Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6/20/2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 REPRESENTING THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2 CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OFFICE OF COUNSEL
IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION
CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION NO. 05-4182 K2 3 (BY: JENNIFER LABOURDETTE, ESQUIRE)
JUDGE DUVAL
PERTAINS TO: MRGO AND ROBINSON
4 7400 Leake Avenue
(No. 06-2268) 5 New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-3651
Deposition of ALVIN JOSEPH CLOUATRE, 6 504-862-2843
III, given at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New Orleans District offices, 7400 Leake 7
Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-3651, on 8 ALSO PRESENT:
June 20th, 2008.
9 DEBRA S. CLAYMAN, ESQ.
10 KASSIE HARGIS, ESQ.
11 ROBERT FISHER, ESQ.
12 PHILIP WATSON, ESQ.
13
REPORTED BY:
JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR 14 PRESENT VIA I-DEP:
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER #75005 15 BRENDAN R. O'BRIEN, ESQ.
16 CHRIS ALFIERI, ESQ.
17
18 VIDEOGRAPHER:
19 KARL STIEGMAN (DEPO-VUE)
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 1 Page 3
1 (Pages 1 to 4)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
2 (Pages 5 to 8)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
3 (Pages 9 to 12)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
4 (Pages 13 to 16)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
5 (Pages 17 to 20)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 of that information while you were at the 1 seepage, and, you know, or sand boils or things
2 Earthwork I or Earthwork II course? 2 like that. That's the extent of the terms that
3 A. I don't recall specifically, no. 3 I'm familiar with.
4 Q. Do you recall whether anytime since 4 Q. What is a sand boil?
5 the early nineties when you took those 5 A. To my knowledge, a sand boil is when
6 earthwork courses whether you have addressed 6 water is moving through sand. Typically, I
7 the issue of underseepage? 7 would look on a protected side of a levee to
8 A. No. Seepage -- the only time -- the 8 see if there was some sand coming up in an
9 only thing I would have talked about seepage 9 area, or some movement of water in sand.
10 would have been through colleagues at work, 10 Q. In your experience, have you seen sand
11 that I can recall. And I can't recall 11 boils before?
12 specifically who or what the conversation was, 12 A. Once or twice.
13 it was just kind of normal stuff that we would 13 Q. Do you recall where that was?
14 talk about during the course of work. 14 A. Once was on a project I was assigned
15 Q. The colleagues at work, what type of 15 to. It was in, um -- on the Davis Pond
16 expertise would they have in discussing 16 diversion structure.
17 underseepage or seepage? 17 Q. And what happened, or what did you do
18 A. It's more from experience. I don't 18 once you saw that sand boil?
19 know of any expertise anybody has specifically 19 A. I alerted -- well, I didn't really see
20 on seepage. 20 it, but, um -- someone else noticed it, and my
21 Q. A little further down on the next 21 supervisor alerted someone at the Corps, I
22 paragraph you have see underlined the word 22 believe in geotech, and they came out and took
23 Artesian head. Do you know what an Artesian 23 a look at it. And it was very small, and,
24 head is? 24 um -- they basically -- to my recollection,
25 A. No. 25 they said just continue monitoring it to see if
Page 22 Page 24
6 (Pages 21 to 24)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 it gets any worse, and if it gets any worse to 1 flood stage on there --
2 alert them and they would come back out and 2 A. Yes.
3 check it out. 3 Q. -- indicates water up above what the
4 Q. Do you recall what year that Davis 4 normal river stage is?
5 Pond project diversion that you were involved 5 A. Yes.
6 with was? 6 Q. And that that would create additional
7 A. It was probably, let's see, late 7 water pressure going through the hole into the
8 nineties, 2000. 8 substratum of sand and gravel?
9 Q. Was that the first time that you had 9 A. Yes.
10 seen a sand boil or been associated with a sand 10 Q. That's what the Artesian head is. You
11 boil? 11 understand that?
12 A. Yes. 12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you know what a sand boil was 13 Q. As you view that drawing, do you now
14 before that time? 14 recall whether you discussed Artesian heads or
15 A. Only through discussing it with people 15 underseepage or anything of that nature while
16 at work, coworkers. 16 at your Earthwork I or Earthwork II projects?
17 Q. Do you recall whether the term sand 17 A. No, I don't remember specifically
18 boil was discussed in the Earthwork I or 18 discussing that in the class.
19 Earthwork II project? 19 Q. Do you recall whether a diagram like
20 A. I don't recall. 20 this would have been in your course materials?
21 Q. You indicated there was maybe once or 21 A. I don't recall.
22 twice that you saw sand boils, one time being 22 Q. What is your current position with the
23 the Davis Pond project in the litigation 23 Corps?
24 nineties, 2000. Do you recall what the second 24 A. What is my what?
25 one would have been? 25 Q. Current position.
Page 25 Page 27
7 (Pages 25 to 28)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
8 (Pages 29 to 32)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 differently, but I always understood that they 1 A. Well, I knew this person just from
2 were constructed to a little different level 2 around the Corps. Um -- but for the river this
3 because of the, um -- the pressure of the 3 past season, for the levees that I was -- that
4 Mississippi River on the levees, the continual 4 I rode, I rode over the course of a couple of
5 pressure on the levees or the -- versus the 5 weeks I guess, the point of contact in
6 pressure on the hurricane protection levees. 6 engineering division was El Pilié. I think the
7 Q. On any of the works that you've done 7 first initial is E. Elsworth is his name,
8 on any of the levees, did you have to consider 8 actually.
9 underseepage as a factor? 9 Q. And my question was more directed to a
10 A. Um -- typically, it wasn't something I 10 project that you would be assigned to as a
11 did on a daily basis, no. It's not -- it 11 project inspector.
12 really -- no, I'd say no. 12 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q. On the projects that you were involved 13 Q. If you're inspecting a project, if
14 with that involved either river levees or 14 you're a project inspector on a project that's
15 hurricane protection levees, who would have 15 somewhere near or adjacent to either a river
16 been the person that would have been concerned 16 levee or a hurricane protection levee and you
17 about underseepage? 17 believe there's some reason to be concerned
18 A. I'm not sure. 18 about excavations near, to use your term, that
19 Q. Do you have any knowledge or 19 levee, was there a specific point of contact in
20 understanding of any limitations regarding 20 the engineering division that would be assigned
21 earthworks that can take place adjacent to 21 to that particular project?
22 either a river levee or a hurricane levee? 22 A. When I was a project inspector, if
23 A. Repeat the question. Sorry. 23 anything like that occurred I would alert my
24 (Whereupon the previous question was 24 project engineer.
25 read back.) 25 Q. And that's someone that is assigned to
Page 33 Page 35
9 (Pages 33 to 36)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
10 (Pages 37 to 40)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
11 (Pages 41 to 44)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
12 (Pages 45 to 48)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
13 (Pages 49 to 52)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
14 (Pages 53 to 56)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 was more social than work-related. 1 with the WGI project, which is 2001 to
2 Q. Did you ever send any reports to him 2 approximately 2003, and Montegut, was he the
3 directly? 3 ranking individual in the field that entire
4 A. No. 4 time?
5 Q. Would you ever, in the course of your 5 A. Yes.
6 inspection duties, evaluate whether more money 6 Q. Was he assigned only to that project
7 was needed for the project or be involved with 7 or was he handling a number of projects?
8 requests for more money? 8 A. As far as I know, it was just that
9 A. No. 9 project. He was there every day all day.
10 Q. While on the project, did you have 10 Q. When you prepared your daily logs, who
11 interaction with a guy named Guillory? 11 would they have been addressed to?
12 A. Lee Guillory, yes. 12 A. I believe we addressed them to the
13 Q. What was that interaction? 13 area engineer, to the chief of construction. I
14 A. Lee was the construction division -- 14 don't remember who the -- if there's a third
15 our construction division manager I think is 15 person on there who we addressed them to, but
16 his position and, um -- he would come out to 16 that's the two main places that I'm familiar
17 the project. Again, he more -- he mostly dealt 17 with where they go. And also we keep a copy in
18 with Jim Montegut, so the work aspects that I 18 the field.
19 dealt with him on it would be more like he 19 Q. Is that standard that those
20 would just come out and was trying to get 20 individuals would be the ones receiving that
21 updated on status and stuff like that. That 21 documentation, or is this something unique to
22 was more or less my interaction with Lee. 22 this particular contract?
23 Q. Was Montegut the ranking individual 23 A. Well, to my understanding, the area
24 for the Corps at the project in the field? 24 engineer doesn't probably get all copies of the
25 A. In the field, yes. 25 reports in his hand. I think they're going to
Page 58 Page 60
15 (Pages 57 to 60)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 the area office files. 1 Q. Anyone who would have been responsible
2 Q. And who -- on that WGI project, who 2 for the maintenance and supervision of the
3 would have been the chief contractor, chief 3 levee.
4 construction contractor? Is that the term you 4 A. Maintenance and supervision of the
5 use? 5 levee. I don't know what that means exactly.
6 A. Yeah. Chief of construction. 6 Maintenance of the levee after its construction
7 Q. Chief of construction? 7 is usually turned over to the local levee
8 A. At the time? I think it was Jim 8 district. I had no interaction with them.
9 Miles. 9 Q. Okay. Did you have any interaction
10 Q. And where was he located, here in the 10 with anyone from the geotechnical department
11 New Orleans District or at a different area? 11 within the engineering and construction
12 A. He was located here in the New Orleans 12 division?
13 District at the time. 13 A. No.
14 Q. The area engineer, was that the New 14 Q. I know from some of the records that I
15 Orleans District area or a different area? 15 have, and we'll probably go through them in a
16 A. New Orleans area engineer. 16 little bit, that you attended some meetings
17 Q. Do you recall who that would have 17 that included both Corps individuals, WGI
18 been? 18 individuals and some other subcontractors of
19 A. Dom El Guezabal. 19 WGI.
20 Q. How do you spell last name? 20 Do you recall any of those
21 A. E-L, G-U-E-Z-B-A-L? Might be an A 21 specifically?
22 between the Z and the B, I'm not sure. 22 A. I don't recall any specific meeting.
23 D-O-M. Domingo I think is his first 23 I recall having meetings. We would have weekly
24 name. 24 status meetings. Um --
25 Q. Did you have any interaction with an 25 Q. What day were those weekly status
Page 61 Page 63
16 (Pages 61 to 64)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 QC and -- one of the safety persons on the job. 1 Q. As part of the cost plus analysis of
2 Q. She would have been with WGI? 2 this contract, would there be a difference in
3 A. Yes. 3 whether an excavation goes from twenty feet to
4 Q. Did the Corps have anyone who 4 twenty-two feet?
5 simultaneously took minutes? 5 A. Um -- I guess if they excavated deeper
6 A. No, and I think maybe with the minutes 6 it was -- of course would take more time and
7 you're talking about could be when we start up 7 labor and stuff like that, but that's not the
8 a phase of work we have what would be called 8 perspective I was looking at things as far as
9 the preparatory meeting, and that would be -- 9 watching the contractors' labor and equipment.
10 that's typical of any projects we have. And 10 Q. What was -- on in a particular
11 that usually would include the prime 11 excavation that they were considering going
12 contractor, any subcontractor doing the work, 12 from one level to the next level, what was your
13 the QC safety people for the contractor and the 13 perspective?
14 Corps reps on the job site. And the contractor 14 A. The difference was removal of the
15 typically -- the prime prepares the minutes of 15 objects that we were there to remove.
16 that meeting. 16 Q. Do you recall that there were certain
17 Q. When you attended these meetings, did 17 distinct sites within the East Bank Industrial
18 you have any input to them? Would you make a 18 Area?
19 presentation, would you have anything to say? 19 A. I remember some.
20 A. It's -- typically, those meetings are 20 Q. One of which -- the northern part has
21 the contractor's meetings. So no, I wouldn't 21 been referred to as the Boland site. Do you
22 have a presentation or anything like that. We 22 recall that?
23 would be attending the meeting, we would make 23 A. Boland Marine, yes.
24 comments, you know, if we felt like something 24 Q. Boland Marine. Were you involved with
25 was missed or something needed to be addressed 25 any excavations at the Boland Marine site that
Page 65 Page 67
17 (Pages 65 to 68)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 how deep that excavation could go? 1 pictures. Would have just kept them out on
2 A. I don't recall the restriction of the 2 project --
3 depth. I know -- and I don't remember what the 3 Q. Would you have noted those --
4 depth was, but I know that there was, on that 4 A. -- in the trailer.
5 particular excavation, there were, um -- 5 Q. -- in your daily log, that photographs
6 requirements on the waler system inside the 6 were taken by you?
7 bracing, and as they went to a certain depth 7 A. Probably not.
8 they had to install another waler system before 8 (Brief recess.)
9 they excavated down any further. 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
10 Q. Waler system of course would be 10 Q. Mr. Clouatre, I have some documents
11 support for the cofferdam structure that had to 11 that have been produced by the government that
12 be built around it, correct? 12 your name was found on, I just have some
13 A. Correct. 13 questions to make sure it's the same person.
14 Q. And do you know why they had to build 14 I'm going to show you -- and I don't have
15 a cofferdam structure around the excavation? 15 copies of these, they were just given to me
16 A. The way I understand it, because 16 last night. I don't see that this even has a
17 you're going to be excavating a hole and so you 17 Bates stamp number. But I'll show it to your
18 want to support -- you want to support the 18 attorney and ask you to look at it and ask you
19 ground around it so it doesn't cave in while 19 if you can identify it. (Tendering.)
20 you're removing the objects you're excavating 20 A. Okay.
21 down to remove. 21 Q. We'll mark that as Exhibit 3.
22 Q. Do you recall during that excavation 22 What is that document, sir?
23 that WGI was hitting a lot of groundwater and 23 (Exhibit 3 was marked for
24 it had to be pumped out? 24 identification and is attached hereto.)
25 A. I remember there was, I guess, some 25 A. I don't know. I mean -- I don't
Page 69 Page 71
1 water down there. I don't remember a lot. If 1 recall seeing it specifically. It lacks
2 it was a lot or a little or what, I don't 2 somewhat like a status report.
3 remember. 3 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
4 Q. Were you involved in taking any 4 Q. And your name is noted on that report,
5 photographs of the project or that excavation 5 correct?
6 as it was taking place? 6 A. Yes.
7 A. I may have taken some. I remember 7 Q. And what was the purpose for your name
8 there was were some photographs taken. I don't 8 being netted on that report?
9 remember if I took them or if Washington took 9 A. It looks like it showed that I was the
10 them. 10 project inspector on the site.
11 Q. Would that be something that you in 11 Q. Would you have been responsible for
12 your job responsibilities would have to take 12 generating that report?
13 photographs. There are photographs. 13 A. No.
14 A. Yeah. 14 Q. Would that have been a report that you
15 Q. But do you know whether they were 15 would have received?
16 taken by you or they were taken by WGI? 16 A. I don't remember specifically
17 A. I honestly don't remember if I took 17 receiving this. I'm not saying I didn't, I
18 some. I wouldn't be surprised if I had taken 18 just don't specifically remember receiving it.
19 some of them, but I don't remember specifically 19 Q. Fair enough. It indicates on here
20 taking them. 20 that there was a completion date anticipated
21 Q. If you had taken those photographs, 21 for that WGI project to be March 31, 2003? Do
22 what would you have done with them? 22 you recall that?
23 A. Um -- back then, I don't remember if 23 A. I don't recall that.
24 we had digital photographs or not, it was 24 Q. Do you recall when you first got
25 probably just producing the hard copies of the 25 involved with the project that there was an
Page 70 Page 72
18 (Pages 69 to 72)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 anticipated completion date that you knew of? 1 A. I would guess at a little over a year.
2 A. I think -- I'm sure there was an 2 Maybe a year and a half tops.
3 anticipated completion date. That date, I 3 Q. The reason I was kind of curious about
4 definitely don't recall what it was. 4 this is because the date of 2002 seems to
5 Q. Do you know while you were the project 5 coincide generally with the project that you
6 engineer -- project inspector whether the date 6 were working on with WGI. Do you recall
7 was, the completion date was moved back, was 7 whether you were -- had dual responsibility
8 extended? 8 during that time period?
9 A. I don't specifically recall that it 9 A. No.
10 was or wasn't. 10 Q. Do you know why it is that you would
11 Q. I'll show you what I'll mark as 11 be involved with that project?
12 Exhibit 4. 12 A. No, I mean, I never checked the date
13 MR. JOANEN: 13 on it to see if it overlapped, but, um -- I
14 For the purpose of the record, 14 was -- the best I can recall, I was assigned to
15 this is NED-023-000001783. 15 this project I thought about a year after I
16 (Exhibit 4 was marked for 16 left Washington 's project, roughly. I don't
17 identification and is attached hereto.) 17 remember -- I don't even remember the exact
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 18 date I even left Washington's project. You
19 Q. And again I only have one copy so I'll 19 could probably tell me that, but I don't know.
20 show your attorney and let her look at it. 20 It was one of the projects that I took over as
21 MS. EL-AMIN: 21 a project engineer after I left the Washington
22 Thank you. 22 project.
23 MR. STONE: 23 Q. All right. It indicates that you
24 Scott, are you putting these in 24 would have attended a meeting on September 4th
25 with the highlighting on them and 25 of 2002 in which a contractor was discussing
Page 73 Page 75
1 marks and everything? 1 sheet piles and concrete flood wall layouts?
2 MR. JOANEN: 2 Do you recall that?
3 That's how they were given to me 3 A. I don't recall the meeting, but that's
4 I don't have any other copies. 4 what the report indicates.
5 MR. STONE: 5 Q. And it also indicates, Part 3, that
6 Just put on the record, please, 6 the sheet pile cutoff wall location -- talks
7 that there are markings and highlights 7 about sheet pile cutoff walls. Do you recall
8 on there that weren't on the documents 8 discussing, in relationship to this project,
9 originally. And we'll go ahead and 9 sheet pile cutoff walls?
10 use them. 10 A. I don't recall that specific
11 MR. JOANEN: 11 discussion.
12 We'll do the highlighted versions 12 Q. Do you recall why a sheet pile cutoff
13 simply when given to me to make sure 13 wall would be discussed at the London Avenue
14 that I saw the witness' name was on 14 Canal project?
15 it. 15 A. Not off the top of my head, no.
16 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 16 Q. Do you know what a sheet pile cutoff
17 Q. Have you seen that document before? 17 wall is?
18 A. No. 18 A. I know -- yeah.
19 Q. It indicates that you were involved 19 Q. What is it?
20 with the flood protection project on the London 20 A. A sheet pile cutoff wall, to my best
21 Avenue Canal -- 21 knowledge, is a sheet pile wall driven to --
22 A. Yes. 22 for seepage purposes.
23 Q. -- and the Filmore bridge? 23 Q. It's designed to cut off underseepage,
24 How long were you involved in that 24 groundwater flow from the flood side to the
25 project? 25 protected side?
Page 74 Page 76
19 (Pages 73 to 76)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 A. That's -- to my best knowledge, yes. 1 anything within that range. You know, a
2 Q. How did you find out that that's what 2 thousand feet or so, um -- I would immediately
3 it was for? 3 stop at that location, note the work being
4 A. Through discussions throughout my 4 performed, get -- initially probably just get
5 Corps working -- you know, working years. 5 an estimated distance and then make a phone
6 Q. Would that have been anything that you 6 call to my engineering division point of
7 recall you would have studied in your 7 contact, let them know what was going on, you
8 Groundwater I and Groundwater II course 8 know, and then we could determine from at that
9 materials? 9 point, you know, what degree we would have to
10 A. Are you referring to Earthwork I and 10 investigate it and/or stop the work or not.
11 Earthwork II? 11 Q. In the Washington Group project, was
12 Q. Earthwork, yes. 12 there any distance at which excavation could
13 A. Again, I don't recall the specific -- 13 not take place near the floodwall that you were
14 you know, too many specific things in those 14 aware of?
15 classes. It was probably a long time ago. I'm 15 A. I really don't remember.
16 sure it was fifteen years ago. 16 Q. Would any, um -- discussions about
17 Q. Were sheet pile cutoff walls something 17 that be shown in the project preparatory
18 that was commonly discussed on the projects 18 minutes?
19 that involved hurricane protection project 19 A. I don't remember that specifically.
20 levees? 20 You know, this job was a remediation and
21 A. It was discussed on projects where I 21 demolition project, and so my focus was more on
22 had sheet pile cuttoff walls. 22 those aspects of the work, so I don't -- I
23 Q. Do you know whether the East Bank 23 can't recall. So that's my best recollection
24 Industrial Area had sheet pile cutoff walls 24 of that job.
25 under the levee that divided the East Bank 25 Q. Sure.
Page 77 Page 79
1 Industrial Area from the Lower Ninth Ward 1 A. So I don't specifically remember that.
2 neighborhood? 2 Q. Was there any time during your tenure
3 A. On the Washington project? 3 as the inspecting officer on that Washington
4 Q. Yes. 4 Group project where you recall having concerned
5 A. I have no idea. 5 about underseepage of the effect of the
6 Q. Who would know that information? 6 excavations on the stability of the floodwall?
7 A. I have no idea. I have no idea. I 7 A. I don't remember those concerns. Most
8 mean someone within the Corps, I would think, 8 of the excavations that we did -- I say most of
9 but I don't know. 9 them. The substantial excavations we did were
10 Q. That wouldn't have been any of the 10 braced -- you know, like the wedding cake were
11 information that was discussed at any of the 11 braced excavation. So, um -- you know, these
12 project meetings or the project preparation 12 were -- and this work was designed and approved
13 meetings? 13 and stamped by an engineer, and so I got the
14 A. No. 14 work after the fact. It wasn't at that point
15 Q. Project prep, rather, meetings? 15 my position to question the design, I just
16 A. No, because we didn't work on the 16 ensured that the work was performed according
17 levee system out there. 17 to the design.
18 Q. You had indicated previously that just 18 Q. That WGI prepared.
19 recently when you were riding the levees with 19 A. Yes.
20 the high river system that you wanted to make 20 Q. Okay. So it's your understanding of
21 sure there would be no construction taking 21 this project that WGI prepared the
22 place within a certain amount of distance from 22 specifications and plans?
23 the levee. You mentioned the term a thousand 23 A. The work plans, yes.
24 feet. 24 Q. They provided that to an engineer at
25 A. I think a thousand feet. Well, 25 the Corps.
Page 78 Page 80
20 (Pages 77 to 80)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
21 (Pages 81 to 84)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 Government furnished information. 1 numbers just now, had you ever discussed the
2 MS. EL-AMIN: 2 sheet pile tip depth at the East Bank
3 That's going to be 5, that's 3 Industrial Area prior to today?
4 going to be 6? 4 A. No.
5 MR. JOANEN: 5 Q. Did you overhear anyone discussing the
6 I can mark it if you want to. He 6 sheet pile tip depth at the East Bank
7 hasn't seen it before. We'll mark 7 Industrial Area at any time while you were on
8 that as 5. 8 the project?
9 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 9 A. No.
10 Q. Did you have a chance to review any of 10 Q. Do you recall whether anyone voiced
11 those documents that you recall? 11 any concerns about the excavations taking place
12 A. I don't recall reviewing these 12 at the East Bank Industrial Area while you were
13 documents. 13 there as they related to the sheet pile depths
14 Q. That was produced to us by the 14 of the adjacent flood wall?
15 Washington Group, so of course I'm just looking 15 A. No, I don't recall hearing any
16 at it from a layman's perspective, but my 16 conversation like that.
17 understanding is that the Corps of Engineers 17 Q. Let me have that back, I need to read
18 provided those documents to WGI to develop 18 the numbers into -- the next document I'm going
19 those plans and work plans and other things 19 to show you we will mark as Exhibit 6, WGI 619.
20 that they rely upon. 20 (Exhibit 6 was marked for
21 To your understanding as the 21 identification and is attached hereto.)
22 inspector, was there anyone at the Corps of 22 A. So is this mine here or is this
23 Engineers that was involved in the field with 23 something you need back?
24 this project that would have been responsible 24 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
25 for understanding the contents of these 25 Q. That's Number 2.
Page 85 Page 87
22 (Pages 85 to 88)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 again, you know, my concerns were to make sure 1 job, I probably wouldn't have thought about
2 they weren't going deeper than what it called 2 that first. I would have been focused in on
3 for or, you know, just doing it correctly. 3 other things.
4 Q. Right. And to be quite candid, the 4 Q. Sure. To use your term, the people
5 whole reason I asked you to come to the 5 that were "in the know" for that issue, at the
6 deposition today was to find out if you were 6 period when you first started looking at this
7 one of those people in the know. That's all 7 project work plan, who do you think the people
8 I'm asking. 8 in the know would have been, if you can name
9 A. Okay. 9 them individually?
10 Q. I mean, quite candidly you might have 10 A. I couldn't name them individually.
11 been the person to go out there and keep an eye 11 Q. Could you name them by title, or is
12 on this. I didn't know until I came here 12 that something that is a different division
13 today. 13 that you don't really interact too much with?
14 A. Okay. 14 A. I don't -- no. No, I don't -- I
15 Q. I have a Project Work Plan I'll show 15 wouldn't be able to name them by title. But I
16 you next to look at. 16 would think some people with geotechnical type
17 (Exhibit 7 was marked for 17 expertise would be looking at that. Whether
18 identification and is attached hereto.) 18 that would be Corps people and consultants of
19 A. Okay. 19 Washington, or a combination of the two, I
20 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 20 really don't know.
21 Q. Have you seen that document before? 21 Q. If that would have taken place, would
22 A. Yeah. I'm sure I have. 22 that have taken place without your involvement?
23 Q. Does that look like the project work 23 A. Yes.
24 plan you would have reviewed in preparation for 24 Q. And if they -- if the Corps had
25 your tenure as the inspector for that East Bank 25 thought that in preparation for this project
Page 89 Page 91
1 Industrial Area project? 1 you were a good fit as an inspector for this
2 A. Yes. Yeah, it would have been one -- 2 project, would that have been the type of thing
3 I believe there were other documents, you know, 3 you would expect they would have brought you in
4 that they developed as we went along with the 4 for, for those type of discussions?
5 job, and so I would have reviewed the 5 A. I don't know necessarily that they
6 individual documents that were prepared for the 6 would have brought me in for that. It may have
7 phase of work coming up, and that's primarily 7 been discussed at right above my level and it
8 the ones that I would use, the ones specific 8 just filtered down to me.
9 for the work we were about to do. 9 Q. Let me show you -- and I'm not going
10 Q. Do you recall in that project work 10 to mark these, I'll just tell you what the
11 plans whether there was any areas where the 11 Bates ranges are for the record. I just ask if
12 excavation work or the project work was going 12 you've even looked at them in preparation to be
13 to be done keeping in mind that there was a 13 an inspector. It's the Mississippi River Gulf
14 flood wall adjacent to the project? 14 Outlet New Lock and Connecting Channels
15 A. I don't recall off the top of my head. 15 Evaluation Report, Volume 1, which is NPM-0061
16 I do not. 16 through 324. And the reason I was sweating so
17 Q. If there was nothing in there that 17 much when I got here, I was lugging these big
18 indicated that there should be some concerns 18 things just to show them to you, to be fair to
19 about underseepage or anything of that nature 19 you, and see if that was something you had look
20 for the floodwall adjacent to the work, that 20 at in preparation.
21 would that have been something that would have 21 A. No, I don't think I really looked at
22 popped up based upon your expertise and 22 this. I'm not saying it wasn't out there on
23 training as being suspicious? 23 the job site, but I don't think I really looked
24 A. Quite honestly, probably the eyes that 24 at this.
25 I was looking at through this, you know, in my 25 Q. I understand.
Page 90 Page 92
23 (Pages 89 to 92)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 A. Hydraulics and hydrologic branch? 1 Q. It is, but it's got a different date.
2 Q. Yeah. Did you have any interaction 2 I believe it's the same with a different date.
3 with that branch as the inspector at that East 3 And I'll ask you to turn the Page 25,
4 Bank Industrial Area project? 4 Section 4.2, I believe.
5 A. No. 5 A. 4.2?
6 Q. That little blue tab I have there, 6 Q. Yes.
7 that's where I found that the sheet pile tip 7 A. Okay.
8 was recognized as going down to -8 feet. 8 Q. You see in that paragraph where it
9 You have no reason to believe that to 9 indicates that they're talking about ground
10 be inaccurate, do you? 10 water flow?
11 A. No. 11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I show you next what I'll mark as 12 Q. And this criteria document, throughout
13 Exhibit 8. 13 the body of it, indicates that this is supposed
14 Do you know what a recap submittal 14 to be the master document for all six distinct
15 report is? 15 areas and that they would develop recap
16 A. No. 16 documents for the various six sites. But on
17 Q. Were you involved with any part of the 17 this one, it indicates that the sheet pile tip
18 recap part of this project? 18 reaches down to -25 feet and would essentially
19 A. No. 19 interrupt ground water flow to that depth.
20 Q. I show you what I'll mark as Exhibit 8 20 Do you see that?
21 and just ask if you can identify that. Or if 21 A. Yes.
22 you've ever seen it before. 22 Q. The reason I bring this to your
23 (Exhibit 8 was marked for 23 attention, I would like to know whether anyone
24 identification and is attached hereto.) 24 with WGI, while you were inspector out at the
25 A. I don't recall seeing that. 25 project, commented that the sheet pile depth
Page 94 Page 96
24 (Pages 93 to 96)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 reached down to 25 feet. 1 knowledge of it, you know, what the tip
2 A. I don't recall hearing that from 2 elevation was.
3 anyone. 3 Q. Do you know, at the site at that time
4 Q. Do you recall -- and when you say 4 who would have been person to alert you of
5 anyone from WGI, how about anyone from the 5 that, if it were in fact true?
6 Corps, that they thought the sheet pile went 6 A. Chain of command would have been Jim
7 down to 25 feet? 7 Montegut.
8 A. I don't remember hearing that from 8 Q. I'm going to show you what I've marked
9 anybody. 9 as Exhibit 10, it's WGI 037607 through WGI
10 Q. In the course of your interacting with 10 037615. I show it to your counsel.
11 people out there, did you ever discuss with 11 MR. JOANEN:
12 anyone from WGI what type of investigation 12 Sorry. I only have one of these.
13 process they did to develop these work plans? 13 (Exhibit 10 was marked for
14 A. No, not really. It just -- no. That 14 identification and is attached hereto.)
15 wouldn't have been something that I probably 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
16 would have discussed with them. 16 Q. Have you seen that document before?
17 Q. Would that be something that would 17 A. If that was the work plan we used for
18 have been discussed at a level higher than you 18 that, yeah, then I read it before. I mean,
19 during the design phase, or was that something 19 I --
20 that just in the nature of the work doesn't 20 Q. And this anchor foundation block,
21 really come up? 21 that's that wedding cake structure you were
22 A. I would think it would have been 22 talking about --
23 discussed, but I really don't know. It would 23 A. I believe that's it, yes.
24 have been above my level. 24 Q. -- at the north site.
25 Q. Do you have any knowledge either from 25 It indicates in here that excavation
Page 97 Page 99
1 your training or your exposures with the Corps 1 would take place to a total depth of 25 feet.
2 that if the sheet pile tip does not go down to 2 Do you know why 25 feet was selected
3 25 feet, but you have excavations adjacent to 3 as the depth that was put in the plan?
4 this, that will allow water to reach soil 4 A. To my best recollection, I wouldn't
5 stratifications below the sheet pile depth? 5 have known that it would have been 25-foot
6 A. Say that one more time. 6 until I read it in that or you mentioned that,
7 (Whereupon the previous question was 7 but I know that when digging the bypass channel
8 read back.) 8 there was a depth we were going to be digging
9 MS. EL-AMIN: 9 to, and I thought -- it was my understanding
10 I'm going to object to the form 10 that that had something to do with the depths
11 as a hypothetical. 11 we were going to remove objects or remove
12 MR. JOANEN: 12 materials for dredging purposes.
13 I'm asking if he has any -- in 13 Q. That leads us into the next part of
14 his exposures, his experience, does he 14 the scope of work, which indicates the second
15 know about that. 15 phase of the southern block excavation shall
16 MS. EL-AMIN: 16 take place only after determination is made to
17 Same objection. 17 continue excavation past the 25-foot depth.
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 18 The total depth to which the excavation shall
19 Q. You can answer. 19 go will also be determined at that time.
20 MS. EL-AMIN: 20 Would that be the type of information
21 You can answer. 21 that you were knowledgeable of at the time that
22 A. Um -- I mean, I would have to be 22 this project was taking place?
23 probably alerted that this is something to 23 A. Yes.
24 watch out for because the sheet pile, you know, 24 Q. And again, your answer as to why the
25 the tip was not low enough. But I had no 25 stop at 25 feet has to do with things that you
Page 98 Page 100
25 (Pages 97 to 100)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
CLOUATRE, ALVIN
6/20/2008
1 believe the 25-foot depth demarcation has 1 that are referenced. Like when they say there
2 anything to do with the type of excavator you 2 were 1783 tons of concrete, 990 linear feet of
3 were using, is that correct? 3 treated wood, and they believed that the
4 A. Right. I believe that the depths 4 excavation would need to reach 25 feet, and if
5 were -- you know, to me, we were removing an 5 it was to go deeper than that then they would
6 object, it was estimated to be a certain depth, 6 reevaluate.
7 and if it went deeper or if we had to go deeper 7 A. Yeah. No, I wasn't.
8 for the dredging purposes for the bypass 8 Q. Who would have come up with all that
9 channel, then we had to do -- you know, we had 9 information, WGI or --
10 to mobilize in whatever we had to to remove the 10 A. I believe Washington Group.
11 object. I just don't remember -- I can't 11 Q. To your knowledge, was there any
12 recall what the depth was for the -- for 12 documentation that was available to you that
13 dredging purposes. 13 would limit where or how close to the floodwall
14 Q. Okay. The cofferdam that was 14 excavations could take place?
15 constructed around the wedding cake structure 15 A. I don't recall that. Um --
16 to allow for its excavation, do you recall how 16 Q. Obviously it's nothing you relied
17 deep that sheet pile went? 17 upon?
18 A. No. 18 A. Right.
19 Q. Going back to Exhibit 6 which dealt 19 Q. You also were involved with the
20 with the statement of work for the excavation 20 Sewerage & Water Board lift station removal,
21 of the wedding cake structure, if you look at 21 weren't you? Do you recall whether there was a
22 the Number 3 project requirements, technical 22 limitation as to how deep that excavation would
23 assumptions, and it indicates that the 23 go?
24 cofferdam will be built and walers would be 24 A. No. I really don't remember. I'm a
25 installed and there was going to be excavation 25 little more vague in my memory on that. Um --
Page 102 Page 104
1 last night I actually kicked that around and I 1 face to face where ideas were kicked around and
2 remembered -- I didn't remember it at first, 2 then what developed was maybe a more precise
3 and then last night I did recall that we 3 plan?
4 removed that, but I just have a better memory 4 A. That would be my guess. Best guess.
5 of the wedding cake. 5 Q. Because I'll show you what I'll mark
6 Q. I show you what I'll mark as Exhibit 6 as Exhibit 13, which is WGI 76654, which is a
7 11 and let your counsel look at it. This is 7 transmittal of this October 10th document.
8 WGI 52123 through 52127. 8 (Exhibit 13 was marked for
9 Have you seen that document before? 9 identification and is attached hereto.)
10 (Exhibit 11 was marked for 10 A. Uh-huh.
11 identification and is attached hereto.) 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
12 A. I believe I have. 12 Q. And there's a note on here, from
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 13 December 11th, 2001, indicating that it was
14 Q. When is the first time you saw that 14 disapproved. And I'll show you that.
15 document? 15 You see the handwriting in the
16 A. Um -- probably -- I don't know for 16 comments where it says disapproved?
17 sure, but I'm guessing it probably would have 17 A. Yeah.
18 been before we started the work, probably going 18 Q. It's signed also it looks like by Jim
19 into the preparatory meeting. 19 Montegut, is that correct?
20 Q. The reason I ask that is because I'm 20 A. Yes.
21 trying to get an understanding of how this all 21 Q. The person who would have written
22 works with you guys. 22 disapproved on there, would that have been Jim
23 A. Uh-huh. 23 Montegut?
24 Q. I'll show what I'll mark as 24 A. Um -- yes.
25 Exhibit 12, which is WGI 36981 and 82, which 25 Q. So something about that one he didn't
Page 105 Page 107
1 indicates it would be a preparatory phase 1 like and it was sent back, correct?
2 inspection checklist regarding the sewer lift 2 A. Yeah. Typically, there would be a
3 station removal. 3 response sheet attached if it was disapproved
4 You were present at that meeting? 4 with comments.
5 (Exhibit 12 was marked for 5 Q. We then had, on October 12th,
6 identification and is attached hereto.) 6 Exhibit 14 is WGI 52145 through WGI 52147 dated
7 A. I think I was. I mean, I remember 7 October 12th, 2001. (Tendering.)
8 being at a meeting with Hamps, at least one 8 (Exhibit 14 was marked for
9 meeting. And he did the demolition of the 9 identification and is attached hereto.)
10 building, so I don't remember specifically 10 A. What was the other one dated?
11 being at this meeting but I probably was. 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 12 Q. The 10th.
13 Q. Can you tell me why you would have 13 A. Okay.
14 meeting and then a work plan developed as 14 Q. Had you seen that Revised Addendum 1
15 opposed to the other way around? 15 plan?
16 A. No. Typically, you would have a work 16 A. I don't recall it but I'm sure I did
17 plan, but I believe on that work plan it had 17 because that seems to be an addendum to the
18 revised on it, which would indicate there was a 18 revised plan.
19 work plan in place beforehand. And I'm 19 Q. Were you involved in the interaction
20 assuming revised means for some reason they 20 between WGI and the Corps that led to the
21 changed their method or they determined 21 addendum and any changes that were --
22 something else to be in the field different or 22 A. I could have been, because it appears
23 something of that nature. 23 to be safety related, so in all likelihood I
24 Q. So you think there was a plan in place 24 was but I don't really remember specifically.
25 originally, there was a meeting with everybody 25 Q. To your recollection, was Mr. Montegut
Page 106 Page 108
1 the person that was heading up this process for 1 Q. Right. October 19th, before they
2 the Corps? 2 started putting spades to the ground, had you
3 A. Process being what -- 3 reviewed that to get an understanding what the
4 Q. The developing this plan and the 4 scope of work was?
5 ultimate approval? 5 A. That would be typically the way it
6 A. I don't know if he -- I think Jim is 6 would work. I don't remember -- I don't know
7 one in a chain of doing that, I don't know if 7 what date they actually started work, so I
8 he was the only one that reviewed that. 8 can't answer that question.
9 Q. Do you know whether any of the 9 Q. It indicates on here that the type of
10 geotechnical engineers were involved in this? 10 excavator to be used would be a PC 270 and a PC
11 A. I don't know. 11 400. That's two separate excavators.
12 Q. To your knowledge, is Jim Montegut a 12 Are you familiar with those two pieces
13 geotechnical engineer? 13 of equipment?
14 A. I don't believe he is. 14 A. I'm familiar with them, yeah.
15 Q. I'll show you next what I'll mark as 15 Q. The PC 400 is a bigger --
16 Exhibit 15 which seems to be a transmittal of 16 A. Yeah.
17 this addendum, and he still had issues with it. 17 Q. -- piece of equipment, correct?
18 (Exhibit 15 was marked for 18 Do you know what the extension of the
19 identification and is attached hereto.) 19 arm is, to what depths it can remove soil?
20 A. Okay. 20 A. I don't know what the extension is.
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 21 There's also longer arms that they can put on
22 Q. Were you involved with any of the 22 these things, so I really don't know.
23 conclusions or comments that are indicated on 23 Q. Were you, as the inspector of this,
24 there by Mr. Montegut? 24 involved in any way with the determination of
25 A. I don't remember specifically, but 25 what type of sheet pile would be utilized for
Page 109 Page 111
1 contractor with comments in approval or 1 and how they relate to levees and other
2 disapproval or partial approval form. I'm not 2 protection structures?
3 sure who else was in the chain here to review 3 A. I don't know one way or the other
4 this. 4 whether he has it or not, the expertise.
5 Q. So it's possible, and the reason I've 5 Q. I'll show you what I'll mark as
6 asked the question, when you look at this and 6 Exhibit 17. This is, I believe, one of your QA
7 it's just Jim Montegut signing disapproved, he 7 daily reports. It's WGI 8583 through 8585.
8 might not necessarily even be making that 8 I'll let you look at that.
9 determination, he could just be the one signing 9 (Exhibit 17 was marked for
10 off on what was vetted by people with other 10 identification and is attached hereto.)
11 knowledge than him, correct? 11 A. Okay.
12 A. Very possible. 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
13 MS. EL-AMIN: 13 Q. Did you generate that document?
14 Objection to the hypothetical. 14 A. It appears that I did. I see it's not
15 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 15 signed, but my name is on the bottom of it --
16 Q. With that type of process and 16 typed in on the bottom of it. It looks kind of
17 procedure, what type of documentation is 17 like my writing.
18 generated to show who would have -- if it was 18 Q. Would that be a typical document that
19 done, if it was reviewed by someone other than 19 you would create as your daily log?
20 just Jim Montegut, what would you call the 20 A. Yes.
21 document that would indicate who reviewed and 21 Q. And the information contained in there
22 signed off on it as approved, disapproved or 22 is, I guess to the best of your ability, an
23 disapproved with some -- 23 accurate depiction of what happened on that
24 A. Limitation? I don't know the form 24 day?
25 number if there's a form number, but the 25 A. Yes.
Page 113 Page 115
1 process would be to go to review to the 1 Q. And that's the information that would
2 appropriate office who would be reviewing that 2 be provided to the various people supervising
3 if it was outside of construction division, and 3 the project above you to understand what was
4 they would send their comments back. It's 4 happening?
5 typically some type of form. You know, I don't 5 A. Yes.
6 know if it was done E-mail or not. I have no 6 Q. It indicates, if you turn to the
7 idea because it wasn't part of that process. 7 second page when you talk about the scope of
8 Q. It indicates this what appears to be 8 the work that they were removing the cofferdam
9 the sequence of operations for the lift station 9 from the sewer lift station area?
10 removal. I'm just going by what would be 10 A. From what I can determine from this,
11 perhaps a final plan where they indicate they 11 it looks like they were in the process of
12 drive the sheet piles around the perimeter to 12 removing the pilings inside and were
13 60 feet. Were you involved in any way with 13 backfilling up as they were coming up. That's
14 making the determination that 60 feet was 14 what it kind of reads -- how it reads to me.
15 appropriate? 15 Q. But they're -- the 60-foot sheet pile
16 A. No, I was not. 16 that was put down there to make the cofferdam,
17 Q. Do you know, in your experience as an 17 that was removed as that lift station project
18 inspector, why they would go down to 60 feet as 18 was completed, is that correct? In essence,
19 opposed to 55 or 65? 19 they weren't left there.
20 A. No, I don't know why. I would imagine 20 A. Right. Yeah. I believe they were
21 that typically that's determined by an 21 removed.
22 engineer. 22 Q. Because I've read some reports, not
23 Q. Do you know of your own knowledge 23 particularly here, where if they can't get the
24 whether Mr. Montegut has professional 24 sheet pile up they just cut it off at a certain
25 expertise in underseepage and Artesian heads 25 spot.
Page 114 Page 116
1 That didn't occur here, to the best of 1 Q. Knowing nothing about sheet pile
2 your knowledge? 2 driving, is there different procedures that a
3 A. I don't remember whether it did or 3 sheet pile driver has to take to make it
4 didn't, honestly. 4 watertight?
5 Q. You don't recall as you sit here today 5 A. Well, the way they made it watertight
6 whether in fact you witnessed that cofferdam 6 was something I had never really come across
7 being removed? Cofferdam structure? 7 before. And I can't remember what it was, it
8 A. It's real hazy on that. I don't have 8 was some kind of wood or paper products or
9 a clear recollection of that happening. I 9 something like that where basically they put
10 remember that taking place, I just don't have a 10 them around the sheet pile to where the
11 lot of clear detail on it. 11 pressure of the water was coming in it would
12 Q. How about for the wedding cake 12 just kind of seal off the joints of the sheet
13 structure, do you recall whether that cofferdam 13 pile and then they would continually pump. So
14 was removed? 14 it wasn't true watertight, it just tremendously
15 A. The best I remember, it was removed. 15 slowed the water intrusion into that area and
16 I have a little bit clearer detail on that. 16 then they would keep it pumped out.
17 Q. Were you involved with the removal of 17 Q. To your knowledge, the lift station
18 the train car that was in the waterway? 18 excavation removal, that project was completed,
19 A. Yes. 19 correct?
20 Q. They built a cofferdam for that, as 20 A. To my knowledge, yes.
21 well; correct? 21 Q. The wedding cake structure, was that
22 A. Yes. 22 project also completed?
23 Q. And then they had to remove the train 23 A. Yes.
24 car? 24 Q. Did you have any involvement with a
25 A. Yes. 25 guy named Richard Lesser?
Page 117 Page 119
1 that with Mr. Bacuta in any way? 1 Did you have any communications with
2 A. No. 2 anyone regarding your involvement with the
3 Q. Or Mr. Lesser? 3 project at the East Bank Industrial Area?
4 A. No. 4 A. No.
5 Q. It indicates that -- this is 5 Q. Did anyone from Washington Group ever
6 Mr. Bacuta saying this -- that the structures 6 contact you after the storm to discuss with you
7 were removed and the soil subsurface was 7 your recollection of the project as it took
8 modified on account of the excavation, and that 8 place while you were out there in relationship
9 the ground water flow had changed to a flow 9 to either of those two floodwall failures?
10 instead of going both ways, towards and away 10 A. The only person that contacted me is
11 from the canal, now to away from the canal. 11 Sarah Alvey, who I got along with real well out
12 Had you ever, as the inspector, 12 there, and she called just to see how we were
13 discussed any issues like that with Mr. Bacuta? 13 doing. And she said she heard the floodwall
14 A. No. 14 failed where the areas we were working and all
15 Q. With anyone else at the project site 15 that. But it was nothing -- neither one of us
16 while you were there? 16 thought it had anything to do with our project,
17 A. No. 17 it was more a call out of concern of how
18 Q. Do you recall whether anyone at the 18 everybody was doing down here.
19 project site ever discussed the fact that the 19 Q. The -- this IPET report seemed to
20 ground water flow had been altered and changed 20 indicate that they believed that the north
21 to flow now away from the canal, towards the 21 breach, the Boland site, resulted as a -- I'm
22 floodwall, while you were out there? 22 misusing the term, I'm sure I'll get an
23 A. No. 23 objection -- a foundational failure, it didn't
24 Q. Since -- you know that the floodwall 24 necessarily result from overtopping, it was
25 that was adjacent to the East Bank Industrial 25 from underseepage.
Page 121 Page 123
1 Area failed in two places during Hurricane 1 Have you, in your involvement with the
2 Katrina. 2 Corps, done any of your own research regarding
3 A. Yes. 3 that issue?
4 Q. The north breach is what's commonly 4 A. No.
5 referred to as where the Boland site is, it's a 5 Q. Do you have any information of your
6 little smaller. The south breach was -- at the 6 own based upon your involvement with this
7 Saucer site was larger than that. 7 project and your knowledge regarding the sheet
8 A. Yes. 8 pile depth, or sheet pile as a ground water
9 Q. Have you been contacted by anyone with 9 seepage cutoff, have you done any of your own
10 the Corps to discuss your involvement at those 10 investigation to determine whether in fact any
11 areas in relation -- since Hurricane Katrina, 11 of the excavations that took place at the East
12 to discuss any efforts at the project or 12 Bank Industrial Area led to that foundational
13 information you would have about the project 13 failure?
14 that would relate to the investigation of that? 14 A. No.
15 A. Not until I received the E-mail later 15 MS. EL-AMIN:
16 that this deposition was going to take place. 16 Are you not going to make that an
17 Q. Just this past month or so? 17 exhibit?
18 A. Exactly. 18 MR. JOANEN:
19 Q. Were you contacted by anybody that was 19 What's that?
20 with a group called the IPET team? Do you know 20 MS. EL-AMIN:
21 what that is, the IPET? 21 Are you not going to make that an
22 A. No. 22 exhibit?
23 Q. It's a group of engineers, I think 23 MR. JOANEN:
24 sponsored by the Corps, I'm not sure, that did 24 He doesn't know anything about
25 a pretty exhaustive study. 25 it.
Page 122 Page 124
1 meeting dated February 19th, 2001, you're 1 typically I get more involved with the meat of
2 indicated as being present, as well as Joe 2 the specific plans as they come around.
3 Dicharry. Which I noticed he signed off on 3 Q. Okay. Do you recall whether any --
4 these big documents right here. (Indicating.) 4 and feel free to review the document -- whether
5 As well as a number of other people. I'm going 5 any of the deep excavations, the wedding cake
6 to ask you the look at this, and I'll -- again, 6 structure, the sewer lift station, whether
7 I only have one copy because these were given 7 those were discussed at that meeting?
8 to me this morning. 8 A. I mean, I could review these minutes
9 (Exhibit 19 was marked for 9 and answer as to what was reported in these
10 identification and is attached hereto.) 10 minutes, but I don't remember specifically a
11 A. Okay. 11 knowledge of what was at the meeting from
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 12 memory.
13 Q. Do you have a recollection of being at 13 Q. That's fine. And I really was asking
14 that meeting? 14 for your knowledge. Obviously the information
15 A. I know I was at the precon meeting. 15 in the document will speak for itself.
16 You know, I don't remember the specifics of the 16 A. Yeah.
17 meeting. 17 Q. I'm just not trying to hoodwink you,
18 Q. Do you recall whether there were any 18 I'm want to give you as much time as you need
19 meetings that you would have attended prior to 19 to review it, because some of my questions,
20 that one? 20 when you review it the first time you may not
21 A. I don't recall. 21 be thinking of that, if I ask the question and
22 Q. And what was the purpose for having a 22 you want to review it --
23 meeting such as that? 23 A. Right.
24 A. Preconstruction meeting is a meeting 24 Q. -- feel free to.
25 we have for all projects prior to the startup 25 The date of that is in April of 2001?
Page 126 Page 128
1 in East Bank Industrial Area and the flood wall 1 Q. Do you know whether he's an engineer
2 adjacent to it? 2 by training, a licensed engineer?
3 A. This is an assumption, but typically 3 A. I haven't seen his degree, but as far
4 it would be people in engineering division. 4 as I know he's a civil engineer.
5 Q. Are any of the people indicated there 5 Q. And how about Ariatti, do you know if
6 that you know of in the engineering division? 6 he's an engineer, as well?
7 A. I believe -- I don't remember if Joe 7 A. He's an engineer. I'm not sure, he
8 Dicharry was engineering division or project 8 may be mechanical or something like that, if I
9 management. Um -- I really don't know. 9 remember correctly.
10 Because prior to being a project engineer I had 10 Q. I show you Exhibit 20 which is a WGI
11 little contact with engineering division and 11 8196 through 8198.
12 other divisions within the Corps. Mainly my 12 Can you review that for me, please?
13 interaction was within the construction 13 (Exhibit 20 was marked for
14 division. So I really don't remember who was 14 identification and is attached hereto.)
15 engineering folks and who were the other folks 15 A. Okay.
16 there. 16 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
17 Q. How do you get the title as the 17 Q. Is that a document that you would have
18 project engineer if you're not an engineer? 18 generated?
19 A. You're functioning as a, um -- you're 19 A. It appears to be that.
20 not performing engineering duties, you're not 20 Q. And that's your daily log, the QA
21 designing any -- you're not making engineering 21 report that you referenced earlier?
22 calls, but what that position does is you're 22 A. Yes.
23 one level in the chain of command above a 23 Q. If you look at the second page it
24 project inspector, and you're basically going 24 indicates that there are matters that involve
25 out to the field, checking on the project, 25 the flood wall and that there should be
Page 130 Page 132
1 notice the changes, and so they would have had 1 guard at the gate, and we all had little
2 to resubmit. 2 badges, and if you didn't have one he would
3 Q. As the inspector for that project, 3 stop and he would log in who was coming onto
4 would the permitting process that was taking 4 the site and check with Washington to see if
5 place with the levee district been something 5 they were okay to come on site or check with
6 that you were involved with or concerned with? 6 us.
7 A. Not involved with. Concerned with 7 Q. And y'all had built a fence around the
8 regarding just reviewing the permit, you know, 8 area, too, correct?
9 of any work that was going to be taking place 9 A. Yes.
10 out there. 10 Q. Was that fence built on the inside or
11 Q. Do you know what the scope of the work 11 the outside of the floodwall?
12 of the permit would be? 12 A. I don't remember. Um -- if I remember
13 A. I don't know. I don't know based upon 13 correctly -- I don't remember. I'm trying to
14 what I'm reading from this report. 14 picture it right now. I can't even picture it.
15 Q. Do you have any information that would 15 Q. Do you remember why they would have
16 lead you to believe that WGI would have to get 16 had a fence there?
17 an approval from the levee district after it 17 A. Security purposes. Normally, we put
18 completed the work to make sure that none of 18 some type of security fence up around all of
19 its work had done anything to harm the 19 our projects where we can.
20 integrity of the levee? 20 Q. Remembering what that floodwall was
21 A. I don't know if they were -- if they 21 like out there, it was pretty high. Why would
22 had to get that or not. 22 you have to have a fence with that big old
23 Q. If you wouldn't know that as the 23 piece of concrete?
24 inspector, who would be the person that would 24 A. Well, I mean, anybody can get over a
25 know that? 25 wall if they want to, you know. They can put a
Page 134 Page 136
1 with, would you take it upon yourself to 1 about 25 feet was there any process in place at
2 address that to the, like, say, Sarah Alvey who 2 this meeting where there would be discussion
3 was that QC person, or would you have to get 3 about the interruption of ground water flow and
4 approval from your supervisor to then express 4 underseepage and Artesian head as indicated in
5 that concern on behalf of the Corps to the 5 that Plate 3?
6 contractor? 6 MS. EL-AMIN:
7 A. It depended on who was close. I 7 Objection to form.
8 probably typically would have talked to the QC 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
9 person first, noted it in my report. But all 9 Q. You can answer.
10 this happening would have been simultaneous, it 10 A. Um -- would this meeting have been the
11 would have been -- with informing my chain of 11 forum for discussing that? Is that what you're
12 command. 12 asking me?
13 Q. So it happens right there; if 13 Q. I'm looking for some level of checks
14 something is happening, you basically deal it 14 and balances maybe.
15 with right then. 15 Was there any procedures in place at
16 A. Yes. 16 that meeting to discuss that? Because this
17 Q. Okay. At a meeting like this, do you 17 meeting took place after this -- or it appears
18 know whether anyone there would have known 18 that this document was generated, so that the
19 about the discrepancy about what the actual 19 assumption was that this was generated and
20 sheet pile tip depths was and the sheet pile -- 20 given to the Corps, somebody read it and read
21 MS. EL-AMIN: 21 it saying that they believe the sheet pile tip
22 Objection to form. 22 was 25 feet --
23 MR. JOANEN: 23 A. Uh-huh.
24 I'm not finished yet. 24 Q. -- and then there's going to be
25 MS. EL-AMIN: 25 excavations that we know from the prior
Page 141 Page 143
1 Q. Looking at it now, the individuals 1 would have been Jim 's place or somebody else's
2 that were in place and knowing, as best you 2 place.
3 can, their background and qualifications, were 3 Q. Well, that leads me to a good
4 there any checks and balances in place to 4 question. Because this dealt with the Tulsa
5 address that issue? 5 district so much, do you know whether those
6 A. I don't think there was a certain spot 6 submissions to review in detail were coming to
7 during the meeting where we discussed seepage, 7 the New Orleans office or going to the Tulsa
8 you know, outlined an agenda part seepage 8 office?
9 discussion. I don't remember anything like 9 A. I don't know.
10 that. 10 Q. If you don't know as an inspector, who
11 Q. In your level as an inspector, I have 11 would know that would be on the ground?
12 to ask you why would that not be an issue 12 A. Jim would know because he would
13 brought up when it seems to be very important 13 probably be receiving the document from
14 in the earthwork issues? 14 Washington and forwarding to whoever is
15 A. Yeah. I don't know. I can't answer 15 appropriate.
16 that. I don't know if it was discussed prior 16 Q. The next question is similar dealing
17 to -- you know, it could have been discussed 17 with Lee Guillory. Based upon your working
18 prior to this meeting with dealings with 18 relationship with him and knowing whatever his
19 Washington. I don't know. I'm answering for 19 qualifications are that you know of, do you
20 people -- I can't answer for other people. 20 think that the discrepancy between what WGI
21 Q. I'm not asking for other people. What 21 said the sheet pile tip depth was and the
22 you know of their experience and background. 22 actual sheep pile depth of 8 feet would have
23 Do you know whether anyone there had the 23 been something he should have caught?
24 experience to catch this mistake? 24 A. I don't know if it was his place in
25 MS. CLAYMAN: 25 the review process to look that in depth at it
Page 145 Page 147
1 individuals for the Corps would have been in 1 and said there's only an 8-foot sheet pile
2 the field to attend that meeting? 2 depth there, you may think there's a 25-foot
3 A. Normally -- for the Corps? The 3 sheet pile depth there, what would the steps
4 project inspector, project engineer -- 4 have been by either the project engineer or
5 Q. That would be you? 5 Mr. Guillory to address that discrepancy?
6 A. Well, no, I wasn't the project 6 MS. EL-AMIN:
7 engineer on this project. I was the inspector. 7 Objection to form.
8 Q. So you would have been there? 8 A. My best guess is that they would have
9 A. I would have been there. 9 alerted probably Washington Group so they could
10 Q. Montegut is the engineer? 10 talk to their engineering consultant, as well
11 A. Montegut would have been there, 11 as I would think we would talk to engineering
12 Ariatti, and Lee Guillory attended I believe 12 division here at the Corps.
13 some of the preparatories. 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
14 Q. At the excavation dealing with the 14 Q. Is it possible that since no one said
15 wedding cake structure and the sewer lift 15 anything about the discrepancy at these
16 station, when they're talking about how deep 16 preparatory meeting phases that the people who
17 they're going, do you recall whether there was 17 were at the preparatory meetings phases of the
18 any discussion about ground water flow? 18 wedding cake structure and the sewer lift
19 A. I don't recall. 19 station didn't know what the actual depth of
20 Q. Do you recall whether there was any 20 the sheet pile was?
21 discussion about the interruption of ground 21 MS. EL-AMIN:
22 water flow with the sheet pile depth? 22 Object to form.
23 A. I don't remember. 23 A. I don't know. I don't know.
24 Q. Do you remember whether there was any 24 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
25 concern voiced by anyone with the Corps to WGI 25 Q. Knowing full well the importance of
Page 149 Page 151
1 or one of the subcontractors doing the deep dig 1 seepage and underseepage and Artesian heads,
2 to say, you're going down a certain depth, we 2 would that be the type of thing that would be
3 want to keep an eye on the floodwall over 3 considered at these types of meetings, the
4 there? 4 preparatory meeting for the wedding cake
5 A. I don't recall. 5 structure and the sewer lift station?
6 Q. Based upon your knowledge of the 6 A. If it's a known issue, yes.
7 people when were present at that on behalf of 7 Q. The inverse being true, if it's not a
8 the Corps, would anyone there have had the 8 known issue it's not brought up, right?
9 experience or knowledge to catch the 9 A. Right.
10 discrepancy of the reported 25-foot sheet pile 10 (Brief recess.)
11 depth and the actual sheet pile depth of 8 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
12 feet? 12 Q. You had mentioned previously that part
13 MS. EL-AMIN: 13 of your job description as the inspector was to
14 Objection to form. 14 assure safety on the job site.
15 You can answer. 15 You recall that?
16 A. You want to repeat it again? I'm 16 A. Yes.
17 sorry. 17 Q. Can you give me some examples of what
18 (Whereupon the previous question was 18 type of things you'd be looking for as the
19 read back.) 19 inspector?
20 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 20 A. Yes. Um -- we would be looking at the
21 Q. I'm asking about your knowledge of 21 equipment on site and we would be making sure
22 those people there. 22 the equipment, as it comes on the job site or
23 A. It's possible, but I don't know. I 23 before putting it into use, meets the safety
24 don't know for sure. 24 requirements and the Corps' safety manual. We
25 Q. If someone had caught the discrepancy 25 do equipment inspection sheets on each piece of
Page 150 Page 152
1 equipment. In fact, the contractor does the 1 Q. From theft, things of that nature?
2 actual inspections and we witness the 2 A. Yes.
3 inspections. We try to witness 100 percent 3 Q. And vandalism?
4 but, you know, we don't always. But it does 4 A. Yes. And in the case of an
5 fall back on the contractor's responsibility to 5 environmental job, I would think steps would
6 do this. 6 probably be taken to keep people from harming
7 We ensure that the contractor's 7 themselves environmentally.
8 operating safely. We ensure that they're 8 Q. With this type of project -- this was
9 wearing the proper protective equipment. Um -- 9 an environmental job; is that correct?
10 we ensure that the particular phase of work has 10 A. It was an environmental remediation
11 the activity hazard analysis which applies to 11 and a demolition job, I guess.
12 that work. The contractor develops this, as 12 Q. Is it common that the Corps would
13 well. And he states, you know, what's going to 13 utilize environmental resources to handle
14 take place, what are the hazards involved in 14 demolition projects?
15 this work, and what are the proactive ways to 15 A. I'm not sure I understand.
16 do this work safely. And we ensure that he 16 Environmental resources? What do you mean by
17 follows up on how he does that. 17 that?
18 Q. That involves the slips, trips and 18 Q. The monies, the funds, the utilization
19 falls events? 19 of the individuals with that expertise to
20 A. Yes. 20 handle what was a demolition job? I mean, you
21 Q. In the activity hazard analysis, where 21 don't need someone who's an expert in arsenic
22 is that specified, is that in the Corps' safety 22 to knock a building down, necessarily.
23 manual? 23 A. Right.
24 A. Yes. 24 Q. Maybe you do, I don't know. But is it
25 Q. In the Corps' safety manual, does that 25 common in your practice, in your experience,
Page 153 Page 155
1 also specify that fences are going to be built 1 that the Corps would utilize those resources
2 around the perimeter? 2 for a project like this?
3 A. I think it does say something in there 3 A. Yes.
4 about fences. But typically, the fences come 4 Q. And why is that?
5 more from the contract specs or, you know, that 5 A. Well, environmental is a little out of
6 they are to be installed and where they are to 6 the realm of the construction of a levee
7 be installed, and usually shown located on the 7 project or, you know, building a floodwall or a
8 drawings where they are to be installed. So 8 pump station. So I believe that we used the
9 yeah, I think it does say something in the 9 Tulsa District to administer the contract
10 safety manual. But that's typically spelled 10 because they had something set up for this, for
11 out in each contract. 11 TERC contracts. I believe they had an avenue
12 Q. And you said that all the projects 12 to award the contracts. So I would imagine up
13 that you've been associated with, they have 13 in Tulsa there's, you know, some expertise up
14 built fences around the project? 14 there involving environmental stuff.
15 A. Not all of them. It depends on -- 15 Q. Well, and of course it then begs the
16 where applicable. You might have miles of 16 question, if you take someone who's an expert
17 levee and you can't. 17 in the environmental stuff may not necessarily
18 Q. So when they're doing work out on the 18 be an expert in protection of hurricane levees.
19 MRGO levee, would they put fences out there? 19 A. It's possible.
20 Probably not, huh? 20 Q. And so that's why I ask why the
21 A. No. And also, the fences I guess 21 interaction here, in your experience.
22 really are around where like the office 22 A. Sorry. The interaction what now?
23 compounds are going to be and parking areas are 23 Q. That's why I'm asking about the
24 going to be, and it's to protect the property 24 interaction. Do you know whether the Tulsa
25 there. 25 District was interacting with anyone down here
Page 154 Page 156
1 that is involved with the supervision of the 1 A. Mostly it involves on the site, but,
2 levees? 2 you know, there could be some issue like you
3 A. I don't know if they were or weren't. 3 just mentioned, you know, where dust could be
4 Q. In your experience -- and of course on 4 an issue and so you want to keep the ground
5 some of the projects you were working directly 5 watered and so forth because you don't want
6 with the sheet piles and there was specific 6 dust kicking up to affect the workers and/or
7 concern about underseepage -- are the projects 7 the surrounding area.
8 that deal with non environmental issues more 8 Q. And I know just from reviewing some of
9 likely to take into consideration the potential 9 the notes that there was concern about dust.
10 impacts on the adjacent levees? 10 A. Yeah.
11 A. Can you repeat that? 11 Q. Noise?
12 (Whereupon the previous question was 12 A. (Nods affirmatively.)
13 read back.) 13 Q. There was some concern about odors. I
14 MS. EL-AMIN: 14 guess that you were digging up diesel laden
15 Object to the form. 15 fuels they were worrying about odors emanating
16 A. I still don't think I follow that 16 into the neighborhood.
17 completely. 17 A. Yes.
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 18 Q. Were those the types of things, the
19 Q. In your experience working with 19 type of safety issues that you were responsible
20 projects that don't involve environmental 20 for as the inspector?
21 remediation, that involve just excavation, 21 A. Yes. Some of them could be. It's
22 demolition or building something, is it more 22 kind of gray whether is that safety or
23 likely that those projects that don't involve 23 environmental issues.
24 the environmental remediation are more 24 Q. That's what I'm building to. Where
25 likely -- is it more likely they'll take into 25 does it fall in, where is that line of
Page 157 Page 159
1 consideration the effects of their works on the 1 demarcation? Were those environmental issues
2 hurricane protection structures? 2 or safety issues?
3 A. I mean, I think for sure those 3 A. It's kind of gray. I mean, dust could
4 projects that are non environmental would take 4 be both. Um -- I would say probably, um -- I
5 that into effect, um -- I don't know any more 5 would probably lean toward more environmental
6 or any less than the environmental projects. 6 issues on those particular things.
7 Q. Well, you may because you've been at 7 Q. Did you have any supervision of the
8 these, especially that preparatory kickoff 8 environmental people who may be responsible for
9 meeting where the levee wasn't even discussed. 9 that issue?
10 In fact, you didn't even know that it was an 10 A. I didn't have any supervision over any
11 issue. 11 of the contractors.
12 A. (Nods affirmatively.) 12 Q. That would be an issue that the
13 Q. Nor did anybody else at the time, I 13 contractor is responsible for, the noise
14 guess. 14 abatement, dust, trucks with bad soils on their
15 A. I didn't recall it being discussed or 15 tires?
16 didn't recall it being an issue. 16 A. He's responsible for that, but we're
17 Q. When you talk about safety and your 17 responsible to ensure that he's doing what he's
18 responsibilities as the safety inspector, 18 supposed to do there and staying within the
19 obviously that involves public safety, but does 19 safety -- our environmental requirements. And
20 that involve public safety only on your site 20 if not, then we at that point discuss the
21 specific or does it also involve public safety 21 issues with them and get them to correct them.
22 for the public on the other side of the 22 Q. Do you personally have the expertise
23 floodwall; for example, noise, dust, things of 23 to know how much dust is okay to get into the
24 that nature? Was that something you had to 24 neighborhood?
25 worry about? 25 A. No, I think there's certain type of
Page 158 Page 160
57:16 79:7 contracts 156:11 102:3 107:19 10:15,17,20 date 9:11 47:16
123:6 130:11 156:12 108:1 111:17 12:10,19,22,23 48:18 64:3,4
contacted 122:9 control 20:19 113:11 116:18 13:3,5,9 16:17 72:20 73:1,3,3
122:19 123:10 conversation 117:21 119:19 17:15,22 18:1 73:6,7 75:4,12
contain 14:5 22:12 87:16 136:8 155:9 18:3,9,10,14 75:18 96:1,2
contained copies 60:24 160:21 162:2,3 18:17 22:6 111:7 128:25
115:21 70:25 71:15 162:19,22,23 37:3,9 42:22 133:4 167:8,11
contaminated 74:4 164:24 167:7 court 1:1,25 167:25
127:16 copy 60:17 73:19 168:11 6:23 8:7,8,16 dated 84:15 95:8
content 48:7 95:13 126:7 corrections 8:23 168:3,25 108:6,10 126:1
contents 48:21 COR 131:21 167:6,13,15 covered 15:24 dates 137:25
85:25 Corps 1:11 3:1,2 correctly 38:19 16:3 Davis 24:15 25:4
continual 33:4 11:19,21 12:9 46:4 56:23 coworkers 25:16 25:23
continually 16:13 18:5 57:20 68:15 32:20,22 day 45:13 60:9,9
119:13 19:19 24:21 89:3 101:21 Cox 133:19 63:25 64:8
continue 10:4 27:23 29:7,8 132:9 136:13 create 27:6 115:24
24:25 100:17 29:19 30:20,23 cost 67:1 101:6 115:19 deal 18:23 110:4
contract 29:9,14 31:24 32:21 139:3 creating 163:22 141:14 146:10
44:22,23,24 35:2 44:11 costing 139:5 creosote 45:5 157:8
47:9 52:8 47:14 55:19 cost-plus 55:22 criteria 95:19 dealing 120:18
54:10 56:1,24 57:16 58:24 counsel 3:2 6:3 96:12 131:2 146:12
60:22 67:2 63:17 65:4,14 9:2 53:13 cube 14:17 147:16 149:14
154:5,11 156:9 77:5 78:8 99:10 105:7 curious 75:3 dealings 120:13
contracting 80:25 81:2,5 168:14,14 current 27:22,25 145:18
57:20 131:11 81:17,23 85:17 country 13:18 28:1 41:19 deals 110:10
131:21 85:22 91:18,24 couple 10:12 currently 9:19 dealt 31:17,25
contractor 13:21 95:12 97:6 12:5 32:7 35:4 cut 68:19,23 58:17,19
29:14 52:9,15 98:1 108:20 46:18 76:23 116:24 102:19 147:4
52:21 53:2 109:2 110:6,8 course 13:14,17 138:16 DEBRA 3:9
54:5 55:16,23 120:9 122:10 14:5,9,12,16 cutoff 76:6,7,9 December
56:6 57:12 122:24 124:2 14:23 15:5,12 76:12,16,20 107:13
61:3,4 65:12 127:5 130:12 15:14,24 16:3 77:17,24 124:9 deep 66:22 69:1
65:13,14 75:25 131:6 135:4 16:7,19,20 cuttoff 77:22 101:17 102:17
112:4,5 113:1 138:22 141:5 17:4,16,17,23 104:22 127:15
127:7 131:4,8 142:18,19 18:21,22 20:12 D 128:5 149:16
141:6 153:1,12 143:20 146:21 20:23 21:2,2 D 4:1,7 150:1
160:13 161:4,5 149:1,3,25 22:2,14 23:3 daily 23:21 deeper 67:5 89:2
161:22 162:5 150:8 151:12 27:20 35:4 33:11 36:22 102:7,7 104:5
162:18 152:24 153:22 37:7,8,20 44:9 48:11,13 define 42:10
contractors 153:25 155:12 42:25 52:5,6 48:15,18,22,25 defined 23:10
30:20 67:9 156:1 164:23 58:5 67:6 59:1 60:10 definitely 73:4
160:11 165:18 69:10 77:8 71:5 115:7,19 degree 10:22,25
contractor's correct 46:6,7 85:15 97:10 132:20 133:16 79:9 132:3
29:6 65:21 54:6,7 69:12 144:16 156:15 137:13 Delgado 10:16
131:2 153:5,7 69:13 72:5 157:4 dams 21:19 10:24 11:3,7
161:14 82:24 84:19 courses 10:11,12 data 161:18,18 18:6
161:25
guy 44:15 57:18 76:15 90:15 hole 27:7 69:17 71:19 94:21 114:8 116:6
58:11 62:4 143:4 144:7 83:9 IHNC 46:6 121:5 125:25
119:25 headed 41:22 holes 66:20 II 13:11 15:12 132:24
guys 105:22 heading 109:1 honest 68:2 83:6 15:16,24 16:3 indicating 19:11
G-U-E-Z-B-A-L heads 23:2,6 honestly 70:17 16:19 17:10,25 36:4 107:13
61:21 27:14 114:25 90:24 117:4 18:22 20:12,23 120:19 126:4
152:1 hoodwink 22:2 23:2 individual 7:20
H hear 32:22 128:17 25:19 27:16 34:25 44:11
H 4:7 heard 123:13 house 139:16 77:8,11 144:17 58:23 60:3
half 59:7 75:2 hearing 32:20 HTRW 53:5 III 1:11 7:1,9 62:1,7 90:6
Hammond 10:6 87:15 97:2,8 huge 26:9 68:15 167:3,11 individually
Hamps 56:11,12 height 26:16 huh 154:20 imagine 114:20 91:9,10
56:17 106:8 held 16:7 28:12 human 110:10 156:12 individuals
hand 55:25 30:8 31:15 hundreds 48:25 immediate 17:10 60:20
60:25 133:25 64:1 148:10 hurricane 30:12 146:10 63:17,18
handed 14:9 Henry 12:17 30:17,23 31:12 immediately 144:23 145:1
handle 155:13 hereinabove 31:17 32:3,7 79:2 149:1 155:19
155:20 168:7 32:15,18 33:6 impacts 157:10 Industrial 49:18
handling 60:7 hereto 6:3 19:15 33:15,22 35:16 importance 51:7,22 52:2
handwriting 20:1 71:24 62:21 77:19 151:25 66:6 67:17
107:15 73:17 84:2 122:1,11 important 8:18 77:24 78:1
handwritten 87:21 89:18 156:18 158:2 144:18 145:13 81:15 82:4,9
43:23 94:24 95:23 hydraulics 18:18 inaccurate 94:10 86:9 87:3,7,12
happen 88:11 99:14 105:11 19:4 30:5 include 65:11 88:2,6 90:1
happened 24:17 106:6 107:9 93:23 94:1 included 63:17 94:4 121:25
115:23 108:9 109:19 hydrologic 94:1 inconsistencies 123:3 124:12
happening 88:5 110:23 115:10 hypothetical 9:12 129:4 130:1
88:8 116:4 125:15 126:10 98:11 113:14 incorporated 131:10 133:11
117:9 140:8 132:14 137:20 142:15 164:2 55:6 103:20 166:5
141:10,14 168:15 indicate 95:11 influence 120:19
happens 34:13 hierarchy 29:19 I 106:18 113:21 information 8:6
141:13 31:23 idea 78:5,7,7 114:11 123:20 14:6 15:13,17
Harahan 11:17 high 9:23 10:2 88:10 114:7 137:14 138:7 20:15 22:1
11:17 12:4 23:23 ideas 107:1 indicated 25:21 37:4,11 43:25
hard 70:25 26:1 34:1,12 identification 26:17 64:23 78:6,11 84:23
hardball 139:13 78:20 136:21 19:15 20:1 78:18 90:18 85:1 93:20
HARGIS 3:10 higher 97:18 71:24 73:17 109:23 112:14 100:20 103:19
harm 134:19 highlighted 84:2 87:21 126:2 130:5 103:24 104:9
harming 155:6 74:12 89:18 94:24 142:8 143:4 115:21 116:1
hazard 153:11 highlighting 95:23 99:14 indicates 27:3 120:18 122:13
153:21 73:25 105:11 106:6 72:19 74:19 124:5 128:14
hazardous 53:5 highlights 74:7 107:9 108:9 75:23 76:4,5 134:15 162:2
53:6 hired 11:21 109:19 110:23 93:22 96:9,13 informing
hazards 153:14 historical 26:11 115:10 125:15 96:17 99:25 141:11
hazy 117:8 hitting 69:23 126:10 132:14 100:14 102:23 initial 35:7 55:5
head 22:23,24 83:15 137:20 106:1 111:9 initially 10:8
26:15,18 27:10 identify 53:20
84:15 95:8,14 48:24 51:3 144:13 145:8 142:5,13 152:6 Lesser 119:25
95:18 167:25 55:3,5,11 145:15,16,17 152:8 120:1,3 121:3
junior 11:4 59:13 60:8 145:19,22,23 Knudsen 45:17 let's 13:15 25:7
JUSTICE 2:17 62:23 63:5,14 146:5,11,18,18 K2 1:5 levee 8:5 13:19
64:17,18,21 146:25 147:5,9 23:23,25 24:7
K 65:24 66:17 147:10,11,12 L 26:6,11 32:14
K 2:20 68:17,21 69:3 147:19,24 L 6:1 33:22,22 34:15
KARL 3:19 69:4,14 70:15 148:1 150:23 lab 161:19 35:16,16,19
KASSIE 3:10 71:25 73:5 150:24 151:19 labor 37:15,17 62:22,23,25
Katrina 1:4 75:10,19 76:16 151:23,23 67:7,9 63:3,5,6,7
122:2,11 76:18 77:5,14 153:4,13 154:5 laboratory 21:4 77:25 78:17,23
keep 14:12,16 77:23 78:6,9 155:24 156:7 LABOURDE... 86:8 129:21
60:17 89:11 79:1,7,8,9,20 156:13,24 3:3 133:1,10,19
119:16 135:20 80:10,11 81:1 157:3 158:5,10 lacks 72:1 134:5,17,20
150:3 155:6 81:4,5,12 159:2,3,8 ladder 38:7 135:7,14
159:4 82:17,21,21 160:23 161:1 137:1 154:17,19
keeping 90:13 86:4,7,17,18 161:13,18 laden 159:14 156:6 158:9
101:5 88:25,25 89:1 162:9,24,24 laid 138:6 levees 13:16 14:1
keeps 162:5 89:3,7,12 90:3 163:5,23 164:9 Lake 26:6 15:24 30:11,11
kept 14:22 71:1 90:25 91:5,8 164:17 165:13 LAMBERT 30:14,16,19,23
kicked 105:1 91:20 92:5 165:17 166:10 2:10 31:2,18 32:4,7
107:1 93:9 94:14 166:14 land 118:23 32:13,16,17,19
kicking 159:6 95:6,14,15 knowing 119:1 larger 42:17 33:4,5,6,8,14
kickoff 158:8 96:23 97:23 127:21 145:2 122:7 33:15 34:4,6,9
kicks 148:9 98:15,24 99:1 147:18 151:25 late 25:7 49:24 35:3 77:20
kind 12:8,19 99:3 100:2,7 163:24 164:5 49:24 50:1 78:19 115:1
15:13 17:5 101:1 102:5,9 knowledge law 6:7 156:18 157:2
18:10 22:13 103:4 105:16 17:18 24:5 lawsuit 8:4 157:10
23:20 36:18 109:6,7,9,11 33:19 66:21 layman's 85:16 level 26:13 33:2
37:4 75:3 84:6 110:1 111:6,18 76:21 77:1 layouts 76:1 34:2 38:8
115:16 116:14 111:20,22 97:25 99:1 lead 134:16 67:12,12 92:7
118:14 119:8 112:11 113:24 101:4 104:11 leader 59:22 97:18,24
119:12 131:20 114:5,6,17,20 109:12 113:11 131:17 130:23 143:13
133:19 144:9 114:23 115:3 114:23 117:2 leaders 31:22 145:11 148:13
159:22 160:3 120:7,9 121:24 119:17,20 leads 100:13 163:4
knew 35:1 73:1 122:20 124:24 120:16 124:7 147:3 levels 164:18
knock 155:22 126:15,16 125:22 128:11 Leake 1:12 3:4 licensed 132:2
know 12:7 13:10 127:23,24 128:14 146:7,9 lean 160:5 lien 139:15
13:17 15:11,11 130:6,9 131:20 150:6,9,21 learn 37:4 lifespan 148:15
20:5 21:14 132:1,4,5 164:10 led 108:20 lift 104:20 106:2
22:19,23 23:17 134:8,11,13,13 knowledgeable 124:12 114:9 116:9,17
24:1 25:13 134:21,23,25 100:21 Lee 58:12,14,22 118:18 119:17
31:5 32:25 135:4 136:25 known 34:24 86:2 147:17 128:6 148:19
34:1,14,19 138:11 141:18 45:18 100:5 149:12 148:25 149:15
40:19 41:5 142:4,12 127:24 129:24 left 75:16,18,21 151:18 152:5
42:8,17,19 143:25 144:8 140:7 141:18 116:19 likelihood
45:9,23 46:1,2 length 101:9
16:17 Morrison 45:17 128:18 137:7 north 26:7 99:24 142:11 143:7
milking 56:3 move 15:8 26:14 155:21 122:4 123:20 146:1,3 150:14
57:2 39:8 needed 15:5 northern 67:20 151:7 162:12
mind 90:13 moved 40:4 73:7 37:11 58:7 notations 36:15 162:14 164:2
101:5 movement 24:9 65:25 86:4 51:1 objections 6:11
mine 87:22 moving 24:6 118:4 note 79:3 82:20 objects 67:15
minimal 118:13 37:20 39:16 needs 37:4 162:1 107:12 133:16 69:20 100:11
minutes 64:18 MRGO 1:7 neighborhood 138:19 103:11
64:19,22 65:5 154:19 78:2 159:16 noted 71:3 72:4 obligation 36:6
65:6,15 79:18 multiple 42:18 160:24 138:17 141:9 obligations
125:25 128:8 muster 110:19 neither 123:15 167:13,15 42:10
128:10 142:4 NELSON 2:10 notes 51:1 159:9 obstructions
missed 65:25 N netted 72:8 notice 6:7 19:10 66:17
Mississippi N 4:1,1,1,7 6:1 never 31:25 127:2,4 134:1 obtain 11:24
32:13 33:4 name 7:7,10 37:24 40:5 noticed 24:20 obviously
92:13 35:7 49:11 48:7 53:10 126:3 104:16 128:14
mistake 145:24 61:20,24 62:1 75:12 88:4,7 notification 158:19 162:9
mistaken 26:5 62:5,8 64:23 119:6 120:12 133:1 occur 117:1
misusing 123:22 68:9 71:12 new 1:12,13 2:7 notify 57:10 occurred 7:25
mobilize 102:10 72:4,7 74:14 2:13 3:5 9:24 notifying 133:10 35:23
modified 121:8 84:16 91:8,10 17:11 26:7 133:14 October 107:7
money 58:6,8 91:11,15 29:20 30:24 November 138:1 108:5,7 111:1
139:5,10,18 115:15 120:11 31:20,23 32:4 NPM-0061 odors 159:13,15
monies 155:18 120:11 125:24 59:11 61:11,12 92:15 offered 18:5
monitor 23:24 144:16 61:14,16 92:14 number 43:14 office 3:2 14:17
29:5 56:7,19 named 7:3 57:18 93:2 147:7 60:7 71:17 31:20,23 32:1
161:9,10,14,22 58:11 119:25 night 10:11,14 83:18 87:25 44:5 59:18,19
163:6 164:12 nature 23:24 10:17 71:16 102:22 103:1 59:20,21 61:1
monitoring 27:15 36:15 105:1,3 113:25,25 114:2 147:7,8
24:25 34:3 82:16 84:6 nineties 15:22 126:5 137:12 154:22
56:20 161:1,4 90:19 97:20 17:24 22:5 148:11 officer 57:20
161:11 162:16 106:23 110:5 23:7 25:8,24 numbers 53:21 80:3 127:8
162:22 163:9 135:13 140:23 28:19 30:9 87:1,18 125:3 131:22
163:14 155:1 158:24 Ninth 78:1 125:21 offices 1:12
monitors 161:17 near 34:6,8,9,14 Nods 19:13 n't 88:21 office's 131:11
Montegut 57:16 35:15,18 37:9 158:12 159:12 official 68:9
58:18,23 60:2 79:13 164:25 O officiated 6:24
99:7 107:19,23 nearly 148:11 noise 158:23 O 4:1 6:1 oftentimes 8:15
108:25 109:12 necessarily 92:5 159:11 160:13 oath 6:25 7:5 OHM 45:24
109:24 112:9 101:1 113:8 non 28:13 157:8 object 98:10 okay 8:24 9:4,5
112:16 113:7 123:24 155:22 158:4 102:6,11 9:12,13,16
113:20 114:24 156:17 normal 22:13 151:22 157:15 20:16 26:20
131:9 146:13 NED-023-000... 27:4 objecting 146:6 31:10 41:4
149:10,11 73:15 normally 34:13 objection 46:23 42:14 47:3
month 122:17 need 8:9 9:1 136:17 138:19 50:6 88:13 50:18 53:25
morning 126:8 87:17,23 93:7 146:19 149:3 98:17 113:14 63:9 71:20
104:4 120:16 123:23 141:22
reserved 6:13 52:12 53:9 rode 35:4,4 saying 54:7 108:14 132:3
reside 9:19 89:24 90:5 Roger 47:13 72:17 92:22 seepage 14:7
resources 109:8 110:20 roster 20:14 121:6 143:21 16:3 20:18
155:13,16 111:3 112:8,12 Rouge 26:7 says 21:21 26:16 21:21 22:8,9
156:1 113:19,21 roughly 75:16 107:16 112:16 22:17,20 23:22
response 108:3 142:21 RPR 1:24 6:22 144:15 24:1 76:22
responsibilities reviewers 168:2,24 schedule 39:10 124:9 145:7,8
29:3 31:9,14 112:19,20 Rules 6:6 school 9:23 10:3 152:1 164:6
40:3,5 42:2 reviewing 29:15 running 133:22 10:10 12:4 selected 100:2
52:1 70:12 47:24 85:12 scope 52:11 103:4
158:18 114:2 120:25 S 100:14 111:4 send 58:2 114:4
responsibility 134:8 142:3,22 s 3:9 6:1 40:13 116:7 127:13 sending 131:4,7
31:12 75:7 159:8 75:16 147:1 134:11 sense 52:16
153:5 162:4 reviews 47:9 safe 45:7 Scott 2:5 7:10 sent 95:11 108:1
responsible 112:13,17 safely 55:18 73:24 133:3 120:15
30:21 31:1 revised 106:18 153:8,16 seal 119:12 sentence 21:21
63:1 72:11 106:20 108:14 safety 29:7,8 season 35:3 26:16
85:24 112:3 108:18 32:1 54:25 second 21:21 separate 32:14
159:19 160:8 revision 133:20 55:19 65:1,13 25:24 84:21 111:11
160:13,16,17 Richard 2:19 66:2 108:23 100:14 116:7 September
161:3 163:14 49:12 119:25 110:1,1,3,8,8 132:23 75:24
166:11 120:1,3 110:12 152:14 section 96:4 sequence 114:9
responsiveness riding 78:19 152:23,24 135:20 set 44:13 52:9
6:12 right 55:21 153:22,25 security 135:25 64:5 103:14
restriction 69:2 57:22 68:4 154:10 158:17 136:17,18 156:10 161:22
restrictions 75:23 84:20 158:18,19,20 see 13:15 19:22 168:7
68:25 88:9 89:4 92:7 158:21 159:19 21:23 22:22 settled 86:12,15
resubmit 134:2 95:9,17 102:4 159:22 160:2 23:25 24:8,19 sewer 106:2
result 17:14 103:25 104:18 160:19 164:23 24:25 25:7 116:9 118:18
20:11 81:6 111:1 116:20 165:3 26:21,25,25 128:6 148:25
123:24 168:16 120:6,23 126:4 sand 23:11,15 34:13,17 71:16 149:15 151:18
resulted 123:21 128:23 135:22 24:1,4,5,6,8,9 75:13 83:21 152:5
retired 62:5 136:14 141:13 24:10,18 25:10 92:19 95:20 sewerage 104:20
retrieve 161:25 141:15 152:8,9 25:10,13,17,22 96:8,20 107:15 148:19
review 9:10 155:23 161:12 26:10,11 27:8 115:14 123:12 sheep 147:22
46:17 49:4 161:15 82:15 163:22 136:4 161:20 sheet 76:1,6,7,9
51:16 52:3 river 23:24 26:1 164:8,21 seeing 20:6,8 76:12,16,20,21
85:10 93:7,19 26:10,12 27:4 Sarah 64:23,25 26:23 72:1 77:17,22,24
95:3 112:24 32:13,17 33:4 123:11 141:2 94:25 135:14 86:8,21 87:2,6
113:3 114:1 33:14,22 34:2 satisfactory seen 17:20 20:4 87:13 94:7
128:4,8,19,20 34:2,4,6,9,12 38:22 24:10 25:10 96:17,25 97:6
128:22 131:6 34:14 35:2,15 satisfied 140:25 26:9,21 74:17 98:2,5,24
132:12 137:23 78:20 92:13 Saucer 122:7 83:21,24 84:3 102:17 103:9
147:6,25 Robert 3:11 save 6:8,11 84:5 85:7 103:15 108:3
reviewed 51:5 131:14 saw 24:18 25:22 89:21 94:22 111:25 114:12
51:10,14 52:4 ROBINSON 1:7 45:12 57:6 99:16 105:9 116:15,24
74:14 105:14
word 21:19 55:24 56:22 41:8 46:13 12 4:21 41:22 126:1 128:25
22:22 42:20 59:17,22,22 59:6 75:1,2,15 105:25 106:5 129:1 138:1
work 13:19 75:6 77:5,5 years 7:19 10:13 138:1 2002 75:4,25
22:10,14,15 123:14 135:8 12:3 26:2,3,4 12th 108:5,7 2003 60:2 72:21
25:16 42:21,24 147:17 157:5 77:5,16 125 5:2 88:19
45:1 46:5,12 157:19 yesterday 46:19 126 5:3 20044 2:23
47:10 52:10,11 works 8:2 33:7 47:24 48:1 13 4:22 41:22 2008 1:14 167:25
52:11 54:17,19 105:22 110:11 49:16 53:9 107:6,8 112:15 202-616-4289
55:3,5,6,9,17 112:22 129:3 y'all 136:7 132 5:4 2:24
55:17,18 56:8 158:1 137 5:5 21 5:5 137:12,19
56:19,20 57:4 work-related Z 14 4:23 108:6,8 22 144:1
57:4,7 58:18 58:1 Z 61:22 15 4:24 103:5 2295 93:13
65:8,12 66:1 worry 158:25 109:16,18 245973 93:16
78:16 79:3,10 worrying 159:15 # 16 4:25 110:15 246210 93:16
79:22 80:12,14 worse 25:1,1 #75005 1:25 110:22 25 82:5,10 86:22
80:16,23 84:12 wouldn't 51:14 168:25 1605 93:12 96:3,18 97:1,7
85:19 89:15,23 65:21 70:18 0 166 4:6 98:3 100:1,2
90:7,9,10,12 78:10 86:17 17 5:1 115:6,9 100:25 101:13
01 46:15 133:6
90:12,20 91:7 91:1,15 97:15 1783 104:2 104:4 129:11
037607 99:9
95:5 97:13,20 100:4 101:22 18 5:2 103:5 142:23 143:1
037615 99:10
99:17 100:14 134:23 139:4 125:8,14 143:22 144:2
0381134 83:23
102:20 103:20 writing 115:17 19 4:10,11 5:3 25-foot 100:5,17
041373 125:19
105:18 106:14 written 36:14,14 125:19 126:9 102:1 146:14
041379 125:20
106:16,17,19 107:21 19th 111:1 126:1 150:10 151:2
05-4182 1:5
111:4,6,7 1985 10:1 26 46:2,5 49:19
X 06-2268 1:8
112:21 116:8 1986 11:16 52:23 54:6
118:8 134:9,11 X 4:1,1,7,7 1 1987 11:8,9,16 262217 125:10
134:18,19 1 4:10 19:10,14 1988 11:18 12:4 262221 125:10
135:9 138:23 Y 39:13 40:24 270 111:10
yeah 17:16 20:2 20:18 92:15
138:25 139:2,8 93:18 108:14 1993 40:25 41:11 28 103:5
139:22 140:10 28:21 31:10 1994 41:1,11
40:2 45:21 1st 84:15 3
140:20 148:13 10 4:19 38:25 1997 120:17
153:10,12,15 46:4,8 61:6 1998 41:14,15 3 4:12 26:17,20
64:25 68:14 86:12,16 99:9
153:16 154:18 1999 44:21 84:15 39:18 41:7
70:14 76:18 99:13 138:1
165:19 71:21,23 76:5
89:22 90:2 10th 107:7 2
worked 11:18 88:4 102:22
94:2 99:18 108:12
12:2,3,4,5,11 2 4:11 19:18,25 143:5
104:7 107:17 100 153:3
32:13 44:22 41:7 87:25 30 82:5,10
108:2 111:14 105 4:20
52:18 54:16 20 5:4 132:10,13 31 72:21
59:19 111:16 116:20 106 4:21 20th 1:14 167:25 324 92:16
128:16 137:9 107 4:22
workers 159:6 2000 25:8,24 36981 105:25
145:15 154:9 108 4:23
workforce 10:3 95:8
159:10 109 4:24 4
11:12 2000s 29:2
working 11:15 year 10:10 11:6 11 4:20 105:7,10 2001 46:15 59:4 4 4:13 40:18
15:19 25:4 11th 107:13 73:12,16
11:16 30:20 60:1 88:18
38:11 46:14 26:12 38:17,21 110 4:25 95:14,18 4th 75:24
40:19,23 41:6 115 5:1 107:13 108:7 4.2 96:4,5