Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:99-cv-04451-ECH

Document 174-2

Filed 03/06/2007

Page 1 of 3

Appendix

Case 1:99-cv-04451-ECH

Document 174-2

Filed 03/06/2007

Page 2 of 3

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment and Natual Resources Division
Teny M. PeJe. Attorney

Denver Field Offce
1961 StOIÚ St gt Flor

Telephone (303) 844-1369 '
Facsimile (303) 844-/350

Deliver, CO 80294

October 5, 2006

BY FACSIMILE
John Ehret, Esq. 5986 Dunham Stevensvi1e, MI 49127
RE: Ban. et a1. v. United States, No. 99-4451 L; Stone. et aI. v. United

04-277 L; Frett. et a1. v. United States, No. 05-1351 L
Dear John:

States, No.

On September 28,2006, in response to your September 23,2006 letter requesting that I
those pagers) ftom Appendix A to Dr. Nair's May 2006 reprt that set forth the fonnulas he used in the COSMOS model to calculate the Long Shore Transport (LST) rate, I referred you to pages 32 though 37 of Appendix A. You responded by letter sent to me by facsimile the eveng of October 2, 2006. This letter responds to your October 2 letter.
provide you a copy of You comment about a number of items. Iwi1 attempt to address each of

them.

1. First, you complain that you canot determine what equations withi pages 32 through 37

calculate the LST rate. As you put it, "(n)ot one equation solves for LST." Surely that
canot be surrising given the complexity of

the varables that comprise that calculation.

Someone familar with the use and technque of modeling and the varables needed to calculate a LST rate would recognize, for example, the need to employ the algebraic
concept of incorporating varous of

these primar equations and results into other

equations set forth within pageS 32 through 37 of Appendix A. Please advise if

us to provide that assist.
2. Second, you describe what you declare are a number of

you need

"faults." With respect, we disagree and you are certainly able to purue those perceptions at trial when Dr. Nairn testifies. I do note, for example, that you declare as one of the "faults" that "rg)rain size numerical quantities are not provided for," I refer you to paragraph 2d on page 4 of my letter to you dated September 22, 2006. There I infonn you, among other things, about the availability of infonnation regarding grain size.
Dr. Nairn's Appendix A which mentions three stations as stated in my September 22,2006 letter.

3. You suggest an inconsistency in a passage of two stations and my statement of

Case 1:99-cv-04451-ECH

Document 174-2

Filed 03/06/2007

Page 3 of 3

The two statements are not inconsistent. The reference to two stations in Dr. Nair's Appendix A under the Bair Wave Hindcast discussion refers simply to the number of stations where the model was tested. For this project, as stated in paragraph a 2(b)(1) of
my September 22 letter, Dr. Nairn applied the model to develop wave climates at thre

stations.
4. You also ask what is meant by a statement set fort in Dr. Nairn's Appendix A on page
66: " . .. there are several instaces where a parameter has more than one definition or where a definition has more than one pareter." Ths statement refers to the use of
which represent different measures of flow and grain velocity. However, when subscripts and modifying symbols are considered with each primar symbol (such as "u"), each term is uniquely defined. Also, as noted in Appendix A, all new parameters are defined immediately following each equation. many different u's and U's, all of

5. You state that you "can't use pages 32-37 ofNairns paper, much less relate COSMOS

1996 with Nairn 1992 or Nair 1997." Intially, this statement prompts several observations. First, as you were previously informed in my September 22 letter, no COSMOS 1996 calculation ofLST rate was ever performed. Second, similarly, no ''Nairn 1992" calculation ofLST rate exists for the St. Joseph Harbor area whether
your comment, we can tr to provide the assist that I mentioned above under point 1. Or, perhaps you could consider acquing or retaining the assistace of someone else with the appropriate expertise to understand the equations we have provided.
calculated by COSMOS or any other means. And, in response to the thst of

In sum, we stand ready as I mentioned in my September 22 letter to produce the data described in that letter. I remind you again of Dr. Nair's estimate that it would take two-three weeks to produce all of the data described in that letter.

~~.a
Sincerely,
Trial Attorney
cc: Drew Marrocco Dr. Nairn
-2-