A. Well, we also obtained soil boring 20 A. Because the levees had areas
21 data that the Corps had performed along those 21 adjacent to the breaches that did not breach
22 lengths of levees in areas that had breached 22 and so you could observe what the cover was.
23 and not breached. 23 Q. Do you know whether the cover that
24 Q. All right. And was there a 24 was existing along Reach 2 of MRGO, that is,
25 distinction in the quality or nature of the 25 on the embankments along Reach 2 of the MRGO,
Page 178 Page 180
1 soils that you found in the soil borings for 1 --

2 Reach 1 that distinguished them from the soil 2 A. Right.
3 borings obtained from Reach 2 of the MRGO? 3 Q. -- was the same as the grass
4 A. They tended to have higher clay 4 covering on those reaches prior to Hurricane
5 contents, show higher densities, and the 5 Katrina?
6 surface of the levee had much more clay and 6 A. No, I do not have that information.
7 grass cover. 7 Q. Based upon your observations along
8 Q. When you say they were constructed 8 Reach 2 of the MRGO following Hurricane
9 of different soil densities and soil -- I 9 Katrina, did you find that the embankments
10 don't know if the word "granularity" is the 10 that survived Hurricane Katrina were grass
11 correct word. 11 covered?
12 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively), that's a 12 A. Some were, some weren't.
13 good term. 13 Q. In terms of your conclusion that
14 Q. Was that based upon analysis of the 14 those embankments were not levees prior to
15 soil boring data or -- 15 Hurricane Katrina, would it make a difference
16 A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 16 -- would your opinion be different, I should
17 Q. Yes? 17 say, if there were evidence that those
18 A. And the areas that had breached, the 18 embankments were seeded and fertilized and
19 breach leaves shoulders that provide a cross 19 mowed and maintained prior to Hurricane
20 section through the soils. 20 Katrina?
21 Q. Were you able to compare -- How were 21 A. Repeat, please.
22 you able to determine what the extent and 22 Q. Sure. I think you've previously
23 nature of the covering was of the Reach 1 -- 23 given us your opinion that the earthen
24 I'm sorry, the Reach 2 levees that were 24 embankments along Reach 2 of the MRGO were not
25 obliterated during Hurricane Katrina? 25 levees.
Page 179 Page 181
46 (Pages 178 to 181)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. Correct. 1 you short.

2 Q. And one of the reasons, as I 2 A. The -- Repeat. I'm sorry. I was
3 understand it, is a lack of protective 3 thinking about the other failure modes.
4 covering. 4 Levees can be defeated by water
5 A. Correct. 5 going over the top. That can lead to back
6 Q. And my question to you is, if you 6 side erosion and breaching. Levees can fail
7 learned that the protective covering along the 7 by water attacking the front side and leading
8 levees -- or along the embankments on Reach 2 8 to either erosion scour through the levee
9 -- 9 seepage that can in fact precipitate
10 A. Right. 10 failures. The water can go under the levee.
11 Q. -- had been seeded and fertilized 11 The water going under the levee can have two
12 and maintained with grass cover, would that 12 effects. One's removal of material and
13 change your opinion as to whether or not they 13 weakening, and the second one is hydraulic
14 were levees? 14 uplift. So it tends to lift it. Water can go
15 A. No. 15 around the ends of a levee. If there are low
16 Q. Why not? 16 spots, water will seek the low spots and
17 A. There are more components than grass 17 channel and focus there. So that if the end
18 cover involved. 18 is not, we'll call it, contiguous, properly
19 Q. And what are those components, if 19 connected together, then it can fail around
20 you could list them for me, please? 20 its ends.
21 A. Well, for example, you would want 21 Q. So just so I understand, I have got
22 the berms fronting and backing the levee to be 22 a list of four different factors which you
23 properly protected. 23 said led to your conclusion that the
24 Q. With rip-rap or -- 24 embankments along Reach 2 were not levees.
25 A. Could be rip-rap, could be concrete 25 One was a lack of adequate protective cover on
Page 182 Page 184
1 mattresses such as the Corps uses on the 1 the levees themselves.

2 Mississippi River. Could be geo-textiles. It 2 A. Right.
3 could be sprayed concrete coatings, gunite, if 3 Q. But you've indicated that even if
4 you will. There's a variety of things that 4 they had had adequate protective cover, there
5 can be used to surface the levee to prevent 5 were other factors that would have still
6 erosion and scouring. 6 disqualified them in your opinion as being
7 Q. Okay. So lack of berm protection 7 hurricane protection structures.
8 would be another factor. 8 A. Correct.
9 A. Correct. 9 Q. The second one is a protection for
10 Q. What would be -- any additional 10 the berm --
11 factors that led to your opinion that they 11 A. Correct.
12 were not levees? 12 Q. -- from hydraulic forces.
13 A. The incorporation of shell fill 13 A. Correct.
14 within the earthen levees. We found large 14 Q. The third one was the use of, you
15 accumulations of sand, silt, and organic 15 said shell fill, but I think -- would you
16 material. 16 limit it to shell fill or would you just say
17 Q. Okay. Any other factors? 17 inappropriate fill? Would that extend to the
18 A. Regarding what? 18 use of sand as well as shell?
19 Q. Well, regarding your opinion that 19 A. Yes. Coarse -- Coarse grained,
20 those earthen embankments were not levees 20 highly erodible materials.
21 prior to Hurricane Katrina. 21 Q. Highly erodible, highly porous --
22 A. From what we could tell, they had 22 A. Correct.
23 received no substantial compaction. 23 Q. -- materials?
24 Q. Now, do you know -- Is there 24 A. Now, where shell was used
25 anything else? I'm sorry, I don't want to cut 25 extensively because of light weight was at the
Page 183 Page 185
47 (Pages 182 to 185)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 abutments with the navigation structures. 1 observation, soil boring data, or both?
2 Q. Correct. And then the fourth factor 2 A. Both.
3 was a lack of compaction. 3 Q. And was that soil boring data
4 A. Correct. 4 generated both before and after Katrina?
5 Q. Now, did you compare all four of 5 A. At the time we did the ILIT work,
6 those factors in the structures that existed 6 the soil boring data that we relied on was
7 along Reach 1? 7 done before Hurricane Katrina.
8 A. Yes. 8 Q. I take it, though, based upon your
9 Q. And did you find that the levees 9 testimony earlier, that if there had been more
10 which you have opined existed along Reach 1 of 10 grass cover on Reach 2, they still would not
11 the MRGO were substantially different in each 11 have satisfied you as to have been levees
12 of these four areas? 12 prior to Hurricane Katrina.
13 A. Identify the four areas, -- 13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Sure. 14 Q. So that what I am wondering is, is
15 A. -- please. 15 the presence of any one of these four factors
16 Q. Okay. I think you previously said 16 in an embankment sufficient to disqualify it
17 you thought what you observed after Katrina 17 within your terminology as consisting of a
18 was that there was more grass cover on the 18 levee?
19 Reach 1 embankments compared to those along 19 A. Yes.
20 Reach 2. 20 Q. And what level of compaction -- Is
21 A. Along most of Reach 1, that's 21 there an absolute level of compaction that
22 correct. 22 must exist? Or is it relative to the location
23 Q. And I am asking you now, was there a 23 and the conditions to which the structure is
24 distinction that you observed or were able to 24 exposed? And if that's not the right
25 establish between berm protection along Reach 25 dichotomy, you'll straighten me out.
Page 186 Page 188
1 1 compared to Reach 2? 1 A. The compaction is intending to

2 A. Yes. 2 achieve a levee cross section that has
3 Q. And there was more berm protection 3 appropriate strength and water conductivity
4 along Reach 1? 4 characteristics. That's a function of the
5 A. Correct. 5 materials you use, clay, silt, sand, how those
6 Q. And in terms of the fill of Reach 1, 6 materials are mixed, how you apply tractive
7 you also found a significant difference 7 effort to compact it, and then how you protect
8 between -- 8 it.
9 A. Correct. 9 Q. And would the values that are
10 Q. -- the materials that were within 10 required vary upon -- based upon the overall
11 the levees. 11 dimensions and other engineering factors in
12 A. Correct. 12 the structure?
13 Q. And then the fourth area would be 13 A. Yes.
14 compaction. 14 Q. So in other words, you couldn't
15 A. Correct. 15 specify one absolute level of compaction that
16 Q. Did you find that the Reach 1 levees 16 would have to be present in every earthen
17 were more compacted than the Reach 2 levees? 17 embankment in any situation that would be the
18 A. They appeared to be. 18 dividing line between non-levees and levees?
19 Q. This was not based upon a compaction 19 A. Would you repeat your question?
20 test? 20 MR. O'DONNELL:
21 A. Correct. 21 Yes, please.
22 Q. And I take it -- Well, I don't want 22 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
23 to take it. Your distinction between the 23 Q. Sure. I am just going to withdraw
24 materials within the embankments in the two 24 the question. I think I understand what your
25 reaches, was that based upon visual 25 position is.
Page 187 Page 189
48 (Pages 186 to 189)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 I believe you've previously 1 Design Memorandum Number 3, supplement number

2 testified that at this point you do not know 2 1, address the construction of levees
3 when the breaching of the Reach 1 -- I'm 3 southeast from Bayou Dupre to Verret and then
4 sorry, the Reach 2 embankments began on August 4 back to -- from Verret back to Caernarvon at
5 the 29th, 2005. Is that correct? 5 the Mississippi River?
6 A. Repeat. 6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Sure. When we were discussing 7 Q. And does this then supplement,
8 earlier your ongoing analysis of the 8 paired with General Design Memorandum number
9 performance of the Reach 2 embankments during 9 3, which we just examined, does that complete
10 Hurricane Katrina, I think you said the first 10 the protective encirclement of St. Bernard
11 step was to establish the erosive forces that 11 Parish and the Lower Ninth Ward?
12 were being exerted upon the levee. 12 A. No.
13 A. Correct. 13 Q. Okay. Why does it not, or what way
14 Q. And I thought you told me at that 14 does it not?
15 time that you have not gotten far enough into 15 A. Well, we don't have the river
16 your analysis to yet ascertain when the loss 16 levees.
17 of crown elevation began. 17 Q. Okay. Well, fine. Were there
18 A. Correct. 18 levees along the Mississippi River at this
19 Q. All right. I would like to direct 19 time?
20 your attention to what we're going to mark as 20 A. Yes.
21 Bea Exhibit Number 6, which is in your 21 Q. So in conjunction then with the
22 notebook there. It should be the next tab. 22 Mississippi River levees, do these levees that
23 Design Memorandum Number 3, supplement 1. 23 are described in the last two exhibits, this
24 MR. O'DONNELL: 24 exhibit and one we just examined, do these
25 Do you have an extra copy? 25 complete the encirclement of St. Bernard
Page 190 Page 192
1 MR. BAEZA: 1 Parish and the Lower Ninth Ward?

2 Yes, I have one. 2 A. Correct.
3 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 3 Q. I just want to address your
4 Q. Dr. Bea, have you previously 4 attention to a couple of paragraphs here.
5 considered this design memorandum in your 5 Page 8, paragraph 15-B.
6 analysis of the performance of the hurricane 6 MR. O'DONNELL:
7 protection system during Hurricane Katrina? 7 You're 8 in the text?
8 A. Yes. 8 MR. SMITH:
9 Q. And does this design memorandum 9 Yes.
10 address the extension of the levees south from 10 MR. O'DONNELL:
11 -- south and east from Bayou Dupre to 11 Thanks.
12 Verret? Probably the best place to ascertain 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
13 that would be plate 1, I would imagine. 13 Q. Again, this correlates to the
14 MR. O'DONNELL: 14 paragraph that we just looked at in the prior
15 You talking about the extension 15 design memorandum. The caption appears at the
16 area? 16 bottom of page 7. Again, these are departures
17 MR. SMITH: 17 from the project document plan?
18 Yes. 18 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Okay.
19 MR. O'DONNELL: 19 Q. And can you just read the text that
20 You know what the extension area 20 appears in paragraph 15-B?
21 is; right? 21 A. "The net levee grades described in
22 THE WITNESS: 22 paragraph 14 for the added area were
23 Yes. Repeat your question. 23 established in accordance with three --" They
24 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 24 meant "the", "results of tidal hydraulic
25 Q. Sure. Does this design memorandum, 25 studies utilizing the latest hurricane
Page 191 Page 193
49 (Pages 190 to 193)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 parameters developed by the U.S. Weather 1 project levees will be constructed of

2 Bureau and information obtained from the 2 hydraulic material obtained from the
3 passage of the major hurricane Betsy in 3 Mississippi River and the MRGO and from local
4 September of 1965." 4 borrow obtained from the flotation cut and
5 Q. And is this essentially a mirror 5 existing back levee as shown on the design and
6 language that we read previously in the other? 6 stage construction sections, plate 12 through
7 A. Yes. 7 18. The material required for the final cross
8 Q. And you consider that to be an 8 section in the intermediate material required
9 appropriate departure from the project 9 for the final --" Pardon me, I misread. "The
10 parameters that were established in the 10 material required for the final cross section
11 project document plan that was submitted to 11 in the intermediate material required for the
12 Congress? 12 final --" "for the final cross section and
13 A. Could I have the question reread? 13 the intermediate shaping, taking into
14 Q. I'm sorry, it was a bad question. I 14 consideration the shrinkage and consolidation
15 stumbled over it. 15 of the levee embankment as well as the
16 Is this change in the net levee 16 ultimate settlement of the subsurface strata
17 grades to correlate with the latest hurricane 17 will be placed in one or more lifts. The
18 parameters within the standard of care, in 18 height of the various lifts and shaping shown
19 your opinion? 19 on the stage construction plans are not to be
20 A. Yes. 20 exceeded during the construction period. Due
21 Q. And again, if this lift was going -- 21 to the nature and existing shear strengths of
22 Pardon me. If this portion of the project was 22 the soil in the subsurface strata, slides and
23 going to be constructed through -- in stages 23 base failure will occur if the fill is
24 by lifts and reshapings, that would be within 24 overloaded either by fill material or," and it
25 the standard of care, in your opinion? 25 says "depth of run-off water from the
Page 194 Page 196
1 A. It would depend on the compositions 1 hydraulic placement of the levee material.

2 of the soil materials utilized in the 2 The height of various levees and shapings was
3 construction, how they were compacted, and how 3 based on providing a factor of safety of 1.3
4 they were protected. 4 against shear failure during all stages of
5 Q. But the method itself would be 5 construction."
6 within the standard of care? In other words, 6 Q. Okay. Does the specified use of
7 -- 7 hydraulic material, in your opinion, comport
8 A. Correct. 8 with the standard of care?
9 Q. -- assuming proper materials? 9 A. It would need to be in combination
10 A. Right. 10 with other things such as compaction, proper
11 Q. Turn to paragraph 36 on page 23. It 11 surface protection, proper subsurface
12 begins on page 23. 12 protection to arrest hydraulic through-seepage
13 A. Okay. 13 and similar effects.
14 Q. Can you read that paragraph for us? 14 Q. Let me just -- Would it make a
15 A. "Method of construction. A, 15 difference if the hydraulic fill material was
16 Levees. Conventional earth levees which 16 clay?
17 constitute the basic flood protection will be 17 A. That would be difficult to achieve.
18 built by stage construction method. This 18 Q. Let me direct your attention to
19 construction will take place over a period of 19 paragraph 42 on page 33. Can you read -- This
20 several years to compensate for settlement due 20 paragraph 42 is captioned "Sources of
21 to consolidation of the subsurface strata as 21 construction materials." I would like you to
22 well as that of a levee fill material and to 22 read sub-paragraph B.
23 take advantage of increased shear strengths in 23 A. "Hydraulic fill material, clay, to
24 the subsurface strata due to the 24 be obtained from the MRGO station 770 plus
25 aforementioned consolidation thereof. The 25 zero zero to station 1100 plus zero zero as
Page 195 Page 197
50 (Pages 194 to 197)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 may be required. This borrow to be obtained 1 Q. Now, where do you see silt? I'm
2 between elevation minus 40 and minus 60. 2 sorry. This looks like fat clay to me. These
3 Boring logs and data shown on plate 52." 3 fat barber shop pole stripes?
4 Q. Does this specification of hydraulic 4 A. Right. But there are other layers
5 fill material that is of a clay substance, 5 in there.
6 would that be within the standard of care? 6 Q. In borings 22-D, do you see any --
7 A. Please repeat. 7 A. How about 19?
8 Q. Sure. It's a bad question. Let me 8 Q. 19. Yes. What's 19 there? Is that
9 just withdraw it. 9 -- is that "SS", is that silty sands?
10 Let me direct your attention to 10 A. Correct.
11 plate 52. Let's look at those boring logs. 11 Q. Okay. There's just two little thin
12 A. All right. 12 slices, right, and then the rest of it's fat
13 MR. O'DONNELL: 13 clays? Is this generally what you
14 We're back at DM-3? 14 characterize as pretty good levee building
15 MR. SMITH: 15 material?
16 No, no. 16 A. Yes.
17 MR. SMITH: 17 Q. Let me direct your attention to page
18 Still in the supplement? 18 37.
19 MR. SMITH: 19 MR. O'DONNELL:
20 We're still at the supplement. 20 37?
21 MR. O'DONNELL: 21 MR. SMITH:
22 Plate what? 22 Page 37.
23 MR. SMITH: 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
24 52. 24 Q. This is part of table 1, which
25 MR. O'DONNELL: 25 begins on the prior page, which is labeled
Page 198 Page 200
1 Thank you. 1 "Detailed estimate of first cost, Chalmette

2 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 2 extension." Do you see at the very top of
3 Q. Dr. Bea, do you see the soil boring 3 page 37 what the first two items that are
4 logs that are created at the top of plate 52? 4 described are?
5 A. Yes. 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And do you see the -- Do you recall 6 Q. And what are those?
7 that paragraph 42-B specified that this 7 A. One of them is fertilizing 460 acres
8 material was to be obtained between elevation 8 at a unit price of $50 per acre. Total
9 minus 40 and minus 60? 9 amount, $23,000. The second item is seeding,
10 A. Correct. 10 460 acres, $100 per acre, $46,000 total
11 Q. And do you see -- What's the 11 estimated amount.
12 predominant nature of the material between 12 Q. Okay. And again, is this the sort
13 elevations minus 40 and minus 60 in the 13 of activity that would be prescribed for
14 borings 18-D through 27-D? 14 providing surface protection for levees?
15 A. The material -- The material 15 A. Yes.
16 consists of clays, silts, some sands. 16 Q. All right. I would like to -- I
17 Q. In fact, there's no -- anything but 17 would like to direct your attention next to
18 clay in any of these borings except for one. 18 what we're going to label as Bea Exhibit
19 Isn't that correct? 19 Number --
20 A. Well, in boring 2- -- I made a 20 MR. BAEZA:
21 mistake. I had 21-D continued. 21 7.
22 Q. Yes, it's confusing. Right. I 22 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
23 know. I had to look at that twice, too. 23 Q. -- 7, which should be the first
24 A. It's predominantly clay, silty 24 design memorandum in your notebook.
25 materials. 25 MR. BAEZA:
Page 199 Page 201
51 (Pages 198 to 201)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 I'm just going to label all of 1 the table of contents.

2 them. 2 A. And what's the name of the page?
3 MR. SMITH: 3 Q. It's called -- The plate -- it
4 This is the last one, I think in 4 doesn't have a number designation. It just
5 this. 5 says "Authorized plan of protection". It
6 MR. O'DONNELL: 6 should be early. It should be right after the
7 Which design number memo is it? 7 endorsements. There should be a table --
8 MR. SMITH: 8 A. Is it a table?
9 This is design memorandum number 9 Q. It looks like your notebook may be
10 2. 10 out of order. No, it's a --
11 MR. O'DONNELL: 11 A. The picture isn't here.
12 Got it. 12 Q. You don't have this one? I'm
13 MR. SMITH: 13 sorry. We're going to have to get that
14 General, and then it's supplement 14 fixed.
15 number 4. This is the New Orleans 15 (Counsel hands document to
16 East Back Levee. 16 Witness.)
17 MR. O'DONNELL: 17 A. Focused. Got it.
18 Got it. 18 Q. All right. Does that map, drawing,
19 MR. BAEZA: 19 indicate that this design memorandum
20 That will be Exhibit Number 7. 20 supplement is for the flood works that we've
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 21 previously identified as the New Orleans East
22 Q. This is the New Orleans East Back 22 Back Levee?
23 Levee, design memorandum supplement dated 23 A. Correct.
24 March, 1971. I would like to direct your 24 Q. And I think previously you've stated
25 attention to the very -- I don't know whether 25 that this New Orleans East Back Levee, which
Page 202 Page 204
1 you want to call it the first or the last 1 is indicated in the authorized plan of
2 endorsement. It's the first one that follows 2 protection map, was half and half. Half was
3 the title page. It's probably the last 3 in your opinion not a levee, half was a
4 endorsement. The fifth numbered paragraph 4 levee.
5 there, this is an endorsement that appears to 5 A. Correct.
6 be addressed to the Chief of Engineers; looks 6 Q. Do you know whether that's the
7 like it's from the Lower Mississippi Valley 7 product of the design specifications that are
8 Division. I'm not sure what "DA" stands for. 8 within this supplement?
9 Can you read numbered paragraph 5? 9 A. No, I do not.
10 A. Paragraph 38, page 18. The third 10 Q. Do you know whether this supplement
11 sentence states "In order to utilize the 11 specifies different specifications for the
12 maximum amount of Pleistocene soils and the 12 design of the easternmost portion of the New
13 minimum amount of recent deposits, borrowing 13 Orleans East Back Levee from the western half
14 will be in the deepest portion of the borrow 14 of that Back Levee?
15 areas and to the maximum depth practicable, 15 A. No, I don't know.
16 approximately elevation minus 80. This should 16 Q. Again, I am going to direct your
17 be required in the specifications." 17 attention to page number 6 in the body of this
18 Q. Okay. And does this indicate an 18 design memorandum, paragraph numbered 14.
19 intent to again obtain the best quality 19 A. All right, sir.
20 materials for use in constructing these 20 Q. And again, does this document, like
21 levees? 21 the last two documents we examined in
22 A. Correct. 22 paragraph 14, does it indicate that the net
23 Q. I would like to direct your 23 grades of the protective works were revised
24 attention to the location map which follows 24 upward in accordance with the results of tidal
25 the "Status of design" memoranda and precedes 25 hydraulic studies utilizing more severe
Page 203 Page 205
52 (Pages 202 to 205)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 hurricane parameters developed by the U.S. 1 into an increase in cost.

2 Weather Bureau subsequent to project 2 A. Correct.
3 authorization? 3 Q. And if you'd turn to page 36.
4 A. It does. 4 There's -- This is paragraph number -- No.
5 Q. Do you see what the revised net 5 MR. O'DONNELL:
6 grades of the New Orleans East Back Levee 6 74?
7 were, specified in paragraph 14? That would 7 MR. SMITH:
8 be the third full sentence. You might just 8 74. Thank you.
9 read that for us. 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
10 A. "The revised net grades of the New 10 Q. And sub-paragraph B-1. Captioned
11 Orleans East Back Levee are elevations 17.5 11 "Levees and floodwalls".
12 for levees and elevation 19.0 for most of the 12 A. Yes.
13 floodwalls except at the existing drainage 13 Q. Can you read that -- This is just a
14 pump stations where wave run-up dictates a net 14 single sentence.
15 grade of 23.0." 15 A. "Tidal levee"?
16 Q. And in paragraph 16, which is on 16 Q. I'm sorry, let me just save you the
17 page 7, -- 17 problem of reading it, because we don't need
18 A. Yes, sir. 18 the details.
19 Q. -- does it indicate that the design 19 A. All right.
20 hurricane for the New Orleans East Back Levee 20 Q. But does this indicate that when
21 is the Standard Project Hurricane? 21 they increased the height of the levee
22 A. It does. 22 protection from 16 feet to 17 and a half feet,
23 Q. And that's the same design hurricane 23 it resulted in an increased cost of these?
24 that was used to design the levees and other 24 A. Correct.
25 protective structures along Reach 1 and Reach 25 Q. Thank you. That's all I need.
Page 206 Page 208
1 2 of the MRGO; is that correct? 1 Is your assessment of these

2 A. That's correct. 2 embankments along the New Orleans East Back
3 Q. And does the table that's in 3 Levee area, is that again based on those same
4 paragraph 16 indicate that the ultimate or 4 four factors that you previously identified in
5 design elevation of protective structures was 5 terms of differentiating between the
6 computed based upon the average depth of the 6 embankments that were levees and the
7 still water tide plus the expected run-up from 7 embankments that were not?
8 waves and tides? 8 A. Please repeat those.
9 A. It does not state the basis for 9 Q. Sure. You gave us four factors
10 reference of the vertical elevations. 10 before that you said differentiated between --
11 Q. Does the ultimate or design 11 that allowed you to differentiate between the
12 elevation of the protective structures equal 12 embankments that qualified as levees and those
13 or exceed the sum of the average depth in feet 13 that did not.
14 of the significant wave plus the run-up? 14 A. Right.
15 A. You mean do the numbers add up 15 Q. And those four factors, as I have
16 correctly? 16 them, were grass cover or some kind of
17 Q. No. I mean does it equal or exceed, 17 protective covering, berm protection, --
18 not do they add up correctly. In other words, 18 A. Correct.
19 is the ultimate design elevation greater than 19 Q. -- appropriate materials, --
20 the sum of the average depth of the water plus 20 A. Correct.
21 the run-up? 21 Q. -- and compaction.
22 A. Slightly. 2/10ths of a foot. 22 A. Correct.
23 Q. I believe you've previously stated 23 Q. And again, would those be the --
24 just as a general matter that increasing the 24 A. The same thing.
25 height of the protective structures translates 25 Q. The same factors.
Page 207 Page 209
53 (Pages 206 to 209)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. Correct. 1 Accessibility, proximity are often controlling

2 Q. Thank you. Dr. Bea, you've 2 factors in selecting borrow areas, although
3 previously identified some Corps publications 3 the availability of better borrow materials
4 that you believe set forth criteria for 4 involving somewhat longer haul distances, may
5 application in the construction of levees. 5 sometimes lead to the rejection of poorer but
6 A. Correct. 6 more readily available borrow."
7 Q. And some of these are identified I 7 Q. Would you agree that this paragraph
8 believe in your expert report. 8 which you have just read does not prescribe
9 A. Correct. 9 the use of any materials in construction of
10 Q. One of them is "The design and 10 levees?
11 construction of levees" that was published in 11 A. Does not prescribe the use? It is
12 2000. Is that correct? 12 putting the engineer on alert to, whenever
13 A. Correct. 13 possible, avoid the use of coarse grain
14 MR. O'DONNELL: 14 materials.
15 What's the exhibit? Is this 15 Q. And doesn't this provision
16 Number 8? 16 explicitly acknowledge that there is often a
17 MR. BAEZA: 17 trade-off of various considerations in
18 Yes. 18 selecting the materials for use?
19 MR. O'DONNELL: 19 A. Yes, it does.
20 Thanks. What is it? 20 Q. And isn't the trade-off that's
21 THE WITNESS: 21 described here an economic trade-off?
22 Are we through here? 22 A. It can be feasibility as opposed to
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 23 economics.
24 Q. Yes. 24 Q. It can be feasibility. It can be
25 MR. O'DONNELL: 25 economics as well; correct?
Page 210 Page 212
1 Is it one that's in here? 1 A. Correct.

2 MR. BAEZA: 2 Q. Would you describe the locations of
3 It is not in there. It is the 3 where levees were being designed for
4 2000 Design and Construction Manual. 4 construction along Reach 2 of MRGO and along
5 MR. O'DONNELL: 5 the GIWW as locations that had accessibility,
6 Here you go. 6 less than average accessibility?
7 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Dr. Bea, can you identify within 8 Q. And does paragraph 4-2-A explicitly
9 this, what's been marked Bea Exhibit Number 8, 9 acknowledge that accessibility is one of the
10 this Design and Construction of Levee Manual, 10 factors to be considered in deciding where to
11 the provisions that you believe were not 11 obtain borrow materials?
12 complied with or not satisfied in the 12 A. Correct.
13 construction of embankments along the Reach 2 13 Q. Isn't it true that obtaining
14 of the MRGO and the GIWW? 14 materials from a greater distance that would
15 A. One of the most important is chapter 15 have to be hauled to a location tends to
16 4, section 4.2, or 4-2, subset A. 16 increase the cost of obtaining those
17 Q. "Material type"? 17 materials?
18 A. Correct. 18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Okay. Would you read that for us, 19 Q. Is there another provision in this
20 please? 20 document, sir, that you believe our attention
21 A. "Almost any soil is suitable for 21 should be directed to for its application to
22 constructing levees except very wet, fine 22 the design and construction of the levees
23 grain soils or highly organic soils. In some 23 along Reach 1 of -- and Reach 2 of the MRGO
24 case, though, even these soils may be 24 and the GIWW?
25 considered for portions of levees. 25 A. 4-2-B, titled "Natural water
Page 211 Page 213
54 (Pages 210 to 213)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 content". "Wherever compacted levees are 1 yet been able to analyze whether the level of
2 planned, it's necessary to obtain borrow 2 compaction of these embankments along Reach 2
3 material with water content low enough to 3 of the MRGO and along the GIWW played a role
4 allow placement and adequate compaction. The 4 in their adverse performance during Hurricane
5 cost of drying borrow materials to suitable 5 Katrina. Correct me if I am wrong.
6 water contents can be very high, in many 6 A. Restate your question.
7 cases, exceeding the cost of longer haul 7 Q. Yes. Okay. I think I got ahead of
8 distances to obtain material that can be 8 myself and I apologize.
9 placed without drying. Borrow soils undergo 9 As I understand it, you're
10 seasonal water content variations, hence, 10 explaining that compaction is significant
11 water content data should be based on samples 11 because greater compaction reduces the
12 obtained from borrow areas in that season of 12 erodibility of the structure, --
13 the year when levee construction is planned. 13 A. Correct.
14 Possible variation of water contents during 14 Q. -- increases the structural
15 the construction season should also be 15 integrity of the embankment, --
16 considered." 16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Does this paragraph as well 17 Q. -- and reduces the hydraulic
18 explicitly reference cost as one of the 18 conductivity.
19 factors to be considered in selecting borrow 19 A. Correct.
20 materials? 20 Q. In the analysis that you and your
21 A. Yes, it does. 21 graduate students are performing, you have not
22 Q. This paragraph refers to the impact 22 yet reached a point at which you have been
23 of water content on placement and compaction. 23 able to evaluate the extent to which these
24 A. Correct. 24 structures were eroded --
25 Q. Is it your opinion that the use of 25 A. That's --
Page 214 Page 216
1 hydraulic fill in constructing levees along 1 Q. -- during Hurricane Katrina?

2 the MRGO and along the GIWW had an adverse 2 A. That's in the current ongoing work.
3 impact on the placement and compaction of the 3 Q. You're in the validation stage of
4 fill materials? 4 that right now for four locations?
5 A. Correct. 5 A. Correct. But previously, as
6 Q. What, in your opinion, is the 6 summarized in my document, we have done
7 significance of the level of compaction along 7 preliminary analyses.
8 -- of the embankments that were along Reach 2 8 Q. Is that the one where everybody
9 of the MRGO and along the easternmost portion 9 picked a number and y'all got together and
10 of the New Orleans East Back Levee? 10 said "I like mine better than yours, but we
11 A. Compaction has three categories of 11 all agree that it was bad"?
12 important effects. It will affect erodibility 12 A. No. These were actually conditions
13 and scour resistance; it will affect the 13 where we had information given to us on the
14 strength of the material and its ability to 14 velocities of the water at differing points
15 withstand loads; and it will affect water 15 and then we sampled soils from areas of levees
16 transmissibility, hydraulic conductivity. 16 that had performed well and areas of levees
17 Q. Erodibility, structural -- 17 that had breached, performed poorly. The
18 A. Strength. 18 laboratory tests were able to correlate the
19 Q. -- strength or integrity, and what 19 erosive effect of the water with the general
20 was the third one? 20 characteristics of the soils, and one of the
21 A. Hydraulic conductivity. 21 parameters we varied was compactive effort.
22 Q. And hydraulic conductivity. 22 Compacted soils were substantially more
23 A. Right. 23 erosive-resistant. So that in the preliminary
24 Q. And I believe that you've stated a 24 analyses, we had estimates of water
25 couple of times previously that you have not 25 velocities, tractive forces. The time and
Page 215 Page 217
55 (Pages 214 to 217)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 intensity of those forces, we could then 1 up with a number that you all agreed was the
2 correlate and use that with the laboratory 2 correct number.
3 test results to make evaluations of breaching. 3 A. The uncertainties that are present
4 Q. Is that, what you've just elaborated 4 have to be incorporated into, in this stage of
5 on, what's described in paragraph 113 of your 5 the work, into qualitative evaluations of
6 report, sir? 6 erosion and scour. The analyses I have
7 A. Repeat your question. 7 described previously came after this work had
8 Q. Well, let me just ask if you would 8 been done, and are documented in here.
9 read, would you, please, paragraph 113 of your 9 Q. But doesn't this reflect that there
10 report. Because I think that is what you have 10 was no standardized methodology for assessing
11 just elaborated on. And after you read it, I 11 the erodibility of these soils that were
12 would like you to tell me whether that's true 12 involved?
13 or not. 13 A. There are standards written,
14 A. Okay. And you want me to read out 14 documented that describe for the engineer how
15 loud or silently? 15 to -- it says erodibility. They include the
16 Q. Would you read it out loud, please? 16 Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Manual;
17 Well, no, I'll tell you what. There's no 17 they include Federal Emergency Management
18 reason to have you read it out loud. 18 Agency scour and erosion guidelines; and they
19 Does paragraph 113 indicate that 19 include guidelines published by the Federal
20 there's little agreement within the profession 20 Highway Administration to assess the
21 about how to evaluate accurately the 21 erodibility of soils.
22 erodibility and scour of the various materials 22 Q. So there are criteria, but, correct
23 present? 23 me if I am wrong, in this paragraph what
24 A. It does. 24 you're describing is the fact that there's no
25 Q. And does it also indicate that a 25 uniform way to apply those criteria to
Page 218 Page 220
1 number of members of the ILIT Team made their 1 ascertain rates of erosion.
2 own estimates of likely rates of erosion based 2 A. Correct.
3 on their perceptions of the likely fractional 3 Q. And that, in fact, is what you're
4 content of various fill types and the 4 studying now.
5 available data on erosion rates? 5 A. Correct.
6 A. Correct. 6 Q. And, you know, there is a number of
7 Q. And does it also indicate -- I am 7 times that you have specified in your report
8 going to read it, it turns out, doesn't it? 8 for when breaching began at various
9 Save you the trouble. "These estimates also 9 locations.
10 required judgmental assessment of through-flow 10 A. Right.
11 potential, wave run-up magnitudes and 11 Q. And I have compared that with the
12 velocities, numbers of wave cycles at 12 times that are in the ILIT report and, in
13 different times (and thus different storm 13 fact, there are different times given in
14 surge stage levels). The resulting estimates 14 different chapters of the ILIT report --
15 varied considerably, but all agreed that there 15 A. Exactly.
16 was a high likelihood that initial breaching 16 Q. -- for the same events.
17 would have initiated well before the storm 17 A. Exactly.
18 surge approached within several feet of the 18 Q. So there's a great deal of
19 low points along the crests along this 19 uncertainty, would you not agree with respect
20 critical MRGO frontage (4:00 to 5:00 A.M., 20 --
21 ILIT 2006)." 21 A. I agree totally.
22 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Okay. You've identified two
23 Q. Is that what it's -- I mean, I am 23 paragraphs in what's been marked as Bea
24 not an engineer, but when I read this, it 24 Exhibit Number 8, which is the Design and
25 seems to say to me that you all could not come 25 Construction of Levees Manual, the 2000
Page 219 Page 221
56 (Pages 218 to 221)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 edition. Is there any other paragraphs in 1 use among civil engineers who are engaged in
2 there that you would direct our attention to? 2 designing and constructing earthen embankments
3 A. Regarding what? 3 for flood protection purposes?
4 Q. That were used by you in evaluating 4 A. Yes.
5 the adequacy of the embankments that were 5 Q. This paragraph A-1 makes a
6 constructed along Reach 2 of MRGO and along 6 distinction levees and dams. You previously
7 the GIWW. 7 suggested that a Corps manual which
8 A. The -- Yes. The perhaps most 8 specifically addresses dams --
9 efficient way to do that is to look at the 9 A. Correct.
10 table of contents. 10 Q. -- was something that you relied on
11 Q. Thank you. 11 in evaluating the adequacy of the protective
12 A. Chapter 5, section 1, "Foundation 12 structures that were designed and constructed
13 under-seepage". 13 as part of the New Orleans regional hurricane
14 Q. That whole -- 14 protection system. Is that correct?
15 A. That entire section. 15 A. Correct.
16 Q. All right. 16 Q. Can you read paragraph 1-5-A-2,
17 A. Section number 2, "Seepage through 17 please?
18 the embankments". The entire section. 18 A. "Even though levees are similar to
19 Q. Okay. 19 small earth dams, they differ from earth dams
20 A. Section or chapter 6, section 2, 20 in the following important respects. A, the
21 "Stability analyses". 21 levee embankment may become saturated only for
22 Chapter 7, section 2, titled 22 a short period of time beyond the limit of
23 "Foundations." 23 capillary saturation. B, levee alignment is
24 Section 3, titled "Embankments". 24 dictated primarily by flood protection
25 Section 8.3, "General 25 requirements which often results in
Page 222 Page 224
1 considerations for pipelines crossing over 1 construction on poor foundations. And C,

2 levees." 2 borrow is generally obtained from shallow pits
3 Section 8.15, under section 4, 3 or from channels excavated to the levee --
4 "Junction with concrete closure structures." 4 excavated adjacent to the levee which produce
5 Section 8.17, "Levee vegetation 5 fill material that is often heterogeneous and
6 management". 6 far from ideal. Selection of the levee
7 Q. Dr. Bea, don't close that yet. I 7 section is often based on the properties of
8 would like to direct your attention to page 8 the porous material that must be used."
9 1-1. And I'd ask you -- This is captioned 9 Q. Would you agree then that these are
10 "General considerations". That would be 10 important distinctions between levees and
11 paragraph 1-5. And I would like you to read 11 dams?
12 sub-paragraph A-1. 12 A. Yes.
13 A. "The term 'levee' as used herein is 13 Q. And would you agree then that the
14 defined as an embankment whose primary purpose 14 short period of time during which levees are
15 is to furnish flood protection from seasonal 15 exposed to flood conditions is important in
16 high water and which is, therefore, subject to 16 terms of the factors that you've described
17 water loading for periods for only a few days 17 previously?
18 or weeks a year. Embankments that are subject 18 A. Yes.
19 to water loading for prolonged periods, longer 19 Q. Specifically under-seepage and
20 than normal flood protection requirements or 20 through-seepage?
21 permanently, should be designed in accordance 21 A. Correct.
22 with earth dam criteria rather than levee 22 Q. Compaction, which is related to
23 criteria given herein." 23 under-seepage and through-seepage?
24 Q. Is this definition of "levee" a 24 A. Right.
25 definition that is reasonable and customary in 25 Q. Porosity of terms?
Page 223 Page 225
57 (Pages 222 to 225)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. Correct. 1 authorized the construction of levees, not

2 Q. Why do you believe that the dam 2 dams?
3 manual, the Corps' dam manual is pertinent to 3 A. Correct.
4 the evaluation of these structures that are at 4 Q. Previously I think you have spoken
5 issue here in this case? 5 of designing -- you believe these structures
6 A. The dam manual has detailed 6 should have been designed to take into account
7 provisions for the engineering equivalent of 7 the possibility of overtopping and back-side
8 the project, or the Probable Maximum 8 erosion.
9 Hurricane. The design of the spillway is 9 A. Correct.
10 dictated by the equivalent of the Probable 10 Q. And when I say back-side, I mean on
11 Maximum Hurricane. The dam itself would be 11 the protected side.
12 designed for the equivalent of the Standard 12 A. Correct.
13 Project Hurricane. So it is giving the 13 Q. All right. I would like to direct
14 engineer specific guidance on how to 14 your attention to chapter 7, which is one of
15 accommodate those things in the design. The 15 the chapters in this manual that you've said
16 guidelines also contain very highly developed 16 you believe is pertinent to the analysis of
17 guidelines for engineers to evaluate erosion 17 these structures. And if you'd turn to
18 and scour, to evaluate seepage, both under and 18 section -- I believe it's 3. It's in chapter
19 through the dam, and at its junctures. 19 7, section --
20 Q. Given that dams are typically 20 A. So we're in levees.
21 exposed to hydrologic forces for continuous 21 Q. In the levee manual you have in
22 and sustained periods of time, does not the 22 front of you, sir.
23 design of those structures require additional 23 A. Yes.
24 features or a higher level of protection than 24 Q. This would be section 3, which is
25 would typically be required for the 25 "Embankment construction control".
Page 226 Page 228
1 construction of levees? Maybe you can just 1 A. Not chapter 3.

2 compare it. That's kind of a -- I got kind of 2 Q. I'm sorry, section 3 of chapter 7.
3 garbled up. But I guess the point I am trying 3 7-4 and 7-5.
4 to make, let me ask it again, is, you would 4 A. I'm with you.
5 agree, right, I mean I think you have already 5 Q. Okay. You're with me, but I need to
6 agreed that it's an important distinction 6 direct your attention to the next page. I
7 between levees and dams inasmuch as dams are 7 think it's page 7-6 and it's section -- the
8 exposed to hydrologic forces for a much longer 8 same section number, --
9 period of time typically than levees are. 9 A. Correct.
10 A. That's one difference. 10 Q. -- 7-6, "Protection of riverside
11 Q. That's one difference. And that 11 slopes".
12 because of that porosity, compaction must be 12 A. "Protection of riverside --"
13 attended to much more carefully and must be 13 Q. "Slopes".
14 addressed more stringently in designing dams 14 A. Correct.
15 compared to levees. 15 Q. And does this section, 7-6, does
16 A. Correct. 16 this apply to the construction, the design and
17 Q. Isn't it true that increasing 17 construction of the levees along these
18 compaction and getting more dense materials 18 reaches, which were not along rivers, but were
19 and increasing factors of safety tend to 19 along the MRGO and GIWW?
20 correlate with increased costs of 20 A. They're a Corps of Engineers
21 construction? 21 guidelines, yes.
22 A. Definitely. 22 Q. Well, I know they're guidelines.
23 Q. And isn't it true that in the 23 I'm asking you -- I believe you've previously
24 legislation that authorized the creation of 24 gone through and you have indicated which
25 these protective structures, Congress 25 sections, and I think this was one of the
Page 227 Page 229
58 (Pages 226 to 229)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 sections you indicated -- 1 A. Thank you.

2 A. It is. 2 Q. Sir, do you recognize this document?
3 Q. -- you thought had some application 3 A. I recognize the title. This is the
4 here. 4 first time I have seen March, 1978 edition.
5 A. Exactly. 5 Q. All right. So then I guess it's
6 Q. Is there anything in section 7-6 or, 6 pretty clear that you did not rely on this in
7 for that matter, anywhere else in this manual 7 formulating your opinions in this case?
8 that prescribes the use of back-side surface 8 A. Correct.
9 protection from erosion? And you're welcome 9 Q. Would you agree that to the extent
10 to look at it. The protected side which you 10 that there are differences between the design
11 have previously said, I believe you previously 11 and construction of levees that bears the date
12 agreed you think should have been provided 12 31 March 1978 and the version that bears the
13 here. 13 date 2000, that the principles set forth in
14 A. Correct. 14 the 1978 version would apply to structures
15 Q. Okay. 15 that were designed and constructed prior to
16 A. Because of the potential for 16 2000? The year 2000?
17 overtopping. 17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Overtopping. Correct. 18 Q. We won't take the time to go through
19 A. Correct. 19 this, sir, but you'll have a chance to look at
20 Q. And I am asking you, I am directing 20 it now. I'm sure you will be interested in
21 your attention to 7-6. 21 that.
22 A. Got it. 22 A. May I have a copy?
23 Q. Is there any prescription of 23 Q. Absolutely.
24 back-side protection from erosion? 24 A. Perfect.
25 A. No. 25 Q. That's your notebook if you want
Page 230 Page 232
1 VIDEO OPERATOR: 1 it. Absolutely.

2 Counselor, can we go off the 2 MR. BRUNO:
3 record? 3 Are both of them in there, Robin?
4 MR. SMITH: 4 MR. SMITH:
5 Let's go off the record. 5 Yes.
6 VIDEO OPERATOR: 6 MR. BRUNO:
7 Off the record at 3:25. This is 7 The 2000?
8 the end of tape 4. 8 MR. SMITH:
9 (Recess.) 9 Yes.
10 VIDEO OPERATOR: 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
11 We're back on the record. It's 11 Q. I'm going to direct your attention
12 3:57. This is the start of tape 5. 12 to what's probably the first, the very first
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 13 document in here, and I will find it for you.
14 Q. Dr. Bea, I would like to direct your 14 A. Okay.
15 attention to what's been marked Bea Exhibit 15 Q. It's been marked Bea Exhibit Number
16 Number 9, which should be right -- 16 10. Can you identify that document for us,
17 MR. BAEZA: 17 sir?
18 It's in that binder preceding the 18 A. It's -- The document is titled "Code
19 -- 19 for utilization of soil data for levees,"
20 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 20 dated April, 1947.
21 Q. The one we just looked at. It 21 Q. And have you seen this document
22 should be the next one to the front. 22 prior to today?
23 A. (Witness hands document to Counsel.) 23 A. No, I have not.
24 Q. I'll find it for you. Sure. Here 24 Q. Well, I am going to make a gift of
25 it is. (Counsel hands document to Witness.) 25 this one to you as well if you would like to
Page 231 Page 233
59 (Pages 230 to 233)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 have it. 1 20.0. The standard project elevation for the

2 A. Bless you. 2 levee between Bayou Bienvenue and Bayou Dupre
3 (Whereupon a discussion was held 3 is elevation 17.5."
4 off the record.) 4 Q. What would be the purpose of
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 5 constructing the earthen levee sections to an
6 Q. I'm going to hand you what we have 6 elevation of 20 feet if the design grade was
7 previously marked as Bea Exhibit Number 3, 7 only 17 and a half?
8 which I think you previously said -- This is 8 A. Perhaps new information became
9 labeled or captioned "Geotechnical 9 available and was being incorporated into the
10 investigation, Chalmette area plan, Bayou 10 design conditions that went beyond the
11 Bienvenue to Bayou Dupre, baseline station 358 11 Standard Project Hurricane.
12 plus zero zero to base line station 740 plus 12 Q. Would that constitute an over-build
13 zero zero, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana". 13 to account for subsequent subsidence?
14 It's labeled "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 14 A. It could.
15 New Orleans District, June, 2001". 15 Q. Okay. What else could it account
16 A. Correct. 16 for?
17 Q. Can you read for us, sir, the first 17 A. It could account for providing
18 paragraph on page 1 of this document which is 18 additional provisions for wave run-up.
19 captioned "General"? 19 Q. Does paragraph 2 on page 1,
20 A. "This report contains the results of 20 paragraph numbered 2, which is captioned
21 geotechnical design performed for the proposed 21 "Field investigation", indicate that a total
22 raising of the Chalmette area plan levee 22 of 22 undisturbed type borings had been taken
23 between Bayou Bienvenue and Bayou Dupre BL 23 along the levee alignment between 1976 and
24 stations 358 plus zero zero to BL station 740 24 2001 for various reasons?
25 plus zero zero. This report covers the soils 25 A. It does.
Page 234 Page 236
1 foundation investigation and conditions and 1 Q. And are the results of some of those
2 the design for raising of the subject levee." 2 borings contained within this document?
3 Q. Does this document indicate to you 3 A. Yes, they are.
4 that as of June, 2001 an additional raising of 4 Q. I would like to direct your
5 the levee between Bayou Dupre and Bayou 5 attention to -- Well, let's just go on through
6 Bienvenue was contemplated? 6 this here before we at least jump ahead of
7 A. Correct. 7 ourselves. What is paragraph 3, which is, on
8 Q. And what do you understand to be the 8 page 2, captioned "Laboratory tests"? Can you
9 purpose of this sort of an investigation? 9 read that, just the first -- Well, you might
10 Based upon your training and experience. And 10 as well read the whole first paragraph if you
11 feel free to look at the document as well, 11 will, sir.
12 sir, to familiarize yourself with it. 12 A. "For the undisturbed soil borings
13 A. Okay. And your question is? 13 taken in 2001, visible classifications were
14 Q. What do you understand the purpose 14 made on all samples obtained from the soil
15 was for undertaking this geotechnical 15 borings. Water content determinations were
16 investigation? 16 made on all cohesive soil samples.
17 A. To give the engineer the neces- -- 17 Consolidation, C, test, unconfined
18 or additional parameters with which to 18 compression, UCT, test, and unconsolidated,
19 evaluate the design of the heightened levee. 19 undrained Q shear tests were performed on
20 Q. And does the last paragraph, under 20 samples from the four undisturbed borings.
21 the general caption on page 1 -- Can you read 21 Liquid and plastic limits were determined for
22 what that paragraph, which begins "For this 22 all samples on which consolidation UCTs and
23 contract", says? 23 shear tests were performed. The results of
24 A. "For this contract the earthen levee 24 these tests are shown on plates G-1 through
25 sections will be constructed to elevation 25 G-4. The results are also shown on the
Page 235 Page 237
60 (Pages 234 to 237)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 laboratory reports included in Appendix A." 1 Q. Why not?

2 Q. Does the next paragraph following 2 A. Sub -- Seepage conditions going on
3 contain a similar description of the soil 3 the -- through -- in the levee berm section
4 boring tests that were performed with respect 4 under the extended or heightened section.
5 to the soil borings taken between 1976 and 5 Q. I'm sorry, are you saying that the
6 1992? 6 use of compacted clay cap, if you want to call
7 A. Correct. 7 it that, --
8 Q. Can you read what paragraph 4, 8 A. Right. Right.
9 "Foundation design", subparagraph A, 9 Q. -- would not have reduced the
10 "General", says? 10 porosity of the existing material
11 A. "For the earthen embankments, Bayou 11 sufficiently?
12 Bienvenue to Bayou Dupre project was divided 12 A. Certainly.
13 into two soils reaches. The two soils reaches 13 Q. How do you know that, when you
14 were based on subsurface stratifications and 14 haven't completed your analysis of the nature
15 subsurface soil shear strengths. The levee 15 of the materials that were in those levees
16 areas were subdivided into four design reaches 16 yet?
17 based on soil reaches, minimum cross sections 17 A. This is the comparative studies we
18 in pipeline crossings." 18 did between levees that breached, for example,
19 Q. Does paragraph 5 on page 3, 19 along Reach 2 and then went to the area north
20 "Embankment and berm fill", reflect that clay 20 of Bayou Bienvenue where the levee had clay in
21 material is to be used in embankment and 21 the cap and the levee did not breach there.
22 berms? 22 Q. I guess I am asking you if this lift
23 A. It does. 23 that was anticipated in 2001 --
24 Q. Were you able to verify that there 24 A. Right.
25 was clay in the embankments and berms that 25 Q. -- had not been accomplished prior
Page 238 Page 240
1 existed along this portion of the Reach 2 1 to Hurricane Katrina, --

2 embankment when you investigated after 2 A. Right.
3 Hurricane Katrina? 3 Q. -- could that additional material,
4 A. No. 4 clay material compacted as a cap over the
5 Q. Was that something that you 5 existing embankment along Reach 2 between the
6 attempted to verify? 6 two bayous, Bienvenue and Dupre, could that
7 A. Yes. 7 have rectified the deficiencies in terms of
8 Q. Did you determine that there was a 8 porosity and compaction?
9 lack of clay material in the embankment and 9 A. No.
10 berms? 10 Q. And how do you know that? Or what's
11 A. Correct. 11 the basis of your opinion, sir? Because I
12 Q. Does paragraph 5-A reflect that 12 believe it is your opinion.
13 compacted fill was specified for use in the 13 A. The basis of the opinion is the
14 anticipated raising of the levee? 14 observed behaviors of levees, first, with clay
15 A. Correct. 15 caps under wave action.
16 Q. Could the use of clay material that 16 Q. Observed when?
17 was compacted in a subsequent enlargement or 17 A. In the laboratory, approximately the
18 lift have brought the embankments along Reach 18 year 2000. The reports are referenced in my
19 2 between Bayou Bienvenue and Bayou Dupre up 19 document.
20 to the design parameters that would have 20 Q. They're referenced in your report in
21 satisfied your criteria for the construction 21 this case, sir?
22 of hurricane protection levees? 22 A. Correct.
23 A. No. 23 Q. Can you direct me to that?
24 Q. No? 24 A. Sure.
25 A. No. 25 The reports are written by Vriend
Page 239 Page 241
61 (Pages 238 to 241)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 and Barends, year 2006; Koelewijn and 1 Q. I take it, though, that depends upon
2 Sellmeijer, 2006; Hughes, 2007. 2 the level of hydraulic forces that are exerted
3 Q. Is this in your reliance list? 3 upon the cap?
4 A. Yeah. It's one you asked for 4 A. Yes. Correct.
5 (indicating). 5 Q. Directing your attention to the soil
6 Q. Thank you, sir. How do you apply 6 borings themselves, and these -- I am going to
7 those laboratory tests to the actual 7 direct your attention to plate G-1, which
8 conditions that existed in the levees along 8 follows the text. We do have enlargements of
9 Reach 2 of MRGO? 9 this, sir, if that will help you, because it's
10 A. Repeat your question, please. 10 very tiny print.
11 Q. Yes. How do you apply the 11 A. That would be very helpful.
12 laboratory studies in the referenced reports 12 MR. BRUNO:
13 -- 13 Yes, very. For us old men in
14 A. Right. 14 particular.
15 Q. -- that you have just quoted to me, 15 MR. BAEZA:
16 how do you apply those laboratory studies to 16 Take one, pass it around.
17 the field conditions that existed along Reach 17 (Whereupon a discussion was held
18 2 of the MRGO between Bayou Bienvenue and 18 off the record.)
19 Bayou Dupre when Hurricane Katrina struck? 19 THE WITNESS:
20 A. Those documents and others provide 20 G-1.
21 information to determine the erosive scour 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
22 resistance of materials similar to those that 22 Q. G-1. Does plate G-1 indicate that a
23 we found on the surface in that area. 23 soil boring was drawn from station 445 plus
24 Q. If it's your opinion that capping 24 zero zero on the levee center line on 25
25 the levees along the MRGO with compacted clays 25 January, 2001?
Page 242 Page 244
1 could not have provided sufficient erosion 1 A. Correct.

2 protection, is it your opinion that hurricane 2 Q. Can you describe the uniform soil
3 protection levees can never be designed with 3 classification of the levees, the levee
4 sand cores? 4 materials from elevation zero to the top,
5 A. No, that's not true. 5 which appears to be elevation 18.1?
6 Q. No? Okay. So hurricane protection 6 A. Not very easily.
7 levees can be designed with sand cores. 7 Q. Not very easily. Okay. Why not?
8 A. Correct. 8 A. There are layers in there that I
9 Q. But a clay cap cannot provide 9 cannot read the designation logged for those
10 sufficient erosion resistance and porosity 10 layers.
11 protection to -- In other words, if in this 11 Q. Which designations can you not read?
12 instance the provision of a clay cap could not 12 A. If you start down from the top,
13 have rectified the deficiencies that you have 13 we're going through clays. There is a layer
14 identified, how could the clay cap in other 14 that's got VSI in it.
15 circumstances rectify similar deficiencies 15 Q. Yes. I see that.
16 which would exist? 16 A. And I assume that's very silty, but
17 A. It'll depend upon what the levee is 17 I can't see the letters clearly.
18 being asked to withstand. If the levee is 18 MR. BAEZA:
19 being asked to withstand intense wave action, 19 Oh, it's in the soil
20 the test data reference here indicates that a 20 classification, too.
21 clay cap of the order of a meter thick or less 21 (Counsel hands document to
22 will flake as the wave action finds cracks in 22 Witness.)
23 the clay, the water gets under it, it lifts 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
24 the clay cap off, and the water is then able 24 Q. Would that be a "VST"?
25 to attack the sand core. 25 A. I can't tell.
Page 243 Page 245
62 (Pages 242 to 245)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 Q. All right. Are these all described 1 has to be referenced to an elevation.

2 as clays of various types? 2 Q. Okay.
3 A. No, not all. 3 A. Okay? And there's a main levee
4 Q. Not all? Not from elevation zero to 4 material. There's a foundation on which the
5 elevation plus 18.1? 5 levee sits.
6 A. Most of that is, yes. I thought you 6 Q. Correct.
7 were referring to the entire boring. 7 A. And so there is a change in the
8 MS. NELSON: 8 materials as you move vertically.
9 Does that help? 9 Q. Understood.
10 THE WITNESS: 10 A. So that's why I was referring to the
11 Thank you. 11 elevation.
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 12 Q. I misunderstood your question.
13 Q. Now, I see a little bit in the 13 A. Not the height of it.
14 foundation material that appears to be 14 Q. Right. Okay. I meant the levee
15 something other than clays. 15 materials themselves, not the foundation
16 A. It's peat. 16 materials.
17 Q. Peat? Are these generally good 17 A. Okay.
18 materials for levee construction, these clays? 18 Q. So can you just analyze these
19 A. Clays are. 19 materials?
20 Q. Clays? If, in fact, this was the 20 A. In the text, what is the reference
21 material out of which the levee -- If this was 21 elevation that shows the NGVD, which one?
22 the material of which the levee consisted at 22 Q. I don't know which one. Does that
23 this station, 445 plus zero zero, after 25 23 really matter in terms of analyzing the
24 January, 2001 until the time Hurricane Katrina 24 materials inside the levee?
25 struck, would this be one of the -- would this 25 A. Yes, because it tells me where the
Page 246 Page 248
1 be one of the factors that you would deem to 1 bottom of the levee should be.
2 be substandard for purposes of hurricane 2 Q. Well, it's not going to be more than
3 protection construction? 3 five feet off, is it, sir? These materials
4 A. Please repeat your question. 4 don't change down to minus 7 on this chart.
5 Q. Sure. Sure. Well, we have 5 A. Looks good.
6 identified the various -- four criteria -- 6 Q. Pardon?
7 A. Correct. 7 A. Looks good. Minus 7.
8 Q. -- which you said were missing in 8 Q. Oh, looks good. Yes. Up to
9 these levees. And one of them was the 9 elevation 18.1? Is that the top?
10 material type -- 10 A. Correct.
11 A. Correct. 11 Q. Okay. Let's identify where station
12 Q. -- out of which the levee was 12 445 plus zero zero is. We need to reference
13 constructed and I am asking you to analyze 13 that to the document from which it's drawn.
14 these material types that are reflected in 14 This is plate number 1 from DM
15 this soil boring and tell me whether they 15 number 3, which I think we've previously
16 would have been deficient for purposes of -- 16 marked as Bea Exhibit Number 8, I believe.
17 for the intended purpose for which this 17 MR. BAEZA:
18 structure was erected. 18 No, it's 5. 6.
19 A. To what elevation do you want to -- 19 THE WITNESS:
20 Q. Well, -- 20 Apparently.
21 A. -- focus? 21 MR. BRUNO:
22 Q. -- no, let's separate out elevation 22 G-1. G-4 or G-1?
23 from materials. Right? Because are those not 23 MR. BAEZA:
24 two separate criteria? 24 It's Exhibit 5.
25 A. No. Well, I am saying the material 25 MR. SMITH:
Page 247 Page 249
63 (Pages 246 to 249)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 This is plate number -- Joe, this 1 MR. SMITH:

2 is plate number 1? 2 Right. Or breached?
3 MR. BRUNO: 3 MR. BRUNO:
4 This is plate number 1 and then 4 Or breached.
5 445 is right there (indicating). 5 MR. SMITH:
6 MR. SMITH: 6 Breach locations or whatever.
7 Okay. Ask Dr. Bee if he can 7 THE WITNESS:
8 identify where station 445 is. Unless 8 Okay.
9 you'd like to be sworn. 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
10 MR. BRUNO: 10 Q. Can you indicate on that map that's
11 Well, it's pretty obvious. But 11 captioned "Greater New Orleans levee breach
12 I'll be sworn. 12 map" approximately where?
13 MR. TREEBY: 13 A. Somewhere in this area
14 Raise your right hand. Say after 14 (indicating).
15 me. 15 Q. Okay. Is it possible then that
16 THE WITNESS: 16 there were levee sections in that reach that
17 Okay. 17 were interspersed with what you have
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 18 denominated EBSBs?
19 Q. Can you indicate whether that -- 19 A. Correct.
20 where that is with respect to Bayou Bienvenue? 20 Q. So this actually could be a --
21 A. It's to the south of Bayou 21 A. A good section.
22 Bienvenue. Southeast. 22 Q. Okay.
23 Q. Southeast of Bayou Bienvenue along 23 A. And that's part of our extended
24 Reach 2? 24 studies. We're studying both breached and
25 A. Correct. 25 unbreached locations.
Page 250 Page 252
1 Q. That's a zone of poor performance 1 Q. Could we go to plate G-2 then and

2 during Hurricane Katrina? 2 look at those soils. Would you characterize
3 A. Some of it performed well during 3 these as appropriate materials for use in
4 Katrina. Other portions did not. 4 levee construction at this location? And I am
5 Q. I'd like you to refer to a map 5 looking at from elevation on this boring
6 that's here in the background but hasn't been 6 column from elevation -- it's designated minus
7 identified for purposes of the deposition. 7 10 up through ground elevation, which appears
8 MR. BRUNO: 8 to me to be 17.6.
9 Well, it's been produced. It was 9 A. 17.4.
10 produced by Shay Penland's firm. 10 Q. 17.4. Thank you.
11 MR. SMITH: 11 A. With the exception of one layer in
12 I wasn't up there. I don't know 12 here that appears to be sand.
13 what the provenance of it is. 13 Q. The rest of it appears to be
14 MR. MEUNIER: 14 appropriate material?
15 You need the document? 15 A. Correct.
16 VIDEO OPERATOR: 16 Q. And can we identify where station
17 Doctor, I still need you to wear 17 509 plus zero zero is?
18 your microphone. 18 A. Approximately -- Approximately this
19 THE WITNESS: 19 location (indicating).
20 I will. Turn it around here so I 20 Q. Is that near --
21 can see it. 21 A. Bayou Villere.
22 MR. BRUNO: 22 Q. Villere. Thank you.
23 Just so you will know, Robin, the 23 A. Triangulating with it.
24 red is supposed to be indications of 24 Q. All right. Great. Let's take a
25 where levees failed. 25 look at plate G-3.
Page 251 Page 253
64 (Pages 250 to 253)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. It's about the same area. 1 that point. We're at the base of that minus
2 Q. Does plate G-3 indicate that a 2 10.
3 boring was drawn from station 570 plus zero 3 Q. There's -- I'm sorry, say that
4 zero on the levee center line on 31 January, 4 again, sir?
5 2001? 5 A. The soil shear strengths at an
6 A. It does. 6 elevation of approximately minus 10 have very
7 Q. And did the materials that are shown 7 low shear strengths and very high water
8 from we'll say approximately minus 10 8 content.
9 elevation through the ground elevation of 16 9 Q. Does that correlate with the
10 feet appear to be appropriate for levee 10 left-hand column, which is the material that
11 construction at this location? 11 appears to be peat rather --
12 A. It does. 12 A. No.
13 Q. And can you identify for us where 13 Q. Rather than clays?
14 station 570 plus zero zero is? 14 A. It's shown as clay. Minus 10.
15 A. It's a bit farther south. 15 Q. At minus 10?
16 Approximately in here (indicating). 16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Okay. Is that about mid point 17 Q. The reason why I asked, is that
18 between Bayou Bienvenue and Bayou Dupre? 18 appears to be an outlyer, and there is one
19 A. Correct. 19 small portion of soils that appears to be peat
20 Q. Approximately. 20 rather than clays.
21 A. Yeah. Very close to the pipeline 21 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). And that's
22 crossing there. That's where sheet piling 22 below minus 10.
23 have been driven into the levee. 23 Q. That's below minus 10?
24 Q. And then let me direct your 24 A. Correct. That buried peat layer is
25 attention to plate G-4. Does plate G-4 25 endemic to the area.
Page 254 Page 256
1 reflect that a soil boring was drawn on this 1 Q. But that peat layer appears to have
2 levee center line at station 614 plus zero 2 a --
3 zero on 2 February, 2001? 3 A. High water content.
4 A. It does. 4 Q. Why would this -- What would be the
5 Q. And do the soils that are classified 5 -- What would be the soil characteristic that
6 from elevation minus 10 through the ground 6 would produce these shear strengths that are
7 elevation of 15.4 appear to be appropriate for 7 indicated here in column number 3?
8 levee construction at this location? 8 A. High moisture content.
9 A. The concern that I see, the material 9 Q. Is that something that would
10 itself is -- in shear strengths look 10 dissipate over time?
11 abnormally low. 11 A. It could if there's enough surcharge
12 Q. And where do you see that, sir? 12 on the soil to squeeze the water out.
13 A. That's the -- there are three 13 Q. So, in other words, if they actually
14 columns. It's the third -- or three columns. 14 went ahead and did another lift, they might
15 Go to the third column from the left. Titled 15 produce enough overburden to begin to squeeze
16 "Shear strength". 16 some of that moisture out --
17 Q. Tons per square foot? 17 A. Correct.
18 A. That's correct. 18 Q. -- and strengthen and consolidate
19 Q. And what do these shear strengths 19 the levee?
20 show you, sir? 20 A. But the thing that can subvert that
21 A. They give me information to be able 21 is at this peat layer it's excessively water
22 to understand how strong the material is. It 22 pressured, it doesn't have any place to drain
23 indicates strengths in the range of 200 to 300 23 to.
24 pounds per square foot. There's a very high 24 Q. That would be a foundation
25 water content that comes into the materials at 25 condition, though, correct? I mean, this peat
Page 255 Page 257
65 (Pages 254 to 257)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 layer here is at minus 10, that's in your 1 for you to depart from the practice and custom
2 foundation; right? 2 that you and your colleagues had adopted in
3 A. Right. But a levee is only as 3 producing a report that was to be used by
4 strong as its foundation. 4 people around the world for analyzing what
5 Q. Correct. I mean, but that would -- 5 occurred here?
6 you could deal with that through your global 6 A. Because the term "levee" was giving
7 stability analysis. 7 meaning to engineers, experts that was not
8 A. Correct. 8 appropriate for the use of that standard term
9 Q. I have reached the limits of my 9 "levee".
10 abilities. My engineer is giving me 10 Q. And did you decide this after your
11 information, but it's beyond what I can 11 report was complete?
12 fathom. 12 A. That's correct.
13 MR. BRUNO: 13 Q. And have other members of your team
14 Been there, done that. 14 now chosen -- Because today you have referred
15 MR. SMITH: 15 to these structures as levees on a number of
16 Overload. 16 occasions.
17 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 17 A. But that was under the acceptance
18 Q. We're just about done, Dr. Bea. I 18 that when I used that term, unless it was in
19 know it's been a long day. I appreciate your 19 the context of a properly designed,
20 patience. Thank you very much. 20 constructed, maintained and operated levee.
21 A. I thank you. 21 If it wasn't, and I called it an EB -- or
22 Q. I have just a couple of more things 22 earthen berm spoil bank, EBSB, then, if I
23 I would like to talk to you about. Were you 23 called that a levee? That's not a levee.
24 asked by the lawyers in this litigation to 24 That's an EBSB. To clarify.
25 come up with a term to use to replace the term 25 Q. Please do.
Page 258 Page 260
1 "levee" in describing these structures along 1 A. I don't mean to be opaque. Along

2 Reach 2 in MRGO? 2 Reach 1, for example, the materials, the
3 A. I volunteered it. 3 compaction, the performance of the levees,
4 Q. Why would you volunteer to create a 4 based on the information we had available,
5 brand new term that has no currency in your 5 classified them as levees.
6 profession? 6 Q. I understand that. But didn't you
7 A. The brand new term does have 7 have information -- you and the ILIT team, you
8 currency in the profession. It's implying 8 studied this for 18 months before you produced
9 that if I called it a levee, that it would be 9 your report which runs to hundreds of pages.
10 a proper levee. The term was developed to 10 A. Yes.
11 point out there's an interface between a 11 Q. And there's no indication at all in
12 proper levee and what we found in many cases 12 that report, is there, sir, that those -- what
13 there. 13 you now call EBSBs were not levees?
14 Q. Isn't it true, Dr. Bea, that -- When 14 A. Please repeat the last part of your
15 you say "we found", are you referring to the 15 question.
16 ILIT Team? 16 Q. Sure. You and 35 of your colleagues
17 A. Yes. 17 --
18 Q. Okay. Isn't it true that the ILIT 18 A. Right.
19 team, which I think you've previously 19 Q. -- studied the protective structures
20 indicated consisted of more than 30 world 20 along Reach 2 of the MRGO --
21 class scholars, consistently and uniformly 21 A. Right.
22 referred to these same structures as levees? 22 Q. -- among other structures that
23 A. Correct. 23 composed the regional hurricane protection
24 Q. Why did you feel like, in the 24 system and produced a report at the conclusion
25 context of this litigation, it was necessary 25 of that 18 month study --
Page 259 Page 261
66 (Pages 258 to 261)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. Correct. 1 protection system". Correct?

2 Q. -- that uniformly refers to those 2 A. Correct.
3 embankments as levees. 3 Q. And this section continues on to
4 A. Correct. 4 page 2-6. I would like for you to read the
5 Q. Isn't that true? 5 first full paragraph on page 2-6.
6 A. That's true. 6 A. "It should be noted that a number of
7 Q. And there's no indication in that 7 different datums have been used as elevation
8 report, is there, that those embankments were 8 references throughout the historic development
9 anything other than levees at the time 9 of the New Orleans regional levee systems."
10 Hurricane Katrina struck, is there? 10 Q. I'm sorry, sir. I must have
11 A. Yes. The presence of uncompacted 11 directed you to the wrong page. 2-6, the
12 fill, the presence of insufficient protection 12 first full paragraph begins "The large onshore
13 to the levee, the protec- -- or the presence 13 storm surge"?
14 of sands and silts in major sections of the 14 A. Got it. "The large onshore storm
15 levee. That's not a levee. 15 surge also raised water levels within Lake
16 Q. Well, you just described it as a 16 Borgne," parentheses, "which is directly
17 levee with inappropriate material, sir. I 17 connected to the Gulf," close parentheses,
18 mean, isn't essentially what you have done -- 18 Lake Borgne rose up and outgrew its normal
19 A. That's why -- 19 banks. As the storm then passed to the east
20 Q. -- in the creation of this term 20 of New Orleans, the prevailing clockwise swirl
21 attempted to define levees in such a way that 21 of the storm winds drove waters of Lake Borgne
22 you exclude levees that are made in ways that 22 as the large storm surge to the west against
23 you find to be inadequate? 23 the eastern flank of the regional flood
24 A. The "EBSB" term was developed so 24 protection systems as shown schematically in
25 that it would carry forward the understanding 25 figure 2.11. This produced a storm surge
Page 262 Page 264
1 that it was not a properly designed, built, 1 estimated at approximately 16 to 18 feet,

2 operated, and maintained levee. 2 reference mean sea level, as shown in figures
3 Q. I guess you have got a copy. Do you 3 2.9 and 2.10."
4 want to prefer to use -- I would like you to 4 Q. Okay. Let me direct your attention
5 read something from the ILIT report, sir if 5 to figure 2.11, which is referenced in the
6 you will. You can use your computer or we can 6 paragraph you just read. It appears on page
7 give you the paper copy, whichever you 7 2-24. Do you see it, sir?
8 prefer. 8 A. Yes.
9 A. Paper. 9 Q. Figure 2.11 is captioned what, sir?
10 Q. Paper. All right. 10 A. "Storm surge overtopping the eastern
11 A. I'm a paper guy. 11 flank of the regional flood protection system
12 MR. BAEZA: 12 at the northeast edge of St. Bernard Parish
13 Here's a paper copy. (Counsel 13 and Ninth Ward protected areas."
14 hands document to Witness.) 14 Q. And does figure 2.11 have large
15 THE WITNESS: 15 black arrows that show overtopping flow?
16 Bless you. 16 A. Correct.
17 MR. BAEZA: 17 Q. And does it show that there were
18 No problem. 18 levee breaches with blue stars all along the
19 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 19 Reach 2 of the MRGO?
20 Q. I would like to direct your 20 A. Correct.
21 attention to section 2.3.2, which is on page 21 Q. And does the figure 2.11 also show
22 2-5. 22 overtopping flow with large black arrows over
23 A. Got it. 23 the New Orleans East Back Levee?
24 Q. And that's captioned "Overview of 24 A. Correct.
25 the performance of the regional flood 25 Q. And does it show with blue stars
Page 263 Page 265
67 (Pages 262 to 265)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 breaches along that reach of the New Orleans 1 A. With the exception of the Inner 40
2 East Back Levee? 2 Arpent Levee.
3 A. Correct. 3 Q. Which is shown with the blue stars
4 Q. And is that not the same base map 4 and circles, I take it, just for --
5 that appears in your report as report figure 5 A. In the red outline.
6 number 41, which appears on page 61? 6 Q. In the red outline.
7 A. That is correct. 7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And, in fact, is this map not 8 Q. It's interior. In other words, it's
9 cropped closely to cut off the legend that 9 an interior levee?
10 appears in figure 2.11, which labels these 10 A. Exactly.
11 blue stars that appear in figure 41 of your 11 Q. Okay. And is the same flood
12 report as levee breaches? 12 protection ring for the New Orleans East basin
13 A. Correct. 13 indicated by the red line that encircles --
14 Q. And is not this same map reproduced 14 the outer red line that encircles the New
15 in the ILIT report as figure 2.4, which 15 Orleans East basin or polder?
16 appears on page 2-17? 16 A. Yes.
17 A. Your -- Repeat your question. 17 Q. Returning then back to page 2-6, can
18 Q. Is this not the same base map that 18 you read the second full paragraph on that
19 we have been looking at previously? 19 page?
20 A. I believe so, yes. 20 A. "The storm surge level exceeded the
21 Q. Okay. What's the caption beneath 21 crest heights of the levees along a nearly
22 figure 2.4? 22 eleven mile long stretch of the northeastern
23 A. "Map showing principal features of 23 edge of the St. Bernard-Lower Ninth Ward
24 the main flood protection rings or," 24 protected area. The levees along this
25 quotation, "Protected areas in the New Orleans 25 frontage were intended to be built to provide
Page 266 Page 268
1 area." 1 protection to a level of approximately plus

2 Q. Again, does the legend that's in the 2 17.5 reference mean sea level. But at the
3 upper right-hand corner of this map indicate 3 time of Hurricane Katrina, many of the levees
4 that the blue stars designate storm-induced 4 along this frontage had crest elevations
5 levee breaches? 5 approximately two to four feet lower than
6 A. Correct. 6 that. This was because levees along this
7 Q. And does it not show these levee 7 frontage had not yet been completed."
8 breaches all along Reach 2 of the MRGO? 8 Q. All right. You can stop there,
9 A. Correct. 9 sir. These levees along a nearly eleven mile
10 Q. And along the New Orleans East Back 10 long stretch of the northeastern edge of the
11 Levee? 11 Bernard-Lower Ninth Ward protected area are
12 A. Correct. 12 what in this litigation you're referring to as
13 Q. And again, the red outline that 13 the Reach 2 EBSBs. Is that correct?
14 surrounds St. Bernard Parish and the Lower 14 A. Correct. That's correct.
15 Ninth Ward, borders the southeast trending 15 Q. Dr. Bea, I am going to hand you
16 MRGO and the east-west MRGO, GIWW, and then 16 what's been marked as Bea Exhibit Number 11
17 goes south along the IHNC, the Mississippi 17 and I am going to represent to you, sir, that
18 River, and then follows the Mississippi River 18 this is something that I obtained from the
19 downstream to Caernarvon and then cuts across 19 Internet. You are smiling. You look like you
20 land to the east back toward the Mississippi 20 recognize this.
21 River Gulf Outlet, -- 21 A. Parts of it.
22 A. Correct. 22 Q. I understand and believe this to be
23 Q. -- is this not the protective ring 23 a transcript from a PBS News Hour broadcast
24 that surrounded St. Bernard Parish, New 24 and I am going to direct your attention to the
25 Orleans East basin? 25 third page of this exhibit. Well, let's just
Page 267 Page 269
68 (Pages 266 to 269)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 go to the second page where your name first 1 whether you want to live behind a levee.
2 appears under the caption "The danger of 2 A. Correct. Because I used to.
3 erosion". 3 Q. And then there's a comment, I guess
4 A. Got it. 4 it's by the reporter, that says "Bea also
5 Q. And after your name, can you read 5 maintains the original MRGO was built
6 the sentence that follows? 6 inadequately and questions rebuilding
7 A. "In differing locations along the 7 something he thinks wasn't done right in the
8 length of the MRGO levee we stopped. I got 8 first place." And then your name appears, and
9 out and collected soil samples." 9 can you read the sentences that follow your
10 Q. Is this a statement that you made, 10 name at that point?
11 sir? 11 A. "How this material, when you put it
12 A. Yes. 12 under water won't erode, it's extremely
13 Q. Do you recall now whether this was 13 resistant to the force of water. So that as
14 an interview that was conducted and broadcast 14 waves and surge are building up against a
15 by PBS? 15 segment of the levee, it'll behave essentially
16 A. Correct. 16 as though the water wasn't there. It'll act
17 Q. Then the following paragraph 17 like a dam."
18 identifies you. I take it this is probably 18 Q. Okay. And can I ask you to skip
19 the reporter identifying you as a civil 19 down to the next thing that's attributed to
20 engineer from U. C. Berkeley, a member of the 20 you. It's in bold.
21 ILIT Team. 21 A. "Bob Bea: It was badly flawed in
22 A. Correct. 22 concept, design, construction. Then we
23 Q. And it says that you took some 23 followed that into operations and maintenance
24 samples of the MRGO and had them tested. 24 and it caught up with us. We've actually met
25 A. Correct. 25 and talked with the engineers that were on the
Page 270 Page 272
1 Q. And then what's your next statement, 1 site at the time they built this levee, and at
2 sir? 2 that time they knew they were using dredged
3 A. "This material is relatively sandy. 3 spoil from construction of MRGO."
4 It comes from probably something that is like 4 Q. And when you say "this levee", are
5 a beach that has had clay mixed into it." 5 you referring to the Reach 2 MRGO levee?
6 Q. And go on if that's another -- 6 A. Correct.
7 A. "Now, the concern for such material 7 Q. Who were the engineers that you
8 is underwater erosion, like comes from waves, 8 talked to who were on site at the time they
9 that are building up against the levee. We 9 built the MRGO levee?
10 want this material not to be very erosive 10 A. Art Theis.
11 under wave action." 11 Q. Art Theis?
12 Q. Wave or water action? 12 A. Art Theis.
13 A. Correct. 13 Q. And anyone else?
14 Q. Just so it's clear, because I don't 14 A. Also participating in that meeting
15 want to take the time to read all of this, but 15 and discussion was Ed Preau.
16 it appears to me from the context, and you 16 Q. Where did that discussion take
17 correct me if I am wrong, if you recall, but 17 place?
18 this was an interview that pertained to the 18 A. At an airport outside of Baton
19 rebuilding of levees along Reach 2 of the 19 Rouge.
20 MRGO. Do you recall if that's correct? After 20 Q. Do you recall about when that
21 Hurricane Katrina. 21 conversation occurred?
22 A. Correct. 22 A. November, 2005. Approximately.
23 Q. Then skipping down on page 3, you do 23 Q. So that would have been in the
24 a demonstration. You say, "We'll mix these 24 relatively early stages of your investigation
25 things together" and you make a comment about 25 --
Page 271 Page 273
69 (Pages 270 to 273)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 A. Correct. 1 charged by my worthy leader to ask you a few

2 Q. -- or the ILIT -- the investigation 2 questions. Professor Bea, in your profession,
3 of the failure of the hurricane protection 3 engineers design and build things; is that
4 system? 4 correct?
5 A. That's correct. When we met with 5 A. That's correct.
6 Preau. 6 Q. And while it's certainly --
7 MR. BRUNO: 7 MR. SMITH:
8 Just for the record, you're going 8 I'm going to object to the
9 to owe me an extra hour when I take 9 leading questions, Joe. Okay? I know
10 your 30 (b)(6). 10 that he's your witness, but --
11 MR. SMITH: 11 MR. BRUNO:
12 Okay. 12 All right.
13 MR. BRUNO: 13 MR. SMITH:
14 You're in your eighth hour. 14 Those are preliminary.
15 MR. SMITH: 15 MR. BRUNO:
16 No, I'm not. You guys took a two 16 Yes. Come on.
17 hour lunch. 17 MR. SMITH:
18 MR. BRUNO: 18 You guys led the other witnesses
19 Now, wait a minute. 19 through everything you wanted him to
20 MR. SMITH: 20 say the last time. I am not going to
21 You were here, Joe, but nobody 21 let you do that with Dr. Bea.
22 else was here. 22 MR. BRUNO:
23 MR. BRUNO: 23 Okay. Well, I mean, but I can,
24 I was here. No, no, no. You can 24 you see, because he's an expert, and
25 go forward. Just as long as I get to 25 you can lead experts in this
Page 274 Page 276
1 do the same thing, I'm happy. 1 jurisdiction.

2 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 2 MR. SMITH:
3 Q. "Bee also maintains --" This is 3 Okay. I'm going to object to the
4 again -- I'm sorry. Then following that 4 form of the question then.
5 statement by you, the reporter says "Which is 5 MR. BRUNO:
6 below their standards". I take it "their 6 Fair enough.
7 standards" is USACE standards? 7 MR. SMITH:
8 A. Correct. 8 If you'll grant me a standing
9 Q. The Corps of Engineers? 9 objection to the form of the questions.
10 A. Correct. 10 MR. BRUNO:
11 Q. And your response to that question 11 I will. Of course I will.
12 was? 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
13 A. "They knowingly built a levee below 13 Q. Now, Professor, while it's certainly
14 their own standards in the first place." 14 possible for an engineer to design and build
15 Q. And you're referring again to the 15 things for his or herself, generally engineers
16 levee along Reach 2 of the MRGO. Is that 16 design and build things for others?
17 correct? 17 A. Correct.
18 A. That's correct. 18 Q. Now, in this case, the United States
19 MR. SMITH: 19 Army Corps of Engineers is acting as an
20 Thank you, sir. I have no more 20 engineer?
21 questions for you at this time. I 21 A. That's correct.
22 think Mr. Bruno has a question or 22 Q. Isn't that true? Do you know for
23 two. 23 whom the Corps designed and built whatever it
24 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 24 was that they designed and built in the
25 Q. I have just a few. I have been 25 immediate vicinity of St. Bernard Parish
Page 275 Page 277
70 (Pages 274 to 277)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 and/or New Orleans East? 1 Q. All right. And typically who is it

2 MR. SMITH: 2 that decides how much money to spend? The
3 I object to the lack of 3 client or the engineer?
4 foundation. 4 A. The client.
5 MR. BRUNO: 5 Q. All right. Now, in this particular
6 I said "do you know". 6 instance, do you know what it is that the
7 MR. SMITH: 7 Corps -- I'm sorry, what it is that the
8 I'm going to -- 8 Congress asked the Corps to build in
9 MR. BRUNO: 9 connection with hurricane protection in New
10 I don't need any more foundation 10 Orleans East and in St. Bernard?
11 than that. Either he knows or he 11 A. Yes, I do know.
12 doesn't. 12 Q. All right. And what is the source
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 13 of that knowledge?
14 Q. Do you know? 14 A. The document that we were reviewing
15 A. Yes. 15 earlier this morning, the Lake Pontchartrain
16 Q. Who, if you will, was the client -- 16 and Vicinity Flood Protection Act.
17 A. The people -- 17 Q. All right. Now, can you tell us
18 Q. -- of the United States Army Corps 18 what that document reflects the Congress
19 of Engineers in connection with whatever it 19 expected the Corps to build in connection with
20 was that they built in St. Bernard Parish and 20 flood protection in St. Bernard and/or New
21 New Orleans East? 21 Orleans East?
22 A. The people of the United States. 22 A. A flood protection system that would
23 Q. All right. And they are represented 23 provide protection at a level of approximately
24 by a particular entity? 24 200 years, together with the robustness
25 A. By many entities. 25 resilience implied by a storm that would --
Page 278 Page 280
1 Q. Well, who actually gave the Corps 1 was identified as a Probable Maximum
2 the instruction to go and build? 2 Hurricane. That storm has a return period
3 A. Congress. 3 between 1,000 and 10,000 years.
4 Q. The Congress. Okay. Now, is it 4 Q. Do you know if the Corps supplied
5 important or not for a client to know what his 5 the Congress with any indication of what it
6 engineer is building for him or for her? 6 was that the Corps intended to build to that
7 A. It's crucial. 7 design height?
8 Q. Is it important that when they use 8 A. They did.
9 terms like "levee" that both parties to the 9 Q. And what were they -- What did they
10 transaction understand exactly what it is 10 tell the Congress they were going to build?
11 that's contemplated by the client to be built 11 A. Levees and flood protection
12 and what it is that the engineer proposes to 12 structures.
13 build? 13 Q. Now, in the context of that
14 A. Correct. 14 dialogue, where would one go if there was a
15 Q. And why is that so important? 15 place to go to find out what a levee is? That
16 A. Well, you have to make sure that the 16 is, between the Congress and the Corps.
17 engineer has interpreted the charge correctly, 17 A. I'm not sure of your question.
18 and so the client has to be able to check, 18 Q. In order to learn what the word
19 validate that what is being designed and built 19 "levee" means, is there some place that one
20 meets the intent. 20 can go, in the context of the Congress
21 Q. All right. Does it also play any 21 authorizing the Corps to build a levee, where
22 role in connection with the cost of whatever 22 would one go to find out the meaning of that
23 it is that you have engaged the engineer to 23 word?
24 build? 24 A. The Congress would turn to the U.S.
25 A. Yes. 25 Army Corps of Engineers to explain the meaning
Page 279 Page 281
71 (Pages 278 to 281)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1 of that word. 1 it, but if you don't complete it or if you

2 Q. And, in fact, the United States Army 2 don't do it, do you have, in fact, a hurricane
3 Corps of Engineers has numerous manuals which 3 protection system in that geographic area?
4 do describe what that word means? 4 A. No.
5 A. Indeed. 5 Q. And why not?
6 Q. Now, in terms of the location of 6 A. Water seeks the lowest elevations.
7 this hurricane protection, what do you know 7 If the elevations for some reason are
8 about where this levee was supposed to be 8 deficient, you're not protected. If the levee
9 built in New Orleans East? 9 as defined has not been properly joined to
10 MR. SMITH: 10 other parts of the system, then it can fail at
11 I'm sorry, Joe, "this levee"? 11 those improper joints.
12 Can you be more specific? 12 Q. All right. The chain is only as
13 MR. BRUNO: 13 strong as its weakest link; is that right?
14 This levee that I made reference 14 A. That's correct. If you --
15 to the in the context of the 15 VIDEO OPERATOR:
16 authorization by the Congress to the 16 Counsel, --
17 Corps to build a levee. And so now I 17 MR. BRUNO:
18 am talking about the geography, New 18 Sorry.
19 Orleans East, and I am asking the 19 THE WITNESS:
20 witness if the witness knows where it 20 If you designed a boat so that it
21 was contemplated by the parties that 21 had a very low section in the boat,
22 this levee would be built. 22 for example, close to the water level,
23 THE WITNESS: 23 if you load the boat, the water is
24 Along the present alignment. 24 going to sink the boat.
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
Page 282 Page 284
1 Q. And where is that exactly? 1 Q. All right. And a boat on the bottom
2 A. It starts at the lock, proceeds 2 of the water is no longer a boat, is it?
3 north to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 3 A. That's correct.
4 proceeds along the Intracoastal Waterway to 4 MR. BRUNO:
5 the intersection with the Mississippi River 5 Okay. Thank you. That's all I
6 Gulf Outlet, proceeds southeast past Bayou 6 have, Professor.
7 Bienvenue, past Bayou Dupre, to the southern 7 MR. SMITH:
8 intersection with the Verret Levee; continues 8 Thank you, Dr. Bea. I appreciate
9 from that Verret Levee to Caernarvon and 9 your patience today.
10 intersects with the protective levee at the 10 THE WITNESS:
11 Mississippi River. 11 I appreciate yours.
12 Q. All right. It a big circle, isn't 12 VIDEO OPERATOR:
13 it? 13 This concludes the deposition.
14 A. It is. That's its intent. 14 Off the record at 4:57.
15 Q. Now, -- 15 * * *
16 VIDEO OPERATOR: 16
17 Counselor, can you raise your 17
18 microphone? 18
19 MR. BRUNO: 19
20 Sure enough. 20
21 VIDEO OPERATOR: 21
22 Thank you. 22
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 23
24 Q. Now, if there's a break -- and I 24
25 don't mean by a "break" because somebody broke 25
Page 283 Page 285
72 (Pages 282 to 285)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
1
2 WITNESS'S CERTIFICATE
3
4 I, ROBERT G. BEA, read or have had
5 the preceding testimony read to me, and hereby
6 certify that it is a true and correct
7 transcription of my testimony, with the
8 exception of any attached corrections or
9 changes.
10
11
_____________________
12 (Witness' Signature)
13 ____________
DATE SIGNED
14
15 DEPONENT PLEASE INITIAL ONE:
16
_____ Read with no corrections
17
18 _____ Read and correction sheet attached
19
20
DATE TAKEN: NOVEMBER 19, 2007
21
22
23
24
25
Page 286
1
2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3
4 I, ROGER D. JOHNS, RMR, RDR, CRR,
5 Certified Court Reporter, do hereby certify
6 that the above-named witness, after having
7 been first duly sworn by me to testify to the
8 truth, did testify as hereinabove set forth;
9 that the testimony was reported by me in
10 shorthand and transcribed under my personal
11 direction and supervision, and is a true and
12 correct transcript, to the best of my ability
13 and understanding; that I am not of counsel,
14 not related to counsel or the parties hereto,
15 and not in any way interested in the outcome
16 of this matter.
17
18
19
20 ROGER D. JOHNS
21 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER
22 STATE OF LOUISIANA
23
24
25
Page 287
73 (Pages 286 to 287)

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 288
A 260:17 activity 82:5 195:23 46:14 55:10

abilities 258:10 access 63:4 83:23 201:13 adverse 215:2 77:8 121:17
ability 23:20 accessibility actual 68:24 216:4 140:8 169:5
27:8 74:9 212:1 213:5,6 154:11 242:7 affect 51:2,2 172:6 216:7
215:14 287:12 213:9 ADCIRC 25:20 177:11 215:12 237:6 257:14
able 22:16 26:22 accessible 25:21,24 26:2 215:13,15 Airline 3:3,20
35:11 38:12 146:17 26:3,4,16 27:4 affirmatively airplane 34:16
48:13 49:10 accommodate 27:24 29:21 15:7 29:15 airport 273:18
51:24 57:20 226:15 30:1 37:10,19 33:12 42:9 alert 212:12
61:11 97:25 accomplish add 207:15,18 44:21 47:5 Alexis 2:18 8:21
102:10 108:24 50:14 added 193:22 59:19 69:5 alignment 123:2
109:14 110:11 accomplished addition 57:24 81:2 103:1 123:3,14
145:21 146:3,5 240:25 107:18 121:20 108:13 114:6 224:23 236:23
155:24 157:3 account 41:3 125:9 127:19 162:1 282:24
172:16 179:21 111:24 113:12 additional 6:22 174:24 179:12 allow 88:25
179:22 180:17 149:12,13 53:22 61:1 179:16 193:18 147:5 214:4
186:24 216:1 159:16 228:6 69:7 88:25 256:21 allowable 159:4
216:23 217:18 236:13,15,17 106:24 110:25 afflict 10:13 allowed 35:13
238:24 243:24 accumulate 57:9 123:22 145:20 aforementioned 169:13 209:11
255:21 279:18 accumulations 183:10 226:23 5:5 195:25 Allowing 171:18
abnormally 183:15 235:4,18 afternoon AMERICA 4:9
255:11 accuracy 71:11 236:18 241:3 173:25 174:1 amount 22:2
above-named accurately address 97:1 age 10:12 70:11 201:9,11
287:6 218:21 109:21 111:17 Agency 220:18 203:12,13
absent 17:9 achieve 189:2 114:8 191:10 ago 126:10 amounts 104:9
absolute 188:21 197:17 192:2 193:3 agree 10:17 11:8 analogy 109:25
189:15 achieved 75:4 addressed 32:6 11:10,22 77:25 analyses 30:12
Absolutely acknowledge 110:17 111:12 87:10 155:2,17 167:25 217:7
232:23 233:1 212:16 213:9 112:7 160:15 166:24 167:1 217:24 220:6
abstract 158:5,6 acre 201:8,10 203:6 227:14 176:6 177:2 222:21
158:7 acres 201:7,10 addresses 224:8 212:7 217:11 analysis 29:19
abutment 41:17 acronym 28:10 adequacy 222:5 221:19,21 30:20 36:20
41:19 163:18 act 87:6 272:16 224:11 225:9,13 227:5 50:18 51:20
163:25 164:20 280:16 adequate 184:25 232:9 58:5 65:20,24
abutments 18:10 acting 38:4 185:4 214:4 agreed 5:3 36:1 66:1 68:3,10
186:1 277:19 adjacent 161:24 157:23 169:21 71:11 75:1
abutting 162:14 action 1:5,10 163:21 180:21 219:15 220:1 147:17,18
acceptability 21:6,7,14 22:3 225:4 227:6 230:12 151:9 167:21
149:17 22:4 145:22 administering agreeing 87:5 168:13 169:11
acceptable 70:15 169:9 241:15 5:23 90:19 177:12 179:14
98:1 159:8,10 243:19,22 Administration agreement 8:5 190:8,16 191:6
160:22 161:2,4 271:11,12 220:20 8:11 33:23 216:20 228:16
168:15 actions 155:3 adopted 92:2 34:1,3 36:7,15 240:14 258:7
acceptably active 154:21 260:2 218:20 analytical 22:9
155:25 activities 81:22 advanced 58:6 Ah 121:15 22:11 23:7,12
acceptance 81:24 82:2 advantage ahead 30:24 23:17,18,18

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 289
34:11 68:6,7 245:5 246:14 approximate 186:12,13 282:19

156:17,23 253:7,12,13 43:21 47:25 203:15 212:2 assemble 57:10
analyze 216:1 256:11,18,19 67:10 214:12 217:15 57:11,14 69:10
247:13 248:18 257:1 265:6 approximated 217:16 238:16 assembled 55:9
analyzing 55:1 266:5,6,10,16 127:21 265:13 266:25 assembling 55:1
146:15 248:23 270:2 271:16 approximately argumentative assertion 122:1
260:4 272:8 40:2,22 41:4 102:15 assess 220:20
and/or 278:1 appendix 6:23 41:13,15 42:25 armored 20:21 assessing 70:4
280:20 60:16,19,21,21 46:23 48:5,6 20:22,25 21:3 220:10
Angeles 2:4 61:2 80:7 64:1 76:21 21:22 assessment
annual 172:7,8 85:15 88:14 92:13,14 126:1 armoring 21:5 209:1 219:10
answer 5:15 89:12,13,18 126:2,12 21:23 23:5 assign 102:4
10:4 11:19 99:7 137:10,11 127:15 148:9 111:23 156:2 assist 15:12
35:3 62:11 137:13 171:11 170:18 203:16 169:8 177:18 assisted 15:5
86:23 96:17 238:1 241:17 252:12 Army 53:20 associated 21:14
141:18,21 applicable 253:18,18 87:24 94:11 30:2,5 34:12
142:4 165:12 145:18 148:5 254:8,16,20 116:23 234:14 45:11 64:6
177:15 165:24 256:6 265:1 277:19 278:18 95:15 104:12
anticipate 66:10 application 269:1,5 273:22 281:25 282:2 109:9 111:9
66:19 29:17 145:18 280:23 Arnold 56:4 115:11 142:13
anticipated 210:5 213:21 approximation Arpent 268:2 147:1 160:20
108:14 239:14 230:3 46:21 arrangement ASSOCIATES
240:23 applied 147:13 April 233:20 34:8 2:2
anybody 84:1 158:22 architect 139:1,6 arrangements assume 245:16
ANZELMO 4:2 apply 51:19 141:4 34:6 assuming 195:9
apart 64:9 80:20 135:17 189:6 area 17:1 18:2 arrest 197:12 assure 109:13
127:7 220:25 229:16 22:18 28:11 arrive 165:14 Athanasopoulos
apologize 39:20 232:14 242:6 30:17 90:1 arrow 164:9 16:2 32:3
101:4,8 133:3 242:11,16 99:5,8,18,19 arrows 265:15 attached 136:20
133:15 216:8 applying 109:25 99:23 100:14 265:22 286:8,18
Apparently appreciate 36:2 105:25 129:11 Art 273:10,11,12 attack 243:25
249:20 258:19 285:8 140:15 152:13 ascertain 190:16 attacking 184:7
appear 45:15 285:11 152:21 174:3 191:12 221:1 attempted 239:6
121:19 254:10 approached 187:13 191:16 asked 74:24,25 262:21
255:7 266:11 219:18 191:20 193:22 75:4 84:5,7 attempting 57:8
appearance approaches 209:3 234:10 129:3 167:10 57:13 59:13
102:1 100:5,10,19 234:22 240:19 242:4 243:18 89:19 97:22
APPEARANC... appropriate 242:23 252:13 243:19 256:17 110:24
2:1 135:2,4,11,13 254:1 256:25 258:24 280:8 ATTENDANCE
appeared 187:18 169:21 189:3 267:1 268:24 asking 11:4 2:16 3:1 4:1
appearing 8:10 194:9 209:19 269:11 284:3 35:10 54:18 attended 227:13
appears 60:18 253:3,14 areas 18:13,13 57:3 101:8 attending 8:4
91:9 93:5 254:10 255:7 18:16 22:22 102:3 158:3,6 attention 88:13
121:19,21 260:8 105:24 119:24 180:16 186:23 88:15 121:13
172:11 193:15 appropriately 152:19 178:22 229:23 230:20 129:14 132:7
193:20 203:5 154:24 156:18 179:18 180:20 240:22 247:13 132:18 133:14

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 290
136:5 139:9 281:21 167:18 173:8 Baronne 2:13 48:3 88:21,21

149:23 166:5 availability 173:16,22 base 44:20 89:1,2 119:6,6
174:4 190:20 212:3 174:4 184:5 196:23 234:12 135:24 138:5
193:4 197:18 available 69:23 192:4,4 196:5 256:1 266:4,18 142:15,16
198:10 200:17 135:15 154:18 198:14 202:16 based 23:20 150:1,2,3
201:17 202:25 212:6 219:5 202:22 204:22 45:17 48:14 153:8,8 161:15
203:24 205:17 236:9 261:4 204:25 205:13 67:25 68:17 163:4,6 164:1
213:20 222:2 Avenue 2:9 4:8 205:14 206:6 92:2 96:18 165:5,7,16
223:8 228:14 166:23 206:11,20 98:5 106:21 191:11 192:3
229:6 230:21 average 100:2 209:2 215:10 109:8 110:3 234:10,11,23
231:15 233:11 172:7,8 207:6 231:11 265:23 111:3 122:7 234:23 235:5,5
237:5 244:5,7 207:13,20 266:2 267:10 131:8 134:23 236:2,2 238:11
254:25 263:21 213:6 267:20 268:17 146:10,12 238:12 239:19
265:4 269:24 avoid 212:13 background 154:7,10 239:19 240:20
attorneys 2:4,10 await 52:5 251:6 156:17,23 242:18,19
2:19,24 3:5,8 140:25 backing 182:22 157:5,7 158:13 250:20,21,23
3:13,17,21 4:5 aware 54:10 back-side 228:7 178:16 179:14 253:21 254:18
4:9 130:20 A-1 80:7 91:9 228:10 230:8 181:7 187:19 254:18 283:6,7
attributed 223:12 224:5 230:24 187:25 188:8 bayous 241:6
272:19 A-15 86:15 bad 131:22 189:10 197:3 Bea 1:21 6:3,4,7
Auda 16:2 A-26 95:4,8,13 194:14 198:8 207:6 209:3 6:8,9,10,11,12
audible 10:4 95:14,24 104:6 217:11 214:11 219:2 6:13,14 7:3 9:4
August 19:12 105:15 badly 272:21 225:7 235:10 9:9 12:17,24
40:3 48:5 A-3 91:9 Baeza 2:8 7:22 238:14,17 13:22 15:21
49:12 53:11 A.M 40:3,5 55:14 77:9 261:4 16:23 30:25
140:21 190:4 42:25 43:20 129:16,22 baseline 234:11 31:14,15,17,17
auspices 79:25 45:1 46:23 130:1,6,15 basic 195:17 31:21 32:25
authority 134:7 47:13 48:5,6,7 133:11 175:18 Basically 139:18 55:15,17 56:25
140:25 48:8 219:20 176:1 191:1 Basil 24:17 25:1 57:1 65:4 77:6
authorization 201:20,25 25:2,3 27:7 77:10,17 78:10
92:16 93:18,20 B 202:19 210:17 basin 3:14 8:3 87:10 94:22
96:4 103:18 b 3:4 32:8 56:6 211:2 231:17 267:25 268:12 102:12 120:17
113:2,3,8 56:21 60:21 244:15 245:18 268:15 124:16 130:2
114:23 115:3,4 134:10 197:22 249:17,23 basing 107:11 148:4 161:7
115:13 118:17 224:23 274:10 263:12,17 basis 107:12 171:21 173:25
131:14 206:3 back 11:15 38:8 bank 18:12,16 121:2 122:1 190:21 191:4
282:16 46:12 65:1 29:19 72:13,14 124:20,23 199:3 201:18
authorized 85:4 74:25 75:20 72:22 80:15 154:13 170:25 210:2 211:8,9
85:12 88:24 76:1,17 78:1 81:20 83:5 207:9 241:11 221:23 223:7
97:19 103:20 78:15 79:9 260:22 241:13 231:14,15
106:14 114:19 91:3 94:5 banks 81:21,24 Baton 273:18 233:15 234:7
114:21 118:13 95:22 99:24 82:1,17 83:21 bayou 18:8,9,12 249:16 258:18
135:6 141:8,15 100:14 111:23 84:2 264:19 38:6,7 41:12 259:14 269:15
204:5 205:1 119:18,25 barber 200:3 41:18,19,24 269:16 272:4
227:24 228:1 124:13,19 Barends 242:1 42:3,17 44:3 272:21 276:2
authorizing 128:18 131:19 barges 154:1 44:13 47:12 276:21 285:8
142:8 144:25

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 291
286:4 151:4 266:21 41:14,18,19 bold 272:20 BOURGEOIS

beach 271:5 benefit 126:17 42:17 44:13 bono 127:23 3:10
bears 232:11,12 172:9 45:21 48:8 128:1,10,11 Boutwell 16:3
Becnel 3:2,3 benefits 172:7 88:21 89:1 borders 267:15 63:10,11,17
10:25 12:1 BENJAMIN 119:7 142:17 Borgne 3:13 8:3 bowl 104:4
bed 89:8 153:22 2:21 142:24 150:2 100:8,16,21 105:7
beds 153:13,18 Berkeley 30:15 153:8 161:16 264:16,18,21 BRANCH 2:7
Bee 250:7 275:3 33:15 125:2 162:21 163:4,6 boring 53:19 brand 259:5,7
began 9:12 270:20 165:6 234:11 54:1,19 57:2,8 Bray 16:3
36:22,23 190:4 berm 18:11,16 234:23 235:6 57:14 60:3 breach 18:14
190:17 221:8 39:13 50:2 236:2 238:12 178:20 179:15 165:4,6,9
beginning 12:11 72:13,14,21 239:19 240:20 188:1,3,6 179:19 180:21
14:11 121:10 80:13 81:1,9 241:6 242:18 198:3,11 199:3 240:21 252:6
139:14,17 87:15 143:21 250:20,22,23 199:20 238:4 252:11
174:23 143:21 183:7 254:18 283:7 244:23 246:7 breached 18:13
begins 29:19 185:10 186:25 big 157:21 247:15 253:5 178:22,23
88:16 133:16 187:3 209:17 283:12 254:3 255:1 179:18 217:17
195:12 200:25 238:20 240:3 billed 125:23 borings 54:8,24 240:18 252:2,4
235:22 264:12 260:22 billing 125:16 58:11 122:13 252:24
begun 52:2 berms 39:1 88:7 126:25 122:14,18,19 breaches 1:5
behave 272:15 182:22 238:22 binder 231:18 122:25 123:8,9 180:21 265:18
behaviors 238:25 239:10 Bingo 167:22 123:19,20 266:1,12 267:5
241:14 Bernard 192:10 bit 12:4 32:12 149:19 151:16 267:8
behest 123:21 192:25 234:13 38:9,10 52:14 179:1,3 199:14 breaching 15:1
believe 13:23 265:12 267:14 74:25 77:19 199:18 200:6 17:13 18:8,11
15:3 27:25 267:24 277:25 97:11 120:15 236:22 237:2 48:15 49:11
37:11 40:9 278:20 280:10 124:18 246:13 237:12,15,20 184:6 190:3
42:19 47:4,11 280:20 254:15 238:5 244:6 218:3 219:16
59:25 60:7 Bernard-Lower BL 234:23,24 borrow 170:24 221:8
63:25 71:17 268:23 269:11 black 265:15,22 196:4 198:1 break 64:20 65:5
75:15 76:18 best 140:23 blank 72:6,8 203:14 212:2,3 77:13 78:6
77:20 80:12 191:12 203:19 168:4 212:6 213:11 80:20 95:22
87:11 90:2 287:12 Bless 234:2 214:2,5,9,12 120:12,17,18
92:22 120:7 Betsy 80:1 263:16 214:19 225:2 120:19 124:5
149:22 167:2 134:19,25 blue 265:18,25 borrowing 128:20 172:23
174:11 176:11 194:3 266:11 267:4 203:13 173:1,3 174:12
190:1 207:23 better 212:3 268:3 bottom 45:25 283:24,25
210:4,8 211:11 217:10 Blvd 4:4 133:17 140:11 breaking 64:15
213:20 215:24 Bevis 2:18 8:21 BOARD 3:13 152:22 166:6 break-break
226:2 228:5,16 beyond 15:18 boat 284:20,21 193:16 249:1 173:1
228:18 229:23 16:15,21 17:2 284:23,24 285:1 Bretschneider
230:11 241:12 28:16,20 70:24 285:1,2 Boulevard 3:12 24:19,21
249:16 266:20 104:14 224:22 Bob 32:11 boundaries bring 12:16
269:22 236:10 258:11 272:21 29:23 68:12 95:21 129:17
believed 119:12 Bienvenue 18:9 body 82:14 boundary 30:2,5 171:15
beneath 150:10 18:12 38:6 132:13 205:17 30:11 37:14,20 broad 115:13

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 292
broadcast 161:24 165:1 called 24:15,17 carefully 227:13 certify 286:6

269:23 270:14 195:18 263:1 56:8 103:10 Carondelet 3:16 287:5
broke 283:25 268:25 272:5 204:3 259:9 carry 13:25 CET 39:23
brought 153:25 273:1,9 275:13 260:21,23 262:25 chain 284:12
159:7 239:18 277:23,24 calling 79:11 case 31:4 58:2 challenged
Bruno 2:11,12 278:20 279:11 camera 32:12 71:22 74:13 167:5,7,13
6:18 8:16,17 279:19 282:9 76:4 75:8 103:8,9 Chalmette 89:25
8:25 11:1 12:2 282:22 CAMPBELL 130:21 211:24 99:22 100:14
101:17 233:2,6 Bureau 99:3 3:7 226:5 232:7 129:11 140:15
244:12 249:21 134:18 194:2 canal 1:5 77:23 241:21 277:18 174:3 201:1
250:3,10 251:8 206:2 150:1,3 177:7 cases 1:6 122:22 234:10,22
251:22 252:3 BURGLASS canals 119:8 214:7 259:12 chance 55:12
258:13 274:7 3:19 cap 240:6,21 Cassin 4:14 7:8 232:19
274:13,18,23 buried 164:1 241:4 243:9,12 catastrophe change 13:8
275:22,24 165:7 256:24 243:14,21,24 117:21 51:14 182:13
276:11,15,22 by-product 244:3 categories 194:16 248:7
277:5,10,12 81:21 82:4,8 capability 215:11 249:4
278:5,9,13 83:22 104:20 category 17:7,11 changed 79:5
282:13,25 by-products capacities 161:1 50:1 changes 51:18
283:19,23 81:23 82:1,11 capillary 224:23 caught 149:23 134:5,12 286:9
284:17,25 B-1 208:10 capped 145:12 272:24 changing 51:13
285:4 capping 242:24 caused 49:15 channel 29:20
Buchler 2:12 C caps 241:15 96:8 30:8 37:13,17
8:23,24 C 25:20,20 32:8 caption 89:17 Causeway 3:12 82:13 83:20,22
buddy 130:14 73:19 134:10 133:18 153:1 4:4 85:12 86:13
build 97:14,16 225:1 237:17 193:15 235:21 center 45:20 88:25 123:10
97:22 111:22 270:20 266:21 270:2 122:20 150:10 152:22 165:2
112:10,19 Caernarvon captioned 244:24 254:4 170:25 184:17
113:9 118:14 192:4 267:19 139:25 197:20 255:2 channels 225:3
118:20 119:12 283:9 208:10 223:9 Central 99:8 chapter 211:15
120:9 129:5,5 calculating 234:9,19 certain 107:20 222:12,20,22
129:7,8 138:15 57:22 236:20 237:8 certainly 12:3 228:14,18
138:18 276:3 calculation 252:11 263:24 20:20 37:7 229:1,2
277:14,16 147:13 156:14 265:9 39:19 61:13 chapters 13:6
279:2,13,24 calculations capture 23:20 62:24 73:4 221:14 228:15
280:8,19 281:6 147:22 149:17 59:13 74:7 121:8 character 57:19
281:10,21 156:15 care 138:20 153:19 159:14 60:2
282:17 California 1:22 141:13 144:2 166:15 240:12 characteristic
building 200:14 2:4 9:5 30:15 145:8 148:5,14 276:6 277:13 98:24 257:5
271:9 272:14 33:15 125:2 158:22 159:16 CERTIFICATE characteristics
279:6 call 18:17 28:9 160:2,6 165:25 286:2 287:2 58:1 59:16,17
built 80:3,5 31:11 43:2 166:25 167:12 certification 67:19,22 68:1
118:16,22 54:14 60:6 168:15 171:3,5 5:11 68:18 69:16,24
119:3,4,5,7,17 78:14 79:13,15 174:13 194:18 Certified 4:17 70:1,10,18
119:20 123:9 153:24 157:10 194:25 195:6 5:21 7:9 287:5 71:4,13 78:21
128:16 155:11 184:18 203:1 197:8 198:6 287:21 79:4 103:21
240:6 261:13

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 293
104:17 106:21 80:24 81:4 279:5,11,18 32:21 commonly 25:14

107:13,20,22 115:19 116:19 280:3,4 colleagues 80:23 81:3
110:2,11 112:5 135:3 224:1 clockwise 117:12 260:2 compact 189:7
146:13,24 270:19 264:20 261:16 compacted
147:5 159:9 clarify 15:13 close 46:20 collected 60:9 187:17 195:3
160:23 180:7 19:5,20 21:19 70:22,23 121:9 270:9 214:1 217:22
189:4 217:20 260:24 139:16 140:14 collection 61:20 239:13,17
characterization clarity 75:22 162:4 223:7 62:1,8,9 63:2 240:6 241:4
58:10 class 259:21 254:21 264:17 65:5,21 242:25
characterize classification 284:22 colon 134:8 compaction
22:16 37:25 59:10 245:3,20 closed 161:23 column 30:9 70:11 73:10
52:9,10,15 classifications 162:19 165:3 253:6 255:15 81:13 177:17
53:9,16 200:14 237:13 closely 70:21 256:10 257:7 183:23 186:3
253:2 classified 255:5 266:9 columns 255:14 187:14,19
characterized 261:5 closeness 71:12 255:14 188:20,21
59:5 98:25 classify 118:25 closer 76:8 combat 96:21 189:1,15
charge 63:6,8 clay 153:17,20 closing 153:6 97:17 105:19 197:10 209:21
279:17 177:17 179:4,6 154:6 106:15 107:21 214:4,23 215:3
charged 276:1 189:5 197:16 closure 143:23 112:12 160:3 215:7,11 216:2
charges 172:8 197:23 198:5 144:3,5 152:12 combating 216:10,11
Charles 105:22 199:18,24 152:13 153:2 158:10 225:22 227:12
Charles-Jeffer... 200:2 238:20 161:15 164:4,5 combination 227:18 241:8
106:3 238:25 239:9 223:4 21:16 22:5 261:3
chart 249:4 239:16 240:6 closures 161:9 72:18 98:22 compactive 86:7
charts 59:10 240:20 241:4 161:14 197:9 88:2 217:21
check 279:18 241:14 243:9 coarse 73:12,16 combined 80:11 Company 140:1
Chef 99:25 243:12,14,21 73:18,21 80:13 140:8
100:17 243:23,24 185:19,19 come 173:8,16 comparative
Chief 134:7 256:14 271:5 212:13 219:25 258:25 240:17
203:6 clays 199:16 coast 100:6,11 276:16 compare 95:24
choice 158:8,12 200:13 242:25 100:19 comes 111:8 179:21 186:5
chosen 260:14 245:13 246:2 coastal 98:25 255:25 271:4,8 227:2
circle 283:12 246:15,18,19 146:2 220:16 comfortable compared
circles 268:4 246:20 256:13 coatings 183:3 79:11 186:19 187:1
circumstances 256:20 Cobos 32:8,17 coming 162:6,8 221:11 227:15
243:15 clean 124:19 Cobos-Roa 6:21 commenced comparison
citation 145:2 clear 10:17,18 16:3,24 35:5 48:15 49:12 128:5 180:17
cite 114:4,5 17:16 21:21 36:19,23 61:10 comment 140:24 comparisons
115:5,6 78:4 87:2 64:11 141:1 166:2 71:7
cited 93:1 104:1 104:5 151:1 Code 233:18 271:25 272:3 compensate
citing 114:11 166:3 232:6 cohesive 153:25 comments 10:3 195:20
Citrus 99:23 271:14 154:3 237:16 commercial compensated
100:15 119:18 clearly 75:17 cohesiveness 83:20 33:18 63:21
119:25 92:15 175:9 153:21 COMMISSIO... 64:2,5 124:20
civil 1:5,10 2:7 245:17 coin 128:22 3:13 125:5 127:3
5:7 72:4,17 client 278:16 collaborated common 135:23 compensation

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 294
33:22,25 34:8 263:6 111:20 147:11 279:22 280:9 120:2 143:22

64:10 125:10 computing 149:6,11 280:19 149:10 160:16
competent 10:8 23:21 38:3 155:25 156:25 connote 102:23 170:13 177:10
compiled 14:19 conceivable 159:10,11,12 consider 194:8 179:8 194:23
complete 13:13 160:8 167:16 188:23 considerably 196:1 222:6
55:4 60:22 concentration 217:12 225:15 219:15 224:12 232:15
61:12 192:9,25 30:18 235:1 236:10 consideration 235:25 247:13
260:11 284:1 concept 272:22 240:2 242:8,17 196:14 260:20
completed 84:22 concern 255:9 conduct 65:24 considerations constructing
88:21 92:11 271:7 conducted 212:17 223:1 83:18 84:12
240:14 269:7 concerned 11:5 270:14 223:10 85:9 89:9
completely 89:6 concerning 9:15 conductive considered 105:18 106:1
completes 11:20 27:9 148:17,18 82:16 83:1,4,5 169:19 203:20
140:22 34:3 51:1,23 conductivity 98:23 130:19 211:22 215:1
complied 211:12 59:1 60:1 65:24 66:11,18 134:6 166:20 224:2 236:5
component 65:21 68:4 67:18,21 68:19 166:22 177:14 construction
89:25 90:14 104:24 69:18 70:7 191:5 211:25 53:21 83:10
components concerns 143:18 71:10,14 189:3 213:10 214:16 84:19,23 86:3
146:9,11 conclude 14:12 215:16,21,22 214:19 86:21 87:23
182:17,19 165:22 216:18 consist 59:9 89:15 92:19
comport 148:4 concluded 180:3 conferences consisted 76:18 110:1 116:15
197:7 concludes 64:23 140:19 246:22 259:20 135:5 138:21
composed 124:9 285:13 confidentiality consistent 115:2 141:8 142:18
169:10 261:23 conclusion 122:7 34:4 consistently 144:3 149:9
composite 20:12 154:5 165:15 confront 154:20 259:21 152:8,19,21
composites 181:13 184:23 confronted consisting 153:2,18
157:16 261:24 21:16 188:17 155:21 169:22
compositions conclusions confusing consists 199:16 174:14 176:7
195:1 178:15 199:22 consolidate 192:2 195:3,15
compound concrete 20:11 confusion 257:18 195:18,19
102:19 20:13 182:25 133:16 consolidated 1:5 196:6,19,20
compressibility 183:3 223:4 Congress 94:14 1:6 11:6 125:3 197:5,21 210:5
71:6 condition 38:16 96:6,19 103:19 125:11 210:11 211:4
compression 98:2 102:11 116:13 118:14 consolidation 211:10,13
237:18 107:2 109:5,6 194:12 227:25 171:18 195:21 212:9 213:4,22
Compressive 111:9 112:6 279:3,4 280:8 195:25 196:14 214:13,15
59:20 257:25 280:18 281:5 237:17,22 221:25 225:1
comprised 73:4 conditions 23:1 281:10,16,20 constitute 227:1,21 228:1
73:5 26:8 27:24 281:24 282:16 195:17 236:12 228:25 229:16
comprises 150:4 29:23 30:2,5 conjunction construct 88:11 229:17 232:11
computations 30:11 37:15,21 90:10 192:21 96:6,20,20 239:21 246:18
99:6 98:23 102:6,7 connected 152:9 177:13 247:3 253:4
compute 51:24 104:12,13,21 184:19 264:17 constructed 254:11 255:8
computed 207:6 106:22 108:5,7 connection 74:15 79:25 272:22 273:3
computer 12:21 108:13,14 33:20 65:6 86:9 89:20,21 contact 63:5
29:6 66:2,9 109:4,9 110:13 135:5 278:19 89:25 115:9 contacted 10:25

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 295
11:19 continuous 87:24 92:17 63:12,20 64:8 150:23 151:7

contain 86:10 226:21 96:6,19,24 64:12 65:11,15 151:14,18,22
226:16 238:3 contract 140:13 97:5 106:14 65:16,19 67:13 152:1,4,25
contained 6:22 235:23,24 113:23 114:12 68:11 69:9 153:7,10 154:9
14:25 17:2 control 42:11 116:11,23 71:2,16,19,25 154:25 157:18
28:14 45:4 44:4,23 50:10 117:1 118:13 73:7,23 75:10 158:15 160:1
59:6 60:20 73:11,12 74:15 119:12 123:21 75:21 77:24 162:6 163:17
61:2,20 62:18 75:9 81:13 128:17 139:2,5 78:13,16 79:10 163:20,23
69:6 90:1 87:6 106:15 144:6 172:15 79:14,16,21 164:13,16
147:18 237:2 116:2 119:5 178:21 183:1 80:2,8,9,10,14 165:14 166:1
contains 234:20 120:1 141:8 210:3 220:16 80:16,18 81:19 167:14 170:14
contemplated 162:11 163:19 224:7 226:3 82:3,12 83:6 171:4,8,12,17
235:6 279:11 164:21,22 229:20 234:14 89:11,23 90:4 171:20 172:20
282:21 177:16,19 275:9 277:19 90:8,12 91:5 174:15,16
content 59:23 228:25 277:23 278:18 91:10,15 96:2 176:14 178:17
65:15 68:1,1 controlling 279:1 280:7,8 98:7 101:24 179:11 180:9
71:5 75:1 212:1 280:19 281:4,6 102:2,13 103:3 180:12,15
177:17 214:1,3 convenience 281:16,21,25 103:9 107:10 182:1,5 183:9
214:10,11,23 77:1 282:3,17 107:15 108:10 185:8,11,13,22
219:4 237:15 convenient correct 9:25 108:20,23,24 186:2,4,22
255:25 256:8 64:15 11:21,24 14:17 109:24 112:17 187:5,9,12,15
257:3,8 Conventional 15:25,25 16:12 112:23,24 187:21 188:13
contents 59:24 195:16 17:20 18:1,20 113:7,11 115:3 190:5,13,18
73:11 81:14,14 conversation 18:22 19:11,13 115:7,9,16,20 192:6 193:2
139:12 179:5 273:21 19:23 20:24 116:7,8,17,19 195:8 199:10
204:1 214:6,14 conversations 21:25 22:1 116:24,25 199:19 200:10
222:10 12:1,5 23:2,13 24:1 117:3,9,10,14 203:22 204:23
context 158:4 cooperation 25:22 28:6 117:24,25 205:5 207:1,2
259:25 260:19 99:1 29:11 32:23 118:2,7,12,15 208:2,24
271:16 281:13 copies 129:23 33:2,8,16 118:18,19 209:18,20,22
281:20 282:15 140:14 36:13,17 37:4 119:9,15,19,22 210:1,6,9,12
contiguous copy 12:16 56:3 37:16,18 38:23 120:5,10 123:4 210:13 211:18
184:18 62:21 63:1 40:6,11,15,25 123:6,15,25 212:25 213:1
continue 28:9 77:12 95:21 41:6 42:12,15 125:7,18,21 213:12,18
continued 3:1 129:21 144:25 42:18,23 43:3 126:8,11,14,22 214:24 215:5
4:1 128:10 175:19,23 43:5 44:2,5,24 128:8,13,19,24 216:5,13,16,19
199:21 190:25 232:22 45:10 46:5 129:2,6,12 217:5 219:6,22
continues 95:2 263:3,7,13 47:16,20,23 130:21,22 220:2,22 221:2
264:3 283:8 core 243:25 48:9,12,21,25 133:20,21 221:5 224:9,14
continuing cores 243:4,7 49:1 50:12,24 135:1 138:2,6 224:15 225:21
11:25 14:20,24 corner 267:3 51:21 52:1 138:11,14 226:1 227:16
15:11,19,19 Corps 53:20 53:7,12,14,18 143:13 144:22 228:3,9,12
16:9 17:17 54:5 58:10,18 54:4 55:6 58:7 146:9 147:20 229:9,14
38:1 63:18,22 58:19,20 60:5 58:21,24 60:10 147:23 148:25 230:14,18,19
64:3 138:4 60:6 75:19 60:15 61:3,22 149:1,4,4,7 232:8,17
174:2 79:6,7,25 61:25 62:3 150:8,12,17,20 234:16 235:7

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 296
238:7 239:11 213:16 214:5,7 227:24 262:20 custom 260:1 104:24 108:12
239:15 241:22 214:18 279:22 crest 41:4 customary 134:24 135:11
243:8 244:4 costs 109:23 268:21 269:4 223:25 157:6,11
245:1 247:7,11 227:20 crests 109:15 cut 183:25 196:4 178:21 179:15
248:6 249:10 counsel 2:14 5:4 219:19 266:9 188:1,3,6
250:25 252:19 6:20 7:12 8:6 criteria 24:11 cuts 267:19 198:3 214:11
253:15 254:19 8:11,18 76:3 92:10 97:6,8 cycles 219:12 219:5 233:19
255:18 256:16 94:15 174:6 104:13 210:4 C.V 22:22 243:20
256:24 257:17 204:15 231:23 220:22,25 date 14:8 140:21
257:25 258:5,8 231:25 245:21 223:22,23 D 232:11,13
259:23 260:12 263:13 284:16 239:21 247:6 D 2:7 3:16 4:16 286:13,20
262:1,4 264:1 287:13,14 247:24 5:21 6:1 8:8 dated 80:6 94:12
264:2 265:16 Counselor 231:2 critical 67:2 20:16 25:20 202:23 233:20
265:20,24 283:17 70:11 99:25 29:8 134:10 datums 264:7
266:3,7,13 couple 129:23 100:8,14 287:4,20 David 2:21 16:6
267:6,9,12,22 136:19 193:4 219:20 DA 203:8 day 113:14
269:13,14,14 215:25 258:22 criticism 128:15 Dalrymple 77:5 258:19
270:16,22,25 course 277:11 cropped 266:9 dam 223:22 days 223:17
271:13,17,20 court 1:1 4:17 cross 143:21 226:2,3,6,11 deal 221:18
271:22 272:2 5:21 7:10 9:2 179:19 189:2 226:19 272:17 258:6
273:6 274:1,5 9:23 10:1 11:7 196:7,10,12 dams 114:3,12 dealing 12:6
275:8,10,17,18 34:10 287:5,21 238:17 224:6,8,19,19 15:1 17:11
276:4,5 277:17 cover 179:7 crossing 223:1 225:11 226:20 deals 15:15
277:21 279:14 180:22,23 254:22 227:7,7,14 136:13
284:14 285:3 182:12,18 crossings 238:18 228:2 decades 54:16
286:6 287:12 184:25 185:4 crown 49:5 Dan 2:8 7:22 decide 111:22
correction 186:18 188:10 110:6,7 111:4 danger 270:2 260:10
286:18 209:16 111:13 190:17 dangerous decides 280:2
corrections covered 38:21 CRR 4:16 5:21 154:20 deciding 213:10
286:8,16 39:1 145:19 287:4 Daniel 3:2,3 decision 120:8
correctly 106:17 181:11 crucial 279:7 16:4 121:21 129:4,8
178:2 207:16 covering 39:13 CSR 4:16 Danny 10:25 135:2,4,9,11
207:18 279:17 179:23 180:11 currency 259:5 Darcy 4:3 8:13 135:14 138:15
correlate 45:16 181:4 182:4,7 259:8 data 6:22 45:4 138:18 166:24
46:3,7 69:25 209:17 current 16:21 48:23 51:1,3,7 deck 109:13,16
194:17 217:18 covers 234:25 17:5 21:6 51:19,23 53:19 Decker 4:3 8:12
218:2 227:20 CPI 99:9 145:22 146:25 54:1,3,19 55:1 8:13
256:9 cracks 243:22 154:21 217:2 55:4,8 57:2,8 declaration 32:7
correlates create 19:4 currently 146:1 57:14 58:10 deem 247:1
193:13 259:4 currents 20:7 59:1,12,21 deepening 88:25
correlation created 19:5,19 21:15 22:8,17 60:3,15,20,23 deepest 203:14
68:17 71:12 80:17 111:18 26:8 27:19 61:1,7,12 65:6 defeated 184:4
corresponds 111:20 139:1 30:9 147:22 65:13,21 67:10 defensive 21:11
99:3 140:6 199:4 155:3 159:2 67:11,20 68:4 deficiencies
cost 172:9 201:1 creation 19:2 curves 100:7,12 69:2,3,3,7,23 241:7 243:13
208:1,23 30:22 172:18 100:21 71:15 91:13 243:15
96:23 97:20

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 297
deficient 247:16 DEPONENT 220:24 259:1 205:12,18 148:22

284:8 286:15 description 206:19,23,24 detail 18:7 26:12
define 37:14 deposit 154:2 101:22 102:4 207:5,11,19 27:8 38:11
74:22 90:22,23 deposition 1:20 107:17 238:3 210:10 211:4 57:19 99:6
90:24 99:11 5:5,16 7:2,3 descriptions 211:10 213:22 171:10
158:11 159:18 9:12 34:10,16 45:18 221:24 226:9 detailed 57:15
262:21 35:25 56:14 design 24:11 226:15,23 201:1 226:6
defined 223:14 114:25 251:7 53:21 80:5 229:16 232:10 details 12:7
284:9 285:13 85:7 86:16 234:21 235:2 15:15,18,22
defines 90:20 deposits 203:13 89:15 90:1,9 235:19 236:6 16:10 23:20
Definitely Depo-Vue 4:14 90:14 91:7,12 236:10 238:9 61:19 63:19
227:22 depth 85:7,12 91:17,21 92:1 238:16 239:20 106:5 208:18
definition 80:24 196:25 203:15 92:7,9,18,23 272:22 276:3 determination
81:4 102:24 207:6,13,20 96:1,20 97:6,8 277:14,16 161:3
141:10 142:17 derivation 99:5 102:6,8,11 281:7 determinations
161:3 223:24 derived 107:13 103:20 104:16 designate 267:4 237:15
223:25 134:18 156:16 105:21 106:5 designated determine 17:8
definitions 157:5,5,7 106:14,20,23 253:6 26:12,23 27:24
115:19 158:25 107:7,8,19,20 designation 48:13 49:11
Delta 100:7,12 descending 108:4,11 109:6 174:23 175:1 53:5 67:4,11
100:20 135:23 109:11,20 204:4 245:9 67:24 93:2
demonstration describe 16:19 110:2 111:16 designations 112:4 146:4
271:24 30:2,4,8 118:3 112:7,8 113:4 245:11 147:2 154:15
denominated 119:17 128:25 113:4,5 114:3 designed 20:5 179:22 239:8
131:4 252:18 129:4 134:11 114:11 129:9 23:5 109:4 242:21
denote 81:9 159:1 213:2 129:10 132:15 120:1 135:20 determined
dense 227:18 220:14 245:2 132:24 135:21 155:15 156:13 21:10 22:3,5
densify 86:8 282:4 137:25 138:17 158:9,17,21 68:16 113:6
88:3 described 15:16 138:20,25 160:13 213:3 146:19 156:13
densities 179:5,9 15:23 16:11 139:5 140:6,14 223:21 224:12 160:11,13
density 59:22 17:19 28:8 140:22 141:3,6 226:12 228:6 237:21
65:14 33:11 39:4 141:12 148:4 232:15 243:3,7 determines 74:9
depart 260:1 45:14 50:6 148:14 149:18 260:19 263:1 75:3 161:2
DEPARTME... 72:7,9,12 99:6 155:12,20,25 277:23,24 determining
2:6 105:17 107:2 156:5,9 157:20 279:19 284:20 151:12
departure 194:9 115:14 116:1 157:22 160:7 designing 96:25 develop 57:15
departures 118:4,5 119:13 160:25 161:1 97:24 103:17 63:18 67:10,18
133:19 193:16 119:24 171:10 165:23 171:2 104:17 105:17 109:10,14
depend 71:11 176:7 192:23 171:16 172:11 108:16 159:17 159:8 165:2
146:6 195:1 193:21 201:4 174:2,18 160:3 224:2 developed 15:2
243:17 212:21 218:5 190:23 191:5,9 227:14 228:5 16:20 17:6,13
depending 104:9 220:7 225:16 191:25 192:1,8 designs 92:10 18:4 22:15
110:16 246:1 262:16 193:15 196:5 109:6 134:22 24:5,8,9,19
depends 153:23 describes 105:23 201:24 202:7,9 149:14 172:17 37:22 46:17
244:1 115:8 202:23 203:25 desired 158:14 49:25 51:22
depo 101:16 describing 204:19 205:7 destabilize 53:19 69:4

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 298
72:23 91:12 99:17 104:8,13 244:7 254:24 distinctions documented

92:2,8 99:1 116:2 179:9 263:20 265:4 225:10 12:14 220:8,14
134:17,22 180:6 181:16 269:24 distinguished documents
135:10 140:17 184:22 186:11 directed 213:21 179:2 14:25 116:12
158:19 172:18 205:11 219:13 264:11 distribution 118:2 123:16
194:1 206:1 219:13 221:13 directing 230:20 150:10 205:21 242:20
226:16 259:10 221:14 264:7 244:5 District 1:1,2 doing 52:22
262:24 differentiate direction 287:11 3:14 4:5 8:3,14 DOLOS 20:14
developer 24:17 39:9 209:11 directly 153:17 11:7 234:15 20:16
developing differentiated 169:9 264:16 divided 238:12 dominant 25:19
23:19 53:4 209:10 dirt 81:10 120:9 dividing 189:18 26:15
148:21 differentiating 121:8,24 129:7 Division 2:7 dot 85:20
development 19:25 209:5 disabilities 203:8 downstream
18:7,11 50:25 differently 10:11 DM 249:14 267:19
58:8 62:16 130:12 discretion 96:24 DM-3 93:11 Dr 7:3 9:9 12:17
92:23 264:8 differing 217:14 97:5,16 111:21 133:12 198:14 13:22 24:19
developments 270:7 discretionary Doctor 251:17 56:25 65:4
24:12 92:18 difficult 197:17 134:6 document 63:7 77:17 87:10
develops 156:23 digital 23:21 discussed 66:12 90:15 91:8 94:22 102:12
165:5 dike 19:6,21 92:17 168:21 93:1,6,9,19 120:17 124:16
diagram 104:15 20:1,4,5,23 discussing 49:9 94:8,11,15,23 148:3 161:7
163:24 164:4 21:1,4,9,12,15 65:5 190:7 95:23 96:18 171:21 173:25
dialogue 281:14 21:17,21 discussion 11:12 98:6,9 103:16 191:4 199:3
dichotomy 115:15,24 12:2 120:24 103:24 104:23 210:2 211:8
188:25 118:11 234:3 244:17 105:2,12,15 223:7 231:14
dictated 224:24 dikes 26:10,24 273:15,16 114:8 115:3,4 250:7 258:18
226:10 27:10 86:9 discussions 116:18,20,22 259:14 269:15
dictates 206:14 114:10,21 66:15 118:1 129:14 276:21 285:8
Diego 16:3,24 115:1,6 118:5 dispute 83:25 130:23 131:2 draft 140:20
32:8,16 36:23 dimensions disqualified 133:2,15,19 drafted 139:5
61:10 64:11 88:17,20,23 185:6 134:2 139:14 141:3
differ 43:18 102:17 158:8 disqualify 142:21 144:1 draglines 153:24
224:19 189:11 188:16 144:22 145:3,6 drain 257:22
difference 19:6 direct 45:6 88:14 dissatisfaction 145:16,24 drainage 105:21
19:20 20:3 98:8 132:7,18 128:21 174:6 193:17 105:23 106:5
181:15 187:7 133:14 136:4 dissipate 257:10 194:11 204:15 132:24 142:24
197:15 227:10 139:9 142:20 distance 213:14 205:20 213:20 163:7 206:13
227:11 166:5 174:4 distances 212:4 217:6 231:23 draw 72:6,8
differences 190:19 197:18 214:8 231:25 232:2 drawing 204:18
70:14,16 198:10 200:17 distinct 115:18 233:13,16,18 drawings 138:25
232:10 201:17 202:24 115:18 118:10 233:21 234:18 162:23,25
different 15:4 203:23 205:16 119:24 235:3,11 237:2 drawn 244:23
24:3 29:21 222:2 223:8 distinction 107:4 241:19 245:21 249:13 254:3
42:21 43:16 228:13 229:6 178:25 186:24 249:13 251:15 255:1
51:19,24 54:24 231:14 233:11 187:23 224:6 263:14 280:14 dredge 142:19
54:24,25 77:19 237:4 241:23 227:6 280:18 dredged 83:8,16

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 299
83:19 85:7 earlier 124:17 easternmost 215:12 236:6 245:4,5

86:19 89:6 188:9 190:8 205:12 215:9 efficient 222:9 246:4,5 247:19
273:2 280:15 eastward 100:7 effort 53:24 86:7 247:22 248:1
dredging 72:24 early 204:6 east-west 267:16 88:2 189:7 248:11,21
81:22,23 82:2 273:24 EB 260:21 217:21 249:9 253:5,6
82:5,8,9 83:22 earth 73:4 EBSB 39:2 efforts 28:19 253:7 254:9,9
83:22 84:8 195:16 223:22 40:19 41:21 61:20 127:13 255:6,7 256:6
89:2 224:19,19 43:4 49:25 127:14 264:7
drew 178:14 earthen 18:11,16 71:22 72:7 Ehrensing 16:4 elevations
Drive 1:22 3:20 20:8,12 39:1 73:3 74:6,12 eighth 274:14 104:25 105:4
9:5 54:13 59:2 75:2,4,7 78:20 either 12:1 39:23 109:13 132:24
driven 254:23 72:13,14,21 79:15,17,18 86:9 97:19 199:13 206:11
dropped 92:9,12 73:5 80:13 80:17 86:3,8 148:19 184:8 207:10 269:4
92:20 81:1,9 87:15 86:12 87:17,23 196:24 278:11 284:6,7
drove 264:21 122:20,21 88:3 128:23 elaborate 38:10 eleven 268:22
drying 214:5,9 161:17 163:21 142:14,18 169:3,5 178:19 269:9
due 166:16 180:3 181:23 162:15 260:22 elaborated embankment
195:20,24 183:14,20 260:24 262:24 218:4,11 20:8,12 73:3,5
196:20 189:16 224:2 EBSBs 18:17,21 elaborating 162:16 163:22
duly 9:6 287:7 235:24 236:5 38:4 50:9 72:5 28:14 126:24 164:21 188:16
DUPLASS 3:10 238:11 260:22 74:17,21 75:12 Electronically 189:17 196:15
Dupre 18:9,12 easier 175:12 75:19 76:18 12:18 216:15 223:14
38:7 41:12,14 easiest 136:12 79:22 89:14,20 element 22:6 224:21 228:25
41:24 42:3 easily 143:24 89:24 115:1,5 50:18 51:3,8 238:20,21
44:2,3 45:21 175:8 245:6,7 122:5 131:4 51:20 66:2,7 239:2,9 241:5
47:12 48:3,7 east 46:11,12 252:18 261:13 68:3 92:10 embankments
89:2 119:6 75:20 76:17 269:13 160:14 171:2 54:13 58:4
135:24 138:5 78:1,15 79:9 economic 171:25 elements 22:6 59:2,3 122:21
142:17 150:3 79:19 99:24 172:2,11,17 70:12 91:7 151:5 180:3,7
153:9 162:21 100:15,19,20 212:21 107:8 109:7,8 180:13,25
165:16 191:11 128:18 191:11 economics 109:21 111:2 181:9,14,18,24
192:3 234:11 202:16,22 212:23,25 111:17 141:6 182:8 183:20
234:23 235:5 204:21,25 Ed 273:15 141:12 142:12 184:24 186:19
236:2 238:12 205:13 206:6 edge 265:12 142:13 157:16 187:24 190:4,9
239:19 241:6 206:11,20 268:23 269:10 160:3 209:2,6,7,12
242:19 254:18 209:2 215:10 edition 222:1 elevation 49:6 211:13 215:8
283:7 264:19 265:23 232:4 86:14,14 216:2 222:5,18
duration 166:16 266:2 267:10 effect 20:6 67:5 106:21 107:12 222:24 223:18
DUVAL 1:7 267:20,25 144:11 217:19 107:23 110:6,7 224:2 238:11
DYNA 29:7,18 268:12,15 effects 17:9,14 111:4,13 113:5 238:25 239:18
30:12 37:9 278:1,21 18:15,18 38:16 113:5 148:10 262:3,8
50:6 57:22 280:10,21 49:22,25 50:3 190:17 198:2 Emergency
D.C 2:9 4:9 282:9,19 50:4 57:25 199:8 203:16 220:17
eastern 1:2 67:6 99:16 206:12 207:5 employ 104:17
E 79:12 264:23 106:25 168:19 207:12,19 employed 24:11
E 2:22 3:2,3 6:1 265:10 184:12 197:13 235:25 236:1,3 26:14 81:16
73:19

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 300
86:8 88:3 engineered entities 278:25 erosive 26:9,13 226:4

employees 117:5 81:18 117:8,23 entity 278:24 26:23 27:9 evaluations
employs 109:9 118:4 enumerated 28:24 38:4,12 218:3 220:5
enable 50:7 engineering 137:8 38:14 40:9 events 27:13
enabled 49:3,14 30:19,20 80:24 environment 42:20 49:21 221:16
encirclement 81:4 115:20 154:21 50:4,7 51:10 eventually
192:10,25 116:5 117:2 environmental 52:6 57:21 117:17
encircles 268:13 118:9 135:4 23:1 97:6,8 190:11 217:19 everybody 217:8
268:14 141:4,14 146:2 envisioned 242:21 271:10 evidence 5:17
encompass 157:2 189:11 171:13 erosive-resista... 181:17
115:14 220:16 226:7 envisions 171:9 217:23 evidenced
encountered engineers 22:14 equal 175:2 ESB 74:10,14 149:14
169:14 53:20 54:5 207:12,17 ESQ 2:2,7,8,12 evoke 108:2
encountering 58:11 60:7 equipment 2:12,17,18,22 exactly 30:1
109:15 62:16 63:14 153:25 3:3,7,11,16,20 31:19 111:6
encouraging 80:1 81:6,8 equivalent 226:7 4:3,8 132:5 151:11
102:8 87:25 92:17 226:10,12 essential 160:14 167:20 221:15
endemic 256:25 96:12,25 erected 247:18 essentially 55:13 221:17 230:5
endorsement 103:17 105:17 erode 272:12 69:11 78:7,12 268:10 279:10
139:19 203:2,4 113:23 116:19 eroded 216:24 122:6 149:3 283:1
203:5 116:23 117:1,6 erodibility 157:15 194:5 EXAMINATI...
endorsements 123:21 128:17 145:10,17 262:18 272:15 6:17,18 9:8
132:11,16 134:7 135:16 146:16,20 establish 186:25 11:17 12:22
139:17 204:7 139:6 146:17 147:2,13 190:11 14:4 19:18
ends 184:15,20 172:16 203:6 154:16 159:5 established 31:24 32:15
engaged 224:1 220:16 224:1 215:12,17 49:10 71:6 35:1 36:4
279:23 226:17 229:20 216:12 218:22 130:25 131:8 52:25 56:24
engineer 29:25 234:14 260:7 220:11,15,21 176:12 193:23 61:18 65:3
72:5,17 102:5 272:25 273:7 erodible 143:24 194:10 76:15 77:16
102:8 103:4 275:9 276:3 145:13,20 establishing 84:17,25 85:25
104:16,19 277:15,19 169:11 185:20 83:20 87:18 90:21
106:20,23 278:19 281:25 185:21 estimate 201:1 91:6 93:14
107:7,20 282:3 eroding 146:24 estimated 94:13,21 95:11
108:11 109:6 engineer's erosion 18:15 201:11 265:1 98:18 101:19
110:17,25 160:21 49:16 51:1 estimates 217:24 120:16 121:1
111:16 112:3 enlarged 138:9 147:4,14,15,16 219:2,9,14 121:14 124:15
113:4 135:3 175:11 166:15,19 evaluate 26:9,21 130:17 132:6
139:1,6 149:15 enlargement 167:11 183:6 27:13,18 28:24 132:17 133:13
156:22 160:15 138:12 239:17 184:6,8 219:2 50:8,15,23 136:8 137:23
169:13 212:12 enlargements 219:5 220:6,18 57:11,21,25 140:4 142:11
219:24 220:14 244:8 221:1 226:17 216:23 218:21 143:11 145:1
226:14 235:17 entailed 73:9 228:8 230:9,24 226:17,18 163:11 166:12
258:10 270:20 entire 13:13 14:7 243:1,10 270:3 235:19 170:4 172:5
277:14,20 78:2 79:8 271:8 evaluating 26:7 173:24 176:5
279:6,12,17,23 222:15,18 erosion-resista... 222:4 224:11 176:20 189:22
280:3 246:7 166:18 evaluation 58:13 191:3,24

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 301
193:12 199:2 exceeds 112:16 235:10 external 158:24 failures 184:10

200:23 201:22 exception 52:8 experienced extra 175:16 fair 36:25 71:9
202:21 208:9 177:6 253:11 81:5,7 190:25 274:9 277:6
210:23 211:7 268:1 286:8 experiment extremely fallen 165:24
231:13,20 excessively 157:3 272:12 familiar 73:24
233:10 234:5 257:21 experiments familiarize
244:21 245:23 exclude 262:22 156:19,21,22 F 235:12
246:12 250:18 Excuse 39:17 157:1,8 F 3:6 60:21 far 37:25 48:17
252:9 258:17 exerted 21:24 expert 11:5,23 face 38:20 84:1 190:15
263:19 275:2 26:23 28:25 36:20 210:8 faces 38:5 225:6
275:24 277:12 42:21 50:9 276:24 facility 27:1,5 Farber 16:4
278:13 282:25 177:16,20 expertise 22:18 fact 67:16 farther 138:10
283:23 284:25 190:12 244:2 22:23 113:12 150:4 254:15
examined exhaustive 65:17 experts 14:19 153:12 155:18 fat 200:2,3,12
169:12 192:9 exhibit 6:3,4,5,6 25:7,10,12,14 184:9 199:17 fathom 258:12
192:24 205:21 6:8,9,11,12,13 260:7 276:25 220:24 221:3 favorable 172:9
example 17:3 6:14 12:24 explain 51:6 221:13 246:20 feasibility
20:13 21:12 30:25 55:19,21 89:12 106:19 266:8 282:2 212:22,24
34:4 51:10 56:20 57:1 107:5 281:25 284:2 feasible 153:17
98:3 104:1 77:18 78:11 explaining 72:20 factor 98:1 153:19
105:6 109:1 130:2 190:21 216:10 110:24 183:8 feature 150:14
110:5 114:4,5 192:24 201:18 explicitly 212:16 186:2 197:3 features 96:25
122:13 142:23 202:20 210:15 213:8 214:18 factors 109:10 103:20 226:24
158:25 182:21 211:9 221:24 exposed 21:12 110:13,14,20 266:23
240:18 261:2 231:15 233:15 155:4 169:9 110:23 156:2 February 255:3
284:22 234:7 249:16 188:24 225:15 158:20 159:3 Federal 5:7 11:6
excavated 86:13 249:24 269:16 226:21 227:8 177:20 183:11 220:17,19
225:3,4 269:25 expressly 20:5 183:17 184:22 feel 143:16
excavation exhibits 192:23 extend 16:15 185:5 186:6 235:11 259:24
82:13 exist 88:9 188:22 138:9 185:17 188:15 189:11 feet 40:21,23
exceed 102:24 243:16 extended 135:22 209:4,9,15,25 41:4 85:14
112:22 113:4 existed 178:13 137:25 240:4 212:2 213:10 86:14,15 89:3
113:16 155:25 180:18 186:6 252:23 214:19 225:16 99:20,21,22,23
156:5 207:13 186:10 239:1 extending 15:17 227:19 247:1 99:24 105:8,10
207:17 242:8,17 54:20 126:24 fail 167:4,6,13 112:10,16,19
exceedances existence 150:14 extends 176:9 167:16 184:6 112:22 148:9
160:24 existing 152:22 extension 177:6 184:19 284:10 170:18 207:13
exceeded 88:23 180:24 196:5 191:10,15,20 failed 117:23 208:22,22
102:7,11,18 196:21 206:13 201:2 151:4,5 155:18 219:18 236:6
103:5,6 131:10 240:10 241:5 extensively 251:25 249:3 254:10
155:5 157:23 exists 59:1 185:25 failure 49:4,4 265:1 269:5
159:13 196:20 expected 98:21 extent 95:14,24 110:17,19,21 fell 141:13
268:20 108:7 114:8 138:12 156:4 151:20 161:8 174:13
exceeding 96:14 156:5 159:24 179:22 216:23 162:11 163:15 felt 174:12
97:2 103:21 207:7 280:19 232:9 164:17 169:12 fertilized 181:18
214:7 experience extents 104:8 184:3 196:23 182:11
197:4 274:3

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 302
fertilizing 201:7 233:13 262:23 flaws 142:21 117:13 134:5 262:25 274:25
field 25:7,10,15 281:15,22 flood 65:8 74:15 134:25 162:8 found 61:8
81:4 115:19 findings 6:21 87:6 102:8 178:3 181:8 103:25 142:21
118:9 122:3 35:6 104:17,21 224:20 238:2 145:23 146:1
236:21 242:17 finds 243:22 105:18 106:15 270:17 275:4 179:1 183:14
fifth 203:4 fine 31:14 39:21 108:21 115:11 follows 9:7 187:7 242:23
figure 45:7,8,11 46:20 56:23 116:2 119:5 136:15 137:8 259:12,15
45:11,17 46:1 64:18,18 120:1 128:15 139:18 203:2 foundation
46:7 86:15 192:17 211:22 131:3 135:6 203:24 244:8 149:6 151:13
264:25 265:5,9 finish 134:3 141:8,14 267:18 270:6 171:19 222:12
265:14,21 finished 175:24 142:15 161:8 foot 207:22 235:1 238:9
266:5,10,11,15 finite 50:17 51:3 195:17 204:20 255:17,24 246:14 248:4
266:22 51:8,20 66:2,7 223:15,20 footprint 86:6 248:15 257:24
figures 265:2 68:3 224:3,24 86:12 87:20 258:2,4 278:4
filing 5:12 firm 139:1,7 225:15 263:25 88:1,4,9 278:10
fill 73:6 86:4,5 140:7 141:4 264:23 265:11 171:14 foundations
86:11 87:24,25 251:10 266:24 268:11 force 21:24 38:5 222:23
143:22,22 first 9:12 10:22 280:16,20,22 26:10 58:13 225:1
150:15,16 11:19 15:18 281:11 156:8 272:13 four 37:1 42:2,7
152:9,14,17 22:6,25 28:13 flooding 95:15 forces 23:1 42:21 43:13,23
153:4 154:3,6 38:18,25 39:10 95:24 96:8,21 26:13,23 27:9 45:12,14 46:4
154:23 160:19 42:24 43:21 97:17 104:3,4 28:24 38:4,12 46:8,17 47:1,8
162:4,20 164:3 44:17,18 47:10 104:9 38:14 40:10 48:16,22 49:6
164:14 165:9 48:23 53:17 floods 166:17 42:20 50:8 53:17 184:22
170:20 171:6 60:2 86:1 floodwall 115:10 51:1,11 52:7 186:5,12,13
174:13,19 87:20,21 94:20 floodwalls 119:7 57:21 109:8,8 188:15 209:4,9
177:11,12 101:9 147:9 119:20 206:13 148:21 155:2,3 209:15 217:4
183:13 185:15 170:12 190:10 208:11 155:13 156:11 237:20 238:16
185:16,17 201:1,3,23 Florian 2:12 158:9 159:20 247:6 269:5
187:6 195:22 203:1,2 232:4 8:24 160:8,11,12,25 fourth 42:16
196:23,24 233:12,12 Florida 166:23 185:12 190:11 44:13 45:24,25
197:15,23 234:17 237:9 flotation 196:4 217:25 218:1 186:2 187:13
198:5 215:1,4 237:10 241:14 flow 265:15,22 226:21 227:8 fraction 73:16
219:4 225:5 264:5,12 270:1 flows 106:10 244:2 fractional 219:3
238:20 239:13 272:8 275:14 fluid 38:2 86:7 Forget 34:22 fractions 73:12
262:12 287:7 88:2 form 5:14 277:4 73:18,21
final 170:18 Fish 137:15 focus 18:2 277:9 framework
196:7,9,10,12 five 23:6,12,24 160:21 184:17 formalities 5:9 29:16
196:12 24:3 37:1 247:21 5:11 free 235:11
financial 34:5,7 64:20 134:10 focused 18:8 former 63:13 frequency 99:4,6
find 10:21 72:1 249:3 49:22,24 50:1 forms 20:17 frequently 26:11
123:7 136:13 fixed 204:14 204:17 formulating 124:25
152:6 162:25 flake 243:22 focusing 18:14 232:7 front 13:4,5 39:1
165:24 171:1 flank 264:23 follow 272:9 forth 210:4 39:13 104:23
181:9 186:9 265:11 followed 272:23 232:13 287:8 133:2 184:7
187:16 231:24 flawed 272:21 following 80:1 forward 99:14 228:22 231:22

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 303
frontage 219:20 166:17 200:13 51:19 62:23 46:18 50:7 194:17 205:23
268:25 269:4,7 225:2 246:17 148:17 159:19 51:2,7 54:13 206:6,10
fronting 182:22 277:15 169:11 177:15 55:11 67:8,9 graduate 30:13
full 88:15,16,20generate 51:7 181:23 217:13 67:10 69:2,8 33:14 216:21
88:22 206:8 generated 96:21 221:13 223:23 69:10,15,17 grain 59:14,15
264:5,12 104:25 134:24 226:20 76:3 78:6,11 65:14 67:25
268:18 146:22 188:4 giving 226:13 80:19 88:14 70:10,13 71:4
function 51:14 generation 23:9 258:10 260:6 90:23 97:12 74:1 177:16
74:11 75:3,6,7 23:17 24:15,22 GIWW 79:22 107:5 112:18 211:23 212:13
96:10 102:10 24:25 135:22 138:3 112:22 120:13 grained 185:19
112:2 189:4 generations 23:6 176:21 211:14 120:14,20 grant 277:8
functions 74:10 23:12,25 213:5,24 215:2 142:4 184:5,11 granularity
fundamental Generically 216:3 222:7 189:23 190:20 179:10
112:4 114:22 229:19 267:16 194:21,23 grass 179:7
funds 64:6 gentlemen 33:10 GLENN 1:21 201:18 202:1 181:3,10
furnish 223:15 33:13,17 37:2 9:4 204:13 205:16 182:12,17
further 54:20 geo 61:24 global 50:2 58:5 219:8 233:11 186:18 188:10
104:11 106:5 geographic 150:21 151:19 233:24 234:6 209:16
140:25 284:3 258:6 240:2 244:6 great 56:23
furtherest 43:25geography go 23:23 28:20 245:13 249:2 76:14 120:23
future 9:17 282:18 30:24 35:8 269:15,17,24 124:7 137:13
159:13 160:8 geologic 148:24 37:19 38:8 274:8 276:8,20 157:19 159:24
geometric 112:5 46:14 55:10 277:3 278:8 175:24 221:18
G geometry 51:13 74:25 77:8 281:10 284:24 253:24
G 286:4 51:14,17,23 124:18 125:15 good 9:9,10 greater 18:7
GAINSBURGH geotechnical 134:3 140:8 29:25 101:11 103:7 111:18
2:21 30:19 56:10 143:14 147:24 101:13 120:12 155:13 157:24
game 132:8 81:6,8 234:9 148:2 165:17 121:6 132:9 159:19,20
garbled 227:3 234:21 235:15 169:5 172:6 144:4 172:22 160:4 207:19
Gary 3:11 8:2 geo-textiles 184:10,14 173:25 174:1 213:14 216:11
gather 69:2 183:2 211:6 231:2,5 179:13 200:14 252:11
gathered 53:23 GERALD 2:22 232:18 237:5 246:17 249:5,7 Greg 4:14 7:8
60:23 67:20 3:6 253:1 255:15 249:8 252:21 ground 253:7
69:22 getting 169:7 270:1 271:6 GOODWIN 4:7 254:9 255:6
gathering 58:9 227:18 274:25 279:2 Gordon 16:2 group 3:17 8:9
60:3 gift 233:24 281:14,15,20 63:10 14:18 16:13
general 21:15 GIS 55:9 281:22 gotten 48:23 17:18 28:23
70:10 98:24 give 10:3,8,18 goal 49:21 50:14 70:24 190:15 32:1,4 49:23
133:23,24 35:15 36:1 52:2 governed 62:8 125:15,15,17
137:3 192:8 55:11 66:17 goals 49:18,21 governments 125:20 126:2,3
202:14 207:24 68:4 108:25 God 142:3,5 161:6 groups 125:4,14
217:19 222:25 120:18 141:18 goes 17:2 77:21 grade 171:16 125:23
223:10 234:19 141:21 163:13 77:23 267:17 206:15 236:6 guess 18:16 32:3
235:21 238:10 235:17 255:21 going 10:2 12:23 grades 130:24 44:19 56:5
generally 72:16 263:7 13:11 16:20 131:6,7 134:14 75:25 79:7,7
110:20,22 given 1:23 50:10 28:15 43:2 135:10 193:21 80:6 170:5
111:25 133:25

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 304
227:3 232:5 245:21 263:14 111:22 112:19 76:19 79:19,24 166:17 169:14
240:22 263:3 happened 10:23 113:9 140:25 80:1 84:19 172:18 177:23
272:3 happy 120:18 179:4,5 226:24 85:3 88:24 177:25 178:4,7
guessing 132:8 275:1 highly 148:16 89:9 90:6 178:14 179:25
guidance 226:14 hard 175:14 185:20,21,21 91:14,17,17,18 180:18 181:4,8
guideline 24:12 HARDY 4:2 211:23 226:16 91:23,24 92:5 181:10,15,19
114:11 Hassan 28:3 Highway 3:3 93:16,17 94:24 183:21 185:7
guidelines haul 212:4 214:7 220:20 95:1,3,16,17 188:7,12
113:24 220:18 hauled 213:15 hindcasting 96:5,7,9,11,15 190:10 191:6,7
220:19 226:16 head 10:5 15:7 24:18 96:20,22,23 193:25 194:3
226:17 229:21 29:15 33:12 historic 89:13 97:1,3,10,15 194:17 206:1
229:22 42:9 44:21 264:8 97:17,18,24 206:20,21,23
Gulf 17:4,10,12 59:19 103:1,2 historical 54:3 98:1,20 99:12 216:4 217:1
17:15 29:18 123:11 179:16 57:7 69:3 99:13,14 224:13 226:9
38:17 109:3 heard 118:22 157:6,10,16 100:10,18,24 226:11,13
122:5 264:17 hearing 97:12 history 53:21 101:21 102:16 236:11 239:3
267:21 283:3,6 height 40:19 hold 46:18 102:17,22 239:22 241:1
gunite 183:3 41:1 47:9 home 13:25 103:8,17,22 242:19 243:2,6
guy 263:11 196:18 197:2 Hope 2:3 104:2,3,10,11 246:24 247:2
guys 274:16 207:25 208:21 hopefully 13:13 104:22 105:1,3 251:2 261:23
276:18 248:13 281:7 hour 34:2,11,12 105:5,6,8,9,19 262:10 269:3
G-1 237:24 heightened 34:13,19 43:19 106:1,8,9,11 271:21 274:3
244:7,20,22,22 235:19 240:4 47:4 99:10 106:12,16,22 280:9 281:2
249:22,22 heights 99:20 173:10,12,16 107:1,1,3,9,14 282:7 284:2
G-2 253:1 268:21 269:23 274:9 107:18,19,22 hurricanes
G-3 253:25 held 7:4 11:12 274:14,17 108:17,22,25 91:21,22 108:6
254:2 120:24 234:3 hourly 124:20 109:22 110:4,8 111:10 158:2
G-4 237:25 244:17 hours 125:16,19 110:12 111:3 hydraulic 18:15
249:22 254:25 help 74:15 244:9 125:23 126:1,2 111:19,21 18:18 49:24
254:25 246:9 126:4,13,23 112:3,13,21 50:3 57:25
helpful 244:11 127:6,7,11,23 113:6,17 65:24 66:11,18
H Herdin 28:2 128:1,7 114:15 117:13 67:6,18,21
half 78:12 79:12 hereinabove house 94:11 117:22 120:3 68:19 69:17
79:13 112:10 287:8 95:23 98:6,9 122:8 123:24 70:6 71:10,14
112:16,19,22 hereto 5:4 How's 76:12 131:9,10,15 72:24 73:6
205:2,2,2,3,13 287:14 HPP 141:9 134:17,19,24 86:4,11 87:24
208:22 236:7 herewith 140:12 Hughes 242:2 134:25 138:21 105:21 131:9
hand 12:23 heterogeneous hundreds 261:9 140:17 146:11 134:16 148:21
13:11 31:1 225:5 hurricane 15:2 146:14,22 149:16 152:14
55:10 76:16 high 40:20 17:7,14,24 147:10 151:6 152:23 153:4
112:9 234:6 101:14 110:19 27:14,19,21 154:8 155:4,6 154:3 155:13
250:14 269:15 148:17 169:10 28:25 29:2 155:14,19 156:11 158:8
handed 56:25 214:6 219:16 38:15 50:16 156:1 157:13 158:20 159:20
handing 77:17 223:16 255:24 53:5 57:17 157:14,21,25 160:8 168:19
hands 94:15 256:7 257:3,8 59:4 65:8,23 159:1 161:10 171:6 174:13
174:6 204:15 higher 110:20 74:15 75:9 163:16 164:18 174:19 177:11
231:23,25

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 305
177:12 184:13 170:23 176:13 105:25 227:19 15:8 16:9,14

185:12 193:24 176:22 267:17 inadequate incumbent 63:18 64:1,2
196:2 197:1,7 ILIT 13:16 28:9 143:19 155:21 135:16 Industrial 177:7
197:12,15,23 53:24,24 60:14 262:23 independent industry 161:6
198:4 205:25 60:17,23 61:20 inadequately 6:21 12:14 infer 81:12,17
215:1,16,21,22 61:21,24 62:4 272:6 35:5 53:25 inference 107:6
216:17 244:2 62:10,19 63:19 inappropriate independently inferring 107:7
hydraulically 63:22 64:4 141:7,11 80:12 influence 51:8
82:10,20 69:4 117:18 152:17 154:7 index 99:9 137:4 inform 104:16
170:17 126:16,25 171:7 185:17 indicate 76:16 104:19 110:24
hydrologic 127:12 128:12 262:17 89:5 119:11 112:3
226:21 227:8 188:5 219:1,21 inasmuch 227:7 140:5 141:2 information
Hydrometeor... 221:12,14 inches 99:9 148:13 155:19 35:25 37:19
99:2 259:16,18 include 88:6 175:1 203:18 53:23 58:15,18
261:7 263:5 103:20 142:25 204:19 205:22 58:18,20 59:6
I 266:15 270:21 176:10 220:15 206:19 207:4 60:1 63:5
ideal 225:6 274:2 220:17,19 208:20 218:19 66:18 68:6
identified 20:14 imagine 191:13 included 89:18 218:25 219:7 90:13 96:12
24:16 29:7 immediate 238:1 235:3 236:21 103:25 104:7
30:7 45:21 277:25 includes 32:2 244:22 250:19 105:16 122:10
59:25 63:25,25 immunity 87:7 154:14 252:10 254:2 122:12 130:19
66:3 88:8 impact 27:18 including 65:14 267:3 134:18 135:17
91:25 94:11 57:21 65:7 109:20 111:17 indicated 7:6 154:18 165:23
109:5 114:25 214:22 215:3 inclusion 95:3 65:12 77:20 181:6 194:2
150:1,2 151:25 implied 280:25 incomplete 55:2 78:18 141:23 217:13 236:8
159:21 163:14 imply 105:4 incorporate 153:11 164:4 242:21 255:21
164:11 165:19 implying 86:5 96:13 104:20 180:2 185:3 258:11 261:4,7
204:21 209:4 87:25 259:8 106:23 107:8 205:1 229:24 informed 123:8
210:3,7 221:22 import 101:25 110:25 230:1 257:7 informing 103:4
243:14 247:6 102:4 incorporated 259:20 268:13 informs 98:9
251:7 281:1 importance 74:2 60:16 140:1 indicates 145:6 103:16 107:19
identifies 15:4 74:4,5 220:4 236:9 148:4 243:20 inherent 102:19
104:2 105:2,9 important 67:6 incorporation 255:23 initial 12:2
270:18 68:13 74:5 183:13 indicating 75:24 219:16 286:15
identify 12:25 75:1,2 97:21 incorrect 69:19 76:20,22 77:22 initiated 66:13
38:18 49:15 211:15 215:12 154:13 155:22 78:8 95:20 219:17
54:18,22 67:21 224:20 225:10 155:23 164:19 136:21 242:5 Inkabi 16:4
94:22 128:12 225:15 227:6 increase 208:1 250:5 252:14 Inner 268:1
186:13 211:8 279:5,8,15 213:16 253:19 254:16 input 29:20
233:16 249:11 impounded increased indication 37:19 51:3
250:8 253:16 142:19 109:22 111:13 152:14,17 68:5 157:4
254:13 impoundment 195:23 208:21 261:11 262:7 inquiry 18:3
identifying 152:20 208:23 227:20 281:5 inside 153:13
270:19 improper increases 216:14 indications 248:24
IHNC 119:21 284:11 increasing 251:24 instability
120:1 135:22 improvement 207:24 227:17 individuals 15:5 150:22 151:19
138:1 148:25

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 306
instance 70:13 196:13 it'll 243:17 K 45:23,24 46:24

111:23 119:6 internal 159:3 272:15,16 K 1:7 47:8 54:1
126:21 157:13 International Iver 28:2 Karline 16:6 58:25 64:14
158:18,19 3:18 8:9 I-wall 149:9 Katrina 1:5 11:6 72:9,11,19
243:12 280:6 Internet 269:19 15:2 17:7,14 75:23 79:1
instruction interpret 89:16 J 83:7,13 84:1
17:25 19:9,22
279:2 interpreted J 4:12 27:15,22 29:2 84:23 85:6,11
instructions 279:17 January 244:25 38:15 50:16 85:11 91:2
141:1 interrupting 246:24 254:4 52:19 53:6 92:12 112:15
insufficient 39:20 Jean 16:3 57:17 59:4 114:1 119:5,8
262:12 intersection JEFFERSON 65:23 76:19 121:10 122:15
integrity 215:19 283:5,8 3:21 84:20 117:13 125:22 127:11
216:15 intersects job 101:11,13 117:22 122:8 135:19 138:24
intended 74:10 283:10 Joe 8:17 16:7 123:24 125:3 139:4 145:25
74:11 75:3,6,7 interspersed 250:1 274:21 125:11 151:6 157:19 161:7
75:8 102:10 252:17 276:9 282:11 154:8,12 155:5 165:8,13
247:17 268:25 interview 270:14 Johns 4:16 5:21 155:14,19 172:10 175:4
281:6 271:18 7:10,11 287:4 161:10 163:16 177:19 179:10
intending 189:1 Intracoastal 287:20 164:18 165:4 180:23 183:24
intense 21:14 283:3,4 joined 284:9 169:15 177:23 190:2 191:20
102:7 243:19 introduce 7:12 joints 284:11 177:25 178:4,7 199:23 202:25
intensity 99:12 introduced Joseph 2:11,12 178:14 179:25 205:6,10,15
218:1 51:12,15 8:24 11:1 180:19 181:5,9 221:6 229:22
intent 88:10 investigated JR 3:3 181:10,15,20 240:13 241:10
157:2 203:19 239:2 Juan 16:5 183:21 186:17 248:22 251:12
279:20 283:14 investigation JUDGE 1:7 188:4,7,12 251:23 258:19
intentionally 12:15 53:25 judgmental 190:10 191:7 276:9 277:22
85:7 234:10 235:1,9 219:10 216:5 217:1 278:6,14 279:5
interaction 235:16 236:21 Julia 3:7 239:3 241:1 280:6,11 281:4
17:21 273:24 274:2 July 14:9,13 242:19 246:24 282:7
interactions investigators 36:24 94:12 251:2,4 262:10 knowingly
17:6 38:3 178:12 jump 237:6 269:3 271:21 275:13
Interagency involved 10:22 Junction 223:4 Katrina's 65:8 knowledge
58:12 15:9 16:22 juncture 142:14 keep 14:1 120:13 57:16 72:3
interchangeably 106:10 159:3 161:16 162:11 120:20 131:20 97:4 115:7
116:7,10 161:5 182:18 junctures 136:2 162:6,8 116:21 118:2
interested 52:22 220:12 226:19 keeping 127:6 135:15 140:24
59:21 170:6 involving 161:5 June 36:23 Kemp 28:3 158:4 280:13
232:20 287:15 212:4 234:15 235:4 kind 209:16 known 117:17
interface 259:11 in-sea 24:10 jurisdiction 227:2,2 138:13 146:2
interior 105:21 irrelevant 149:2 277:1 knew 273:2 knows 278:11
268:8,9 issue 226:5 JUSTICE 2:6 knots 100:2,3,5 282:20
intermediary issues 67:3 87:7 justification 100:10,18 Koelewijn 242:1
48:10 item 201:9 171:25 172:2 know 33:22 Kofe 16:4
intermediate items 6:20 201:3 172:11,13,17 39:17,22,23
48:11 196:8,11 iterations 24:3 justify 149:17 L
43:15 44:6
L 5:1 20:16

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 307
lab 58:25 largely 23:20 77:8 80:25 182:22 183:5 282:8,11,14,17

label 201:18 larger 109:11 85:1 124:4 184:8,10,11,15 282:22 283:8,9
202:1 latest 134:16 147:24 148:2 188:18 189:2 283:10 284:8
labeled 133:22 193:25 194:17 149:21 150:24 190:12 193:21 leveed 166:20
200:25 234:9 law 2:11 3:2 5:8 165:17 173:3 194:16 195:22 levees 17:22
234:14 lawyer 7:15 173:16 175:9 196:5,15 197:1 26:10,24 27:10
labels 266:10 lawyers 58:23 198:11 231:5 200:14 202:16 50:9 54:12
laboratory 258:24 237:5 247:22 202:23 204:22 68:25 83:10
53:19 66:4,8 layer 145:20 249:11 253:24 204:25 205:3,4 89:10,20,24
66:11 67:9,12 245:13 253:11 269:25 205:13,14 90:14,17,19
67:16,20 256:24 257:1 levee 3:14 4:5 206:6,11,20 92:8 99:24
149:20 154:10 257:21 258:1 8:3,14 12:14 208:15,21 100:15 106:1
154:14 217:18 layers 148:8,15 17:4 19:6,20 209:3 211:10 111:22 114:9
218:2 237:8 200:4 245:8,10 20:1,4,20,22 214:13 215:10 114:20,23
238:1 241:17 lead 184:5 212:5 20:25 21:3,7 223:5,13,22,24 115:1,9,10,10
242:7,12,16 276:25 21:17,19,22 224:21,23 115:13 116:16
lack 67:19 73:10 leader 276:1 38:20,21 39:4 225:3,4,6 118:6,14,16,20
73:10,11,13 leading 92:18 39:10,12,14 228:21 234:22 118:22 119:1
182:3 183:7 184:7 276:9 40:21,24 41:3 235:2,5,19,24 119:12,17,20
184:25 186:3 learn 281:18 43:4 46:12 236:2,5,23 119:23 122:20
239:9 278:3 learned 37:25 49:23 50:2 238:15 239:14 125:3 129:5,8
lacking 68:24 182:7 53:25 75:20 240:3,20,21 129:13 134:22
LAFARGE 4:9 leave 176:22 76:17 78:1,15 243:17,18 135:20,21
Lake 3:13 8:3 leaves 179:19 78:20 79:5,9 244:24 245:3 138:16,16,17
85:2 90:5 led 49:5 128:22 79:12,13 83:18 246:18,21,22 138:19 152:8
91:17,22 92:15 183:11 184:23 84:13 85:9 247:12 248:3,5 169:8,9,10,13
93:17,19 94:9 276:18 86:7,10,21 248:14,24 174:14 177:9
96:4 99:21 left 255:15 87:4,5,11,20 249:1 252:11 177:13,14
100:1,7,9,13 left-hand 256:10 88:2,5,8,9,10 252:16 253:4 178:8,22
100:16,21,22 Legal 7:9 88:11,24 89:1 254:4,10,23 179:24 180:4
106:2 114:15 legend 266:9 110:1,6 113:10 255:2,8 257:19 180:18,20
120:2 131:14 267:2 115:24 118:10 258:3 259:1,9 181:14,25
140:16 141:15 legislation 119:3,4,18,25 259:10,12 182:8,14
264:15,18,21 141:16 227:24 123:14 125:14 260:6,9,20,23 183:12,14,20
280:15 length 270:8 125:19 126:3 260:23 262:13 184:4,6,24
LaLoutre 88:22 lengths 178:22 128:18 130:24 262:15,15,17 185:1 186:9
Lambert 1:23 letter 94:10 131:6 134:14 263:2 264:9 187:11,16,17
2:17 8:20 139:10 140:5 135:10 138:9 265:18,23 188:11 189:18
land 100:4 140:11,18 143:21 149:9 266:2,12 267:5 191:10 192:2
267:20 lettered 134:10 150:11 152:9 267:7,11 268:2 192:16,18,22
language 194:6 134:13 153:18 161:18 268:9 270:8 192:22 195:16
LaPlace 3:4 letters 136:19 162:14 167:24 271:9 272:1,15 195:16 196:1
large 26:8 54:23 140:19 245:17 169:20,22 273:1,4,5,9 197:2 201:14
183:14 264:12 let's 12:21 13:8 170:12 171:14 275:13,16 203:21 206:12
264:14,22 13:10 25:17 171:19 176:7 279:9 281:15 206:24 208:11
265:14,22 48:1 52:13 178:15 179:6 281:19,21 209:6,12 210:5

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 308
210:11 211:22 169:20 170:13 124:18 126:9 logged 245:9 62:17 63:14
211:25 212:10 170:17 171:15 164:9 200:11 logs 198:3,11 90:6 94:10
213:3,22 214:1 194:24 196:17 218:20 246:13 199:4 99:1 140:16
215:1 217:15 196:18 243:23 live 272:1 long 90:17 234:13 287:22
217:16 221:25 light 185:25 LLP 4:7 131:18,18,19 low 110:21
223:2 224:6,18 lightweight load 21:23 168:7,9,11 184:15,16
225:10,14 143:24 284:23 258:19 268:22 214:3 219:19
227:1,7,9,15 likelihood loading 223:17 269:10 274:25 255:11 256:7
228:1,20 219:16 223:19 longer 180:18 284:21
229:17 232:11 limit 85:1 loads 215:15 212:4 214:7 lower 17:12
233:19 239:22 185:16 224:22 local 39:24,25 223:19 227:8 192:11 193:1
240:15,18 limits 160:21 40:4 196:3 285:2 203:7 267:14
241:14 242:8 237:21 258:9 locales 89:2 look 31:2 45:7 269:5
242:25 243:3,7 Linda 2:17 8:20 locate 66:16 45:18 55:12 lowest 284:6
245:3 247:9 line 15:15,17,19 69:15 57:7 132:20 LPV 141:9
251:25 259:22 58:8 78:10 located 27:20 162:25 166:4 Luke 16:4
260:15 261:3,5 106:4 122:20 54:25 176:4 174:22 175:9 lunch 172:25
261:13 262:3,9 150:11 189:18 location 21:11 175:12 176:21 173:3 274:17
262:21,22 234:12 244:24 22:7 41:7,10 198:11 199:23 L.S 29:7,18
268:21,24 254:4 255:2 41:14,15,16,16 222:9 230:10 30:12 37:9
269:3,6,9 268:13,14 42:14 43:17,24 232:19 235:11 50:6 57:22
271:19 281:11 linearly 24:5 44:1,7,10,13 253:2,25
level 47:10 86:15 lines 15:14 28:13 46:25,25 47:15 255:10 269:19 M
104:12 105:8 link 284:13 48:2 53:10 looked 151:3 M 2:11,12
105:10 146:20 linked 72:19,21 82:6,22 99:19 193:14 231:21 MAG 1:8
148:10 151:22 Liquid 237:21 137:24 154:24 looking 45:16 Magazine 1:24
158:13 160:11 list 16:8 65:17 188:22 203:24 137:3 139:23 2:18 7:4
188:20,21 165:20,22 213:15 253:4 165:15 253:5 magnitudes
189:15 215:7 182:20 184:22 253:19 254:11 266:19 219:11
216:1 226:24 242:3 255:8 282:6 looks 124:2 main 132:13
244:2 265:2 listed 22:21 locations 41:11 164:12 176:25 248:3 266:24
268:20 269:1,2 63:17 127:17 42:1,22 43:13 200:2 203:6 maintained
280:23 284:22 literature 72:2 43:23 45:12,14 204:9 249:5,7 181:19 182:12
levels 105:4 litigation 1:5 46:8,17 47:1,9 249:8 260:20 263:2
106:9 107:24 10:22 11:6,20 47:19 48:11,16 loosely 81:10 maintains 272:5
146:5,7 219:14 36:7 58:23 48:19 49:6 Los 2:4 275:3
264:15 71:24 83:25 52:9,11,16 loss 49:5 190:16 maintenance
Liaison 2:14 125:3 126:18 53:17 57:17 lost 107:4 153:21 84:8 272:23
8:17 127:1,9 258:24 58:1 99:17 lot 144:19 major 15:1
lift 152:23 154:1 259:25 269:12 122:8 129:1 loud 165:21 134:19 194:3
184:14 194:21 little 12:4 13:12 142:19 151:17 218:15,16,18 262:14
239:18 240:22 32:12 38:9,10 153:12 213:2,5 Louis 16:3 making 10:2
257:14 52:14 65:4 217:4 221:9 Louisiana 1:2,24 28:20
lifting 153:24 74:25 76:7 252:6,25 270:7 2:13,19,24 3:4 man 63:6,8
lifts 89:22 77:19 81:13 lock 138:1,2 3:8,12,17,21 management
138:19 152:10 97:11,13 176:13 283:2 4:5,17 5:22 7:5 220:17 223:6
Mandeville

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 309
99:22 154:4 169:11 30:23 33:18 148:9 157:20 141:3,7 165:23

manner 145:7 170:25 171:14 34:9 36:16,21 176:24 207:15 172:12 174:2
manual 114:1 183:16 184:12 63:4 74:6 78:4 207:17 219:23 174:18 190:23
144:7,9 146:1 195:22 196:2,7 124:21 207:24 227:5 228:10 191:5,9,25
146:2 147:19 196:8,10,11,24 230:7 248:23 257:25 258:5 192:1,8 193:15
154:14 211:4 197:1,7,15,23 287:16 261:1 262:18 201:24 202:9
211:10 220:16 198:5 199:8,12 matters 73:2 265:2 269:2 202:23 204:19
221:25 224:7 199:15,15 mattresses 183:1 276:23 283:25 205:18
226:3,3,6 200:15 211:17 Maurepas meaning 53:24 memory 55:5
228:15,21 214:3,8 215:14 100:13,22 103:12 118:10 men 244:13
230:7 225:5,8 238:21 maximum 91:24 118:11 260:7 Menteur 99:25
manuals 114:1 239:9,16 92:5 93:16 281:22,25 100:17
282:3 240:10 241:3,4 94:23 95:3,16 means 281:19 mention 105:11
map 75:25 136:5 246:14,21,22 96:8,11,22,23 282:4 mentioned
136:9,9 137:4 247:10,14,25 97:10,15,18,23 meant 34:5 72:8 126:17
203:24 204:18 248:4 253:14 99:10,16,20 193:24 248:14 merely 82:8
205:2 251:5 255:9,22 100:24 101:21 measurements met 9:11 272:24
252:10,12 256:10 262:17 102:13,16 22:7,8,10,12 274:5
266:4,8,14,18 271:3,7,10 103:8,10 104:3 23:4 24:10 Metairie 3:12,21
266:23 267:3 272:11 104:11,22,25 156:18 4:5
MAPLES 3:6 materials 82:19 105:6,9 106:8 mechanics 22:15 meteorological
March 10:24,24 82:25 83:9,17 106:12,16 156:24 98:22
11:11,20 126:6 84:12 85:9 107:2,9,14,18 mechanism 49:5 meter 243:21
126:7 202:24 86:6,8,12,19 108:25 109:22 49:15 method 86:3
232:4,12 86:21 88:1,3 111:10,20 mechanisms 87:23 146:15
mark 4:8 12:21 146:16 154:12 146:13 156:8 151:20 169:22 177:22
13:10 35:24 154:15,19 157:14,21,25 medications 195:5,15,18
55:11 56:13 156:24 159:5 203:12,15 10:9 methodology
61:16 76:25 185:20,23 226:8,11 281:1 meet 14:20 220:10
77:5,8 190:20 187:10,24 MAXWELL 4:3 158:21 167:11 MEUNIER 2:21
marked 12:24 189:5,6 195:2 MCCRANIE meeting 273:14 2:22 251:14
30:25 57:1 195:9 197:21 4:2 meets 279:20 Mexico 109:4
77:18 211:9 199:25 203:20 MCDANIEL member 270:20 Michoud 77:23
221:23 231:15 209:19 212:3,9 4:3 members 32:5 microphone
233:15 234:7 212:14,18 mean 19:9,25 63:24 117:16 251:18 283:18
249:16 269:16 213:11,14,17 22:13 39:10,25 219:1 260:13 mid 40:19 41:1
marsh 148:8,15 214:5,20 215:4 41:2 43:16 memo 202:7 47:9 78:7
150:14 218:22 227:18 48:22 49:5 memoranda 254:17
Mashriki 28:3 240:15 242:22 52:19 60:14 203:25 midway 41:13
match 45:18 245:4 246:18 67:24 74:4 memorandum 42:7,10 43:7
70:21 247:23 248:8 86:15 97:9 80:5 90:2,9 148:7
material 74:2 248:15,16,19 102:12,18 92:23 129:9,10 Mike 16:5
78:21 79:4 248:24 249:3 111:15 112:9 132:15 135:21 mile 268:22
89:1,7 145:13 253:3 254:7 113:19 119:2 137:25 138:18 269:9
145:20 148:18 255:25 261:2 123:18 125:8,9 138:25 139:5 miles 99:10,11
152:9,18 154:1 matter 9:18 10:9 128:4 144:20 140:6,14,23 mimics 69:16

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 310
mind 122:24 27:7,12,17,25 mounded 83:4 MSL 86:15 Nelson 1:23 2:17
mine 130:12 28:24 29:12,14 move 32:11 76:6 multiple 122:3 2:17 8:19,20
217:10 29:22 30:4,7,8 76:6,8 149:21 8:20 140:1,7
minimum 37:9,10,10,11 150:24 164:25 N 143:6 246:8
203:13 238:17 37:17,21 50:6 248:8 N 5:1 6:1 29:8 net 130:24 131:6
minor 134:5,12 50:13,18,21 movement 99:15 name 7:8,20 134:14 135:9
minus 86:14,14 51:4,13 57:22 movie 31:21 23:22 24:14,16 193:21 194:16
89:3 148:9,11 66:3,7 68:6,7 moving 149:25 37:12 94:8 205:22 206:5
148:11 198:2,2 156:23,25 mowed 181:19 147:12 204:2 206:10,14
199:9,9,13,13 157:3,5 MRGO 17:22 270:1,5 272:8 never 167:6
203:16 249:4,7 modeling 22:9 27:14,21 29:1 272:10 243:3
253:6 254:8 27:23 43:11 38:22 41:8 named 20:18 new 1:24 2:13,19
255:6 256:1,6 49:23 51:8 48:20 59:3 names 16:8 2:24 3:8,17 4:8
256:14,15,22 models 22:16 65:10 71:18 23:23 7:4 11:7 46:11
256:23 258:1 23:7,12,17,19 74:18,21 75:13 natural 160:17 46:12 50:19
minute 64:20 23:22 24:4 79:18,23 83:7 160:18 213:25 51:7 75:20
274:19 25:12,14 26:13 83:11,14 84:3 nature 53:9,10 76:17 77:25
mirror 194:5 29:21 30:11 84:19 85:6,12 148:18 166:18 78:15 79:9,19
misread 196:9 37:9 38:13 86:13,20 89:6 178:15,25 80:17 99:23
missing 247:8 151:23 156:17 89:8,14 90:15 179:23 196:21 100:15 117:12
Mississippi 17:4 156:20 160:20 92:8 114:19 199:12 240:14 128:18 135:15
17:10,12,15 160:21 119:14,25 navigation 17:5 135:17 165:2
29:18 38:17 modes 110:19,21 123:3 125:4,17 18:9 38:6 202:15,22
100:6,12,20 169:12 184:3 126:2 128:17 41:12,17 85:8 204:21,25
122:4 183:2 modifying 134:23 135:22 89:7,14 123:10 205:12 206:6
192:5,18,22 149:10 135:24 138:3,4 142:16 161:17 206:10,20
196:3 203:7 moisture 59:23 138:10 150:7 165:6 186:1 209:2 215:10
267:17,18,20 59:24 65:15 170:24 174:20 near 253:20 224:13 234:15
283:5,11 71:5 81:14 176:8,22 nearly 268:21 236:8 252:11
mistake 199:21 257:8,16 177:10 179:3 269:9 259:5,7 264:9
mistaken 53:2 moment 76:7 180:24,25 neces 235:17 264:20 265:23
68:22 Monday 1:25 181:8,24 necessarily 87:4 266:1,25
misunderstood money 280:2 186:11 196:3 115:18 267:10,24
248:12 MONICA 3:20 197:24 207:1 necessary 99:15 268:12,14
mix 271:24 month 126:13 211:14 213:4 166:20,22 278:1,21 280:9
mixed 189:6 261:25 213:23 215:2,9 214:2 259:25 280:20 282:9
271:5 monthly 125:1,2 216:3 219:20 need 63:5 70:22 282:18
mode 49:4,4 125:10 222:6 229:19 102:13,15 newly 51:22
110:17 months 37:1 242:9,18,25 120:17,18 135:10
model 22:11 126:10 261:8 259:2 261:20 129:25 149:15 News 269:23
23:3,9 24:2,7 Moraga 1:22 9:5 265:19 267:8 197:9 208:17 NGVD 248:21
24:14,16,18,18 morning 9:9,10 267:16,16 208:25 229:5 nice 178:9
24:22 25:3,6,9 40:3 46:23 270:8,24 249:12 251:15 Ninth 17:13
25:19 26:1,4 280:15 271:20 272:5 251:17 278:10 192:11 193:1
26:11,15,16,20 MORTON 3:10 273:3,5,9 needs 146:5 265:13 267:15
26:22 27:2,4,5 Moss 16:5 275:16 negatively 268:23 269:11
123:11

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 311
nodding 10:4 90:2,10 92:23 objection 131:25 53:5 89:3 122:6,12 124:7
nods 15:7 29:15 95:6 98:13 277:9 117:14,21 125:13 129:13
33:12 42:9 127:17 129:9 objections 5:13 154:8 260:5 130:9,11 134:9
44:21 59:19 130:2 133:7,16 obliterated 273:21 137:13 140:3
103:1 179:16 136:15 137:4,6 179:25 occurrence 142:3 144:25
non-levees 137:18 140:15 observation 99:18 145:5 147:24
189:18 140:23 142:22 188:1 occurring 47:17 148:2 149:2
normal 223:20 142:25 148:2,3 observations Ocean 22:25 152:5 155:10
264:18 148:24 149:21 181:7 October 85:2 160:10 162:24
normally 21:12 152:16 163:1 observe 8:14 88:22 140:18 163:2,10
67:12 88:7 164:5,8 165:15 177:22,24 offhand 175:6 168:25 172:25
north 3:12 4:4,9 165:17,23 180:22 office 3:2 61:9 174:22 175:7
41:13,16,24 168:25 174:3 observed 122:7 offices 1:23 2:11 178:5,19 183:7
42:2,13 44:3 175:7,8 176:23 178:16 186:17 officiated 5:23 183:17 186:16
100:8 240:19 190:21,23 186:24 241:14 Offshore 109:3 192:13,17
283:3 192:1,1,8 241:16 off-centered 193:18 195:13
northeast 201:19 202:7,9 observing 178:3 32:13 197:6 200:11
265:12 202:15,20 obstacle 66:20 Oh 26:2 56:4,20 201:12 203:18
northeastern 204:4 205:17 66:23 67:1 93:22 101:2 211:19 216:7
268:22 269:10 208:4 210:16 obtain 37:5 133:1 163:9 218:14 221:22
northern 48:6 211:9 217:9 62:23 63:1 170:16 245:19 222:19 229:5
northernmost 219:1 220:1,2 65:13 67:12 249:8 230:15 233:14
47:19 221:6,24 90:13 203:19 okay 11:10 235:13 236:15
northward 222:17 229:8 213:11 214:2,8 12:16 16:1 243:6 245:7
100:13,21 231:16 233:15 obtained 58:22 25:13 26:6 248:2,3,14,17
notably 95:13 234:7 249:14 61:23 65:21 31:12 35:11 249:11 250:7
notebook 190:22 249:15,16 82:9,10,20 38:24 39:15,15 250:17 252:8
201:24 204:9 250:1,2,4 89:7 91:8,13 42:8,19 44:10 252:15,22
232:25 257:7 260:15 178:20 179:3 44:12 46:10,13 254:17 259:18
noted 264:6 264:6 266:6 194:2 196:2,4 47:17 49:8 265:4 266:21
notes 153:3 269:16 197:24 198:1 51:6 53:2 268:11 272:18
notion 102:21,22 numbered 199:8 214:12 66:10 69:20 274:12 276:9
November 1:25 139:11 203:4,9 225:2 237:14 74:23 76:12,23 276:23 277:3
7:5 92:24 205:18 236:20 269:18 78:6 79:6 279:4 285:5
129:10 273:22 numbers 122:16 obtaining 35:8 80:21 81:7 old 10:12 244:13
286:20 143:12 165:20 63:7 83:9,17 82:21 84:6 omitted 168:20
number 6:3,4,5 207:15 219:12 84:12 85:8 85:24 87:19 168:24
6:8,9,11,12,13 numerous 282:3 86:20 213:13 88:4 93:7 once 65:20 99:4
6:14 12:24 NW 2:9 4:8 213:16 96:16 97:11 ones 10:13
30:25 41:14,15 obvious 250:11 101:7 104:5 123:22
41:16,16 42:14 O obviously 106:19 107:4 One's 184:12
44:1,7,10 46:1 O 5:1 20:16,16 121:13 108:1 110:7,14 ongoing 14:15
54:7,16,23 32:8,8 73:19 occasions 260:16 110:18 111:2 15:9,12,14,15
55:21 57:1 oath 5:23 9:24 occur 196:23 111:11 113:25 15:17 16:23
77:18 78:11 object 90:17 occurred 17:24 114:17 116:9 28:10,13 30:22
80:6 85:17 276:8 277:3 27:13 43:12 117:4 120:21 32:1,6 33:3,7
278:3

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 312
48:14 49:2,8 order 21:8 70:6 38:17 122:5 101:10,15 200:22,25

49:14,19,20 122:17 158:21 267:21 283:6 120:11,22 201:3 203:3,10
50:25 61:5 203:11 204:10 outline 267:13 121:3,11 124:6 204:2 205:17
65:7 190:8 243:21 281:18 268:5,6 129:20,24 206:17 208:3
217:2 organic 67:25 outlines 152:7 130:13 131:24 223:8 229:6,7
onshore 264:12 74:2,25 81:14 outlyer 256:18 132:4,12,22 234:18 235:21
264:14 183:15 211:23 outset 114:25 133:6 136:6,24 236:19 237:8
opaque 261:1 organization outside 273:18 137:5,12,17,21 238:19 263:21
open 30:8 37:13 117:2 overall 189:10 139:13,22 264:4,5,11
37:13,17 organized overburden 141:17 142:2 265:6 266:6,16
operated 260:20 130:12 257:15 144:12,16,23 268:17,19
263:2 original 53:24 overcoming 163:3 166:8 269:25 270:1
operations 272:5 66:22,25 169:23 170:2 271:23
272:23 originally overflow 106:1 171:24 172:3 pages 98:15
OPERATOR 161:22 Overload 258:16 172:24 173:9 136:19 137:9
7:1 9:1 11:14 originated 165:9 overloaded 173:13 175:15 139:10 261:9
64:21,25 76:2 Orleans 1:24 196:24 175:22 176:16 paid 124:19,23
93:23 94:1,4 2:13,19,24 3:8 overtopping 189:20 190:24 124:25 169:7
124:8,12 173:5 3:17 4:5 7:5 43:10 48:1 191:14,19 paired 192:8
173:17,21 8:13 11:7 98:3 111:8,12 193:6,10 paper 263:7,9,10
231:1,6,10 46:11,12 75:20 111:24 146:25 198:13,21,25 263:11,13
251:16 283:16 76:17 78:1,15 147:4,6 228:7 200:19 202:6 paragraph 33:4
283:21 284:15 79:9,19 95:25 230:17,18 202:11,17 86:1 88:15,19
285:12 99:23 100:15 265:10,15,22 208:5 210:14 89:5 98:19
opined 186:10 104:4 117:12 overview 89:14 210:19,25 100:25 101:3
opinion 75:18 128:18 202:15 263:24 211:5 101:22 121:4
96:17 98:4,5,5 202:22 204:21 over-build 121:15 132:10
98:10 103:16 204:25 205:13 236:12 P 132:19 133:16
107:16,17 206:6,11,20 owe 274:9 P 5:1 133:18,22
110:2 119:16 209:2 215:10 owner 63:13 PA 3:6 134:4,13,21
120:6 123:8 224:13 234:15 O'Donnell 2:2,2 page 6:2 33:5,6 140:9,10 166:4
135:3 149:5,8 252:11 264:9 7:14,15 12:20 45:7,11 85:15 166:6,11,13
168:14 170:6 264:20 265:23 13:15,19,24 85:17,18 86:2 168:3,5,8,10
177:9 181:16 266:1,25 19:14 31:5,9 88:13,16 91:9 168:13,22,25
181:23 182:13 267:10,25 31:16,20 32:10 95:1,2,4 98:13 169:1,16
183:11,19 268:12,15 34:14,20 35:14 104:1 105:22 170:10 171:9
185:6 194:19 278:1,21 35:23 52:18 132:7,10,21 171:22 174:4
194:25 197:7 280:10,21 55:18,23 56:7 133:14,17 174:18,23
205:3 214:25 282:9,19 56:12,17,22 136:7,13,16,17 176:7 193:5,14
215:6 241:11 outboard 38:20 64:13,19 76:5 137:8 166:4,7 193:20,22
241:12,13 outcome 287:15 76:11,24 77:4 166:9,11 195:11,14
242:24 243:2 outer 268:14 77:11 84:14,21 167:25 168:2,3 197:19,20
opinions 232:7 outfall 119:8 85:19 87:1,12 168:4,5 169:17 199:7 203:4,9
opportunity outgrew 264:18 87:16 93:8,12 171:23 174:8,9 203:10 205:18
10:18 Outlet 17:4,10 94:19 95:5,9 193:5,16 205:22 206:7
opposed 212:22 17:12,15 29:18 98:12,16 195:11,12 206:16 207:4
197:19 200:17

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 313
208:4 212:7 267:14,24 pay 34:18,21 14:11 33:19 pipeline 150:3

213:8 214:17 277:25 278:20 paying 101:16 63:6 66:10 238:18 254:21
214:22 218:5,9 part 5:16 13:2,3 121:13 126:15 178:6 pipelines 223:1
218:19 220:23 13:4,5 15:24 PBS 269:23 216:21 pits 225:2
223:11 224:5 17:18 28:5 270:15 period 84:15,18 place 101:25
224:16 234:18 51:11 53:23 peat 246:16,17 85:1 89:22 121:18 153:17
235:20,22 59:11 62:15 256:11,19,24 109:6,19 153:23 162:18
236:19,20 64:3 78:18 257:1,21,25 159:24 171:16 163:14,18
237:7,10 238:2 79:23 90:5 Pendleton 7:11 195:19 196:20 191:12 195:19
238:8,19 97:5,7 125:12 Penland's 224:22 225:14 257:22 272:8
239:12 264:5 126:16 172:13 251:10 227:9 281:2 273:17 275:14
264:12 265:6 200:24 224:13 Pennsylvania periods 223:17 281:15,19
268:18 270:17 252:23 261:14 2:9 223:19 226:22 placed 82:6,22
paragraphs Partially 178:18 people 16:25 permanently 86:6,11 88:1
98:11 103:15 participate 8:15 260:4 278:17 223:21 164:15 196:17
134:10 193:4 participated 278:22 permeability 214:9
221:23 222:1 122:4 perceptions 151:13 159:5 placement
parameters 67:3 participating 219:3 permitted 97:19 154:11 171:13
68:14 71:7 8:5,10 273:14 perfect 57:4 perpendicular 197:1 214:4,23
91:12 92:1,7 particular 41:7 113:15 114:4,5 99:16 215:3
99:11 131:9 74:1,3,4,13 121:16 136:11 personal 287:10 places 54:25
134:17 156:5 82:6 105:2 173:14 232:24 personally 23:8 placing 153:21
158:24 159:6 244:14 278:24 perform 23:8 23:16 60:11,13 PLAINTIFF
194:1,10,18 280:5 29:7 66:1 pertained 2:14
206:1 217:21 particularly 69:17 74:10 271:18 Plaintiffs 2:4,19
235:18 239:20 18:8 102:10 149:15 pertinent 151:2 2:24 3:5,8 7:16
parametric 67:5 parties 5:4 279:9 155:24 226:3 228:16 8:17,22 9:17
68:9 282:21 287:14 performance Pestana 16:5 31:4 33:18
parametrically parts 13:6 14:22 58:12 159:9 PFISTER 3:10 34:9 36:15,20
67:3 14:23 39:7 177:23,25 phase 86:12,16 87:9 124:21
pardon 10:24 269:21 284:10 178:3 190:9 phrase 19:15 125:6 126:18
21:19 23:18 pass 99:25 191:6 216:4 128:22 127:1,8
56:16 92:3 100:17 145:9 251:1 261:3 physics 156:24 plan 66:22,25
142:15 162:7 244:16 263:25 physics-based 90:1 105:24
194:22 196:9 passage 134:19 performed 9:16 22:15 133:20,25
249:6 194:3 12:7,9,11 17:8 picked 217:9 134:1 137:3
paren 140:14 passed 19:9,15 28:1,1 33:9 picture 204:11 138:8 140:15
parentheses 264:19 66:13 70:7 Pierce 2:2 7:15 163:7 174:3
140:13 264:16 passing 100:13 123:20,23 56:1 76:10 193:17 194:11
264:17 100:22 128:22 157:2 124:2 132:3 204:5 205:1
Paris 150:1 password 58:15 168:1 178:21 PIGMAN 3:15 234:10,22
Parish 3:21 58:17,22 217:16,17 pile 81:10 planned 214:2
95:25 104:4 paths 99:15 234:21 237:19 121:23 214:13
105:23 106:3 patience 258:20 237:23 238:4 piles 120:9 121:7 plans 196:19
192:11 193:1 285:9 251:3 129:7 plastic 237:21
234:13 265:12 Paul 28:2 performing 9:17 piling 254:22 plate 95:4,6,8,13

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 314
95:14,18,24 203:12 141:15 280:15 144:6,8 pretty 75:17

104:6 105:15 pleural 99:8 poor 225:1 251:1 predominant 200:14 232:6
136:14,15 plus 34:21 poorer 212:5 199:12 250:11
137:4,6,18 112:21 123:22 poorly 217:17 predominantly prevailing
142:25 143:1,1 164:12 170:23 porosity 225:25 199:24 264:20
143:12 147:25 175:2,3,5 227:12 240:10 prefer 78:2,5,14 prevent 183:5
148:2,3,7,23 176:17,25 241:8 243:10 263:4,8 previous 11:18
149:21 150:14 177:3 197:24 porous 185:21 preferable 67:17 previously 9:11
151:2,24,25 197:25 207:7 225:8 preliminary 50:22 57:2
152:6,7,16 207:14,20 portion 21:10 37:23 140:20 67:20 78:3
163:1,9 164:4 234:12,12,24 98:8 166:20 217:7,23 106:13 115:14
164:8 165:15 234:25 244:23 194:22 203:14 276:14 116:1 130:18
165:17,20 246:5,23 205:12 215:9 preparation 130:24 157:24
175:7,8,9,10 249:12 253:17 239:1 256:19 90:10 140:22 159:21 169:21
191:13 196:6 254:3,14 255:2 portions 116:20 prepared 30:23 176:12 177:8
198:3,11,22 269:1 211:25 251:4 31:3 181:22 186:16
199:4 204:3 PMH 91:25 92:4 position 189:25 preparing 190:1 191:4
244:7,22 92:8,9,19 93:1 possibility 228:7 130:20 194:6 204:21
249:14 250:1,2 93:5 158:2 possible 151:20 prescribe 212:8 204:24 207:23
250:4 253:1,25 point 10:16 159:23 212:13 212:11 209:4 210:3
254:2,25,25 21:20 29:20 214:14 252:15 prescribed 215:25 217:5
plates 142:22 55:3 76:21,21 277:14 201:13 220:7 224:6
143:2 237:24 78:7 79:5,7 post-Katrina prescribes 230:8 225:17 228:4
platforms 109:3 92:19,21 112:7 58:14 prescription 229:23 230:11
plausibility 113:1 119:10 potential 110:16 230:23 230:11 234:7,8
68:15 120:12 133:24 148:17 150:19 presence 17:9 249:15 259:19
Plausible 68:13 133:24 144:4 160:24 219:11 38:16 188:15 266:19
68:15 154:17 190:2 230:16 262:11,12,13 price 201:8
play 279:21 216:22 227:3 potentially present 2:16 3:1 priced 101:14
played 216:3 254:17 256:1 148:16 4:1,12 14:15 primarily
please 7:12 9:2 259:11 272:10 potentials 18:5 55:5 224:24
10:3 16:18 pointed 79:2 160:25 57:16 59:2 primary 14:25
36:9 61:16 pointedly 95:4 pounds 255:24 71:18 93:6 38:20 39:2
68:22 74:19,22 points 48:24 Poydras 2:23 189:16 218:23 88:7 109:7
83:12 91:1 50:10 51:19 practicable 220:3 282:24 223:14
98:19 109:2 217:14 219:19 203:15 presentday principal 22:22
166:14 170:22 polder 268:15 practice 260:1 158:4 24:16 25:6,9
180:1 181:21 pole 200:3 pre 58:13 presented 25:11 26:1
182:20 186:15 Pontchartrain Preau 273:15 133:25 134:1 266:23
189:21 198:7 85:3 90:6 274:6 presently 55:1 principally 59:8
209:8 211:20 91:18,22 92:16 precedes 203:25 presents 86:16 59:9
218:9,16 93:17,20 94:9 preceding Pressure 99:9 principles
224:17 242:10 96:4 99:21 231:18 286:5 pressured 232:13
247:4 260:25 100:1,9 106:2 precipitate 257:22 print 244:10
261:14 286:15 114:15 120:3 184:9 presumptuous prior 84:19
Pleistocene 131:14 140:16 predecessor 50:21 92:22 121:23

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 315
131:13 154:12 PROCTER 4:7 106:11,22 96:7 97:14 266:24 268:12

157:16 181:4 produce 35:11 107:19,21 189:7 269:1 274:3
181:14,19 35:17,21 36:5 108:22 110:3,8 protected 58:15 280:9,16,20,22
183:21 188:12 36:12 99:15,19 110:12 111:3 58:17 105:25 280:23 281:11
193:14 200:25 160:22 225:4 111:19 112:3 182:23 195:4 282:7 284:3
232:15 233:22 257:6,15 112:12,21 228:11 230:10 protective 28:25
240:25 produced 35:5 113:6,17 265:13 266:25 88:6 138:9
private 139:6 116:19 144:17 114:16 117:8 268:24 269:11 180:10 182:3,7
140:7 141:3 144:19 251:9 120:4 131:10 284:8 184:25 185:4
pro 127:23 128:1 251:10 261:8 131:15 133:19 protection 27:20 192:10 205:23
128:10,11 261:24 264:25 133:25 134:1 65:9 79:24 206:25 207:5
probable 91:24 produces 31:15 140:17 141:1 85:4 88:24 207:12,25
92:5 93:16 producing 32:22 146:11,22 89:9 90:7 209:17 224:11
94:23 95:2,17 37:2 124:21 147:10 155:5 91:19,23 93:18 227:25 261:19
96:8,11,22,23 126:21 260:3 156:1 157:13 96:5,7,13,21 267:23 283:10
97:10,15,18,23 product 205:7 158:2,23 159:1 97:1,17 102:9 protocol 62:1,4
100:24 101:20 production 15:5 166:19,21 103:17 104:18 62:7,12,14,18
102:13,15 profession 80:25 170:19 193:17 104:21 105:18 62:22 63:1,7
103:7,10 104:3 116:6 218:20 194:9,11,22 108:17,21 70:4
104:10,22,25 259:6,8 276:2 196:1 206:2,21 114:16 115:11 provenance
105:6,9 106:8 professor 15:20 226:8,13 236:1 120:4 128:16 251:13
106:12,16 15:20 16:23 236:11 238:12 131:3,15 135:6 provide 27:8
107:2,9,14,18 28:2,2,3 61:9 projects 172:14 138:8,21 36:20 61:11
108:9,25 63:11 276:2 prolonged 140:17 141:14 62:21 68:7
109:21 111:10 277:13 285:6 223:19 142:15 144:7,9 69:8 96:11
111:20 146:13 profile 69:11 proper 146:8 146:1,10 105:16 108:21
157:14,21,25 70:1 148:24 149:12 195:9 147:19 154:14 172:16 179:19
226:8,10 281:1 149:6 197:10,11 158:14 161:8 242:20 243:9
probably 34:18 program 29:6,9 259:10,12 166:16,19,21 268:25 280:23
191:12 203:3 66:3,9 properly 135:16 167:11 172:19 provided 96:23
233:12 270:18 progressed 167:25 182:23 183:7 185:7,9 167:3 230:12
271:4 48:17 184:18 260:19 186:25 187:3 243:1
problem 35:17 progressively 263:1 284:9 191:7 195:17 provides 104:6
130:7,16 152:10 properties 68:4 197:11,12 providing 197:3
175:25 208:17 project 14:21 68:5,8 225:7 201:14 204:5 201:14 236:17
263:18 15:24 16:15 proportioned 205:2 208:22 provision 212:15
problematic 85:4 88:16,20 111:1 209:17 223:15 213:19 243:12
150:13 151:25 88:23,24 90:7 proposed 105:24 223:20 224:3 provisions
152:6 91:13,16,19,23 116:15 149:9 224:14,24 211:11 226:7
Procedure 5:7 92:2 93:15,18 149:18 150:11 226:24 229:10 236:18
procedures 99:5 95:1,16 96:5 170:9,16 229:12 230:9 proximity 212:1
Proceeding 96:14 97:2 174:12,19 230:24 239:22 public 58:14
41:13 98:1,20 102:17 234:21 243:2,3,6,11 161:5
proceeds 283:2,4 102:22 103:22 proposes 279:12 247:3 261:23 publication
283:6 104:2,10 105:3 protec 262:13 262:12 264:1 14:12 86:5
process 161:4 105:5,8,19 protect 79:19 264:24 265:11 publications

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 316
210:3 82:18 83:12 ranges 67:4 242:9,17 reason 10:7

published 91:1,2,3 92:6 68:13 70:20,21 250:24 252:16 62:25 117:11
210:11 220:19 102:19,20 rates 51:24 259:2 261:2,20 218:18 256:17
pump 78:22,23 115:21 117:15 219:2,5 221:1 265:19 266:1 284:7
79:1 206:14 118:21 121:6 ratio 172:10 267:8 269:13 reasonable 67:4
pumping 154:3 124:17 131:17 Raymond 15:20 271:19 273:5 223:25
purpose 79:17 131:23 132:1 32:2 61:9 275:16 reasonably
82:7 83:8,17 135:7,25 139:3 RDR 5:21 287:4 reached 40:19 98:23
83:20 84:11 141:24 142:1,7 reach 17:4,12,22 44:19 47:9 reasons 182:2
85:8 86:20 142:8 152:15 27:14,21 29:1 89:2 216:22 236:24
89:9 156:2 155:7,9 158:3 29:17 38:22 258:9 rebuilding
223:14 235:9 162:9 163:10 41:8 48:20,24 reaches 176:8 271:19 272:6
235:14 236:4 163:13 165:12 59:3 65:9 181:4 187:25 recall 36:18
247:17 167:9,15 168:7 71:18 74:14,18 229:18 238:13 46:21 57:3,4,4
purposes 5:8 180:1 182:6 74:21 75:12 238:13,16,17 57:5 92:25
52:23 71:24 189:19,24 78:2 79:8,18 read 86:1 87:21 94:17 105:13
84:9 87:6 89:7 191:23 194:13 83:10,13 89:14 88:19 91:3 121:22 122:16
151:12 224:3 194:14 198:8 90:15 114:19 98:19 101:7,8 145:5 199:6
247:2,16 251:7 216:6 218:7 119:13,25 133:18,23 270:13 271:17
pursuant 36:6 235:13 242:10 122:4,18,18 134:12 140:8 271:20 273:20
36:14 80:3,5 247:4 248:12 128:17 134:23 140:10 142:8 received 58:16
103:18 118:17 261:15 266:17 135:23,24 166:13 170:7 183:23
120:2 155:12 275:11,22 138:4,5,10 170:21 171:22 receiving 64:11
pursuing 126:20 277:4 281:17 149:3,25 150:4 172:6 193:19 125:10
put 30:11 81:10 questions 9:15 150:6,7,7 194:6 195:14 Recess 64:24
272:11 272:6 275:21 152:8 174:20 197:19,22 94:3 124:11
putting 212:12 276:2,9 277:9 174:20 176:9 203:9 206:9 173:20 231:9
quick 173:4 176:10 177:4,4 208:13 211:19 recognize 232:2
Q quite 23:10 177:5,5,6,10 212:8 218:9,11 232:3 269:20
qualification 120:15 177:13,20 218:14,16,18 recognized
145:23,25 quotation 179:2,3,23,24 219:8,24 148:16
qualified 209:12 266:25 180:4,8,13,24 223:11 224:16 recognizing
qualify 21:8 quoted 242:15 180:25 181:8 234:17 235:21 160:24
qualitative 181:24 182:8 237:9,10 238:8 recollection
220:5 R 184:24 186:7 245:9,11 263:5 86:18
quality 57:20 R 25:20 73:19 186:10,19,20 264:4 265:6 recommendati...
66:17 178:25 race 99:14 186:21,25 268:18 270:5 117:8
203:19 radius 99:11 187:1,4,6,16 271:15 272:9 Recommendat...
quantified 38:14 RAFFMAN 4:8 187:17 188:10 286:4,5,16,18 137:1
40:9,12 42:20 raise 250:14 190:3,4,9 reader 101:14 record 11:13,15
quantify 38:12 283:17 206:25,25 readily 212:6 64:22 65:1
70:23 raised 264:15 211:13 213:4 reading 5:9 93:24,25 94:2
question 5:14 raising 234:22 213:23,23 96:18 208:17 94:5 120:25
10:16,19 28:22 235:2,4 239:14 215:8 216:2 reads 133:19 124:9,13
36:8 49:7 54:6 range 47:22 222:6 239:1,18 really 12:6 178:5 173:18,22
62:6 66:6 70:14,16,19 240:19 241:5 248:23 231:3,5,7,11
74:19 75:11 255:23

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 317
274:8 285:14 refers 105:22 remember 46:19 103:19 119:11 require 65:23
rectified 241:7 152:22 214:22 56:14 85:14 119:13,18 96:19 110:20
243:13 262:2 121:7,9 121:24 124:22 110:22 149:19
rectify 243:15 reflect 130:23 removal 184:12 126:21,25 160:3,5 226:23
recurvature 131:2 134:21 removed 51:11 127:17,18 required 96:6
100:4 137:24 220:9 repeat 28:22 128:1,3 129:4 97:14 146:21
red 78:10,19 238:20 239:12 36:8 49:7 54:6 130:20 210:8 167:11 189:10
79:8 251:24 255:1 62:6 66:6 218:6,10 221:7 196:7,8,10,11
267:13 268:5,6 reflected 129:8 74:19 82:18 221:12,14 198:1 203:17
268:13,14 247:14 83:12 91:1 234:20,25 219:10 226:25
reduced 240:9 reflects 280:18 92:6 102:20 241:20 260:3 requirements
reduces 216:11 reframe 135:7 115:21 117:15 260:11 261:9 145:9,11,16
216:17 refresh 86:18 135:25 139:3 261:12,24 147:3 223:20
refer 78:1,17 regarding 142:7 152:15 262:8 263:5 224:25
93:2 142:22 183:18,19 155:7,8 167:8 266:5,5,12,15 requires 160:6
153:3 251:5 222:3 168:7 180:1 reported 4:16 reread 194:13
reference 86:17 region 98:24,25 181:21 184:2 287:9 Research 64:6
87:24 90:3 regional 79:23 189:19 190:6 reporter 4:17 researcher
100:24 121:24 224:13 261:23 191:23 198:7 5:22 7:10 9:2 156:23
143:25 144:4 263:25 264:9 209:8 218:7 9:23 10:1 reserved 5:15
146:8 153:5 264:23 265:11 242:10 247:4 35:24 270:19 reshapings
207:10 214:18 regular 124:23 261:14 266:17 272:4 275:5 194:24
243:20 248:20 rejection 212:5 rephrase 155:9 287:5,21 resilience 104:20
249:12 265:2 related 24:5 replace 258:25 REPORTER'S 280:25
269:2 282:14 118:6 127:13 replicate 157:1 287:2 resiliency 96:13
referenced 13:1 127:14 225:22 report 12:15,17 reports 6:21 98:2 105:11
61:24 80:7 287:14 12:25 13:2,14 35:6,21 59:6 resistance 147:2
145:17 241:18 relative 159:4 13:16 14:3,7,8 238:1 241:18 154:16 215:13
241:20 242:12 188:22 14:12,19,23 241:25 242:12 242:22 243:10
248:1 265:5 relatively 271:3 15:1,4,6,16,18 represent 7:21 resistances
references 264:8 273:24 15:23 16:11,16 8:2 45:13 161:1
referencing 45:9 relevant 71:21 16:21 17:2 269:17 resistant 272:13
46:15 86:4 145:11 151:8 18:5,24 19:2 representative respect 43:22
referred 29:12 reliability 30:20 28:15,16,21 7:24 48:19 58:3
33:4 55:8 160:15,16,23 30:22 31:3,6 represented 60:24 95:25
75:19 79:8 161:4 31:11,14,15,23 278:23 145:17 221:19
122:23 259:22 reliable 66:17 32:22,24,25 representing 238:4 250:20
260:14 reliance 242:3 33:1,4 36:6,12 7:17 respects 224:20
referring 12:10 relied 188:6 37:2 45:4,17 represents 7:22 response 108:2
32:25 75:12 224:10 56:4 60:17 150:9 275:11
93:19 122:15 rely 232:6 61:21 62:5,19 reproduce 157:3 responsiveness
123:19 128:6 relying 54:2,19 63:19 69:6 reproduced 5:14
152:23 158:1 60:8 61:4 75:15,18 80:4 266:14 rest 200:12
246:7 248:10 remain 154:4 80:7 85:16 request 35:25 253:13
259:15 269:12 remainder 106:4 86:17 87:25 Requested 6:20 restate 10:19
273:5 275:15 remaining 78:18 89:18 90:11,20 91:3 142:8 216:6

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 318
result 38:1 63:15 69:1,12 78:12 267:3 Rund 16:6 save 5:13 208:16
103:19 109:22 69:14 75:5 Rigolets 99:24 Rune 6:21 16:24 219:9
150:21 154:7 78:8,24 79:13 100:17 29:5 30:13 saw 18:23
172:9 82:15 83:15 rigorous 73:11 32:3,7,16 35:4 154:17 169:14
resulted 208:23 85:5 101:18 ring 267:23 37:21 saying 51:17
resulting 219:14 102:18 108:6,8 268:12 runs 261:9 55:7 112:9
results 30:10,21 108:18 111:11 rings 266:24 run-off 196:25 154:18 178:11
32:1 37:23 112:11,14 rip-rap 166:21 run-up 112:21 240:5 247:25
52:6 126:19 115:23,25 182:24,25 206:14 207:7 says 87:17
131:8 134:15 117:19 131:1,5 risk 30:20 207:14,21 170:12 172:7
193:24 205:24 132:1 133:10 river 17:4,10,12 219:11 236:18 176:17 196:25
218:3 224:25 139:11 144:10 17:15 29:18 204:5 220:15
234:20 237:1 149:5 150:9 38:17 100:7,12 S 235:23 238:10
237:23,25 151:11 162:3 100:20 122:5 S 4:8 5:1 20:16 270:23 272:4
retained 36:19 162:13 167:23 183:2 192:5,15 32:8 73:19 275:5
126:19 169:16,18 192:18,22 139:25 140:7 SBs 18:22
retention 36:7 170:11 176:6 196:3 267:18 safety 98:2 scale 26:8 37:20
retired 63:16 176:19 177:8 267:18,21 109:10 110:13 schematically
return 109:5,12 178:8,24 180:5 283:5,11 110:14,21,23 264:24
109:19 281:2 181:2 182:10 rivers 229:18 110:24 156:2 scholars 14:18
Returning 185:2 188:24 riverside 229:10 197:3 227:19 16:20,22
268:17 190:19 191:21 229:12 sake 75:22 259:21
review 35:15 195:10 198:12 RMR 4:16 287:4 sample 61:19 Scientists 22:14
140:24 199:22 200:4 Roa 32:9,18,19 69:16 70:7,8 scope 16:15
reviewed 168:13 200:12 201:16 Road 150:1 71:13 scour 18:14
reviewing 204:6,18 Robert 1:21 7:3 sampled 217:15 145:10 147:2,5
140:20 280:14 205:19 208:19 9:4 15:20 16:5 samples 60:8 147:14,15
revise 135:9 209:14 215:23 16:23 286:4 61:23 62:2,8,9 154:16 184:8
revised 134:14 217:4 221:10 Roberts 16:6 63:3 66:16 215:13 218:22
205:23 206:5 222:16 225:24 Robin 2:7 7:20 68:24 69:18,21 220:6,18
206:10 227:5 228:13 55:19 84:16 214:11 237:14 226:18 242:21
revolution 23:21 231:16 232:5 233:3 251:23 237:16,20,22 scouring 49:22
Richard 4:12 240:8,8,24 Robinson 1:10 270:9,24 50:4 183:6
7:23 241:2 242:14 2:4 7:16 125:6 sand 73:18 screen 7:7
Riemer 16:5 246:1 247:23 robustness 183:15 185:18 sea 19:6,21 20:1
right 12:19 13:8 248:14 250:5 280:24 189:5 243:4,7 20:4,5,22,25
13:11 14:5 250:14 252:2 Roger 4:16 5:21 243:25 253:12 21:4,8,12,13
26:5 28:17 253:24 258:2,3 7:10 287:4,20 sands 199:16 21:21,24 22:2
29:13 30:1 261:18,21 Rogers 16:6 200:9 262:14 22:4 86:15
31:25 34:24 263:10 269:8 role 216:3 sandy 271:3 115:1,6,15,24
35:3 40:16 272:7 276:12 279:22 satisfied 188:11 118:5,11
45:2,23 47:24 278:23 279:21 Room 2:8 211:12 239:21 148:10 265:2
49:2,13 52:13 280:1,5,12,17 rose 264:18 satisfy 146:21 269:2
52:23 53:15 283:12 284:12 Rouge 273:19 saturated season 214:12,15
54:9,11,15,17 284:13 285:1 rules 5:7 112:25 224:21 seasonal 214:10
57:6 58:25 right-hand 78:9 113:1 saturation 223:15
224:23

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 319
second 15:17 136:12 152:11 112:8 115:17 256:5,7 257:6 256:14 264:24
16:13 17:7,10 152:17 162:22 115:18 125:9 sheet 254:22 265:2 268:3
17:18 22:9 164:3,8 169:9 125:25 127:7 286:18 shows 92:15
23:9,16 24:15 175:14 176:23 247:22,24 shell 143:22,23 93:16 94:24,25
24:22,25 28:4 199:3,6,11 separately 80:23 145:7,12,19 95:3,12,14
28:15 31:15 200:1,6 201:2 125:5,8 152:14 153:4,5 101:20,21
39:16 40:16,18 206:5 245:15 September 12:8 153:11 154:6 104:8 105:7
42:5,10 43:6 245:17 246:13 12:11 14:11 154:17,23 149:6 164:22
45:3 46:16,22 251:21 255:9 99:13 134:20 162:4,19 164:3 248:21
49:23 50:14 255:12 265:7 194:4 164:14 165:9 shrinkage
51:12 170:5,7 276:24 sequence 136:3 183:13 185:15 196:14
184:13 185:9 Seed 15:20 32:2 series 89:22 185:16,18,24 Shuy 1:22 9:5
201:9 268:18 61:10 134:9 138:19 shells 73:13,15 side 41:22,23,24
270:1 seeded 181:18 serve 11:5,23 73:16 42:2 44:3
Secretary 94:10 182:11 session 94:20 shell-filled 161:9 86:10 100:16
section 60:16 seeding 201:9 set 55:4 61:12 shipping 83:21 111:23 147:3,8
86:16 94:25 seeing 152:13 106:20 113:2 shoaling 89:3 165:5 184:6,7
95:2 99:2 seek 184:16 134:23 158:2 shop 200:3 228:11 230:10
105:20,23 seeks 284:6 210:4 232:13 shore 99:21 sign 34:25
106:4 137:1 seen 57:3 144:20 287:8 100:1,8 106:2 Signature
143:21 149:25 175:8 232:4 sets 108:6,12 144:6,8 146:1 286:12
164:6 168:11 233:21 112:25 147:19 154:14 SIGNED 286:13
179:20 189:2 seepage 49:24 setting 143:20 shores 99:17 significance
196:8,10,12 50:3,15 57:24 settlement short 166:16 215:7
211:16 222:12 58:3 149:16 195:20 196:16 184:1 224:22 significant 187:7
222:15,17,18 168:19 184:9 seven 126:9 225:14 207:14 216:10
222:20,20,22 222:17 226:18 severe 98:22 shorthand signing 5:10
222:24,25 240:2 106:25 107:1 178:10,11 silently 218:15
223:3,3,5 segment 272:15 205:25 287:10 silt 73:18 183:15
225:7 228:18 selected 158:9 shakes 123:11 shortly 136:17 189:5 200:1
228:19,24 170:25 shaking 103:2 shoulders silts 199:16
229:2,7,8,15 selecting 212:2 shallow 225:2 179:19 262:14
230:6 240:3,4 212:18 214:19 shape-ups show 154:17 silty 199:24
252:21 263:21 Selection 225:6 169:20 170:13 163:24 175:9 200:9 245:16
264:3 284:21 Sellmeijer 242:2 171:15 179:5 255:20 similar 67:20,23
sections 109:16 sensitivity 68:10 shaping 196:13 265:15,17,21 70:5 99:12
131:21 196:6 sentence 87:21 196:18 265:25 267:7 197:13 224:18
229:25 230:1 87:22 133:23 shapings 197:2 showed 59:7 238:3 242:22
235:25 236:5 170:5,7,12,15 Shay 251:10 78:3 114:13 243:15
238:17 252:16 170:21 203:11 shear 59:18,20 showing 266:23 similarity 67:24
262:14 206:8 208:14 65:14 71:5 shown 46:15 70:5
see 31:2 46:19 270:6 159:6 195:23 78:10 94:16 simple 104:15
70:17 75:25 sentences 272:9 196:21 197:4 143:23 145:19 simply 82:10
87:20 95:18 separate 19:24 237:19,23 148:7 196:5,18 152:12 155:18
101:4,20,22 43:17 64:9 238:15 255:10 198:3 237:24 simultaneously
128:11 136:4 71:21 72:15 255:16,19 237:25 254:7 43:13

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 320
single 24:2 70:19 slides 196:22 189:22 191:3 123:19,20 73:14 74:20
140:9 208:14 slightly 47:2 191:17,24 148:20,20 78:23 93:15
sink 284:24 100:21 207:22 193:8,12 149:19,20 95:7,19 100:23
sir 14:8 15:3 slopes 229:11,13 198:15,17,19 150:10 151:3 108:1 121:15
23:10 24:24 small 224:19 198:23 199:2 166:18 178:20 127:24 131:18
73:20 88:18 256:19 200:21,23 179:1,2,9,9,15 131:22 133:1
90:23 95:19 smaller 110:23 201:22 202:3,8 180:6 188:1,3 135:8 139:10
122:2 127:24 smiling 269:19 202:13,21 188:6 195:2 143:1 152:5
130:18 133:15 Smith 2:7 6:17 208:7,9 210:23 196:22 199:3 163:10 165:19
143:1 155:1 7:19,20 9:8 211:7 231:4,13 211:21 233:19 166:7 168:2,5
164:5,15 11:17 12:22 231:20 233:4,8 237:12,14,16 174:6 179:24
165:18 169:16 13:17,21 14:4 233:10 234:5 238:3,5,15,17 183:25 184:2
170:7 176:11 19:18 31:7,13 244:21 245:23 244:5,23 245:2 190:4 194:14
178:1 205:19 31:18,24 32:15 246:12 249:25 245:19 247:15 200:2 204:13
206:18 213:20 34:17 35:1,18 250:6,18 255:1 256:5 208:16 229:2
218:6 228:22 36:4 52:21,25 251:11 252:1,5 257:5,12 270:9 240:5 256:3
232:2,19 55:16,20,25 252:9 258:15 soils 6:22 52:9 264:10 275:4
233:17 234:17 56:15,19,24 258:17 263:19 52:11,15 53:9 280:7 282:11
235:12 237:11 61:15,18 64:17 274:11,15,20 53:11,16 57:16 284:18
241:11,21 65:3 76:9,13 275:2,19 276:7 57:20 59:1 sort 57:7 167:10
242:6 244:9 76:15 77:2,7 276:13,17 60:2,20,24 201:12 235:9
249:3 255:12 77:14,16 84:17 277:2,7 278:2 61:1 65:22 sought 5:17
255:20 256:4 84:25 85:21,25 278:7 282:10 67:21,23 68:2 sound 114:7
261:12 262:17 87:8,18 90:16 285:7 68:18 69:25 sounds 17:16
263:5 264:10 90:21 91:6 snapshot 38:19 70:6 82:5,7 127:16
265:7,9 269:9 93:14 94:13,21 38:25 39:11,16 149:11 151:13 source 144:1
269:17 270:11 95:11 98:18 40:17,18 43:21 153:17,20 146:23 280:12
271:2 275:20 101:12,19 44:17,18 45:3 160:18 171:19 sources 60:1
SISTRUNK 4:2 120:16 121:1,5 46:16,22 48:4 171:19 179:1 197:20
site 22:7 178:13 121:14 124:1 snapshots 38:18 179:20 203:12 south 41:23
273:1,8 124:15 130:10 43:12 47:18 211:23,23,24 42:17 43:24,25
sits 248:5 130:17 132:2,6 social 161:4 214:9 217:15 46:2 99:21
sitting 178:8 132:14,17,25 software 29:9,13 217:20,22 100:1,5,20
situ 67:17 133:13 136:8 soil 38:2 53:18 220:11,21 106:2 161:15
situation 114:9 137:2,7,14,19 54:1,7,19 57:2 234:25 238:13 165:5 191:10
165:18 178:13 137:23 139:15 57:8,14 58:9 238:13 253:2 191:11 250:21
189:17 139:24 140:4 59:9 60:3,8 255:5 256:19 254:15 267:17
size 59:14,15 141:22 142:11 61:19,23 62:2 Solomon 16:7 southeast 192:3
65:14 67:25 143:11 144:18 62:8,9,16 63:2 somebody 79:2 250:22,23
70:10,13 71:4 145:1 163:5,11 63:14 65:6 283:25 267:15 283:6
74:1 146:9 166:10,12 68:4,5,7,17,24 somewhat 212:4 southern 47:11
177:16 169:25 170:4 69:13,16,21 soon 72:21 47:14 283:7
sizes 109:7 172:1,5,21 70:17 71:3,13 sorry 20:15 southernmost
skip 272:18 173:2,7,11,15 81:15 122:13 23:10 25:24 48:2
skipping 271:23 173:24 175:20 122:14,17,19 39:18 40:7 south-southeast
slices 200:12 176:5,18,20 122:25 123:8,9 41:25 46:13 100:11

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 321
speak 72:4 spots 184:16,16 146:22 147:10 7:25 25:16,17 113:13 134:24
Specialist 7:9 sprayed 183:3 148:5,14 155:5 26:16 104:11 135:11 155:2
specific 53:17 square 255:17 156:1 157:13 105:24 116:23 157:20,21,22
82:23 83:16 255:24 158:2,22 159:1 203:11 277:18 157:24 158:8
84:11 86:20 squeeze 257:12 159:15 160:2,6 278:18,22 159:13,19
89:8 99:7 257:15 165:25 166:25 282:2 160:4 219:13
145:2 226:14 SS 200:9 167:12 168:15 stating 131:25 219:17 264:13
282:12 St 105:22 106:3 171:3,5 174:13 station 46:6 264:14,19,21
specifically 5:12 192:10,25 194:18,25 78:22,23 79:2 264:22,25
19:1 83:8 234:13 265:12 195:6 197:8 164:11 170:23 265:10 268:20
105:22 122:24 267:14,24 198:6 206:21 174:22,25 280:25 281:2
129:3 132:19 268:23 277:25 226:12 236:1 175:3,4 176:9 storms 21:14
174:18 224:8 278:20 280:10 236:11 260:8 176:12,23 96:1 97:2
225:19 280:20 standardized 177:2,3 197:24 102:23 112:8
specification stability 50:2 70:3,4 220:10 197:25 234:11 157:15,17
198:4 57:25 58:5 standards 234:12,24 160:17
specifications 110:10 111:5 220:13 275:6,7 244:23 246:23 storm-induced
155:12 203:17 149:16 167:24 275:7,14 249:11 250:8 267:4
205:7,11 168:13 222:21 standing 277:8 253:16 254:3 straighten
specified 21:23 258:7 stands 203:8 254:14 255:2 188:25
97:6,8 197:6 stage 58:6 stars 265:18,25 stations 45:13,13 strata 195:21,24
199:7 206:7 195:18 196:6 266:11 267:4 45:22 206:14 196:16,22
221:7 239:13 196:19 217:3 268:3 234:24 stratifications
specifies 205:11 219:14 220:4 start 48:2 65:2 Status 203:25 238:14
specify 189:15 stages 38:15 124:14 156:6,9 step 190:11 stream 152:12
speed 100:2,3,4 40:8 194:23 173:23 231:12 stimulation 87:3 152:12 153:2
100:9,18 197:4 273:24 245:12 stipulated 5:3 153:13,18,22
speeds 99:14 stamp 43:22 started 28:11 110:13,22 161:19,21,23
spend 280:2 46:16 47:3,25 Starting 76:20 STONE 3:15 161:25 162:5
spending 126:24 standard 91:13 starts 170:8 stop 148:19 162:19 164:3,5
127:22,25 91:16 95:1,16 283:2 269:8 164:25 165:3
spent 127:12 96:14 97:2,25 state 4:17 5:22 stopped 270:8 streams 153:6
SPH 98:20,24 98:20 102:17 53:3 120:7 storage 62:2,9 154:6
99:16,18,25 102:22 103:22 207:9 287:22 Storesund 6:21 Street 1:24 2:3
100:5,8,14 104:2,10 105:3 stated 62:4 16:6,24 29:5 2:13,18,23 3:7
SPH's 99:7 105:5,7,19 75:17 106:13 30:13 32:3,8 3:16 7:4
spillway 226:9 106:11,22 174:11 178:2 32:16 35:4 strength 59:18
spoil 18:12,16 107:19,21 204:24 207:23 36:18,22 37:21 59:20,21 65:14
72:13,14,22 108:22 110:3,8 215:24 64:10 71:5 106:21,24
80:15 81:20,21 110:12 111:3 statement 23:11 storm 27:18 65:8 107:12,23,24
81:24 82:1,16 111:19 112:2 60:22 104:15 75:9 79:20 109:11,12,15
83:5,21 84:2 112:12,20 121:2,8,9 102:24 103:21 109:17 111:1
142:19 260:22 113:6,16 270:10 271:1 104:24 105:19 159:6 189:3
273:3 131:10 138:20 275:5 108:22 109:12 215:14,18,19
spoils 83:1 141:13 144:2 states 1:1,12 2:6 109:19 111:17 255:16
spoken 228:4 145:7 146:10 2:10 7:21,23 112:15,20 strengthen

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 322
257:18 19:25 20:13 34:11 37:24 subsequent supplement

strengths 59:16 27:20 29:1 38:1 48:14 122:11 123:24 190:23 192:1,7
195:23 196:21 38:6 42:11 49:8,14,19,20 140:19 151:16 198:18,20
238:15 255:10 44:23 49:12,16 49:24 54:20 171:15 206:2 202:14,23
255:19,23 50:10,15 51:23 61:5 64:3 236:13 239:17 204:20 205:8
256:5,7 257:6 53:22 54:12 122:3 126:20 subsequently 205:10
stress 59:21 58:4 65:9,22 128:12 131:9 11:1,10 69:8 supplementati...
stretch 268:22 70:18 89:15 134:16 137:16 138:8 24:20,21
269:10 102:9 106:15 193:25 205:25 subset 211:16 supplemented
strike 156:6 108:19 114:18 240:17 242:12 subsidence 24:18 53:22
158:17 114:24 115:8 242:16 252:24 236:13 69:7 151:15
stringently 115:11 116:3 study 16:10 substance 66:14 supplements
227:14 118:4,6 119:5 17:17 28:13 198:5 133:12
stripes 200:3 120:1 128:16 32:1 49:3 50:1 substandard supplied 281:4
strong 255:22 128:25 131:3,7 52:24 56:11 247:2 supporting
258:4 284:13 141:9 142:15 64:4 65:7 67:2 substantial 51:11
struck 242:19 142:16,23,24 67:2 68:9 90:9 183:23 suppose 128:21
246:25 262:10 148:22 149:3 99:5,8,18,19 substantially supposed 251:24
structural 151:4 152:21 117:13,20 109:11 186:11 282:8
215:17 216:14 156:3 158:16 120:7 261:25 217:22 surcharge
structure 17:5 166:22 172:19 studying 16:14 subsurface 257:11
21:11,24 38:2 185:7 186:1,6 17:1 18:10 149:11 195:21 sure 28:23 35:16
39:6,8 41:12 206:25 207:5 33:14 36:11 195:24 196:16 36:10 68:21
41:17,20,22 207:12,25 70:2 151:21 196:22 197:11 82:19 93:4
42:3,17 43:1 216:24 223:4 165:11 221:4 238:14,15 96:16 113:21
44:4,14,20 224:12 226:4 252:24 subvert 257:20 121:12,19,21
48:3 51:12,18 226:23 227:25 stuff 144:20 sub-paragraph 128:5 129:19
70:2 81:18 228:5,17 stumbled 194:15 197:22 208:10 136:1 143:15
88:7 108:17 232:14 259:1 Sub 240:2 223:12 155:8 159:19
109:7,14,16,17 259:22 260:15 subdivided successive 24:3 163:14 167:9
111:1 112:5 261:19,22 238:16 sufficient 21:5 168:9 169:5
114:13 138:22 281:12 subject 21:13 21:22 57:15,19 176:11 181:22
144:5 145:14 student 30:13 135:20 138:17 66:17 188:16 186:14 189:23
145:15 155:4 students 33:14 140:13,24 243:1,10 190:7 191:25
155:11,18 36:11 64:5 223:16,18 sufficiently 198:8 203:8
156:12 158:21 151:9 216:21 235:2 240:11 209:9 231:24
159:4,8,17 studied 14:24 subjected suggested 224:7 232:20 241:24
160:7,12,16,22 84:1 178:13 155:13 156:25 suitable 211:21 247:5,5 261:16
161:9,17,24 261:8,19 subjects 16:19 214:5 279:16 281:17
162:12 163:7 studies 12:7,10 submerged Suite 2:3,23 3:4 283:20
163:19 164:22 12:13 14:10 153:14 3:11 4:4 surface 49:22
164:23 165:1,6 15:9,12,14,15 submitted sum 207:13,20 50:9 51:10
165:16 188:23 15:17,19 17:8 116:13 140:21 summarized 105:4 179:6
189:12 216:12 17:11 18:14 194:11 91:8 217:6 183:5 197:11
247:18 28:10 30:14,22 subparagraph supervision 201:14 230:8
structures 18:10 32:6 33:3,7 134:13 238:9 287:11 242:23

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 323
20:6 21:15 96:7,21 97:1 123:1,10 154:19 168:23 69:18,23 70:3

22:16 25:20 97:14,17,22,24 151:16 236:22 183:22 218:12 70:7 147:12
26:8 27:18,24 103:18 104:18 237:13 238:5 218:17 245:25 187:20 218:3
30:3 38:19 105:18 106:6 286:20 247:15 280:17 237:17,18
39:11 40:19 106:24 107:21 takes 29:20 281:10 243:20
42:25 44:18 108:19 117:23 talk 52:13 telling 15:23 tested 69:23
47:9 48:1 65:8 118:3 141:14 258:23 147:10 270:24
75:9 79:20 147:4 155:24 talked 130:24 tells 113:3,8 testified 130:18
97:23,25 99:20 191:7 224:14 272:25 273:8 248:25 177:9 190:2
104:24 111:17 261:24 264:1 talking 28:11,12 Temporary 86:9 testify 9:6 287:7
111:18 112:20 265:11 274:4 28:19 44:22 ten 64:1 287:8
134:24 135:11 280:22 284:3 53:10 72:23 tend 227:19 testimony 10:8
145:22 146:3,4 284:10 74:14 75:23 tended 179:4 34:10 118:8
146:7,21,23 systems 264:9,24 114:9,12 tends 184:14 154:22 188:9
147:1 155:2 128:14 132:23 213:15 286:5,7 287:9
158:8 159:2 T 136:25 165:21 term 18:23,24 testing 53:19
219:14,18 T 5:1,1 191:15 282:18 19:4,5,19 72:1 62:16 63:14
264:13,15,22 tab 190:22 talks 169:19 72:12,25 73:9 66:11 67:13,16
264:25 265:10 table 36:2 91:9 TANKERSLEY 80:17 81:8 67:17 149:20
268:20 272:14 139:11 200:24 3:19 97:21 114:22 154:11,15
surrounded 204:1,7,8 tape 64:23 65:2 118:9 179:13 tests 66:13
267:24 207:3 222:10 124:10,14 223:13 258:25 217:18 237:8
surrounds take 20:16 29:13 173:19,23 258:25 259:5,7 237:19,23,24
267:14 37:18 40:14 231:8,12 259:10 260:6,8 238:4 242:7
survivable 41:2 47:21 Task 58:13 260:18 262:20 text 193:7,19
109:18 48:10,18 50:20 tasked 108:16 262:24 244:8 248:20
survive 97:23,25 51:2 52:5 53:1 team 12:15 28:5 terminating thank 14:7 32:14
108:24 147:6 53:16 54:2 28:8,9 53:25 76:21 35:19 36:2
survived 181:10 57:23 58:2 60:14,23 61:20 terminology 55:24 61:14,17
sustained 226:22 64:20 79:17 61:24 62:10 79:6 188:17 76:10 77:3,15
Swan 26:20,22 80:20,25 83:3 63:2,22 69:4 terminus 78:10 93:13 95:10
27:2 30:4 98:4 111:11 117:18 126:16 terms 23:19 34:3 98:17 120:20
37:10,19 113:12 124:4 151:9,20 34:7 36:14 130:5 137:22
swear 9:3 126:16 128:15 178:12 219:1 71:3,21 72:10 144:15 167:23
swings 150:6 131:19 147:21 259:16,19 72:15,18,19 172:4 174:8
swirl 264:20 159:16 172:23 260:13 261:7 80:11,19,20,22 175:13 199:1
sworn 9:6,23 172:25 178:10 270:21 90:22,24 208:8,25 210:2
250:9,12 287:7 187:22,23 tease 97:13 114:14 115:2 222:11 232:1
synthesis 30:10 188:8 195:19 108:2 115:17,22,22 242:6 246:11
synthesized 195:23 228:6 techniques 181:13 187:6 253:10,22
159:7 232:18 244:1 72:24 209:5 225:16 258:20,21
synthesizes 244:16 253:24 tell 10:17 11:2 225:25 241:7 275:20 283:22
160:17,18,19 268:4 270:18 12:4 13:22 248:23 279:9 285:5,8
synthetic 157:15 271:15 273:16 15:11 53:2 282:6 Thanks 13:20
system 30:19 274:9 275:6 60:19 68:22 test 59:1 66:4,8,8 56:23 130:14
55:9 79:24 taken 5:6 34:15 84:15 143:16 67:9 68:19 175:25,25
54:8,24 122:19

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 324
193:11 210:20 42:13 43:7 40:4 41:5 TODD 3:7 traverses 100:6
Theis 273:10,11 47:25 48:4 42:24 43:6,7,9 toe 38:19 39:11 100:11,19
273:12 50:1 58:8 43:21,22 44:6 40:21,23,23 Treeby 3:16 8:7
theoretically 88:15 114:13 44:9,11,15 41:4 43:1 8:8 250:13
113:13 159:23 151:22 156:10 45:1 46:16,22 44:19 trending 267:15
thereof 5:16 185:14 203:10 46:24 47:3,14 toes 86:10 Triangulating
195:25 206:8 215:20 47:25,25 48:4 told 190:14 253:23
thereto 140:20 255:14,15 50:11 51:14,18 Tons 255:17 trick 131:17
thick 243:21 269:25 55:13 57:17 top 46:6 86:2 trouble 97:12
thin 200:11 thought 41:25 59:4 64:16 184:5 199:4 219:9
thing 13:9 17:9 101:5 103:11 65:23 76:18 201:2 245:4,12 truck-hauled
48:18 209:24 122:23 186:17 84:16,18 100:4 249:9 170:20
257:20 272:19 190:14 230:3 120:8,18 124:4 TORTS 2:7 true 42:6 48:19
275:1 246:6 128:9 129:15 total 109:16 58:5 74:17,21
things 109:13 three 16:22 144:11 148:6 126:1 201:8,10 74:23 109:20
112:4 113:10 19:24 20:18 148:15 156:10 236:21 135:19 158:16
183:4 197:10 29:21 30:10 158:1 159:25 totally 168:24 172:15 178:2
226:15 258:22 32:5,21 38:14 166:25 168:16 221:21 213:13 218:12
271:25 276:3 41:11 42:1,2 172:22 188:5 track 127:6 227:17,23
277:15,16 42:21 43:12 190:15 192:19 tractive 38:4 243:5 259:14
think 44:8 56:2 49:20 71:20 217:25 224:22 189:6 217:25 259:18 262:5,6
63:1 71:22 114:24 119:24 225:14 226:22 trade-off 212:17 277:22 286:6
75:17 80:4 133:5 153:3 227:9 232:4,18 212:20,21 287:11
83:24 94:17 193:23 215:11 246:24 257:10 traffic 165:2 truncate 78:2,5
105:13 106:13 255:13,14 262:9 269:3 training 235:10 truth 287:8
106:18 116:8 through-flow 271:15 273:1,2 transaction trying 18:3,6
127:18 133:10 219:10 273:8 275:21 279:10 39:9 46:19,20
142:4 144:17 through-seepa... 276:20 transcribed 53:1,8 55:3
146:6 151:24 50:23 51:9,25 times 42:21 287:10 65:13 108:2
157:23 165:20 197:12 225:20 43:16,17 48:11 transcript 10:2 123:7 131:20
169:17,20 225:23 54:8,24 215:25 269:23 287:12 136:2 227:3
171:10 172:22 tidal 134:15 219:13 221:7 transcription TR-4 144:13,17
176:22 181:22 155:3 193:24 221:12,13 286:7 144:22
185:15 186:16 205:24 208:15 tiny 244:10 transition TR-6 145:3,6,24
189:24 190:10 tide 22:2,8 146:5 title 203:3 232:3 120:13 turn 85:15 88:13
202:4 204:24 146:7 207:7 titled 89:13 translates 129:14 175:7
216:7 218:10 tides 21:24 27:10 94:25 105:20 109:17 207:25 195:11 208:3
227:5 228:4 27:19 146:4 166:15 213:25 translation 228:17 251:20
229:7,25 207:8 222:22,24 99:14 100:2,9 281:24
230:12 234:8 time 5:16 7:6 233:18 255:15 100:18 turns 219:8
249:15 259:19 9:12 11:3,8,22 today 7:18 8:4 transmissibility twice 199:23
275:22 14:16 19:21 8:10,15 10:7 215:16 two 15:14 22:5
thinking 114:14 26:17 27:18,21 25:4,12,14 transmit 140:12 28:12 33:10,13
184:3 29:2 30:25 118:8 130:18 transporting 33:17 35:21
thinks 272:7 38:18,18,25 233:22 260:14 148:20 36:6,11,12
third 30:7 37:11 39:16,22,24,25 285:9 travel 34:13 37:3 39:7

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 325
42:11 45:20 unbreached 28:18 36:10 upward 134:15 156:18,21,22

47:21 59:25 252:25 80:23 81:3 135:10 205:24 validating 23:4
72:18,19 80:11 uncertainties 119:2,11 USACE 60:4,6 38:13 40:13
96:1 104:13 110:20,22 131:13 141:23 69:3 86:4,17 validation 52:6
106:9 108:3,6 160:20 220:3 248:9 123:16,17 217:3
108:12 109:4 uncertainty undertaking 275:7 validity 71:10
111:2 112:8 221:19 53:16 151:10 use 23:3 25:4 Valley 203:7
115:22,22 uncompacted 172:14 235:15 28:10 67:19 value 70:19
116:2 124:10 262:11 underwater 82:23 83:9,17 158:7,11,13
124:22 125:14 unconfined 271:8 84:12 96:13 values 104:15
125:23 129:1 237:17 underway 71:8 115:1,12 145:6 157:4 189:9
142:18 184:11 unconsolidated under-seepage 153:5,11,24 Van 28:2
187:24 192:23 237:18 50:23 51:9,25 154:5,23 171:6 variabilities
200:11 201:3 undergo 214:9 150:19 222:13 174:12,19 160:19
205:21 221:22 understand 9:20 225:19,23 177:11 185:14 variability 70:17
238:13,13 9:22 11:18 undisturbed 185:18 189:5 160:17
241:6 247:24 18:4,6 23:11 236:22 237:12 197:6 203:20 variation 214:14
269:5 274:16 25:25 29:16 237:20 212:9,11,13,18 variations 67:5
275:23 35:2 49:3,21 undrained 214:25 218:2 214:10
two-dimensio... 50:5,7 51:16 237:19 224:1 230:8 varied 217:21
50:17 57:19 67:7 unified 59:9 239:13,16 219:15
type 211:17 68:20,21 72:22 uniform 59:9 240:6 253:3 variety 22:15
236:22 247:10 81:8 83:24 220:25 245:2 258:25 260:8 23:23 65:13
types 19:24 87:9 89:19 uniformly 263:4,6 279:8 183:4
20:13 65:13 96:17 102:16 259:21 262:2 useful 15:13 various 20:21
81:15 116:2 106:16 107:16 unit 201:8 37:20 24:4 52:15
150:10 151:3 111:15 117:7 United 1:1,12 uses 183:1 54:8 99:13
219:4 246:2 122:25 135:18 2:6,10 7:21,23 UTC 39:23 196:18 197:2
247:14 138:7 148:23 7:24 25:16,17 utilization 212:17 218:22
Typical 164:5 153:3,4 171:21 26:16 116:22 233:19 219:4 221:8
typically 226:20 182:3 184:21 277:18 278:18 utilize 135:17 236:24 246:2
226:25 227:9 189:24 216:9 278:22 282:2 203:11 247:6
280:1 235:8,14 University 30:15 utilized 26:21 variously 118:5
255:22 261:6 33:15 64:7 195:2 Varuso 4:12
U 269:22 279:10 125:1 127:4 utilizing 53:18 7:23
U 5:1 270:20 understanding unnumbered 134:16 152:8 vary 46:25 47:3
UCT 237:18 12:6 51:17 136:19 137:10 193:25 205:25 110:16 189:10
UCTs 237:22 53:3,4 72:25 unprotected U.S 53:20 87:24 varying 67:3
Uh-huh 47:5 73:1,2 90:18 147:3,7 99:2 134:17 vegetation 223:5
69:5 81:2 91:11 96:3 unrelated 194:1 206:1 velocities 217:14
108:13 114:6 115:12 144:2 124:18 234:14 281:24 217:25 219:12
127:19 162:1 157:12 174:17 update 127:16 velocity 99:10
174:24 179:12 262:25 287:13 uplift 148:21 V verify 238:24
193:18 256:21 understands 149:16 168:19 valid 70:8 239:6
ultimate 109:10 102:5 184:14 validate 279:19 Verret 138:13
196:16 207:4 understood upper 267:3 validated 22:10 191:12 192:3,4
207:11,19 22:12 24:10

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 326
283:8,9 wait 274:19 105:10 106:9 136:12 138:3,5 87:2,4 89:19

version 27:25 waived 5:10,12 148:16,17,19 148:19 159:7 94:5 97:21,24
144:5 175:11 wake 117:21 154:2 167:5,7 178:11 192:13 114:12 119:10
232:12,14 122:8 167:13 169:10 220:25 222:9 124:3,13
VERSUS 1:11 Waldemar 184:4,7,10,11 262:21 287:15 132:20 149:24
vertical 207:10 139:25 140:7 184:14,16 ways 20:21 149:25 152:19
vertically 148:7 WALDRON 189:3 196:25 262:22 165:11 166:3
248:8 3:20 207:7,20 weakening 167:18 173:22
vicinity 85:3 wall 161:17 213:25 214:3,6 148:20 184:13 190:20 198:14
90:6 91:18,23 walls 142:14 214:10,11,14 weakest 284:13 198:20 201:18
92:16 93:17,20 WALTHER 214:23 215:15 wear 251:17 204:13 228:20
94:9 96:5 3:15 217:14,19,24 Weather 99:2 231:11 245:13
100:16 114:15 want 13:25 38:8 223:16,17,19 134:18 194:1 252:24 256:1
120:3 131:15 53:3 55:11 237:15 243:23 206:2 258:18
137:4 140:16 68:20 76:25 243:24 255:25 website 58:13,14 we've 111:2
141:16 165:7 77:6 78:4 256:7 257:3,12 week 56:6 130:24 204:20
277:25 280:16 102:14 120:14 257:21 264:15 weeks 35:22 249:15 272:24
video 7:1,7,9 9:1 133:7 148:19 271:12 272:12 36:6,12 37:3 whichever 263:7
11:14 64:21,25 169:2,3 172:25 272:13,16 124:22 223:18 wide 23:23
76:2 93:23 174:3 182:21 284:6,22,23 weight 59:17,22 widespread 25:4
94:1,4 124:8 183:25 187:22 285:2 185:25 Wildlife 137:15
124:12 173:5 193:3 203:1 waters 74:16 WEINSTOCK WILKINSON
173:17,21 218:14 232:25 264:21 3:10 1:8
231:1,6,10 240:6 247:19 waterway 83:14 welcome 230:9 William 3:16 8:8
251:16 283:16 263:4 271:10 83:19 123:5 went 84:23 Wilson 24:17,17
283:21 284:15 271:15 272:1 283:3,4 178:12 236:10 25:1,2,3 27:7
285:12 wanted 121:12 wave 17:5,21 240:19 257:14 wind 99:10
videotape 124:4 124:16 276:19 21:6,7,14 22:3 weren't 97:14 winds 99:16
videotaped 1:20 Ward 17:13 22:4 24:15,22 178:5 181:12 264:21
4:14 7:2 192:11 193:1 109:15 112:21 west 3:3 29:19 wing 142:14
view 177:14 265:13 267:15 145:21 154:21 100:6,11,13,22 161:17
Villere 150:2 268:23 269:11 155:3 169:9 105:7 264:22 wish 90:25 124:3
253:21,22 WARSHAUER 206:14 207:14 western 79:12 175:21
virtually 177:3 2:22 219:11,12 205:13 withdraw
visible 237:13 Wartman 16:7 236:18 241:15 wet 211:22 189:23 198:9
visited 122:9 Washington 2:9 243:19,22 we'll 31:10 74:24 Withdrawn
visits 122:11 3:17 4:9 8:8 271:11,12 184:18 254:8 132:3
visual 187:25 wasn't 56:5 waves 20:6 271:24 withstand 20:6
volunteer 259:4 119:4 155:11 21:25 22:8,17 we're 11:15 18:6 21:6,23 104:21
volunteered 251:12 260:21 26:10,21,23 18:10 38:13 106:25 107:9
259:3 272:7,16 27:9,19 30:6 43:2 44:22 110:12 145:21
Vriend 241:25 waste 55:13 146:25 147:22 52:17 53:10,18 146:3,5 160:7
VSI 245:14 water 30:9 38:25 159:2 207:8 54:13,25 55:11 215:15 243:18
VST 245:24 68:1 73:11 271:8 272:14 59:20,21 65:1 243:19
82:14 100:3 way 32:12 50:5 72:22 74:14 witness 5:6,24
W 104:12 105:4,8 67:18 135:24 75:23 80:19 7:17 9:3 14:2
W 152:21

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 327
15:7 19:16 29:24 37:24 133:1 170:10 $1,254,800 172:9 101:3,5,6,22

29:15 31:22 38:11 45:15 216:5 220:23 $100 201:10 103:15 148:9
33:12 34:23 70:5 80:25 264:11 271:17 $150 34:2 148:11 233:16
35:20 42:9 82:7 103:11 WTLs 105:3 $23,000 201:9 253:7 254:8
44:21 56:9 107:6 158:7 $300 34:13 255:6 256:2,6
59:19 85:23 189:14 195:6 X $46,000 201:10 256:14,15,22
87:14 91:4 207:18 243:11 X 6:1 152:20,20 $50 201:8 256:23 258:1
93:10 94:7,15 257:13 268:8 $600 34:12 10,000 109:12,18
98:14 103:1 work 9:15,16 Y $900 34:11,19 281:3
123:11 129:18 14:20 15:16,22 Y 29:8 10:34 94:2
130:4,8 133:4 16:10,23 23:8 yards 41:15 0 10:35 94:6
133:9 139:20 27:25 29:7 42:13 05-4182 1:6 100 99:10 109:5
140:2 141:20 33:19 34:2,12 Yeah 108:15 06-2286 1:11 126:12,12
141:25 142:3,6 36:22,24 63:6 164:10 242:4 1000 2:3
142:9 143:8 63:9,19,22 254:21 1 1050 175:3 177:3
144:14,21 64:3 86:13,17 year 10:23 109:5 1 6:3 12:24 13:6 11 6:14 88:14
163:8 174:7 126:15 128:10 109:12,18 13:10 17:12 100:18 269:16
176:3 179:16 128:11,21 126:7 214:13 44:1 45:22 11.2 99:20 105:8
191:22 204:16 137:25 188:5 223:18 232:16 64:23 119:13 11.9 99:22
210:21 231:23 217:2 220:5,7 241:18 242:1 119:25 136:14 11:33 124:14
231:25 244:19 working 15:24 years 84:24 99:4 136:15 137:4,6 1100 2:23 197:25
245:22 246:10 16:14,25 17:3 171:16 195:20 137:18 150:4,6 113 218:5,9,19
249:19 250:16 28:20 48:22 280:24 281:3 150:7 172:10 12 6:3 133:16,19
251:19 252:7 52:2 70:25 Yim 16:7 174:20 175:8,9 133:22,24
263:14,15 71:1 127:8 York 4:8 175:10 176:8,9 196:6
276:10 282:20 works 30:14 y'all 217:9 176:10 177:4,5 12.5 99:21,23
282:20,23 102:9 104:21 177:6,10,13,21 12.6 105:10
Z 179:2,23 180:4 12:44 173:18
284:19 285:10 129:19 135:6
zero 170:24,24 186:7,10,19,21 13 99:24
286:12 287:6 204:20 205:23
176:9,12,17,17 187:1,4,6,16
witnesses 276:18 work-around 130 6:8
176:17,25,25 190:3,23
WITNESS'S 67:8 1331 2:9
197:25,25,25 191:13 192:2
286:2 world 259:20 136 105:22
197:25 234:12 200:24 206:25 14 41:4 193:22
WITTMANN 260:4
234:12,13,13 213:23 222:12
3:15 worthy 276:1 205:18,22
234:24,24,25 234:18 235:21
wonder 133:17 wouldn't 72:8 206:7
234:25 244:24 236:19 249:14 15 13:7 132:10
wondered 83:5 153:16
244:24 245:4 250:2,4 261:2
168:12 155:17 167:4 148:11
246:4,23,23 1,000 41:15
wondering written 6:21 15-B 132:19
249:12,12 42:13 109:12
155:1 188:14 10:2 35:6,22 193:5,20
253:17,17 281:3
Wonderland 36:5 62:12,14 15.4 255:7
254:3,4,14,14 1,200 34:22 35:3 159 95:4 104:2
103:14 62:15 113:20
255:2,3 1-1 223:9
word 87:3 113:22 124:22 16 206:16 207:4
zone 251:1 1-5 223:11
141:11 179:10 128:2,4 220:13 208:22 254:9
Zwain 3:10,11 1-5-A-2 224:16
179:11 281:18 241:25 265:1
8:1,2 1.3 197:3
281:23 282:1,4 wrong 13:10 17 85:15,18,20
words 18:3 102:14 118:3 1:57 173:23 112:10,16,19
$ 10 6:13 98:11

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 328
112:22 208:22 74:21 75:12 20.0 236:1 148:3,24 166:11,13

236:7 79:18 83:10,13 200 99:4 255:23 169:17 174:9 195:11 208:3
17.4 253:9,10 89:14 90:15 280:24 2800 2:23 364 46:6
17.5 206:11 105:20 114:19 2000 210:12 29 143:9,9 365 164:11
236:3 269:2 122:4,18,18 211:4 221:25 149:21 151:2 37 15:4 200:18
17.6 253:8 128:17 134:23 232:13,16,16 29th 19:12 40:3 200:20,22
18 196:7 203:10 138:10 149:3 233:7 241:18 48:5 49:12 201:3
261:8,25 265:1 149:25 150:7 20001 4:9 53:11 190:5 38 167:25 168:3
18-D 199:14 152:8 174:20 2001 56:10 2900 3:11 168:3,4,5,14
18.1 245:5 246:5 176:8 177:4,5 234:15 235:4 203:10
249:9 179:3,24 180:8 236:24 237:13 3 3838 3:12
19 1:25 10:24 180:14,24,25 240:23 244:25 3 6:5 31:17 39 169:1,17
166:5,11 200:7 181:8,24 182:8 246:24 254:5 41:15 44:10 171:9 174:4,18
200:8,8 286:20 184:24 186:20 255:3 55:15,17,19,22 174:23 176:8
19th 7:5 187:1,17 2005 12:8,12 57:1 80:6 90:2
19.0 206:12 188:10 190:4,9 14:11 19:12 90:10 92:23 4
190 6:9 199:20 202:10 40:3 53:13 124:14 129:9 4 6:7 41:16
1915 99:13 207:1 211:13 190:5 273:22 133:7 140:15 45:22 77:10,18
1947 233:20 213:4,23 215:8 2006 10:24 11:20 140:23 165:23 78:11 100:5
1960s 24:10 216:2 222:6,17 14:9,13 219:21 173:19 174:3 173:23 202:15
1963 88:22 222:20,22 242:1,2 190:23 192:1,9 211:16 223:3
1965 85:2,2 236:19,20 2007 1:25 7:6 222:24 228:18 231:8 238:8
94:12 120:9 237:8 239:1,19 11:11 36:23,24 228:24 229:1,2 4-2 211:16
134:20 194:4 240:19 241:5 126:6 242:2 234:7 237:7 4-2-A 213:8
1966 80:6 92:24 242:9,18 286:20 238:19 249:15 4-2-B 213:25
129:10 140:18 250:24 255:3 201 6:10 257:7 271:23 4.2 211:16
140:21 144:3 259:2 261:20 20530 2:9 3,000 170:18 4:00 219:20
146:17 265:19 267:8 21 121:15 3:25 231:7 4:57 285:14
1970s 24:11,12 269:13 271:19 21-D 199:21 3:57 231:12 40 198:2 199:9
1971 202:24 273:5 275:16 211 6:11 30 6:4 56:5,20 199:13 268:1
1972 86:5,17 2-17 266:16 22 6:6 56:20 99:11 122:17 400 126:1
87:25 2-24 265:7 236:22 122:23,24 41 266:6,11
1976 236:23 2-5 263:22 22-D 200:6 123:18 259:20 42 197:19,20
238:5 2-6 264:4,5,11 23 195:11,12 274:10 42-B 199:7
1978 232:4,12,14 268:17 23.0 206:15 30th 12:8 14:11 425 3:3
1992 238:6 2.10 265:3 231 6:12 94:12 300 34:21 255:23 445 244:23
2.11 264:25 233 6:13 31 232:12 254:4 246:23 249:12
2 265:5,9,14,21 25 175:5 177:3 31st 14:9 250:5,8
2 1:7 6:4 17:4,22 266:10 244:24 246:23 32 85:14 46 95:1 98:15
27:14,21 29:1 2.3.2 263:21 26 143:9,9,20 33 197:19 460 201:7,10
29:17 30:25 2.4 266:15,22 147:25 164:8 3445 4:4 47 86:14 95:2
31:17 38:22 2.9 265:3 269 6:14 35 6:21 15:4 98:15
41:8,14,16 2/10ths 207:22 27-D 199:14 140:13,13
42:14 44:7 20 95:2 168:2,5 27.6 99:9 261:16 5
48:20,24 59:3 236:6 275 6:18 350 126:2 5 6:8 100:10
65:2,9 66:3,7 20th 140:21 28 143:9,9 148:3 358 234:11,24 130:3 140:18
71:18 74:14,18 36 85:14 166:4 203:9 222:12

BEA, ROBERT GLENN
11/19/2007
Page 329
231:12 238:19 65 33:6 136:18 8.3 222:25

249:18,24 143:9,10 8/29 42:25
5,000 127:18 150:25 152:2,3 8:00 48:5,7
128:6 152:6,16 8:16 7:7
5,530 127:15 68 171:22 8:22 11:16
5-A 239:12 80 89:3 176:24
5:00 219:20 7 176:25 177:1
50 164:12 7 6:10 40:21,23 203:16
509 253:17 133:15 175:2 80s 24:12
52 198:3,11,24 193:16 201:21 800 4:4
199:4 201:23 202:20 807 170:23
52.9 175:2 206:17 222:22 8095N 2:8
5213 3:20 228:14,19 83 45:11 142:23
54 45:11,17 46:1 229:2 249:4,7 143:7
46:7 7,629,000 172:8 84 33:4
546 3:16 7-4 229:3 855 2:13
55 6:5 7-5 229:3 89th 94:14,20
550 2:3 7-6 229:7,10,15 89-231 94:17
56 6:6 230:6,21 95:23 98:6,9
57.7 175:3 7:00 46:23 47:13
570 254:3,14 70 86:14 176:24 9
59 142:25 143:1 70001 3:21 9 6:12,17 94:25
151:25 70002 3:12 4:5 98:11,19 101:5
70068 3:4 101:6 103:15
6 701 1:23 2:18 231:16
6 6:9 56:6,21 7:4 9:00 48:6,8
94:12 100:2 70113 2:13 3:8 9:38 64:22
133:17 143:9 70130 1:24 2:19 9:52 65:2
190:21 205:17 70130-3588 3:17 90 175:4 176:24
222:20 249:18 70163 2:24 177:3
274:10 702-C 31:6,11 90s 24:13
6.1 172:10 32:25 90.25 175:2
6:00 40:2,4 74 208:6,8 900 34:21
42:25 43:20 740 234:12,24 90071-2627 2:4
45:1 750 126:4 901 4:8
60 1:22 9:5 77 6:7 902 3:7
142:22 143:1 770 197:24 94 45:7
163:1,2 164:5 94556 1:22 9:5
198:2 199:9,13 8
61 6:23 142:23 8 6:11 27:25
143:3,4 163:9 100:3 132:8,10
165:16,17 132:13,15
266:6 193:5,7 210:16
614 255:2 211:9 221:24
63 45:7,8 143:5,7 249:16
64 136:17,18 8.15 223:3
171:23 8.17 223:5

In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Civil Action Consolidated Litigation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Civil Action Consolidated Litigation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Civil Action Consolidated Litigation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEA, ROBERT GLENN

IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION

THE UNITED STATES

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

1 APPEARANCES: 1 ALSO PRESENT IN ATTENDANCE (CONTINUED)

1 INDEX 1 MR. ZWAIN:

1 VIDEO OPERATOR: 1 VIDEO OPERATOR:

1 subsequently by Joseph Bruno. 1 referenced.

1 Keep it. 1 Q. Okay.

1 A. Correct. 1 between levee and sea dike?

1 Q. Did you make it up specifically for 1 dike?

1 A. That's correct. 1 A. Correct.

1 environmental conditions and forces"? 1 it Basil Wilson?

1 A. The principal model -- 1 being performed by, or has been performed by

1 Let me just hand you this and ask 1 report.

1 agreement? 1 that we have agreed to give?

1 result of these continuing studies? 1 --

1 said there were three locations. Were there 1 location number 1?

1 was at the toe of the structure, whatever 1 time, 6:00 A.M.?

1 figure number 54 -- 1 when the surge was overtopping? And let's

1 four locations? 1 A. That's correct.

1 third category of study are focused on the 1 A. That is correct.

1 of data concerning erosion of the forces 1 Q. I take it that you're trying to do

1 characteristics of those locations. 1 sources of information concerning the

1 that obstacle? 1 A. Right.

1 A. Grain size. Of particular 1 back there?

1 content was important in the analysis of an 1 convenience?

1 Q. I didn't know there was a pump 1 "earthen berm".

1 considered spoils? 1 Q. Let's limit it to the period after

1 MR. O'DONNELL: 1 levee material between Bayou Bienvenue and

1 VIDEO OPERATOR: 1 two design storms?

1 its appearance there. 1 A. The example that I cited is on page

1 A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 1 Hurricane?

27 (Pages 102 to 105)

1 hurricane overflow by constructing levees 1 Q. Well, okay. I'm sorry. I was

1 hurricane. That more severe hurricane 1 you an example?

28 (Pages 106 to 109)

1 it to levee construction, what 1 Q. No? Why not?

29 (Pages 110 to 113)

1 know what manuals? Is it in a manual 1 Q. -- you previously described them as

30 (Pages 114 to 117)

1 levees. 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:

31 (Pages 118 to 121)

1 Q. What is the basis of that assertion, 1 MR. SMITH:

1 taken along the -- 1 A. Monthly from the University of

32 (Pages 122 to 125)

1 Plaintiffs in this litigation? 1 those two locations.

33 (Pages 126 to 129)

1 MR. BAEZA: 1 to your own question, right?

1 A. Right. 1 Oh, sorry, I have the wrong

34 (Pages 130 to 133)

1 same as the plan presented in the project 1 Q. Sure.

1 A. Correct. 1 "Recommendations" section?

35 (Pages 134 to 137)

1 from the lock on the IHNC -- 1 Nelson and Company, Incorporated.

1 created by an architect engineer firm rather 1 instructions or comment on this project."

36 (Pages 138 to 141)

1 The question. 1 document? What is the source of your

37 (Pages 142 to 145)