Miller 1015

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 344 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES

CIVIL ACTION

CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION

NO. 05-4182 K2 JUDGE DUVAL

PERTAINS TO:

MRGO AND ROBINSON (No. 06-2268)

(V O L U M E

IV)

Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY AND THROUGH THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' DESIGNEE GREGORY MILLER, given at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District offices, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-3651, on October 15th, 2008.

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

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 345 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

REPRESENTING THE PLAINTIFFS: BRUNO & BRUNO (BY: JOSEPH M. BRUNO, ESQUIRE) (BY: FLORIAN BUCHLER, ESQUIRE) 855 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 504-525-1335 - AND ELWOOD C. STEVENS, JR., APLC (BY: ELWOOD C. STEVENS, JR., ESQUIRE) 1205 Victor II Boulevard Morgan City, Louisiana 70380 - AND MCKERNAN LAW FIRM (BY: ASHLEY E. PHILEN, ESQUIRE) 8710 Jefferson Highway Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809 225-926-1234 - AND SHER, GARNER, CAHILL, RICHTER, KLEIN & HILBERT, L.L.C. (BY: MATTHEW CLARK, ESQUIRE) 909 Poydras Street, 28th Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 504-299-2100

Page 347

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

ALSO PRESENT: TIANA CHRISTOPHER, ESQ. PRESENT VIA I-DEP: ELISA GILBERT, ESQ. BRENDAN O'BRIEN, ESQ. VIDEOGRAPHER: GILLEY DELORIMIER (DEPO-VUE)

Page 346 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

- AND THE GILBERT FIRM, LLC (BY: ELISA GILBERT, ESQUIRE) 325 E. 57th Street New York, N.Y. 10022 212-286-8503

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 8 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 9 TORTS BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION 10 (BY: ROBIN SMITH, ESQUIRE) 11 (BY: CONOR KELLS, ESQUIRE) 12 P.O. Box 888 13 Benjamin Franklin Station 14 Washington, D.C. 20044 15 202-616-4289 16 17 REPRESENTING THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 18 CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OFFICE OF COUNSEL 19 (BY: JENNIFER LABOURDETTE, ESQUIRE) 20 7400 Leake Avenue 21 New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-3651 22 504-862-2843 23 24 25

Page 348

EXAMINATION INDEX EXAMINATION BY:

PAGE

MR. BRUNO ...............................350 EXHIBIT INDEX EXHIBIT NO. PAGE Exhibit 52 ...............................373 Exhibit 53 ...............................389

2 (Pages 345 to 348) Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 349

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

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

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

Page 351

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

Page 350

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

GREGORY MILLER U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District offices, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-3651, a witness named in the above stipulation, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified on his oath as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. When we left yesterday the question that was open on the table was whether or not a local sponsor is required in order for the Corps to do the reevaluation study. A. In the case of the gulf outlet channel, no. They may be required at the end or in the result of that reevaluation, should it recommend some new aspect of the project, to provide lands, but in this case the project was 100 percent federal funded for construction and maintenance. Q. Now, if the project was 100 percent federal funded for construction and maintenance, that means that the local sponsor really wasn't required to put up any money for construction, right? A. Well, they're required to provide

lands and easements. Q. Okay. A. On order to enable construction to go, so. Q. Right. And the reason I'm asking the question is because how does that then figure into the calculation of cost sharing if the government is required to put up 100 percent of the money and the local sponsor is only required to put up land, in the case of the future study that you just alluded to, how do you determine the cost sharing between the government and the local sponsor? A. Well, cost sharing is prescribed by project type. There are various cost sharing ratios described in law, and it depends on the type of project. In this particular case this is a navigation project that was authorized as a federal navigation job, so the construction and maintenance is 100 percent federal cost as long as the local sponsor provides the lands and easements necessary for the construction and operation and maintenance of the project. There are other project types that have differing cost sharing ratios. Page 352

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

Q. I understand. A. Some are ecosystem restoration, 65 percent federal/35 percent local. There are others that are 75 percent/25 percent. It just depends on the project type. Q. Well, in the case of this case right here, in the case of the reevaluation study itself, I think you just testified that there may be some further study required after the reevaluation. A. No, that's not what I said. If there was a recommendation for some other action, there could, for example, if the -hypothetically, if a reevaluation recommended expansion of a -- deepening of a project, there may be a local, um -- cost associated with that. If they recommended some other feature that wasn't in the original authorization, there may be a local cost share required for that recommendation to be implemented. Q. All right. Well, in the case of -let me see if I can put this in perspective. I think we learned that in the case of the reconnaisance study, the reason why it didn't go to the feasibility phase was because they

3 (Pages 349 to 352) Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 353

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

couldn't find a local sponsor to cost share. Is that accurate? A. They could not find a local sponsor to cost share the feasibility part, that's correct. Q. Right. Now, and the statutes you were going to relook at said that the cost sharing would be the same cost sharing that was utilized in connection with the original construction of the project. That's the formula you're tied to. A. Well, we're mixing different, um -different studies. You're mixing a reevaluation and a reconnaisance study. They're not the same. Q. Okay. A. A reevaluation is something that we spoke briefly about yesterday starting roughly in the 1999 time period. The reconnaisance study is something that began back in the early 1980s. It identified a federal interest, it identified the potential solution and it identified roughly a positive cost benefit ratio and then it made recommendations on how to proceed to the feasibility stage. The

Page 355

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

Page 354

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

initial study said proceed with modifications to the general design memorandum, the subsequent draft in 1994, I believe it is, said to do a feasibility study. Feasibility studies require a cost share sponsor. There was no cost share sponsor that stepped forward and, therefore, the study did not proceed to a feasibility phase. Q. Right. I thought, though, that the feasibility study cost share requirement was that the cost sharing be the same cost sharing that was used in connection with the origination of the project. A. No. Q. It's not? A. No. Q. Okay. So even though in the case of the MRGO the local sponsor, the port, was not required to put up any cash to build it, in order to proceed to a feasibility study the local sponsor, the port, is required to put up money to study whether or not foreshore protection would be appropriate based upon whatever standards or we've talked about over these many hours.

A. That's right. They would be required to the cost share the feasibility phase of it. Q. All right. Is there something -- some method by which there can be an expedited feasibility study process? A. Well, the feasibility study would have to follow the planning guidance regulations that we have. The engineering regulation 1105-2-100 which outlines the procedures for conducting the feasibility study -Q. Right. A. -- that regulation contains, um -- you know, the various review times that are required to get a study completed. But, um -I'm not aware of any specific authorization for expediting, other than we would try to do things as quickly as we can. Q. All right. Okay. Do you know whether or not the Corps consulted with the local sponsor of the project, which in this case we've established is the Port of New Orleans, regarding its desire or intent to pursue the reevaluation study? MR. SMITH: Objection. Asked and answered. Page 356

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

A. Yes. There were consultations between the Port of New Orleans and the Corps, um -for the reevaluation study. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. Now, who initiated the study? A. Well, the study is initiated by the Corps of Engineers. Q. Okay. And what was the reason that the Corps -- why did the Corps initiate the study? A. Well, there are probably a number of factors. One is that the port had expressed interest of moving some of its facilities from the Industrial Canal area to the Mississippi River. So there was a projection of maybe a change in the need for the channel. There were also changes in the vessel utilization of the channel. So there was an evaluation of the continuing -- at the request of the Congress, a reevaluation of the continuing justification for the navigation benefits of the channel. Q. All right. So there was some Congressional request here? Because I'm looking at this document here, um -- NPM 38-636 through 648. (Tendering.) Have you seen that?

4 (Pages 353 to 356) Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 357

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

A. Yes. Q. Okay. I think we talked about that briefly yesterday. A. Oh. Wait a second. Sorry. This is different than what we looked at yesterday. Q. No? A. Is this the same one we looked at yesterday? Q. I think so. Did we mark it? Okay, so -- have you seen it? A. I've looked at it now, yes. Q. All right. What is it? A. Well, this is a study plan, October 1999, for the MRGO reevaluation study. Since we outlines at the time how the Corps, um -the planning approach that we would use for conducting the study, various rolls of the technical divisions we have and budget, um -- a little bit of background on the project itself. Q. Does it reference the Congressional resolution? A. No. Q. Should it have? A. No. I believe the resolution was --

Page 359

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

Page 358

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

resolutions were appropriations language law that came subsequent to the date of this document. Q. Okay. All right. So the reevaluation was not done in response to a Congressional resolution. A. I don't know that it was initiated in response to a Congressional resolution. Q. Okay. A. I'm not sure if -- because there would be dollars required to initiate this if we went back to the committees and asked for, um -reprogramming authority to use funds in one manner or another. Q. Sure. A. I'm not sure about that. We'd have to look at the record to see. Q. Well, I'm just trying to establish whether the initiating party was the Congress or the Corps. And it sounds like the initiating party, the person who came up with the idea to pursue this, was the Corps. A. Well, I think that, you know, the concept behind doing a reevaluation is generated by, again, some local, um -- desires,

if you will, to look into the project in a different manner. The port, as I mentioned, was expressing that they would move facilities from the Industrial Canal area to the river and, therefore, the future economics of the navigation channel could be in question. And so the expression of the port's interest from that standpoint is something that the Corps would have considered in looking to initiate the reevaluation. Q. Isn't it a fact that for a long period of time within this office, the New Orleans District office, there has been a difference of opinion as to whether or not the channel should remain open in the first instance? A. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by first instance in that case. Q. In other words, that there was a dialogue in this office for many, many years, there were those in this office who wanted to keep the channel open for navigation purposes and there was another group in this office who believed that the damage that was being done to the environment was so great that there really was a substantial need to close the channel and Page 360

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

that the use of the channel was not sufficient to justify keeping it open? Isn't that what -isn't that what was going on here for years and years and years? A. I think, you know, that's kind of a general characterization but, yeah, that is the type of discussions that were ongoing between staff level elements here at the district. Q. Right. A. The thing that is important about it, though, is that it doesn't necessarily respond to the authorization status and the appropriations received by the Corps for the project. You know, if you're getting -- you have an authorization to operate and maintain a project and you're receiving funds to do that, you have to carry out the direction of the Congress in that sense. Q. When the Corps went to the Congress for authorization -- I'm sorry. For continued funding for operations and maintenance, did it tell -- and I don't want to couch this in terms of what it told Congress, but did this office tell higher-ups about all of the environmental damages that were being caused by the channel,

5 (Pages 357 to 360) Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 361

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

so that the Congress -- so that the higher ups could ascertain whether or not this was a project that would merit continued funding? A. I believe we went through, yesterday, a number of the reconnaisance documents for shore protection, and we had talked not specifically but in general about other evaluations of the channel that discussed environmental aspects associated with it, salinity, bank erosion -Q. Right. We did. A. -- opportunities for environmental protection, and those documents, in fact we talked about some of them in specific, had memorandums where there was review by higher authorities within the Corps. So yes, the answer is the district would have informed others about the environmental setting of the project, as well as the other aspects that were under evaluation for continuation of maintenance. Q. We know that those in the office who wanted to continue the use of the channel for navigation purposes understood the need for continued dredging because without continued

Page 363

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

Page 362

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

dredging you wouldn't use it for navigational purposes. Isn't that true? A. Well, it would limit the use of the channel to the available draft. Q. All right. So what I'm trying to understand is whether or not the information about the damages that the MRGO were causing was tied to the request for money for continued operation and maintenance, or was it separate? MR. SMITH: I'd just like to make a note that John Saia was designated to address the budgeting and funding issues which were Topic Number 3. But you can answer to the extent -To the extent of his knowledge Mr. Miller can address that. MR. BRUNO: All right. A. I can't say specifically at the time, um -- budgets are developed on a continuing basis at the direction of the administration and I don't know what the specific requirement -- in fact, I'm not even sure

exactly what time we're talking about right now -- would have been. Um -- in general, the budget is a roll-up of dollar figures. There are some explanations, today -- and I'm not sure again in the past what level of detail would accompany that -- but there are background sheets or justification or other supporting information that is part of the budget preparation process. And that's my knowledge today. I'm, again, not sure what time frame we're talking about right now or what the requirement was at that point. Q. Okay. All right. Well, let me see if I can understand. I think what you've testified to is that all of the information gathered by the Corps over the years about the damage that the MRGO was doing to the environment, coupled with information about the fact that the channel wasn't being used as much as it was originally designed for, reached the point where the Corps decided to initiate this reevaluation study. Right? That's basically what we've learned from your testimony. A. In essence, yes, that's right. Q. Okay. And we know that that occurred Page 364

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

sometime in what, 1999 or '98, thereabouts? A. Thereabouts. Q. All right. Was there something that was a catalyst that -- because again we've established that the dialogue between those who felt like the navigation issues prevailed over the environment versus those who thought that the environment prevailed or the navigation issues, that had been going on for many, many years before 1998, right? A. I can't say about the internal discussions. I didn't work for the Corps at the time. And I know you're going to tell me I'm a 30(b)(6) or whatever, but there were efforts under various authorities, and part of the authority was to operate and maintain -part of the directive, the funding and authority, was to operate and maintain the channel. There were other authorities that evolved over the course of the life of this project that directed the Corps to do other -investigation. We talked about it yesterday with the '82 resolution for shore erosion protection. There may be elements within the district that are assigned to work on one

6 (Pages 361 to 364) Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 365

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

aspect of the project or another, both solely underneath the directive of the Congress and they're not necessarily always consistent with each other. Q. All right. But all I was trying to establish was, the dialogue had been going on for some period of time before 1998. That's all. A. Well, but your reference is to the dialogue within the building in that sentence, and that's my point is I wasn't on the team at that point. I can tell you that in general there are multiple authorities in place at times -- for example, the Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act passed in 1990 has authority for the restoration of wetlands in coastal Louisiana. So there may have been elements at the district working on that program where that are opportunities for protection of the environment in the area of the MRGO. At the same time, you have elements in the operations division that are working to keep the channel maintained at its authorized depth. Q. Well, the idea that something needed

Page 367

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

Page 366

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

to be done didn't just occur in 1998. You've just testified that this is a process that's been going on since at least 1967. Right? That is, what do we do about the fact that this project is eroding the banks and causing damage to the environment? That has been going on for at least twenty years before 1998. A. I'm not sure I understand your question right now, though. What has been going on? Q. The information -- the Corps has possessed information about the fact that the channel is causing damage to the environment for twenty years before 1998. Right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And for some period of time before 1998 the Corps was aware that the channel wasn't being used in the same way that it was used by the maritime industry. Isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. All right. I'm just trying to figure out what was it in 1998 that caused -- that pushed, you know, the Corps into actually doing the reevaluation study, was it a particular

event, was it a particular piece of information, was it a phone call? If you know, what was it that caused the Corps to actually start the process of a reevaluation study? MR. SMITH: Objection. Asked and answered. A. I feel like we have talked about that. There was an expressed interest of the Port of New Orleans in potential of moving certain facilities from one area to another and, therefore, the possibility would exist that there would be less justification for the channel. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. A. Based on that expression from the local sponsor for the navigation project, the Corps looked into reevaluating the continued justification for the channel. Q. All right. So it was the fact that the port had communicated the fact that it was considering moving some of its assess from the Industrial Canal to the river, that's the piece of information that motivate the Corps to move into a reevaluation study, right? Page 368

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

A. Well, I think there are other factors, too. I think, you know, again there's this history of the reconnaisance evaluation and the recognition that there are environmental concerns about the channel. And so there a number of -- you're not in a sense just looking at one element of the project. Q. But something spurred the Corps to do something. Something occurred to get them to move from the thinking in the past, which was a dialogue that lasted twenty years, to actually doing this reevaluation. And I'm just -- if it's the port, it's the information about the port, then that's fine. Something had to get them to move, right? A. Well, I'm saying that I think there are other elements to it. Q. I know there's -A. The historic timing of things is -we're not bringing it up because they're not Corps reports, but there was also a discussion of the development of a millennium port where you would move facilities from the port of New Orleans area closer to the gulf so that maritime operations in Louisiana were more

7 (Pages 365 to 368) Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 369

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

competitive on a global basis. There are plans in the works for coastal restoration that discuss the MRGO. There is a letter that the port expressed interest in potentially, you know, moving facilities away from it. That's one of the factors that went into it. But there are other external factors separate from the pure navigation aspect of it. I'm just trying to tell you just there's multiple reasons there. Q. Now, this document, this is a study plan. So what is a study plan? A. It's just an overview of the authority available for conducting a study, some background on the reason -- the project itself or the potential project, the types of alternatives that might be considered, the roles of the technical elements within the study team in producing information to help with evaluation and comparison, a budget, typically an estimate of a budget, and a general schedule for conducting the work. Q. All right. And there's no mention here about the plans of the port to move any of its facilities, right?

Page 371

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

Page 370

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

A. There's a mention in the third paragraph, first page, about information received, and it just lists agencies, it does not give any specifics of what that information is. But the Port of New Orleans is one of the providing entities in that. Q. All right. And at Page 4 where it says proposed actions being considered, it simply talks about the fact that the proposed modifications may necessitate the relocation of some of the businesses located on the IHNC or the MRGO, right? A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. Now, this document at Page 6 under engineering division talks about what engineering is expected to do, right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And you've already testified that the reason for this thing is to evaluate, you know, the project to determine whether or not there's -- maybe to look primarily at the navigation use versus the loss of the environment and the like. Help me understand why it is that there is a desire to evaluate hurricane surge. How is that connected to

either the navigation or the potential of the channel to cause damage to the environment? A. I think we'd go to the language in the study plan on Page 3. There's a paragraph and I'll read a sentence from it. Q. Sure. A. And this goes to why hurricane -evaluation of surge is important in terms of how the conduct this reevaluation. It states, me recent storms such as Hurricane Georges played havoc with keeping the deep draft channel functional. And so if we're evaluating the economics of the maintenance of the channel, if there are impacts to the depth of the channel because of storm events, then that results in costs. Those costs are a cost of the project for its maintenance, that may impact the justification for continuing to operate the project under its current authority. Q. Well, is says evaluate hurricane stages. Do you know what they're referring to when they say hurricane stages? A. In general, you know, the level of water associated with hurricanes. Page 372

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

Q. Right. Now, how does a level of water tell you anything about silting in the channel? MR. SMITH: I'd just like to note that we're going to have Nancy Powell address the influence of hurricane surges on -MR. BRUNO: Yes, I know that. But I'm trying to understand why they're studying it here in the reevaluation study. MR. SMITH: If you know. A. Well, in general, there's some background information provided here that demonstrates that previous storms have resulted in impacts to the channel, the depth of the channel. And those result an added cost for the maintenance of the channel and, therefore, if you're trying to evaluate the future in terms of should there be any changes in the authorized depths of the channel, the costs for maintain those depths should be considered and hurricanes are a factor that influence the potential maintenance cost of the project. Q. Okay. Do you know what scoping is?

8 (Pages 369 to 372) Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 373

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

A. Do you have a page reference? Q. Yes. A. Read the context. Q. I have an NPM 38-21 through -- let me mark it. Let me mark this as 52. (Exhibit 52 was marked for identification and is attached hereto.) (Off the record.) A. I do know what it means. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. What does it mean? A. Well, it's an element, um -- in the compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. We typically refer to public scoping in the initiation phase of NEPA compliance where we will provide basic information about a project or an investigation and then we will go to the public and ask for their input on the problem itself, the potential solutions, if you will, and then there are comments about the issue of concern. And so a document is developed after that that is a scoping report that documents the comments received during that process. Q. All right. And so it also documents

Page 375

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

Page 374

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

the degree to which there is a coordination between other agencies in connection with the reevaluation study itself, right? A. In this particular case, yes. And in general, and I apologize for leaving that out, the, um -- the element is not just public in nature, it's governmental and intergovernmental in nature. Q. Okay. And at Page 2 where it says study purpose, the first paragraph. A. Uh-huh. Q. It says, the environmental and flood control benefits of channel modifications will also be investigated. You see that sentence? A. I do. Q. All right. So that would suggest that the fact that the they're studying hurricanes has to do with a lot more than just whether or not hurricanes cause increased maintenance dredging, right? A. Can I see the previous document that we spoke about a minute ago? Q. Which was what? MR. KELLS: (Tendering.)

A. Again, you know, elements change over time. This is an October '99 study plan and this is a scoping report from November 2001, but in the study plan I'll point out, and it's on Page 8, paragraph -- or Section 9, local cooperation, it just says, it should be noted that this study would not address environmental restoration or hurricane protection, per se, it will be limited to addressing issues that are directly related to the navigation channel. Q. Okay. A. This may have evolved over -- you know, over time. Q. All right. Well, at least as of 2001 there is an evolution of purpose to include environmental and flood control benefits as general modifications, right? I'm still at Page 2. A. Sorry. Ask again, please. (Whereupon the previous question was read back.) A. You know, in reading the sentence, the environmental and flood control benefits of channel modification will also be investigated, I believe it's in reference to the potential Page 376

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

alternatives that would be under consideration and whether, you know, those would have some influence in terms of environmental impacts or hurricane impacts and such. It's not -- it's still relative to the potential modification of the channel under the reevaluation alternatives. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Why don't you read the next -- the paragraph that starts with construction, on the same page. A. Okay. Q. All right. That would suggest quite the contrary, that there is a suggestion for the need to investigate whether or not there's a connection between the channel and increased hurricane surge. They're saying specifically, this needs to be investigated; right? A. It says that, right. Q. Okay. A. And I don't think there's -- and, you know, the answer, I don't think there is any argument in that, you know, part of the record of what we've talked about in terms of the scoping report and some of the other documents.

9 (Pages 373 to 376) Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 377

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

Q. Right. Except that it's not limited to the changes proposed to the channel, it's also including the channel itself. It says construction of the MRGO caused ecosystem changes and wetlands loss. The long term effects of the channel, including saltwater intrusion from the Gulf of Mexico and shoreline erosion are continuing to cause the loss of coastal wetlands. In addition, many local residents and elected officials believe that the channel increases the potential for hurricane storm surge flooding by providing a direct route for floodwater from the Gulf of Mexico. These issues need to be investigated. All I'm suggesting is, this paragraph seems to show that the connection between the channel and hurricane surge and the desire for study goes beyond just the proposed changes and includes the channel as it exists at the point in time. A. It does. And there's a purpose behind that, because it is a part of the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act to look at no action. And in the sense of a project that is already authorized and

Page 379

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

Page 378

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

continuing to be operated, no action would be to the continuation of your current activities. And so we need to look at those aspects of this when evaluating the no action alternative. Q. Right. Well, no action means that you stop dredging or that you're just continuing on the course? A. No action in the sense of no modification, continue the current operation of the channel. If we refer back again to the study plan, Page -- excuse me, this is October '99 MRGO reevaluation study plan, Section 4, Alternative Plan Development, the first bullet: Continue to maintain the existing deep draft channel. Q. Sure. A. That was one of the alternatives that would be considered. Q. Fair enough. A. And it goes to trying to be comprehensive in terms of the NEPA evaluation. Q. Fine. And that means that because NEPA made this requirement that this requirement has been a requirement since 1970. Right?

A. That's correct. Q. Okay. So if the Corps needed to investigate the connection between hurricane surge and the MRGO it needed to do so as early as 1970. A. Not necessarily. Q. Why not? A. It may not have been an issue raised at the time in terms of the particular project authorization. Q. By whom? A. Well, this is a scoping report. It takes information from various sources and it says that these are, you know, issues of concern, and how does it relate to the evaluations we intend to conduct here? Q. Well, certainly we agree that it's been an issue of concern by the, quote, local residents and elected officials, for at least thirty years. MR. SMITH: 0bjection. Vague. A. In the context of this particular paragraph, it puts no timing on the statement. Have we discussed in the past, even prior to Page 380

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

the authorization, the folks that -absolutely. And there were evaluations conducted at the time. Q. Okay. But what's different about 1998 and 1970 in the context of NEPA with regard to the perceived need to study or investigate these issues referring to the connection between, if any, the MRGO and increased storm surge flooding? What are the differences between 1970 and 1998? A. I think it's important to look at, and it's shown later in this particular document, the level of public comment provided to the Corps in the scoping of this evaluation versus what we may have received in the -- for other studies in the past. There are references in here to petitions and 1700 people, a number of different studies are recognized. Um -- and it talks about vast majority of comment received. Q. Okay. So I'm gathering from your testimony it's the volume of public outcry that requires the Corps to respond to NEPA. A. No, not necessarily. I assume that in this particular scoping document there are references to a lot of, um -- these petitions

10 (Pages 377 to 380) Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 381

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

other documents provided in the scoping process. Q. Right. A. You know, in previous -- you know, I think the level of responsibility to respond to comment would be the same under the law, it's just you may not have received that same level of interest in the previous efforts. Q. Okay. We agree that the Corps' responsibility to respond to NEPA is the same in 1970 as it is in 1998; right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And so the only difference between 1970 and 1998 with regard to the issue of the potential connection between MRGO 's effect on the environment, and increased -- I'm sorry, and increases in the potential for hurricane storm surge flooding is the volume of public opinion on the issue, as between 1970 and 1998, right? That's the only thing that's changed. A. Well, I'm not sure if that is right, because there may be added technical understanding of an issue, um -- there may be --

Page 383

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

Page 382

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

Q. Well, this is NEPA study now. A. -- there may be more widespread knowledge of something. There are a number of factors that could go into it. It's not just -- I'll try to stay out of hypotheticals, but just because we get ten thousand letters doesn't mean we're going to do something about something. It doesn't mean they're all right. You have to look at the issue at hand in that sense. Q. Agreed. And the issue was the same in 1970, that is, this issue about the potential for the channel to increase the potential for hurricane storm surge flooding, that was the same in 1970 as it was in 1998; isn't that true? A. No. Q. Well, what changed? I mean, you testified already that the salinity and erosion had caused a stabilization of whatever environmental losses by the mid 1970s. So the environmental conditions had been established by that time, and the channel is still there, and hurricanes still come, so what's different about the issue? And that issue is, again, the

potential connection between the channel and the potential for increase of storm surge flooding, between -- let's move it up, let's say mid seventies where you said the environment had stabilized and 1998? I'll give you that. What's the difference? A. Well, I think we're taking things out of context here. This is a scoping document that is expressing the concerns that people have raised at the initiation phase of an investigation. We didn't look at the scoping documents for the environmental statement we discussed yesterday from 1976. We can look and see if those elements were raised as issues of concern. We also need to look at the purpose of the evaluation. This is a reevaluation of the, um -- the channel. That was not the purpose of the study we discussed -- excuse me, the environmental impact statement we discussed yesterday. Q. Well, you told me in response to my question that it was NEPA that caused the need for investigation between the channel and the potential for storm surge flooding. We've established that NEPA came into existence in Page 384

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

1970. We know that there was a reconnaisance study in '88 and '94. So I'm trying to understand if NEPA is the reason why you got to study this issue, then you needed to study this issue before, if there's been no change in either the environment or hurricanes. Isn't that true? MR. SMITH: Objection. Calls for speculation. A. I'll provide a general answer to your question. I think it goes to the purpose of an evaluation. It goes to what information is received into scoping out or setting up that evaluation. It also goes to the element of time. We have in this particular case a number of other authorities that are underway, evaluating restoration for all of coastal Louisiana, looking at a number of factors. At the time of the '76 document, those authorities were not in place. And so there's additional information available that tells us that maybe you should look at a broader aspect of this evaluation. Q. Is there anything that would have

11 (Pages 381 to 384) Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 385

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

prevented the Corps from doing a reevaluation study in 1970? A. I don't recall -- no, I don't think there would be anything that would prevent us, um -- it may have required, at the time, specific Congressional authorization. Q. For the money. A. I'm not sure. Q. For the money, not the study. A. Well, it may have also required to authority. I'm not sure of the -- we talked yesterday about the 216 authority. I don't remember the date of the availability of that authority. Q. Does NEPA give you any authority to do a reevaluation study? A. Not as I understand it. Q. Okay. It suggests here that NEPA established a nationwide policy to include in every recommendation or report on proposals for major federal actions significantly affecting the environment a detailed statement of the environmental impact of the proposed action. So is that the connection between NEPA and these reports?

Page 387

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

Page 386

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

A. Well, the report in question is the specific scoping report, which is a requirement -- well, which is a tool that we use in the early stage of development of an investigation or study to enable public involvement, interaction with the resource agencies and others. Q. All right. Can I conclude -- this is an accurate statement, right? This sentence that I just read, the first sentence of the scoping report -A. Yes. Q. -- that the 1988 reconnaisance report and the 1994 reconnaisance report should have contained, first, a no action evaluation and that no action evaluation should have contained an assessment of whether or not the channel increases the potential for hurricane storm surge flooding. Right? MR. SMITH: Objection. Asked and answered. A. No. That's incorrect. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Why is it incorrect? A. Because it's a reconnaisance study.

It doesn't require -- it doesn't recommend, um -- you know, a major federal action. The result of it is a decision on whether or not to pursue a feasibility investigation. There's no on-the-ground, um -- result of the reconnaisance study so, therefore, it doesn't require a NEPA document. Q. Okay. A. If you read the reconnaissance study -Q. It recommends foreshore protection. A. -- in the plan of how to conduct a feasibility study it includes the element of performing NEPA compliance. Q. All right. I'm going to show you Exhibit Number 53, the Report of the Environmental subcommittee. Just tell me what role it has -- just tell me what it is and what relevance it has to the reevaluation study. MR. BRUNO: We're not going to mark it 53, we're just going to refer to -- do we know the number? MR. SMITH: Page 388

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

It's not marked. (Off the record.) MR. BRUNO: All right. For the record, we've established that this document is already marked as Number 12, and you say we've already gone into it with Saia, so -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Do you know why or how it was that these four, actually five, I guess, proposed alternatives were chosen? One of them is the no action? I'm looking at -- we called it Russo 8, and I don't know if we marked it here, but it's the redesign of the channel to be maintained at 125 by 12 and the next one is 160 by 16, 200 by 20, total closure and no action. Do you know how those alternatives came to be? (Tendering.) Who chose them and why were they selected? A. I don't in terms of the 2001 document that you're referencing. I think if we looked at the draft report there should be a description of the alternatives, and there might -- there should be included in there a

12 (Pages 385 to 388) Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 389

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

basis for why the various dimensions -Q. Which one do you want, May or September? A. Well, let's take the latest one. I think they're all drafts, but. Q. Yeah. Let's mark that as Exhibit 53. (Exhibit 53 was marked for identification and is attached hereto.) A. I'm looking at Page 47. Alternative 1 is no action. It describes that, you know, again, as I've explained earlier, that this would actually continue to maintain the MRGO as authorized. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Right. Sure. A. That's an element of NEPA. You know, it's a comparative. Q. Sure. A. Do something or do nothing, and what are the results in terms of project benefits and impacts? Second is -- and the point here is that there's a number of alternatives in the draft report that are beyond what -- which is dated in 2005. Q. And I don't necessarily have to go

Page 391

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

Page 390

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

through each one of them, I just wanted to understand who picked them and why. You know, what is the process by which -- you got 120 feet. How come it's not 110 or 130? You know, what's the logic employed in the selection of these alternates? A. The only one that I know the logic behind was the 12 by 125 dimension, which is a match of the authorized dimensions of the gulf Intracoastal waterway. If you want, I can spend some time looking at the rationale and see if -Q. Okay. A. -- the various other dimensions, um -were recommended by Corps or if they were the port or if they were just simply trying to be incremental in evaluation. Q. That's okay. Let me just ask you this question: The Corps recognized during the time that it was doing the reevaluation the need to study the connection if any between each of those alternatives and hurricane surge flooding, the potential for increasing the hurricane surge flooding, right? A. Right. It was, you know, as we talked

before the break, you know, in the scoping process an element of significant public concern. Q. Now, if the evaluation had revealed that there was a connection between either the no action, the closure or any of these however many there were, and there was also a decision to go forward with any one of those projects, there would be the need to deal with the connection between that selected option and the increased potential for hurricane surge, right? A. By phrasing deal with, you mean to have -Q. Fix it. A. -- a recommendation element that addressed that? Q. Yeah. Right. A. If there was a connection established, the recommended plan could either have a specific feature or it could point to another authority that already addresses -Q. Sure. A. -- you know, that concern. Q. And is it true that the cost of that feature would necessarily be a cost of that Page 392

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

particular project, that is, the alternate or the particular proposal that may have been recommended? A. I believe it would depend on how Congress chose to authorize that recommendation. If the result of the study is to take a new action that requires Congressional authorization, the Congress would have to authorize all of the features and then subsequently appropriate the dollars for construction of those features. So it's dependent on the Congressional authorization. Q. Well, in the past it was dependent upon how the Corps characterized the feature. For example, in the context of the foreshore protection, you remember there was the dialogue about whether the Corps itself wanted to try to charge it to the hurricane protection versus the navigation project, and the Corps recognized that because the navigation project was the source of the problem that the Corps felt like it was the navigation project that should be charged with the fix, if you will. Would that be true in the context of this feasibility study if one of the alternates

13 (Pages 389 to 392) Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 393

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

chosen had demonstrated a connection between that alternate and the increased potential for hurricane surge flooding? A. My recollection of some of the memorandum associated with the foreshore decision was that it did not set any precedent for subsequent projects or, you know, a national precedent, so that leads me to think that it would be a case-by-case determination in the aspects of this, if you're requiring some new authority you're going to have to have Congressional action to provide you that authority and then Congressional action to give you the appropriations to implement it. So again, I'll go back that I would think that it would be up to the Congress to determine the allocation of costs between one project or another in that sense. Q. Okay. That's all the questions I have. (Whereupon the deposition was concluded.)

Page 395

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

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

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

Page 394

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

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

_________________________ GREGORY MILLER

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

DATE TAKEN: October 15th, 2008

14 (Pages 393 to 395) Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 396 A ability 395:12 absolutely 380:2 accompany 363:6 accurate 353:2 386:9 Act 365:15 373:14 377:23 action 344:4 352:12 377:24 378:1,4,5,8 385:23 386:15,16 387:2 388:13,17 389:10 391:6 392:7 393:12,13 actions 370:8 385:21 activities 378:2 added 372:17 381:23 addition 377:9 additional 384:21 address 362:12,18 372:5 375:7 addressed 391:16 addresses 391:21 addressing 375:9 administering 349:24 administration 362:23 aforementioned 349:4 394:8 395:5 agencies 370:3 374:2 386:7 ago 374:22 agree 379:17 381:9 Agreed 349:2 382:11 allocation 393:17 alluded 351:11 alternate 392:1 393:2 alternates 390:6 392:25

alternative 378:4 378:13 389:9 alternatives 369:17 376:1,7 378:17 388:12,18,24 389:22 390:22 AMERICA 344:12 346:8 and/or 394:6 answer 349:13 361:17 362:15 376:22 384:11 answered 355:25 367:6 386:21 APLC 345:9 apologize 374:5 approach 357:17 appropriate 354:23 392:10 appropriations 358:1 360:13 393:14 area 356:14 359:4 365:20 367:10 368:24 argument 376:23 Army 344:13,14 346:18 350:2 ascertain 361:2 ASHLEY 345:15 asked 355:25 358:12 367:6 386:21 asking 351:5 aspect 350:16 365:1 369:8 384:23 aspects 361:9,19 378:3 393:10 assess 367:22 assessment 386:17 assigned 364:25 associated 352:16 361:9 371:25 393:5 assume 380:23

attached 373:7 389:8 authorities 361:16 364:15,19 365:13 384:17,20 authority 358:13 364:16,18 365:16 369:13 371:20 385:11,12,14,15 391:21 393:11,13 authorization 352:18 355:15 360:12,15,20 379:10 380:1 385:6 392:8,12 authorize 392:5,9 authorized 351:18 365:23 372:21 377:25 389:13 390:9 availability 385:13 available 362:4 369:14 384:22 Avenue 344:16 346:21 350:3 aware 355:15 366:17

began 353:20 believe 354:3 357:25 361:4 375:25 377:10 392:4 believed 359:23 benefit 353:23 benefits 356:21 374:13 375:16,23 389:20 Benjamin 346:14 best 395:11 beyond 377:18 389:23 bit 357:20 Boulevard 345:11 Box 346:13 BRANCH 346:10 BREACHES 344:4 break 391:1 BRENDAN 347:6 briefly 353:18 357:3 bringing 368:20 broader 384:23 BRUNO 345:2,2,3 348:5 350:8 356:4 362:19 367:14 B 372:7 373:10 B 348:6 376:8 386:23 back 353:20 358:12 387:21 388:3,9 375:21 378:10 389:14 393:15 BUCHLER 345:4 background budget 357:19 357:20 363:7 363:3,9 369:20,21 369:15 372:14 budgeting 362:13 bank 361:10 budgets 362:22 banks 366:5 build 354:19 Baronne 345:5 building 365:10 based 354:23 bullet 378:13 367:16 businesses 370:11 basic 373:16 C basically 363:22 basis 362:23 369:1 C 345:9,10 389:1 CAHILL 345:20 Baton 345:17 calculation 351:7

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

call 367:2 called 388:13 Calls 384:9 Canal 344:4 356:14 359:4 367:23 carry 360:17 case 350:13,17 351:10,17 352:6,6 352:7,21,23 354:17 355:20 359:17 374:4 384:16 case-by-case 393:9 cash 354:19 catalyst 364:4 cause 371:2 374:19 377:8 395:16 caused 360:25 366:23 367:3 377:4 382:20 383:22 causing 362:7 366:5,13 CCR 344:24 349:22 395:2,24 certain 367:9 certainly 379:17 CERTIFICATE 394:1 395:1 Certified 344:25 349:23 395:3,25 certify 394:4 395:4 395:13 change 356:16 375:1 384:5 changed 381:21 382:18 changes 356:17 372:20 377:2,5,18 394:6 channel 350:14 356:16,18,21 359:6,14,21,25 360:1,25 361:8,23 362:4 363:19 364:19 365:23

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 397 366:13,18 367:13 367:19 368:5 371:2,12,14,15 372:2,16,17,18,21 374:13 375:10,24 376:6,16 377:2,3 377:6,11,17,19 378:10,15 382:13 382:23 383:1,17 383:23 386:17 388:15 characterization 360:6 characterized 392:14 charge 392:18 charged 392:23 chose 388:19 392:5 chosen 388:12 393:1 CHRISTOPHER 347:2 City 345:12 Civil 344:4 346:10 349:6 CLARK 345:22 close 359:25 closer 368:24 closure 388:17 391:6 coastal 365:14,17 369:2 377:9 384:18 come 382:24 390:4 comment 380:13 380:19 381:6 comments 373:21 373:23 committees 358:12 communicated 367:21 comparative 389:17 comparison 369:20 competitive 369:1 completed 355:14

compliance 373:13 373:16 387:14 comprehensive 378:21 computer 395:9 concept 358:24 concern 373:21 379:15,18 383:15 391:3,23 concerns 368:5 383:9 conclude 386:8 concluded 393:22 conditions 382:22 conduct 371:9 379:16 387:12 conducted 380:3 conducting 355:10 357:18 369:14,22 Congress 356:19 358:19 360:18,19 360:23 361:1 365:2 392:5,8 393:16 Congressional 356:23 357:21 358:5,8 385:6 392:8,12 393:12 393:13 connected 370:25 connection 353:9 354:12 374:2 376:16 377:16 379:3 380:7 381:15 383:1 385:24 390:21 391:5,10,18 393:1 CONOR 346:12 consideration 376:1 considered 359:9 369:17 370:8 372:22 378:18 considering 367:22 consistent 365:3 CONSOLIDATED

344:5 construction 350:18,21,24 351:3,19,22 353:10 376:10 377:4 392:11 consultations 356:1 consulted 355:19 contained 386:15 386:16 contains 355:12 context 373:3 379:23 380:5 383:8 392:15,24 continuation 361:20 378:2 continue 361:23 378:9,14 389:12 continued 360:20 361:3,25,25 362:8 367:18 continuing 356:19 356:20 362:22 371:18 377:8 378:1,6 contrary 376:14 control 374:13 375:16,23 cooperation 375:6 coordination 374:1 Corps 344:13,14 346:18,19 350:2 350:12 355:19 356:2,7,9,9 357:16 358:20,22 359:8 360:13,19 361:16 363:16,21 364:12,21 366:11 366:17,24 367:3 367:18,24 368:8 368:21 379:2 380:14,22 381:9 385:1 390:15,19 392:14,17,19,21 correct 353:5 370:17 379:1

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

394:7 395:11 corrections 394:6 394:13,15 cost 351:7,12,14,15 351:20,25 352:16 352:19 353:1,4,7 353:8,23 354:5,6 354:10,11,11 355:2 371:16 372:17,24 391:24 391:25 costs 371:16,16 372:21 393:17 couch 360:22 counsel 346:19 349:3 395:14,14 coupled 363:18 course 364:20 378:7 Court 344:1,25 349:23 395:3,25 current 371:19 378:2,9

372:15 DEPARTMENT 346:9 depend 392:4 dependent 392:12 392:13 depends 351:16 352:5 deponent 349:10 deposition 344:11 349:4,14 393:21 395:8 DEPO-VUE 347:9 depth 365:24 371:14 372:16 depths 372:21,22 described 351:16 describes 389:10 description 388:24 design 354:2 designated 362:12 designed 363:20 DESIGNEE 344:13 D desire 355:22 D 348:1,6 370:24 377:17 damage 359:23 desires 358:25 363:17 366:5,13 detail 363:5 371:2 detailed 385:22 damages 360:25 determination 362:7 393:9 date 358:2 385:13 determine 351:12 394:8,11,25 370:20 393:16 dated 389:24 developed 362:22 deal 391:9,12 373:22 decided 363:21 development decision 387:3 368:22 378:13 391:7 393:6 386:4 deep 371:11 378:14 dialogue 359:19 deepening 352:15 364:5 365:6,10 degree 374:1 368:11 392:16 DELORIMIER difference 359:13 347:9 381:13 383:6 demonstrated differences 380:9 393:1 different 353:12,13 demonstrates 357:5 359:2 380:4

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 398 380:18 382:24 differing 351:25 dimension 390:8 dimensions 389:1 390:9,14 direct 377:13 directed 364:21 direction 360:17 362:23 directive 364:17 365:2 directly 375:10 discuss 369:3 discussed 361:8 379:25 383:13,18 383:19 discussion 368:21 discussions 360:7 364:12 district 344:1,2,15 350:3 359:13 360:8 361:17 364:25 365:18 division 346:10 365:22 370:15 divisions 357:19 document 356:24 358:3 369:11 370:14 373:22 374:21 380:12,24 383:8 384:20 387:7 388:5,21 documents 361:5 361:13 373:23,25 376:25 381:1 383:12 doing 358:24 363:17 366:24 368:12 385:1 390:20 dollar 363:3 dollars 358:11 392:10 draft 354:3 362:4 371:11 378:14 388:23 389:23

drafts 389:5 dredging 361:25 362:1 374:20 378:6 duly 350:6 395:6 DUVAL 344:6 D.C 346:15

entities 370:6 environment 359:24 363:18 364:7,8 365:20 366:6,13 370:23 371:2 381:16 383:5 384:6 385:22 E environmental E 344:10 345:15 360:24 361:9,12 346:4 348:1,1,6,6 361:18 368:4 earlier 389:11 373:13 374:12 early 353:20 379:4 375:7,16,23 376:3 386:4 377:23 382:21,22 easements 351:1,22 383:12,19 385:23 EASTERN 344:2 387:17 economics 359:5 eroding 366:5 371:13 erosion 361:10 ecosystem 352:2 364:23 377:8 377:4 382:19 effect 381:16 ESQ 347:2,5,6 effects 377:6 ESQUIRE 345:3,4 efforts 364:15 345:10,15,22 381:8 346:3,11,12,20 either 371:1 384:6 essence 363:24 391:5,19 establish 358:18 elected 377:10 365:6 379:19 established 355:21 element 368:7 364:5 382:22 373:12 374:6 383:25 385:19 384:15 387:13 388:5 391:18 389:16 391:2,15 estimate 369:21 elements 360:8 evaluate 370:19,24 364:24 365:18,21 371:21 372:19 368:17 369:18 evaluating 371:12 375:1 383:14 378:4 384:18 ELISA 346:3 347:5 evaluation 356:18 ELWOOD 345:9 361:20 368:3 345:10 369:20 371:8 employed 390:5 378:21 380:14 enable 351:3 386:5 383:16 384:13,15 engineering 355:8 384:24 386:15,16 370:15,16 390:17 391:4 Engineers 344:13 evaluations 361:8 344:15 346:18,19 379:16 380:2 350:2 356:7 event 367:1

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

events 371:15 evidence 349:15 evolution 375:15 evolved 364:20 375:12 exactly 363:1 EXAMINATION 348:3 350:8 356:4 367:14 373:10 376:8 386:23 388:9 389:14 examined 350:6 example 352:13 365:14 392:15 excuse 378:11 383:18 Exhibit 348:8,9,10 373:6 387:16 389:6,7 exist 367:11 existence 383:25 existing 378:14 exists 377:19 expansion 352:15 expected 370:16 expedited 355:4 expediting 355:16 explained 389:11 explanations 363:4 expressed 356:12 367:8 369:4 expressing 359:3 383:9 expression 359:7 367:16 extent 362:16,17 external 369:7 F facilities 356:13 359:3 367:10 368:23 369:5,25 fact 359:11 361:13 362:25 363:19 366:4,12 367:20 367:21 370:9

374:17 factor 372:23 factors 356:12 368:1 369:6,7 382:4 384:19 Fair 378:19 FAIRBANKS 344:24 349:22 395:2,24 feasibility 352:25 353:4,25 354:4,4 354:8,10,20 355:2 355:5,6,10 387:4 387:13 392:25 feature 352:17 391:20,25 392:14 features 392:9,11 federal 349:6 350:18,21 351:19 351:20 353:21 385:21 387:2 federal/35 352:3 feel 367:7 feet 390:4 felt 364:6 392:22 figure 351:6 366:22 figures 363:3 find 353:1,3 fine 368:14 378:22 FIRM 345:14 346:2 first 350:5 359:15 359:17 370:2 374:10 378:13 386:10,15 395:5 five 388:11 fix 391:14 392:23 flood 374:12 375:16,23 flooding 377:12 380:9 381:18 382:14 383:3,24 386:19 390:23,24 393:3 floodwater 377:13 Floor 345:23

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 399 FLORIAN 345:4 folks 380:1 follow 355:7 follows 350:7 foregoing 394:4 foreshore 354:22 387:11 392:15 393:5 form 349:12 formalities 349:8 formula 353:11 forth 395:7 forward 354:6 391:8 four 388:11 frame 363:11 Franklin 346:14 functional 371:12 funded 350:18,21 funding 360:21 361:3 362:13 364:17 funds 358:13 360:16 further 352:9 395:13 future 351:11 359:5 372:19 G GARNER 345:20 gathered 363:16 gathering 380:20 general 354:2 360:6 361:7 363:2 365:12 369:22 371:24 372:13 374:5 375:17 384:11 generated 358:25 Georges 371:10 getting 360:14 GILBERT 346:2,3 347:5 GILLEY 347:9 give 370:4 383:5

385:15 393:13 given 344:14 394:4 394:7 global 369:1 go 351:3 352:25 371:3 373:18 382:4 389:25 391:8 393:15 goes 371:7 377:18 378:20 384:12,13 384:15 going 353:7 360:3 364:9,13 365:6 366:3,6,10 372:5 382:7 387:15,22 387:23 393:11 government 351:8 351:13 governmental 374:7 great 359:24 GREGORY 344:14 350:1 394:3,11 group 359:22 guess 388:11 guidance 355:7 gulf 350:13 368:24 377:7,13 390:9 H H 348:6 hand 382:9 havoc 371:11 help 369:19 370:23 hereinabove 395:7 hereto 349:3 373:7 389:8 395:15 higher 361:1,15 higher-ups 360:24 Highway 345:16 HILBERT 345:21 historic 368:19 history 368:3 hours 354:25 hurricane 370:25

371:7,10,21,23 372:6 375:8 376:4 376:17 377:12,17 379:3 381:18 382:14 386:18 390:22,24 391:11 392:18 393:3 hurricanes 371:25 372:23 374:17,19 382:24 384:6 hypothetically 352:14 hypotheticals 382:5 I idea 358:22 365:25 identification 373:7 389:8 identified 353:21 353:22,23 IHNC 370:11 II 345:11 impact 371:18 383:19 385:23 impacts 371:14 372:16 376:3,4 389:21 implement 393:14 implemented 352:20 important 360:10 371:8 380:11 include 375:15 385:19 included 388:25 includes 377:19 387:13 including 377:3,6 incorrect 386:22 386:24 increase 382:13 383:2 increased 374:19 376:16 380:8 381:16 391:11

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

393:2 increases 377:11 381:17 386:18 increasing 390:23 incremental 390:17 Industrial 356:14 359:4 367:23 industry 366:19 influence 372:6,23 376:3 information 362:6 363:8,15,18 366:11,12 367:2 367:24 368:13 369:19 370:2,4 372:14 373:17 379:13 384:13,22 informed 361:17 initial 354:1 initiate 356:9 358:11 359:9 363:21 initiated 356:5,6 358:7 initiating 358:19 358:21 initiation 373:15 383:10 input 373:19 instance 359:15,17 intend 379:16 intent 355:22 interaction 386:6 interest 353:21 356:13 359:7 367:8 369:4 381:8 interested 395:15 intergovernmental 374:7 internal 364:11 Intracoastal 390:10 intrusion 377:7 investigate 376:15 379:3 380:6 investigated 374:14

375:24 376:18 377:14 investigation 364:22 373:17 383:11,23 386:5 387:4 involvement 386:6 issue 373:21 379:8 379:18 381:14,19 381:24 382:9,11 382:12,25,25 384:4,5 issues 362:13 364:6 364:9 375:9 377:14 379:14 380:7 383:14 IV 344:10 I-DEP 347:4 J Jefferson 345:16 JENNIFER 346:20 job 351:19 John 362:12 JOSEPH 344:24 345:3 349:22 395:2,24 JR 344:24 345:9,10 349:22 395:2,24 JUDGE 344:6 JUSTICE 346:9 justification 356:20 363:7 367:12,19 371:18 justify 360:2 K KATRINA 344:4 keep 359:21 365:23 keeping 360:2 371:11 KELLS 346:12 374:24 kind 360:5 KLEIN 345:20 know 355:13,18

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 400 358:7,23 360:5,14 361:22 362:24 363:25 364:13 366:24 367:2 368:2,18 369:5 370:20 371:22,24 372:8,12,25 373:9 375:1,13,22 376:2 376:22,23 379:14 381:4,4 384:1 387:2,24 388:10 388:14,18 389:10 389:16 390:2,4,7 390:25 391:1,23 393:7 knowledge 362:17 363:10 382:3 K2 344:5 L L 344:10 349:1 LABOURDETTE 346:20 land 351:10 lands 350:17 351:1 351:21 language 358:1 371:3 lasted 368:11 latest 389:4 law 345:14 349:7 351:16 358:1 381:6 leads 393:8 Leake 344:16 346:21 350:3 learned 352:23 363:23 leaving 374:5 left 350:9 letter 369:3 letters 382:6 let's 383:3,3 389:4 389:6 level 360:8 363:5 371:24 372:1

380:13 381:5,7 life 364:20 limit 362:3 limited 375:9 377:1 lists 370:3 LITIGATION 344:5 little 357:20 LLC 346:2 local 350:11,22 351:9,13,21 352:3 352:16,19 353:1,3 354:18,21 355:19 358:25 367:17 375:5 377:9 379:18 located 370:11 logic 390:5,7 long 351:21 359:11 377:5 look 358:17 359:1 370:21 377:24 378:3 380:11 382:9 383:11,13 383:15 384:23 looked 357:5,7,12 367:18 388:22 looking 356:24 359:9 368:6 384:19 388:13 389:9 390:11 loss 370:22 377:5,8 losses 382:21 lot 374:18 380:25 Louisiana 344:2,16 345:6,12,17,24 346:22 349:24 350:4 365:17 368:25 384:19 395:4 L.L.C 345:21 M M 344:10 345:3 348:1 maintain 360:15

364:16,18 372:22 378:14 389:12 maintained 365:23 388:16 maintenance 350:19,22 351:20 351:23 360:21 361:21 362:9 371:13,17 372:18 372:24 374:19 major 385:21 387:2 majority 380:19 manner 358:14 359:2 maritime 366:19 368:25 mark 357:10 373:5 373:5 387:22 389:6 marked 373:6 388:1,6,14 389:7 match 390:9 MATTHEW 345:22 MCKERNAN 345:14 mean 359:17 373:11 382:7,8,18 391:12 means 350:22 373:9 378:5,22 memorandum 354:2 393:5 memorandums 361:15 mention 369:23 370:1 mentioned 359:2 merit 361:3 method 355:4 Mexico 377:7,14 mid 382:21 383:4 millennium 368:22 Miller 344:14 350:1 362:18

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

navigational 362:1 necessarily 360:11 365:3 379:6 380:23 389:25 391:25 necessary 351:22 necessitate 370:10 need 356:16 359:25 361:24 376:15 377:14 378:3 380:6 383:15,22 390:20 391:9 needed 365:25 379:2,4 384:4 needs 376:18 NEPA 373:15 378:21,23 380:5 380:22 381:10 382:1 383:22,25 384:3 385:15,18 385:24 387:7,14 389:16 new 344:15,16 345:6,24 346:5,22 350:2,3,16 355:21 356:2 359:12 367:9 368:23 370:5 392:7 393:11 note 362:11 372:4 noted 375:6 394:13 N 394:15 N 348:1,1,1,6 349:1 notice 349:7 named 350:4 November 375:3 Nancy 372:5 NPM 356:24 373:4 national 373:13 number 356:11 377:23 393:8 361:5 362:14 nationwide 385:19 368:6 380:17 nature 374:7,8 382:3 384:16,19 navigation 351:18 387:16,24 388:6 351:19 356:21 389:22 359:6,21 361:24 N.Y 346:5 364:6,8 367:17 O 369:8 370:22 371:1 375:10 O 344:10 348:1 392:19,20,22 349:1

394:3,11 minute 374:22 Mississippi 356:14 mixing 353:12,13 modification 375:24 376:5 378:9 modifications 354:1 370:10 374:13 375:17 money 350:23 351:9 354:22 362:8 385:7,9 Morgan 345:12 motivate 367:24 move 359:3 367:24 368:10,15,23 369:24 383:3 moving 356:13 367:9,22 369:5 MRGO 344:7 354:18 357:15 362:7 363:17 365:21 369:3 370:12 377:4 378:12 379:4 380:8 381:15 389:12 multiple 365:13 369:9

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 401 oath 349:25 350:7 Objection 355:25 367:6 384:9 386:21 objections 349:11 occur 366:1 occurred 363:25 368:9 October 344:17 357:14 375:2 378:11 394:25 office 346:19 359:12,13,19,20 359:22 360:23 361:22 offices 344:15 350:3 officials 377:10 379:19 officiated 349:24 Oh 357:4 okay 350:9 351:2 353:16 354:17 355:18 356:5,8 357:2,10 358:4,9 363:13,25 366:16 367:15 370:14,18 372:25 374:9 375:11 376:12,20 379:2 380:4,20 381:9,13 385:18 387:8 390:13,18 393:19 ongoing 360:7 on-the-ground 387:5 open 350:10 359:15 359:21 360:2 operate 360:15 364:16,18 371:19 operated 378:1 operation 351:23 362:9 378:9 operations 360:21 365:22 368:25 opinion 359:14

381:19 opportunities 361:12 365:19 option 391:10 order 350:11 351:3 354:20 original 349:9 352:18 353:9 originally 363:20 origination 354:13 Orleans 344:15,16 345:6,24 346:22 350:2,4 355:21 356:2 359:12 367:9 368:24 370:5 outcry 380:21 outlet 350:13 outlines 355:9 357:16 overview 369:13 O'BRIEN 347:6

people 380:17 383:9 perceived 380:6 percent 350:18,20 351:8,20 352:3,3 352:4 percent/25 352:4 performing 387:14 period 353:19 359:11 365:7 366:16 permitted 349:5 person 358:21 perspective 352:22 PERTAINS 344:7 petitions 380:17,25 phase 352:25 354:8 355:2 373:15 383:10 PHILEN 345:15 phone 367:2 phrasing 391:12 picked 390:2 P piece 367:1,23 P 349:1 place 365:13 page 348:3,8 370:2 384:21 370:7,14 371:4 PLAINTIFFS 373:1 374:9 375:5 345:1 375:18 376:11 plan 357:14 369:12 378:11 389:9 369:12 371:4 paragraph 370:2 375:2,4 378:11,12 371:4 374:10 378:13 387:12 375:5 376:10 391:19 377:15 379:24 planning 355:7 part 349:14 353:4 357:17 365:15 363:8 364:15,17 plans 369:1,24 376:23 377:22 played 371:11 particular 351:17 please 375:19 366:25 367:1 point 363:12,21 374:4 379:9,23 365:11,12 375:4 380:12,24 384:16 377:19 389:21 392:1,2 391:20 parties 349:3 policy 373:14 395:14 377:23 385:19 party 358:19,21 port 354:18,21 passed 365:15 355:21 356:2,12

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

359:2 367:8,21 368:13,14,22,23 369:4,24 370:5 390:16 port's 359:7 positive 353:23 possessed 366:12 possibility 367:11 potential 353:22 367:9 369:16 371:1 372:24 373:20 375:25 376:5 377:11 381:15,17 382:12 382:13 383:1,2,24 386:18 390:23 391:11 393:2 potentially 369:4 Powell 372:5 Poydras 345:23 precedent 393:6,8 preparation 363:9 prescribed 351:14 PRESENT 347:1,4 prevailed 364:6,8 prevent 385:4 prevented 385:1 previous 372:15 374:21 375:20 381:4,8 primarily 370:21 prior 379:25 probably 356:11 problem 373:19 392:21 Procedure 349:6 procedures 355:9 proceed 353:25 354:1,7,20 process 355:5 363:9 366:2 367:4 373:24 381:2 390:3 391:2 producing 369:19 program 365:19 project 350:16,17

350:20 351:15,17 351:18,23,24 352:5,15 353:10 354:13 355:20 357:20 359:1 360:14,16 361:3 361:19 364:21 365:1 366:5 367:17 368:7 369:15,16 370:20 371:17,19 372:24 373:17 377:25 379:9 389:20 392:1,19,20,22 393:17 projection 356:15 projects 391:8 393:7 proposal 392:2 proposals 385:20 proposed 370:8,9 377:2,18 385:23 388:11 protection 354:23 361:6,13 364:24 365:15,20 375:8 387:11 392:16,18 provide 350:17,25 373:16 384:11 393:12 provided 372:14 380:13 381:1 provides 351:21 providing 370:6 377:12 public 373:14,18 374:6 380:13,21 381:19 386:5 391:2 pure 369:8 purpose 374:10 375:15 377:21 383:15,18 384:12 purposes 349:5 359:21 361:24 362:2

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 402 pursuant 349:7 pursue 355:22 358:22 387:4 pushed 366:24 put 350:23 351:8 351:10 352:22 354:19,21 puts 379:24 P.O 346:13 Q question 349:12 350:10 351:6 359:6 366:9 375:20 383:22 384:12 386:1 390:19 questions 393:19 quickly 355:17 quite 376:13 quote 379:18 R raised 379:8 383:10,14 ratio 353:24 rationale 390:11 ratios 351:16,25 reached 363:20 read 371:5 373:3 375:21 376:9 386:10 387:9 reading 349:8 375:22 really 350:23 359:24 reason 351:5 352:24 356:8 369:15 370:19 384:3 reasons 369:10 recall 385:3 received 360:13 370:3 373:24 380:15,19 381:7 384:14

receiving 360:16 recognition 368:4 recognized 380:18 390:19 392:20 recollection 393:4 recommend 350:16 387:1 recommendation 352:12,20 385:20 391:15 392:6 recommendations 353:24 recommended 352:14,17 390:15 391:19 392:3 recommends 387:11 reconnaisance 352:24 353:14,19 361:5 368:3 384:1 386:13,14,25 387:6 reconnaissance 387:9 record 358:17 373:8 376:23 388:2,4 redesign 388:15 reevaluating 367:18 reevaluation 350:12,15 352:7 352:10,14 353:14 353:17 355:23 356:3,20 357:15 358:4,24 359:10 363:22 366:25 367:4,25 368:12 371:9 372:10 374:3 376:6 378:12 383:16 385:1,16 387:20 390:20 refer 373:14 378:10 387:23 reference 357:21

365:9 373:1 375:25 references 380:16 380:25 referencing 388:22 referring 371:22 380:7 regard 380:5 381:14 regarding 355:22 regulation 355:8 355:12 regulations 355:7 relate 379:15 related 375:10 395:14 relative 376:5 relevance 387:19 relocation 370:10 relook 353:7 remain 359:15 remember 385:13 392:16 report 373:23 375:3 376:25 379:12 385:20 386:1,2,11,13,14 387:16 388:23 389:23 REPORTED 344:23 Reporter 344:25 349:23 395:3,25 REPORTER'S 395:1 reports 368:21 385:25 REPRESENTING 345:1 346:8,18 reprogramming 358:13 request 356:19,23 362:8 require 354:5 387:1,7 required 350:11,14

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

350:23,25 351:8 351:10 352:9,19 354:19,21 355:1 355:14 358:11 385:5,10 requirement 354:10 362:25 363:12 378:23,24 378:24 386:3 requirements 377:22 requires 380:22 392:7 requiring 393:10 reserved 349:13 residents 377:10 379:19 resolution 357:22 357:25 358:6,8 364:23 resolutions 358:1 resource 386:6 respond 360:11 380:22 381:5,10 response 358:5,8 383:21 responsibility 381:5,10 responsiveness 349:12 restoration 352:2 365:15,16 369:2 375:8 384:18 result 350:15 372:17 387:3,5 392:6 395:16 resulted 372:15 results 371:16 389:20 revealed 391:4 review 355:13 361:15 RICHTER 345:20 right 350:24 351:5 352:6,21 353:6 354:9 355:1,3,11

355:18 356:22 357:13 358:4 360:9 361:11 362:5,20 363:1,11 363:13,22,24 364:3,10 365:5 366:3,9,14,22 367:20,25 368:15 369:23,25 370:7 370:12,16 372:1 373:11,25 374:3 374:16,20 375:14 375:17 376:13,18 376:19 377:1 378:5,25 381:3,11 381:20,22 382:8 386:8,9,19,24 387:15 388:4 389:15 390:24,25 391:11,17 river 356:15 359:4 367:23 ROBIN 346:11 ROBINSON 344:7 role 387:18 roles 369:18 rolls 357:18 roll-up 363:3 Rouge 345:17 roughly 353:18,23 route 377:13 RPR 344:24 349:22 395:2,24 Rule 344:11 Rules 349:6 Russo 388:14 S s 349:1 381:15 Saia 362:12 388:8 salinity 361:10 382:19 saltwater 377:6 save 349:8,11 saying 368:16 376:17

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 403 says 370:8 371:21 374:9,12 375:6 376:19 377:3 379:14 schedule 369:22 scoping 372:25 373:15,23 375:3 376:25 379:12 380:14,24 381:1 383:8,11 384:14 386:2,11 391:1 se 375:8 second 357:4 389:21 Section 375:5 378:12 see 352:22 358:17 363:13 374:14,21 383:14 390:12 seen 356:25 357:11 selected 388:20 391:10 selection 390:5 sense 360:18 368:6 377:24 378:8 382:10 393:18 sentence 365:10 371:5 374:14 375:22 386:9,10 separate 362:9 369:7 September 389:3 set 393:6 395:7 setting 361:18 384:14 seventies 383:4 share 352:19 353:1 353:4 354:5,6,10 355:2 sharing 351:7,12 351:14,15,25 353:7,8 354:11,11 sheets 363:7 SHER 345:20 shore 361:6 364:23 shoreline 377:7

shorthand 395:9 show 377:16 387:15 shown 380:12 Signed 394:11,13 394:15 significant 391:2 significantly 385:21 signing 349:9 silting 372:2 simply 370:9 390:16 SMITH 346:11 355:24 362:10 367:5 372:3,11 379:21 384:8 386:20 387:25 solely 365:1 solution 353:22 solutions 373:20 sorry 357:4 360:20 375:19 381:17 sought 349:15 sounds 358:20 source 392:21 sources 379:13 specific 355:15 361:14 362:24 385:6 386:2 391:20 specifically 349:10 361:7 362:21 376:17 specifics 370:4 speculation 384:10 spend 390:11 spoke 353:18 374:22 sponsor 350:11,22 351:9,13,21 353:1 353:3 354:5,6,18 354:21 355:20 367:17 spurred 368:8 stabilization

382:20 stabilized 383:5 staff 360:8 stage 353:25 386:4 stages 371:22,23 standards 354:24 standpoint 359:8 start 367:4 starting 353:18 starts 376:10 State 349:23 395:3 statement 379:24 383:12,19 385:22 386:9 states 344:1,12,13 346:8,9 371:9 Station 346:14 status 360:12 statutes 353:6 stay 382:5 stepped 354:6 STEVENS 345:9 345:10 STIPULATED 349:2 stipulation 350:5 stop 378:6 storm 371:15 377:12 380:8 381:18 382:14 383:2,24 386:18 storms 371:10 372:15 Street 345:5,23 346:4 studies 353:13 354:4 380:16,18 study 350:12 351:11 352:7,9,24 353:14,20 354:1,4 354:7,10,20,22 355:5,6,10,14,23 356:3,5,6,10 357:14,15,18 363:22 366:25 367:4,25 369:11

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

369:12,14,19 371:4 372:10 374:3,10 375:2,4 375:7 377:18 378:11,12 380:6 382:1 383:18 384:2,4,4 385:2,9 385:16 386:5,25 387:6,10,13,20 390:21 392:6,25 studying 372:9 374:17 subcommittee 387:17 subsequent 354:3 358:2 393:7 subsequently 392:10 substantial 359:25 sufficient 360:1 suggest 374:16 376:13 suggesting 377:15 suggestion 376:14 suggests 385:18 supervision 395:10 supporting 363:8 sure 358:10,15,16 359:16 362:25 363:5,10 366:8 371:6 378:16 381:22 385:8,11 389:15,18 391:22 surge 370:25 371:8 376:17 377:12,17 379:4 380:9 381:18 382:14 383:2,24 386:19 390:22,24 391:11 393:3 surges 372:6 sworn 350:6 395:6 T T 348:1,6 349:1,1 table 350:10

take 389:4 392:7 taken 349:5 394:25 395:8 takes 379:13 talked 354:24 357:2 361:6,14 364:22 367:7 376:24 385:11 390:25 talking 363:1,11 talks 370:9,15 380:19 team 365:11 369:19 technical 357:19 369:18 381:23 tell 360:22,24 364:13 365:12 369:9 372:2 387:18,19 tells 384:22 ten 382:6 Tendering 356:25 374:25 388:19 term 377:5 terms 360:22 371:8 372:20 376:3,24 378:21 379:9 388:21 389:20 testified 350:6 352:8 363:15 366:2 370:18 382:19 testify 395:6,7 testimony 363:23 380:21 394:4,6 thereabouts 364:1 364:2 thereof 349:14 thing 360:10 370:19 381:20 things 355:17 368:19 383:7 think 352:8,23 357:2,9 358:23 360:5 363:14

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 404 368:1,2,16 371:3 376:21,22 380:11 381:5 383:7 384:12 385:3 388:22 389:5 393:8,15 thinking 368:10 third 370:1 thirty 379:20 thought 354:9 364:7 thousand 382:6 TIANA 347:2 tied 353:11 362:8 time 349:13 353:19 357:16 359:12 362:21 363:1,11 364:13 365:7,21 366:16 375:2,13 377:20 379:9 380:3 382:23 384:16,20 385:5 390:11,19 times 355:13 365:14 timing 368:19 379:24 today 363:4,10 told 360:23 383:21 tool 386:3 Topic 362:14 TORTS 346:10 total 388:17 transcribed 395:10 transcript 349:9 transcription 394:5 395:11 true 362:2 366:20 382:16 384:7 391:24 392:24 394:7 395:10 truth 395:6 try 355:16 382:5 392:17 trying 358:18 362:5 365:5

366:22 369:9 372:8,19 378:20 384:2 390:16 twenty 366:7,14 368:11 type 351:15,17 352:5 360:7 types 351:24 369:16 typically 369:21 373:14 U U 344:10 349:1 Uh-huh 374:11 um 352:16 353:12 355:12,14 356:2 356:24 357:16,19 358:12,25 362:22 363:2 373:12 374:6 380:18,25 381:24 383:17 385:5 387:2,5 390:14 underneath 365:2 understand 352:1 359:16 362:6 363:14 366:8 370:23 372:9 384:3 385:17 390:2 understanding 381:24 395:12 understood 361:24 underway 384:17 UNITED 344:1,11 344:12 346:8,9 ups 361:1 use 357:17 358:13 360:1 361:23 362:1,3 370:22 386:4 utilization 356:17 utilized 353:9 U.S 344:14 346:18 350:2

V V 344:10 Vague 379:22 various 351:15 355:13 357:18 364:15 379:13 389:1 390:14 vast 380:19 versus 364:7 370:22 380:14 392:18 vessel 356:17 Victor 345:11 VIDEOGRAPH... 347:8 volume 380:21 381:18 W Wait 357:4 waived 349:10 want 360:22 389:2 390:10 wanted 359:20 361:23 390:1 392:17 Washington 346:15 wasn't 350:23 352:18 363:19 365:11 366:18 water 371:25 372:1 waterway 390:10 way 366:18 395:15 went 358:11 360:19 361:4 369:6 wetlands 365:14,17 377:5,9 we're 353:12 363:1 363:11 368:20 371:12 372:4 382:7 383:7 387:22,23 we've 354:24 355:21 363:23 364:4 376:24

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

383:24 388:4,7 widespread 382:2 witness 349:4,25 350:4 394:1 395:5 words 359:18 work 364:12,25 369:22 working 365:18,22 works 369:2 wouldn't 362:1 X X 348:1,1,6,6 Y yeah 360:6 389:6 391:17 years 359:19 360:3 360:4,4 363:16 364:10 366:7,14 368:11 379:20 yesterday 350:9 353:18 357:3,5,8 361:4 364:22 383:13,20 385:12 York 346:5 # #75005 344:25 395:25 0 0bjection 379:22 05-4182 344:5 06-2268 344:8 1 1 389:9 100 350:18,20 351:8,20 10022 346:5 110 390:4 1105-2-100 355:9 12 388:6,16 390:8 120 390:3 1205 345:11

125 388:16 390:8 130 390:4 15th 344:17 394:25 16 388:17 160 388:16 1700 380:17 1967 366:3 1970 378:24 379:5 380:5,10 381:11 381:14,19 382:12 382:15 384:1 385:2 1970s 382:21 1976 383:13 1980s 353:21 1988 386:13 1990 365:16 1994 354:3 386:14 1998 364:10 365:7 366:1,7,14,17,23 380:4,10 381:11 381:14,20 382:15 383:5 1999 353:19 357:15 364:1 2 2 374:9 375:18 20 388:17 200 388:17 2001 375:3,14 388:21 20044 346:15 2005 389:24 2008 344:17 394:25 202-616-4289 346:16 212-286-8503 346:6 216 385:12 225-926-1234 345:18 28th 345:23 3 3 362:14 371:4

800 562-1285

MILLER (VOL IV), GREGORY 10/15/2008 Page 405 30(b)(6) 344:11 364:14 325 346:4 350 348:5 373 348:9 38-21 373:4 38-636 356:24 389 348:10 4 4 370:7 378:12 47 389:9

8710 345:16 88 384:2 888 346:13 9 9 375:5 909 345:23 94 384:2 98 364:1 99 375:2 378:12

5 504-299-2100 345:25 504-525-1335 345:7 504-862-2843 346:23 52 348:9 373:5,6 53 348:10 387:16 387:22 389:6,7 57th 346:4 6 6 370:14 648 356:25 65 352:3 7 70112 345:24 70113 345:6 70118-3651 344:17 346:22 350:4 70380 345:12 70809 345:17 7400 344:15 346:21 350:3 75 352:4 76 384:20 8 8 375:5 388:14 82 364:23 855 345:5

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters

800 562-1285