Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 61

GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008

Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION


CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION NO. 05-4182 K2
JUDGE DUVAL
PERTAINS TO MAG. WILKINSON
(Robinson, No. 06-2268)

Deposition of GREGORY B. MILLER, given


at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans
District offices, 7400 Leake Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70118-3651, on April 16th,
2008.

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

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285


GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 2 Page 4
1 APPEARANCES: 1 REPRESENTING THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
2 REPRESENTING THE PLAINTIFFS: 2 CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OFFICE OF COUNSEL
3 3 (BY: FRANK LUPO, ESQUIRE)
4 BRUNO & BRUNO 4 7400 Leake Avenue
5 (BY: FLORIAN BUCHLER, ESQUIRE) 5 New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-3651
6 855 Baronne Street 6 504-862-2843
7 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 7
8 504-525-1335 8 ALSO PRESENT:
9 - and - 9 GREGORY A. KOURY, ESQ.
10 GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER & 10 KEA SHERMAN, ESQ.
11 WARSHAUER, L.L.C. 11 JENNY MORRIS, ESQ.
12 (BY: GERALD E. MEUNIER, ESQUIRE) 12 CHRISTOPHER THATCH, ESQ. (VIA I-DEP)
13 2800 Energy Centre 13 ERIC GOLDBERG, ESQ. (VIA I-DEP)
14 1100 Poydras Street 14 KIRK AURANDT, ESQ. (VIA I-DEP)
15 New Orleans, Louisiana 70163-2800 15 CHARLES M. LANIER, JR., ESQ. (I-DEP)
16 504-522-2304 16
17 - and - 17 VIDEOGRAPHER:
18 RICHARD M. MARTIN, JR. 18 GILLEY DELORIMIER (DEPO-VUE)
19 ATTORNEY AT LAW 19
20 20 Versailles Boulevard 20
21 New Orleans, Louisiana 70125 21
22 504-581-5297 22
23 23
24 24
25 25

Page 3 Page 5
1 - and - 1 EXAMINATION INDEX
2 THE GILBERT FIRM, LLC 2
3 (BY: ELISA TARA GILBERT, ESQUIRE) 3 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
4 (BY: BRENDAN R. O'BRIEN, ESQUIRE) 4
5 325 East 57th Street 5 MR. MEUNIER .................................7
6 New York, NY 10022 6 EXHIBIT INDEX
7 212-286-8503 7
8 - and - 8 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE
9 WIEDEMANN & WIEDEMANN 9 Exhibit G.M. 1 ..............................13
10 (BY: KAREN WIEDEMANN, ESQUIRE) 10 Exhibit G.M. 2 ..............................95
11 821 Baronne Street 11 Exhibit G.M. 3 .............................103
12 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 12 Exhibit G.M. 4A ............................221
13 504-581-6180 13 Exhibit G.M. 4B ............................221
14 14
15 REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 15
16 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 16
17 TORTS BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION 17
18 (BY: JESSICA SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE) 18
19 (BY: MICELE GREIF, ESQUIRE) 19
20 (BY: KARA MILLER, ESQUIRE) 20
21 (BY: SARA SOJA, ESQUIRE) 21
22 P.O. Box 888 22
23 Benjamin Franklin Station 23
24 Washington, D.C. 20044 24
25 202-616-4289 25

2 (Pages 2 to 5)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 6 Page 8
1 STIPULATION 1 A. I'm a senior project manager in our
2 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and 2 coastal restoration office.
3 among counsel for the parties hereto that the 3 Q. What are the duties and
4 deposition of the aforementioned witness may be 4 responsibilities of that position?
5 taken for all purposes permitted within the 5 A. I'm a team leader for a number of
6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in accordance 6 different coastal restoration projects, under
7 with law, pursuant to notice; 7 several programs, several federal programs: The
8 That all formalities, save reading 8 Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
9 and signing of the original transcript by the 9 Restoration Act; Louisiana Coastal Area;
10 deponent, are hereby specifically waived; 10 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration
11 That all objections, save those as to 11 Authority; um -- the Mississippi River Gulf
12 the form of the question and the responsiveness 12 Outlet Deep Draft Deep Draft De-authorization
13 of the answer, are reserved until such time as 13 Study; Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Ecosystem
14 this deposition, or any part thereof, is used 14 Restoration Effort, and an emerging project
15 or sought to be used in evidence. 15 called the Violet Diversion.
16 16 Q. How long have you worked for the Corps
17 17 of Engineers?
18 * * * 18 A. Approximately eight years.
19 19 Q. And who was your immediate supervisor?
20 20 A. Mr. Troy Constance.
21 21 Q. What is his job title?
22 JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR, 22 A. It's chief of the coastal restoration
23 Certified Court Reporter in and for the State 23 office.
24 of Louisiana, officiated in administering the 24 Q. And then to whom would he report? Who
25 oath to the witness. 25 is his supervisor?
Page 7 Page 9
1 GREGORY B. MILLER 1 A. Mr. Tom Podany. He's the Chief of the
2 724 Harrison Avenue, Metairie, Louisiana 70005, 2 Protection and Restoration Office.
3 a witness named in the above stipulation, 3 Q. Do you supervise people here at the
4 having been first duly sworn, was examined and 4 Corps in your day-to-day work?
5 testified on his oath as follows: 5 A. I do.
6 MS. SULLIVAN: 6 Q. Who are the people that you supervise?
7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7 Well, let me ask you this: How many people do
8 and the CMOs that are in place. 8 you have supervisory authority, direct
9 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 9 supervisory authority over?
10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Miller. I'm Jerry 10 A. I have direct authority over one
11 Meunier. I represent some of the plaintiffs in 11 individual, one vacant position, and
12 this case. 12 approximately ten or so contract employees.
13 Would you state your name and address, 13 Q. Who is the one individual currently
14 please. 14 here over whom you have supervisory authority?
15 A. I'm Gregory Miller. You want my home 15 A. Ms. Annette Chioma.
16 address? 16 Q. And what is her job position?
17 Q. Yes. 17 A. She's a project manager in the coastal
18 A. 471 Fairway Drive, New Orleans, 18 restoration office.
19 Louisiana 70124. 19 Q. And you say there's another position
20 Q. And you're employed by whom, sir? 20 that's currently vacant over which you would
21 A. The Army Corps of Engineers. 21 have supervision?
22 Q. How long have you worked for the Army 22 A. Yes.
23 Corps of Engineers? 23 Q. What's the title for that position?
24 A. Approximately eight years. 24 A. It's also a project management
25 Q. What's your current job position? 25 position.

3 (Pages 6 to 9)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 10 Page 12
1 Q. Okay. How long has that position been 1 Q. Okay. Give me some idea of the
2 vacant? 2 programs that you've recently attended through
3 A. Um -- about four months. 3 the sponsorship of the Corps. What subject
4 Q. Who occupied the position before it 4 areas have been discussed?
5 became vacant? 5 A. Project management professional
6 A. Ms. Cenceria Dalcourt. 6 certification.
7 Q. Tell me a little bit about the 7 Q. Professional certification in what
8 contract positions over which you have 8 area?
9 supervision. Who are they and which 9 A. Project management.
10 contractors are involved? 10 Q. In project management?
11 A. They're all project management 11 A. Yes, sir.
12 positions. 12 Q. But your field of specialization, if
13 You need to know the individual names; 13 you will, is wetlands and coastal erosion? Is
14 is that what you're looking for? 14 that correct?
15 Q. Well, can you name the companies 15 A. Yes, sir.
16 involved in respect to the contracts? 16 Q. So is it fair to say these programs
17 A. They work for a partnership firm 17 that you attend deal with project management in
18 called Evans-Graves that supplies project 18 those specific areas?
19 management support to the Corps of Engineers. 19 A. Well, that was just the last one that
20 Q. Where is Evans-Graves office, 20 I attended. But in general, yeah, they're
21 headquarters office? 21 usually focused on coastal issues, either
22 A. I don't know. 22 locally or nationally.
23 Q. So it's that one entity for whom these 23 Q. Okay. We have been given what appears
24 various contract people work that you 24 to be a summary of your education and
25 supervise? 25 background, et cetera. You've had a chance to
Page 11 Page 13
1 A. That's right. 1 look at this, I suppose.
2 Q. So they all work for the same company, 2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Evans-Graves, as far as you know? 3 Q. Is this current and up to date in all
4 A. As far as I know. That's right. 4 respects, as far as you know?
5 Q. Okay. What's the extent of your 5 A. Relatively, yes.
6 formal education? 6 Q. All right.
7 A. Um -- I have a Master's degree in 7 MR. MEUNIER:
8 marine affairs from the University of Rhode 8 Let me attach as Miller Number 1
9 Island. 9 the witness' background and
10 Q. Do you hold any additional 10 educational summary.
11 certificates that you've obtained since getting 11 (Exhibit G.M. 1 was marked for
12 your Master's? 12 identification and is attached hereto.)
13 A. No. 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
14 Q. Do you periodically attend, either 14 Q. Give me some idea, Mr. Miller, of your
15 through the Corps' sponsorship or otherwise, 15 work experience between the time you got your
16 seminars or training programs in your field? 16 Master's and joining the Corps of Engineers,
17 A. Yes. 17 you said roughly what, seven years ago?
18 Q. How often does that happen? 18 A. About eight years ago.
19 A. Roughly once a quarter, maybe. 19 Q. Or eight years ago.
20 Q. Okay. And are these held locally or 20 A. I worked, um -- after finishing my
21 at different places throughout the country? 21 Master's for the National Marine Fisheries
22 A. Various. 22 Service.
23 Q. Are they sponsored by the same entity 23 Q. That's a federal agency?
24 or by different entities? 24 A. Yes.
25 A. Different organizations. 25 Q. Okay. And how long did you work for

4 (Pages 10 to 13)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 14 Page 16
1 them? 1 Corps in various projects prior to joining
2 A. Well, at various stages, but after 2 them, is that true?
3 finishing graduate school for approximately 3 A. That is true.
4 five years. 4 Q. Have you always had the same job title
5 Q. All right. And is that called the 5 or position since you've been with the Corps?
6 NMFS? 6 A. No. I, um -- worked originally in the
7 A. Yes. 7 regulatory office here at the district, and
8 Q. And what was your job position or your 8 then approximately six months or so after that
9 job positions with NMFS? 9 became a project manager in our coastal
10 A. A fishery biologist. 10 restoration office, and have held essentially
11 Q. And is that an equivalent to a marine 11 that same position since that time.
12 biologist? Or is there any distinction between 12 Q. Now, are you aware that you've been
13 the two? 13 listed as a witness in this case, the case of
14 A. It's just a position title but, yeah, 14 Robinson and other versus the Corps of
15 roughly equivalent. 15 Engineers?
16 Q. Okay. Just in general, what were your 16 A. I suppose that's why I'm here.
17 job responsibilities for those five years as a 17 Q. Right. And are you aware that the
18 fisheries biologist? 18 subject matter that's been designated for your
19 A. In several different roles, um -- for 19 witness testimony is wetlands?
20 the National Marine Fisheries Service. One was 20 A. I'm just here to answer questions.
21 primarily focused on habitat restoration, 21 Q. Yes, sir. But were you aware before I
22 similar to the work that I do here at the Corps 22 just said that that that's how your subject
23 now. Other roles were Endangered Species Act, 23 area is designated on the witness list?
24 conservation efforts on Pacific salmon, 24 A. I wasn't, actually. There are a
25 Atlantic salmon, see turtles, whales, marine 25 number of different, um -- I guess reasons for
Page 15 Page 17
1 mammal protection. Here in Louisiana I worked 1 me to be here.
2 for the National Marine Fisheries Service here 2 Q. Well, that's what I wanted to unpack a
3 in Louisiana, as well, on habitat conservation, 3 little bit, because wetlands is a little broad.
4 basically review of wetlands development 4 Is it your understanding that the
5 permits, dredge and fill permits, as well as 5 testimony you will offer in this case deals
6 work on coastal restoration project 6 with the relationship between the MRGO and the
7 development. 7 wetlands in general?
8 Q. The five-year period when you worked 8 MS. SULLIVAN:
9 for the NMFS was both here in Louisiana and 9 Objection.
10 elsewhere? 10 But you can answer.
11 A. Yes, sir. 11 A. Um -- I guess, you know, I'm here
12 Q. For how long during that period were 12 because -- I believe that I'm here because of
13 you working outside of Louisiana? 13 my work on the MRGO and also some coastal
14 A. Approximately two to three years. 14 restoration experience.
15 Q. And then for the other couple of years 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
16 you were here in Louisiana? 16 Q. When you say work on the MRGO, why
17 A. Yeah. About two and a half years, I'd 17 don't you tell me what you mean by that.
18 say. 18 A. I have been the project manager for
19 Q. In the more recent period you were 19 the reevaluation of the MRGO navigation
20 here in Louisiana. 20 project, as well as the project manager for the
21 A. That's right. 21 deep draft de-authorization of the navigation
22 Q. What did you do after leaving the 22 channel.
23 NMFS? 23 Q. Is that the extent of your work on the
24 A. I joined the Corps of Engineers. 24 MRGO?
25 Q. Now, you have been working with the 25 A. In addition, I've developed, through

5 (Pages 14 to 17)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 18 Page 20
1 various teams, some coastal restoration 1 Q. Well, did you talk to Mr. Naomi in
2 projects on the channel. Or adjacent to the 2 anticipation of giving your deposition today?
3 channel, I guess. 3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. So your understanding about 4 Q. All right. Well, I'm curious as to
5 your role as a witness here is that your 5 what -- when did you meet with Mr. Naomi?
6 testimony will deal with your work as a project 6 A. I believe it was last Thursday, but
7 manager for the reevaluation of the MRGO, 7 I'm not sure. He and I work together on a
8 correct? 8 daily basis.
9 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Yeah. He's a friend of yours?
10 Q. It also will deal with your work as a 10 A. And he was in the office, and --
11 project manager for the deep draft 11 Q. Did you discuss your expected
12 de-authorization? 12 testimony either in this case or in the
13 A. That's correct. 13 deposition today?
14 Q. Or maybe it wasn't as project manager, 14 A. No. Not mine.
15 but your work in connection with the deep draft 15 Q. You discussed his?
16 de-authorization of the MRGO? 16 A. Yeah. He talked about it.
17 A. No, I am the project manager. 17 Q. Did that discussion with Mr. Naomi
18 Q. As the project manager. All right. 18 bear on any of the work you've done in the
19 And thirdly, you mentioned the fact that you 19 areas you mentioned that your testimony
20 have conducted certain coastal restoration 20 pertains to, namely, the reevaluation of the
21 projects for areas adjacent to the MRGO. 21 MRGO, the deep draft de-authorization, or the
22 A. That's right. 22 coastal restoration projects?
23 Q. Are there any other areas besides 23 A. No.
24 those three where you have done work with the 24 Q. Let me begin, Mr. Miller, with just
25 MRGO as to which you believe you will be giving 25 some general terms.
Page 19 Page 21
1 testimony? 1 What is the distinction, if any,
2 A. Not that I'm aware of. 2 between marsh and wetlands?
3 Q. Have you reviewed any documents in 3 A. Well, I guess in general marsh is a
4 connection with getting ready for your 4 type of wetland.
5 deposition today? 5 Q. Marsh is a type of wetland?
6 A. No. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Have you had any meetings with 7 Q. What's your definition of wetlands?
8 individuals, than counsel for the United States 8 A. I guess I don't have a formal
9 or Corps of Engineers, in order to get ready 9 definition, um -- but essentially, it's an area
10 for your deposition? 10 that, um -- that is affected by water, that
11 A. Um -- 11 typically can support, um -- either -- I guess
12 Q. And you don't have to look to counsel 12 the technical term is hydrophytic vegetation.
13 for your answers on this. Unless there is an 13 Q. You have spell that for me.
14 objection, you can proceed. 14 A. It's H-Y-D-R-O-P-H-Y-T-I-C, I believe.
15 A. Thank you. I've talked to, um -- I 15 But essentially, those are plants that are
16 talked to Al Naomi. He's a friend of mine, and 16 adapted to live in water.
17 he, um -- I believe was here recently, as well. 17 Q. Okay. So it's an area affected by
18 Q. He gave a deposition recently. 18 water which can support hydrophytic vegetation.
19 A. (Nods affirmatively.) 19 A. Right. And there's an entire, um --
20 Q. Anyone else, again besides counsel, 20 area of science devoted to the definition of
21 that you've met with in connection with getting 21 the wetland, and I wouldn't even pretend to be
22 ready for your deposition? 22 able to start listing all of the different
23 A. Well, I wouldn't call it getting 23 aspects of that.
24 ready. You know, as I mentioned, they're 24 Q. All right. But you know more about it
25 colleagues and friend of mine. 25 than I do, so I'm interested in what -- is that

6 (Pages 18 to 21)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 22 Page 24
1 your definition? When you think of wetlands, 1 tidally influenced. You have prairie marshes
2 is that what your definition of it would be? 2 outside of Louisiana, for example.
3 A. Yeah. 3 Q. Is the marsh that is found adjacent to
4 Q. Okay. 4 the route and course of the MRGO the type of
5 A. Sure. It depends on who I'm talking 5 marsh that you have just described?
6 to. If it's a school kid -- 6 MS. SULLIVAN:
7 Q. You're talking to a school kid now. 7 I'm going to object because I
8 A. No, I didn't mean that. 8 think it's a little vague.
9 Q. No, for purposes of this, that would 9 Is there a particular area you're
10 be a basic -- 10 talking about, or the entire MRGO?
11 A. Yeah, in general, when we talk to the 11 MR. MEUNIER:
12 public that's typically how we would describe. 12 Just what I said.
13 Q. Now, you say marsh is a type of 13 MS. SULLIVAN:
14 wetland. What do you mean way that? 14 Okay.
15 A. Well, wetland is I guess an 15 A. Could you repeat it for me, please?
16 overarching term, and marsh would fall 16 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
17 underneath that in the sense that there are 17 Q. All right. Is the marsh that you've
18 different types of wetlands. There's flooded 18 just talked about found along the route or
19 forest -- outside of Louisiana there are types, 19 course of the MRGO?
20 prairie pothole, for example. 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I'm sorry? 21 Q. And the wetlands, as you've described
22 A. Prairie pothole wetlands. 22 it, are also found along the course and route
23 Q. Okay. 23 of the MRGO, correct?
24 A. You know, we have a lot of riverine 24 A. Yes.
25 flooded forests, swamp, and then tidal 25 Q. Is it fair to say that there are
Page 23 Page 25
1 wetlands. And within tidal wetlands there are 1 thousands of acres of marsh and wetlands
2 various types, as well. So that's -- my point 2 adjacent to and along the route of the MRGO?
3 is wetland is the overarching term. Marsh is a 3 MS. SULLIVAN:
4 general term that falls underneath that. 4 Objection.
5 Q. Okay. Give me your just general, 5 But you can answer.
6 simple, basic definition of marsh as a type of 6 A. I think that's fair to say. It
7 wetlands as opposed to other types of wetlands. 7 depends on how you draw the definition of
8 How would you define marsh? Other 8 around it, but yes, that's fair.
9 than the fact that it's a type of wetland, I 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
10 mean. 10 Q. I mean, it depends on what I mean by
11 A. Based on, you know, our experience 11 adjacent is what you're saying.
12 here, we typically define marsh as -- it's not 12 A. Well, sure.
13 a forested area, it's a, um -- especially in 13 Q. Okay. Yeah. Well, is it fair to say
14 most of the work that I do, it's a tidally 14 that there are thousands of acres of wetlands
15 influenced vegetated, um -- you know, wetland. 15 and marsh which are immediately adjacent to the
16 Q. Okay. 16 route and course of the MRGO?
17 A. You said not to use wetland, but it 17 A. Yes.
18 is. 18 Q. Would you agree that those areas of
19 Q. Okay. So a marsh would be an open, 19 marsh and wetlands that are immediately
20 that is not forested, tidally influenced area 20 adjacent to the MRGO serve a valuable purpose?
21 of wetlands. 21 MS. SULLIVAN:
22 A. For the area -- 22 Objection, but --
23 Q. For Louisiana. 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
24 A. -- that I've done most of my work in. 24 Q. Let me say serve one or more valuable
25 You also have freshwater marsh that's not 25 purposes.

7 (Pages 22 to 25)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 26 Page 28
1 A. I believe they do, yes. 1 system.
2 Q. Would you agree that one of the things 2 A. I believe that wetlands and marshes in
3 that makes those wetlands and marsh areas 3 that area are part of a system, um -- and in
4 valuable is that they serve as a buffer or 4 the sense that there are storms that impact
5 barrier against hurricane storm surges? 5 that system, there is a role that they play in
6 A. In terms of what; in other words, are 6 that.
7 they between one area and another, or do 7 Q. And the role that they play in the
8 they -- I'm not sure I understand what you're 8 system has to do with serving as a buffer or
9 looking for. 9 barrier against surge, true?
10 Q. All right. Let me try to make myself 10 Is that what you mean by a role,
11 more clear. I realize this is a broad 11 Mr. Miller?
12 question. We're talking about a large area of 12 A. I guess what I'm worried is that
13 thousands of acres of marsh and wetland that's 13 you're trying to get me to make -- or you're
14 immediately adjacent to the MRGO. I understand 14 asking me if I can place a magnitude of that
15 that. You've acknowledged that that territory, 15 value.
16 that marsh and wetland adjacent to the MRGO, 16 Q. Not asking that right now.
17 does serve valuable purpose. 17 A. Not yet at least. Um --
18 A. That's right. 18 Q. Well, I'm sensing you're hesitant to
19 Q. My question is if one of the valuable 19 do that.
20 purposes served by the marshes and wetlands 20 A. Because I don't want to answer
21 that we find along the MRGO, if one of the 21 something that's outside of my technical field.
22 valuable purposes is serving as a barrier or 22 Q. I understand. And this is a general
23 buffer, or a natural protection against storm 23 question. And really, I was really trying to
24 surges and hurricanes. 24 follow up and understand a little bit more
25 MS. SULLIVAN: 25 clearly, when you say the role they play in the
Page 27 Page 29
1 Objection. It's vague. 1 system, I'm just trying to clarify for the
2 But you can answer. 2 record that you're specifically talking about a
3 A. I believe that wetlands play a role in 3 role they play in connection with serving as a
4 the system. 4 natural barrier against storm surge. Because
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 5 that was my question.
6 Q. All right. 6 A. I believe they do. Um -- and I'll
7 A. Um -- the idea of value might get into 7 explain it in the layman terms.
8 a technical area that I can't really, um -- 8 Q. Okay.
9 that I don't have the expertise in to answer. 9 A. I think it's more valuable, if you
10 Q. So you think that -- or you agree that 10 will, to have something there than to have
11 these marshes and wetlands that we're talking 11 nothing there, in that sense, um --
12 about adjacent to the MRGO play a role in the 12 Q. So that by being there, one of the
13 system. 13 functions they perform is to serve as some
14 A. That's correct. 14 barrier or protection against surge.
15 Q. And the role that you are talking 15 MS. SULLIVAN:
16 about is that they serve, to the extent they 16 I'm going to object. Just make
17 are there, as a barrier or protection against 17 it continuing to this line of
18 storm surge and hurricanes. 18 questioning.
19 MS. SULLIVAN: 19 But if you can answer that, go
20 Objection. I don't think he said 20 ahead.
21 that. 21 A. There is some value to that.
22 But you can answer. 22 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 23 Q. Okay. Now, I've asked this in the
24 Q. I didn't say you said it. I'm asking 24 present tense, I realize, so let me elaborate
25 if that's the role you say they play in the 25 on the questioning a little bit in terms of the

8 (Pages 26 to 29)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 30 Page 32
1 time reference. 1 A. I believe the answer -- the channel,
2 Do you agree that the MRGO, over the 2 um -- construction and operation and others has
3 years that it's been in existence, has, because 3 had an effect on the amount of wetlands out
4 of saltwater intrusion, diminished the amount 4 there. Um -- there are also a number of other
5 of marsh and wetlands along certain areas 5 factors involved in wetland loss and coastal
6 adjacent to the course of the MRGO? 6 erosion in that area. Um -- again, I'm kind of
7 MS. SULLIVAN: 7 reluctant in terms of the, um -- connection to
8 I'm going to object on the 8 surge. Um -- I just don't know that I have the
9 grounds of him being produced as a 9 technical expertise to make that valuation
10 fact witness today and that this is 10 there. I do believe -- as you asked me, I do
11 sort of -- we're getting into areas 11 believe there's a role, I do believe there is
12 that are opinion-based. Just as long 12 an impact.
13 as that's clear on the record. 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
14 But if you can answer that, go 14 Q. Right.
15 ahead. 15 A. But in terms of, um -- especially
16 A. Could you state it again for me, 16 comparatively surge, I don't know that I have
17 please? 17 the, um -- technical expertise to make that
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 18 call.
19 Q. All right. Do you agree that the MRGO 19 Q. All right. You made the comment that
20 over the years that it's been in existence has 20 you weren't sure about the reference to
21 had the effect of diminishing the amount of 21 saltwater intrusion in my question about the
22 marsh and wetland in the areas adjacent to the 22 effect of the MRGO on diminished wetlands and,
23 MRGO because of saltwater intrusion? 23 in turn, barriers and protection against surge.
24 A. I do, to some extent. 24 What was your concern about my
25 Q. Okay. Do you believe that to the 25 connecting saltwater intrusion to the question?
Page 31 Page 33
1 extent the MRGO has had the effect of 1 A. In general, um -- the presence of the
2 diminishing wetland and marshes adjacent to the 2 channel allows saltwater intrusion, and the
3 MRGO it, because of that, has diminished the 3 result of that is not necessarily a loss of
4 extent of natural barriers and protection 4 wetlands, it can be a transition from one
5 against storm surge? 5 wetland type to another. Um -- that was my --
6 MS. SULLIVAN: 6 Q. Uh-huh.
7 I have a continuing objection. 7 A. -- my caution there.
8 But you can go ahead. 8 Q. Do you mean by that that the MRGO, by
9 A. I don't know that the saltwater 9 introducing saltwater obviously into the areas
10 intrusion aspect of that is really associated 10 through which it courses, has had the effect of
11 with it. 11 converting adjacent marsh and wetland from
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 12 freshwater marsh and wetland to saltwater marsh
13 Q. Let's take saltwater intrusion out of 13 and wetland?
14 the question. My question is, you acknowledge 14 A. That's right, in general. And other
15 that the MRGO has had the effect of diminishing 15 types, as well.
16 the amount of wetland and marshes along the 16 Q. Now, what is the effect of saltwater
17 course of the MRGO, correct? 17 on bald cypress?
18 A. I do. 18 MS. SULLIVAN:
19 Q. All right. Because of that, do you 19 Objection. That's vague.
20 agree that the MRGO has had the effect of 20 But if you can answer.
21 reducing the amount of natural barrier and 21 A. I'm not a botanist, so I really can't
22 protection against storm surge? 22 give you a direct answer in terms of --
23 MS. SULLIVAN: 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
24 Objection. 24 Q. How about an indirect answer? I
25 You can answer. 25 mean --

9 (Pages 30 to 33)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 34 Page 36
1 A. I can give you a scientific -- 1 you know, it's connected, um -- you know, it's
2 Q. You're a marine scientist, right? You 2 part of the system in that sense. Um -- and
3 know the effects of saltwater on vegetation, 3 then, you know, I want to be careful. I said
4 don't you? 4 thriving. I don't know if there's some formal
5 A. I think I know where you're going, but 5 definition of that, but the trees are there and
6 I can also take you to places that are directly 6 they're alive.
7 adjacent to or connected to the MRGO and 7 Q. Okay. You don't have any basis to
8 cypress is thriving, so I don't know -- 8 compare how they're doing today with how
9 Q. Without telling me where I'm going, 9 they've done in previous years.
10 I'm trying to find out what you know. So my 10 A. No.
11 question is if you think saltwater helps 11 Q. So is it your testimony -- we'll move
12 support cypress, then that's your answer. 12 on, but is it your testimony that you don't
13 A. That's not what I said. And no, I 13 know the relationship between saltwater
14 don't think that. 14 intrusion and the viability of the tree we call
15 Q. Well, you made a reference to where 15 the bald cypress? Is that your testimony?
16 saltwater -- I mean where bald cypress is 16 A. I guess I was just trying to be
17 thriving. 17 careful about a blanket statement in that
18 A. No, a specific location. 18 sense. Um -- I can -- as I say, I can think of
19 Q. Because of saltwater? 19 areas where there are trees, cypress trees,
20 A. I'm just showing you that there is an 20 affected by saltwater that are growing and
21 area of cypress wetlands that is affected by 21 alive. Um --
22 saltwater from the MRGO, and the cypress is 22 Q. But in general, as a witness who's
23 fine. 23 going to testify about wetlands, isn't it true,
24 Q. Bald cypress? 24 Mr. Miller, that saltwater is not good for the
25 A. I don't know -- I'm not sure of the 25 bald cypress tree?
Page 35 Page 37
1 species. 1 MS. SULLIVAN:
2 Q. What area are you talking about where 2 Objection. Vague.
3 you think cypress is fine despite saltwater 3 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
4 intrusion? 4 Q. Would you agree with that general
5 A. There's several locations, um -- in 5 statement?
6 St. Bernard Parish at the outfall of some 6 A. I agree.
7 drainage pumping stations. 7 Q. Would you agree with the general
8 Q. And when is the last time you were at 8 statement that saltwater is not good for
9 that area? 9 tupelo?
10 A. Sunday afternoon. 10 MS. SULLIVAN:
11 Q. For what purpose? 11 Objection.
12 A. I went fishing. 12 A. I'm not sure.
13 Q. Okay. Did you take pictures? 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
14 A. No. 14 Q. Now, you indicated in answer to my
15 Q. And you observed cypress, although 15 previous question that you were aware of the
16 you're not sure it was bald cypress, thriving 16 relationship between the MRGO 's existence and
17 in an area where there was saltwater? Is that 17 the reduction in the amount of marsh and
18 your testimony? 18 wetland in areas adjacent to the MRGO, correct?
19 MS. SULLIVAN: 19 A. That's right.
20 Object. Asking him to speculate. 20 Q. For how long a period of time have you
21 But if you know the answer -- 21 been aware of that?
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 22 A. I guess about fifteen years. Ten to
23 Q. This is not speculation. Based on 23 fifteen years, somewhere in that time frame.
24 what you observed when you were out there. 24 Q. So your awareness of that covers the
25 A. Well, I didn't test the water, but, 25 entire period of time you've worked for the

10 (Pages 34 to 37)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 38 Page 40
1 federal government. 1 Q. You so you didn't have any government
2 A. Not quite. 2 employment while you were in college.
3 Q. You have eight years here and five 3 A. No. No.
4 years with the NMFS? 4 Q. Then between '90 and getting your
5 A. You asked me, I believe, about my 5 Master's in '95, what was your work experience?
6 experience from after I graduated from -- after 6 A. I worked in, um -- Everglades National
7 I earned my Master's degree. I didn't tell you 7 Park. I was a biological technician, um -- did
8 about experience prior to that because you 8 field work in Florida Bay, and lab work at the
9 didn't ask. 9 facility in the park.
10 Q. Oh. You had federal government 10 Are you interested in durations or --
11 experience -- employment, rather, prior to 11 Q. Well, I'm interested in -- the way we
12 getting your Master's. 12 got here was my asking you to date for me your
13 A. That's correct. 13 initial awareness of the fact that there have
14 Q. All right. Let's go back to that. 14 been a loss of wetlands and marshes adjacent to
15 I'm sorry. What was your work experience prior 15 the MRGO, and I asked you if that awareness
16 to getting your Master's? 16 covered your entire thirteen-year period of
17 A. How far back do you want me -- 17 employment with NMFS and the Corps, and I think
18 Q. Well, you got your BS in 1990 and your 18 you indicated, well, I had some prior
19 Master's in '95. 19 government employment.
20 A. That's right. 20 A. Right. Right. I can just run that
21 Q. Did you work while you were in 21 through.
22 college? 22 Q. Why don't you run through it, yeah.
23 A. I did. 23 A. After I worked in Everglades National
24 Q. You did? 24 Park, um -- I was hired as a biological
25 A. I did. 25 technician at the National Marine Fisheries
Page 39 Page 41
1 Q. What was your employment when you were 1 Service lab in Panama City, Florida.
2 at the University of Alabama getting your 2 Q. Uh-huh.
3 bachelor of science? 3 A. Began lab work and field work, um --
4 A. I worked, um -- I assume mostly 4 all fisheries related, not wetlands.
5 technical -- professionally relevant? You 5 Um -- I also, after going -- starting
6 don't want to know about my bartending? 6 graduate school, worked for the National Marine
7 Q. I don't need to know about your 7 Fisheries Service in their habitat conservation
8 bartending days, right. 8 office in Baton Rouge, which is where I
9 A. Um -- I was a student worker at the 9 eventually also worked in the late nineties.
10 Dauphine Island Sea Lab in Alabama for one 10 Q. And that was for whom? I'm sorry.
11 summer. 11 A. National Marine Fisheries Service.
12 Q. All right. What was your job 12 Q. Okay. All right. So let's gets back
13 responsibility? 13 to the relationship between the MRGO and loss
14 A. I worked in the library at the sea 14 of wetlands.
15 lab. 15 When did you first become aware of the
16 Q. You did research? 16 relationship between the existence of the MRGO
17 A. I was -- not really, no. 17 and the loss of the -- of marsh and wetlands in
18 Q. Okay. 18 areas adjacent to the MRGO?
19 A. I would, um -- put books back on the 19 A. I guess that would be around 1993.
20 shelf and pull journal articles and such for 20 Q. And how did you first become aware of
21 professors and things like that. 21 that relationship?
22 Q. All right. Did you do reading on 22 A. I don't recall specifically, but part
23 wetlands and coastal restoration and 23 of my job in that office was coastal
24 conservation? 24 restoration, um -- you know, planning --
25 A. Not at that time. No. 25 assessing areas of the coast and trying to plan

11 (Pages 38 to 41)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 42 Page 44
1 for restoration projects and, um -- part of the 1 recollection that I have, or is it --
2 area that I worked in was, um -- Orleans and 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
3 St. Bernard, um -- the wetland around the MRGO. 3 Q. No. No. I'm asking a broader
4 Q. Uh-huh. When you became aware and 4 question, about the discussions that you had on
5 continued to have awareness of the fact that 5 this subject dating back to the mid to late
6 the MRGO was associated with wetlands and marsh 6 nineties. I realize I'm capturing a number of
7 loss, did you have communications with fellow 7 different discussions, or I may be, so I mean
8 workers in the federal government about that 8 this to apply to all those discussions. In
9 fact? 9 those discussions that you personally have been
10 MS. SULLIVAN: 10 part of, do I assume correctly that there's
11 Objection. 11 been reference to both the economic advantages
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 12 of the MRGO as a navigational channel and the
13 Q. Was it the subject of professional 13 environmental disadvantages of the MRGO?
14 discussion, I should say? 14 MS. SULLIVAN:
15 A. You know, it was fifteen years ago. 15 Objection.
16 Q. I know I'm covering a long period of 16 You can answer.
17 time. 17 A. In general, and specifically much more
18 A. Yeah. I would assume there -- the 18 recently, um -- our discussions, if you will,
19 types of discussions we would have had in the 19 have been focused on assessing both the
20 office, and with others in the field, would 20 navigation benefits as well as, um -- you know,
21 have been about how to restore wetlands in that 21 problems or opportunities in terms of wetlands
22 area. That was really the focus of the work. 22 loss and wetlands restoration --
23 Q. Uh-huh. 23 Q. Well -- I'm sorry.
24 A. It's really been the focus of the work 24 A. -- um -- if the focus is more on he
25 that I've done the majority of my career. 25 earlier discussions --
Page 43 Page 45
1 Q. Uh-huh. Right. In attending to the 1 Q. Uh-huh.
2 issue of restoration of wetlands, particularly 2 A. -- um -- there was a recognition of
3 specifically in the areas where there have been 3 the navigation aspect of this channel, as well
4 loss of wetlands adjacent to the MRGO, do you 4 as others in Louisiana, um -- in terms of
5 recall having a discussions with colleagues in 5 opportunities for, um -- protecting wetlands as
6 the federal government about the possibility of 6 well as opportunities to restore wetlands. So,
7 closing the MRGO? 7 you know, for quite some time in terms of
8 MS. SULLIVAN: 8 looking at it, and especially in terms of my
9 Objection. 9 experience, much more so recently in terms of
10 You can answer. 10 the role of looking at the assessment of both
11 A. I do. 11 navigation and coastal wetlands.
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 12 Q. Uh-huh. In your employment, both with
13 Q. When is the earliest date that you can 13 the NMFS And the Corps, I want to cover both
14 recall having discussions with colleagues about 14 periods for a moment, have you been called on
15 the closure of the MRGO? 15 to offer your personal belief as to whether it
16 A. I would think sometime in the mid to 16 would be advisable to close the MRGO because of
17 late nineties. 17 its environmental impact on wetlands and marsh?
18 Q. I assume in those discussions it was 18 MS. SULLIVAN:
19 recognized that there were navigational 19 Objection.
20 benefits of the MRGO that needed to be weighed 20 A. Could you repeat it for me, please?
21 against environmental disadvantages of the 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
22 MRGO. True? 22 Q. In connection with your employment
23 MS. SULLIVAN: 23 with both agencies, have you been called on to
24 Objection. 24 offer your personal belief as to whether it
25 A. Is your question focused at the first 25 would be advisable to close the MRGO because of

12 (Pages 42 to 45)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 46 Page 48
1 its environmental impact on marsh and wetlands? 1 that -- and it sort of depends on what you
2 A. Not my personal belief, no. 2 define as closing the MRGO. But, um -- I
3 Q. No one has ever asked you that. 3 believe based on a number of factors,
4 A. They have not asked me what do I -- 4 economics, wetlands, um -- public opinion, a
5 Q. Yeah. 5 number of factors, that closing the channel is
6 A. -- believe? 6 a good plan, a good option.
7 Q. Yeah. Like Greg, you're a wetlands 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
8 guy, what do you think? Something like that. 8 Q. How long have you held that personal
9 That's never been asked of you before? 9 opinion?
10 A. In the professional context or 10 MS. SULLIVAN:
11 personal relations outside of -- 11 It's a continuing objection.
12 Q. All right. Well, let's deal first 12 Go ahead.
13 with the professional. 13 A. Probably fifteen years.
14 In connection with your official 14 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
15 duties and responsibilities as a government 15 Q. And I want to make sure I understand
16 employee for those agencies, have you ever been 16 before we move on. You've had that opinion for
17 invited or called on to express that belief or 17 fifteen years, but you've never been asked by
18 position as to whether it would be advisable to 18 anyone within either the NMFS or the Corps of
19 close this channel because of its environmental 19 Engineers to express your opinion on that
20 impact on wetland and marsh? 20 subject; is that true?
21 MS. SULLIVAN: 21 A. No --
22 Objection. 22 MS. SULLIVAN:
23 But you can answer. 23 Go ahead?
24 A. I don't know that I've been asked 24 A. Not my personal opinion.
25 directly, personally, Mr. Miller, what do you 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
Page 47 Page 49
1 think we should do? 1 Q. Okay. Did you ever reduce that
2 Q. Okay. 2 opinion to a written form in the way of a
3 A. I have been asked about, um -- you 3 letter, E-mail, memo of any kind, prior to
4 know, our assessment, if you will, of all the 4 Hurricane Katrina?
5 various aspects or components of the issue of 5 A. No. Not that I recall, I guess.
6 the MRGO. 6 Q. Okay. Have you ever expressed that
7 Q. Well, do I take it from that answer 7 opinion to your friend Mr. Naomi?
8 that you have been asked to be part of an 8 MS. SULLIVAN:
9 assessment of the environmental impact of the 9 Objection.
10 MRGO on wetlands and marsh? 10 You can answer.
11 A. Yes. 11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay. And I want to ask you about 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
13 that, but let me go back to the other question. 13 Q. Is today, April 16, 2008, the first
14 Do you have, as someone who has worked 14 time you've ever expressed that opinion in your
15 in wetlands conservation, et cetera, and based 15 more official capacity as a federal government
16 on your professional training and experience, 16 employee?
17 do you have a belief today as to whether it 17 MS. SULLIVAN:
18 would be advisable to close the MRGO because of 18 Same objection.
19 its environmental impact on marsh and wetlands? 19 A. I guess the trouble I'm having with
20 MS. SULLIVAN: 20 this is the idea of a personal opinion versus a
21 Objection. It's calling for 21 professional, um -- assessment under a set of
22 opinion testimony. Again he's being 22 rules and presentation of, you know,
23 produced as a fact witness. 23 information about a subject, and then a
24 But you can answer the question. 24 recommendation. That, to me, is different than
25 A. I believe based on a number of factors 25 a personal opinion. That's -- I guess that's

13 (Pages 46 to 49)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 50 Page 52
1 why I'm having a little trouble with your 1 coastal area plan that had components or
2 questions. 2 features that protected the shoreline of the
3 Q. Fair enough. All right. Well, let's 3 MRGO to stop erosion, and shipping and other
4 clarify that. I understand your concern about 4 vessels would still be able to utilize the
5 it. 5 channel under that condition, with limits to
6 It is your personal opinion, and I 6 the amount of erosion it would have.
7 gather it has been for a number of years, you 7 We've also developed plans without
8 said I think fifteen years, that all things 8 taking navigation off of the channel for
9 considered it would be advisable to close the 9 additional restoration of wetlands anyone area.
10 MRGO because of its environmental impact on 10 Q. All right. So if I understand you
11 marsh and wetlands. True? Talking about your 11 correctly, your professional judgment leads you
12 personal opinion now. 12 to be able to see ways in which the MRGO could
13 A. I believe so, yes. 13 remain open and efforts could continue to
14 Q. Now, let me ask you to put on another 14 protect wetland and marshes.
15 hat. And now we're talking about your 15 A. Correct.
16 professional judgment. I'm not talking about 16 Q. And you acknowledge those ways and
17 Greg Miller the individual citizen, now, I'm 17 means of doing that. But my question is
18 talking about Greg Miller the wetlands 18 slightly different.
19 official, if you will, with these government 19 It is your professional judgment,
20 agencies. 20 isn't it, that the MRGO has had an adverse
21 Is it your professional judgment that 21 impact on the marsh and wetland areas adjacent
22 it would be advisable to close the MRGO because 22 to the channel?
23 of, among other things, its environmental 23 MS. SULLIVAN:
24 impact on the marsh and wetlands in areas 24 Objection.
25 adjacent to the channel? 25 If you can answer it.
Page 51 Page 53
1 MS. SULLIVAN: 1 A. I believe that, yes.
2 Objection. Again calling for an 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
3 opinion. And it's vague. 3 Q. Okay. Given that, do you have a
4 But if you can answer go ahead. 4 professional judgment as to whether it would be
5 A. In my professional experience, um -- 5 advisable to close the MRGO?
6 the work that I've done has looked at this in a 6 MS. SULLIVAN:
7 number of ways, and I did see ways that the 7 Objection.
8 channel could remain open in that sense for 8 A. Yes. I do.
9 navigation and still be -- and still have, 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
10 um -- economic benefits and no impact -- or a 10 Q. What is that judgment?
11 diminished impact on wetlands. No continuing 11 MR. LUPO:
12 impact on wetlands. I've seen it that way, and 12 It's potentially a deliberative
13 I've also seen it, um -- in terms of, um -- you 13 process, so I need to clarify what
14 know, the economic, um -- status of it, if you 14 exactly you asked him.
15 will, and the long-term, um -- you know, the 15 MR. MEUNIER:
16 long-term impact to wetlands if certain, um -- 16 I asked him whether he had a
17 certain steps weren't taken. In other words, 17 professional judgment, given the
18 my point from a professional standpoint is, I 18 environmental impact of the MRGO on
19 could work with the channel open for 19 marsh and wetland, as to whether it
20 navigation, or closed, and focus on how to 20 would be advisable to close the MRGO.
21 protect wetlands in either case. And I've done 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
22 that. 22 Q. I didn't ask what it was, I just asked
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 23 whether you had such a judgment on that issue.
24 Q. Uh-huh. 24 MR. LUPO:
25 A. We have a, um -- we had a Louisiana 25 Can I ask you to clarify your

14 (Pages 50 to 53)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 54 Page 56
1 question in the sense are you asking 1 Q. Right.
2 him as someone with a Master's in 2 A. But in terms of professional
3 whatever, fisheries, or whether as 3 assessment, you know, it's been a topic of
4 someone employed with the Corps as a 4 consideration for a decade or longer -- at
5 project manager? 5 least in my involvement for a decade or longer.
6 MR. MEUNIER: 6 Q. The topic being whether to close the
7 Well, let's break it up. 7 MRGO.
8 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Let's ask it first based upon your 9 Q. Right. So this has been the topic of
10 role, your capacity as a -- 10 discussion and deliberation both within the
11 MR. LUPO: 11 NMFS And the Corps, in your experience, working
12 With his Master's degree he's not 12 for both agencies?
13 employed with the Corps as a fisheries 13 A. Yes.
14 scientist. 14 Q. And in connection with that, did I
15 THE WITNESS: 15 understand your earlier testimony to be that no
16 That's right. 16 one has ever asked you what your professional
17 MR. LUPO: 17 judgment is as to that question of closure? Is
18 And so in that sense he cannot 18 that true?
19 answer professionally. There's other 19 A. Professionally?
20 people at the Corps who would analyze 20 Q. Yeah.
21 it from that perspective. 21 A. No, I've definitely --
22 MR. MEUNIER: 22 Q. You have been asked that.
23 Well, I don't know if I 23 A. Sure.
24 understand the objection because, you 24 Q. All right. So I need to go back, now,
25 know, he can tell me either yes or no 25 and ask you, have you formed a professional
Page 55 Page 57
1 in answer to whether he has the 1 judgment, and again, growing out of these
2 judgment. 2 discussions on this topic -- both in your years
3 (Off the record.) 3 with NMFS and the Corps, have you formed a
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 4 professional judgment as to that question of
5 Q. Let's try to clarify things, 5 closure?
6 Mr. Miller. I've tried, because of your 6 MS. SULLIVAN:
7 concerns about whether you were speaking from 7 Objection.
8 the standpoint of personal opinion or whether 8 You can answer.
9 you were speaking from the standpoint of what 9 A. I have. I thought I had answered that
10 I'm calling your professional experience, and I 10 but, yeah.
11 don't really still understand the distinction 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
12 there, but -- 12 Q. Yeah. And your judgment is that it
13 A. Well, I can explain it to you if you 13 should be closed?
14 want. 14 A. Well, again, my judgment is that I can
15 Q. Okay. Good. 15 look at it from a number of ways. I can look
16 A. I've never been asked, what do you 16 at it in terms of ways to operate the channel,
17 think, Greg, what should we do? 17 um -- and help, um -- prevent erosion as well
18 Q. Uh-huh. 18 as do restoration in that area, um -- and I can
19 A. Personally what do you think? I never 19 see it from other ways, as well, to close the
20 been that, which I believe was what your 20 channel to navigation and continue to pursue
21 question was. 21 restoration opportunities. I can see it both
22 Q. Yeah. We've covered that. I think 22 ways. And I've had, um -- that professional
23 today is the first time anyone asked you that. 23 opinion over, um -- you know, the course of
24 A. No, in terms of -- yeah. Yeah. 24 time that I've worked with it.
25 Personal opinion. 25 Q. So the question is -- I understand you

15 (Pages 54 to 57)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 58 Page 60
1 see both sides, but the question is closure or 1 I don't know that it's as clear cut as, um --
2 no closure, whether or not. And my question to 2 as I think you've asked it.
3 you is, have you formed a professional judgment 3 Q. Yes, sir. And I really -- the
4 as to whether or not it should be closed? Is 4 question was meant to either be yes or no.
5 it your answer that your judgment is either 5 A. I probably made it more difficult than
6 way, that is, that it doesn't matter? I'm not 6 you wanted. I'm sorry.
7 sure I understand the answer. 7 Q. So in answer to my question whether
8 MS. SULLIVAN: 8 you have or have not formed a professional
9 Objection. I don't know if the 9 judgment on the issue of the closure of the
10 question is clear. 10 MRGO due to its environmental impact on wetland
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 11 and marshes, is the answer no, that you don't
12 Q. Well, you've told us you see both 12 have a judgment as to whether it should or
13 sides. My question is, do you have a 13 should not be closed?
14 professional judgment -- have you formed one, 14 MS. SULLIVAN:
15 given both sides of the question, as to whether 15 Objection.
16 it would be advisable to close the MRGO? 16 A. I have a, you know, a professional and
17 MS. SULLIVAN: 17 a personal judgment on that.
18 Objection. 18 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
19 A. I guess I look at -- you know, I'm 19 Q. And what is that?
20 trying to make sure that you understand that I 20 A. Well, my personal opinion is that,
21 can look at this either way, that the issue of 21 yes, it should be closed. My professional
22 whether the channel is open or closed is not 22 opinion is that based on economics and a number
23 necessarily, um -- it's not that clear-cut in 23 of other factors, the channel should be closed.
24 the sense that there are ways to still do the 24 Q. Okay. All right. Good.
25 work that I do whether that channel is open for 25 A. That's also the recommendation of the
Page 59 Page 61
1 navigation or closed. 1 Chief of Engineers.
2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 2 Q. Yes, I know. Yeah. Now, and you
3 Q. I understand. 3 coauthored the de-authorization report, didn't
4 A. And I see that, and I think in 4 you?
5 Louisiana, and there are examples from other 5 A. I don't know about coauthored, but I
6 parts of the coast, that that's exactly how we 6 led the development of it.
7 have to look at things because there are 7 Q. Maybe they're giving you more credit,
8 factors that are not controlled by the programs 8 but I thought that's what the designation said.
9 in which, um -- you know, I do the majority of 9 Okay. When, talking about date and
10 my work. 10 time, now, did you form -- initially form that
11 Q. Uh-huh. 11 professional judgment?
12 A. For example, the programs that are 12 MS. SULLIVAN:
13 directed for coastal restoration don't -- they 13 I'm going to object again. I
14 don't necessarily -- they don't, in general, 14 think that's been asked and answered.
15 control the decision about navigation economics 15 I'm not certain, though.
16 or presentation of that information in the 16 Go ahead if --
17 sense -- and the reason I'm trying to show you 17 A. Is the question a professional
18 this is that, you know, our role, especially in 18 judgment?
19 terms of a project manager, is to serve a 19 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
20 number of different customers. We do hurricane 20 Q. Yes. We've covered personal. We're
21 protection work, navigation work, I do system 21 on professional now.
22 restoration. In order to be successful in 22 A. And it's in terms of my work for the
23 terms of implementing a project, you have to 23 Corps of Engineers? Is that --
24 balance all of that. And that's my -- I guess 24 Q. Well, let me ask it this way: Did you
25 that's the reason I've tried to show you that. 25 have that professional judgment that it should

16 (Pages 58 to 61)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 62 Page 64
1 be closed prior to coming to work for the Corps 1 Q. Okay. Again, I want to pinpoint, if I
2 of Engineers? 2 can, when you formed the professional opinion
3 A. Not professionally, because I wasn't 3 that considering all these things it would be
4 asked. But personally, yes. 4 advisable to close the MRGO. And you've told
5 Q. So you formed that professional 5 me that you don't believe you formed this
6 judgment since coming to work for the Corps of 6 judgment before coming to the Corps of
7 Engineers? 7 Engineers, that it's been formed since you've
8 A. Yeah. And I guess to -- it's sometime 8 been with the Corps of Engineers, and I think
9 within the last I believe five years or so. 9 you also told me, just trying to get us to a
10 Q. All right. Let me try to get a little 10 point where we can move on, that -- did you say
11 bit more specific than that. 11 for five years?
12 Did you form that professional 12 A. That's right.
13 judgment five years ago? 13 Q. That you've had this judgment? Is
14 MS. SULLIVAN: 14 that --
15 Objection. 15 A. Within the last five years. Yes.
16 A. The way -- from a professional 16 Q. Within the last five years. Did you
17 standpoint, the way it was framed was in the 17 have this judgment --
18 issue of how to restore and protect wetlands. 18 A. And the point is --
19 And that's why I was showing you the -- there 19 Q. Yeah.
20 are ways to protect and restore wetlands with 20 A. -- that from a professional standpoint
21 the channel open and with it closed. 21 it depends upon what I've been asked to do.
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 22 Q. Yeah.
23 Q. Right. I understand. You approached 23 A. If I've been asked to develop a plan
24 this issue from the standpoint of wetlands and 24 to de-authorize the channel --
25 coastal conservation, I guess. 25 Q. Right.
Page 63 Page 65
1 A. Well, from a number of approaches, 1 A. -- that's one approach to it. If it
2 navigation economics and, um -- public opinion, 2 is to develop plans to protect wetlands or
3 and environmental, um -- 3 restore wetlands, the channel is -- you know,
4 Q. Let's be clear. Professionally, your 4 the fact that the channel is open is a part of
5 expertise or training or experience is in the 5 that existing condition that you have to work
6 area of wetlands conservation and coastal 6 with.
7 protection, not economics -- 7 Q. Sure. In other words, the formation
8 A. That's correct. 8 of this professional judgment that it should be
9 Q. -- right? 9 closed is driven, is it not, by, in some way,
10 A. Right. But as a project manager, 10 by what you're asked to do --
11 especially in formulating a study -- 11 A. Correct.
12 Q. You got to look at everything. 12 Q. -- and what projects you're working
13 A. -- you know, we don't look at things 13 on --
14 from just a single point -- 14 A. Correct.
15 Q. I got you. 15 Q. -- and what your mission is within
16 A. -- it involves a number of different 16 each project? I understand there are a number
17 technical areas. 17 of forces at play here.
18 Q. I understand. So you approach it with 18 A. Uh-huh.
19 training and experience specifically in 19 Q. But somehow or another, in the
20 wetlands issues, but then as project manager 20 combination of all those factors of what you
21 asked to form a professional judgment on this 21 were asked to do and what projects you were
22 subject, you have to take into account things 22 attending to, you formed a professional
23 like economics and, if you will, non 23 judgment during -- within the last five
24 environmental factors. 24 years --
25 A. That's correct. 25 A. Uh-huh.

17 (Pages 62 to 65)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 66 Page 68
1 Q. -- that the MRGO should be closed. 1 MRGO has had an adverse impact on freshwater
2 MS. SULLIVAN: 2 marsh and wetland areas adjacent to the
3 Objection. 3 channel?
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 4 MS. SULLIVAN:
5 Q. True? 5 Objection.
6 MS. SULLIVAN: 6 A. Yes.
7 You can answer. 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
8 A. Yes. 8 Q. And you agree with me, don't you, that
9 Can I have one minute? 9 these freshwater marsh and wetland areas have
10 (Brief recess.) 10 played a role, historically, in a system of
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 11 natural protection against storm surge?
12 Q. Mr. Miller, I think when we took a 12 MS. SULLIVAN:
13 break I was hoping to finish up that area about 13 Objection.
14 professional judgment by asking if you could be 14 A. I just want to be careful not to get
15 a little bit more specific about the time when 15 outside of my professional area.
16 you initially formed that professional judgment 16 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
17 on closure. You've told me the judgment you 17 Q. Uh-huh.
18 have on that professionally was formed within 18 A. Um -- I'm not sure I can answer
19 the last five years is what you said. 19 that -- you asked in terms of historical and
20 A. (Nods affirmatively) 20 the role and -- I believe you said the system?
21 Q. Can you be more specific and tell me 21 Q. All right. Well, I was trying to
22 when you initially, or for the first time, 22 capture, frankly, some of your earlier
23 formed that professional judgment on closure? 23 testimony. When we earlier talked about
24 MS. SULLIVAN: 24 wetland and marsh as a natural barrier or
25 Objection. 25 protection against storm surge, I thought you
Page 67 Page 69
1 A. I don't really recall other than it's 1 told me that you acknowledged that wetland and
2 been within that time period. 2 marsh played a role, is the way you put it, in
3 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 3 the system.
4 Q. Is it fair to say that you formed that 4 A. That's correct.
5 professional judgment before Hurricane Katrina? 5 Q. All right. So I was trying to honor
6 A. Yes, that was only almost three years 6 your phraseology here. And so I'm just going
7 ago, so yeah. 7 back to make sure we're on the same page when
8 Q. Okay. Let me, before we move on, 8 we talk about this, that I mean freshwater
9 clarify one thing. I know we talked earlier 9 marsh and wetland.
10 about the definition of wetlands and marsh, and 10 So my question is, do you acknowledge
11 I've been asking you questions dealing with the 11 that freshwater marsh and wetland adjacent to
12 MRGO 's environmental impact on adjacent 12 the MRGO has played a role in the system of
13 wetlands and marsh. 13 affording a natural protection against storm
14 You understand that my questions about 14 surge?
15 the MRGO 's impact on adjacent wetland and 15 MS. SULLIVAN:
16 marsh deals with freshwater wetlands and marsh 16 Objection.
17 adjacent to the MRGO; you understand that? 17 A. I do. But being careful not to make a
18 MS. SULLIVAN: 18 judgment in terms of a value, um -- of one
19 Objection. 19 wetland type versus the other in the way you
20 A. Um -- I didn't until you just -- if 20 asked it.
21 that's what you're saying. 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 22 Q. All right. So you don't have a
23 Q. All right. Well, let me make sure 23 position on the extent of the role, but you
24 we're on the same page. 24 would agree that freshwater marsh and wetland
25 You agree with me, don't you, that the 25 adjacent to the MRGO has played a role in

18 (Pages 66 to 69)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 70 Page 72
1 affording a natural barrier against hurricane 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
2 storm surge. 2 Q. All right. So you can say the answer
3 MS. SULLIVAN: 3 is yes, based on what you reviewed and read.
4 Objection. 4 A. Yes, sir.
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 5 Q. Do you have any reason, from your
6 Q. True? 6 professional experience or background, to
7 A. Yes, I believe so. 7 question that?
8 Q. We're going to stay one more moment on 8 A. No.
9 this terminology today. 9 Q. Do you have familiarity with this
10 Do you know what I mean when I refer 10 document entitled Louisiana Coastal Protection
11 to freshwater forested wetland? 11 and Restoration Technical Report dated
12 A. I don't necessarily know what you 12 February 2008 issued by the Army Corps of
13 mean, but I know -- 13 Engineers New Orleans District?
14 Q. Okay. I should ask you what -- 14 A. I do.
15 A. In terms of coastal Louisiana, I know 15 Q. What was your role, if any, in
16 what forested wetlands are. 16 connection with this report?
17 Q. Freshwater forested wetlands. 17 A. I am senior project manager on the
18 A. Yes, I believe so. 18 project management team putting together the
19 Q. Did freshwater forested wetlands exist 19 technical report.
20 in the area where the MRGO runs its course 20 Q. Okay. Just in general terms, what
21 prior to the time the MRGO existed? 21 precipitated this report or what caused this
22 MS. SULLIVAN: 22 report to be issued?
23 Objection. 23 A. An Act of Congress.
24 A. I believe so. 24 Q. Can you be more specific about that?
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 25 Do you know what Act of Congress it was?
Page 71 Page 73
1 Q. Did these freshwater forested wetlands 1 A. It's --
2 that existed prior to the MRGO serve as a 2 Q. It's in here.
3 natural protection against storm surge? 3 A. Yeah. I don't recall the public law
4 MS. SULLIVAN: 4 number.
5 Objection. 5 Q. Okay. We won't go there.
6 A. I don't -- I don't know in the sense 6 A. Good.
7 that, um -- I don't know of any information 7 Q. When were you, Greg Miller, first made
8 that would document level or magnitude of that 8 aware that you were going to be involved as
9 role. Um -- I'll go back to the concept of a 9 project manager with this matter?
10 system, um -- in that the wetlands on the coast 10 A. Um -- November 2005.
11 all play a role in a system that's valuable, 11 Q. Is this report, and I'm showing you
12 um -- in terms of, you know, ecology and 12 the first written report -- I think I have an
13 economics and storms and, um -- the recreation 13 extra copy, let me give you this one since that
14 and everything, so, yes, I do believe that. 14 one has got markings on it -- is this report
15 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 15 that I'm handing you the first written report
16 Q. Okay. Has the MRGO, because of 16 issued in connection with the project?
17 saltwater intrusion, diminished the extent of 17 A. No, it's not.
18 fresh forested wetland in areas adjacent to the 18 Q. What was the first report? Or when
19 MRGO? 19 was the first report issued?
20 MS. SULLIVAN: 20 A. July of 2006.
21 Objection. 21 Q. And were there any further iterations
22 A. If you're asking in terms of, you 22 of the report after July, 2006, prior to this
23 know, what have I read about it, yes, that's 23 February 2008?
24 right. Have I done any work to document that 24 A. There are, um -- drafts of this report
25 or otherwise? No, I have not. 25 that, um -- prior to February.

19 (Pages 70 to 73)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 74 Page 76
1 Q. Okay. How many? 1 Q. Okay.
2 A. There are drafts of the report and 2 A. Um -- plan formulation atlas, a
3 there are also additional components of the 3 progress report that the Assistant Secretary --
4 study that were -- and I want to make the 4 Q. Which is not public yet.
5 distinction here -- 5 A. No, sir.
6 Q. Okay. 6 Q. Okay. So yeah, my question was, I was
7 A. -- the other components of the study 7 talking about between July of '06 and February
8 were released publicly. There's a plan 8 of '08, have there been any other drafts of a
9 formulation atlas, it's a series of maps of the 9 technical report that have been prepared in
10 coast and, um -- portrays population and 10 connection with this project?
11 existing levees and wetlands and transportation 11 A. Yes.
12 infrastructure. Um -- then there are drafts of 12 Q. And you've mentioned a plan
13 this report itself that were circulated for 13 formulation atlas.
14 independent technical review as well as review 14 A. That's correct.
15 within the Corps of Engineers, um -- and there 15 Q. What else?
16 is a, um -- a progress report that was 16 A. A progress report.
17 developed for the Assistant Secretary of the 17 Q. I thought -- Oh. That's been prepared
18 Army that I believe is not publicly available 18 but not made public yet.
19 yet. So those are the components that there 19 A. The progress report. That's right.
20 are in addition to this draft and the July 20 Q. Okay.
21 preliminary technical report. 21 A. And then drafts of this, um -- that
22 Q. Other than the July -- I think -- did 22 you have in front of you and that you gave to
23 you say July of '06? 23 me.
24 A. Yes, sir. 24 Q. All right. That's really what I was
25 Q. All right. In July, '06, the first 25 trying to understand better. How many drafts
Page 75 Page 77
1 draft of the technical report issued; true? 1 of this February '08 document have preceded it?
2 A. The July '06 document is -- if you 2 A. I don't recall. Um -- maybe three.
3 read the legislation, it requires two 3 Three or four, maybe. I mean, writing is an
4 reportings. One is a preliminary technical 4 iterative effort, you know, so.
5 report to Congress, the other is a final 5 Q. Uh-huh. Do these prior drafts still
6 technical report to Congress. 6 exist in some format, to your knowledge?
7 Q. Uh-huh. 7 A. Sure.
8 A. The preliminary technical report, July 8 MR. MEUNIER:
9 '06 -- 9 I'm not trying to substitute for
10 Q. Uh-huh. 10 a normal Rule 34 request, but I just
11 A. -- was -- you know, was delivered to 11 want to make a note on the record that
12 Congress. 12 plaintiffs would like to obtain and
13 Q. Uh-huh. And then between that and 13 would seek to obtain the prior drafts
14 this February 2008 report, what other technical 14 of this technical report.
15 reports have issued? Or drafts of technical 15 A. Can I take a break for one second?
16 reports? 16 MR. MEUNIER:
17 A. Well, issued is a different, um -- 17 Sure.
18 Q. Then created. Let's put it that way. 18 (Brief recess.)
19 A. Okay, I'll go through it again. The 19 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
20 plan formulation atlas. 20 Q. I just have a couple of questions
21 Q. I thought that was different from the 21 about this. Turn, if you will, to Page 53.
22 technical report. 22 MR. MEUNIER:
23 A. It's a component. 23 And I'm sorry, counsel, I only
24 Q. It's a component of. 24 have one extra copy.
25 A. It's a component of. 25 MS. SULLIVAN:

20 (Pages 74 to 77)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 78 Page 80
1 That's okay. 1 concerned, the written report, what was your
2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 2 role? I'm talking about the preparation of the
3 Q. Page 53 of the February 2008 draft of 3 actual document.
4 the Louisiana Coastal Protection and 4 A. For this -- you know, the draft, um --
5 Restoration Technical Report. 5 here, I wrote some pieces of it. I helped
6 A. Okay. 6 manage the production of it by other, um --
7 Q. What role, if any, did you play in the 7 technical members, um -- but, um -- and some
8 language that appears under the caption coastal 8 editing, but not a -- my role is more in the
9 restoration measures and alternatives? 9 development and production by others than
10 A. I don't think I played any role in 10 drafting.
11 this. 11 Q. Than the writing?
12 Q. You didn't contribute to the language 12 A. In some cases I would write pieces of
13 that appears under that heading? 13 things, but in most cases it was, um -- helping
14 A. If I did, I don't remember. 14 make sure the team met schedules and had
15 Q. Okay. Fair enough. 15 information they needed or resources they need
16 A. It doesn't look like my writing. And 16 in order to prepare the report.
17 I write every day. 17 Q. There's a table of contents. I wonder
18 Q. All right. Well, I guess I should ask 18 if you could tell me -- just in summary, brief
19 you, just generally, what was your role as 19 fashion, identify for me the sections that you
20 project manager for this particular matter? 20 personally had a hand in writing.
21 What was your responsibility? 21 A. Um -- Sections 1, 2, 9 and 10.
22 A. You mean the study, not the 22 Q. And do I understand correctly,
23 paragraphs, right? 23 Mr. Miller, that you also reviewed and edited
24 Q. For the study, what was your role as 24 other sections?
25 project manager? 25 A. That's correct.
Page 79 Page 81
1 A. Um -- I helped write the project 1 Q. Okay. So the final product, the final
2 management plan, I helped assemble the team, 2 written report, is one over which you generally
3 um -- I ran, along with five other project 3 had the opportunity to make changes as you saw
4 managers, because of the magnitude of this, the 4 fit.
5 day-to-day work of the team. 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Uh-huh. 6 Q. Okay.
7 A. And a lot of, um -- status reporting 7 A. To clarify, make changes, mostly in
8 about progress being made on the study, in 8 editorial nature, not in any technical -- you
9 terms of the management of the effort. And 9 know, the information in the report is produced
10 then the, um -- public, um -- public 10 by technical elements of our team.
11 involvement process, public meetings under the 11 Q. Okay. There's a discussion at Page 14
12 National Environmental Policy Act, worked with 12 of the report about what's called Myth 3,
13 the media to inform them about the study, and 13 namely, that the 100-year storm surge will only
14 then stakeholder groups. 14 occur once every hundred years.
15 Q. Just so we're clear, a stakeholder 15 Do you see that?
16 group, what do you mean by that? 16 A. I do.
17 A. In general, it's anyone that has an 17 Q. Did you write this portion?
18 interest in the development and outcome of a 18 A. No. I didn't.
19 study that we conduct. Um -- in the sense of 19 Q. Do you have, Mr. Miller, expertise or
20 this, because it's so broad, it's essentially 20 training in regard to the prediction of storm
21 everyone, um -- local government, the 21 surges? Or the modeling of storm surges?
22 environmental organizations, business groups, 22 A. No, no technical expertise, no.
23 um -- general, you know -- landowners, 23 Q. So you rely on others for that
24 citizens, levee boards, et cetera. 24 discussion, don't you?
25 Q. Okay. Insofar as the report is 25 A. That's right.

21 (Pages 78 to 81)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 82 Page 84
1 Q. Okay. And that would include the 1 A. Yes. I hope so.
2 discussion here about this so-called myth of 2 Q. Last time you checked. At least he
3 the 100-year storm surge? 3 was this morning.
4 A. That's right. 4 A. I don't know what he did last night.
5 Q. There's a statement at the very bottom 5 Q. Right. Right. What's his job
6 of the page, after discussing why that's a 6 position or title?
7 myth, that the 100-year storm surge will only 7 A. Um -- I don't know his official title.
8 occur every hundred years, the statement is 8 He's, um -- he's a chief of one of the sections
9 that within a given period of a hundred years, 9 up there, I believe.
10 the 100-year storm actually has a 63 percent 10 Q. And then if you would, turn to
11 chance of occurring. 11 Page 53. I think we referenced this earlier,
12 From your testimony I know you didn't 12 the heading Coastal Restoration Measures and
13 come up with that conclusion. Correct? 13 Alternatives. Do you see that?
14 A. I did not. 14 A. I do.
15 Q. Someone else did. 15 Q. And I think you've indicated that you
16 A. That's right. 16 did not write this section of the report,
17 Q. Do you know who did, on the team that 17 although you would have had the opportunity to
18 you were working with? 18 review it?
19 A. I don't know the individual, no. 19 A. That's right.
20 Q. Do you know the group? Can you help 20 Q. Do you agree with the statement at the
21 my identify the group? 21 beginning of the section that coastal features
22 A. I believe it's from, um -- some of our 22 are the first line of defense against hurricane
23 team at the Engineering Research and 23 surge and waves?
24 Development Center, I believe. And I -- that's 24 MS. SULLIVAN:
25 just my recollection. 25 Objection.
Page 83 Page 85
1 Q. The Engineering Research and 1 A. I do.
2 Development Center, is that a part of the Corps 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
3 of Engineers organization? 3 Q. Do you know what is meant here by the
4 A. It is. 4 phrase coastal features? Is there a glossary?
5 Q. So this is not contract personnel, 5 A. There is an illustration. I don't
6 these would be federal government employees? 6 know what page it's on. Page 50.
7 Or I should ask, would it be federal government 7 Q. I'm sorry. Page what?
8 employees who came up with this part of the 8 A. Page 50 there is an illustration.
9 report? 9 Q. All right. You're referring to Figure
10 A. Um -- most likely, or contractors 10 5-1 on Page 50?
11 working for the Corps. 11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Okay. But you don't know the names of 12 Q. The coastal features would include all
13 the specific individual involved? 13 of the, um -- the language in green print in
14 A. No, I don't. 14 that box?
15 Q. Well, can you tell me who the 15 A. (Indicating.)
16 supervisor or leader of that particular team 16 MS. SULLIVAN:
17 was? For this project. 17 His is not color.
18 A. I believe Edmond Russo, but I'm not 18 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
19 sure. There are lots of pieces of this -- 19 Q. All right. Well, you tell me what are
20 Q. Okay. 20 the coastal features identified in Figure 5-1.
21 A. -- working -- 21 A. Um -- the offshore, the shelf, barrier
22 Q. Did you finish? 22 islands, the sound, um -- marsh land bridge and
23 A. I am. 23 natural ridge.
24 Q. Is Mr. Russo still employed at the 24 Q. Now, we haven't used that phrase yet;
25 Corps of Engineers? 25 marsh land bridge. What does that mean?

22 (Pages 82 to 85)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 86 Page 88
1 A. I don't know if there's a formal 1 of the coastal features, how does that land
2 definition. It's, um -- essentially, it's an 2 feature or coastal feature serve as a defense
3 area of marsh that connects two pieces of land, 3 against hurricane surge?
4 either dry land or some other feature. 4 MS. SULLIVAN:
5 Q. In this case, what are the two -- you 5 Same objection.
6 want to show it on the -- 6 A. It's really -- it's a very general
7 A. I was just going to see if I could. 7 term used in restoration planning. It would be
8 Q. Would it be easier to look at it on 8 very site specific to be able to answer your
9 that map, show me, or give me an example of a 9 question.
10 marsh land bridge using that -- 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
11 A. We don't have a map that shows it. 11 Q. Uh-huh.
12 Q. Would this show it? 12 A. You'd have to -- we'd have to show you
13 A. No, it doesn't. 13 one and, um -- it depends on where it is and
14 Q. Would that map show a marsh land 14 the type of habitat there, and then, um -- you
15 bridge -- 15 know, how it would function in terms of the
16 A. No. 16 whole system there.
17 Q. -- Mr. Miller? No? So by definition, 17 Q. Uh-huh. Well, marsh land bridges, can
18 a marsh land bridge refers to an area of marsh 18 they be either freshwater or saltwater marsh
19 between two land masses, is that what your 19 land bridges?
20 definition is? 20 A. Yes.
21 A. Roughly. Like I said, I don't know 21 Q. Do freshwater marsh land bridges
22 that there really is a technical definition for 22 typically support tree growth, plant growth?
23 it. It's a term used in the field, um -- um -- 23 MS. SULLIVAN:
24 I don't -- you know, but that's a good 24 Objection. Speculation.
25 definition. 25 If you know the answer --
Page 87 Page 89
1 Q. Are you familiar with the Bayou La 1 A. I don't know.
2 Loutre ridge? 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
3 A. I am. 3 Q. You don't know?
4 Q. Is that a marsh land bridge? 4 A. I'd have to, again, go to a site
5 A. No. 5 specific, um -- we'd have to go to a certain
6 Q. In Figure -- if you turn back, please, 6 location in order to answer that.
7 to the figure you called our attention to, 7 Q. Well, the paragraph I was referring to
8 Figure 5-1, in that illustration, in the box 8 at Page, um -- the first paragraph, again,
9 there, what are the two land masses that are 9 Page 53 under the heading Coastal Restoration,
10 being connected by the marsh land bridge? 10 Measures and Alternatives, states that
11 A. Well, this figure is a cross-section, 11 sustaining the integrity of the -- pronounce
12 so it doesn't show connectivity in that sense. 12 that word for me -- estuarine environments in
13 Q. How does a marsh land bridge operate 13 coastal Louisiana, it goes on to say, is
14 as one of the coastal features that provides 14 critical to ecological health as well as surge
15 the first line of defense against hurricane 15 and wave reduction.
16 surge and waves? 16 Do you see that?
17 MS. SULLIVAN: 17 A. I do.
18 Objection. 18 Q. In what way is sustaining the
19 A. Um -- you know, collectively, it's 19 integrity of those environments in coastal
20 part of a system of features, both natural and 20 Louisiana critical to surge and wave reduction?
21 manmade, that form a system, um -- that has an 21 MS. SULLIVAN:
22 effect on hurricane surge. 22 Objection. I think we've been
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 23 through this. It seems like he
24 Q. All right. My question is, just for a 24 doesn't have that information. This
25 minute isolating the marsh land bridge as one 25 isn't his area of expertise.

23 (Pages 86 to 89)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 90 Page 92
1 But if you can answer that, go 1 heading Coastal Restoration Measures and
2 ahead. 2 Alternatives that you disagree with, based upon
3 MR. MEUNIER: 3 your professional training, your experience,
4 Well, he reviewed the report, had 4 the discharge of your job responsibilities with
5 an opportunity to edit it, I'm going 5 the Corps?
6 to assume for purposes of my question 6 MS. SULLIVAN:
7 he understands what's in it. He's the 7 Objection.
8 project leader for this. So, you 8 A. I agree with it.
9 know -- 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 10 Q. Let me now pay some attention to the
11 Q. At any time, Mr. Miller, if I ask a 11 next paragraph, if you will. And this one
12 question that you don't know the answer to, you 12 references preliminary month model analyses of
13 need to tell me. Okay? 13 storm surge levels and wave magnitudes.
14 A. Can you ask your question again for 14 You see that?
15 me? 15 A. I do.
16 Q. Okay. Why is it that sustaining the 16 Q. Do you know what model analyses are
17 integrity of the estuarine environments in 17 referred to here?
18 coastal Louisiana is critical to surge and wave 18 A. I do. Um -- but not -- I do know what
19 reduction? 19 models they're talking about, yes.
20 A. I can give you a general answer that 20 Q. What models are they referring to?
21 those features make up parts of the system, the 21 A. I believe that this is in reference to
22 wetland system across the state. I can't give 22 the -- what's called the ADCIRC model.
23 you an answer in terms of the, um -- the level 23 Q. Let's make sure we understand for the
24 or how it becomes critical in that sense in 24 record the letters you're using there. Ad?
25 terms of surge reduction, it's outside of my 25 A. Add, A-D, circ is C-I-R-C, which y'all
Page 91 Page 93
1 technical area. 1 find probably detailed in more fashion here in
2 Q. You would agree that the existence of 2 the report somewhere.
3 trees in, for example, a freshwater marsh area 3 Q. Okay.
4 would serve to break up wave action in a 4 A. I just don't know what page reference.
5 hurricane storm surge, wouldn't you? 5 And also probably some wave modeling, and I
6 MS. SULLIVAN: 6 don't know the technical -- I don't recall the
7 Objection. 7 technical name of that work.
8 A. Without knowing to what level, I think 8 Q. But all of the model analyses referred
9 that is true. 9 to here would be contained within this draft
10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 10 report?
11 Q. Okay. 11 A. That's right.
12 A. But I can't give you a technical 12 Q. Okay. And you know that one is the
13 judgment on the level or degree to which that 13 ADCIRC model, and you think there are some wave
14 would occur. 14 models, as well.
15 Q. I understand. I'm not asking you the 15 A. That's right.
16 extent to which or the degree to which, but you 16 Q. Okay. And the statement is made that
17 understand and agree that trees in a freshwater 17 these model analyses of storm surge levels and
18 marsh would have the effect of reducing, to 18 wave magnitudes -- and again, I'm referring to
19 some extent, storm surge. 19 the first sentence here in that paragraph --
20 MS. SULLIVAN: 20 demonstrate the potential value of coastal
21 Objection. 21 features to lowering storm damage risk.
22 A. Yeah. I agree. 22 You agree with that?
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Is there anything in this first 24 Q. And is that true because the presence
25 paragraph that we've been looking at under the 25 of coastal features, including forested marsh

24 (Pages 90 to 93)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 94 Page 96
1 wetlands, freshwater marsh and wetlands, do 1 identification and is attached hereto.)
2 serve and play a role in the reduction of storm 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
3 surge and wave action? 3 Q. Let me now turn attention to the
4 MS. SULLIVAN: 4 document which is entitled Mississippi River
5 Objection. 5 Gulf Outlet Deep Draft De-authorization Interim
6 A. I don't know if I would segregate it 6 Report to Congress by the Corps of Engineers
7 down to just the habitat types that you 7 dated December 2006.
8 mentioned. I think the sentence, um -- is 8 Are you familiar with that document?
9 talking collectively about all coastal 9 A. Yes, I am.
10 features. 10 Q. Before I go there, I want to cover one
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 11 other subject real quickly.
12 Q. And those are the ones we talked about 12 Is it true that you have made a report
13 earlier, and you identified them in Figure5-1. 13 to Congress, or made a report to Congress in
14 A. That's right. 14 2006, regarding the feasibility of Category 5
15 Q. There's a collective contribution. 15 hurricane protection?
16 A. That's correct. 16 A. You're asking me personally?
17 Q. But one of the features that does 17 Q. Yeah.
18 contribute are the marsh land bridge features? 18 MS. SULLIVAN:
19 Correct? 19 Or the Corps, I think --
20 A. Yes. 20 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
21 Q. And one of the features that 21 Q. Well, I'm not suggesting the report
22 contributes would be the presence of trees in 22 was titled report by Gregory Miller.
23 freshwater forested wetland and marshes? 23 Have you been part of or a participant
24 Correct? 24 in an Army Corps of Engineers report to
25 A. Yes. 25 Congress in 2006 regarding the feasibility of
Page 95 Page 97
1 MS. SULLIVAN: 1 Category 5 hurricane protection?
2 Objection. 2 A. Feasibility is the word that's going
3 That's okay. 3 to trip me up here.
4 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay.
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 5 A. But we did prepare a report for
6 Q. Now, the final reference I want to 6 Congress in 2006 on, um -- south Louisiana
7 make is to that concluding sentence in that 7 hurricane protection.
8 same paragraph. And again, this is sort of a 8 Q. All right. And is it referenced in --
9 repetition, but I want to make sure you agree 9 A. It is.
10 with the way this is phrased. It says, thus, 10 Q. It's referenced in Miller Number 2?
11 sustaining the integrity of the estuarine 11 A. If that's what you want to call it,
12 environments in coastal Louisiana is a key 12 sure.
13 component of a comprehensive storm risk 13 Q. I'm sorry. In the 2008 draft report?
14 reduction strategy for the region. 14 A. Yes.
15 Do you agree with that statement? 15 Q. For the record, just state where that
16 A. Yes. 16 2006 report to Congress is referenced.
17 Q. All right. I'd like to turn now to 17 A. The first reference is in the
18 another document. 18 authority itself on Page 3, which is where
19 (Off the record.) 19 Congress called for the production of that
20 MR. MEUNIER: 20 report in 2006.
21 We're going to mark for 21 Q. Uh-huh.
22 attachment as Miller Number 2 the 22 A. Give me a minute and I'll see if I can
23 February 2008 draft report that we've 23 find that.
24 been referring to. 24 Q. Okay.
25 (Exhibit G.M. 2 was marked for 25 A. Um -- Page 2, Paragraph 3.

25 (Pages 94 to 97)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 98 Page 100
1 Q. Could you read it for us? 1 Q. Was your role in the July 2006 report
2 A. This technical report expands on 2 the same as in this February 2008 report in
3 information presented in the LACPR preliminary 3 terms of those sections you wrote versus those
4 technical report that was submitted to Congress 4 sections you edited or reviewed?
5 in July, 2006 as well as the April, 2007 LACPR 5 That's poorly asked. Let me ask it
6 plan formulation atlas. The LACPR preliminary 6 this way: Were there sections of the July 2006
7 technical report and plan formulation atlas are 7 report which you wrote yourself?
8 available on line at www.lacpr.usace.army.mil. 8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So, there was a written July 2006 9 Q. Were there other sections which you
10 report to Congress, which is expanded upon in 10 didn't write but which you reviewed and edited?
11 this 2008 report, according to what you've just 11 A. Yes.
12 read, correct? 12 Q. Okay. Did the July 2006 report
13 A. That's correct. 13 contain within it the same language that we
14 Q. All right. And what was the title of 14 were referring to earlier that appears at
15 the 2006 written report? 15 Page 50 on coastal restoration?
16 A. Um -- LACPR preliminary technical 16 MS. SULLIVAN:
17 report to Congress, I believe. 17 Objection.
18 Q. When we were talking earlier about the 18 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
19 prior drafts that led up to this 2008 document, 19 Q. If you know?
20 was that what you were talking about when you 20 A. I don't know.
21 said there was a July, 2006 draft of a 21 Q. Oh. It's at Page 53, the paragraphs
22 technical report? 22 we went over about coastal features and effect
23 A. I don't know if I said draft. I said 23 on storm surge, et cetera. Let me ask it more
24 there's a July 2006 preliminary technical 24 generally.
25 report. 25 Was that topic discussed in the
Page 99 Page 101
1 Q. All right. When I was questioning you 1 July 2006 report to Congress?
2 earlier about the 2008 report and I asked about 2 MS. SULLIVAN:
3 earlier drafts or documents that led up to it, 3 Objection.
4 you talked about something in July of 2006. Is 4 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
5 this what you were talking about, the reference 5 Q. The topic being the role of coastal
6 here? 6 features in regard to storm risk reduction
7 A. That's right. That's right. 7 strategy and surge and wave reduction.
8 MR. MEUNIER: 8 MS. SULLIVAN:
9 And I think we made a record of 9 Objection.
10 our request for prior drafts of this 10 A. I believe so, but I -- (Nods
11 2008 document. I want to be specific 11 affirmatively.) I believe so.
12 about requesting, and we'll follow up 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
13 in writing, we'd like to request a 13 Q. Okay.
14 copy of the July 2006 preliminary 14 MR. MEUNIER:
15 report that Mr. Miller is now talking 15 I feel I have to do this for the
16 about. 16 record, and that is reserve the right
17 MR. MARSHALL: 17 to supplement this deposition with
18 I just want to point out there's 18 questioning about the July 2006 report
19 a website listed in there where it's 19 which we don't have. I'm not saying
20 available. 20 plaintiffs intend to do it, I'd just
21 MR. MEUNIER: 21 like to make that reservation
22 Okay. That makes it available to 22 expressed for the record.
23 some people, not necessarily me. But 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
24 I guess we'll -- 24 Q. Now, you were, Mr. Miller, the
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 25 co-author? I think earlier you questioned my

26 (Pages 98 to 101)
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 102 Page 104
1 use of that, but what role did you play in the 1 wrote.
2 preparation of the December 2006 document 2 A. Right. Understand, it's a team
3 dealing with the deep draft de-authorization of 3 effort, too.
4 the MRGO? 4 Q. Yeah.
5 A. I am the senior project manager for 5 A. People may have written pieces of it,
6 the deep draft de-authorization. The role I 6 and, you know, I helped assemble parts of it or
7 play is, um -- team leader, and in terms of the 7 wrote an outline. Um -- parts of introduction
8 report, um -- helping to manage the draft, 8 and background, um -- I'd have to see the text
9 um -- the preparation of the drafts and then 9 just to see if I recall, um -- specifically
10 the final report, and the clearance of that 10 which. Um -- parts of the present conditions.
11 report for delivery to the Congress. 11 Um -- the plan formulation section. Option 2B,
12 Q. And do I take it that there were 12 Option 3, Option 2C. Shoreline protection. I
13 sections of that report which you personally 13 think -- I'd have to see it, but I believe I
14 wrote, and other sections which you did not 14 wrote the introduction part of the systems
15 write but reviewed and edited? 15 evaluation. And then parts of the results and
16 A. That's correct. 16 conclusions.
17 Q. Okay. Do you have a copy of that 17 Q. Okay. Explain to me when and how you
18 de-authorization interim report? 18 first became involved in the process that led
19 MR. MEUNIER: 19 to this de-authorization report.
20 Does anyone on the other side of 20 A. I believe it was at the direction of
21 the table have that? 21 Col. Wagenaar. I don't actually recall
22 MS. SULLIVAN: 22 specifically.
23 Don't have a hard copy, no, not 23 Q. Who?
24 today. 24 A. Col. Wagenaar.
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 25 Q. What's his position?
Page 103 Page 105
1 Q. I've got some questions about it, and 1 A. He was the district engineer.
2 unfortunately I only have one copy, so we'll 2 Q. Okay. Can you tell me when in time or
3 try to work through to the lunch break on this, 3 approximately when in time Col. Wagenaar first
4 and if we really find the going hard because 4 approached you and asked you to get involved in
5 we're sharing a copy we'll get a copy made. 5 this?
6 I suppose for completeness we should 6 A. The summer of 2006.
7 go to the table of contents, and I want to ask 7 Q. Summer of 2006?
8 you the same question I asked you with respect 8 A. Right.
9 to the 2008 report, which is, which sections of 9 Q. This phrase de-authorization, do I
10 the de-authorization report of 2006 did you 10 understand correctly that that is part of a
11 actually write as opposed to reviewing and 11 standard process or series of steps taken to
12 editing? And I'll hand you Pages VIII and IX, 12 remove Congressional authorization for a
13 which are the table of contents. 13 project?
14 (Exhibit G.M. 3 was marked for 14 MS. SULLIVAN:
15 identification and is attached hereto.) 15 Objection.
16 A. I had an extensive role in all of it. 16 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
17 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 17 Q. You understand my question?
18 Q. More specifically, did you write all 18 A. In this particular case, that's the
19 of it? 19 language that the Congress used. They called
20 A. No. 20 for that effort, and it's titled exactly what
21 Q. I'm trying to again distinguish 21 they asked for.
22 between the sections that you actually wrote 22 Q. Okay. So by an Act of Congress, there
23 and the others which you edited. 23 was a direction given to the Corps to study the
24 A. The executive summary. 24 de-authorization of the MRGO?
25 Q. Now, wait. These are the sections you 25 A. That's right. I'd have to look at the

27 (Pages 102 to 105)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 106 Page 108
1 word study, but yeah. I'm not sure that study 1 352?
2 is in the actual authority that was given by 2 A. Downstairs. But if it's printing one
3 Congress. 3 he can probably have it printed faster than I
4 Q. All right. Let me -- again, we're 4 can --
5 sharing a copy so I'm going to try to go slow, 5 Q. I think we can move through some of
6 and you can -- if you have a question about my 6 this preliminary stuff without you having to
7 accuracy of reading this, please, I want to 7 look at it, but let's that before I get into
8 show you the text. 8 any deep questioning about it. But right now,
9 Under the heading Congressional 9 it's a general question.
10 Direction and Purpose, there is a reference to 10 Do I understand that this report, the
11 a Public Law 109-234 in which it says that the 11 December 2006 De-authorization Interim Report,
12 Secretary of the Army, acting through the 12 was meant to identify a comprehensive plan for
13 Corps, is directed to develop a comprehensive 13 de-authorizing deep draft navigation on the
14 plan, at full federal expense, to de-authorize 14 MRGO?
15 deep draft navigation on the MRGO. And that's 15 A. Yes.
16 what you recall Congress directing you to do. 16 Q. It was to identify a comprehensive
17 MS. SULLIVAN: 17 plan for that, correct?
18 Can I ask that just for his 18 A. Well, that's the preliminary -- I
19 purposes, I think we want to get him a 19 believe the title was preliminary report.
20 copy of the report so he can see it. 20 Again, that authority from Congress is a
21 MR. MEUNIER: 21 two-step reporting process. And the one you're
22 If you have it that would be 22 referring to is the first.
23 great. 23 Q. Right. I should restate it. It was
24 MS. SULLIVAN: 24 meant to be an aid in identifying a plan.
25 It's going to have to be printed, 25 A. It was a required step of informing
Page 107 Page 109
1 and as you can see it's a pretty thick 1 the Congress --
2 document. You guys want to take a 2 Q. In that process.
3 break so we can get it printed? 3 A. -- as the plan was being developed,
4 A. I can have one brought up. 4 right.
5 MS. SULLIVAN: 5 Q. Now, I notice in here that what the
6 Frank's taking care of it right 6 Corps did pursuant to that directive was
7 now. But I just think for purposes -- 7 evaluate the feasibility of options that were
8 MR. MEUNIER: 8 presented under the Louisiana Coastal
9 You have one printed already? 9 Protection and Restoration efforts, LACPR.
10 MS. SULLIVAN: 10 Correct?
11 No. Frank is taking care of that 11 A. That's right.
12 right now. 12 Q. Tell us what Louisiana Coastal
13 Do you have a copy? 13 Protection and Restoration, in caps, refers to.
14 THE WITNESS: 14 A. It's the report right in front of you.
15 We've got boxes of them. 15 Q. Meaning the February, 2008 report that
16 MS. SULLIVAN: 16 we were talking about earlier.
17 I don't know where they are. 17 A. Yes.
18 MR. MEUNIER: 18 Q. Okay. So the LACPR, the Louisiana
19 If I wrote something like this, 19 Coastal Protection and Restoration, laid out a
20 I'd have copies for my family. 20 number of options which in this directive by
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 21 Congress the Corps undertook to look at and
22 Q. So you have copies of this printed out 22 evaluate? Do I have that understood correctly?
23 somewhere in your office? 23 MS. SULLIVAN:
24 A. Yeah. I'd have to find it, but yes. 24 Objection.
25 Q. Where is your office relative to Room 25 A. I think you have it the other way --

28 (Pages 106 to 109)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 110 Page 112
1 it's the other way around. 1 of the first paragraph for the record.
2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 2 Would you read it for the record, the
3 Q. Okay. What do you mean by that? 3 last sentence of the first paragraph, under
4 A. If you read the authority for the MRGO 4 executive summary.
5 de-authorization, it directs that that plan 5 A. While the December 2007 LACPR report
6 development to be, um -- I don't have the 6 will include a final detailed plan based on the
7 language in front of me, but included as part 7 current level of analysis, it appears that full
8 of LACPR, um -- technical report. 8 integration into LACPR could best be achieved
9 Q. Okay. Did the Corps conclude that the 9 by closing the MRGO to both deep and shallow
10 full integration of the options under the LACPR 10 draft navigation via an armored earthen dam in
11 would be best achieved by closing the MRGO to 11 the vicinity of Hopedale, Louisiana.
12 all navigation by way of an armored earthen dam 12 Q. Okay. Now, what you were telling me
13 in the vicinity of Hopedale, Louisiana? 13 before is, and that's -- that was the
14 MS. SULLIVAN: 14 recommendation in December of 2006, correct?
15 Objection. 15 A. That's right.
16 A. The LACPR report is not final. You 16 Q. All right. What you're telling me is
17 have a draft in front of you, and the draft is 17 that subsequent to 2006, or December, 2006,
18 publicly available. It includes, um -- the 18 that recommendation was modified or changed in
19 closure of MRGO in Bayou La Loutre with a rock 19 some respect. True?
20 dam. But it's not a final document. 20 A. Well, yeah. That's true.
21 Q. Uh-huh. 21 Q. All right.
22 A. Um -- 22 A. Not in the sense -- it was changed in
23 Q. Well, let's look at the 2006 report, 23 terms of engineering analysis and best plan, if
24 if we can, the interim report that you had a 24 you will.
25 big role, I'm taking, in creating. In this 25 Q. Right.
Page 111 Page 113
1 report to Congress, did the Corps of engineers 1 A. But the, um -- you know, the overall
2 conclude that the MRGO should be closed to both 2 result is essentially the same.
3 deep and shallow draft navigation by way of an 3 Q. In other words, the recommendation of
4 armored earthen dam in the vicinity of 4 closure didn't change. What changed was how to
5 Hopedale, Louisiana? 5 accomplish the closure, specifically with
6 MS. SULLIVAN: 6 respect to what type of damming structure to
7 Objection. 7 use?
8 Go ahead. 8 A. Yeah. I want to be careful, just
9 A. Not in that report. There was no, 9 because the preliminary report didn't make a
10 um -- conclusion, it was a preliminary report. 10 recommendation. I think the language in there,
11 Just by recollection, I believe the, um -- that 11 it identified a particularly viable option.
12 report actually had an earthen dam as a 12 Um -- and then the December -- excuse me, the,
13 feature. 13 um -- the report that -- the final report that
14 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 14 we put out, I'd have to check the date, I
15 Q. Well, I meant to say armored 15 believe it was November, 2007, um -- made the
16 earthen -- 16 recommendation for a rock closure, not an
17 A. Yeah. But there's a distinction 17 armored earthen dam.
18 between earth and rock, and in the sequence of 18 Q. Do you have it now?
19 things that's as preliminary report. 19 A. Part of it.
20 Q. Right. 20 Q. Good. Because I want to talk about
21 A. The final report concluded with a 21 Page 7. You've got Page 7? I'm sorry, Page 9.
22 recommendation for a rock closure. 22 Under the heading at the top of Page 9 entitled
23 Q. I'm just talking about this one right 23 Public Views on the MRGO, it states that the
24 now. Let me give you the executive summary, 24 Corps has conducted a number of studies
25 Page I, and ask you to read the last sentence 25 associated with the MRGO from various points of

29 (Pages 110 to 113)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 114 Page 116
1 view, um -- and that based on previous studies, 1 is correct or not?
2 numerous citizen letters, and interactions with 2 MS. SULLIVAN:
3 local government, et cetera, the following 3 Objection.
4 points have been noted: Do you see that? 4 A. I don't.
5 A. I do. 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
6 Q. Point 1 is construction and use of the 6 Q. You're not qualified to talk about
7 MRGO caused the loss of wetlands habitat. 7 that.
8 Do you believe that is an accurate 8 A. No.
9 point -- 9 Q. Who within the Corps of Engineers
10 MS. SULLIVAN: 10 organization do you know of who would be
11 Objection. 11 qualified today to address the question whether
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 12 that point of view is correct or not correct?
13 Q. -- or statement? 13 A. The point of view being the entire
14 A. I do. 14 bullet, or --
15 Q. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I 15 Q. The bullet -- no, well, the part of
16 think we earlier established that in both your 16 Bullet Number 2 which says that the MRGO
17 professional and personal opinion you believed 17 exacerbates storm surges in the region.
18 that to be the case, namely that the 18 A. From a technical standpoint, um --
19 construction and use of the MRGO caused the 19 Dr. Ebersole. I don't know how to spell it.
20 loss of wetlands habitat prior to Hurricane 20 Q. Ebersole? What's his position?
21 Katrina. True? 21 A. He's with the Engineering Research and
22 MS. SULLIVAN: 22 Development Center.
23 Objection. 23 Q. What's his first name?
24 A. Yes. True. 24 A. Bruce.
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 25 Q. And how long has Dr. Ebersole been
Page 115 Page 117
1 Q. The next point made is, some parties 1 with the Corps of Engineers?
2 believe that the MRGO exacerbates storm surges 2 A. I don't know.
3 in the region. 3 Q. Has he been here as long as you've
4 Now, do you know what is meant by the 4 been here?
5 reference to some parties? 5 A. I don't know.
6 A. Um -- I do. 6 Q. Okay. Why do you say he's got the
7 Q. Who is referred to in the phrase some 7 expertise to address the accuracy of the
8 parties? 8 statement that the MRGO exacerbates storm
9 A. It collectively refers back to, um -- 9 surges?
10 citizen letters and local government, um -- and 10 A. I believe, and I'd have to check, that
11 the general public. 11 he was involved in the IPET, um -- evaluations
12 Q. Okay. Let's me stay with the point in 12 and did some work specifically related to this
13 time here. As of the writing of this in 13 issue.
14 December of 2006, do you know of anyone within 14 Q. Okay. Did anyone else that you know
15 the Corps of Engineers that you've worked with 15 of with the Corps, other than Dr. Ebersole,
16 in connection with this project who agreed with 16 take part in regard to that statement, in
17 the statement made here that the MRGO 17 assessing the accuracy of that statement?
18 exacerbates storm surges in the region? 18 A. I believe Harley -- Dr. Winer was
19 MS. SULLIVAN: 19 involved in that, as well.
20 Objection. 20 Q. Harley Winer?
21 A. I do not. 21 A. Yes, sir.
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 22 Q. W-E-I-N-E-R?
23 Q. Do you feel qualified from your 23 A. I don't know how to spell it.
24 training, experience, et cetera, to hold a 24 Q. And what is Dr. Winer's position?
25 professional judgment on whether that statement 25 A. Um -- I believe he's retired now, was

30 (Pages 114 to 117)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 118 Page 120
1 in our, um -- hydrology and hydraulics section 1 surge?
2 in the coastal, um -- I think the coastal 2 A. I believe there are others, but I
3 engineering, but I'm not quite -- I don't 3 don't know them by name.
4 remember exactly the title. 4 Q. Okay. Now, in the discussion starting
5 Q. But he took part in the IPET report -- 5 at Page 7 about this relationship between the
6 A. I believe so. 6 MRGO and storm surge, I see reference to only
7 Q. -- and specifically that part dealing 7 two reports that predate Hurricane Katrina.
8 with MRGO 's effect on storm surge? 8 True?
9 A. I believe so, and he was also involved 9 A. That's right.
10 from the technical standpoint in this report, 10 Q. One is a 1966 study -- right?
11 yes. 11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Was he involved in the 12 Q. And the other was conducted in 2003
13 technical part of this report, Mr. Miller, that 13 using advance circulation modeling. Correct?
14 deals with the relationship between the MRGO 14 A. Yes.
15 and storm surge? 15 Q. And that's the ADCIRC model that you
16 A. Yes, I believe so. 16 earlier referred to?
17 Q. Okay. Did he, Dr. Winer, perform or 17 A. That's right.
18 conduct any studies specifically for the 18 Q. And this was done for the Corps of
19 purpose of this report dealing with the 19 Engineers, this 2003 study?
20 relationship between MRGO and storm surge? 20 A. Yes.
21 A. Not specifically for this report. 21 Q. Okay. And I know -- I think we've
22 Q. All right. Well, did he, Dr. Winer, 22 established that you are not an expert on the
23 conduct any other studies relative to that 23 subject of the relationship between MRGO and
24 question, albeit not for the purposes of this 24 storm surge. Correct?
25 report? 25 A. That's right. Not a technical expert.
Page 119 Page 121
1 MS. SULLIVAN: 1 Q. Not a technical expert. Well, you're
2 Objection. 2 not any kind of expert on the question of that
3 A. I believe that on the previous page, 3 relationship, are you?
4 the reference to the IPET, um -- investigation, 4 A. Just in terms of the various studies
5 I believe Dr. Winer was a part of that. Um -- 5 that, um -- that I was the team leader on.
6 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 6 Q. Right. But that part of those studies
7 Q. All right. And you're referring to 7 that you were the team leader on dealing with
8 the prior page. The discussion of the 8 the relationship between MRGO and storm surge,
9 relationship between MRGO and storm surge 9 you relied on the technical expertise of people
10 begins on bottom of Page 7 and continues 10 competent and qualified to model and analyze
11 throughout all of Page 8. Correct? 11 the relationship.
12 A. That's right. 12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And you believe that Dr. Winer's 13 Q. You're not competent to do your own
14 involvement was with which of those studies 14 analysis of that issue, are you?
15 referenced? 15 A. No.
16 A. The IPET on Page 8, second paragraph. 16 Q. So for you to offer any kind of
17 Q. Right. Okay. Any others? 17 judgment or answer any kind of question about
18 A. Not that I know of. 18 the actual relationship between MRGO and storm
19 Q. Are Drs. Ebersole and Winer the only 19 surge, you'd have to be relying upon the
20 two individuals at the Corps of Engineers 20 opinions and testimony of other people,
21 that -- I know you said Dr. Winer might be 21 correct?
22 retired now, but who either are currently here 22 A. That's right.
23 or previously were here who you know to have 23 Q. And you'd be speculating if you tried
24 taken part in an analysis of the question 24 to do that on your own, wouldn't you?
25 whether MRGO does or does not exacerbate storm 25 A. Um -- in terms of the technical

31 (Pages 118 to 121)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 122 Page 124
1 modeling and such, but not in terms of the, 1 Resources on the relationship between MRGO and
2 um -- clear stated opinions of others; for 2 storm surge. Right?
3 example, local government or environmental 3 A. There is.
4 organizations, et cetera. 4 Q. And am I correct that according to
5 Q. Right. I understand you could restate 5 that study the closure of the MRGO was related
6 the opinions of others, but for you to offer 6 to some modest delay in the onset of surge in a
7 your own view on the subject you'd necessarily 7 few locations?
8 be relying on people with technical expertise, 8 A. Can I have a minute to read that?
9 and that's not you. 9 Q. Sure. It's the second-to-last
10 A. That's correct. 10 paragraph on Page 8. And I'm specifically
11 Q. Okay. And the 2003 study, using 11 referring to the second-to-last sentence.
12 ADCIRC demonstrated, do I understand, a maximum 12 A. What's your question again, please?
13 difference in storm surge with or without the 13 Q. Okay. It's true, I take it, that
14 MRGO of just over six inches? Is that true? 14 the -- according to the 2006 study by the
15 A. That's right. 15 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, it
16 Q. I'm being encouraged to make you a 16 was found that closure of the MRGO made may
17 surge expert and refuse to do it. 17 modestly delay the onset of surge in a few
18 Where would this -- if you know, and I 18 locations. True?
19 realize I'm asking you to recite either a 19 MS. SULLIVAN:
20 memory or otherwise knowledge you've learned by 20 Objection.
21 reading something, but in what geographic areas 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
22 was this difference of, quote, just over six 22 Q. According to this report.
23 inches in storm surge with or without the MRGO 23 A. That's what the text here says, yes.
24 identified? 24 Q. Well, do you have any reason to doubt
25 MS. SULLIVAN: 25 the accuracy of take statement?
Page 123 Page 125
1 Objection. 1 A. No.
2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 2 Q. Okay. Do you know what is meant by
3 Q. Do you know? 3 modestly delay the onset of surge? Can you
4 A. I don't know specifically, other than, 4 quantify that?
5 um -- I would assume that this statement is 5 A. No. I can't.
6 made in reference to the project as defined in 6 Q. Do you know what is referred to when
7 that study. 7 it says in a few locations?
8 Q. Uh-huh. I guess just so I'm clear on 8 A. I do not.
9 this, asked another way, do you know if that 9 Q. Okay. And then there's a quote in the
10 2003 study extended to the Metropolitan New 10 completion of that same sentence, presumably
11 Orleans area? 11 from the LDNR study itself, stating that the
12 A. I believe it did, but I'm not 12 closure of the MRGO would significantly reduce
13 positive. 13 storm surge scour velocities at some locations.
14 Q. You're not sure. Okay. Do you know 14 True?
15 whether any of the nine scenarios that 15 A. That's what it says.
16 apparently were referenced in the 2003 study 16 Q. Do you know what it meant by
17 were similar to the Hurricane Katrina scenario? 17 significantly reduce?
18 MS. SULLIVAN: 18 A. I do not.
19 Objection. 19 Q. Do you know what is meant by scour
20 A. I don't know. 20 velocities?
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 21 A. Not in the context of their report --
22 Q. You don't know. 22 of the DNR report.
23 I notice, again at Page 8 of this 2006 23 Q. Okay. Do you know what is meant by
24 report, that there is also reference to a 2006 24 the reference to some locations?
25 study by the Louisiana Department of Natural 25 A. I do not.

32 (Pages 122 to 125)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 126 Page 128
1 Q. Okay. Have you ever encountered the 1 A. I do.
2 phrase scour velocities in your work with the 2 Q. In the final paragraph of that
3 federal government prior to seeing it written 3 section, which is at Page 14, a statement is
4 here? 4 made that the construction of the MRGO
5 A. Not that I remember. 5 converted nearly 3400 acres of intermediate
6 Q. So you don't know what scour 6 marsh, over 10,300 acres of brackish marsh, and
7 velocities refers to. 7 4200 acres of saline marsh, and 1500 acres of
8 A. I can -- I can interpret what it 8 cypress and levee forest to open water or
9 means. I think I know what it means. 9 disposal area. Do you see that?
10 Q. What does it mean? 10 A. I do.
11 A. I believe that it's the velocity of 11 Q. And then a cite for that is to a
12 water that would result in the scouring of, 12 technical committee report of 1999. Correct?
13 um -- sediment or soil. 13 A. That is, yes.
14 Q. When you say the velocity of water, 14 Q. The cite there to that report, is that
15 you mean -- what? 15 source a committee of the Environmental
16 A. The speed. 16 Protection Agency that did some work on that
17 Q. The speed of waves? 17 for the Corps of Engineers, if you know?
18 A. No, I'm not -- 18 A. If my recollection is right, I believe
19 Q. No? Or is it just the speed of the 19 that the Corps did some work for a committee
20 current? 20 that was headed up by the EPA.
21 A. From my standpoint, this would come 21 Q. Okay.
22 into play in a restoration project where, um -- 22 A. Yes.
23 for example, a shoreline protection project 23 Q. So the source of that information is
24 could be undermined by scour. There's some 24 the Corps of Engineers?
25 engineering measures that we take -- that are 25 A. Yes.
Page 127 Page 129
1 taken in the design and construction to try to 1 Q. Okay. And certainly you don't have
2 address that. 2 any basis to disagree with or dispute any of
3 Q. Okay. 3 those figures in that sense, do you?
4 A. But I don't -- I don't have the 4 A. No.
5 technical mathematical understanding. 5 Q. 3400 acres of intermediate marsh
6 Q. I understand. But just in terms of 6 refers to what; or put another way, what is
7 clarifying your own understanding, is the 7 meant by intermediate marsh?
8 velocity referred to here making reference to 8 A. It's a designation of a type of marsh,
9 how fast waves move across the surface or how 9 um -- in reference to salinity. Um -- I don't
10 fast water current itself is? 10 remember the exact parts per thousand, but
11 MS. SULLIVAN: 11 marshes in Louisiana are categorized by the
12 Objection. 12 salinity level that is found within them and
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 13 the salinity level governs the types of plants
14 Q. If you know. 14 that are able to grow in that habitat.
15 A. I don't know. 15 Q. Okay. So does intermediate marsh as
16 Q. You don't know. Okay. 16 used here refer to marsh that had water with
17 (Lunch break.) 17 some saline content?
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Mr. Miller, I'd like to turn now to 19 Q. But not enough saline content to then
20 another section of the 2006 de-authorization 20 be categorized as, for example, brackish or
21 report, and specifically to Page 14. The 21 saline marsh?
22 actual section that I want to talk about begins 22 A. That's correct.
23 on Page 13 under the heading of Historical 23 Q. True? So there's more freshwater in
24 Land/Habitat Conditions. 24 the intermediate marsh than there is in the
25 Do you see that? 25 brackish or saline marsh.

33 (Pages 126 to 129)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 130 Page 132
1 A. Well, there's less salt in the water 1 A. Um -- 1968 I think is the year that we
2 in those marshes than in the other two 2 refer to.
3 categories that you mentioned. 3 Q. '68? When did it begin?
4 Q. Okay. And then the reference to 4 A. 1958.
5 10,300 acres of brackish marsh, I think we have 5 Q. '58. So the construction was a
6 a lay understanding of brackish, but as used 6 ten-year period of time -- covered a ten-year
7 here to describe a marsh, that, too, refers to 7 period of time. True?
8 a certain required level of salinity in order 8 A. Depending on what month it started,
9 to be characterized that way? 9 but yeah, I guess so. Something around there.
10 A. That's correct. 10 Q. What I'm trying to clarify here is,
11 Q. Okay. And then the same with saline 11 does this sentence mean that at the end of that
12 marsh, that's an even higher level of salinity 12 ten-year period this much marsh and other types
13 to be called saline marsh? 13 of land had been converted to open water or
14 A. That's right. 14 disposal areas already?
15 Q. And the 1500 acres of cypress and 15 MS. SULLIVAN:
16 levee forest that's referred to here, is that 16 Objection.
17 referring to forested marsh; in other words, is 17 A. I don't know. I'd have to look at the
18 that referring to land that was not marsh but 18 data set that was used to compile the figures.
19 solid land on which a cypress and levee forest 19 I don't know.
20 existed? 20 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
21 MS. SULLIVAN: 21 Q. So just so you understand my question,
22 Objection. 22 an perhaps you can't answer it, but does this
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 23 tell us that in 1968 when the construction was
24 Q. It's a poorly asked question, but I'm 24 done this was true at that time, as opposed to
25 trying to figure out what kind of terrain that 25 telling us that the construction and existence
Page 131 Page 133
1 refers to, if you know. 1 of the MRGO as of -- the reference is 1999, the
2 A. I don't know. 2 information -- as of '99 had converted that
3 Q. So it could be referring to forested 3 much land?
4 areas that would be forested marsh areas? 4 MS. SULLIVAN:
5 A. I really don't know. I'd have to look 5 Objection.
6 at the reference again. 6 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
7 Q. Okay. All right. Now, this is all 7 Q. Do you know which it is?
8 attributed to the construction of the MRGO 8 MS. SULLIVAN:
9 converting those various kinds of land into 9 If you can answer.
10 open water or disposal areas. I know what open 10 A. I believe his sentence is just
11 water refers to, obviously, but disposal area, 11 referencing to the physical construction of the
12 tell us what that is, as used here. 12 channel, not anything lost in terms of acres
13 A. The way I understand, during the 13 after --
14 construction of the MRGO the majority of the 14 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
15 material dug to create the channel was placed 15 Q. Since then, all right.
16 in one -- on one side of the channel, and it's 16 A. Right.
17 a dredge material disposal area. It's a term 17 Q. Is if that's true, then as of 1968
18 used often associated with other navigation 18 this was true in terms of the amount of acres
19 channels. It's an area where you place the 19 that were converted, correct?
20 material dug out of the navigation channel. 20 A. I believe that's the reference, yes.
21 Q. Now, does this sentence mean that 21 Q. Okay. Do you know of a study or
22 immediately upon its construction -- which was 22 studies which quantifies, in each of these same
23 when, back in the early sixties? Do you 23 categories, additional loss of acreage in areas
24 remember what the date of the completion of the 24 adjacent to or influenced directly by the MRGO
25 MRGO was? 25 since 1968?

34 (Pages 130 to 133)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 134 Page 136
1 A. You know, there's a number of them. 1 some wetland conditions. Um -- under, for
2 You know, this is the focus of our work across 2 example, Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection
3 the coast is to identify rates of wetland loss 3 and Restoration Act.
4 and to try to develop -- 4 Q. Uh-huh. Okay.
5 Q. Right. 5 A. But they're small site-specific --
6 A. -- restoration solutions for them. 6 Q. Site specific. The one that you
7 So, yeah, there are a number of them. 7 mentioned that's issued by the Corps dating
8 Q. Okay. Just -- we may not get into it 8 from late '04, early '05, would that be the
9 in detail today, but give me a reference or two 9 most comprehensive report on this question of
10 to what you would consider an authoritative 10 the lost acreage in proximity to the Katrina
11 source to quantify that loss in these different 11 event but prior to Katrina?
12 categories of acreage since the construction of 12 MS. SULLIVAN:
13 the MRGO was completed in '68. 13 Objection.
14 MS. SULLIVAN: 14 A. I believe so.
15 Objection. 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
16 A. The Coast 2050 Plan by Louisiana 16 Q. Going back to Page 14, that same
17 Coastal Area Study. 17 paragraph, the next sentence after the one
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 18 we've discussed states that bank erosion on the
19 Q. Before with move on, I want to make 19 MRGO has been estimated to occur at rates
20 sure that after he we leave today we can get 20 between 6 and 36 feet per year on the inland
21 access to these things if they're public 21 reach. And the source given there is Coastal
22 records. The Coast 23050 Plan is a public 22 Environments, 1984. You see what I'm referring
23 document? 23 to?
24 A. Yes. 24 A. I do.
25 Q. Who is the author? Or which entity is 25 Q. Yeah. Tell me, if you will, about the
Page 135 Page 137
1 the author of it? 1 source there, Coastal Environments '84. What
2 A. I believe the reference is Louisiana 2 is Coastal Environments?
3 Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration 3 A. If I recall, that's a consulting firm.
4 Task Force, but don't quote me on it. 4 It's probably identified in the reference
5 Q. What's the date of it, Mr. Miller? 5 section of this report.
6 A. 1998 6 Q. What page is that that it's identified
7 Q. '98? Okay. Can you name any other 7 on?
8 sources that you'd regard as authoritative on 8 A. Well, it's Page 1, and it's --
9 this issue? 9 MS. SULLIVAN:
10 MS. SULLIVAN: 10 Appendix 1.
11 Same objection. 11 A. -- appendix 1.
12 A. The Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
13 Restoration Study. 13 Q. In Appendix 1, Page 1?
14 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 14 A. Right.
15 Q. And which agency or agencies authored 15 Q. And about two thirds down on that page
16 that? 16 we see Coastal Environments, Inc., 1984,
17 A. The Army Corps of Engineers. 17 Environmental Characteristics of the
18 Q. And the date? 18 Pontchartrain/Maurepas Basin, et cetera. Is
19 A. I believe late 2004, early 2005. 19 that the reference?
20 Q. And that's a public record -- publicly 20 A. Yes.
21 available record? 21 Q. Okay. That was a study performed for
22 A. Yes. 22 the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources?
23 Q. Any others? 23 Am I reading that correctly?
24 A. Not -- no large reports. There are 24 A. That's the way I read it. But I'm not
25 individual project specific reports that report 25 sure if that's -- you know, we'd have to ask

35 (Pages 134 to 137)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 138 Page 140
1 DNR about that. 1 other waterways in the area of the MRGO.
2 Q. All right. What is meant by the 2 Q. All right. Well, I can understand how
3 reference to bank erosion on the MRGO? 3 if you're in the channel of the MRGO and you
4 A. It's, you know, the retreat or the 4 want to get from an adjacent site from there
5 erosion of the shoreline, the, um -- either 5 you'd have to cut through the bank to get
6 wetland or spoil bank or whatever shoreline is 6 there. And that's one of the things you're
7 adjacent to the channel at that -- those rates 7 describing, correct?
8 or rates between that range. 8 A. That's right.
9 Q. And what is your understanding of the 9 Q. And that would certainly affect the
10 cause or causes of the bank erosion that is 10 bank and lead to bank erosion. I understand
11 referred to here? 11 that. Of course, the Corps of Engineers
12 A. It would be site specific, but in 12 obviously would have to give permission for
13 general there are a number of factors that 13 that to happen.
14 cause erosion in this area. 14 A. I believe it would be relevant to the
15 Q. Uh-huh. 15 date of when the activity happened.
16 A. Um -- those range from ship -- vessel 16 Q. Why do you say that?
17 wakes, subsidence, um -- oil and gas 17 A. Well, without getting into the time
18 exploration, a number of factors. 18 frames of it, but there was a point in time
19 Q. Is dredging one of the factors? 19 when you weren't required to have permission to
20 A. Um -- it could be, yes. 20 do something like that. There were laws passed
21 Q. You said something about oil and gas 21 that regulate the dredging of the wetlands.
22 exploration? 22 Those laws -- that law I believe is after the
23 A. That's right. 23 construction of the channel. So there were
24 Q. How does that cause or contribute to 24 activities that may have occurred prior to that
25 bank erosion of the MRGO? 25 requirement.
Page 139 Page 141
1 A. Um -- the, um -- the access to a 1 Q. Can you give me a general idea when --
2 drilling site, if it's in the wetlands, the 2 the date those laws that prohibited you from
3 wetlands have to be dug up to provide flotation 3 getting that kind of access without permission?
4 for support vessels and drilling rig and et 4 A. I believe it's 1972. Um --
5 cetera, and so the physical removal of the 5 Q. '72?
6 wetland is associated with those activities. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. So an oil and gas 7 Q. Certainly, then, after that date any
8 exploration access activity, how does that 8 oil and gas company wanting to get access to an
9 directly or indirectly erode the bank of the 9 adjacent site by cutting through the bank of
10 MRGO? I'm not sure I follow you. 10 MRGO would have to get the permission and
11 A. For example, if there was a drilling 11 authority of the Corps of Engineers.
12 site adjacent to the channel, or off of the 12 A. It was before my time, so I don't know
13 channel, and they had the get to it -- 13 exactly when the law was passed and once the
14 Q. From the channel, you mean. 14 permitting began, but I'd say in that time
15 A. -- they would dig up the wetland in 15 frame.
16 order to be able to float the drilling rig into 16 Q. When you say in that time frame, since
17 that area, and so that erodes the bank or -- 17 '72, as far as you know, permission from the
18 Q. Right. 18 Corps would be necessary in order to cut
19 A. -- destroys wetlands in the area. 19 through the bank of the MRGO to get access to a
20 Q. So you're talking about cuts made in 20 drilling site?
21 the bank from the MRGO channel itself, leaving 21 A. Sometime after 1972. That's my point.
22 that channel in order to get access to an 22 I don't know exactly when permitting began.
23 adjacent site? Is that what you're describing? 23 Q. All right.
24 A. Yes. Or from other areas, bayous in 24 A. Um --
25 the area, or the lake, or, um -- you know, or 25 Q. This refers to an erosion rate of --

36 (Pages 138 to 141)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 142 Page 144
1 ranging between 6 and 36 feet per year on the 1 design memo of the MRGO but we had a
2 inland reach. Can you -- and maybe hold it up 2 question of whether or not after the
3 so the camera can see it -- using whichever one 3 design memo any of these might have
4 of these maps is better suited for it, tell 4 changed.
5 us -- just point to where the inland reach of 5 THE WITNESS:
6 the MRGO is that's referred to in this 6 I don't know.
7 sentence. 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
8 A. Can I have a minute to look through? 8 Q. All right. Can we just ask you to
9 Q. Uh-huh. 9 give me a general --
10 A. On Page 3, um -- it describes that 10 A. I can describe what's meant by this
11 from mile 23 to mile 60, the MRGO extends 11 report. It's roughly from the intersection of
12 further to the north and west through coastal 12 the GIWW out to the end of the land on this
13 wetlands. This section of the MRGO is often 13 map.
14 referred to as the inland reach. 14 Q. Well, can you find that intersection
15 Your maps don't, um -- there's no 15 on the map?
16 single map here that depicts that. 16 A. Yeah. The next one. Roughly from
17 Q. All right. So are you saying that the 17 this point.
18 inland reach is defined where, on Page 3? I 18 Q. From there out to the end of the land.
19 wasn't looking. 19 A. To the end of the wetland here.
20 A. The last two sentences of the first 20 Q. All right. Thank you. And when it
21 paragraph. 21 says that the rate of erosion varies from
22 Q. All right. So it's between mile 23 22 between 6 to 36 feet per year along that entire
23 and mile 60. Correct? 23 stretch, that's a stretch of how many miles?
24 A. Yes. 24 37 miles, roughly? Do I have that right,
25 Q. And you're saying neither one of these 25 between mile 23 and mile 60?
Page 143 Page 145
1 maps depicts -- 1 A. I forgot what page we were on.
2 A. No, no. There's no -- you need both 2 Q. You were on Page 3, where it says from
3 of them. 3 mile 23 to mile 60.
4 Q. It's on there, but you don't know how 4 A. And your question is?
5 you'd point to mile 23 to 60 by looking at the 5 Q. Well, that's a 37-mile stretch, true?
6 map? Is that what you're saying? 6 A. Yes.
7 A. Roughly, it's from -- 7 Q. The inland reach?
8 Q. Wait. I'd like to show it on the -- 8 A. By my math, yes.
9 MS. SULLIVAN: 9 Q. Okay. And I gather there's a variable
10 Why don't you take a look at it, 10 bank erosion rate along that 37 miles.
11 Greg. I know it's sort of hard to 11 MS. SULLIVAN:
12 see. Just look at it and see if you 12 Objection.
13 can answer his question. 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
14 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 14 Q. In other words, there's no uniform
15 Q. Here's the question, so we're clear. 15 erosion rate in that 37 mile stretch. Is that
16 If you can, point out on that map the area that 16 correct?
17 is described in the de-authorization report as 17 MS. SULLIVAN:
18 the inland reach of the MRGO. 18 Objection.
19 A. I'm not sure if this map is accurate 19 But you can answer if you can.
20 because the mile numbers that you have depicted 20 A. Yes.
21 here don't match what I believe the Corps has 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
22 as designate mile numbers of the channel. So I 22 Q. In some areas there's faster erosion
23 don't know if your map is accurate. 23 than in others, true?
24 MR. BUCHLER: 24 A. Yes.
25 It's actually accurate with the 25 Q. Do you have any knowledge or

37 (Pages 142 to 145)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 146 Page 148
1 understanding, Mr. Miller, as to the area or 1 A. That's right.
2 areas along that 37-mile stretch where the bank 2 Q. Okay. How would you, in an overall
3 erosion has been the most rapid? 3 way, describe the succes of those efforts that
4 MS. SULLIVAN: 4 you personally have been involved with?
5 Objection. 5 A. The ones that we have been funded to
6 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 6 construct have been very successful. Those
7 Q. As compared to others? 7 projects have stopped erosion at those, um --
8 A. I do, but I don't recall. I'd have to 8 the locations where we've been able to build
9 go and look at, um -- some additional maps 9 them.
10 that, you know, we may have used in preparation 10 Q. And the projects that were successful
11 of the reports. In other words, I don't know 11 involved the placement of riprap, or was there
12 exactly what site is the highest rate of 12 some other technique or approach taken?
13 erosion, but I know that, you know, we would 13 A. You're out of my technical area, but I
14 have looked at that information. 14 don't know that riprap is really the right
15 Q. Was the bank erosion rate along the 15 term.
16 inland reach, if we were to graph it on a time 16 Q. Okay. What do you call it?
17 chart, increasing over time, staying the same, 17 A. It's quarry -- it's stone from quarry.
18 or decreasing? 18 I think riprap is, um -- broken up concrete.
19 MS. SULLIVAN: 19 But -- and we were using stone in the design
20 Objection. 20 and construction of these projects.
21 A. I don't know. 21 Q. Okay. All right. Quarry stone has
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 22 been the method that you've used, you working
23 Q. You don't know? 23 with the Corps, for bank stabilization in this
24 A. No. 24 six-year period you've been involved with that,
25 Q. Now, the balance of this paragraph, we 25 and you have found it to be successful.
Page 147 Page 149
1 don't have to go through it word for word, but 1 A. Yes.
2 talks about what the Corps historically did or 2 Q. True?
3 has done to respond to bank erosion in what is 3 A. Yes.
4 called bank stabilization efforts, correct? 4 Q. Okay. Have you -- and I say you, in
5 A. Yes. 5 this sense I'm actually referring to you and
6 Q. And you've had a role in that, haven't 6 the Corps, the people you work with -- been
7 you, particularly in the determination of where 7 desirous of doing more quarry stone placement
8 to deposit dredge material, for example? 8 on the banks of the MRGO on occasions but have
9 A. In terms of dredge material, um -- not 9 been unable to because of lack of funding?
10 with the Corps of Engineers, but with the 10 MS. SULLIVAN:
11 National Marine Fisheries we would provide 11 Objection.
12 input on dredging efforts and where to place 12 A. We have, over time, had a number of
13 material in order to help rebuild wetlands. 13 different types of restoration proposals along
14 Q. That's to restore wetland, that's 14 the channel, or in the area, that included,
15 really not bank stabilization, is it? 15 um -- rock placement and other shoreline, um --
16 A. No. Um -- and in terms of the Corps, 16 either protection or restoration techniques.
17 um -- I've been involved in efforts for 17 Um -- you know, funding is -- it's not my call.
18 shoreline protection through bank stabilization 18 It's up to the Congress and the president.
19 and other activities. 19 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
20 Q. And for how long a period of time have 20 Q. Oh, I wasn't suggesting it was. That
21 you personally been involved in those efforts? 21 was not my question. My question was -- let me
22 A. Six or seven years. 22 ask it another way. Has the lack or
23 Q. Okay. And those efforts have included 23 unavailability of funding prevented the Corps,
24 the placement of rock, riprap and that sort of 24 and the efforts that you're familiar with, from
25 thing? 25 doing more with rock replacement than it

38 (Pages 146 to 149)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 150 Page 152
1 otherwise would have done? 1 that would only address one aspect of wetlands
2 MS. SULLIVAN: 2 loss in the area. There's additional factors
3 Objection. 3 that cause erosion, um -- other than the
4 A. You know, I believe that we have tried 4 retreat of the bank line that I mentioned
5 to -- you know, to build everything that we had 5 earlier, subsidence or oil and gas exploration
6 funds for. Um -- if we didn't have money -- 6 or, other activities.
7 you know, nothing is free in that sense. So if 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
8 the fundings aren't available, we can't perform 8 Q. Right. But I thought you had told me
9 the work. 9 that your general assessment, from your actual
10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 10 experience, is that when you've been able to
11 Q. Would you have recommended doing more 11 place this quarry stone in different places
12 had the money been available? 12 along the banks of the MRGO it has had the
13 MS. SULLIVAN: 13 effect of halting bank erosion.
14 Objection. 14 A. Bank erosion, yes. That's my point,
15 A. Well, we made -- we produced reports, 15 is that is just one type of wetland loss.
16 I referred to one of them, the Louisiana 16 Q. You were going beyond bank erosion to
17 Coastal Area Study, that actually recommended, 17 wetland loss.
18 um -- I don't recall the exact mileage, but a 18 A. Right.
19 significant amount of rock work, which is what 19 Q. Right. Okay. The next section
20 I was referring to earlier this morning where I 20 starting at the bottom of Page 14 of the report
21 said we've approached the channel, you know, as 21 talks about salinity conditions.
22 what do we do -- 22 Do you agree -- I think we covered
23 Q. If we keep it. 23 this earlier, but I want to be sure -- but that
24 A. -- if the channel remains open, versus 24 the extent of salinity in waterways is a factor
25 what we would do if the channel is closed. 25 in contributing to the loss of marsh, forested
Page 151 Page 153
1 Q. Uh-huh. Right. Right. 1 marsh, wetland, forested wetlands, in a given
2 A. So we have made -- we, the Corps, has 2 area, as a general proposition. You agree?
3 made recommendations, um -- through a 3 A. I do. I believe it plays a role, yes.
4 feasibility study for additional bank and 4 Q. Okay. Now, as part of this
5 shoreline protection. 5 de-authorization report, your group wanted to
6 Q. Uh-huh. Prior to Katrina. 6 look at the historical salinity in areas
7 A. Yes. 7 affected by the MRGO?
8 Q. Okay. And your belief is that with 8 A. That's right.
9 proper funding those bank stabilization efforts 9 Q. Okay. And tell me why that was
10 through the placement of quarry stone would 10 relevant to your team in arriving at the
11 have been successful. 11 required recommendations for this report.
12 MS. SULLIVAN: 12 MS. SULLIVAN:
13 Objection. 13 Objection.
14 A. I believe so. That or some other 14 A. If I remember right, this report is
15 protection technique that we can use in an area 15 the subject is the de-authorization of the deep
16 like that. 16 draft channel itself.
17 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 17 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
18 Q. Uh-huh. So that it's true that some 18 Q. Right.
19 bank erosion has occurred because for whatever 19 A. And, um -- a lot of the evaluation was
20 reason funding was not made available for 20 primarily driven on the economics of the
21 efforts recommended by the Corps prior to 21 channel. Um --
22 Katrina. 22 Q. Right.
23 MS. SULLIVAN: 23 A. And this section referring to salinity
24 Objection. 24 and marsh loss is part of a description of the
25 A. Yes, but I want to make it clear that 25 existing conditions and things that have

39 (Pages 150 to 153)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 154 Page 156
1 happened historically associated with the 1 dam at this point?
2 channel. 2 MS. SULLIVAN:
3 Q. Uh-huh. 3 Objection.
4 A. I don't know that they weighed in, 4 You can answer.
5 um -- in terms of a conclusion, and also 5 A. I want to be clear, though, in this
6 caution that this report was an interim report 6 particular report there is no recommendation.
7 and so it didn't really make a recommendation, 7 It was identifying, um -- you know, this, as I
8 it just highlighted, um -- I forget the words, 8 mentioned, was by Congress required as a
9 but a particularly viable option. 9 two-step reporting process, an interim report
10 Q. Yes, sir. I'm trying to relate the 10 and a final report, and this is the interim
11 topic of salinity analysis to the task that you 11 report. So there is no recommendation in this
12 were faced with in this report. 12 document. It identifies a particularly viable
13 A. Uh-huh. 13 option.
14 Q. And I just need a little bit more help 14 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
15 in doing that. In weighing whether to either 15 Q. Yeah. Well, that's what I'm puzzled
16 constrict or close up through damming the MRGO, 16 by. I want to go back again to the executive
17 as available options. Is it true that the 17 summary because maybe this is my failure to
18 closure had a more dramatic effect on reducing 18 understand the language here. But the first
19 salinity in the territory in and adjacent to 19 paragraph under congressional direction and
20 the MRGO? 20 purpose -- you see that?
21 MS. SULLIVAN: 21 A. I'm sorry. On what page?
22 Objection. 22 Q. Page I.
23 A. You have to be careful about the area 23 A. Okay. Yes.
24 that you're trying to pinpoint, um -- because 24 Q. You see the sentence in the middle
25 of the identified location for the, um -- the 25 beginning with this interim report?
Page 155 Page 157
1 closure structure. 1 A. Yes.
2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 2 Q. This interim report does not contain a
3 Q. All right. Well, let's look at 3 final recommendation for construction but does
4 Page 23 of the report, the second-to-last 4 evaluate the feasibility of integrating each of
5 paragraph. It states a report prepared for the 5 the options, et cetera.
6 Corps, referencing a report in 2002, by Tate 6 Do you agree with that?
7 and others, quantified the salinity reductions 7 A. Yes.
8 that could be gained in the Lake Pontchartrain 8 Q. And then it says, while the December
9 estuary from creating a localized channel 9 2007 LACPR report will include a final detailed
10 constriction on the MRGO at the Bayou La Loutre 10 plan, based on the current level of analysis it
11 ridge. True? That's what it says? 11 appears that full integration into LACPR could
12 A. Yes. 12 be best achieved by closing the MRGO.
13 Q. And then it states using 3-dimensional 13 Now, you say that's not a
14 hydrodynamic modeling of conditions at 14 recommendation.
15 different times of the year, and with different 15 A. That's exactly right. It's not a
16 tides and wind effects, the study -- presumably 16 recommendation.
17 the 2002 study by Tate -- showed that a 17 Q. But it's a statement about what could
18 constriction to a 125-foot width and 12-foot 18 be best achieved based on the current analysis,
19 depth could achieve salinity reduction, but not 19 true?
20 as much as total blockage of the MRGO. True? 20 A. Yes. But it's in terms of the
21 A. That's what it says, yes. 21 integration of options into the LACPR effort,
22 Q. Was the greater salinity reduction 22 which is a broader evaluation of coastal
23 achieved by total blockage of the MRGO a factor 23 restoration and protection across Louisiana,
24 supporting the recommendation of this report 24 from the Mississippi border to the Texas
25 that there be total closure through an earthen 25 border. This document does not recommend

40 (Pages 154 to 157)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 158 Page 160
1 closing MRGO. If you want that document, it's 1 constriction of the channel?
2 available, but this isn't it. That's what I'm 2 MS. SULLIVAN:
3 trying to make the point of. 3 Objection.
4 Q. Yeah. Okay. Well, we only have a 4 A. I believe it would. I would question
5 short period of time. And maybe I'll have to 5 whether or not that's what Tate 's work
6 come back and talk to you about the other 6 evaluated. I don't recall for sure if they
7 document, but right now I'm stuck with this 7 looked at a total closure. And that's really
8 one. 8 why I'm questioning what we have been talking
9 A. Okay. 9 about here.
10 Q. And all I guess I'm asking for an 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
11 agreement on is that whether you call it a 11 Q. All right. So that the part of the
12 recommendation to close the MRGO or not, the 12 report that you had a hand in writing that says
13 document did make the statement that the full 13 using 3-dimensional hydrodynamic modeling of
14 integration into the LACPR could be best 14 conditions, et cetera, the study -- again, I'm
15 achieved by closing the MRGO. 15 assuming that refers to Tate, unless there's a
16 A. I agree that that's what it says. 16 new study referenced with this 3-dimensional
17 Q. All right. Now, in arriving at that 17 model -- and maybe I should clarify that. Is
18 statement, for whatever it's worth, the report 18 the 3-dimensional modeling something that was
19 takes into account, does it not, that a greater 19 done at part of the Tate study or is this a
20 reduction of salinity is achieved by closure as 20 different study?
21 opposed to constriction? True? 21 A. I believe that's in reference to Tate.
22 A. Your question is, is the level of 22 Q. So you don't think it's accurate to
23 salinity reduction from closure as opposed to 23 say that the Tate study showed this.
24 constriction of the channel, and whether or not 24 A. That's -- I'm not sure that that's
25 this report takes that into consideration? 25 what Tate said. I know that's what this says,
Page 159 Page 161
1 Q. Yes. Whether in support of the 1 but I just remember -- you know, I've got a
2 statement we've read in the executive summary 2 shelf full of studies in my office.
3 that based on the current level analysis the 3 Q. I got you. But you edited and
4 full integration into the LACPR could best be 4 approved this, didn't you, this being the 2006
5 achieved by closing the MRGO. And that's the 5 report?
6 statements I'm referring to, that one of the 6 A. That's right.
7 considerations supportive of that statement was 7 Q. So I assume you were doing your job
8 the reference here in the report based upon the 8 and you saw that statement when you were
9 Tate study that closure of the MRGO achieved a 9 editing it, you would have changed it if you
10 greater salinity reduction than constriction. 10 disagreed with it, correct?
11 Is that true? 11 MS. SULLIVAN:
12 MS. SULLIVAN: 12 Objection.
13 Objection. 13 A. If I felt the statement was incorrect,
14 A. I don't believe that that's what 14 I would have changed it, and --
15 this -- I don't believe that that's what this 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
16 paragraph referencing Tate says, and I don't 16 Q. Okay.
17 believe that -- well, let's just levee it at 17 A. -- I don't know that I did that. I
18 that. I don't think that's what this says. 18 believe -- I believe the statement is correct
19 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 19 as it reads.
20 Q. Fine. Well, let me just ask you the 20 Q. Okay. All right. I want to maybe
21 question: Do you believe that the closure, or 21 jump ahead a little bit before we continue
22 what's stated here is total blockage, but 22 plowing through this thing, because I'm aware
23 closure, blockage, using a dam to stop it up, 23 that you've made the comment, now, look, this
24 whatever you want to call it, achieves a 24 2006 was just what it was and it really doesn't
25 greater salinity reduction than does 25 represent the Corps' recommendation on the

41 (Pages 158 to 161)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 162 Page 164
1 closure of the MRGO. I think that's what 1 was that change or modification made?
2 you've testified. Correct? 2 A. Um -- based on technical input from
3 A. That's correct. This is an interim 3 the team. In terms of, um -- constructability
4 report. 4 and cost, um -- and likely other factors. I
5 Q. An interim report. All right. Has 5 probably just don't remember them right now.
6 the Corp, since this, taken the position that 6 Q. Okay. Now, there's a lot of
7 the MRGO ought to be closed? 7 information, isn't there, that goes into
8 A. The, um -- the Chief of Engineers has 8 supporting the Corps' recommendation to close
9 recommended closing the MRGO, yes. 9 the MRGO? True?
10 Q. When was that done; when was that 10 A. That's right.
11 recommendation made? 11 Q. What I'd ask you to do, Mr. Miller, is
12 A. His, um -- report was signed the 29th 12 identify for me which information supporting
13 of January, this year. 13 the closure of the MRGO is information that is
14 Q. And it is a published, publicly 14 new and existing for the first time since
15 available report? 15 Hurricane Katrina landfall of August 29, 2005.
16 A. Yes, it is. 16 MS. SULLIVAN:
17 Q. And this is a document that is 17 Objection.
18 different in its conclusions than the 18 A. Um -- the existing conditions, um --
19 conclusions reached in the December 2006 19 part of the evaluation is information, um --
20 re authorization report. 20 post-storm. It reflects changes in the area
21 MS. MILLER: 21 after the storm. Um --
22 I think you misspoke and referred 22 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
23 to a re authorization. 23 Q. Can you be more specific?
24 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 24 A. There is a lot of information about
25 Q. De. Oh. I didn't want to say re, 25 the navigation utilization of the channel after
Page 163 Page 165
1 believe me. We'll have to come back here for 1 the storm. Um --
2 years if we do that. 2 Q. You mean the extent of it?
3 A. The, um -- the conclusions of the 3 A. The number of ships.
4 chief's report are different in terms of the 4 Q. Used for commercial shipping?
5 engineering design approach, but they're not 5 A. The depth of the channel, the number
6 different -- they're not different in terms of 6 of ships, things like that.
7 the recommended physical location of a closure. 7 Q. Uh-huh. That data tended to show a
8 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 8 lessened or reduced economic benefit from the
9 Q. All right. So that the chief 's 9 use of the channel?
10 report of, you said, January, 2008, reiterates 10 A. You have to look at the economics
11 the closure option as being appropriate but 11 again, but it does show a reduced number of
12 changes how that's done exactly. 12 vessels utilizing the channel, and that's
13 MS. SULLIVAN: 13 driven by the available depths of the channel
14 Objection. 14 at the time that the study was put together.
15 A. That's right. 15 Q. All right. And you're saying that
16 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 16 that data on frequency of use was not available
17 Q. Because in the 2006 de-authorization 17 before Katrina?
18 interim report you talk about an earthen dam 18 A. I'm saying that that's new
19 being used at Hopedale? 19 information.
20 A. An armored earthen dam, yeah. 20 Q. That's new data?
21 Q. An armored earthen dam. And the 21 A. That's different from the utilization
22 chief's report, instead of that, recommends 22 of the channel prior to Katrina.
23 what? 23 Q. So that the channel was used less
24 A. A rock -- a total rock closure. 24 frequently after Katrina because of physical
25 Q. Okay. And why was -- if you know, why 25 changes in the depth of the channel caused by

42 (Pages 162 to 165)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 166 Page 168
1 Katrina? 1 channel?
2 A. That's right. 2 MS. SULLIVAN:
3 Q. All right. Any other new information 3 Objection.
4 or new data post-Katrina that didn't exist 4 A. Um -- I'd have to look at a comparison
5 before Katrina that supports the recommendation 5 of ship, um -- vessel transits versus the
6 for closure of the MRGO? Other than that. 6 timing of those incidents, but in general,
7 A. I believe the engineering appendix of 7 some -- a number of previous hurricanes have
8 a later report contains site specific, um -- 8 affected the available depth of the channel --
9 engineering, um -- field information that was 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
10 used in helping make the decision of where to 10 Q. Uh-huh.
11 locate the recommended closure structure. 11 A. -- typically in the, um -- the bay or
12 Geotechnical, um -- evaluation of that 12 the sound reach. But I don't know in terms of
13 particular site versus another. And I believe 13 the number of ships what impact that would
14 that that, um -- all of that work was conducted 14 have. I'd have to see the data side by side.
15 after the storm, because prior to the storm we 15 Q. Okay. I guess what you do is just
16 weren't evaluating -- 16 dredge the channel out after those storms to
17 Q. I understand. 17 facilitate shipping again.
18 A. -- where to close the channel. 18 A. If that's what Congress authorizes us
19 Q. Sure. Well, that data just tells us 19 to do, yes.
20 where to go in order to accomplish closure. 20 Q. And in this case, the decision is, you
21 I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about 21 know, rather than dredge this channel again and
22 a different question, which is whether to close 22 again and keep it open for shipping, given the
23 at all. 23 economic advantages of that, they're offset by
24 My question is, aside from the new 24 the disadvantages of keeping it open,
25 information about less frequent shipping 25 essentially. Is that the analysis?
Page 167 Page 169
1 associated with the storm 's effect on the 1 MS. SULLIVAN:
2 channel, is there any other information that 2 Objection.
3 you know of supporting the recommendation of 3 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
4 the Corps to close the MRGO that did not exist 4 Q. Asked another way, you could -- you
5 prior to Hurricane Katrina? 5 talked about the Katrina changes in the channel
6 MS. SULLIVAN: 6 that cause a lessened shipping profile, if you
7 Objection. 7 will, but you could dredge the channel and
8 A. Other than maybe public comment that 8 restore prior shipping activity as an option,
9 was received during the process of this -- 9 true?
10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 10 MS. SULLIVAN:
11 Q. Okay. 11 Objection.
12 A. -- I don't know of any other 12 A. Yes. We could.
13 information that was new post-Katrina other 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
14 than what I've just mentioned. 14 Q. That's been done before.
15 Q. Okay. Thank you. You mentioned the 15 A. Yes.
16 fact that channel use by ships lessened after 16 Q. That's been done before. But now, you
17 Katrina because of physical changes in the 17 weigh that against the disadvantages of keeping
18 channel caused by Katrina. 18 it open and the recommendation is close it;
19 What was the effect of prior 19 true?
20 hurricanes? And I know I'm capturing a lot 20 A. That's right.
21 when I say that, but Georges and Betsy and the 21 Q. Now, do you agree that vegetated
22 ones that had the most dramatic effect in this 22 marshlands serve as a damper to storm-induced
23 area, is it true that they also caused physical 23 surges and help to reduce storm impacts to
24 changes to the MRGO that would have then 24 human structures such as homes and businesses?
25 resulted in less frequent shipping use of the 25 MS. MILLER:

43 (Pages 166 to 169)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 170 Page 172
1 Could you tell us where you're 1 is made: Over the years, MRGO has compromised
2 reading from? 2 the safety of countless communities and
3 MR. MEUNIER: 3 contributed to the loss of vital coastal marsh
4 Well, I'm trying to speed it up. 4 areas.
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 5 Do you agree?
6 Q. Maybe -- 6 A. No.
7 A. I'll answer it. 7 MS. SULLIVAN:
8 Q. If you just say yes, we can move on. 8 Objection.
9 MS. SULLIVAN: 9 A. Not completely.
10 No, you don't have to -- don't -- 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
11 yeah. You don't have to say yes. You 11 Q. All right. What's the part you agree
12 answer his question. 12 with and what's the part you don't agree with?
13 A. I think from a systems standpoint 13 MS. SULLIVAN:
14 there is a contribution. But I can't from a 14 Same objection. Make it
15 technical standpoint tell you the value or the 15 continuing.
16 magnitude of that contribution. 16 A. I agree with the contribution to
17 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 17 wetland loss. I don't necessarily agree with
18 Q. Sure. Look at Page 41. I mean, I'm 18 the phrasing of countless, for example, nor the
19 just trying to accelerate this a bit. The 19 safety concern.
20 language is not mine, it's whoever wrote this 20 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
21 report, I guess including you. 21 Q. Okay. And then the next sentence
22 First sentence under the heading 22 says, the closure of the MRGO must ensure that
23 Habitat Creation by Sediment Placement, and 23 communities are safe and our ecosystems are
24 I'll state it again: Vegetated marshlands 24 protected from further saltwater intrusion and
25 serve as a damper to storm-induced surges and 25 coastal land loss.
Page 171 Page 173
1 help to reduce storm impacts to human 1 Let me just ask you this: Do you
2 structures such as homes and businesses. Do 2 believe that the closure of the MRGO will go
3 you agree? 3 toward assuring that our ecosystems are
4 A. Yes. 4 protected from further saltwater intrusion and
5 Q. Do you also agree with the statement 5 coastal land loss?
6 further down in that paragraph stating, which 6 MS. SULLIVAN:
7 says, it is also clear that marsh habitat is 7 Objection.
8 important in reducing the potential for damages 8 A. I believe that the recommended plan
9 during a storm event? 9 has benefits for coastal wetlands in terms of
10 A. Um -- I'm not sure where you're 10 some reduction in the loss, or the rate of
11 reading from. 11 erosion of those areas. I do.
12 Q. I'm sorry. 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
13 MS. SULLIVAN: 13 Q. Okay. Thank you. I think we're done
14 (Indicating.) 14 with that report. Which again, I don't know
15 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 15 whether we're physically attaching those things
16 Q. It begins with, it is also clear. 16 or just referencing them.
17 A. Yes. 17 MS. MILLER:
18 Q. One of the attachments to the 18 I think we should attach this
19 de-authorization report of December '06 is a 19 one. It hasn't been attached to
20 June 2006 letter from Governor Kathleen Blanco 20 anything else.
21 to Major General Don T. Reilly. 21 MR. MEUNIER:
22 Do you see it? 22 Okay. Well, then, we'll attach
23 A. Yes. 23 as Miller 3 the December, 2006
24 Q. Bottom of the first page of that 24 de-authorization report.
25 letter from the governor, um -- this statement 25 (Brief recess.)

44 (Pages 170 to 173)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 174 Page 176
1 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 1 MRGO other than the ones we have discussed?
2 Q. All right. Mr. Miller, before we go 2 A. I believe -- just for the record, do
3 on with any reference to specific documents, I 3 you know what we've discussed, just to make
4 just have a few general questions to some 4 sure? You've asked me bunch of --
5 extent attempting to kind of make sure I 5 Q. Well, maybe one way is to tell us what
6 understand some of the prior testimony you've 6 studies of the MRGO there are as to which you
7 given. 7 have been project manager. Why don't we do it
8 You are offered in this case as a 8 that way.
9 witness for the Corps of Engineers to testify 9 A. Um -- under the Coastal Wetlands
10 about the relationship between MRGO and 10 Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, the
11 wetlands and marsh areas adjacent to and 11 Lake Borgne MRGO Shoreline Protection Project.
12 affected by the MRGO; is that true? 12 Q. Okay.
13 MS. SULLIVAN: 13 A. The MRGO Deep Draft De-authorization
14 Objection. 14 Study.
15 A. No, I believe my relevance is to the 15 Q. Uh-huh.
16 project management or study management of 16 A. Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem
17 evaluations of the MRGO, as well as coastal 17 Restoration Study, um -- the Louisiana Coastal
18 restoration efforts in the area. 18 Protection and Restoration Technical Report,
19 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 19 and the General Reevaluation Report on the
20 Q. Well, we've talked about the 20 MRGO.
21 de-authorization recommendation report, and we 21 Q. Now, we haven't yet talked about the
22 have talked about this February 2008 LCPR 22 Lake Borgne Shoreline Protection Project,
23 report. 23 correct?
24 Have we now discussed the testimony 24 A. It was mentioned earlier.
25 that you intend to offer with respect to your 25 Q. We've talked about the MRGO
Page 175 Page 177
1 evaluation of the MRGO? 1 De-authorization recommendation. That's the --
2 MS. SULLIVAN: 2 A. That's right.
3 Objection. 3 Q. We have talked about the Louisiana
4 A. I don't really have any intent. I'm 4 Coastal Protection and Restoration study.
5 just answering what your questions are. 5 A. That's right.
6 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 6 Q. And you also mentioned the Louisiana
7 Q. You told me, you said, I have a 7 Coastal Restoration Technical Report? Is that
8 concept of what my role is here -- what my 8 something different?
9 purpose is here. 9 A. It's the Louisiana Coastal Protection
10 A. Well, my relevance to it. 10 and Restoration Technical Report. The report
11 Q. Your relevance. 11 you have right there.
12 A. That's why I'm here, to answer 12 Q. So we have talked about that.
13 questions about managing the studies related to 13 A. Yes. We have.
14 the MRGO as well as coastal restoration 14 Q. So we have talked about the project
15 efforts. 15 manager study involvement you have with respect
16 Q. Okay. So you're here to discuss your 16 to the Louisiana Coastal Protection and
17 role as project manager in studies pertinent to 17 Restoration; true?
18 the MRGO and to coastal restoration. 18 A. Yes.
19 MS. SULLIVAN: 19 Q. We've talked about the MRGO
20 Objection. 20 de-authorization study, as well.
21 A. I guess -- yeah. I guess that's why 21 A. Yes.
22 I'm here. That's right. 22 Q. And the other things you mentioned
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 23 were the Lake Borgne Shoreline Protection
24 Q. Yeah. Okay. Have you been a project 24 Project which we can go into in a little bit
25 manager for any other studies pertinent to the 25 more detail, and then finally you said the

45 (Pages 174 to 177)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 178 Page 180
1 General Reevaluation Report of the MRGO. 1 them, but in general they're freshwater
2 A. I did, and you left one out. 2 diversion, shoreline protection, marsh
3 Q. And what is that? 3 creation, um -- vegetative planting, beneficial
4 A. Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem 4 use of dredge material.
5 Restoration Plan. 5 Q. Were any of the recommendations of
6 Q. Okay. Let's date each of these that 6 alternatives in the report implemented?
7 we haven't yet talked about. The Louisiana -- 7 MS. SULLIVAN:
8 what is the is date of the Louisiana Coastal 8 Objection.
9 Area Restoration Plan? 9 A. I'm not sure. The Congress, um --
10 A. Um -- late 2004, early 2005. Chief's 10 authorized the recommendations just in
11 report, January, 2005. 11 November, and I don't know of any that have
12 Q. Did that report deal with the 12 been implemented to date.
13 relationship between the MRGO and freshwater 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
14 wetlands and marsh areas? 14 Q. And again, let me be clear, these date
15 A. I believe it did from the standpoint 15 from January of '05.
16 of the historic conditions and the existing 16 A. That's right.
17 conditions, um -- in the area around the MRGO. 17 Q. Approximately nine months before
18 Similar to what we discussed in other reports 18 Katrina.
19 today. 19 A. That's right.
20 Q. Uh-huh. Did that report acknowledge 20 Q. Recommendations were made by the Corps
21 that the MRGO has contributed to the loss of 21 of various ways in which the adverse effects of
22 freshwater marsh and wetlands? 22 the MRGO on freshwater wetland and marsh could
23 MS. SULLIVAN: 23 be addressed.
24 Objection. 24 MS. SULLIVAN:
25 A. I believe it does, yes. 25 Objection.
Page 179 Page 181
1 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
2 Q. And did that report discuss the role 2 Q. Recommendations were made by the Corps
3 of saltwater intrusion because of the MRGO? 3 in this January 05 report of various ways in
4 A. I think it does, but don't hold me to 4 which the adverse effects of the MRGO on
5 it. There's six, seven reports we're talking 5 freshwater wetland and marsh could be
6 about, but yeah, I believe it does. 6 addressed; true?
7 Q. Did that report set forth -- did it 7 A. I don't think that that's what the
8 seek to quantify the extent or rate of 8 report says. I believe that the
9 freshwater marsh or wetland loss attributable 9 recommendations in the report dealt with
10 to the MRGO? 10 shoreline erosion along the MRGO as well as
11 MS. SULLIVAN: 11 Lake Borgne. Um -- and none of those areas are
12 Objection. 12 freshwater marshes.
13 A. I don't believe it did. 13 Q. So it confined itself to the shoreline
14 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 14 of the MRGO through open water or through
15 Q. What was the purpose of that report 15 saltwater areas? Make sure I understand what
16 and study? 16 you're saying.
17 A. Looking at coastal restoration across 17 A. What I'm saying is that the
18 the entire coast, wetlands losses, um -- 18 recommendations in that report, um -- dealt
19 various coastal habitats, barrier islands, 19 with protecting shoreline along the channel and
20 um -- salt marsh, brackish marsh, et cetera, 20 along Lake Borgne, and that the wetland in that
21 and identifies-- evaluated and identified a 21 area are not freshwater wetland, which is I
22 number of different alternatives for addressing 22 believe what your question was about.
23 erosion problems. 23 Q. What was the motivation of the report
24 Q. What were the alternatives? 24 for recommending shoreline protection --
25 A. Well, there are probably hundreds of 25 MS. SULLIVAN:

46 (Pages 178 to 181)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 182 Page 184
1 Objection. 1 report and see if we made that link there. I
2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 2 don't -- I don't recall.
3 Q. -- in these areas? What was the point 3 Q. Well, do you make it in your own mind,
4 of that? 4 whether it's made in the report or not?
5 A. Um -- you know, it was designed to try 5 MS. SULLIVAN:
6 to address wind-driven erosion along the Lake 6 Objection.
7 Borgne shoreline and generally wake-driven, you 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
8 know, vessel waves along the channel, because 8 Q. The link between those wetland and
9 at the time the channel was authorized for 9 storm surge protection?
10 navigation operation and we felt that that was 10 A. I don't recall in terms of that
11 the most likely future in which we were 11 particular report.
12 planning against. 12 Q. No, sir. I'm asking whether it's in
13 Q. Why was it relevant or valuable to 13 that particular report, do you make that link
14 address wave-driven erosion along the MRGO 14 in your own mind between the preservation of
15 channel? 15 wetlands in that area and storm surge
16 MS. SULLIVAN: 16 protection?
17 Objection. 17 MS. SULLIVAN:
18 A. Because the channel was authorized as 18 Objection.
19 a navigation project, and as I mentioned, the 19 A. I believe, if that's what you're
20 most likely, um -- future scenario was that it 20 asking me, I think that there is a role played
21 would remain authorized. There was nothing at 21 in terms of the system of, um -- along our
22 the time that Congress had directed, you know, 22 coast, but I don't -- I don't have any
23 to abandon the channel or de-authorize it or 23 technical, um -- ability to put a magnitude on
24 anything. Um -- 24 it.
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
Page 183 Page 185
1 Q. Right. Well, I'm asking a different 1 Q. And just so I'm clear about it, as you
2 question. What risks were seen as being 2 sit here today you're not aware that any of the
3 associated with the erosion of the channel 3 alternatives set forth in the January '05
4 shoreline of the MRGO? 4 report were implemented? Is that true?
5 MS. SULLIVAN: 5 A. That I know of, I don't -- I don't
6 Objection. 6 believe any have been implemented. Um -- there
7 A. In the, um -- the LCA report that 7 are number of -- there are a number of federal
8 dealt with -- the portion of it that dealt with 8 programs and state programs and local programs
9 MRGO, um -- the primary drive behind it was to 9 that try to develop and build restoration
10 try to maintain wetlands in the area, and the 10 programs, and there are quite a number of,
11 recommendation was shoreline protection because 11 um -- individual projects identified in that
12 those were felt to be -- those two processes, 12 report. And so I don't know that every one
13 one was wind-driven and one was wake-driven, 13 of -- you know, out of any of the probably
14 um -- that was the most effective technique to 14 several hundred, that someone hasn't built one
15 try to address that. 15 of those since January 2005. I'm not aware of
16 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 16 any that have been built.
17 Q. Why was it deemed important to 17 As I mentioned, it was only authorized
18 maintain the wetlands in that particular area? 18 by Congress in November. So even though the
19 A. Well, for a number of reasons in terms 19 report of the chief was finished in January of
20 of the benefits that those wetlands produce in 20 2005, the Congress didn't act until November of
21 terms of ecology and, um -- social value -- a 21 2007.
22 number of things that are identified as values 22 Q. Let me understand that point. This
23 of marshes. 23 report from January 05, you say, was not
24 Q. Including storm surge protection? 24 authorized by Congress at that time?
25 A. I would have to go back and read the 25 A. The Chief of Engineers signed his

47 (Pages 182 to 185)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 186 Page 188
1 report on the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem 1 bank erosion associated with the MRGO, correct?
2 Restoration Plan in January 05. 2 A. I believe so, yes.
3 Q. Right. 3 Q. And in doing that, in the LMVD
4 A. That was provided to the Congress. 4 comments that you see there, there is
5 Q. Right. 5 suggestion of additional discussion
6 A. The Congress did not act on that 6 concerning -- and it's Subpart B -- the erosion
7 report in terms of authorizing the 7 rate of Lake Borgne 's shoreline and the impact
8 recommendations in it until November of 2007. 8 this erosion will have on the buffering
9 And the point is that it hasn't been very long 9 marshes. You see that?
10 since November 2007, and so without authority, 10 A. I do.
11 the Corps would not be able to implement or act 11 Q. Were you aware as long as you have
12 upon any of those recommendations. 12 been with the -- at the Corps, um -- that the
13 Q. Got you. Okay. 13 erosion rate of the Lake Borgne shoreline has a
14 Have you ever reviewed the 14 potential impact on buffering marshes?
15 reconnaissance report of February 1988 by the 15 A. I don't know exactly what they mean by
16 Corps of Engineers dealing with bank erosion 16 buffering marshes, and I haven't looked at this
17 along the MRGO? 17 report in quite some time, so.
18 A. I have. 18 Q. So you don't know what's meant by
19 Q. You have? Have you reviewed the LMVD 19 buffering marshes?
20 comments relative to MRGO bank erosion in the 20 A. Not in the context of this report.
21 recon report? 21 Q. Uh-huh. Look at Paragraph 2, the
22 A. Um -- I'm not sure -- can I -- 22 highlighted language there, beginning with the
23 Q. Let me give you this one. 23 alternative to complete close.
24 (Tendering.) 24 Do you see that?
25 A. I've probably skimmed it. I don't 25 A. Yes.
Page 187 Page 189
1 know that I read all of it, but probably 1 Q. And in the second sentence, it states,
2 skimmed it. 2 the closure -- meaning closure of the MRGO --
3 Q. Okay. First reference here is to the 3 should be located in the vicinity of mile 23
4 LMVD comments relative to the MRGO bank 4 and could be constructed of dredged material
5 erosion. Have you got that page? I had 5 from the existing waterway.
6 flipped it to that. 6 Now, as far as you know, was that a
7 A. (Indicating.) 7 feasible option, meaning doable, practicable,
8 Q. Yes, sir. 8 something that could have been accomplished, by
9 MS. SULLIVAN: 9 the Corps, before Hurricane Katrina, for as
10 What page is that? I'm sorry. 10 long as you've been a Corps employee?
11 MR. MEUNIER: 11 MS. SULLIVAN:
12 I think it Page 1, though. 12 Objection.
13 MS. SULLIVAN: 13 A. In other words, um -- you know, could
14 Okay. 14 the channel be closed in the vicinity of mile
15 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 15 23 with dredge material? Is that --
16 Q. LMVD refers to what? 16 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
17 A. I'm not sure but I believe -- and it's 17 Q. Yes.
18 before my time working with the Corps, but I 18 A. Do I know about that or whether we
19 believe it's lower Mississippi Valley Division. 19 could do that?
20 But we'd have to verify that. 20 Q. As far as you know, was that feasible
21 Q. Now this is -- this document is dated 21 prior to Katrina, at least for as long as you
22 from '88, seventeen years before Hurricane 22 personally have been here at the Corps of
23 Katrina, true? 23 Engineers?
24 A. Yeah. 1988. 24 MS. SULLIVAN:
25 Q. And this document was looking at the 25 Same objection.

48 (Pages 186 to 189)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 190 Page 192
1 A. I don't know that I knew about this 1 Q. Assuming that's where mile 23 is, do
2 particular -- I knew there -- I knew -- I knew 2 you agree with statement here in the LMVD
3 that, um -- this is prior to Katrina; is that 3 comments of 1988 that the alternative of
4 right? 4 complete closure at mile 23 would have those
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 5 effects stated in that sentence?
6 Q. Pardon me? 6 MS. SULLIVAN:
7 A. You said prior to Katrina, didn't you? 7 Objection.
8 Q. Yes. 8 A. I would have to look at this report
9 A. My answer would be not prior to 9 and see how these comments defined, um --
10 Katrina. 10 closure.
11 Q. Not feasible prior to Katrina? 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
12 A. Not -- I didn't know of whether or not 12 Q. Why do you say that?
13 it would be feasible prior to Katrina. 13 A. The whatever methodology was proposed
14 Q. So your testimony is, as you sit here 14 here, or evaluated here, I'm not familiar with,
15 today, you don't know whether that closure 15 and so I'd have to see what that was. Um --
16 would have been feasible prior to Katrina. 16 for example, um -- you could close the channel
17 A. That's correct. And my point is, this 17 by driving a number of piling and putting a
18 is a 1988 report, and the involvement that I 18 chain across it, in that sense, but it wouldn't
19 had as a project manager in terms of looking at 19 do anything in terms of, um -- wetlands
20 ways, you know, to close the channel, is 20 restoration or tidal movement or other things.
21 post-Katrina work that I do for the Corps. I'm 21 If they looked at -- if I knew what they were
22 not even sure if I read this report before 22 saying in terms of the type of closure, I could
23 Hurricane Katrina. That's my point. 23 answer your question better.
24 Q. Okay. Well, did you agree with the 24 Q. Do you agree with the statement that
25 statement in that same paragraph that 25 follows, that the closure of the MRGO would
Page 191 Page 193
1 closure -- complete closure of the MRGO would 1 also reduce the possibility of catastrophic
2 control all future channel maintenance problems 2 damage to urban areas by a hurricane surge
3 by controlling bank erosion, preventing the 3 coming up this waterway -- and let me just stop
4 associated biological resources problems, 4 there.
5 preventing saltwater intrusion and lessening 5 MS. SULLIVAN:
6 the recreational losses? 6 Objection.
7 MS. SULLIVAN: 7 A. I'd have to know -- I'd have to see a
8 Objection. 8 description of what was being proposed in terms
9 A. Let's be honest. I'd have to know 9 of the closure in order to answer that.
10 where mile 23 is and look at the conditions of 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
11 the channel at that spot in order to be able to 11 Q. Well --
12 answer that. 12 A. Which I assume is in this report
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 13 somewhere, and I just haven't read it.
14 Q. You're being asked to assume for 14 Q. Well, and because of limited time, why
15 purposes of my question that mile 23 is where 15 don't we just make an assumption for the
16 counsel just indicated at the tip of where the 16 purpose of my question that the closure is an
17 land is. 17 effective closure, meaning it dams it, it stops
18 MS. SULLIVAN: 18 it, it prevents flow through it, um -- in a
19 Did you see where he just 19 technical way that is the equivalent of what
20 pointed? 20 you're now recommending be done with a rock
21 THE WITNESS: 21 dam.
22 Nods affirmatively.) 22 A. You know, given that hypothetical I
23 A. I'm sorry. Can you ask me the 23 would disagree with this statement.
24 question one more time? 24 Q. Why?
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 25 A. Because mile 23 is at the edge of the

49 (Pages 190 to 193)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 194 Page 196
1 sound, and there is no tie-in to any other 1 A. You didn't know what scour was --
2 hurricane protection works at that location. 2 Q. That's true. No, you got me.
3 And so water simply would overwhelm the 3 A. -- or land bridge.
4 landscape and go around it. 4 Q. Does the current recommendation to
5 Q. Is there any place along the MRGO 5 close the MRGO have the purpose of serving the
6 where you would agree that the effective 6 efficiency or effectiveness of hurricane
7 closure using a rock dam would have the effect 7 protection?
8 of reducing the possibility of catastrophic 8 A. No.
9 damage by a hurricane surge coming up the 9 Q. Why not?
10 waterway? 10 A. Um -- the recommendation is a result
11 MS. SULLIVAN: 11 of the deep draft de-authorization evaluations,
12 Objection. 12 um -- and the recommendation is based on, um --
13 A. I think I would defer to technical 13 navigation and stopping navigation on the
14 experts in terms of where to locate it for that 14 channel. It's not based on hurricane surge or,
15 purpose. 15 um -- you know, any other factors other than
16 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 16 stopping the navigation, utilization of the
17 Q. But do you believe it could be 17 channel.
18 located -- 18 Q. You're not saying that the
19 A. Storm surge experts -- 19 recommendation to close the MRGO is not at
20 Q. Yeah. 20 least in part based upon the closure advantage
21 A. -- to help define where to locate for 21 of protecting further loss of wetland and
22 that purpose. That's not something that -- 22 marsh, are you?
23 that I would select based on my abilities. 23 MS. SULLIVAN:
24 Q. Is it your belief and understanding 24 Objection.
25 that it could be located somewhere by the 25 A. I didn't really say that at all. What
Page 195 Page 197
1 experts to accomplish that purpose? 1 I said was that the purpose of the closure is
2 MS. SULLIVAN: 2 the prevention of navigation utilization on the
3 Objection. 3 channel, to de-authorize or help stop deep
4 A. To accomplish the purpose referenced 4 draft use of the channel.
5 in this statement? 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
6 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 6 Q. Yeah. I know that's -- well, you say
7 Q. Yes. 7 that's the purpose of it. The effect of it is
8 A. I'm not sure. 8 there's no more shipping. We agree with that.
9 Q. Does the current recommendation of the 9 Right?
10 Corps to effectuate the closure of the MRGO 10 A. If it's built, yes.
11 contribute to the efficacy of hurricane 11 Q. Right. But one of the reasons the
12 protection? 12 Corps is recommending to close of MRGO, one of
13 MS. SULLIVAN: 13 the advantages that supports that decision, is
14 Objection. 14 the prevention of further marsh and wetlands --
15 A. The current recommendation is not, 15 freshwater marsh and wetland loss associated
16 um -- a component of a hurricane protection 16 with the MRGO, true?
17 system. 17 MS. SULLIVAN:
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 18 Objection.
19 Q. That wasn't quite my question, though. 19 A. One of the -- I'm not sure about the
20 A. I don't know what the word efficacy 20 freshwater, whether it's parts of it, but one
21 means and I was trying to save myself, to be 21 of the incidental benefits of the recommended
22 honest with you. 22 closure is a reduction in the rate of loss of
23 Q. Okay. That's honest enough. 23 wetlands.
24 A. Efficacy. That's a new one. 24 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
25 Q. Effectiveness. 25 Q. Right.

50 (Pages 194 to 197)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 198 Page 200
1 A. I don't know about -- you indicated 1 Objection.
2 freshwater wetlands. I'm not sure if that's 2 A. I'd have to look at the data, but I
3 accurate. 3 believe in general, as a trend, that is
4 Q. Right. But let's not get lost in the 4 correct.
5 semantics of calling it brackish or freshwater 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
6 or saltwater, whatever. But the prevention of 6 Q. If you look at the '88 document, part
7 the further loss of that territory is one of 7 of it is an August '87 planning aid report on
8 the factors supporting the Corps' 8 the MRGO prepared by Wilfred Kucera, a fish and
9 recommendation for closure, true? 9 wildlife biologist at the U.S. Fish and
10 MS. SULLIVAN: 10 Wildlife Service. Are you able to find that?
11 Objection. 11 A. Did you have a page number for me?
12 A. It's, um -- yes. It's identified as 12 Q. Let me, if you can't find -- can you
13 an incidental benefit of the recommended plan, 13 find it?
14 that's right. 14 A. (Indicating.)
15 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 15 Q. Well, here's the title page.
16 Q. Okay. And I know you're not a surge 16 (Indicating.) You got it. That's it. Kucera?
17 expert, we acknowledge that, but you do know as 17 A. Yeah. I believe so. Yes.
18 someone who's been trained and educated and 18 Q. Turn to Page 5. At the time bottom of
19 qualified to talk about wetlands that wetlands 19 that page, Mr. Kucera discusses the future, and
20 and marsh areas do serve as part of the natural 20 this is written in 1987. He states that since
21 system that gives us protection against storm 21 the MRGO was completed in '61 the waterway has
22 surge and hurricane surge. You know that, 22 continued to widen at about fifteen feet per
23 don't you? 23 year in the study area.
24 A. I believe that's right, yes. I do 24 You have no reason to dispute that, do
25 know that. 25 you?
Page 199 Page 201
1 Q. Okay. Now, do you know why the -- and 1 MS. SULLIVAN:
2 I know this is before your time, but do you 2 Objection.
3 know why the discussions in this document back 3 A. I'd have to look and see what the
4 in 1988 about the advantages of closing the 4 definition of study area. But in general, I
5 MRGO -- I know you dispute where and all that, 5 don't think I have any objection to this.
6 but just the idea of closing it -- comes up, is 6 Q. And he goes on to state --
7 discussed in a positive way in 1988, seventeen 7 A. And I haven't -- I can't verify the
8 years before Katrina. My question to you is, 8 calculations in terms of the erosion rate --
9 do you know the reason or the reasons why that 9 Q. Yeah.
10 recommendation or viewpoint about closing the 10 A. -- or total acres.
11 MRGO was not implemented? 11 Q. Yeah. And it's unfair to ask you to
12 A. No. I don't. 12 verify it. I guess I'm asking whether it
13 MS. SULLIVAN: 13 strikes you as something you would question
14 Objection. 14 based upon your knowledge, or something you
15 A. I don't know. 15 would feel that you'd need to question or
16 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 16 dispute. He then states, about 2000 acres of
17 Q. You don't know. Obviously in 1988, 17 marsh have been lost in this erosion process.
18 Mr. Miller, the MRGO was being used as a 18 That is, in the process of the widening of so
19 shipping channel, correct? You know that. 19 many feet per year.
20 A. That's right. 20 And again, based on what you know,
21 Q. Is it fair to say that it was being 21 does that sound like something you would
22 used more regularly and frequently as a 22 question or disagree with?
23 shipping channel in 1988 than it was just prior 23 MS. SULLIVAN:
24 to Katrina? 24 Objection.
25 MS. SULLIVAN: 25 A. I guess I would have some concern that

51 (Pages 198 to 201)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 202 Page 204
1 the statement, the first statement the outlet 1 A. Well, I don't want to draw the
2 was completed in 1961. I'm not sure if that's 2 relevance to what this gentleman has said,
3 accurate, at least in terms of when I know the 3 because today is the first time I've seen it.
4 channel construction was completed. 4 I don't ever recall seeing it. But in sites
5 Q. I think you said '68 earlier. 5 where we've constructed projects, rock
6 A. And so I would -- based on, you know, 6 shoreline protection projects, they were
7 an up front statement like that, I would want 7 effective at reducing shoreline erosion.
8 to verify, um -- certainly verify the numbers. 8 Q. Now, what you managed to preserve in
9 Q. Well, let me ask you this, just as 9 those efforts, was it saltwater marsh?
10 someone familiar with wetlands and to some 10 A. It would depend on the location of the
11 extent the interface between wetland and MRGO: 11 specific --
12 Would it surprise you to read here that in 1988 12 Q. The site specific?
13 approximately 2000 acres of marsh had been lost 13 A. -- project. In general, in most
14 already due to the widening of the MRGO? 14 locations, it would either be saltwater marsh
15 Through erosion. 15 or brackish marsh along the channel.
16 A. Um -- I'm not sure about the acreage 16 Q. So that through the placement of rock
17 amount, but it wouldn't surprise me that some 17 foreshore protection you were able to preserve
18 wetland had been lost through erosion. 18 that kind of marsh in certain areas?
19 Q. It then states that the Corps of 19 A. Yes.
20 Engineers has estimated that in the next fifty 20 Q. And despite that, do you know what the
21 years, so this is looking forward from 1988, 21 yearly acreage loss has been along the MRGO due
22 3,350 acres of saline marsh will be converted 22 to bank erosion, notwithstanding those efforts?
23 the open water on the north side of the 23 MS. SULLIVAN:
24 waterway, and 2,327 acres of saline marsh on 24 Objection.
25 the south side will become open water, thus 25 A. I don't know a figure.
Page 203 Page 205
1 about 5,677 acres of ecologically important 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
2 wetland habitat will be lost in the study area 2 Q. But there has been a loss, hasn't
3 due to the shoreline erosion along the 3 there, of -- a net loss of wetland and marsh
4 waterway. 4 acreage along the MRGO, notwithstanding those
5 Now, does that 1988 projection, based 5 efforts of the Corps over the years, to prevent
6 upon what you know today, strike you as an 6 back erosion?
7 inaccurate one or an exaggerated one? 7 A. Yes. Wetlands in the area of the
8 MS. SULLIVAN: 8 channel, as well as across the entire state,
9 Objection. 9 have continued to erode, um -- you know, from
10 A. In terms of the general trend of 10 this time until now.
11 erosion in the area, it doesn't. But in terms 11 Q. You told me that you've looked at the
12 of -- I'm not comfortable answering in terms of 12 option of keeping the MRGO open and taking
13 the actual acres referenced in this, because I 13 steps to prevent wetland or marsh erosion.
14 haven't seen the calculation. 14 A. That's right.
15 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 15 Q. True?
16 Q. Well, after this 1988 reconnaissance 16 A. That's right.
17 report, and up to the time of Katrina, did the 17 Q. And specifically what you've looked at
18 Corps of Engineers undertake action to protect 18 is the option of using rock placement along the
19 against this erosion loss that was predicted by 19 banks of the MRGO?
20 Mr. Kucera to come to 5,677 acres over a 20 A. Among other restoration techniques,
21 fifty-year period? 21 yes.
22 A. Yes, I believe we did. 22 Q. Other restoration techniques would
23 Q. And through those efforts, was the 23 include the deposit of dredge material from
24 Corps successful in reducing the amount of 24 dredging in the MRGO?
25 wetlands loss as predicted here? 25 A. That's one of them. Yes.

52 (Pages 202 to 205)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 206 Page 208
1 Q. Anything else? 1 Q. Well, I'm not sure about that
2 A. Other types of shoreline protection 2 distinction.
3 measures, um -- I believe that's probably the 3 A. Let me clarify.
4 two primary techniques that come -- that I can 4 Q. Yeah. Why don't you help me out.
5 remember. 5 A. The majority of the wetlands along the
6 Q. Well, what I want to make sure I 6 channel now are saline wetlands and brackish
7 understand is that do you believe that even 7 wetlands. They are capable of, um -- you know,
8 with those efforts there would still be a net 8 growing in the environment in which they're
9 loss of wetlands and marshlands adjacent to the 9 found in now. So saltwater in -- intrusion of
10 MRGO? 10 saltwater on those areas wouldn't have any
11 A. Yes. 11 effect of those wetlands.
12 Q. And what do you understand would be 12 Q. Let me make sure. In those areas
13 the cause or reasons -- cause or causes for 13 today the damage is already done by saline
14 that loss? 14 intrusion, the freshwater wetlands and marshes
15 A. I would say a number of factors. 15 we once had are gone. True?
16 Q. Okay. 16 MS. SULLIVAN:
17 A. Wind-driven erosion on the shoreline 17 Objection.
18 of Lake Borgne, for example, um -- subsidence, 18 A. I'd have to look at it, but -- I don't
19 um -- hurricane or tropical storm passage can 19 know the magnitude. There may be some areas
20 damage or destroy wetlands. Like I said, a 20 remaining. That's why I said I would like to
21 number of factors. 21 refer to an environmental or technical expert
22 Q. Uh-huh. Would the salinity of water 22 who can say this is what we have left here,
23 due to the MRGO be one of those factors? 23 this type of marsh.
24 A. Factor for continuing erosion into the 24 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
25 future? 25 Q. No, I understand. But the reason
Page 207 Page 209
1 Q. For the continuing loss of wetland, 1 you're telling me that you don't know that it
2 yeah. A continuing loss of freshwater wetlands 2 would make a difference that you had saltwater
3 and marshes. 3 intrusion from the MRGO in certain areas,
4 A. I think I would defer to an 4 because look, all you've got next to it is
5 environmental, um -- you know, technical 5 saltwater marsh and saltwater wetland. The
6 expert, because I'm not sure that in terms of 6 truth is that the reason that you only have
7 acres that the amount of freshwater marsh that 7 saltwater marsh and wetland in certain areas
8 the remains in the area. 8 along the MRGO is because of the historic
9 Q. All right. Well, I don't know if I 9 intrusion of the MRGO.
10 understand that answer. I think you agreed 10 MS. SULLIVAN:
11 with me that having studied the option of 11 Objection.
12 keeping the channel open and performing certain 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
13 activities such as deposit of dredge material 13 Q. Correct?
14 and rock placement, you still think the outcome 14 A. Yeah. I believe that -- that, um --
15 would be a net loss of wetlands and marsh areas 15 saltwater has shifted the habitat types.
16 due to a number of factors that you've 16 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
17 identified. Right? 17 Q. Right.
18 A. That's correct. 18 A. That's what we've referenced in some
19 Q. My question is simply whether one of 19 of our discussions --
20 the factors that would contribute to that 20 Q. So we know in some areas, the damage
21 continuing net loss, would it be the saltwater 21 is done, and you can do all you want to do to
22 intrusion associated with the existence of the 22 try to restore with dumping dredge material and
23 MRGO? 23 stuff, those areas are now open water reclaimed
24 A. In terms of any marsh type, or what's 24 by the water, right?
25 out there now? 25 MS. SULLIVAN:

53 (Pages 206 to 209)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 210 Page 212
1 Objection. 1 Would you dispute the note there that
2 A. No, I believe there are restoration 2 between 1968 and 1987, 4200 acres of highly
3 efforts, um -- or wetland rebuilding efforts 3 productive marsh adjacent to the MRGO had been
4 that could be conducted. I thought your 4 lost to bank erosion?
5 original line of questioning was what we've 5 MS. SULLIVAN:
6 done so far, would we continue to see loss of 6 Objection.
7 wetlands, and my answer to that is yes, we 7 A. I wouldn't dispute that there had been
8 would, because it's not a great enough -- it 8 loss, I would want to verify that figure before
9 doesn't address all the problems out there. 9 making a final conclusion.
10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
11 Q. So you'd certainly -- even with 11 Q. Are you familiar with the 1994 bank
12 efforts keeping the channel open and doing the 12 erosion reconnaissance report?
13 things you talked about, you'd certainly still 13 A. Um -- I'm familiar that it exists, I'm
14 see wetland and marsh loss -- in areas where 14 not familiar with the details of that report.
15 there is freshwater marsh and wetland left, 15 Q. I'm going to read and then hand to you
16 you'd still see some loss there due to the 16 so you can verify what I'm reading, a statement
17 saltwater intrusion associated with the MRGO, 17 made at Page 53 of that report. Marshes
18 you agree? 18 provide hurricane and storm surge buffering
19 A. I disagree. 19 capacity. Coastal wetlands absorb large
20 Q. Why do you disagree with that? 20 amounts of wave energy and hold large
21 A. I believe that there are other factors 21 quantities of water that would otherwise allow
22 that can also contribute to the loss of 22 storms to do much more damage inland.
23 wetland, freshwater or otherwise, um -- either 23 First two sentences of the paragraph
24 in addition to or beyond, as you say, saltwater 24 entitled Other Environmental Benefits at
25 intrusion. 25 Page 53.
Page 211 Page 213
1 Q. Well, are you ruling out the 1 A. I've read it.
2 association between MRGO saltwater intrusion 2 Q. Do you agree or disagree?
3 and the loss of freshwater wetland and marsh? 3 MS. SULLIVAN:
4 A. I'm not ruling it out in terms of 4 Objection.
5 historic occurrence. Um -- I'm not answering 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
6 your question in terms of what we'd have in the 6 Q. With those statements?
7 future, because I would look at what amount of 7 A. I don't think I have the technical
8 that type of wetland remained there plus the 8 basis to be able to answer that.
9 other factors that play a role in coastal 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
10 erosion in the area. That's -- 10 Q. Those general statements about
11 Q. Aside from the MRGO factor. Is that 11 wetlands are statements that you don't think
12 what you mean? 12 you have the ability or competence to comment
13 A. Correct. Well, aside from, um -- just 13 on or agree with?
14 any number of factors that caused the loss of 14 A. Well, because I believe that it goes
15 wetlands in that area. 15 to the magnitude. It talks about large
16 Q. Would you have any reason to dispute a 16 quantities of waters, and I just don't know the
17 report that between 1968 and 1987, 4200 acres 17 reference in terms of how that information was
18 of productive marsh adjacent to the MRGO were 18 developed, and so -- and I'm not an expert on
19 lost due to bank erosion? 19 storm surge and the way it's described here in
20 MS. SULLIVAN: 20 relation to wetlands.
21 Objection. 21 Q. So you don't know -- as a witness to
22 A. Can you tell me where the number is? 22 testify on the subject of wetlands, you don't
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 23 know whether or not it's true that marshes
24 Q. Well, it's from the '88 bank erosion 24 provide hurricane and storm surge buffering
25 recon report, syllabus Paragraph 3. 25 capacity. Is that your testimony?

54 (Pages 210 to 213)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 214 Page 216
1 A. I don't know in reference to the 1 maintenance budget, so there's really almost
2 paragraph or the sentences in that paragraph in 2 nothing I do.
3 terms of the magnitude, because that references 3 Q. Did the project ever get implemented?
4 large quantities. I haven't seen the 4 A. Let's see it, just to make sure we're
5 information used to develop that. 5 talking about the same thing.
6 Q. I understand. I'm asking it -- 6 Q. (Tendering.)
7 A. So in terms of that language -- 7 A. Yes. I believe it was.
8 Q. I'm asking you, divorced from here. 8 Q. Pardon me?
9 I'm just taking the statement as given here. 9 A. Yes, I believe it was.
10 This is Corps of Engineers language, not mine. 10 Q. It was implemented?
11 The general statement: Marshes provide 11 A. Yes.
12 hurricane and storm surge buffering capacity. 12 Q. The strategy statement that I'm
13 True, false or I don't know? 13 reading here said that project was expected to
14 MS. SULLIVAN: 14 preserve approximately 755 acres of valuable
15 Objection. 15 wetlands. Do you know if that happened?
16 A. I believe they play a role in a 16 A. I'm not sure of the number of acres,
17 system. It would go to, um -- the specifics of 17 um -- either protected, um -- because I wasn't
18 which storm, what location, a number of things. 18 involved in the actual planning or construction
19 But in general, um -- we recognize, um -- 19 of it. So I'm not sure about that.
20 wetlands as a role in the system, as we've 20 Q. All right. And here's a document
21 discussed all day long. 21 related to the Lake Borgne and MRGO shoreline
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 22 protection, and you are listed here as a
23 Q. Coastal wetlands -- let's assume I'm 23 preparer of the fact sheet for the Corps of
24 just reading this from another document, 24 Engineers. True?
25 because I don't want to get hung up with this 25 A. That's right.
Page 215 Page 217
1 one. Coastal wetlands absorb wave energy and 1 Q. This is something that you're the
2 water that would otherwise allow storms to do 2 project manager for; is that true?
3 more damage inland. 3 A. I was at the time of the development
4 True, false or I don't know? 4 of the project, yes.
5 MS. SULLIVAN: 5 Q. All right. You're not involved with
6 Objection. 6 it anymore?
7 A. As a general statement, is that your 7 A. More in a role of a senior project
8 question? 8 manager. I believe, um -- I believe we have
9 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 9 someone in else in our office assigned as the
10 Q. Yes. 10 primary PM on that.
11 A. True. 11 Q. And according to this, the project
12 Q. We're going to wrap it up, but I think 12 benefits would extend to about 465 acres of
13 there was one thing for which you might have 13 marsh, and it's stated that approximately
14 been project manager that we didn't yet talk 14 266 acres would be created/protected over the
15 about. Maybe I've hit on it here, maybe I 15 twenty-year project life. Do you know to what
16 haven't, but are you familiar with the 16 extent this project is meeting expectations in
17 Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conversation Service 17 that regard?
18 and Restoration Project dealing with disposal 18 A. To my knowledge, this project has not
19 area marsh protection along the MRGO? 19 been constructed.
20 A. Yes. 20 Q. All right. This fact sheet was
21 Q. Did you have a role in that project? 21 prepared in October of 2002?
22 A. Not in its development or 22 MS. SULLIVAN:
23 construction, um -- it's listed as a project 23 Is there a date? Because I don't
24 for which I have some operation and maintenance 24 see a date on the document. We've got
25 responsibility, but it has no operation and 25 the Bates stamp number.

55 (Pages 214 to 217)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 218 Page 220
1 MR. MEUNIER: 1 Protection and Restoration Act, the, um -- the
2 This is a verbatim of that, but 2 selection and decision making for project
3 the parenthetical reference here is 3 funding and construction is administered by an
4 R1-3. 4 interagency task force of which the Corps is
5 THE WITNESS: 5 only one member. And projects are voted upon
6 It's not verbatim because the 6 by the members of the task force and selected
7 dollar amounts here are different. 7 for engineering and design, construction and
8 You've got two different documents. 8 maintenance. This project has never been
9 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 9 approved for construction by that task force.
10 Q. Okay. Do these deal with the same 10 Q. Okay. And how is it funded?
11 project? 11 A. Um -- you mean that program?
12 MS. SULLIVAN: 12 Q. No. How is this project to be funded?
13 Why don't you take a look at both 13 A. Through funds from that program, the
14 of them. 14 Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
15 A. They do. 15 Restoration Act.
16 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 16 Q. That's a federally funded program?
17 Q. Explain what each document refers to. 17 A. It's a partnership between the federal
18 MS. SULLIVAN: 18 government and the State of Louisiana. Federal
19 Well, I'm sorry to interrupt you. 19 funds are provided by, um -- small engine fuel
20 How are we going to identify these for 20 taxes, and the state has a wetlands trust fund
21 the record just so it's clear which 21 that they supply their matching costs to.
22 one -- you want to do it by Bates 22 Q. Do you know more specifically why the
23 number? 23 funds have not been made available?
24 MR. MEUNIER: 24 MS. SULLIVAN:
25 One has a numbers Bates number. 25 Objection.
Page 219 Page 221
1 Does the other? 1 A. I know that, um -- you know, it's
2 MS. SULLIVAN: 2 never been approved by that task force. The
3 They actually both have Bates 3 various reasons that members have for voting
4 numbers on them. 4 I'm not aware of.
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
6 Q. When you're discussing them, let's 6 Q. All right.
7 make sure we know which one you're talking 7 MR. MEUNIER:
8 about. I'm asking you to describe for us the 8 For the record, we'll mark both
9 relationship between those two documents. And 9 of those documents as Miller 4 -- why
10 when you give me your answer, please identify 10 don't we call them 4A and 4B. And
11 them by the numbers stamped on the bottom. 11 just for the record, 4A will be the
12 A. In general, I think those are fact 12 one that's Bates numbered NED
13 sheets that reflect different stages of 13 208000000396, and Miller 4B will be
14 development of this project. That's why you 14 NPM 038000000227.
15 see blanks in the document, um -- NPM 15 (Exhibit G.M. 4A was marked for
16 038000000227 versus the other document which 16 identification and is attached hereto.)
17 doesn't contain any blanks. 17 (Exhibit G.M. 4B was marked for
18 Q. And you say that project, which is the 18 identification and is attached hereto.)
19 same project discussed in both documents, has 19 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
20 never been implemented? 20 Q. One final topic I want to just touch
21 A. I don't believe this project -- this 21 on quickly if we can, and that is dredging.
22 project has not been built. 22 I'm told there's more.
23 Q. And do you know why? 23 Is it the Corps of Engineers'
24 A. In the program in which this was 24 responsibility to conduct maintenance dredging
25 developed, the Coastal Wetlands Planning, 25 of the MRGO?

56 (Pages 218 to 221)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 222 Page 224
1 MS. SULLIVAN: 1 success of preventing loss, but of actually
2 Objection. 2 restoring wetland at the location. In terms of
3 A. It historically has been part of our 3 that, um -- I think that those efforts
4 responsibility as directed by Congress. 4 performed by the Corps have been successful.
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 5 Q. And do you have studies and data to
6 Q. And is the dredging performed both by 6 support that belief?
7 U.S. Government vessels -- dredging vessels, 7 A. Not necessarily studies of the wetland
8 and by private dredge companies under contract 8 productivity, but data that supports the number
9 with the Corps? 9 of acres created by those efforts, yes, we do
10 A. I'm not the operations manager for the 10 have that.
11 channel and so I don't know what ownership or 11 Q. Not just created, but sustained and
12 control the various dredging vessels fall 12 maintained after deposit?
13 under. 13 A. We would have information about land
14 Q. Does the government, in the 14 loss that technical experts can use aerial
15 contractual arrangements, whatever they are, 15 photography and other resources, or geographic
16 with private companies, require that these 16 information systems, and they can show time
17 private dredgers do no environmental harm in 17 periods of when -- of a wetland landscape, if
18 their dredging? 18 you will, and we can use that information to
19 MS. SULLIVAN: 19 answer that type of question, or how many
20 Objection. 20 acres, you know, or how long have they remained
21 A. I don't know. 21 in a site.
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 22 Q. But you say you've actually reviewed
23 Q. During the time you were with the 23 that data to support your belief that at least
24 NMFS, Mr. Miller, you participated in decisions 24 in some cases at certain sites the deposit of
25 regarding where to place dredge materials 25 dredge material has been successful in creating
Page 223 Page 225
1 created from MRGO dredges; correct? 1 emergent wetlands.
2 A. Not in the decisions, but in, um -- 2 A. I've reviewed data that is, um --
3 National Marine Fisheries Service comment or 3 rolled up, if you will, for, um -- efforts over
4 advice on dredging activities on the channel. 4 time. In other words, how many acres over time
5 Q. And was the objective in those cases 5 has the Corps built using dredge material in
6 where you placed dredge materials alongside the 6 the area of the channel? Yes, I've reviewed
7 channel of MRGO to create emergent wetlands at 7 that.
8 those sites? 8 Q. And this is material that's dredged
9 A. That would have been, you know, the 9 from the bottom of the MRGO. True? Or from
10 focus of the types of comment or advice that 10 the sides of the MRGO.
11 the National Marine Fisheries Service would 11 A. Well, underwater. But yeah, generally
12 provide, because their mission is conservation 12 the bottom.
13 and protection of those resources. 13 Q. Has the potential toxicity of the soil
14 Q. Has the Corps, likewise -- now 14 been studied as part of the Corps' efforts to
15 shifting to your time with the Corps -- 15 review the advantages or disadvantages of that
16 supported activities to place dredge materials 16 activity?
17 in a way that would support and create emerging 17 A. I don't know in terms of the specific
18 or emergent wetland along the MRGO? 18 projects that have been done in the past. I
19 A. Yes. 19 can tell you that that would be a part of how
20 Q. How successful -- I know it's a 20 we would, um -- develop and plan a project,
21 general question. How successful have those 21 um -- because of, um -- requirements under
22 efforts been in preventing wetland loss? 22 various environmental laws.
23 MS. SULLIVAN: 23 Q. You were the -- an agency contact for
24 Objection. 24 the NMFS for a project called the Bayou
25 A. I would not gauge it in terms of 25 Bienvenue Pump Station Diversion and Terracing

57 (Pages 222 to 225)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 226 Page 228
1 Project. You recall that? 1 A. That is one of the benefits listed,
2 A. Yes. 2 yes.
3 Q. That was in 1998? 3 Q. And the enhanced natural storm buffer
4 A. Oh. I didn't realize you were asking 4 was directly associated with the creation of
5 me. 5 the added marshland. True?
6 Q. I said, that was in 1998? 6 A. I believe so at the time, although I
7 A. I don't remember the year, but I 7 would say today that that wouldn't be correct.
8 believe that's around the time frame. 8 When the project was developed --
9 Q. And this was a project to divert storm 9 Q. Why was it true then and it wouldn't
10 water that was pumped from Orleans and 10 be true today?
11 St. Bernard Parishes into natural marshes 11 A. Because of the lack of understanding
12 around Bayou Bienvenue. 12 of the system. That particular project area
13 A. That's correct. 13 actually falls inside of the hurricane
14 Q. And the point was to restore marsh, 14 protection levee. If you have a map, I can
15 correct, that had been lost in that area? 15 illustrate. So today, I don't know that if in
16 Freshwater marsh? 16 developing that project you would still claim
17 A. I don't believe that the point was to 17 that as a benefit for it because it falls
18 restore freshwater marsh. I believe the point 18 inside of the protection system, not outside of
19 was to restore wetlands in the vicinity of 19 it.
20 Bayou Bienvenue. 20 Q. So because it's within the levee
21 Q. All right. Well, what was going to be 21 protection system you're saying the role of the
22 accomplished exactly by diverting the storm 22 marshland as a buffer is negated by the levee
23 water into the natural marshes? 23 system?
24 A. Can I see the reference you're looking 24 A. That's right.
25 at? It's been ten years. 25 Q. But absent the levee system, the
Page 227 Page 229
1 Q. Sure. (Tendering.) 1 concept here was that by creating the
2 A. I'm just looking at Page 7 of the 2 additional marsh acreage you would, as a
3 document, and it lists a number of the project 3 project benefit, enhance a natural buffer
4 benefits. 4 against storm surge. Correct?
5 Q. Right. 5 A. Yes.
6 A. Um -- create vegetated marsh, 6 Q. In the salinity data section -- and
7 transplant smooth core grass, reduce average 7 I'll hand it to you because it's my only
8 salinity, optimal for brackish marsh, et 8 copy -- Page 6 of this Bayou Bienvenue project,
9 cetera. 9 this statement appears: Unpublished data from
10 Q. Well, when it says create 92 acres of 10 the LDWF -- I guess that's Louisiana Department
11 vegetated marsh terraces, is that freshwater 11 of Wildlife and Fisheries -- show that the MRGO
12 marsh? 12 serves as a direct conduit of higher saline
13 A. No. 13 water from near coastal waters into the
14 Q. What kind of marsh is it? 14 interior marshes of St. Bernard Parish.
15 A. In this particular instance, it's not. 15 Now, do you have any reason to dispute
16 Terracing is a technique of wetland restoration 16 the accuracy of that statement?
17 that is used in Louisiana. 17 A. I don't have any reason to dispute it.
18 Q. All right. What type of marsh is? 18 Q. Thank you.
19 It, that's the question. 19 In November of 1998, you were involved
20 A. I believe at that location it would be 20 in discussions about the best way to conduct
21 brackish marsh. 21 some unscheduled dredging in the MRGO that was
22 Q. One of the listed project benefits in 22 made necessary because of the summer of '98
23 the area of the report at Page 7 that you just 23 storms, including I think Hurricane Georges.
24 referenced is enhanced natural storm buffer and 24 Do you remember that?
25 added protection to hurricane levees. True? 25 A. I do.

58 (Pages 226 to 229)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 230 Page 232
1 Q. And one of the recommendations made in 1 Q. (Tendering.)
2 connection with that was that the final dredge 2 A. I believe that was the purpose of --
3 materials not exceed plus 278 feet mean low 3 MS. SULLIVAN:
4 gulf. Do you recall that? (Tendering.) 4 Jerry, just so the record is
5 A. I don't recall the specifics of it, 5 clear, can we get the Bates numbers on
6 but I see that it's here. 6 these documents? I'm not certain --
7 Q. Okay. I guess my question just is 7 are you going to attach them?
8 what was the rationale for those dredging 8 MR. MEUNIER:
9 material placement recommendations that it 9 Well, I only have one copy, so
10 appears you were part of supporting? 10 maybe what I'll do is read the Bates
11 A. In general, it was probably targeted 11 numbers into the record.
12 at, um -- an elevation to allow for the 12 MS. SULLIVAN:
13 establishment of marsh, rather than upland or 13 That's fine.
14 just shallow water. 14 MR. MEUNIER:
15 Q. What kind of marsh? 15 For the record, the November '98
16 A. Let's see the -- 16 letter dealing with the unscheduled
17 Q. (Tendering.) 17 dredging activities in the MRGO after
18 A. Assuming that this reference to mile 18 the storms in the summer of '98 starts
19 23 is accurate that would probably be saline 19 with Bates Number NOP 019-000002051.
20 marsh. In reference on this map here, because 20 The documents dealing with the
21 of the location of what that shows as mile 23, 21 Bayou Bienvenue pump station diversion
22 and this says mile 23 to 27. 22 project begins with Bates Number
23 Q. All right. And it's recommended that 23 NPM-038-000001913.
24 the discharge pipe be frequently relocated 24 And the document we referred to
25 during the dredging to increase the extent of 25 dealing with the MRGO jetties site
Page 231 Page 233
1 the marsh/water interface. 1 inspection trip of May, '99, is
2 What does that mean exactly? 2 NOP-018-000002226.
3 A. If the discharge pipe were left in one 3 One other document I think we
4 place for the entire duration of the dredging, 4 referred to which was the disposal
5 the material would pile up. If the pipe is 5 area marsh project dated from October,
6 moved as dredging proceeds, it results in the 6 2002, the Bates number on that is
7 creation of mounds of material with more edge 7 NOP-018-000001867.
8 habitat, and the edge habitat is more valuable 8 Now, if you will give me one
9 for estuarine and marine species. 9 second -- let's not leave, I just need
10 Q. While you were with the NMFS, you also 10 to huddle with my coaching staff. I
11 took part in MRGO jetties inspections to help 11 believe I may be done.
12 decide about the proper placement of dredge 12 (Off the record.)
13 materials, correct? Did you do that -- 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
14 A. I don't recall -- 14 Q. Is the recommendation of the Corps for
15 Q. -- from time to time? 15 the closure of the MRGO insofar as preservation
16 A. -- but if it says I did -- if that 16 and protection of wetlands is concerned based
17 letter references a field inspection, then yes. 17 upon concerns only for what is east of the
18 Q. Yeah. You went on a site inspection 18 channel, or does it also include concerns about
19 trip in May of '99. MRGO jetties. 19 what is west of the channel?
20 A. I don't remember it, but I've been to 20 MS. SULLIVAN:
21 the site hundreds and hundreds of times. 21 Objection.
22 Q. My question simply was, what was your 22 A. I don't know the answer. I'd have
23 purpose, was it to help decide where to place 23 to -- I'd have to check either the report
24 dredge material in order to help restore marsh? 24 itself, which I don't think makes that
25 A. Can I see the reference? 25 distinction, or a member of the technical team

59 (Pages 230 to 233)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 234 Page 236
1 who actually did the calculation, if you will, 1 site specific focus for you to answer the
2 of the wetlands. I don't know the answer. 2 question whether the wetlands issues exist
3 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 3 east, west or both?
4 Q. Well, this may be my only chance 4 A. Because there are areas along the
5 before trial to ask you, as the wetlands guy 5 channel that are protected by rock breakwaters
6 for -- one of the wetlands witnesses for the 6 and other features that there is no erosion at
7 Corps, so my question needs to be specific. 7 these sites. And the presence or absence of
8 Do you, as you sit here today, Gregory 8 those types of restoration or protection
9 Miller, know whether the concerns that support 9 projects governs where you would make a
10 closure of the MRGO as they deal with wetlands 10 calculation of continuing erosion with or
11 issues are limited to concerns for the area 11 without an open or closed channel.
12 east only of the MRGO or also include areas 12 Q. Okay. The final question I have deals
13 west; do you know one way or the other the 13 with this February 2008 draft report on the
14 answer to that question as you sit here today? 14 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration
15 A. I don't -- I don't know the answer, 15 Project. And at Page 73, there is reference
16 um -- in terms of a distinction of either side. 16 to -- I've highlighted it -- a Lake
17 I don't know. 17 Pontchartrain surge -- let me read it: Lake
18 Q. In your own mind as a guy who knows 18 Pontchartrain surge reduction plan, and then in
19 about wetlands, is there any reason why you'd 19 parens there's a specific location given. Let
20 make a distinction between east and west of 20 me ask you to look at that. (Tendering.)
21 MRGO when you're dealing with wetlands issues 21 A. Okay.
22 as they relate to the MRGO and the closure of 22 Q. Okay? My question is, are you
23 the MRGO? 23 familiar with that aspect of the project?
24 MS. SULLIVAN: 24 A. Um -- this is not a report about a
25 Objection. 25 project, this is a technical report, um -- of a
Page 235 Page 237
1 A. It would depend upon the location on 1 design and analysis effort for, um -- increased
2 the channel where you make that distinction. 2 levels of hurricane protection and coastal
3 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 3 restoration. So this is not in reference to a
4 Q. It's site specific, is that what 4 specific project.
5 you're saying? 5 Q. Well, is it true that two weeks ago
6 (Brief interruption.) 6 the Corps let a contract out on the
7 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 7 implementation of that action described in that
8 Q. On this question of whether wetlands 8 part of the report? It's a gate or a floating
9 issues and concerns pertaining to the 9 gate at Paris Road.
10 recommended closure of the MRGO dealing with 10 A. This is a reference, um -- to the
11 what is east or west of the MRGO, and you said 11 Rigolets and Chef Menteur Pass, which is not in
12 to answer that I'd have to be more site focused 12 the area you're referencing.
13 or specific. True? 13 Q. Let me show you the picture, and that
14 A. Well, actually, what I said is I don't 14 will help maybe clarify what we're talking
15 know if the report or the recommendation made a 15 about. I'm going to show you a Figure 5-6 on
16 distinction between either side of the channel. 16 Page 77. And to further pinpoint the spot, my
17 Q. Okay. All right. And so putting that 17 colleague has actually marked it with red ink.
18 aside and me asking you whether you, Greg 18 Those two slash marks is the geographical
19 Miller, see any basis for such a distinction, I 19 location that we're focusing on. I'm told that
20 think when I asked you that your answer was I'd 20 there was a press release that was identified
21 have to look at a specific site. 21 in a Corps deposition yesterday -- or last
22 A. It would depend upon the location on 22 week, perhaps earlier this week, a press
23 where on the channel you were asking that 23 release dealing with a contract that was let
24 question. 24 out for work in that area. That's what I'm
25 Q. And why is that; why would it be a 25 asking you if you know anything about.

60 (Pages 234 to 237)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285
GREGORY MILLER 4/16/2008
Page 238 Page 240
1 A. I have read -- well, I don't know if 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 it's the press release you're talking about, 2 I, JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR,
3 but I did read the press release at the time of 3 Certified Court Reporter in and for the State
4 an award of a contract for work in this area 4 of Louisiana, do hereby certify that the
5 within the last two weeks or so. 5 aforementioned witness, after having been first
6 Q. All right. Do you have any 6 duly sworn by me to testify to the truth, did
7 involvement of any kind with that project, or 7 testify as hereinabove set forth;
8 that activity? 8 That said deposition was taken by me
9 A. Not with that contract. 9 in computer shorthand and thereafter
10 Q. Do you understand the reason or 10 transcribed under my supervision, and is a true
11 reasons for the work that will be performed 11 and correct transcription to the best of my
12 under the contract? 12 ability and understanding.
13 A. I believe it's part of efforts to 13 I further certify that I am not of
14 build a 100-year protection for, um -- the Lake 14 counsel, nor related to counsel or the parties
15 Pontchartrain and Vicinity project. 15 hereto, and am in no way interested in the
16 Q. Thank you. Mr. Miller, those are all 16 result of said cause.
17 my questions. Thank you for your patience. 17
18 MR. MEUNIER: 18
19 Thank you, counsel. I think 19
20 we've identified all the exhibits, so 20
21 that will complete the deposition. 21
22 MS. SULLIVAN: 22
23 Okay. Thank you. 23 ____________________________________
24 24 JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR
25 25 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER #75005
Page 239
1 WITNESS' CERTIFICATE
2
3 I, GREGORY B. MILLER, do hereby
4 certify that the foregoing testimony was given
5 by me, and that the transcription of said
6 testimony, with corrections and/or changes, if
7 any, is true and correct as given by me on the
8 aforementioned date.
9
10 ______________ _________________________
11 DATE SIGNED GREGORY B. MILLER
12
13 _______ Signed with corrections as noted.
14
15 _______ Signed with no corrections noted.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 DATE TAKEN: April 16th, 2008

61 (Pages 238 to 240)


JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi